about wall street discrimination protections for the lgbt community. jennifer lawless on why young americans are turned off from politics. ♪ host: when it comes to a republican presidential candidate, the "new york times" said while it is not endorsement, they have -- republicans have expressed support for governor scott walker. hillary clinton is still in new hampshire. the hill newspaper still reporting that loretta lynch as attorney general, confirmation could come as early as thursday. the senate is supposed to take up the traffic bill today.

new research shows there has been more working days and more legislative work accomplished in the past 100 days. when it comes to the effectiveness of this 114th congress in its 100 days, we want to get your thoughts on if you are seeing progress being made. here is how you can weigh in on either of those thoughts this morning. the numbers are on the screen. if you want to give your thoughts on the first 100 days of congress, if you are seeing progress or not, you can do so on twitter facebook, and e-mail is available to u.s. well. -- to you as well. here in d.c., the bipartisan policy center has put out a

report looking at what they have accomplished. when it comes to working days in that house and senate, they are showing more working days than either of the previous two congresses. however, the number falls short of totals that were reached in the 104th, 100 10, and 111th congress. the reporting bills at higher numbers than recent congresses. and also in the first three months of of congress, the senate saw a greater number of cloture votes. that is the work of the bipartisan policy center. usa today did a story showing their own polling on what people think as far as congress is concerned, saying that when it comes to opinions of congress, most americans view of congress has not changed.

the suffolk university poll showed 60% viewed the federal government working about the same under gop control. 22% said it was working worse. 8% said it was working better. and 10% were undecided. it has just been over 100 days with this new congress in session will stop -- in session. we want your thoughts. maybe you are seeing progress. maybe you are not seeing progress, but more of the same. the numbers are on the screen. that is how you can make your thoughts known. . you can make your thoughts known on our social media channels too. first up, let's hear from ron in north carolina. what you think?

caller: i think we are seeing more of the same. host: how so? caller: it feels like our manufacturing base is so eroded that is hurting them -- hurting the middle class and too many in washington are still too interested in political contributions and not interested enough in the middle class. host: you brought up manufacturing. this takes place as congress talks about a trade bill and giving trade authority. does that factor into your thinking? is it just manufacturing, or are there other factors when you gauge the effectiveness of the congress? caller: i think that is the bread-and-butter, that symbol, and our biggest problem we face currently. host: ron in north carolina. also weighing in his been since tulsa, oklahoma, republican line.

what you think about this congress and their effectiveness? caller: i think they do a good job and i want to say that when obama went over to iran, he did a good thing. we should keep them out of the bomb business. host: when you say congress is doing a good job, expand on that. what do you mean by that? caller: well, i think that since he didn't have control of the congress, that is republican now, that he is doing the best that he can't. host: -- the best that he can. host: on this first 100 days of congress john, toledo, independent line. you are next. go ahead. caller: i just want to say that

if we really look at it objectively, the true cause of the in activity in terms of laws being passed you know, because if you recall that the loretta lynch nomination, the democrats said they wanted to start off a new -- anew. but afterwards, you see the end result, in terms of her nomination being stalled. i cannot just the equivalency on both sides. it's actually that republicans have been stalling president obama's path and the nations that as well. host: in looking at other things

besides nominations, do you see any progress as far as productivity and things being accomplished? or are you just focusing on the nomination aspect? caller: in terms of the infrastructure bills, in terms of airports and whatever, you know maintenance, it has been stalled because you know, colleges are not being funded properly. host: that is john. mark in north carolina independent line. caller: how are you today? host: fine, thank you. caller: the constitution was set up and they put in the three branches of government to slow down all of these laws and bills to protect our rights. the more they keep working, the more rights we keep losing.

i would preferred them not to keep giving away our rights. you have a president just writing executive orders and justice regarding the other two branches of government -- just disregarding the other two branches of government. i would kick them all out and go green. that is all i have to say. host: we want your thoughts on the first 100 days of congress, maybe you have scenes in progress and maybe you haven't. the numbers are on the screen. you heard one of our collars bring up the topic of nominations. one of the nominations still being considered on the senate side is loretta lynch to become attorney general. rachel reports they are near a deal to confirm ms. lynch. jonathan i -- jonathan weisman

covers this for the new york times. thank you for joining us. where are we as far as the nomination? guest: we haven't really moved anywhere but it is really not about the nomination. it is about a bill not relevant on that to -- relevant to that on human trafficking and language on abortion about money collected as fees from that human trafficking bill could be used. there is very specific language that republicans have put in about not using that money in any way to get abortions for these women. who are brought in as humanly trafficked. until they can work that out, they cannot get to the lynch nomination. it looks like they are getting close to a deal. i expect there will be announcement today that the

human trafficking law will be unstuck. there will be a vote in the senate and then they will take up the lynch nomination. host: when it comes to the human trafficking bill, what issues have to be resolved? guest: there was a procedure. the human trafficking law was designed to get law enforcement to stop focusing on the prostitute and to start focusing on the people, the johns, and the people they are bringing in from other parts of the world to be used as prostitutes. and there would be fees collected from these johns or traffickers. and those fees would be used to help the women, the women they were trafficking.

under the bill as written by republicans, there is a rule that fees could not be used for abortion, even if some of these women were pregnant when rounded up. the democrats objected. firstly -- objected. firstly -- objected vo ciferously. that is where got stuck and that is what they are trying to resolve. host: if we get the lynch nomination what is the likelihood that the vote will go in her favor? guest: it will be narrow but almost certain that she is confirmed. when mark kirk, republican from illinois announced a few weeks ago that he would support

loretta lynch by my count that was the 51st vote. what republicans really did not want is that loretta lynch would get 50 votes and they would have to call joe biden in to cast the deciding vote. it would just be embarrassing. the fact is, almost the republicans have objected to loretta lynch based on her qualifications, her past. there is no loretta lynch scandal. the only thing that republicans are really objecting to is that she supports president obama's integration executive order. it's a little -- immigration executive order. it's a little difficult to go against those who have nominated her, but that is what republicans are asking for. in truth, the republicans do not want a first african-american j woman attorney general to be

shot down. they want to vote for her. they know now they probably have the votes for her and they want to get this out of the way and out of their hair. host: jonathan weisman of the "new york times" joining us. thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: we have been talking about this first 100 days of congress whether you have seen progress or more of the same. you can weigh in on this. the numbers are on the screen. usa today looking at it, saying there have been early setbacks, but the 114th congress offered early signs of progress. let's hear from gary on this

topic in bloomfield, indiana. caller: it is bloomfield, michigan cannot thank you very much. i have to tell you that republicans are still doing it to us. they are holding nominations hostage. if you want to take away gay rights, if you want to dig away women's reproductive health -- take away women's reproductive health rights, then you got a congress that is willing to work will stop other than that, they are stonewalling everything will stop -- then you've got a congress that is willing to work. other than that, they are stonewalling everything. they are only working for their own campaigns and for the coke others. -- koch brothers. host: richard in massachusetts

you are next. caller: yes, i wanted to comment on the joint panel of senators and representatives yesterday exchanging their views and their self-congratulatory comments about passing a budget bill for the first time in many years. it just struck me as astonishing that they were so self-congratulatory. i was just observing them for the first time in a long time doing something they were supposed to be doing. that is really all i wanted to say. host: richard burr from alexandria virginia, you are next -- christopher from alexandria virginia, you're next. caller: i'm seeing more of the same thing. they all were voted in on a wave and it seems like nothing is getting done.

it is terrible. everything is held up on ridiculous things. the country is just sitting there watching and when they do something, they are not compromising on a ring. they are not doing -- compromising on anything. they are not doing anything. it is horrible. host: what would you like to see them do? caller: when all of these bills come up, like transportation the fixing of bridges, all of that greenhouse gases, the ozone, all of that stuff that is happening, i mean they are just not voting on anything. they are not passing anything. highway bill, the fixing the bridges. so much stuff could be done and they are not passing anything. host: ernest is up next from albany, georgia, democrat line stop go ahead. -- democrats line. go ahead. caller: they're just not passing

anything. the keystone pipeline -- host: go ahead. www.c-span.org they are just --guest: they are just not doing anything. it is not governance. it is just more of the same. host: the numbers are on the screen. just over 100 days this congress has been in session. we want your thoughts on whether you've seen progress or more of the same. in the "new york times" they add more bills have been introduced.

judy, thanks for holding on in virginia beach democrats line. go ahead. caller: yes, i just want to say that i don't know that anything has been accomplished in the first 100 days, especially with the loretta lynch situation. they had made an agreement with harry reid in december that what they would do was vote for her in january. january comes around and then they come up with some other game to play instead of actually

doing anything. the other thing i want to say that loretta lynch is, they have already done the damage. it does not matter if they wait another month or another two months. they have already done the damage and shown us how they feel about women, and especially black women. thank you. host: david, up next, from conway, massachusetts, independent line. caller: good morning. i would say there is no progress. and it's not the same. it's worse. the fact is that we are living in a country where minimum wage is not a living wage, so we have indentured servants. and basically, serfs. the fact is, we need to raise

the minimum wage and stimulate the economy. i've been watching the budget hearings, and there is not a loophole that has been closed. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer with this budget. it is really just un-american and i think the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves looking at this. thank you. host: here is anne, spring, texas, republican line. caller: hi, i want to say i agree wholeheartedly with the man who just vote. i am a republican, however i think it is worse than i've ever seen it. host: even though republicans hold both houses? caller: yes, i really do. in fact, i'm thinking about getting out of the republican party just because they just keep bringing up things that they know will not pass that most people really do not need want -- i'm not a far right wing

republican. i think it's ridiculous. it has gone way off the board. i think it's the worst i've ever seen it. as far as the budget, i did watch some of the hearings, or the hearing where the other man said as far as the self-congratulatory. yes, they were doing a lot of that. but in the budget, they really didn't do anything for the middle-class. not a thing, just doing stuff for the rich people big time. that is why i'm thinking seriously about getting out of the republican party, because all they are focused on is abortion and repealing obamacare and stuff like that. it is not going to pass. i mean, come on, get with it. congressman, we voted you into

office. do something, like the bridges and roads we need desperately. they are not doing anything constructive. host: that is anne in spring texas, weighing in on the first 100 days of congress. are you seeing progress or more of the same? the numbers are on the screen. a couple of stories taking a look at 2016 politics. scott walker in the news after some support he received, while not technically endorsement support from the koch brothers.

that is in the "new york times" this morning. writers reporting, steve -- steve holland from reuters reporting that jeb bush will visit germany estonia, and polling in early june to get a firsthand look at european economic security -- and poland in early june to get a firsthand look at european economic security issues.

polish politicians have repeatedly called for u.s. increased presence in the region. also, the lead story in the "washington times" takes a look at hillary clinton as she makes her travels through new hampshire. their focus is on social security benefits, saying hillary rodham clinton stuck with her centrist persona monday when the campaign dealt with the debate. even as she bemoaned the plight of a new hampshire woman forced out of retirement and back to work because of skimpy benefit checks. jains from georgia, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning.

can you hear me i hope -- can you hear me? host: yeah, you are on. go ahead. caller: i would never vote for these republicans. they are crazy. i cannot understand why they cannot get together, as smart and educated as they are, and come up with something that is good for all of america. the fellow was elected twice. you may not like him, but you can at least respect the men and work with the man. everything is all about racism obamacare, anything he puts his name on, the republicans just don't want it. and some of the ideas were republican ideas in the beginning. i just don't understand. i will never vote republican again and i tried to -- try to encourage all of my friends not to vote republican. voter suppression, they will fight.

women's rights, they will fight. if there is something wrong then why is it that unemployment is supposedly down low and wall street is making more money than they have ever made. people have health care now. osama bin laden is dead. the list of accomplishments this man has laid, and they just -- i don't understand it. i am through. to have with the republicans. have a good day. -- twoo heck with the republicans. have a good day. host: next color, go ahead. caller: you have money taken from the citizens and you have rebates for kids that don't even live in this country. it's unbelievable, the waste of money.

and it doesn't matter whether you are republican or democrat. this congress needs to be changed. we are a one-party system. i know people don't like to believe that, but we are. it is called "the party of take your money and get in power" and it needs to change. host: charlie is from san angelo, texas, republican line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: first, your topic of the first 100 days of this congress, i have a little different take on this. and it is that harry reid ran the senate into the ground with his takeover of power over the senate. and the new congress, the

freshman democrats don't even know the procedures for putting in amendment. so of course, there's going to be a little bit of slow start to the congress. but i think they are in better position now than they were in last congress. and in response to the gentleman that call, the democrat that was last on, i would like to know how we are supposed to respect a man that took the presidency from "i shall not tell a lie" to having an owning the biggest lie ever told by a president. his cabinet seems to disrespect

congress during the hearings. and even the president is in contempt for a subpoena or something like that. host: first 100 days of congress, taking a look at progress or more of the same. we will get back to your calls in a couple of moments. in taking a look at foreign policy the "washington post" report out of cairo that egypt's ousted president morsi was and is to 20 years in prison tuesday. the court found morsi and 14 were members of the muslim brotherhood of guilty of an slapdash inciting violence against protesters. -- guilty of inciting violence against protesters.

if you go to the pages of the "new york times" this morning, a story you will see their takes a look at u.s. ships positioned outside of yemen. this is michael share and matthew rosenberg saying that it is the aircraft carrier theodore roosevelt and a guided missile cruiser going there to join 10 other american ships. back in the "washington post" this morning, take a look at syrian fighters being trained in turkey. about 200 syrian opposition fighters will begin training there next month, despite ongoing turkish disagreements

with the obama administration over the enemy. michael, seattle, washington democrats line. good morning. caller: folks, the gop stands for guardians of privilege. and that has been true -- i first heard that back in harry truman say.

right now we have in america the greatest concentration of wealth and the greatest disparity of income since 1928. and this republican budget does nothing to close the widening gap between workers who are reaping corporate profits and the greedy fatcats who are reaping them. our infrastructure has a $2 trillion deficit. they are about to let the highway trust fund run out, much less make any investments. never two, college students are facing crushing $24,000 debt on average college education. they do nothing to make it more affordable. number three we have 20% of our children living in poverty. they just pass a budget in the house and senate that has struck only and devastating cuts to everything from head start to medicaid. and finally, they have a budget

where 65% of the budget cuts are focused on the middle class and the working class. which means that millions more of our citizens will go from the solid ground of the middle class to the swamp of the underclass. and it's just outrageous and of seeing that they pass a budget and did not close one special interest corporate tax loophole at a time of record corporate profits. so if you like those facts, then by all means, vote republican. but for crying out loud, we need to have the democrats get back in charge so we can once again be champion of our children and see to it that all americans have a seat at the table. thank you. host: that is michael in washington. take on twitter -- peg on

twitter says this. she also says that is due to bob corker. rick in ohio, independent line. caller: over about five or six years, c-span had a guy on and i think he was in front of congress. oil was $140 per barrel and the congressman sick of how much should it be? and he said it should be -- the congressman said, how much should it be and he said it should be $30 per barrel. it is all derivatives. and please don't hang up on me. the guy says, congressman, you have a problem. we took all of your pension money based on the deregulation of derivatives and use it to manipulate the price of oil. so of oil goes down, your pension funds will collapse. since bush and cheney were

elected, the jews to go over our federal reserve system and it has created these currency wars around the world trying to use the euro and the american dollar to it control the entire world through the manipulation of oil based on the fed printing money. the fed actually lowered interest rates 11 times in one year during the bush administration. if you want to see what the jews are all about, pull up a chart of citigroup. it went to $650 per share during the bush administration went oil was $150 per barrel. when oil crash, it went to $.50 a share. host: rick, you put out a lot there. but congress, first 100 days, what is your opinion? caller: it is the same thing. oil has doubled in the past week. the stock market is at 18,000. it's the same old thing. host: roger is from bedford

ohio. good morning, democrat line. go ahead. caller: first of all, for the last x years or whatever you want to say, the congress has not did anything -- six years or whatever you want to say, the congress has not did anything, because a black man is in charge of the country. and they are not going to let black men have anything will stop as far as you -- have anything. as far as hillary is concerned yes, i would like to see her getting. mitt romney told y'all what he gave for income tax. the don't say nothing about no e-mails with her. did you ask him for any of his income tax returns? any of them? no, you didn't. this is nothing but a bunch of you know what. and that is what the republicans consist of, led by the koch

brothers. they try to run this country. when will the people wake up? what is it going to take? host: that is roger from bedford, ohio. we are asking folks about the first 100 days of congress, what you are seeing. if you are seeing progress in the body or more of the same. the numbers are on the screen. bird flu is in the news, specifically looking at iowa chickens there. the agriculture department announced monday that an outbreak of evian flu had been -- of avian flu had been confirmed there.

thomas, fort lauderdale florida, republican line. caller: good morning. i think congress is doing ok. they've only been there for 100 days. you've got to remember that after years of nancy pelosi, harry reid, barney frank, the guy todd. and several years of the most liberal president in the history of this country. i think they have to dig out will stop i think -- dig out. i think they are doing the best they can. host: when you say they are doing ok, what gives you that assessment t? caller: they are working on legislation for energy.

and the lady brought up abortion. they are trying to stop it at 55 weeks. if somebody cannot decide whether or not to have an abortion before six months, i mean, there's no other way to put it. it is murder. you have a full term baby in the womb. things like that. i think they have a lot of good ideas. it's a good group of people in there, i really do. host: thomas in florida. we will your next from don in new york, democrat line. don, good morning. caller: good morning. if this congress had the chance, be honest, especially republicans, they would get rid of all illegals in this country, number one. all of the chinese and the muslims and hindus, all of them. they want them to be blunt hair and blue eyes. -- blonde hair and blue eyes.

they are altogether, the europeans, the muslims period. they think we are all isis. it is not so. that is all i have to say, thank you. host: that is don in new york. the tsa under the department of homeland security has tighter screening practices. jeh johnson, the secretary of the department of homeland security directed the tsa to take immediate action on criminal background.

ronnie from kentucky is on our line, independent line. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i just want to say i believe it is more of the same. i believe it will be that way for the remainder of the year as long as the american people keep putting some of these people back in office and reelecting people that will come in there and just not do anything for the american people. it is just money control for the united states. it is a shame they allow money to dictate the american people's lives, which we all need it to survive. but it should not be just all at

the top. i feel sorry for those who are in misfortune. it is just sad the way congress is leading. host: the "los angeles times" says they are looking at issues with water in that state, saying an appeals court on monday has thrown out a major portion of the conservation effort. you can read more of that in the "los angeles times." north carolina is where rob is. he is on the republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i would like to make a couple of suggestions. first, when these democrat

propaganda clouds call in making these outlandish statements, you are to have a follow-up fact check show. the one gentleman who was blaming congress for the cost of education, how about what the schools do? there is a tie-in with what democrats do getting students student loans. you see all of the colleges raising tuition rates. but no, let's blame bush cheney, and congress because republicans finally have a little bit of control over it. but they have a short memory of who has gotten us into this mess. everyone has. it is the ruling class of both parties. people, we need to wake up and get them out of there. and here on one side the republicans called the tea party are trying to do something about it, but we are vilified and we are evil and it is done by our own party, too. democrats, you worry about the far right radicals.

how about the far left people who have taken over the democratic party? this is not the party of john kennedy and franklin d. roosevelt. you guys need to wake up and quit the thing to the correct media -- corrupt media and a propaganda that comes out of the mouths of these people. look at what is going on around you in this will country. and give this congress a chance to do what we were elected to do. elections have results. let's live with it. thank you very much, sir. host: george, democrat line. caller: hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: as far as i'm concerned, it seems like the republicans are not about giving the president that we have any credit. every time he passes something or ask them for something, they do not give him the opportunity to work with them.

i disagree with that. as far as i'm concerned, it seems like we should have a new government because they are not representing. they are representing themselves. host: that was george in columbus, ohio. the front page of the "wall street journal" looks at the six minnesota men attempting to join the islamic state. that is in the "wall street journal." coming up this morning, we will continue our discussions looking at trade policy and efforts on capitol hill to give the president more authority in trade deals and also this larger deal with asia-pacific countries.

linda dempsey of the national association of manufacturers will be up to give her take on that. and then later, more on the passage of the religious freedom law. we will talk to democrat in colorado, represented jerrod: it's -- jared polis. first up though, the president and officials outlining iranian negotiations at the u.s. institute for peace. it was on our website. here is a bit from yesterday's event. [video clip] >> the deal is outlined in the u.s. fact sheet. first of all, it is not a deal. it is hard to evaluate it, per se, because of unresolved issues. but i do think there are some big holes in what we have agreed to. and some of those are what secretary baker outlined. it is absolutely critical, for example, that those russians

every call possible -- those questions that we call possible military dimensions, i don't see how you can have a sufficient verification regime without those questions being answered. it is not a matter of having iran confess. it is about the information. i think the inspectors need that. what are the sites they need to check? who are the people they need to talk to? what has the wrong done with the program to date? i think it is important that we maintain leverage going forward in the event of iranian noncompliance, because i think there will inevitably be questions about compliance. there always are with these types of regimes. there is also a question about access to sites, and we have talked about that already. i don't think we can have full permission given the history of

iran's military activities. in light of those issues, there is a deal with making. the one thing we neglect here in our debate is that it is not just about what are the u.s. alternatives, but what are the iranian alternatives? and this raises the question of time. we could afford to negotiate for another six months if we had to. it is great to support deadlines if you are really committed to them and they are credible. i do not know that deadline that the page are credible. we could negotiate for another six or 12 months. i think the iranians could afford for less. host: again, if you want to see that event on iran's nuclear agreement, go to our website the video library at www.c-span.org. joining us now, linda dempsey of the national association of manufacturers. she is the economic affairs vice president, here to talk about

trade issues specifically something called fast-track authority. guest: good morning, pedro. host: what do you make of this type of authority? guest: manufacturers, small and large, are competing in a global economy. and it is tilted against us right now. our manufacturers are facing high barriers and -- around the world and the u.s. market is largely open. we need trade agreements to supercharge our sales and exports and opportunities in a growing global economy. tpa, the trade legislation that was introduced on a bipartisan basis last week is exactly the kind of legislation that allows these trade deals to be negotiated by congress. tpa gives our negotiators leverage at the negotiating table. it is really hard when our negotiating -- negotiators are telling other countries do we need you to lower your terrace

and protect our negotiations. having tpa will make sure that our negotiators can bring back strong agreements and make our manufacturers better able to compete. host: ultimately, congress laughter vote on it -- congress will have to vote on a package that they cannot amend and it will have to vote up or down. guest: absolutely, and this is the way we have done these negotiations since 1970 on and we have had terrorists negotiations -- tariff negotiations that way longer than that. it will be a 1000 page agreement. there are a lot of issues. and it's a negotiation. this issue that this country moves on is dependent on something happening in another country. if congress says, i don't like this one provision, you unravel the entire agreement and the it will -- and it will not be able

to move forward. the president has the ability to negotiate with foreign institutions. congress has the ability to regulate trade. this helps them to work together in a way to get successful trade agreements. host: on this program we had a woman in laurie wallace talking about agreement when it comes to jobs specifically she talked about the outsourcing of jobs because of trade agreements. i want to show you something to your response. [video clip] guest: the agreement the wade is written would make it easier for outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries, and specifically putting u.s. workers in competition with workers from countries like vietnam, which is a tpp partner where workers make less than $.60 per hour. when the president talked about opening markets, there is one catch. we already have trade agreements with more than half of the countries in this deal.

in japan, the issue there is not tertariffs the issue is that it drops its currency. and it makes exports cheaper just by dropping the currency. and there are 60 partners, 230 house members writing the president in 2013 saying the tpp have to have disciplines against cheating on currency to make sure that we could help their -- that we could sell our stuff there is that of only them selling here. the president refused. host: there would be outsourcing of jobs because of this deal? guest: there is no evidence of that. we have a lot of european, asian, other businesses investing in america, creating high-paying manufacturing jobs because they want to reach our

consumer. but investments are already ongoing. the biggest investment for u.s. companies is actually europe. it is not low-wage -- countries. when we have had these issues in the past to protect our investment overseas, which is a very important issue across many sectors, those agreements have been powerhouses to advance our exports. when companies invest overseas, they power exports to those markets. those companies that invest overseas, sustain and create jobs here, they invest more here in terms of capital investment and research and development. these agreements have already produced massive gains for u.s. businesses gains that we already have for our manufacturers. we have free trade agreements that eliminate all of these barriers, protect our innovation with just 20 countries around the world, about 10% of world

gdp. it's 6% of the world's. those 20 countries purchase nearly half of u.s. exports. why? because they have lower the barriers and make it fair for us to compete in these markets. and when you talk about investing in manufacturing there is a wage premium. we know that manufacturing jobs in the u.s. are good high jobs and pay on average about 20 than an average job -- 23% more than an average job in the u.s. economy. export intensive sectors have a wage premium even about that. host: is there a big scale manufacturer that only benefits? what about the smaller manufacturer people will call about the smaller manufacturer, like textiles and others who were deeply affected by previous trades deal like nafta. host: you bring up many issues.

we have over 14,000 manufacturers as our numbers and 90% are small businesses. we hear every day about how manufacturers are able to grow. there is a company up in maryland bte technologies, under 100 employees that sells medical equipment around the world. when korean free-trade was supported, they were able to increase their sales by 100% in two years to korea and helping to sustain jobs in maryland. we have stories like that across the country of fire equipment and truck manufacturer -- across the country. a fire equipment and truck manufacturer was able to sell it equipment overseas and support jobs here in america. it is probably more important for small businesses to get these barriers down that it is for larger business -- than it is for larger businesses. host: linda dempsey is our

guest, talking about trade issues. the first call for you is from james in kentucky, democrat line. go ahead. caller: yes hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i have a question about terrorists -- tariffs for the u.s.. american workers have to compete against lower wage workers in china and so forth, and american factors -- factories have to comply with higher standards. why can't we raise our tariffs on what is coming in? that would help keep our workers pay up. guest: the u.s. actually did that back in 1930, where we raised tariffs on all our goods

before we had a lot of these international agreement out there. and the result was to deepen the great depression, make it harder for consumers to buy the products because prices just went up in the u.s. and it really did not add jobs to the economy. franklin delano roosevelt in 1934 started what was called the reciprocal tariff program where the u.s. negotiated with other countries, saying if you lower your tariffs, we will lower hours. and that started a several decades process ultimately resulting in the wto, the consisting of 60 countries with very basic principles in trade agreements. some of those countries that have joined, particularly those who joined earlier, have high tariffs, countries like brazil

or india. they have tariffs 10 times that of the u.s. or canada. china and the wto actually agreed to lower tariffs in the rest of the developing world. we have seen a huge increase in exports from china, but we are seeing a lot of imports from china as well. how are we going to compete absolutely? at this point, we have agreed that the u.s. tariffs rates are at the level they are. what we are trying to do with our trade program is to get other countries to eliminate all of the barriers that we have in the u.s. the tpp negotiations, if done right -- and let me stress that, pedro, because that is absolutely critical to manufacturers. we want a great -- an agreement that is the gold standard, that will eliminate tariffs and make sure our intellectual property

is protected, and make sure our small businesses can use internet black arms to be able to -- internet platforms to be able to sell overseas. by moving forward on the tpp we put pressure in asia, and in fact globally for other countries to compete. the other issue here is the u.s. has not negotiated a new trade agreements since the korea agreement in 2007. other countries are not standing by. u.s. exporters face higher tariffs than any free -- than every other major country, like china, canada, mexico, chile every member state of the european union, because those countries have negotiated these types of trade agreements. they then get special tariffs and lower barriers. our exporters are still facing those tariffs. we need to get back in to the

trade game authority -- fully with tpa authority. and there are lots of other countries out there where we want to lower tariffs and barriers. host:caller: my question is, how can you say that this president showing his current negotiating tactics and everything with iran , talking to cuba -- he gets nothing but gives everything away, and for us to go into negotiations and to really wanted to get a good deal, it almost looks like this president does things to undermine the power of this country instead of giving us power. how can your organization tell your members that you have faith that this current president is going to be up to negotiate a good deal for us? donald trump says our trade

agreements with other countries are ludicrous. he says that it is awful. we are giving things away. this president, in my opinion, will give things away. i do not want to see that happen to our country. i really think is undermining u.s. power on purpose. if your organization has faith in him, i think you are really of a wrong tree. thank you. guest: let me address that. you raise a concern that we here in some of the halls of congress, as well. it is exactly that concern that is why trade promotion authority legislation is so important. the president can go negotiate with any foreign nation he wants right now. the tpp negotiations were actually started under president bush with just a few other

countries. it has expanded under president obama. this president started our negotiations with europe. what a promotion authority will do, and we have not had it since it expired in 2007, is congress, as a whole, gets to tell the president that this is what we want you to negotiate. we want you to come and tell us what you are negotiating and how the negotiations or proceeding. we want you to share information with the public. we want you to take our views into account. at the end of the day, as pedro mentioned, the ultimate deal has to be approved by congress on an up or down bases the cause we cannot start amending a trade agreement, certainly not a trade agreement with several different countries the way both the big negotiations the united states is in right now include. that congress retains that ultimate authority. the tpa bill not only sets are

negotiating objectives and processes, it provides mechanisms if the president refuses to consult. it can take away the expedited procedures. if the committee's vote down the agreement, if it does not meet what members of congress asked for in trade promotion authority, then they can again take that expedited procedures out. tpa actually enhances congress' authority that makes sure both the president and congress are working together. host: from oklahoma lisa is next, republican line. caller: [inaudible] hello, i have got three questions. the medical part -- yeah, from

oklahoma. good morning. the medical part is -- is that part of obama care? guest: there is nothing about a must ehealth law in our trade agreements are our trade negotiations -- nothing about domestic health law. host: there are rules or provisions for labor, rules for human rights concerns. do you support the labor aspects, all these add-ons? guest: from 2007 onward, we have seen this issue about labor and environment certainly from the nafta onward. the united states is part of the international labor organization that has the expertise on labor issues on a global basis. we fund some of the treaties but not all of the treaties because they do not conform with u.s.

law or u.s. law does not necessarily conform with all of those treaties. on the environmental site, we have signed a number of multilateral environmental treaties. from about 2007 on, with the trade agreements do, the agreements reached with president bush and his administration and then the democrats in the house who were in power at that time, the agreements say that countries shall abide by those international principles. treaties, in the case of environmental agreements that we have already signed. it does not change u.s. labor law. it does not change u.s. environmental law in any way. from our standpoint at the national association of manufacturers, yes we would have great concern if a trade agreement came back and changed u.s. labor law or environmental law. broaden this out, because a lot

of the principles in our trade agreements are exactly that. they are based on what the u.s. is already doing. on the protection on july sure property for all our innovative manufacturing, and other industries, and i will tell you that every manufacturer uses intellectual property. those innovation jobs are great jobs and great opportunities for our kids because manufacturing has changed completely as a result of technology. the property protections that we are seeking in the tpp, those are based on u.s. law already here that is the standard we want other countries to have. on the issue of investment, and i know that issue was brought up a lot on saturday, the rules we are seeking to make sure our investors when they go overseas to reach those new customers those are exactly the same type of principles that every american has learned about from birth. they are in our constitution. they are not special new rights for investors to sue

governments. these are principles that are core to sp nondiscrimination due process. there is nothing that is broader than what we already provide to every individual, every investor , foreign and domestic, already in the united states. host: linda dempsey from the national association of manufacturers, joining us. we have a call from the democrat line. caller: when you hear trade, not free trade, i really think that nafta and a lot of these trade deals that have been made with retired union workers, they have hurt the working class person, the middle-class working person. and they are mostly orchestrated by the republican party to her nafta was orchestrated by the

republican party and been forced down clinton's throat to sign. we need to get trade deals that are going to work for the american people, the guy working 8:00 to 4:00 on a minimum wage job. and the republican party, they need to stop tearing down the unions. start working for the working-class guys, congress the guys that built this country. host: that is don from michigan. guest: think you are great now we do not have free trade. we have unfair trade. right now, we have other countries around the world that are putting nafta barriers on u.s. exports. there are tariffs and seven the tpp countries like the annan and malaysia that are 30% to 70%. some of these countries around the world are opposing

requirements -- well, if you want to sell and our country you have to make it in our country. those are provisions we have got to eliminate. it is precisely our trade agreements that give us the best opportunity to eliminate those agreements. manufacturing in the united states -- we are right at the heart of this debate. and manufacturing -- we have been increasing our output. we are about $2.1 trillion in output, a record level last year in 2014. there are over 12 million manufacturing jobs are manufacturing jobs have changed. a lot of this is due to technology and those impacts. when you look at and, i have got to say -- yes, there's competition and there was job loss as a result of nafta. but overall, the u.s. economy grew over 800,000 manufacturing jobs in the years right after nafta. a lot of folks seem to look at the job loss in manufacturing --

again, technology, globalization, other countries are developing their own manufacturing sectors -- in the pre-nafta period. that is when there was job loss, and then we saw the recession. i used to work on the senate finance committee, and we talked about trade. my colleagues would put up a chart that showed how when the trade deficit went up, unemployment went down. when you look at these numbers and think about what is happening in the economy, i think there is more there. the final thing i would add is that our 20 free trade agreement partners, including our nafta partners, we have a trade surplus with those countries. we sell more to them than they sell to us in manufacturing goods. that is what we care about growing in the united states. we have a trade surplus today with just our nafta partners. we are succeeding. there is a lot of growth that

happens because of nafta. yes, there were certainly concerns and new competition. but overall, the u.s. economy and the manufacturing capability of the united states has grown because of nafta and because of our free-trade agreements. host: pew research did a poll on trade. asking if people thought trade was good most respondents said yes. when it came to the topics of trade creating jobs and increasing wages, those perceptions were low. what about those perceptions? guest: look, job growth -- i am not the chief economist at the nam. job growth is a tough issue at we have the most highly productive manufacturing sector in the world here in the united states. we are competing against other nations and trying to grow all of that. but with the data absolutely clearly shows -- exports, our trade flows, are supporting

sustaining, and promoting new jumper trinity's, and those job opportunities are higher-paying -- and promoting new job opportunities, and this job opportunities are higher-paying. manufacturing jobs and export-intensive industries pay about $92,000 a year. that is higher than the sort of $72,000 average of all manufacturing jobs and higher still than most jobs in the u.s. economy. there needs to be more discussion about that. we are working a lot with -- and districts and with our manufactures, local manufacturers to talk about this. i think a lot of the trade flows are not necessarily seen. one of the of the things that happens -- it is about 256,000 companies and the united states that export. most small businesses export. a lot of companies often sailed

bigger companies that export. we call them invisible exporters. some companies do not even know that their product is ultimately shipped overseas. trade is playing a big role. the other part of this is we have a huge world trade and manufacturing goods. about $12 trillion. the united states has about nine percent of that review is consumption is only about $4 trillion. if we are going to sustain, let alone grow jobs, we need to sell more, and the growth is overseas. if we can level the playing field, if we can supercharge our exports, our sales, our engagement overseas, we are going to be a vote to create more jobs. host: john from illinois, democrat line. you are on. caller: good morning. i have three main points. please let me finish. i only had two, but i want to

respond to something you said in that survey. first, a shout out to that man don in michigan. i agree that people want fair trade, not free trade. in pointing out that we do not have fair trade now does not mean the free-trade agreements bring it. the first point i want to bring up is -- i work for a company who is industrial manufacturing. the factory was closed and moved to china. people see the incentives for companies to move jobs overseas in these agreements. they are there. people believe their own eyes. you mentioned that there is a surplus with the nafta partners. i do not believe that is true. i think we had a surplus when nafta went in, with mexico in particular. now we have a multibillion deficit in our trade with mexico. and the thing i wanted to say about what pedro said is that that survey asked if people believe that trade was good.

if you look at whether or not the trade agreements we had are good, you had that survey on with that guest for you played that clip. my final point, a really important one, is i see a redo happening as with what happened with nafta. it was a republican push. president clinton was not forced into it. he was also for it. anyone can look at the vote. it was the majority of republicans that were for it. a minority of democrats voted for it and were arm-twisted into it. they have been fighting it for years. now you have most of the democrats in congress fighting this review had the majority of republicans, almost all of the republicans in the house of representatives, want this fast track to be pushed through. and they have a president that, for some reason they're usually against everything he does, he is for it. you had a caller who talked

about nafta and blamed dingell and carl levin and people for nafta here it was amazing that every single person she named was summoned who voted against nafta. carl levin's son is leading the charge against fast tracking. the viewers should understand very clearly, as far as congress goes, again, it is a republican push to do this. host: ok, appreciate your time. guest: a few quick point spear it we do have a manufacturing trade surplus with our nafta partners. we have a report we put out on the nam website, trading up with tpa, and it has some of that data. take a look, because that is true and we do not have that to begin with. on china we do not have a free-trade agreement with china. china joined the world trade organization in 2001. the united states did not change one tariffs with respect to china, did not agree to any

other provision that we had not already. what happened when china joined was they decreased their tariffs substantially. they agreed to provide better, although still not adequate, protection for intellectual property and innovation. and the degree to another set of baseline rules. what you have seen with the growth in china trade is the growth in manufacturing and economic activity as a country and it is moving to development stages. this has enormous implications disruptive effects in the united states and certain industries. but china is actually one of the fastest-growing export markets for u.s. manufacturers because they have reduced their tariffs when they joined the world trade organization. but what we are trying to do with these free-trade agreements is good be on those days rules that are not always reciprocal. our free-trade agreements that we have with our nafta partners and 18 other countries go much

deeper in terms of eliminating tariffs, making other countries are fully going to provide the baseline rules of nondiscrimination and transparency in the regulatory system. but they are not going to come up with new regulations just to distort the market and protect their domestic industries. but they are going to protect our innovation. they're not going to treat our companies unfairly. these are really important. again, our 20 free-trade agreement partners, they purchase nearly half of u.s. manufactured goods. why is that? because we have gotten to us to ration freer trade with those partners. when our manufacturers can compete on a level playing field, we win a lot of the time. there are a lot of people around the world that want to buy the quality products that our manufacturers are making. host: springfield, florida,

republican line. this is carlos. go ahead. caller: my question is -- child labor. are we looking at that? like in the case of the dentist a dental technician, the impression to have the teeth made in china. they have child labor. nobody's looking at that. guest: from 1930 onward, the u.s. has had as part of its law a ban on the protection of any products made with forced labor. we have added provisions on child labor. we have a department of labor that is actively looking at these issues and working to prevent child labor. we have an international labor organization that is set in place, drawing treaties to address that. what trade agreements have done since 2007 is include provisions that countries are to respect

the core principles that include the worst forms of child labor as part of their trade agreement obligations, subject to sanctions. so with countries where we have those concerns, we will have better rules as a result of these trade agreements than we do in the status quo right now. host: kansas city, missouri hello. caller: good morning. have her explained 40 years of trade deficits. basically, nafta -- these deals are bad. any deficit in our trade is jobs. we have 40 years of imbalance there. guest: thank you. we could talk a long time on this. deficits is a complicated issue. overall, it is not clear that

trade deficits are a report card on our trading relationship with any particular country. we, as a country, have long consumed a lot of product. and we want it from here and from around the world. i worked on the senate finance committee, and when you looked at trade deficits, you actually saw lower unemployment. that was a period when the u.s. economy was growing and we were consuming more and consuming more from imports. but if you are concerned about trade deficits, let's go back to how our 20 free-trade agreements have actually worked. they have produced, overall, a trade surplus. about $55 billion compared to the over $300 billion trade deficit we have with every other country with which we do not have a free trade agreement today. and that is because they are lowering barriers and getting us to a more level playing field. i could go back even farther. in the post world war ii period,

the united states manufacturing had grown during the war and took off. we were the preeminent and sort of almost last man standing. we helped our friends in europe, asia, and elsewhere to recover from the war and grow their manufacturing from the 1960's onward, we started seeing a lot more competition in manufactured goods coming into the united states. u.s. manufacturers export today to 14 full-year numbers reached $1.4 trillion. that is the highest level of u.s. exports we have ever reached. exports pretty clearly are linked to jobs here in the united states. to sustaining jobs and to providing greater job opportunities. and certainly, as i have talked about, this is really a middle-class -- you know, you

want higher wages and you want to create a bigger middle-class. trade intensive manufacturing industries that are exporting more are the ones providing those jobs today. and we need to get more of those it we need more opportunities in the global economy not less. other countries can already compete in our market. we are not really changing the very much for what we're doing with the straight it agreements -- imagine if we can get tariffs down in vietnam that are 70% and at the same time we are getting that here in the united states and not necessarily the rest of the world. host: the "wall street journal" has an interview with shinzo abe , sing this trade till could happen. what would this do? guest: we have a big trade relationship right now with japan, but japan has traditionally been a little bit more closed. on the agriculture side, there

are huge tariffs them over 100% on key products. in the manufacturing site, there are some tariffs. but there are a lot of non-tariff barriers there. we're trying to get them to agree to stronger, clearer rules so that they cannot protect their domestic industries at the expense of hours. ultimately we are hopeful that japan is going to come to the table with ambitious offers, agree to eliminate tariffs and barriers. if we can get that high standard tpp with japan and the other countries at the negotiating table, we are going to be of a to compete more effectively in asia. we are also going to show the rest of the world that this is how trade should be done. we have been facing a lot of economic turmoil and the world.

we all know that you are at we have seen countries adopting even more protectionist measures in the past year. if we can show the rest of the world that the past to recovery and job growth is actually through open markets and eliminating these unfair distortions to trade, we are going to be able to succeed even more, not just with tpp partners but around the world. host: linda dempsey from the national association of manufacturers is with us. john from our democrat line. caller: i am not a protection us. i know we need to compete more in asia. i am retired. i was in the stock market business. i democrat. i contribute to the democratic national committee. they were here a week ago. and i said that i will not contribute this year because anybody that votes those trade agreements, i'm not going to give them a dollar. listen, there are definitely advantages and we need to have trade.

the one of the biggest issues is the disparity between the top and the bottom and the erosion of the middle class. these trade agreements, with jeb bush -- which jeb bush and hillary clinton will both support, they have killed manufacturing jobs and have killed good wages. the multinational companies are the ones that benefit from these traits agreements. ross perot said that as an independent, and he could say, what the hell was the truth? and you will hear a big sucking sound with job spear he was 100% correct. germany does not have this ridiculous tariffs. germany is thriving. research everything you can about germany right now. these trade agreements, they have advantages. but overall, they have killed wages for the working-class people in this country. next week -- [indiscernible] that is all i have to say. guest: thank you.

start with germany. you make a good point. there are things that germany and the european union, the 28 member states in which germany is a member, have that we do not have year in the united dates. one of the reasons that germany and other european member states are able to grow their manufacturing and expert decks -- export more is they have more these trade agreements that were talking about today than the united states. their exporters face lower tariffs in markets around the world than do we. or consider a country like mexico. mexico has been able to woo foreign investors in automotive manufacturing and elsewhere, not because of nafta, but because mexico has a trade agreement with brazil. it is not as high standard as the u.s. trade agreement, but it is cheaper for manufacturers to export to brazil out of mexico and it is from the united states. that is going to cost america investments in the years to come

if we continue to fall behind the european union, mexico canada and china as well which has negotiated a lot of these trade agreements. we have already seen in the tpp context, you know, china has negotiated agreements out there with countries where we do not already have free-trade agreements, among the 11 other tpp partners. china has been able to increase their share of the market in each of those countries since about 2010. the united states has gone from about an 18% share of those markets to about 8%. we're losing market share in asia. we are losing market share elsewhere around the world because the united states is not part of -- we are part of the negotiations but we have not brought negotiations back. until we get trade promotion authority, american

manufacturers are on the outside. we are watching our competitors in germany and elsewhere be able to be more competitive in overseas markets, and it is getting worse and worse spear to have to change that. if we want to grow manufacturing jobs, we have to get epa done and we have to move forward and get is really good agreements -- we have got to get tpa done. host: you are on the line, go ahead. caller: i do not know what planet ms. dempsey is in, but this country is hurting and i live in a small town in wisconsin. there is over 14% unemployment. where are you living? all these other countries are laughing at us. they're taking our money and that is all they want. they are not giving nothing. all our jobs are gone. come on. vietnam -- who gives a rat's ass

about vietnam? i was in vietnam, and it was not fun. now we are trying to fix up their problems, china's problems. do you ever buy anything that is not main in -- not made in china? everything is in china. come on. get your head on straight and start taking care of our country, our people. and then whatever you got left, then you can spread out to all the countries aired because all they want is our dollars, and the taxpayers are taking the blunt -- taking the brunt from all of it. guest: our mission at the national association of manufacturers is to grow manufacturing and to make the united states the best place in the world to manufacturer. there are a lot of different areas that my colleagues are working on, from tax and energy,

environment, health care, labor technology, and innovation, and infrastructure is one of the areas that is hugely important. but on the trade side, the issues that we are seeing in the u.s. economy, the unemployment in the u.s. economy, that is not directly linked to trade except from the fact that the current situation is not fair. we need to do a better job of leveling the playing field overseas. we need to get our exports and to those markets. we cannot just sit here and sell to ourselves. manufacturers contribute it about $2.1 trillion to the u.s. economy in 2014, the highest level ever. manufacturing is alive and well, but we want to grow it more. america has energy and transparency, the rule of law

that we provide to everybody here in the united states. but other countries are not treating us the same way. and trade agreements actually despite some of the rhetoric, actually they are carrying -- tearing down barriers, tearing down in equities -- inequities in the global system. what we're hearing from small manufacturers in wisconsin florida, california, iowa, ohio -- and every single state in the country -- is that they are increasingly relying on exports and sales overseas to grow their business. sometimes it is 20%. sometimes it is 60% of all their sales going overseas. that needs to be translated back to their employees so that they understand how big that role is that trade plays in their jobs today. but actually, we need to change the status quo, and tpa and new trade agreements will help. host: you brought of the and on.

what would we benefit with increased trade with vietnam? guest: vietnam is developing and growing. it is hugely populous with a very young demographic and terms of the overall country. and they like america and american products. what we can do like getting in at the ground floor with the tpp as this economy grows is to be the product of choice as vietnam grows its economy. there are a lot of infrastructure products in vietnam and thrill at asia. the asian development bank talked about over $10 trillion needed in infrastructure. you know, electricity, water roads, all of that. our companies can provide those technologies and products. we can sell them to the country. we can compete that are if we get rid of these barriers. host: we had a call from texas republican line. caller: i wanted to say that

corporations do not want to pay americans their fair wage. that is why they go to these other countries. and you cannot go into walmart the mall anywhere and buy a product that is not made in another country. i mean, that just proves that all the jobs are lost to people in other countries. i mean, everything is made in taiwan or china or indonesia. even a phone call to an operator , you get an indonesian or somebody from another country. i mean, how is that helping america? this is wrong. it needs to stop. guest: look, america manufacturing, as i said, is alive and well. sometimes it is not all the products on the shelves.

a lot of those shelves are produced by american companies. it is one of the great success stories when we associate at the central america free trade agreement that retail stores in central america were outfitted with a lot of u.s.-made air-conditioning units shelving, and other products that maybe as a consumer you do not see, but there are a lot of great consumer products. our food products, medications the most innovative sector in the world that is helping all of americans. i mean, there are over 2.1 join dollars and manufactured goods -- there is over $2.1 trillion in manufactured goods produced here every year. i think there are a lot of myths. you have companies that invest overseas. they export more from the united states. the support higher waged jobs in the united states in research and development. the foreign subsidiaries of those u.s. companies, they sell about seven troy dollars in

sales last year that the department of commerce's bureau of economic analysis looked at. how many of those sales come back to the united states? about 10%. 90% of the sales of our companies that go overseas -- this is not about outsourcing. it is about reaching for and consumers. sometimes you have got to be there. if you're making the turgeon, you are not going to ship a product that is mostly water halfway across the world -- if you're making detergent. you will not be up to compete on cost on time, on reaching the local consumer. there is great synergies between our investment overseas and the growth of manufacturing here, and we need to protect it in our trade agreements. host: linda dempsey is the international economic affairs vice president for the national association of manufacturers. thanks for your time. coming up, we will hear from representative jared polis democrat from colorado. he will talk about negotiations

and trade issues. he will join us next. later on, the co-author of "running from office," a book based on service from young people and their attitudes towards politics. we will take a break and "washington journal" continues after this. >> she was considered moderate for her time, called mrs. president by detractors or issue is outspoken about her views on slavery and women's rights here she was one of the most prolific writers of any first lady and provides a unique window into colonial america and her personal life. abigail adams, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "first ladies: influence and image," examining the public and private lives of the first ladies and

their influence on the presidency am a from martha washington to michelle obama. sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. and c-span's new book is now available on the lives of 45 iconic american women, providing lively stories of these fascinating women, creating an entertaining and inspiring read. it is available as a hardcover or an e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. here are a few of the book festivals we will cover this spring on booktv. this we can, we will be in the maryland state capital for the annapolis book festival, hearing from authors such as alberto gonzales and a "new york times" reporter. and then we will have coverage of the gaithersburg book festival.

it will include a former senior adviser to president obama could we will close out may add book expo america in new york city with a showcase of upcoming books. on the first week in june, the chicago tribune printers row lit fest with a pulitzer prize-winning author. that is this spring on c-span2's booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have representative jared polis from colorado who serve the second district. good morning. we sit as both the house and senate gather, negotiators -- gather negotiators on both sides to work on the budget. tell our viewers what is at stake and what you are looking for. guest: i guess you can say there is a little and a lock and from the democratic perspective there's not enormous

differences. what did because of have put forward in their alternative and the house, chris van hollen and many senate democrats, trying to bring down the sequester equally. when talking about whether you reduce the sequester on the defense side it hardly makes sense from a budgetary perspective. one typical republican with tax and spend policies, spending money they do not have, and on this case on defense. we need to find cuts per that is really not what the discussion is about. it is, do we go above and beyond this cap on the defense side? if you're looking at doing it equally saying, look, we are going to undo part of the sequester and find alternative cuts -- as far as i know, that is not the discussion occurring. host: as far as alternative cuts, what programs could possibly make the cut, so to speak? guest: i have offered dozens of

cuts and amendment spirits of half past he has two different forms. whether it is cutting ag subsidies or defense programs that even the pentagon says they do not need or whether it is removing budgetary tricks that we use, i think there is ample room thomas certainly ideas, the people have put forward on the tax side. frankly, you can do a lot on the revenue side without raising taxes at all. you can cut taxes and increase revenue. you can look at tax amnesty, which my home state of colorado did. it grows the tax base and gets more people into the system. you look at something like taxing marijuana in states where it is already legal, like a federal excise tax. it would not affect the states where it is illegal. there is a lot of revenue on the table. if you look at online gaming that would be another one. tens of billions of dollars of lost revenue we lose to overseas companies every day. host: again, jared polis is our

guest. % for republicans. -- democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. what you think about the efforts? guest: i am thrilled we have moved off of this fast-track approach. it became an albatross around the neck of our trade negotiators. that was a proposal and twitty 14 at when -- that was a proposal in 2014. when we started moving towards a smart track approach, that gives congress the right oversight role. no one wants congress to micromanage every aspect of negotiations. you cannot negotiate a treaty with 535 people to congress,

rightly so, myself as a congressperson, does not want to be locked out or kept out of the details that we want to see. i think they have done a good initial job trying to strike the balance. host: what if you cannot offer an amendment to have to vote up and down? guest: first of all, we lock and how much time members of congress have to see the proposal. two, each committee and jurisdiction can see whether our congressional trade objectives were met in their areas. they can delve down and see. at the objectives were met, it is reasonable for congress to have an of or down vote up it would a lot of members of congress wanted to see and why fast tracks were so unpopular is we really have to dig down and make sure that what we are actually saying is met it is not just come to us as one bill for an up or down vote. host: people talk about concerns over these deals, or with

asia-pacific nations. do you think the tpp is a good thing for american trade and for the consumer at home? guest: the short answer to that is that a good tpp would be a good deal for american consumers. how successful negotiators are and the final details, the devil is always in the details. the president and the administration cannot complete tpp or any of the other agreements without trade promotion authority. what does congress want to see at of the straight deals? when we get to tpp, it will be -- did the administration of congress are congress wanted to see? that is a multilateral question. if they try their best and countries like japan refused to open markets and the one that be at tpp successfully presented to congress, to fight we have our own domestic politics, so do our trading partners. i am optimistic that we will get

a good trade promotion authority bill and then we will move away and end this fast tracks approach. and we get a good tpp that opens up markets to american products, and i think that will be a great thing for job growth in our country and colorado. host: in the past, you have started businesses to they have been very successful. what is your approach of a businessman's perspective? another member of congress may not have the same background. guest: i did not do much international business. it was mostly domestic. we did a flower business. some of those were imported from other can't -- countries to most were to mastic. i had discussions with my constituents back on. we had small business roundtables. there are a big if mrs. in my district. dozens and dozens of small businesses. -- there are big businesses in my district. we have the outdoor industry

associations that are based in my district with the most members. when you look at the job growth in my district car but it is around these products -- when you look at the job growth in my district, a lot of these products -- they were very excited. i'm concerned about higher trade deals. i june on not there is so much concern about this one. there is certainly concern about the transparency. part of the fear is they do not know what is in this deal. i have gotten letters saying we should be more forthcoming with the details. but they're worried about some of the things in nafta being in it. they're worried about last tracks. they have a lot of legitimate concerns about the latest efforts and the environmental standards. i would make sure that investors state that arbitration does not interfere with our own environmental regulations that we want to pass. we have been focused on getting good information. we had the u.s. trade office out

twice. the australian ambassador visited our district. local small businesses have been going to speak out to talk about how this will help them add jobs in our state. host: jared polis joining us for a discussion. he is democrat from cholera colorado first call is from oklahoma city. -- he is a democrat from colorado. first call is from oklahoma city. caller: thanks for having me. i was watching the previous guests when they were talking about the trade issues and stuff . it seems like the focus in all of our systems is toward the upper income, the multinational companies, the big corporations. there is some emphasis on the smaller businesses and stuff but it seems like it comes to the greater good of our country the dollar is in the politics, especially in the republican

party, and that trumps the importance of the people. the previous guest was talking about how great germany was after somebody pushed her on germany's economic and manufacturing, how great they are doing to it what she did not mention is that in germany if a company ships the jobs are, they cannot sell the product back into germany. that looks out for the people. we do not do that here. germany just outlawed fracking. here in oklahoma, it is fracking central. we have earthquakes every day now. it is all about the big dollars. can you address that? guest: germany as part of the world's largest free-trade zone, and that is the eu. that has absolutely been part of the secret to germany's success. they have been able to access markets both in western europe as well as trade with eastern european countries that are part of the european zone.

we already have a trade bloc with canada and mexico, and this would really enlarge the american trade block to include some of the pacific rim countries. my state in my district are also part of this fracking discussion . four the five biggest menace abilities in my district have either banned or have moratoriums on fracking. i support their right to do that. it is an intensely local decision. there are some counties in colorado where it is quite popular. there are other counties that do not want it, including the county i live in. the oil and gas industry has filed suit against the cities that have tried to ban it. i hope that those cases are found to be frivolous. as for whether it is big companies, small companies -- and my district, it is small and mid-sized companies. 10 to 15 people to 100 people. we do not have a lot of large

countries in my district your day few would benefit from tpp but it is mostly these small healthy, outdoor lifestyle companies with 4050 people. they're the ones i'm hit -- with 40 to 50 people. i am hearing about access to the japanese market. a developed country, what the country to we already have access to the australian and new zealand market. we already have an excellent trade deal. we export much more than we import with other countries that we have trade agreements with. host: indiana, since any, good morning. -- cynthia. caller: good morning. my question is -- you guys were talking about paying back income-wise. why won't the parties work together to address that? like food stamps and things like

that, the welfare program knowing that you cannot keep supplying something. it will not be there eventually. there will not be a means to give people food stamps speared sometimes a strong no is as good as a good yes. i think it would be for the good of the country and the people. cannot keep spending something that is not there. guest: i think the question was about food stamps and our social safety net programs. i think there is interest from both sides on improving and reforming those programs. i do not and he answered -- when people propose to just cut them without any other reforms, that does not have much support from my side of the aisle. there might be ways to save money, but it will not be simply a cut. it might be a policy change.

for food stamps, i have supported things like removing some of the more unhealthy foods, like candy or soda pop from eligibility. we already include cigarettes and alcohol. we can have more of a sliding scale of assistance where we encourage people to make more money and get off of food stamps . same with medicaid, which president obama's affordable care act helps establish. when you look at medicaid some obviously a much more costly social safety net program than food stamps, the historic problem with medicaid has been -- let's say a family of three, somebody making $11 an hour, if they were given a raise to $11.50 or $12, they would have to not take the raise because they would lose their medical coverage because they would be put one dollar about the medicaid limit. with the affordable care act and the sliding scale of assistance all the way up to roughly an income of about $80,000 for

family of four, so you do not lose your entire medical care just because you earn too much. it is a sliding scale. it is all about incentives. i think there is ample opportunity in the social security disability realm. we encourage for them to provide an incentive to get back to work rather than saying you cannot work or you lose your incentives. host: a call from nevada, republican line. you are on. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. i have a broad question regarding currency manipulation on a global scheme. how does currency manipulation impact manufacturing jobs in the u.s. today? and if the asian trade agreement were to pass, how and if the new agreement tpa, will impact

currency manipulation in the future, if it can at all? guest: right now there are no checks on currency manipulation with the countries that we even have trade agreements with, no less those we do not have agreements with. we operate in a world where there are no checks. the administration has expressed interest to provide some linkage on currency manipulation in the tpp agreement. they have to work out the language with the fed and other entities in our own country but also engage in what could arguably be called currency manipulation. so they are trying to figure out what we can do that does not interfere with the fed's monetary policy. they can provide some check on currency manipulation. the biggest check on currency many galatian, at least in

democratic countries, is always going to be democracy itself. turns out that people do not take very kindly if their wealth is reduced by 30% to 40%. prices go up. they are likely to vote out from office in the party that delivers on making them poorer. i think that would happen in other countries. that does not mean on the margins that countries cannot engage in currency manipulation. they do it. but this will likely be the very first trade agreement that puts any parameters around currency manipulation. host: a call from michigan, jamie. a call from the democrat line. caller: good morning. glad to see you. i have a few statements. yesterday in that committee working on the budget, i heard senator whitehouse, and if this is the budget they are working

on, they should be ashamed of it. and i am an elderly woman now. i do not see me going out with a voucher and finding any insurance company that is going to cover me for what a voucher would pay for. i like my medicare the way it is. social security is not anything to do with the deficit. it don't work against the deficit. all congress has to do is lift the cap on social security. i have heard both sides, and i agree with senator whitehouse. and i hope you have a good day. guest: thank you. i did not get the chance to see senator whitehouse the other day. but from what you have indicated of his comments, i also agree. i do not think that replacing medicare a guarantee of care with a voucher that even our own budget estimates estimate would

cost people $5,000 more out-of-pocket in a decade to get the same level of the and if it's that they have today -- i do not think that is the right answer for seniors unlimited income. i think we can do better. people have paid into social security and medicare. they have trusted that that money would be there for them. it is our responsibility as officeholders to make sure you get everything that you paid for. host: you did an op-ed in "the advocate" magazine, looking at marijuana. it makes the question between legalization of marijuana and marriage equality. can you explain? guest: we're not talking about morals be at we're talking about the political equivalency. those are two successful social movements in the last decade. legalizing marijuana and legalizing same-sex marriage. they have had great success

across the states. they are both freedom-oriented. there is the concept of individual freedom. it has an appeal to american people, whether they are on the left or the libertarian right. my goodness, should the government really be telling you who you should marry? that does not make sense. mary who you left your chat the government -- should the government tell you you cannot enjoy marijuana in the privacy of your home like you enjoy alcohol? there has been a backlash with people trying to say you cannot do what you want and government knows better. i think the success of those has tapped into something deep in the american psyche. both battles are far from over. at last cap, marriage equality is in about 37 states. we are all watching the supreme court this summer. we will be watching on whether it can be applied nationally and whether people should be able to mary who they love. -- b of two -- be able to marry

who they left. and also looking marijuana. host: marijuana is decided by the states. would you make the same case for marriage equality? guest: we have action on marijuana that we need to take. honestly, there is a very precarious balance right now because it is still against the law federally. i am responsible for an act set up by the regulatory system to control substances by alcohol remove it from schedule one. they both have a federal role and a state role. in both areas, we need federal action, whether it is through the courts or through the legislative process. host: you have legislative pending in the house looking at discrimination issues against lgbt people at what is this? guest: what we have introduced

is a resolution and reaction to indiana and arkansas and some of these proposals in states which are going the wrong way, even by the standards of the relatively conservative constituents of those states who, if i understand, i think my former colleague, governor pence, his popularity went to the america has moved past, where we as a people and a country do not believe you should discriminate based on race, gender, sexual identity. that is someone's private business. a really scared a lot of people when the specter of stores in indiana didn't allow a people reminded us of an era of the jim crow south and historic discrimination that are country has had. host: calls.

next is phil. republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. representative, i would just like to start that you sir, are the quintessential progressive liberal democrat. i have followed you, watched you on c-span. you, sir, are there because your district -- you could impact more liberals into bolder and veil. it is amazing how many get in there. why did just go overseas? no one answer s that question other than that it is cheaper. why is it cheaper? then you go to the real issues. why did all the industries close. epa and labor costs. epa has been a by the democrats to where it is.

it is a police agency. and no longer cares about whether it is good clean air or good clean water. labor unions have driven costs. i want to go over one other thing here. you start out with a republicans are taxed and spent. that is a democrat, given definition. minimum wage, especially as i am seeing it here, i am in a major city, they will raise minimum wage, and then you will see your automatic order takers will end. if there were 50 employees, want to become 20. guest: you covered a number of different topics. i would add, this budget discussion largely between republicans in the house and senate, it is the republicans blowing through

spending caps and spending more on defense. i don't think that has much democratic support it looks like republicans will continue to spend, spend, spend, like they have done historically. as for my district factually speaking, unaffiliated voters are the largest political affiliation. it is roughly one third, one third, one third, and unaffiliated is the largest contingent. you should certainly visit, you mentioned vail. host: the caller mentioning minimum wage, and it didn't fare well. what happened in your state? guest: we already have minimum wage higher than the national standard. we are around eight dollars $.60. we are higher than national. that was an initiative that voters passed, like other areas.

the color mention that his municipality is looking at a higher wage, i know other municipalities are looking at that as well. the gentleman also mention losing jobs. a lot of my legislative work is focused on the skills gap. america does not want to provide at the lowest cost provider. we want more good jobs and encourage companies to come here. of course, we need a tax code that is more competitive. that is why i support tax reform, another topic that i'm willing to talk about if you like. we need to make sure that students are coming out of high school, college, and community college with the skills that they need for the 21st century workplace. we need to do a lot better in that regard, which is why one of my main focuses here is education.

and i serve on the education committee. host: how long have you served on the committee? guest: i am a ranking member on the health and education workforce committee. host: particularly efforts being made -- and we heard about this before -- teaching to the test. talk about how that has fared especially under common core. what are your thoughts on testing? guest: it was a very hot topic. we had the markup, the no child left behind bill marked up in the senate committee last week. we are expecting some for action -- floor action on that soon. a similar bill appeared, called hr five. i don't the as any democratic support. the senate approach is at least

bipartisan. you have hot button issues. what is the role of testing? the role of accountability? i believe that visibility into what is happening in our schools, where learning gaps are happening, whether kids with disabilities are getting the services they need to succeed these are all very important reasons that we need to have this kind of transparency and visibility into what is occurring in our schools and what kids are learning. at the same time, i think there should be more efforts to consolidate testing, for a more efficient testing, and not more testing. we should absolutely be able to reduce the amount of time that kids are spent testing. host: a schedule of testing would look like how for your? guest: you have the district tests, state tests, far more than our federally required. my state of colorado is

discussing whether they want to eliminate some of the tests that the state once. then, federally required tests. they pile on top of each other. in my state, kids spend something like 20 days per year in some form of testing. why can't we find tests that meets state goals for countably and federal goals for accountability? and could even include district goals for accountability whether it is evaluating teachers, curriculum professional development programs. we ought to be able to get people on the same page so that we can have the highest possible quality testing and the least amount necessary to find out what policymakers need to know, teachers, and parents need to know. host: let's hear from derek in aspen, minnesota. caller: hi.

perfect timing. this representative from colorado is one of the reasons why this country is so messed up and divided. oh my god -- they cut me off. guest: we didn't cut you off. host: are you still there? ok. you talked about tax reform. guest: i don't think i have much to do with that, derek. there are forces greater than me. i do my best to work with both sides. host: talk a little bad about this effort that is trying to make changes, especially through the house ways and means committee. what changes would you like to see on the front of tax reform? guest: i think we should go bold. we currently have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. much companies pay a lower rate, but that is based on who has the best lobbyists.

it is just not right. what we ought to do is get together, say everything is on the table, i was very supportive of attempts last session that fell on a blind eye, when he offered his tasx reform proposal. and whenever we get down to 28% like what president obama wants -- currently we tax corporations 36%. there are so many loopholes in the tax code that they prefer hiring lobbyists then engaging in their business. i think is ac absolutely worth looking into. the more we can do to encourage entrepreneurs and businesses to make their decisions based on what is right for them, rather than having an account and tell them this is what you need to reduce taxes, the better our

country will be and the more prosperous we will be. host: the person who started blue mountain.com -- bluemountain.com, others, what would you tell them on tax reform? guest: stand up to the lobbyists . every lobbyist likes tax reform besides the loopholes that they want. when you talk to heads of companies, they say, look, -- and i had this discussion with the ceo of a major company -- they said their effective tax rate was in the low warning percent -- low 20% range, but they would rather a flat rate because of the contortions they have to go through and how they have to sub optimally allocate capital. they would rather just reduce the rate and pay a 25% rate.

as long as companies can indicate to the lobbyists that that is what they want to do, maybe we have some pathway forward on tax reform. host: representative jared polis of colorado. he represents bowler, fort collins. here to talk to you. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8002 independents. your stay and marijuana. it has been a little over a year for the passage on regulation of -- on the recreational side. how has it fair? guest: we expected pitfalls along the way. it has gone relatively smoothly. stakeholders in together whether with law enforcement state government, dispensary owners and they set up a really good system of rules and regulations. counties are allowed to have it

or not have it. some do, some have chosen not to. it has produced over $100 million of tax revenue. it has helped to rid a lot of drug dealers out of business. one of the most encouraging sister statistics that i've seen is that use by minors have gone down. the reason is simply that there are less drug dealers because the money has moved to the regulated environment where they check your age and monitor. host: william from michigan. you are on. democrats line. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. my name is william, i'm a retired teacher. i just want to comment on statements that were made earlier about the testing program. from my experience, testing has turned into a multibillion-dollar business

and the quality of education seemingly went down as more and more tests -- they are testing kids and what, third, fifth, sixth, seventh? i think from my perspective, maybe you need a test at the end of the seven grade and a test at the end of the senior year to graduate. social studies, foreign languages should be reestablished including vocational education and academic programs because i think we need both. thank you very much. guest: on the second point, i couldn't agree more that we need more vocational opportunities including for certification and good job areas back into the high school level. also, we have a lot a promise around dual enrollment programs were students who are juniors

and seniors can also work with the community college to get an associate street concurrent with their high school degree and diploma. we are seeing that in my state. i think that is the first positive movement on that front that we have seen and some time. as far as the testing, we need to make sure it serves the purpose that we want. if you only tested seven grade and nothing before that, you wouldn't be able to identify where those learning gaps are occurring. it is easier to address learning gaps the younger the child is. that is why universal preschool as axis is so important. as the learning gaps between kids of different socioeconomic background of different races exist in the lower grade levels, they become harder and harder, and of course more t costly from a taxpayer expensive, 48 child to achieve

-- for a child to reach achievement in the grade level. host: thank you for your time this morning. coming up in our last segment we will speak with jennifer lawless, the author of "running from office, why young americans are turned off from politics and why politics do not appeal to young americans." we will have a discussion when " washington journal" continues. ♪ >> she was considered modern for her time, called mrs. president an outspoken on her views on slavery and women's rights. she provides a unique window into colonial america and her personal life. abacoigail adams.

sunday night. examining the public and private life of the women who f filled the role of first lady. from martha washington to michelle obama. as a cub limit to the series c-span's new book is now available, "first ladies." providing lively stories of these fascinating women providing an illuminating and inspiring read. it is available through hardcover or e-book with your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> here are some of the programs that we will cover on booktv.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is the co-author of the book "running from office, while young americans are turned off to politics." she is jennifer lawless, joining us now. why is the turn of happening. go guest:? guest: ultimately, it young

people who want to save their communities think of every other option except for running for politics. host: is that because they are not exposed to politics or because they don't have interest in a? guest: for a long time there was the sense that they were tuned out. what we find in the book, which is based on a survey with high school and college students, they are tuned out for a reason. they are turned off. they become so hypersensitive to the negative aspect of politics that they would like nothing more than not be involved in politics in their life. host: given choices of what they would like to do -- mayor of a small town did not turn out very well. tell us what is happening in this chart. guest: people were much more

inclined to say they would like to go into business or education that being a mayor, in fact, being a man and being a salesperson is not very different in a young person's preference order. the same is true with elite professions. member of congress fares worse as well. it seems that young people who are ambitious and what a high level of success, one that outside of the realm of politics. host: the chart goes on to say that being a mayor of a small town -- police officer better, journalists was better. going lower, secretary, salesperson, mechanic. guest: the only thing that was less desirable have to do is very specific trade interests. if you want to be a plumber or mechanic, you need a specific trade degree. basically any broad range profession fares better

than local, state, or federal office holder. host: you as parents what they think about their kids entering politics. what was the reaction? guest: they said that their parents would be proud of them doing anything, but they would rather anything the sites that. politics is ugly. both in the surveys and when we interviewed young people for long. the time -- for long. thost: a lot of it is based on perception. what is the largest shaper of that? is a parents are other factors? guest: family socialization has always been a big factor. civic engagement. it is not only family. the messages are encouraged by teachers who do not encourage

them to run for office, coaches and the media. both in terms of mainstream media, but also political satire is or pundits on tv, reinforcing the most negative aspects of the political arena. host: our guest will talk about young people and their perception of politics. "running from office, why young americans are turned off the politics." (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8002 independents. we have also set aside a line for people that we consider young people aged 18 to 30, (202) 748-0003. guest: we found that college students were more likely than

high school students to consider running for office, but overall 89% of the next iteration had already ruled it out as an incredibly unattractive endeavor. host: when you talk to them, is it a street paper survey, an interview? how did you come up with the people you talk to for the book? guest: it is both. the survey was an online survey of a national random sample. we supplemented that survey with about 115 45 minutes on our phone interviews with kids. the phone interviews allowed us to understand in more depth the reasons behind the interest in running for office. host: what are some things that struck you as far as their perception of politics and whether they would go to politics or not? guest: one has to do with the disconnect between what they think a good leader is like

and what politicians are like. time and again, they told us they thought they were cooperative, able to get along well with others good problem solvers, and that there was no place for it is kind of skills in of local arena. they would reference the stalemate, the government shutdown, for example, and highlight that these are the types of problems that they don't think politicians are taking seriously. host: when you talk to them, are they shape by specific leaders? going back to president bush president clinton, president obama? guest: we asked them about their first clinical memories. for some it was bill clinton. their memory of bill clinton was the monica lewinsky scandal and a president lying his finger and saying, i did not have sexual relations of that woman, which turned out to be a lie. for others it is george bush, which has to do with misleading people about weapons of master structure. whether it is bush or clinton

it happens to be embedded in things that were not true. host: does president obama have any role as far shaping their perceptions? guest: people who admire political figures are more inclined to say they would be interested in running for office. these them with our overall quite low, but ones who admire president, in this case, barack obama, are more willing to say they would run. there is a race gap there. african-americans and latinos were more likely to say that they admired obama, and as a result, were more likely to be interested in running for office. host: jennifer lawless, our guest. the first line call for use from woodstock, illinois. go ahead. caller: i'm calling because of the time i went to school,

"lord of the flies" was essential reading. -- was required reading. ted cruz use that book to describe the political arena. in my opinion, it is important to consider that book when considering whether or not ted cruz could be the equivalent of politics today. also, we need to ask, the title of the book refers to something. when you had someone on interviewing, i think, jessica stern, about what to do with isis. the suggestion was that young people could contribute their savvy and electronics. i want them to ask, through the venue of "lord of the flies," the translation of that name is build a bomb. host: let's take the idea of

electronics. it seems like young people are seeking information, particularly about politics. what are you finding? guest: the irony here is that accessing political remission is easier than it has ever been. with the touch of a device, you can get any political information that you are interested in getting. that means the raw material is therefore young people to find out about the political system and engage in it. the problem is what they find, they don't look, and they stop looking. i think we have an opportunity here to engage the generation in the way that they like to communicate, but in doing so, we have to be creative because less to their own devices, they are actually using the devices for anything other than political news. host: so the best way for engagement would be what? guest: and the book, we propose a series of solutions. one of them is to actually let people think that politics could be useful.

we have a situation now where young people and adults alike tend to view politics through a lens. they look at the most the functional -- dysfunctional aspects in washington and think that it translates. the overwhelming majority of people who occupy less and offices are not involved in gridlock. they are not doing this just out of their own self interest and quite frankly, i don't think most federal officials are either. if we can go around federal politics and let people know how to solve problems and communities, and all the things that running for office could address, we could be off to a good start. host: joe is from maryland. independent line. caller: i don't know if a doing your research -- one thing i keep you in from young people's is the appearance of a lack of integrity. you've seen all the scandals with members of congress, and so forth. there was one issue that came up a number of years ago.

first of all, the president had to put, when he was elected, all of his investment into a blind trust. however, members of congress are not required to do so, yeah, they probably have more influence over rules regulations, and so forth than the president does. a bill was introduced by senator to do that. yet, it was voted down, one vote for it and the rest against it. i don't understand why we can't have members of congress held to the same standards as the president and therefore not have the influence over making decisions or rules and regulations that will favor certain companies or industries where they then can invest and reap some sort of award from that. guest: i think we have reached the point in time now where most people can identify problems

with the way the political system works. problems that it is the elected officials responsible for creating the reform necessary to change their behavior. the good news for young people is that their general discussed and distaste is not linked to specific policies. it is not linked to specific actions or bills. it is this general sense that the people in washington are not interested in doing good and solving the country's problems. i think that one of the things we can do is call on elected officials to realize that there are these long-term implications of their behavior. they can stymie everything and think they will have to pay the price later on. i doesn't matter what issue we are dealing with. not getting anything done in suggesting that obstructionism is a real policy option i think is turning people off. host: georgia, marie's is next.

democrats line. caller: number one, it is entirely too hard to get on this program. i have been trying for years. that is an aside. ms. lawless, i have not read the book yet, by hope to do so in the near future. what i have come up with and what the president has talked about is the idea of mandatory voting. i think that would go a significant amount of the way to get people involved, obviously. i think mandatory voting in association with public financing of campaigns and other elements that would bring people to the process, get them in, and get them more involved would filter down to the local level and obviously get young people more involved in the process. guest: i certainly don't think there's any downside to encouraging more people to get involved in the political process, whether it be by voting

or engaging in other ways. what i can tell you though is that regardless of levels of voter turnout, it seems that the extent to which today's young people are running for office is much greater than in the past. there have not been other national surveys of young people's political ambitions, so we cannot do a direct comparison, but when you look at kids of today compared to kids of the 70's talking about politics, we see substantial decreases. they are not necessarily less likely to vote. i think it is making them realize that they need to be more engaged than just casting a ballot. host: in your book, one survey on political activity when engaged with parents from watching election coverage, it goes to going to a vote.

guest: that is good news. that seems to be where the civic engagement ends. parents will tell kids that that is the way you express your voice in a democracy. that is where they stop short of than suggesting that their kids get involved in politics. for example, only about 2% of the people that we surveyed said their parents regularly encourage them to run for office. host: from texas, republican line, choices up next. -- joyce is up next. caller: my granddaughter is not just in politics at all. she's a freshman at college this year. she did vote. that is true. they are voting. when i tried to talk to her about real issues that will affect her directly, or even my grandson, who is in high school, they have absolutely no interest.

it's like they are not connecting with that, it's not part of their life right now not relative relevant to them. she is just try to get through her exams, which she is doing very well. being interested in what is going to affect them in the future doesn't seem to be a part of what -- i'm trying to make them understand. what they do in the senate will affect them. the loss that come in. they need to know. i think we're losing them before they ever get to college because they are not being taught what they need to know about politics , and about the judicial system and the executive branch, and the legislative branch, and how important this is to them. our country was founded on these things. they don't take an interest in it. they could lose it all. host: sorry caller. go ahead. guest: we found that about 25%

of young people we interviewed fell into the category that the caller described, whether it is blatantly no interest at all. others have decided against being interested because they are so appalled by what they see. the good news is if you take a government class and high school, a political science or government class in college, you are more likely to be tuned in. the more today and are, the more likely you see both the positive and negative aspects of politics. to the extent that we can encourage teachers and professors to integrate into their classes, even those that are not about politics, some aspect of politics, that could potentially go a long way. host: we have the numbers on the screen. also, don't forget, a line for those of you between 18 and 30 years old. (202) 748-0003. fort lauderdale, florida independent line, jack. caller: ms. lawless, your book

sounds very interesting. i think is being very naive. i think you should be really pushing the younger generation to vote in this country. i was a you why. i have traveled all over the world and you realize that the countries that are so jealous of the united states because of the democracy type of government that we have in the united states? i was over in russia when gorbachev was in charge. i was in china when -- i had a driver an interpreter and my driver had to hold his hand on the horn because they were all bicycles. when i told people i was an american, they treated me with so much respect. if you're not how they're pushing the young people to go out and vote, then our country will be ready for some type of dictatorship, and then you will have major problems. i think you and the other people being so naive, i mean very very naive -- this is a democracy.

this country was set up as a democracy because we were ruled by that u.s.. we have been a democracy ever since. we are one of the greatest countries in the will because of that. i think that you people, instead of being so naive, should really get out there and push together people because if they don't get involved, then god help the united states. thank you very much. guest: i think people should vote. i think in people should vote. the problem is there are already a lot of civic engagement organizations and allied groups focusing on the franchise and making sure that young people vote. those efforts tend to stop there. what we want to do, in this book, is call attention to the fact that there are half a million elected offices in this country and if we do not get the best and brightest to consider

running for them, we will have more problems in the future. host: from pensacola, florida on the line for those 18 to 30. caller: i'm from florida. isolated comment -- i just wanted to comment. you talk about how we need to get young people into politics. i agree. i think myself being a young person as well, there is a general discontent with the people in bc right now. i feel like a lot of people don't want to touch that. hillary clinton accepting millions of dollars from foreign nationals. people we don't even know. if i accepted money in the military from a foreign national, i would lose my security clearance, i would be fired. what kind message does that send my beer try to like someone like that to lead our country? i think that is the root of the problem. people don't want to touch that. guest: to some extent that is true. one of the biggest barriers and

we found to people running for office has to do with their view of politicians. we found negative characteristics were far more common than positive ones. in part, this is because that which is negative garners more media attention. if you are only looking at the headlights, it is unlikely that you read much about political success. to encourage people to be more interested in politics can go a long way because as they are for be through the channels or turning the pages, they may come across something that is somewhat positive. host: you make the case in the book that besides studies extracurricular activities take up a large amount of young people's time. student government is about 18% of those who registered with you. that followed by a debate. and then college democrats or

college republicans at 12%. it seems like in the world of extracurricular activities politics is not winning out either. guest: exactly right. i strategically activities, the website you look at, the things you watching tv. then just thing about the figure is the most prominent activity has to do with community service which suggests that young people do care about their communities, care about their country and the world, and want to make it better. however, they don't think of politics as a venue to do that. that is the challenge we have to face. host: from nathan in saint louis, missouri you are next on the line for those 18 to 30. caller: i am 23. i think this is a very serious issue that needs to be brought up. i know most of my friends -- and not even just younger people but older people i know -- do not like talking about politics. i think one of the big issues is television and entertainment. most people don't understand, or

just don't have any education about what is going on in politics to have a feeling about what is going on. as far as people not liking what's going on and not way to get involved, i remember a quote saying the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. i think people need to get involved. guest: it is really difficult to find portrayals of politics as a noble profession. we don't talk only about polls suggesting that parents don't feel this way our kids don't feel this way. if you look at popular culture it is not the norm. i grew up in the 1980's watching "family ties." there, you had families and children on complete opposites of the political spectrum having

debates at the kitchen table. now, politics rarely makes its way into any tv show that is not about politics. you have house of cards or others but geared towards a specific audience. it is not in the mainstream. host: from bloomington, illinois. caller: good morning. how are you this way? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: ms. lawless, i would like to make a couple of comments. i've 81 years old. i have 12 children, 39 grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren. we talked politics every election. we get together -- they are scattered all over the united states, but when they get home it is usually politics. i was raised a democrat. i'm still a democrat.

half of my family is republican now, which i have no qualms with because we get a good voice between the people. what i am saying is we need term limits. we also need to get big money out of politics so that these people -- younger generations from 18 to 32 -- will get a grasp of what what the world is about when it comes to politics. i don't understand why we have to spend $1 billion to elect the president. and have all this money coming in for no reason whatsoever because if we had term limits, the younger generation could get in there and get rid of the old people that are fighting us. host: when you talk to your kids at election time, is it just during the election season or

does it a long time discussing the you have about politics? caller: it is long. we get on the phone sometimes when they have an election night down in north carolina or something and they will call me and asked me what i think. we will talk about on the phone. we go to arizona flagstaff. sometimes it gets pretty heated. we talk about elections all over. even in kentucky. host: got you. thank you. guest: i think there are a lot of political reforms that could encourage more people to think about running for office. as far as term limits are concerned, we do have elections every two years. if we could get people run for office, the elections could serve as term limits. what is important and what we are tried arguing the book is that young people who are not that well versed in politics or do not necessarily know the specifics about different policies are still not at all

interested in running for office. that is because of this broader sense that is not a way to get things done, or solve problems, and it is not noble. that is the challenge i think. it is not about specific changes to the system, which certainly couldn't hurt, but it is about casting a wider net and letting young people realize that electoral office is a way to solve the problems they see. host: angela is next. go ahead. angela, good morning. caller: iron here. -- i am here. one reason i think my generation doesn't do anything is because we were raised with technology. we are kind of spoiled and take credit for other people's work. we don't go out and actually search for the information. we don't actually do anything. it's like, why would anyone actually go out to change the world? you know? on top of that, i don't know.

i'm so sick. if you say something on facebook in this generation about politics or even religion, you are demonized for it. everyone in this generation will turn around and chastise you. it's like they don't want you talking about it. you know what i'm saying? it's like socially shunned and all kinds of things. if you start speaking the truth or stand up for what is right and what you believe in. that's how we were founded. it just takes one person to stand up and what they believe in and what they believe is right. i just don't understand why this generation can't stand up and do what's right and what's right for the nation and our children, and for the future. thanks. bye. guest: 50% of this generation does want to improve the world.

they do want to make the world a better place. i think there is something to set about the way they interact with each other. something that came up in interviews consistent with what we just heard, which is that people want to stay away from it because they don't want to fight with their friends or generate disagreement. they don't want to potentially get into conflictual situations. that, in part, is linked to the way we see politics operate in washington dc. the notion of a civil, normal conversation where two people with different positions come together and have a conversation , and walk away still respect each other is not normal. i think young people have decided that that must be the way that talking about politics exist and they opt to not do it as well. host: you have a chart in your book about discussions that kids choose to have with their friends. politics comes dead last. guest: yes. dead last. current events a little higher

than that. we thought initially maybe that is good news, but when we asked them what they think of current events, they mentioned the kardashians, taylor swift. for the current generation, current events are not political events. it surprised me that pop-culture is what is defined as a current event. people who are 40, in their 50's, were 60's, people equated politics with current events. when here, people who say they are on top of what is going on they are talking about washington or their own communities. host: here is connie from brooklyn. caller: i find her very interesting. i have to agree with a lot of her comments. i have seven g grandkids. they do get involved in politics. the school actually encourages it.

i retired at 70. not wanting to really, but i found myself more involved in politics because it's on my doorstep as far as running into certain situations. the younger generation hasn't been -- except for maybe student loans -- the younger generation hasn't been pulled into the cons of politics. i will tell you one thing. the hill does not set a good example to i don't people. i think that is another reason why they are turned off. there is so much fighting between the parties that they think, i want to do something, but they are fighting with each other. it is not a very good example to give the young people. the older people kind of understand, but older people also came from a different generation where we have less

television. we grew up with hearing more and talking more. i think the kids are under pressure today to get, like my one granddaughter, she is great at homework, but she comes home, does her homework, eat supper, and goes to bed. the pressure them so much with schooling that they don't really get involved with politics on tv or read about politics. they have so much else going on. i don't mean entertainment. there are seriously get people out there who want to do something, except the government doesn't give them a good example. host: we will have to let our guest respond. guest: it is true. they don't get a good example. i'm a little reluctant to conclude that most children are like your grandchildren.

we asked them how they spend a day and how they spend their week, and what they do. 97% of young people play video games on a regular basis. about that percentage of the people in our sample said they watch at least two hours of television every day. the average young person sense about 90 texts a day. they have plenty of time to communicate them plenty of access to information. it is our incentive to make sure they have access to political information. i do not think they are not running for political office because they are busy with schoolwork. host: wouldn't make a difference if younger candidates ran for political office? guest: i think inspiring candidates matter. inspiring candidates that you can trust. i don't know if age matters. if there is a politician that you admire, you are far more

likely to say that this is something you consider doing in the future. we asked only about four candidates at the time. we asked about barack obama hillary clinton, sarah palin and mitt romney. i think a new model of politicians, someone who is reaching out to young people in particular can play a big role, by don't think a person needs to necessarily be in their 30's. host: here are the responses. it is from the book "running from office, why young americans are turned off the politics. go donnie from kentucky. you're next. caller: i have an idea that might fix all of this.

what if we took the best and brightest from college and had them serve in the senate and congress. we elect the president but it truly would be serviced by the people for the people. they would get paid a decent wage why -- 50,000 or $60,000 -- and after the service they get their college pay for ending go into the private sector. guest: that is an adjusting idea. we propose an idea that is similar. we had peace corps, teach for america, which generally reward people for giving back to their communities. there is no comparable national service program that rewards political service. we propose a national political service program where if young people are willing to step up and work in the communities in

political ways and potentially meet politicians to run for political office, that might be a way to encourage young people to run. i don't think we are in a position to compel a person to serve, but providing incentives goes a long way. right now, you can get into a very good college knowing virtually nothing about the way the political system works. we saw community service skyrocket because college admission offices like that. if we can get college admission offices to put a premium on young people knowing how the government work, i think we would see more incentives for young people to get engaged that way. host: is the stephen from grand rapids, michigan. caller: i was wondering if your book did a poll on a group of

people that are in the belief that it is too convoluted. there is too much covert going on, as opposed to the overt. we are too much of an oligarchy. was there a group that just said without a revolution, call it what you will, it will never happen? guest: we did not uncover that broad sentiment. what we did find in general was that people had such negative ideas about the way that business action against on whether it be because of behind-the-scenes or self-interest of politicians that is not congruent with constituents. not necessarily as evolutionary as what you may have described, but certainly this negative sense of -- i wouldn't want to have engage in a behavior

to make things happen. host: this is ed from washington dc. democrats line. caller: good morning. i find it very interesting. i'm concerned about our young people participating in politics. i'm going around and trying to encourage of people to get involved in politics, and what is going on today will determine what kind of world they will grow up in. i think c-span is responsible for some of the negative things going up. some of your guests -- right-wing haters that call in. the thing is we need to discourage that. you need to get a microphone and asked them their opinions.

you go down south, in the role of areas, all you can hear is right-wing noisemakers. they don't believe in fact checking. they believe in saying negative things about our president. these things have to stop. young people are affected by that. when they see this, they don't want to be a part. they want to be involved in politics but don't know how. your guest, i want to buy your book. i think this is very important. host: just a reminder, we do open our microphones to all different political perspectives. guest: two things i would know.

i have not looked at c-span's demographics lately, but my hunch is that it is not mostly got people that are watching. that is the case across the board. the problem is not what anyone show or any set of pundits, or any network, is doing. the problem is when every turn on the tv or the internet it takes only about three seconds before you find someone saying something incredibly negative. even if you have positive coverage it is very easy, given the 24 hour news cycle, for people to come across negative tidbits and then they take on a life of their own. part of the challenge is having people watch more. we found that if you are able to wade through the mud, you find positive things too. host: one more call. thomas in berlin, wisconsin.

independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro and jennifer. my point is this. the age groups that you research from high school to early college, if they are basing their negative aspects of politics on ethics and morals, they have only begun to scratch the surface of their own personal ethic and moral base. i was around in the 50's, 60's, 70's. i spent a lifetime in california in the early 60's and 70's. that generation -- i was worried. i said, one of these days these people will be running our country. that was a troubling thought. look at what has happened. i have six sons and two daughters. you have to be between the ages of 26 and 32. that is when they start to level out and develop a better sense because they have been around long enough and seen a lot enough.

there is a timeframe here. younger generations has not have not changed. it is an age group. you might want to consider that when you do these service. they simply have not been around a long enough to develop a good sense of ethics and morals from the standpoint. thank you. i will take my hands off the air. guest: two things i would know. first, there are studies that suggest that the career aspirations of people who are 15 or 16 match for a well to things action do in their 30's. although it is not perfect, if you write off something as a digital career as a teenager chances are to come back later in life. the other thing i would know, we have done surveys of potential candidates. adults in professors that would most likely lead to political careers. although they are more likely to

run for office that other people, we run into a gender gap there. that is the same that we see in our high school and college students. that suggests that once you decide not to do it, it is hard to change that. host: the book is "running from office, why young american are turned off the politics. thank you very much. that is it for our program today . a new edition tomorrow at 7:00. see you then. ♪ [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] >> shortly we'll go live to capitol hill as th