discusses the vote on the trade authority bill. representative are lee of california discusses the house debate on the trade authority bill and the request for authorization to use military force against isis. host: today, the house of representatives will vote on several trade measures including adjustment assistance and trade promotion authority. vote counts are not clear yet. the president and the white house has been lobbying hard, including attending the congressional baseball game. that opens the way for the president to negotiate the partnership trade agreement. how do you feel of about the trade agreement and of free trade and this process for the trans-specific -- transpacific

partnership. do you support free trade in a general? if you are opposed to what is going on there is a number for you to call. you can make comments via social media via twitter facebook and you can send an e-mail. here is the "hill" newspaper. vicki needham is a reporter. guest: it looks like they're going to vote on three of bills. two votes are huge. the first is on trade adjustment assistance which is a democratic irony.

they started to revolt on that guest day. they are not happy with what was going on and they are seeing this as a way to stop the trade promotion authority bill, which will probably be the second the vote of the day. if it passes, they can move on to tpa. if either bill fails, it will stop all of the trade bills. host: you have a whip count. you go through all of the members of congress and list how they are voting. currently, what is your count? guest: i think we are still at three dozen or so democrats who are undecided and right now we're looking at those democrats. we are expecting everybody to have a niagara falls of votes. we are starting to see everybody

come out in support or opposition. there is going to be a group of democrats who will wait until they are on the floor to lock in the vote counts and cast their votes. there may be a handful who wait on the floor. it they will be to see the votes pileup to decide how they are going to vote. it's going to be close. i have heard that there could be up to 30 democrats who support the trade promotion authority. these type votes, especially on trade, it's an anything goes kind of day depending on what happens. host: what is the reason that the public has not been able to see the transpacific partnership agreement as written and it members have to go to a secret room and take no notes or cell phones? guest: trade deals, there are 12 nations including the united

states. they kind of understand -- the explanation from the white house and the other countries is they prefer a certain level of confidentiality so they can put forward their offers on what they want to see in the trade agreement. it's a living document. they are trying to kneel down -- nail down chapter by chapter. if congress does pass it, the expectation has been said that nations like canada would actually put down their best deal. basically, they want some kind of process that they can negotiate and kind of continually changing their

offers. that is what they have asked for. it would be available to the public if it passes for 60 days before the president signs it. most democrats argued that is too late. they can't make any changes to it. that is what the explanation of the trading partners has been. they do expect some level of confidentiality in these negotiations. host: what's been the role of nancy pelosi? guest: the minority leader in the house has basically made sure that the white house and her members have an open channel with each other. they have talked to the white house. a lot of officials have come up to capitol hill. yesterday there was a big flurry of activity with jack lew on the

hill. the chief of staff of the president was there. you guys can come up and sell the trade deal. you can let democrats decide based on merit how they will vote down the road. she has left the door open and said you guys can come up. and talk to everyone and i will let the members decide. she has not taken a position yet. they will go through the process and make up their own minds. host: john boehner has been whipping their members to vote for this? guest: yes. in fact, paul ryan, one of the co-authors with orrin hatch who is the finance chairman in the sentence -- senate, paul ryan

has taken a very aggressive role with several of his ways and means committee. they have held lots of trade meetings lately with republicans to answer questions and a very good number of republicans have shown up for those meetings, including the ones who are skeptical and are not sure and have not voted for trade in the past. they have taken a very aggressive stance. they are making sure that members are educated and they understand what is in the partnership and answer any overall trade questions. never seven very complimentary of those efforts. they say it has helped them review what's in all of the bills. trade is very complex. it's a very open process on that site as well. host: the first vote this

morning, what should we watch for? guest: that's a great question. it's going to be the trade adjustment assistance first. that bill needs to pass in order for the promotional authority to come up. there are a lot of democrats including sandy levin, who has said he will oppose it. a lot of liberal democrats have come out against it see it as stopping it as a top priority for them. it's not working as well as getting votes. it has worked in the past. it has to move along with tpa. we are going to be watching how many democrats vote for it and a

vote against it. we have heard this difference. some people will vote for caa and it not tpa. -- taa and not tpa. there are certain people coming in and helping not. there was more optimism on the side of those who wanted it passed. republicans don't like it, but they may need a few more votes in order to ensure that tpa gets a vote today. host: that you need him, thank you for your -- vicki needham thank you for your time at. we want to hear from you you now. do you support the concept of free trade? you support these free trade agreements? if you are opposed, there is a number for you to call. we are going to begin with the opposed line. this is lydia in maryland, the

suburbs of washington. caller: good morning. i oppose. i oppose. i oppose. i have called all of my representatives two or three times. i was not to -- able to get in touch with senator cardin. i said that i would actively campaign against them. this is the same thing we've heard with every trade agreement. millions of jobs are going to be created and we have lost millions of jobs. everybody can't work at walmart and mcdonald's. i am opposed. the last straw was when the house voted to overturn it. i do want anything i eat coming from china. if we have a case of mad cow, we

can trace that back to the farm where it was raised. if we have an outbreak and we don't know the origin of the beef, how will you be able to trace it? any democrats that boasts -- a vote for this should be thrown out of office. president obama has sided with the republicans on this and i am mad at him today. host: robert, you are on. caller: thank you. i am for trade, but i am opposed to this. the wto ruled that it is unfair to mexico and canada if americans know the engine -- origin of their food. whenever a one world government, the wto, can tell the people it

is unfair for them to know the source of their food they death expect people to lose their jobs so they will put the american taxpayer there with $400 million to pay for people losing their jobs for trade when they talk about exports. its imports that are coming in. it's a for sure sign. conservatives talk about supporting the flag. they support this country and yet they will let a foreign tribunal tell the american people that they can't even know the source of their food. this thing is lining up and the congressman from arkansas congressman crawford has pushed this from day one. you can actually see the lines

when just a few people are allowed to write these bills. it's got to be a secret to everyone else. you can see how the world starts growing smaller and who really is running it and they control our congressmen and senators. i hope the american people will wake up and get a grip and vote against taa tpa tpp. we should get back country of origin labeling. host: wilbur is in st. petersburg, florida. caller: good morning. i am a first-time caller and i want to say thank you. i support the president and the effort by the republican house leadership to support this agreement. i think we should give the president a chance to work his agenda.

he has carried us for seven years in a positive direction. i think we need to have faith in the president. if it does not work out, we can adjust the policy. i think he should get the initial support to work the agenda. i believe in bipartisanship. here we have bipartisanship between a fraction lysed congress. -- fraction lalised congress. host: do you support this because you support the president? caller: i believe in free trade. i am surprised the congress is supporting the president. i think we need to come together and work together. host: curtis is in maryland. you are on "the washington journal." caller: good morning. i am completely against both

measures. every time we have done free trade agreements of this kind, we have lost a lot of american jobs. that will probably happen again. i don't think there is any doubt of it. to not know the source of food, how can we possibly support this? we are committed to information being out there and a free press and doing the right thing. the bill itself can be billed -- read, but no information can be taken from it. who is gaining what from this? to do this at the expense of the american taxpayer and the american citizen shows there is something afoot. there is a game and we need to stop this now so that we are not put it risk. that's what i would like to say. thank you very much.

host: pacific trade deal is a hard sell for obama. when you get into this article if the vote goes the presidents wake, they will within weeks seal the biggest trade pact in a generation. it will represent 40% of the global economy.

host: the next call comes from mark in west virginia. mark, you support free trade and this measure that is being debated in congress?

caller: that's not correct. i support free trade. i'd fl do not support this bill. -- i do not support this bill. host: where do you draw the line? caller: republicans have fought obama on every single thing that he has ever tried to promote and now they are for this ought to be a big red flag that there is something wrong with this. second of all, there is no doubt it's going to cost jobs. the tribunal thing, if we get another bad batch and it kills people from some foreign country, this won't be decided in a court. it will be a corporate tribunal

read by a bunch of corporate lawyers -- run by a bunch of corporate lawyers. that should be a reason to not before the bill. that one thing alone. it should be a strong enough reason not to be for the bill. host: this is a mark in north carolina. good morning. caller: i am nervous. the gentleman just stole my thunder. i am completely against this bill. he explained it right. i've got a word for rene elmers. i will be campaigning against her if she votes for it. they just gave me the runaround when i called.

i said the one they are voting on that will tie their hands. you're not going to like it. you won't be able to do anything about it because it's all bound and sealed. if the republicans passed this, i don't think i will vote republican again. host: what is the economy of henderson based on and how would you describe it today? caller: the income i make, it's rather decent. there's not much around henderson. the housing is all dilapidated. i've lost over $30,000 in equity. there are no jobs and you can't find them. in order to get jobs, you have to drive 40 miles into raleigh

or go across the border into south carolina and hope you can find a job. i'm lucky that i am employed. as far as free trade, he is completely wrong. the job that i do, i deliver to places and i am a truck driver. all of my freight to slow down. i've got to drive hundreds of miles just to get a load of. this free-trade -- also from finding out what's in it, there is immigration and it. there is global warming in it. it's another shell game that congress is playing with the american people. host: mark mentioned his representative rene elmers from north carolina. according to the newspaper with list, she is on the yes or leaning yes list.

dave, what do you think about all this? caller: i am in favor. i think the article that you mentioned earlier -- this has nothing to do with a free trade agreement. it's all over the world. the bottom line is that are barriers to import in the united states are going to create barriers overseas and make our country more competitive. it's going to make our export factor better. it's going to create some jobs in manufacturing.

without this agreement we will be less competitive than lose more jobs. i think the people who are against it are influenced by the trade deficits. host: what do you do for a living? caller: i am an economist. the one thing that the countries that we have free trade meant -- agreements with, those who are concerned about deficits and jobs, these are not part of the problem. they lower barriers overseas and they make the country more competitive. that is the bottom line. host: back to this article in "the financial times."

the number of people employed in health and education services have tripled from 6.7 million to 22 million. in the 14 years since china joined the world trade organization 5'1" millio million jobs a been created in the united states, 50% more than the 3.4 million lost in manufacturing in the same time.

host: now this article also has some charts that we want to show you very quickly. talking about u.s. furniture the u.s. furniture industry which has been hit by imports. you can see in 2000 that it peaked at 700,000 employees. it is down to about 350 and it looks like it's taken a little bit of a turn up in the last five or six years. the health and education services, you can see the employment in health and education has risen dramatically since 1940. u.s. manufacturing, this is the peak in 1979 and then a steep drop in the early 2000's and a

little bit of an upturned here again. that is in the financial times in case you are interested in seeing this for yourself. john boehner spoke about the trade agreement. >> we have addressed all of the substantive and procedural concerns that she has raised. i am hopeful that democrats will do their part in helping to get this in the next day and a half. host: this is the inside page, the article in "the washington times." gina is in hoover, alabama. they are referring to the house passing preferences for haiti and african countries. those were the two trade bills that they passed yesterday. the big votes are today.

gina is in alabama. thanks. caller: jeff sessions, he has articles that he has written exactly what is in this bill. they say he may be in trouble legally for telling the american people what's in this bill. we are turning over our sovereignty to the global commission that will have authority over our laws and will take away our sovereignty as a nation to decide about how many visa workers we have, like what happened at his knee. 250 americans lost their job so they can have foreign visa holders and pay them less. this is what we are running into and what is not eating stopped. you have foreign workers coming in and the united nation has a program to big more foreign workers here.

this is not in the american people's interest. i don't know what the republican party is doing. there is no difference between the democrats and the republicans. they are out for their own pockets. whoever is willing to pay them, support their election, that's who they vote for. not us. thank you for letting me speak today. host: chris is in florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. please give me a minute or so to get this out. dave was absolutely right. you hit it exactly. a lot of this is a motion. this is like deja vu all over again when they passed nafta. canada and mexico were the two biggest consumers of american products in the world.

we had a huge trade surplus with mexico and we still do. mexico is charge enough a sum to sell her products over there. we already practice free trade. they just don't practice it with us. if we can get them to abolish their import taxes like we are a much do, it would be a great deal for us. those other countries are charging us a pretty good some. mexico is charging three times that we were charging them and they were willing to go to zero. they are buying a lot more of our stuff and that was a sweet deal for us. a lot of this is a motion. when you look at the facts, free trade is a good deal for us. we already practice it. we allow people to sell stuff in our country for very little cost to them.

they charge us a lot. we would only be winning. free trade, we already practice. they just don't. this is a great deal for us. whether or not jobs or lost after it happens has nothing to do with the -- we never charged anybody a hefty sum to go manufacture something in mexico and bring it back before free trade. the only difference afterwards is they were not charging us a lot. that's it. host: chris, what do you do? caller: i am a hairstylist. host: why you care about trade? caller: it's good for the economy people --. if people are doing it better, they can afford my services. host: stephen lynch is a democrat from massachusetts.

during the debate on the some of these issues yesterday, he spoke about the trade agreement. >> the problem with our trade policy is its negotiated in secret by multinational corporations who are hiring foreign labor and move jobs overseas and that export the products back into the united states. if you look at some of the minimum wages in the countries we are dealing with, malaysia and vietnam, it's less than one dollar per hour. they maintain those low wages so they can attract business. it's a race to the bottom. host: dean is in arizona. what do you think about free trade agreement and this tpa tpa that's been voted on today? caller: i was watching it yesterday.

i oppose it altogether. the money being used -- i oppose the mall. the money being used to give assistance after jobs are lost that's $700 million coming out of medicare. $700 million. it will be paid back, even if we get the money back it will he paid act. it will go for elections. canada and mexico have 1 been -- we have country of origin labeling and they did not like it. the wto has gotten rid of it. i do want to know where my food comes from. i have heard that walmart is receiving meetat from china that

has donkey and fox meet in it. host: where did you read that? caller: i heard that on tv, it was somebody talking in congress about it. host: are you going to be watching this morning? caller: i am going to be watching. we are going to lose jobs. 35% of our produce is brought in from other countries. we won it checked. -- want it checked. only 1% of the fish is checked. in vietnam, they grow to lobby a in sewers and throwing a bunch of antibiotics and shipped. i don't trust at all. i want labeling on it.

they say the meat coming in, a lot of it has been checked, just 3%. that had to be sent back because it was not up to our standards. host: did you retire in arizona? caller: my husband died a few years ago. that $700 million means a lot. that's why i've been watching congress wanting to cut medicare. that's why. host: happy birthday to george h w bush. today is his 91st birthday and he will be celebrating at the kennebunkport home. amy grant, michael smith, reba mcentire serenaded barbara bush on monday. it was her 90th birthday. the democrats snagged the series

lead in the congressional baseball game. the democrats won the game. you can see the president. the final score was 5-2. cedric richmond used to play in college. he was the star for the democrats. linda sanchez also hit. she was the only woman who played. she had a single. it was the first pitch that she took. there is the president visiting nationals park. these are some of the characters to do a foot race every home game. those are former presidents. you can see washington jefferson, howard taft there's

teddy roosevelt and abraham lincoln. every home game, these guys race and it's one of those homegrown traditions. there is the president with all of the former presidents. steve is in washington. what do you think about the trade deal that his band debated and -- been debated and voted on. caller: only five page of this has to do with free trade. larry gilmore plans on voting in support of this. -- derek kilmer is going to vote for it. i told my union brothers and sisters to give him a call and tell him that if he votes for this, we won't vote for him. can you actually give us the rundown on how many people called in favor and who opposed?

i know you keep track. that article seems way off-line. host: which article? the percentage of the people that support free trade? caller: i think that's wrong. i think people know this for the garbage it is. the democrats and republicans are the same anymore. we need new blood. go, bernie sanders. host: kathy is in michigan. hi, kathy. caller: i can tell you a story. in 1994 when nafta was passed, i was working with a woman whose mother-in-law worked at a small factory in northern michigan. she lost her job in the factory closed. she was mandated by her employer to travel to mexico and train

workers that would be building the products that she built along with the other workers in the factory. that's a said story. -- sad story. i think we all know we need to trade. i know i have good items in my home that are from other countries. i have a jar of mustard from germany. it's a safe product. i've got a beautiful rug from belgium. it's a nice rug. what i don't like is, i was shopping for close for my son and everything particularly clothing that is cheaply made over seas. the thread count is not there. it's the flimsiest.

i can't begin to spend money on it. we used to make a lot in this country. some things were imported, some high-end issues. now all of our shoes are made in china and practically made out of cardboard. you have to pay an arm and a leg to buy a good pair of shoes. we used to manufacture a lot with cotton. you can't find a set of sheets hardly that is manufactured here , it's manufactured in china. it's not just the manufacturing it's the cheapness of the product and it doesn't last. i couldn't open a can of tuna. i had to buy a new can opener. i had to spend $10 for a can opener. he used to be able to get that in a box of laundry soap.

there were little promotional things in the 60's. we can't even manufacture a can opener in this country anymore. host: we're going to leave it there. there are some who have called and said we have a surplus with mexico. in 2015 so far, we have a negative balance. we have exported -- you can see some stats. in april, we exported 20 billion -- $20 billion worth of goods and imported $24 billion. that was a $4 billion deficit. so far this year, a $17 billion trade deficit while our exports are $77 billion, our imports are $94 billion. this is from the census bureau.

darrell was in detroit. caller: good morning, steve. i wanted to tackle a couple of issues. i am for any kind of trade agreement that increases u.s. exports to other countries. the concept is nonexistent. the only time there is free trade is when both trading partners and up with a zero trade deficit between them. the united states has been running a trade deficit since 1975. this year, the trade deficit will be half $1 trillion. that's where our jobs are going. the problem is not exports so much as it is imports. we have a for asia's appetite for -- voracious appetite for foreign goods.

the solution would be a 10% revenue tariff on imported goods regardless of country or product. i know that's heresy, something has to keep this money from going out of our country. that is where the jobs are going. host: what is the industry you work in? caller: i used to work in the car industry. i am talking about the net trade industry between all of the countries. it's $500 billion a year. it's been going on since 1975. that's why i think we should tax them all that come in it. host: their own we are going to leave it there. the price of reading hillary clinton's e-mails, 12 employees are working full time on reading

her e-mails. she is making a speech and another announcement for president. c-span will be live tomorrow at 11:00 from your city. this is her campaign kickoff. we will be covering that live at 11:00. mcconnell moves to end debate on the defense bill. his move came after he and harry reid engaged in a back-and-forth on getting a deal on a separate amendment. the amendment includes the cyber security information sharing act. the kentucky republican offered to remove it and have the senate taken up after finishing the defense bill. harry reid shot down that offer calling it a facade. a little bit of back-and-forth. the senate is not in session today. they will be back on that next

week. finally, neutrality rules take effect today. the new federal rules for net neutrality will be allowed to take effect on friday. the u.s. court of appeals ruled. the court denied a request for a stay that would up with the rules on hold until a broader court battle was settled. they will expedite the case. darin is in pennsylvania. what do you think about this issue of trade and what we do with it? caller: i don't like the way to these corporations can sue the country and take us to a tribunal and suis -- sue us.

if they don't get what they put on paper and they don't yet -- get what they think they should get, they are going to sue us. they are going to take it out of everything it, education, social security medicare, all kinds of services that we are supposed to get. that's really the meat of it right there. we're letting these corporations take over our laws. host: thank you very much. we mentioned hillary clinton and her campaign kickoff in new york. next week, to more announcements.

jeb bush will announce on monday. that will be live on the c-span networks. donald trump, tuesday at 11:00. that will be live as well on www.c-span.org. both of those you will see played in their entirety. see played in their entirety. sheila is in massachusetts. you get the last word this segment. caller: there are some things that bother me about this agreement. they are stealing from medicaid to pay for the job losses. the idea of not knowing where our food is coming from because of the country of origin labels being dismissed, i think that's absolutely appalling. i don't want to world trade organization messing around with our domestic laws like immigration, climate change, and all of those things involved.

republicans are going to pay very dearly for this decision to support barack obama and this terrible tpp and tpa. thank you. have a great day. host: we've got to members of congress coming up in just a minute. kevin yoder will be out here. after that, barbara lee of california. we'll be right back. >> book tv will cover book festivals around the country and top non-fiction authors and books. watch for the roosevelt reading festival from the presidential library.

in july, we are live at the harlem book fair. we will have author interviews and panel discussions. we are live from the nation's capital for the national festival, celebrating its 15th year. those are a few of our events this summer on c-span's book tv. >> on road to the white house more presidential hopefuls will announce their candidacy. former secretary of state hillary clinton will c kickoff her campaign live from the park in new york city. on monday afternoon on c-span3 we are live for jeb bush, he will announce his candidacy. on tuesday, donald trump announces whether or not he will make a bid for the presidency at trump tower. you can watch all of these

events online any time at c-span.org. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every member plus high graphical and contact information. there are district maps and a fold out of capitol hill and look at congressional committees, the cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it's $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the online store at c-span.org. host: now on your screen is kevin yoder from kansas. according to the newspaper with list, you are still undecided on trade. guest: i'm not sure who they are

talking to, i am a supporter of the american trade agreement. i think this is good for our country, great wage and job opportunity and it's a bipartisan agreement. it will promote the economic growth we need to open up my state. i think you will see the kansas delegation supported it. host: can you give us a specific example of how this would benefit kansas city or overland park? guest: kansas is a very big agriculture state. we have a lot of businesses from sprint and other important companies that hire a lot of people. we have a lot of agriculture business. we have an area that has lot of manufacturers in wyandotte

county. most of those companies that hire lots of people need to sell goods overseas and they need access to asian markets. unless they are going to move headquarters over there, they need us to have trade agreements that allow them to sell products to these asian purchasers. 95% of the world's consumers live outside of the united states. opening up those trade markets could hurt industries in the united states, i think that's a backwards way of looking at how we grow the economy. we are in a global economy. country -- companies in my district, we have $6 million in kansas exports. farmers depend on these open markets to sell grain and meet. at.

they depend on selling meat and grain to create jobs in our community. host: during our first segment a lot of colors brought up this court -- country of origin issue. what is your position? guest: this past the house and was signed into law 13 years ago. the idea was it would provide more information for people to know what they are purchasing. there is a study that kansas state university did that stated that even though the information was there, there was no impact on consumer purchasing decisions. that does not mean we should get rid of it, but then we get into an organism -- problem with the world trade organization. we are in violation of our trade agreements. canada and mexico are entitled

to penalties, billions of dollars. they are going to retaliate with tariffs against american goods. they might have a slowdown in their exports. there are a lot of livestock companies, farmers and ranchers on borders that have cattle from canada and the united states. the law was overly burdensome on them because they would have to segregate the animals. any meat that comes into the united states is inspected. no matter where it's from, it has to meet the same standards. billions of dollars was spent to segregate and label and that drives up the cost of meet at the grocery store. we wonder why food is so expensive, it's government

regulation and taxes. we don't want to pay penalties to the world trade organization. it had 300 votes, a strong i partisan vote. the secretary of agriculture has made it clear this is something that needs to be fixed. host: did you supported? -- supported? -- support it? guest: we are working through that right now. i am going over this morning to the skiff, a secured facility where you can read the content. i will be going over that this morning line by line to make sure of everything that's in it. it's important to know all of the components for voting on tpa.

the fast track will give the president a chance to negotiate tpp along with other trade agreements. we want to know all that is in that. i support the idea of giving the president the authority to negotiate a trade agreement. there is really no other way to do that. it's hard to figure out how we are going to open up those markets. i will be there in about an hour. host: what do you think of the fact that members have to read this in secret? guest: i am not a fan of that at all. it requires the president to put online and provide the tpp before congress votes on it. there will be no in from the public and the president could -- the public as 60 days before

it is voted on. if it does not fulfill the principles we laid down and the restrictions we are putting on the president or we believe it's not good for our districts or the manufacturers who want to hire people, then we can reject this. that is one of the bright spots where it it gives us the transparency on the tpa that we don't have right now. host: we are going to the numbers up if you want to participate in our discussion. we are divided by political affiliation. before we go to the calls, it's been a busy week in congress. one of the things that you did was past the transportation bill. guest: we did. we passed the legislation that provides funding for the

department of transportation and hud and lays at the expenditures , housing for many americans and rail safety. i have some specific provisions in their that creates a short line safety institute. we have safety institute for the larger railroads, we don't have one for the short lines and they carry a lot of the freight in this country. we are working to advance that. we need to make sure that we are balancing the budget and living within our means. we need to do everything we can within the budget and grow the economy by investing in long-term transportation. host: amtrak funding was cut. guest: i think amtrak is a divisive issue in congress. it loses money. it's not economically feasible.

a lot of people would like to see it he a private entity that could survive on its own. i think you are seeing some members of congress look at ways to cut back some of the waste and amtrak is one of those ways. the devil is in the details. there is a reason not to cut everything. we've got to make tough choices and i think amtrak is one of those areas that is bloated and inefficient and needs reform. host: julian castro testified in front of you. i want to get your reaction to what he had to say. >> if this becomes law, it will injure our ability to meet the needs out there. as i mentioned earlier, we only service people who qualify for hud services.

we had a group of individuals to discuss private/public partnerships. it was very clear in that testimony whether it was the public, the nonprofit sector that said if hud does not do these things, who else is going to do them? there is no private market to serve people who are extremely low income and those of the majority of the people that we service. guest: i think partnerships are a great i think public-private partnerships are great way to alleviate the pressures that taxpayers face. and utilize entities -- many times the government is not the best tool to solve these problems. there is a way to work with

private builders and developers to provide housing in a way that can be done in a more cost effective manner. our housing legislation, i have housing in my district and a lot of folks below the poverty line that do not have any options. we want to work toward economic growth and opportunity to give these people the mobility they have to get out and provide for their own. not everybody can do it. some people have mental disabilities. some people have physical disabilities -- disabilities. the housing that we passed increases housing for the elderly.

a lot of us thought it was a reasonable bill. host: kevin yoder is our guest. the first call up for him comes from sunny in louisiana. caller: good morning. i would like to ask the representative a couple of questions. why did they agree to withhold $700 million from our medicare tax money to pay for jobs that they know we are going to lose in this agreement? why pick on medicare? because they want to break it, that is why. the republicans have never been for anything to help the working man. why president obama is going along with them on this, i have no idea.

i do know that they will all be voted against if they vote for this bill. guest: sonny, i appreciate the question. first of all, i have a 103-year-old grandmother who has been on medicare for a long time. she will be 104 later this month. there are a lot of people who are not working i do not have employer-based care. medicare is something that is important to maintain and protect and strengthen. one of the things we should work together on is how we come up with long-term solutions to make sure the medicare is there. i have an 18-month-old daughter. wanting to make sure we have a system that is there for her. a lot of young people believe that medicare will not survive the next generation regardless of the changes congress may make to it.

we have 10,000 seniors that retire every day in this country the amount of people receiving medicare benefits is growing at a greater rate than people paying into the system because we do not have many jobs being created. i hope this is a system where we can work together and strengthen medicare long-term and not make it into an issue of republican versus democrat. as far as the transportation bill, i believe that is something that came out of the senate. i don't think that is going to be in the house version of the bill. the medicare reduction. i tend to agree with you. a lot in terms of linking the two and cutting that, one of the challenges i have -- i am still relatively new in the process and there are a lot of budgetary gimmicks that are played in order to make something balance or pay for something. the reality is that we want to

strengthen medicare and we have to work together to do that. we want to make sure that is there for you and other seniors in the country that depend on it. host: randy in clearwater florida. independent line. caller: good morning. hi there, representative. my representative is mr. jolly. anyway. guest: good man. caller: the trade agreement. it is free trade and it is supposed to be fair trade. i can't believe that the house and the senate are not allowed

to have amendments to make. you know, it is equal -- you know, all of these big business people behind the scenes -- you know, it is very secretive. could you comment on that? i had other things to say. host: we will leave it there. thank you for calling in. guest: thanks for the question. what we are working on right now and what the house will be debating is the trade promotion authority and the question before us is should we allow the president to go and negotiate trade agreements. when you have so many countries involved in the negotiation of an agreement, you can imagine how difficult it would be if each agreement could go back to every legislative body in

everyone of these countries and be amended or tweet or touched. when someone makes an amendment it has to go back through all other countries. if we are serious about opening up market and realistic about the idea that 95% of the world's consumers live outside the united states and we cannot grow our economy if we only sell to ourselves, then we have to be willing to allow our president to go out and negotiate trade deals, whether we support them when they are finished or not is another question. that is the content of the transpacific partnership that has yet to be written a negotiated. there are proposals we are reading through. that is not a completed deal yet. i think you are right in that we would love to be able to amend it. we would love to debate it. practically, it is hard to see

how we could do that and have an agreement ever written. in terms of who the agreement affects, you mentioned big businesses. certainly, that is a concern that has been raised. most concerns here are from small or medium-sized businesses that do not have an overseas company that can produce there. a big business can set up a new manufacturing plant in asia. a small business needs our help to open up markets to sell goods overseas and they do not have the luxury to be able to produce goods over there. those are the folks i am thinking about. how do we open up future sales for small or medium-sized businesses so they can create our jobs and grow our economy? one in five jobs created in the united states are tied to trade and they pay higher wages. this is about growing our economy.

it needs to be a smart trade agreement. it needs to be an american trade agreement. we have republicans and democrats, including president obama, who are all going to have to be part of this deal. the president is going to have to negotiated and the house and senate are going to have to decide whether they supported once he is done negotiating. i think it is a good balance and all voices will be represented at the table. host: essex junction, vermont. democrat. good morning. caller: hi, congressman. i do believe that we are going to get more jobs out of this. the unfortunate side is that all of the manufacturing jobs that were good paying are lost and that is why it looks like the import jobs pay more. because the base of pay in the

united states is so low now. the other thing i would like to say is that we probably should get rid of the fta, the epa, all of the departments that govern us -- because, like you said you are bowing to the world trade organization, who is not elected. i did not get to vote. who are these people that think they are going to dictate to me and my country? you know? if i don't want monsanto sprayed on my crops and i want organic, like vermont has voted you are giving away our sovereignty -- all of you congressmen are giving away america to these new corporate governments -- i guess it is --

you are not elected by us. i would appreciate you commenting on our sovereignty. guest: i appreciate the question and i hope things are well in vermont this morning. you touched on a couple of different areas and you mentioned the epa and the fda and other entities. many of us are very frustrated in the amount of regulations and the weight of those regulations that are coming out. i am a voice for my constituents on these issues. your representative does not get a chance to weigh in on these. these come down upon average americans like a ton of bricks. one of the counties that i represent in kansas city, they

are facing an epa regulation that will increase the cost of their electricity by over $250 million over the next couple years. that is a 20% rate hit for every family in that district. if that is not a hidden tax if that is not giving up the freedom of those people to choose for themselves, they are paying a 20% rate hit. many of these families are below the poverty line, working families -- the last thing they need is a 20% increase on the electric bill. that is what the epa decided. congress did not vote on it. the cost of doing business and the cost of living in this country has dramatically gone up because of the regulatory burdens of the federal government.

i am concerned about trickle-down government. the cost and the weight of all the taxes coming out of washington, many of things none of us have a voice on because they come out of the executive administration, all of those things and up hurting working families the most. working families are the ones who pay for the burdens of government. the tax on medical equipment is not going to be paid by seniors and others who are working families -- the issue with the wto is that we when -- when we enter into agreements with countries, fair trade or free trade agreement, that there has to be some way to arbitrate if you're violating the terms of that agreement. it is a good point. we just have to figure out a better way to make sure our rights are represented in these agreements.

when we violate one of the terms of those, there is an organization that assesses penalties. whether we have to pay or respond to those is a good point. we are a sovereign nation. host: the president has threatened to veto the transportation and housing bill the house passed. he has put forward a proposal to put section eight or diversify housing in wealthy neighborhoods. what is your reaction? guest: i have not looked at that specific proposal. we are certainly open to modifying or modernizing our housing process. the idea of moving everybody into one area is not necessarily good. a lot of times, they do not necessarily have aspects -- access to transportation. i have communities in my area with food deserts -- they do not

have easy access to food. i was stunned by that reality. people don't have basic access to food. we want to make sure people have access to food, basic services health care. sometimes we have seen the sectioning of these folks out of sight and it makes it even harder on them. how are you going to get to work or get to a job and get economically growing? with the veto threat, we are going to work through 12 separate appropriations bills in the house. we are working through balancing the federal budget. while balancing it, we have the needs of our districts. that is a tough job. i hope the president will take a look again at some of these bills. we want to keep the lights on and the government moving forward in an effective and efficient manner.

the folks who are calling in expect us to use the money wisely and work hard. in washington, they call it cutting spending when you receive less of an increase than you expected. when the president wants to increase the budget 7% or 8%, we will only increase it 4% and they will call it a cut. the budget that we passed which was decried by many as heartless and too cold and cuts too much still grows government by over 3% per year. a lot of americans have not seen their paychecks grow by 3% per year. i don't think people are feeling it back home. when we look at threats from the president to veto legislation because we are not spending enough, the american people think we spend enough in washington dc and would rather see us reprioritize dollars. host: our next guest, barbara

lee, a democrat of california, had an amendment put in the defense appropriations bill saying that congress should debate an authorization for the use of military force. do you agree or disagree with congress debating that? guest: i disagree with her amendment for technical reasons but i do agree with the principle that congress should be debating an authorization of military force. we should lay out what we think the president should be authorized to do, in terms of defeating isis and protecting the homeland. we are to be able to have the authority to utilize the strength of the american military to eradicate the threat i think if we are to engage in that debate, it is good for everyone in the house and senate to be a part of that.

a lot of americans do not know what our mission is right now. earlier this week, the president said that we really have not come up with a cohesive strategy yet. i think that sends the wrong signal to americans. it also gives aid and comfort to our enemies, when we are telling them that there is not a plan. the president needs to lay out specifically what he would like to do, his mission, his plan and then congress but to work with him to make sure he has the authority to do that. host: john, thanks for being patient in virginia on a republican line. caller: when you set down this morning, representative yoder you said that the only way that we could quickly pass a trade

agreement is through the passage of the tpa. there is a process in place that is in the constitution, the president can ratify or sign a treaty, it needs to be ratified by two thirds of the congress, the tpa drops that down to 50 votes in the senate -- even below the super majority. i don't even know that is constitutional. how we can pass a bill that supersedes the constitution engaging us in treaties. i would like to hear your perspective. i don't understand how we can do this -- you can look at some of the agreements that we have here and some of the things we have coming down the pipeline and how you cannot see that this is obviously just to pass the three parts of the tpp -- do you agree with those three parts that are coming down the pipeline? obviously, the tpa is going to set it up so those things fly right through congress.

your vote of tpa is a straight up vote for tpp. there is no way around that. host: i think we got the point. kevin yoder. guest: i appreciate the question. the president has the authority to go out and negotiate a trade deal. the senate could amend it. the president could go back in the senate could amend it again and it makes it difficult to sign a trade agreement if we don't give any president -- republican or democrat -- the authority to negotiate that agreement with parameters. we have 150 different parameters that we are putting around the president's negotiations. one of those is making sure that it is available and viewable by the public for 60 days. i think the issue of is this a direct vote on tpp? i don't think so.

i think we are going to have a separate vote on that. we can reject it. we gave the authority to turn off the tpa authority at any time -- if the house votes to do so. there are a lot more parameters, this is the most restrictive trade promotion authority that a president has received, that i am aware of, in our history. it is trying to find that right balance to make sure all of our voices are represented when the president is negotiating a trade deal, while at the same -- by putting a lot of restrictions in place to make sure it is consistent with our trade expectations in the tpp. but also giving the president the authority to go do that. then we will come back and decide up or down and have a debate across the country and my district will certainly weigh in . we have given trade promotion authority for every president over the last 50 years and now people think this president should not receive that authority.

i believe we need to make sure that we have a deal that promotes american interests first. i am looking forward to having a chance to debate and discuss that. i do believe that if we don't work on finding opening export opportunities for companies and manufacturers and agriculture producers livestock and farmers in kansas and virginia and other state, it will be to their detriment. we want to sell grain, we want to sell meat. i think it would be for less from an economic standpoint and a strategic standpoint to allow china and some of our other big players in asia to get these agreements done first and cut us out. that can be very detrimental to american manufacturers and producers. host: this tweet from @radi caltaoist.

have you read the agreement in the underground bunker? guest: i will be in this so-called bunker poring over it line by line. we will be voting later today on the tpa. as i mentioned earlier on the call on the show, i don't think those agreements ought to be in a bunker -- they are to be out in the open. whether you are against tpa or not, that is one of the brightest spots of the tpa. it makes sure these trade agreements are posted online and available to the public for over 60 days before congress even takes them up, so that everyone has a chance to see them. there is a tendency to rush something through in this town before the public has had a chance to digest it. i want to make sure that when the tpp comes forward, that everyone has a chance to debate it comes the public is aware, and it gets an up or down vote.

host: why did you all lose the baseball game? guest: i am on the baseball team. every year, the republicans and democrats get in their baseball uniforms representing their home state. i was in a kansas jayhawks uniform, representing my alma mater. we play a baseball game and national stadium for charity. we raise money for boys and lots of other charities. the republicans, sadly, the good guys, they lost the seventh game in a row. there may be some applause and cheering across the country from folks on the other side, but seven losses in a row. last night, was a really good game. 5-2, democrats won. host: were you surprised to see the president show up? guest: i was.

this is my fifth year in congress and i had not seen him come. the president did show up at the time when we had two runners on and no outs and the game had to be paused. i'm wondering that was a little bit of an effort to throw us off our momentum. we will have to do a congressional investigation on that issue. host: happy birthday to mrs. yoder. guest: that's right. my wife. happy birthday to her. we will be down in the bunker later reading the tpp. host: kevin yoder, republican from kansas. thank you very much. we will continue our conversation with members of congress. barbara lee from california is next. ♪

>> here are some of our featured programs this weekend. on booktv, fox news contributor kiersten powers says that although they were once its champions, liberals are now against free speech. former deputy director of the cia on the successes and failures of the agency's war on terror. on american history tv, saturday night at 9:15, author kevin mcmahon on the strategy behind president nixon's supreme court appointments and the impact he had on the court and american politics. sunday night at 6:00, we visit the national museum of american history.

get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> mary todd lincoln was known to be well-educated and bright. she spoke several languages fluently and had a strong interest in politics and took an active role in her career. she suffered a series of emotional challenges. three of her four children died and her husband was assassinated while sitting next to her at the theater. mary todd lincoln on "first ladies." from martha washington to michelle obama, sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> " washington journal" continues. host: barbara lee, democrat california.

some big votes today. you are listed as a no. guest: absolutely. i am part of the wit team to try to -- whip team to try to bring enough no votes to win. we have to defeat this to win. i come from oakland california. our economy really depends a lot on trade. i support fair and free trade. it has to be transparent. it has got to create jobs in america. this trade bill, in no way am i convinced that it will create jobs. when i think about how other trade deals have diminished our economic growth and communities of color -- as a result of the u.s.-china trade deal, 30%-30 5%

of the jobs lost were from communities of color. the wages were about 10,000 -- $10,000 less on the new jobs that they found. i am not convinced that this deal will create jobs or economic growth. i'm concerned about the lack of transparency. many of the provisions will impact our ability to address climate change, food safety, human rights. i think we need to defeat it and go back to the drawing board and come up with a new trade deal that makes more sense for american workers. host: a lot of articles about the president and his lobbying efforts with the congressional black caucus. has it been pretty intense? guest: the president is doing what he needs to do. i think the president has been a phenomenal president". quite

naturally, he would call everyone in congress if he wanted this deal to pass. if you don't support the president on one or two or three issues, that does not mean that we do not support the president. i have seen how he has worked so hard. you look at the recovery act. i don't believe there were any republicans who voted for that. i don't believe there were any republicans who voted for the affordable care act. millions of people have been covered by that legislation. 95% of the time, i have been supportive of the president and i think that oftentimes, we just have disagreements. friends can disagree. host: have you read the

transpacific partnership agreement? guest: i have not. but i have seen the summary of it and i know where it is going and i know enough about it to say that we need to go back to the drawing board. our renting member has an alternative that makes a heck of a lot more sense. host: the first vote is going to be on trade adjustment. help for workers who may lose their job on trade. how will you vote on that? guest: i support trade adjustment. but this one is not broad enough.

it is estimated that 40% of gdp -- it is estimated that a huge amount of people would be affected. there is not enough in this trade bill to cover all these workers. the public-sector workers are excluded. i am not going to support it. host: barbara lee, something you have been active on is the authorization for the use of military force. you had an amendment in the defense appropriations bill that was included. what did that amendment say? is there broad support for it? guest: that amendment says it was we should have a debate in congress about this new war that we are and, as it relates to isis. that is so important. we have not authorized to use of force and we are not -- now in another war. we have a constitutional

responsibility to debate it and vote on it. i was very pleased that six republicans voted for it and we are going to move forward. i had amendments to the defense appropriations bill. those amendments would repeal the existing authorization and i voted against the 2001 authorization because it was so broad and set the stage -- for a perpetual war. the 2002 authorization, there were probably 133 members of voted against that. the president said the war and iraq was over and that was 2-3 years ago. we need to repeal those and we need to come up with a new strategy based on this new war. congress has the duty to debate and vote on the issues that we voted for. host: i want to get your reaction to nancy pelosi talking

about the authorization for the use of military force and iraq. [video clip] >> the president has the authority to do what he has done. i think the iraqis have to fight their own fight. they have to do an authorization for the use of military force. we have talked about that before. almost a year ago, we were asking the speaker to have a spring up a bill. they said, wait until september. september, not until january. he said, we will have to wait to see what the president sends down. the president sends down something for asked to act upon -- us to act upon -- change whatever you want in terms of scope, timeline, geography. those are three areas in terms of how force would be used there . host: i want to go to the point

where she said she thinks the president has the right to send the forces to iraq. guest: the president and administration are using their 2001 authorization. that was a blank check. [laughter] guest: it was a blank check. you can use any authorization unless you repeal that authorization in perpetuity? when the president asked for an authorization, it did not repeal the 2001 authorization. it was so broad that i could not support what the president put forward. it made a heck of a lot of sense to put for the resolution and for the speaker to bring the resolution up. we can amend it and do what we need to do to debate it. that has not even happened.

while there is debate about the legal authority, yes or no, this war is taking place. now we have an additional 500 troops going into this war zone. i think the american people are war weary. they want to see their members of congress talk about this, debate, explain what is taking place. we all recognize that isil should be degraded because they are a threat. we want a solution that will take care of this, not continue. military action is not the soloway this is going to be dealt with and the american people need to know what the alternatives are and why we are here in congress based on their voices. host: senior republican tom cole said he would reap -- support a debate on the authorization of military force. kevin yoder said he supports the concept of debating an

authorization for the use of military force. what do you think is the reason that it is not being brought to the house floor? guest: hard to say. we have been building bipartisan support for years. people should call their congress and should call the speaker. speaker boehner and the republicans are in the majority. it is up to the speaker to bring forward in authorization. otherwise, we are shirking our responsibility. host: let's hear from the callers. barbara lee is our guest. senior democratic whip on budget and negotiations committees. been in congress since 1998. john in new hampshire. democrats line. caller: yes, yes. good morning.

i love this show. barbara, i have a lot of concerns. we just passed a trade deal with colombia and south korea. and yet, we have seen that the trade deficit has not decreased. we don't do cars. we have nothing almost left to trade, except for natural gas and oil from canada to the united states. it just concerns me that we are not jumping up and down loudly trying to get some details on what this trade deal is going to do for us. the final benefits, the job losses, what we intend to do to ratify some of these issues and publicize that to the everyday american. that is all i have. guest: thank you very much.

i think people in our country are very concerned about the trade deal. they know what has happened. nothing in this trade deal to us it is different, but the major concerns about creating jobs in america those concerns should be taken more seriously and that is why we want to go back to the drawing board and come up with a trade deal that guarantees that we create jobs and economic growth. we want to make sure there are resources for retraining and rehiring. host: margaret is an independent in columbus, georgia. caller: hello, congressman barbara lee. i am margaret from columbus georgia. i am retired military and a disabled veteran.

apparently, i am not working at the present time. i am obviously disabled. my husband is retired and he cannot find a job. he was prior military. we are really concerned in georgia about this tpp and tpa. we would love to have you go into that bunker and look over the paperwork and really look it over and represent the american people. we really want jobs in this country. we want our economy to turn around. we are begging for this economy to turn around for all of the people, california, georgia, the whole united states. we need to get our factories running again. we need to have people manufacturing something. and then we will bargain with anybody in the world. we need jobs.

we need the people to get back to work. we cannot rely on service jobs and we cannot rely on medical jobs. that is what i was. that is what i was trained in the military to do. it is medical. i can always find a job. i cannot work now. host: i think we got your point. guest: thank you for your service. i am the daughter of a veteran. i really honor you and thank you for really still staying very focused on what is good for our country. you just made the case for why i do not support these trade deals that are before us right now and why we need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a trade deal that creates economic growth and jobs for americans. host: @boringfileclerk tweets that do you believe isis is a threat to the homeland? guest: our military officials have laid out the threats that

they see in terms of immediate versus long range. right now, we need to understand what needs to take place. it has got to be a comprehensive solution, in terms of not the military first in terms of inserting u.s. troops in combat in the region. long-term, our military officials say that there could be threats to this country, our country, but also lone ranger threats -- we have seen what has taken place. i think that our homeland, fbi, our administration has done a fine job in making sure they mitigate against these threats. the iraqis and people in the region need to fight this battle , but they need to come to a political settlement because that is the only way the region will become stabilized and that threats to the region and to the united states will be mitigated against. host: debbie, burlington, north

carolina. republican line. caller: good morning. representative lee i am a registered republican. i'm a conservative. isn't it amazing how there can be consensus and agreement between republicans and democrats? i am completely, 100% against this trade agreement. i am not a rocket scientist. one of the first things you had to do was passé bill to try to make sure that people here in america that are going to lose their jobs get assistance and retraining hello -- once again the american people are being sold out. thank you, have a blessed day -- let's protect the american sovereignty and to do something for our nation. thank you and have a blessed day. guest: thank you. there is some bipartisan opposition to the trade deal. i think you just made the case. oftentimes congress is seen as so bifurcated so full of

dissension can't come together, can't unify around the issue. on some issues, i think you see members from both sides of the aisle trying to come together on behalf of republicans. host: let's look ahead. 2016. have you endorsed? guest: i have not. but i think senator clinton is doing a phenomenal job addressing some of the issues that i am concerned about. i am the wit for the progressive congress -- whip for the progressive caucus. if you look at the issues the progressive caucus is addressing this voting rights, higher education, universal preschool -- i think senator clinton is doing a fine job. this primary is a primary. i think she is going to really pull it off.

i think we will be working with her to make sure that. but i have not formally endorsed. host: what about senator sanders? guest: senator sanders is a good friend and he up salute he needs to be doing what he is doing. he is raising these issues that may or may not be raised that are so important to the majority of americans and he is resonating, his message is resonating around the country. i think he is going to make for a stronger democratic nominee who will be able to address the big picture and will be inclusive, in terms of making sure that issues around poverty, income inequality, wage stagnation, corporate ceos, in terms of the gap between the rich and the poor and those who have been able to benefit from the recovery versus those who have not -- he is making the case in a very clear way and i think that is in fitting the entire country. host: if you would, give us a

snapshot of oakland's economy today. guest: oakland, first, it is a great city. the warriors are going to play once again in oakland on sunday. go warriors! it is a beautiful city. we are not unlike other cities. we have large rates of unemployment, yet we have young people moving to oakland, entrepreneurs creating new restaurants, creating green types of jobs, creating industries that encourage energy efficiency. we have people who need a lot of support recovering. formally incarcerated individuals, individuals who have recently got out of prison. we want to make sure they have education, job training, the jobs that they deserve once they have paid their price to society. we have a complex situation in oakland that i think is on the move.

it is not unlike any other city when you have people who have not had the benefits of this economy and this economic recovery. unfortunately, we have the federal and state budget cuts. education, health care, we have wonderful community clinics. we have a city that is on the rise. we also have to remember that we have pockets of poverty and we have many people who are unemployed and many people who deserve to be part of this recovery effort who have not yet been. i am working with our mayor to make sure that everyone is included in the economic recovery that is slowly taking place, but it is taking place in oakland. host: you mentioned the warriors but the warriors, the a's, and the raiders are all looking to move out of oakland. guest: yes, but the county officials are moving -- working

to keep them there. i don't want to see any of the team leave -- teams leave. our local and county officials know how to calibrate this and they are presenting proposals to hopefully get our teams. host: middleton is an owner west virginia. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a comment and comparison. the first thing i wanted to say about the trade with the other countries is like it is like turning a lot of kids loose in the candy store. my comparison is, let's take a population of the united states -- we are over 300 million right? let's make us a five gallon bucket and let's take vietnam. at the most, they might be a two gallon bucket. who is going to benefit the most ? the vietnamese will fill the

five gallon bucket up and we can only fill up a two gallon bucket. who is going to be the ones benefiting? united states or these other foreign countries? we are going to get the bad end of the deal anyway it goes and that is my comment. thank you very much. guest: we don't want corporations to shift jobs offshore. right now, they get many benefits for doing that. oftentimes, countries pay a pittance for their workers. labor standards are very poor environmental standards are very poor. any trade deal this country engages in and i support fair and free trade that creates economic growth and jobs, but i don't want to see other countries paying wages that are so low that companies see that

they can be more profitable by moving to other countries. that is part of the reason i am not supporting this trade deal. i think we have to create good paying jobs in america. we have to ensure that any country that goes offshore pays good wages and those countries ensure that international labor standards and waste standards and environmental standards are adhered to and we don't end up depressing wages at home by workers abroad making very low wages. host: can in lancaster, south carolina. caller: could you give me a little time? i have three comments to make. she touched on about the first trade agreement with president clinton. the black community, the people of color. i have to say the president obama, i voted for him the first

time. the second time, from the supreme court nominees not including a black man or black woman, and all of the immigration -- the immigration is killing the black community. i have a few friends that own their own businesses. they pay their taxes, they take their family on vacation, they can get no work. a nothing but hispanics. -- ain't nothing but hispanics. i cannot believe the overwhelming support he gets from the community. all he pushes his immigration reform. they are still coming, the borders are still wide open. the middle class, out of sight. i'm income of the rich, out of

sight, out of mind. i am tired of the lie, who is going to do the work? host: did you have a third issue you want to to introduce? caller: yes, sir. on the trade agreement, they want to know where our food comes from and the same bill does not label the food. my god. [indiscernible] the trade agreement -- it is going to drive down the pay and the companies are going to leave. host: thank you very much. trade, its effect on the african-american community immigration, its effect on the african-american community, and origin -- country of origin labeling. guest: i certainly think that people have a right to know where their food comes from. country of origin labeling is very important and i voted

against the bill that would repeal the country of origin labeling. secondly, we have to remember that this country was built on the backs of immigrants. in many ways, on slave labor. people were brought in chains through the middle passage and they built this country. we, as african-americans, have to remember that this is a country of immigrants. it is our country, but it is a country of immigrants and we have to support immigration reform. comprehensive immigration reform. we have to make sure the people who are in this country legally have the types of rejection don't have to live in the shadows, and get a job and do what they want to do and need to do, just as african-americans. we can't be pitted against each other. here we are in an immigrant country. creating jobs is what we have to

be about in terms of creating jobs for everyone and supporting economic growth. i don't think we can say that immigrants are taking away african-american jobs because we are continued -- going to continue to be divided if we do that. the real issue is the multinational corporations making mega-profits and they are not paying wages and not creating the types of jobs that should be created in our country. host: barbara is in brentwood california. you are on with congressman women -- congresswoman barbara lee. caller: good morning, barbara lee. this is barbara from -- i used to be in oakland. my first thing is i just wanted to let you know that i appreciate you very much for standing up for me in 2001. i wrote you one of those letters and asked you to speak for me

because i had no voice and you did that. that is what i have seen a view ever since you have been in office. you are always standing up for your people. you do not give in and go with the status quo and all of that kind of stuff. whatever is affecting minorities are other people in your community, you are a fighter lady. i would love to see you there. i know that you will fight for what is right. thank you. guest: thank you very much for those gracious comments. the people of my district are the people who keep me going and keep me inspired they are the most progressive constituency in the country, i would say. they are enlightened. i hope i continue to speak for

them and their really appreciate your comments. host: have you endorsed in thecalifornia senate race? guest: i have endorsed our attorney general and she will be a very effective senator. she is very interesting in terms of her overall agenda. it is white is important to have a criminal justice system that is fair and is just. she will bring that to the united states senate, as well as her concern and her work as it relates to the environment and climate change and economic growth and education. hopefully, she will be here in a couple years and we will be able to work with another great senator.

senator boxer is a friend and she has been phenomenal. i am sorry to see her go. she is such a great human being. she has been out there on so many issues. but she deserves to do what she wants to do next. pamela is white there -- right there waiting to do what is next. host: what was the pressure like when you voted against authorization of military force in 2001? guest: the pressure was very intense, but all of the threats, the ugly stuff i had to deal with -- it is nothing like what the family said to deal with who lost family members and friends in the horrific attacks of 9/11. while i went through a heck of a lot, it was nothing compared to what other people went through in terms of the loss of life. host: was it tough to cast that

vote? guest: very tough. when you read that resolution -- i can't remember the exact language of it, but it said the president is authorized to used force against any nation organization individual connected to or associated with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. that was 14 years ago and we are still using that to wage war in yemen and throughout the world. that resolution needs to be repealed. that is what i'm working on. the pressure, yes. for me, that was the right vote. it was over. that did not mean i did not believe we needed to deal with al qaeda and the terrorists who attacked this country. that did not mean that i was looking up the road through rose-colored glasses. i just did not believe we should create a blank check to create

more havoc and more anger and more war. host: tennessee, independent line, carl. we have one minute. caller: my comment is that i think we need a global wage agreement. maybe a minimum wage like we have in the united states, but something global, that would level the working field for americans and people abroad. i think there are to be a global labor law that protects children and the working people around the world. that is my comment that i'm going to let it go. guest: thank you, we do have international label standards. we also need to raise the minimum wage in america. this wage stagnation and living below the poverty line is just un-american. we need to raise the minimum

wage at least $215, $20. this is not good. this is not good in terms of the growth of our country. this is not good in terms of the ability for americans to raise their families and live the american dream. we need to raise the minimum wage, which is a central policy and a central initiative for the democratic caucus. host: you support what is happening in los angeles to raise the minimum wage over a couple years to $15? guest: that is los angeles. i support the notion in my own district and throughout the nation to raise the minimum wage to $15. also, when you look at regional kinds of formulas, it is very difficult to live on $15 per hour in california. we need to really look at how we are calibrating and how we are evaluating formulas for the minimum wage.

we have to get to a living wage. hopefully, getting increases in living wages in a minimum wages will lead us to a living wage. host: barbara lee, democrat of california. we appreciate you coming over and taking calls. the house is coming into session. trade adjustment assistance, trade promotion authority. [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] bfered today by our cplain, ther coroy. chaplain cony: let u pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks f giving us another d. we ask tday th you bless the members this mbly to be the best nd most faithful servants of the peoe tey see. purify their intentions that they will say what they believe and act consisntly with thei wor help t indeed, hp us all

to be hont with theelves s ey will not only be concerned with how the words and d are weigh by oths but how their wds and deeds affect lives t in need d those look to them for suppor help, strengthnd leership. may all that is done ts day in the ople's house be for your honor and implorey. ame e speaker: the chair has examined the jrnal of the last das preedings and nounces to thhouse his aroval thereof. pursuant to clse 1 of ru 1 he joual stands approved. for what rpose does gentleman from illinois ri? > mr. speak, pursnt to e 1, rule 1, i demand a vo on agreeio th speaker' approv of the journal. the speaker: t question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. n the opinion of the chair, thayes he it the journal stands approved. mr. hultgren: mr. speakeri jecto the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of der that a quorums not present.

the spaker po tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of re 20, furthe proedings othis question are posed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led byhe geneman from pesylvan, mr. thompson. mr. ompson: i pledge allegiance to thflag of th united stat of america and to the republic for ich it stands, one tion under god indivisible, with libty and justice for all. the speaker: the c will recve a message. the messeer: mr. speaker, a ssage from the senate. the secreta: mr. spear, have been directed by the senate to inrm the house that the senat hasgreed h.con.res 54 authorizing the reprinting of the pocket version of the united states constitution. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection.

mr. coffman: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the life of a great public servant to the state of colorado, state representative john butner of aurora colorado, who recently passed away. i had the honor of knowing john for the last 30 years. we first met in 1985 when we were both members of the first leadership aurora class sponsored by the aurora chamber of commerce. at that time i was a small business owner and john was an educator with the cherry creek school system. i found john to always be soft spoken, warm and passionate about his dedicated leadership in public education. state representative john buckner took that same passion representing his constituents in the colorado general assembly. in his loss will be felt by our entire community. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. >> mr. speaker members of the house, the simple truth is these trade agreements are destroying our middle class, they're causing millions of americans in mining and manufacturing to lose their jobs. mr. nolan: millions others to lose wages and benefits. it now takes two or three jobs to earn the same kind of income that one used to be able to earn from one job before these trade agreements. the fact is over the last century we built the strongest middle class in the history of this world with living wages and benefits and protections for health and safety and the environment, but with the emergeans of these trade agreements we're -- emergence of these trade agreements we're

asking to compete with these countries that have no benefits. for americans to give up on the american dream that's what this is about, i reviewed the t.p.p. documents and make no mistake about it this is the race to the bottom. the time has come for congress to say no to these agreements. the time has come to put an end to them. they've been negotiated in secret for the benefit of a few and kept from the public for the benefit of the few at the top of our economic ladder. the fact is it's destroying the american dream, the american economy, the middle class and with that the american dream. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the national college @accountability act introduced by my friend and penn state fellow alumnist charlie dent. it's no secret that the ncaa has failed when it comes to

following their own rules. has certainly failed when it comes to unduly exerting their perceived powers over college athletics. the act will ensure that the ncaa is held to the highest standards possible provided much-needed accountability and reforms. the ncaa acts would prohibit universities from receiving title 4 funds if they participate in athletic associations that do not implement and enforce specific rules related to student athletes' health, safety education and we have failed to see them protect student athletes and this bipartisan legislation will fix that. i urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan measure. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized.

mr. defazio: how many times will congress pretend to be fooled by yet another job-killing trade agreement? first it was nafta. it told us it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. unfortunately they neglected to say they would be south of the border and they would be at the expense of american workers. then the w.t.o. we're going to level the playing field. yeah, compete with chinese workers at 25 cents an hour and unfair trade practices. now the obama administration, new paradigm korea. this is the model for the future. it's going to be great. we're already running larger trade deficits with korea. we already lost 50,000 jobs. and now the last biggest, worst trade agreement, the trans-pacific partnership. ironically a key vote will be something called trade adjustment assistance. yeah, it's critical. we have to have that because millions -- hundreds of thousands or millions of americans will lose their jobs so we need to retrain them for mcdonald's or other high-level jobs. secondly of course, the t.a.a.

t.a.a. is funded -- the trade adjustment assistance is funded by medicare. ironically this is it. they got votes from corporate america and the obama administration to jam this thing through. we can stop it here today and save america's economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the actions of the brave men and women of the military sacrifice so much for our country and many of these soldiers on the front lines are aided by military working dogs who perform countless dangerouses actions on the battlefield. mr. paulsen: there is a special bond formed by service members and their military service dogs. currently the department of defense is not required to bring these dogs home after they are retired and this means veterans are often forced to spend their own money to transport them back to the united states for adoption. that's why i introduced

bipartisan legislation with my colleague, congresswoman krysten sinema, that would fix this problem by ensuring that military working dogs are returned to the united states for adoption. mr. speaker, there's a waiting list of over 1200 people looking to adopt these k-9 and ensuring our troops and veterans can easily adopt these dogs honors their service and their partnership. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcnerney: i ask you to honor the service of john on his 5th birthday today. born in redwood city, california, he was born to antioch. he enlisted in the united states army during the second world war, serving with the 376 infran tree regiment, and he

served in the occupation of czechoslovakia and germany finally coming home to antioch. after serving our great nation at war, bob served his community in peace as a volunteer firefighter and volunteer at the public lie breamplet he saw antioch grow to over 100,000 people. i ask you to join me in honoring bob for his service to our great nation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. hultgren: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to draw attention to not only the human toll incurred by nepal's earthquake in april but also atrocious exploitation occurring in the aftermath. recent news reports said criminal groups, some mass can raiding as relief workers are luring girls and boys into

india into forced prostitution or into forced labor. some traffickers put a price on young ones' lives offering $500 per child. it's truly sickening these these criminals are using the chaos following the earthquake that claimed 8,000 lives to steal many more vulnerable lives. the united nations and some n.g.o.'s estimate between 12,000 and 15,000 girls a year are trafficked from nepal alone. as a member of the tom lantos commission, those who sell and purchase these little lives must be brought to justice and government must take action. nepal's most vulnerable cannot and should not be forgotten. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. costa: i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: mr. speaker, i rise today to express the importance

of investing in our nation's infrastructure. this is all about the future economy of this nation and jobs jobs and jobs. today we are living up the investments that our parents and our grandparents made generations ago. let me give you an example of what we're trying to do in california. a high speed rail project is a great example on how you invest in the future. in project in california will create 20,000 jobs annually for the next five years. in fact, important not only to california but my district which is economically challenged. work force investment boards in my district and throughout the valley have dedicated resources to making sure that local work force is ready to build. apprenticeship programs like these will connect disadvantaged workers with good paying jobs and boost the california economy. the high speed rail project which combines private, state and federal investments to make sure the transportation infrastructure is fit for the 21st century but here in our nation's capital we need to

provide the long-term funding for infrastructure, across the nation that's what we need to do, to invest in our water projects invest in our transportation projects. that's what we need for jobs in the 21st century. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, sunday marks the 240th birthday of the united states army. established on june 14, 1775 as the continental army, the u.s. army faithfully protects american families. i am grateful to represent fort jackson, the largest initial entry training of the u.s. army. last month i attended their change of command where i was honored to recognize major becker and another for their leadership and dedicated service. as the son of an army air corps flying tiger, 14th air force,

as a father of three sons currently serving in the south carolina national guard and myself as a veteran of the army reserves in the south carolina army national guard, i'm grateful to know firsthand of the competence and patriotism of our service members. 25 years ago today i visited the berlin wall and was denied entry into east germanand at the gate and now more countries than ever live in freedom and democracy than in the history of the world due to the success of the u.s. military. today is the anniversary of president ronald reagan's declaration, quote, mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. god bless the u.s. army. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, to ask to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: mr. speaker today this congress can be fast

tracked or it can take the right track. we can seek strong new trade agreements that benefit american families or we can continue to backtrack with the failed policies of the past. in the ways and means committee, in the rules committee, every attempt to make constructive improvements in this fast track bill have been sidetracked. first, we ask that the foreign corporations not be given more rights than american corporations and taxpayer funds awarded by some private commission. second, we ask that the administration, if it's such a good trade deal, that they be open with it, tell us at least as much as the vietnamese bureau learned. and third, i ask they at least meet the environmental standards of the last george bush administration. in each case, those amendments and all other constructive

improvements were rejected. today, let's not backtrack. let's not fast track. let's vote down this bill and have an opportunity to create a 21st century trade policy that meets the needs of our families and businesses. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 305, i call up the bill h.r. 1314, the trade act of 2015, with the senate amendment thereto and have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. designate the senate amendment and designate the motion. the clerk: h.r. 1314 an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to provide for a right to the administrative appeal relating to adverse determination of tax exempt status of certain organizations senate amendment. mr. ryan of wisconsin moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 1314.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 305, the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1314, the trade act of 2015, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: i also ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters between the committees of jurisdiction be included in the record as well. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. ryan: mr. speaker the question before us today, it's really pretty simple.

is america going to shape the global economy? or is it going to shape us? 95% of the world's consumers, they don't live in this country they live in other countries. so if we want to create more jobs in america, we've got to make more things here in america and sell them over there. in fact, one out of every five jobs in america already today depends on trade. and you know what? that's a good thing. because these jobs pay more. they pay on average 18% more. but while the world is moving full steam ahead, we have been standing still, mr. speaker, we haven't completed a trade agreement in years. today there are 262 free trade agreements in place across the world. we are party to 14.

since 2007 when the last version of trade promotion authority expired, there have been 100 trade agreements negotiated and signed. the u.s. is a party to none of those. china is negotiating seven agreements right now including one with 16 countries. in the global economy, if you are standing still, you are falling behind. because all these other countries are negotiating agreements without us. what that basically means is, other countries are lowering their trade barriers between those countries and as a result of them lowering their trade barriers making their products more affordable, getting more market share, they are putting up barriers against our products. making it harder for us to get access to those markets. look, big companies can set up a

factory in another country, make something there, and sell it there. getting trade agreements means we move those barriers so we keep those factories here, so all businesses, big and small, can make things in america, grow things in america, and sell them overseas. let me just give you an example. since the year 2000, there have been 48 trade agreements in east asia alone. america has been a party to overwhelm two of them. and as a result of that -- only two of them. as a result of that our share of imports fell by 42%. the rules of the global economy they are being written right now, mr. speaker. that's not the question. the question is, are we going to write the rules of the global economy with our allies? or are we going to let other countries write the rules such as china? this is why h.r. 1314, the trade act, would establish t.p.a., or

trade promotion authority. now, there's been a lot of confusion about this bill. a lot of honest confusion and sometimes a lot of intentional confusion. let me say really clearly what this bill is. t.p.a. is not a trade deal. t.p.a. is not a trade agreement. t.p.a. is a process for negotiating a trade agreement. congress is not considering a trade agreement today. there is no secret agreement that nobody has read that's being voted on today. all we are voting on today is a process by which congress considers trade agreements. the earliest we would do so would be in the fall at the earliest. why should we care about this process? because a good process gets us a good result. this t.p.a. will give us the leverage that we in congress need to get a fair deal for the american worker. because when other countries

know that the deal that they agreed to is the deal congress will vote on, they will give us their best offers. countries aren't going to give us a good agreement if they have to negotiate with 536 people. here's how it works. congress says to the president, when you submit a trade agreement, we will give you an up or down vote on three conditions. first, you have got to pursue specific negotiating objectives. 150 of them. here's what we want to see in a trade agreement and here's what cannot be in a trade agreement. second you've got to keep us informed. you have to regularly consult with congress. congress must have access to all the negotiating text. right now, it's whatever the administration chooses to give us. they control it. they decide on their terms with t.p.a., congress says, no, no, no. we in congress get access to these negotiating documents while it's being negotiated.

we in congress are accredited to go to the negotiation it is we want to. and with the zinke prote -- protocol, if we can't make it we'll send representatives to these negotiations. third, and perhaps most importantly, transparency. the old days they used to call this thing fast track. the president goes out and gets an agreement and then, wham, whizzes it through, have congress vote on it, it's in law. everybody is wondering what just happened? what's in this thing? not again. no more. when an agreement is reached, when america gets an agreement with other countries, before the president can even sign off on it, we make it publicly -- public for 60 days, up on the internet, everybody can read it for themselves and see what it is. that's in this law. never done that before. and then the president can sign it. but when he signs it, it doesn't go into effect. when he signs it it just means

he sends it to congress. and then congress considers it. congress considers it and congress determines whether it's going to happen or not. it's a bill like any other bill. congress has to pass it. they have to affirmatively pass it for it to go into effect. if the house of representatives doesn't like the trade agreement, and they vote it down with a simple majority vote, it doesn't happen. that's what this bill does. we have the final say. now, i understand a lot of our members, certainly on our side of the aisle they don't trust this administration. join the club. neither do i. that is precisely why i support this bill. t.p.a. puts congress in the driver's seat. mr. speaker, the world is watching this. the world is watching whether or not, and they are trying to make a decision, is america still america? or is america in retreat?

our allies want our leadership. our adversaries are measuring how much we stack up. our enemies would love for us to retreat. the world is watching as to whether or not america is going to lead in the world whether america in the dawn of the 21st century is going to take command of writing the rules of the global economy or cede that command to other countries. if we establish t.p.a., we are saying on a bipartisan basis we want america to lead. we believe in our country. we believe in our workers. we believe in our economy. we want to open up markets so that we can use american ingenuity and american work to create american jobs. so we can sell our goods and our services our products overseas. so we can create more good paying jobs here at home. that's what this is about. it's about getting us on the

playing field. is00 trade agreements negotiated, signed -- 100 trade agreements negotiated, signed, since 2007. we are a party to zero of those. the rest of the world is moving around. the rest of the world is getting better deals. the rest of the world is freezing us out. we have to get back in this game and lead this game and define this game. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i allocate as much time as i use to myself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. levin: i have worked in all my years here to expand trade in ways that spread its benefits to the many not just to the few. charlie rangel and i led the fight to include strong and enforcible labor and environmental provisions and to

strike the right balance between innovation and access to medicines in the historic may 10 agreement of 2007. the trouble with this t.p.a. is that it means no meaningful provisions whatsoever in t.p.p. on currency manipulation, which has destroyed millions of middle class american jobs and allows investors to challenge american health and environmental regulations and others not through the american legal system but through unregulated, arbitration panels. it's about a t.p.p. going in the wrong direction on access to medicines and in some important ways environmental protections. and it's about countries like mexico that deny their workers basic labor rights to gain and uncompetitive advantage over our companies and workers.

and vietnam and ma lashesea who stand in clear violation of the may 10 provisions on international worker rights with no plan we know of. in that sense it's secret of a t.p.p. to change that. far from a progressive trade agreement. . on this and every other area in t.p.p. they are left to be determined whether they were met by those who did the negotiating, and i just want to say these negotiating objectives are so vague they are meaningless and to hold them up is something that holds ustr to action is simply a mirage. instead of passing this bill, which gives a blank check to the administration to finish up

t.p.p. negotiations where they are now and leaves congress with only an up or down vote at the end, we should be using our leverage to impact the negotiations. this bill does not do that. we in congress, despite all the rhetoric, all the rhetoric, we in congress will be in the backseat not in the falsely claimed driver seat. this is what this is all about not protectionism versus free trade, not reflective opposition as sometimes claimed to expand a trade. i've worked for expanded trade. quite the opposite. i want a t.p.p. that is worthy of broad bipartisan support. as to t.a.a., proponents of

t.p.a. they're the ones who linked the two together in a single bill. t.a.a. should not be a bargaining chip to get a deeply flawed t.p.a. across the finished line and that's how this has been set up. this t.p.a. should stand on its own feet. even in its best form t.a.a. was a modest program and i was one of the authors supporting it. but this t.a.a. bill includes a number of shortcomings compared to the high water mark of the program. despite the fact that the need in this country is growing and trade is expanding. the truth of the matter is we need to do far more to train and educate our workers and to invest in our future in order to compete in a global economy. a no vote will give us an opportunity another opportunity to improve t.a.a.

and t.p.a. and to achieve our ultimate goal that i and others have been working for months and months and months and months, and that's the goal, a strong t.p.p. agreement that can gain broad bipartisan support. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: are we not ready to recess?

mr. ryan: mr. speaker, let me inquire as to the time allotment between the two at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 21 1/2 minutes. mr. ryan: 21 1/2? the gentleman from michigan? the speaker pro tempore: 25 for the gentleman from michigan. mr. ryan: would the gentleman from michigan want to equalize and yield some time to one of his speakers? mr. levin: ok. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. mr. doggett: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: mr. speaker some have called trade adjustment assistance burial insurance since it delivers limited help after a job is dead and buried. at a time when fast trackers are claiming that they will include over half of the world economy, we need a t.a.a. that

is funded for more workers at risk of job loss. unfortunately this particular t.a.a. proposal is really short for taking away assistance. it includes substantially less funding than the administration has said was essential to protect those who lose their jobs through expanded trade. further, this t.a.a. fails to restore coverage to thousands whose jobs may be exported. in a very contrived process this morning designed to obscure what's really happening and to remove accountability from members of this house, desperate fast trackers and fast talkers have split up the senate bill into two pieces, two votes before they put it back together in exactly the same form it was when it first got to the house and along the way they have some self-executing rule so that it

appears that members are not voting to do what they're doing. the first vote we take today is -- at the end of this debate is on t.a.a. vote no. your vote no offers an opportunity to achieve both better trade adjustment assistance and better trade legislation. and your vote no will also assure you are not on record as voting to send a bill which was exactly what will happen if you vote yes, to send a bill to the president that cuts medicare by $700 million. reject this bill and develop a better alternative that reflects our values and 21st century economic realities. what really needs adjusting here today is the no compromise, no amendment attitude on trade. this vote wouldn't be so close if this process hasn't been so closed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from michigan reserves his time, and the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield two minutes to the former of the chairman -- former chairman 69 trade subcommittee, the gentleman from california, mr. nunes. the speaker pro tempore: for how much time? mr. ryan: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nunes: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a time where everyone needs to step back in this body and really relies what we're here to do today. this is a historic moment. we will either move forward with our allies, with our partners, with our trading partners or we will move back. t.p.a. is just one step, it's a step that we must have in order to pass additional trade agreements that we've been doing throughout our history. if you look at where we're at today, this is about trade promotion authority. people will have plenty of time to look at whatever trade agreements come down the pipe over the next five years. that's what this debate's

about. and why do we need trade agreements? because we need to reduce tariffs on products that are made in the united states so that we have a better opportunity to export them overseas. but mr. speaker, this agreement has geopolitical concerns also. and what that's really about, if you look down the road at the first trade agreement that was supposed to come up, it's supposed to be the trans-pacific partnership. today if you look at what our partners and allies in asia are dealing with, they're dealing with a behemoth in china and china doesn't want to play by the rules. they consistently have avoided playing by the rules, which is putting our allies at risk and our trading partners at risk which is why we need to come together and pass an agreement that puts -- if you pass the trans-pacific partnership and the e.u. agreement, you will

have them under one set of rules and that's what this is really about. we move to the trans-pacific partnership. we move to the european agreement. we get 2/3 of the world's economy under the same set of rules. so i hope that my colleagues will step back and just, you know, stop all the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle, on one side we have people who are clearly representing the labor unions. on the other side we have people who don't want to give the president a victory. but today, mr. speaker, is a time where we need to step back and do the right thing for the right reasons for the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: mr. speaker, may i just ask unanimous consent that mr. tiberi be permitted to control time on our side? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. and the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to a member of our committee, mr. kind of wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kind: i thank my friend for yielding. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of legislation trade promotion authority as well as trade adjustment assistance. what we are debating and what we have to decide upon today is whether to grant this president, this administration the same type of trade negotiating authority that every president since f.d.r., minus richard nixon, has enjoyed. as a democrat who has supported this administration, i wonder why we would not at least have a modicum of trust for this president to try and go get the best deal he can. we will have an opportunity later to analyze any agreement that's reached to make sure it makes sense for our constituents, for our states and ultimately for our country. but let's be clear here. we are already trading with these nations vietnam malaysia. the question moving forward now is what the rules of trade are going to be and that's why we need to be at the table negotiating those rules elevating standards and now we're going to be negotiating

core labor, environmental and human rights standards in the body of the agreement, fully enforceable like any other provision in it. and it's something we lacked in past trade agreements. when president obama first ran for election he was hoping for an opportunity to go back and amend nafta because he felt, as i do, there were deficiencies in that agreement. this is the opportunity to go back and amend the problems that nafta created. the lack of core labor or environmental standards, especially as it related with mexico. so we need to be clear that this is an opportunity to move forward, getting the rules of trade and the standards elevated up to where we are so we have a level playing field for our workers, our farmers, our businesses to compete. otherwise, the alternative is a race to the bottom with no rules at all or possibly with china's rules, and that ultimately are the choices we face here today -- to move forward with this authority, to move forward with these trade

agreements, elevating standards to where we are or end up in a global trading system with no rules or china's rules. that would be a race to the bottom and we will not be able to compete very effectively in it. i encourage my colleagues to support the legislation today so we can level the playing field for those at home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. tiberi: thank you. it's my honor to ack knowledge and -- acknowledge and speak on this issue, a member of the ways and means committee and a great partner in trying to open up and break down barriers around the world mr. young from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. tiberi: i yield him one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. young: i rise in support of h.r. 1314, the trade act of 2015, and h.r. 644, the trade facilitation and trade enforcement act. with 96% of the world's customers living outside of the

united states remains vital for congress to facilitate free trade agreements through the passage of trade promotion authority. absent t.p.a., america will continue to sit on the sidelines while the rest of the world negotiates free trade agreements and opens additional markets. in my home state of indiana, we have the largest per capita manufacturers in the united states. in the hoosier state, exporting manufacturing goods supports 22% of our manufacturing jobs. one out of every five. our hoosier farmers export over $3.6 billion across our five largest agricultural export sectors. at the end of the day, trade equals jobs. congress must pass t.p.a. to empower our negotiators to receive the best deal possible for american families and job creators. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. young: request an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30

seconds. mr. young: i want to further say i was proud to work with chairman ryan to ensure the house was able to include language within this act to ensure that no future free trade agreement can include language for back door, cap and trade agreements. we included language that would prevent this. it would negatively impact states like indiana which is the second largest user of coal in the united states. i look forward to voting in support of this vital legislation, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from ohio reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker i think there's been agreement between the two parties that we could recess. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c, further considerations on the motions to concur are postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call

of the chair.

>> the president now on capitol hill meeting first with democratic leadership and the broader democratic caucus. we'll have live house coverage when that meeting is over, when they gavel back in for more debate here on c-span. but until then, some background on the trade measure, the debate yesterday and what's ahead today from this morning's "washington journal." is a reporter. guest: it looks like they're going to vote on three of bills. two votes are huge. the first is on trade adjustment assistance which is a democratic irony. they started to revolt on that guest day. they are not happy with what was going on and they are seeing this as a way to stop the trade promotion authority bill, which will probably be the second the

vote of the day. if it passes, they can move on to tpa. if either bill fails, it will stop all of the trade bills. host: you have a whip count. you go through all of the members of congress and list how they are voting. currently, what is your count? guest: i think we are still at three dozen or so democrats who are undecided and right now we're looking at those democrats. we are expecting everybody to have a niagara falls of votes. we are starting to see everybody come out in support or opposition. there is going to be a group of democrats who will wait until they are on the floor to lock in the vote counts and cast their votes. there may be a handful who wait on the floor.

it they will be to see the votes pileup to decide how they are going to vote. it's going to be close. i have heard that there could be up to 30 democrats who support the trade promotion authority. these type votes, especially on trade, it's an anything goes kind of day depending on what happens. host: what is the reason that the public has not been able to see the transpacific partnership agreement as written and it members have to go to a secret room and take no notes or cell phones? guest: trade deals, there are 12 nations including the united states. they kind of understand -- the explanation from the white house and the other countries is they

prefer a certain level of confidentiality so they can put forward their offers on what they want to see in the trade agreement. it's a living document. they are trying to kneel down -- nail down chapter by chapter. if congress does pass it, the expectation has been said that nations like canada would actually put down their best deal. basically, they want some kind of process that they can negotiate and kind of continually changing their offers. that is what they have asked for. it would be available to the public if it passes for 60 days before the president signs it.

most democrats argued that is too late. they can't make any changes to it. that is what the explanation of the trading partners has been. they do expect some level of confidentiality in these negotiations. host: what's been the role of nancy pelosi? guest: the minority leader in the house has basically made sure that the white house and her members have an open channel with each other. they have talked to the white house. a lot of officials have come up to capitol hill. yesterday there was a big flurry of activity with jack lew on the hill. the chief of staff of the president was there. you guys can come up and sell the trade deal. you can let democrats decide based on merit how they will

vote down the road. she has left the door open and said you guys can come up. and talk to everyone and i will let the members decide. she has not taken a position yet. they will go through the process and make up their own minds. host: john boehner has been whipping their members to vote for this? guest: yes. in fact, paul ryan, one of the co-authors with orrin hatch who is the finance chairman in the sentence -- senate, paul ryan has taken a very aggressive role with several of his ways and means committee. they have held lots of trade meetings lately with republicans

to answer questions and a very good number of republicans have shown up for those meetings, including the ones who are skeptical and are not sure and have not voted for trade in the past. they have taken a very aggressive stance. they are making sure that members are educated and they understand what is in the partnership and answer any overall trade questions. never seven very complimentary of those efforts. they say it has helped them review what's in all of the bills. trade is very complex. it's a very open process on that site as well. host: the first vote this morning, what should we watch for? guest: that's a great question. it's going to be the trade adjustment assistance first. that bill needs to pass in order for the promotional authority to

come up. there are a lot of democrats including sandy levin, who has said he will oppose it. a lot of liberal democrats have come out against it see it as stopping it as a top priority for them. it's not working as well as getting votes. it has worked in the past. it has to move along with tpa. we are going to be watching how many democrats vote for it and a vote against it. we have heard this difference. some people will vote for caa and it not tpa. -- taa and not tpa.

there are certain people coming in and helping not. there was more optimism on the side of those who wanted it passed. republicans don't like it, but they may need a few more votes in order to ensure that tpa gets a vote today. host: >> things have changed a bit with that conversation this morning with the arrival of the president on capitol hill to meet with democratic leadership and the democratic caucus. that was about a half-hour ago, 20 minutes ago from jake sherman of politico. from scott wong tweeting from the hill, democrats head down to the t.p.a. meeting with president obama in the capitol. also from our own capitol hill producer, creg kaplan, who tweets this photo, the house democrat caucus meeting on trade behind closed doors in the capitol visitor center. it is under way and thus the house is in recess. when that meeting's done when, they gavel back in we'll have live coverage of that trade

debate here on c-span. until then more about it and the views on the republican side from this morning's "washington journal." guest: i'm not sure who they are talking to, i am a supporter of the american trade agreement. i think this is good for our country, great wage and job opportunity and it's a bipartisan agreement. it will promote the economic growth we need to open up my state. i think you will see the kansas delegation supported it. host: can you give us a specific example of how this would benefit kansas city or overland

park? guest: kansas is a very big agriculture state. we have a lot of businesses from sprint and other important companies that hire a lot of people. we have a lot of agriculture business. we have an area that has lot of manufacturers in wyandotte county. most of those companies that hire lots of people need to sell goods overseas and they need access to asian markets. unless they are going to move headquarters over there, they need us to have trade agreements that allow them to sell products to these asian purchasers. 95% of the world's consumers live outside of the united states. opening up those trade markets could hurt industries in the united states, i think that's a backwards way of looking at how we grow the economy.

we are in a global economy. country -- companies in my district, we have $6 million in kansas exports. farmers depend on these open markets to sell grain and meet. at. they depend on selling meat and grain to create jobs in our community. host: during our first segment a lot of colors brought up this court -- country of origin issue. what is your position? guest: this past the house and was signed into law 13 years ago. the idea was it would provide more information for people to know what they are purchasing. there is a study that kansas state university did that stated

that even though the information was there, there was no impact on consumer purchasing decisions. that does not mean we should get rid of it, but then we get into an organism -- problem with the world trade organization. we are in violation of our trade agreements. canada and mexico are entitled to penalties, billions of dollars. they are going to retaliate with tariffs against american goods. they might have a slowdown in their exports. there are a lot of livestock companies, farmers and ranchers on borders that have cattle from canada and the united states. the law was overly burdensome on them because they would have to segregate the animals.

any meat that comes into the united states is inspected. no matter where it's from, it has to meet the same standards. billions of dollars was spent to segregate and label and that drives up the cost of meet at the grocery store. we wonder why food is so expensive, it's government regulation and taxes. we don't want to pay penalties to the world trade organization. it had 300 votes, a strong i partisan vote. the secretary of agriculture has made it clear this is something that needs to be fixed. host: did you supported? -- supported? -- support it? guest: we are working through

that right now. i am going over this morning to the skiff, a secured facility where you can read the content. i will be going over that this morning line by line to make sure of everything that's in it. it's important to know all of the components for voting on tpa. the fast track will give the president a chance to negotiate tpp along with other trade agreements. we want to know all that is in that. i support the idea of giving the president the authority to negotiate a trade agreement. there is really no other way to do that. it's hard to figure out how we are going to open up those markets. i will be there in about an hour. host: what do you think of the fact that members have to read this in