benefited from a little bit of rest while in the hospital and has been working hard during the last couple of weeks and i think he understands the long list of priorities waiting for him when he gets back on the job. >> there's no plans to have someone in his place? >> no. there's no -- it's not clear that that's necessary. >> you came out with a midwest optimism but in reality, was it a good day for the president? he does not have anything on his desk signed and he has an uphill battle, has to get two votes on tuesday to get something to his desk is my understanding. and a vote today -- the vote today was overwhelming, an overwhelming defeat by his own

party. if -- isn't your optimism a little misplaced? >> i don't think so, jim, because there was a lot of healthy, well-informed skepticism about the ability of the united states congress to work in bipartisan fashion to pass something like trade promotion authority that is so complicated and so fraught with a lot of toxic politics. and based on a lot of good work in the senate and bipartisan work in the house, those -- those odds were overcome. >> but they didn't really pass it josh? >> sure they did. with 28 democratic votes t.p.a. has passed. that was going to be the hard one. i think there was a broad assumption, i don't want to speak for all of you, but i think many people assumed it would be easier to pass trade adjustment assistance than trade

promotion authority. the fact is, the hard part has gotten done. when it comes to making the case to the democrats about why they should support trade adjustment assistance, we've got a strong case to make. if they don't act on it as early as next week, it's going to expire at the end of september. this is a program the democrats believe in. they unanimously supported it last time it was on the floor. so we've got a strong case to make here because we're not just talking about preventing this program from lapsing. we're talking about significantly expanding it. >> but the opponents of the trade fast track bill did what they wanted to do, which was undercut it by defeating the trade assistance bill. that was designed to happen and it happen. >> i think that's what they designed what they tried to do in the united states senate and there was at one point in time a procedural snafu that prompted a delay and we're seing a similar dynamic in the house right now. in some way the one in the house

is actually easier to resolve, again, because we're talking about a piece of legislation that the last time it was voted on got unanimous support of democrats. there are substantial number of republicans that voted for it today. i think it's -- i certainly wouldn't rule out the ability of the speaker of the house to convince even more republicans to vote for trade adjustment assistance. we certainly believe that we can convince more democrats to vote for a program that many of them have previously supported and that our economists can demonstrate significantly benefits middle class families all across the country. >> my colleague asked you about the president's reaction to leader pelosi going against the president today. i'd like to ask you about what it felt like to have john boehner bail out the president today with procedural moves. >> i'm not sure i would characterize it that way. i think what you have seen over the last week and the ground

work has been laid in recent months effective coordination between the white house and the speaker's office to make progress on a shared priority. this is the kind of bipartisan effort that the president has long envisioned, and unfortunately we haven't seen nearly enough of it but in this case, you've got to give credit where it's due to the speaker of the house who, despite his many ideological differences with the president has said let's put aside our differences and figure out how to work together to build a bipartisan majority far policy we both believe will benefit our economy and will benefit middle class families across the country. >> do you see the irony here? pelosi on one side boehner on the other with the president. >> what i see is a bipartisan majority in the house of representatives standing with the president. yes, that means a substantial number of republicans. that's a testament to the president's leadership ability, to his ability to find common

ground with that. i think the country is well served by this that -- by that kind of bipartisan spirit. hopefully this will serve as a template not only for passing trade adjustment but making progress on other problem that was been identified including criminal justice reform an other things. mike. >> as i understand it, many of the democrats who opposed the t.a.a. today did so, and i think the former speaker said this in her final remarks as well, they did so as a way of stopping the t.p.a. which they don't like. so if t.p.a. has now passed with 219 and is so the only thing standing in the way of t.p.a. from actually getting to the president's desk is now the keeping t.a.a. dead, don't those democrats all have even more incentive to continue to be opposed to it? next week if you guys bring it up again than they do now?

you have a bigger hill to climb. how can you possibly say you are going to convince more democrats to vote for it now when it's even more important for them to remain opposed to it? >> because the case we'll make to them, mike is that they may have, they registered their objections with the t.p.a. they hoped to block the passage of t.p.a. and it didn't work. t.p.a. did pass with a bipartisan majority. now we're going to go and make the case to them that they should support a policy that they have strongly supported in the past. and in fact if they don't, we're going to see that policy that they strongly support lapse. instead they actually have the opportunity not just to prevent its lapse but actually to significantly expand it. almost double it in size when it. co--- comes to the amount of money that can be spent on job training programs. >> that means caving on their goal which is keeping t.p.a. from going forward. >> t.p.a. has passed.

now they have a question about, are they going to support a policy that previously earned the unanimous support of democrats and are they going to seek to expand it and make sure that they're not in a position where they're essentially -- make sure they're in a position to offer support to those workers that are dealing with the challenges of globalization. >> if t.a.a. doesn't pass, t.p.a. is dead right? if ultimately you can't get it passed -- >> what's true is the president shares, look, this is true. the president agrees with democrats the t.a.a. is a priority. that's the thing here. i would acknowledge that there are some differences of opinion but there are far more areas where we agree than where we disagree. i think this is he hallmark of a legislative procedural snafu. i think we know when we see it now. clearly that's what we have before us today. >> to quote yogi berra, it's not over until it's over?

is that what you're saying? >> we could do a lot of that today. >> to mike's point the president will not sign t.p.a. without t.a.a. >> the president made clear, the president has made clear that trade adjustment assistance is a strong priority and that if we are going to take steps that the president believes is good for our economy and good for middle class families to expand access to overseas markets, that one thing we also need to do is make a similar investment in those workers who are negatively affected by broader globalization trends. and what we know is, we actually know thousand do this now. this is the thing that secretary perez wrote to members of congress yesterday. he wrote a long letter. i can get you a copy of that let fer you haven't had a chance to see it. but it described what the benefit are of the trad adjustment proposal. this is a package of job

training grants and other funding that allows workers who can successfully petition to the department of labor to get access to job training programs that will ensure they get the skills they need to get another job. so this package is a very -- is a significant one. it's a significant expansion of the package that's poised to expire at the end of this -- end of september. this will expand, make trade adjustment assistance available for six years. it would nearly double the program in size. it would allow 17,500 workers who over the last 18 months have had their eligibility deny, to allow them to have their applications reconsidered and it would provide, make available to workers, 130 weeks of what's called trade readjustment allowance benefits. essentially that means if you're doing the math, that's snuffer assistance to go through a two-year training program. to go and get some really good skills you cab use to go and get a middle class job. these kinds of programs we know

make a real difference in the lives of middle class families. that's the case wie going to make to democrats. >> no t.p.a. without t.a.a.? >> this is not a situation where we have to persuade democrats to hold their nose and vote for something, this is an opportunity for democrats to support the expansion of a program that they previously indicate they strongly support. >> i think that's a nonanswer. i don't think you're answering that question. >> i don't mean to give a nonanswer. >> president won't sign t.p.a. without t.a.a. both of these have to be passed and patched together? >> as a matter of legislative procedure that's true. the house of representatives can't just send the t.p.a. bill to the president's desk and hope the t.a.a. bill follows. procedurally that won't work. again, this is why i would describe this as a procedural snafu. we have a situation where we have got a clear bipartisan majority in the house but we have to work its way through the procedures to make its way to

the president's desk. >> why did the president wait until the last minute to go to capitol hill, to go shmooze lawmakers at the congressional baseball game last night? and what do you believe to -- what do you say to people in this town who believe that's too little too late. >> if that's all he did i would agree with them. but the president personally had dozens of conversationings with -- conversations with democrats in the house and the senate to make the case for this proposal. those are conversations that took place over the course of months. often, in the course of skeptical questions about whether trade could ever get done in the congress, people would ask, what is the president trying to do to get it passed? i made reference to the fact that the president was regularly engaged in conversations and that was typically small meet wegs president would convene with three or four members sometimes in the private dining room off the oval office. >> things we didn't know about.

>> right, that weren't previously announced. >> why weren't those announced? why not tell the public he's having these mettings? -- meetings? >> because the president wanted an opportunity to have a private conversation with them. i think there were some members of congress who came out and said they had conversations with the president about this. that was often in the context of announcing their support for the bill. there are other more high profile settings where you saw the president make his case. there were four members of congress who flew with the president to germany when he went to the g-7 last weekend. seems like a month ago. >> to jump ahead, when you see stories written over the next 48 hours that say that this vote that occurred on friday contributed to the president's lame duck status, when white house press secretary josh earnest is quoted in those story he says what? >> he says the president

successfully -- good awkward moment there. what i would do is simply observe that there was healthy skepticism across the united states capitol an across the country about whether or not democrats and republicans would actually be able to work together in a bipartisan fashion to pass trade promotion authority. and because the president's -- because of the president's leadership and the effective leadership on republicans -- of republicans on the other side of the aisle who were willing to coordinate and work with the president and his team, the president succeeded in that priority. there's still a procedural snafu to work through. but that's in the same spirit that has contributed to our success in passing t.p.a. through the senate t.a.a. through the senate, t.p.a. through the house, we're going to use the same strategy to pass t.a.a. through the house too. april. >> josh, when it comes to t.a.a.

and t.p.a., many democrats felt it was a matter of survival for many middle income americans who could lose their jobs to globalization. what do you say about the issue of survival as you try to marry globalization and trade with people who want to enhance t.a.a. in case there is a job loss for some of these people? >> this is the nature -- this is a significant part of the presentation that the president made to house democrats today. it is impossible to completely insulate the united states of america and the american people from the broader economic forces of globalization. it's just impossible to do so. and so the question is how are the leaders this couldn'tly i think -- country going to prepare our economy and the country to weather those forces? there are some who advocate trying to shut the united states out from the rest of the world.

the president has zero confidence in that strategy. the president believes that our economy and our people are best served if we actually try engage the world and engage the world in a way where we enter into agreements whereby they commit to respecting basic intellectual property laws. raising labor standards. adopting higher environmental standards. respecting and protecting basic human rights. that if we can get them to commit to doing all of that in exchange for doing business in the united states, what the united states is essentially doing is leveling the playing field. we can do business in those countries too, and when i say those countries, some of the most economically dynamic countries in the world. they are countries that have some of the fastest growing economies on the planet. giving american businesses and american workers the opportunity to do business in those countries with a more level

playing field is a tremendous opportunity. and that is the right way for us to respond to the challenging forces of a globalized economy. >> when you say it's impossible to isolate the american people from globalization, when you're in a room calculating the positives and negativities, realistically, what is the white house expecting when the trade bill goes through? the numbers of jobs and you were in of people who could lose their job because of globalization over the next six years? >> the if we expect the lex to pass? >> i'm asking, realistically in numbers, when you calculate the positive offs t.p.a. and the losses of global, realistically in the next six years, when you have this trajectory how many people realistically in this nation are you looking at that could realistically not be insulated, lose their jobs because of t.p.a.?

>> let me see if we can get you some economic analysis. what i would merely say to you is this is that the united states, our economy and our people will be much worse off if we just lock in the status quo if we don't do anything. the president believes, and there is some evidence to back this up, that if we do enter into these trade agreements that seek to level the playing field with other countries particularly those countries in economically vibrant regions of the world, that that will create jobs in the united states. that was the reason the president traveled to the nike headquarters six or eight weeks ago. that's exactly what nike said. nike is a company with a history of investing in other countries taking advantage of the economic opportunities that exist in other countries. and what nike said was, they said, if you pass this t.p.p. deal and we get other countries

to start to raise their labor standards and raise their environmental standards and respect basic intellectual property rights, that what we're going to do is we're going to invest in creating jobs here in america because we know right here in america, we've got the best workers. we've got the best colleges and universities. we've got the most clever innovators we've got the most ambitious entrepreneurs. that's an environment that nike wants to be part of. they recognize that by engaging in the world we can actually expand economic opportunity right here at home. >> on another subject cleveland. a judge finds that the police officers who shot and killed 12-year-old tamir rice is cause for a murder charge. what are the thoughts on that after we have seen what happened in baltimore and cleveland? >> this is a case that's now in the hands of a local prosecutor

that local prosecutor will take a look at the facts and i'm confident they'll consider the rules of the judge but ultimately this is a decision for the federal prosecutor to -- for the local prosecutor to make. the department of justice has obviously been engaged with the city of cleveland to help them implement some of the reforms they felt were needed there but as it relates to the specific case, i wouldn't have any direct comment on it. >> did leader pelosi tell president obama she was not going to support t.a.a. before she went to the house floor? >> what i will tell you is that prior to addressing the house democratic caucus on capitol hill today the president did have an opportunity to huddle with house democratic leaders, not just leader pelosi but with other members of the democratic leadership. they had a private conversation before the president addressed the broader democratic caucus and that was a private conversation that they had. so i'm not going to be in

position to talk about the details of that. >> just to collar fi, is his impression based on that meeting that leader pelosi was not going to support t.a.a.? >> what i'm saying is they had an opportunity to discuss this at some length this morning and i'm not prepared to talk about the details of that conversation. >> was he anticipating she would support it? we saw them come out all smiles what was the result of that meeting? >> they were all smiles because they have a warm working relationship and there's so much the president has accomplished that wouldn't have been possible without leader pelosi. i'm not going to get into the details of the conversation. >> was he surprised by leader pelosi going out on the floor and opposing t.a.a.? >> i don't know that he he watched her on the floor. >> did he watch the vote? >> i don't believe he did but he's aware of it. >> you describe the relationship

with democratic lawmakers as constructive. i have to go back to this question, the perception that some of them had coming out of that meeting, congressman defazio, i'll read you his exact quote. he said the president tried to guilt people and impugn their integrity and i don't think it was an effective tactic. you said the opposite. clearly the message didn't get through. does he need to change his strategy? >> considering we succeeded in passing t.p.a. throughout -- -- t.p.a. through the senate with strong bipartisan support and t.a.a. through the senate with strong bipartisan support it's clear that our strategy is working. >> the president didn't win today? >> i don't think that's an accurate representation of what happened. i think six months ago we could find questions from you asking

questions, skeptcally, and rightfully so about the ability of the congress to work together to pass t.p.a. there were also questions about how much democratic support the president would be able to build for this priority. there are some saying, well are you going to call it a win if you only get 15 or 18 democrats? we got 28 democrats to support it. so from that standpoint i think that is -- i think if you consider the results that's a strong endorsement of our strategy. but clearly, what i would concede is our work is not done yet. >> is he worried the message isn't getting through when you hear feedback like that from democrats? >> wo no. >> and to follow up on jim's question, is this too little, too late, some say the president -- if the president had begun to foster relationships with them years ago he would have had more success on this key piece of legislation he's fighting so hard for. >> i find it hard to believe that the president's attendance

at the 2014 congressional baseball game would have contributed to the vote today. >> josh -- >> but -- if he'd just gone to the congressional baseball game before it wouldn't have happened. >> but having more robust outreach. >> i think that the president takes much more seriously members of congress and their concerns than some people, than some analysts do when they're considering how they make decisions about significant policy issues. >> the white house understands that there will be a vote on t.p.a. even the t.a.a. was defeated? >> there was some indication that that was a possibility today. but i think again just in the short period of time that i have been observing activity on the floor of the house of representatives, you don't know exactly what's going to happen until it happens.

but there was some indication, based on private conversations we'd had with republican leaders that that was a possibility. >> since t.a.a. was defeated, were you surprised that t.p.a. was passed? >> to be blunt, no. there was confidence that there was a bipartisan majority that had been built to pass t.p.a. through the house of representatives. >> and at last night's game did the president actually bring up trade, gladhanding members of congress on the field? >> i wasn't there so i didn't overhear any of the conversations that he may have had with members on the field. i think mostly they were there to have a good time. i don't know if he had a chance to twist any arms. but you know, again, i think that's a pretty good illustration that goes back to what kristen was asking. i don't know if there are any members of congress who would say the president's visit to nationals park last night changed their vote on this

issue. >> this briefing went on for about another 30 minutes. we're going to take your calls about the vote in the house today. number of votes on trade, trade promotion authority, trade assistance adjustment assistance for workers. numbers up on your screen for republicans, 202-248-8921. democrats, 202-748-8920. independents and others, 202-740-892 2. we want to hear what you think about what happened on the floor of the house today. trade promotion authority, fast track authority, for the president passed but assistance for workers did not. we could see that come up early next week because of actions by house speaker john bayne e. we'll get right to your phone calls. want to let you know too, president obama on the hill, that's where he started his day earlier today with the minority leader and assistant minority leader, nancy pelosi there and congressman clyburn. that's where he was trying to push for some of this trade promotion authority to get

passed. unfortunately, his efforts on the trade adjustment assistance for workers, that did not pan out. it did not pass the house earlier today. again, taking your phone calls. we're going to hear from you now what you think about all this trade action that's been happening in the house. we've got jeff on the line from dallas is it iowa, jeff? go ahead, jeff. caller: i'd like to make two meants -- comments. one, the democrats were with the american people on this. and i hope this thing doesn't go through, it gives the president too much power. host: what do you do, jeff, for work? caller: i work for the u.s. post office retired now. host: on to texas, john on the line for independents. caller: hi, how are you? host: good. caller: ma'am, i have a couple of questioning why it had to be so secretive, why the congress

has to give that authority to the president that the constitution permits to them and third, how come no one is addressing the fact that even though this is a trade agreement, it doesn't do anything to address the wage discrepancies and cheapness of employment and making products overseas? we can't compete if you don't actually make the other people payplay on a level field. host: john thanks for the call. earlier today they did pass the trade promotion authority, the t.p.a., that passed in the house. but right before that, they took a vote on what would help workers, 100,000 workers according to president obama would have been helped if the house had managed to pass the trade adjustment assistance for workers. that's something that needs re-authorization passed in the senate but did not make its way past the house. more calls. north carolina, spring lake, dennis on the line for republicans. caller: yeah, i'm wondering why

congress cedes the power to the president. i hope we're not going to a dictatorship and that seems exactly where we're going. either obama or our our nation will be dictating as far as trade and everything. host: good question there dennis. dorothy on the line from birmingham, alabama, you're a democrat, what's your take on all this? caller: where is president obama getting the money to fund the trade adjustment authority? host: another good question. let's -- we're going to take a look and see what we can find out from -- on some of this here. first let's take a look at a couple of comments that came through, these are on facebook. one is from mike and he says, in taxation without representation. americans are not being represented. this trade deal is illegal. and then robert say, support

but he supports it. -- that he supports it. if we don't participate in drawing up the rule, china will. and a cup ole of tweets. this is from birmingham, alabama, the congressman from dorothy's state. three main reasons i support t.p.a. one, trade equals jobs. over 558,000 jobs in alabama alone are supported by trade he says. then a second of three tweets, three main reasons i support t.p.a., america needs to lead again. now this is an argument we have heard a number of time, if the u.s. doesn't write the rules on trade, china and russia will. and one more here from congressman byrne a third reason he supports t.p.a. it restricts president obama's authority. t.p.a. sets almost 150 guidelines and restrictions. with that in mind let's take some more calls here. here's what you have to say about t.p.a. and t.a.a. from new york, independent line, dave. go ahead, you're on the air.

caller: hi. i think what i object to most about this is it's a black box. we don't know what the rules are. that's one thing. it hasn't, as i understand it, the process continues for a while before we find that out. the other thing is the questions of how have previous agreements been enforced as far as labor conditions, as far as environmental conditions, as far as monetary adjustment conditions. we don't know how any of these things have been carried out to know how effective these rules might be. i mean, we're really looking at a big nothing here. we're totally uninformed about it. host: thanks for your call, dave. another call from new york, staten island, john on the line for republicans. looks like we may have lost john there. let's go on to the other side of the country a call from

washington, doug is on the line a democrat. caller: hello. host: hey, doug, go ahead. caller: yeah, i have a problem with the trade agreements. years ago i had an opportunity to talk to ron wyden before nafta and he explained how great nafta would be for us and just recently, my employer, former employer built two plants across the board for the mexico and they're shutting our plants town in the u.s. so we're losing our jobs. that pays into my pension. my pension will probably go down. if we look at the past trade agreements they have not helped workers. we have lost. and just recently in the paper yesterday, they were talking about canada and mexico bringing suits in billions of dollars because we want to know what country our meats and vegetables

are coming out of and this again, we're giving away our sovereignty because this suit goes out to an international court that we have no control of. we are losing our sovereignty by not having our representatives be able to stop some of these agreements here. so i'm dead set against what's going on and they already give the t.p.p. if they pass the trade promotion authority, which i think it's good that they do that but again, they're privatizing, they're privatizing, or excuse me, socializing the costs of this out to the people that pay our taxes that are going to lose their jobs while the corporations are going to make huge sums of money with trade. host: thanks, doug, for the call. another call, bayside, new york

joe son the line, independents and others. hi, joe. caller: i agree with the last two callers. one thing we don't have is any information. we don't know past trade agreements, we don't know anything. we just sit here and we watch our senators and our congressmen vote. we don't know the results the last caller was -- the last two callers were, to me right on. what i'm really upset about is when i watch the press conference they let josh get away with all this stuff. everybody knows this was a loss to the president today. he makes it that, well, it was just a little setback and we won all this other stuff. why do they let him get away -- even c-span, why do you let him get away with that? why didn't somebody say, the president lost today? host: right. actually we talked to someone with politico, you can find it on our video library, we have a

six-minute interview, we'll be playing it in a little bit but there was a question president obama starting his day out on capitol hill lobbying very hard and that it failed by 302 votes system of no support from his democrats on that. and again, just a reminder, that this t.a.a., the trade adjustment assistance, that's going to be, we expect, coming back up on the hill, on the floor of the house, sometime early next week system of they're going to take another shot at that. but it did get voted down. the trade promotion authority, which is going to help with the pacific agreement, that did pass. so that means the president will get fast track authority. going to go on here, las vegas, nevada. wendy on the line for republicans. hi, wendy. caller: hi. i oppose it i'm a republican, i oppose it for different reasons than the democrats did. what really concerns me is

they're not talking -- they're talking about t.p.p. going to pass t.p.a., that was in the t.p.p. but also the tisa, to me, is just a back door effort on the part of the administration to change our immigration laws by letting people in, got to change the laws and also his climate agenda. and for it to be portrayed as oh unfortunately, which i heard you say, unfortunately, it didn't pass. that kind of does show you're biased. host: you might have caught me there wendy. all right, well, thanks for sharing your opinion. and again, yeah, the t.a., that assistance, not passing in the house voted down 302 and then the t.p.a., and also customs

agreement, both of those passing earlier. the trade promotion authority passing by a very, very slim margin. i think that was 217-211. i'll double check those numbers for you. but let's look at some facebook comments here, one from marilyn. marilyn says she supports the t.p.a. i trust the president, president obama is breaking the law, why haven't the obama-mating -- hating republicans impeached him? maybe because they're liars. kathy said she's opposed to this trade agreement, it will put our businesses and farmers under control of international laws, maintain our solve rememberity. we heard that from a couple of earlier people as well. rockwall texas, richard on the democrats' line. what do you think of the house's action today. richard, we're having a hard time hearing you. i'm going to try to get back to you and see if we can take another call here.

here's donald on the line, rhode island independent. caller: hi, how you doing. host: good. caller: yeah, i'm against it. i mean i support the president on most issues but this issue, it's going to cost too many jobs. if it's such a good deal, why are they going to promote $750 million to retrain people for future jobs, that are going to lose the jobs we already have? i can't support this at any cost. host: all right, thanks for your call. xavier republican line in michigan. make it quick, we're going to go back to some other information from earlier today. but go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i'm seing a party slip, the republicans are supposed to be for our country and for -- i don't think we should be trying to globalize the, and give more power to other countries like china and japan. we should keep jobs on our soil and try to prevent obama from

getting that. host: appreciate your calls and all the call, we'll be hoping -- opening the phone lines again at 7:45 p.m. eastern time. here's a look at the latest on where some of these bills are heading. we spoke earlier with a capitol hill reporter. adam joins us, he's a reporter with politico and reports on the trade deals happening, the bills and legislation on capitol hill and adam, we just saw on the house, a lot of action on the trade deals, the t.a.a., the adjustment assistance not passing in the house but the t.p.a. passing. what happened here? guest: there was a rule formed for all these trade bills that house republican leadership put together and the rule is that in order to proceed to the fast track bill, the trade promotion authority bill and there was a

third customs bill, they first had to vote on trade adjustment assistance renewal bill and that basically that program gives job training benefits to workers displaced out of their jobs as a result of trade deals. that vote failed and then as a result the other two votes, they were voted on sort of in a symbolic vote but those votes do not actually pass the bills. host: do you know anything about the behind the scene the back and forth and why they decided to take up that bill again? guest: basically this morning, the president came to the capitol, met with democratic caucus, urged his democratic, fellow democrats to vote for t.a.a. you know, not to spite t.p.a. they said you support this program in the past, you'll support it in the future so you

shouldn't just vote t.a.a. down to defeat t.p.a. but that seemed to fall on deaf ears. what we saw was democrats really disregarded what the president had asked them to do and voted against t.a.a. basically to block t.p.a. so basically they are going to come back next week and probably early next week, probably in the first two or three days of next week, they'll vote on t.a.a. again under the same rule. so that will basically bring up, that will -- they'll be able to use the votes on t.p.a. which passed and then they'll be able to use the vote on customs re-authorization bill which also passed. they can kind of preserve those victories. but they'll have to bring back t.a.a. the challenge there how will you

get so many democrats to reverse their vote? i think there's a lot of skepticism that that's going to work. earlier today, a faction of pro-trade democrats, led by representative ron kind, said there's still a lot of room in our caucus and in the republican caucus to get that t.a.a. vote passed. but i think no one is under any illusion that it's going to be difficult to, even if they bring the vote back up, to pass it. host: you mentioned the customs enforcement bill, it passed, it goes to the senate now. why? guest: there were a number of amendments in the customs bill. basically, the whole plan originally was to not have to conference the t.p.a. bill. they want to get that to the president's desk as soon as possible because they're trying to wrap up this transpacific partnership deal where that would be necessary that trade

promotion authority would be necessary to get that through congress. they don't want to waste any time getting that to the president's desk. basically, they amended the t.p.a. bill that came out of the senate on a few points here in the house but basically all those amendments were put onto the customs bill to preserve that bill from having to go through second procedural step. host: at the end of all of this too, this is essentially a fail for the president. he's been lobbying for all of this trade package. what does that say about his power and also the minority leader's role, nancy pelosi? guest: i think the minority leader has been, you know, today was actually the first day you heard her say her position on these bills. she's withheld any sort of judgment on these bills, at least publicly.

she hasn't said which way she'd vote for them. and she's facilitated conversations between the white house and the cabinet and members of congress. she always calls it getting to a path to yes. but you saw that, you know, she ultimately sided with the majority of her party on this and voted against it. but the president and his cabinet have been lobbying these bills for a long time. they've been sending cabinet members up to the hill for meetings. you know, the president himself has engaged directly with members via phone calls and other ways even, you know, taking people on trip, he took a number of members to g-7 in germany a couple of days ago. people that have had that declared their support but as

you saw, you know, it didn't result in the result that he wanted, obviously. host: thanks for the roundup on all of this adam. it's abehusdi, we'll look for your writing in politico.com. guest: thank you. host: votes in the house today, votes for assistance for workers who might be affected by trade deals failed. it's expected to be brought up again in the house. the second measure dealing with fast track trade promotion authority for the president did pass calls at 7:45 p.m. eastern time. you can let us know about what -- what you think about trade legislation and the action in the house today. in the meantime a look back at some of the debate before the vote. 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

ore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition. mr. tiberi: pursuant to house resolution 305 i call up h.r. 644, the trade facilitation and trade enforcement act of 2015 with the senate thereto. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the senate amendments and designate the motion. the clerk: h.r. 6 4, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend and expand the contributions of food inventory, senate amendments. mr. tiberi of ohio move that the house concur in the senate amendment to the title h.r. 644 and concur in the nat amendment

to the text, with the amendment printed in part a of the house report 114-146 modified by the amendment printed in part b of that report. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 305, the motion is debatable for one hour. the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. tiberi: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to include extraneous material on the trade fa tilltation and trade enforcement act currently under consideration. the letters exchanged between the committees of jurisdiction be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tiberi: i recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert for one minute. mr. schweikert: thank my friend

from ohio. have you ever had one of those moments when you are compeled to come down here and run up to the mic because you are enraged with some of the things you are hearing. beyond the simple facts of the rhetoric you know, looking at the trade surpluses and deficits, countries that we actually have trade agreements with we have a surplus in manufactured goods. but let's move beyond the basic math of growing our economy. the demographics issue we have in our country and the need to have markets around the world. some of the crazy things i'm seeing put out in the media by big labor, the willingness to make up stories, to make up facts goebels would have been proud of them.

and now we look back, it wasn't true. nafta has been a net positive and all the scary things that were supposed to happen never happened. be careful we aren't getting conned by madeup stories. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i want everybody to understand how these three bills are sequenced and how and why they were set up this way by the majority. so people will understand our votes. the sequence of the first vote will be t.a.a. next t.p.a. and next, customs. the reason for this t.a.a. first is to try to maximize the votes

among democrats for t.p.a. that's really why they were set up this way. and why customs last? it's because there are many democrats who will vote at least, some, there aren't that many, perhaps, who will vote for t.p.a. who don't like the customs bill. so everybody who's listening should understand the rationale for this sequencing. and everybody should understand our reaction to the sequencing. and what's happened here, the way this has evolved is this. for years, i have worked to try to build bipartisan and strong bipartisan support for trade agreements.

and we often have succeeded. peru it was over 100. we worked on korea and got less, but the leadership and i voted for it because we worked together eventually for a truly bipartisan bill. this t.p.a. bill doesn't have that. and essentially waste happened in part because of that is that the leverage has been lost by the administration to some extent and on our side to resist items like in the customs bill. that's really what's happening here. and so the customs bill has to go over to the senate. but everybody should understand the predictment that this places

the administration in and all of us. for example, the language regarding malaysia and human trafficking or human trafficking generally, what this customs bill does is weaken the language that's in the senate bill. this is on human trafficking. sex, human trafficking, it also relates to workers. hundreds of thousands of people for example, in malaysia and other countries, essential come to those countries, often their passports are taken. they have no rights and we say this should not happen and malaysia is in tier three. and the original amendment said any country in tier three should not have the benefits of t.p.p.

and this weakens it. and places this in -- if it's succeeded, in the t.p.a. bill. secondly on climate change. we worked hard to incorporate the may 10 agreement. we worked hard on worker rights on environment, on medicines. actually because the administration then and the administration would not negotiate it. mr. rangel and i negotiated the peru free trade agreement with the government. let no one say i'm not for expanded trade. it had an annex relating to forestation and deforestation

and illegal logging. why? because the amazon affects all of us and it affects trade. and so now what we have is language which if accepted here and then in the senate, would essentially preclude that kind of an agreement. that's what happens when you don't proceed on a truly bipartisan basis and there's no leverage for some of us. so also let me talk about currency. there is a provision in immigration, which could have an impact in terms of the negotiations. i don't know that there will be. but what i do know is that this amendment takes out the schumer amendment on currency. so let me just say a word. you put some language into this

bill on currency. it's like every other negotiating objective. it's not even swiss cheese with lots of holes, it's the weakest kind of cheese that has no real substance to it except maybe a good taste but this has a bad taste. so those negotiating objectives really are not meaningful. and it's the person who negotiates it, who judges whether those vague negotiating objectives have been met. so you take out the schumer amendment. now what's been the impact of currency manipulation on jobs in the united states of america? this is one of the bases of the feeling of a lot of people in various communities including the labor community, but way

beyond and our citizenry. we lost because of japan's manipulation of currency and then china's. we lost several million jobs. that's the reality. and so when people come here and say this bill of theirs, this t.p.a. bill will help in terms of job creation and they say as was said many times in various places, these are jobs we've already lost. nonsense. there are more jobs in manufacturing and other places yet to be lost that relates to the worker provisions in terms of mexico, which competes with us that also relates to currency manipulation. and the president has now said that china is interested and there will be no meaningful

currency manipulation in t.p.p. essentially, we are opening the door for more and more currency manipulation. so this is the reason for the depth of our feeling about this t.p.a.. everybody should understand the depth of the feeling for so many of us whether labor, environmental or medicines or whatever to what's going on here . so i think this customs bill makes t.p.a. even worse and essentially has tied the hands because there is not a strong bipartisan basis. i think of the administration to

really throw its weight around in terms of these amendments. i'm afraid some of them are going to become law. and that should not vice president happened. so i strongly urge strong opposition to this customs bill h.r. 644. it's one of the several reasons we should be voting no on the three votes that are coming before us. i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. without objection, jask wisconsin will now control the time for the majority. mr. ryan: at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the distinguished speaker of the house, mr. boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, speaker of the house, recognized for one minute. the speaker: let me thank the gentleman from wisconsin for his leadership on the committee and leadership on this bill. i thank chairman sessions and the members of the rules committee for all of their work.

i'm going to thank mr. tiberi, chairman of the trade subcommittee of the tremendous job he has done. and i'm grateful to all members who have offered constructive contributions to this debate. my colleagues, we're not here today to debate any particular trade bill. the day for that may come, and when it does, we want to make sure that agreement reflects the people's priorities. it means more jobs, higher pay and more opportunities for workers, farmers and small businesses. that's why we want to make sure that this agreement is nt reached or rushed and make sure there is no agreement that's in secret. and we want to make darn sure there is less authority for the president and more authority for the american people. that's what this bill does. it's a means to an end and the end is more free trade that's

good for our economy and good for our country. which brings me to another priority in this bill. and that's american leadership. when america leads, the world is safer, for freedom and for free enterprise. when we don't lead, we are allowing and in effect actually inviting china to go right onsetting the rules of the world economy. and what that does is keep our workers and our products on the sideline. but we're americans are we? we aren't people who stand still. we don't give in to doubt and defeatism. this is one of those meements where we need to remember that this country is an idea. it's an idea of people who choose their own destiny and people who dare to be exceptional. my colleagues, you'll recall that the prime minister of japan

was here earlier this spring. and during his address, which is about the need for america to lead on trade, he talked about how this is, and i'll quote, an awesome country and because here he said, and i'll quote choose the best idea, no matter who it comes from. well today the best idea is to vote yes. not for the president, not for ourselves, but for our kids and grandkids. i know some members of this body don't like trade promotion authority or trade adjustment assistance, but today, i'm here to vote for both because it is the right thing to do. i yield back. . . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. norcross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. norcross: thank you for yielding. talking about these three bills and how they are linked together. but we look at a couple of them,

in particular trade adjustment, it is the equivalent of an execution, but you're getting to choose your last meal. the end result is you're dead. or in this case you're losing your job. i'm an electrician. that's where i started my career. day in and day out i heard their struggles. i can take to you my district and show you those empty buildings from the failed promises of a trade agreement. i joined this body on november 12 coming out of the worst economic times. the first thing we are going to do is kick the american worker, kick him when he's down. we have empty plants as i mentioned before. trade adjustment helps, helps you get a job for a lower paying, less benefits, less wages. they call it trade bill for a reason. you're trading good jobs here in america for trade -- i ask for

30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. norcross: they call it a trade bill because we are trading jobs. you lose your good job that has pension, benefits, and a good wage that can take care of your children. for a job after you go through the wringer that pays less than half. yeah we might have more jobs, but they are at the bottom end. they are not the kind that would help raise up. this body, if we work as hard as we are on this bill for transportation and infrastructure bill, those are jobs that are here today and are for our future and make our country stronger. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. to engage in a colloquy. first one with the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. moreno, at this time i would like to yield to mr. moreno. mr. moreno: thank you, chairman. mr. speaker, from the time of

ben franklin reliable and affordable universal mail delivery service has been an essential commitment here in the united states, particularly to rural and lower income urban areas like my own. i am concerned when i hear my constituents that think that our ongoing trade negotiations could undermine our postal service. t.p.a. and trade negotiations must not undermine the u.s. postal service. i am also very concerned that continued dump steel imports are hurting our steel manufacturers. this is very important industry in my district. even when we have anti-dumping duties to counter dump imports, these duties are often debated through various -- evaded through various streams. we must address these problems in this litigation for my support. i yield back. mr. ryan: reclaiming my time. i appreciate the gentleman's concern about the impact of currently negotiated trade agreements on the u.s. postal service. the united states has

consistently excluded government services such as mail delivery from its obligation to impasse agreements. it's my understanding the united states is continuing to do so in the ongoing transpacific e.u. and trade in services negotiations. in addition, t.p.a. specifically directs that trade agreements take into account legitimate u.s. domestic objectives which has consistently included providing universal mail services. our trade remedy laws are vital for countering unfairly priced and subsidized imports. that's also why i worked with the steel caucus here in the house you being a member of that to add to our enforcement bill a series of provisions we call love of the playing field -- level the playing field torques strengthen those laws. evasion of these laws is also a serious problem which is why this enforcement bill contains extensive provisions to create new tools and authorities to both prevent and go after evasion. i think -- i thank the gentleman

and appreciate his leadership on these issues. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to mr. barletta for purposes of engaging in a colloquy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barletta: i thank the chairman for helping me improve this bill by including steve king's immigration prohibitions and strong tools to stop currency manipulation. we need to establish a process at customs that will stop duty invasion which hurts manufacturers in my district. you and i, mr. chairman, have talked about having customs investigate and decide duty cases subject to deadlines. subjecting the decisionmaking process at customs to review at the u.s. court of international trade will allow u.s. manufacturers hurt by duty evasion to finally get the relief that they deserve. mr. chairman do you commit to work with me on achieving these goals in conference? mr. ryan: i commit to working with the gentleman to improve the bill in conference to level the playing field for american

manufacturing and american workers. i also thank the gentleman for his leadership and ensuring we fully enforce u.s. trade laws. at this time mr. speaker i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin cloin -- mr. levin: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. becerra, a member of the ways and means committee, and the chair of our caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. trade's pretty simple. we do it every day. whether you are trading in the old car for a newer car or whether it's the largest economy in the world trading with the rest of the world. we do it every day. and at the end of the day, what we want is a fair deal. i give you something, the benefit of the bargain is i get something back. any country that wants access to our markets needs to play by the rules. we can't allow cheating to hurt our workers, their wages, our businesses, or our economy.

and the american people get it. that's why they are so apprehensive about any trade deal this congress puts before it. because they want to know will we lead on their behalf or are we going to let the special interests dictate the rules? will we retreat from our responsibility to make sure that if some foreign companies have access to our markets they are going to play by the rules? when i take a look at this trade promotion authority legislation, i ask myself, how can you ever get a good trade deal out of this when the rules are rigged against america? one simple example. everyone agrees we have had a bipartisan consensus in this house more than 230 members have signed on to a letter in the past saying we got to stop countries that manipulate their currency to try to make their products produced by their companies look cheaper than

american products. yet this legislation would prohibit us from going after the countries that are cheating to prevent the companies in those countries from cheating. so how are we going to stop the companies that we know are pirating, they are stealing, that are cheating against us, how are we ever going to stop them if the rules require us to go through those countries to try to get those companies to abide by the rules? when the country is cheating, i guarantee you the companies are going to cheat. and that is not the way you get foreigners to access our market. we can do much better. we have to do much better because the american people want us to lead not retreat. that's why we should vote this down and get a better deal that the american people know and feel is right for america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished majority whip, mr. scalise, from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: i want to thank the gentleman from wisconsin for his

leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. mr. speaker, american trade is critical to strengthening our economy and giving america -- american workers the competitive advantage that we need so we can go out and sell more of our goods around the world. there aren't many impediments for foreign countries to bring their products into our country and sell their goods here, but there are many many impediments when we want to sell our products that we make by american workers to foreign countries. especially in asian countries and european countries. those countries right now, our allies around the world, want to get good trade agreements, good level playing fields so that we can have good negotiated trade back and forth and sell more of our products into those countries. right now china's writing the rules. while america sits on the sidelines. we are not a country that sits on the sidelines, mr. speaker. this bill gets us in the game so america can go out and our workers can compete on a level playing field and we can sell more of our products overseas.

but something else that this bill does, mr. speaker, is it actually gives congress a direct say in the process every step of the way. we lay out criteria, things that cannot be in trade deals protections against immigration and global warming type issues being included in these trade deals. but also gives transparency, strong and enforcible rules so that any agreement that's reached would have to be available online not just for us to read, as members of congress but for the entire nation to read for at least 60 days before there's even a vote in congress. and then of course congress would have the ultimate veto authority over a bad deal if it was sent. this bill is critical to getting america back in the game so our workers can be competitive. when america competes on a level playing field, we win. let's go create those american jobs by passing this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: how much time, please? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 17

1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has 22 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. levin: why don't -- let mrs. dingell go. she's up there. it's my special pleasure to yield one minute to the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for one minute. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you very much, mr. levin. mr. speaker, the vote today is why i came to congress. i promised the working men and women in my district that i would fight to make sure that they had a seat at the table when we were making decisions that impact their life and their livelihood. we all know that we must grow our economy. and we must compete in a global marketplace. we all know what great products the american worker builds and that we can outcompete anybody in the world.

but we cannot compete with the bank of japan and the bank of china. nafta cost us one million jobs and michigan is still paying the price. the korea free trade agreement was a great deal for south korea. they have expanded their imports into this country by almost half a million products. and we worked to just get 20,000 into that market. enough is enough. congress cannot abdicate its responsibility to the working men of this country. it's our responsibility to protect our workers, fast track doesn't allow this. we should not pass it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished member from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman ryan. i understand the importance of trade and the impact trade negotiations can have on our local economies. even back home in illinois. currently one in three

manufacturing jobs depend on exports. one in three acres on all american farms is planted for hungry families overseas. as a congressman it is my job to make sure trade agreements protect american workers, farmers, manufacturers, innovators and service providers by opening markets around the world. because when given a fair playing field, i have the utmost confidence that american companies and industries can outcompete foreign competitors. but too many times past trade agreements have left our industries, especially steel, vulnerable to unfair trading practices like dumping. i will continue to fight for stronger trade enforcement and be committed to protecting american jobs and i want to thank chairman ryan, subcommittee chairman tiberi for their leadership on this issue and i thank my colleague from illinois, representative mike bost. mike and his tireless efforts to strengthen our trade laws to protect american workers and more than 2,000 workers at our steel factory in granite city,

illinois. i yield back the balance of my time. and urge a yes vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. pt gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to a senior member of the ways and means committee, dr. boustany from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the distinguished chairman of the committee as well. i believe all of us here in congress can agree to the evasion of anti-dumping and countervailing duties is a serious problem that needs to be addressed and that's why i rise in support of this bill because i think it thoroughly and thoughtfully addresses the issue. my seafood industry in louisiana has been particularly hit by this. which prompted me to work with industry, the committee, and others in the administration to come up with a legislative fix tore a growing problem. thankfully the bill before us today contains language from my protect act providing tools for

customs to help out our legitimate importers and distributors and trade affected domestic industries to prevent and combat fraud at our border, not after the fact which makes it much more difficult to deal with. specifically, the the language is dedicated to preventing and investigating evasion. within that unit, there will be a point of contact for private sector violations, who have the authority to direct these investigations and the duty to inform interested parties. they have to inform the interested parties about the status of the investigations. we have increased the types of data that customs can use to target evading imports and this language will increase information sharing between the department of commerce and the international trade commission to effectively investigate evasion. a finally the bill sets requirements to train its personnel.

these are necessary improvements to stop fraud before it gets to our borders. i could tell you, i have gotten plenty of comments from folks in my district, the owner of blue water shrimp company says the language creates provisions we need. we need these tools. and if we do not get the bill, the whole bill does us no good whatsoever. these tools are essential to effectively combating evasion. evasion is too important a problem to remain unaddressed and we will get the best possible agreement on this when we go to conference. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this piece of legislation. let's move the ball forward and strengthen our laws to combat evasion. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan.

the gentleman from michigan continues to reserve. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california. mrs. walters: i rise in promoting t.p.a. and i thank paul ryan for his leadership. t.p.a. is not to be confused with t.p.p. which would put congress in the driver's seat. it would ensure that the president is held accountable to congress and the american people in negotiating all trade deals. t.p.a. a public document which i have read and is available for the american people to read, in fact, it's right here, would require the president to make public any free trade agreement before it comes to congress for a vote. trade is a vital part of our economy. one in five jobs is supported by trade and 4.7 million jobs depend on trade in california. right now, american companies cannot compete on a level playing field. trade barriers make it difficult

to sell goods to the 95% of consumers that live overseas. free trade agreements would put in place fair and strong rules for u.s. companies to compete and win. if congress fails to pass t.p.a., china will. we simply cannot see our role as a global leader in the 21st century. i urge my colleagues to rally behind t.p.a. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. sanchez: i rise to express both strong concern and guarded optimism about the customs bill before us today. i will be voting against the underlying bill before us today because of drastic and unnecessary changes the bill makes to t.p.a. providings relating to human trafficking currency manipulation and immigration policy. however, i remain optimistic that the customs provisions in

this bill can be strong during conference. senators worked on a bipartisan basis to reach an agreement after nearly a decade of negotiation on how we should be enforcing our trade laws. i'm now hoping that house republicans will be part of getting these provisions across the finish line. one of my biggest priorities has been to combat the duty evasion by foreign producers that undercut american industry here. foreign companies avoid paying duties they on goods they import into the united states. for the first time, it feels that we are getting it done. i want to thank representatives tiberi and chairman ryan for discussions on the best way to get this done in conference. i hope we will be working on a bipartisan basis to get a final bipartisan house customs bill.

giving up the opportunity real teeth to enforcement procedures would not only be harmful but sends a message that this congress doesn't care about them. by increasing our customs security measures, we can ensure that american companies that play by the rules are not undercut by foreign competitors who cheat by evading duties on their goods. i urge my colleagues to work to improve this bill by incorporating language with some key, u.s. manufacturers have waited long enough to have customs enforcement that works. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield one minute to the distinguished member from iowa mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i thank chairman ryan for yielding and thank him for the leadership on this issue. and i would point out three things that trade promotion authority needs to pass t.a.a.

needs to pass and customs bill has to pass. the chairman could not have been better i laid two issues out in front, one, my concern would negotiate global warming climate change and the strong things that go beyond rumors of the immigration provisions into the future trade agreements that would be negotiated under a trade promotion authority. we addressed those issues. the language in the customs bill is language that is tight. i have confidence in it. it says it shall not obligate the united states to grant access or expand access to visas issued under 8 u.s.c. 1101-a-15. this satisfies my concern. enforcement is a concern. we are committed to stand together and we are hopeful that and expect that the president who we also anticipates will sign this bill, will abide by the provisions in it.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. king: and we expect and confident that the president will abide by the provisions in it. we will follow through on this part of this bargain and this congress has the opportunity to veto. what a wonderful thing it is to go into a trade promotion authority circumstance and know that for the next six to nine years, the u.s. trade representative will not be negotiating global warming or immigration. we preserve that for the united states congress, as the constitution directs. so that level of confidence let's us then focus on the trade agreements that are good for the economic growth of the united states of america. that's what's in front of us here today. and i'm grateful we have gotten to this point. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, a member of our committee, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized.

mr. blumenauer: i'm frustrated on the floor today to not vote for h.r. 644. this should be about helping businesses, export more, cutting red tape at the border and enhancing the ability to hold foreign tax cheats accountable. this bill cuts corners on matters to exporters and those undercut by bad actors and give special attention to the paranoia of the republican caucus. the senate passed a bipartisan customs bill which had a couple of strong provisions that i have offered, in it. this legislation is not what we are considering. this bill contains ill advised language on climate change and shorts efforts to deal with human trafficking and currency and reverses long standing policy towards israel. it's not so much the fact that there was these vote-buying

tactics to load this up with inappropriate items, i'm frustrated that provisions that would strengthen the bill and get bipartisan support, have been left out. the green 301 provisions to help american businesses working abroad who are put at a competitive disadvantage by operating at or above local environmental laws while native companies get a free pass, when it comes to following what's on the books. it's not fair and there should be an avenue of redress. the green 301 would have done that. and i had a trade enforcement provision that i have offered up that we've attempted to get through here. it's in the senate bill. i will be fighting in conference to make sure that these provisions are protected in the senate. we have a customs bill that's worthy of support and some of the goofy stuff gets stripped

away. i will vote for t.p.a., but i'm really frustrated that we don't have a customs bill that we all can support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i would like to yield myself time to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. turner: mr. chairman despite a long standing policy against the use of offset agreements many foreign governments continue to use offset agreements and result in loss opportunities for americans workers. offset agreements and military sales contracts are add-on provisions that require u.s. companies to invest in foreign countries and chairman ryan, under t.p.a., how will the federal government curb foreign country's use of offsets? mr. ryan: i agree that offset

agreements distort fair trade. congress will negotiate to seek more market access for u.s. companies and reduction, elimination or prevention of trade barriers. these provisions will direct the president to seek to curb our negotiating partners insistence on the use of offset agreements. mr. turner: i thank the gentleman for his response and i look forward to working with him on this important issue. i yield back. mr. ryan: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: many this morning have said t.p.a. will protect american jobs. in rhode island, we know that's not true. t.p.a. will facilitate another bad trade deal that will result in more american jobs being shipped overseas. those who think it is good should come to rhode island and meet the men and women. i have listened to former

jewelry and textile owners in woonsocket pawtucket and providence who don't understand why congress is considering another trade bill. my state lost over 40,000 jobs after nafta, mostly in manufacturing. haven't we seen the devastating impact? haven't we learned our lesson and doesn't include enforceable provisions on environment and labor. it's a bad deal. we need to compete in the global economy. of course, we need to grow our economy but do it in a way that protects american jobs and workers. we need fair trade not just free trade. i urge my colleagues to vote no. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized and has 15 1/2 minutes and minority has 11 1/2. mr. ryan: i yield to a member of the steel caucus, mr. boston,

one minute from -- mr. bost. mr. bost: everyone needs to compete on the same playing field and same rules. products are important. we must have effective laws that protect the companies and workers from foreign companies who cheat. this includes -- this includes nations that illegally dump into our markets. under our current trade laws, american companies like u.s. steel in southern illinois, must suffer long-term harm before remedies take effect. you know, that's like waiting until the house burns down to the ground before you call the fire department. doesn't make sense. that's why i'm pleased that we are voting on the enforcement bill today which includes language that my friend

congresswoman rodney davis and i introduced to combat these illegal trade practices. this legislation speeds up the process and helps companies like u.s. steel respond to illegal dumping before it causes serious harm to the company and its workers. i encourage my colleagues to support today's bill and protect our businesses and workers from unfair trade and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from indiana. mr. messer: i rise in support of trade promotion authority because i'm a conservative who believes trade creates jobs and opportunity. in my district, farmers grow corn and soybeans and sell them all over the world. factory workers like my mom, build faucets, cars and caskets

and sell them all over the world. trade allows that to happen. when the american worker gets a chance to compete on a level playing field, we win. that's why we need trade agreements. the truth is under the policies of this administration, paychecks are shrinking. for many workers there is more month than money as they struggle to pay their bills. killing this legislation does nothing to help those workers t would only make their situation worse. trade related jobs pay better. when 95% of the world's population lives outside the united states, we can't afford to pull up the draw bridges and shut out the rest of the world. that's not smart policy and it won't help the american worker. let's grow our economy. let's secure good-paying jobs. and let's make sure the american worker leaves this century just

like we -- leads this century just like we did the last. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished house majority leader, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, the majority leader, is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: before i move forward i want to thank the gentleman. he has shown true leadership in working, working with everybody in this house. any time you take a large piece of legislation, there are concerns. i have never seen another member of this house sit with more meetings, more concerns, and try to find a solution. i thank the chairman for that work. mr. speaker, earlier this year when i was headed home to california from d.c. one weekend, i saw something very troubling. something actually today we can solve for the future.

you see, it was february and there was a labor dispute. it was a shut down on our ports on the west coast. so as the plane descended instead of seeing the beaches stretched throughout california or the santa monica mountains, my attention was drawn to the number of ships sittle idle into the ocean and the number of ships sitting in the port. you see, the docks were shut down and our economy was halted. when americans cannot have their products moved to willing buyers, the men and women who were part of the creation do not receive the rewards of their efforts. in california we could not afford to waste any of our resource especially what we have short supply of of water. so when the trade was shut down, the food that was produced throughout the century valley would rot on the docks. what was most interesting to me mr. speaker, i remember a phone call i got just another weekend

after, it was the president of the republican freshman class here. he had just done a town hall and he's from colorado. said, mr. leader, i got a big issue in colorado. the ports of the west coast are shut down. you see, my small businesses are hurt by that. they are hurt when we are not able to have trade. i remember a big bipartisan press conference we had, republicans and democrats alike the largest one i have ever been a part of in the pressroom. talking about the ports being shut down because every single run of their districts were effective. especially the small businesses. when we cannot trade, our economy suffers. our way of life suffers. in fact, during that same period of this crippling shut down, our economy actually shrunk. today what we are talking about

on the floor is trade promotion authority. it allows us to get to an agreement. you know we have not had it for a few years. so what's happened around the world while the rest of america sat idle? there have been 100 trade agreements. 100 trade agreements around the world that we would want more of our small businesses to be a part of. you know how many we were a part of during that time? zero? because we did not have t.p.a. trade is different between rotting produce on the harbor docks and sending california goods around the world. trade is the difference between the lines of prosperity and the times of stagnation. we have a unique opportunity today. it's