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 not a trade agreement, it's

an opportunity. an opportunity that will empower each and every member of this floor. to have input, to have transparency but what's more important, to empower every single american to make sure they are now at the table. that when the next trade agreement between countries want to engage, america won't be left out, america can lead once more. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: thank you mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this bill. all the trade agreements since nafta have been sold on the same propaganda. they will increase our exports and jobs. and the results have always been the same. they have multiplied our imports, ballooned our trade deficits hemorrhaged our jobs, and depressed our wages. now we are asked to vote for fast track agreement that will

say we cannot amend any trade agreements, only vote them up or down. even as they like their predecessors lack any means of protecting our workers from competition with workers who are paid 30 cents an hour and assassinated if they try to form a union. we know there will be a provision for private corporate tribunals that can invalidate our regular laces. it is our constitutional duty to regulate foreign commerce not -- and trade agreements, not take them on a take it or leave it basis from the executive branch. it is our constitutional duty to protect the american sovereignty against foreign companies in validating our laws through private corporate tribunals. we must vote no on fast track to allow congress to do its job to see the next trade agreement doesn't hemorrhage our jobs, doesn't ignore currency manipulation doesn't validate our consumer labor, and environmental laws. we must say no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin.

mr. ryan: at this time mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. car bellow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. car bellow: i thank the chairman for yielding and his leadership on this very important matter. mr. speaker, we are biths of an impassioned debate on trade promotion authority, trade adjustment assistance, and trade enforcementment we are hearing arguments from our colleagues on both sides of this issue, from both sides of the aisle, and mr. speaker, i am honored to serve as the voice of my constituents from south florida who directly see the impact of these free trade agreements every single day. mr. curbelo: the united states currently has 20 free trade agreements, 11 of which are with countries in south and central america. miami is often called the gateway to the americas. and i'm proud to represent a diverse and proud community that has seen the positive impact of free-throw. -- free trade.

workers in florida create goods and services used throughout the world something only possible with free trade agreements. congress must pass t.p.a. so the united states can open up new markets. since 2007, there have been over 100 agreements signed on a global scale while our country has sat idly by. mr. speaker -- additional 30 seconds. mr. ryan: additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for additional 30 seconds. mr. curbelo: i want the american people's representatives to have a strong hand in negotiating future free trade agreements and this t.p.a. bill ensures this will happen. it provides unprecedented amount of time for the agreements to be read and ensures proper safeguards are in place for congress not the president to drive the agenda on the negotiations. mr. speaker, i encourage a yes vote on t.a.a., t.p.a., and trade enforcement. if anyone has any doubts as to whether t.p.a. is good for our country, i encourage you to

visit south florida. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair notes that both sides have 10 1/2 minutes remaining. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boil. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. boil: thank you. mr. speaker, i am not going -- mr. boyle: thank you. i am not going to speak long as i have lost my voice. if we pass fast track the american workers will lose their voice. this is wrong. the president has said the social mobility and imcoin equality is the issue of our time. if i really believe that anything we are voting on here would do anything to address that, i would sincerely be voting yes. but it doesn't. after 20 years of nafta and cafta and every sort of trade agreement, we have not seen our middle class benefit. let's finally use this time to

rebuild the american middle class and stand up for -- i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from the other side of the aisle, from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the distinguished chairman. today's vote is about america's future. who will shape it? it is not shaped by a recitation of grievance. it is not shaped by making trade a symbol of all that we find bad in economic progress. it is by seizing that future and shaping it and that is what t.p.a. does. it pries open foreign markets. it sets american rules setting. it allows us to frame the issues. in 40% of the world's trade and economic activity. we have never had an opportunity as important as this one to shape the global economy to our

advantage and to those of our trading partners. we must not lose this opportunity. the grievances are legitimate. the concerns and fears are legitimate. but we must look beyond them. we must address the future for future generations of american workers. i support the bill in front of us and urge my colleagues to do the same. again i thank mr. ryan for his courtesy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: how much time do we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 10 minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. levin: i yield for a unanimous consent to mr. sherman. mr. sherman: i ask unanimous consent to add to the record the chart showing we have a $100 billion trade deficit with our f.t.a. countries. those are the official statistics of the u.s. international trade commission. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my distinct pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from minnesota,

mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: members, trade adjustment assistance should not be a sweetener a trade in coin, trade adjustment assistance should be what we do no matter what. it shouldn't pave the way for trade breaux motion authority. it is important -- for trade promotion authority. it is important and good to stand with dislocated workers who are basically pushed off their jobs because of bad trade deals which we have been pursuing for 40 years. but yet here we are today told we got to vote for this trade adjustment authority which does not include public sector workers, which is smaller than it should be, we have to support it because the only reason we are here to support it, the only reason we have been lobbied by no less than the president and three top cabinet officials is because they know it paves the way to trade promotion authority which is what they really want

so that we can literally members, give up our constitutional duty. where are my constitutional conservatives when you need them? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin blfment ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield now to my colleague from michigan, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend and colleague mr. levin, for yielding. i come from flint, michigan. flint, michigan, which was the birth place of general motors a place that put the world on wheels, and in the last couple of decades has seen 90% of our manufacturing jobs go away. now, true, not all of them lost because of bad trade deals, but many of them were. and bad trade deals have exacerbated that job loss and

has ruined many parts of that community. i support as virtually all of us do expanded trade. as a way of growing the u.s. economy. i'm a member of the president's export council. this is something we have to do. but this t.p.a. is not a yes or no question on whether we should expand trade. this t.p.a. is flawed. it fails to address the most significant trade barriers hurting american manufacturers. it fails to address currency manipulation by our trading partners. if we don't address the most significant barrier, how can we expect any trade deal to have the effect? all we have to do is look to the performance of past deals that have similar flaws and we can see why we have failed. if we are going to engage in expanded trade, we have to do it right and a way that deals with currency -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kildee: deals with environmental obligations.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from mr. meeks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. meeks: today's vote to grant the president trade promotion authority is about america's future in a globalized world. let's be clear what's at stake. america's standing as a global leader has not come without strong leadership from this body and will not be sustained if we act out of fear rather than on fact. the most basic fact is that nations around the world are fighting through trade agreements for every advantage they can get for their economies and their workers. it then raises the question if we don't pass this agreement, who will set the standards of trade? will it be us or will it be china. if this bill fails, it will be china. the bill before us today is a

bipartisan effort to ensure that trade deals negotiated by the executive will be guided by congressional directives to reach the highest, most transparent and progressive standards ever required by law. this bill should have the support of any member who cares about the enforceable labor and environmental standards promoting the rule of law, greater congressional oversight and greater transparency for the american people. we are also considering trade adjustment assistance, a program that democrats have promoted to provide income and job training. t.a.a. should pass. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. mr. levin: both of us want to be sure of the time. so tell us, if you would. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 9 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from michigan has seven minutes. mr. levin: i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: who claims time? mr. ryan: i yield three minutes to the chairman of the trade subcommittee, mr. tiberi from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. tiberi: thank you for your leadership on this debate, about american leadership. we are here to dwight three bills today trade assistance for displaced workers, trade promotion and accountability authority that inserts congress and the president's ability under the constitution to negotiate a trade agreement with anybody he or she wants and timely customs and enforcement. enforcement is critical, ladies and gentlemen. this bill i'm so thrilled and honored to introduce here in the house. this is a key bill as part of trade. and far too long we haven't had as good enforcement as we need to have. and i'm committed to that.

let me just mention one thing. trade deficits, trade surpluses we have 20 countries that we have agreements with, trade agreements with, 20 of them. two of them happen to be on our borders, mexico and canada. you take out energy we import from them and rather import it from them than anywhere else in the world. we have a trade surplus with those 20 countries a surplus, in manufacturing. my dad was in manufacturing. mr. levin heard this 1,000 times, my dad lost his job of 25 years. i lost my health care as a kid along with my sisters long before nafta. globalization began occurring after world war ii. we can either engage or dis engage. when we disengage, we lose.

when america engages we win. we can outwork anybody. what trade agreements do actually is break down barriers so we can compete. and then we have to have the enforcement piece. but ladies and gentlemen, that's what this is about. it's about breaking down barriers. my state of ohio has been devastated by globalization. my dad's job before nafta was devastated by globalization. 48 countries in asia have had trade agreements with each other. for the last 10 years we are party two. we are being left behind. we can compete if we break down barriers. that's what we need to do today. trade assistance, insert congress and the president's ability to negotiate, because he already has that ability. this doesn't change that. this inserts us. this inserts slow track, whatever that agreement is, in

asia, in europe. 60 days in public before the president can sign it. 60 days. i wish i had six hours, six hours to review the affordable care act before i had to vote on it. this is 60 days members will have an ability to look at what was negotiated. if we don't like it, we'll vote it down. we have the constitutional authority to do that. this is about jobs. vote all three bills, yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. lipinski: i rise today in strong support of american workers, american manufacturing and the environment and strong opposition to t.p.a. t.p.a.'s woefully inadequate when it comes to stopping currency manipulation, enforcing

labor standards and environmental protection. this is exactly the wrong time for congress to be giving up its authority, which is our quints' ability to have a voice on trade deals. this is not labor versus business. countless manufacturers across my district oppose this. ford motor opposes this because they saw past trade agreements have been a bust and they are grateful concerned about the massive t.p.p. enabled by the t.p.a. will kill more american jobs. we need fair trade and american workers will win but that is not what they are being given. it is time for congress to stand up for the middle class and american manufacturing and stop passing bad trade deals. vote no on t.p.a. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: 6 1/2

minutes on the majority side, six minutes on the minority side. chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: let's reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: this reminds me of the song "are you going to believe me or your lying eyes"? and when you come from the part of the country that i represent you see what happens to these trade deals. adelphi, we'll be lucky if there are 2,000 workers. an auto plant, germ motors, down to three or four. we have countries shipping products to the united states

their final product lands on our shores and it's the same cost as the raw materials for the american company. that is not free trade. that is not fair trade. that is a raw deal for the companies in the united states and the american workers. and let's even say these trade agreements are good for the economy, as many people may believe. you still need immigration reform. you still need a transportation bill. you still need investments in research and biosciences and renewable energy. and i can't believe that some of us are voting for this and not getting any of those other things implemented. vote no. no. no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin continue to reserve? mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the member of the house ways and means committee, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. reed: i rise today, mr. speaker, in strong support of

trade. it is time for us to lead. when you open up markets to our manufacturers, to our workers, you are creating jobs here on american soil. i'm a firearm believer in u.s. manufacturing, mr. speaker. i co-chair with my colleague from ohio, the manufacturing caucus. we are seeing a renaissance in u.s. manufacturing. we are driving utility costs down. we are creating an opportunity where u.s. manufacturers are coming back onshore. and what do we need to do? we need to create markets. 95% of the world's population lives outside of america's borders. 40% of the world market is represented in the negotiations that's going on with the trns pacific partnership. why in the world would we not

lead and negotiate an openness and fair level playing field for our american workers and our american manufacturers? it doesn't make any sense. i ask my colleagues to join us, join with us to open up these markets so that we can create the jobs of today and tomorrow where we make it here to sell it there. that's what this is doing. that is what trade is all about. and when we have rules-based trade, our workers our manufacturers win. so i encourage us not to get into these petty political fights and have some type of litmus test as to who's on whose side. stand with the american workers and american manufacturers, open up the world markets to our rules-based system and i would gee at the end of the day we

all win and america will win. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield -- as i understand it, mr. clausen hasn't gotten time. so i yield to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. clawson: fairness for everybody, including american workers. since leaving my career in the auto industry, i often run into folks and now they work at c.v.s. or the t.s.a. and they say, mr. clawson, any chance the plant's going to open back up? i'm having a hard time making ends meet and paying for my kid's college education and unfortunately, i can't give them much hope. if those plants close because of

lack of american competitiveness, i can swallow hard and i can accept. but when those plants close because of currency manipulation which is an after thought today, then i don't accept it. and my sadness for this unemployment turns to hardness, which is where i am today. this is not about american competitiveness. this is about getting a chance for world class manufacturing facilities who eliminate jobs. i say currency manipulation no way. i say t.p.a., no way. i say vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: may i inquire as to how many speakers are left on the other side? mr. levin: we have one and i'll close. mr. ryan: same as us. i yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the house rules committee the

co-author of the t.p.a. bill mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sessions: i thank the young chairman from wisconsin for his hard work. mr. speaker, before we pass t.p.a. today, the law is that the president of the united states can negotiate whatever he wants without negotiation, with the congress and just go do it and come and plop it on our doorstep. i disagree with that. and that's why we are doing t.p.a., trade promotion authority where the house of representatives maintains its constitutional prerogatives and is empowering through t.p.a. any president, whoever the president is for the next seven years, to go negotiate in some 150 parameters as they negotiate. and we maintain our sovereignty

in this bill, including additions that we said that the president can't go negotiate a new global warming trade bill, chimet change. we -- climate change. he cannot negotiate anything new on immigration. steel and other things. we are giving the president our authority and expecting him to negotiate therein. this is a good deal for the american worker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's my real pleasure to yield one minute to our leader, nancy pelosi of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much mr. speaker. good afternoon my colleagues. today, we have a very important decision to make in this congress. i join with the speaker in acknowledging the hard work that so many have put in on this

important subject. i want to thank the president of the united states and his administration for being available with their cabinet officers and the rest to explain to us how they see what is in the trade -- the t.p.a., the fast track what the prospects are for the transpacific partnership. i want to thank our friends in labor, environmental groups, faith-based groups, who have expressed their opposition to so much of what has been presented all of which will be constructive as we try to move forward with a better trade promotion act fast track. . . we all understand we live in a global economy. some of us as i do represent cities built on trade, the city

of san francisco. i grew up in a city where the famous clipper ships brought product to and from our shores in baltimore, maryland. it's a great exciting prospect for expanding markets for our products and having u.s. global leadership. i was hopeful from the start of all of this discussion that we could find a path to yes for the fast track legislation that was being put forth. some bumps in the road along the way. some potholes along the way. unfortunately i think cold as well. that doesn't mean that that road cannot be repaired. i just believe that it must be lengthened. each week each of us goes home to our districts. and in the case of many of us, we put our hand on a very hot stove. we hear the concerns of so many

families who have financial instability and uncertainty. some of it still springing from 2008. 2008 where they were threatened with the loss of their homes, jobs pensions, savings, inability to send their kids to college. all of it undermining the american dream. as the economy has improved and the leadership of president obama still middle class economics have not fully turned around the country because of consumer confidence that people must have in order to invest, to spend, to inject demand into the economy is simply not there. so my concern about all of this it's about time. it's about time. why are we fast tracking trade and slow walking the highway

bill? it's about time. people have not recovered from, again, 2008 sufficiently to again have consumer confidence to turn around our consumer economy. and so i think that today we have an opportunity to slow down, we all know we have to want to engage in trade promotion and the rest of that. but we have to slow down this road. it is not -- whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for america's workers. another element that i'm concerned about is the time that is running out for us to do -- rein in the consequences of climate change. i want to just talk about myself for a moment and i'm bragging. i told myself second to none in this body on the subject of protecting the environment and

recognizing the challenges of climate crisis. when i first came to the congress, when president george herbert walker bush was president, he signed my legislation which is now called the pelosi amendment to the international development and finance act of 1989. and that said, that said that any of our directors on any of our multilateral development banks had to have an environmental assessment made and made known to the indigenous people who are affected by whatever development was there and made known to the world. the connection between the environment and commerce is inseparable. and for over 25 years the pelosi amendment has been in effect. when i became speaker my flagship issue was energy independence and climate. i speak from some authority on this subject.

the son of george herbert walker busch, president george w. bush, signed the energy build of 2007. we worked together to find alternatives to fossil fuels. he wanted nuclear. i wanted renewables. we have one of the -- very successful energy bill of 2007. done under the auspicious of the select committee on climate and energy independence that i established as speaker which has been abolished since then. pope francis in another week will be announcing his initiative on climate. while this is all going on while school children know that this is a challenge that we must face to protect our planet. people will join us and say this is god's creation and we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of it. in this bill today, the customs bill that's on the floor right now, it prohibits the ustr from

negotiating on climate change. how could it be? 25 years ago the pelosi amendment was passed because we saw melting snow in regions where the snow is melting. areas as big as united kingdom burning in the amazon. 25 years later and we are putting in a bill that the ustr cannot negotiate on climate change. can you not separate commerce and environment. while i salute the president, he has been magnificent and courageous, going out there and making the fight for america's leadership on climate change, he has been great. he has an agreement with china which is almost -- could not have been foreseen except for his leadership and the cooperation between our two countries. so it's not that he isn't doing his part. it's that congress, again it's about time.

slowing down our response when is we should be proactive. and yet fast tracking, fast tracking legislation to do that. what's interesting is we in the house, are we labeling ourselves the lower body and giving new meaning to that term? or the senate to have opportunity for amendment after amendment if their colleagues gave them the vote? but in this house, fast track the fast track. no chance to amend any of it. just vote it up or down. i find that unnecessary. unacceptable. and one place we could go to have a discussion on how to improve the fast track legislation. but at the same time the republican majority is allowing in the customs bill amendments to the fast track bill.

this amendment on climate, other amendments on immigration. and they were spelled out by mr. sessions earlier with great pride. amendments to fast track in the customs bill. but no amendments for democrats. again i don't see how this congress can ignore that. i don't see how this trade agreement can ignore it. much has been said about security issues. they are involved in this agreement. that we have to make a geopolitical case for this trade agreement. of course we always have safety of the american people as our first responsibility. their security is what we come here to protect. but how could it be that we are allowing, again -- let me say it another way. i have been very prayerful about this. pope paul vi, another pope,

mentioned francis earlier pope paul vi said if you want peace work for justice. economic justice, and i don't see that happening in this fast track bill. lifting people up in the rest of the world. or having trade agreements that do not increase the paycheck of american workers. that should be our first order of business. environmental justice looking at these prohibitions on dealing with climate and 11 other countries in the world, and then our own. now, again, i commend the president because in the fast track bill there are some good provisions on the environment. issues. i'm talking ethic, a responsibility, a competitive view of the future.

-- comprehensive view of the future. the pelosi amendment addressed the indigenous people all these people who will be not of the first, shall we say, priority for many of these countries as they make their economic decisions. and on the subject of security, last year 16 former three and four star generals and admirals who serve on the c.n.a. corporation's military advisory board released a report, 16 former three and four star generals said that climate change is a catalyst for conflict. climate change, they said, will have an impact on military readiness, resilience both at home and abroad, and they limit our ability to respond to future demands.

we have rejected fast track before. after nafta president clinton sent a fast track bill to the congress, and it didn't even have enough votes to be taken up. the second time, it was rejected. when we had majority in the house, we did not have fast track for president bush. when people say this is the first time a president -- isn't so. we instead under leadership of mr. levin and mr. rangel, instead we had the may 10 agreement. with the basic principles of how we should engage other countries. that is part of, and thank you mr. president, that is part of what the t.p.a. has as its goals, but we are dealing bilaterally one country at a time. this is a multilateral agreement with 11 other countries. 12 countries and growing. and we need, we need to slow this fast track down.

i think it is possible. now, one of the questions that arises is the question of the trade adjustment act. most of us have not only voted for this, been champions of it over time. i was one of the first issues i dealt with when i came to the congress. speaking about myself again. it's really important but as some of my colleagues have said, our people would rather have a job than trade assistance. trade adjustment assistance. i talked about that red hot stove that people put their hand on when they go home. mr. cicilline talked about his district. mr. norcross about his. mr. boyle about his. and the list goes on and on. how do we say to these people we are here for you you are our top priority when the impression that they have is that this is not a good deal for them.

but it can be. i'm hopeful it can be. so while i'm a big supporter of t.a.a., if t.a.a. slows down the fast track i am to vote -- i am prepared to vote against t.a.a. because its defeat sad to say, is the only way that we will be able to slow down the fast track. now i understand there will be some manipulations here one way or another what bill comes first, what can come up, what can't, but the fact is this. the facts are these actually, that the -- if t.a.a. fails, the fast track bill is stopped. they will take up the vote, as they said they would not, they may take up the vote, but it doesn't go any place. it's stuck in the station. and for that reason sadly

because the senate has sent us the bill that way connected, sadly because the fast track passes will need t.a.a. trade adjustment assistance, sadly i would vote against the t.a.a. and i just wanted you to know where i was coming from on that. for these and other reasons i will be voting today to slow down the fast track to get a better deal for the american people. bigger paychecks. better infrastructure. help the american people fulfill the american dream. i thank mr. levin, again, for his leadership, and i thank all of our colleagues who have worked so hard on this really on both sides of the issue. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the chair would note that there

are 3 1/2 minutes remaining on the majority side. three minutes of debate remaining on the minority side. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve, but i didn't catch the last part. how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: 3 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from wisconsin, three minutes for mr. levin. mr. ryan: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i'm ready to close. today the votes on t.a.a. and t.p.a. are combined and we did not do that. the republicans did so to win votes for t.p.a.. so they used t.a.a. as a bargaining chip. i don't support their doing so. as someone who has been a lead sponsor of t.a.a.. voting no on t.a.a. gives us a better chance to get all of these issues right.

you know throughout my career, i voted on lots of trade agreements and i voted for most of them. i negotiated a few of them when ustr would not do so. it's mentioned we democrats are responsible for the labor environmental standards and, very importantly, access to medicines that we worked out with difficulty also on may 10. so we democrats built the foundation and i don't -- and we don't want to see it eroded. language in bills isn't enough. it's what will happen in term it's of the implementation -- terms of the implementation of that language. i want to say just a few words

about jobs. because it's often said, we've lost those jobs they've gone away, so therefore don't worry ? there are millions of jobs in this country that are in danger of being lost if we don't do trade right. that's why we need to do it right. and i think t.p.a. essentially puts t.p.p. on a fast track when it's on the wrong track. it's on the wrong track. there are negotiating objectives, they're so vegas they don't really -- vague they don't really mean anything. we put forth a very, very important alternative, a substitute bill that laid out

instructions on each of these 10 or 11 issues, whether it was worker rights, i can go down the list currency, environment, investment, access to medicines automotive market access rules of origin, tock to tobacco controls, state-owned enterprises, agricultural market access, food safety. there's been a response to none of these. so as someone who believes in expanded trade we have to do better and to fast track t.p.a. is on the wrong track. i urge a no vote on all of these bills. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin, with 3 1/2 minutes to close. mr. ryan: mr. speaker let me make two points. this is about bringing transparency and accountability

to government. we're not considering a trade agreement today, we're considering a process by which we consider trade agreements. that's what trade promotion authority is. and this process we're saying, you've got to let members of congress see the negotiating text, you've got to let the country see a trade agreement once an agreement is reached. and you've got to follow congress' rules congress' direction. that's what this does to make sure that the executive branch

we are going to take your calls and hear your thoughts on the hearing earlier. let us know what you think about what happened earlier today. let's look at a couple of tweets. the outcome of today's taa, the assistance for workers, was disappointing. we remain committed to free trade because it is critical to jobs and our economy. i am pleased that a bipartisan house supported it. this is an opportunity to take stock and move forward on a constructive fashion on behalf of the american people. president obama was on capitol hill earlier today. he was try to get them a kratz to back -- get democrats to back

the trade adjustment assistance. but it failed. and trade promotion authority past, but he cannot go forward without the trade adjustment assistance. the third bill passing 240-1 90. we have robert from michigan on the independent wine. -- independent line. caller: my pasty spirits with the other trade bills we have made and for many jobs going overseas and so many well-paying jobs, and the economy overall, i am against it. anything that has got to be jammed through and past real quick is so vague and there's so much that it doesn't work.

and it makes it impossible for people to even make a living. host: is that a tough issue where you live in michigan/caller: yes, really tough. our governor gives tax breaks to corporations who send jobs overseas. one bill they tried to pass here a while back, it was so loaded with pork that it puts it back on -- on the back of the people again. people cannot take anymore. i have about had it. there's kids moving back with their parents because there's nothing out there for them. host: sorry to cut you off. just want to move on to the next caller. we have a republican from arizona. rich is on the line. caller: hello. i would just like to comment that the folks, the elected officials that are pushing this, namely mr. ryan and mr. boehner

i believe we should although them out of office immediately. i agree with the previous democratic caller. anything that needs to be jammed down our throat -- this is no different than pelosi jamming down obamacare down our throat. so i am completely against tpa and i am deeply against anyone who has voted for tpa at this point. host: thanks for the call. let's go up to maine, lewiston john for the democrats. go ahead, you are on the air. caller: i am totally against this. this is dangerous. we have lost so many jobs here in maine. why are they doing this again/it ain'? doing us any good. look at nafta and the damage it did. we lost so many many fracturing jobs here.

it's just scary what is good to happen in this country. people are losing their jobs. wages don't go up. things need to change now. host: thanks, john. that's lack -- let's take a look at "the new york times." again, the adjustment assistance not passing. further down in this article saying that some of the plans being mired in controversy. some of it was going to be late to medicare. republicans responded with a couple kidded solution. the house tried to pass the

senate trade assistance bill unchanged. but another trade bill to follow would include a measure that would swap the medicare change with a different one, raising the penalty for not filing tax returns in order to pay for that worker aid. we are taking your phone calls. we have lancaster, california, independent, mark. you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. two points really quick. first of all, i think people are kind of weary because of what we were told 20 years ago. with nafta. that it would create jobs and it in fact did not. and now, blaming democrats blaming republicans, knowing what is in the bill, three or four parts, it's about u.s. jobs and the jobs have gone down and the economy. i think a lot of people don't trust both parties and they shouldn't. host: all right, thanks for the call. are you finished/caller:

welcome. i am. unless you have questions for me. host: i thought you had a couple of points. got you. independent, gary, as you can. caller: yes, i don't support this tpa. one of the things that bothers me is all these back room deals that are made. i have seen this so much where these people that are in government service, once they get out, they are supposed to be regulating these corporations and they go to work for the same people they were supposed to be regulating. it don't make me feel real good about our elected leaders that seem to be giving the people the shaft while they give these, you know, corporations, you know our tax dollars. when we bailed out wall street they turned around and use that money to get their people a big pay raise and everything. and we pay for it. so i don't trust these people.

i cannot believe what rand paul said. you keep your money in your own pocket and you spend it how you want not what some deals spends on what they want. i think it's time we say, if the government don't represent us, we have to hire a lobbyist to have our voice heard. then maybe we don't need them. host: taking your calls to tell us what you think about the trade authority, the fast track giving president obama the ability to bring trade agreements to congress. those agreements would go to congress but congress would not be able to add amendments to any trade agreements. they would have to be subject to upper down votes by legislators. on the line is bill from mobile alabama. caller: we've got an alleged conservative congressman here in mobile. whenever they need him, which

they needed him today, he is there to vote for these big national deals and he will vote -- he passed obama's budget bill , you know, with the proviso trip where they would hold out homeland security. of course, seven days later they voted to attach homeland security. in effect, we got no reaction to the problems we are having within. nafta shutdown our paper mills our cotton mills the place where we were ever kidding t-shirts, blue jeans, all that's gone. and this deal isn't going to be any better. it's just a backup back room deals, congressman and their friends and family and up with a lot of money, a lot of good person everything. host: though is that congressman you are talking about? is that your congressman? caller: yes, we have bradley byrne who was a big democrat but

has now cast himself as a republican conservative. a builder is going to pass the matter what, he will vote for the conservative side. but if it is a close vote, like they needed him today or for obama's budget deal, he's reliably going to vote against the people of his district. host: thanks for the call. going to go to kenosha wisconsin. joe, democrat. caller: how's it going? i would like to say that i do not support the tpa act. and paul ryan is a piece of shit. host: sorry about that, not a place for that kind of language on this channel. we are going to go on. cincinnati, ohio. independent. caller: i am just so tired of the political situation in this country. it's the people's fault.

it's not the congressman and the u.s. senator's fault. it's the people. and if the people don't step up and voice their opinions through phone calls and letters at one time and get these people out -- let's get ready -- let's get rid of the old crooks and bring in new crooks for a change. but what about congress and the senate and bring in some people who will represent the people instead of the government telling us what they are doing. they are doing absolutely nothing but screwing the american worker. i am totally against this bill. host: david in cincinnati. let's take a look at a couple of tweets from members of congress.

host: now to liberty, texas. chase is on the line. republican. caller: yes, ma'am. i want to say hats off to the democrats and the republicans who voted against this. i am a libertarian. i am about money. you know, when you penalize people for producing, when you want to stop production of a nation, that is fundamentally what made america the grand bastion of hope that it is, because we out produce everybody. and they have slowly de-industrialized this nation. nafta, and this right here, got only knows what type of languages and it.

so i want to say hats off to the democrats and the republicans. their bosses are meeting right now in austria. god only knows what they are planning next to try to play the frame and blame game. again, two thumbs up. they are going to try to continue to ruin our country. but we will stand firm and we will not allow it. thank you all very much. and remember, jesus christ is in control. host: just want to let you know, too, on the earlier vote the trade adjustment assistance, the one that would help -- the white house is about 100 workers losing jobs, that is supposed to come back up on the floor of the house sometime early next week, possibly by tuesday. of course, we are going to bring you all the action on the house floor right here on c-span. so keep a watch out for that. mike in virginia am independent. caller: thanks for taking my call.

once the snake barack hussein obama, said the country is going to turn around. write it down. can't wait to get him out. host: let's get art from milwaukee, wisconsin republican. what are your thoughts? caller: my thought is that i would definitely vote against all of these trade bills. i have been around for the naftas and all the ones and all i have seen is jobs leave the united states. in the addition -- in addition to that, if these trade agreements are so great, why should we be taking money out of medicare to subsidize the poor guy who is going to lose his job? this money should be coming from someplace else other than -- he is already suffering for money. all it is what to do is make

medicare that much weaker. host: that money was going to go to the adjustment assistance for workers. we are going to have to keep our eyes posted and see what happens as they take it back up in the house next week. right now, let's take a deeper look into some of this trade package and what passed earlier on the floor and where it is headed. adam the city joins us, a reporter with >> the t.a.a., adjustment assistance not passing in the house but the t.p.a. passing. , what happened here? >> there is a rule for all these trade bills that house republican leadership put together and the rule is that in , order to proceed to the fast track of the trade promotion

authority bill and third customs bill, they have to vote on a trade adjustment assistance renewal bill. and that program gives job training benefits to workers who are displaced, out of their jobs as a result of trade deals. so that vote failed. and then as a result, the other two votes, they were voted on sort of on a symbolic vote but those votes did not actually pass those bills. >> do you know anything about the behind the scenes and back and forth and why they decided to take up that bill again? >> the president came to the capitol and met with the democratic caucus and urged his fellow democrats to vote for t.a.a., not to spite t.p.a. he said that you supported this program in the past and should

support it in the future and shouldn't just vote t.a.a. down to defeat t.p.a. that seemed to fall on deaf ears and what you saw was the democrats disregarded what the president had asked them to do and voted against t.a.a. and basically to block t.p.a. basically, the fast forward is that how they are going to come back actually, early next week and they will vote on t.a.a. again under the same rule. so that will be -- they will be able to use the votes on t.p.a. , which pass and use the vote on customs, which also pass. they can kind of preserve those victories, but they'll have to bring back t.a.a. and the challenge is how are you going to get so many democrats to reverse their vote.

and there is a lot of skepticism that that is going to work. earlier today, a faction of pro-trade democrats led by representative ron kind said there is still a lot of room in our caucus and the republican caucus to get the vote passed but i think no one is under any , illusion that it will be pretty difficult even if they bring the vote back up, to pass it. >> you mention the customs enforcement belt. -- the customs enforcement bill. that past. the bill goes onto the senate, why? >> there a number of amendments in the customs bill, basically the whole plan originally was not to conference the t.p.a. bill. they want to get it to the president's desk as soon as possible. because they are 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 and don't want to waste any time getting it to the president's desk. they amended the t.p.a. bill that came out of the senate on a few points here in the house but all those amendments were put onto the customs bill to basically preserve that bill from having to go thugh second procedural step. >> at the end of this, this is a fail for the president. he has been lobbying for this trade package. what does that say about his power and also the minority leader's role, nancy pelosi? >> i think the minority leader has been -- today was the first day you heard her say her position on these bills. she has withheld any sort of judgment on these bills, at least publicly. she hasn't said which way she

would vote for them, and she has facilitated conversations between the white house and the cabinet and members of congress. she calls it getting it to a path to yes. you saw that 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 have been sending cabinet members up to the hill for meetings. the president himself has engaged directly with members via phone calls and other -- in other ways, even, you know taking people on trips. he took members to g-7 in germany a couple of days ago. people who had declared their support, but all that, as you saw, it didn't result in the

result that he wanted. >> thanks for the roundup on all of this. we appreciate it. we will keep following you. we will look for your writing in politico.com. >> reacting to the defeat, press secretary josh earnest told reporters in the white house briefing room that our work is not done yet. most of the news conference focused on the trade bills. this is over an hour. josh: it's quiet in here today. >> we are stunned into silence. [laughter] adam: i am.

i am. there are many people in this room rightly skeptical about whether democrats and republicans would be able to come together on such a significant legislative priority , but also on a policy issue that everyone acknowledges is really complicated and politically fraught. we were able to advance a piece of legislation with bipartisan support. 28 house democrats voted for that bill. that over performs expectations. there was a lot of skepticism about how much democratic support the president would succeed in building. getting the support of 20 ace 28 is

a good sign of the majority the president was trying to build. at the same time, as many of you have also written about, i feel a little like yogi berra. i'm tempted to walk out of here and say it's déjà vu all over again. many of you will recall on may 12 i walked out here prepared to answer your questions about how the democratic leaders of a body of congress had handed the president a substantial legislative defeat on a significant policy priority that the president had identified. i'm walking out here on june 12 prepared to answer your questions about your perception that the democratic leader of a body of congress has handed the president a legislative defeat on a priority. at the time, you will recall that i colorfully described the situation as a legislative procedural snafu. to the surprise of very few

another procedural snafu has emerged. these kinds of entanglements are endemic to the house of representatives. i say that as somebody who does not have a lot of expense watching the floor but the president is determined, and i think as it was evident from his visited capitol hill this morning, to build a bipartisan majority to make sure that we are living up to our commitment as democrats to fight for middle-class families. that is the reason the president is in this office. as the president pointed out forcefully in the democratic caucus, he was not elected by the chamber of congress endorsed by the nsib, he is the president of the united states today because it was

his commitment to fight for working-class families. it is what he's going to continue to keep at the top of his agenda. if we are going to walk the walk , then it will be important for democrats and republicans to come together around trade adjustment assistance. this is a program that will last . that is a problem, because republicans have traditionally opposed this. republicans enjoy significant majorities in the house and senate so if democrats want to make sure that we are looking out for middle-class families, we need to make sure that -- we are going to significantly expand the program to the proposal would double the program in size. according to analysis put up by the white house today, this is a

program that will benefit 100,000 american workers each year for the next six years. that is a substantial benefit to middle-class families that are willing to go and make sure that they can get the training and skills they need to go and compete for good middle-class jobs. that has always been at the top of the president's agenda. it is today. and we will continue to make that case in the house to build a bipartisan majority for that legislation. that was a slightly longer windup than i intended, but what a we go to your questions. >> let's start with leader pelosi. how disappointed is the president that she turned against this legislation after remaining uncommitted for so long and he made a personal appeal to her. what happened there? >> thejosh: the president has enjoyed a long, warm

productive relationship with nancy pelosi. as the speaker of the house, she helped to shepherd in one of the progressive agendas in history. on her watch, working closely with president obama, we've friend grinned at the -- we prevented a second great depression. we reform the health care system in a way that -- the benefits of which are becoming clearer every day and bigger every day. she presided over the house of representatives that voted to reform wall street, to make sure that taxpayers would not be on the hook for bailing out big banks that make risky bets. she worked legislatively with the administration to end don't ask, don't tell, and these are all achievements that the president is quiet a proud of. legislative achievements that require the skillful leadership of speaker nancy pelosi. since that time, there have

been additional progress on other priorities the president has identified, from the fiscal cliff to protecting the president's ability to prevent a nuclear weapon. i don't know if anybody wants to talk about the iran negotiations today, but one of my points of emphasis will be to remind you that because of a letter that was written and signed by just about every democrat in the house of representatives come the president feels confident that he will be able to use diplomacy to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. there has been an active effort by some in congress to interfere with that ability, but because house immigrants have signaled that they are prepared to stand strong with the president, we think we can coverage the goal. i don't think there is anybody suggesting that that priority will be threatened just because we might have a disagreement

over this particular issue. what's also true is that we are going to continue to make an aggressive case to all of the house democrats, including leader pelosi, about why it is important for them to support trade adjustment assistance. >> given the resounding defeat today, what with the president due to turn that around? josh: the president has talked to congress about these issues being a priority. as i mentioned at the top making sure that workers have access to trade adjustment assistance is a top priority of the president. the truth is that it is the top priority of every democrat. last time it was on the floor of the house of representatives, it wasn't just that many democrats voted for it, every democrat voted for, including 125 members of congress who were still in office. as i mentioned earlier, we are not suggesting that they should renew what they voted for three years ago. -- four years ago.

we are suggesting that they should actually support a legislative package that would significantly enhance it, double the size of the cap, bringing up additional funds to help workers that would allow 17,000 workers who have had their eligibility for trade adjustment assistance and i, to allow them to have their application reconsidered. that is an indication that this particular program can do a lot for middle-class families, and we know there are a lot of democrats in the house of representatives who ran for that job specifically to benefit middle-class families and to make sure that they had a voice and someone fighting for them in washington, d.c. that's why we feel like we have a strong case and trying to build a bipartisan majority for trade adjustment assistance. >> the voting today today was confusing. could you help us out about what happens if taa can't pass? josh: this will be the subject

of a lot of conversations between white house officials and the president. figuring out the legislative procedure and the path toward will be the responsibility of the members of legislature. the white house will be involved in those conversations because this is a priority the president has identified, ok? >> is there any concern that his meeting with the democrats on the hill this morning backfired in any way? some democrats said they felt insulted that the president tried to tell them to play it straight on the vote. is he afraid he may have frayed relations? josh: not at all. the president had a productive as it with the democratic house caucus today. he delivered a strong case about helping those members of congress understand precisely

why he was strongly supportive of making sure that we were expanding economic opportunity for every american eye opening up access to oversee markets to american businesses. he explained how as a young man he left new york and travel to the south side of chicago, where he tried to help a community deal with the closing of steel plants. he talked about all the work he had done in the committee there to try to help the community confront the powerful forces of globalization. he went on to talk about how as a candidate for the united states senate, he traveled to illinois with democrat congressman lane evans and why in that community, he spent time with people are dealing with the closure of the maytag plant there. the plant moved to mexico. he talked about the impact that had on the community among

middle-class families and the community. the president said he ran for this office determined to go and fight for the people he fought for as a community organizer on the southside of chicago and determined to fight for the people he met in illinois. that strategy of passing the most progressive trade promotion authority that has ever been considered by the congress is an important part of that strategy. it doesn't, however, eliminate the need for congress to take the progress on a wide variety of other economic priorities the president has identified, from raising the middle wage -- minimum wage, investing infrastructure getting reform done those continue to the important priorities because they were also assessment class families. the president is confident that he continues to have loyal partners in the democratic caucus when it comes to those issues. the fact is, we have nothing cooperation from republicans on those priorities. on this one, we have. the president strongly

encouraged democrats to make up their own mind. when they did, to play straight. >> stepping away from trade secretary kerry was released from the hospital today and went home. do you have any updates on when secretary kerry is expected to come to washington and whether or not he is still expected to participate in talks over iran's nuclear capabilities? josh: i don't have an update in terms of secretary kerry schedule. you can check with the state department. they may have more details. we are pleased to see that secretary kerry is slated to be discharge from the hospital today, if he hasn't been already. that is an indication that he is living up to his reputation as someone who is determined to get back into his office and determined to get back on the job. secretary kerry is tough.

the truth is he probably benefited from a little rest. he has been working so hard for the last several weeks. i think he more than anybody understands the longest of priorities that are awaiting him when he gets back to his desk. we are certainly looking forward to him getting back on the job and wish him well as he continues to recovery from surgery. >> any possibility of changing the location of the talks? josh: not at this point. it's not clear whether that will be sent -- necessary. >> you came out with midwest up to with -- midwest optimism, but what happens when the president doesn't have anything on is just assigned and he has an uphill battle to votes on tuesday, to get something to his desk, is my understanding, and the vote today was overwhelming defeat by his own party.

isn't your optimism a little misplaced? josh: i don't think so, jim. 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 odds were overcome. >> they didn't really pass it josh. josh: 28 democratic votes, tpa has passed. i don't speak for all of you but i think many people whether they are in here are not assume that it would be easier to pass taa tpa that it would be to pass

tpa tpa. the harder part has gotten done. we've got a really strong case to make. if they don't act on it as early as next week, it will expire at the end of september. this is a program democrats believed in. they supported at the last time it was on the four. were not just talking about preventing this program from lapsing, were talking about significantly expanding it. >> the trade fast-track bill did they do with it wanted to do , undercut it by defeating the trade assistance bill. that is what was designed to happen and it happened. josh: i think that's what they tried to do in the united states senate. there was at one point in time a procedural snafu that prompted that delay. we are seeing a similar dynamic in the house right now.

in some ways, the one in the house is easier to resolve. we are talking about a piece of legislation that got the unanimous support of democrats last time it was voted on. there are substantial republicans who voted for it today. i certainly would not rule out the ability of the senate or the house to convince even more republicans to vote for trade adjustment assistance. we certainly believe we can convince more democrats to vote for a program that many of them have previously supported and that our economist can demonstrate significantly benefits middle-class families across the country. >> i won to ask you about the president's reaction to leader pelosi going against the president today. i would like to ask you what it felt like to have john boehner bail out the president today. josh: i'm not sure i would characterize it that way. certainly over the last week

and the groundwork has been laid in recent months, effective coordination between the white house and the speaker's office can make progress on a shared priority. this is the kind of bipartisan effort that the president has long envisioned, and unfortunately we not seen nearly enough of it. you have to give some credit to where it is due, the speaker of the house despite his ideological differences has set aside those differences to work together to build a bipartisan majority for a policy that we both believe will benefit our economy and benefit middle-class families across the country. >> pelosi on one side and boehner on the other -- josh: there is a bipartisan majority and the house of representatives standing with the president. yes, it means a substantial number of republicans. that is a testament to the president's leadership ability to try to find common ground on

this. i think the country is very well served by that kind of bipartisan spirit and hopefully this will serve as a template not just for eventually passing trade adjustment assistance, but also making progress in some of the bipartisan priorities that have been identified, including investment in infrastructure, criminal justice reform, and others. mike. >> many democrats who oppose the taa today did so, and i think the former speaker said in her final remarks, they did so as a way of stopping tpa, which they don't like. if tpa has passed with 219, so the only thing standing in the way of taa getting to the president's desk is now keeping taa dead, don't those democrats have even more incentive to continue to be opposed to it next week if you guys bring it up again?

how can you possibly say that you are going to convince more democrats to vote for it now when it is even more important for them to remain opposed to it? josh: the case we will make to them, mike, is that they have registered their objections tpa hope to block the passage of tpa but it didn't work. it passed with a bipartisan majority. now we are going to make a case to them that they should support a policy that they have strongly supported in the past. in fact, if they don't, we will see that policy that they strongly supported in the past instead they have the opportunity to make sure not just prevent it but to significantly expand it, double it in size in terms of the amount of money that can be spent. >> that means keeping tpa from going forward. josh: tpa has a ready pass.

now they have a question about whether they will support a policy that they previously earned the unanimous support of democrats, and are they going to seek to expand it and make sure they are not in a position where they -- where they are in a position where they can offer support to those workers that are dealing with the challenges of globalization? >> tpa is dead, right question mark -- right? josh: this is true. the president agrees with democrats that tpa is a priority. there are differences of opinion, but there are former areas where we agree then disagreed. i think this is the hallmark of a legislative procedural snafu. i think we know it when we see it now. clearly that is what we have before us today. >> to quote your be bear, it's not over until it's over, is

that which are saying? to mike's point, the president will not sign tpa without taa? josh: the president has made clear that taa is a strong priority, and that if we are going to take steps that the president believes it is good for our economy and 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. what we know is that we know how to do this now. this is the thing that secretary progress wrote to members of congress yesterday. he wrote a long letter, and i will get you a copy of that letter if you have not seen it. it describes what the benefits are of this trade adjustment proposal.

it is a package of job training and other findings that allows workers to successfully petition to the department of labor to get access to job-training programs that will ensure that they get the skills that they need to actually get another job. this package is a very significant one. it is a significant expansion of the package that is poised to expire at the end of september. this will explant -- expand trade adjustments for six years double the program in size, allow 17,005 hundred workers who over the last 18 months have had their eligibility denied to allow them to have their applications reconsidered, and it would provide and make available to workers 100 and 30 weeks -- 130 weeks of trade adjustment allowance benefits which means that that is enough assistance to go through it to your training program, to going get really good skills that you can then you's to get a good middle-class job.

these kinds of programs, we know makeup difference in the lives of middle-class families, and that's the case will make the democrats. >> there is no tpa without taa? josh: this is an opportunity for democrats to support the expansion of a program that they previously indicated they strongly support. >> both of these have to be packaged together, is that correct? josh: they cannot just send one bill and hope the other bill follows. procedurally, that won't work very that is why i would describe this is a procedural snafu. we have a bipartisan majority in the house, but have to work our

way through the procedure so that it can make it to the president's desk. >> why did he wait until the last minute to go up to the hill. when you say to people in this town who believe that it was too little too late? >> if that were all the president did, i would agree with them. josh: the president had dozens of conversations with democrats in the house and in 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 and congress, people would ask what is the president trying to do to get a pass. i make reference to the fact that the president was regularly engaged in conversation and that typically it was small meetings of the president would convene with three or four members in the private dining room off feel office to have a conversation.

those were conversations that were previously announced. >> why weren't those announce question mark why not tell the public? josh: the president wanted to have an opportunity to have a private conversation with them. i think there were some members of congress who came out and said that they had conversations with the president about this. it was often in the context of announcing their support for the bill. there are the more high profile settings where the president made his case. there were four members of congress who flew with the president to germany for the g7 last weekend. >> to jump ahead when you see stories written over the next 48 hours that say this vote that occurred on friday contributed to the president's lame duck status, when white house press secretary josh earnest is quoted in the stories, he says what?

josh: he says the president -- i'm going to talk in the third person? [laughter] i would simply observe that there is healthy skepticism across the united states capital and across the country about whether or not democrats and republicans would actually be able to work together bipartisan fashion to pass trade promotion authority. because of the president's leadership in the effective leadership of the republicans on the other side of the aisle who are willing to coordinate and cooperate with the president and his team, the president succeeded in that priority. there is still a procedural snafu to work through, but that is in the same spirit that has contributed to our success in passing tpa through the senate, taa through the senate, tpa through the house. we're going to use the same strategy. >> many democrats felt it was

matter of survival for middle income americans who could lose their job. what you say about the issue of survival as you're trying to marry this globalization and trade with people that for one enhance taa. josh: this is a significant part of the presentation that the president made 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. the question is how are the leaders of this country going to prepare our economy and the american people to whether 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 ask you try to engage the world, and engage the world in a way where we enter into agreements whereby they commit to respecting basic intellectual property rights, raising labor standards adopting higher environmental standards, respecting and protecting basic human rights. if we can get them to commit to doing all of that in exchange for doing business in the united states the united states is leveling the playing field. we're going to do business and all those countries to. when i talk about those countries, were talking about to have the most economically dynamic countries in the world. these are the countries that have some of the fastest growing economies on the planet. giving american businesses and workers the opportunity to do business in those countries with

a more level playing field is a tremendous opportunity. that is the right way for us to respond to the challenging forces of a globalized economy. >> it's impossible to insulate the american people. when you're looking at the positives and negatives, what is the white house expecting when the trade bill goes through. the number of people who could lose their jobs because of globalization of the next six years. i'm asking in numbers, when you calculate the positives of tpa and the losses from globalization realistically, you have your trajectory, if taa or to come into place, how many people realistically are you looking at that could realistically not be insulated

lose their jobs because of tpa? josh: let me see if i can get you some economic our analysis -- economic analysis. united states, our economy, and our people will be much worse off if we lock in the status quo and 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 with economic vibrant regions of the world, that that will create jobs here in the united states. that was the reason the president traveled to the nike headquarters. that is 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. what nike said is that if you pass the deal and we get other

countries to start to raise her labor standards and razor environmental standards and respect basic intellectual property rights, what we will do is invest in grading jobs right here in america because we know that here in america we got the best workers. we've got the best colleges and universities. we've got the most clever innovators. we have the most ambitious entrepreneurs, and that's it an environment that nike wants to be a part of. they recognize that by engaging in the world, we can actually expand economic opportunity here at home. >> cleveland, the judge said the police officer who shot and killed the 12-year-old is charged with the murder charge. what about that after the situation in ferguson and new york and cleveland? josh: this is the case that is now in the hands of local

prosecutors. that local prosecutor will take a look at the facts and am confident that that individual will consider the ruling of the dodge and alternately that this is a decision for that federal prosecutor to make -- local prosecutor to make. the department of justice has been engaged with the city of cleveland to help them implement the reforms that they felt were needed there. as a relates to this specific case i would not have any direct comment on it. >> did leader pelosi tell president economy that she was not going to support taa before she went to the floor? josh: i will tell you 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 the other members of the democrat leadership, and they had a private conversation.

i'm not going to be in position to talk about the details of the conversation. >> is his impression based on that meeting that leader pelosi was not going to support taa? josh: they had an important opportunity to discuss this this morning and i'm not prepared to talk about the details of the conversation. >> we sold him come out and they seem to be all smiles. what was his impression? josh: it was all smiles because they have a warm, constructive relationship. there is so much that the president has a congress that would not have been possible without somebody like leader pelosi. again, i'm not going to get to the details of the conversation. >> was he surprised by leader pelosi going out on the floor and opposing taa? josh: the president had an opportunity to speak to her before that. i don't know if you watch the vote. he is aware of it. [laughter] >> you're describing his

relationship with democratic lawmakers as constructive. i have to go back to this question that the perception coming out that meeting congressman fazio, i'm going to reed. i don't think it was a very effective tackett -- tactic. clearly, his message did not get through. he needs to change his strategy and message. josh: consider we succeeded in passing tpa the the united states and it was bipartisan support. taa through the senate with strong bipartisan support. tpa through the house with strong bipartisan support. it's a clear information -- indication that our strategy is working. i don't think that's an accurate access when -- assessment of what happened.

i'm sure we can find questions from you asking skeptically rightfully so, but the capacity united states covers and the ability of the present it to work with republicans in the congress to try to pass tpa, and that's what happened today. there also skeptical questions about how mr. mccarrick support the president would be a little build with this. some were saying, are you going to call it a win if you can only get 18 democrats? we had 28 democrat supported. i think if you consider the results, that's a strong endorsement of our strategy, but clearly what i would concede is that a work is not done yet. >> the message is not getting through when you get that type of feedback from democrats. just a follow-up on jim's question, is this too little too late? some democratic lawmakers say the president had begun to foster relations with them years ago, it would have helped on a keep piece of legislation he's fighting so hard for. what's your reaction? josh: i find it hard to believe

that the president's attendance at the congressional baseball game would've contributed to the vote counts today. if the president had just gone to the congressional baseball game, this kind of thing would not have happened. to the honest with you, i think the president takes much more seriously the members of congress and their concerns than some people -- analyst do when considering how they make decisions about significant policy issues. mark question? >> did the white house know that tpa there was going to be a vote on tpa tpa? josh: there was some indication that that was a possibility today. again, just in the short 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. there was some indication based on private conversations we had republican leaders that that was a possibility. >> taa since was defeated -- since taa was defeated, were you surprised that tpa was passed? josh: no. there was the bipartisan majority that had been built to pass tpa. >> did the president bring up trade on this deal? josh: i wasn't there. i did not overhear the conversations. they were there to have a good time. i don't know if the other chance to twist any arms. i think that is a pretty good illustration that goes back to what kristin was saying. josh: it was hinted that the

president was going to the game, can you tell us how he decided? >> i think the president viewed it an opportunity to get out of the white house, which he looks for the chance to do periodically, but i do think he also thought it would be an opportunity for him to show some solidarity with congress. they are out having a good time on the baseball diamond. he could also demonstrate that he's paying close attention to the important work of their considering. it was a decision made on relatively short notice. thanks to the agility of the press corps we got most of them in the van in time to go. >> changing subjects to the cyber intrusion at the opm.

you said it was 4.1 million in place potentially subject to this intrusion. the ap reported today that the number may be much higher, citing two people briefed on the matter, as high as 14 million. can you confirm that? josh: i don't have additional details about the ongoing investigation into this particular matter. you will recall that our law enforcement professionals did make an announcement last week about their preliminary knowledge that they had activated so far about the scope of this particular intrusion. that investigation continues. the thing that i mentioned yesterday and talking about this is that sometimes our investigators are reluctant to talk publicly in much detail about what they've learned because it can give some helpful insight to our adversaries

frankly, about what kinds of techniques are used to investigate and mitigate and the terror these -- and deter these kinds of intrusions. i know investigators are committed to making sure that there -- those affected by this intrusion are advised as soon as possible and get the resources information they need to make sure that they can protect themselves. >> i had a couple of cyber security experts tell me that this is the biggest intrusion since the edward snowden affair. just given the massive size and scope of the federal bureaucracy and the cumbersome nature of turning around an aircraft carrier the size, whether the federal government is nimble enough to address these kinds of attacks. the federal government cannot with its procurement policies have competitive bidding for

protection. josh: you're right. protecting the computer networks of the government is a daunting challenge. it does require the federal government to be nimble something that is difficult when you're talking about an organization this large. there are a number of steps the administration is taking to address those concerns. these are the kinds of challenges -- this challenge facing the federal government is not the similar from the charge that is facing the private sector and large organizations as well. that's one of the reasons that we have been forceful and calling on congress to pass cyber security legislation that the president has or descend up to congress. there are some steps that we could implement that required congressional authorization that could make not just the federal government but also the private

sector more noble and effective in communicating with one another to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect the computer networks and data of the american people. let me give you one example. it is one of the priorities when dealing with these matters and being nimble, information sharing. one of the thing that we can do is if a private sector entity had been the victim of an intrusion, sharing information about how that intrusion was detected with other industries and with the federal government can be a an effective way to make sure other computer networks can be shored up to protect against a similar intrusion. that's one of the reasons that we are aggressively advocating congress to pass this piece of legislation, and it would have a tangible impact on the ability

of this country to protect the data of the american people. >> the chinese probably have access to background checks and security clearances now? they therefore no who american contacts are in china with chinese people, friends, family associates, confidants in that country. do you think it might be necessary to remove people from embassy positions in china who have close contacts on the outside and are themselves chinese question? josh: we have not discussed publicly what we know about the extent of the cyber intrusion. we have knowledge that potentially sensitive data about a substantial number of federal employees was breached or at-risk. we haven't talked publicly about the details. i'm not aware that the state department has made the decision to take any actions in response

to this specific matter. if they have, you should ask them about it. >> people as high as cabinet level officers have that data stored there, background check information? josh: i don't know the answer to that. i know there is a substantial amount of data that is maintained that opm. we will not be up to discuss in much detail about what data, which data, may potentially be affected by this particular incident. >> the delegation was in town this week. have you tried to cut all ties with these organizations? josh: there has been no change in our policy with respect to the muslin brotherhood. the obama administration in the united states routinely engages with representatives across the

political spectrum and all countries around the world. as the administration has in the past, they have met with the muslin brotherhood representatives, including earlier this year. it is true that no one from the white house or administration met with the current delegation, but that does not reflect any change in our policy towards the muslim brotherhood. i don't have a detailed explanation to share with you other than to say that we are going to choose when to meet with them. on this does it, no one from the administration will be meeting with them. >> on the opm hack, harry reid said the chinese were behind it. do you dispute that? josh: we have declined to offer

our own official assessment about who may be responsible for this particular intrusion. i don't have any information to share with you on that. >> it wasn't that long ago that the president made new policy by green letting the use of economic sanctions against people tied to cyber intrusions, such as this one potentially. how close are you to announcing retaliatory steps targeting individuals or nationstates? josh: the president did sign an executive order earlier this year authorizing the secretary of treasury to make some decisions about designating sanctions, individuals who may be responsible for specific cyber intrusions or just benefiting from those cyber intrusions. and talking about sanctions in the past, you know that we have often said that it is not in our interest to telegraph in advance

any decisions that we may be making regarding sanctions. primarily, because it does give those who may be targeted the opportunity to move around their assets to try to escape the sanctions. i don't have much insight to share with you unfortunate about where we are on that decision-making progress, other than to confirm for you that this newly available option is one that is on the table. >> i'll try to give a quick. how concerned are you that this is going to chase qualified people out of government or dissuade qualified people from joining government if they worry that their confidential information compromised. how concerned are you about that? josh: the reason that i'm not concerned about the matter is that this is a challenge facing the private sector as well.

those individuals recruited by private sector entities also have to turn over significant amounts of personal information. the need and the strategy for protecting the information is something that both private sector experts and federal government experts grapple with. in fact, the president spent a lot of time encouraging those in the private sector to coordinate with federal government experts that they can share knowledge and best practices and devise strategies that will bolster the defenses of both public and private computer systems. trying to facilitate that kind of coordination, we believe it will benefit everybody. there is no doubt that this is a significant challenge, and one that is a priority for many private sector companies, and also a priority for the president and every federal government agency that he's responsible for. >> a lot of federal employees have received e-mails telling them that their information was compromised and offering them

support with credit monitoring. have you received that message and about yourself of that service? josh: i have not at this point. i understand the notification process is ongoing. >> one on opm before a question of trade. on the hack, you're not willing to give a number in terms of how many affected, but are you willing to say that the fbi has expanded beyond the initial estimates and that you actually believe it's broader than what it was? josh: i don't have any details to share with you about the investigation at this point. as the fbi and dhs gather more information, if they are comfortable and reach a point where they want to share more information, i'm confident they will, but that information will

come from then first, not me. they will make decisions consistent with what they believe is the best interest of the ongoing investigation. >> the 4 million number now, is that the number you're sticking to? josh: that is the latest number and i don't have an update for you. >> last week, you ask about whether or not federal contractors were part of it, and you said you didn't think so. is there any update? josh: i don't know the answer to that question. we will see if we can get you an answer to that. you can also contact opm to see if you can get an answer. >> on trade, the taa issue came up on monday or tuesday with the medicare fix and it seemed like speaker pelosi was on board. she worked out a deal with john boehner to fix that and take it off the table and it ended up she voted against it. were you surprised that after

being on board, she switched to come out against it and should the white house of dunmore to attack the issue -- done more to attack the issue? josh: a couple of things, the president has been engaged in having a number of telephone and in-person conversation over the last several weeks on this issue. i'm not sure anybody can question the president's commitment to engaging on this issue to build important bipartisan support for a legislative priority that -- and there is tangible evidence to indicate that strategy was successful because there was passage with a bipartisan majority of tpa legislation could we obvously have additional work to do on the taa bill. when we were discussing this earlier in the week, i complemented leader pelosi and speaker boehner for effectively

coordinating to resolve concerns that some democrats have raised about the pay for of the taa bill. in the days ahead, i hope the democrats and republicans will summon a similar bipartisan spirit to build a bipartisan majority for this legislation that has earned strong support from democratic numbers of the house of representatives unanimous support last time it was considered. they were also able to refer publicans to consider the legislation. there were republicans who voted for today. including the speaker of the house. we are hopeful that house republicans will continue to men support to a program the president believes is critically important to supporting middle-class families, particularly those who are dealing

with globalization. >> what is the new tactic he will use? are you focused on getting democrats -- the program will end in september or when to get republicans to change their position? >> what is served us well in this process in terms of passing tpa through the senate, passing taa through the senate, passing tpa through the house, that is an indication that our strategy has worked. we obviously have more work to do. our strategy has been to make the case to democrats and republicans about why they should support this legislation. there are arguments that republicans find more persuasive and once the democrats find more persuasive. that