at eight: 20 a.m. on the upcoming supreme court decision in michigan versus epa, case looking at whether the epa properly bash and powerplant regulations. >> good morning and welcome to the "washington journal" on this thursday june 25th. we'll begin with the top stories of the week. here's headlines for you to weigh in. congress has approved fast track authority for the president on trade but the hard part striking a deal and getting congress to approve one. and as we wait for decisions in the supreme court new poll finds americans strongly favor the tpros spect of same sex marriage but the public remains split

over the healthcare law. two cases the court could announce a decision on. and the boston marathon bomber and lethal injection. democrats. marathon bomber you can also send us a tweet at c-span wj or facebook.com/c-span. we'll get to your thoughts in just a minute. but the "wall street journal". front page on the fast track authority. the senate approved it.

plog mat tick alliance got this bill through. after they handed a defeat on the trade package the majority leader and the senate, senator mcconnell and speaker of the house to find a pass forward. they spoke separately with mr. oh pwpl obama and all three had a joint conversation. they would pass the worker's aid bill if democrats trusted them to follow through once the trade aauthority bill passed. mr. obama took the deal. they had a request for the president, keep democrats from defecting. the president invited pro trade democrats for a meeting. he said the president explained the plan b telling the lawmakers

i think this can work. it came down to the people who are open-minded about trade hanging on by their fingertips. senator orrin hatch, a republican of utah credited the president's pressure. i have to say i haven't seen him there in a lot of other cases but this case he did work it very hard. without him i don't know that we would have gotten this result. now this trade promotion authority has passed by itself. and they're trading over the trade assistance bill and that will get a vote today before they leave for the 4th of july recess. u.s.a. today the editorial pwaorbgsd theyboard they say it's unfair and ineffective. it may keep the transpacific deal on track but the program should be all allowed to end. it unfairly focuses on one

particular category of displaced worker and doesn't do much for the people its intended to help. the program funded at 7-$11 million and after that a they can continue to get the allowance if they're kwaul qualified in a program. the opposing view in u.s.a. today, he said it provides a vital life line who benefits from t. a. a., about 56% have a high school diploma or less and average age nearly 50 and average tenure before being laid off 12 years and quarter of participants were re-employed in manufacturing. your top stories of the week and that's our conversation. james in newark, new jersey, good morning to you.

what's on your mind? caller: yes, hi. thanks for having me. very happy. good morning. now, about this healthcare bill. 15 million people is going to be affected by the supreme court decision on the healthcare bill that obamacare passed. and all for what? so they have more billions of dollars for themselves. this the same thing. how do i know? back in the seventies. thank you. host: all right. he says corporate interests at play here with the healthcare law and with the trade vote. we're having you weigh in on top stories this week. what do you think? as we said the supreme court

could make some decisions on a number of pending cases today, tomorrow and added friday as a decision day as well as today or they could announce these decisions on monday the last day for decisions to be announced. here's the "huffington post" this morning. as a reminder king v.burrell may strike down a feature because of four words -- that decision could come as well from the supreme court today along with other ones. but we hear from james from princeton, new jersey a

democrat. you're on the air. caller: good morning, greta, how are you? >> doing well. caller: there is a lot in the news whether charleston south carolina, i happen to be a supreme court junky. at least we don't -- no matter what side of the political spectrum we don't have any confirmation hearings. i assume the ones we're waiting for whether it be guy mare beganing or king v burrell. what i told the screener and there was one time i complained you were screening all the time, the decline of the media in the u.s. i'm sorry you asked me why? >> okay. caller: may i extrapolate on

that? >> yes. caller: okay, sure. i'm not too far from a governor from new jersey who is running for president. i'm not blaming for him in the decline in the media. i think it's a sign of the times. i studied media when i was in college and basically we have a situation where people who are coming out of college young or if they want to focus on news, they don't -- i remember i was in in the minority as a young child watching c-span and i i fear and this is a more general comment -- i'm not one of these people who hate all big business, you know, but i know the dow jones is making cuts and i'm not a snob. i don't think it's just the "new

york times" and the "washington post" and new york journal, but there will be always be hyper local sources of news and always be a and the "new york times". by the way being in new jersey and having lived in new york it's not -- it's really not a local paper up here anymore. we get more local news from the philly inquirer. you shouldn't have to think that a requirement -- i'm being a little "new york times". by the facetious. you shouldn't have to have your birth certificate about the

trade agreement and i'm beginning to realize there are a lot of economic endeavors by corporate entities that are pushing profits and they're killing our situation with what we're really trying to deal with and isn't that economic recovery. at the same time, you know we have the healthcare dilemma and that's just basically kind of another nightmare and seems to be corporate entities still pushing profits.

it's time to stop all of this. we really are going to have to really deal with the idea of -- host: lost bill there. we'll move on to ronald, democrat. top story this week. go ahead. caller: yes, i was calling because of this trade where you can't do amendments when it gets to the house and the senate and this is up and down votes. can't approve on any of the bills, plus when they send our food products over offshore all they got to do is go out of the border of america, ship it back the same product that was made by americans and charge many more times the price. another thing, you know you see this thing on racial divide, this is always been and probably will always be some friction

there increasing jobs decreases that a lot. but also having a better mental health association out there improved to make sure people that have real disturbing thoughts should not be able to get a job. and that doesn't go for most of the population. most cares what they do and what they say. host: racial tension and possible gun control are issues could come up tomorrow when president goes out to the church where nine people were shot last week. the president will be giving the eulogy there 1:45 eastern time and you can tune here to watch all of that. the state in south carolina, the newspaper there courtesy of the

museum "god has a purpose" that's the quote on the front page this morning. the senate senator there, pinckney, you can see there, 1973 to 2015 arrived in a horse drawn carriage arrived at the state house for a public viewing. that happening yesterday in charlton south carolina. so, that happening yesterday front pages of the state newspaper this morning and then also related to this story this morning in the papers here is the atlanta journal constitution with the headline "hate crime charges are likely. the feds feel obligated because the shooting is racially motivated and will likely file hate crime charges against the man who carried it out.

dylann root already faces nine counts of murder and could face the death penalty. "new york times" rights this -- that from the "new york times" this morning and front page of the "new york times" this morning, focusing on the families, the victims of this shooting from last week. families hope their words endure past the shooting. as the first of the funerals begin thursday, the nine families are pondering allowing love and forgiveness.

this is ton say that the families do not feel moments of rage and heartbreak nor should their forgiveness being mistaken as acceptance? do we want justice done? do we want hatred to stop, yes. do we want him to pay for his crime, yes. we'll hear from frank next. go ahead. caller: about that shooting, i see that it was really bad. honestly it's just the way the law reads. if everybody had weapons the kid probably wouldn't have made it in the door of the church and

that would have been the end of. that host: you don't think that guns should be restricted because of happened? caller: you need a little bit -- you need a secure check that everybody gets a gun, but i mean, think about it. it's so weird about the my man being, when they see something they're going to go, i guess i'm not going to do that. that's going to hurt. host: bill, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i have two points. i hate to think -- i hear that the young man was sitting there praying. he was just looking at his target rich environment and during the disturbance in baltimore, the police put out the fact that the kreups and the bloods and these different guns were out to shoot policeman.

that turn odded out to be a complete lie and that was sent out by the police department. that's very interesting. thank you. host: keith from mount vernon, new york. what do you think? caller: the shooting that occurred we have gun control laws in new york, but i don't think guns kill people i think people kill people and this has been going for a long time and i guess it's time to put the guns away and control people at the same time. the other point is obamacare. i was for the first time in my life i federal government back taxes because there is no

computed indicator built into the system if you work over time. you can wind up oh owing the federal government quite a bit of money. because they look at your program going back into the affordable healthcare website and change your income and i mean with today's computers that can be built in. because taxpayers will owe the government because the computer model won't adjust itself and they're going to say we gave you too much of a tax break. we tried to talk to somebody and nobody had any ideas and nobody could fix it and i've never owed the government taxes because i always take less than what i'm supposed to at the onset of

deductions. host: keith and another caller mentioned gun control scott walker expanding gun rights in wisconsin. scott walker potential 2016 contender as well for president. also yesterday in washington, president obama announcing changes. the announcement comes after a surge in the taking >> "look at this not only as a president but husband and father. if my family were at risk i would move heaven and earth to

get those loved ones back. as president i also have to consider our larger national security. i firmly believe that the united states government paying ransom to terrorists risks endangering more americans. i believe it puts fewer americans at risk. host: the president yesterday was an announcement of change saying they'll no longer threaten families with prosecution if they reach out to these terrorists in hopes of exchanging ransom for their family members. the speaker of the house before the president announced his decision and voiced his concerns over this change in policy. >> i'm not seen the report nor have i seen analysis of it. but we have had a policy in the united states for over 200 years of not paying ransom and not

negotiating with terrorists and the concern that i have is that by lifting the principal you could be endangering more americans here and overseas. >> speaker of the house yesterday talking about his concerns with change in the policy. next american hostages the u.s. won't pay ransom but will assist those who do. it implies that there isn't all that much that the u.s. government is willing to do to rescue americans. the families have to do what they can to bring hostages back and someone will have to pay up. more than 80 have been taken hostages and only two have been rescued. this is what happens when our enemies don't fear american

retribution. you can weigh in on that. the president wins fast track trade authority. the 13th republican presidential candidate to throw his hat in the ring yesterday and waiting on the supreme court to tell us their decisions on cases dealing with guy marriage healthcare, lethal injection and others. the and deadline is tuesday and funerals have begun tuesday in south carolina. those are some of the top stories you can weigh in. fred republican what do you think? in newbury florida you're on the air. thought you weren't there. steve in ohio. an independent. hi steve. caller: how you doing? thanks for c-span. i'm just calling to make a

comment on the south carolina thing. i think the flag is just a symbol and how one idiot and everybody screams race but it has to go both way. there is a black miss america. how can you segregate just what the whites do all the way around. host: move on to fernando beach florida. good morning to you. i caller: i wonder if any of these officials have ever heard of white trash. white trash was just as bad as the slavery and the people that lived with slavery and i don't -- what they need to bury

to get away from is that flag and the slavery stuff. bury it all and forget it and let people live and like each other again. host: okay. jesse in chicago. hi, you're on the air. good morning to you. top story this week. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. i'm calling about the way the republicans have been treating president obama and i like to point out first i like to thank the 43% of the population that voted. 57% of most caucasians never thought there would be a black president and for 400 years this was no calks indication in the united states thought his boss would be a man of color. everything that obama has tried to do has been blocked for 400

years and trained ton like anything black. what went on in charleston is indicative with a part of the country where those people think it was okay to be a slave and some people actually said that in television programs where they said we think we did them a favor. that's the most twisted thing i could ever come up with. most whites have never been discriminated against. i'm 69 years old and i have met people who said things to mow caucasians that most would start fighting about and they thought nothing of it. most caucasians think it's okay if i were to fly the nazi flag anyplace around my home someone kpwo would come up and say you should not fly this flag. yet all throughout the flag they fly that flag and act like you shouldn't be offended because for 400 years you gave us food

and clothing. at the same time they misused our women and children and fathers and mothers. my father said he left mississippi shooting out the window of his car because he was a successful business man. i think that all caucasians that voted for president obama have overcome their training and the ones who still hate him they have a long way to go if they go to church every day they might. but it looks like no matter what happens, until president obama is out of office, no matter what he does to help the people to bring people up in the world who will not be appreciate and that's all i have to say. host: this is a story on the web page and also the banner across the drudge report this morning.

it says that he litter declared i don't know what the hell the fight is about over the confederate flag saying we need to put down the american flag because we caught much more hell than the confederate plog.flag. caller: fir the nazis did more in societies than the confederates. we took their rockets and went to the moon and they gave us technology and medical education. yet you don't find the nazi flag flying over germany. second i think most southerners don't know this, i want to make

sure they know this robert e. lee the general of the southern army, after he surrendered he did not want the rebel flags flying me more. why? because he was an officer and gentleman. he lost and suffered like a man. he did not want the confederate flag flying anywhere in the united states because president lincoln was trying to save the unocalaoupb union. you plant a flag when you say i'm the winner. you don't plant a flag when you say you're a loser. please read history.

joyce in houston texas, we're talking about top stories this week. go ahead. caller: yes my top story is the black controversy. how do i say first, the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart. removing that flag is not going to change a person's heart. this about outlawing guns. if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. guns do not kill people people kill people. i'm a black senior citizen and i

want to say to my black senior citizens. this is so stupid for you to have a piece of cloth have that much power over you and hrt me say this. removing this flag and taking it down is not going to close one drug house in the black community and not going to keep one prostitute from walking our streets at will and not going to improve the situation in the ghetto and the schools that we are graduating students in the black community that can't even read that diploma. removing this flag won't change any of that. let me say again to my black sisters and brothers for keep talking about people hate obama is black. he's half black. he had a white mother. he spent more time with the white side than with us.

he didn't even identify with us and we around enough are stupid enough to keep blaming white people for hating obama. he was elected president and not prepared to to be the president of the united states. he was elected because he had a black daddy. we need to stop being stupid blacks. they are doing all this just to keep us on the white liberal plantation so we can vote democrat and nothing has changed in our community. we kill more of each other than any other group and they don't give a damn about black on black crime. every day a black is being killed by a black. it's no matter unless a white person killed one of us. but if a black killed us i'm just as dead as if a white person killed me. stop being used. we are being used and prostitutes. host: i hear your point. that's joyce a republican in

houston, texas. john you're on the air. caller: good morning greta. brian lamb used to be proud of how many people he had on the show. he actually counted and was probably saying 70 people on his three hour show. yesterday he did a segment on bernie sanders and only five people were allowed to speak on bernie sanders and just part of the sleighting that bernie sanders gets from all the media. we are well-informed viewers on this show. we don't need all these articles you read. we need to hear from people who want have to something to say. during the bernie sanders

segment you played a speech by clinton instead of a speech by bernie sanders. i think segment you played a speechit's a same that you. you need to have people like tom hartman on instead you have people on like ann coulter. i think it's a shame that c-span is biassed to theit's a out. we've had liberal thinkers and columnists and radio hosts and yesterday we did also show you what senator sanders had to say at his last event in denver where he drew a crowd of 5,000.

we focused on his campaign for 45 minutes yesterday. stphorbg times has an article for sanders that he's unknown among black voters so that in the "new york times"

on the 2016 exam pain. governor from louisiana jumped in as the 13th candidate. and the harold's govern ear entrance crowded race for the presidential nomination. take look at what the governor had to say yesterday in louisiana. >> here's the key deference, democrats evaluate in terms of the prosperity of had to say yesterday ingovernment. we define discuss in terms of the prosperity of our people. my approach is different than most of the other people running for president. to be sure there are a lot of great talkers running for president already but none of them, not one can match our record of actually shrinking the

size of government. the guy in the white house today, he's a great talker. we have a bunch of great talkers running for president. we've had enough of talkers. it is time for a doer. i'm not running for president to beat somebody, i'm running for president to do something. host: governor of loose san in an announcing he's jumping into the race that makes 13. they could announce as early as next week and scott walker also eyeing a presidential bid. he says his colleagues are part

of the washington cartel. ted cruz took aim at his colleagues accusing them of being part of the cartel that fattens the lobbyists. he's angling to sees the populous mantle. his attack on d.c. came a day after the senator himself changed his stance on trade which he voted for more than a month ago but now says it's too much of a giveaway and then that's his story on the front pain of the washington times. rand paul says he'll sue the president and the irs that's his and the first candidate to do so. the kentucky senator whim take legal action against the treasury and the irs for what he says is the denial of his constitutional right to vote on more than 100 tax information treaties that the obama

administration unilaterally we're talking about your top stories. an independent what do you make of governor? caller: he's done some good things in loose san in a. and i don't know if i want him as president though. i think he compromises too much with democrats. i'm leaning more towards rand paul. but anyway, my top story, first of all, the lady that called a few callers ago from houston, i

wish she would run from president. she made more sense than anybody i've heard on these shows in the last couple of years. just the other day rush limbaugh said about this confederate issue he said that the next flag coming down is the american flag. and having the leftists and liberals all laughed. who is the -- louis farakhan said something in church that the american flag needs to come down. rush limbaugh is smarter than all the politicians put together. host: on the iran nuclear deal the deadline is tuesday. here's the headlines. x advisors write an open letter

that it may fall short of u.s. standards. among is long time middle east negotiator. and david petraeus and robert aoeupbhorn proliferation expert signing the letter was mr. obama's former chief advisor and james cartwright.

host: top stories this week. justin in million creek,

washington. hi justin, good morning. >> thanks very much. i'm going to try to tie these together actually as best i can. going back to the flag and the confederate flag really to be honest i have to put myself in the shoes of the folks who see that from its worst light and the symbiotics of the federal flag stands for only one thing and that's slavery and lots of people died. it's a national trapblg ed did he and i don't think it has anyplace on american soil. i think it just -- the war was very much about oppressing people for economic gain and doing what's wrong just for the sake of filling pocket books and cost a lot of lives. i think people now -- i lost several family members fighting for the north. but at the same time looking at it from the perspective of black america, i would not want to see

a flag that oh,he a symbol out there that stood for the repression and horrific things that my ancestors had to under the go and i wouldn't want to see a statue of the founding member of the ku klux klan. from that i'll make a leap over to the trade deal. i think we're in the same quandary of putting our pocket books of what's right.

there's danger to our tax basis and it's something we need to weigh in because it would hurt us on that. and with that i think that's about all i have to talk about. host: all right, justin. front page of the washington times, this is a hearing that took place and we covered it so if you're interested in learning more about that data breach the o.p.m. cybersecurity breech puts data of up to 32 million americans up to risk. go to c-span.org if you want to watch more of that and learn what happened at o.p.m. john at north brooke, illinois democrat. good morning to you. caller: i have two main points. first i'd like to respond to the gentleman who referred to 43% of white people who had to overcome their training.

i'm not young anymore. i was born in the early sixties. i'm white. i'm jewish. i grew up in a very grewish household where we went to synagogue every week. i never heard a racial slur. maybe i was very protective. i never heard a racial slur of any kind in my home or family's home or synagogue. the first time i heard one was either late in junior high or early in high school when i told my parents about it i was told in no uncertain terms if i were ever to use a disparaging term by a group as opposed to an individual if i used any kind of disparaging comment about a group of people i would lose teeth. there was no training to

overcome. my guess that experience is true for many people and many christians as well. my second comment i also spent time in texas and taught in high school that the causes of the civil war were primarily about states rights and that is ridiculous. five of the states actually wrote things called -- they stated their reasons and pass legislation and -- i'm trying to remember the name of the documents, declaration of causes. please google. look it up. it tells why they're there. they thought it was important to say why we're doing what we're doing and why we're succeeding and doesn't mention states rights and doesn't mention anything except slavery. it talks about slavery over and over and over again. that's the only state right they mention and they say we're doing this because they are forcing us to take away from institution.

mississippi calls it the greatest institution that's ever been made. read it. host: hi, eric. caller: hey good morning. please i will just ask you to give me maybe one minute so i can make my point. i have two points i'd like to make. first one is that -- i came from africa ten years ago and i i'm not a u.s. citizen and i'm completely against what happened with the confederate flag, i think it should be taken down because it's a symbol of hatred and a little bit like a navy flag. every time african americans see that flag it reminds them of pain. when it goes down i think the community really really needs to do an autopsy and analysis of

where we want to go. because it's based on a lot of i pock contractsy in our community. as the previous caller said, black on black crime is over the roof. every single day just take baltimore. freddie gray was killed but do you know how many blacks have been killed by other blacks after that event and nobody talks about it. i came from africa and the first time i had racism was from another african-american. he asked me to go back to africa. and also, he laugh at my name. he heard my african name and he

laughed at my name and i said what's your name. i told him that's not your name. i said that's a name you inhair writted from slavery. we also need to really really see our own attitude. if you really we need to assess who we are. host: all right, eric. we're going to continue our conversation here this morning on the "washington journal". coming up we'll talk with republican and then later we'll be joined by republican who discussing on the e.p.a. case that is before the supreme court and the administration's

environmental >> i told you that the civil rights of lbgt americans -- hold on a second. okay, you know what? no, no, no, no. no, no no, no, no no. you're in my house. it's not you know what, it's not respectful when you get invited to somebody -- you're not going to get a good response from me by interrupting me like this.

i'm sorry. (crowd boos) >> shame on you. you shouldn't be doing this. (crowd chants "obama") >> can we escort this person out? come on. you can either stay and be quiet or we'll have to take you out. >> shame on you! >> can we have this person removed, please. come on. no, come on come on, guys.

okay. as an again rule i'm just fine with a few heckle r /* /* if you're eating the hors d'oeuvres you know what i'm saying? and drinking the booze. i know that's right.

anyway, where was i? "washington journal" continues. host: south carolina republican mick mull vein 90 and let's begin with the statement you put out on what happened in charleston and the whole debate over the confederate flag. you put yours out as soon as the governor called for it to come down you and want to take? time to think about it. >> i did. i was worried about that a knee jerk reaction would be perceived the wrong way. the risk the governor ran when she made her statement was that it would be admitting that that was a symbol of hate. i know for a fact that it's not true for many. it would be admitting what dylann roof what he saw in the flag was what everybody saw in the flag and that's not the case. i'm concerned about calling for

it to come down and not putting it in context. i think i put my statement out not the next day. i had a chance to talk to some folks who lived back there including african-americans. and so that's what really drove. i want to take more time. i think that really happy with the statements though and happy to talk about it. host: and the decision you came to it. how did you come to it and what was your thinking? >> i thought okay, that's fine. i wasn't in politics in 2000 when we came up with the last compromise. the flag used to fly over the dome and then we moved it to the monument and did it as part of a larger compromise, something that's not all that comment and that also stab hrerbedestablished by an african-american monument. it was one of those things that brought people together.

when we start talking about what we're going to do now, whatever we do, we have to do it in the same fashion. it has to be part of a larger compromise where everybody can rally to so everybody can look at the end result in pride and not look like winners and losers. we need to do it and i agree with it and i think the sentiment is there broadly but i think we need to do it as part of a larger compromise and everybody can say, i was proud to be part of that. we respect heritage but respect the people who see it differently. host: you believe the flag should come down from where it is now but what compromise then should be given? >> i don't know. and that's why i'm glad the legislature is looking at time to take a peek at it. if you take it down today and simply stop there, there is going to be a lot of people who feel like their view of the flag is no longer valid and that's

not anymore right thinking. that i don't know what the legislature will do. they're coming up with 3 or 4 different ideas and mulling about as they take this debate. host: what are these ideas? >> i'd rather not share them because those are the things that go on behind closed doors and that's how compromise gets done. a lot of folks in the state legislature know how to do this. we got more important things in that building i don't have time to get into the nuts and bolts of what's happening with the flag. the folks who run the state i'm very comfortable they'll come up with something we're all proud of. host: he serving his third term in the u.s. house and he did serve in the state house in 2006 and moved on to the state senate in 2008. let's automatic a little bit about your decision making or how you ultimately landed on the

side of why it needs to come down. >> sure. i had an african-american gentleman say to me, we never talked about this before and we talked about a bunch of other things. it wasn't an issue until this week. again, it was an issue in 2000. even when governor hayley ran a couple years ago she didn't think it was an issue anymore. it's not unusual with the number of town meetings we get a bunch of folks in it never comes up. it's not a federal issue. and this guy said, look, we never had a chance it talk about this, but now that it's relevant again here's what i want to you understand. here's where the african-american community is coming from. here's why we struggle with it. and i developed a relationship with not only him but other folks in that community where i felt like we could have a conversation about tough issues because i don't see the flag the same way they do but their life

experiences are different than mine are. it was that sincerity and that hrepl of trust we could have a conversation like that that got me to thinking, you know what maybe i was wrong in this and maybe i should have looked at it from other people's perspectives. wasn't really called upon to do that but now that someone teams takes the time to help me open my eyes i thought, maybe they're right. maybe there are things we do as a family. you come over at thanksgiving dinner and i like turkey because it reminds me of the good things as a kid and maybe you didn't like the turkey, so maybe we don't have turkey and we have ham. it's a shame and i blame myself and shame it took the death of my desk mate to have this conversation. it's -- it was a rough week to

be an in south carolina but the reaction since those families went into the hearing has been nothing but positive. that has set the tone. when they went into the bond hearing and openly forgave the murderer or accused murderer, that is a watershed moment for my state. and everything that's happened in my state since then i've been extraordinarily proud of. one thing i'm sort of disappointed in is that we spent more time talking about the flag he oh there's plenty time talking about it and not enough about the lives of the people that were lost and the reaction of families. that's something that is world changing. you don't see that. you shoot my children, i probably not going to walk into a bond hearing three days later and say i love you and forgive you. i don't know how they did that. and all i can say is that my friend was the pastor of that

church and that is his legacy because he pastored to those people. that's what he's been teaching them since he was at that church and that's hishe has empowered people in their faith to be able to walk into a bond hearing and say that. host: and he was your desk made. guest: he was. there were some republicans are had to sit on the democrat side, and i was a junior guy, so i sat in the back. we had a blast. here i am, a right-wing conservative nut here with three black democrats. we had a great time. i remember him sitting in the back. he is a giant man with a deep booming voice. when he spoke, he had that voice that commanded attention. i remember we were fighting about stuff on the floor and he was working on a sermon on his laptop. i will remember him fondly. host: what was he like?

for those people who are wondering, there has been a lot of people who are moved by what they have heard him say in the past and president obama had a connection with him. guest: i will take the opportunity to thank the president for coming down. i think it's me to great deal. yes, i think the senator was heavily involved in president obama's primary victory in north carolina -- south carolina when he came through. the -- again, he was one of those guys that didn't talk much. i cannot impress upon you the gentleman's voice. he had this tremendous, their torn voice that instantly commanded attention, but he was a very gentle spirit. so again, if you want to know about him, go and watch the video of the families who went to the bond hearing. that is his legacy. and that is the best i can tell

you about him. host: the phone lines have let up. donna in georgia, a democrat. go ahead. caller: yes, i just wanted to ask him why is it you need a compromise to take the flight down? whites with the ones that were enslaved. guest: banks for the question. as soon as you say the sentence, the flag means different things to different people, i think we both have to admit that it may be another of us is 100% right. it may mean one thing to you and another thing to me. but i see nothing wrong with compromise and trying to fashion a resolution that satisfies how you may see the flag and satisfies how i may see the flag paid there are some folks -- flag. there are some folks in my district -- sherman's army burned the town that i represent. but for the jail, the courthouse

, and the house he was living in. and there are still families who are there for whom this is not history, it is heritage. i think if you are maybe from georgia, i don't know if you are redoing -- are originally from there or not, but it is about that. it is coming up with -- i think coming up with in over eyes here are the flag discredits their views. so i don't think it is a question of punishing and saying, ok folks who think the flag is heritage, you have had the way for 50 years, so now it is your turn to suffer while they have their view. that is not a reasonable outcome. i don't think it is the one south carolina is going to fashion. i think we will try to come up with a way to say, if you think the flag stands for division and

harm and difficulties, that is fine. we will figure out a way to -- to arrive at something you can become to bowl with. if you think it represents are great great grandfather, we will figure out a way to satisfy you as well. clearly, the compromise refashion in 2000 is not going to do that moving ford. host: we will go to michigan next. don -- don, a republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. about the flag, i don't care one way or another. people feel different about it, but the question i have for the representative is this -- why isn't senator byrd's name removed from the bridges and highways in west virginia? i would think that would make a lot of people angry. guest: yeah, you know, that is one of the criticisms i have heard this week. the reaction. let's take down the flag -- where does it stop?

of a going to take john calhoun's statue out of the building across the street? are we going to tear down the jefferson memorial? where does it stop? i think that is a valid question. but i do think there is a difference between the statues the memorial, and the flag, which is that the memorial wasn't put up during the anti- desegregation movement. and i think that folks who look at the flag and say, it went up in the 1960's as a statement against desegregation, i think that is a valid point. to say that we have to get rid of the jefferson memorial is absurd. simply somebody -- revision of history is a very dangerous thing. so i do hope we keep our focus on what the issues are at hand and not let this become critical -- political correctness run amok. host: and is that what the person you are close to shared with you? guest: we didn't talk

specifically. host: know, about the confederate flag. the point that he made that really -- guest: if you grew up in the south in the 1960's and you are black, that is what that flag stands for. and -- and i am now willing to admit that that is a valid -- not that i didn't before, i just never considered it before -- that is a valid view. that flight may mean something very different to you then the family who lost their great-great-grandfather in the civil war. the same symbol, two different things. let's find something we can agree on as opposed to something that divides us. host: what about the argument that those soldiers were fighting for slavery? guest: that is a popular question. you go back and you look historically, the large majority , the 90 percentile, were not slaveowners. they were young men on farms who

had to go and defend their state. i think it is hard for us to understand the type of relationship between men and women and families and their land and their state. robert e. lee considered himself to be a virginian first. but i don't think you can go back and make broad statements about what soldiers were fighting for 150 years ago because it is very difficult for us to see the world to their eyes. host: joe is next, and independent. caller: thank you. it is good to hear an intelligent conversation on the subject. thank you, sir. you know, you keep traveling this point. i may go to the library and told i will not be able to take out the book "gone with the wind," because somebody somewhere may be offended. the other thing -- years and years ago, i heard that the civil war was fought over the

price of cotton. that the people in the north wanted to set the price for cotton and the southerners didn't want to have that. and they seceded from the union. and my body and that? guest: you are not entirely wrong. i think it is wrong -- there are folks who say the civil war was not about slavery. that is not correct. there are folks who say the civil war is entirely about slavery. i don't think that is correct either. there was a relationship between the state at the time that dealt with also to legal issues, including taxes. we were being forced in the south at that time, i think, to buy our merchandise from the north, as opposed to europe where it would have been cheaper. there are 15 things going on in washington dc today, but my guess is when they look back on this particular point in time only two or three of them may rise to the level of being recognized by history. most of the things will be

forgotten. i try not to focus on what the civil war was about because i'm not an expert. it is probably reasonable to say that it was a bunch of different things. the original point, are we going to take the books out of the library? that is a fighting thing. the reason that i was slow -- and i'm still measured, i think as you can get the impression today, measured in my response is that i don't want to usher in an era of political correctness gone out of control. and i don't want to come to the point where we are afraid to talk about slavery or afraid to talk about "gone with the wind." it is a part of our history. part of our history is really great, part of our history is not. but it is a part of what makes us who we are. so let's not not talk about things because they make people -- it makes people uncomfortable. let's admit to we are and make the best of it and move forward together. but, yeah, if we get to the

point about taking books out of libraries, i'm going to be -- i will have to work against that. host: rocky in texas, a republican. caller: thank you. i tend to be a little bit more independent. i spent 20 years down in charleston in the military. from about 1975 to 1995. i was raised in arizona. i was -- went to high school that was 70% hispanic. i have always been very open towards other races. i love other races. and when i got down to charleston for the first time in 1975, south of the border, i continued that and try to be friends -- befriend several african-american folks down there and try talking to them. it took me a while to realize that there was deep-rooted entrenched -- i won't say

hatred, but i will say distrust of white people down there. and the same with the other way around. one thing that i have noticed about the so conversation is -- about this whole conversation is we are always going to have people that tend to jump in the media that hate america. and in order for us to pull together, this flag has nothing to do with that. i agree with you completely. there are people down there that hold it dear because of exactly what you have said. the burning of the south. and there are people that did test it, but i never -- detest it, but i have never encountered anything like i have as far as looking at me like i was a different color. i really am confused as to why people aren't pulling together on this issue. the flag is not the important thing. it is pulling together for america. guest: thank you.

it gives us a chance to talk about charleston. i have not seen what you have seen. in fact, i don't believe it to be what you have seen. i am so you had a particular experience and i will point to what has actually happened since then. i can tell you that last wednesday night, we're all here and we heard the news of what happened in charleston. i think i was out with tim scott earlier that day. it's never occurred to us, greta, that there would be civil unrest. it just didn't even register. a lot of people in the nation were thinking, oh, my goodness, here is another ferguson missouri. that never even occurred to us because i don't to what you call the deep-seated level of mistrust between races. but i see a community that is actually very close, regardless of the race. certainly there are going to be difficulties. i am not saying to houston is the perfect place in the entire world, but i never got the impression that we were at risk

because this is a fairly tightknit community. and certainly what has happened since then has borne that out. to see the families come out, as we talked about earlier. that didn't happen in missouri, and baltimore. people forget, there was a shooting in trusted a couple months ago -- in charleston a couple months ago where a white policeman shot a black man in the back and there was no civil unrest. the -- things work in south carolina. i don't see that deep-seated level of mistrust that you mentioned. i am sorry again that you had that experience and my state, but i think the proof is in the pudding. and what you have seen in the last week, the real south carolina, and not what you have been a c several years ago. -- happen to see several years ago. host: -- are likely to touch them with a federal hate crime. is that the appropriate action? guest: we discussed hate crimes

may briefly and i don't know how it changes things other than a guess the federal and government fault rather than the state. the guy killed nine people. it is murder. i'm not sure how you can get more bad than murder. all it has done is let the federal government come in and take over the investigation, or at least be involved in the investigation. i don't know how he will be charged, but i think it is splitting hairs at this point. the guy killed people and should be paid -- host: it could be a severe penalty, though. guest: there is not many more severe penalties than that. host: is that what he should get? guest: my guess is that is what he will be charged with. host: and misery, a democrat. caller: yes, good morning. i want to speak about this heritage that he referred to. the heritage is a treason act. the civil war was entirely about

slavery. and that racist flag that we are talking about today, it rose because of the 1960's civil rights. let me say this. south carolina is one of the most racist states in america. this -- this act that he has done, this guy is sitting in the u.s. house of representatives comparing what is happening to turkey versus -- [indiscernible] this is utterly full us. c-span is supposed to thing about coaching and teaching. before you really get into this flag again, i will hope that you will go and get the history, the real history behind the flag and the civil war because you are going to have another person from the house of representatives from the southern states and come on and spew this right-wing --

host: randy, we have to let the congressman get a response. guest: a couple different things. i will go straight to the last south carolina is one of the most racist states. we have a confederate flag on the statehouse grounds in columbia, south carolina. and some people think that makes us a very racist state. there is no confederate flag at the state capital and missouri they had race riots. are those states more or less racially charged then south carolina? i would have to respectfully disagree with you, randy. we have some issues we have to work through, there is no question. but i encourage people to look at the reaction of both of the races since these murders last week. and that is what south carolina is. not your impressions, not someone standing outside looking in. we lived there. at blacks and whites marched

together earlier this week. members of the african-american community were comfortable enough coming into the office of a right-wing conservative congressman and say, look, we want to talk to about the flag. i'm not sure that happened in ferguson, missouri, in baltimore. i hear what you are saying and clearly you have some very strong opinions, but all i can tell you is look to the proof. to look how south carolina has actually conducted itself. host: pamela in maryland an independent. caller: yes, i want to say that hear this person speaking just really saddens my heart. the deaths of these nine innocent people -- that flag is atrocious. it should come down. just like the caller before me, it is a symbol of bigotry and racism. rebellion, suppression, and hate. that is not to be compromised.

it needs to come down. it is just like the symbol of the swastika. to be on the capital ground, public ground, there is no place for that type of symbolism. host: to your point about there shouldn't be any compromise tweeting in this, the compromise you speak of that you talked about earlier, congressman, has been made. as disgusting as it may be, individuals can still fly the flag. guest: there are a couple different compromises here. to pamela's point that it should come down, i am here telling you, i agree, i think it should come down. i think it should come down as a part of a larger agreement because there are people -- and i hope you can accept this, pamela -- that look at it differently than you do. i will agree, i do not have a monopoly on getting to say what the flag stands for. the flag is where it is because of a compromise. that was supported, i think, by

every black member of the state legislature in 2000. again, that should be celebrated because that is not something that happens too often in politics. if we can sit down and folks of all different sorts of opinions and attitudes can come together and rally around what the teether -- one particular agreements. let's not forget it is where it is as a result of compromise that was supported by folks from across the political spectrum. i am sorry, what was steve's comment? host: he was saying the economist has been made because people can still fly us. -- he was saying the compromise has been made because people can still fly it. guest: i am sorry, i don't see the relevance of that. yes, people can fly it. but it doesn't speak to -- yes, you can fly anything in your house if you want to. i think what we put in the public grounds does say something about us.

i'm psyched, i don't have a response to steve. it is not a compromise. that's -- that's -- i am not even sure what that is to say ok, you can go do what you want in your own house. i am not sure how that is a compromise. host: vincent and charleston, s.c.. an independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just finished reading this book called "the slaves war." and some of the things that i read in their kind of -- there kind of, you know, were really shocking. you have slave women mothers shall i say, that gave birth and then the master would come and steal their baby right off their breast. then also, you know, there was this -- this father married his

daughter because he didn't even know it was his daughter and the found out and, you know, they did what they could to stay to get out and everything. but this is one of the reasons why i don't like the flag. you know? it was a tragedy in american history. you know, i am just against the flag and it is not just for those reasons. i was against it before, that i'm even more against it now. host: congressman? guest: and those are very valid reasons to have those opinions. and that is what i have sort of -- i have had my eyes open to in the last couple days. again, i plead guilty. i am embarrassed that we haven't thought about this stuff. but i should have been bigger than that to start considering that before i lost my friend. host: what has this been like for you the past week?

the evolution you have made in your thinking and emotions. guest: you know, obviously, if you ask anybody who has sort of not -- we want close friends, i have friends in the senate to have been to my house, and we were not that close. but we have all, i think, have experiences -- have had experiences from the outside but we are not completely on the outside. and you go through the motions of not realizing why it happened. i am looking for to the funeral tomorrow. partly the objection i have had, greta, is that we are doing it now. this entire conversation today has been about a flag and not about the senator and what he accomplished in his life. the other eight people, many of whom are the best charleston has had to offer. those are good things, who those people were, what they

accomplished. those are good things. and to the extent that once the tragedy is behind us, that will be the enduring sentiment here. that is what will be -- last the on -- lasts beyond the initial shock to whatever happens probably not the right word, but whatever happens, that will fade and what will remain is what those people accomplished in their lives, who they were, and especially how their families reacted. i draw tremendous strength from that as a south carolinian. i welcome anybody around the world to come and look at how charleston has reacted since last wednesday. and what put charleston on the world stage and say, ok, you show me anywhere around the world how you would handle it better than we did. i'm stunned. i am almost at a complete loss for words. host: congressman vic maloney -- mick mulvaney, we appreciate you

coming on. guest: thanks, greta. host: when we come back, we will talk with democratic congressman paul tonko. we will talk about the epa the case between -- before the supreme court. we will get to that right after this short break. >> am not one of those people who believe in the psychiatric of examinations of people, you know?

on the other hand, when i meet people, i don't judge them in terms of whether they have a firm handshake or whether they have i contact. but what i tried to do when i meet people is listen to what they say. you don't learn anything when you are talking. >> one of the many tragedies of richard nixon was that he, although very self-conscious, was not a self-aware. angela's ironies here. nixon did have a psychiatrist. he was an internist, not technically a psychiatrist, and he said he was careful not to have nixon think he was analyzing cam. but nixon went to him because he had psychosomatic illnesses in the 1950's. his head hurt, his neck hurt, and he gave him some mild therapy. even though he went to one, he hated psychiatrists and was always to announcing them. and he was afraid, in a way, of looking at themselves in a realistic way. one of the reasons -- he said, i don't carry grudges. hello?

richard nixon was one of the great grudge carriers of all time. he can be very on self reflective and this hurt and because his lashing out at enemies is what destroyed him. >> evan thomas talks about the victories and defeats and inner turmoil of richard nixon focusing on the personal stories associated with our nation's 37 president. sunday night on c-span's "q&a." this summer, booktv will cover book festivals around the country. in the middle of july, we are live at the harlem book fair, the nation's flagship african-american literary event. and at the beginning of september, we are live from the nation's capital for the national book festival celebrating its 15th year. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: representative paul tonko democrat of new york, back at our table this morning to talk about environmental issues. the supreme court, one of the last high-profile cases to be decided here today or tomorrow is about to mercury restrictions. explain the case and the impact this decision could have. guest: it is the mission versus epa case before the supreme court -- the michigan versus epa case before the supreme court. and basically the industry is challenging through the court the requirements of that industry to reduce their mercury emissions. and, you know, there are about -- they are about 50% of the conservator to that omission in the country. so, the coal burning plants, a major contributor. that is an important factor. we know that there are risks there, environmental risks, public health risks that need to

be addressed. and, you know, so many industries have self-imposed restrictions on mercury emissions. in many ways, the andy -- energy industry has paid that here, the coal burning plants is challenging all of that. and i think because of dangerous elements that mercury -- as a chemical -- induces into the environment, it is important to clean that up. they are taking this way back to a rules process that was very arduous, that was long-term in its debate. and i think that the court precedents is there to deny this sort of request, this challenge before the supreme court. and there are some of the risks greta, including that two women of childbearing years, of the --

of that population, which is about 4 million americans, 7% of the public. women of childbearing years can have very harmful effects because of mercury. and certainly, the fetal brain impact the outburst of that kind of ripple effect, is reason enough, i believe, for us to be very cautious here and to be very deliberate about what is done. host: congressman paul tonko, by the way, serves on the energy commerce committee. congressman, the "l.a. times" says this -- the justices are sounding closely split on whether to uphold or reject the epa's mercury and air toxins role. it was adopted in 2012 and was due to take full effect this year. lawyers for the power industry in the state of michigan urged the high court to block the role because the epa didn't conduct a

cost-benefit analysis. justice scalia called the failure to consider cost silly. and not the normal way to regulate. guest: you know, that cost versus risk or benefit relationship has been brought down to bare so many times over. and basically, the industry, or the -- the courts, the epa, i should say, can review the impact of cost. not required to, but let's look at those stats as it is anywhere from perhaps about $6 billion in terms of cost, or benefit, that the industry says exists out there. epa officials have designated that to be near $90 billion. so there is a difference here of difference -- a different tier

of $3 billion. so you look at, what is the presstek we are going to put on the risk to individuals for cancer? or heart conditions or the impact on our lungs? there are quantified analyses that have been conducted. the agency has, as i said, put that in the realm at the peak of $90 billion. and the peak estimate of dollars by the industry is $6 billion. i think they have rejected a lot of theories out there that are science-based, that really, you know, reduce significantly the benefits that come to bear by removing these toxins, these mercury elements from the atmosphere. host: noting what even liberal justice stephen breyer says, saying, $9 billion is a lot of money. it begins to look irrational if costs are not considered by the agency. guest: i think that, again, the

benefits outweigh the costs by quite a margin. perhaps six to one. and i think we have to go forward and understand what the risk is of not doing this. it will continue to grow, it will extrapolate into a huge price tag, and what is the press would want to put on human life? on various dysfunctions that may befall us? illnesses that may be chronic that really impact our pocketbooks and most significantly our quality of life? host: if the court rules with michigan on this, what precedents do think this sets for rulemaking? guest: i think it -- therre would be challenges -- there would be challenges that many would make. the air act was a significant step forward in the 1990's. we need to have this progress continue. we need to, as a nation, submit

to that sort of progressive agenda. and there is technology that has been developed and continues to be developed that enable industries to be able to respond. as i said, many industries have self-imposed these mercury emissions. if others can do it, why can we not require that of our coal burning facilities? host: in new mexico, a republican. check, go ahead. caller: yes, you are talking about what is great happen to the people -- and so on. 70% to 80% of our electrical energy is made from cold today. so they want to shut the cold down. and you are continuing -- coal down. and you are continuing to say, oh, we have to take care of the people. the average income of the people out here is $25,000 to $27,000.

if you put these two akoni and ask in place -- if you put these acts in place, i don't know what we do. host: chuck, making the argument that rates could go up in the could be very costly. guest: the impact here -- the energy arena is an arena -- energy generating industry is one that is in flux, one that is in transformation. and the transformation that comes also allows new technology, new jobs to be grown in the course of doing things with technology that has developed to address the omissions -- emsii -- emissions. and transmission. so there are going to be those dynamics of change that will

follow this pattern. and also, when people talk about disposing perhaps in industry, the elements of change -- abn industryan and this -- an industry, the elements are change our -- again, the expense of not doing something here is going to overwhelm that requirement. so if we can match efficiency opportunities, you know, people don't pay rates they pay bills. and if we can reduce the amount of consumption required by an average household, we can perhaps reduce those bills. and so, the efficiency element the opportunity for conservation the -- that's

mixture can produce savings, i believe, for the consumer and there can be a transformation, a transitioning to new job development that speaks to the workers in some of these situations. host: rob in texas an independent. caller: hi, how's it going? host: good. welcome to the conversation. caller: just to make a big point, the solar panels are either made with a lot of natural gas or a lot of coal, especially in china. i'm sorry. anyway, ok, solar panels melt the silicon and use huge amounts of natural gas or coal, especially in china, compared to the small amounts of electricity for things that produce. so actually, there are high carbon footprints for solar panels.

and this never gets talked about. i designed electronic circuits. host: ok. congressman? guest: look, the overall makes ear of energy that is generated or required and the corresponding release of greenhouse gases, any of the toxic emissions, are being addressed in a big picture framework. so, whatever that impact is, there is a charge here to reduce, in this country, greenhouse gas emissions by 30% from a 2005 level by beer 2030. so the net result -- by the year 2030. so the net result would be that we are reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. the same is to with china. they are moving forward to introduce nonprofitable based

generation by 20%. they are going to increase that renewable opportunity by 20% compared to their 2005 a side. so efforts are being taken in this nation, certainly in china the european union, mexico, and russia. elements of introduction of progressive policy, as it relates to greenhouse gas omissions and mercury omissions are underway. we look at that in the global context. that, i think is important to bear in mind. also, i'm a big fan of research. i have introduced legislation on efficiency, when it comes to wind turbine development. i am on a bill that has been introduced in the same capacity with the solar industry. with our intellect of this nation, we can drive down some of the negatives of production or management of these renewables in a way that drives efficiency.

host: well we are waiting for the court to decide on michigan versus the epa over this mercury role the debate is also taking place over the president's environmental agenda. i want to show our viewers and get your to respond to the congressman on the floor -- get you to respond to the kindest men on the floor yesterday over a bill that would delay the administration's climate role. >> [video clip] >> -- under this proposed rule, which we know will be final soon, they are given states 16 months. which is going to be extremely difficult for them to meet. so the states are not only filing lawsuits, as are other entities, to try and slow this process down, but they are coming to congress and saying, you know, congress didn't pass this legislation. congress has not asked for this.

but the administration unilaterally is imposing it upon the american people. and so, they are asking us to give them some more time. so, this legislation does specifically that. host: congressman, allowing states to opt in or opt out? guest: the statement that congress didn't impose these regulations or potential law the president did through executive order. well, we have had plenty of time to address climate change. the house is in denial. it denies science. 97% of the science community is saying that there is this element of climate change. look at the forces of mother nature. in every sector, every region of this country, we have seen huge impacts through severe temperature changes, severe weather patterns, droughts, heavy rainfall, tornadoes that

are unusual in certain areas of the country, it is there, it is happening around the world. but the denial drove the president to reach for executive order to put together the standards that will guide this nation. and when it comes to individual states opting out when it comes to toxins and greenhouse gas omissions and whatever, there are no boundaries that prevent that flow -- emission and whatever, there are no bodies that prevent that flow. there are tools available today and more are being developed as we speak so that we can meet these requirements. this is a response to the people of this country with a national plan that allows for states to all move forward in a progressive way, and an interactive collaborative that allows for the impact of our actions that could -- be brought together in a unified effort. host: let's get back to calls. richard, an independent in

mississippi. caller: hi, there. host: you are on the air. please go ahead. caller: what i would like to say is we are talking about these environmental problems. but every congressman up there in washington knows that if we would just convert this country to natural gas cars, power plants everything would be the cheapest way to go. way, way, way cheaper than your electric panels, your solar panels, and all that stuff. not only that, it would be almost overnight. within four years, this entire country could be changed over. cars would be cheaper. you wouldn't need catalytic converters anymore. the only thing it takes to change a vehicle over is a simple carburetor and a pressure tank. that is all it would take. host: let's take your point. guest: i think your suggestion that we rely on one source of fuel for our energy needs can be

troubling. my hometown is amsterdam, new york. we were a one industry town. we are the carpet city of the world. and when that manufacturing element exited, it was a huge blow to our local economy. so even so in this area, i think in fuel mix, there needs to be diversity. and you are calling for a reliant on one major fuel, i think that can be devastating. i think the mix here, which allows us to approach new jobs that are crated through technologies, innovation through research is a good one. it is a good mix. and remember, we need to be resourceful. we should consider that consuming however we want at this given moment and rejecting the generations to come and there needs, i don't think that is -- their needs, i don't host: think that is fair policy. host:a democrat serving his fourth term. he is the top democrat on the

energy subcommittee. myron, you are next. an independent. caller: yes, hello, greta and representative. representative tonko? guest: yes, it is. good morning. caller: i like hearing from you. guest: thank you. caller: we have problems down here in arkansas. they are going to increase our electricity bill by 13% next year since we had an all republican legislature, both houses are all republican majority now. the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general dogcatcher, everybody. [laughter] i mean, it is bad. they put pressure on, what do they call it, the regulatory agencies that are supposed to regulate the energy people, like entergy is the big one down

here. so they said well, we are going to give them a break for the big corporations, but all the little people and small companies are going to get 13% increase next year. host: congressman, i'm sure you are familiar with that. guest: i actually began my work career, my work life, as a member working as an engineer within the construct of the public service commission in new york. which was all about fighting for the people's needs and these regulatory outcomes. -- in these regulatory outcomes. there is a strong need to make sure that in these changing times, we had the professionalism underscored in how these areas are addressed. there needs to be a balance or so as we transition, we are not saturating one element of the ratepayer base and relieving others unnecessarily.

hurting other categories. i don't know the specifics on your cases in arkansas, but certainly, as i mentioned earlier, people pay bills, not rates. and it is important to make sure that people have within their grasp to conserve and function and consume with efficiency on their side. efficiency should be our fuel of choice. and i would encourage that be the ever taken, if it is not now, and make certain that every effort to do the audits and to do the energy information exchange with consumers so they can reduce the demand to have on the system is very important. host: it is decision day up on the supreme court. we are waiting for the court and the justices to announce decisions on several different cases. one of them is wearing -- is one are discussing here with the congressman, about the

president's mercury rule. the court could decide today and announce decisions on the affordable care act and whether or not those subsidies are legal. also same-sex marriage decisions could come today. housing discrimination, lethal injection, congressional redistricting, and gun laws and criminals. all those cases the -- pending. we could hear from the justices today, friday, or monday on any one of these. we will go to steve next in florida, a republican. go ahead. caller: hi, good morning. i have a question for the congressman. i have not studied this issue real in depth. it sort of reminds me of the evolution versus intelligent design, you know? what i'm wondering is -- you know -- you mentioned the increase in storms, hurricanes all these things. i guess what i'm wondering about the science -- i'm not disputing

the earth is warming -- what i'm wondering is the idea that it is caused by man. where is the science on that? in other words, how can science established that human beings are causing increases in weather problems tornadoes hurricanes, from our use of technology? guest: for example, some of the covenant mission -- some of the carbon emission is at its highest level in tens of thousands of years. they have documentation that can get us into the data that speak significantly to the extreme growth of greenhouse gas emission. the concern for methane emission , all of this destroying the ozone layer then provides for the impact of change. there are elements, measurements taken of sea levels. there are elements, measurements

taken of the amount of precipitation, the reduction of eyes, the temperatures of the oceans. all of these things are put together in a scientific calculator. and the science community in its reporting is compelling. 97% of those in the community i suggesting that there is a man-made element to this carbon emission and to the impacts of climate change. we need to take action. even if you don't embrace that science or that concept, this is a good agenda for us to move forward and underscore the value added of efficiency and conservation. i think those are good elements, good outcomes. we are reminded by pope francis as one of the spiritual leaders of the world, all of the religious sectors of our society and the world community will underscore, i believe, the tenants of faith that suggest,

that demand, that challenge that we be sound stewards of the environment. and i think the moral compass that pope francis encourages here is that we do better in this regard. that we have not been resourceful, we have not been sound stewards. so it provides a new area of job growth, job creation, and again we should be sound and stewards of the environment. host: let's go up to new york. a democrat, high, eileen. caller: hi. i certainly support what is going on with reducing the mercury emissions and the support for banning of fracking. i know new york has been great on that front. we don't want fracking in the mid-hudson valley at all. i also, going off topic a little bit, i want to urge the

congressman to support hr 2636. the helping families with mental health crisis act. this is a long time coming. that is a health care reform bill. there are millions of people suffering, especially families. we have 95,000 hospital beds we are lacking for people who really need to be in the hospital if they have a psychiatric illness. my brother had schizophrenia. and it really needs to pass and it does have bipartisan support. talk to your friends. she supports the exclusion and that is -- host: that is eileen in new york. guest: thank you so much, eileen, for your call.

just yesterday morning, i was at a breakfast with republicans and democrats, including eddie bernice johnson, and tim murphy, who is the agent on the bill. we were all together, bipartisan fashion, talking about the concerns yet to be a just by the bill. you are right, there are some very good elements within that legislation. it has a heavy influence -- heavy addressing of severe mental illness. we also need to have the preventative pieces in this comprehensive bill and first and foremost we cannot trim certain areas of the mental health budget to somehow bring those dollars over in a budget of away to address some of the new elements of mental health. the eggs illusion that you talked about with eddie bernice that is an example of having language in this bill without the corresponding resources that are essential. we are the advocates for this mental health community. we need to calculate the necessary resources and include

them in the bill. otherwise, we are offering false hope. we are at work. i hear you. i championed the bill when i was in the state assembly. it was the first such measure by a state across the country. and surely thereafter, with the help of the late senator kennedy we went forward and that that effort here in washington. so i'm very much involved with this issue and very committed to the change we need. i want those resources to be there, otherwise it is false hope. host: let's go back to the court. as we said, the justices could announce their decision. what is your prediction? guest: i think if anybody predicts here, they are just guessing. the have been so many 5-4 outcomes. i am hopeful it will go in favor of the affordable care act. why? because i think the court, the highest court in the land, has got to see this as a human right. as one of the rights guaranteed

to people in this country to have access to affordable, quality health care. otherwise, they are going to render a decision that will address 36 states of health care consumers, 6.4 million people will be left without health care. i don't think they want to make that statement. i don't think they want that dynamic to grip this process. and the fix is relatively easy. it just needs to clarify. i think the interpretation is there and if not, we are going to have to go to work on it because they will have denied the human right to access to affordable health care. host: and same-sex marriage, what is your prediction guest:? again, it is -- prediction? guest: again, it is the issue of our time. just this week, they move for and signed into law with governor cuomo the marriage equality act. again, the government is

addressing the civil rights issue of our time. i don't think they will walk away from that. i think they will say government should not impose its thinking on who you can love and who you can marry. host: we will wait to see what we learn from the justices today on those two decisions. they could announce something today or tomorrow or monday. other pending cases as well. those cases before the justices and we will learn their decisions hopefully by the end of this week, if not on monday. walter in massachusetts an independent. go ahead. caller: hey, good morning, guys. guest: good morning. caller: i don't even want to get into all the details and, you know, all that. i'm just calling to make a general comment, a statement both about the environmental policy and the confederate flag.

i just want to make this quick. as far as the environmental laws and regulations, there is always going to be a jam up. there are always going to be issues with it because there is money involved. i just wish that americans especially a lot of the people who call here and make the comments and statements. just use common sense. any other day of the -- at the end of the day and congress and politics and business, money rules the day. and we see that happen all the time. and we get on tv and try to rationalize it through politics and all that kind of stuff. host: walter, i am going to leave it on epa because we are running short to the congressman. i want to get in -- tell us your comment or question. caller: yes, good morning. i see it is important to remove

co2 from our atmosphere. can you tell us what is currently the percentage ofco2 in our atmosphere -- of co2 in our atmosphere? guest: a lot of efforts have been made to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dockside, carbon dioxide emissions. the effort here is to get to a level that we believe will be safe and we have the tools to do it. host: bill in silver city, new mexico a democrat. caller: yeah, my question is -- why is everyone so concerned about such a rapid change allegedly? and old-timer told me the other day, he said, there is going to be a 30 degree to 40 degree change and it is happening within six months. it is called winter. host: will take that point. guest: again, i think the cost of not doing anything is going

to overwhelm, i think, what the cost of response is here. it is important for us to make certain that we deal with mother earth in a way that doesn't cause damage. we can see huge disruptions to the agriculture economy, the tourism economy. it impacts our quality of life. this should be challenge enough to us and we should go for it and create jobs. for those who suggest that economic recovery, economic growth and environmental stewardship cannot coexist, they can. there is documentation of the job growth that states have had that have had tremendous environmental standards established and implemented. so we need to go forward in a progressive fashion. host: i am going to squeeze in susan who is in virginia. susan, i have to make you make it quick as well. caller: thank you for taking my

call. when the congressman opens his mouth about, for the children let's -- i just quit listening because that is a power play. if they were for a children, then why are they pro-abortion? as far as the pope's scientific guru, he doesn't believe in god. you can check that out. host: congressman, let's finish with what you think the impact will be when the pope makes this announcement and calls on other countries of this world to take action on climate change. guest: not only is he a spiritual leader, a very large block of individuals in this world, he also possesses a higher ed degree in science and technology. so i think that he brings great credibility and he does, i believe, provide a great challenge to all of us and does it in the context of scripture

that many read that guide their lives. host: congressman, we appreciate your time. guest: my pleasure. host: that does it for today's "washington journal." the house floor is about to open and they will be gaveling in for their legislative session starting early today to get ahead of their busy legislative session. thank you for watching. live coverage of the house floor here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ed today by our guest chaplain, pastor randy bizette, bayside community church. the chaplain: let's bow our heads and pray. lord god we humbly come before

you today and we thank you for your love and your grace and your peace that is made available to us all. god, we ask for your divine wisdom and guidance here today. for you and you alone know the future and the things that are to come. we ask that you would lead us in the decisions that we are part of. and that would you give us boldness to honor you. you empower every man and woman in this room to use the light that you have given us for good. let us be leaders who follow your example. leaders who love, give selflessly and serve graciously. may we all do our best to impact this incredible nature of ours for the better. we ask your blessings on this house and on our united states of america. in the name of jesus we pray, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of aleansance today will be led by -- allegiance today will be led by the

gentlelady from washington state. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from florida, mr. buchanan, is recognized for one minute. mr. buchanan: mr. speaker, it is an honor for me to welcome to the united states capitol a tremendous community and spiritual leader, pastor randy bizette, who has led us in the opening prayer this morning. the pastor is a senior and founding pastor of bayside community church which has several campuses located throughout my district. his church has been at the forefront of strengthening, encouraging and serving the people in sarasota and braidington florida. the pastor's an inspirational leader who mentors young pastors who are also passionate

about revitalizing and restoring local churches and their community. i applaud his work and his service. the pastor and his church for what they do in southwest florida. it's a great honor and a privilege for me to welcome the pastor before congress today. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? without objection. mr. yoder: mr. speaker, i rise today for a very special occasion. to wish my grandmother a happy 104th blirget day. that's right. she's -- birthday. that's right. she's 104 years of age. the lord has blessed my grandmother with great health and longevity and i cannot be more thankful for her and proud of my grandmother on her birthday this upcoming sunday. she's a true example of what has made america such a strong and vibrant nation. born in 1911 and one of 14 children, she worked tirelessly

on the farm, milking cows at dawn and bringing in the wheat harvest in the hot kansas sun. she's seen hard times and she's seen good times over the past 104 years. with a front seat to the great american century. but through it all, her faith in god and love of family define her life. she's a sweet, caring and loving woman who continues to inspire me each and every day in so many ways. today on behalf of the united states house of representatives, i wish you a very happy 104th birthday. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the land and water conservation fund which is set to expire in less than 100 days unless congress takes action. we have a generational responsibility to protect our nation's remaining natural wilderness areas or our children and grand -- for our

children and grandchildren. sonk song for over 50 years -- ms. tsongas: for over 50 years, the fund has been used in almost every single county in the united states. lwcf protects and expands access to recreational areas and conserves our treasured natural and historic landscapes. it does not cost taxpayer money or contribute to the federal deficit. in fact, according to a recent economic analysis, every dollar invested in conservation of public lands through the lwcf leads to $4 in economic activity to local communities. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting permanent re-authorization of lwcf and ensuring it remains one of our nation's most successful conservation tools. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, it's time to personalize and modernize our health care system and bring it into the 21st century. we have an opportunity through

the 21st century cures act to pass bipartisan reforms that will accelerate the discovery, development and deployment and delivery of life saving and life improving techniques and cures. the 21st century cures act is a result of bipartisan work to ensure that our regulatory system keeps pace with the advances we are seeing in our science and technology fields. 21st century cures will make a difference in people's lives. for the 10,000 known diseases there are only 500 f.d.a. approved treatments. by removing barriers to research and development modernizing clinical trials and in-- incorporating more patient perspectives, we can more effectively develop treatments and cures to fight cancer, alzheimer's and other diseases affecting millions of americans. mr. speaker, in the coming weeks, while the opportunity -- we'll have the opportunity to help bring the newest cutting edge medical technology to the people who need it most. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition?

without objection. mrs. lawrence: mr. speaker, as i'm standing -- i'm standing here today because the clock is ticking. today is the last legislative day to prevent the shutdown of the export-importback and avoid disaster -- export-import bank and avoid disaster in our economy. i have in my hands a letter regarding dozens of businesses in my district, the 14th district of michigan, that rely on the ex-im bank. it is clear that the dire consequences -- of the dire consequences if congress does not act. in seven years ex-im has supported 93 million -- $93 million in export, nearly 600 jobs just in my district. this year alone more than a half million dollars have been financed for businesses in the 14th district. all this is done at no cost to

-- to our taxpayers. to redules the deficit, to create more -- reduce the deficit, to create more jobs, to remain globally competitive, we must re-authorize the ex-im bank. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? without objection. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: mr. speaker, i rise today in honor and memory of washington state university president dr. ellison floyd who passed away on june 20 after a courageous battle against cancer. dr. floyd was a giant for eastern washington. he embodied the values we seek in our leaders. he was visionary, he was kindhearted. he was a fearless and passionate advocate for higher education our region and our state. he had the gift of making our dreams seem possible. and turning our aspirations into reality. it's been my privilege to know

him and call him friend. during this difficult time, my prayers continue to be with he, his wife his children and the whole family. together washingtonians are inspired and will carry on his legacy. thank you, dr. floyd, for your tireless work. rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from delaware seek reck recognition? -- seek recognition? without objection. mr. carney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to join my many colleagues in highlighting the urgency of re-authorizing the export-import bank. on monday i visited a steel company in new castle, delaware, called v.n.s. galvanizing. this small business employs 60 hardworking delawareans. their jobs depend on financing provided by the export-import bank. failure to authorize the bank

would be a failure to support and protect these and many other jobs in delaware. if we're serious about making things here in america, if we're serious about providing good middle class jobs to people who need them, if we're serious about creating an economy that's built to last, we'll re-authorize the export-import bank before it expires next week. the ex-im bank creates jobs across the country. it sustains those jobs and it also reduces the deficit. last year alone the bank returned $700 million to the united states treasury and it supports 160,000 u.s. jobs. this shouldn't be a partisan issue. and it never has been in the past. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to come together and take action today to ensure the export-import bank can continue to grow our economy and create jobs across our country. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek reck recognition? -- seek reckition -- seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker in less than a

week the deadline for the administrations and negotiations on iran will pass. many people, including myself, have serious concerns about the status and the outcome of these negotiations. iran's nuclear ambitions are -- ambitions are a threat to the middle east, especially to israel. mr. gibbs: i remain skeptical of iran's commitment to disarmament and transparency. i believe there are five key issues that must be addressed for this to be a good deal for america and israel. one unrestricted access to inspection locations on short notice inspectors must be given complete access at any time, anyplace for verification inspections. two, iran must disclose in entirety its previous activities and efforts toward a nuclear weapon. three, sanctions must remain in place until iran complies and proves its compliance. and we must show commitment to a robust response and to any violation. four, any deal must be long-term and must not include development of any access to nuclear weapons. finally, any negotiations must include provisions that require

iran to dismantle their program completely with no path to a weapon in the future. i believe that only if these conditions are met should congress and the american people even consider a deal with iran. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i join my colleagues today in supporting equality and dignity for every american, regardless of who they love. very soon the supreme court will make a historic decision about the rights of lgbt couples and families and it's my hope they respect that each of us deserves as american citizens the ability to have a family and to love who they love. mr. kildee: the economic down turn -- mr. kilmer: the economic down turn illustrated how important it is for all families to access the protection of civil marriage so they can live with certainty and dignity, even in challenging times. no matter what the court decides we'll keep pushing so people in loving, committed

relationships throughout this nation can say two simple words with extraordinary meaning i do. and we'll keep fighting to ensure that people don't face discrimination based on who they love. let me close with the words of president kennedy who said, in giving rights to others, which belong to them, we give rights to ourselves and to our country. thank you, mr. speaker i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to add my voice in support of alzheimer's and brain awareness month. today millions of americans are living with alzheimer's including 200,000 who are younger than 65. mr. jolly: when you include dementia and other brain diseases with alzheimer's, the number of diagnoses is almost on par with cancer diagnoses. in fact, alzheimer's itself is the sixth leading cause of death in the united states. and of the top 10 causes of death alzheimer's is the only one that today contribute be prevented. cannot be cure -- cannot be

prevented, cannot be cured and cannot be slowed. this week congress is taking action. the house appropriations committee yesterday approved an initial funding bill for the department of health and human services that provides a $300 million increase over last year's level. for alzheimer's research at the national institute on aging. additionally the committee continues its support for the peer-reviewed alzheimer's research program at the department of defense. these programs coupled with several bills pending in the house, including the hope for alzheimer's act are a testament to the strong advocacy that we've been witnessing on capitol hill and throughout the country. we must continue to do more. i encourage my colleagues to join me in this fight and join me in raising awareness of this most critical national health concern. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i offer a resolution constituting a question of the privileges of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: resolved that the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 1735 entitled to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military

activities of the department of defense for military construction and for defense activities of the department of energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes, in the opinion of this house contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the first article of the constitution of the united states and is an infringement of the prifpks of this house -- privileges of this house and that such bill. the senate amendment shall be respectfully returned to the senate with a message. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution presents questions of the privileges of the house. without objection, the resolution is agreed to. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve a right to object. only to say i do not object. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 338 and ask for its immediate consideration. the clerk: house calendar number 45, house resolution 338, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill, h.r. 1295, to an act to extend the african growth and opportunity act, the generalized system of preferences, the preferential duty treatment program for haiti, and for other purposes. with the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on ways

and means or his designee, that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment. the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only. i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york my friend, the gentlewoman, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i rise this morning in support of a rule which would allow for an up or down vote in the house on the senate amendment to h.r. 1295, the trade preferences

extension act, so that it can be considered by the full house. and if the bill passes it will head to the president's desk along with the trade promotion authority for the president's signature. this bill will be considered after a package of the rule renews the generalized preferences program, extending the african growth opportunity act and trade adjustment assistance, known as t.a.a. the activity on the floor of the house today represents a promise to congress made by speaker boehner and senate majority leader mcconnell. after house democrats voted down t.a.a. last week the house considered and passed t.p.a. with a bipartisan majority and sent it to the senate. in the meantime, the speaker and the senate majority leader promised that they would ensure that both t.p.a. and t.a.a. receive votes in the house and the senate. well, as promised here we are

today. the senate yesterday delivered it when it passed t.p.a. 60-38 which is now headed to the president's desk for his signature. the senate also passed the senate amendment to h.r. 1295, which will be considered today under the rule which we are speaking about. the final legislative step for the house to consider the trade preferences extension act, and that's exactly what the rule will do. this rule and the underlying bill represents the end of a long process to deliver trade promotion authority on behalf of the american people. mr. speaker it's a republican agenda about jobs. by passing t.p.a. the house and the senate proved to the world that america is willing to lead and to stand for jobs and interaction between great countries to help lead in the 21st century. we believe in the rule of law. we believe in intellectual property, and we believe in an

opportunity for consumers to have the best products wherever they are around the world at a great price. the world has responded and our partner nations have indicated that they are now ready to begin the negotiation to bring their best deals to the table. as these negotiations heat up it's vital that administration follow the requirements of t.p.a. some 160 separate specific items which this house and the legislation very clearly talks about. it will lead negotiation to a deal that is good for the american people, and if the administration violates this promise, the house can turn off t.p.a. and stop the process. once a trade agreement is completed, the president is required to make public the text of an agreement 60 days before the -- before the president seeks approval to it. the president must then submit the final text of any trade

agreement to congress 30 days before it gets a vote. because of this important transparency feature of t.p.a. the marn people have seen a better process than what existed today -- the american people have seen a better process what existed today. most importantly, though, congress retains its right to vote up or down on any agreement, so if the president brings us a bad trade deal, we can and we would vote that down. this ensures that congress and only the u.s. congress can change and agree to any law or agreements that is made that becomes u.s. law. we have also proved that washington has learned from some states like my home state of texas which benefit greatly from trade. trade supports over three million jobs in texas, and last year texas exported $289 billion worth of goods and

services to trading partners around the globe. because of this process, congress has gone through the past few weeks, we can ensure that growth, the availability of better jobs and high-paying opportunities lie ahead for the american people. at a time when it's become very difficult to create jobs in this country, we will through trade promotion authority and these trade deals offer great opportunities for more jobs and to build more american products and to sell more products around the globe. mr. speaker i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you very much mr. speaker. good morning. mr. speaker, the procedural jockeying that has unfolded before us does a ds service to our chamebrer, to our economy and to our -- chamber, to our economy and to our nation, but i thank the gentleman very much for yielding me the time and i

yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, without opportunity for members to offer amendment without clear consideration and without certainly robust debate, the bill has bounced one chamber to another jumped back and forth through everitt ration that can be cooked up. -- through every iteration that can be cooked up. it does a ds service to the bills and the people it will impact and i think even to the house of representatives. thomas jefferson, who offered the legislative manual that guide our procedure would be pained to see the path by which these trade packages have come to the floor. from beginning to end, members of this body have been shut out. shut out from reading the text of the trans-pacific partnership that has now been fast tracked. we are not able to discuss it without our -- with our constituents. it is not the house of representatives that have been

silenced either. particularly in another great democracy involved in this agreement, australia, has been silenced. the people's representatives in australia could not look at this bill even though they had great concern that pharma was going to do a great harm to their own health system in australia as well as in new zealand. they couldn't even go to see about that unless they signed a paper that they would not discuss it for four years. so to the great democracies on the planet working on this trade bill, the united states and australia, basically shut out the people's representatives from knowing what it is that we're even talking about today. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the article about the australians, an article from "the guardian" from june 11 called "the leaked trade deal

prompts fears, pharmaceutical scheme." the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: thank you. the two great democracies being cut out. 750,000 people that i represent in western new york have been silenced because i don't see a trade bill if i can't discuss it with them. there's been no regular order and absolutely no member input with the exception of the ways and means committee. now, the senate had plenty of opportunity for amendments and they were plentiful. many of them accepted. they also had robust debate, but not the house of representatives. the -- and the opportunity in that committee, in the ways and means committee to offer amendments did not result in the acceptance of any democrat amendment. over the last three weeks, the democrats and republicans alike came to the rules committee with ideas to try to make the trade package better. they ranged from currency manipulation to labor standards to environmental fixes to the

investor dispute settlements but one by one they were shut out. perhaps one of the most critical is the investor state dispute settlements where three lawyers will be able to adjudicate the cases many cases resulting change in the laws and i should note that house of representatives in fear of all this has already voted to do away with country of origin labeling. what's more? on the third rule we've had in so many weeks on trade we're being asked to vote on two separate bills packaged into one vote. on one hand we have trade adjustment assistance, or t.a.a., on the other hand we have the african growth and opportunity act, or agoa which most of us have supported. the other part of this is a bill that was trounsed in the house of representatives. we find ourselves in a position of supporting the african growth trade at the same time a

vote that most of us voted against the t.a.a. linking these two bills together is untenable and goes against the morals of the chamber and as we see that the process is strained, the bill suffers but most of all the people we represent suffer. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. you know, the gentlewoman brings up a lot of good issues. we've been on the floor talking about this bill for a long, long time, hours of debate at the rules committee, hours of debate not only in the ways and means committee but also watching the united states senate for weeks work through this issue. i think the gentlewoman knows and understands that any final trade deal will result in our ability to see in writing and the public this document. and the gentlewoman knows and understands it's simply not

true if we try and say that we can't see what's in the bill. we don't know what's in the bill. plenty of time. plenty of time to do that. it's just not available yet. and so why would you put out something that's not yet been negotiated? i wouldn't do that, and whether the administration has handled this entire process well or not may be up for speculation but i find it hard to criticize. every member of congress was given an opportunity to come and read what exists today. this is not the final deal. members of congress have not seen the final deal because it's not been negotiated. when it's negotiated when -- whoever the president is brings a trade deal back to the united states to the united states congress we will be able to see it. secondly, very specifically chairman paul ryan of the ways and means committee put in the law that any member of congress may fake part in any of the -- take part in any of the trade talks as they evolve around the country. members of congress are allowed

to do this, and i think that it's a real advantage to have more authority for members of congress of rules and regulations of putting us into the process to where we're a part of understanding not only what we'd be voting on but the importance of us being involved throughout the process. lastly the gentlewoman is right, i do understand that the rules and regulations that have been added, not every member of this house would like it but i felt like that they were important and i'd like to just go through some of those very quickly and one of them is that we're not going to allow any part of a trade deal end up as an immigration deal. and that is the wrong thing. this should be about trade, not about immigration. secondly, it shouldn't be about climate change, and we specifically said it cannot be about climate change. lastly we said that for our own authority and i think the constitutional bounds are there for us to say if there are any

changes in this document those changes have to come through congress for us to approve them. of course not every colleague that we have in the house would be for those rules, but i believe that they are in the best interest of this body. i believe they are in the best interest of making sure that the way the world sees us that we work together from a democracy a republic perspective that we work back through the things that we agree to in law and bilateral deals would have to involve the united states congress would have to involve the united states senate, the president and us working together and by the authority granted within this t.p.a., that's exactly what we will do. i think it's well-balanced. i think it's really a work of art that chairman ryan has crafted along with our colleagues in the senate and i'm proud of that. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. . ms. slaughter: i yield myself one minute. i may yield more.

what the gentleman said sounds wonderful. so we're all going to have an opportunity to do it. but we've not been in on the negotiations. all we know about it is that it's being negotiated mainly by the financial services and pharmaceutical companies and once we pass fast trade and it is pass -- it has passed both houses once that's done, the administration can do the trade bill itself and perfect secrecy and we -- in perfect secrecy and we will not know it until it comes to the house and all we can do then is vote up or down. it's my sin veer hope that we vote down -- sincere hope that we vote down. i now yield to mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. lynch: thank you mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. i want to begin this discussion by saying, i have the utmost respect for the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. i have worked with him on other issues where we have agreed. that is not the case today.

i also know that there will be members of the majority and members of the minority that have a different opinion than i do on this matter and it does not mean i have less respect for them it. just means we have a difference of agreement on this -- them. it just means we have a difference of agreement on this one bill. when i first met my wife, i was an iron worker. worked as an iron worker for 20 years. i went to law school. i became an attorney. i ran for office, i became a politician. my wife says, it's been one disappointment after another. but when i was an iron worker, i had an opportunity to work at the general motors facility auto plant in massachusetts. that was just before they made a decision to close that plant, closed a couple in michigan moved them over the border to mexico. i've seen what that has -- the effect that has had on local communities where that has happened. and i oppose this bill because i want a stronger america. that's why i oppose this bill.

and our trade agreements negotiated on the fast track have had a continual pattern of exporting american jobs oversales. that's just the fact of the matter. now you might be surprised that a former union president, a democrat, an iron worker, would oppose a bill. and the object of this bill is to provide public assistance to workers after we send their jobs overseas. that's the object of this bill. is that after -- when, when their jobs are exported, we'll give them public assistance and some training for a new job. i oppose this bill. some people find that surprising. but i can only draw on my own experience. and i always felt that i would rather have my representative fighting for my job than coming up with a public assistance

program to support me after i lost my job. that's why i'm here on the floor today. i think american workers want their representative in the fight. they want them in the fight to protect their jobs, not to give them public assistance after they ship their jobs oversales. that's as simple as i can describe. i think i understand the american people. i think i understand the american worker. i've been there. and this does not do the job. this bill, if you want to read it, you have to go to a secret location here on the capitol grounds. i had to give up my cell phone, my ipad, i had to give them my pen, i was not allowed to bring any paper, i can't take notes. they bring in a big box with the bill, they sit it down in front of me. and they let me read it. and they do not allow me to talk to the people who sent me here about what's in that bill. that's not right. that's undemocratic. there's a reason they don't let me talk about that bill to the people i represent.

and everybody else in this chamber. because they would not like it. they would tell you, do not pass this bill, it's going to cost our jobs and our kids' jobs. the people who are drafting this bill though are as the gentlelady from new york spoke the industries of the -- the chemical industry, the pharmaceutical industry they're all drafting sections of this bill. yet the people who represent american workers are kept out of the process. later on, we'll be able to vote up or down. but we cannot fix this bill. unlike every other bill that comes to this floor, where we're allowed to amend it, we cannot fix this bill. we have to vote it up or down. and that's not right. that's not right. if we see a problem, we should be able to fix it. i was listening to a guy the other day talk about the fact that we shouldn't really worry

about not having manufacturing jobs in america anymore. that we have a service economy. he described it as a starbucks economy. i love starbucks as much as the next guy. i like my latte. but the starbucks economy does not work unless you have someone who can walk into that store and pay $4 for a cup of coffee. this is not good for america. i was watching that roosevelt show last night on pbs. and they had -- they talked about after the second world war, the world called america the arsenal of democracy. because our industrial might our manufacturing capacity, allowed us to marshall resources and save the world. we've continually exported millions and millions and millions of american manufacturing jobs in industrial capacity. may i get one more minute? ms. slaughter: i yield the

gentleman two more minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: i'm just getting wound up. so they referred to america after the second world war as the arsenal of democracy because we did save the world. today when the world looks at us, after we've exported millions of jobs, manufacturing jobs and industrial capacity overseas i think they look at america and say, you know, that america, they can make us a good cup of coffee. if you can pay $4 a cup. this is not the direction we should be sending america. and i have the utmost respect for my friends on the other side of the aisle and democrats on my side of the aisle are going to support this. we have to get america's representatives, members of congress, back in this fight. we have abdicated our responsibility. we negotiate a lot of complicated bills on this floor and over in the senate. nuclear regulatory issues

bankruptcy, very complicated issues. war and peace. yet we can't negotiate this trade deal. we got to leave it up to multinational corporations. that's flat wrong. america wants their representatives back in the fight on this issue. let's vote this bill down, let's get rid of t.p.a. and let the american workers have a voice on the floor of this house of representatives on this bill. thank you mr. speaker i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. the gentleman, my friend from massachusetts, is a great man. and a very dear friend. but i would respond and say to the gentleman, you're going to have an opportunity and i can't wait to get you invited to every single round of these and have you find time to go do exactly what you think members of congress ought to be doing. because in fact that's the way the t.p.a. is written.

we haven't agreed to it yet. because it has not been signed by the -- well, that has. but this whole process -- as soon as that takes place, the gentleman will have all the opportunity he wants to go and take part of every round of the discussions. but, you know, i don't believe that's what we were elected for. i don't believe we were elected to go and have to do all the work that is described, that the gentleman said, to get back into the fight, to go do the negotiating. but he'll be given that chance. he'll be given that chance every single day. as soon as it's signed by the president, he can go at it. he can maybe even just tell the president he wants to do this for a full time job. i don't know. but he will have that opportunity and every member of

this body will have that same chance. he and every member will have a chance to go and negotiate, be in the room, be a part of the discussion and make sure these -- all these big multilateral corporations that he talks about that will be in the room, which they won't be, because that would not be the right thing, there would be ethics violations, i'm sure the white house, the executive branch can notify him on that, but he will be allowed as a member of congress. so mr. speaker, the things which are being talked about most as negative points about this bill there's already an answer to it. that's what republicans did. this is a republican bill. this is about the authority of the house of representatives, the united states congress, to make sure we are involved. that has never been allowed before. fast track is what we used to have. that's what we did have. we now have a bill before us today which will help us complete the entire process to make sure members of congress are involved, not just the

united states negotiatorser, but all the world will know -- negotiator, but all the world will know the parts about how we're going to negotiate the trade deal and if it doesn't come back that way, we'll vote it down. do we need to second guess them now today? i don't think so. but if any member wants to be involved in this, they can just get on their plane and go wherever they want and get it done. and by law they'll be allowed that opportunity. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, let me yield myself another minute. i have great admiration for mr. sessions. we truly are good friends. and i know that he's absolutely sincere when he says that every member of congress is going to have the input now into this bill. that has not even been begun. if there is no bill, why is everybody talking about going to read something? for goodness sakes you can't

say we're not operating under fast track. i they're all the time and it grates on me -- i hear that all the time and it grates on me because fast track is what was passed here and in the senate that gives to the administration the ability to negotiate that, it will come in here we may be reading -- if we can have the ability to do that before we vote, i'm not even clear about that. but i do know that they negotiated, it's brought over here, and we get to vote yes or no. we don't amend it, there will be nothing that we can say about it. and we are stuck with it and not only do we have fast track, but not just until the expiration of president obama's term but for years beyond. so a future president can do whatever they please. because the congress gave that authority to the executive department. why, i don't know. it doesn't just apply to this one trade bill. i hope everybody understands

that. when they passed t.p.a. here the other day, they were doing it for years to come. and now i'd like to yield for a rebutal what time he may consume to mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. lynch: thank you very much. i thank the gentlelady again for yielding. i'll try not to repeat the arguments that the gentlelady has put forward. but i do have to say that, you know there's about eight pounds of bill over there at a secure longse as i spoke -- location as i spoke of before that largely -- i can't talk about it in public, because i'm precluded from doing that. i would violate the rules of the house and the classified status that has been accorded that material. so i can't really talk about it. i can say that it is very complicated and there's probably about eight pounds of documents there that you have to read. it is largely aspirational. in other words, i will

paraphrase without disclosing any classified information, it largely says the parties, the parties will aspire or engage to do blah blah blah. it's largely unenforceable. here's another part of the problem. we're negotiating the biggest multinational trade agreement in the history of the united states. you got some countries that i think are reliable partners. and that we have a history with. canada, we've had, even before, you know, free trade agreements, we had trade agreements with canada. they have the rule of law there. it's not a race to the bottom with canada or with australia or with new zealand. i think we have rule of law established in those countries. but we also in the same agreement, are negotiating with vietnam. i went to vietnam not long ago. and we -- when we talked

issues, i sat down across the table from a bunch of communist generals, they run the country. they have problems with prison labor. they have problems with child labor. they have serious problems with environmental standards in that country. malaysia, you know what the minimum wage in malaysia is? zero. they do that to try to attract companies. the situation in chile and peru. we have organizers that have tried to work on behalf of workers who have been killed in those countries. there is no rule of law established in those countries where we've had success in enforcing our agreements. that's been a major problem. . so we're going to ask the american worker to compete with workers in vietnam which i think is 90 cents an hour. 97 cents an hour. i don't want to sell them short. 90 cents an hour in a country that's had a history of major problems as i have the speaker:en about. malashe -- major problems that i have spoken about.

malaysia, same thing. who drafted this bill, it's my understanding that the chemical industry provisions in that t.p.p. was drafted by the chemical industry. they like it. they got exactly what they wanted. the same thing with these other industries. and again, why is it -- why is it a national secret that i can't talk about a bill that is going to affect every american citizen today? and not only that it's going to affect their sons and daughters. there's a reason that our kids coming out of college can't get jobs. we got to wake up. you know, i told the story before. i went to korea recently with jpac. it was about the korean war and recovering our sons and daughters who fought in that country and are still there. but while i was there i looked for american cars, because we had passed a free trade

agreement with korea. we were there for days and i had the two young navy lieutenants with me. i said let's all look for american cars. we saw two american cars in the time we were there in korea. it's a big industrial country. they got plenty of traffic. we saw hundreds of thousands of cars. i saw two american cars. the one i was driving from the embassy and the one the navy lieutenants were driving in behind me. they shut out. you go to japan it's pretty much the same story. i said before, you need to hire a detective to find an american car in japan. so we have had very little success in enforcing our trade agreements overseas. we've got a lousy deal. so all i'm asking is look, i believe in -- and you know what i have to say the e.u. did it right. the e.u. when they negotiated with south korea they said, if you're going to sell cars into the e.u. from korea, we want

30% of the components of that car to be from -- made in the e.u. and they created a lot of work for their auto parts industry. think about we could do that. congress could do that. we could maintain that if they're going to sell a foreign car here, we want 40% or 50% of the components to be manufactured here in the united states. we would create millions of jobs in the united states. there's nothing wrong with that. it's a good thing. we would restore industrial and manufacturing capacity in the united states if congress got back in the game. i'm not against free trade. i think free trade works when it's balanced and i want somebody in there fighting for the american worker. we don't have that now. we don't have that now. congress has advocated its responsibility by agreeing to buy a pig in a poke because when they bill back on the floor here we're going to have to vote up or down.

you won't have the ability to change the bill like you do on every other bill that's brought on the floor of congress. you will not have that ability. congress will have advocated its responsibility to represent the people that sent them here. and free trade can work. let's have a fair deal for the american worker. that's all i'm asking for. if there was a fair deal for the american worker that i could read and talk to my constituents about, you know, i got 727,514 bosses back in massachusetts and they sent me here to do my job and i'm trying to do that on their behalf and i think that he ever other member of congress is trying to do their job as well. we can't do that if t.p.a. goes through. we need to give the american worker a voice. we can do that today. let's vote this stuff down. let's talk to the president. he's a good man.

wants to create american jobs. let's have an open debate. it should not be a secret. it should not be a national secret about these agreements we're having with multinational corporations. we should not be afraid that the american people might find out what's going on here. we should be proud of what we're doing here. we should want it lastered all over the front pages -- lastered all over the front pages of the newspapers of this country. we should be proud of our work here. i am not proud what is going on here. let's vote this down. let's change this system to a transparent system that the american people can be assured that their representatives in congress are doing the right thing. thank you for your indulgence, madam, and also mr. speaker. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i really once again appreciate the gentleman for coming to the floor and speaking directly

with you and all of his colleagues about the importance of this bill and really the problems he has with it. but i'd also like to let you know mr. speaker, that the number one selling car in korea is an american-made car. we signed a trade agreement in 2011 with korea and -- mr. lynch: if the gentleman will yield? mr. sessions: the toyota camry from georgetown, kentucky, the toyota made in georgetown, kentucky, is the number one selling vehicle in korea starting last year. now, they may not be a lot of them necessarily where the gentleman visited in korea, but that's a fact. and the gentleman from georgetown kentucky, andy barr, who is a member of this congress, has talked about this

for a long, long time. the trade agreements when the united states engages with them we end up with surpluses and it's better for the american worker and the trade agreement jobs pay 30% more than nontrade-associated jobs in this country. and that by virtue of what we're doing is we're trying to get a trade deal now where japan would be involved. because we do want japan to open up their marketplaces but where we have these agreements, that's what happens. the american worker wins. so t.p.a. is already the law of the land. the question we have today is whether we're going to include in that package the last parts of this which would be t.a.a. which do give, if there is a

difference in -- as a result of the trade deals where an industry, where a town, where a group of people were, quote, harmed, then the law would be there for retraining. i think that's the right vote. that's why speaker boehner is bringing this back even though by and large this concept was turned down by the democratic party from the very top of their organization to the bottom. that's why speaker boehner understood the right and fair thing to do. senate majority leader mcconnell said the right thing to do is to bring it back, let's see if we can repackage it. let's see if we can take a little bit of time, measure three times, saw again, see if we can get it right. that's what we're trying to do. trade promotion authority that the gentleman's been speaking of is already the law of the land. the question is will this last

piece be a part of it? i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker may i inquire if my colleague has any more requests for time? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i would be the last speaker and i will end whenever the gentlewoman yields back her time. ms. slaughter: i am prepared to close. mr. speaker, what we've heard this morning must certainly cause great confusion in the minds of america. let me restate what's happened here. the congress has passed fast track authority, t.p.a., for six years. it goes beyond this president's term and covers four years of another. why that happened i'm not really clear, but it's certainly something we have given away our right to negotiate trade agreements which, by the way, the constitution gives us the ability to do. second, there will be no input -- the congress will not be writing a trade bill.

that is purely in the hands of the trade representative and the executive department of the united states. our next role and the only one we have is to vote up or down with on whatever they present us. what a sad day it is. i want to agree with mr. lynch. the very fact of passing this bill is an admission and knowing that we are going to lose jobs. my part of the district in western new york is just now starting to regain its footing after nafta. you've heard me say it a million times. eastman kodak, one of the iconic companies in the country, in the world, went from 62,000 employees down to foreign bankruptcy. what we've gotten in nafta also put the losses there as of the fifth city that is under the poverty line in the united states.

for heaven's sake, it breaks my heart to think that my constituents will have to face this again because people who voted for all this don't seem to understand what it is that they've done. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i appreciate my colleagues, the gentleman from massachusetts, the gentlewoman from new york for their engagement today. mr. speaker confirmed again, the number one car, the car of the year in korea in 2013 toyota camry made in georgetown, kentucky. i've had 10 people text me trying to give me more information about what a great opportunity this is for american workers. mr. speaker that's what this is about -- that's what this bill is about. it's about the jobs, opportunity and a fair proposal. not just by the administration, not just by the house and the

senate, but really a republican bill for jobs. this is a jobs bill, a jobs bill that will allow the american worker to have new boundaries, new opportunities to go out in and let me tell you mr. speaker, i don't travel very much but i will tell you that i know from the stories that come back people want american-made products. they want american-made everything from jeans all the way to high-tech products. they want american products because of the reliability of the american worker, because of the stability of america and we got a great opportunity with this final piece part of this trade agreement to move it forward. i think five years from now we're going to look back and say, wow, what did we do great, and you can mark it just like they did this year, two years ago looking back to the toyota

camry, number one in korean market. mr. speaker, today's rule provides i think for just an up or down vote. it's really simple to senate h.r. 1295, trade preferences extension act. by passing this rule today, we can move on the house will have an opportunity to consider the bill and it will head to the president's desk. this package of bills to the president. i look forward to the debate on the real substance of the bill and i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i have a privileged resolution at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: whereas on december 20, 1860, south carolina became the first state to secede from the union. whereas on january 9, 161, mississippi seceded from the union, stating in its declaration of immediate causes that, that our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world, whereas on february 9, 1861, the confederate states of america was formed with a group of 11 states as a purported sovereign nation and with jefferson davis of mississippi as its president. whereas on march 11, 1861, the confederate states of america adopted its own constitution. where