they talk about the impact recent trade agreements, including the upcoming transpacific partnership has had on the u.s. economy. ♪ .ost: good morning it is thursday, october 6, 2016. where one month and two days away -- we are one month and two days away from the election. it comes as the obama administration is pushing congress for a lame-duck approval of the trans-pacific partnership deal before the president leaves office. on the washington journal, where devoting our entire -- we are devoting our entire three-hour states -- to look at where it the trade may tip the balance. we begin with a question, do you think trade deals hurt or help

the economy? let us know your thoughts or have you been impacted by past trade deals? we split our phone lines regionally this morning. you can catch up with us on social media. a very good thursday morning to you. we are talking about the issue of trade on the washington journal. do trade deals hurt or help the economy? it is a question that at desk they get asks in polling -- that gets asked in polling. , 45% agreements currently of voters say free trade agreements have then a good thing for the united states. 47% say they have been a bad

thing. clinton supporters, 59% to 32% view free trade agreements positively. republican opposition to free trade agreements have increased dramatically in the last year. as recently as a may 2015, more republican voters say free trade agreements have been a good thing. 51% to 39%. we want to hear your thoughts on that question. our phone lines but regionally. -- our phone lines split regionally. we will get to your calls in just a second. ppp, we will be talking about it all morning. i want to get an update on the status of tpp. the president pushing for a

lame-duck passage by congress of the tpp. behsudi.ined by adam prospects for congress bringing this up in the lame-duck session. it is going to be uncertain. it is a pretty -- it is going to be a very tight vote. proponents of the deal are very much optimistic that he could come up in the lame-duck. on the other side, people are looking at the numbers of people coming against it already and using that as an indicator of this thing is going to be hard to come up. you do see the leaders of the note and senate speaking very favorably of the deal. mitch mcconnell in the senate

said numerous times that it is not going to come up as a lame-duck. paul ryan has been more nuanced in the house. he said it could not come up in its current form. it would not have the votes. we are seeing negative statements. whether or not that is evidence of downplaying the trade issue ahead of the election, that is kind of some people are looking at that as these two guys don't want to promote a trade vote quinn trade has become such a -- vote when trade has become such a big issue. of tpp, wherets does the optimism stem from? i think if you look

beyond the political rhetoric, everything that has been said about trade on a more technical level, there are just maybe a few things to figure out before they can get the deal prepped and ready for a vote. there are some issues with intellectual property provisions as they relate to pharmaceutical products. .iological drugs senator hatch, the chairman of the finance committee which is in charge of trade, once -- wants there to be an agreementing that the that was reached last year is not strong enough. there areo ensure higher levels of protection for those drugs. guarantees,me assurances that the administration will need to sure the former

will get the favorite access granted under the agreement. host: how much tweaking can be done echo what is administration saying -- can be done in ecowas administration saying -- can be done? what is administration saying? cannot -- deal itself the administration is very firm they are not going to be open for renegotiations. over four years or longer, they were very big concessions -- there were very big concessions to be a part of this deal. there are things the u.s. can do and have done this past summer, of agreementoncern

on the financial services data. there were pretty new rules for trade deals that would require data not to be hindered. prohibited countries from requiring data be stored in their service in their countries. -- in their servers in their countries. they do not have that apply to financial data. in theused an uproar financial services community. they went back and they figured out, not how to adjust the deal directly, but it talked about how they can do this, how they can change those rules for future trade deals. that seemed to satisfy some members in congress. they were able to address that problem.

to grow support that way. host: before you go, what does the impact of the election have? what can the next president do when it comes to tpp? can the next president change this or alter the agreement? a it is not passed as lame-duck, what would the next president have as options? politics are the big moving question on whether this can get done, but if they were to pull it out, if they were to get it passed, the next president would be in charge of incrementing the deal. there are certain things -- be in charge of implementing the deal. there are certain things they --d to do to implement depending on who is in office and what their attitude is, they

can slow walk the implementation process. they can make it hard to get into full force. if it doesn't come up, i don't think the expectation is that revive tppidate will . donald trump especially, i think, would probably scrap it. there is hope that hillary clinton, while she opposes the deal as it is, may be able to go and maybe kind of renegotiate the deal in some way. that something that is -- would meet the statements that she has been saying during her campaign. host: adam behsudi is, thank you so much. he writes for morning trade. one story from earlier this week

, that leads to this discussion that we are having this morning. it is about congressional budget process report noting the cbo waded into the trade debate last week with the release of a report that found a trade agreements provided u.s. economy with small positive effects but acknowledged that estimating the economic impact is difficult. benefits anded the costs of trade expansion are not evenly distributed. overall trade deals have been found to increase trade by only a minimal amount with the exception of nafta. morning trade with a link to that report on their website. it leads to this question, do trade deals hurt or help the economy back we want to hear your opinions, stories about it on the washington journal. duluth minnesota. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my

call. i don't think trade deals do any good. nafta was a disaster. by is what the trade deals have given us in the past. it seems like a tool to lever the wages down in the country. i am not for any trade deal. thanks. host: it talk about nafta in duluth, minnesota. how does it impact you? caller: i watched a lot of the things happen, a lot of jobs go overseas. host: what is your industry? what industry are you when? -- are you in? caller: ice to work for georgia-pacific. -- i used to work for georgia-pacific.

over thes taken industry because they do not -- i cannot really think, but it's just -- there is a lot of reasons why we need to and try note deals to get hurt in the process. minnesota.duluth, we talking about trade, trade deals. do trade deals help or hurt the u.s. economy? maryland.t oxon hill, good morning. caller: good morning and thanks

for taking my call. overall trade deals help the economy. basically there are always going to be winners and losers, but we cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. we pretty much have to trade. we have to put ourselves in the position to be competitive. trade buthave free the government, they can limit the amount -- say we trade sugar with another country, we can limit amount of sugar that we take in so we don't hurt our own producers, like of corn or things like that. trade -- if you look at statistically, there has

always been a net positive for trade. unfortunately, you know, we do have a problem with wages, you know, of trying to compete with wages and other countries. host: when you talk about their always being winners and losers. is there something the united to do more for those people who come out on the losing end when it comes to trade deals? should there be more programs to retrain or try to help those folks until they can find a new job? caller: i think they should look at the impact of these deals and what it is going to do. the unfortunate thing is a lot of times these deals are negotiated by corporations who is going to favor them.

in the long run, cheaper prices help us to have a more purchasing power, but if that is going to put somebody out of work, then you have to weigh that. the corporations have their lobbyists in congress and they are writing the laws. the government should look at that and say is it going to impact the amazing people -- impact the american people? it comes down to a matter of trust. do you think the president is trustworthy or not? to negotiate a good deal? how do you feel about the tpp, the one that is under consideration that the president is looking to get past before he leaves office? caller: it is interesting,

because most trade deals, they want -- the republicans want to trade deals, in my opinion. they are more pro-corporation, pro-business,, they were pro-nafta because it was a republican agenda passed by democratic president. it is happening again. supposedly, the president has better provisions to learn from the lessons and master -- in nafta. i don't know for sure. us inl, free trade helps the long run, but we do have to worry about competing with other countries with wages. the government should be to limit -- government role should be to limit, not tariffs,

because tariffs would be bad. but our country with their product does the bill through cheap labor. host: we can go in to some of the history of nafta as well this morning. we ask this question of our viewers, do trade deals help or hurt the economy? will stay in maryland or david is waiting echo good morning -- waiting. good morning. one thing, the politicians on the left and right are blaming trade deficits for unemployment etc.. it is a fallacy. if you look in respect to countries that we have a for -- free trade agreements with, and you add up our trade balance all the way around, every year for

the last 10 years, we have had -- with the countries we have trade agreements with. the argument that trade deals, i.e. trade agreements, hurt the economy is a fallacy. it is a fallacy because the politicians don't want to focus on the real problem which is areulations [indiscernible] stifling the growth of the economy. tpp, it is important that everyone note, [indiscernible] around 12 or 13 or so. 12you look at what the countries are, mexico -- a

couple of hundred in south america, australia, austria, we already have trade agreements with all of those countries. malaysia are indonesia? one of those two. it is important for everyone to know that we already have free trade agreementsitmost of those countries. japan --big one is a the only big one that we do not have a free trade agreement with is japan. host: when you say trade agreements are a no-brainer, they always help, what do you say to that first caller who worked for her to pacific -- for georgia-pacific. they saw hardwood jobs moved to brazil. what do you say to those people who come out on the losing end? caller: we don't have a free trade agreement with brazil.

-- the one thing that people should know about nafta is if you look at our trade , we do have a trade deficit with mexico. you know how much that is with anything but autos. the entire deficit with mexico -- why is that? one of the reasons is you know how many free trade agreements mexico has with the rest of the world? 50.ink it is like the free trade agreement with all of europe, south america. i think they have one with japan. they are an export platform to the world. they have pretty good labor force and they can ship products anywhere.

problem that i see is the united states has too few trade agreements. .ost: port republic maryland he took about the 12 countries .nvolved in the tpp setting from the bbc's reporting .n the tpp the other issue the caller brought up was trade deficit. some numbers out this morning on the overall u.s. trade deficit. this from the wall street journal. it expanded last month -- in the month of august as growth in imports including olympic broadcasting rights and crude oil outpaced the gain in exports. 3% from araft -- month earlier from july to to put $6 billion

overall increase in imports came from charges for the use of intellectual properties. meane the latest expert figures were supported by continued strong shipments of soybean. export tripled in july and maintained the high level in august. talking about trade deals. do they help or hurt the economy? don, good morning. caller: hi. i believe trade deals help the the goods aree produced cheaper because of the cheaper labor, because of the exchange rate. the currency exchange rate, we're only doing trade deals with countries with weaker currencies and then we benefit from the cheaper labor. the problem is domestically jobs .re not available here

if they can be outsourced or sent overseas. with jobs thates can be outsourced, but we help the economy with better -- i guess the market does better. walmart will bring in goods, cheaper goods. that is all i have to say. host: a few tweets this morning as we are talking about trade deals.

talking about trade all morning on the washington journal. it has become such a major issue in this election cycle. as a look ahead to a lame-duck session the could include the tpp coming up for a vote in congress. that building right over my shoulder. john is in columbia, missouri. good morning. caller: your question was whether the our free trade deals -- whether our free trade deals have helped us? i don't think they have. i did everything i could which is not much but with other people to point out the range of disasters of nafta. disasters hadse to do with specific measures of the trade balance. to that effect of our fantasy of the notion of free trade, when actually virtually no other country in the world practices

it, between open protectionism and covert protectionism by virtually every country in the world. we are just behaving like -- it cost for the stagnation of our economy. reallyrade policies have not self contributed to anything about some kind of relative balance of trade. in fact the ever-growing trade deficit is evidence that our trade policies have not worked. most of the terms of trade policies do not have to do with free trade, they have to do very specific kind of things about protections for investor -- u.s. investors abroad. i think it is bad policy -- bad economic policy. i would direct people to him

fletcher's book on free trade doesn't work -- two em fletcher's book on free trade doesn't work. it goes on from that. policy andrade industrial policies consciously adopted that will favor our economy. a lot of that is it mainly about countering the protectionism of other countries. country, wherer the domestic market is such a big part of our economy. there may be other countries where virtually nothing is going on in terms of their production. except the opportunity to export either low-cost goods or raw materials. that is still not the case. we are getting to the place where it could be the case for us. host: edward is an el cajon, california. caller: thank you for taking my

skull -- my call. i believe the trade deal is hurting our economy. -- weone of the reasons buy a lot of stuff from a lot of countries and they don't buy nothing from us. those jobs are being created in those countries, and those shipment containers are being shipped back here empty. when we build these things in other countries, we bring that product right back here and we sell it for the same price as if an american would have built it here in the united states. other-- we are profiting countries economies, not ours. stay out of the tpp? caller: yes, because the way i

look at it is it is going to create more jobs for other countries and not create jobs here. host: the tpp, the 12 nation deal, those 12 nations representing some 40% share of the world trade market, there is a column in today's financial times about the dpp. tpp.el tpp -- the by failing to adopt the tpp -- fastest-growing region. in the words of a senior japanese diplomat, this will hand beijing a golden opportunity to establish a trade system in asia under chinese leadership. what is your response to that? are we beating leadership around the world by sting out of these agreements? caller: that is kind of over my head it all i know is there free -- we are the

consumer, where not the provider. we're not the ones making the product here in sending them overseas. -- that is all i see. thank you for ticking my call, but he. -- for taking my call, buddy. peter.ood morning, caller: in michigan, you have to register by october 11 to vote on the november 8 election. i want to mention that. according to your question, i wrote some notes. argie talk -- argie talking about it. it. heard you talking about i read an article by pat the canon. -- pat buchanan.

-- for that expenditure on trade and that makes them more competitive and -- more competitive than us with free trade. i read that article a year ago. second point i mentioned, if you look at manufacturing gross the mastech product, -- gross domestic product, i think it was about trade. manufacturing was $.32 on the dollar of gross domestic product, gdp. or $.13, about $.12 down two thirds. i'm giving you some stats that i read. started doing my own research on google and i thought, ok if trade deals are bad, our trade surplus is good? i will type it into google. in google, youg

cannot find any research papers or anybody saying they'd trade --icits are good saying that saying that trade deficits are good. google yourself. there is one pdf file from some organization and i cannot download it on my smartphone. it is hard to find any data or papers written by anybody that says trade deficits are good and explaining it. host: why don't we talk about michigan and how you think this is impacting michigan? is a their manufacturing and burton, michigan -- in burton, michigan? caller: up and up, the trade deficit. if you correlate that with unemployment, cities, certain steps, i think a great paper could be written. crime, things like that.

[indiscernible] we have had a lot of plants leave. i worked in the auto industry and i saw one of my jobs get shipped out to mexico. we were covered under great union contract so we were protected. a lot of workers in michigan do not have a union contract and they were not protected. i have seen that happen. about fairump talks trade and renegotiate deals, that makes sense to me to get the best deal for america. if you look at our past, mr. trump talks about tariffs, we have used tariffs in the past. both parties supported that if you look at our history. the of our presidents from , hes -- abraham lincoln talked about keeping jobs in this country. the tariff was talked about.

i was not born then, of course. it is something watching your show. i have talked a lot here and you probably want to say a few words, but i am a donald trump supporter. donald trump is going to win. i want to say that. everybody needs to register to vote. we should be the florida of 2016 michigan. host: that is peter in michigan. bringing up the elections. we have been trying to update the viewers, not just about the presidential election, but the other races owing on -- going on around the country. senate.eye on the if democrats want to want control of the senate, the have to win for seats -- when -- they have to win quencher seats. if donald trump is elected, democrats would have to win five seats to take control of the

united states senate. courtesy of the washington times this morning. incumbent republican senators have built big leads in their bids for reelection. democrats are putting new states in play elsewhere. keeping alive hopes and switching control of the upper chamber. a couple of states they focused on, senator pat toomey has surged 20 point lead in pennsylvania. senator rob portman, and ted strickland in ohio. statessouri said their jason kander is running so presently close to roy blunt and deborah ross and no carolina is tied with richard byrne. forcing republicans to defend the two states. a lot of focus on those senate races. also a lot of focus on the amount of money that has been pouring into, not just the

presidential campaign, but the house and senate campaigns. there is a story about that on the front page of the washington post this morning. super pac seeking to influence the 2016 election. it has collected more than $1 billion in record all driven by jumbo sized contributions from rich donors on both sides of the aisle. 10 mega donors individually and couples treated nearly 20% of the $1.1 billion raised by super pac's by the end of august according to the washington post reports and analysis. the total exceeds the $853 million that super pac's collected in the entire 2012 cycle. in a reflection of how once reluctant democrats have fully embraced the big money system, the top givers were split equally along party lines with five republicans, for democrats and one independent, former new york mayor michael bloomberg.

back to your calls as we are talking about trade in the 2016 elections. trade when it comes to tpp and efforts by the administration to pass tpp. will go to randy and missouri. i want to start out by thanking you and all of the men and women behind the scenes that we do not see for bringing this program. uaw 599 retiree up here in michigan, i want to bring up some of the facts of nafta that we have not talked about. why don't believe that trade deals help. mexico and canada were supposed to up their wages when we signed to nafta. mexico on for sleep never lived up to that part. another thing is people who are making $.50 a day can never help me over here by any product.

they will drive my weight down as statistics are showing. that is all that does. soldthis nafta trade was on the fact that it was going to stop wars, because when we are trading with everybody, we won't have to have any wars. how do that -- how has it that one worked? not very well. how do you enforce it? there is no enforcement. you can i go over it lets you want to go to war and that bodes the argument on it is supposed to stop war. trade will work if we go down to $.50 wage and nobody -- and you live in a grass hut. that is what you are going to be headed for. i only had a high school education, so maybe this is a little above my grade, but for living the experience in the last 30 years, it did not work on my site. not at all. i have got to tell you, i have never voted anything but

democrat appear in michigan, and i don't know about your polls, because they say mrs. clinton has a lead. i found one hillary clinton sign and believe me, this area is quite politically active. i have only found three trump. nobody is bragging about who they're voting for. i only found one hillary sign. thank you for this great program. allowing me to speak -- when you look at it overall, i just don't know -- i guess i need a college education to by the fact that a $.50 and our job can help me when i was making $26 an hour. michigan, iin appreciate the call. joan is in buffalo grove, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. outowould like to point the people who keep talking

about trade in general and blaming it all on the agreement that we have trade whether or not we have agreements. a perfect example is china. we have been trading as everyone knows for years with china. we do not have an agreement with them. not everything that has occurred because of trade is because of the agreements. thank you. michigan.oit, good morning. caller: mi on? host: yes sir. caller: nafta has decimated detroit. we still have a lot of tooling job shops these to supply to the auto industry. those are gone now. wages have gone. ,nyone who thinks -- and i mean

and you know how depressed detroit is. the infrastructure and everything -- there is no money for any of this peak anybody that thinks trade deals are a good deal are completely out of their mind. they succumb to detroit and see what is going on. trump is not going to do anything for trade. trump doesn't believe in unions. unions is where this is at. if you don't have unions, you don't have anything. i want to point that out that trump will not help anything with trade because he will help the owners. he will help the oligarchs. speaking of donald trump and hillary clinton, their second debate coming up on sunday. the issue of trade came up. here is a clip from that debate on this exchange over trade. works let's not assume that -- >> let's not assume that trait is the only challenge we have in

the economy. i think it is a part of it. i am going to have a special prosecutor. we are going to enforce the trade deals we have and hold people accountable. when i was secretary state, we increased american exports globally 30%. we increased them to china 50%. i know how to really work to get new jobs and to get exports that help create more new jobs. quick you haven't done it in 30 years. -- >> you haven't done it in 30 years. your husband's nafta was at one of the worst things that ever happened. you go to new england, you go to ohio, pennsylvania, anywhere you want, secretary clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacturers are down 50%. nafta is the worst trade deal ever signed anywhere.

now, you want to approve trans-pacific partnership. you're in favor of it then you heard what i was saying how bad it is and you said i cannot win that debate. you know if you did win, you would approve that. that would be almost as bad as nafta. >> that is not accurate. i was against it once it was finally negotiated. the terms were laid out. i wrote about that -- >> you called it the gold standard of trade deals. the finest deal you have ever seen. you heard what i said about it and all of a sudden you are against it. >> i know you live in your own reality, but that is not the fact. i did say i hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated which i was not responsible for. i concluded it wasn't. host: that conversation likely to continue in the second presidential debate. coming up this sunday, you can watch it here on c-span.

our coverage begins at 7:30 eastern for the second presidential debate at washington university in st. louis. dale is waiting on this question that we have. do trade deals helped or hurt the economy? dale is in ohio. caller: good morning, everybody. helps thension american economy. as you expand trade, there are winners and losers. the benefits far outweigh the costs. some people are going to lose their jobs could one of things that is never talked about his -- exploded.since we created as many excellent jobs as weany export lost -- many export jobs as we lost. the real benefit to the economy when you expand trade is that we

bring in lower-priced products which helps to fight inflation. the federal reserve doesn't have to fight inflation as hard and they can keep interest rates up. this puts our money in the american economy and allows americans to purchase goods imported and produced right here in the united states. you would think with all the bad talk about trade, our economy has decreased. this is the fact, 1994, there were 119 million american workers. today, there are over 152 million americans with jobs. an increase of 33 million jobs since nafta was passed. i'm not saying it was all due to that. the fact is our economy is growing. one thing that folks do not understand is this. if you look at -- if you ask the

question in what year did u.s. manufacturing peak? most people would say in the 1970's or 1980's. the truth is year of manufacturing taking was 2016. we're headed for a record year. what is hurting manufacturing or jobs is not trade, it is technology. we produce things a lot cheaper than we used to. that is what the focus should be on. jobs as ase their result of the improvement of technology. host: dale in ohio on this issue. the exchange between the candidates during the presidential debate was -- took on this issue. paletta fact looking to the legacy of nafta. they say a congressional another policye

groups are on capitol hill one of their charts, this from mcclatchy in their reporting about nafta. in the net the question of whether nafta was the worst deal ever. it is a headline on their story about it. u.s. trade with nafta partners and around the globe, these are rounded into the billions of u.s. dollars from back in 1995. u.s. trade with canada about $272 billion.

in 2015, it was $577 billion. -- around the world, over $1.3 trillion back in 1995. today, over 3.7 trillion dollars. the numbers, looking at the legacy of nafta. cold -- goodt morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: nafta has been bad for the united states. it is completely wiped out the power industry in north carolina. stuff.keep up with ford is not the only one that is moving a planted to mexico. there are seven other automakers here heading that way.

i don't understand why they are coming here when all the work is down there. did you work in the furniture industry in north carolina? caller: ice to build buildings and stuff when i first come here, i moved from west virginia to keep on working in the coal mines. i got down here and every thing was booming. they were building furniture buildings. i was working in all of the cities around here. mainpoint was the furniture capital. it ain't no more. host: when did you see that folks that work in the furniture industry -- what did they do? did they going to different industries? what was the impact? caller: most of them are doing nothing. nothing really to follow.

and they the only thing i see expanding is the broker industry. .- is the broker industry every quarter there are fast food runs -- has good restaurants. them, fast food and stuff and they are complaining about wages. there is notle] going to be as many of them. host: there has been some discussion about trying to sell these future trade agreements by including provisions for retraining or try to help people while they find a different jobs. folks you saw lose their jobs in the furniture industry, do you think they would want to go into a different industry? would want to be retrained? how much of an impact would you have? are the and just other other industries to be retrained in and of carolina that you think those people would want to go to? caller: they talk about

retraining everybody but nobody ever explains what these new jobs are. i don't know what jobs they are talking about. host: thinks for the call. david from sandusky, ohio. caller: good morning. well, we were an industrial area until it nafta and the trade agreement. are you talking to a prior caller about retraining. i am currently under the trade adjustment act because i lost my job due to chinese imports. trade agreements basically benefit the rich. it creates instability in the wage market so that it lowers wages across the board, whether you are in the united states, mexico or china. china was a cheap labor market, now they are losing jobs to vietnam. it creates all the wealth that , 90% goes to the

superrich and not the average worker. trade deals hurt everybody. host: those who are not familiar with the traded judgment act, can you talk about what it means? caller: we call it burial insurance. i get to go to school for two years to get trained to get a skill whether it could be in nursing or health care field or whatever field that has jobs. i live in northwest ohio where the unemployment rate, even though they say it is 5.5%, it is more like 10% to 15%. competition for jobs is pretty intense. most of the industry is leaving this area. jobs, i was making close to $80,000 year and most of the jobs i can get retrained $40,000.ike host: appreciate the call. big creek, mississippi as we

continue talking about trade deals and your thoughts on whether they help or hurt? caller: thank you for taking my call. i live in world city in mississippi -- in a rural city in mississippi. the biggest producer in our community are the clothing factory. they move it to mexico and they took somebody better workers to train the mexicans. then they shut the plant down when the do repairs mexicans messed up some of the fabrication of the clothing. , i try to find a pair of -- it is is a most almost impossible to find american-made boots. you cannot find a true leather

belt anymore. these advertisements on tv, cooking utensils made from pure copper, the chinese do not know what pure is. abouti want to speak planned obsolescence. i bought an american-made microwave in 1982. it is still working flawlessly. the union'sank across america because we are a right to work state. in our state, we have a huge nissan plant, a huge toyota they bring alabama, they have a mercedes-benz plant.

and we have winchester caterpillar. goods.on't trust foreign i don't trust the food. i don't trust them to process our chicken. we have enough trouble in the united states expecting -- inspecting our plants. what kind of inspection do you think they have in china echo host: -- in china? quality, dost and you think most americans are looking for that in their product anymore? in a disposable society, those two things have become less important for the consumer? caller: they have been forced to accept it. now when i buy canned vegetables, they have great in them. i can only assume it is sand.

i am 63 years old. that has only been recently that i found this stuff. andpick up a can of food you turn it around and it says made in china. i usually set it back down and try to find something else. i don't trust them. their standards are nowhere near hours -- nowhere near hours. we have to protect ourselves. host: i hope that microwave last you a lot more years. roger is an illinois. good morning. caller: good morning peter i have a different perspective. hearing calls and i'm hearing calls saying all of the jobs have gone. we are 5% of the population of the world. we have to sell our products overseas.

we have seen china, india and other countries in the last few made their living higher. not as i as the united states. a peel of change. we need to -- an apo of change. we enjoy going to walmart or target. all of these low prices that we get clothing, furniture. everybody in the world wants to come to america for education. i can understand how people are feeling stressed. where is my $80,000 job? where is my twin six dollar an hour job? if we start a tariff war against countries and putting

restriction on the products, it is going to hurt us more than it is going to help us. actually understand the -- i truly understand the frustration of the american people in terms of is we're notng it getting the jobs. you're right, the world is changing. what uber has done is we're not getting the in terms of technology, it changed everything in terms of transportation. the world is getting better. when we have two candidates and somebody saying we're going to put a 34% tariff. do you think it is want to help us? it is going to demolish our economy. i feel for everyone. things are not like it used to be. we have to a debt to the changes. host: you may want to check out the lead editorial in today's washington post. the headline, wrecking world trade in a few easy steps.

the editorial board noting the decade since the end of the cold war that is the lead editorial in today's washington post as we talk about this issue of trade in the 2016 elections. in terms of the tpp, the trans-pacific partnership that is expected to happen again when

congress comes back with the lame-duck session. the link -- the legislation could come up for vote. a few tweets. time for a couple of more calls in this first segment. we are going to be talking about trade all day on today's show. stay on the line. we'll get to your trade questions. kansas, you are up. caller: good morning. [indiscernible]the problem is the trades are bad. the problem is the trades are

controlled and all the money are they moveiscernible] the manufacturing made by intermediaries. they move manufacturing abroad. the trade is supposed to be only the items which are not produced or cannot be produced inside. tra, inho control the fact, are the lates -- delete -- banks,that control the everything. globalists control trade. people are fooled when they think trade is the problem. trade is not the problem. it is the way it is done, and

the way it is controlled. -- : so, luca caller: it is a matter of money. whocontrols the money, controls the price, and who dictates? globalism, in fact, is another way to impose control of the manufacturing and the consumer. this is the fundamentals of the economy. if i need something, i am supposed to produce. but cannot produce, i buy, you cannot buy everything if you cannot produce anything. host: all right. allen is in stanley, virginia. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have a couple of comments about the trade deal.

there is nothing wrong with fair trading. here is the point, and i will make it as simple as i possibly can. debt per00 million year with foreign trades. $10 and you give me five dollars back every time we make a deal, how long can we stay around? in this country we have a deficit of $800 billion a year. we borrow the money and add to the deficit. the american people not only for theseob, we pay other countries, and their people that are suffering. from that perspective, how can trade be good for anybody? trade is only good when it is equal -- when we all make money and do well. whether you bring technology unit, or whether you have to trade with the whole world or not. we're not going to be around if we continue going the way we are

going. i think what donald trump is talking about -- no one wants to stop training. let's trade, but let's make a fair deal for everyone, and the politicians, the media, and some people miss out and don't get this whole deal. i would love to trade all day. i am in the retail business. i would like to take in $10, and give you five dollars back. who doesn't questionark mexico loves that. -- who doesn't? mexico loves that. they have the advantage on us. host: so the point is the trade is not bad, but we are making dead -- bad deals? caller: absolutely. politicians live in a bubble, the media lives in a bubble, wall street live in a bubble. a lot of people in the cities -- wonderful people -- they live in a bubble. they do not realize people in rural areas taking a hit.

you drive in these places all over the country where buildings are closed up. they are somewhere else, and they are not in the united states. somehow we try to to how good it is for them. it is not. they are lying to us. host: ken is in stanwood, washington. talking about trade. caller: thank you for taking my call. trade is definitely hurting the economy. if they are sending money forseas, making a phone $10, and selling it here for $500, who is losing? there is no manufacturing in the united states anymore. we have to get back to building our economy, building our infrastructure. as trump said, we have to build our railroads, our bridges. repairing all of these things would create tons of jobs, and

it would bring back the steel industry and everything else, like trump was stating. steel, coal,he everything we need right here. we have tons of oil, like trump said before as well. host: all right. sorry, thought you were done. collett is waiting in woodbridge, virginia. go ahead. caller: hello, good morning. how are you today? thanks for taking my call. host: good, go ahead. just a minute or so before our panel comes on. caller: i would like to point out for americans -- the trade deal -- why everyone is against it. we are not a realism country. people think about themselves. they do not think about having trade. we have to have trade. points outd trump something about bringing jobs back from overseas.

i'm just going to give the american people a small example -- if he brings a t-shirt company from india, or a different country in the middle east that they make for us in walmart or target, imagine how much it is going to cost -- a t-shirt is going to cost you guys almost, like, $300. if we bring the iphone company that they are making in china -- how much is an iphone 7 going to cost for everybody? like, $6,000. nobody cares about that. will carethink people about it more if they start to see the prices go up. if you bringn, it jobs back to america, it will cost us so much money. we have to have trade deals with other countries, because we are a superpower country in the world. it is not possible to deal with everything. donald trump -- he is a joke,

basically. theyople there are smart, have enough education, they know that. if we bring jobs back in america, it is going to hurt our economy so bad. host: got your point. running out of time here. we want to bring on our panel. we will talk about this issue of trade, but in this roundtable, we would talk about the tpp, the positive and negatives of some of these trade agreement. we will be joined by lori wallach of public citizen, the global trade watch director there, and ikenson daniel -- and daniel ikenson from the cato institute. that is all coming up here on the "washington journal." ♪

>> as the nation elects a new president in america, will america have his first foreign-born first lady since lisa adams, will we have a former president as first gentleman? "first ladies" gives readers a look into the personal lives and a of every first lady in american history. it is a companion to the well -regarded biography series and features interviews with the leading first lady historians. each chapter offers brief biographies of 45 residential spouses and archive -- presidential spouses and biographies. it is available at your favorite

bookseller, and also as an e- book. >> this weekend, saturday evening, author alison kibler on the history of hate speech and censorship in america, examining images of irish and african-americans used. philadelphia, a large group of african gathered outside of the walls -- walnut street theater when the klansmen was scheduled to appear. 2000eport estimated african-americans came to protest, and another 1000 whites came to observe the protest. at the start of the play, one african-american men through an galley,he stage of the and someone shouted we want no atlanta here, refers in to the rate -- referring to the race

right. a.m., theat 10:00 second debate between michael dukakis and george h w bush. dukakis: i want to build a foundation from which this country could move, grow, and invest. mr. bush: i wish he would join me in appealing to the american people for a balanced federal budget amendment and a line-item veto. i would like to have that for the president because i think that would be extraordinarily helpful. usst 6 p.m., a tour of the wisconsin. it was launched in 1943 and saw service in world war ii through the gulf war. >> i want to talk about the citadel with a 17-inch armor. in front of us here, we have this door that is close during

combat. the doorways approximately five tons. >> just before 9:00 p.m. eastern, former secretary of state madeleine albright receives the great americans award from the national museum of american history. ms. albright: i come back to washington after the convention, a cocktail party. says ational journal" woman walks into the cocktail party and is immediately followed by the surrounded by men. is it brooke shields? no, it is madeleine albright. much more popular. >> for a complete schedule go to c-span.org. host: as we continue to spotlight the issue of trade this morning on "washington journal," we are joined by daniel ikenson from the cato fromtute and lori wallach public citizen. why has this issue of trade

become, if not the issue of the cycle, one of the issues of the election cycle? it is anll, interesting question. i have looked at a lot of focus groups and polls about that. it is not the trade part. americans have woken up to the fact that agreements like tpp the tpp, at the heart, are about expanding and locking in corporate power at a time when americans are furious about the role the corporations have been controlling our lives and shaping the government. at the heart of the tpp are provisions that would allow thousands of multinational corporations to sue the u.s. government in front of tribunals of three corporate attorneys who would be authorized to pay corporations unlimited funds of money, including for speculative , future lost profits, if those corporations say any u.s. law,

court decision, state, local, federal, violates new rights and privileges the tpp would give them. there is no appeal to these three corporate attorneys, and there is no limit as to how much they can make us pay. that makes people nuts. host: so, it is an issue that americans feel we are giving away more of our own rights or things that protect us as americans? guest: it is the notion that these agreements are trojan horse maneuvers. in the good name of trade expansion -- who is not for that -- instead, are giving brand-new powers to operations. you think of more competition, except the agreement gives special rights and privileges to special interests. not shocking, because the thing was negotiated with 500 official corporate advisors, and largely congress shut out. you get these lopsided rules. another key provision is protectionism for the pharmaceutical and is cheap. it stops the competition that brings down prices and making it

easier to get generic medicines agreement areade monopoly-seeking packed expansions. this is making people nuts. host: his assent an issue in the 2016 election? guest: you ask why it is an issue -- why it is topical. it has been topical since 1982. this year it is resonating more profoundly. trade has become more of a catchall for concerns, economic dislocation, anxiety, people have. demagoguedsily a issue. politicians love to distract voters from the issues -- their own failures, their own failures to adopt policies that help the economy grow. it is so much easier to blame foreigners, their products, for copies. donald trump is good at talking up his economic nationalist string where trade is portrayed as competition -- competition

between team america and team china, or team mexico, where exports are america's points, imports of the foreign team's points, and we have a trade deficit, so we are losing a trade, and losing, of course, because the florentine is that foreign -- foreign team is cheating. it is wrong. to get to the point that lori was making -- there is this myth that trade only benefits rich corporations and rich americans -- the 1%. disproportionately beneficial to smaller companies relative to large companies because mother copies have a harder time absorbing the costs -- the trade barriers, tariffs -- regulations. big companies don't mind it at all. likewise, lower-income americans benefit from trade more than anything else. host: when you think about trade

being portrayed as a competition, are some supporters of the trans-pacific partnership portraying the tpp as a competition -- if we do not sign, do not get involved in this 12-member deal, we are seating 40% of the global trade market to china, and they are going to then make the rules? in that sense, isn't the administration calling it a competition? guest: i think the administration is trying to point out -- not as articulately as it should -- the trance pacific partnership is a new model for trade liberalization. trade liberalization has occurred with these trade rounds, where companies got together to a seat -- achieve consensus. that is not working and. the dough how round launched in 2001 broke down in 2008. i do not think we will go back to that. is ane -- the tpp american-led initiative.

joinus, and if you do not this agreement, you will be on the outside, and supply chains will be diverted out of your country. partial be put on countries like china to join. what the president is saying is if we do not get is ratified, then, u.s.-based rule of law -- you know, the rule of law and trade, institutions that have persisted since the end of the second world war will start to decay and the chinese-led initiative will take old. host: what likelihood you give the tpp of being ratified in the lame-duck session when congrs comes back? guest: very small. there might be a small window of opportunity that could be a vote. i'm not a big fan of lame-duck votes on anything. it seems to be evasive of the democratic process, but i do think the tpp will be ratified in a commerce, and if hillary clinton is present -- president, she'll be happy to support it. host: lori wallach, do you agree? guest: i think we will see a

knockdown battle in the lame-duck. they do not have the votes now. it is outrageous that a policy that can not pass when members of congress feel accountable before the election can be sly lame-duck, during a when ostensibly, the retired, getunexpectedly newly fired to vote without accountability. i do not think the tpp that president obama signed will go into effect as is, and to some degree the fierceness of the debates you point out, has catalyzed for the political elite -- people that have supported the agreement in the past -- that the choice we are not -- now at is not between the tpp and nothing, but rather this tpp is not going to happen, so what is it people could support that can harvest trade expansion without the baggage of tpp? is of the secrets of tpp

only six of the 30 chapters have to do with trade liberalization. i suspect that tpp literally said get rid of the tariffs, we would not have a debate. it is the other garbage they put into the agreement. host: lori wallach is with public citizen. daniel ikenson is with the cato institute. we are talking about global trade. you can call in. normal phone lines in this session. daniel ikenson, as colors are calling in -- do some cleanup. one caller said there is no

manufacturing in the u.s. anymore, and another said we are on track for the best manufacturing year ever. can you talk about manufacturing? sure. it is one of the prominent myths -- the fact that we do not make anything anymore. year,ct is year after manufacturing sets new records ,ith respect to value added return on investment. of course we have recessions and during cyclical downturns it contracts like the rest of the economy, but on a trend basis, is going up year after year. the one area where people focus, and it is an issue is that the sector does not support as many jobs as it once did. in 1979, there were 19.4 million workers in the manufacturing sector. since then, it has been on a downward trajectory. we are manufacturing more with fewer inputs. that is the objective of

economics -- to overcome scarcity. when we are producing more, manufacturing output with fewer workers, we cannot blame trade for that. we need to make sure our system is fluid enough so that the labor market frictions that exist go away. we need policies that make it easier for people to transition into new -- new jobs and that is where policymakers are failing us. host: lori, jotting down notes. did you want to jump in? guest: we have seen a surge in job loss since our current trade agreement, and it is not clear if it is because of cutting tariffs, or the kind of investment rules that includes corporate tribunals, but also the rules that incentivize job off life insuring. they cut the risk premium of going overseas, making it less risky. you do not necessarily have to worry about how the other government is going to treat you. you have special privileges if you leave. as a result, since nafta and the

pto, we have seen over 5 million u.s. manufacturing jobs gone. every four.t of there are other factors involved. a dominant factor -- you can see tradevernment-certified, jobs -- you can go to trade watch.org, putting your zip code, and it pops up a list of the one million plus jobs certified under nafta as trade job losses. up first. will be antioch, california could a donald trump supporter. caller: good morning. first, i have to say lori wallach, next to ron paul, you're one of the biggest heroes i have. i heard you once say when nafta went into effect how manufacturing jobs went to mexico, and also how it forced

mexican peasant farmers to have to come to the united states to work because of how it locked in the price of agriculture. when i heard you say that i was flabbergasted. thanks. well, eric has a very good point because that is a classic example of the winners and the losers in the cooked agreements because of who was at the table. for instance, nafta got rid of the kinds of agricultural policies the big companies -- grain-trading companies, etc., wanted so they could move corn between the u.s. and mexico, but they did not discipline the subsidies on the production of that stuff. what ended up happening -- mexico, that had never imported corn, must there was a drought or some other kind of problem, suddenly had to import a lot of corn. under the nafta rules, there are trade barriers to remove. at the same time, there are no disciplines on how the trade

business gets help from the government. tons of corn was dumped into mexico. we were already more efficient, but in addition, thumb on the scale. what ended up happening is the second farmers got wiped out in the course of two growing seasons. literally, there was this placement of over 3 million families off the corn-growing territories in new mexico in -- in mexico in the course of 18 months. what is really tragic, actually, is since nafta -- you would think a lot of american jobs went there -- people got knocked off of their firms -- there is a race to the bottom trend with investment rules helping jobs go to china. admit there is less than you fetching employment in mexico, plus the rural sector has been up.bered, but prices went they started to have more monopolies with the concentration on who control the trade. host: lori wallach is with public citizen. daniel ikenson is with cato

institute. our two guests. nafta is an issue that comes up whenever we have trade discussions. jared is in kyle, texas. undecided voter. good morning. hi.er: i was wondering -- i have a big problem with the tpp, and the biggest problem for me is that there are -- there is this par in there that has these international tribunals, so let's a corporation like exxon mobil, or someone like that, fracking ort doing something like that in a random country and a country decides to sue them, yet when they do that, they have this tribunal, and the person gets to pick who is on --

the person who gets to pick who is on the tribunal are the corporations. that is really a problem for me. what that tells me is they can water, ourollute our food supply, or something like that, and it is, like, we cannot do anything about it. that is my biggest problem. host: kyle, giving voice to some of the concerns lori wallach brought up earlier. daniel ikenson. guest: this is an area lori and i agree about. in 1959, the idea was developing countries post second-world war needed investments, and they were worried about the lack of rule of law and appropriation, so the investor state dispute settlement emerged between an egg dish in an agreement between germany and pakistan. over the years -- in an

agreement between germany and pakistan. over the years, there has been little use. there has been an increase with corporations who feel policies adopted after investments were made that adversely affected assets could sue governments before these tribunals. i am opposed to it. i think it is an unnecessary subsidy for business. i do not think for governments need these types of disciplines. the world is competing for an investment -- to attract investment, and if you asked appropriate, or fail to give equitable treatment, they will not be that kind of investment. this is totally blown out of portion. too many people are making a big deal. we are opposed to it and we did an evaluation. we were skeptical of it we looked at 30 chapters. we were able to score 22 of the 30. beof the 32 we found to trade liberalizing. we found -- to delete what we

found neutral. the one that we found to be not trade liberalizing with the investment chapter because it has this trade provision in it. i share your concerns in theory, but in reality, this has been blown out of proportion, and if corporations avail themselves of democratico suppress processes, to try to run the mysticver accountability -- things like that, it will be turned back. -- domestic accountability, things like that, it will be turned back. we too much has been made of that, and lori has something to do with making a lot of this issue. ato.org to see the scorn you are talking about. did you want to respond? guest: the reason it is a big issue is because the u.s. has avoided being sued. we dodged a bullet because we have not had agreements with

countries that have a lot of corporations that are foreign investors. so, we, basically, have not had liability. overnight, where the tpp implemented, over 10,000 new companies, more than double the companies already that have this right, would bring us these tribunals, and these of the comment of companies that would -- kind of companies that would. japanese conglomerates have the wherewithal to pursue these cases. tpp for us -- the corporate tribunals are not a hypothetical problem. a bunch of these companies have domestically used our courts and not been successful attacking important laws on which our families rely, and i now have this new tool. for folks that think this is really serious, i recommend a --k at this buzz feed series a four-part investigative series. an investigative journalist

spent 18 months extracting from government officials the off the record back story of what happened. it is a real glimpse. people should look. host: bill. tennessee. a hillary clinton supporter. good morning. we lost bill. catherine in ohio. also a hillary clinton supporter. go ahead. caller: good morning, and thank you for the show. here is my question -- if the trade deals worked, it would be good for americans, but when we bigw -- but when we allow multinational companies and some american companies to offshore profits without paying taxes in the united states, we, the american public, get cheated. this should all be forced back here. they should pay the taxes that are due, when they are due, and you can never renegotiate for less. if they would do this, everybody would benefit.

as long as the super-dupre rich get off without paying taxes, like donald trump, that is what happens. bottom,people at the which i am working poor -- i am retired now -- we get holding the bag -- caught holding the bag time and time again. may corporations, multinationals, pay all their taxes. it is that simple. host: daniel ikenson, will start with you. guest: i would agree to some extent with the caller's sentiment, but i am sure that is a trade issue so much. it is an international tax issue. we have seen tim cook the rated the numbers of congress for keeping apple's profits offshore in ireland. i think there are $2 trillion as an estimate of corporate profits caps off sure that could be repatriated in the united states, invested, productive in factories, service centers, research facilities, but it is

not the fault of the apple ceo or any ceo. it is a consequence of our convoluted tax system. under the american system, we tax the profits of u.s. corporations at home, and when they repatriated their dollars. we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. this suggests we need to overhaul the text system. that will encourage companies to bring -- tax system. that will encourage companies to bring investment back. there are a lot of foreign shop in theing up u.s.. 6.2 million americans work for foreign compasses -- copies. if we will focus on offshore go we need to focus on ensuring, which is beneficial to the country. guest: one of things catherine wants to look at -- she has a good point, but something that will make her boil -- there is a chapter in the tpp called procurement, and that chapter

creates incentives to offshore tax dollars even more, which is to say when the government goes into the market to buy things -- trucks, computers for government offices, right now, since the roosevelt era, they have had to give preference to bind stuff that is made in america. ohio has buy ohio, etc. p under to tpp, we are forbidden give those preferences. we have to waive the by local -- the buy local preferences, and any tpp companies, including chinese state-owned companies in the amount, have equal rights to get tax dollars on government contracts. in addition to what she is mad about, there is a whole chapter in tpp that makes the u.s. government sent tax dollars offshore. host: let's go to florida where stephen is waiting on the line for undecided voters. stephen, good morning. caller: good morning.

what i would like to do is amplify some details about the isds provision. the investor state dispute settlement provision. if you have not heard of this before, just, kind of, hold on to your seat. this is kind of like going through the looking glass in alice in wonderland. first of all, the bottom line -- there is an awful lot of detail here. obviously, i will not be able to get through all of it, but the bottom line is the way it is being implemented in this particular treaty, the tpp, the same isds provision that has been mentioned has been used in

previous treaties, but not like this. --is a threat to democracy democrat -- democratic decision-making at all levels of government for the first time -- local, state, and national. the way this works is if you pass a law at any of these levels, or it could even be a inadvertentlyen costs a multinational corporation profit, it is essentially a legal -- i am quotes to do this any longer. in previous trade treaties, there are only a certain number of ways a corporation -- any corporation could lose profit. one by one each one of these has been "rendered legal.

there is only one that hasn't been so far, and it came very close to being made illegal. the decision is not made in the national court. it is made in a court -- a tribunal that has been referred to. host: stephen, both of our guests are expressing concern about this provision. daniel ikenson, do you want to expand on what the caller was amplifying there in those concerns? guest: yes, he is right. we do not need these provisions in the grievance. it sullies them. in fact, i have written a paper a couple of years ago saying if we expect to ratify trade agreements going forward, we should get rid of the isds provision because it for months benefits -- trade only benefits corporations, and in fact trade benefits individuals and lower-income

americans more than any -- anything else, except for that provision. my colleague, simon lester, has become a leading expert in writing about this. we would like to see it totally jettisoned, but at the same time concern,share lori's we are about to get into trade agreements that involve large companies, companies like japan and europe, that are more litigious, and the united states is more likely to lose cases -- we need to be concerned about that. i also think it is no reason to oppose a trade-liberalizing deal like the tpp. it is something to be concerned about. if it gets out of control, we revisit it, but holding of trade liberalization, which benefits so many millions of people, does not make a lot of sense. get: lori wallach, you james in texas, a hillary clinton supporter. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i am a sociologist, and i am retired, but i look at this as an effect on the american society. trade cannot be looked at alone. it is a three legged stool. the three legs are trying -- tax policy and labor policy pretty you will notice the tax on collective bargaining -- trade agreements which highly favor the management and investment class -- if taxpayers knew exactly how many quarter of $1 million conference tables, golf memberships, company cars, and wife's personal transportation are really written off as a cost of doing business, and taxpayers are on the hook for it. what they have done is created a worldwide standard for labor, but not for management. we have the highest-paid executive class in the world, and wages in america has gone down, and they are eating the seed corn because they have destroyed the tax base. the reason the government is broke, the $26 an hour taxpayers

are now paying eight dollars an hour, and the corporate tax rates -- after loopholes, they are paying the lowest in the industrialized world. host: james, are these trade agreements the place where we these agreements in your mind? it all has to be addressed, and trade policy, which is antiunion, anti-worker, anti-benefit, and a wage policy, which is part of that -- and on top of that, you have the tax codes that are written to look on paper to look like the big guys are paying all the taxes, pays0% pace nothing -- nothing, and the 90% are picking up the tab for the wide scar -- wife's car. guest: the potential benefits are really limited and part of

that is because we have free trade agreements that he got rid of the tariffs with the six countries that are 80% of the 40% that dan talked about how much of the world economy is covered. 80% of the 40%, we skis the trick -- squeezed the trade benefit out. tariffs are kind of low, relatively speaking, compared to 40 years ago. even for japan, the average applied tariff is 2.5%. there is not a lot of their tradeto get to liberalization. that is why the study on the tpp said the benefits were relatively modest for trade gains, growth. it is not even relatively modest after 2030.5% it is like a rounding error. you would be as rich on february , as you30 without tpp

would on january 1 with tpp. then you have the downside -- the corporate attacks. this gets back to what stephen was talking about -- if folks want to see a list of how real this is, there is a website corporateattacks .org, because right now in companies using naphtha to demand $15 million from pipeline over the xl cancellation. that canadian company is in u.s. federal court, and that would be the right of a u.s. company if they had a project can some of the government, but at the same time they are going around the side saying we spent $5 billion on this, but you have to pass 15 balian because that is that $15 -- pay's $15se billion because that is what we could have made in the future.

host: daniel ikenson, you said if isds becomes a problem, we revisit it later -- how hard is that to do after a trade agreement has been passed. how much tinkering can we do after the fact we find this a problem? would be aink it consensus around the world, or the united states would find partners in wanted to revisit this if -- right now the biggest selling point of the pro-isds crowd is the u.s. has never lost a case. to me that suggests they are you the wrong statistics. once the united states starts to lose cases, there is going to be upheaval. i think, yes, it is difficult to revisit treaties and take parts out of them, but it will be done. there is no question in my mind. guest: but the key provision here legally is you cannot change a comma without the consensus of all the countries. even one little country, the

sultan of brunei says we do not think so -- for whatever reason, or big corporate interests say block this, don't let them change this. and unlike domestic legislation, datepp has no expiration per you could have political revolution, a new president, congress, but you are locked into those rules. the final piece is all of this is going to come down to congress deciding right after the election. everyone -- wherever you think up,t this, wherever you end you have to get your kindness to take a position before the election. host: daniel ikenson. guest: we should not make the provision.he isds there are concerns, but it is small relative to the upside. lori quoted studies done by the peterson is a dude and the u.s. international trade commission that shows relatively small gains -- institute and the u.s.

international trade commission that shows relatively small gains, but that does not take into account korea, indonesia, the philippines, other countries. this is likely to grow, and maybe become multilateral life and become a trade deal, and the beneficiaries -- we're talking my getting rid of tariffs -- almost every tariff in 10 years. right now, it is one of the most regressive taxes in our system. tariffs of about 2%. we have tariff peaks on clothing, food, shelter -- components of housing. it is a regressive tax. spend acome americans larger percentage of their budget on these items. let's get rid of the tax paid if you are bernie sanders, a progressive, you should be in favor of the tpp. host: let's go to california. allen is waiting. an undecided voter. caller: good morning to you all. the tpp and after our big items for me, and the tpp is the most horrible agreement.

the people who wrote this are the corporate lawyers, the corporate lawyers for the big are not payingat any taxes in the u.s., but they call themselves international corporations -- not based in the u.s., but they are u.s. corporations. wto.ruled that through the the debbie toa is the tribunal that oversees naphtha. there is an example i will give you for where we need to get out of naphtha. earlier this year, the tribunals, the debut tl, -- the ,to -- we have been arguing canada, and later mexico joined, but there was a dispute over beef labeling between canada and the u.s.. cows grown in the u.s. would be hauled across the border to canada for feeding or fattening,

and then they would be sent back to the u.s. for processing, or vice versa. canada won it to change the they didon that, so not have to label what was done in canada or the u.s.. they won through a tribunal and were sued. just like the xl pipeline thing. the other thing that happened, voted intribunal canada's favor against the u.s. -- i do not remember the numbers -- i do not have time to look it up -- they were going to sue us for billions of dollars in lost income because they had to label this. that was settled. then, all of a sudden, mexico joined in because they want to put the paltry exported -- poultry exported to the u.s. -- they want this covered with no labeling for the country of origin. ow in you could not

label anything genetically modified. that is not necessarily apply to , but it can.eat you cannot have that country of origin, and it passed our congress in one day on a vote because we were so afraid of being sued by these two foreign countries. alan in california and a lot of issues she brings up there. in california, and a lot of issues she brings up. guest: good questions, good concerns. the derbynceptions -- teel does not oversee nafta. they are committed to trade liberalization, and it recognizes right -- companies and organizations are going to pass laws and regulations that could have trade-diverting or protectionist effects.

when copies want to be in cases to the wto to challenge u.s. laws or the u.s. wants to bring cases to challenge other countries laws, the wto will rule on it, and it says we find the country of origin labeling law to be contrary to the u.s. obligations under this or that provision, and we recommend the united states bring his law into conformity. it is not really dictating anything. in this particular case, the wtot tl found it was -- the more thanlabeling was a circuit it was imposing costs on mexican and canadian ranchers that were unnecessary. it is not seen the medassets cannot adopt country of origin -- not saying the united states cannot adopt country of origin labeling. it has to be less onerous. we benefited from that rule

overwhelmingly around the world and we were the biggest complaint and at the wto and we prevail about 90% of the time. host: a tweet in defense of nafta from arizona carpetbagger -- the treatment has benefited arizona greatly. canada helped to pull us out of the housing slump after 2008 is what she writes. alexis is in wilmington, north carolina. a third-party voter. caller: good morning. i see what people say thank you for c-span because i never and it is this tpp, becoming very clear, and i am against it. today ismy question for the gentleman -- i just want to what your background is, who you are tied to, because i am very interested in knowing

whether you have a dog in the fight, because it doesn't seem to be in line with the general -- it does at least not sound like it. i'm mean, you explain the wto, and -- oh, yeah -- you said something about the upside was -- excuseat, and this me, i am not sure the acronym, id -- something, is very smallish, but it seems to have all the -- well, the only thing i can think of is the antithesis of minutia. it is very substantive. host: i will go through the back roads. -- i will have them go through their background so you can understand. guest: i'm a trade policy

catosis -- analyst at the institute, a libertarian think tank, committed to the ideas of free markets, limited government. i had up the trade department at our mission is to inform the public and policymakers about the benefits of free trade and the cost of protectionism. we are pro-market. we are pro--- we are not pro-business. we call them as we see them. we write papers, books, testify before congress and federal agencies. we engage in discussions like this. we are for freedom. free trade is what we are advocating. free trade agreements are not free trade. host: what did you do before you worked at cato question -- cato? i have a masters degree in economics. i worked with disputes. i have been at cato for 16

years. host: lori wallach, do you want to talk -- work for public citizen question -- public citizen. i work for public citizen, which was founded by ralph nader. i am a recovering attorney because i do not litigate any more peter i did go to law school. i spent the last 20-some years working on trade issues. i worked as a public interest lawyer doing appellate work and housing and family law for indigent women. host: both of our guests are kind enough to share their expertise with us, working on some of these panels in the past as we discuss trade policy on "washington journal." we have about 10 minutes left in the segment. karl is in hannover, maryland. a hillary clinton supporter. good morning. caller: good morning to

everybody in c-span land. economics,gree in and also in human resources management. i have been- reading a lot about the constitution, and a lot of people do not seem to realize that trade agreements -- the average person has little to do with it. they are done in secrecy. -- or not get a chance most of congress does not get a chance to read the whole thing, and, actually, trade agreements .re treaties treaties become part of the constitution if you become -- if you read the constitution. so, they should not be done in secret. everybody should know what is happening with the trade agreement, and what limitations and changes it makes on the general public, because if --

once we agree to it, we change our constitution. host: lori wallach, do you want to start? guest: well, carl has a good point in that the agree with negative -- agreement was negotiated under secrecy, and 500 u.s. trade advisers were representing corporate address. there is a great "washington post" info graphic that shows where they came from. if you google "washington post" advisory, and tpp, you can see the details. we got a lopsided agreement because of that process. this is not a treaty -- and it is a fishy topic, what is a treaty and what is not, the way it is voted on it is called an international executive agreement with congressional approval. agreement.pecies of it will go to the house of representatives and the senate. because congress delegated a bunch of its constitutional trade authority last year, it is going to go simple majority vote

in the house and the senate -- not the normal senate filibuster process. the real fight in season -- on tpp is in the house. whether you love or hate it, if you want to make a difference, ask a member of your house of representatives before the election to tell you to your face if they will be for it or against it. it does not change the constitution, but once adopted, it will become federal law, and becausea big deal, domestically it would preempt state and local law that is inconsistent. also, we have international law obligations to change existing laws to meet the rules in the tpp. guest: i appreciate the desire for the civic lesson and sharing the civic lesson. it is important. lori mentioned the fast-track procedure, trade promotion authority. lasted there was a debate because under the constitution congress has the authority to

regulate foreign commerce, and the president has the authority to enter into treaties with the consent of the house in the senate, but since 1984 we have not entered into these congressional agreements where congress lays out the parameters and says we recognize it is difficult to negotiate trade agreements and trade reduction negotiators, so we will delegate that authority to you provided that you hit all of these objectives. last year's trade promotion wererity bill -- there 130, 150 objectives, and that means the president has to come back with an agreement that meets all of those criteria, and if it does, congress agrees to shortn a ornate within a or nay in a-- ye a orna short timeframe.

this will be voted on under these procedures, presumably, if not in the linda, next year. there is nothing unusual about it. all trade negotiations have been negotiated like this. the fact is the text has been available to the public since november of last year. go to ustr.gov, and you can see summaries and the text itself. show the viewers the graphic you are referring to from the "washington post" the industry voices on the trade advisory system. the network of official trade advisers when it came to negotiating the tpp. you can see advisers coming from various industries, capital goods, fruits, grains -- you can go through the graphics to see where the advisers came from. jimmy is waiting in your he, pennsylvania. a hillary -- erie, pennsylvania,

a hillary clinton supporter. guest: good morning. -- caller: good morning. i would like to address lori wallach -- is she there question mark guest: -- is she there? guest: yes, i am. caller: bill clinton gets the nafta, but ihoring was told someone and the reagan bush administration drew that up. and who is the author of tpp? guest: thank you, judy. it has been a bipartisan agreement -- it has been a bipartisan summit. started nafta, and bush the second started the tpp negotiations, but the obama administration took this up and finished it. they did not change much of the course of the direction. president obama signed it last

year. now, if, in fact, the public's will rebels and the thing cannot be passed in the lame-duck, it'll be dumped back on clinton. it is this game of free agreement ping-pong. now, what is interesting is secretary clinton has gone farther and farther out against the tpp in a way that is, actually, kind of surprising, but not totally, though. while she has supported some pass trade agreements, she has always this like the investor state tribunal system. if you look at her book from three years ago, you have a whole book on why corporations should not be given the special rights, and yesterday, or monday on the trail, she talked about how we could not have those kind of rules were that kind of trade agreement. i would suspect -- though certainly i am not in her head -- when she says she is not going to pick up this tpp impasse, she is been straight up

about that. i think she would pick up another trade agreement, but the things that the investment -- investor state, patent extensions -- i think that kind of stuff is not going to be agreeable to her. host: running out of time in this segment. cy has been waiting. like to ask how free trade benefits the american worker. if jobs go overseas, and you stated that was a good thing more withw we can do less because technology can displace workers, so it's ok if chinese or vietnamese can work for $.50 or a dollar an hour, how does this benefit the american worker? it's ok that they can be retrained for what jobs? we have 2 million people with that choice degrees who don't

have jobs. how would mr. akerson feel if his jobless replace by an algorithm? thank you. guest: their question. this responsible is -- this is responsible for more job loss and creation than anything in this administration. trade is disruptive. trade has one goal, to grow the economic pot and getting wooden barriers between countries and we are able to specialize more. we all specialize on a daily basis. i work at a think tank. i don't know how to hunt or grow my own food, make my own clothing but i consume all my necessities by focusing on what i do best, to be a public policy analyst. my output is monetized and i get to enjoy all of these products.

trades job is to grow the pot. it has succeeded. it is not the responsibility of marketo overcome labor that exist because of the u.s. regulatory state or u.s. attack system or infrastructure. it is policymakers that need to make it easier for people to make transitions from one job to the next. if you double your output, that is a good thing. fordon't blame the machine we employing these five people. those people need to be able to reemerge or reintegrate themselves within an economy that doesn't have all of these

frictions in place. the responsibility is on policymakers to do a better job of making the overall economy and to make states more competitive. host: that is the last word in this segment. thank you so much for your time. thank you. we will continue this discussion on trade. to hear from you about the importance of trade policy in your choice for president. you can start dialing in now. the evacuations continuing ahead

of hurricane matthew. the washington post noting some thate evacuation orders have taken place in those states that will be impacted. matthew of course a category three hurricane or stronger when it hits florida. it will be the first major hurricane to make landfall since 2005. the governor activated 500 members of the florida national guard. also evacuation orders and closures taking place in south north carolina. yesterday, president obama spoke to reporters following a briefing on hurricane matthew in d.c. here's a briefing from his statement. fema has been on the golden

florida, georgia, south carolina , north carolina working with officials to prepare. we have response teams and they're ready to help communities in the region. i want to emphasize this is a serious storm. it has already hit haiti with devastating effect. it is now in the process of moving through the bahamas. because it will not be hitting enough land, it will be building strength on its way to florida. we anticipate that by tomorrow morning, it will already begin to have significant effect in florida and that is central to strengthen and move up the coast during the course of the day. i want to make sure that everybody is paying attention to your local officials. there is an evacuation order,

you need to take it seriously. we anticipate that not only is there still a chance that the core of the storm strikes florida and some of the states further north, but even if you don't get the full force of the , the potential for storm surge and all of that could have a devastating effect. everybody needs to be paying attention and following the instructions of your local officials and if you get an evacuation order, just remember that you can always rebuild and prepare properly. you cannot restore a life if it is lost and we want to make sure ofminimize any possible loss life or risk to people in these areas. host: as we continue discussing

trade this morning, we are our program by asking our viewers the impact of trade policy and its importance in your choice for president. phone lines are split up by donald trump supporters, hillary clinton supporters, third-party and undecideds. in now.start calling i want to show viewer some of the headlines and editorials in today's papers on this issue of trade. the washington post the lead .ditorial today president trump really would be free to impose a certain tariff triggering a big league backlash . the shaky trade back that signals america's decline

.alking about the tpp possible that it could come up again and that lame-duck session after election day. he donald trumps up. [indiscernible] what are they trying to do?

host: an undecided voter. fred, good morning. comment.y i am undecided because our jobs have been leaving for over 30 years and they keep leaving more and more and congress isn't going to do anything about it. they are all invested in south korea and think if they give south korea all of our auto jobs that that will keep the chinese from moving in south korea and it's not going to stop. everybody in congress is invested in outsourcing our jobs.

clinton is for it, not for right. who knows? what is an undecided voter to do? watched don't know, i my job leaving for 30 years. they started outsourcing first two mexico in my job left for brazil and south america and they're all happy. they got themselves a brazil free trade act, that's wonderful but i do have my job anymore. host: what was your job? caller: i worked for an auto company and they can't decide what they want to do. idea what they are doing anymore. it is the best company in the world.

i thought it was the best job in the world and they just shut it down and moved it. host: did you get any trade adjustment help in trying to retrain for a new job? caller: there is no program. the i left, i went down to local unemployment office of ohio and i thought that they said they had training programs but there was absolutely nothing. they had you coming in so they could do their paperwork. they had outsourced so many jobs this stuff,atized even the unemployment office. it's a joke. they don't want people making any money. it's a sad story. it's a sad situation. not part ofnt is the united states anymore.

our government is their own country. host: thank you for the call from westlake, ohio. recently you mentioned john kasich. he was at the white house and he was there to talk about his work to help pass the transpacific partnership we have been this gusting. here is what he had to say. >> america cannot afford to lock the doors and lower the blinds and ignore the rest of the world. we are a force for good and this tpp will help us not only on the economic side but will allow us to continue to be a strong world leader for good. lack of human rights, lack of democracy. not something the u.s. should take lightly. i would call on my former

colleagues and the house and the senate to think here over the next couple weeks about the implications of saying no and what it will mean for our future in the fact that they can cast a vote that can strengthen our country and our alliances around the world. is what's at stake and that is why i'm here today. host: we are about trade today ending by asking if trade policy is important in your decision for president. rebecca is on the line for those who support clinton in new mexico. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment that trade is important when i am making my decision for president. i hope that hillary can fully articulate her plan but i agree with the caller you had on earlier this morning who said that a lot of these jobs are leaving due to a change in the

economy, technology. we need to come to terms with the fact our economy is changing. we need to diversify, stop focusing on the markets and industries we were focusing on before and we need to retrain our workforce and fully invest in retraining our workforce. the caller who was on before me was saying his unemployment office doesn't have adequate funding to allow him to participate in any training programs and i think that is 100% true. it is not a hand out, it's a hand up and we really need to that.on investing in otherwise, we will have a failing economy and mexico focused on oil and natural gas and that market is having a hard time succeeding in our economy is going down the tubes in we are in a deficit and they are cutting spending for government programs that are used to help

, theys train for better are focusing on the wrong thing. we need to realize that maybe manufacturing in the way we are used to thinking is over and we need to change to a different type of manufacturing. you are hoping hillary clinton can articulate her plans a month and two days out from the election. do you think it's a problem that you don't feel like she has fully articulated her plan? not only that maybe she has trouble articulating it but the way it has been covered focuses more on headlines than details. ourwrote a book but american public is not the type of people who will look at this book and spent a lot of time reading it. lead to find a better way of getting that message out there.

tim kaine was very specific about the things they're planning on doing and i feel like maybe he articulated it better but when it comes to hillary and donald trump specifically, they are constantly defending something. they are to sending some claim being made, making up for something they did wrong. it's not so much about the details. host: thank you. for more on trade in campaign 2016, we turn now to wall street journal reporter william mauldin covering the trade issue. your thoughts on how often this issue of trade came up in that vp debate and how it was handled by the two vice presidential candidates. >> it was very striking to me how you almost did hear the word trade through the entire vice

presidential debate. only during this wrapping it up of closing questions did governor pence mentioned we had to stop doing bad trade deals donald his running mate trump mention trade from the very first moment of his debate with hillary clinton. this lets you know that governor pence has long supported trade in the past traditional partnerships he has tweeted in support of that in the past. be reevaluated those views after speaking with donald trump and said around the time he was picked. tim kaine is in a similar position whereas he voted for president barack obama's trade promotion authority to really help include the tpp

negotiations and to get those to a vote in congress. what you have here is essentially all four of the presidential and vice president candidates against the transpacific or ship at the only one who has been firmly against such agreements is donald trump. we look ahead to sunday's debate and the issue of trade. >> i think we will see a similar out, which is donald trump bringing up trade in every economic related question. he thinks that is a winning argument with the basis of his party and potentially a few bernie sanders supporters who are traditional democrats. bernie sanders raised a lot of these issues and we will probably see hillary clinton minimizing trade. now she says she's firmly

against it. we will probably see her avoiding that topic and switching to other economic issues that can solve the problems that many say trade doesn't solve for the working class. >> what stays looking ahead can't avoid this topic of trade? do you think this trade issue will tip the balance one way or another? >> it's really hard to say we look through a lot of ports and you would think that trade would be popular in these places and sometimes it is on the west coast. there are certain areas that benefit heavily from trade.

people are least inclined to listen to arguments for trade in those states but really it's something that cuts across much of the country. one other group is farmers benefit from free trade because there often times a big terrace on american beef and other products so farmers could support of this agreement but essentially for every demographic in a given state, not supports trade, you have another demographic that opposes it so it depends on who turns oftentimes it's people who have been left behind. host: you munching congressional districts. how much is this issue creeping

down the ballot, the trade issue, does it become a bigger issue in the senate and house on localvoters focus impacts and local economy? it's definitely a big issue. tradeing an opponent of agreement says you don't want to touch. definitely definitely the leadership in the house have , has calledmembers off and essentially said the tpp vote is unlikely in a lame duck to present it from becoming an issue because they know it is a danger to republicans. of course for democrats, many of our close to unions which are opposing trade very strongly. it's also an issue that they oppose. you have a lot of danger on the

republican side and opposition on the democratic side. ,e see many congressional races you see the candidates turn to local issues and ignore national or international issues like trade. you see very few people coming forward and embracing the transpacific partnership. one of the most successful candidates have this season is the senator running for reelection in ohio. he has pulled way ahead of his democratic rival by being very cautious about trade starting a year ago. that has allowed him to avoid who'sbranded as someone transpacific partnership even of he himself was a former u.s. trade representative. he has maneuvered himself skillfully.

others are probably more difficult positions. >> the policies -- politics of trade trade policies for the wall street journal. thank you so much for your time this morning. we are talking about the politics of trade likely to come up in the upcoming presidential debates. sundayond happening on at washington university in st. louis. seven: 30ge begins at p.m. eastern. back to your calls asking the importance of trade in your vote for president. cap he is in maryland. kathy is in maryland. caller: i have a few quick comments. it's not ato trade, major part of why i am building but the argument that the other

has is a bit of a farce especially with donald trump and has made it his business to outsource all his jobs. when he talks about trade in the people that don't find it hypocritical because they say he's a good businessman, so are the other business people overseas. wrong with the american mindset that says if something leaves, you can't find a new trade? why do we have to go down fighting for the one thing, manufacturing? there are a ton of jobs available. i used to do recruiting, human resources. there are a ton of jobs out there but people don't want to get out of the mindset and learn something new. this is part of the problem, the from a lothe anger of people the support donald trump especially when it comes to trade. outsources hishe jobs but wants to talk about

bringing the jobs that? if americans were so good and he wanted to make america great, how come he took the jobs overseas? in regards to hillary clinton take theconomic land time to read what she has to say and maybe you will understand where she is coming from. host: let's hear from a donald trump supported to get their of you justor some said on the trade policy. roger is in ohio. >> thank you for taking my call. this trade deal is something very important i think that we trade with china and with other -- countries.tep

we can be trading with china and giving our stuff away and then sending their stuff back over here and getting a big profit. people talk about donald trump. you have got to be very intelligent the business and things he has got. has been inton office and i've been in politics since i was 19 years old. host: what did you run for? caller: iran for commissioner but i was a township trustee for 30 years just retired. in diane township. it is a government thing in you have to fight for everything you get.

it's so important that we trade even. if we trade even, we would be a lot better off the hillary has been involved in politics for 30 years and hasn't changed anything in 30 years. how is she going to change things now? i am for somebody. i have been a republican all my life but i'm for somebody that will change our country. everybody's kids is dependent on the jobs and things to keep them , as soonin our country as they graduate from high school, they leave here and have to go through another state in order to find a job. it's so important we bring jobs

back here and keep jobs for what we have got. tony is an undecided voter in ohio. good morning. his trade and issue that will win your vote one way or the other? >> yes, i'm probably going to .upport the act of trading my comment is about the idea that what are these trade polies? developmentare assisted policies and who the trade policies assist? they assist in wealth accumulation. policy itself does not assist human development, does not assist and maintain worker rights. the essence of the nafta

agreement and the tpp agreements are to restrict the natural a time in the development of the working class of the middle class. the evidence is in that these policies have decimated the working and middle class families in america. thinkingas are not about how to tell people, that not to help corporations maintain their power. to groundget back zero, we are asking the wrong questions when we talk about these trade policies.

what happened to the concept of -- or trade and host: a donald trump supported. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i have a few comments. contrary to what your guests are cato, only five of the causes pertain to trade. with the world to being , the edge the country

of the companies. being this new super congress within addition to the you learn. >> what is the one that you think is causing that? what is one you can point out? >> the one that concerns me the ist is the fact that there an outfit that decides extrajudicial from the united is right in ao isde dispute and that against the antitrust laws.

theave already violated conditions of sherman antitrust laws and some of these international corporations. that provision was certainly something we spoke about in the last segment of the washington journal. hillary clinton supporter. how is this issue of trade impacting your decision and why you are supporting hillary clinton? >> i really believe trade is a very new wants and complicated subject, one which i don't believe i'm qualified to understand fully but i know this. i know hillary clinton studies

and i know she observes and cares about the american people. her.st she didn't just make it is decision lightly. i know donald trump doesn't read much so i doubt he knows what is in it. she read the entire thing one it was completed. from what i have heard, i think she made the right decision as in many decisions she makes, she studies. that is something i want my president to do. i want them to know what they're doing and what they are talking about. trump had his ties and everything else made in other countries. he is against unions and any man in the union who supports a donald trump is going to have

their wages seriously reduced. my husband is a commercial roofer and makes $30 an hour. the people who are roofers who are not in unions are making $18 an hour. i cannot see him being the president. you trust hillary clinton because she studies. what do you say to donald trump supporters who say they trust ?im because he is a dealmaker accountant for 27 years. when i see somebody claiming a $1 billion loss in business or in this personal return, this person is not somebody who knows

anything about business and if he's so great and after all these losses, he came back and so has yours money, tax return. otherwise, business wise, you have no credibility. don is in claremont, california. typical democrat, doesn't know how it affects us. you look at general motors. they have 35% chinese ownership. they run deals. acrossok at what happens the whole region in indiana and michigan. we have been promised for democrats by 50 years.

trump has built factories, knows and wants topen tell you tpp is a bum deal. he is going to go in say everything is wonderful. that is supposedly the reason why he's not biased but they tell you his law firm is boycotting trump industries and

that's the reason he needs to be kicked off. millionnton makes $18 and an honorary chancellor for his online company. to stop hillary as quickly as we can. host: nancy is in undecided voter in florida. you are on the line listening to our last two callers. trustlking about what he donald trump. did either of these arguments convince you? listened to the debate, the vice presidential debate in my feeling on trade, i am leaning because itoward trump

think this country needs a big change in trade. it's not fair and one of my other arguments, i read somewhere that even our military uniforms for our branches are not even made in the united states. parts of those are not even made in the united states. why? our national security i think should depend on all of our military be made here. .hat would bring jobs what kind of trade deal is that? our government needs to put all of these jobs in our country and i do agree that the trade agreements need to be redone and i don't see hillary really doing i don't know what is

wrong with our congress. they all need to wake up and start bringing the money back in and that means higher tariffs and products coming in, that is what we need to do. >> i found that online. i was looking at how our and iment spends money was stunned. stunned. it is my understanding those were made in another country. always interested in your ideas on segments we have covered here on the washington journal.

let's stay on the line for undecided voters. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm not sure about who i will vote for. i am leaning towards trump. what i think is the biggest problem is the fictitiously high dollar. for reprint money they could bring people food and cheaper merchandise in

this country and sell it at a higher price. let's go to patricia in michigan. >> i just wanted to really say something clearly. previously,t was on she did say this but she didn't .ay clearly enough for me nafta was formed from a republican congress and signed by a republican president and of by abe taken care democratic husband. with the tpp. it was formed by a republican congress, signed by a republican president. left for president

obama to deal with. what i think people do not understand and when they talk about donald trump and trade, the only thing donald nafta is ever said is installed. he was left to deal with this. it was formed completely by a republican congress and president. host: let me tell our viewers what political fact had to say about nafta's history. republican president george h.w. bush negotiated nafta and signed it on december 17 1992. it was left to president bill clinton to get enabling legislation through congress. during the 1992 campaign, clinton supported campaign but called for side agreements to beef up protections. those agreements were bundled into one bill with republican

support. clinton signed the bill in december 1993. politicized going over some of the history for nafta. denise is in raleigh, north carolina, a donald trump supporter. >> i am listening intently this morning and there are some things i want to bring to the american people's attention. we must have balance. put all of our jobs into technology. we have to grow food. we have to eat. concerning china, people need to deep when china was producing our baby food some years ago, our babies were dying

because of kidney failure. they went back and looked at the had formula and the formula been compounded. they had to change that. the food coming in was killing our animals. remember when the toys had led in them and our babies were sucking on the lead? forgetting wells fargo and how wells fargo has messed up our banking system? they are one of largest chains in america. i am for donald trump because something needs to be done concerning free trade. it's not fair that when we

cannot ship things into other .ountries they talk about the things like donald trump and other business people have made out of the country. we have no factories that are making men's suits, ladies garments. all of that now is overseas. person that has been working in labor unions and now i live in the south, i understand completely what has happened to our generation of jobs. i have grandchildren. they cannot find a job and a 40 hour job. we need to do something about changing things so the american

people be a living class in this country. thank you very much. one fact check on this that was , this issue came up back in 2012 during a congressional debate was a congressional candidates had uniforms for u.s. soldiers were manufactured in china. they note that federal law prohibits military from buying -- a final evidence of any military uniforms are currently

being made outside the u.s.. they say even a search of the internet or you can find support armyny idea involving the berets used more than a decade ago. . this issue coming up that in 2012 during a congressional debate. some of the information out there we could find for you. joe is in west virginia, a hillary clinton supporter. caller: thank you. a lot of that does involve trade.

the lifting of the tariffs by the reagan the cause ofn, , if werom george bush 18% a vehicle, we pay an tax. if they send one here, they pay a 2% tax. bill clinton is to blame for nafta and i really think it would be in the interest of all voters if c-span would do another program ,xplaining how nafta originated who actually voted for it and how it was implemented. to me, both of the political parties are to blame. sandersoney to bernie

because just like half of republicans, i'm upset. the middle toy in represent america and to bring jobs back to america. we had taken that $3 trillion spent in in a stand and iraq, we could have educated every child in america for six additional years after high school either , college, training whatever they wanted. we need to get in the american taking care start of america and rebuild america.

cannot tell people how important the c-span format is and i urge c-span to do another have people like the lady this morning who can give the facts and tell the truth about how nafta and all of these other trade deals are working. we have beens chatting here this morning from twitter. you can follow along with the conversation at c-span. camille says how are people leaning towards trump when he is supposedly part of the 1% sending a lot of jobs overseas and tanis as a still don't get it, there are manufacturing factory jobs not coming back with or without the transpacific partnership. norman is it third-party

supporter in massachusetts. >> thank you so much for this forum. i have recently retired from my career, which was a union i have hatched my whole political life here. one major party blames the other for everything and there have been periods in the history where each major party had legislative and executive branches blue and red sometimes. yet nothing really works. you go to foreign countries and

you know they don bankruptcies from health care. they don't have homeless veterans everywhere. one time, the democrat was a third party. another time, the republican party was a third-party. >> what third-party could fix this and why don't you think andd parties are catching becoming something that can compete against the amount of people who are ready to support the republican party and democratic party. >> i'm afraid it's the mass power.which has the mentionsa almost never that there even are other choices. people don't know jill stein or

.ary johnson percentagewise in the news, it's and that is what it takes. you have to get some face time on the screen to get recognized and the major parties give billions of dollars to mass media for political ads. the minor parties don't really have that kind of funding. >> do think with so many more a media outlets that it is or that it will get better for third-party candidates looking for that face time? >> i would hope that.

ross perot got 20% of the vote in there was less social media then and now there is more. he got into some of the debates and it's really boring to watch the major parties throwing insults and lies at each other. host: are you going to watch on sunday? caller: no. it just isn't going to work. host: joe is on the line for hillary clinton supporters in michigan. >> good morning. a quick couple comments.

--des are always going to even enemies trade with each other. at the height of the cold war, the u.s. brought titanium from .he russians war,e height of the cold the russians couldn't buy enough of our wheat and corn to feed our enemies. you're going to have trade. if we stop trade with china, every walmart would have to shut down. i cannot believe that trunk followers, when people say donald trump, all of his companies are based overseas. this is a billionaire. how do these poor people think he has their interests at heart? has his own interests at heart. i'm not so much a hillary

follower either as i'm a democratic party follower. thanks social security to the democrats. g.i. bill thanks to the democrats. the democrats have been a lot more for me as a poor guy than the republicans ever thought about doing. thank you. host: steve is a donald trump supporter in new jersey. good morning. caller: thank you for having me. that the wholenk trade deficit really got started -- hello? host: listening, steve. caller: the trade deficit got the publicause publicize the japanese car. and saidromanticized being loyal to an american-made

product in the japanese profit from it. i think that was the start of this idea of trading overseas and the jobs going overseas. now we have korean cars being imported. i don't think the younger generation cares that much. they are just looking for i don't know what, a vehicle that appeals to them and they are thinking about the consequences or how it affects the economy. forced to retire because or is it an economy anymore for a cpa in this country. i am a retired university professor. i taught accounting for many years and i'm basically waiting for my social security check. the economy is really not stimulated and you can see it firsthand through the cpa eyes. host: you mentioned the trade deficit. we will show this article from

the wall street journal. a report the u.s. trade deficit the trade gapgust increasing percent from a month earlier. imports.l increase in $1.2 billion came from charges for these of intellectual property reflecting payments to broadcast the 2016 summer olympics games. the latest export figures were supported by continuous a strong shipments of soybeans. exports tripled in july and maintained at a high level in august. for a couple more calls of today's program, i did want to point out this story making a lot of headlines in papers around the country.

federal authorities have arrested and charged to contractor for the national security agency was doing classified at uriel. accusationsport of at the electronic eavesdropping agency since that massive leak by edward snowden in 2013. prosecutors have accused harold thomas martin the third. investigators searched his home on august 22 and found he was in possession of six classified documents that contain sensitive information. paper documents and digitally stored information were recovered. the usa today story notes martin worked for blue à la 10, the same firm that employed edward snowden. i texarkana, an undecided voter. good morning. caller: good morning.

arkansas.southwest admitted to the emergency room. when i got into the ward, they gave me pajamas and toiletries. the toiletries were shampoo, soap, etc., etc. it was in a clear plastic bag and at the bottom of the bag it said made in china. our own administration is buying products from foreign countries. host: we will take our viewers to the national coalition on health