abouthear all this talk it going to hell and a half back -- in a life has gotten better and health care has gotten better. it gets better every year i think. there are some strange things we do which i hope will be so uniquely american. i told nancy yesterday, think of writing a blog post, what if i took a random sample of princeton freshman, got them drunk and at 4:00 in the morning had them design health policy, would they ever come up with something so stupid as to pay oncologists 6% of the price of a drug they use so that the more expensive the drug, the more money they make, even a bunch of drunken freshman of princeton would not come up with the. they are not that ridiculous.

yesterday we had four or five instances were in the u.s. health system, we do things that are idiotic. they could be fixed very easily but because of the political powers etc. they do not. i hope at some point we focus on those and get it of this and this out of network, i personally, when i heard about it, i was chair of the commission on hospitals in new jersey, i did not believe when people told me this, i said no one would be this ridiculous that you could be in a hospital, in network, and the doctor says you need an mri, the radiologist out of network and can hit you with whatever they would like, it is such an idiotic idea, if you wonder, what a bunch of drunken freshman ever think of that? those are the things we could get rid of to immediately make health care better for patients. outside of the clinical side,

the clinical side has much improved although there are good and bad doctors and good and that professors and good and bad for everything. overall, u.s. health care, the quality is pretty good. show less text 01:50:40 -- >> instead of going to the reverse question, i was going to ask them what is keeping us

back? i will start doing your questions, these would jump around a little bit. i will throw them out and ask for volunteers. the first one is -- why is reference pricing not used for services like joint replacement, more widespread? what they are asking about is why hasn't reference pricing taken off, especially for procedures that are more defined? would anyone like to take it? >> i do not know. it makes great sense from a policy perspective, we thought it would take off within the private sector markets. or hundred percent is typical and 20 -- 400%, and when needed quality outcomes, dated to say there is no relationship between price and quality at it makes perfect sense, you could roll line, colonoscopies, you pay up to this much, a lot of supply below that price on the demand curve, go to it. employers have been reticent to ask their employees to care about the price.

also, drive somewhere differently or tell their doctor that the person they suggested they go to is above the price and have a conversation. also, most doctors have no idea if the person they are referring to is good with the price of what is operational considerations that have made this obvious policy. one of the policies the princeton freshman will have suggested would be a good idea, not take off as quickly as it could but i think it will go the next and. >> there is a huge e-mail list that peter grant supports. there was a big tinkling match among us policy wonks about the question why don't good ideas scale up in the u.s.? two highly respected colleagues, i will not mention their names, they came out with research, they are both sociologists that say it is cultural diversity, you have different cultures and what works in california cannot work in florida. and so on and so forth. when i stepped back from cultural diversity, explains everything and nothing. you can expect almost anything that. i was stunned by that because this is a country that invented one-size-fits-all. starbucks being an example.

holiday inn, marriott, mcdonald's, we invented one-size-fits-all, no country ever had that, we exported it to them. even universities are very similar and what they do, yield, harvard, princeton, berkeley, chicago, you name it, we do the same things. why is health care so different? one of the explanations i came up with is the payment side is too accommodating. within the same city, you could have price variations of a factor of five. yet they all get paid. one hospital is paid five times as much as another for a normal delivery. if that is the case, why would you say you are deficient and scale up because reference pricing is not that easily done. it has some -- it says rich people can get wherever they want and poor people have to go with a low price.

it is highly controversial, the drug industry hates reference pricing in the u.s. it is not so clear why people in florida would embrace it but if they have to, if they were forced to by employers to embrace it, they would. they would as americans, they are very adaptable when push comes to shove but push never came to shove. >> did you want to take it? >> i believe the individual market is a laboratory for things happening in health care that can be applied to the employer market. that is for better or for worse. as an example for that, there has been a lot of criticism of narrow networks and yet, in washington, when primera enter the individual market in 2014, we did so with a narrow network. and captured 50% market share. which told me consumers were more than willing to make a trade-off on access for cost.

i think, based on these grants you have seen around the country of carriers pulling out of full states or counties at least, there will be further experimentation with ideas like referenced-based pricing and i think it has proven in the individual market that they will expand beyond that segment. >> i think we have to ignore knowledge -- we have to acknowledge that this is very hard and it will not happen quickly. i think it is important to think about this transition we are in as a forty-year process. not a tenure or 12 year process -- a 10 year or 12 year process and i would argue that we are 25 years into the 40 years. all that was mentioned earlier today about what happened in the 1990's and going through the managed care, that was a learning process because we are changing fundamental business models and we are changing the

way people are incentivized to do their work. whoever it was that says one man's waist is another man's living is absolutely right. it is a mix of sociology and economics and politics and doing this is not just a matter of deciding, it is a matter of implementation and it is very serious. i think it is safe to say that we are transitioning but we are inventing as we go and we are in a 40 year process and on our way. a lot of the stupidity there has to be revealed and fixed. >> that is a great transition to the next question which is -- how will medical school residents and students pursuing a degree in health care be prepared for these transformations in their education? anyone want to take it?

bob, you are the only one who has gone through medical school. >> i wish in medical school they taught us how to manage other people. how to engage in patient and influence their behavior. what a pharmacist, nurse, social worker, care coordinator, all do? and what is your role in that? augustine day we have a love people complaining about ea chars -- today we have a lot of people complaining about ehrs. some of the things i am seeing is the mixing of classes in medical school so doctors and other clinicians are trained together both in the didactic section and the clinical rotations. seeing many medical schools, basic data analytics and a lot of the things you learn in business school about managing other people, giving feedback, having conversation, taking a contact, all that stuff.

we are redefining how you teach doctors to work and doctors will be managing teams increasingly better for patient. how we care differently from different patients, dr. starbucks, patients need different types of cares and different understanding and different shared decision-making than the younger healthier patients. i think there is a lot of imagination to be applied but i think we are recognizing because many medical schools are -- have populations -- we are waiting to see it. a lot more the school should be done in the outpatient setting in places like farmer clear clinics and community health care clinics because that is where you learn about what it is like to be patient. one of the most important things i have ever done because i spent a day living with the patient who had -- in her house come a single mother with two children.

she had a pillbox with 90 different pills and the calendar of her doctor appointment and let visits with her work schedule. the thing it impressed upon me is it is hard to be patient and nobody wants to be patient. what we asked them to do is probably impossible. living a life that is joy filled and support herself and her family. when you understand it in that dimension you appreciate all of the things others can do to make care better and how important the team's annual also understand what you have to consider what you're asking them to do, we are -- when you see what a patient has to do when i have a condition they find hard to manage, they recognize -- we are doing our best and you have to rely on others. teaching doctors in the future should be about thinking about

what we are asking the patient to do. i hope medical school is a lot more like that 40 years from now than it is today. >> i will call on you jd for this question, do you think plans and providers will start designing using alternative payment models that try to address nonclinical social determinants of health, housing, food insecurity, and employment? i call on you because the program -- because of the program we spoke about. >> i would agree that including those other categories are key to managing the cost over the long term. it is ironically easier with the big government programs, when you're dealing with a state government because we are talking about subpopulations, we have categories of individuals where if you add up all of the spend -- cost education system, social service departments, health care, you are well over half $1 million per year on some of those families. the quality of care, quality of service is awful. if you had to live in their shoes, it is a terrible

experience, you have to go program to program, you have seven care coordinators across each program, it is key come ironically, it is easiest with the state government programs, will it happen anytime soon on the commercial side? i am not sure it is. others may have opinions on that. >> while i was governor, i experienced this. we would have several -- we had many families, we knew their names and they would have six or seven different care coordinators or program managers and we would put them at a table and they would begin to talk about -- none of them knew what the others were doing. i do think particularly in medicaid that we are very close to seeing a point where medicare, particularly pairs -- providing that providers providing this and someone at risk are going to ask to have

the ability to bring -- we are talking about transportation, work, in some cases, juvenile court, there are a lot of different services that could be wrapped up and serve much better than either the state or medicaid providers now are providing. now that they have a financial stake in it, i do not think we are far away from seen people being willing to do that. show less text 02:02:52 unidentified speaker >> great. somebody submits this question, i did not hear them discuss to important topics, prevention and wellness and nonclinical cases. i think we just cover that so let's focus on the prevention and wellness. does anyone want to talk about the role of prevention and wellness as we look to the future?

>> obviously, prevention of illness means you are buying more quality adjusted life years than you would otherwise have, which is a good thing. people who think that will save money or lower health care spending in the future, almost all the research i have seen says it will not do because people will live longer and consume health care more and in the last five years they will rock up a huge medical bill anyhow. the idea for preventive care being a solution to the health care cost crisis, i would reject from all i have read. the idea that you get more quality of life years is a good thing. therefore, i support the idea of preventive care. some of the wellness programs and corporations remain controversial, i do not know what you know bob, but one -- from what i've read, i think it

would work am i think johnson and johnson was said to have a good program like that but others have not such good experience. maybe you can say. >> i agree with your summary. the problem with wellness prevention is that it works sometimes. in this room, some of you, if i talk to you about changing your diet, you would be interested and you would. and for some reason you would remain in the diet forever. you will be healthier. most of you come up when i talk to about changing your diet, you will politely try it tomorrow and go back to what you liked before. that is what you like and there was not a moment in your brain where everywhere your neurons -- where i required warner runs to make you stick with it. -- rewired your new runs so you stuck with it.

the money is wasted because you were not susceptible to the change to these programs suffer with engagement curves that basically start with a flurry of balloons and announcements and contest to get employees to start something. 12 weeks out, you're lucky if you have a few percentage points doing it anymore. when you say what is the value, what is the cost savings that come from those people doing that, it does not pay for the program and that is what the data says. for those who do, there are evangelical, transformed people who are well and happy and cut you you should do a more. you have the programs that are not that effective because we cannot figure out how to make anybody change their behavior. we have not cracked the code.

nothing as -- is as engaging and facebook, until we have program -- wellness programs -- >> i once read a story about a patient is dr. gave him all kinds of advice of prudent living in in the and the guy says, dr., i am willing to do all this stuff, but will i live longer and the doctor said, that i do not know but it will certainly seem longer. [laughter] >> consistent with that, i will say a couple of things, while i was secretary of health, we spent about $600 million trying to positively affect obesity and to change people's habits. they were discontinued midterm because we did not see gain.

the second thing i will say, some months ago i was in an airport and it was about 10:30 at night and i had my playing delayed -- my airplane delayed three times and the only ring would fix it was a big mac and fries. i got to the counter and felt this wave of anger come over me because someone had -- the state where they had required there to be not just the price but the calories. [laughter] >> interrupted -- >> working for your help -- health. >> it changed my behavior from did not cost that much, things society can and will do, efforts to connect premium pricing with various health measures beyond tobacco. it is positive because it is beginning to change and make people aware and to change behavior. >> let's turn to medicaid for a moment. what does the future hold for

medicaid expansion under a republican or democratic administration, one of the prospects for paul ryan's block grant proposal and what would it mean for states already facing budget pressures? anyone want to tackle the need for medicaid expansion or the likelihood of it? jd? as our medicaid expert? >> our governor championed many expansion but not embraced the legislature. we are big proponents of it. our mission is providing -- it is the right thing to do. there are real challenges for states with these programs and

everybody knows it. they are massively cumbersome, fiercely anti-cyclical, when your economy goes down as a state these programs tend to swell in the moment and states cannot print money. -- low enrollment and states cannot -- swell enrollment and states cannot print money. they have to do terrible cutbacks. we are big proponents of medicaid expansion but there has got to be some innovation, there has to be more waiver flexibility to do it fiscally responsibly if they will be stable and serve the populations they need to serve. >> anyone else want to take this? no? we will have one more question on the aca. if you look for it and bob you did a great job of summarizing some of the great things they had done. when you look forward, what about the stability of the exchanges and remedying some problems people are seeing, especially when you have such a divided country and the view of it is so next. -- is so mix and we have a divided congressed.

donald trump, hillary clinton, we are divided, what will happen to the future of the aca? you are so brave, governor. >> i think we have to think about the transition we are in as a 40 year proposition. there will be ongoing iterations for that entire time. i would doubt there is a congress in the next 15 years that will not have substantial work to do in the context of continuing -- continually iterating this process. there are philosophical divides that clearly we confront. we will not know how that will play out in this next iterative cycle until after the election. i think it is important to acknowledge that there is progress being made and an

argument over whether that was because of the aca or because of the unintended consequences of them. iteratively we are moving it forward and we have had the optimism conversation earlier and that is why i am optimistic. >> can i get you in there and then i will get to bob. >> very few things are written once and never change, perhaps the 10 commandments but when the aca was crafted, i do not think anyone thought that it would never be edited again. never be modified and improved, no other piece of public policy in american history that congress has not overtime you called and changed. i am hopeful we will get to a point where we won't make improvements to the aca because you learn as you implement a law and see what happens in the economy. you learn how to make it better and i am hopeful weekend do that and stop recurring about whether we should have it at all and get on with the 40 years of making a

better. >> there are two -- around the aca, political and economic. in this town, in the form but in our world it is on the latter. we have to think about the financial aspects of the aca. while we are on a 40 year journey, there are harsh realities in the may new year's absent changes that bob described. as health plans, we are faced with those decisions and they will come very fast and very soon. in alaska and the we are the last carrier standing. everybody else has pulled out and absent a $55 million approach edition by the legislature and governor, it is likely there will be no carriers in the marketplace. that is in part because the market is so small, alaska is unique in that regard, but because there are loopholes in the law. to the extent improvements are made, that is a place where they need to happen and i think that

scenario is playing out all over the country. you see companies making the calculation about whether they can be profitable in the individual market long-term. or even short-term. i think there is aspects of the aca that could be in jeopardy in the next few years. if there is insufficient movement in this town. >> jd? >> let me into his eyes one point, april 2017 is when most of us submit our bids for the next calendar year. the blues are the only player left and most date -- the blue system has lost over $6 billion on the marketplace since they went live three years ago. there are real fix is needed and we do not have much time. most of the ceos in the blue system or anywhere in the system i talk to are saying maybe one more year is all i can hang on

which means some of those cases need to be very quick before the april 2017 day. >> we will give you the last word on this and then we will wrap up. >> unfortunately, a lot of demagoguery around this -- the insurance industry. the fact is that if you have a commercial insurance industry, for-profit, not-for-profit, it does not matter, you tell them by regulation that you have to charge the same premium to people -- to applicants whether they are very sick or very healthy, that is an actuarial nightmare, commercial point of view. it cannot work. how do we know this? we had it in new jersey where we had a community rating for the individual market that no mandate could be insured in that market collapsed. there was an article in health affairs that demonstrated that.

new york had a similar thing and per month it was $6,000 per family. only very sick people. people have to understand that unless you can force healthy people into the exchanges, as the swiss do and the germans do and the dutch do, unless you can do that, this system is very fragile and unstable. unless you are willing to either raise substantially the federal subsidies to the insured occurs most of these people will be sick people and the healthy will not be in their. secondly, think of a reinsurance mechanism that works better than what we have come of the swiss have that, it is not perfect and that -- but better than ours, the germans have it, the dutch have it come and here we are litigating over the risk corridor doors. in some way, sabotage is what we had. the mandate is also two-week.

-- too weak. it is a tricky thing to have community rating with a very weak mandate and somehow blame it on greedy insurance companies. it should not be done. it does not go to the actuarial problem the insurer faces. >> that will have to be the last work, you have been an incredible audience to hang in until the finish. look at all these questions, we did not get to all of them. i have a couple of thank you's if you could wait, i would like to thank congresswoman diane black from tennessee six restrict for sponsoring the event and i would also like to thank my amazing team, catherine, katie, carolyn, kate, kristin, they have done a terrific job. most importantly, i would like

to thank our amazing speakers so please join me in a round of applause for them. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> and today president obama has declared federal emergencies in two states. south carolina, most recently, and earlier in the day, florida, forhas ordered federal aid rescue efforts to hurricane matthew, the most powerful storm along the atlantic coast in more than a decade -- a category four hurricane with top winds of 140 miles per hour. 2 million people across the southeast have been told to evacuate in london here is white house press secretary josh earnest. earnest: the president was updated on preparations for the likely landfall of hurricane matthew. the weather forecasters at the ntional hurricane center and

oaa now anticipate the impact of the storm in the united states is likely to be quite significant. we strongly encourage people who live in the areas that are likely to be affected to heed of warnings and instructions local officials, including evacuation orders. the instructions that are being offered by local officials are informed by information they are receiving from scientists and federal officials, and those instructions are geared toward protecting people, and we believe it is important for people to listen to those instructions. we also encourage people to stay up to date on the weather forecast. those of you covering the story now the weather forecast or the forecast track of the storm has changed multiple times this week. it is not outside of the realm

of the possibility that it could change once again. we want to encourage people to stay up-to-date on that. what we did learn overnight is that it is likely the storm could strengthen further before making landfall. obviously, that's deeply concerning. we want people to be prepared. the last thing i would say is that there are those that doubt the intensity or severity of the storm. they need only look at the images coming back from haiti. that this storm had a rather significant impact in haiti. it is good evidence of what people in the southeast could be facing. for those americans interested in offering up their assistance to haiti, visit cidi.org. you can get more information about how you can help a country like haiti that doesn't have the resources like we do to deal with such a significant storm. obviously, this is a pivotal

day. people need to be making preparations and following orders today. the storm is likely to begin this evening. and over the course of the day, those of us that don't live in potentially affected areas, we will be sending our prayers to those potentially in harms way. people should take confidence from knowing that federal officials have been working effectively to prepare in advance of this storm. we have developed an expertise and we intend to use our resources and expertise to protect the american people. it will be put to the test in the next few days. >> the press secretary for the pentagon also updated reporters on hurricane matthew, the overseas disaster relief in the

caribbean, and mobilize operations throughout the southeastern u.s.. sec. cook: first i wanted to update you on responses for hurricane matthew. he and the rest of the department will be tracking the storm closely and staying engaged as it threatens the u.s. east coast. theesponse to the impact on caribbean, secretary carter has to expand up to $11 million of overseas civictarian disasters and aid fund, to provide disaster and relief support including support in the caribbean, airport assessment, as well as airport support. as pointed out yesterday, u.s. southern command set up joint task matthew to oversee efforts in haiti. the team arrived in port-au-prince, haiti, just

yesterday. meanwhile, north come continues come,rdinate with south east coast states, and others to ensure dod is able to respond to requests for assistance from and support mission assignments as needed for east coast states, as well as the bahamas. in addition, four facilities have been identified to provide staging areas for trucks, trailers, and other equipment and personnel. they are north auxiliary field, which is north of charleston, south carolina, albany marine corps logistics base in georgia, as well as fort bragg in a felony, and 40 teedo in virginia. virginia.l in as you know, the national guard trains year round to ensure they are ready to protect and assist citizens during disasters and emergencies. the florida, georgia, south carolina, north carolina

national guard are prepared for mobilization, and all 4500 national guardsmen have been mobilized in preparation for hurricane matthew. >> and republican presidential candidate donald trump is in new hampshire today. c-span will have live coverage in 30 minutes, 7:00 p.m. eastern time. the format tonight will be similar to that of the next presidential debate with democratic hillary clinton sending it in st. louis, missouri. the new hampshire town hall live tonight, 7 p.m. eastern right here on c-span. before the town hall begins, we will look at a discussion on the impact of trade agreements on the u.s. economy. this is from today's "washington journal." 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 congress 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 policy that even inadvertently costs a multinational corporation profit, it is essentially a legal -- i am putting that in 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 foments thiss --

that trade only benefits corporations, and in fact trade benefits individuals and lower-income americans more than 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 -- and i share lori's concern, we are about to get into trade agreements that involve large companies in countries 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 up trade liberalization, which benefits so many millions of people, does not make a lot of sense. host: lori wallach, you get 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 trade policy, tax policy, and labor policy. 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, is because those $26 an

hour taxpayers are now paying eight dollars an hour, and the corporate tax rates, which is the highest in the world after , loopholes, they are paying the lowest in the industrialized world. so i do not want to hear this. host: james, are these trade agreements the place where we can address these agreements in your mind? caller: it all has to be address, 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, when actually the 10% pays nothing, and the 90% are picking up the tab for their wife's car. guest: what is the balance in total? here is the problem with the tpp .

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 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 there to get to trade liberalization. that in part, is ironically why the u.s. government did a study on the tpp said the benefits were relatively modest for trade gains, growth. it is not even relatively modest -- it was .25% after 2030. it is like a rounding error. you would be rich as the whole country on february 15 of 2030 without tpp, as you would on january 1 with tpp.

then you have the downside -- the threat, both to our's sovereignty and solvency, a lot of taxpayer money, and these 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 called www. isdscorporateattacks.org, because right now a canadian -- usings ewing nafta nafta to demand $15 million from taxpayers over the xl pipeline 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 canceled by the government. but at the same time they are going around the side saying we spent $5 billion on this, but you have to pay us $15 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 if we find this to be a problem? guest: i think it would be a 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 using the wrong statistic. 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.

to actually go back in and extract, investors say 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, the tpp has no expiration date. 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 about this, wherever you end up, you have to get your member of congress to take a position. host: daniel ikenson. guest: we should not make the tpp about the isds provision. there are concerns, but it is small relative to the upside. lori quoted studies done by the peterson institute and the u.s. international trade commission

that shows relatively small gains going forward. but that does not take into account expansion of the tpp to include korea, indonesia, the philippines, taiwan, and other countries. this is likely to grow, and maybe become multilateral, and the beneficiaries are getting rid of almost every tariff in 10 years. right now, it is one of the most regressive taxes in our system. we have average tariffs of about 2%. we have tariff peaks on clothing, footwear food, shelter , -- components of housing. it is a regressive tax. lower-income americans spend a larger percentage of their budget on these items. let's get rid of that tax. 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 nafta are big items

to me. the tpp is the most horrible agreement. the people who wrote this are the corporate lawyers, the corporate lawyers for the big corporations that are not paying any taxes in the u.s., but they call themselves international corporations -- not based in the u.s., but they are u.s. corporations. they ruled that through the wto. that is the tribunal that oversees nafta. i will give you an example of why we need to get out of nafta. earlier this year, the wto -- 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. >> we leave this now to take you live to new hampshire for a town hall meeting underway, soon to appear, republican presidential candidate donald trump. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> he will be here very shortly. we will do the town hall meeting. we will take about 20 questions, it will go about an hour long tonight. i have a lot of questions here, and if i have your name on the question, i will ask you to stand up. [indiscernible] >> try to keep the applause until the end. we all love trump, right?

did you see the new poll today? [no audio] >> he was to points within the margin of air. -- error. [no audio] [applause] and he was ahead by four points, more than in the past. things are looking up tonight. who is going to win the game tonight? the red sox or the cleveland indians? big poppy. we will be ready to go as soon as donald trump gets here i will back down. i will introduce them. if you have more questions, send

them over here. someone will pick them up. want a job done right, you will do it yourself. thank you very much for being here and thank you to everybody who is here. donald trump will be here very shortly. and we will get this show on the road. think you. [applause] >> thanks, al.

>> we are live here in new hampshire. syndicated radio talk show host getting the crowd ready. donald trump running a few minutes behind. this event was supposed to talk -- start at 7:00 eastern. the announcement has been made that he will be arriving shortly. live coverage here on c-span. the format at tonight's town hall meeting will be similar to the one used in the upcoming presidential debate between mr. trump and hillary clinton on sunday. that will be in st. louis, missouri. again, new hampshire town hall, live here shortly on sees him.

also, we want to let you know about an event on saturday. house speaker paul ryan will be making an appearance with mr. trump. both set to attend the annual wisconsin fall fest in elkhorn on saturday. we will have that saturday morning. a newspaper points out speaker ryan withheld formally endorsing mr. trump for weeks. -- for weeks after he clinched the gop nomination.

>> c-span live in new hampshire, waiting for donald trump's arrival to this town hall meeting. a similar format to what he will be experiencing when he faces former secretary of state, hillary clinton sunday night in the presidential debate. that will be held in st. louis, missouri. here tonight in new hampshire, a town hall meeting. earlier with a capitol hill reporter about an upcoming appearance of the mr. turnbull be making with house speaker paul ryan. that will be on saturday at 3:30 eastern time. we will have that here on c-span, and here is a preview of what to expect saturday. >> donald trump to campaign with house speaker paul ryan this saturday in wisconsin. marcos is following this story, she is joining us on the phone here in washington. thank you for joining us. how did this all come together? it has been quite a long road for paul ryan and donald trump. if you recall, as recently as

fearedcember, when he donald trump would get the republican nomination, and it was a long shot, paul ryan denounced his proposal to ban muslims from the country. he criticized trump on a lot of friends. over weeks, he declined to endorse donald trump after he effectively clinched the republican nomination. the payback, donald trump withheld endorsing ryan over the summer. are, they will make their first campaign appearance together this weekend. >> it is called the wisconsin fallfest and it sounds like a typical republican event in that it happens in a key swing state. you have florida governor -- governor walker in attendance. how will this unfold? >> this happens annually. ryan and other wisconsin

officials rarely go to this event. someone familiar with the planning said trump expressed interest in doing an event with ryan. the speaker sent an invitation. it is an event he goes to every year anyway. now, there are not any photographs out there of donald trump and paul ryan appearing together on the campaign trail. who has distanced himself quite a lot from donald trump, even after he did officially endorse him, it could potentially be a little awkward for paul ryan. >> and senator ron johnson in his own battle for reelection, this is one of the states that both parties say they need if they want to capture or maintain control of u.s. senate next year. >> that is right.

ron johnson will be at this that paul ryan and donald trump are going to on saturday. the strategy, compared to other in newble incumbents hampshire or pat toomey in pennsylvania, have a very much a distanced themselves from trump. do not say his name, they prefer to say the nominee. ron johnson will appear in person at this same event with donald trump. >> let me go back to the relationship between paul ryan, he was mitt romney's running mate four years ago, the former massachusetts governor in 2012, saying he is advising people to vote for gary johnson. he did so in a tweet.

this relationship between house speaker and donald trump, or lack thereof, how will this change or evolve or unfold with 30 plus days before the election, and will it have any impact? this relationship between house speaker and donald trump, or just one dayl come before the second presidential debate between hillary clinton and donald trump. the last 10 days or so have been the worst of donald trump's campaign. his comments about former miss be arse winner, this could moment for donald trump if he wants to make a comeback. >> donald trump in wisconsin this week with house speaker paul ryan. at work is available online thehill.com. thank you for being with us. >> awaiting donald trump's arrival in new hampshire for a town hall meeting running behind schedule. the format of tonight's townhall will be similar to the upcoming

presidential debate on sunday between mr. trump and hillary clinton, a townhall-style format. that will be sunday, the second of three residential debates. it will be in st. louis, missouri. and, paul ryan campaigning with to attend both set the wisconsin fall fest in elkhorn, wisconsin saturday at 3:30 p.m. eastern. will look at some of the latest ads from the presidential campaigns. >> how do we measure greatness in america? the height of our skyscrapers? the size of our bank accounts? no, it is measured by what we do for our children. the values we pass on. i have spent my life fighting for kids and families. and it will be my mission to

build a country where our children can rise as high as their dreams and hard work take them. that means good schools for ,very child in every zip code college that leads to opportunities, not debt, and an economy wherever young american can find a job that lets them start a family of their own. we face the challenges, but we can solve them the same way big families do, working together, respecting one another, and never giving up. i want our success to be measured by there's. -- theirs. i am hillary clinton, and i approved this message. >> what does donald trump mean for you, families earning $60,000 a year, you get a reduction. working moms, you get paid maternity leave and a $5,000 childcare tax reduction. gethis owners, your taxes cut to only 15% so you can

expand and create more jobs. prosperity for you, america great again. >> i am donald trump, and i approve this message. in new hampshire, waiting for donald trump to arrive at this new hampshire town hall meeting expected to start shortly. was expected to start 25 minutes ago. just waiting for the republican party nominee here in new hampshire. a townhall meeting format, similar to what they will be using in the presidential debate sunday in st. louis.

>> donald trump expected here in new hampshire for a townhall meeting. while we continue to wait for his arrival, take a look at an islamic society convention and some remarks about the rise of mr. trump's candidacy and its impact on the muslim community.

>> you know what i love the most about mohammed ali? this man looked you dead in the eye with a straight face and a smile and would tell you that everything you believed was absolutely wrong. he would challenge every social norm he thought was unjust, and yet by the end, you could not help but love him nonetheless. very few people have that talent. my next speaker is also no stranger to controversy. scholarcurrent resident at an islamic center, associate professor of religious studies at rhodes college in memphis, dean of academic affairs, i than af none other prolific commentator on political issues, very germane to our time. he started his career as a chemical engineer but had a change of heart. societyto the islamic

inarabia and got a masters the knowledge he. he decided he did not have enough degrees so he went to yale for his phd in islamic studies. more important than any of that, more important than anything i just said, he is our only onlyer today that has is -- has his own barbecue sauce named after him. if you go to tom's barbecue in they can bring you this tasty barbecue sauce, kind of on the spicy side, but it is delicious. [applause] >>[speaking arabic] it is such a pleasure and honor to be here.

people came up to me to take selfies and pictures. i went up and said, people come to take selfies with me, but i need to take a selfie with you. so i took one with them. years from now, when historians and political analysts analyze the strange rise and eventual fall of donald trump, what they are going to discuss how he lost resoundingly in the november 2016 election, they will say that the turning point in his popularity, the beginning of the nosedive that cost -- caused him to disappear from public life, was a powerful and emotional speech by --, along with a dignified silence. [applause] attempted to derive --islamic phobic dass

islamic phobic smear. moreolumn demeanor was far eloquent and powerful and poignant and profound than compared to anything that donald trump has ever offered with his mouth. the message we learned on that day was clear, america never underestimates the power. trump, and unfortunately i have to speak of trump, he is on our minds and in our nightmares for the last year. of trump, last month over 50 senior republicans published a letter in the new york times asking their fellow americans not to support their own party candidate. imagine that, senior republicans

saying, do not support trump. but i have to be honest here. the republicans only have themselves to blame. for the last few years, they were the one campaigning against obama and immigration and people of other faiths, people of other colors. for years, they did everything they could to be racist and xenophobic without actually becoming racist and xenophobic. the result was that they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. they riled up the masses, they fomented hatred to such an extent that even mainstream republicans seemed to meet and to passive to fulfill the mob-crazed rhetoric that they themselves had spawned. and in that environment, enter donald trump. being the shrewd, bombastic businessman that he is, clearly

understood that he could offend the republican party -- up and there were -- up end the republican party. things mr. -- he said mainstream republicans could not say. right created the very frankenstein in donald trump that is now destroying him. i have a message for all republicans, and especially the far right. you say you want to take your country back. you say you want to make america great again. while perhaps you should start by taking your own party back from the bigots like donald trump who have hijacked it. [applause] >> and yes, while there is a lot that can be said about the sharp right turn republicans have as thelet us be fair, law commands us to be fair, and let us be just even to those we

like or do not like. the fact of the matter, there is quite a lot of blame to go around. democrats as well have their fair share. this is president barack obama's last year in office, and we all remember -- i remember the hope and the excitement we felt when he was elected to the highest office in the world. it made us feel so optimistic, so passionate. i cannot help but recall how excited and happy i was when the very first bill that president obama signed was the executive order to shut down guantanamo bay. eight years of gone by. guantanamo bay remains open as we speak. guantanamo has become symbolic of the stalemate the fact that names and faces might change, but policies really do.

-- rarely do. i am appreciative we have the secretary of department of homeland security here. but in the last eight years, the patriot act has been renewed, unsupervised wiretaps and government surveillance have increased. the entrapment of dozens of young, innocent men and women by the fbi's evil entrapment program has increased. the situation in the middle east has spiraled out of control. worst of all, the immoral, unethical, counterproductive drone strikes which have caused untold civilian deaths have increased more than tenfold. [applause] >> last month's issue of the atlantic, one of the most mainstream magazines in this country, published for 160 years, last month's issue of the atlantic had a cover story that highlighted the fact that after 15 years after 9/11, we have

spent over $1 trillion on this supposedly war on terror. and yet the magazine concluded, far from making our country safer, we are actually less safe than we were 15 years ago. the fact of the matter is that the threat of islamic radicals beenaking the country has highly exaggerated to the point of ludicrousness. statistically speaking, more die from furniture accidents and from radical jihadist attacks. criticize course we radical jihadist attacks, but we do not spend $1 trillion trying to correct furniture. sweden,t invade demanding ikea create furniture according to our standards. ourave to be realistic in response to the threat. never forget that we here in america are far more likely to be killed by a loan, angry,

nasa christian mashed -- shooter, or a police officer, then radical jihadists. we elected you on the promise of hope and change. many of us believed in the promise, many believed when you said, yes we can. i am sad to say that eight years down the line, and that of hope, many of us feel more despair. instead of change, the status quo remains, or perhaps has even gotten worse. -- hope is lost lost. you still have months in office. i speak on behalf of millions of people across the world when i say, you can still leave a positive legacy. you can still leave a positive legacy of your presidency and in the books of history. but you will have to do some

very, very simple promises that you yourself campaigned on. mr. president, closedown guantanamo bay. stop the drone strikes. mr. president, help the syrian refugees, support the rights of the palestinian people -- [applause] mr. trump: is that mic working? it is like that commission where they give us that bomb -- bum mic. i want to thank everyone, this is great. hampshire new

primaries, now i hear we are tied, or winning by two. how are you? i want to thank everybody. these just came back. whenever we won i like to talk about polls. if we are doing badly, i do not talk about polls. when we do badly, i do not know about polls, right. [laughter] mr. trump: i used to drive chris christie, our friends, right over here. [applause] mr. trump: he was a tough competitor. it used to drive me crazy he said, when you talk about the polls. why do talk about them? because i was number one. if i was number two, we would not be talking. thank you everyone, new hampshire is where we had our first victory. then we went on to lots of other places. supportad tremendous

from so many of our friends and tremendous complements. tom brady and coach bela check, great relationships appear. these literally came out, national polls, trump 43, clinton, 41. [laughter] -- [applause] trump, 46 national, clinton, 42. [applause] -- trump: upi national carolina, trump 49, clinton 44. south carolina is great. that is where we had another great attendance and results during the primary were amazing. great people. colorado, trump 45, clinton 43.

i just left, that was a good one. wisconsin, where i am going tomorrow, they have trump 42 and clinton at 42, and that is ok because i was about 15 points behind three or four weeks ago, and my right? [applause] mr. trump: anyone can check them. biggie,one that is a upi just came out, virginia, i love the virginia. tremendous properties in virginia, lots of employees. i think all my employees are voting. virginia, clock -- trumpet 50, clinton 45. upi, that is a big one. the media is going crazy. they do not know, they cannot believe this. they are not happy, this is not

the way it is supposed to be happening. [applause] the american people, right, this is not what they had in mind. the crooked, crooked media with the crooked, crooked hillary. new hampshire, 48, 48. what is going on here? i do not like that. that does not sound like my friends. we will win new hampshire. we will win new hampshire. [applause] all just camese out a little while ago. arizona, 52, clinton, 42. how about that. trump 50,lina, upi, clinton, 46. look at this one. the state of pennsylvania where i went to school, went to 50,ege, pennsylvania, trump

clinton, 46. [applause] mr. trump: and here is another good one, great stay, the people of georgia. .rump, 52, clinton, 43 you send it back to the press so they can examine it. i want to thank you very much, it is really amazing, and i want to thank chris for being here, and all of my friends. all of the friends i have, it is been incredible. i wanted to be here because we have lots of energy and we love the people. people, in the particular because it was my first day, it meant so much for me. thank you, i feel the same way. i used to come up and we would have meetings with people and they kept talking about heroin, heroin, heroin. it is so different from the beautiful lakes and roads, you

talk about it and it does not work. problems a tremendous here and all over the country. and we will close up the border, build a wall. ice endorsement yesterday, great people. [applause] mr. trump: and we got the border 16,500.ndorsement, and sheriff jones -- sheriff joe's endorsement. was tremendous force. i want to make a quick remark, and we will start. i know it is hot in here and we want to keep this small. this has nothing to do with sunday, we are just here because we wanted to be here. hillary, frankly, talks about debate prep. it is not debate prep, she is resting. [laughter] be withp: and i want to

the american people, and the people of new hampshire, and she wants to rest. [applause] we willp: tonight discuss many issues of great importance to new hampshire. few states in america have been hurt worse by the trade policies of my opponent, and you know that. naftahas been a desire -- has been a disaster, signed by her husband. since weree jobs lost made deals with china, wto, what a disaster that was. supported by hillary clinton. the nafta deal signed by her husband, although he did a great thing days ago when hesupporteds willing to say how bad obamacare was, that was pretty good. [applause] mr. trump: the open border

policies, and i just wrote this out, the open border policies of hillary clinton, including catch and release, another terrible practice, have allowed a massive influx of drugs into new , and frankly, into states all over our country. almost every state. and it has fueled the tremendous heroin and drug crisis we have. we will close up those borders. and a promise that to you in new hampshire. more than anything else, and they talk about it everywhere i go. this was really the first glimpse i got of how serious the problem we have, they are poisoning our youth, poisoning everybody. but they are poisoning our youth. it is tough enough out there. our youth that does not have a chance with what is happening. we will not let it happen anymore and we will help the people that are so badly affected. [applause] i will bring it your

jobs back, jobs are leaving like you have never seen before, record levels. i will stop the drugs from coming in. i will create school choice and we will get rid of common core, which is a disaster. [applause] createmp: and we will something very special for every disadvantaged child in this country. of which, we have far too many. we are going to repeal and replace obamacare. [applause] admitted -- what bill admitted this week is a crazy system. [laughter] hey, at least he is honest. boy, he has suffered. can you imagine that? has he suffered. [laughter] mr. trump: he says it is a crazy system that does not make sense and does not work, and were

people and up with premiums cut in and coverage half. i could not have said it better myself. i have been saying it for two years, longer. i'm going to put him on the campaign. do you think anyone has called him? he did a minor retraction, but you can see he was unhappy about it. the name, jonathan gruber, the architect, admitted he was sold on lies. his friend had a little cell phone, cell phones are brutal. just like e-mails are brutal unless you want to delete them all. [laughter] mr. trump: unless you delete about 33,000. but jonathan gruber the architect of obamacare admitted it was sold on lies, and talked

about the stupidity of the american voter. remember that, the stupidity of the american voter? the only stupidity was that the politicians who ignore the american people and absolutely forced this thing down their throats, hillary clinton wants to double down and make it even worse. that is what is going to happen. me, you have seen what we're going to do. we will have much, much better health care at a much lower price. people will be very happy. extremely happy. and we will take care of those were disadvantaged and cannot afford to do what others can afford to do. we will take care of them better than they are being taken care of now. but you're going to have health care that works, health care companies compete to get your withess, they will come up plans you have not even seen or thought about right now, it will be a beautiful thing to see. and i'm sure we will be talking

about it sunday night on the debate. there is no way we are losing. obamacare is a disaster. [applause] mr. trump: we will create a more honest government, our government is a disaster. how about the $1.7 million in cash -- a member it was going to be 400 million, it turned out to be $1.7 billion in cash. it would fill this room, although it was from all different nationalities. they said, anybody so stupid to make a deal like this, we do not want their money. [laughter] mr. trump: can you imagine this, these people? they never saw anything like it. they have plenty of money they will use, going to their swiss bank in cap -- swiss bank accounts. we gave it to them, and boy, did we give it to them. i want to let you know we are

going to be a country that will be run properly, and by the time this finishes, we will have tremendous amounts of money that i find myself. we have a lot of wonderful people, in terms of small donations. that is coming in fantastically. we have some people who feel very good about our country under proper leadership. ourselves.doing it call of to ask for certain favors that are bad for the country but good for them, the best part, i do not have to take their phone call. i do not need them. i do not have to take their phone call. [applause] we go any before further, i want to send our thoughts to all of the people, and prayers, to the millions in of what is path known as hurricane matthew.

bad one.ig one and a hopefully it takes a right turn, but it looks like it is going the opposite direction, not good. one of the strongest storms to hit in many decades, and our neighbors in florida and georgia and the carolinas are in the direct path, it seems. southeast florida is taking the brunt. i have a lot of friends in florida, a lot of buildings, and a lot of investments, a lot of great employees. they are taking the brunt of the storm. tour my friends in florida, please know we are praying for everyone in the path you have to take care of yourself and get out of the area. you have a great governor, governor scott. you have to listen. be a really, really bad one. it could be a rough couple days, we will see what the path is. it in theen

caribbean, obama's, haiti. almost to ahaiti, 270 people have been killed by this terrible storm. over,ks in haiti and all we will be helping you and we will be with you. we send our best wishes and prayers. we have a tremendous problem brewing right now as we speak. we will know in about four or five hours. i just spoke to rick scott, and to rick christie spoke scott. it looks like it is just for five hours away. whatever happens, we are with everybody. going to bee it is a bad one, maybe the worst in a long time. l carr has been

amazing. i do not know if he supports me i am not sure he has allowed to, but i think he probably does. he has been amazing, and he is a very talented guy, he is a terrific guy with a terrific family. they said, let's get how we -- howie. >> i have a clock on the store that says, two minutes. do you want me to call you when it goes over two minutes? mr. trump: tell you what, if i am doing well, do not comic. -- do not call me. if i'm doing poorly -- >> first question, if i have the name, i will have the first person to stand up. this is matthew, in bedford, new hampshire. hi, matthew.

>> he says after the first debate, some within the party suggest you should have gone after hillary more. did you hold back, and you plan on criticizing her more this weekend? mr. trump: i did hold back, i thought it was inappropriate to say what i was really thinking. i held back for good reason. i would much rather have it be on policy, and i did not like getting into the gutter. honestly, this was the so-called commission on presidential debates. give me a break. one of them comes from the hillary camp, had person. >> how does your microphone work? mr. trump: my microphone works perfectly. went thereting, i before and said, boy, the mike -- they turned it up

and down. we had a real problem. the head of the debate said, it was a serious problem. it was a serious problem after the debate. an hour and a half. now that the debate is over i am going backstage to find out what is wrong. [laughter] i really felt like one and to keep it on as high a level as possible. i think we are all better off if we can do that because it is about issues and policies. [applause] >> you kept it at one minute and 20. what are the biggest foreign-policy failures of the last 15 years? mr. trump: do we have 24 hours to talk about it? we have had failures at every level, i think the iran deal is one of the worst deals i have ever seen, it will lead to nuclear weapons.

the other dayhu and talked about it. not to reveal what he said, but i can tell you what i said. this is horrible for israel and for our country. it is a horrible deal because time, short period of they will end up with nuclear weapons. on top of it, we gave them back $150 billion. we paid ransom for our hostages, obviously, and obama said it had nothing to do -- why did they delay it? , it is a badtly deal. i think nuclear is about the biggest problem we have in the world today. obama thinks it is global warming, i think it is nuclear in the hands of the wrong players. this is devastating, there is no winner. there will never be a winner with nuclear, believe me. deals are fine, but they have to

be good deals. secretary kerry never left the table, he just agreed, agreed. examplebut there is one of a horrible thing, we should never have gone into iraq. importance, but equal importance, how we got out. incredibleed this vacuum, isis was formed, a lot of other problems happened. totally destabilized. in surge, whether you are favor of going in or not, the surge worked. then we announced we are leaving mosulhow about most of -- . they keep saying we will attack mosul, why did they say that?

a lot of the bad guys, the leaders of isis are there. isn't there an element of surprise? remember when we were young studying history and they would talk about the great generals and greater tax and the element attacks and-- great element of surprise? it first andd talked about it later? [applause] mr. trump: they're wasting their time because everyone we want will be gone. it will be also billions and tremendous death and carnage. they will tell the leaders, get out of here. it is a sad thing, we are run by people who are incompetent. [applause] >> charlene, is she here? mr. trump: how are you?

says, mr. trump, i am an eighth generation american of mexican descent. i live in california, you have my vote. i want to help other hispanics see the truth. she talks about how the current administration charlene says, what would you say to convince hispanics besieged by barack obama and hillary clinton and the biased media to vote for you? mr. trump: thank you very much. i appreciate. there was a gentleman who owns a radio station, all hispanics, and he was arguing with one of the hosts. he said you don't understand, the people who are calling in, hispanics, they're all for truck. i said i was even surprised, but i'm for trump also very this is happening more and more. . just got back from las vegas we had a tremendous crowd of people. and latinos,