caller: i don't particularly care about certain language being used to describe anybody this derogatory, but i have to laugh at the faux outrage over president trump calling a woman a dog. he has been called a racist, trader, mentally unstable, hobo homophobic, his impeachment has been talked about since the day he was in office. anybody that votes for him is often and commonly referred to the same way. we must be that or we couldn't possibly vote for him. i called him yesterday when arne duncan was on and i was enjoying the conversation until you got to the part about betsy devos. to paraphrase what he started talking about, he said -- in criticizing the trump administration he said the trump administration didn't want to do

anything to back the teaching of critical thinking because those types of skills are the kind of are moree people that capable of critical thinking could not possibly support him. that is paraphrasing. he is politicizing the whole thing, which is what is so wrong with so much of what is going on for either side. if you get into politicizing everything, that is so crazy. host: come back to the first part of your statement. you used the term foe outrage. outrage. i want to read you one piece from a column in the washington post focusing on those words "that dog." those two words evoke sentries of -- v is alsohe word s;a -- slav is also an agent word,

the base of the word slave. there is nothing racial about a dog. there is nothing racial about any of these statements. fauxis why i call it outrage pretty you can take any -- the left,ent certainly they have got to run out of dog whistles by now. everything is about he must mean something racist because he said something negative. he is talking about somebody based on their actions. as far as i know, he has never said anything racist. he has said things people want to interpret that way. it is so infuriating. i am a white guy. i am a 67-year-old white guy who believes that malcolm x was a good man.

his own daughters will tell you that. we are not all the same. the country was making great progress before the obama administration and we got into of alldentity politics these different groups. is notnt trump anti-immigrant. he is anti-illegal immigrant. we need immigrants because our population would go down otherwise and the united states is one of the few developed countries that still sees population gains because so many people want to come here. the question is do we want people that -- to come here that have an education and won't be on public support? they are having a debate about the 14th amendment again. the 14th amendment was interpreted in such a way that led us to the -- situation in 1898 and that was the same

supreme court that only two years earlier gave us separate but equal. that supreme court was a disaster. there is nothing about that -- all of europe had the same kind of rules up until the late 90's england,arly 2003 at germany, all those countries. if you had a baby born in those countries, you were a citizen. host: got your point. in texas. boca raton, florida, republican. go ahead. caller: this is mitchell from boca raton, florida, a happy republican who is also caucasian for on at -- not plantation -- not born on a plantation. problem.he biggest i am not making any threats, don't worry. what needs to happen is fake news needs to stop pandering to

the left. everything is to the left. everything is to the left. do democrats realize that the ku klux klan was started by the democratic party? do they realize that? think about it. donald trump, president trump is not a racist, number one. okay? and dog. oh my god. people call people dogs and the problem with the left is they have nothing left. they have nothing left. host: to hermon in pennsylvania, the line for democrats. what is on your mind in open phones? caller: good morning, john. thank you for taking my call. what are youg, going to say and it is really

hard to find words to express the dismay and discussed and dissolution as what can only be described as a reign of sexual predators preying on young boys and girls. i am talking about the preists over 1000 and children in pennsylvania. it seems the roman catholic church in america has from top to bottom perhaps destroyed any semblance of faith and respect that they have abused over and over again. this is not the sin of one or two individuals of the entire church. if there are any grounds for banishment, this should be it. the sexual predators posing as pious priests need to be charged, tried, and sentenced. if convicted for the crimes they

have committed or conspired to cover up and speaking of crimes, i want washington journal to have a program about the theaught in yemen, which is same thing. if you are not going to do this, cover up service to israelis and saudis? host: we do foreign policy issues on this program all the time. keep watching our program and we cover a wide range of foreign policy and mystic issues and we have open phones so you can talk about any issue you want to talk about pre-on the catholic church and the cover-up you were talking about. 800 38 paged a grand jury report detailing widespread abuse by -- of boys and girls dating to the 1940's. showed chronic failure to

protect young victims. early reports found evidence of abuse in the other dioceses in philadelphia and the altoona johnstown area. pennsylvania attorney general josh shapiro calling it the largest, most copperheads of a beaut into child sexual abuse within the -- most comprehensive -- cover-up of more than 1000 children by 300 priests over 70 years. joe, athens, tennessee. republican. go ahead. caller: your last caller said something about philadelphia and i used to live 10 minutes from there. in the senate race last time, how come they did not cover it? which he triedp, to run and win the governorship, how come none of those races were on c-span?

host: you are talking about philadelphia local races or the governor's race from 2016? caller: governor races in 2015. he went for district 1 this time and john carroll lost his bid for the governorship. go back and check our archives. i am fairly certain we have covered every governor's race that has happened in recent cycles. we have a lot of program available at c-span.org. i encourage you to go and check it out for yourself. was there something else you wanted to talk about? caller: the other thing was brian schatz that won that brian and way seat. he did not even debate. host: ok. that is joe in tennessee. patrick is in pittsburgh. go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am doing well.

caller: when i heard what was unfolding with regards to the city of pittsburgh and molestation, i was absolutely dumbfounded. i was under the impression we had essentially identified, removed, censured and so forth all of these priests so as a leader in the catholic church, i am absolutely beside myself that this situation has not been called --that they have not stopped this. host: how are you a leader in the catholic church? caller: i am a church councilmen. host: has this been addressed in the past 24 hours with folks you talked to? how do you plan to talk about it on sunday? caller: we are going to talk about it this evening. we are going to have an meeting -- a meeting and address a

multitude of things because we are not just dealing with a crisis with molestation. by the way, in defense of bishop exhibit and cardinal world -- bick and cardinal wurl, they were very much out in front of this. -- the crowd upsets is on this rather than the good the catholic church is doing and i think people need to concentrate on the other important issues like the consolidations and priests whores and are retiring. my big concern now is that priests who are conscientious, spiritual, and true are going to look at this scenario and say i

am not going to be put into a -- let's because honest. people can be motivated by greed in order to line their pockets. this isn't just about priests because there have been circumstances in which priests have been accused and completely unjustifiably. host: do you think that number is inflated? 1000 children by more than 300 priests over 70 years? , i do. yes not only that, i think the press turns this into a scenario in which these victims have happened in the last 6 months. they are not even pointing out with a serious amount of emphasis that the greater majority of these situations have been addressed have been

adjudicated or settled. host: that is patrick in pittsburgh. brian is in new york. an independent. what is on your mind this morning? caller: thank you for taking my call. whont to talk about priests abused 100,000 children. it is a terrible situation. cityther -- any other institute -- institution, they would close the door for goods. the churchremains -- should be dismantled permanently.

would you please consider having a washington journal program about yemen, please? ok? host: got your point, brian. paul in west palm beach, florida. an independent, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i feel so sorry for my president who has been working so hard at 871. he is working for this country. cnn, they allt the time attack. is still putting on a happy face and works for the country. what happens when you are angry? you say and do things you are not supposed to. he is doing a great job for the country. i don't even know if he said that, but if he said that, i

don't care about it. host: would you care if a tape emerged in which he used the n-word? if that exists? you say thingses you should not say when you are angry. look at this man, he is being kicked all the time. never talking, they about it. they talk about daniels, the four-star, this one. this one.ar, he has done good things for the country. the economy, the black people, the muslims. he is talking about law and order in the country. all they talk about is open borders.

this morning. the lead editorial in the "new york times" focusing on the ongoing stat with -- spat with omarosa manigault newman. the raging dumpster fire that continues to yield new trash. mr. trump's claim he has a keen eye for talent like so many of his other promises turned out to be a mix of alternative facts and hot air. piece from the pages of the washington times, mark weinberg's piece saying the omarosa upheaval puts a spotlight on white house chief of staff john kelly. if you want to read his piece, today's "washington times." mike in missouri, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i am calling because i am mad enough to eat a box of nails was the way peter strzok treated. the congressional hearing he had

was nothing but a big farce. it was more like a comedy central roast of a person. bob goodlatte. it was unbelievable, his own son put out a tweet that it was the lowest low congress has been and i totally agree. i watched the hearing and it was unfair.ally i think as long as our good people at our fbi and our press are persecuted by donald trump that we face a dictator situation more and more every for 26 if public service years at the fbi could not send opinion,d state his

then where is our first amendment going when our fbi people can have their own opinion? shapeountry is in bad when the good people lose their jobs over the defense of donald trump, who is a liar. he can't tell the truth and as far as the omarosa deal goes, i think it is hilarious these people keep getting caught in lies by the tapes omarosa has and the swamp is getting deeper. host: that is mike in missouri. buffy is in new york, a democrat. waser: yes, my comment about the guy that was saying trump was not a racist. i grew up in a multicultural household and i have seen racists on both sides and all closetnd there --

racism, you don't have to come out and just say something -- use the n-word or any of that. , allcall them animal, dogs things, but irent am not using the n-word. another thing i wanted to make a statement about is the fake news, how donald trump is always talking about fake news. he did not start using the word fake news until he met with alex jones, which happens to use that word a lot and it seems to me that donald trump is using a lot words and playing fears conspiracy theorist

and a third thing i wanted to say is you don't have to be on the right or the left. just watch live tv. if you don't want to watch the news, watch live tv and you will see all the rallies, whenever the president talks, you will see the racism and the lies. watch real-life tv, you don't have to watch the news. host: buffy in new york. mildred is in georgia, a democrat. ", go ahead. caller: i would like to talk about racism in america. americans are so racist until they don't know they are racist. the systems of white privilege make it impossible for a quality. people in this country say who is and who is not racist.

i invited the people to walk in and then you are qualified to know the pain of this hate from the day the europeans arrived, they started with racism. they annihilated people all over the world based on racism and then they have the audacity to try to be insulted when someone refers to them as nazi's. a dead person is a dead person. it doesn't matter if they are killed by americans or germans. the only thing americans do is lie, deny, and try to just fly -- justified. they never talk about white privilege. host: how would you describe race relations in lithonia, georgia? caller: racism is a constant design policy that has been going on for 500 years in america. racism is all over america.

the first thing you see when you wake up and turn on your tv is racism. you see 20 white people before you see a minority. what message is that? and you are telling the world we are more important than anyone else. the first thing you do is stop lying, denying, and try to justify. vermont.nne is in a republican. did you vote in the primary yesterday? caller: yes? host: who did you vote for if you don't mind saying? caller: i voted for all the republicans. host: how do you think they will do in the fall? caller: i think they will probably -- we are going to keep the governorship. i am hoping maybe we can take over the lieutenant governorship , but i am not quite sure. illustrious bernie sanders who ran as a democrat

again just so he can basically go in and run for an independent and it is like, i don't support him. he has done some good things but it is like he wants everything -- he is going to give away everything free. where is the money --who is going to pay for it? host: thank you for the call from vermont. was there something else you wanted to bring up? caller: another thing i would like to know, what is the whole maxineith -- it is like waters and i know she is a woman of color and they are basically is up president structuring and resisting everything. it is like they had to overcome a whole lot and there was violence against them when they were basically trying to become equal. now we have everything that is going -- words. beingbomb is basically

thrown out there all the time. language basically hurts and it is like, when did we begin -- become gutter. -- weant everybody to be are supposed to be better than that. -- basicallybomb everything comes out and coming from mostly the democrats and it is not good. host: to larry in play blow, colorado. -- pueblo, colorado. caller: i am wondering about all this racism, racism, racism. discrimination is against the law, correct? racism isn't. whether a person is racist or not is irrelevant. what.mp is racist, so

if an electedk ,fficial is openly racist whether that matters, would that impact your vote? caller: no. an open official is just another american. he is not god. he is human and human beings have feelings like everybody else and some people are going to like other people and not like these other people. that is normal human nature. to say this white man is racist, it does not mean anything. he hires black people, he hires women, he hires men so for anyone to say anything just shows they have a problem. host: do you think words matter? caller: no. sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. host: chris in kentucky, go ahead. caller: i would like to call in

and show some support for trump. he is a fighter. all those years under george w. bush, the democrats said anything -- everything about him and he never responded. i am glad we finally have a republican president that will give word back to the people spewing the hate in the first place. i do thank you. host: one other story to update you on, that crash outside of parliament in london yesterday. police are treating it as terrorism with the driver in custody. counterterrorism detectives were working to uncover the motive behind what they suspected the fourth attack on britain in just 18 months. police arrested the 29-year-old driver who was not previously known to the intelligence services. they said the man, whose name was not released, was a british

citizen originally from another country. they say the threat is not diminishing. they have foiled 13 islamist-inspired plots and currently have 636 live counterterrorism investigations. time for a few more calls. patricia has been waiting in illinois. an independent, go ahead. caller: good morning. myould like to express strong concern for the future of this nation under the auspices and dictatorship of donald trump. i am appalled in listening to your callers who support this racist president. i would like to remind people who would like to say sticks and stones don't break my bones, that racism is propagated into law, that it is, in fact, racist notions that allowed for

lynching for people of color, black people for years upon years and i would like to remind people and i doubt that i will have any impact whatsoever upon trumppeople who are blind supporters presumably because they share his opinions and his own racist i would like to remind everyone that jeff sessions coming before congress when he was interviewed by congress, made the statement that indeed the ku klux klan was just fine. he thought they were just fine until he learned that they smoked pot. i would also like to remind everyone that mr. trump went so far as to say they were good people in charlottesville on both sides. i am afraid i do not believe that anyone bearing a nazi symbol or screaming we will not

be replaced by the jews is a good person. i am stunned that the man who ran into that young woman in charlottesville and killed her has not been charged with terrorism. this is an example of racism being propagated into law. i would say to anyone who is supportive of mr. trump that i can only hope that your dreams and schemes do not succeed because we are contending right here and now with an armageddon of the soul in this country. it cannot go on. this cannot go on. bear in mind that we are looking at something very much like what we faced in germany prior to the rise of hitler's. -- hitler. host: one more call. caller: good morning.

i am a retired army vet. two tours in vietnam. when i went to vietnam as a young man, i did two tours. i couldn't devote, my daddy couldn't vote, my mama couldn't vote. what bothered me with the policies. when you have a racist person in the making policies, he is going to make policies on the way he feels. americans, when we have a republican who speaks as this president speaks, he makes the whole world think that we are like that, and we are not. please have a good day. be a blessing and be a blessing to somebody. god bless you all.

callerhat was our last in this open phone segment. we will turn out to the next 90 minutes and specifically, the nafta negotiations. you can join the discussion on the same lines with questions about nafta. to begin the discussion, we are joined on the phone by a trade reporter for the new york times, who has been following the in's and out's. bring us up to speed on where those negotiations are. how close are we on a final deal coming together? ana: thank you so much for having me. we are getting quite a lot closer. and it's hard to say when this will wrap up. host: we will work on that connection for you. i think you are back. ana: can you hear me now? host: go ahead.

ana: we are getting closer to a deal here. there is more optimism in the process than i have seen previously with the mexicans and americans, in particular, really wanting to wrap up a deal in the next few weeks because that would be the best for the mexican political calendar. they have just gone through an election there. the outgoing administration would very much like to sign a revised nafta deal before the new administration comes into power. by something that also fits with the trump administration agenda. that havehese talks been going on for the past several weeks have excluded canada. factor is ifig x we can get canada back into the negotiations and get a deal resolved here in the next few

weeks for that timing to work with the mexican political calendar. they have made a lot of progress over issues like autos. but there are still big stumbling blocks. we will have to see. host: besides canada being back involved, what are the main trade stumbling blocks right now? discussingave been rules of the governor the manufacturing of automobiles. that has been a big issue all along. the united states and mexico seem to be getting closer on that issue. there are still issues. one major issue the trump administration wanted to introduce into the deal, called a sunset clause, which would automatically make that deal expire after five years unless the company voted to renew it.

that is something the united states really wants and something other countries and businesses have been very opposed to. there are other various things, divisions over rules that govern agriculture or how the countries settle trade disputes, and all actual property. nafta is an incredibly lengthy agreement that governs basically everything in the north american economy. host: i know you mentioned the mexican political calendar, walk us through the timeline for the rest of the year, if there is a deal that comes together, when does that have to happen by, and what are your expectations for the rest of this 2018 calendar year? the trump administration has already missed the deadline to have the current congress vote on the deal. they are looking at facing a

vote in the congress that would be made up by representatives elected in these midterm elections. that could really sway the outcome of nafta as well, if our democrats are elected to the house of representatives and have a bigger say in the agreement. right now, the deadline that they are almost cognizant of is for the end of august. again, that is something that would allow them to sign a deal into law before this outgoing administration in mexico leaves office. that is something they see as a legacy issue there in mexico. covers it allson as a trade reporter at the new york times. thank you so much for your time this morning. ana: thank you. host: for the first of two different perspectives on nafta

and trade policies, we are , tradeby tori whiting economist at the heritage foundation. if you could put together your ideal outcome, what would this nafta renegotiation look like? me, a nafta is one that makes it easier for americans to buy and sell with canada and mexico. that means eliminating any barriers that are left between the three countries. some key issues are things like canadian dairy, american lumber, the ease of transferring intellectual property and things like data flows, also the free flow of energy, are probably some of the biggest things on my perspective. the administration should be looking at making it easier for americans and businesses to trade with one another and canada and mexico. host: were you in favor of a renegotiation in the first place? tori: yes.

the reason we supported them a was we saw an opportunity to modernize the agreement. that is something that shouldn't be controversial. old. is over 20 years we didn't even have iphones in 1994. there's a lot of room for improvement getting up to a 21st century agreement. host: anything you like so far? tori: what they will hopefully be doing in terms of and justual property moving the agreement into the future is definitely moving in the right direction. we like to see this agreement finished up. i would also like to see canada that in the mix. right now, there is a lot of bilateral negotiation between the u.s. and mexico. i would like to have canada be brought back in and have this focused on the trilateral north american relationship. up withn it be finished how canada feels about the current negotiations? tori: i think there is the

opportunity. all three countries want to see certainty improved in north america when it comes to the existence of supply chains that have been built over 20 years. i think that there is optimism there. i think that the trump administration has been trying to move that ball forward in recent months. very limiteden amounts of anti-nafta talks with the administration. it is really just about getting it across the finish line. host: we are talking about nafta and u.s. trade policies for about the next hour and 20 minutes here. we are joined by tori whiting of the heritage foundation. wallach will be joining us in about 45 minutes. if you have questions or comments about the nafta

agreement, feel free to call in. as folks are calling in, remind is where the u.s., the united stat -- canada and mexico stand. what do the tariffs at up to at this point? point, they're are under section 232 of our trade law, which is supposed to be used for national security concerns. we have that being a 25% tariff on steel imports, which 60% of our steel imports come from canada. , also a 10%chunk tariff on aluminum. i'm hoping that with these negotiations moving forward under nafta, we will be able to strip those barriers a side.

canada and mexico have both retaliated against the united states with a particular interest in agriculture. i know mexico really targeted pork. we really want to get all of those barriers down and focus on making trade more free. host: you mentioned section 232 being the reason the u.s. has made the tariffs. on the issue of the 232, our objective is as we do these and we have done this in the case of korea and other countries, that we set up a mechanism whereby they don't pay those tariffs as long as we are in a position where they take all the benefits that is supposed to go to u.s. steel and aluminum producers. in the case of korea and others,

theyt up a situation where can ship duty-free up to a historic level. the first generally, question you have is, you have to conclude that there is a problem, and that they were in jeopardy, and the prices were unfairly low. if you don't take that step, the action doesn't make any step. we believe that was a necessary step. after that, the objective is to try and manage in a way where there is the least amount of collateral damage, while a kabul sheet what we believe to be good. the basic idea i think is exactly what the president wants to do. you want to get an a position where the u.s. is competing with countries on a bilateral basis.

ultimately, on a no barrier basis. let pure economics make the decision. in that case, we are convinced we are going to win in an environment like that. host: should mention that if viewers want to watch that entirety, c-span.org. have they succeeded in your mind? no.: i would say we are seeing stories from all around the country of businesses and individuals being negatively impacted by the tariffs imposed thus far. i'm speaking of a nail manufacturer in misery was having to lay off hundreds of was havingmissouri to lay off hundreds of workers because of the terrace on steel.

those industries employee roughly 6.5 million americans. you're looking at policies meant to help roughly 190,000 people at the risk of so many others. host: have those impacts been mostly from the canada-mexico tariffs or other tariffs that have been levied? tori: i think it is an overall broad picture. the worst-case scenario is the u.s. losing 400,000 jobs, which it shouldn't be a surprise because under bush in 2002, he terrace --ris on -- tariffs on steel and aluminum and the u.s. lost 200,000 jobs. for these impacts to get into our actual economic numbers, there is a delay. host: taking your comments and questions about the nafta renegotiation, that ongoing process and the trump trade

policies in general. lines for democrats, republicans and independents we will put on your screen. caller: i feel that we were overlooking many of the people's problems in central america and mexico. why don't we make the people who , like a 35ico families control mexico, why can't they help or have a health insurance program that they carry to the united states. when they use our health facilities, we build a mexican government. why are the farms and mechanized in central america and putting these people out of work? i think without addressing the real reason why people are being put out of work, they must come north to find work, and we are not addressing the real thing.

the rich and upper class of most of central america and mexico are collaborating with the guys in the united states and were developing policies that help them to make more money. host: i think we got your point. tori: i think what you are really hitting on here is the benefits of trade being that we are increasing economic freedom opportunity for all people. free-trade is one of the best ways to do that. the heritage foundation produces annually are index of economic freedom. it is coming up on its 25th anniversary this year. that book shows the economic freedom which trade is a part of has grown over the last 20 years. over that time, poverty across the world has been cut in half. that is in great correlation with an increase in economic freedom and trade freedom. we see countries with greater trade freedom do better at gdp per capita, education, health,

protecting the environment. when we advance these free-trade policies, we are going to be able to help these individuals in the united states and around the world be better off. host: would we have a better relationship with right now, the canadians, outgoing mexican administration or incoming mexican administration? tori: overall, the trump administration is attempting to have good relations across the board. the bilateral discussions are between the u.s. and the current sitting president of mexico. obviously, he is still in power. there seems to be a relatively growing positive relationship between president trump's administration and the incoming administration in mexico. i don't necessarily see any severe tensions between the president and justin trudeau. there was a little bit of tit-for-tat between the two leaders. overall, it seems at the

high-level things are in pretty good shape. host: if not tension, what is keeping canada from being a part of the discussions? tori: the u.s. and mexico have things they need to sort out when it comes to rules of origin, how we decide how cars and car parts can cross the borders free of tariffs, free of barriers. those are things we need to iron out. after canada and mexico come to some sort of resolution, they can pitch to canada. kentucky.rankfurt, is so hopped up on president trump calling that woman a dog, and maxine waters said she would kill him. host: we are talking about trade right now. that is the discussion we are having.

we had open phones in the last hour. do you have a question about trade? caller: yeah. i think we have the best president we ever got, on he is trying to help america. some of the news, all they do is run him down. host: that is james in kentucky. do you want to talk about the news coverage of the renegotiation? has there been an expectation in the news coverage across the country that this was going to take as long as it has? tori: i think the administration has set a lot of these different deadlines and benchmarks four times they wanted to have it finished. that hasn't really happened yet. i think that really signifies that we are looking at an overhaul of a huge agreement, over 30 chapters, hundreds and hundreds of chapters -- pages

and three countries involved. i think the administration needs to take its time and they are not just rushing for something for sake of an arbitrary deadline. i think that we are having some progress. -- wouldn't personally expect congress to be voting on nafta until next year. slowly but surely -- caller: good morning. i hope that this lady can talk about this problem. mr. trump and his daughter make all their products in china. the materials used to build the trump building come from china. i don't understand the paradox about trade. maybe you can discuss that. an issue you have covered? tori: a little bit.

only 2% of our steel imports actually come from china. we spent several years reducing the amount of steel being dumped into the united states, or traded unfairly, sold below market cost. that has been happening over the last several years. the amount of steel we import from china has decreased. one of the great things about trade is we want individuals and companies to have the freedom to choose whether products are coming from. that is what free-trade is about. being ableamericans to trade with individuals around the world. if the trumpt: administration wants to make a product overseas in china, because that is where they feel like they can get the best deal, you would be ok with that? tori: absolutely. that is what free-trade is about. that is what makes it easier for us to have more options, to have

cheaper products, more affordable products, and to keep competition innovation going. host: is there anything that you would think needs to be protected in that process? is at the government's role to protect any individual workers, safety standards, environmental standards. what rules of the road would you put down? tori: there are absolutely rules on the books to make sure things are safe, for example, toys aren't made with lead paint. regulations that are already dealt with an already taken care of. when it comes to our free-trade agreement, it should be about lowering tariff and nontariff barriers. for the united states to export a car to china or another country, we should be limiting the arbitrary environmental regulations or the delays that are involved in that process. host: give an example of an arbitrary environmental

regulation. tori: cafe standards. likeards on a missions, say the ford f1 50, four a to be lighter so it has low emissions and better gas mileage. that is a regulatory burden that is requiring those companies to turn to things like aluminum, which is lighter maybe not as heavy duty. host: about 15 minutes left with tori whiting. we are taking your questions and calls as we talk about the nafta renegotiation and trot administration trade policies. republicans,or democrats and independents. caller: top of the morning to you. eu and japan the just got finished with the trade

agreements where 90% of all the products that are traded between the eu and japan have no tariffs on them or no duties. to nafta, there are two questions i have. one of them is what is the status of the sunset clause that trump wants? the other one is about the $16 wage minimum for mexico. where do they stand? host: thanks for the questions. tori: first of all, on eu-japan , countries around the world are negotiating and establishing free-trade agreements without the united states. we left the transpacific ownership at the beginning of trump's term has he had concerns about that agreement. the rest of the partnerships went on without us. the united states really needs to get on this board of thatiating new ftas so

we are not getting left behind. these producers are going -- beef producers are going to be at a disadvantage. in regards to nafta, the sunset clause is one of those still up in the air issues. the sunset clause was a proposal by the white house that they wanted to have a five-year term, essentially for this agreement to be set in place. after five years, they wanted to require countries coming back to the table to renegotiate again. the problem with this is it creates a lot of uncertainty in the market. to gets us right back in the position we are in right now where businesses are not sure of this agreement will still be in place six months to a year from now. the sunset is problematic in that case and we like to see the sunset left at the wayside and focus on improving the trilateral relationship.

rules of origin, we talked a little bit about before, this is the proposal that the u.s. once a certain amount of the production process to be done at $16 an hour or more. that could help drive some production back into the united states. i don't know how true that is. workssomeone who my dad in the auto industry, that looks like a regulatory burden. it makes it harder for our supply chains to be able to exist and grow and prosper. host: johnny in maryland. thank you for taking my call. congressndidate for running in maryland. i am a big trump supporter. i think he is on the right track

that we do need terrorists with -- tariffs with china and nafta. this naftaerot said, is going to take all the jobs of push them out of america. even bernie sanders said it. 60,000, we have lost factories with nafta and millions of jobs. ushink your guest is giving pretty false information. by ank there is a one book book.r who wrote a that is my comment. people can check me out on facebook.

thanks so much. host: before you go, the maryland primaries are already past. how did you do? lost.: to be honest, i the opponent against me, the republican, i wasn't living in the fifth district. but i spentb story, all of my time working 80 hours a week to buy a house in the fifth district. whererally just pulled up i just moved into an upper marlboro. i didn't have enough time to campaign. have you ever run before and would you run again? caller: first time running. everybody knew the republicans, nobody knew the appointme --

opponents. everybody thought i had a shoo-in. i tried to set up the dates against him, he blocked me. guy, three years living in the area. i really wanted to run in the fifth and live in the fifth. i just moved into that campaign house four days ago. i just didn't get myself out there enough. he got his hometown. thanks so much and give me an interview sometime. god bless you all. host: thanks for telling us about the process. tori: let's go back in time to ross perot. loss has been no net job since nafta was implemented in

1994. private sector jobs have increased by hundreds of thousands. the fact that we are losing all of these jobs, i really a quake that to being similar -- equate that to being similar to a technology does to the economy. technology and trade do similar things where they encourage innovation and competition. that can result in some jobs being lost that are less efficient, and other jobs in other sectors being created. one of the top problems of our time that we need to solve, that i think is probably best at the local level, is to look at how we deal with individuals who feel as though they have lost their jobs because of, trade or competition and how do we prepare the younger generation for jobs in this century. great conversations. it seems like on the trade,

there are winners and losers. some people get hurt really bad. the other thing is we are dealing with other countries like china who are really hybrid countries. they use capitalism to make it work because it won't work under the communists. comingf their stuff is in the military unit they are working, and you can't separate the two. currently, they are going to issue electric cars on our markets and set up a ponzi scheme that we are going to pay for. we are head-to-head with china and letting these things go. there are a lot of winners and losers. as far as our trade policy, with a mirror out to the other countries saying you can't do you have been

that for the last 10 years to us. tori: i think you are absolutely right that in trade, dislike in the rest of the economy there are winners and losers. while we are looking at right now is who do you want to be picking those winners and losers? told you like the government do that and tell you what you can and cannot by, our would you like the market to be determining those winners and losers? in regards to china, it is absolutely true that china is misbehaving and regards to trade. they do not properly protect intellectual property and property rights in general. there are restrictions in china in regards to investment. we should deal with those problems. hitting our allies with terrorists -- tariffs like ancanada and mexico and the eu. taxing the american people is not going to make china a change.

the heritage foundation is recommending some pretty common sense scalpel approaches to the issues with china. one of those being let's have the commerce department and treasury department work together to identify individuals and companies from china that are either using stolen intellectual property or are using known stolen intellectual property and sanction them, just like we do any other company or individual that violates u.s. law. that gets us into the real problem. host: with there be any time in your mind are targeted tariffs would be a good idea? tori: i like to avoid those as much as physically possible because a terrorist is a -- tariff is a tax that increases here at home. we want to look at all alternative avenues for addressing a problem. host: the color just now saying

something book at hurt bad in these trade issues that have come up. the trump administration trying to cushion the blow. the farmers to the tune of $12 billion. how do you feel about that plan to aid farmers who have been impacted by these escalating trade wars? tori: the heritage foundation has long been opposed to agricultural subsidies in general, and subsidies and pretty much any form. we see this as trying to fix a bad policy with more bad policy, or trying to fix increased taxes on the american people with increased government spending. not good things if you're looking at decreasing the size of government. i think the best way to help our agricultural producers is to negotiate new free trade agreements that give them access to new trade markets. even farmers are saying we want trade not aid. host: a few minutes left with

tori. our traded discussion does not and. we will be joined by lori wallach in about 10 minutes. keep calling in. stay on the lines if you haven't gotten in yet. we will get to your calls. caller: good morning. concerned.le i think what trappist trying to do is go country to country, -- trump is trying to do is go country to country. i guess i don't see what would be wrong with that. as to the tariffs, the idea that just giving -- doesn't work. what you are proposing is what we have tried for years, and it doesn't work. china isn't behaving well. our own allies aren't treating us fairly. thirdly, i would say when a way to change and put a socialist

and so us democrats and socialists, that apparently half of our party are going to become can have two different calling lines? host: we appreciate suggestions on phone lines. tori: i think i pushed back a little bit and say that our approach to free trade has worked. think about where trade was with china 20 or 30 years ago. it didn't exist. we didn't have access to the market. now, it is exponentially better. is there still room to improve? absolutely. with china, there is a particularly large room for improvement. taxes on the american people that result in crisis increases 40% at home, for example, a price increase on domestic steel. that is not what is going to help americans and american companies and american workers be more prosperous. host: chris in new york city. caller: good morning.

in my opinion, trump is disappointing our trade partners by flashing our allies with one-sided tariffs which are really hurting businesses. what he is really doing as an american, what do you think he is doing? why is he sending so many weapons to other countries to get so much money. he doesn't care what countries are doing with these weapons. how many innocent people are being killed in yemen? host: got your point. hittingthink you are the nail on the head when it comes to what we should be doing with our trade policy if the real concern is china. if the concern is china and their practices, let's get out

the issues with china, whether it is the negotiation. we shouldn't be harming our allies. it looked like the administration was starting to see that with the eu president. we have a similar adversary in china. host: robert is in baltimore. good morning. this is the only worthwhile show on any airway. you are on with tori whiting. trump talked about tearing down nafta. i wonder if it talked about the

very real problem nafta created where it was not free trade, where part of the deal with that was the united states being able to keep their farm subsidies, which drove countless mexican poverty,asically into and ultimately across the border , not creating the primary chunk of the mexican immigration crisis in the last 20 years. i: i think you really hit this interesting point that nobody really pays attention to. the trump administration is saying we want no tariffs, are no barriers, but they're not realizing that we have a lot of those things, too. -- their sugar subsidies or corn subsidies, we are just as much at fault for distorting international markets and a lot of other countries.

we have relatively low tariff barriers. --nk our largest rate is at that doesn't take into account some of our higher tariffs, at 25% tariff on tracks that is been in place since lyndon b. johnson. there are definitely places to improve here at home. host: in the original nafta negotiation, were these subsidies that you bring up out of that discussion with canada and mexico? did they exist at the time? tori: we had subsidies for a long. of time -- long period of time. the agreement itself really focused on tariffs. that was focused on the wto wanting to reduce tariff barriers. now, we're looking at the growing in position on free trade is actually in the area of subsidies or nontariff barriers.

the administration is really nontariffout these no subsidies mantra. host: if we do come to an agreement, and years from now other barriers top up, do you think it would be a good idea to have a sunset clause and renegotiate this down the road? thinki don't necessarily a sunset clause is necessary to be able to revisit nafta if they decide to do that. right now, nafta has been in place for over 20 years and there wasn't a sunset clause. if that decides to be what they want in the future, they can do the same thing again. imposing a required sunset clause just creates uncertainty. host: time for a couple more calls. caller: just wanted to make a, there. -- comment there.

it seems that americans can't seem to work for the same wage every year, for the american manufacture, it is cheaper to buy steel from china than it is to get it from pittsburgh. one is it going to end? steel, onee area of thing i like to point out is that not all steel is the same. there are thousands of different types and grades of steel. that requires a lot of specialization throughout not only the u.s., but the world. one of the best things to do with trade is that we have this great thing called comparative advantage. countries that are better at producing one thing will produce that. that makes us all the most efficient competitive we can be. one hour individuals and businesses have the ability to buy what is asked for them, it is going to make them have cheaper products in the long run. we have to be able to have that freedom. if a company in the u.s. the

sites they want to pay a little bit more to buy an american product, they can absolutely do that. that is their freedom to choose to do that. we should be able to have that option. host: george is in columbus, new jersey. wondering if the value of the dollar is actually affecting how we deal with other .ountries the peso right now is 22 pesos to the dollar. it still comes out to pretty much the same, i guess. in china also, their valuation how does that affect with how we deal with trade imbalance? tori: you hit an interesting point in regards to currency and talking about what we refer to as the trade deficit.

i think this is a perfect opportunity to take into what that trade deficit means and is. it a trade deficit simply looks at the exchange of goods and services between countries. it doesn't look at investment or capital flows. currency impacts the value of those goods and services, but it leaves out that we actually have a consumption surplus. economists agree or disagree on what is more important, production or consumption. is let'shis process just have more freedom for americans to choose. host: do think one of those things is more important than the other? tori: i don't. i honestly think if individuals are having this freedom, we will be creating more opportunity. caller: how are we doing today?

host: doing well. caller: i would like to know why, or how, all of these trade deals that are made like with business want to any with -- and we do business with china. millions of their own people. most of the aircraft and weapons that they have look like everybody else's stuff. they don't do anything for themselves but steal everybody's stuff. where we continuing to do business with them? congressmen and senators are getting royalties from all of these crazy deals that they make with all these countries. how can you give away $2 trillion every year to other countries and take in $200 billion in stuff, or give out $200 billion and take in trillions, and think you're

going to survive? host: a lot there to take up. tori: talking about the trade deficit before, it is not a budget deficit. it is not money leaving the united states. that money comes back in areas like investment and different countries buying u.s. treasury bonds or u.s. debt because our congress can't balance a budget. in regards to wire we trading with china, obviously, that was a relationship open several decades ago. there is room for improvement. what we do know is there is a strong correlation between increased economic activity and increased trade and democracy. there is a lot of room for improvement. individuals have the freedom to choose or choose not to either buy from china or invest in china, create a facility in china. they don't have to if they don't want to. whiting is a trait

economist at the heritage foundation. we are going to continue to discuss nafta and the trade policies. will be joined by lori wallach. later, more of your calls and comments. we will be right back. >> saturday morning at 10:30 eastern, book tv is live at the mississippi book festival for their fourth annual literary lawn party at the state capitol in jackson. with discussions on race and identity, southern history, u.s. politics and presidential leadership.

cashin,include sheryll davis and frank williams. joins us live saturday beginning at 10:30 eastern for the mississippi book festival on book tv on c-span2. >> this sunday on oral history, we continue our series on women in congress with former democratic congresswoman ava clayton. >> my interest in the agricultural committee, and even my members resistance to me. me.lly, their acceptance of and they did.

i wasn't on the drafting committee only because i was a ranking member. i also made a contribution. their acceptance of me as their equal. many of them accepted me as their superior. that allowed me to know that i can negotiate with the best of them. >> in the weeks ahead, we will hear from others. what oral histories sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. washington journal continues. host: for another perspective on nafta and the trump administration's trade policies , we welcome back lori wallach. if you could design your own

outcome from the current nafta renegotiation, what would a final deal look like in your mind? final deal would have the outsourcing incentive at the heart of nafta removed and put strong labornew, and environmental standards with swift and certain enforcement to raise wages. the goal is to get the benefit of expanded trade without nafta's current incentives to outsource an ability for multinational corporations to attack our existing laws and take taxpayer money, the so-called investor state tribunal. get rid of the bad stuff, inside the missing stuff, and get rid of the baggage. host: how close are we to that ideal? lori: what is very interesting

and unexpected is that this administration, with which groups like mine, public citizen and unions don't agree on anything, actually have an overlap in what we think is necessary to fix nafta. democrats, progressives, environmental groups, unions have been saying for the whole 25 years of nafta that we basically need to get the outsourcing incentives out and put in something that stops the pull of super low wages and mexico pulling jobs to outsource. this administration, dollars trump ran pledging to and outsourcing and bring down the trade deficit. there are only so many things you can do through nafta to get that outcome. therefore, though ironic, it is the case that many of the things this administration has demanded he done to change it, are the very things that progressives and unions have been defending for the -- demanding for the

last 20 years. host: do you think those negotiations are in a good place right now? lori: i think we are in a very tense place in the negotiations for two reasons. they have been going on for a year. the way that the procedures under which nafta would be concerned on how congress operates, there is a 90 day notice required. in order to have the agreement signed by the current president of mexico, there would have to be that notice given to congress by the end of august. there is literally two weeks of a window left. if we get past that, who knows what happens? maybe the negotiations roll into 2019. there are a lot of unknowns. it is super tricky to negotiate an agreement with mexico and canada, and at the same time not know what kind of congress is going to approve it. the vote won't happen until 2019. it is a little bit like russian roulette.

but congress and my negotiating this for? a democratic house? republican house? the second thing that makes it tends is that canada basically has been on a sit-down strike. they have not been at the negotiations since may. they have not really been that engaged in them before. they seem to think that their choices are between a new nafta, which they don't want, given they are a sensible progressive government, they should want some of these changes, or the old nafta. the real choice is something more like a no nafta, because the president keeps saying he is going to give notice and get the hell out. host: what about the complication of being in the middle of a transition of government in mexico? lori: the way the mexican system works is a little different than ours. they have a very long election.

it was in july. the swearing in of the new president is december 1. during that period, the old president has full power, can do anything that is normal business for a president. it is not like japan where there is a caretaker government. there is full authority for the current president to sign nafta. that is why the deadline gets so hot. you have to have this notice in the u.s. system in order for the swearing-in of the new president, the old president can sign it. today, the talks continue any representative of the old government is sitting there at the high-level, and the new president is also there with of the u.s. officials. they are trying to resolve the issues that ultimately the old president would sign, if they can do it in two weeks, but the new president would have to pass the deal.

host: bring it back to our backyard on capitol hill. if an agreement came together today, how long do you expect congress to debate whatever deal does come together, how much of delay will there be, what are your expectations of that process whenever we finally have a final product? lori: -- lori: here is the thing. fasttrack is something we have opposed forever. process,the fast track we lost that fight. it is in effect. those are the rules that will control. that is why we can know in advance that if they get the deal done in the next two weeks, it can be signed by the end of this year. that because of the fast-track process, we are off the clock to there being a vote this year. let's would work in 2019,

just say they got an agreement in the next couple of weeks, they give the notice, they sign before december 1. there are another set of processes that have to happen. for folks who want to get down into the weeds on this, they can go to our website. .org, where there is a timeline specifically. there has to be an implement it bill written that has not normal markup, congressional committees don't do that right under fast-track, but there is an u nmarkup. the bill goes in and have to sit for x number of days. once in congress, limited debate. it is a guaranteed vote. the senate procedures filibuster don't apply. there are 60 days through the house. once it is an, it goes fast. getting there will be a few days and in 2019. host: we like to get down in the

weeds and our viewers do as well. we invite them to join the discussion. is here for about the next half hour taking your comments and questions as we talk about trade and nafta. tom is in pennsylvania. thanks for waiting through that break. caller: thank you very much. i am an independent and proud protectionist. want to congratulate they guest for saying what the media won't to say, and that is that everything trump planned on is gone. i was a democrat for 30 years. the first time i heard the term america first was in the 1980's when it came out of the reverend jesse jackson.

mills were falling apart because of these great so-called trade deals. the trade war is over. we lost. that boat has sailed. your last guest was on saying a $1 trillion trade deficit was good, that is crazy. democrats are talking about protecting the american worker. the only thing i heard bad was -- it is time to stop effected the american -- rejected the american worker and start instituting fair trade. lori: it is the case that the u.s. government has a certified 960,000 american jobs, specific people and jobs lost to nafta outsourcing and imports under nafta. that is just one program.

hard to qualify for a program. the incentives to outsource jobs to nafta aredevice. oris not an act of god natural composition, it is a scale, the companies got to write nafta and put in the things good for them without having to think about what would be good for working people. the trade deficit does matter. it matters because trade affects the composition of jobs available in the economy. it does not affect the total number as much as other things but it affects the composition and wages. 70%lar education levels -- of americans who do not have college degrees, even if your job is not outsourced on that deficit, the downward pressure on wages -- the people who get

outsourced have been competing for the jobs that cannot be outsourced -- in areas with a number of jobs are increasing, service sector areas that cannot be outsourced, wages are flat as a matter of the people competing out with a growing number because the higher wage jobs are outsourced are bringing down the total wages. the u.s. department of labor has year, fordy, last trade, 50% ofst them took a pay cut. one quarter of them took more than 25% pay cuts. that is a fact on income inequality that races to the bottom of wages where folks who have a job or two or three are hardly able to make ends meet. host: i wonder how you would've reacted to our last guest, saying that there was no net job

loss since nafta was implemented in the u.s. some have been lost in some have been created. guest: the total number of jobs has more to do with monetary policy or interest-rate. the kinds of jobs, the quality and the wages are the issue. worker productivity since nafta has almost doubled. in the past, world war ii on, productivity goes up and so the wages. wages have been flat. in real terms we are at 1970's level wages. in the last five years they have crept up a bit but relative to productivity gains, wages are flat and that is the trait affect. when you -- the trade effect. the theory of why trade is good and liberalization is good, is on the import side. the theory is on the export side, basically, whatever the balance is is the balance. when things are imported, people

lose jobs but we get cheaper stuff. benefit -- you have to help support the people who do not get benefited, mid-level jobs but we are all benefiting from cheaper imports. the problem is -- at this point under current policies, the loss in wages outweighs the benefits we get in cheaper goods. who says so? professor samuelson, the grandfather of macroeconomics, the champion of free trade, nobel prize-winning economist, amid the formula for modern economics analysis that proves mathematically that even if some people lose jobs, we are all better off. he wrote a paper before he died in 2001, showing mathematically, we are now losing more in wages from outsources then we are gaining in cheaper goods from imports. host: michael, democrat, good morning. caller: how are you doing. guest: good morning. caller: why is this

administration [indiscernible] before he got anything in place. we are sitting on the sidelines. we are still over here. come and talk to us. we do not have a plan in place. guest: i think the question of sequencing is a smart one, michael. i think you're mainly thinking about the tariffs. nafta is not torn up yet. they are renegotiating. the old one is in place and we are living under the current nafta, that is why we are having more jobs outsourced every week to mexico in the lower wages there, and more corporate attacks on domestic laws, every week. the old nafta is alive and well. on the side, they are trying to renegotiate and get a new nafta

to replace the old one. i think what you are thinking about is the tariffs, and the fight with china, over how their policies are giving us this huge job killing trade deficit. we have not ripped up any agreements. it was not a2000, good idea with the u.s. and china still in place. we are doing trade enforcement actions. allow thetes assessment of whether another country is unfairly conducting trade with us, either violating agreements or doing something not covered by agreement. the sanctions tariffs that we have put in place are basically not from an agreement, but rather enforcement mechanisms. other countries get test off and give us -- pissed off and give us trade tariffs back.

that is the consequence of the other country saying, you cannot do that to us and here it is, back. the question of sequencing is, you pick a fight with all your friends at once, even in texas, notstrongest fighter is going to pick a fight where he is punching in all directions at all the time. that is the problem. we have picked a fight with all countries at the same time. host: what about the transpacific partnership? guest: i do not call that ripping it up. thatority in congress -- agreement got signed by president obama and sat there and there was not a majority in congress to pass it for a year. president trump boxed it up and buried it, it was a corpse already. it was not by merit of a paper shredding operation, it was my merit of democracy. people across the u.s. said to their members of congress, that agreement is about agreement.

let's get agreement with those countries but, hell no, not this one, we are going to have job outsourcing and unsafe food and downward pressure on wages. that was doa in congress. president trump got to dance in its grave. host: republican, good morning. patty? daniel in virginia beach, republican, go ahead. caller: i am wondering if your guest is heard about a series of mid-1980's.the he was ronald reagan's trade representative for a while. he is argued for many years now for something called, managed trade. it is not outright protectionism, not free open borders. it is somewhere in the middle. i thought that would be something our president might look at. guest: thank you, daniel.

he is a smart guy. i know him and recommend his books. he is a guy, he was super brave to do this, a conservative, an economist, who travels in the circles of all the washington policymakers, who is brave enough to tell the truth and say, this does not make sense to do this with china. we will lose millions of jobs and our manufacturing capacity. his friends in college treated him like a skunk at a picnic. the man was right and he has been right all along. i highly recommend his books. name in googleis you can seetpp, some smart things he wrote from a conservative perspective about, yes, we need an agreement with those countries but this

agreement, foreseeably is going to cause more damage than good. host: four folks are googling your name, what is public citizens global trade watch? guest: public citizen is a consumer organization, founded by ralph nader in 1972. if you're not a member, consider joining. we have members across the country, 500,000. we do not take any government or corporate money. we are the citizens lobby. we are the voice of the people in washington. we do advocacy research, litigation. we have a variety of divisions, some have to do with good doctors and safe medicine, some in the supreme court on behalf of the rights of citizens, we work on trade. global trade watch is a division of make sure that they corporations are not having the only say in what policy should be. citizen/org.trade.

tony is in apple valley, california. democrat. good morning. are you there? -- the my comment subject is nafta, correct? host: sure. caller: i have always opposed it because it is not done very well at all. i am glad they're talking about bringing it all back. also with the trade -- tariffs -- i think it should be what trump is saying. i have been a democrat all my life. six presidents back. i am going to change parties. what is going on with the scandals and so on, whatever, on how the fbi has been behind, trying to protect hillary and

possibly some other politicians besides -- it angry's me to see what is going on. -- you know, i switched channels from every bestal, i say aloud, my common sense tells me and from what i just have seen, the democrats are in big trouble and they deserve every bit of what they end up getting simply because of what they have done to lie to the people. host: lori wallach. guest: you and i would probably disagree on the fbi and other stuff but you are spot on when you say it is a bipartisan -- not just a democrat -- there has been a bipartisan elite that have supported the current system of trade agreements, that really has given the shaft to working people. not just here. it is not like mexico is a big

winner. when we are looking at nafta renegotiation, historically it has been democrats in congress opposing this agreement, republicans who have supported them. that certainly was the case in the fight over the tpp. almost every single democrat was against. of republicans were too. it was enough to make a majority against tpp in congress. historically, democratic and republican presidents alike have been in favor of these agreements. nafta was signed by george bush, the dad and passed by president clinton after a huge fight in congress. there has been bipartisan complicity in the creation of these problems. here's the thing to think about when you think about where we are now in renegotiating. trump hadgue, while the diagnosis right and he is

joining democrats in congress saying the agreements are not ok and causing jobs loss and pushing down wages, his notion of why, is not right. he is saying mexico is out to get us. the rules were written largely under the behest of u.s. companies to benefit them, with some help of big companies in mexico and canada. workers in all three countries have not done well. the kind of nafta replacement we are looking for is neither the same old job killing nafta, nor is it trump's nationalism or racism. what we see is an agreement that if you get the rules right, which is interestingly what negotiators are heading toward, you get a deal better for working people in all three countries. it does not have to be and has never been, us against them or us versus the mexican workers. the first thing you need to do s raise wages in mexico.

what do you think a company is going to do? we have to have rules that work for all workers. host: what about the tools our president is using? our tariffs effective? guest: they can be effective. they are amongst the tools you can use. if you strategically in a targeted way, they have proved to be effective. there are different reasons. one of them is the trade to buy , you waved tariffs around and impose them for a while. if you are china, the elite is dependent on this market. there is not democracy or free speech but damn it may have helped improve people's lives from this export economy and if that goes away the premise for the stability of the government

is shaky. the second reason you use tariffs, is to adjust for certain kinds of cheating. in place now and through forever going back to reagan and before, tariffs echo in place and stay there for a certain time, are to correct specific subsidies or specific ways in which governments cheat -- you can do the math, and say this particular thing that this country is doing is worth 50% of the value of the good and they are giving free energy, or shipping it free for the producer. those tariffs stay in place all the time and way before trump, during obama, there was something like 200 of those orders, and they are there in the background making things fair. what trump did was he came out and started version hitting countries upside the head. it could be a good tool. is it being used the right way now? no.

15 minutes left with lori wallach and a lot of phone calls. terry is waiting in north carolina, independent. caller: good morning. i am a retired trucker. in the years i watched when nafta was being incorporated, i watched so much freight come from mexico, i cannot count the days i had to wait. if you look across the border, you can see nothing but ford's, chevy, all designs signs for the major companies that used to be in detroit. i'm wondering, why they allowed this to move and the freight that comes out of mexico, comes straight into our systems. i watched all of it. i lost my train of thought, excuse me. host: you gave us enough to go on. guest: you have helped people paint a picture in the brains of what i was talking about.

is what almost one million certified job losses under nafta looks like. you are right. a lot of people say -- nafta costs jobs. how? what has to be changed. ? as au look under the hood, recovering trade attorney i can expect the parts. there are things in nafta that are push factors for the relocation of u.s. plants to mexico. number one. investor protections. for folks who want to follow along, go to the nafta text on google, chapter 11. there are kinds of protections that make it cheaper and less risky to outsource. the u.s. has a comparative advantage, a very strong rule of law. our courts work. you make a contract that sticks. outsourcing to mexico -- workers

are getting paid a couple bucks an hour for a job that in detroit would pay $35 an hour, assembling a car, or aerospace? jobs.are high anend am i going to get ripped off, something done to me by the government? you don't even have to buy risk insurance as a company. the investor rules. second thing. nafta band the application of by american.- buy the government is supposed to reinvest our tax dollars back into communities to hire people here. nafta said -- we will have a rule. that anythingd that is made in mexico counts as american. ge, billions of dollars of business with the u.s.

government, can suddenly relocate production to mexico, pay people to dollars an hour and get the lucrative contracts of tax dollars. those have to go. the pull factor is low wages. since nafta, wages in mexico are down. all those promises that nafta would make mexico a more middle-class economy, sadly, total crap. wages in mexico are lower than china. there is a giant pressure to outsource. terry, what you saw was a result of bad rules. will we see a nafta replacement now that eliminates the outsourcing incentive and puts in place real labor standards with swift and certain enforcement? it doesn't matter what you have on paper if you cannot enforce it. host: you mentioned buying american.

twitter,s in on "americans must research sources for buying products made in the united states. we built the exterior of our home with 100% made in the usa products. keep your neighbors working." the discussion all morning long. mike is waiting in atlanta, republican. good morning. caller: can you hear me? guest: good morning. caller: i want to complement you. i have never seen a beautiful looking economists, female economist, it is so rare. i've not a college graduate, i am a high school graduate, i can understand. issues some of our trade with canada? what is that guy you said about, samuelsson, what is

his first name? i want to read about him. thank you. samuelsonfessor paul is who you are looking for who is not related to robert samuelson. nobelamuelson is a prize-winning economist who passed away in the early 2000's. the paper you are looking for is from 2001. atch.org, to tradew there is a whole set of fact sheets that lay out what has happened, boiled down into accessible language. there is one about jobs in the economy. if you look in their, his paper is cited. there is a footnote and you can read it. on the issue with canada -- here's the thing to know. put down the hot coffee. we have a trade deficit with canada. everyone saw the president in a

characteristic way, not reputable moment laughing about lying to the prime minister of canada. he thought that was amusing, when he said he told them we had a trade deficit, but he did not know if that is true and maybe it isn't. the president know when he was actually right, which he was. -- the president didn't know when he was actually right, which he was. a huge part of what became a trade deficit, before nafta, we had a trade deficit with canada not very big, less than $20 billion. and we had a surplus with mexico. 25 years later -- $171 billion trade deficit, $150 billion of that is with mexico. we have a $23 billion trade deficit with canada. number one. that fact sheet has this laid

out, and it has it in a graph. if you want to go back to the itics, there is a website, is the trade database. you have to get the government data from both governments. if you do that, you can see the canadian trade deficit. that tradeles are, deficit used to be oil and gas with canada. over time that shifted. it used to be 78% of the nafta trade deficit, 2000. 80% oil andwn below gas. what that huge $171 billion trade deficit is, is agriculture and manufactured goods. we now have a trade deficit in agriculture with nafta. i know that sounds crazy and i'm sure the caller from texas is ready to punch a cowboy hat but, the cowboy nation has a trade deficit with mexico and canada in beef.

that goes to what kind of jobs and wages. with this nafta renegotiation, we have to look carefully to see what the new deal we have to look carefully to see what the new deal is. does it fix these problems? host: sacramento is next, elizabeth, independent. caller: good morning. skeptical ofery these trade policies. i see that these globalization efforts have been, the purpose has been to reduce wages and maximize profits by seeking cheaper labor and bypassing regulation. -- thesen is, even if trade negotiations get modified coworkers and manage, how does

automation play in this role? also to reduce cost of labor and bypass safety and environmental regulations, because let's face it, robots don't need social security or medicare. standardsal safety would not seem to apply to robots. host: thank you for the question. guest: the automation question is a big one. a lot of people who do not want to change the trade will say, those job losses had to do with the advent of computers and efficiency gained by computers or automation. to dispense with that -- that can be empirically disproved, and there are interesting papers, -- if you google elizabeth helper and look for papers on automation, you can see the math where she shows

what affects automation and the globalization effect. the way to think about this is -- what are things you can affect? what things can you not? technological advancements can be regulated. to useht for a company automation is not something you would regulate against. trade rules on the other hand, are a policy decision. some things are controllable and some are not. the thing we can control is the impact on wages, employment, of something like a trade policy that promotes outsourcing. the other thing that comes to mind when i hear, sacramento, you are up early, good morning. those insidious investor state tribunals. lawsornia has had two under those. . those are the closest call cases. those tribunals are at the heart of nafta.

multinational corporations are ,mpowered to sue a government to go before a tribunal of three demandte attorneys to unlimited compensation for any domestic law they say violate nafta rights. they can get any amount of money, including for what they claim is future expected profit loss. it is not appealable. there have been a lot of those million has- $400 been paid out for those kind of attacks. water, timber policies, tax. in california, we dodged the gasolinen a toxic ticket and a mining role. if you think about the things we can control, if we get the bad stuff out of nafta and put the good stuff in, shorthand on what this renegotiation should do, we can get rid of corporate tax on the laws, and the thing we can

control -- we can help raise wages in mexico and get rid of the incentives to outsource u.s. jobs. host: we will take two calls. joyce in california, independent. totally with the ms. wallach, what is going on trade wise and what affects what. part of the problem is the average american in the united states, i'm sorry to say, knows nothing about economics. they are not taken economics courses. they do not understand what affects what. they -- i think this is very enlightening. the last speaker but a very republican trump spin on things,

corporate spin on things. the reality of helping the average american worker is to concentrate on what will help american wages, not what will help big corporate profits. and she has -- the current speaker -- has alluded to those things. host: i will give you the last 60 seconds. guest: joyce, good morning in california, very early. good morning everyone. you are spot on vis-a-vis what the problems have been. we are now at this moment with these nafta renegotiations, within the next two weeks, there is likely to be some kind of deal, or we will know the talks could roll over into next year. back at happened. what is at stake is what we need -- replace nafta with a deal, removing the outsourcing

incentives and that adds environmental standards with swift enforcement to raise wages. that could make a difference to people in mexico and canada as well. if that kind of deal is on offer, people should fight to pass this and replace the ongoing damage of nafta. if that kind of deal is not on offer, obviously the president will not have delivered on his promises. there will be a huge battle in congress. good factwebsite, sheets lay out what has happened under nafta, tradewatch.org. if you want to get involved in the campaign to replace nafta, go to replacenafta.org. you can sign up and get action alerts to tell you what the heck is going on and it will probably go into labor day. globalori wallach is the

trade watch director at public citizens. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you very much. end: we and it today -- we today on washington journal with open phones. we will be right back. ♪ >> this week, but tv is in primetime, tonight at 8 p.m. eastern, michael dyson with his book, what truth sounds like, rfk, james baldwin and the unfinished conversation about race in america. thursday at 8 p.m., microsoft president brad smith with, the future computed, artificial intelligence and the role in society.

talking about publishing authors from the political right and left. watch book tv this week in primetime on c-span2. tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span, president trump former deputy assistant and strategist sebastian gorka talks about the administration's foreign policy. thursday at 8 p.m., several senators at the senate finance committee on a family leave -- paid family leave. >> we have been exploring this through social security, in return for receiving benefits participants would defer collection of social security benefits upon retirement. we are still working through the complexities but i am hopeful we can craft a policy that will benefit most families and those who need it most. >> the family act, is really affordable. it is about the cost of a cup of

coffee a week, for you. it is two dollars a week on average for all employees. that is not a great deal of money to know that if your mother is dying, you can be by your side, or if you have a new infant or a special needs child, that you can be there when you are needed. >> watch on c-span, www.c-span.org and listen on the free c-span radio app. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a, john furling talks about his book, apostles of revolution, jefferson, paine, munro and the struggle against the old order in america and europe. >> if they could see america today, and see that the most important play on broadway now and for the past several years lionize ishat alexander hamilton and vilifies

jefferson and ignores paine and see the maldistribution of wealth in the united states and the amount of money that suffuses american politics today, they would fear that many of these things going on in the united states today bore uncanny resemblance to the england they had revolted against. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> washington journal continues. host: there is where we are in the program. 25 minutes left. . open phones. the phone lines are yours to talk about any discussion you would like. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. reminder, while the house is out on the august recess, the

senate is expected, will be in today at noon with one of vote expected at 5:30 p.m. the senate working on judicial confirmations today and speaking of judicial nominations and confirmations, brett kavanaugh, the supreme court nominee is set to meet with two democratic senators on capitol hill today. joining us to talk about the meeting with senator joe donnelly of indiana, is joe smith. why did joe donnelly take this meeting with the nominee when so many democratic senators have chosen to hold off meeting with him amid this ongoing document dispute? is a democrat running in a red state for reelection this year. estate of donald trump one and 2016 by 19 points in indiana.

this is the toughest vote joe donnelly is faced in six years at the u.s. senate, in terms of the reelection run. trumptate that donald 2016 by 19 points in indiana. joe donnelly has a tough decision to make but he has to go along with republicans. democrats are demanding donnelly vote against brett kavanaugh, while a lot of republicans want to see him vote for the nominee. this is joe donnelly doing what he often tries to do. i'm not beholden to any party, i work for hoosiers, align he uses a lot. -- a line he uses a lot. he is doing due diligence, being fair. host: where would you rank this issue, in terms of issues impacting his senate campaign?

being run? thee have not seen principal opponent run any specifically about the supreme court nominee. we have seen others come from outside groups, like the judicial network, americans for prosperity has been doing groundwork as well. we have not seen mike attack him specifically. that is pretty media and press releases. think, this may not be the defining issue in this campaign but it will be up there. host: what has joe donnelly said he wants to ask brett kavanaugh about when they sit down? it is supposed to be this morning. >> he has been cagey about specifics. when you ask them about abortion, a hot topic in indiana and drug the country, in terms

of the nomination, all he keeps saying is, i do not have a litmus test. he wants to talk about health care. that is one of the issues he wants to talk to him about. joe donnelly has been and remains a strong opponent of obamacare. he wants to talk to kavanaugh about that. he is running cagey. host: are there any lessons for joe donnelly to take from joe manchin in west virginia? his earlier meeting with brett kavanaugh -- he was the first democratic senator to sit down with him. >> certainly joe donnelly is one of this group, heidi heitkamp, in the same boat when it comes to brett kavanaugh and his nomination. you think he will take away lessons but he has made it clear he will not going to come out of this meeting and say, yes or no. he wants to continue reading everything there is to read as well as weight for confirmation

hearings -- wairt for the confirmation meetings. host: we appreciate your time. >> thank you for having me. host: in a few minutes we will talk more about heidi heitkamp. it is open phones. your comments on the issues of public policy on your mind. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. miami, republican, good morning. caller: how are you? i was going to talk about california but i heard brandon talk about abortion so lightly, incredibly, we are talking about an innocent baby killed. they should be more protected in the womb. amazing. the problem with abortion is that if it is legalized, people think it is ok.

have died children since roe versus wade was passed in 1973. it is a tragedy. host: do you think roe v. wade will be overturned brett kavanaugh is confirmed? caller: the problem is, i hope so. democrat, there will be accomplices. it is a crime of huge proportions, that we cannot fathom, the consequences. parks, and, i go to they are empty. how many children have been killed as a consequence? the problem is, the problem is, the real problem is, one of them, if it is legalized, a lot of people think it is ok. host: scott is in new york, independent. caller: good morning.

i am scott and i am a human christian who doesn't have my christianity mixed up with judaism. to all the christian right and donald trump, read revelation 19:11. why are we so scared we have to have a branch of the service in outer space? are we afraid that we need to fight what they were talking about a 1911? christ coming back? number two. a true christian has to go by what christ tells us to do. christ gave us an example of what to do, especially our enemies. christ told us to love, forgive, except and work with our enemies. at no point did he tell us it is ok to kill our enemy. for a christian, a true that want to shove a

that down our throats, goes to the old testament to go, i for i and you can kill your enemy, somebody who claims to be a christian but when they do not agree with the christianity teaching, they go back to the old testament. host: got your point. donna is in new york city, democrat. go ahead. caller: -- host: are you with us? one more chance. william and north carolina, republican. caller: good morning. hello? host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to call about the tariff situation. i live in north carolina and i've heard the trucker call earlier. i have been in the trucking

industry for at least 30 years now and i have watched the same thing, with these situations, jobs going out. if it wasn't for president trump, we would be talking about most of the stuff or acting on any of it. i have been a democrat my whole life, up until this past election, i actually switched over. we have got to get our country straightened out. i'm raising kids and grandchildren and if we do not do the best for our country, we will not have a country. thanks a lot for your time and everything you do at c-span. i appreciate it. host: joe, florida, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to know what kind of president we have calling this woman, a dog. that is disgusting. that is all i have to say. host: plenty of stories written

on the president's comments about omarosa manigault newman. there is front page lead story of usa today. "if you'd deepens racial division," that is one of many stories. of ongoing feud, in the wake the book release. pete is in parkersburg, west virginia. caller: good morning. i'm curious. i am a longtime watcher but have you choose the guests on your show? is it done by the host or by the producers or? i am a host and producer and i work with a group of producers. we sit down and have conversations about what is going on in the news, we take feedback from you and talk about what you have been asking us to do segments on.

we sit down every day of the week, after the show at 10:30 a.m. in a room 15 feet in that direction and we figure out who we will invite on the show and we try to cover the topics of the day to try to give you a sense of what congress is talking about and what you are seeing and reading about. caller: when the people come on, is there any renumeration for them? host: no, sir, they are not. caller: i thank you very much. host: jeff in glen bernie, maryland, independent. caller: good morning. can you give me? -- hear me? host: yes. caller: i wanted to talk about this judge -- these people who were training kids to shoot. the judge let them out on bail. i want to know what they are

thinking. host: can you tell us when and where for folks not familiar with the story? caller: i am not sure where it happened. i just know the judge's name is sarah. they found these guys that were training these kids to shoot up some school, in the middle of the desert, training them to do this, but bail? that is insane. that is all i had to say. that is all. thank you. host: one of the stories about, i believe, the story the caller is referring to, the associated press story, this from chicago judge and setting bail for adults arrested at a new mexico compound, clearing the way for five defendants arrested on child abuse charges to be released pending trial

despite authorities suspicion that the group was training children to use firearms for an antigovernment mission." good morning. caller: hello. can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: i would like to talk about the character of politicians. from e-houlocks and -- i reminded myself he was a union man, philanthropist, he helped a lot of people, the thing about socialism, we get bad examples of it, like venezuela. he was a goodhe was a good man,f politicians could learn a lot

from him. as far as character -- i have lived in seen 14 presidents -- and at seen 14 presidents and trump has the worst character of any president i have dealt with. i know a lot about him. he filedd people, multiple bankruptcies, he did not pay construction firms, he treated people terribly, in his housing units. when you fast forward -- i remember 1963 in 1965 in birmingham and i admired lyndon down theor backing white racists in those cities. in charlottesville, i see the same racist hate in those people's eyes. donald trump is not very smart, compared to all the other presidents, he is a mental midget. i think we need to get somebody in there a lot smarter than them

and less deceptive. host: what do you think about the term, the movement, democratic socialism? caller: there are only two things i would like to see come out of that. education. i would like to see every kid that wants to go to college to get that opportunity, you know? i am almost 70 years old. health care. everybody should have health care. you know? i do not know where the money will come from but those topics, i really need them to be addressed. is in san diego, republican, good morning, open phone's. caller: i would like to take a program on c-span about voter fraud. directed the president a commission to be directed by the vice president, talking

about voter fraud but the states would not agree and therefore they would not take, and agree to providing some support on voter fraud. i would like to see something on voter fraud from c-span. host: news on the man who headed up that disbanded commission. kansas governor jeff: a to krisd -- conceded kobach, ending a week of uncertainty in that tight election. kris kobach goes on to be the republican nominee heading into november.in the governor race . caller: good morning. i saw the news clip you showed that they are letting the people out on bail for the terrorist act. when did that happen? i am learning the story

from the associated press as much as you are. i will certainly look for other news stories about it. the caller brought it up. sorry i am not more familiar. diana in deadwood, oregon, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have tried several times in the last couple months and did not get through. i wanted to say to america -- until mr. trump releases his taxes, no one is going to know what went on with russia. thate heard so many rumors american banks would not loan the money anymore so he went to russian oligarchs. does anyone need to question why he loves booting so much and all the other -- why he loves vladimir putin so much and all the other people in the world? host: eight minutes left in our program.

wanted to follow-up on that second meeting that brett kavanaugh is having today with another democratic senator. it would be his third democratic senator, heidi heitkamp of north dakota. joining us to talk more about that meeting, a political reporter with the north dakota forum news service. what has heidi heitkamp said about brett kavanaugh and why she to the meeting? -- took the meeting? >> thank you for having me. she said she wants to do an exhaustive review of whoever the nominee will be. she has said on paper, she concedes brett kavanaugh is well-qualified. no question about that. he has the academic and experience to be a nominee but what she wants to hear from them today, she meets within this afternoon is, his record and judicial temperament.

she wants to hear about, she wants to see him go through the confirmation hearings, which is described as a job interview, basically. i do not think we will end today, after she meets within this afternoon, whether she will support him or not. i would not expect her to announce that today. she has called this a thorough and exhaustive review of what she is described as one of the most important jobs a senator could have, which is confirming and vetting a supreme court justice. host: how much pressure has she been in under in north dakota to take this meeting in the little over a month since brett kavanaugh was nominated? she felt pressure from conservative groups. she is in a tight reelection cramer, who kevin is, since brett kavanaugh was

announced, he said he supports him. obviously he does not have a vote in the matter yet. us, you know, in an editorial board meeting last week that she does not believe, one vote one way or another is going to mean people are not going to vote for unless, as long as she can explain it. whether that is the case or not, i am not sure. that remains to be seen in november. what it might do, should she vote against brett kavanaugh, that would be, i guess a, another line of attack for conservatives who want her to support the president's agenda. host: you said there has been pressure from conservative groups. do you get a sense that is coming from mostly outside north dakota, from washington dc-based

groups or is this something that is an issue on the ground, in the minds of north dakota voters? >> hard to say. i cannot remember all the names of the groups. list,san b anthony antiabortion group, they have had, i think they had maybe a rally, to, you know, push heidi heitkamp to support brett kavanaugh. i think it is a mix. there are a lot of issues in this campaign, whether it is health care, that heidi heitkamp is willing to talk about and tax cuts that having kramer is willing to talk about -- this is throwing another theme into the race. host: where do you expect she will be pressing brett kavanaugh when she sits down with them today? decisions and

issues? >> she has said she does not think she, -- that he should have to answer or speculate about how he would rule on certain issues. she doesn't want him to do that. i think what she is talked about is maybe more intangible qualities about his temperament, what he has done in previous record, i'm not sure what specifically she would look to in his previous record on that. -- he's temperament, his, has talked about wanting a justice who puts partisan ideology aside and looks at the rule of law and applies it accordingly. host: jon, a political reporter in north dakota, we appreciate your time. >> thank you. host: a couple minutes left in the program.

phones. askingour viewers were for more information on the case in new mexico involving bail set for five adults in an abuse case and other charges taking place. this from the npr story about it. "the judge receives death , after granting bail to five adults in that abuse case involving nearly a dozen malnourished and dehydrated children found at a remote compound in new mexico. the judge acknowledged troubling facts presented by prosecutors against the defendants arrested and charged with child abuse however she said prosecutors failed to identify specific threats. 11 children found in the compound during a police raid, in new mexico on august 3, the children range in age from one to 15. a toddlers body was found in the

premises." plenty of reporting coming out today. john is in ohio, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. my comments on the opioid crisis. people are dying in ohio and west virginia and all over the country. we hear little coverage of this atrocity. this is the biggest cover-up in this country's history. big pharma has been proven complicit in this mess. millions and millions of oxycontin pills dumped in ohio and west virginia. why do we never hear the words, pharmaceutical companies and liability in the same sentence? money talks. everything else walks, even your children. host: who is your congressman in martins ferry? caller: you copy. oh. you caught me.

host: do you hear local leaders talking about this issue? do you think it is being talked about on the state or federal level, or on all levels? caller: on all levels. i'm almost to the point where i will not listen to any news coverage, whether it be, cable news or anything else because it is never, i think it is one of the biggest problems we have. covered covered. host: you never see opioid stores? stories? caller: we need money for rehab and everything else and they have already been proven guilty and complicit in these deaths. it is this heartening. washington,ly is in pennsylvania, republican. what is on your mind? caller: i would like to address

the laws pertaining to pedophiles in this country. are up ong 99 priests indictments for raping children from the year 1940 two this year. -- to this year. it is unbelievable. that is half the reason these kids turn to drugs -- the pain they are dealing with. why congress won't take that statue of limitations -- there is not a limitation on what is done to these children so why is there a law keeping these guys, not only priests, al qaeda people doing this -- all kinds whyeople doing this crap, is there a statue of limitations on this kind of crime? this is ridiculous and unacceptable. you don't get away with this.

stephen: -- host: our last caller, today , sheng about the issue talked about the cover-up of .undreds of priests abused more than 1000 children molested. more than 300 priests of the 400 70 years, the scathing page grand jury report. that story out yesterday. that story making the front pages of major newspapers around the country today. that is going to do it for today's program. back yourng to be tomorrow morning. have a great wednesday. ♪

announcer: the u.s. senate returns early from its august recess. senators are back in town noon eastern. they will continue nominations for the richmond court of appeals. toare expecting the senate move on to a spending bill for the pentagon and departments of label and health and human services. when the senate comes into session, see our live cap rich at -- coverage at c-span2. the houses on recess. they come back into session for legislative work tuesday, september 4. it will be live. at 8:00 p.m., president trump's

former deputy assistant sebastian gorka talks about the administration's foreign policy and thursday at 8:00 p.m., two senators at the senate finance committee on page family leave. >> we have been exploring how do parents could elect to receive a paid benefit through social security. for receiving benefits, participants would further collection of their social security benefits upon retirement. we are working to the complexities but i am hopeful we can craft a policy that will benefit most families and those who need it the most. family act is affordable. it is about the cost of a cup of coffee a week. for you and your --. it is two dollars a week on average. that is not great -- a great deal of money to know if your mother is dying, you could be by her side. announcer: