it because he was stubborn in his ignorance. d thenk they like egalitarian idea. i think my father in particular and my mother, to some extent, was shaped by what he saw as the more obviouslity, in the great depression, where capitalism is being questioned more strongly because of what had happened with the collapse of that system. i think stubbornness and he ignored the paranoia and distrust of the soviet union until later. >> sunday night, on c-span's q&a. this morning, congressman brian style of wisconsin, a member of the financial services committee, talks about the trump administration's trade and agriculture policy. later, susan wild of

pennsylvania, a member of the education and labor committee, discusses strength and protections for union workers to organize. and we will take your calls to you can join our conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ the washington journal for may 10. the house is in at 9:00, so it to our program today. we will get your reaction to the u.s. decision to impose additional tariffs on china, especially of trade negotiations continue in washington, d.c. here is how you can let us know your thoughts this morning. .emocrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. make your comments on our twitter feed at @cspanwj, and you can post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan.

if you look at the domestic papers, several headlines similar to the one in the wall street journal this morning, trump raises pressure on china. go to the people's daily website , of china, they have a story listed, saying that china that the united states has increased additional tariffs on 200 billion u.s. dollars. it was in washington, d.c. were those negotiations on trade are taking place, but the chinese vice premier before cameras to talk about the state of the negotiations. >> i came here in good faith and sincerity. under the current circumstances, we hope to exchange views with our u.s. counterparts in a rational, candid manner. china believes additional tariffs is not the way to solve the problem. it would be bad for china, bad for the u.s., and bad for the world. china wants to solve the problem in a principled manner. cooperation is the only way out. i came here under pressure. i came because we want to show our utmost sincerity and good

faith. i am hopeful that we can resolve our differences in a candid, confident, rational manner. >> some people have said if no deal is reached this time around, the chinese economy will be hit harder than the u.s. economy. any comment? >> like i said, additional tariffs are bad for both sides. to a larger extent, the chinese economy and the u.s. economy makeup of global supply chain. everyone will be heard. we do have some problems in our trade negotiations, but we should not make ordinary people on both sides the collateral damage. that is regrettable. i hope we can find an optimal way to resolve this issue. some quick perspectives not only on the terrace, but negotiations. you can give us your thoughts as well. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002, and you can also post on social media to see how those tariffs

might affect certain types of goods. here is greta brawner. guest: let's look at the data. data basedether some on u.s. census bureau statistics. $250 billion worth of chinese products last year, with aging retaliating -- beijing retaliating with tariffs on 110 billion u.s. products that $110 billion of u.s. products. the president went forward with the hike at 12:01 a.m. eastern time this morning. what could be impacted by this? bbc put together this chart -- top u.s. imports and china facing a terrorist from 10% to tariffs froming 10% to 25%. parts,urniture, computer wooden furniture, telecommunications equipment,

seats with wooden frames, and car parts. the president this morning tweeting already about this, saying on his twitter account "talks with china continue in a very congenial manner. nowe is no need to rush, that tariffs are being paid by china to the united states. these payments go directly to the treasury of the u.s. -- the u.s. only sells china approximately $100 billion of goods and products, a very big imbalance, with the over $100 billion in tariffs we taken, we will buy agricultural products from our great farmers in larger amounts the china ever poor andhip it to starving countries in the form of humanitarian assistance. in the meantime, we will continue to negotiate with china in the hopes they do not try to redo deal." the reaction from democratic

senators, tina smith in minnesota tweets that the vice president, in her state yesterday, i hope you listen to the struggles many farmers are facing. the stretch of enormous uncertainty around straight, coupled with low farm prices and wet weather, takes an economic and emotional toll. hawaii, u.s. agricultural exports to china have dropped 30%. areruptcy claims for farms up by 43%. this trade war is not working. he also tweeted unions are the best path to the middle class, climate change is a winning issue in 2020, the farms are collapsing because of the trade war -- that's it for now. host: anna swanson covers trade for the new york times and joins us on the phone to talk about this action and the negotiation. ms. swanson, good morning. guest: good morning, how are you? host: i am well. thank you for joining us.

how will this affect the negotiations that take place today? throwsit certainly another stumbling block into the been --ions, which have between the two countries. we thought the united states and china were heading towards resolving a deal. american negotiators were very optimistic in recent meetings that they would be able to reach a deal. but there was a big stumbling block about a week ago, when china returned some -- to the united states with major changes, and the american negotiators felt that it was china going back on its word, and that is when the president decided to tweet about this really large tariff increase. with those concerns, were any of them resolved yesterday? swanson? guest: yes, i'm here.

no. it doesn't sound like many of those concerns were resolved. we are still getting early reports out of the meeting, and it seems like the chinese came here not to reverse the earlier position, but more as a gesture of goodwill and to figure out what might be a possible way forward for the united states -- for negotiations with the united states. if the chinese had not come, i think that would have been a very negative signal to markets and to everyone that a deal was not possible, and the countries yere not ready to escalate an negotiations to that extent, but we will see. we are getting reports, these negotiations are confidential so there is possibility for a breakthrough, but in the meantime, tariffs have gone up on a very large portion of

chinese goods and there is a lot of ground to cover to come to a final appeal. you get a sense, do that sense that either side are willing to concede on some of these issues? guest: i think there is some room or concession, but walking to a meeting at middle ground, i think, would be difficult for both sides. here are under domestic political pressure to appear top. -- appeared top -- appear tough. it doesn't look good for to acceptxi jinping what is seen as some of president trump's bullying, and president trump is very focused on the mystic political concerns in negotiations. a lot of this is about appearing tough on china and the approaching campaign season, and you have seen him increasingly target democrats in his approach to china here as well.

host: we have seen the negotiations that start today. if nothing happens by today, what is the likelihood that talks will continue over the weekend, or do chinese officials go home? guest: i'm not sure about that. chinese officials are set to go home today, but in the past we have seen and stay when they feel progress is being made. we will wait and see. if they do go home, it is likely that negotiations would the dragging out here for more weeks or months as the two countries try to get to a deal. i think there is willingness on both sides to come to this agreement, it is just there is so much pressure on the political actors here, especially president trump, to have a deal that he can say is a good one and not to get criticized for it. he has already had some criticism when there were rumors that he might be taking an easy deal and compromising to the

both,e, criticism from supporters on the right as well as democratic figures like chuck and florida senator marco rubio all really urging the president to stand tough. swanson from the new york times, covers trade in discussing these trade talks. ms. swanson, thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: again on the lines you can ,all us, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. you heard about the new imposition of tariffs. you can comment on that. let's start in michigan, democrat line, ronald. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. you look dapper. i have a comment about the tariffs. host: ok. caller: i think it is prudent, i

think it is important that we let the chinese know that they are not going to bully us by way of market, by cheap products. we have to have some kind of medium ground that has to be established and kept in place. so kind of a treaty, if you will, that they would be more humanitarian and that they should be more forgiving. them several trillion dollars, so we really don't have too much of a leg to stand on. i think that what we need to do is be tough and hit them right where it counts, which is in the pocket book. are important, but they are not the only thing that we can do. envoys, we can maybe put a walmart on all

of these man-made islands their putting out in the pacific, we can do something. int: let's you are from pat dallas, texas, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i am in favor of the tariffs, and the reason i am is that i get sick every time i buy something and it says made in china. have a $500 billion deficit with china every year. on trade. and it is beyond me why we have let this go on for so many years. we built up china at our expense . it has hurt us in many ways. when you think about $500 billion deficits, you can just imagine -- i don't care what happens to them, i care what happens to us. host: what about the rise in

prices that could potentially come from these tariffs? in your mind, is that an ok proposition as far as the long-range goals of trade for perspectivetates' become apparent? is.er: you bet it the prices are going to rise. the stock market might fall and i am involved in that, but i don't care what it takes. i'm sick of them. i don't know how often you go shopping, but any time you pick up an item to buy, it says made in china, and i have had enough for president trump holding the line with them. host: ok. that's passed in dallas, texas. this is a line from the paper, saying consumers often won't

notice that a camera or shoe saying made in china will now say eight in mexico or made in cambodia. imports from china will shrink while exports from -- imports from mexico or southeast asia will rise. here's greta brawner. guest: let's start with the market this morning. reuters has this tweet -- stocks on tradeng deal hopes as negotiators start the second day of talks, but they write this is set for the worst week since december. reuters also has china shares and its currency rise as investors look past this u.s. terrified, and finally, from reuters, investors, they say, pulled more than $20 billion from stocks on this trade deal drama. that is how the markets are reacting this morning. these are the asian markets, we will see how the u.s. market reacts later today.

s has this piece on their website about soybean farmers -- take a look at this chart. earlier thiss fell week to their lowest level since july, when farmers saw the lowest resistance 2008. rises have nosedived after president trump reignited the trade war with china, saying he would impose a new 25% tariff on chinese goods. you also saw the president tweet out this morning that the united states will buy these agricultural goods from u.s. farmers instead of shipping them to china, if china retaliates, and send them to other countries for humanitarian aid. if you look at axios.com, they show the shipping routes have already changed. u.s. soybeans have been forced to take costly detours from the united states grain shipping

routes to argentina in 2017 and 2018. host: jerry on facebook says this morning, this is what happens when manufacturers leave america. he added that people are tired of outsourcing. on twitter this morning, this should have happened last year. thank goodness for the transpacific partnership, and it failed. rance's, democrats line. go ahead. caller: one of the things i would like to venture in is this. in one way i love the tariffs. but when you walk in the average store, the commodities i pick up say made in china. is, can wen i have make them in the u.s. and sell them? yes we can, but the problem is the cost will go through the roof. as much as i love what donald trump is doing with the tariffs, it is also important that we [inaudible]

but the chinese may lose, there is a large market out there for the chinese. [inaudible] so why are common goods in the store always made in china? because the costs are cheap. u.s.,is made here in the [inaudible] host: ok. ralph and washington, d.c., independent line. you are next. caller: hi, i had the opportunity to take my son t o cleveland and syracuse. and let me tell you, it looks like bombed out ghost towns. our economy has been devastated. we had a policy of giving away economic jobs so we can oppose

the soviet union, and that is no longer there. turnaround here, there is 1000 american jobs -- 100,000 american jobs, here is 50,000 american jobs. my boy is in engineering, and they have chinese engineers in there trying to break into computers and steel any information -- steal any information they can. the chinese are blackmailing us, saying if you want any rare metals, you have to give us the intellectual property. then they sell it back to the americans. we have alllion, these countries around the china sea that china is now claiming limits, within 12 mile and they are claiming all the resources and building all the bases. give those jobs to indonesia, south korea, taiwan, countries in the philippines.

we are paying for these guys to build --, steel american jobs, american jobs, and they do not follow international laws or trade rules. host: that's ralph and washington, d.c.. line.is, republican caller: hey, i really agree with ralph. he had every word that i was going to say, and that i hope trump stays with the tariffs. host: why particularly are you supporting the president on this effort? caller: basically, everything ralph just told you. that's my answer. in las vegas,y nevada, democrat line. caller: hello there -- go, i'm sorry, i'm an independent, but i wanted to say that my dog was killed by chicken jerky treats from china, and not only are their products inferior and

often made with cheap ingredients, if you are a liberal out there who cares about the environment, why are we shipping plastic crap across the globe? why are we shipping steel across the globe and making it with poor labor and poor environmental standards? those jobs do need to come back. it is a national security threat when we don't make steel in america. host: so the imposition of those new tariffs, that is something you agree with? caller: i certainly agree. i think we need to have a big adjustment with what is going on with trade and china, and i welcome it. i think people need need to know how dangerous those products are. my dog died right in my arms. wagon trails jerky treats, imported chicken. host: carol in ohio, democrat line. talks continuing. go ahead. caller: yes, i am against the tariffs because it is hurting the farmers so much, and i want

the farmers to listen to what i have to say. if you file bankruptcy or you know somebody who has filed there is a 40% increase in bankruptcy, he said, how can you vote for trump or any republicans? all because of trump's tariffs? host: you don't agree with the tariffs on their face? caller: yes, i do not agree. there are other ways to be doing this. there's got to be, because this is hurting too many people. host: other ways such as what, do you think? caller: i don't know, but somebody better come up with something besides what trump has come up with, because it did not work last time and it will not work this time. host: live smith says i have no doubt trump will get a better deal. china has more to lose been we do. as our trade war worsens, china is making

progress with huge trade deals with europe and in particular with england. those are some perspectives off our twitter feeds this morning. you can call our lines or post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. don indent line, alexandria, virginia. caller: hi, thanks for c-span. i want to say that the head of north korea, he had a bad situation with trump down in hanoi and trump left in anger early. has testedthen, he missiles, tested engines, fired rockets, and gone to meet with putin. xi,, if the head of china, were to capitulate on the -- toations to the extent

any extent, he will lose face big-time. so i think we are in for a real long haul with this unless trump decides to start to bend on the issues. we are not going to see xi cave-in. host: it was a top republican of meansuse ways and committee, kevin brady outside the white house yesterday. in common is to reporters, he talked about the current back and forth going on between the united states and china. here he is from yesterday. [video clip] the firstnt trump is president to take china head-on. he has used tariffs to leverage and bring them to the table. i think today, the topics that china and the u.s. have been china,ting are some that frankly, has said they would never negotiate about. so it seems to me that they are

tackling the key issues of substance that needs to be tackled. at the end of the day, i think we are near a moment of time in our history where the trading relationship between the u.s. can finally be fair for our workers, for our farmers, for our local businesses. the president is right to insist on a fair deal that is measurable, that can be enforced , and frankly, if china doesn't live up to those commitments, there is response and the retaliation to it. everyone knows i am not a fan of everyone knows as well that china has been cheating for far too long. host: kay in new york city, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think we should learn from history. the tariff act was a big part of what led us into the great depression with the stock market crashing by 90%. not you start, tariffs are

a one street action. the chinese will simply retaliate with more tariffs, and it will go back and forth and back and forth. so tariffs are a very dangerous game to be playing with our economy. the other thing i would like to comment on, i am an intellectual property attorney, and our corporations were very shortsighted. in order to do business in china, they had to give away their crown jewels to china. informed choice partnerships -- they formed joint partnerships with chinese companies, and the only way they could get into the chinese market was by giving away their ip. it wasn't that china stole the ip, our corporations gave it away. and finally, the government thinks in terms of decades and generations. our president is thinking in terms of one day news cycles, and we are negotiating with

people who have a very different perspective. host: many have made the comments about intellectual property. how concerned are you? you spoke about the giving away of intellectual property, but how concerned are you overall with china and those claims that they steal intellectual property from the united states? caller: an even bigger problem business into do china, you have to do a joint partnership with the chinese business and give away your ip. that is more important than the ip that the chinese have stolen. host: the theft is not an important issue to consider? caller: what, the theft of ip? host: yes. caller: it is something to be worked on for sure, but i think our multibillion-dollar global corporations -- i have worked for many of them -- have given it away. i think that is a far

bigger issue. host: lambert in brooklyn, new york, republican line. caller: yes, a very good morning to you. there are no more cheap things that came from china and flood the country, some all over the place. they put a lot of people out of a job. the fact is the poor people like myself need those cheap products , but the only way you could beat china is if the people have betterey to purchase products, wherein the government would have to supply the money. america is a profit oriented in the job market and in business. ,verything is based upon profit and china is not looking at that. the only way to beat them is to bring money and get people to

buy the chinese products. you might find some work that does not [inaudible] but they are doing something to get the money. [inaudible] host: since you depend on cheap products and you need to china because of those cheap products, what do you think about the actions specifically on tariffs? you are not going to beat them, because the tariffs will not equate with the product, because they will go even lower because it is not working for our country, it is working for just labor. putting this people to work in china. they are not getting rich off of it. host: lambert in brooklyn, new york giving us his perspective. we have gone for about a half hour. we will continue for the other half hour. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

a two-hour program for you today, the house coming in at 9:00, and with politics behind the actions of tariffs, here is greta brawner. democrats seek farm country traction. the front page, trump doubles tariffs on $200 billion of chinese imports, and the impact of this is they note hillary clinton in 2016 lost rural voters to the president by a nearly 2-1 margin. right now, trump's approval rating is at 39% nationally but residents.g rural one person who is trying to change that is former senator, former democratic senator from north dakota heidi heitkamp. calledrted a new project "one country project," looking at how democrats can win with rural voters in 2020. on the website, she knows that rural farm income dropped the most since 216 as trade war losses mount.

you can go to host: the wall street journal, one line from that story taking a look at what we have seen already on trade. chinese investment plummeted to $5 billion last year, a seven-year low from 29 billion in 2017. that is because china clampdown on l flows and more -- on outflows and more on the u.s. because it became off-limits. from virginia, our independent line. good morning. caller: i wanted to say that i think the attorney took a lot of the things and i agree with her. in a lot of ways we are blaming the wrong people. the chinese have done a lot of things, but we have done a lot of things to ourselves and what we need to understand is that things like our shortsighted tax

programs, we have given these corporations a club to beat us over the head instead of taking these people and holding them accountable for leaving the country, they make it easy for these corporations to leave the united states, take the jobs, and then come back and sell the product back to us. you do not think china needs to be held accountable for some of these things? caller: china is doing some things, but the chinese are incredibly creative. the chinese believe are getting where they are getting just by stealing everything, you are sadly mistaken. you coulde cities, if see what the chinese cities look like and how the chinese are living, you would not think this is all because of theft.

these people are incredibly smart. we are the ones who are being stupid and who are being used. host: let's hear from stanley in michigan. democrats line. caller: i believe in free trade. free trade. free, get ridng import,- everything we we pay for that. free trade is the answer to the problem. if you restrict trade, you wind up tariffs, tariffs wind up with more. host: that is stanley in michigan. on her twitter feed, the idea of democratization, china did not fall for it. karen on twitter says for all of

the folks complaining about made in china, better throw out everything in your house. robert on twitter saying trump's goal is fair trade, nothing more nothing less. feed,so off our twitter the united states will never bow or be bullied by another country. in tallahassee, florida, charlotte, good morning. independent line. caller: i am calling, and i do agree the intellectual property therney, i think hit to foundation of the problem. my understanding is the trump administration just increased c in academic, science medicine, which is my realm. we are teaching and developing academic business and innovation

in medicine and getting ready to fly up to duke this afternoon for the medical graduation of my own. host: and how that relates to the actions of yesterday? caller: there was not an army for china that came into the united states. , andalked about the rule that is what i want to get to and how this relates to education. its people.es they are putting out 300 to 400,000 a year engineers, that is why they are able to, as in h-1b visa because they are educating them. as we are having commencements, duke getting ready to go to duke medical for graduation. host: how does that relate specifically to the tariffs? caller: the tariffs is because companies, as i shared, they went over to china, getting a

tax credit from our own country. hp,e was no army that made microsoft, apple. i was just into by, i was in singapore. we take delegations of business liaison with even the financial core, with the accounting firms. the credit card, the call centers. these are real things that took jobs. , my we were manufacturing maternal families from the carolinas. new jersey, connecticut, we used to make shoes. with rca, tv's. those are the jobs that were taken by corporate. host: that is charlotte in tallahassee. let's go to bonnie in maryland. republican line. caller: trump is putting all of

these tariffs on but i have a paper right in front of me of 2016. china grants trump 18 trademarks in two months. the year before he got 50. is this not a conflict of interest? he is in one room talking to china and his daughter is wheeling and dealing making deals to sell their products. 80% of their products are made in china, the rest in mexico. somebody needs to look in on this because this -- to me he is doing these tariffs and yet he is getting more trademarked in china. host: that is bonnie in maryland. you heard greta talking earlier about the impact the trade negotiations and tariffs have on farmers. the agricultural committee was hearing from farmers on a variety of issues.

one of those, a minnesota-based farmer about how trade battles have affected his issues. [video clip] our community is pretty diversified and resilient. its own economic engine. if we go farther into rural america, there are my concerns. it is about the farmers who can spend money in those communities. that keeps the school and the medical industry, that keeps the infrastructure, fire department and things like that, that keeps up roads and bridges. rural communities in smaller towns are so vital to our demographic and our ability to keep family farmers on farms and keep our crops from being owned by corporations, which i feel would turn into foreign investment and eventually, the loss of our own food supply or control of our food supply.

to answer your question and put it into numbers, i'm not going to speculate or guess but when farmers do not have money, they cannot spend it in town. that allg the markets of our negotiations in the past have negotiated for, we need to get ships tied up to docs in foreign countries. we cannot college that by telling our customers how to act. host: if you want to see more of that hearing, go to our website at c-span.org. the house agricultural committee having that hearing. if you type that into the box, that meeting and others will come up. if you want to type in trade or "tariffs" you can do that too. mike, hello.yland, caller: we are in a cap list society -- a capitalist society

and we are all born consumers. if we wanted to take control of the issue as citizens, we should start by buying products made in the usa i was at a store with my wife. she was looking at shoes and this particular pair of shoes cost nearly $300. on the stamp it said made in china. i am thinking how much does it cost to make this pair of shoes in china. it is the difference between what the corporation keeps, what they spend in shipping, and in tariffs they could have easily made that in the united states and provided a good paying job for somebody and as a responsible consumer i would see a label that says made in the usa and i would be more inclined to buy that product. have heard from our program and others about the

short-term and long-term impact of tariffs when it comes to the pricing. do you think that is a very consideration for most in the united states? caller: i think it should be. we have to be responsible as consumers. i heard people saying they like the idea that products are cheaper because they are made in china. process, it is almost like if everybody is starting to work, wages start to go up as a result and people can afford those things. between the cost of what they spend in tax, shipping, what they spend to ship and in tariffs, what did the difference in producing these products here be from them being produced in china? host: that is mike in laurel, maryland giving thoughts on the impact of these tariffs as they have been placed.

more that comes from greta. guest: let's look at the timeline of how did we get here. the tariffs have been put in place since 2018. in may of that year the white house announced tariffs on $20 billion worth of chinese goods. china responds in kind. in september of 2018, the u.s. imposes tariffs on $200 billion worth of chinese goods, and at 12:01 today, the u.s. increases tariffs on that $200 billion from 10% to 25%. journal" has an article on the impact of this on consumers. this will affect computer chips, chemicals, and a wide range of consumer products, including fish, honey, turnips, fruit, pet supply, luggage, carpets, textiles, mirrors, clothing, so,

lamps, and air conditioners. you can find that on wall street journal.com. the world trade partnership in washington, d.c. tweeting this out. four on to a family of the increase of these tariffs, about $767 per year and they say it will come at a cost of 934,000 u.s. jobs. host: bobby is in alabama. independent line. caller: absolutely i favor these tariffs. this is the hallmark of the greatest thing president trump has done. secretary mike pompeo, john bolton, this is phenomenal. what the callers are not talking about and what greta has not been listing and c-span has not been listing, about these

tariffs that it will cost americans this much more at walmart, what they are leaving systems thatapon the people's republic of china have stolen from us using intellectual property theft, force technology transfers, they are not going to be worried about paying a little bit more at walmart when the chinese are destroying us militarily. america was asleep before september 11 attack and they have wakened. best with all his his flaws and faults. this is his strong point. he has seen this is a national security issue. america is sleeping. no one is paying attention. tariffs relatee to the slowing of those weapons systems? caller: this is going to bring

the people's republic of china, as.re are two chin there is republic of china and the people's republic. this will bring them to heel just the way we did with south africa. we had a trade embargo because of apartheid, we stopped trade with them. ,e will bring them to heel they will reform the forced technology transfers. when you go over and do business with china, you are forced under contract to share highly important technology. this will stop that and let the chinese know they cannot have free reign over american consumers. host: the student james in brooklyn, connecticut. democrats line. caller: how are you doing?

thunder.just all my was just saying last week when i was trying to get in touch with you guys -- china was taking advantage of american manufacturing. because we do not make nothing no more and put tariffs on the border like thank god trump did, it is about time. , our manufacturers cannot compete with them, that is destroying our country. it is almost like the companies are committing treason and no one is holding the companies accountable. if you look at everything inside the store, there are many from china. american companies to make the same product and make it cheaper. host: that is james in brooklyn,

connecticut. we will go back to greta. responding to the callers who brought up theft of intellectual property, here is a story. one in five u.s. companies say china has stolen their intellectual property. if you going to the story at fortune, you can see a new cnbc poll found one in five companies say china has chosen their property. intellectual property or ip theft has been a contentious issue in trade talks between the trump administration and china. drive --may seem to may seem dry to many but it represents make money, intangible assets, which include ip, make up 80% of the value of the s&p 500 companies. host: from our facebook page, several responses to the presidents actions yesterday.

robert saying this action, better than barack obama's policy of appeasement and letting them steal intellectual property. dan says it is awesome increasing u.s. jobs in manufacturing. another says another crisis from our fearless leader. he will solve it by noon and declare victory. make those posts at our facebook page. about 500 of you doing so as of right now. you can also post on our twitter feed or call us on our phone lines. bob in illinois, republican line. after: i want to say china joined the world trade organization, they came after these american workers and these american companies who had to compete against $.40 an hour and $.50 an hour.

they would clone your products and copy them identically. in some cases, they were selling defective hearts -- defective hearts -- defective parts. one of them was bic lighters. ande was a lawsuit, american companies had to prove those products were not made in the united states but made in china. another thing i want to say. i use the word clone because they copy them identically. american companies spend -- theys of dollars would copy the design, take the order, and the company would be stuck with the cost of the design. our engineers were much better than theirs. host: david in cincinnati, ohio. democrats line. caller: some of these people -- the in for tariffs

hawleycans smoot and put tariffs on and that led to the great depression. this is a dangerous game. host: given the current state of the u.s. economy, you think that is a factor? caller: yes. debt.uy our if they stop buying our debt, we are running trillion dollar deficits. our national debt is exploding you been this good economy. if they do not buy our debt, our interest rates go up and then you have a spiral. it would not be just an american depression. it would be a worldwide depression. host: why do you think u.s. debt he comes to negotiating chip? caller: because they buy up a

lot of our debt. about 30% of it. if they do not show up for the buying of the debt, that leaves us in a position where we have to raise interest rates to get that money to be paid to us. host: charles is next in arkansas. independent line. caller: good morning. maybe somebody can help me out. i am confused. trump and the trump administration keeps saying china is paying for these tariffs. i was brought up to understand that if a government slaps a product, the manufacturer the corporation that is buying the product from china is paying this. is that how this works? i'm not sure. but some can help me figure this out, a year one thing, and i

read another, and i think we to say this money -- to save this money. host: you think the consumer pays for this as well? he has left us. we will go to david in minnesota . caller: hello? david from st. paul. host: you are on. caller: i have lived in beijing from the last 18 years working as a lawyer. what is amazing to me on these comments is very few people, the recent caller just mentioned the wto, we allowed china to join almost 20 years ago. i have heard a lot of callers claiming american corporations. i work for a lot of american themrations trying to help

avoid getting their intellectual property stolen in china. our wto negotiators set up the rules and we allowed china to have free access to our markets, destroying our furniture industry, our shoe industry, a lot of other stuff. we got no deadlines from china and the last 18 years. i not seen china open up pharmaceuticals, medical, legal services, accounting. banking, finance, whatever. i do not blame her corporations for trying to survive. i blame our government, both the republicans and the democrats for letting china into our free-trade system worldwide. the europeans did the same thing. finally we are waking up and my only concern is it may be too late. we have allowed china to become a manufacturing center and lost

hundreds of thousands if not millions of manufacturing jobs. you do not bring those back by raising tariffs. host: you're saying it is too little, too late. caller: it is. thank god we are trying to do something. trumps style is not the smartest. you do not upset all of your allies. trump should be working with them to negotiate with china and say, look, china, we have had enough. he has a different style from what i would recommend. no drama obama and george w. bush focused on iraq and the middle east. a huge waste of time. host: that is david in st. paul. the president putting up several tweets. one of them reads "tariffs will bring in far more wealth to our country than even a phenomenal deal of the traditional kind.

also much easier and quicker to do. our farmers will do better and faster and starving nations can be helped. waivers on some products will be granted, or go to a new source." adding "tariffs will make our country much stronger, not weaker. shouldmeantime, china not renegotiate deals with the u.s. at the last minute. this is not the obama administration or the administration of sleepy joe let china get away with murder." some comments from the twitter feed. kevin in ellicott city, maryland. caller: the previous caller made some good points but this is the thing with the president. , but iflot of bluster you look at the statistics and the facts, it does not line up. our national debt for the month billion,ry was $234 history.st debt in

cut.was a republican tax why would you do is incentivize american companies heavily for keeping their jobs in america, punish them in the tax code to send the jobs overseas, and we would be a lot better off if republicans -- but republicans passed a tax cut that had little to do with incentivizing american companies to stay here. the fact is that the republicans have been the ones trying to encourage this globalist economy. -- clinton passed nafta -- but two out of the three democrats voted against nafta, two out of three republicans voted for nafta. this has been the trend. if you look at our trade deficit with china, even with all of this talk with donald trump, it is at the highest point ever.

host: joe in cleveland, ohio. independent line. you are next up. caller: hello. i think the main problem we are talking about today originated when the manufacturing base left our country and moved to china. it was corporate america, along with the government and other issues that make that happen. we used to make the best after world war ii. this country made the best of everything. when corporate america moved to china for quicker profits and cheap labor, we had the problem we have today and i do not think we will correct it. do not think tariffs are way to resolve those issues? he hung up. let's go to stanley in new jersey. republican line. caller: i just wanted to say

that tariffs are paid 100% the consumer. it is passed on from the importer or the buyer the product from china, then they add their markups and they pass it on 100% to the consumer. there is no way in the world china pays any tariffs to the united states government. the penalty for china is the fact that the increased price slows down their production on the item. that is the only thing that is accomplished. host: you are saying tariffs are not a good move? caller: i think tariffs are they could show up tremendously in the gdp. host: one more call for this segment as we take a look at the impact of the imposition of new tariffs on china.

this is randy in illinois, independent line. caller: good morning. thisld like to say that ain't all a problem with china. this has to do with america, too. you know they said car parts will go up. i went to a dealership and bought a car park, it was only $20. i went to my mechanic and he charged me $125 to install it. it has to do with the consumer in the united states, like the big box manufacturer stores that raise these prices. all of our tradesmen, our carpenters, our plumbers, they do not want you to buy the part. they want you to buy it from them so they can charge you a higher price for that part. host: our discussion is dealing

with these tariffs put in place. what you think about that action? caller: i agree with the tariffs should we have to start making money from these countries that ain't paying. i believe in that. host: randy in chicago heights, illinois, you'll be the last call. when the until 9:00 house of representatives comes in. representatives joining us. you will hear from congressman brian steil from wisconsin. he will talk about how trade battles are affecting those in the agricultural business and other issues. first we would get an update for red broader. we will begin with 8:00 a.m. eastern time, over on c-span two, our viewers can hear scalise and the

republican chair adam schiff, -- and the chair, adam schiff. download that on the free c-span radio app. the ball arsation on report posted by the brookings institution, at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span2, online, or the radio app. also today, former fda commissioner scott gottlieb delivers remarks at the national press club in washington, d.c. he will be talking about prescription drug prices. 1:00said 1:00 8 p.m. -- p.m. eastern time. and here's to gillibrand meets with voters in new hampshire. watch live coverage at 1:00 p.m. on c-span2, the website, or the radio app. and the council on foreign relations in washington, d.c. holds a conversation with stacey fairs, the founder of fight action and 2018 democratic candidate for governor of

georgia. at 3:30 p.m.ns eastern time on c-span2. usa today has a story by susan page, featuring barbara bush's final letter to her children. bush,ote a book, "barbara a matriarch and the making of an american dynasty." she notes that the letter was never finished to her children. dearest children, she types, i have thought of writing this for a while. these are the things she wrote she was grateful for. needless to say, i am most thankful for five men and one lady, the first item on her list of things for which she was grateful. that was a reference to her husband of 73 years, george h.w. bush, their four sons, and their daughter. she expresses appreciation for her husband's parents and her own, and wrote "i am so grateful that our children and grandchildren all finished cool and probably went to work.

-- promptly went to work. they did not feel entitled, and are doing good work, along with working in some cases." susan page sat down with brian lanford recently and talked about her book and getting access to the barbara bush's diaries and letters. this is a letter that even her children did not see until she brought it up to them, because the letter was never finished. if you want to watch that interview, go to the website and ype in "susan page." you can watch the interviews cheated on q&a. representative bryan steil served the first district of wisconsin and is a member of the financial services committee. he's talking to us about trade and tariffs, particularly when it comes to agriculture. the people you represent, how much is agriculture-based business? i represent southeast wisconsin, southeast milwaukee,

north of chicago to the lake, about half the state to my hometown in janesville. between janesville, ray seen, kaine osha -- janesville,racine, kenosha, there are corn, soybeans, and other things important to our state. host: those products all considered for tariffs with china. guest: i sat down with a group of farmers from burlington wisconsin, -- burlington, wisconsin. we have seen low commodity prices putting a lot of pressure on our farmers. the best way to alleviate that is to make sure that our farmers have international market throughwhether that is usmca, additional access to canada and mexico, or around the globe. ultimately, the ability for our farmers to trade those goods around the globe is beneficial to southeast wisconsin and the united states. ist: is that with how milk being produced, the technology

is getting better and prices are dropping. is there a correlation there? guest: but we have also seen unfair trade deals in the past. has a veryanada convoluted milk pricing scheme. it is ethical for dairy farmers in wisconsin to take milk and export it to canada. nafta 2.0 has a better plan for canada, giving better access for wisconsin dairy farmers. it is something we need to explore as we look at the usmca. host: there is a debate in congress, particularly in the house, on whether the house will even take up the usmca. can you give us a status report on where that is? guest: that will recite with speaker pelosi as to whether or not it comes to the floor. i think we should get a vote. i have spoken on the floor about the need for the house to be able to vote on usmca. i am optimistic, but that decision is in the hands of speaker pelosi. host: so when it comes to the usmca, milk or dairy products, what benefits more?

trade with canada, mexico, or both? guest: both are critical. usmca gives critical access to the canadian market. texaco has been a great partner in particular as it relates to dairy products. there are one of the largest consumers of cheese in the united states. host: so what do you think about the actions of china on trade, the actions that represent the people that you represent? guest: the president is bringing countries back to the table to negotiate so we can get better agreements. isiffs our taxes, so low better, zero is best. i would like to see us get through these parts of the negotiations, reached a deal, and lower the barriers to trade so we can take products that are manufactured, raised, or grown in the united states and ship them and trade them around the world freely, fairly, and reciprocally. host: member of congress brian

steil here. if you want asking questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 were republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. district ofe first wisconsin, formerly served by paul ryan. what advice did you get going into the position? guest: what you learned more than anything else is how to have a conversation. you can have a fight about policies without fighting people. we would be much better in washington if we took that approach working together, not fighting people, but fighting for our policy. what having a collegial process would actually get more done on the behalf of the american people. host: were you concerned living up to that shadow going into the position? individuale a great who served our country and did it honorably. it is an honor to follow in his footsteps. served on financial

services. what is the impact there when it comes to these trade and tariff issues? guest: in usmca, there is a significant portion that is dedicated to making sure financial services provided in the united states have access to the mexican and canadian markets. that is critical for the united states economy, to make sure it does not only have the ability to trade goods and services, but the united states is one of the leaders in financial services across the globe. host: you have talked about talking to the leadership about usmca. what about the rank-and-file ability to bring that up for a vote in congress? guest: you hear a lot of different things from different people. trade can cut across clinical aspects at times -- political aspect that times. i think a republican congress would like to see usmca come to the floor for a vote in the near future. there are democrats on both sides of this, and that is why we have not in a statement coming from pelosi, as to why --

whether or not the speaker will be bringing this to the floor. host: our first call is david from ohio, republican of ohio.sin -- go ahead. caller: i am upset about this terror situation. i would like congress to release a bill to get rid of these tariffs, because it will do nothing but hurt our economy and hurt the stock market, and people's livelihoods will be heard, retirement savings will be hurt. i would like to see these tariffs go away, no matter what. guest: i think we share the same ultimate objective. i would like to see these tariffs go away as well. i think where we are at is that a process in negotiation between the united states and china and other actors around the globe who have taken advantage of the united states trade agreements in the past. staying at the table and reaching a deal with china is in our best interest, but the deal that will lower tariffs and barriers to trade, that is the advantage of american workers and american farmers.

so the instruments of tariffs or something you could tolerate, but not something in the long run you would want to see. guest: the president is bringing people back to the table to negotiate it. he is bringing people back to the table to make sure we have better trade agreements for workers and farmers across the united states. i would like to see us get through this phase as quickly as possible and get to a process where we are actually lowering the barriers to trade to allow american workers and farmers to shift their products around the globe. host: james in rochester, independent line. country, ibig apple can go to the store in upstate new york and by chinese apples. why in the world? i have no problem with the tariffs, because what comes in from china that we can't eventually make? if it comes in from china, do we need a trinket in a toy shell? do we need crap in the big-box

stores in plastic. what do we need from china that small-town americans can't pick up and start making. guest: i appreciate the question. i think what we want to be able to do is also take our products and sell them in china. a chinesewalked into store, you are seeing products made in wisconsin or upstate new york, and they are looking at upstate new york apples or wisconsin apples, and the key to the trade opportunities is that it is a two-way street. for too long, we have seen a one-way street as it relates to trade, unfair practices with china, and what i would like to see is a better relationship with china, such that we are able to take our products and ship them freely, fairly, and reciprocally around the grove. -- the globe. host: on twitter, does the fight u.s. and china affect negotiations with canada and mexico? does it put them in the middle? guest: i don't know.

i would like to see us reach agreements with our allies as well. reaching agreements with canada, mexico, and the european union will allow us to turn, pivot, and address the egregious actions going on right now with china as it relates to trade. so maybe it puts forward a need to get agreements in place with our allies quickly so that we can collectively address china, which is really the big culprit right now on trade and the theft of intellectual property, nontariff barriers, and i would like to see us take them on collectively. host: we saw in the 2016 presidential campaign wisconsin was a big battleground state. are you expect that it will be the same time around for 2020? i think it will be the tip of this beer. that is probably why the democrats planned the dnc convention in milwaukee. wisconsin will be ground zero. it has democrats and republicans evenly mixed, but i think it is great we will have the convention there. i think it will show some of the

democratic policies firsthand for people and make a clear decision as to the path that we should go come 2020. host: one of the key democrats, bernie sanders, was in madison recently, talking about the spending and budget priorities of the president. i want to get your response to it. [video clip] >> during his campaign, as many of you will recall, donald trump that, i am a different type of republican. i am not going to cut medicare, medicaid, i'm not going to cut social security. people like paul ryan would do that. not me, i won't do it, but i want you all to know and i want the people of wisconsin to know that trump's budget that he brought forward in march would would cut medicaid by $1.5 trillion. [booing] -- medicaid by $1.5

$1.25 billion, and the last budget would make cuts in social security as well. all of you know that medicaid covers two thirds of the nursing home care costs in this country. thent you to think about families in wisconsin, vermont, and around the nation who have moms or dads dealing with alzheimer's who are now in a nursing home. 1.5 trillion dollars from medicaid, i don't know what happens to those people or what happens to the families who are trying to take care of them. ,ost: representative steil what do you think about that? guest: the democrats have not put forward a budget. the president put forward a budget and said, these are my priorities. i was on the house floor and spoke and was pretty disappointed that the democrats

in the house have not laid out a rudget outlining thei spending priorities. that is step one. let's have the other side put forward a plan, and have a constructive dialogue about what our spending priorities are for much as a nation. nation.s as a i am frustrated that policy and the leadership in the house has not put forward a budget. i think it puts it in a dangerous path. step one is putting in place a budget and laying out bending priorities. it is easy to critique the other side. it is challenging to put forward a budget they want to lay out, and i think that is why we have not seen a budget come from speaker pelosi and the house, laying out what her priorities are for this coming year. goingoncerned that we are to get into a jam at the end of the year like we did when i first arrived, and have that fight over spending at the end. we should be agreeing on a budget up, discussing what those priorities are, have a

constructive debate, and ultimately decide where we should be spending money, where we shouldn't be spending money and saving, and ultimately getting our debt and deficit under control. that moneyere should be spent or not be spent, in your opinion? guest: we need to look for areas where we can provide products more efficiently. how can we control spending in areas that are not our priorities and identify our priorities? we need to make sure we have a strong national defense. if you look back in the previous two years, that was a real strengths, the military budget had been hollowed out under the previous administration. progresseen a lot of in making sure we are able to negotiate internationally and from a position of strength. we have a strong military, and i think we need to continue to look at abilities to protect medicare and social security for seniors in retirement, those approaching retirement age in particular. that is a commitment the united states government has made and one we need to honor.

but having that constructive dialogue, putting forward spending priorities is step one. we need to have that dialogue and discussion in the house by american elected representatives. failure to put forward a budget is failure to really lead. host: a caller from syracuse, new york, democrat line. caller: yes, i over talk, so if i do -- hello? what we have is a problem with -- we don't need to put a budget forth if we disagree on the principle. we have to talk about the principles before we make any decisions as to how we spend our money. right now, we are having a problem with medicaid and social security. .hey are being cut my son was on disability. he got cut. the whole thing is that we do have to work on the problems as we see it.

we don't need to put forward another plan to go against the other plan, we just need to start talking about where we can make cuts and where we can increase the budget. guest: i think you bring up a really good point, that we need to sit around a table and have a conversation. the times i think the -- sometimes i think the federal government is like an american family. we need to have a discussion about whether we are saving for retirement, buy a new car, take a vacation? we will not do all three at the same time every us tobut i would like have that conversation, identify our priorities, have a much more thoughtful spending process than we do right now in washington. step one is laying out the budget. not appropriating the money, but the budget, and saying, here are our priorities. this is what we want to spend on behalf of the american people, and these are the areas we can save money and begin to reduce our deficit and ultimately our debt. host: david from florida,

independent line. caller: yes, thank you for the opportunity. listen, i would like to take everybody back a century ago, when we were opposing the transpacific partnership. one of the things that came up was the unfair advantage that canada had when it came to butter and cheese. but the transpacific partnership eliminated all of that tariff. , 20about 10 seconds seconds, donald trump says maybe we should look at this, then he got distracted by something else. agreementree trade with everybody included, except china. that was the whole point. they were going to freeze china out of the free trade agreement, and then we turned it down. i just wanted to point that out, and i'm sure somebody will make a comment about that. host: we will let our guest make a comment. guest: i appreciate you bringing

up that point. we are always looking, are we getting the absolute best deal on behalf of american workers and american farmers as it came to tpp. there were opportunities for improvement. i think we need to stay engaged, stay at the table, continue negotiating with our partners, but we need to get the best deal on behalf of american workers and farmers, and to do that we need to be looking at every avenue. you brought up milk and cheese, dairy products, and our need to make sure that canada provides access to american farmers is front of mind. usmca made some real strides in that direction. host: on the topic of health care, the washington post highlights that house democrats are about to launch a series of efforts on preserving the affordable care act. andyou give us a summary what you think of those efforts? guest: we will see how democratic leadership does on those efforts. i am focused on, how do we lower the cost of health care for americans? we spent a lot of time wit

health -- with rising health care costs. the affordable. ,e need to work together identify areas where we can lower the cost of health care. some of this is in prescription drugs, identifying where there is ability to tighten our patent rules on big pharma. we need to be looking at more efficient ways to deliver health care under medicare and medicaid to the betterment of patients and ultimately in a financially responsible way. host: but not efforts to preserve the affordable care act as it is. guest: it appears that the affordable care act is not moving anytime, and under democratic leadership, there will not be a vote to repeal the affordable care act. in a period of divided government, we need to sit down and work together, look at the areas we can lower the actual cost of health care. host: maryland, democrat line. trump: i am not much of a

supporter, but i feel like the tariffs are a good idea. it seems like we open trade with china to change their values, but they are becoming a new superpower and have not changed their values. they are keeping to their position on taiwan, they are people in concentration camps, they are taking over the south china sea. it seems like the terrorists should just be permanent -- the tariffs should just be permanent, and it is the cost of doing business with someone that does not support your values. guest: we have some real problems with china, as you identified. i think these tariffs are bringing china back to the table to negotiate. we should stay at the table and negotiate. i think there are real areas we can look for changes of behavior, and that is what we are looking for from china. host: joe from maine, independent line. caller: thank you, pedro, and get ready to cut me off, because you always do, ok? toant the representative

explain to the american people, because he's getting paid tariffs a year, how the are going to our treasury like president trump says. can he explain that? -- two years, the republicans had both sides of the congress and the house. you did nothing. every day i hear you, and tell the people -- not you specifically, but the republicans saying democrats are blocking this and that. that's just baloney. that's just baloney. now all of a sudden, health care, every republican said for years, i'm going to have the greatest health care plan in the world, it is going to be beautiful. where is it? guest: out of the gates you are asking a good question, how does the tariff raise revenue?

tariffs are taxes, so when the goods come from countries that have terrace placed on them, at that point of entry a tariff is due and paid ultimately to the u.s. treasury, like a tax would be paid to the u.s. treasury. that is where we need to be cognizant, ultimately, we are looking to lower tariffs after we get a better trade deal in place. so that is where some of the aspect of why we need to actually lower tariffs in the long run and have free, fair, reciprocal agreements with countries to make sure we can take our products and trade them fairly and freely around the globe, but ultimately that cost is passed on to american consumers, and why tariffs are viewed as attacks. it is paid at the port of entry. guest: and the help you are question he asked that host: and the health care question he asked? guest: i am four months into this job. i am frustrated by democrats and republicans across the board on their inability to work together. we need to work to address the

rising cost of health care across the board, and work together to lower that. host: and you were asked on twitter, how about removing the stranglehold on medicare and medicaid to prevent them from bartering with big pharma to get better prices? guest: we want to see people controlling more of their health care dollars. hsa's allow people to control their dollars and spent, puts decision-making back into the decisions of doctors. when you get government involved, you end up into dangerous spots as to how we make sure we maintain the research and development we need. we need to be looking at practical solutions that will ultimately lower these costs and allow groups to negotiate better rates with pharmaceutical companies. representative bryan steil from wisconsin, who serves the first district. michael, arizona, republican line. caller: good morning.

i have aan steil, couple of questions about president trump's motives for the tariff, because a couple of days ago, he was complaining very emotionally about how we were paying china 50 $500 andion a year or whatever, he never really got to wear that debt came from. what i understand is we got that debt from borrowing money from china, and this is the deal we make for paying it back. so it is like he does not like the terms that he sees now, and this tariffthat agreement or however discussion give way togoing to

great international agreements and the united states world on some kind of free trade policy across all the countries of the world. mean, it is something the planet might work on a little bit, but i don't see it to be an immediate kind of salvation, if that is the right word. host: michael, thank you. we will let our guest respond. guest: thanks for the question. what we are looking at, as we see the trade deficit in particular, you hear that being talked a lot about by the president. what we are ultimately seeing his china sending more goods and products to the united states than we are sending to china. because of that is about trade agreement we need to make improvements on to make sure that american goods are able to be shipped freely and fairly to

china. we see tariff barriers, but also nontariff barriers. sometimes these government rules and regulations that prevent american products from being freely and properly sold in china. so what the president has done by bringing on the terrace is bringing countries back to the table to negotiate. that will allow deal to come in place that allow american workers and american farmers to take the goods we are producing here in the united dates and be able to sell them freely and fairly in china, which will ultimately bring a bit more of the balance to the trade deficit, which i think you identified. ast: representative steil, early as next week, the house vote ofve on a contempt for attorney general william barr. more and are seeing more partisanship in the house of representatives. it is not productive and us from doing real work for the american people.

i voted on making the mueller report public. i think more transparency is asd, but we have laws as far to when grand jury testimony can and cannot be released. the process has been very transparent, and the partisanship we are starting to see now is pretty frustrating. host: so you will vote against contempt? guest: we will see if it comes to the floor, but i am hopeful that cooler heads can prevail and we can continue to release the information that is out there, have the review of it, bring people in if we need to, but we need to get on to the work of the american people. host: from north carolina, ray is next. independent line. caller: how are you? everybody always says our allies, our allies, europe and all those other places. why are our allies combining thing withgo in this china? why don't all of our allies get together and make an agreement?

, thatll our difficulties is the way you have to do it. thank you. guest: i agree in the sense that we need to work with our allies to hold china accountable. i think that is part of the importance of getting usmca across the line, get our agreements in place with china and mexico, our allies in the european union to get better trade agreements in place. to pivot entegris the -- to pivot and address the egregious acts taking place in china. host: one more call on our independent line. caller: mr. representative, do your member how many members -- do your member how many members lost in the election? 45 representatives lost. if you do not join the democrats to fix health care and make sure that affordable health care is fast and making sure that people with catastrophic diseases are

cared for, you will lose more than 45 this time, and you will lose the senate too. i can guarantee you this. they cut $676 million from the national health care. now, all the companies get the money from n.i.h. and you do nothing about health care. y taxes i am paying into this. host: we are out of time on this. go ahead, sir. guest: we have to come together to address the rising cost of health care. i am frustrated. the folks i talk to are frustrated with what is going on with the cost of health care continuing to rise. i couldn't agree more that we need to work together to look at opportunities to lower the cost of health care to the benefit of all americans. host: this is representative bryan steil, republican from

wisconsin, served the first district formerly held by paul ryan. thank you. guest: thank you. host: you will hear from democrat susan wild who will join us to talk about protections for workers. here is a news update. greta: here are the front page headlines in state newspapers across the country. from some of them, this is from omaha this morning out of nebraska. politics of trade take a toll here according to a foorm bureau report that shows soybeans unsettled trade with china, canada and mexico. also trade is on the front page of "the los angeles times" this morning. chinese goods hit with tariffs increase. trade talks continue, but the $200 billion in product from china will see duties of 25%. that happened at 12:01 a.m. eastern this morning. also in "the los angeles times"

is this headline -- north korea ship is in u.s. custody. a cargo carrier violated sanctions, owe -- officials say. and then also from ohio, the plain dealer, their headline -- no room to maneuver. ohio must draw and implement a new congressional district map by june 14. a three-judge panel on thursday said it would not place a hold on an order required by ohio to redraw its congressional district map. the republican ohio attorney general is appealing the case to the u.s. supreme court and said he will also now ask the high court to stay the panel's order. that news out of ohio this morning. then finally out of alabama, in their state senate yesterday, the headline -- commotion at the capitol over abortion ban bill. the vote is being delayed one week after the senate strikes a rape exception.

the alabama senate delayed until next week a vote to ban abortion after an uproar thursday over a key amendment. the senate abruptly removed a rape and incest exception from the bill without allowing a roll call vote on that decision. this legislation that they're considering would make it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion at any point during pregnancy, punishable by up to 9 years in prison. a documentarian who has been following this debate in the senate tweets out breaking alabama republicans just tried to sneak through a measure that would make nearly all abortion a felony without so much as normal roll call vote. he says, watch all hell breaking loose on the alabama senate floor. there was commotion, people were yelling. he also tweeted out this -- pictures of the alabama senate republicans, who just tried to sneak a law that would punish nearly all abortion.

he said their caucus is 100% men. the only four women in the labama senate are democrats. host: you are meeting representative susan wild, who serves the seventh district of pennsylvania, a democrat. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: one of the first thing you are actively involved in is protecting worker rights. can you give us a sense why you chose that? guest: my district is made up of people who are workers, people who live often paycheck to paycheck. the promises i made on the campaign trail had to do with issues that would affect working families. when i got here and we started the process of selecting committees, the first -- my first pick was education and labor, which i was very happy to receive. we have been doing a lot of really strong, important work for workers. host: one of the pieces of legislation you are at work on is called protecting the right

to organize act. guest: i am happy to be a co-sponsor of this act. we had hearings this week on it. it is essentially an act that strengthens and expands workers right to collectively bargain and organize. to get us away from the employers who have mandatory sessions with employees that they are required to sit through, anti-union tirades and discussions and to give unions an equal place in the workplace to talk about the issues that are so important to labor's right to organize. host: those discussions by employers, they're required by those who -- by employees and they can only take place up a point. guest: right up until a day before an election, to decide whether to join a union. employees can be forced to

attend. employees who try to dissent during the meeting can be legally terminated by their employer. host: what this has done under the auspices of the national labor relations board, are they the ones that put this rule into place into the first place? guest: yes, they are. the national labor relations board is not acting in the interests of workers today. we really need to strengthen the laws that protect workers. host: this is a rule that has existed for quite a while. guest: it has, yes. the problem is that workers' rights have eroded over the years through court decisions and otherwise. the employers' ability to make sure that unions are kept out of the workplace has been strengthened. host: our guest with us until the house comes in. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002.

representative susan wild who serves the seventh district of pennsylvania. don't employers in a sense have rights to talk about their interests as well when it comes to the possibility of a union coming into their shop? guest: sure, that's not the issue. the issue is the mandatory nature. the issue is the fact that labor does not have an equal place at the table in the workplace. they are required to hold sessions offsite, outside of working hours, where the employers can do it during working horse and usually do, often holding workers captive for many hours at a time to listen to the anti-union dialogue. host: so when it comes to the worker itself, what makes you -- what is the assertion as far as their ability not to be able to ask questions about it or even criticize this effort? where do you get that from? guest: the courts have upheld the right of an employer to terminate an employee who does

not attend these captive dience sessions, and that is egregious. we should have the right to free speech. we should have the right to dissent even in the workplace. host: as far as the topics of unions themselves, representative wild, the bureau of labor statistics tell us when it comes to 2018, about 14.7 million workers involved in a union, that's down from 1983. what do you think about that decrease and what do you think about the state of yupes because of that? guest: we know that labor unions have historically been good for working place. the reason we have weekends and paid holidays is thanks to unions. the dropping numbers of union membership is largely attributable to the kind of things we are now trying to fix in the education and labor committee. it's because of the quashing of labor's right to collectively

bargain and organize at the workplace. host: when it comes to those wages, the bureau tells us average makes about $1,000 compared to nonunion members, about $860. guest: that's right. that statistic speaks for itself. host: our guest serves pennsylvania. our first call comes from bethlehem, pennsylvania, democrats line. good morning. guest: good morning. good morning, susan, happy to see you standing up for what you believe in. i just want to mention, mr. trump many times has professed that he wants to bring -- back to the manufacturing industry. the people in new york have put boycotts on his products which is a great idea all over the united states by the way. i was wondering is there any truth to the fact that he stresses the fact that he wants

to bring industry back to this country? i don't believe the man. guest: i do think that the president genuinely wants to bring industry back to the united states. i would differ with his strategy for doing so. but we know that we have to do more to protect workers here in the united states. we have to protect the made in america label. we have to make sure we are continuing to reduce as many items as possible here in the united states and so far the strategy doesn't seem to be working. host: that includes the recent tariffs put into place against china? guest: i would say it does. what i am hearing from both consumers and industry is that they are deeply concerned about these tariffs. host: mike from ohio, you are next up. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning to your guest,

congress wop. i am a retired member of the retired engineers in the state of ohio. i don't rely on any government instantaneous because of that -- assistance because of that. maybe you could tell the listeners about what recently happened in tennessee at the volkswagen plant, where actually the republican governor -- and remember, the republicans say that the government has to stay out of private business -- where the governor actually shut down the production line at the volkswagen plant and had a captive audience of the workers there because they're going to have a vote on whether they want to join the united autoworkers union, and the governor actually threatened them that if they did vote for a union, he would pull -- i think it's approximately a $900 million tax giveaway to

volkswagen. keep in mind that volkswagen and germany has a working relationship with their union members over there, and i think it's pretty outrageous that a governor would come in and they actually shut down their production line and closed the doors and all the workers had to attend this anti-union diatribe and actually be threatened. host: wok, we will let our guest respond. guest: mike from ohio, i would say that's a classic example of the captive audience problem we are trying to fix with the pro act. the influence of a governor coming into the workplace and essentially telling workers that their livelihood is going to be taken away because tax credits will be taken away if they unionize is exactly the kind of problem that we are talking about, that we are trying to fix

with the pro act. we would do well to listen to some other countries, germany is a good example, where workers are treated with great respect and where there is a relationship between employer and worker, that is one of being on the same team and working hard together. so your point is well taken, mike. host: if the pro act is passed, what would these meetings look like then? guest: the meetings would look like a dialogue as opposed to just being dictated to. workers would have the right to raise their hands, ask questions, union representatives would be present who would be able to provide contrasting information from that that's being provided by the employer or somebody on the employer's behalf. and there would be no penalties for not being at the meeting or for deciding to leave the meeting or for speaking up at the meeting. host: from maine, indpint line, randall, hello.

caller: i have worked with the unions for 30 years, and i am union all the way. afl-cio, ship holders union. these guys are -- if they're like me they have to listen to something. we have had to go to meetings and listen to the right to work and all that stuff. these guys are getting paid, and they're laughing at a lot of these employers that are trying to -- like you haven't changed my vote. keep paying me for this meeting. those guys on that line that were shut down so a governor could talk to them, i imagine they were paid too to listen to the governor. guest: that's true, they are paid for their time, but they are still in an unequal bargaining situation. they're not there getting their work done. they're there in a coerced situation, and yeah, they're not doing their job. instead they're sitting in a

meeting getting paid. i would suggest we would be better off if they were able to get their work done and able to engage in a free thought process where they learn more about the benefits of a union. they can also learn about the detriments of a union. the idea is for everybody to have equal access to information. keep in mind, labor doesn't have the right to be in the workplace doing organizing on company time. it has to be done offsite. it has to be done outside of working hours. so there is a real difference in getting the information to the workers. host: south dakota, independent line, hello. caller: hello. host: you are on with our guest. caller: i wanted to ask the representative if this is a little different than what she has been talking about, but there has been a bill introduced by the -- in the house of representatives called the 9-1-1 save act. that is also very important to those of us who are in that

field, and i was just wondering, the representative is in support of that because we are trying to get reclassified. guest: the answer is yes, i am in support of it. i am aware of the bill. we have signed on to it. host: next week, "the new york times" reports that there will be a series of bills and efforts when it comes to the affordable care act in health care. can you encapsulate what is expected and the role you plan to take in that? guest: so yesterday we actually passed in the house the protect patients with pre-existing conditions act. i had a significant piece of in that. i had an amendment that passed with wide bipartisan support, 78 republicans voted for my amendment, which provides that premiums cannot be increased for patients with pre-existing conditions. it prevents certain actions from being taken that would increase those premiums. we passed a lot of amendments yesterday, most of which --

actually all of which have to do with protecting patients with pre-existing conditions. that's really what our focus is, not just on patients with pre-existing conditions, but also lowering premiums. the mandatory cost sharing has resulted in increases in premiums across the country. the proliferation of junk insurance plans has taken people out of the market, which means that sick people are paying more for their premiums, and so we are working very hard on fulfilling the promises that were made in 2018 by all of us who came to congress last year and by those who had already been here to make sure that the american people have that right, which is affordable quality health care. host: how easy was it to get those republicans onboard with this act? guest: it was debated vigorously on the floor. when the votes came in, i was very proud to see that my

amendment garnered the most republican votes of any of the amendments. host: the larger effort, do you have that kind of support in the senate? guest: i can't speak for the senate. i don't even know whether senator mcconnell will allow it to get to the floor. host: ashley in tennessee, democrats line, you are next. caller: thank you. i was just wondering, since there is a committee on education and labor together, there is a real lack of labor history included in the curriculum in school. i mean, there is nothing mentioned about the battle or anything like that. guest: ashley, you bring up a really good point. one of the things i like about this committee is what i call the intersection of education and labor because they have so much to do with each other. education is really where we find our future work force.

you are right, we don't talk about the history of the labor movement very much anymore. i think it's important for people to know, a lot of people don't know that the labor movement is what got rid of child labor. it's what brought us the 40-hour workweek. it's what brought us paid holidays and benefits. host: our guest is serving her first term. tell us how the got to the position you are at. what did you do before? guest: i had been a lawyer, spent most of my time in courtrooms advocating for my clients, fighting battles on that front, and i felt very qualified once i got here to hit the ground running and go to work fighting for a larger group of people than just an individual client. very happy to be here. host: one of the votes you could possibly take is the idea of this move of contempt against the attorney general. where do you stand on that? guest: i think the oversight responsibility is a very

important one in congress, and i don't know whether that vote is going to be -- to make it to the floor anytime soon. i really don't know because i am not on a committee of jurisdiction. i am aware from what i talk to my colleagues about and hear in the news but it's not really the focus of my efforts here, which are literally just to focus on issues that matter to the people of my district, who are as i said people who work for a living. a lot of retirees, those are the kinds of issues i focus on. host: one of the discussions is the possibility of moving towards impeachment of this president. have you taken a stand op that issue? guest: i have not. i have great confidence that the committees of jurisdiction will do the kind of investigative work that is needed. the one thing we all have to remember is we can never again allow our elections to be tampered with by a foreign government. but beyond that, i really --

impeachment is not something i spend my time thinking about. host: from pennsylvania, independent line, tom, go ahead. caller: yes. with regards to worker protection legislation, historically there have been problems with regards to full-time and part-time laborers and their access to benefits, access to profit sharing and capability to negotiate corporate policy independent of stock ownership. how is legislative approaches trying to address some of these issues? guest: you bring up a really good point. particularly the issue of full-time versus part-time. far too many employees -- and i will say mostly in the noncommune sector -- are faced

with part-time employment because of employers being unwilling to pay for benefits, and that is to the detriment not only of the individual employee but to us as a society. we are seeing people working more than one job in order to make ends meet, in order to cobble together enough money to pay for their health care and that kind of thing, and ultimately that really is a problem not just for the employee, but it's a problem for families. it means less time at home, less time that the kids are getting the attention of their parents, helping with homework, all those kinds of things. we do need to focus on the part-time versus full-time disparity. host: this is bob. he is in falls creek, ennsylvania, democrats line. caller: yes. i worked union all my life. i support unions. i think they're a good thing, but i have a question about

school teachers union. when i was in the union, any day i missed work, i lost money. teachers are 180 school days a year. they don't lose money. how does this work? guest: so every labor contract is negotiated differently. it's not that they don't lose money. their pay is generally -- i can't speak for every school district in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. but it's generally spread out, whatever their pay is, is spread out over the course of the entire year even though they may not work during the summer. it's a prorated amount. host: jim off twitter asks this question or makes this statement saying i support the option to be part of a union, but i don't think workers shd be forced -- should be forced to be a member as a precondition of employment. what do you think about that? guest: i think we don't recognize the benefit that unions provide. what we do know is this.

employees who opt not to join their union in places where they can still get this benefit of the unions that are there in the workplace, they get the benefit of the collective bargaining, better pay. so if one chooses to join a unionized operation and get the benefit of what the union has provided, i don't think that it's wrong that one be expected to pay the union dues. host: from tennessee in portland, this is independent ine, ed, good morning. good morning. caller: good morning representative wild. the reason why i didn't vote for hillary is she was on the board of directors for wal-mart. if you have a product, you have to open up your votes on how much it costs to make it. they give you the united states to make a profit based on what

they feel in relation to the union discussion right now, if i am not mistaken, about a year ago, wal-mart employees were trying to unionize and that was shut down. so they make $10 an hour. that's something i made in the 1980's. thank you. guest: it's very interesting because most unions support a higher minimum wage even though they are already by and large making above the proposed minimum wage increases that we see in states across the country and here at the federal level. you know, that is a classic example of a situation where nions have been defeated and workers are the ones paying the price. host: we saw that donald trump

won the state of pennsylvania back in 2016. what do you think about his prospects this time in the commonwealth and what would you say to the democratic candidates campaigning in that state? guest: the first thing i would say to any candidate running for president is make sure you come to pennsylvania and make sure you come to different parts of pennsylvania because it is not a homogenous state. it's a very purple state with very different districts across the states. it's incredibly important that any presidential candidate who wants to take the state of pennsylvania spends a lot of time there. host: that's the seventh district. what other portions of the state would you advise visiting? guest: i would very much advise that a presidential candidate come to the seventh district of pennsylvania. it is the third largest regional area in pennsylvania after pittsburgh and philadelphia. it's very populated and very dense population and i think

that any candidate who overlooks the seventh district is making a mistake. host: representative wild represents the seventh district. robert is next from alabama. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, representative wild. my gosh, what a breath of fresh air to speak with you, ma'am. the previous guest you had there, pedro, just answered all questions of a bunch of gobbledygook and talking points. this lady is on point. she knows her subject material well. it's a breath of fresh air to speak and listen to her. so i wish you well in your new endeavor. host: what would you like to ask her? caller: yes, i would like to ask her if she would come down here and help me start a campaign to change the alabama's right to work laws. we have po put up with it. host: the larger issue of right to work clause, how do you think

that factors into your efforts regarding unions? guest: let me say to robert that i have great respect for the state of alabama. many of my family live there. it's my father's home state. right to work laws, i call those the right to work for less. right to work states typically have lower safety standards for employees and lower rates of pay. host: from massachusetts, republicans line, bill, you are next up. caller: thank you, pedro. in the last hour, we were talking about trade and the cost -- quite s who were correct. they're going to be the ones who ping -- pick up the tab. here with are in this hour talking about unions. democrats get their great support and do things that are nafta. - signed the cost -- we never talk about

the cost of unions. who picks up the tab for the higher rate of pay that union workers get? of course, it's end users. why suspect that point ever mentioned when we are talking about how much unions fight for workers and so forth? thank you. guest: let me answer that by saying that the more that workers are making, the more that workers are able to contribute to our economy. so i would take issue with the higher cost at the end. the fact of the matter is that labor unions are there literally for the people. they are there to help workers and those workers ultimately make more money with better benefits. host: what else would you like ?o pursue guest: within education and labor and on that committee doing so much good work, i would like to focus on so many of the

problems we have with our school system and the cost of higher education and by the way, i think it's really important that we realize -- it's said often but sometimes it's just a talking point but i really mean this, not everybody belongs in college. we need to support our trade schools. i hear from manufacturing facilities across the district at we cannot find enough workers. we have got to be supporting our trade schools. we have to be supporting those students who want to go to trade schools. host: representative susan wild, freshman democrat of pennsylvania serves the seventh district. we thank you for your time today. host: the house is just about to come in for its daily business. with that in mind our program ends.