from washington, “the mclaughlin group,” the american original -- for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. >> the amtrak tragedy raises grave issues about how this derailment could have occurred. we at the group deal in information and opinion, both of which are still surfacing in the derailment. next week's program we'll have the data in hand to responsibly con contribute to the public discussion. issue one, democratic trade wars. >> on this issue on trade, i

think some of my dearest friends are wrong. >> a trade war broke out between democrats. in the cross hairs, a bill before congress to give president obama a fast track to congressional approval for the trade deal he is negotiating with 11 pacific rim countries. president oh bambama considers the transagreement a cornerstone ironically mr. obama's main opposition includes progressive senate senators sherrod brown and elizabeth warren whom he singled out for individual criticism. "she's absolutely wrong. the truth of the matter elizabeth is a politician like everyone else and and you know she has got a voice. on most issues we and i deeply

agree. on this one her argument don't test the fact and scrutiny." on tuesday two senate independent and democrats disagreed and voted with elizabeth warren to halt a vote on trade promotion authority until the white house first conceded to a vote on fair trade measures targeting china's currency manipulation and preferenceal treatment for african import. next week they're expected to take it up. if the president can persuade enough democrats to support it it would go to the house where liberal democrats appear more determined to stop the trade agreement. why can't president obama get foal oh democrats to back his negotiations? >> because working america and middle america and unions and folks on the left have seen the damage that's been done to the american economy.

since 1980, free trade has cost us 40% of all our manufacturing jobs. we're running trade deficits now, 600 billion a year and 700 billion a year in goods and it's hallowing out the economy of america and inequality and failure of wages to go up. at least this is the belief of american workers. the only reason these trades go through is not because we love them it is the enormous power of the transnational corporations in america who need these deals to move their factories and plants to where they can produce more cheaply and get rid of the american workers and regulations. this is a battle that's going to go on and on and on. frankly it consumed us in the 19th century more than any issue. >> you're directing your remarks to nafta? >> take a look at what china's

doing. running a $350 billion trade deficit >> billion? >> billion. which is twice their defense budget. >> i think pat makes the case for the american workers and american workers have lost a lot and nafta was way oversold and has a bad taste after nafta elizabeth warren did tkpwratsdzer support to defeat a procedural vote. the next day the president and the white house came back and 13 democrats did support the deal along with all the republicans. so the senate now looks like it's going to support this free trade agreement. the house is going to be tougher, but i think it's still doable. elizabeth warren has unparalleled ability in today's democrat party to elevate issues, but the president has a case to make as well. and this is a healthy debate within the party. i happen to think this deal has been made better and i think it's very difficult to argue

against opening up markets in asia the biggest market in the world, and letting basically having china write the rules or having no rules at all so i mean this is going to work. but it's a difficult issue in the democratic party because of all the facts that pat just stated. >> hold on. what's the experience with the south trade agreement? is it beneficial to us? >> yes, but here's the thing. in the short term they have difficulties because -- pat is right, some jobs are lost. but in the longer term how is america going to succeed? as i see it it's a fundamental fact and we have to accept. that what we should be doing is producing jobs only we can do in the sense of producing high technology products and taking community with that ownership and secondary point as well,

yes, although some people are hurt by this, the american consumer benefits by being able to buy things more affordably and people think of what cars do people have. around the set there will be things bought from places abroad because that benefits us and reduces costs for the american families. >> sherrod brown wrote in u.s.a. day today that they were promised the same things that they are promised now. but $12 billion in new imparts from korea and only billion and new exports from america. what does that suggest? >> it suggests to me, whatever they are producing in that country we have a huge disadvantage and this is going to wipe out a lot of activity here. and while i do believe in getting the best goods, you cannot do it at a cost where hundreds and thousands of people

are going a lot to lose their jobs. you've got to do it in a much different and controlled pace because it's not fair for people in this country to lose their jobs because of that kind of issue. >> hold on a minute -- >> this agreement has enforceable standards to lose their jobs. the environment which other for labor and agreements have not had. and secretary of state hillary clinton helped start this agreement. she called it the gold standard. it's not perfect, but i think it's a far better deal than we've gotten in the past. third, moderate democrats and 13 of them had been winners for that country. south korea is one of the loser. >> tom talks about globalization. countries like china or japan are economic nationalists to the core. they manipulate and keep things

and cutting deals. and south koreans are saying we need to get the market on cars. what do we have to do to get it? the idea that we'll set up a worldwide system is naive. >> japan, if we get this deal, i'm basing my support on that that the japanese -- >> but also again. we have to have trust. >> in the long term we'll all be dead. in the short term we'll earn a living. you have to find a way to balance this out. >> they're taking their factories to china. >> they're practically all gone. >> the point is now that they're beginning to come back. manufacturing has had somewhat

of a renaissance under this president and he's working hard at it. >> we had 18 million at the beginning -- >> but the whole job world has changed and you got to recognize that. you can't fight battles that have already been lost. >> let's put aside the question whether or not the trade atkpwroeplt is good for the average american. what does it tell you about his leadership? >> i don't think it's a problem about his leadership. these democrats are responding to the constituencies and facts and the failure of past treaties and past promises and being told, look, if you're not going to defend us who do you represent? >> honest disagreement. the democrats other took a two x four to his second term and he responded. i think it's a good fight and the president rebound. 13 democrats joined in the senate.

looks like this will dough through the senate and talking about the house in a couple of weeks. >> the president in your book always rebounds. >> i'm not saying he's always right but he's right on this one. >> are they more worried about the re-election prospects than obama's presidential legacy? >> obviously. pat generally articulates the view. i just don't think -- look, the example is china losing jobs now to, for example, vietnam and the philippines. we cannot race to the bottom. -- >> elizabeth warren has genuine differences with the president and other bills they tried to fix some of those. there are still some compromises that can be made there. let's focus on style and not substance. sherrod brown thinks whether obama's criticism of elizabeth

warren crossed the line. "i think the president was disrespectful to her the way he did that bycalling her another poll significance and referring to her by the first name. while he had not done that with a male senator." >> i can't give you an informed judgment, but he's got to be careful obviously in the language that he uses because it's the megaphone as the president for goodness sakes. i kpbdzcan understand the reaction. >> a lot of democrats think that elizabeth warren walks on water. i think he was trying to point out she has political impulses on this one. >> i'll give him a pass. >> it shows a personal relationship saying elizabeth. >> why is hillary straddling the

fence on trade? >> for the same reasons i've given you, the base and the heart and soul of blue collar workers and folks who put them in power for years they abore these deals. >> the energy with the democratic party is with the progressive wing. she doesn't want to offend them. if it goes through the house she can probably avoid making any strong statements. >> will trade promotion authority -- here's a two for will it pass the senate yes or no? >> it will have a problem in the house, but pass the senate. >> it's doable. >> i think it will pass. >> you do? >> yeah. >> what do you think? >> i think it will pass comfortably in the senate. >> don't forget the mclaughlin group has its own website and you can watch this on the web from anywhere at mclaughlin.com.

issue, the cap david discord. >> mr. president, you spoke about overcoming the challenge and bringing about calm in the region. >> cam david was busy as the gcc, the gulf cooperation counsel met with president obama. the gcc was established in 1981 and formed by the middle eastern nations of bahrain kuwait, cut tar tar. tensions between the gcc and america are nevertheless obvious king salman turned down his invitation. why? because the gulf cooperation

counsel worries that president obama allowing iran to become a nuclear super power and they doubt his commitment to their security. they issued stern requests. they want mr. obama to allow them to import high technology and u.s. military's equipment. until now it's been limited in the region. but the gcc also wants america to establish a ballistic defense system that would protect them from potential missile attacks. as indicated by on going gcc military operations in 'em men they're warning without america's support they'll take aggressive destabilizing action alone. president obama at camp david president obama: it will detour

and confront any threat to the going gritty that is inconsistent with the charter. >> should they give the gcc what it wants? some of what it wants. if he's going to pursue its nuclear strategy and wants to have influence he has to yield to the gcc in terms of military technology. he doesn't want to do the ballistic shield. it hedges. he says we'll consider what we'll do but it's about paranoia. you have to be confident and build confidence there if you want to restrain them from doing the crazy things that they tend to do. >> they're terrified of iran. what they want is a nato type agreement where the united states is automatically committed to go to war if one of them is attracted by iran because they're terrified of

iran. but we can't give that to these states. the principal foreign goal of his second term is this deal with iran and a day topbt of some kind with the islamic republic of iran and that is hemlocked because they're more terrified of iran than isis and al-qaida. >> they're not going to put that in writing. this is about a shifting of the powerful balance in that region and these other countries, the sunni countries there, because they sit on all the oil, they then king of the world for some time. if this agreement works with iran this is a day topbt with iran in the u.s. and iran has gained a lot more power in the region since the unfortunate invasion of iraq. we don't need these countries as

we used to. you may say obama hedge as lot, this calls for a lot of depth and dim lomasy. you have to reassure them . >> there is a different view on this. in recent days obama officials say they're encouraging the immer generals of a new leadership and the end historic raoeulry. the so where does that leave -- >> presidentnuclear armed iran would be more dangerous. he wants to get the nuclear agreement and maybe at some point in the future their behavior will change.

but those two independent things and he's not counting on a new iran to purs forward. >> you think obama's negotiations with iran has driven a wedge in the u.s.-saudi relationship? >> a wedge? a wedge? that's not even close. when you have the king of saudi arabia and sons not willing to deal with the united states and all of the allies are looking away from us because they don't think we're an ally any longer. it's the most serious breech we've had since the end of world war ii. >> this is a snub, yes or no? >> a snub? >> a snub. they knew what they were doing. >> of course they did. it tells something very, very serious when they make this very clear they don't a deal. >> they're waging war on their neighbor.

i think it's understandable -- >> this is where the world has gone and the point you were making earlier, in terms of power, in the persian gulf if there is peace 80 million people in iran and 30 million south of baghdad and iraq will dominate the persian gulf whether the saudis like it or not. >> why did bahrain's king choose to attend a horse show with the queen of elizabeth instead of the summit. >> bombing yemen i think they've gotten them sefltz into their own saudi vietnam. >> the saudis will get a nuclear weapon. you have to stop them because you want to take away from the

region. >> president obama has the highohio oh truly within his grasp are evidence of delusions of grandeur. >> i don't think barack obama will close it. >> will president obama agree to give the security guarantees and equipment, yes or no? >> obviously they've got security guarantees and give them some weapons. no nate toy treaty for the gulf. >> joint military exercises, there are things you can do short of committing a u.s. umbrella on these countries. >> if you think those countries will accept a little graffiti and things like that as a way of dealing with the security, they are not going to do it. i would not have done what the president has done.

>> what are they going to do? >> all of this comes out of one thing, the president's -- almost one thing okay? they're going to (talking over each other) >> one thing that we didn't have to do was to try to make a deal with the country like iran. >> what do they do if they don't give them their nato. >> issue three, island showdown. it it's conducted within territory. it's reasonable, understandage and legal and not targeting or effecting any other country. we hope they can put it into perspective. >> china is making islands and recent months they have significantly ramped up construction programs notably in the spratly island chain of the south china satisfy and that's fuelling a growing crisis, because the spratly chain is not

recognized as chinese territory. nations including malaysia, the philippines, taiwan and vietnam also claim sovereignty over some of these islands of the but by dumping sand, china has been able to build air fields and new military facilities. america and its allies are not concerned. could bes it fears without american resolve china will steal the south china sea. but here's what happened. head of u.s. pacific forces says defense cuts are doing to his power. >> reduce my ability to manage crisis space and provide options to the president and congress and diminishes prestige and credibility in the region. >> there is more.

china also claims other island chains like the japanese claimed senkaku islands in the chinese satisfy. but they will defend them if china uses force. >> let me reiterate security is absolute. article five covers all territories under japan's administration including the senkaku islands. >> why is china constructing artificial islands? >> because they want to displace american power and take ownership of the energy supplies there and fishing routes. but it's trying to provide themselves and that's why we can't allow it because it would destroy the rule of law. china is trying to become an impearl power. they can't build islands hundreds of miles from where they are. >> does china have nuclear sub

bar reasons. >> china has nuclear weapons but we do as well. >> they're building submarine bases all around there. >> why is that all going on? >> they want to push us out. >> they claim this territory -- they claim it's tearorial waters. if you build on those islands there is a 12 mile limit around them. if your navy goes in around the 12 mile limit that is a violation of sovereignty as if you thraoeu over. chinese are saying, go ahead but don't go in against our sovereign territory. >> did you know i was there. >> it was probably during the

nixon era. >> why did go there? >> to negotiate with the chinese? >> no, i wanted to swim. in addition to that i found a lot of good companies and learned a lot. but it's a real gem. it's much closer to the north end of the sea. china takes expansive view of their territory and view the south china sea while we view the gulf of mexico. tpwut united states in an automatic position where philippines was a treaty ally and other countries are our friends. it's difficult to stand by and do nothing while china bullies these other nations. if you're going to go in there you have to think about through. >> what will be accomplished by u.s. navy patrols through the artificial islands.

i ask you more. >> it's going to give us an easier access to understanding what's happening in china. that's what we would like to have >> it sends a message to china to back off. >> they did not feed them. >> israel /* draft joe biden for president, super pact. ramming and up by the end of may-june just in case. i'm going to say that the iranian cargo sweup maybe a major showdown. >> it means we're going to be looking at a weak economy and much weaker than people thought for the rest of the year. >> consumer hanging on to their money because damaging psychology has taken old in the united states. the early evidence takes the form of flat consumer spending and consumer relief at the gas

bum pump. they expect prices to be low are than today do you understand all that? >> i did understand that. >> you like it, don't you? >> by by khraoeu /* pwaoeu bye bye bye bye bye bye

welcome to kqed "newsroom." i'm thuy vu. every week there are questions about the safety of the bay bridge. drivers want to know one thing. will the bridge withstand a major earthquake? we'll pose that question to the chief engineer for the bridge later in the show. but first we talk about the state budget. the state has taken in $6.7 billion in additional revenue since january. that may sound like a lot of money but governor jerry brown said that surplus is not as big as it might seem. >> is what we've