>> i think this agreement will very much be debated in the shadow of nafta and not just nafta but othergreements like bringing china in the world trade organization under the free trade agreement with north korea because in the cases the political leaders went to the congress and said sign this deal, it's going to create jobs and be more protecting for american workers and intellectual protection for american high tech and open foreign markets, reduce the american trade deficit and in each case the actual result was that our trade deficit got bigger, we lost jobs and the protections, environment, labor and so forth, turned out to have two problems. one problem was that many of the countries that signed up for them didn't really have their heart in enforcing them and for geo political reasons the united states never really hit hard on enforcement or retaliating because they weren't enforced because the u.s. had bigger fish to fry with the countries that were subject of the deals. >> will we do a better job of it this time or are you pointing out they are all flawed? >> that is the questi

thing, as far as nafta.to vote on it was 61 republicans in the senate voted board and 30 democrats voted for nafta in the senate. in the house 234 of the republicans voted for nafta. that's in that house of representatives, and 200 on the final vote, 200 of the democrats. so the republicans push as nafta deal through. i'm from a small town originally in north carolina that was the furniture manufacturer of the world. all the furniture manufacturers were there. all those bases are gone. you have to take into consideration that winning industry like that goes downhill, because of a free trade agreement, it's not a fair trade agreement. it affects a lot of people. you have suppliers that supply hardware, people, all types of suppliers. and all that, the problems we're having with paying into social city and things like that, those things are all important to you american people working. >> guest: i think he raises a point that's good in this context. there were some american businesses that were impacted negati

you talk about nafta. i have heard people say it is .ore of a bipartisan thing to vote on it, 61 republicans in the senate budget reform and 38 democrats voted for it in the senate. 234 of thee, republicans voted for nafta, and 200 on the final vote of the democrats. the republicans push this nafta deal through. i am from a small town in north carolina that was the furniture manufacturer of the world. all the furniture manufacturers were there. all those businesses were gone. you have to take into consideration that when an industry like that goes downhill, the cause of a free trade agreement that is not a fair trade agreement, it affects a lot of people. , all types ofiers and the problems we are having with paying into social security and things like that, those were all important to the american people working. i think he raises a point that was good in this context. some american businesses were impacted negative three -- negatively by america. by and large, the evidence is pretty we're that overall, w

you talk about nafta. i have heard people say it is .ore of a bipartisan thing to vote on it, 61 republicans in the senate budget reform and 38 democrats voted for it in the senate. 234 of thee, republicans voted for nafta, and 200 on the final vote of the democrats. the republicans push this nafta deal through. i am from a small town in north carolina that was the furniture manufacturer of the world. all the furniture manufacturers were there. all those businesses were gone. you have to take into consideration that when an industry like that goes downhill, the cause of a free trade agreement that is not a fair trade agreement, it affects a lot of people. , all types ofiers and the problems we are having with paying into social security and things like that, those were all important to the american people working. i think he raises a point that was good in this context. some american businesses were impacted negative three -- negatively by america. by and large, the evidence is pretty we're that overall, w

in nafta, you had george hw busch saying jobs, jobs, jobs from nafta, and then ross perot saying that this would suck jobs out of the u.s. and neither of those happened. we did benefit, not a lot, but a little bit from nafta. >> this deal covers 40% of the world's economy. you said that it could effect prices of things we buy here. will it allow more companies to access pacific rim markets? >> that's the single biggest benefit for the u.s. s is that increased access. typically foreign markets are more closed than the u.s. market. so through this agreement we'll actually have better access. that's a good thing for u.s. companies. more exports. more jobs and we have to be careful not to overstate the case, but it is a positive. >> thank you for joining us with your insighted on the ttp this morning. and as you said china is not part of the agreement, but it has been pouring into projects in the americas including major investments in the bahamas. as melissa chan reports, there is worry that the government it is becoming too dependent on china. >> what happens when a small country like t

in nafta. mexico and u.s.are highly intertwined as economies, particularly 30 phenomena of supply chains. it to him and industries it's very hard to imagine the u.s. -- i think it's not by chance that mexico has become a very strong ally for the united states, for the eu for that matter in supporting an open rules global economy. and again i think mexico, nafta points to another way that ttip can be helpful in this regard, and that is to the countries that decide if and when it decides to expand which countries it will be. my consolation will be a little different. there's an overlap. it's a quite distinct i but i think that again starting point which other countries that can help with u.s. and eu prosperity but also push for the right kind of rules for global economy, greg moore economic order. definitely i think looking from the perspective, that means canada and mexico, important both members of ttp so that would help to create a bridge between the u.s. to strategic economic initiatives. and then for the eu

bill clinton made a decision on nafta in '92. late in the game, he sort of finessed it. can she finesse this? >> she's going to go against the president, the man who she stood beside and the man she helped work this out with -- >> who's she more concerned with, his people, or the union guys? >> if this is played out right, what this will do, and if it's rolled out and communicated properly, what this is intended to do is raise the standards of these 12 countries whereas american companies won't leave to go there. they're raising the environment and labor standards and making sure those core pieces are there instead of on the side like they were for nafta. >> you can't set up sweat shops around the world. >> and also the side species for this versus being in the court is the exchange rate. that's the side piece on this. >> so they don't play games. >> yes. >> the chinese side. >> jonathan, your paper's always been a pro-trade paper. >> yes. >> are you going to push for hillary to make a decision here? >> absolutely. yes of course.

only countries that benefited from nafta. the problem is that our ceos of our companies shifted jobs overseas. , canadat blame canada and mexico did not have to ship their jobs off. the united states did, and the ceo of our companies that it has agreed. when you ship your job overseas you have to give the people in those countries your technology. if you try to ship it back they are going to use your technology toinst you and we are going have products that are going to be cheaper than our products and we have to compete against ourselves. the united states had an opportunity to be the leader of the global economy by creating , roads ands country bridges so that we can get more taxes into the social security system and the regular tax system. congress did not do it. unless we decide to take a stand as the country of example we are going to have this problem. that is why we are having problems. we are blaming the wrong people. our people are shipping jobs overseas. they have to take responsibility. those big ceos in these big

american people who were very much put off by the deal between canada and mexico and the united states nafta. they'll some out and said that this is a horrible deal. this is going to be tough to get this through, but he's following a good fight because his team has put a lot of emphasis on getting this deal done. >> we've got the other ones like nafta, why did it come to pass? why is do people think that this one was needed? think saw manufacturing jobs leave b, and tens of thousands of jobs were lost. what the obama administration said that this does is when it comes to labor laws, it evens the playing field. they say that it expands the use of unions. unions can form in all of these countries. bans child labor. one of the keys that nobody knows is how is this going to be enforceable. that is one of the keys. again, we don't know yet. >> these pictures have come in a short wild go. a 12-year-old boy was killed. two separate innocen incident stabbings in which two israelis died. okay, there have been security restrictions placed around the al aqsa mosque compound. we're joined live, mike, i

starting with nafta and before that, but starting strong with nafta.as ed said, they've really gotten their voice on this now and they've learned what to do and how to do these grass roots efforts against this thing, even though trade unions represent fewer and fewer people, in the working, workers today, they still have an inordnant amount of influence in the process. because of the money they contribute and the workers that they provide for door to door campaigning and telephoning and all the other kind of ground work that has to be done in political campaigns. so, democrats tend to pay a lot of attention to what is being said by the trade unions. so, you have this rather contentious argument going on between the two sides. on how this will play out i think is, we really don't know yet. it was said for a long time that tpp would be the very, should have been the easy one to negotiate. but a very tough one to pass. and t tip on the other hand should be easy to negotiate since we have two large civil or integrated economies on both sides of the atlanti

and in some sense that's what you had from nafta, from kufta and then to nafta, you have the canada free trade agreement and subsequently expanded to nafta and provisions and so on. you can have that approach. it seems complicated, they can try to do that. it's not obvious that there's any specified mechanism to join unlike ttp which is actually encouraging countries to dock on to ttp. so, i don't see that in ttip and maybe that could be an advice to policymakers, you know, at least give other countries an option to do that. a third option is that countries may respond by trying to negotiate an fta of some kind with either the eu or the u.s. and so that possibly the chorus could be indirectly docked on and it depends on rules of origins and things like that. so, that's another possibility. then there's a fourth option is that you may just simply wait and then try to multilateralize ttip into the wto and i think there is precedent for this. again, we can go back to the u.s./canada agreement and nafta where the u.s. was able to and other countries, canada, too, introduce things into both c

because the american people are overwhelmingly opposed to nafta and nafta-style deals. we will see whether members of congress are willing to represent their people, to respond to the debate am's of demandonstituents in -- other constituents in an election-year or the demands of their donors and the chamber of commerce and big pharma and the big business community. amy: senator bernie sanders spoke out against the tpp during senate hearings in april. this is what he said. >> not only is there massive opposition to this tpp agreement, but there is a lot of concern that the american people have not been involved in the process, that there is not a lot of transparency. so what we are trying to do is make sure this debate takes where the american people have as much time as possible to understand the very significant implications of this trade agreement. and i suspect others will do our best to make that happen. amy: donald trump tweeted -- rob, last year at your own gala, senator elizabeth warren addressed the crowd. she famously said, from what i hear, wall street pharmac

bush negotiated nafta. we tried to enforce the trade laws. most years when i was president we gained manufacturing jobs. we were growing so much faster than the rest of the world. if i had not signed that bill think what would have happened. no one ever has to go back in time and say what was it like then? if i had walked away from that it would have been devastating to mexico's economy. we would have had probably another million illegal immigrants coming into america, something mr. trump says he doesn't like. we would have been literally despised by all of our neighbors south of the border and people would say america is running away from this. did it work out all right and every decision made about whether or not to bring action under me or my successors? >> my thanks to president bill clinton. a disappointing jobs report for the month of september. the economy created 142,000 new jobs well below expectations. perhaps more concerning, though, the numbers for the previous two months were revised lower, as well. that means this isn't just a o

that is what you had from nafta. it is a free trade agreement. it was subsequently added to that. me, located. they could try to do that. it is not obvious that there is any mechanism to join, unlike tpp which is actually encouraging countries to join on. at least give other countries and option to do that. the third option is that countries may respond by trying to negotiate with either the eu or the u.s.. it depends on rules of origin and things like that. and then there is a fourth option, you may just simply wait and then try to multilateral multilateralize. we can go back to the u.s. agreement and nafta, where the u.s. introduced things that were subsequently kind of multilateral. that is another possibility. you consort of wait for the u.s. to multilateral eyes. you can also try to negotiate on separate accords. if you don't have a single undertaking, or even if there is , and thenndertaking you could try to join specific parts of the agreement. part of that.d be , can you unilaterally adopt the same rules so that you concern get mutual recognition? i think a lot of this is

starting with nafta and before that, but starting strong with nafta. as ed said, they've really gotten their voice on this now and they've learned what to do and how to do these grass roots efforts against this thing, even though trade unions represent fewer and fewer people, in the working, workers today, they still have an inorder nant amount of influence in the process. because of the money they contribute and the workers that they provide for door to door campaigning and telephoning and all the other kind of ground work that has to be done in political campaigns. so, democrats tend to pay a lot of attention to what is being said by the trade unions. so, you have this rather contentious argument going on between the two sides. on how this will play out i think is, we really don't know yet. it was said for a long time that tpp would be the very, should have been the easy one to negotiate. but a very tough one to pass. and t tip on the other hand should be easy to negotiate since we have two large civil or integrated economies on both sides of the atl

bush negotiated nafta. we tried to enforce the trade laws. keep in mind, in most of the year i was president we gained manufacturing jobs in america. our trade deficit got bigger, because we growing so much faster than the rest of the world. if i hadad not signed that bill think what would have happened. no one ever has to go back in time and say, what was it like then? if i had walked away from that it would have been devastating to mexico's economy. we would have had probably another million illegal immigrants coming into america. something mr. trump says he doesn't like. and we would have been literally despised by all of our neighbors south of the border and people would say america is running away from this. everything wab it, did it wor out all right? was every skin made about whether or not to bring a trade action right under me or my successors? probably not. >> my thanks to president bill clinton. a look at what is making news as we head into a new week "on the money." a disappointing jobs report for the month of september. the econo

both nafta that were multilateralized.ink it was from cafta we got a multilateralized of the wto. that's another possibility you can wait for the just and multilateralized it. and you can also negotiate on separate accord. if we don't have a single undertaking or even if it is a single undertaking you to join piecemeal. ..

caller: my question is the nafta deal. nafta was signed by the clinton. deal, mye the nafta area has gone down tremendously. we lost so many factories, it is unreal. that is what keeps the middle class going. how are you going to bring these factories back into this country? tarrifs, how can you trade with countries that , their people to dollars an hour, a dollar an hour? you can't trade with countries like that. that brings us down. that is my question. guest: a good question. let me refer to my previous answer. that two countries dollars an hour wages is the norm that the united states is competing with. we are competing with the -- the economy is this continuous value chain. we are at the top of the value chain. at entrepreneurship, innovation, and manufacturing. sometimes, that manufacturing requires inputs produced in other countries. most of the value is produced in the united states great countries where wages are two dollars an hour, the cost of production tends to be higher because they are less efficient, less productive, there are other proble

has unprecedented labor standards, unprecedented environmental standards and fixes things you had in nafta, and ultimately, i would not be putting this forward if i was not absolutely certain that this was going to be good for american workers. >> the deal will face a vote, a tough one in congress next year and need be approved by all member nations as well. it will expect to be the next big fight in 2016 politics. most labor unions are opposed to the deal. hillary clinton has yet to say she will support it. the united states and 11 other countries have agreed to terms in the transpacific partnership, a historic trade deal that would account for 40% of the global economy. it's a deal president obama has been pushing for quite some time including a hard sell in my exclusive interview with him on "hardball" this past april. here's some of what he had to say then. >> we decided to start trying to craft a new kind of trade deal in the largest market in the world. because 95% of customers for u.s. businesses is going to be outside of the united states. and if we want to compete and create jobs

o'malley: many of us in this room remember nafta. intentions, we traded away good manufacturing in towns liketags newton, and in return, we got back into promises and empty pockets. adamantlymentally, opposed, as an american, to secret trade deals that are congress has forced to vote on before the rest of us even have a chance to read them. what have we come to as a nation? [applause] gov. o'malley: and it is not what the other countries are doing to us, we can trade and we should trade. it is not what the other countries are doing to us, it is what we are not doing ourselves. we need to build up our own american economy again, don't we? [applause] and finally, we must have the courage to put our children safety, each and every day ahead of the morally bankrupt interests of the national rifle association. [cheers and applause] [chanting o'malley] has onealley: the nra goal. it is one goal only. and it is selling as many guns as possible, no matter the cost in american lives. well, that might be their interest, but that is not what is

i voted against nafta. [applause] sen. sanders: i voted against nafta. voted against that legislation with china. history has proven that those of us who oppose those agreements were right. in the last 14 years, this country has lost 60,000 factories and millions of decent paying jobs. let me be clear about the current trade deal that we are debating in congress, the transpacific partnership. [booing] sen. sanders: that agreement is not now, or has it ever been, the gold standard of trade agreements. i did not support it yesterday. i do not support it today. and i will not support it tomorrow. [applause] sen. sanders: in 1996, i faced another fork in the road. a very, very difficult political situation. it was called the defense of marriage act. doma, brought forth a republican congress and its purpose was clear, to discriminate against gays and lesbians into the law. [booing] sen. sanders: let us all remember that gay and lesbian rights were not popular then, as they are today. there was a tough vote. i am sorry to have to tell you that bill won by an o

but, it is a question of trust that is going to be a big argument here in the wake of nafta because it was oversold. >> clinton figured out that if she supported this deal that it would be a poison pill in the primaries. i don't see how a democrat can win if they support this deal. joe biden, his base of support is the unions and the afl-cio. it would date -- it would be difficult for him -- for him to come in and separate. >> forget joe for a second. if hillary goes -- goes into a general election against donald trump, she puts ohio at risk and pennsylvania at risk. >> my guess is that if she >> she will lose support on lose votes. >> given the bill clinton administration passed nafta and the most nation favor trading status for china and they negotiated -- and negotiated china's entry into the ntl. >>> hillary clinton has it.>> [ indiscernible - multiple speakers ]. >> if you are globalist, go for it. disregard the other influences in your life and get into the presidency of the united states.>> he has run for president. >> i was against it and i lost. >> [ indiscernible - multiple s

he doesn't like nafta. he would say he would relationship that -- rip that up. how does this play in both parties? >> the president is going to get a lot of support from the republican party. most of the heart burn here is probably going to be on the left. but,. >>> talking about hillary clinton? >> hillary clinton who, of course, was promoting this deal when she was secretary of state has stepped back. she says that she wouldn't have voted for the so-called fast track authority that sets up this vote where congress essentially has to take this deal intact or leave it. it puts her in a difficult spot. i think it is going to be a very interesting thing to watch and next week's democratic debate. >> definitely. >> i think hillary will cave on this the way she did on keystone. she wants her left and that's the way to secure it or at least not lose it. i mean, i think 80 % of the imports in this country from these countries is already without tariff. he you think overall this is generally speaking if you look back at the second world war, the free trade regime that

if not there was a big fight over in nafta but fairly the opposition at the time from unions the groups was kind we really don't know yet. it was said for a long time that tpp would be the very -- should have been the easy one to negotiate but a very tough one to pass. and t tip on the other hand should be easy to negotiate since we have two very larbling similar integrated economies on both sides of the atlantic. a -- a ugher one to to negotiate one not many weeks ago the s on european parliament blessed a different concept for ininvestor state. clearly there is a progress that is political leadership level to move forward. >> right. i think what has been reassuring for the negotiator is that the things like patents and intellectual property and the chickens and political leadership including european parliament in june and july has continuously supporting the negotiations. when if you listen to prime rensie or the spanish prime minister british prime minister they're all in favor and want us to move ahead so i think british prime minister they're all in favor and want us to move ahead

he doesn't like nafta. he would say he would relationship that -- rip that up. how does this play in both parties? >> the president is going to get a lot of support from the republican party. most of the heart burn here is probably going to be on the left. but,. >>> talking about hillary clinton? >> hillary clinton who, of course, was promoting this deal when she was secretary of state has stepped back. she says that she wouldn't have voted for the so-called fast track authority that sets up this vote where congress essentially has to take this deal intact or leave it. it puts her in a difficult spot. i think it is going to be a very interesting thing to watch and next week's democratic debate. >> definitely. >> i think hillary will cave on this the way she did on keystone. she wants her left and that's the way to secure it or at least not lose it. i mean, i think 80 % of the imports in this country from these countries is already without tariff. he you think overall this is generally speaking if you look back at the second world war, the free trade regime that

o'malley: many of us in this room remember nafta.ver its intentions, we traded away good manufacturing jobs, like maytags in towns like newton, and in return, we got back empty promises and empty pockets. i am fundamentally, adamantly opposed, as an american, to secret trade deals that are congress has forced to vote on -- that our congress is forced to vote on before the rest of us even have a chance to read them. what have we come to as a nation? [applause] gov. o'malley: and it is not what the other countries are doing to us, we can trade and we should trade. it is not what the other countries are doing to us, it is what we are not doing ourselves. we need to build up our own american economy again, don't we? [applause] gov. o'malley: and finally, we must have the courage to put our children safety, each and every day ahead of the morally bankrupt and craven interests of the national rifle association. [cheers and applause] [chanting o'malley] gov. o'malley: the nra has one goal. it is one goal only. and it is selling as many guns

the american public remembers nafta, the agreement between u.s. and canada and mexico and saw jobs leave for mexico. they were able to get fast track authority where members of congress can vote yes or no, they can't change the agreement. but we've seen allies, environmentalists and other groups come out and say they hate the deal and they'll work with congress to try to kill it. >> a quote from president obama on the tpp saying that we can't let countries like china write the rules on the economy. they want to get the great pivot to asia and balance out china. >> he sees this as a key part of that pivot. it's not just the military move, this is a key focus on that pivot to asia. this is not just about these 12 countries. the over all hope from some of these trade negotiators is that if it becomes workable, if it becomes the framework then other countries like china and india will have to join in, and that could have a huge impact on the entire globe. >> patty culhane in washington there. the u.s. one of the drivers of that deal. we want to go to

i voted against nafta. [applause] sen. sanders: i voted against cap death -- nafta.ory has proven that those of us who oppose those agreements were right. years, this14 country has lost 60,000 factories and millions of decent paying jobs. let me be clear about the current trade deal that we are debating in congress, the transpacific partnership. [booing] sen. sanders: that agreement is not now, or has it ever been, the gold standard of trade agreements. [laughter] sen. sanders: i did not support it yesterday. i do not support it today. and i will not support it tomorrow. [laughter] [applause] sen. sanders: in 1996, i faced another fork in the road. a very, very difficult political situation. it was called the defense of marriage at. doma, brought forth a republican congress and its purpose was clear, to discriminate against gays and lesbians into the law. [booing] sen. sanders: let us all remember that gay and lesbian rights were not popular then, as they are today. there was a tough vote. i am sorry to have to tell you that that bill one by an overwhelming majority

she was supported of cafta but voted against nafta.y shown the consistency in that she's going to evaluate these trade agreements on a one on one basis. so for that now that she's an independent candidate, she's not in the obama administration, she has evaluated in its full entirety negotiated stance that it is. >> you're dying to get in. >> in the context of leaping to the left, on keystone -- i mean, this is just the same thing. she's trying to get left of the self-identified socialist. you have debber wasserman schultz on here earlier. you asked her directly, does this hurt the democrat party. she didn't say no. and i was watching thinking she immediately went into excuse mode and that means no -- or i'm sorry, yes. and you have hillary jumping over on every policy. >> the question is, no one is asking is bernie sanders jumping to the left now that he's nor supportive of the gun control measures -- [ everyone speaking at once ] >> i love how much energy we have for a sunday morning. but hold that thought. we'll take a break and talk

and mexico really sees this as an upgrade of the nafta agreement that it has with the u.s. and canada for around 20 years now. the extra plus for mexico is it's going to have increased trading opportunities with more markets around six new markets in asia for it. that's the plus for mexico but a flip side, and that's the new asian tradin trading partners, l important trading market with the u.s. especially with the auto industry. mexico is the number 2 exporters of vehicles to the u.s., and one ever its fears throughout these negotiations is that japan especially could use cheap parts from other parts of asia, other countries in asia, that aren't mart of this agreement and then be shipping cars duty-free to the u.s. and try to nudge mexico a little bit out of the way to this. that's been a big part of the negotiations and big sticking point for mexico. but today the minister of economy in mexico said he felt he had sort of balanced picture here between mexico's interests and what other countries needed. so he's fairly satisfied with the results here. >> all right, john holm

i was here for the nafta debate. congressional districts throughout this country, including my own of rochester new york, find it very difficult to survive another trade deal that sends our jobs overseas to countries that ignore human rights violations and undermine our laws and public health here at home. during my time in congress, i have never seen a trade agreement that the united states participated in that benefited either the american manufacturer or the american worker, and everything i know about the trans-pacific partnership suggests it will be more of the same. despite a bipartisan push by 158 democrats and republicans in the house of representatives, the trade deal announced this week will do nothing to address the largest trade barrier our manufacturers face, which is currency manipulation. as with past trade deals, a side agreement and the t.p.p. related to currency manipulations window dressing that is unlikely to be enforced at all, as most of the nafta side agreements were not, and will do little to

her husband put together nafta when he was president. free trade is a hall macfor the way she has discussed, trade both as a secretary of state and as a senator as well. i think they've seen a transformation and these candidates will go after her on that. candidates will agree on a lot of things. where you'll see disagreement is gun control. they'll try to paint parent o'malley. i think this will be something to watch when it comes to differentiating themselves from one another. >> now we'll bring on a professor of campaign management at new york unity. we appreciate you being here. let's talk about that. where hillary in particular needs to be at this point, what is the strategy here. is it time to focus on the issues ordeal with these things that are coming along behind you, the possibility that the vice president will step in, and certainly the bernie sanders effect. >> i think what she has to do is all front runners of the debate. no unforced errors. she has got to do that. she has got to make the american people trust her and let th

nafta partner, nato ally, trans-pacific partnership co-signatory.n troops fought alongside americans in afghanistan, and stephen harper joined the coalition in syria and iraq in the air. will trudeau's liberals keep up the air strikes? what were the issues that canadians had on their mind when they headed to the polls yesterday. diane francis joins us now, she is editor at large of canada's national post. she is also the author of merger of the century, why canada and america should become one country. jeffery is former editor and chief journalist for cbc radio, and david is a political analyst and the vice president of citizens relations international. diane let me start with you. what were canadians arguing amongst themselves as election day approached? it was very high turnout. >> it was a high turnout. it was pretty much a dead heat until the last couple of weeks when trudeau really pulled away from the pack. people were quite upset with steen harper. and canada is a country in the last 90 years the liberal party has dominated the prime minister

remember, barack obama in 2008 said he was going to renegotiate nafta if he got elected president. i think there's a recognition, even among democrats in the white house, i would assume, that hillary talking negatively about tpp doesn't necessarily mean she will try to undermine it if she becoming president. i think that may be a reason to give her a little bit of a pass. >> i was going to say it's all about volume and intensity. if you look at the way bibi netanyahu opposed the iran deal. that was the highest intensity version he could have done. if hillary clinton goes in that direction that's going to be fascinating. she can continue to just say she's opposed to it. it's an issue, i think, for the white house is how loud does she get about this? how intense does she get about this. and as we know, michael steele, it is traditional for trade deals to pass with more republican votes than democratic votes. that's how bill clinton passed nafta. >> this is an old song book and the pages are worn and tried. and we know exactly how the outcome is going to be. the republicans will line

. >> indeed, economists are divided over how many jobs nafta took from america, but one thing that nobody is divided over is how many jobs have been lost to china because of the cost of labor was so much cheaper. in its summary of the trans-pacific partnership the u.s. trade representative is seeking to apply som ally some of the fears. they do say that practices the fundamental labor rights such as association and right to collective bargaining will be honored. in vince such as vietnam they'll have to allow their workers to form unions. you have to keep in mind that the cost of labor in many of the countries in this agreement is far cheaper than the u.s. and it's inevitable that labor intensive jobs will gravitate to those areas especially now in this era that we have right now of currencies being so cheap against the dollar. we've had a wave of emerging market duvall ways on the heels of china's duvall ways, so that makes the cost of labor even lower. >> now let's talk about the environment. is this good or bad for the environment. >> this was an area of concern. the white house said th

let's not leave nafta out of this, that messed up the economy.it almost makes me think that democrats and republicans, why the electric is mad. all of us. we don't feel like there is a dimes with the difference. >> caller: glass beagle for those who don't know what we're talking about. guest: the glass steagall act separated investment banking from retail banking. one of the things that provoked the great crash and made it so bad the weeks that roosevelt became president is everything failed. it was an an amazing thing when he think about it. the reason i'm so bad was banks were also casinos. they were running start gambling operations and everyone was getting in on it leaving up to the great crash of 29. when gambling operations went down the checkbook went down, all those kind of things. my mother's family was fairly prominent in the 20s, they lost everything in the crash of 29. the bank that had all their money said sorry we don't have your money, were closing our doors. this happened to millions of americans. what glass steagall did was say t

and let's not leave nafta out of this.so it almost makes me think about the democratics and the republicans why the electric is mad. all of us. we don't be like there is a dimes were the difference. guest: in the early 30s and either 33 or or 35, the glass beagle act separated investment one of the things that promotes the great crash and made it so bad the weeks that roosevelt became president's every bank failed. which was an was an amazing thing when he think about it. the reason it was so bad is the banks were also casinos. their running stocking gambling operations and everyone was getting in on it. winning to the great crash of 89. so the checkbook savings operation went down, all those kind of things. my mother's family was fairly prominent and they lost everything in the crash of 29. the bank that had all their money said sorry we don't have your money were closing your doors. this happened to millions of americans. so a glass beagle did was say that boring banking business that boring banking business basically th

the tpp, i believe that our trade policies going way back when, i voted against nafta, cafta, i thinken a disaster for the american worker, corporations shut down here and move abroad. so people will have to contrast my consistency and willingness to stand up to wall street and big corporations with the secretary. >> let's go into some issues. let's start with tpp. you have been against every single trade agreement. >> yes. >> i had a democrat say to me yesterday if you can't be for this trade athen there's no trade agreement you can support. what do you say to that? >> absolutely wrong. this is a senior democrat told you that? >> yes, sir. >> that's why the republicans control the house and the senate. because what working people understand that after nafta, capita, pntr with china, we have lost millions of decent paying jobs, since 200160,000 factories in america have been shut down, we're in a race to the bottom where our wages are going down. is all of that atributable to trade? no. is a lot of it, yes. yes. >> trade agreement was written by corporate america and the pharmaceutica