jobs we have to do something that works for the middle class. let me tell you what happened with nafta. instead of improve pay for our workers which was promised nafta pushed down american wages. it empowered employers to take their workers either accept lower wages and benefits or we are moving to mexico. instead of strengthening our economy it increased our trade deficit to mexico which now this year hits $50 billion. before and after we had a trade surplus in mexico now we have a trade deficit creates so instead of standing in the corner and figuring out how we can have more trade deficit we have to do something to help the middle class. i want to talk about something that happened in california in santa ana right after nafta. the city had worked hard to keep the mitsubishi plant that assembled big screen tvs securing tax credit to help them stay competitive. even after nafta passed company officials promised they would keep the plant in santa ana but guess what folks three years later mitsubishi close the plant plant. company officials said they had to cut costs especially labor co

the echos of the nafta debate. now, that was a long time ago and i was here then. in 1988, i voted for fast-track authority to allow the administration to negotiate the north american free trade agreement. then five years later i saw the deal. it was a bad deal, and i voted no. but it was too late because when i saw the deal, i knew i couldn't fix it because that's what fast-track is. and what this majority here today is saying to us is, vote for fast-track and give up your right, senator boxer from amending this trade agreement. so they say well, it's very transparent. go down and look at it. well let me tell you what you have to do to read this agreement. follow this: you can only take a few of your staffers who happen to have to have a security clearance -- because god knows why, this is secure; this is classified. it has nothing to do with defense. it has nothing to do with going after isis. it has nothing to do with any of that. but it is classified. so i go down with my staff that i could get to go with me, and as soon as i get there the guard says to me, hand over your electroni

all the way back to the 1990's when it nafta came in originally and cast a following that. basically, they said they's were made with a lot of promises about increasing u.s. exports increasing u.s. imports. some of those promises felt a little bit short. if you look at exports coming out in say about the 18 to 20 years after nafta, you can see exports going up to mexico by about almost four times. if you look at imports, they are going up about six times as much. the trade deficit has really widened in the years after nafta. it widened a lot with canada and has come back now but with mexico it is really, really high. and it wasn't that high before nafta came in. you are seeing these democrats say the promises of the somewhat balanced did not happen. and then you are saying that they feel their work job impacts that happened and they are worried about having it this time. if you have democrats that are really concerned about the job side of this bill, they are looking back 20 years and obama is countering this by saying look, this is me. this is not whoever else, this is me now. you k

are saved both for and after nafta. better? the united states is a before-and-after nafta and so much of the u.s. debate is about trying to assess the. impacts of nafta and the subsequent agreements and most importantly china's entry into the wto. so i think unfortunately the question of the impact of fta you look it very much with respect to that trade agreement and look in each case there were a set of promises made to the american people about what happened in terms of it and it didn't play out quite the way the administration promised. >> is the green eyed on? >> is that better? >> my green light is on and i've tried both different directions. so again as i was saying for the united states everything is very much a before-and-after nafta and it's about trying to assess the impact of those agreements on the u.s. economy and each of those cases what we saw fairly rapidly after the agreements was an increase in the u.s. trade deficit. the before and after the fourth china's entry into the wto those countries have higher trade barriers that we do therefore in the aftermath of the

compared the trade deal to nafta, critics say the agreement signed by president bill clinton in 1993 dramatically widened the u.s. trade imbalance and according to the advocacy group public citizen cost 845,000 u.s. jobs. democrats have also voiced concern over tpp's food safety provisions agriculture market access auto sales protections and measures to prevent currency manipulation. >> those are some of the concerns that people have and the issue of mexico what is the performance in nafta this bill is supposed to improve that. >> the president can guarantee will be included in a tpp agreement if one can be reached are enforceable labor protections that were not included in nafta. >> with democrats increasingly skeptical the president is counting on congressional republicans to collect enough votes to move forward. >> the president needs to step up his game in terms of garnering more support amongst democrats, especially here in the house. >> reporter: if republicans can come up with 200 votes which would probably be at or near the top of expectations the white house would only need

promises. and, you know, the more i hear it the more i hear the echos of the nafta debate. now, that was a long time ago and i was here then. in 1988, i voted for fast-track authority to allow the administration to negotiate the north american free trade agreement. then five years later i saw the deal. it was a bad deal, and i voted no. but it was too late because when i saw the deal, i knew i couldn't fix it because that's what fast-track is. and what this majority here today is saying to us is, vote for fast-track and give up your right, senator boxer from amending this trade agreement. so they say well, it's very transparent. go down and look at it. well let me tell you what you have to do to read this agreement. follow this: you can only take a few of your staffers who happen to have to have a security clearance -- because god knows why, this is secure; this is classified. it has nothing to do with defense. it has nothing to do with going after isis. it has nothing to do with any of that. but it is classified. so i go down with my staff that i could get to go with me, and a

cynics say. they say that's what we heard in nafta 20 years ago. was nafta a job creator? >> i think you can't compare the two. i think this is what i keep emphasizing, the growth going on in the asia-pacific is something we've got to have access to and today, we don't. for example, if you want to sell pork into asia, you could face a tariff of up to 100%. you want to sell autos, you could face a tariff of 80%. chemicals, you could face a tariff of 30%. if a foreign company wants to sell here in the nays often you face a tariff in fact, you face a taf rif of 1.4%. so we're at a real exit i've disadvantage not just with tariffs but with labor and environmental standards and if we don't participate in those markets, our companies will get left behind our workers will get left behind. >> hunt: am i hear you saying nafta may not have been so good but this is different. >> this is different and the time is different. >> hunt: and nafta wasn't so good? >> i'm not going to compare to nafta. what i'm talking about is the world economy today. >> hunt: let's talk about some to have the provisi

. betty: history proved that it has not been. let's say nafta for instance, bill daley wrote about this just the other day. just today in fact. it was oversold, the benefit or inactive was oversold during the clinton years and now it seems for bill at least daley and folks like you who support this, it is being undersold now as well to the benefits of tpp? isi think that nafta clearly a bed rock for a lot of the thinking of that trade today. betty: absolutely. some 22 years later because people don't think nafta was a success. a lot of people believe nafta caught as jobs, cost them jobs, cost family members jobs and as a result, they have great, great reticence about entering into a trade deal with 11 countries, particularly countries like it now who don't have market economies, don't have trade union movements. they have a single trade union, so there is a lot of concern about this which is by the way, shared by republicans and independents, not just democrats. so the country itself -- betty: how do you move past that then? >> you've got to try to make sure the country understands the

the president, her husband, has signed nafta in law and been a pro-trade democrat. gwen: when she was a secretary of state she thought this was a good idea. >> and has said we need to see what the agreement is before she can support it. and she's not weighed in on the issue before congress right now. which is that fast track authority, did she actually support the trade promotion authority? she has not said that explicitly. clearly this is an effort to cover herself on the left. given the fact that she is trying to reach out to that elizabeth warren wing of the party right now. and she doesn't want to come out for it because that would alienate those supporters she's trying to court. gwen: you got to hate when politics gets in the way of policy. it really does. all right. well there's nothing like a deadly and shocking accident to focus the mind on an issue that was otherwise gathering dust on capitol hill. what is the state of amtrak? can the publicly supported rail system be counted on to safely ferry the millions of travelers who get onboard each year? after a house committee a

106,000 jobs because of our trade deficit with china. nafta cost the state 34,000 jobs alone. people in ohio what are they doing? well, they're living in story firsthand. they know the tpp would mean more jobs from ohio to overseas locations. now, recent polling shows that 61% of people in the state of ohio have an unfavorable opinion of the trade deal. only 33% favor the deal. it makes you feel they're really following it. this puts republican senator rob portman in a pretty tough spot as well. the senator is up for re-election in 2016. polling shows that if portman voted for fast track and tpp, 67% of voters in the state of ohio would be less likely to vote for him. only 23% would be more likely to vote for him. hillary clinton needs to take a position on this trade deal definitive, exclusive, where is she? and this is not foreign territory for the candidate. the former senator from new york when she was the senator from new york she voted to deny fast track authority to president bush. 2016 is a whole new ball game considering the trade deficits we have right now. the people of oh

us are older enough to remember the fight over nafta, which was very very similar. democrats and so-called centrist democrats. it came back here. the president has tried to make this a battle between him and elizabeth warren. got very personal in the invective this past weekend. but you just saw in the clip you played, it was the senate leadership, not just elizabeth warren who all turned out against this. so the president himself ended up not just losing to one of the progressive leaders of the party, but really to all his colleagues. schumer and dick durbin you know, these are not seen as the progressive leaders of the democratic party. so i think it's time for the white house to go back to the drawing board and sort of figure out how to move ahead with trade in a way that may bring about a little more unity within the democratic party. >> jeremy there is one very, very prominent democrat who has not said anything on this and her name is hillary clinton. and i wonder from a campaign perspective, what needs to happen now? >> i think that this is basically an extension of the strate

one. when you ask folks specifically what you oppose, they just say nafta. nafta was passed 20 years ago. that was a different agreement. in fact, disagreement exists some of what was wrong with nafta and making labor and environmental provisions actually enforceable. i was just getting out of law school when nafta got passed. [applause] number three, you've got some critics saying that any deal would be rushed through. it is a secret deal. people don't know what is in it. this is not true. any agreement that we finalized with the other 11 countries will have to be posted online at least 60 days before i even sign it. then it would go to congress. and you know they are not going to do anything fast. [laughter] there will be months of review. every t crossed, every i dotted. everyone will see what is in it. there is nothing abstract about this. this is a very deliberate plan. which will be subject to scrutiny and i'm confident when people read the agreement for themselves, they will say this is the most progressive trade deal in history. number four, critics warn this would undermine

don't tell, nafta. this crime bill is what has the african-american community. now -- messed up now. all this is coming home to roost. what sister souljah said was right. bill clinton's presidency for african-americans was disastrous. he should have been telling the right wing newt gingrich and dig army -- dick armey that what they were doing was wrong. host: all right, let me ask you this, back on topic here -- how does this really to whether or not hillary clinton should be taking questions from the press? should she have to answer for her husband's administration? caller: just answer those questions. she made a statement about the crime bill, that it was wrong mass incarceration, and same-sex marriage. she said that. she is speaking out against those things now. this is what she is going to have to do. there is no center. there was no center under bill clinton. bill clinton governed from the far right of the democrats. thank you. host: will you vote for hillary clinton? caller: yes, i will vote for her now. host: even after everything you just said about her husband's administrat

agreement between canada mexico and the united states perot believed nafta could create more u.s. jobs and massage the economy much like the concern about tpp deal, many trade unions were concerned nafta could result in a loss of manufacturing jobs in the '90s. still president clinton signed the agreement in december of 1993 of after facing congressional opposition and it was a major policy sickry for the administration. joining in the celebration, of course then was then first lady hillary clinton and secretary of state hillary clinton called the tpp the gold standard in trade agreements. as a candidate clinton has been vague and general about the tpp, unlike likely democratic candidate martin o'malley. clinton restrained her comments to this in new hampshire. >> any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security. we have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and skills to be competitive. >> so what will the trade deal mean for the politics of oh where we are thousand? >> former secretary clinton was right. any trade de

death for fast track in the house and meanwhile, nafta, remember that? nafta is causing major problems for bee franchisers and consumers here in america. canada and mexico threaten $2 billion in retaliatory tariffs. it must have a label showing where the beef was produced. world trade organization ruled on monday the requirement violates nafta. this has caused an uproar who demonstrate how free trade can affect u.s. law. house republicans work quickly to repeal the law. it could be from brazile or argentina or southeast asia and have no idea where it came from. as montana senator john tester point pointed out, will see that usda seal to see it's american meat and it's not. this comes at a bad time for president obama as he pushes the tpp. senator elizabeth warren has been citing examples after examples, such as origin of labeling suit in her fight against the tpp. she released a report this week showing united states has a terrible track record on enforcing labor laws. let's go to baltimore where marilyn mosby gives us an update on the freddie gray new video on death. >> circu

themselves in to be a little bit humorous because the reality of it this is not nafta so it's kind of this retreat to the old conversation about nafta. i think it's misplaced. i think the idea of expanding the pacific rim with pacific rim partners in the trade area is important for the country. this is about how you graduate businesses into this new marketplace. the president is articulated that. now, i will fault the administration on this point and that is they didn't bring along those elizabeth warrens in the senate. they didn't bring that voice into the conversation until much later so they were able to take i think a greater hold on the conversation. the president found himself more on the defensive than i thought he needed to be. he had support. >> i want to get back to governor rendell. from the time this issue got sharp a couple weeks ago, governor, i've been trying to make a case this is a legitimate debate among the democratic party and the progressive movement that there are both sides to the argument. that's been pushed on television over and over again, including on this netwo

have arguments about whether nafta helps or hurts the united states. i think the effect is probably minimally the way. it had a huge positive effect on mexico. i think it's a transformed country, better country, sending fewer illegal immigrants to us, has much more opportunity, a better trade partner in policy terms. the argument were these kind of trade agreements are a net benefit for the world, foreign policy and for us, too. >> woodruff: how do you see it? >> mansfield, ohio -- the political reality is the president is lucky right now and the house of representatives if he's in the teens on democratic support. it's that low. and if david's right, there is a lack of personal touch. barack obama even his greatest admirer is terrible at this. he doesn't reach out. there's no personal connection. he's now trying to appeal to a congressional black caucus members. keith allison from minnesota said if barack obama needs a kidney, i could sort of give him one. i will not give him my vote on this. the president of the black caucus north carolina, they they've watched jobs close. it's a p

nafta. penny: i think you cannot compare the two. the growth going on in the asia-pacific is something we have got to have access to. and today, we don't. for example, if you want to sell pork in asia, you can take a tariff of up to 100%. chemicals, tariff of 30%. if a foreign company wants to sell and the united often you face a tariff of 1.4%. we are at a real competitive disadvantage, not just with parents but labor standards -- tariffs but labor standards and environmental standards. if we don't contest -- participate in those, our workers will get left behind. al: are you saying this is different? penny: this is different. i will compare it to the past but i want to talk about what is going on today. al: let's talk about physicians people have talked about a lot. one has caused a lot of furor the investors state dispute settlement. elizabeth warren and critics say what this would do is allow multinationals to go to a special court and possibly overturn domestic law. penny: first of all there have only been 17 investors state disputes brought in the united states. 13 have

policy advisor she has says to be for the tpp. it's better than nafta and it's better for asia. i would guess that almost every political advisor has said to stay away from this and if anything, oppose it, because it will help bernie sanders run against you. she came out with a position today. she is for putting harriet tubman on the $20 bill. i don't think that will get rid of her non-position on trade. john: we appreciate it. we will be right back with one of the bolton's. mark: i wonder which one. ♪ john: before we say good night here is a little something to remember john bolton by. mark: i you a fan of the movie diner? john: i don't know the movie. and i don't know taylor swift songs either. mark: see you tomorrow. sayonara. ♪ alix: we are moments away from the close of the market day. i alix steel. [closing bell] another record day for the s&p, settling out at 2120 stop did not hit the intraday high of 2125, but we are now at a record high for the s&p. we also have a digit rally that held on

talking about the tpp. talking about nafta. how does opposition to the new transpacific trade partnership compared to the opposition that squared up behind nafta? peter: it looks very similar. much of it is being led by organized labor. they are using many of the same arguments to try and undermine this deal. it looks very similar. that one barely passed the congress. this one, likely to squeak by as well. there are tough arguments being made both ways. the fact that this president is taking on a elizabeth warren and vice versa, makes for an unusual situation on capitol hill, one that could have lasting damage. olivia: thank you so much. looking forward to your interview. peter cook, our chief correspondent -- our chief washington correspondent. not miss his interview with elizabeth warren at 2:30 p.m. eastern. you can watch it on bloomberg.com. lots more to come, including el.k kies he is here to tell us why he is still reeling oldish -- still feeling bullish. ♪ >> welcome to the bloomberg market day. housing rebound. building permit. it could signal a vigorous selling seas

of this discussion, and that is the nafta playbook, the playbook for trade in the 1990's, is gone and it is a new day in trade policy. so i have summarized mr. president, why the trade promotion act is not the trade policy of the 1990's, is not the north american free trade agreement and what we're going to do today is essentially start with the question of how vigorous trade enforcement ought to be at the forefront of america's trade policy in 2015 and beyond and how our new approach on enforcement is different than the policy of the 1990's. the reality is, you can pack trade agreements full of lofty goals and principles. you can amass all of the enforcement ideas you might want. but it doesn't do any good, mr. president, if you don't have real enforcement tools and you make sure that they aren't locked in a shed. and, in my view, that has been happening for way way too long. the status quo on trade enforcement simply no longer does the job. and as i've listened for many months to senators on both sides of the aisle, i believe there's widespread recognition that our approach to t

signed nafta that is true. the thing that is not the whole story there is, who created nafta? reagan. he could not get it through a democratic congress. bush senior tried to get it through a democratic congress and could not. clinton gave them nafta when they had a republican conference so he could get what he wanted to pass. it was not like he wanted it. it was like he was giving it to the republicans. it is hypocrisy to say clinton signed nafta and ruined the country. look who was a really voting for it in congress. you have your answer. host: johnny in arkansas. you say yes, it is a conflict of interest. why? caller: i think you got the wrong state but it is a conflict of interest. we do not need, he's a washington insider. that is one of the reasons our country is so messed up. right now. it's a shame that they can do this to our country. we do not need any more politicians in washington. my goodness, we need a businessperson to get this country out of debt. we need to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps. host: carol tweets, "there's a difference between being and anger and a pol

him strongly on nafta, permanent normal trade relations with china. i'm a strong opponent of these disastrous trade agreements which loses millions of decent-paying jobs. i also very strongly disagreed with deregulation on wall street. i opposed that. when you allow the greed and recklessness on wall street to go unchecked, you are going to end up where we are today and eight years ago. >> when you watch your chief primary opponent right now, secretary hillary clinton on some key issues, she has changed her position to a more progressive view. on same-sex marriage, immigration, this is over the last ten years. nafta, on trade, on the iraq war, on cuba. she has moved from a position basically in disagreement with you to a position that comes closer to your view. my guess is, do you take her at her word and do you think rhetorically that's enough? >> i have known hillary clinton for 25 years. i have enormous respect for her and i like her. what i hope is that the media will allow us to have a serious debate in this campaign on the enormous issues facing the american people, which is

he's known for nafta. she's skeptical. >> any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosper thety. >> reporter: as she moves, she hopes to block support for senator elizabeth warren. a constant krit. bernie sanders has his own fan base. >> how much does it cost to go to college in scandinavia. a guy said well in sand knave ya, they pay you to go to college. >> that was andrea mitchel reporting. after bernie sanders announced his run, clinton tweeted out agree with bernie. the focus membership on helping the middle class. i welcome him to the race. to which sanders replied, thanks. looking forward to debating the big issues. income inequality climate change and getting big money out of politics. >> interesting. let's the turn to business in a tough day for the markets on the last day of april. the dow dropped 195 points. nasdaq fell 1.6% on thursday. geoff cutmore joins us from london. help explain the loss. what are investors looking for into may. maybe a bit of a slow down with the stock market. >> we've had an interesting turn that have give thn market mom

every single policy advisor she had said tpp is a good deal, better than nafta. you have to be involved in this. i would guess almost every advisor she has says stay away from this. if anything, it will help bernie sanders run against you. she came out with a position today. she is for putting harriet tubman on the $20 bill. somehow, i do not think that will get rid of her non-position on trade. mark: thanks as always. we will be right back. ♪ >> here's a little something to remember john bolton i. >> are you a fan of the movie diner? >> i d [baseball crowd noise] ♪ ♪ [x1 chime] ♪ ♪ [crowd cheers] oh! i can't believe it! [cheering] hi, grandma! ♪ emily: is the writing on the wall for the nsa dragnet? we will look at that fate of the usa freedom that. -- freedom act. i'm emily chang. this is "bloomberg west." coming up is walmart ready to , compete with amazon? what the company would need to did you win over prime users. plus, a top google executives. what does rachel whetstone bring? kim kardashian visits our studio. the video game and reality star is getting us her

said tpp is a good deal, better than nafta. you have to be involved in this. i would guess almost every advisor she has says stay away from this. if anything, oppose it because it will help bernie sanders run against you. she came out with a position today. she is for putting harriet tubman on the $20 bill. somehow, i do not think that will get rid of her non-position on trade. mark: thanks as always. we will be right back with one of the bolton's. ♪ >> just because i'm away from my desk doesn't mean i'm not working. comcast business understands that. their wifi isn't just fast near the router. it's fast in the break room. fast in the conference room. fast in tom's office. fast in other tom's office. fast in the foyer [pronounced foy-yer] or is it foyer [pronounced foy-yay]? fast in the hallway. i feel like i've been here before. switch now and get the fastest wifi everywhere. comcast business. built for business. emily: is the writing on the wall for the nsa dragnet? we will look at the fate of the nsa freedom act. i'm emily chang. this is bloomberg west. coming up is walmart r

of his policies including you mentioned trade, nafta, gay marriage and certainly we've seen, you know the democratic party evolve on a variety of issues. but that's what got her in trouble in some respects. on the other hand neil they can point to the 1990s being very productive. there was the republican congress at this time. welfare law was signed into action. >> she might, you know be well served by her husband reminding and trying to bring her back to a more moderate position rather than this left-wing fringe that could cost her the election. we'll see. >> yes. it could be tough. it will be a challenge. >> thank you. >>> whether they see too much do we now have to worry they're not see anything at all. and do you remember when president obama said you didn't see all that? is he ready to double down on that me options. kept me on track. and through it all my retirement never got left behind. so today, i'm prepared for anything we may want tomorrow to be. every someday needs a plan. let's talk about your old 401(k) today. i have type 2 diabetes. i started with pills. and now i take

the deal that he's making. >> this probably goes back to nafta, when bill clinton promoted nafta. we're going to take labor rights environmental rights and other issues into account when we do this deal. and i think by and large, a lot of the unions and a lot of the, you know, economic critics on the left to that deal, even some on the right remember pat buchanan and ross perot were against it feel like at the end of the day those things are secondary. people like bill de blasio and liz elizabeth warren see they don't see how this helped american workers here. and elizabeth warren adds another ingredient into the mix when she's been talking of how wall street types and republicans want to use these fair trade agreements -- or free trade agreements, i should say, to undermall wall street and other regulations. so she has a lot of skin in this game from very different directions. >> and, jeremy what is elizabeth warren up to here? why did she need bill de blasio to cowrite an op-ed piece. >> well that seemed fairley smart to me. that way she tamps down on a little bit of the specul

kind of opposition to nafta or some of these other trade agreements and people are speaking up. and i think because we have that evidence of nafta in ohio in western pennsylvania in the industrial midwest, we have evidence it helps elizabeth warren and sherrod brown start making those arguments and convinceing people. i think that's why it's been a struggle in the senate and it's going to be a struggle in the house. they may get there, but not without a strong fight from us. >> thanks for joining us tonight. i want to bring in jonathan alter, msnbc political analyst, and lori walloch. great to have both of you with us. what kind of an impact is senator warren having on this debate? i mean she is totally opposed to where the president is where the secretary of state is. she seems to have quite a grass roots following on this. >> she's having a huge impact on this. and i think it's a healthy debate for the democratic party and for the country. you want everybody to err all of these issues. that doesn't mean she's necessarily right on every point that she's making. the president has some

party if he's a democrat exactly the same thing happened with bill clinton on nafta where his best friend was newt gingrich and his opponents were democrats, and he's just going to have to live with this as the trade fight goes forward. >> could a robust debate among democrats, even one that produces real tensions actually be a healthy thing for the party? >> well, i think up to a point it is a healthy thing to debate trade, and i think there are -- you know there's a case for this particularly in foreign policy concerns but i think there's legitimate concerns about how trade deals are sometimes use the to undercut regulations, you know giving foreign countries ways of suing to weaken american regulation, and i think forcing the president to say here's what we're going to have in the treaty to prevent the thing you fear is a useful thing, but on the whole one of the reasons why hillary clinton is really not wanting to talk about this is she knows how much this splits her party. you know when president obama ran in 2008 he was critical of nafta and said he would renegotiate it. >> r

. these agreements that we have had, everyone says nafta has had the same promises three of increased trade, good for business. every single case, we have greatly increased our trade deficit, lost jobs and it is best it has hurt the middle class -- it has heard the middle class -- hurt the middle class. it should be public. the so-called labor and environmental provisions have never been enforced. that goes by this administration too. i think this agreement is likely to be destructive of american jobs and likely to increase pressure to offshore american jobs. downward pressure on wages. i think these trade agreements as nafta had been one of the major reasons most of the money that is come in during economic expansion have gone to the top 1% and why the middle class is being shrunk. if we could see the agreement send it out for a few months to the economists, to the public schools, to the universities, get comments back, see what makes sense, have an amendment process, then we should consider it. the way it is now, a secretly negotiated agreement, no labor no environmental and then it

against and a nafta and hoffman and everyone. but i will say bernie, i mean, he's standing up and he's right about the transnational corporations. they take all these jobs abroad and bring their products back free of charge. and everybody at the top makes an awful lot of money. the way to change that is put a tariff on the products coming back into the country, cut the taxes on signal businesses that produce in -- small businesses that produce in the country and some of these fat cats will come running home. >> bernie sanders talks about the language of make making the rich pay their fair share. the way to address income and inequality is to address social mobility. he has this idea of a socialist utopia. the problem is it doesn't work. >> the real problem is, the simple upward mobility that we had when i was a kid, we ain't got anymore. college is too expensive. all these barriers. and this gap keeps getting wider. and there are ways -- well, money is going to solve it, so he's got to raise money, one way or the other. that's the reality that most voters understand. >> cheaper educati

, right? and then when you have the legacy of your family, bill clinton and nafta and george bush in iraq. if you sit all the way through a primary with not comparable competition, if you get into the general if you are not running against the guy with the other family legacy, you got problems. >>> next, a sneak peek reporters share from their notebooks and get you out ahead of the current political news, including what a current first lady is doing for the former first later who is running for president. rk from the bay area to the big apple. and more data capacity per customer. need one more reason? get two lines of unlimited 4g lte data for a hundred bucks save without settling on america's fastest 4g lte network just stay calm and move asno sudden movements.. google search: bodega beach house. it begins from the the second we're born.er. after all, healthier doesn't happen all by itself. it needs to be earned... every day... using wellness to keep away illness... and believing that a single life can be made better by millions of others. healthier takes somebody who can power modern he

we hear the same old arguments and every time this comes up look at the north american -- nafta. when we passed, that we lost more than a million jobs because of the free trade agreement. when do we say enough is enough a deal with what is really happening? i'm protecting the american worker. >> congressman dent i'm curious, nafta has come up so much in the last 22 years or so but when you look back at nafta and the other trade deals over the last generation or so do you see them as a net plus or net negative with the economy for this country? >> first, the united states has 20 trade agreements. we run a net trade surplus for those 20 countries. trade has increased to 1 poen $2$1.2 trillion. when we talk about nafta, let's be clear and honest there has been an enormous amount of investment as a result of that in the united states and a lot of what comes into mexico 40%, is american content. i think we have to be very clear about this. and we have -- when the united states has bilateral trade agreements, we tend to run surpluses. it's where we don't have agreements that there are trade

agreements like nafta and they say there aren't any sanctions or fines that are put in place when you're talking about labor violations by other countries that are parts of these trade agreements. what do you say to that -- >> these are old trade agreements from last century. this is different in that this requires other countries to come up to our standards. what labor is concerned about, our labor standards, in nafta they were not inside the trade agreement and they were side agreements. they are inside the trade agreement in this particular case. we have 150 guidelines that are required to be in any trade agreement to basically bring other countries up to american standards. and if they don't meet those standards we have ways of getting our disputes resolved so that we can hold them to account. the key thing is are these countries that we want to trade with going to open our markets to our products just like we're already open to theirs? question two, will they come to work in america's standards instead of china-like rules, that degrade the standards of trade. and there will b

carried out by ronald reagan, nafta but on that this exploded the prison population the destruction of welfare, 70% of the children of -- were stripped of their ability to receive government benefits. glass-steagall, all of this essentially has propelled us forward to a situation where as things unravel we no longer have the legal mechanisms for the protection by which we can resist. this is by design. the nsa has run numerous scenarios on the effect of climate change. we just on march 400 parts per million the first time the levels of carbon emissions have been that high for an entire month in recorded history. and corporate forces exploit until there's nothing left and in theological terms in many ways they are forces of death. quite literally when we talk about that forces it is climate change. that's the reality that we face. that is the political, the economic the environmental realities that we are up against and the capacity of the state to control the citizen, to modern modern -- monitor the citizen to use lethal force against unarmed citizens and all of the marches all of the

both administrations to pull back that date back to nafta in 1993 appears the point man in said it is republican majority leader mitch mcconnell he praised the president and vowing to pass the trade legislation. >> we will pass it later this week the president has done an excellent job on this. by the osama members are squeamish but to give the power with his expansive view of so many other issues it is not just for president obama but the next president as well to have trade authority. lou: we have jeff sessions including budget armed services and judiciary committee. you are breaking with president and to be historic in seeking accountability of these deals because those questions are never asked nor answered rigo empirically 40 consecutive years of trade deficit those a just happen to conveniently begin with the onset of trade promotion and authority. fast-track authority this is to the american people who are aware it is the clear and present danger established to the previous trade deals talking about pressure on middle-class were those that aspire or small business in the loo

trade agreements like nafta, and what do you say to them? >> these are old trade agreements from last century. this is different in that this requires other countries to come up to our standards. what labor is concerned about, our labor standards, nafta, they were not inside the trade agreement and they were side agreements, and we have 150 guidelines required to be in any trade agreement to bring other countries up to american standards and if they don't meet the standards we have ways of getting our disputes resolved so we can hold them to account. the key thing is are these countries that we want to trade with going to open our markets to other products like we are open to theirs. question two, will they come to work america standards instead of china-like rules, that degrade the standards of trade. and there will be 1.2 people in the asian class, and that's tough teeth in the agreements. >> do you find it ironic you have critics, democrats claiming that president obama is overreaching or this will give him authority to overreach. that's a criticism you have made of him, and yet he

heck out of it. nafta is a four-letter word. >> any time commerce is allowed to flow back and forth, i'm in favor of that. what are the underpinnings of that. >> i feel like i'm a smart guy. >> have you had a chance to glance at it. been negotiated in secret and that's one of the problems people have with it. >> everything is negotiated in secret, whether it's legislation or -- >> fair point. >> -- whether it's a trade deal like this. this is not a new alignment. a democratic president bill clinton in the 1990s pushed nafta, he got it with republican help and china's entry into the wto. the democratic base is liberals labor unions environmentalists. they have peace with this bill. democratic presidents bill clinton and barack obama have both decided they think it's in the interest of the united states economy and national security for that matter to advance these trade deals. that's why they move ahead despite opposition within their base and despite the fact that their allies are republicans who they normally fight against. >> isn't flex coemexico canada and australia also part of

nafta was a trade deal that hurt american workers. litchfield the global race to the bottom in terms of labor standards and environmental standards and other things. what you're seeing right now in the fight over tpp is the leadership of someone like elizabeth warren is vital. she is calling out the fact that the tpp includes a provision that would allow corporations to sue the u.s. government if they are going to lose profits because of laws that the u.s. or any other country might an act. senator warren's voice is a reminder why america is so fired up about her at her message. we are held to be ending up next to her and make sure that the fast-track is not passed, and the tpp is not reality. host: here's what senator warren full bloomberg television less tuesday. >> matters to millions of workers across this country. it matters to millions of people who have to breathe the air entering the water. it matters to millions of people are going to eat food here in the united feeds. -- united states. the trade deal matters to me. >> could it impact you support in this presidential electio

. >> reporter: on trade he's known for nafta. she's skeptical. >> what about the trade deal and whether that will hurt? >> any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity. >> reporter: he signed the defense of marriage act. now both clintons endorse gay marriage. as she moves left, clinton hopes to blunt support for senator elizabeth warren, not a candidate, but a constant critic. as for bernie sanders, he's got his own fan base. >> i mentioned in many european countries how much does it cost to go to college in scandinavia, and the guy said, in scandinavia, they pay you to go to college. [ laughter and applause ] >> reporter: the clinton campaign says that she's breaking away from some of her husband's policies because times change. and speaking of change, nbc news confirms that the obama presidential library will go to chicago, not new york or hawaii, expected to be connected to the university of chicago. the big loser in this competition, columbia university in new york. real estate in manhattan just too expensive. lester. >> all right, andrea mitchell. we know