all due respect to the president, it's he that's stuck in the past. this is a nafta-style agreement. what we wanted is what we promised, that's a new type of trade agreement that would protect american jobs and grow the economy and let everybody win from a trade agreement and not just wall street. this agreement is patterned after cafta and nafta and as a result it's not us stuck in the past. >> ifill: the argument, of course, i'll be the devil's advocate here, is that the north american free trade agreement the one you just referenced, that that was a different time and it was a different place and our technology and where we are in the world now allows us to enforce the kinds of promises that maybe you feel were not kept at that time. >> well, first of all, the rules are the rules. and if you use the same old rules that you did under nafta, you'll get the same results now regardless of a different period of time. second of all, you're right they didn't enforce those rules, and there's nothing in this agreement that will give them more rights, more ways to enforce workers' rights 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

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

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

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

what happened with nafta the north american free trade agreement over time many jobs were lost. they have done studies and said hound of jobs, maybe a million jobs were lost. how do you counter that argument? >> over time, the nafta bill created millions of jobs, too. the fact of the matter is, is that this bill will probably do even better than that because we have to be in the real world. this bill will enable the trade representative to negotiate agreements on what's called t.p.p., the trade promotion authority-- skews skews me, the trans-pacific partnership, and that involves 11 nation plus our own. and the t-tip of 28 nations plus their own putting us on an equal footing in many respects to everything in those countries and opening the door to free trade from our country to theirs. it could amount to trillions of dollars over the years and free trade benefits to the united states and i think it will create a tremendous number of jobs. >> woodruff: senator, i think as you know, many americans have come over time to associate a trade deal with a drank of jobs out of the united sta

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

another nafta. any candidate needs to address the issue in their own way. >> i think it's obvious the issues talked about here having huge impact on the people of new york city, and when you think about what's happening in the city, 46% of the people of the city at our near the poverty level, those are according to statistics developed in the bloomberg administration. the ways we address that involve national policy. we are trying to do it with affordable housing, sick leave, and other measures. we need policies to change. i'm here tomorrow working for the new infrastructure bill in congress, a new transportation bill. new york city and cities all over the country need the federal government to address income in income inequality. >> perception, though, that even though you think you do this for new york voters don't think that. >> the fact is this is something that has to happen for our people. none of us should get lost in perceptions. we deal on facts, everyone understand the the federal government has a huge impact on the future of the roads, highways mass transit, education, affo

not make this a mistake of the famous trade deals of the path. we don't need another nafta. any candidate needs to address the issue into own way. >> what are you backing the wealthy over the workers? workers over the wealthy. >> i -- >> i think it's obvious the issue we're talking about here have a huge impact on the people of new york city. and when you think of what's happening in our city, 46% of people in our city at or near the poverty level. those are the statistics developed in the bloomberg administration. the ways we address that involve national policy. we can do a lot at the local level and trying to do with affordable housing in increasing paid sick leave and living wage and other measures. we need national policies to change. i'm going to be here tomorrow working for this new infrastructure in congress can new transportation bill. new york city and cities all over the country need the federal government to address income inequality we can make the progress we need without it. >> even though you think you're doing this for new york new york voters don't think that.

record we have from nafta. what about the congress want totion cutingto cut $14 billion in domestic spending. making possible people being subsidized for retraining because of some of the unemployment caused by nafta. while i think there is plenty of good news i think there is room for an awful lot of caution. i know maria you talk to small business folks every day and when you talk to them i think many of them will share what their concerns are. you know del the other thing i want to note is that while many small business owners talk about people being insufficiently trained, we know that there are possibilities with the community colleges that the college -- >> exactly. >> -- has emphasized. this raises questions for me. i think that with the be affordable careaffordablecare act with small business remember we're talking about businesses that have fewer than 500 people. for some mom and pop businesses, that is pretty huge. white the affordable care act makes it possible for people to get health care, what about things like pens. >> that's where we're going unfortunately that is wh

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

. look at the transpacific partnership with the obama administration. that is nafta on steroids. what problems will that have? generate profits. where will that profit go? pockets on accountability for every day people. he had the courage to raise an issue that was unpopular. but not attending to the structure analysis to the degree he ought to we end up seeing the same thing. our brother is acquainted with how human beings could creatively respond to poverty. in this case white brothers and sisters, right? but a different moment. your family is strong. unbelievable commitment to education. every working class person is not a robert george. you have a lot of cousins. i am sure. >> i think it is true he didn't get the full picture. he was deflected from seeing other factors because so much seemed to be accounted for by reference to race and the history of race relations and oppression. and that say blind as much as it illumeinate illuminates. and he is a good case of that. the nafta an steroids is what i said we need to address when we talk about proper economic issues. we make a mista

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

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

different. we'll have a different outcome. in isn't nafta. actually the text of the tpp has the same offshoring promotion provisions that were nafta but bigger and strong per. has the labor standards in bush's trade agreements since 2007. that proved totally ineffective. spot on. there's nothing in the agreement that will make vietnam raise the wages for 60 cents an hour. there are things that will mote the offshoring of american jobs and push down our wages by making us have to compete with the workers making 60 cents an hour. >> charlie, nike is saying that they are making real efforts to improve working conditions. you believe that? >> not at all. not for a second. >> and so how would the united states or any country dictate to them in a trade agreement that the conditions would change? that's basically what the president is saying. this has new language new provisions, new climate standards, new labor standards. how in the world will we go down that road to make sure it's the truth? >> well, it's a sweat shop all other again. it's not going to change. until there is very serious

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

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

. 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

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

trade deals of the path. we don't need another nafta. any candidate needs to address the issue into own way. >> what are you backing the wealthy over the workers? workers over the wealthy. >> i think it's obvious the issue we're talking about here have a huge impact on the people of new york city. and when you think of what's happening in our city 46% of people in our city that under the poverty level. those are the statistics developed in the bloomberg administration. the ways we address that involve national policy. we can do a lot at the local level and trying to do with affordable housing in increasing paid sick leave and living wage and other measures. i'm going to get to more working for this new infrastructure in congress can new transportation bill. new york city and cities all over the country need the federal government to address income inequality we can make the progress we need without it. >> even do you think you're doing this for the the u.s., new york voters don't think that. >> this is something that has to happen for people. none of us should get lost in perception

right to sue the canadian government under a provision of nafta the north american free trade agreement. the amount of the lawsuit a jaw dropping $250 million. >> there's a provision that allows foreign investors to sue governments for adopting policies or regulations that allegedly harm the value of their investments. these so-called investor state disputes don't play out openly in domestic courts. instead, they are arbitrated behind closed doors by a three member panel and that tribunal's decision is final. >> as these redacted dollar physician show, lorne pine does not want the public to know how much the damages its seeking represent out of pocket costs versus lost profits. the firm's lawyer told us these matters are the subject of litigation and ultimately to be established by the tribunal. it's not only nafta that lets multi-national corporations sue governments in closed door pry bunnals. it exists in thousands of investment and trade agreements and the tendency to use it has exploded in recent years. >> the signal that it sends is when a government puts in place for example a mo

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

and ten other countries follows in the footsteps of disastrous trade agreements like nafta cafta permanent normal trade relations with china and the south korean free trade agreements. any objective look at these trade agreements will tell us that they have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and have led us to a race to the bottom where american workers are forced to compete against workers in low-wage countries who are making pennies an hour. mr. president, over and over again, supporters of these types of trade agreements have told us about how many jobs they would create how beneficial they would be for the middle class and working class of this country. but over and over again virtually everything they told us turned out to be wrong and they are wrong again in terms of the t.p.p. in 1993, president bill clinton promised that nafta would create one million american jobs in five years. instead, nafta has led to the loss of almost 700,000 jobs. in 1999, we were promised that permanent normal trade relations with china would open up the chinese economy to american made goods

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

, she was in favor of it. as first lady, she was in favor of nafta. now she is very vague. she says we have to put safeguards because she does not want to take a stand on such things. she wants to be all things to all people. bill de blasio was hillary clinton's senate campaign manager. far he can go in criticizing her and keep his credibility. on the trade thing, i think elizabeth warren as a theory which is that trade treaties can overcome some domestic laws. there is a little bit of evidence that has happened in some places. bloomberg news is working on a piece to analyze whether that has credibility and how much that charge has. olivia: is about trade and inequality. joe will be on the tour with bill de blasio. his inequality and issue that hillary clinton from the non--- can win on -- is inequality and issue that hillary clinton can win on? as a country where we aspire to go up in income and status, people always want to do that and they do not blame the people who are successful or wealthy. but nonetheless, there's so much out there about income inequality. the figures are jus

. >> 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

trade unions do not want to be a part of it? >> we learned a lot of lessons from nafta. this is the first trade agreement that has been introduced with an sme chapter. the president and i just traveled to the summit of the americas in panama. those heads of state said that they had entered into 200 trade agreements which the u.s. was not a part of. so they are treating, and this is going to china. if we do not raise our standards environmental and labor standards, then china will win. we need to pass the transpacific partnership today. mark: there was a report last month that cited numbers from the institute of women's policy showing the number of female small business owners is on the rise and minority women are making huge strides. why is this and what are the challenges they still face? >> one of the challenges is they did not know where to go to counseling centers. we now have several centers across the country. they also said that our loans were expensive. we have loans zero down and $150,000. we put on a new program that allows them to go to our website, answer a few questions

nafta was negotiating? >> we don't do this we will be letting china set the rules and china's weak labor standards that will become the default. president obama going to nike and saying nike will agree to create over the next decade when it has about a million jobs. so convincing to a lot of people. i think the white house needs to make a slightly stronger case still. >> we're about to find out. still ahead as we continue this morning here is what president obama has to say about it. >> that's why he's not here. he's in washington d.c. as we speak quarterbacking this effort. >> senator ron widen missing out to a visit to his own backyard to win votes for the trade bill back in washington. he takes the time to talk to me about that and why he is prepared to filibuster to stop renewal of the pariot act. that's in just a bit. [announcer]when we make beyond natural dry dog and cat foods. we start with real meat as the first ingredient. we leave out corn,wheat and soy. and we own where our dry food is made-100 percent! can other brands say all that? for nutrition you can trust and your

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

nafta negative and positive effects come out of this. here is the problem. we don't get to see what is in the deal. you know. neil: what could go wrong? like how health care went. >> right. neil: you argue that republicans, you know -- >> get rid of fast track. i don't care if it is a republican or democrat in charge republic form of government our elected representatives should have a say. neil: do you know how long they drag it out. >> i'm not throwing away the constitution for some expedia european policy. neil: so brad, what happens? you argue as a business guy when all said and done it is good to do business with all? >> yeah it speaks to self confidence of u.s. economy. that we're strong enough we can engage in very open, trade agreements and benefit the american worker. neil: but we're not doing it you are not saying there is anything open. >> well okay like that -- i don't see anything wrong with this agreement. >> who read the agreement? my question is, who knows what is in agreement? and where are american people's voices to be brought into this? neil: fair enough, because yo

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

its investment chapter that were found in the north american free trade agreement, nafta. those are roles that the cato institute, free trade libertarian think tank, calls a subsidy on off shoring loring the risk premium of off shoring. we have seen with our own eyes the old nafta rules brought shoring. or the obama administration has admitted the labor and environmental standards are now saying new and improved, amazing, are what bush had in his last watcher agreements. and those are standards, as well as not being beloved by a single environmental or labor group i.e., the groups that have a specialty and workers rights and the environment supposed the agreement say the standards aren't sufficient. in addition, the bush dinner tar in the tpp are explicitly -- that are in it tpp are especially reviewed by the government accountability office and found two totally failed to change conditions on the ground in the countries where they are applied. these are things we actually know about the agreement. on the financial issue that senator warren has raised, what we know that is true? in

behalf of their meat industries alleging violations of nafta, the north american free trade agreement. the ruling validates the concern brought by critics of another free trade deal, the transpacific partnership, or tpp, who say it would undermine food safety and environmental rules to benefit corporations. in a statement, wenonah hauter of food and water watch said the ruling "proves that trade agreements can and do trump u.s. laws. this is a chilling reminder that our very democracy is at stake in these trade deals," they said. last week, the senate advanced a bill to give obama fast-track authority to present the secretive tpp to congress for an up-or-down vote with no amendments. but obama faces opposition from fellow democrats, including massachusetts senator elizabeth warren, who issued a report monday highlighting how the united states has broken its promises to enforce labor standards in past trade pacts, allowing child labor and violence against union organizers to continue abroad. meanwhile, another spat has shown the potential of free trade pacts to undermine u.s. financial

these trade agreements with nafta and also -- although i think we need unions, they were asking for more and more. i think the big companies took advantage of nafta and moved out for lower wages for their workers. i think it is hurt the urban center. what is your opinion? guest: there is a prayer, god save me from things i don't know. i have to differ on that one. host: nadine, you should stay around for our last 45 minutes of the show. we will be talking about that trade deal that is on the table. the trade authority is getting voted on, at least the early measure for fast track trade authority. the senate will be talking about it. mother jones described you as paul ryan's anti-poverty guru. talk about your relationship. guest: congressman paul ryan is a breath of fresh air. the last month of the campaign he approached me about assembling leaders in ohio and i did. i think he was moved by what he saw. after the campaign was over, he asked me what i take him on a listening tour. for two years we went without any press or media and we went every month for an entire day all over the c

the last 20 years or so since nafta has been -- cost millions of jobs and to lower the average wage and the average income of a working family by about $1800, even after taking into effect inflation and the cost of consumer goods. the net effect on most working people has been negative. i think it is worth pointing out that in baltimore, where we have this tremendous unemployment everybody agreed, we select people, employers bring in guest workers to do jobs that those people could do. we let employers go to mexico central america to bring in people as landscapers and gardeners and hotel workers. jobs that clearly a person with a high school education can do. the unemployed people in baltimore can do yet, we let them bring people from thousands of miles away to work in his stead of going -- instead of going to baltimore in hiring the unemployed people in baltimore. to me, that is a crazy policy. host: caller: this would be for mr. tanner. i am not poor and i am not black. but when you sprinkle poverty and despair in any community, i don't care what color you are you are going to get

money that way. host: james, a democrat. caller: i am calling about nafta. i remember when that came through, ross perot debate of bill clinton about the benefits of nafta. he said it would destroy the working class of america. after the first year, 5000 companies left the united states of america and went overseas. in 10 years 60,000 companies did not go out of business, they went overseas. to me, this is a very simple equation. the jobs went because of the american government. ross perot was right. he said we will make richer men and it will destroy the american working class. guest: ross perot famously said that that giant sucking sound you hear will be all of the jobs being sucked out of the country. in large part, we have seen a trend of job with the country. we have also seen a trend of companies leaving the country tax aversion, leaving the united states to lower their tax bills. what you see is that companies are machines that exist to make money and profits. they are not necessarily patriotic institutions and do not think it is there priority to hire one nationality or anoth

. >> why is it so contentious? >> for the same reason that nafta is contentious. business wants it, because it removes barriers to terrorists around the pacific rim. and it would take up to one-third of the world's trade. and it would make up 40% of all global trading activity. 12 countries u.s., japan canada and mexico, and others, and china is not in it. so this is a way to sort of strengthen asia without china. would wouldn't like this, tony? organized labor environmental activists. they hate it. they say that the deals cost american jobs, and they erowed u.s. regulation, and drive wages down. u.s. manufacturing sector, and the other side says no way. >> ali what else do you have on ali velshi on target tonight? >> this is a fun show. we're talking about a handful of states, be nine states across the country, where supreme court judges get elected on the basis of party affiliation, and they accept campaign contributions when they run for the supreme court. which means that big businesses and trial lawyers give a lot and it makes it impossible for the judges to be impartial. and i'm takin

support for free trade. in the years since nafta. and mitch mcconnell, lava republican leader, figuring out a way to sort through this. assign a free trade is not an easy sell right now. >> watching the battle between the president and elizabeth warren an interesting and very personal back and forth between the two of them. >> they are both very emotionally engage in this subject. he is not mailing this in. they see other parts of his record as being not so much. they butted heads on this. that was the dynamic of the debate, and it has gone somewhat personal. >> the issue is jobs. there are those who think free trade kills jobs. with the come down on that? >> it is about jobs. we did not wall street journal and nbc news poll, and the sentiment was free trade has not been good for this country, was slightly higher among republicans and democrats. that is not reflected in congress where in the senate there for a free trade but there are populists in free both parties that don't buy the idea that free trade is the fatigue, and your job security and that includes a lot of republic

a voice in nafta being passed? in 1993s pretty busy working on health care reform, but she and her husband have been pretty staunch free traders throughout their lives. she was a supporter then and i think she would probably say that there are some things about it that turned out to not work out as well as she would have hoped, but that in the long run she thinks it is a good thing. that a federal judge ruled clinton state department e-mails on the page basis, she is asking for it to be done quickly. i what point will this be laid to rest? quite that is the question. at one point yesterday they said they would not be seeing those e-mails until january of next year in the federal judge said that instead of releasing them in a bulk package you have to do it on a route -- rolling basis. a different thing from one of the things they were concerned about, which was this private server and the choice about which ones to consider personal. most of the controversy is around the ones that she destroyed. what is in those e-mails? we don't know. out,she wants them to come presumably these wer

nafta. i would say any candidate needs to address the issue in their own way. go ahead. >> why are you backing the wealthy over the workers? workers over the wealthy, you said. >> [ inaudible ]. >> the issues here have an impact on the people of new york city. when you think about what's happening in this city 46% of the people of our city at or near the poverty level. that's in the bloomberg administration statistic you ss. we're trying to do this at the local level with the affordable housing, living wage and other measures. but we need national policyies to change. i'm also going to be here tomorrow working for the new infrastructure bill in congress. the transportation bill. new york city and cities all over the country need the federal government to address income inequality. we can't make the progress we need without it. >> reporter: the perception is in new york, even though you think you're doing this for new york, the voters don't think that. >> again, i think the fact is, this has to happen for our people. none should get lost in perceptions. we deal in facts. everyone un

have to take a hard look at the consequences of free-trade agreements of the past, such as nafta, which i think any objective observer would conclude has failed the american people and resulted in the loss of millions of good paying, middle-class jobs. that have moved overseas, and in many instances, never to return again. that has had an adverse impact on the capacity for hard-working, everyday americans to find good high-quality, sustainable jobs. that is the reason why i opposed fast track authority connected to the transpacific partnership because i believe that we can't do the same thing and expect different results. if we are going to discuss trade, a to be done in a robust, comprehensive way where congress can't cede its authority to the administration. and this is an administration that i support. i believe barack obama has done a great job, i just disagree with his approach to this particular issue. host: it appears that in the senate, a deal has been struck to move toward on trade after tuesday cost defeat -- tuesday's defeat for the president. harry reid announced the