tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC April 21, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
a food waste story. that's going premier and be followed by a special discussion with msnbc food correspondent tom cholicchio. the president plays "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews up in new york. i've just come from washington where i spoke with president obama about the threat of iran and the news that we have u.s. warships that could intercept an iranian's weapons convoy off the coast of yemen, that and putin's decision to advanced surface-to-air missiles to the iranians that could be used to guard nuclear weapons. we begin tonight with the president's declaration of war on his own left led by senator elizabeth warren. >> i love elizabeth. we're allies on a whole host of issues, but she's wrong on this, and when you hear folks make a
lot of suggestions about how bad this trade deal is when you dig into the facts, they are wrong. >> senator warren is among a group of activists, unions and environmentalists out there to kill a deal called the transpacific partnership. the historic trade pact being negotiated now by the obama administration. the goal of the administration is to unleash an economic boom by making it easier to sell goods, everything from florida oranges to japanese video games. supporters of the deal led by the president argue that if we don't write the rules on trade with these countries china will. we've brought you the passionate voices against the bill, ohio democratic congresswoman marcy captor and sherrod brown on this show. here's senator elizabeth warren. >> no more secret trade deals. are you ready to fight? no more secret deals. no more special deals for multi-national corporations.idñ are you ready to fight? are you ready to fight any more
deals that say we're going to help the rich get richer and leave everyone else behind? are you ready to fight that? >> today senate minority leader said hell no to the trade deal and we hear from the president and his view. earlier today i had a chance to lead a discussion on this trade war with a panel that included the president and some of his trade allies. >> thank you for inviting me to moderate this discussion. we have congressman jerry connolly in virginia, jim corcoran, kind of an irish crowd, jim corcoran head of the chamber of commerce out here, the co-founder of a health care startup and debbie askin, founder of an i.t. firm out here, right? >> yes. >> i want to ask you, mr. president, obviously the hot question, u.s. senator elizabeth warren is out there saying things like this about the trade agreement we're going to talk about today. it's going to help the rich get richer and leave everyone else behind. she also says it challenges u.s. sovereignty. >> yeah.
>> they are throwing the kitchen sink at this trade agreement which will involve 11 nations and ourselves on the pacific rim. why are they saying these things? >> well, i guess they don't want it to happen, and i love elizabeth. we're allies on a whole host of issues, but she's wrong on this, and let me be very clear about w6& my views on trade generally and why this is so important. you know, i'm not somebody who believes in trade just for trade sake.=í.# you know, i come from a state in illinois that was devastated by the loss of manufacturing in many small towns. i think that we had a stretch of a couple of decades where in part because of globalization you had manufacturing moving to other places in search of low wages. no environmental standards, no labor standards, so trade deals haven't always worked for us. but, what i've also always believed is that it's important
for us to be able to export our goods to make sure our businesses are competitive. that's good for american workers. that's good for american businesses. it's good for america's small business, so when i came into office i said what kind of trade deal would i like to see? how would we revamp how we've done trade to make it work for america?3:g7ç and we know that we'd have strong enforcible labor standards for other countries that we trade with. we'd have strong environmental standards with the countries that we trade with. we'd make sure that we had access to their markets just like they have got access to ours so that it was fair and reciprocal, and 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 here in the united states we've got to be there, and the fastest growing, most populace region in the world is in the asia-pacific region. we've pulled together 11 countries to come up with a high
standard enforcible trade u 8ah[ provision that has unprecedented labor standards, unprecedented environmental standards, fixes a lot of the problems that you had in things like 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. >> yeah. >> now, understandably folks in labor and some progress i was are suspicious generally because of the experiences they saw in the past, but my point is don't fight the last war. wait and see what we actually have in this deal before you make those judgments because what i know is that if we are going to succeed as an economy where already about 11 million of the high-paying jobs in the united states are directly related to exports overseas, and it's not just big businesses. it's small businesses that are represented around this table,
then we've got to be able to craft the kinds of trade deals that i'm talking about. >> let me ask congressman connolly, the reco"$1áu(k which was about 50-50 in the u.s. senate and the house a little more so, but there were more democrats for nafta back then. was nafta flawed in a way this new trade deal isn't? in other words, did it have reasons for people like sherrod brown and bobby casey out there now opposing this. like the president said, they oppose it had on the basis of how bad the last deal was. was the last deal flawed? was nafta flawed? >> well, i think nafta wasn't perfect and i do agree with the president. i think the agreement we're looking at now significantly improves on that and in fact goes back in and makes some improvements to the areas that critics are concerned about legitimately but i wouldn't call nafta a failure. nafta, in fact, opened up a lot of trade here in north america, and, you know, there have been some approximate in terms of
labor standards and environmental standards, but i don't think it's been pronounced as a fail use, and i think the narrative that all trade is bad. all trade agreements have failedl!=j÷ just isn't true. you know, we have a trade surplus with 11 of the 14 trade agreements we have in place, not a deficit, a surplus. it's not a secret agreement. it doesn't favor the wealthy and leave everyone behind. >> so elizabeth warren is wrong? >> i think she's absolutely wrong. >> what are some people like chuck schumer, probably going to be the leader of the senate, which is he switching from the big city, pro-trader, to an anti-trader? i can't figure this out. >> i think you've got to talk to chuck. >> was nafta a good deal? was nafta a good deal? >> i think nafta did a couple of things that were important. it integrated the north american economy. mexico and canada are important trading partners. >> right. >> we sell a lot of stuff to them. they sell a lot of stuff to us. the problem with nafta that i identified when i was running for senate long before i was in the oval office was the labor
agreements and the environmental agreements were in a side letter. they weren't enforcible the same way that the business provisions were in the document and you could actually penalize somebody if they violated them. that's fixed in the trade deal q0h"ájjráháhough that if -- if we are going to capture the
future, then we've got to open up markets to the kinds of things that we're really good at, that can't be duplicated overseas. we're good at innovation. we're good at services. we can create things that other countries can't create. we're not going to be able to compete for low-wage manufacturing jobs anymore. that ship has sailed. what we can do is compete for the high end where we're adding value, and the small companies that are represented by the doctor and by debbie, where it's i.t., it's talent, it's innovation, that's the kind of stuff that we can sell all around the world, and by the way, we're still doing good on manufacturing. look, chris, think about it. i've spent the last six and a half years yanking this economy out of the worst recession since the great depression. every single thing i've done from the affordable care act to pushing to raise the minimum wage, to making sure that young people can go to college and get
good job training, to what we're pushing now in terms of sick paid leave, everything i do has been focused on how do we make sure the middle class is getting a fair deal? now, i would not be doing this trade deal if i did not think it was good for the middle class, and when you hear folks make a lot of suggestions about how bad this trade deal is when you dig into the facts, they are wrong. first of all, they call it a secret deal. we've done 1,700 briefings up on capitol hill. there's a misnomer about fast track. essentially what we're -- only thing we're looking for is the same trade authority, negotiating authority that almost every president in the post-world war ii era has had to be able to negotiate ahead of time. congress lays out the parameters for what the deal should be, and then we go out and finish the
negotiations. we bring the deal back, and for a minimum of three months everybody in congress gets to read the actual. >> why are they saying this stuff? >> i don't know. you've got to talk to them. >> they are saying this is a totally unfair deal, never been done before. >> i know! >> i want to bring in these republicans -- no, you're not republicans, i thought you would be. >> but the one thing i just want to say about this though chris is that i am happy to debate this, and i'm sure jerry and others are based on the actual facts. >> right. >> this is the most progressive framework for trade we have ever had. >> okay. >> this requires us to have binding labor agreements. on the environment we're actually negotiating with countries that almost have no environmental standards but suddenly they have to pay attention to excessive logging. they have to pay attention to excessive fishing. they have to pay attention to how they are protecting their oceans. they have got to pay attention to wildlife trafficking. i mean, we're -- we're embodying
in this deal all of the stuff that the environmental community and the labor community for years has been talking about as a requirement for them approving trade deals. this is better than the we do it less often than the other side. >> can we talk about the other. henry ford, he used to say if i asked people what they wanted they would have said a faster horse. >> right. >> henry ford. so innovation. how many people can you hire with better trade agreements? what good will this do you guys out higher because we're hearing about the hollowed out manufacturing base of the older cities where i grew up in
illinois where there was this terrible loss of jobs in big cities like flint, erie, pennsylvania. this is a booming part of the country n.has tyson's corner, the most exuberant shopping mall in the world out here, world famous. you've got money, okay. let's talk jobs. you got any? >> absolutely. >> you going to create any? >> we're currently exporting 60% of our current revenue is through exporting, and we are exporting knowledged workers.kñkc it's services, and that's what other governments, other countries want, and by having the trade agreement it will allow us to work in a level playing field so that we understand and we're out working with the same rules. >> it isn't this -- i've been reading about this, higher paid people, better educated certainly, they will be the winners. >> yeah. i think absolutely. what our company sells is we're creating innovative new products for health care using low cost
sensors and mobile apps and being able to transmit that data to the people who need it who are the doctors and caregivers. >> let me give you to jim corcoran, the president of the chamber of commerce. i love the way you said the other day i didn't get elected by the chamber of commerce and the business roundtable and here you are. >> we're independent and we support people who support business. silicon valley, in this area along the corridor, people going to dulles airport and see it on both sides of the highway. what is it about this area that works? why is this place booming? >> it's interesting. in virginia, we can say that virginia is probably a microcosm of the united states economy. we're export begun $35 billion a year in products, and it's evenly split between services and manufactured goods, and i would say to your question it's -- it's education, it's technology, it's talent. we used to be the numbery producing county in virginia. >> yeah. >> 50 years ago. >> by far the largest piece of the economy. >> and that knowledge-based economy that debbie talk about
is so critical, but it's an international economy. we do it, and anyone who works in business here would tell you that. >> but one thing that i think is important to point out, chris, is there is this notion that somehow high-end knowledge workers, they benefit from trade. >> is that true? >> the average joe doesn't. what is true is that every worker is going to need some skills. that doesn't have to do with trade that. has to do with the nature of the economy because even if there's no trade, you know, machines are going to displace routine work over time, and we've got to make sure that all our workers are engaged in lifelong learning so that they are prepared for the new economy in which they are taking technology, taking tools. you go into a factory these days, and it's all computer run. now, the guys who used to be there, they are hired now not because of brawn but because they can work a machine. they can identify problems.
they can help develop new products, but -- but this notion that somehow it only benefits a handful, i was down in panama, and while we were down there boeing signed an agreement with a major airline down there, selling a whole bunch of airplanes, and deal is probably worth several billion dollars, let's say $10 billion. now, boeing has suppliers everywhere in the country, and those suppliers, that supply chain, involves small companies that are making specialized parts. can you go into a little small town far away from seattle. >> right. >> and you'll find people who are benefiting directly. they may not know it initially, but because of that order and all of the planes that we've been selling over the years in part because of free trade agreements, in part because of things like the export/import bank, that's benefiting manufacturing workers, not just service workers.
when you go into the agricultural sector, you know, jerry just said that fairfax has changed in terms of dairy but we're still the preeminent agricultural producer in the world. it's a huge part of our rural economy, so trade isn't just benefiting san francisco and manhattan. trade is benefiting, you know, tiny towns in iowa and in nebraska and in montana because we produce food better than anybody else does, and other countries want it, but in order for us to be able to sell our beef in japan, we've got to be able to pry open those markets, and when i hear critics of the possibility of us instituting the most progressive trade deal in our history, their answer i guess is the status quo. the status quo is not working for us. you think about how many japanese cars are being driven
here in the united states. you go to tokyo. there's not an american car in sight. why would we want to keep that status quo as opposed to have a new deal in which japan has to open up its markets so that chrysler, ford and gm can start competing in those markets. >> still ahead, more of my meeting with the president. what does he say to the towns and districts hit hardest by trade, places like flint, michigan and north philly where i spent my early years. all the factory jobs now gone. how does this deal help those people and what does he say to the people in those districts? and then his comments on iranian warships bringing weapons tom owen. this is "hardball." i knew instantly that this was...wow! it's crest hd. it's amazing. new crest hd gives you a 6x healthier mouth and 6x whiter teeth in just one week. it gets practically every detail. that's why it's called hd.
try new crest pro-health hd. [ screaming ] rate suckers! [ bell dinging ] your car insurance goes up because of their bad driving. people try all sorts of ways to get rid of them. [ driver panting ] if you're sick of paying more than your fair share... [ screams ] get snapshot from progressive, and see just how much your good driving could save you. are you so congested... it feels like that brick's on your face? try zyrtec®-d to powerfully clear your blocked nose and relieve your other allergy symptoms. so you can breathe easier all day. zyrtec®-d. find it at the pharmacy counter. still ahead on "hardball," my one-on-one interview with president obama. we'll hear from president obama on the confrontation at sea with÷6ó7o
the naval forces of iran. it's all coming up right here. we'll be right back after this. hy pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com
welcome back to "hardball." in part two of my discussion with president obama as he makes his case for the transpacific partnership in the face of opposition from progressive members of his own party. i began by asking the president what happened to those good american factory jobs where people could work and make a living straight out of high school? if you go to my old neighborhood where i grew up in north philly, my grand pop was a democratic committeeman, he worked at a factory two stops away. could you come out of high school at 17 and earn enough living for the whole family. you know about that. >> yeah. >> jerry, and that's gone, and those people say what happened to that? how come we're not the winners? the democratic party looks out for the losers in many cases. what about the winners? >> i want to correct that. >> help me out here. >> the democratic party looks out for middle class folks playing by the rules working hard trying to get into the middle class and we're happy
when people succeed. i want these two -- >> what about the people in those old industrial areas? >> the way we're going to help them is to make sure that they are getting the education they need or their kids are. they are getting the training that they need and we're going to make sure that there are rules of the global trading system. >> okay. >> that work for u.s. companies and u.s. goods, and there's one last part of this that we haven't talked about, the specific thing that we're trying to organize which is in the asia-pacific region, the big 800-pound gorilla out there is china. now, china is not a signatory to that deal but china's pull in that region is powerful. they don't play by the same rules. they are coercing a lot of these smaller countries to enter into trade deals that exclude or disadvantage u.s. companies, exclude or disadvantage u.s. workers that take our intellectual property.
they don't have high standards in terms of labor or environmental protections, and if we don't get this done, if we're not the ones engaged out there writing the rules and china's writing the rules in the fastest growing market, the most populace region of the world, we're going to be locked out. >> okay.f4 one point, there's a pattern over the last 30, 40 years that i've noticed, democratic presidents from jack kennedy to bill clinton and he still supports tpp, heard him over in tokyo, he's for it. why do you the leaders of the l country, do you see a picture picture than the average senator? i'm giving you a break because i think there's an argument here. the national interest, is there a bigger argument versus ohio versus the country or the future or pennsylvania because i look at those senators i do respect and they disagree with you. what's the difference in perspective? >> i think that there are a couple of things. one is that local congressmen, local senators, they feel, particularly if they are democrats, they feel the pain of folks who have been displaced by
trade in the past. that's pretty powerful. if you go through a small town that has lost its main manufacturer, you know, and you talk to somebody who is 55, 60, 70 years old and they talk about the loss there of community and dignity of work. >> sure. >> that's a hard thing, so i understand sort of what they are going through, but my point is we have to understand what the answer is. we're not going to eliminate globalization. we're not eliminating technology. we're not eliminating the fact that we're going to have to train our workers better and we're going to have to compete. the question is do we do it under rules where we can succeed, or we do it under rules that are set by china and we lose? and one last point that i -- that i would add. part of what is part of the package that we're trying to promote right now is a significant expansion of trade assistance that is provided to
folks who do potentially get displaced. it's about double what it currently is, which means that we can help more workers get retrained, work at community colleges, and that i @ng to allow them to compete, but we cannot simply cut ourselves off thinking somehow that us not competing in 95% of the world is going to benefit us, and, you know, i -- i've got to say, chris, that some of the information that's been getting thrown out there plays into legitimate fears that democratic voters have and progressives have, but it's simply not true. it's simply not facts, and i'm willing to go through step by step every one of the arguments that they have made and knock them down because they are not accurate. they may apply to previous trade deals. they sure don't apply to this one. >> hillary clinton says, i've got to cause trouble, mr. president, hillary clinton said yesterday that the economy is stalling. is it? >> i disagree? i mean, i know we're adding
jobs. we're actually providing -- we have a call center here in virginia, and we are providing call center support for our work that we're exporting so we're bringing that work into the u.s. and it's not -- it's not being outsourced. >> jim, she said business is stalling in this country. >> i say it's growing at a slower rate, chris, and actually -- >> it has grown at a slower ratef"vuñ this quarter primarily because of weaknesses in europe, and the dollar's gotten strong because of the fact that we're growing faster than everybody else which raises one last issue that you'll hear a lot and -- >> the currency issue, manipulation of currency. >> and i'll say this. we've brushed really hard to make sure that china is not manipulating its currency and a couple other countries aren't, and we've had some success, but what we are working with congress on are provisions that allowed us to monitor this and
to make sure that folks are not manipulating their currency. we can't do it though in a way that is so haphazard that it ends up affecting the ability of our federal reserve, for example, that engage in monetary policy that try to put people back to work, but the -- the truth is that we are the strongest economy among the advanced economies right now, and the -- the main -- the main way that we're going to strengthen the economy and keep the momentum that we've had over the last six years is to adopt the agenda that i've talked about. let's rebuild our infrastructure all throughout this area. that area of fairfax, they need a much improved transportation system. we could be putting people back to work right now. we could be making sure that we are expanding, you know, the kind of research and development around things like precision medicine that the doctor talked about so that individuals are getting better health care. there's huge growth in that area.
we know what to do, but part of the recipe for us succeeding and growing is making sure that we write trade rules that benefit u.s. companies and u.s. workers, and that's exactly what this trade deal does. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. up next, my exclusive one-on-one interview with the president as those u.s. navy warships try to block iran from delivering weapons to war-torn yemen. we'll hear from the commander in chief himself. this is "hardball," the place for politics.
welcome back to "hardball." here now is my exclusive interview with president obama. mr. president, we're all watching what's going on with the iranian navy. how do we -- it seems like the old cuban missile crisis where we're trying to send signals back and forth what. signal are you sending as commander in chief to the iranians? >> well, we've been actually very straightforward to them. right now their ships are in international waters. there's a reason why we keep some of our ships in the persian gulf region and that is to make
sure that we maintain freedom of navigation, and what we've said to them is that if there are weapons delivered to factions within yemen that could threaten navigation, that's a problem. and we're not sending obscure messages. we send them very direct messages about it. my hope is generally that we can settle down the situation in yemen. that's always been a fractious country with a lot of problems. it's very poor, and right now there are a lot of people inside of yemen suffering. what we need to do is bring all the parties together and find a political arrangement. it is not solved by having another proxy war fought inside of yemen, and, you know, we've indicated to the iranians that they need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. >> how do you keep a coordination with the egyptians and the saudi navy.
they are also in this area and they might engage with the iranians. how do you avoid a confrontation there? >> ultimately when comes to the seas we're obviously the dominant force and we're coordinating closely with all of our allies in the region, sending a message that rather than another conflict in the region, we need to settle this now. >> what about the iranians and the russians? they just conducted -- they are going to buy the s-300s. they are going to be surface-to-air missiles. doesn't that put us in a sideways and the israelis in a situation if they do weaponize their nuclear program they will have a fantastic defense system on an attack on any of their pneumonuclear facilities? >> this is a sale pending for six years. in fact, the russians stopped it at my request as we were putting together the sanctions that ultimately brought the iranians to the table. you know, it's of concern. we object to it particularly because right now we're still negotiating to make sure that they don't get a nuclear weapon, but as i said before, chris, we have to keep this in
perspective. our defense budget's just a little under $600 billion. theirs is a little over $17 billion. even if they have got some air defense systems, you know, if we had to, we could penetrate them. now, my goal is not to resolve conflicts and tensions in the region through more war. my goal is to make sure that, you know, we are able to negotiate a deal that we can verify that ensures that israel is safe and ensures that our neighbors like saudi arabia and the gulf countries are safe and that there's not a nuclear arms race in the region, but ultimately it's going to be up to the iranians to make sure that they -- that they come to the table prepared to memorialize what has already been agreed to. there are details that have to be worked out and they could walk away over the next three months, but if in fact we get a deal that the world community can verify and trust, then that's the best path forward. it won't eliminate all the other
conflicts that we may have with iran including what we're seeing with respect to yemen or what's happening in syria, but what it does do is create a climate and an atmosphere in which potentially we can start lessening some of the tensions in the area. >> i know you care about africa and i certainly do, and your feelings of watching the refugees, 950 people drowning, just trying to find a life, and then also kenya, a country we all care about. >> right. >> very moderate country, pro-western, getting terrorized, the college kid, the hope of their families, getting killed because they are christians. are you still going to go to kenya? >> i am still going to go to kenya. look, it's a heartbreak situation. there's a lot of tumult and chaos around the world right now, and -- and part of our goal as the world's leading superpower is to work with partner countries to try to resolve conflicts, to be ruthless in going after terrorism, but we're not going do that by ourselves and we're
not going to do it just by deploying more marines in every country that has these problems. we've got to build up the capacity in these areas so that they are not recruiting centers and safe havens for terrorist activity. we're seeing some success. in other areas we're still having problems. somalia is actually improving from where it was 20 years ago but it's still not where it needs to be and it still has the hot beds of terrorist activity that spill over into kenya. when it comes to the refugee problem from libya, again, that results from the fact that you have tribal conflicts and in some cases factions or religious differences inside of libya that are creating chaos, but libya actually has a lot of oil, has a lot of gas, relatively small population. they could be a successful country, so what we're seeing in a lot of these areas is failures of governance. >> yeah. >> governments that have no civil society. they are not creating the kinds
of economic policies that work for people, and our solutions are going to be ones that we have to shape with the world community, with the region, and some of it is going to take time. i always tell people we have to maintain some perspective on this. the middle east and north africa are going through changes that we haven't seen in our generation. i think the islamic world is going through a process where they have to isolate and push out the kind of extremism that we've seen expressed by isil, and that's a generational project. what our job is in the meantime is to make sure that we're protecting americans, we're -%bve protecting interests, that we're maintaining things like freedom of navigation and that we're partnering with the best elements of those communities in order to be successful. it's going to take some time, but i -- i remind people that, you know, there actually is probably less war and less violence around the world today
than there might have been 30, 40 years ago. it doesn't make it any less painful. >> right. >> but -- but things can get better. we just have to be vigilant and we have to have strong partners. >> thanks, mr. president. thank you for your time. >> thank you, you bet. >> when we return, reaction from what we heard from the president today and we'll heart other side of the trade fight that's splitting democrats right now. progress i was are speaking out loudly against this deal. usual watching "hardball," the place for politics.
companies that place profits over productivity. earlier today the president called out senator elizabeth warren. >> i love elizabeth. we've ear allies on a whole lot of issues but she's wrong on this issue. >> joining me now is debby stab gnaw and i know you have concerns about the deal and your thoughts on the president's position. o5%/e >> the fast track legislation isn't strong enough and i should start by saying we know we're in a global economy. i want to make sure we're exporting products, not jobs, and when you talk about currency manipulation, right now we've seen when japan was manipulating their currency that the japanese auto companies actually were making more profit by that artificial discount in their
price than they were on anything else. they sell to us, we can't sell to them. they manipulated their currency, so we're going to have to do fast track authority on trade then we better have you have to enforcement to make sure we can't have countries manipulating their currenty. >> are you one of the senators that the president was talking with very pro-labor and anti-trade because i notice your record is pretty much you voted against the columbia trade deal and the central american deal and voted against the one in 2002. you do have a track record of opposition, so is this just part of that, what you're doing now? >> well, chris, i have voted for trade agreements when they made sense for people in michigan, for businesses and workers. >> which ones? >> korea, and i'll give a shout-out to the president. president bush negotiated a korea trade agreement that was bad for manufacturing, the auto companies. president obama came in and fixed it. the uaw and the automobile companies supported it, and i
supported it as well, so there have been others, but frankly we're at a point in time where we don't need another race to the bottom on wages. >> okay. >> and environmental standards and so on. we need a race to the top. you want to fast track something, fast track the middle class. >> this has gotten rather ferocious. senator elizabeth warren who a lot of people respect, not just people on the left respect her a lot for integrity, saying this is basically going to help the rich get richer and leave everybody else behind and then the president comes out today on our program tonight and says, basically, look, don't you trust me. i've been looking out for middle class ever since i became president. getting the job lesion number down and getting the middle class back. tell me what you think of the president's position. it's at odds with you right now. >> well, chris, i support this president. he has done more to get us out of a hole and get us on the right kind of track in the economy than any president i think maybe ever.
i appreciate that he has enforced more trade agreements than anyone else. what i disagree in terms of the toughness of this fast track process. frankly, i'm never going to forget in greenville, michigan, a little town in west michigan when a company that makes refrigerators was talking about moving -- moved to mexico after nafta. we're trying to get them to stay and they finally said, senator, with all due respect, you can't compete with $1.57 an hour in wages. well, you know want, i don't want to race down to that? we want to race up and that's what this is really about. it's not about trade.u it's about is it going to be a trade that increases the middle class or loses the middle class. >> well said. thank you senator debby stab gnaw of michigan, please come back. >> let's bring in the roundtable, former u.s. congressman harold ford and salon's joan walsh and let me ask you about this, a battle among people who generally agree on most things, mostly progressives. most of the progressives are against this fight.
what do you think? >> i hope the president prevails. many of the concerns raised by my former congress and debby and i served in the congress are legitimate concerns. let's try to address them quick. one, with regard to currency. remember, we engaged in extensive bond buying here in the u.s. in '09 to create monetary easing to revive investment and spending and it did it. now you have the european central bank and the bank of japan doing the same thing for their economies. hopefully we'll stimulate spending there and give people more power to buy things which we do export our goods there we'll be able to buy them. two, we talk about the labor concerns and environmental concerns. this is the strongest labor and environmental concern package of protections that we've seen in any trade agreement, to the president's point he made earlier. three, when people talk about trade, trade agreements and trade are different. some of the bad things have happened. income inequality have been exacerbated by a number of things, trade, flawed tax and education systems in america
have also contributed to it, but most of these countries that we have a bad deal, we actually don't have a deal with. trade agreements actually allow us to protect not only the u.s. companies competing there but u.s. workers. have they have been perfect. i heard trump can a ask the question or ed ask the question earlier. will this ensure that wages go down and jobs don't leave? of course you cannot ensure. that does this put the american companies and worker in a stronger better position so you're for it? >> let me go to heather. >> i think i would love for there to be a little more honesty about what this is about. this massive deal is actually not about trade. it's about 14 things, and trade is the smallest piece of it, right? so take something like the investors state provision which senator warren has really said this. worries me because it allows multi-national corporations and foreign companies to sue our government for the laws that we pass. those have been rising. >> but this bill doesn't allow for that. >> it does. 150 in the past three years is a good example. big ag suing mexico who is trying to address its obesity
problem by taxing high fructose corn syrup, right, and they want $100 million of taxpayer money from mexico. >> that concern is legitimate, but the text of the pact doesn't allow for that. it says that any trade provision -- any provision this trade pact that contradicts u.s. law is not effective. it's not -- it doesn't go into effect. i hear you, but i don't know how it's better for it to be written that be the way it's written in the pact that the president supports. >> when i listen to you talk about it, it sounds like a decent deal, but people who are reading it are saying that language isn't there yet. it's not a done deal, and let's also separate the trade deal from the fast track provision because if it comes back, the president said, you know, it's not done, they will have three months to read, it great. have three months to read it and can do nothing but vote it up or down. >> that's been the case of the every trade deal ever done. >> for the last several decades. >> you can't amend it to death. here's my question about the democratic party.
democratic party wins when it's a combination of all interest groups and something value added, something bigger than that. with bill clinton it was something bigger than that, and when it devolves down to just interest groups and regional concerns, it dies and it loses.s ,? that's my concern, and i think this president is trying to represent the whole country. by the way, it's a hell of a debate and we'll continue it on this program. not just people open the left respect for her integrity. it's going to help the rich get richer and leave everybody else behind. nervous whitening will damage your teeth? introducing listerine® healthy white™. it not only safely whitens teeth... ...but also restores enamel. lose the nerves and get a healthier whiter smile that you'll love. listerine® healthy white™. power to your mouth™!
back with our round table. a dozen u.s. navy ship are in the arabian sea monitoring nine iranian ships suspected of carrying weapons to the rebels inside yemen. the administration put iran on notice, as president told me earlier today. >> what we have said to them is if there are weapons delivered to factions within yemen that could threaten navigation, that's a problem, and we're not
sending them on secure messages. we sent them direct messages. my hope is generally we can settle down the situation in yemen. >> i wonder what we're going to do here. we're facing them down saying you can't continue to carry that material to yemen. >> you have to wonder what the iranians are thinking they hope congress will approve the framework that gets worked out. >> you have to worry deeply this is the only emboldens critics, democrats and republicans alike to approving the deal. if the best way to assure the american people and the u.s. congress they need well is perhaps send arms to people in yemen whom we're opposed to and want to upset in that government. >> the state-of-the-art missile systems -- >> as the president says, that's been in the works for a long time. this is a nuclear deal. this is a nuclear deal. it's an everything deal. i think there's a lot going on
both side. they have the hard liners. he has his hard liners. the ships haven't moved yet. i believe diplomacy will work in this situation, too. >> i'm saying -- >> i know you are. >> it's not going to -- >> you surprise me. you have taken an optimistic agree owe politics. i love the way you talk. thank you. we'll be back to battle the trade issue again and again. heather mcgehee, thank you. we'll be right back.
that's "hardball" for now. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in." [ chanting ] >> protests erupt in baltimore. a family searching for answers of the freddie gray died in police custody. plus, open warfare in the democratic party. >> i love elizabeth. we're allies on a host of issues. but she's wrong on this. >> why president obama is taking on elizabeth warren. and it's precisely the reason why democrats need a primary. then why same-sex marriage is making 2016 republicans sound like 1992 bill clinton. >> i experimented with marijuana a time or two, and i didn't like it. i didn't inhale and never tried it again. we finally know whatever happened to predictability.