Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20150427

This morning we are asking our viewers to weigh in on the use of drones to combat terrorism. For those who support those efforts, the phone number this morning is 202 7488000. For those who oppose those efforts, 202 7488001. You can also catch up with us on social media on twitter, facebook or email us at journal at sea span c span. Com. The front page of the wall street journal. The story noting that president obama heightened rules for the u. S. Strong program in 2013 but he secretly approved a waiver doing the Central Intelligence agency more flexibility in pakistan than anywhere else. The story noting that though support for the Program Remains strong across the u. S. Government, the killings have renewed a debate within the administration over whether the cia should now be reigned in or meet tighter standards that apply to draw programs outside of pakistan. We will be spending our first 45 minutes on todays show talking about the u. S. Drone program. It was also the subject of some of the discussion on yesterdays sunday shows. Here senator john mccain on cnns state of the union. Being asked about drone strikes that were detailed by the president last week. [video clip] i think it was probably preventable in that there was an obvious breakdown in intelligence. They did not know they were there. All of our prayers and thoughts are with their families. It was obviously preventable but the question is, do we continue these drone strikes and how important are they. It raises all of those questions and it is a subject for review by both intelligence and Armed Services committees and the entire congress. I notice after the president s admission of the strikes and the tragedy that occurred that both he and the white house did not use the word drone and they did not say the cias program existed. We do know that to be a fact. Isnt that right . Yes. There is an internal struggle going on within the administration and within the congress as to whether there should be an Armed Services operation. Or should it be done by the cia. I have some bias but it seems to me that as much as we could give a responsibility and authority over to the department of defense that is not really the job of the Intelligence Agency. Back to your question. I think that raises the debate. Do we need to continue drone strikes and if so, how . Better intelligence. We are now facing a new form of warfare. These nonstate organizations that are spread all over hells half acre. The only way you can get at them that we know of now that is viable is through the Drone Operations. Host senator john mccain on cnns state of the union yesterday. He asked do we need to continue drunk strikes and if so, how . Drone strikes, and if so how. Good morning to you. Guest thanks for good morning. Host thanks for joining us to talk about this. Talk about the difference between suspected terrorists that are on kill lists and signature strikes we heard the term signature strikes we heard from officials in the wake of last week. Guest this is an issue that goes back to the beginning of the obama administration. How do you conduct warfare in this new era against terrorism across multiple states countries, regions and do it in real time . To go after individuals that the u. S. Government deems are combatants across a large battlefield. Drone strikes have been employed successfully frequently. And without apology by this administration to conduct that warfare. The signature try issue goes to the choice of the president. Signing off on a waiver to give permission to kill an individual overseas without trial. Without making them a prisoner of war. That has been a foundation of this administrations counterterrorism policy. With last weeks events, it is a tragedy but it is a tragedy the president seems to take personally with the speech. It is also something i do not think is going to change significantly on how these drone strikes are used. Host the president is talking a lot about the Drone Program especially i highprofile speech back in 2013. What we know about who signs off on individual strikes and what precautions are there to prevent civilian casualties . Guest they go up the chain of command. Jeh johnson who is now the dhs secretary, formerly he was the general counsels top lawyer. Every strike came up to him and he was signing off before it would head to the white house and the president. That is a good thing that you have that authority. That chain of authority. If this is the way we conduct warfare, why are we having individuals in different buildings in washington that have to personally signed the papers to make this happen . In the case were talking about here in pakistan, is the cias Drone Program. To go back to what you were discussing in the beginning that is the debate that has been going on for a long time, how long or should at all these drone strikes be conducted by the cia or the military. It leaves the perception that there are more checks and balances in the military or at least more transparent ones. Jeh johnson gave a speech before he became dhs secretary in which he argued to make that shift to bring authority to the department of defense. It has not happened. The president said there will be a review. There is a healthy dose of skepticism that the review is going to do that. That the Intelligence Agency is going to get up what has become key or fundamental of what they do. Host you talked about some of the history of this program. The bureau of Investigative Journalism is trying to keep track of some of the stats specifically in pakistan from 2004 to 2015 according to their numbers 415 total strikes. That includes 364 that were done under president obamas administration. The estimate for total killed is somewhere between 2450 two nearly 4000 people. Possibly including 423 to 900 622 civilians. If you could talk about including 420 32 962 civilians. Guest i know that what changes as of the war in iraq ending and the war it in afghanistan increasing, the war in afghanistan became a proving ground for more of these drone strikes, especially by cia. It became the covert war where no ground troop could cross the border. Because of the relationship between Pakistani Intelligence Services and the cia, drones became how america could chase bad guys across the border to pakistan. That became the favorite weapon across the middle east as well. Drones are headquartered at djibouti, africa where they can take off. When obama came in, he approved a surge of troops on the ground in afghanistan and drew down the iraq war. The Drone Program was doubled down on. President obama is the driving force in going to authorize all of this. Host kevin baron is the executive editor of defense one. Thanks for your help this morning on some of the history and debates that are happening now. Guest i hope it was something that helped the program. Host we are asking viewers to weigh in on the use of drones to combat terrorism. We have two lines, whether you support or oppose. For those who support, 202 7488000. Those who oppose, 202 7488001. We will start on that line for those who support. John is in industry, pennsylvania. Caller good morning. Thank you for having me. I am a military veteran of a Drone Program and i do support the use of drones, not just because i was part of a squadron but because i feel like there is a stigma attached to it that is unfair in comparison to the rest of the weapons we use in the military. The squadron i was with in the marine corps, we were essentially surveillance. We painted a target for artillery and nobody thought twice about that. About dropping artillery on the enemy and the drone was simply the window of where to shoot. Now they are having an issue with the fact that the drone is there taking a picture and shooting the weapon. I dont hear a lot of comparison about the civilians or the innocent people that are killed with artillery or any other weapon we had in the military in comparison to drones. It is more the stigma about the fact that the drone shot the artillery or whatever it used to kill people. That is the part im having a hard time with. We are not comparing it to the weapons we have always had. Host why do you think there is a difference in peoples minds if they feel differently from an artillery shell versus a hellfire missile on a drone . Caller i honestly believe it is the fact it is the back of their mind idea that nobody knew that thing was there. That jet or helicopter. You can hear artillery. You have to have a certain distance from a large body of water so it is almost implied that that is a possibility that you can have artillery. With a drone, you dont know it is there. In the back of peoples minds they think, if we allow this, we are saying we are allowing it to be in the United States. It is almost like the concept of saying it is ok, we are saying it is ok for all Drone Operations all over the world. I think that is unfair to say that by allowing drones to shoot terrorists overseas that we are also going to allow drones to spy on us in the United States. I think it is a valid argument that needs to be had at idle think we should be comparing one to the other i dont think we should be compared one to the other. Host do you think there should be more transparency about casualties and injuries that happen under drone strikes or do you think it matters . Congress adam schiff, a democrat working with republican walter jones. They have tried to introduce bills requiring an annual reporting of drone casualties. Do you think that is something americans should know about . Caller i would say this. Because i feel it should be under dod, i think if people smarter than me believe we should have that kind of transparency, it should be for all civilians killed in all operations of combat, not focusing on drones only. Host whether it be artillery shells, airstrikes or drones . All of them together . Caller yes. Host thanks for the call. Darrell is up next on the line for those who oppose the use of drones to combat terrorism. Good morning. Caller good morning. I am totally against drone use. It proves one thing, that is that americans are the number one terrorist on the planet. If you look at all the wars we of been in since 9 11, we are they were all created and caused by america. The drone use just shows what we really are. Wait until people start using drones on us and see how your whole attitude changes toward drones. Watch the movie oblivion. Host for you it is not just the drones. It is the entire war on terror . Caller the whole war is nothing but bowl. All you have to do is look at it. How can you have a war on terror . Host we want to hear from our viewers on the use of drones to combat terrorism. Let us know whether you support or oppose. Gonzo is up next. Line for those who support. Caller how are you doing . Host im good. Caller for me it comes down to the ends do not justify the means. Innocent americans. Youve got laurent duper day who was injured. It really opened my eyes on unnecessary drone use. I believe it breaks international law. I could cite former u. N. Members. Drone strikes break human rights treaties. Paying just in houston or drafting a whiteout. Host here is how the Editorial Board of usa today puts it. Drone strikes of the best of a series of bad options. Terrorist leaders cannot be left alone to plot in havens. That was what allowed al qaeda to mount 9 11 attacks. Striking them with aircraft is more distracted and sending in troops is still more deadly to civilians in service members. What is not widely known is that strikes have fallen sharply since their peak in 2010. The pakistan count fell to 24 last year and five so far this year. Perhaps that means there are fewer leaders to target or perhaps it means the government is exercising greater restraint. Either would be a marker of progress. We want to hear from our viewers this morning. 202 7488000 if you support the use of drones. 202 7488001 is the line for those who oppose. His conversation coming because of the president s statements on thursday talking about those attacks that happened in january that caused the death of Warren Weinstein and two other american citizens who had been working for and fighting for al qaeda. We will show you a bit from the speech on thursday. [video clip] i profoundly regret what happened. On behalf of the United States government, i offer our deepest apologies to the families. As soon as we determine the cause of their deaths, i directed that the existence of this operation be disclosed publicly. I did so because the weinstein and low puerto families deserve to know the truth. Even as certain aspects of our efforts have two remain secret in order to succeed, the United States is a democracy, committed to openness in good times and bad. Our initial assessment indicates this operation was fully consistent with the guidelines under which we conduct counterterrorism efforts in the region which has been our focus for years because it is the home of al qaedas leadership. Based on the intelligence we obtained at the time, including hundreds of hours of surveillance, we believed that this was an al qaeda compound, that no civilians were present and that capturing these terrorists was not possible. We believe the operation did take out dangerous members of al qaeda. What we did not know, tragically , is that al qaeda was hiding the presence of warren and giovanni in this compound. It is a cruel and bitter truth that in the fog of war generally and our fight against terrorists specifically mistakes, sometimes deadly mistakes, can occur. Host on the editorial pages of the usa today on friday, Camille Jaffer writes many deaths little information. He writes that the president s remarks made clear that even those inside the government do not always know who the drone strikes are killing. The United States killed two innocent hostages they did not know were there. The same strike killed someone the late the government only later learned was an american. They know so little about who is in their sites. The disclosures are also a reminder of how little we know about a program that has been responsible for so many death. S. Ron is up next on the line for those who oppose the use of drones. Caller good morning. I would like to say i regret i voted for obama. I regret that i voted for obama in 2008. I did not vote for him in 2012 because i found him to be a warmonger. Im against drone strikes because you are killing a lot of innocent people, women and children. When you kill these folks over there, they go they dont go to a psychologist to help them out with their problems. The u. S. And israel are the terrorists of the world. Youre killing muslims by the hundreds of thousands every year. I regret that i voted for obama. Host what is the better option here . I was read from usa today earlier that went through conventional aircraft could cause more destruction putting u. S. Service members on the line might cause more u. S. Deaths. What is the better option . Caller the best option in the world is for the u. S. To get out of the middle east and for israel to stop killing the palestinians. People will be upset. People are killing white people are killing so many brown and black people in the world it is a shame. When you find out, when people call in this morning it will be all white folks calling in for the killing of other people because white folks like to kill people. It is in their blood to kill host google on to arthur in chesapeake we will go on to arthur in chesapeake virginia. Caller if you can do it in one place, you can do it in another. Right here in america you have terrorists all over. If you can do drones to attack people all overseas, you should use them right here in america. Your ku klux klan, white supremacist groups. Training to kill people. They come out from those camps and join the police force just to kill people of color. You need to send some drones and search out these terrorist camps right here in america and wipe them out. If you can use drones in one place, it use them everywhere. Right here in america. Host arthur in chesapeake, virginia. John is up next on that line for those who support the use of drones. Good morning. Caller good morning. We support using drones but you have to have human intelligence on the ground to run these programs. It cant just use a sim card in a cell phone because you think someone is there and drop a bomb on a building. Your other caller was referring to white people are killing black and brown people. These people are terrorists. It is unfortunate if you kill a house full of terrorists and there are kids and wives and things like that. Where are they going to go . What do you think they will end up doing . Its like when they say they are releasing prisoners from gitmo like they are going to do something else. They are terrorists. That is what they are bred to do. They are jihadists. Host your first point, concern that the use of drones is making killing to automatic and mechanical by computer, do you think we have taken the Human Element out of the hunt for terrorists and made it less of a big decision to actually call the trigger on someone . Caller i dont have insight to that. The facts are you need to know who you are killing. You need to know whos there. Perhaps it would be better there is a reason that president bush put together the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay for these people. The problem is you have these dogooders who dont have a concept. A lot of people in america dont really have a sense of what the rest of the world looks like because things thank god we live in america, however a lot of people who have not traveled outside of this country do not grasp poor people in america are not the same as poor people in the rest of the world. Host here is a picture that goes with wall street journal story today that we showed you. Pakistani protesters from last year at a demonstration against u. S. Drone strikes. You can see their signs and that picture saying stop illegal drone strikes. On our twitter page, drones are a great piece of modern warfare. Edward writes, there is no good way to fight a war. Accidents happen but look at the cost. We want to hear from our viewers for the next 20 minutes or so. Your thoughts on the use of drones, especially in light of those revelations of the attacks in january, one of which caused the death of Warren Weinstein, a u. S. Hostage from maryland. Jeffrey is up next on the line for those who oppose. Good morning. Caller good morning. I voted for obama one time and i never voted for him again. Just like the other guy said, i think he is a warmonger. I was watching yesterday on the a sunday morning show. She showed this picture back in the 40 back the 1940s and 1950s when they were hanging black people from trees and white people were having a party over it. We have nothing to tell other countries what to do in their country when we do our people like that in this country. I want black people to notice these things. They have to show these people having a party while hanging black people. Were going to accuse someone else of being a terrorist. We are probably the worst of all. I wish they would put a drone strike on these white supremacists. Thank you. Host ben is in texas. Line for those who support. Caller good morning. I support the drones. I think i would rather the drone killed people over there then let them organize and come over here and kill over 3000 people like they did on 9 11. Some of these people calling in i dont understand their reasoning. I would rather the drone kills. You can drive a five you can drop a 500 pound bomb and kill innocent people. It is said that the hostages got killed but that is the currency of war. When youre in war, you are going to have unknown casualties. Host some concern from our earlier callers saying drone strikes are perhaps contributing to hatred of america around the world. We showed some stats from the bureau of Investigative Journalism earlier. This is just in pakistan ands 2004. Possibly up to 4000 People Killed by drunk strikes. Including possibly up to 962 civilians. Does that concern you . Caller it does. Im sorry about those innocent people getting killed but what is the alternative . Sent our shoulders send our soldiers in so they can get killed . Still innocent people getting killed. Or let them get organized and come over here and kill american citizens. Host yemen is in the news as well. Here are some stats on joan strikes in yemen. Since two dozen two, confirmed strikes somewhere between 91 and 111. Civilians, 65 to 96. Children killed, eight. Those injured somewhere between 86 and 215 in yemen alone since 2002. We are showing stats this morning. We want to hear from our viewers on the use of drones to combat terrorism. Robert is in maryland on the line for those who oppose. Caller good morning. The reason im calling is, i am a vietnam veteran. Just like in iraq, the same thing happened in vietnam. We got into a war we should have never gotten into. Last century from vietnam to cuba, from korea to south africa, i dont know what it is but over the last 2000 years, for some reason the white people kill each other more than they have the rest of the world. Last century all of those places from vietnam to cuba, south africa to korea, they drove white rule out of their lives. This is crazy. It has got consequences behind it. People dont forget the grief. Did we forget the grief when the towers were knocked down . There are consequences to this craziness. Host jason miles writes in on twitter, if not drones, then what . Should the rest of us submit . I dont think so. Abc news has a story about congress and john delaney. A congressman who represents the district warned weinstein was from before he was killed. John delaney, pushing legislators to craft a hostage czar in order to maximize the capabilities of the u. S. Government to deal with hostage situations. His statements coming after disclosures last week. A democrat from maryland saying there should be no tolerance for bureaucracy when it comes to dealing with an american held overseas. Yet others are is within our government, at a minimum we should have one for those americans who are held hostage. Congressman john delaney talking about dropping new legislation on a hostage czar. Jeannie is up next, the line for those judy is up next. Caller not only isis but you can get clear examples of these terrorists using civilians as shields, hostages as shields. You particularly saw it during coverage of the recent mess in israel. They move people into schools with them. If you want to get at invest of these rotten people a nest of these rotten people, you may get civilians used as shields. What should we do . Leave them alone . They are monsters. I would rather see us use drones then put our military at risk. It is horrible that these people died but these people are smart enough to use them as shields so i dont know what else you can do. I dont know that the outcome would have been different if a manned plane had done it. Host bill writes in on her twitter page i am waiting for someone to call in and tell us which war innocent victims didnt die. Mark is up next on the line for those who support. Caller i support the drones. I agree with the gentleman and the lady that just spoke. I cant remember a war where innocent people did not die. People kill people. We need to get back to in god we trust. That is what this country is missing, the lord and prayer. If we did that foirst, a lot of these problems would not exist. Host what is the best strategy for dealing with the problems that do exist . Do you trust that this administration is making the right decisions on how to deploy those drones . Caller i do. It is a process. Is a new technology and it has to be developed. We cant just say it is all bad. American soldiers did not die but might have died in this process. That is a positive thing that we cannot just ignore. The fact that the war exists, we cant just stop fighting and let people that want to kill us kill us. I cant say exactly what the solution is but i know that when you save american lives because of the use of the drones, it is a process we need to develop further and make it more efficient. Host mark in san antonio texas. I want you to keep calling in on this issue. Well get back your calls in a second. I want to point out other news around the country. This piece from Hillary Clinton appears in the des moines register. Talking about her recent trip around iowa. She wrote, when i came to iowa i wanted to do Something Different , talking directly with everyday isowans. It is not enough to get by, you deserve to get ahead and stay ahead. She writes, everywhere i went, i met iowans with great ideas. Of course the Clinton Foundation also in the news quite a bit since Hillary Clintons announcement. Heres the story in usa today. The acting ceo of the Clinton Foundation admitted mistakes in how the foundation disclosed its donors amid questions about donations from foreign governments. Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. The story quoting the acting ceo saying, yes we made mistakes but we are acting quickly to remedy them and have taken steps to ensure they do not happen in the future. On thursday, the New York Times reported the Clinton Foundation received more than 2 million in donations linked to a Canadian Company that was being taken over by a Russian Atomic Energy agency. The committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved that deal. That story in the New York Times and subsequent stories about the clinton cash as it has been called, noted in todays Washington Post. The best thing that happened to republicans last week, the clinton cash story got more serious last week. These stories are complex and there is no proven quid pro quo but they reinforce questions about clintons trustworthiness. A majority of people do not think clinton is trustworthy. A few of the headlines about that. If you want to read more on this, glenn harlan reynolds, university of 10 of her desk to university of Tennessee Law professor has a piece in usa today. A university of Tennessee Law professor has a piece in usa today. A few of the stories about clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Back to the phones. Mitchell, on that line for those who support drones. Good morning. Caller good morning. I hope youre doing all right. Im a strong supporter of the drones. I especially love the new locust swarm drones. Host explain those for those of us who are not familiar. Caller it is a navy drone. They look like wasps. The navy runs them. I do not specially like the idea of the cia operating the drones. I do like them with the intelligence department. I think the military should be running the drones. I was walking down the streets of iran back in the 70s when i was in the military. These little kids were running up to me and they were like shooting at me with these sticks. I was falling over and they were laughing and i was going to give them some money so they could buy some food or candy and i said why are you shooting me . This was a long time ago. Guess what their answer was. Because you are american. Forget about changing minds. You cannot change their minds that is the way it is going to be. I am a supporter of the drones. I like the navys electronic halls weaponry. Host comments off our twitter page i want to bounce off you. We have actual soldiers for combat use, we should use them before the next generation grows up to soft for war. Your thoughts . Caller my thoughts are, if there are small groups of isis you send in special forces and you go in and cut their throats. If there is a large group, send drones in. I saw a special a long time ago on 60 minutes on the drawing Program First got introduced. The Drone Program got introduced. They had wives of pilots. On sunday they are sitting in a place somewhere in the United States on a computer killing terrorists and they get to go home and sit down with their wives. Theyre not in a plane were something go wrong, shot down. Those pilots were happy to sit down at sunday dinner with their families. They took out terrorists and that was their job. Im a supporter of the program. However, i think the military should be running the missions. Host lets go to oliver. That line for those who oppose. Oliver is in riverside california. Caller good morning. I was in war. I was in the korean war. Im 85 years old. Ive seen a lot of people get killed. I dont have the answer but i think killing people overseas with drone strikes when you dont know who youre killing theres something wrong with that. I dont have the answer but ive seen People Killed. Ive seen people who were hung like the guy called in. People had parties while they were hanging them. Ive had friends who were killed by the ku klux klan. I dont understand where this is going. If someone could tell me, when did we declare war against yemen or afghanistan . Or pakistan where we killed a lot of people . I would like to have someone call in and explain why they are for drone strikes except to keep our people out of trouble. Our people out of harms way. When i went to war i expected to be in harms way. I expected to shoot people who were trying to shoot me. Dropping a drone on a Wedding Party . My final comment, i dont know who we are anymore. Thank you. Host margaret is up next also on the line for those who oppose. Mario is on the line for those who oppose. Caller i oppose the Drone Program because i see it is being used more by the cia. In 2001 when the u. S. Invaded iran with the cia, they had over 100 agents. This is all in the nation. They were embedded and they were trying to give the iranians faulty nuclear programs. It actually benefited them according to Donald Sterling the agent being held possibly for prosecution by the cia. The cia dropped the ball and they advise congress and a year later bush junior declared iran a terrorist nation. I think that should be taken into account. As far as that lady that called for in said these people are monsters and then she goes on to say, it is a sad thing they died , it just shows the way we are as a nation. White citizens unconscious to the truth. Host one other story i want to show that is happening in the news. Colorado mass shooting trial to start is the headline. After numerous delays, james holmes is set to stand trial. He is charged with killing 12 people and injuring 70 during a screening of the batman movie the dark knight rises. James holmes faces 166 counts of murder, attempted murder and other charges. Some of the other headlines you expect to see in the news this week. That is it for our first 45 minutes of the washington journal. Up next we will be joined by reid wilson of the Washington Post. He is a senior political policy blogger. He will become about the politics of the transpacific trade deal. We will be joined by daniel ellsberg. We will be talking about the role of government whistleblowers. Remarkable partnerships, iconic women. Their stories in first ladies. She did save the portrait of washington which was one of the things that endeared her to the nation. What she was wearing, what she was doing, what she looked like, who she was seeing, that was going to help sell papers. She takes over a Radio Station and starts running at. How do you do that . She exerted influence because she would move a mountain to make sure her husband was protected. Looking inside the personal life of every first lady in American History based on original interviews from cspans first ladies series. Learn about their ambitions families and partnerships with their president ial spouses. Filled with lively stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house sometimes at great personal cost, often changing history. First ladies is an entertaining and inspiring read, now available as a hardcover or ebook through your favorite online bookseller. Here are a from you cure are a few of the book festivals we will be covering. In the middle of may we will visit maryland at the gaithersburg book festival. We will close out may at book expo america in new york city with the Publishing Industry so cases best showcases. Our three hour indepth program with pulitzer prizewinning author lawrence wright. That is this spring on cspan 2s booktv. Washington journal continues. Host reid wilson is a senior political policy writer. He is also a frequent face on the washington journal. He joins us to talk about the Transpacific Partnership and the politics of trade. For those just coming to this, explain what the tpp is and what the president needs from congress in order to get it passed. Guest it is a trade deal being negotiated between the u. S. And about a dozen asian countries. It would allow trade to flow more freely. It would cement some agreements that have been in the works for a long time now. Supporters love the idea because they say it is good for business and the middle class in america. Is good for International Security because if youre trading with someone you are less likely to go to war with them. Opponents think it is that for workers, bad for labor conditions, not only in the u. S. But also in those overseas countries where the conditions are not going to be as good as they would be for an American Worker does the laws are different in other countries. To pass this, president obama says he needs something called trade promotion authority. Tpp, the actual deal and tpa the method by which the deal will be approved. It is what we call fasttrack authority. It would give congress the right to vote they have a right to vote on any trade deal, but it would give congress the right to vote on this deal in an up or down method. Yes or no. No amendments or reopening of negotiations to add provisions. The interesting thing about this is this has rekindled a political debate in both parties over the role of populism. Wall street versus mainstreet. Who is actually benefiting from this deal . It is creating strange bipartisan bedfellows on the far right and far left. Host that is what we want to talk about in the segment. I should point viewers to your piece last week in the gut beat channel on the Washington Post gov beat channel on the Washington Post. If viewers want to bookmark that and come back to it. We are shuffling some of the usual political alliances. What is an example of that . Guest 22 years ago, nafta passed. When it did, 102 democrats in the house of representatives foot for nafta. A few more voted against it. 102, that is a significant number. 130 republicans voted for it as well. Of those 102 democrats who voted in favor, a significant portion were from Southern States or border states. Those states do a lot of manufacturing. They wanted to get goods to canada and mexico as fast as possible. Border states are the states that do the most trade with canada and mexico so they were in favor of it as well. A significant number of those are held by republicans. After the waves of 2010 and 2014, we have seen freetrade democrats losing. They have been replaced by urban democrats in the northeast and on the west coast. People who are a lot more liberal. The party has shifted left since nafta passed. That means the democrats who opposed nafta are now a wider slice of the party. They do not think the president should have the authority to negotiate as they say in secret and they do not believe the tpp is going to be good for labor or the u. S. Economy. Host the president would be getting most of those boats from republicans most of those votes from republicans. But put some names and faces. Lets put some names and faces. Guest the main faces in the senate who are negotiating our senator orin hatch, senator of the Appropriation Committee and ron wyden, the ranking democrat from oregon, both of whom want to see this past. In the house, it has been up to congressman paul ryan from wisconsin, chairman of the house ways and means committee. Ryan has been negotiating the stuff for a longtime. The interesting thing is there is no democratic counterpart to ron wyden in the house of representatives. There is no leader of the house side who is spearheading the fight. That is concerning to the white house because they do not have anybody who is a point person on trade. They do have some allies in the House Democratic caucus. Nancy pelosi and steny hoyer voted for nafta. Congressman Earl Blumenauer just wrote an oped in favor of trade promotion authority. There are some supportive democrats. They are looking for some of those folks who are going to be able to get them up to 218 votes they need to pass the house. Most everybody thinks this is going to pass the senate. The houses where the question is. A lot of those republicans on the other side were taken over for democrats, these are the tea Party Conservative republicans. What majority of republicans are in favor of a Transpacific Partnership, the chamber of commerce is a huge fan of it. The more conservative elements of the party is troubled by the fact that they are giving more authority to president obama. That is not something that is good for a republican going back and asking for votes back home. You just gave new authority to the president we all despised. Why would you do that . That is creating a lot of headaches on the republican side. Host the more conservative wing , wrapping around in joining hands with the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party in opposition. One of the reasons there are fewer democrats supporting this in the house than we have seen in the senate is because Speaker John Boehner has given his support to tpa and tpp. Heres a post. Going through all the facts for why Speaker Boehner supports the tpa and tpp. Guest i think democrats are coming out in favor of it because of labor. The Labor Movement has suffered politically in the last several decades. Union membership is down near its lowest levels in recent years. Labor still plays a huge part in democratic politics. Just as conservative voters dont want to give president obama more authority are an outside influence in republican parties, so our labor groups do not want to see a transpacific worship pass in the in democratic primaries. What you have seen is an Aggressive Campaign from a number of labor groups that have formed coalitions around the country. They are holding rallies events at members offices. They are making a big stink about the fact that they do not want to see a Transpacific Partnership pass. Labor is a huge source of money for the Democratic Party. They are influential enough that Hillary Clinton the likely democratic nominee, who was in favor of tbp while she was secretary of state tpp while she was secretary of state has now hedged. She is going after a primary that will be driven by a lot of labor votes. Host maybe we will hear from some labor viewers this morning as we are talking about the tpp trade authority that would allow the tpp to be passed. If you have comments, republicans it is 202 7488001. Democrats, 202 7488000. Independents, 202 7488002. Allen, good morning. Caller good morning. It has been a pleasure to see you move from the hotline to the Washington Post. I have enjoyed your work. As an observer of the 2016 race, how do you see rand paul taking a position on this and scott walker, given the complexities of having to deal with issues of president ial power on the one hand and the primary in addition. At the same time, i wanted to be able to take advantage of the tpp at the same time wanting to take advantage of the tpp. Guest this is a question we have not seen a lot of republicans weigh in on yet republicans running for president weigh in on yet. This gets back to the strange bedfellows of trade politics. Rand pauls Foreign Policy is something that separates him from the republican field. It is something that is going to distinguish him for better or worse and we will see how that plays out. Scott walker and a number of other candidates have made a big deal about trying to move trying to show off their Foreign Policy. Scott walker just got back from a trade mission in europe. He went on another trip to the u. K. Earlier this year that was less successful. We have seen host you can do trade missions for your state . Guest governors are oversees all the time, trying to secure deals to get companies to come back to the u. S. And build factories in their home state. That is what walker was doing. Simply going and being there demonstrates some knowledge of the fact that there is this other continent right across the water. Host tim waiting in wilson north carolina. Line for independents. Caller good morning. Thank you for taking my call. Please give me time to make my statement. The free trade, that is the reason im an independent. I used to be a democrat. It started with reagan giving nations trade status and that george bushs father came in and he spoke of the new world order which was this freetrade. Clinton signed on with the republicans. I think he knew better to pass this thing. George bush continued it. It brings our standard of living down. The new ward the new world order is to bring everyone to the same standard of living. You will see the standard of living as youre seeing now in countries like it makes the rich a lot lot richer. The only thing im afraid of and i think it is too late because all these deals have been signs of everything. It is really too late to turn back. But this is something republicans pushed. I wish you have him on the show when they had the debate with ross perot when he was running with clinton against george bushs father. He told us exactly what would happen with this free trade. He told us exactly everything he said is happening now. Like i said, clinton knew better. Just to get other stuff passed along with the republicans. Host