tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 19, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
>> just follow up on the home buyer education and counseling issue. in this post crisis world we've got and you know was amount of valuable resources in the counselors, and really redeploying those and find a business model that works, that builds homeownership, education and counseling into the front end, and bringing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of prequalified low and moderate income borrowers, to lenders to compete for, that should be part of the kind of the bigger . ..
monday marked the 20th anniversary. backed by our congress and signed by bill clinton, our special program looks back at the senate debate over the 1996 law. >> the current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. >> i don't know many people who want to humiliate themselves standing on the line, waiting for their welfare check. yes there some chiefs out there who are druggies and junks. they are out there, there's no question, but, but a lot of people are simply people who have not discovered a way out of their misery and poverty.
>> we decided the states and the governors and legislatures in america are as concerned about the poor as we are. as concerned about their well-being and is concerned, if not more so, then we are about the status of welfare in their states. >> includes discussions on how the changes impacted the board. >> from now on our nation's answer will no longer be a never ending cycle of welfare. it will be the dignity, power and epic of work. today we are taking a historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance , not a way of life. >> monday night at nine eastern on c-span. >> we are live now as the fcc is meeting this morning aim to develop technology on what it calls no cost to consumers.
[inaudible conversation] >> federal communications commissioner's are meeting this morning. they they are convening the first of this robo call strikeforce meeting. this is to develop technology that would block unwanted calls and text at no cost to you. the commissioners are expected to make comments and we will leave as they go behind closed doors. live coverage here on c-span2. we have a couple moments to tell you about some of the other programming going on. roger stone is a lifelong friend
of donald trump had he will talk about recent personnel changes in mr. trump's campaign team and what to expect from the presidential debate. and some issues that could affect the election. newsmakers at eight and 11 eastern. that's a special time in addition to the regular sunday showing. now the senate return to legislative work on september 6. on the agenda is must pass federal spending and members are also expected to fund zika research and prevention programs and pentagon programs. you can watch the center senate ray here on c-span2. also republicans in the house judiciary committee have indicated they intend to hold hearings on whether hillary clinton committed perjury in early testimony before the house benghazi committee. all of that is coming up as the house and senate returned tuesday, september 6, on the c-span network. [inaudible]
>> good morning. make sure your microphone is on. >> okay, good morning everyone. for those of you i haven't had the opportunity to meet, i am allison cutler. a major part of my bureaus work is to help consumers stop unwanted robo calls and that's why we are here today. i'm delighted you could join us. we are pleased to be able to host the first meeting of the robo call strikeforce, in the industry led group that has come together in response to chairman wheeler's call to give consumers better tools to stop unwanted calls. i look forward to working with you as the commission's liaison to this group. this morning you will hear from several speakers about the importance of protecting consumers from annoying and sometimes fraudulent robo calls. they will speak about the steps the commission has taken to tackle this problem and ways the strikeforce can support this effort by delivering effective solutions for consumers. commissioner will then provide
remarks in an at&t chairman and ceo, will conclude today's meeting. thank you again for being here this morning and now i will turn it over to chairman wheeler. >> thank you allison and thank you to all of you who have volunteered your time to spend the next 60 days buckled down on this very important issue. it is significant that we have not just carriers, not just the way providers but also equipment and service providers here at this table because this is a challenge that is going to require everybody's commitment. i want to thank my colleagues for joining us today and i particularly want to thank
randall stevens for stepping up to lead this effort. americans are fed up. robo calls are a splurge. it's the number one complaint that we hear from consumers on a daily basis. over 200,000 calls a year into the fcc or into our web-based consumer assistance platform to talk about this problem and complain about how consumers are being abused. americans have a right to be set up with this. it's an invasion of privacy, and
it is ripe with fraud and identity theft. the problem is the bad guys are beating the good guys with technology right now. voice over internet protocol calls from scammers, from foreign countries, and they rely on networks that are ready to deal with them. the ability to spoof a legitimate phone number is the downside to a digital environment. i also want to go back and reiterate that this isn't just a network problem.
this is a community problem, this has to do with those who run and operate networks and equipment and services. that is why it is significant that you are all collectively here at this table. the motive has driven the bad guys to exploit, the profit motive has driven bad guys to a level of technological innovation that exploits consumers by exploiting networks and equipment. it's not as if the good guys have been standing idly by. this is something that requires everybody to pull together.
and, to have an urgency in finding solution so thank you to this group for bending to the task of proposing solutions within 60 days. it is significant that the working groups are going to be meeting at least twice a week to keep to that schedule. let me be clear, this is an industry group. we believe in multi- stakeholder solutions, and when the whole ecosystem can come together, it can produce good results. without results we will be
forced to look for other solutions because this surge must stop. let's set some goals for 60 days authentication standards. number one our authentication standards including gateway standards and pdm voice, we know the standards bodies have been working on this. we need to come to conclusion, the companies represented at this table are the same ones represented in the standards body. let's get to a solution.
secondly we have a group that's going to be working on the tools to allow third parties to develop training options. let's give folks the opportunity to get creative in finding solutions. thirdly there must be cross barrier joint efforts to detect and stop the bad guys. maybe it's a do not originate list, maybe you will come up with better solutions but this is something that has to be multi- carrier, cross carrier and a community solution. we will set a goal for ourselves here at the commission and that is tell us what regulators need to do to help you achieve those
other three things. we've already said there's nothing in the rules that prohibits carriers from offering call blocking, but if we need to do more, tell us tell us where we need to do more. let me just make one more observation and then turn it over to the commissioner. as in any pressing challenge like this, the perfect is the enemy of the good. the nature of software, as you all know, is start and continually improve. let's have that philosophy here. let's not sit around and wait for the ultimate solution. let's start solving the issues
immediately. let us improve tomorrow and make it even better the day after tomorrow. so, thank thank you to all of you, and randall, particularly thank you to you to come together and attack the robo call epidemic. use that an aggressive schedule. we are grateful for that and we look forward to the results in 60 days. thank you to all. >> mr. chairman, it's 6:30 pm. your feeling pretty good this evening because for a change, there sitting down with your children and grandchildren for a home cooked meal with your family. now we all know you didn't prepare it, but that's not the
point here. all of the sudden you are interrupted by a ring. you get up, answer the phone, phone, and what you hear on the other end. what you hear? congratulations, you've been selected to receive and all expense paid to the bahamas. that sounds tempting with all that's going on but you hang up the phone and return to the table but before you can stick a spoon into your favorite dessert, the phone rings again and on the line is a recording that promises to reduce your mortgage. not only has your dessert melted but you feel powerless to stop these calls and you are joined by thousands and thousands of others. the commission has heard loud and clear from them. they hate robo calls. in the first 16 months of 2010, as you mentioned, the telephone consumer protection act related issues and accounted for more than 175,000 tickets with the
fcc consumer help center. we know there is a problem and we know how much consumers this like these calls and how frustrated the public is. they assume, after they registered for the do not call list, all of this would stop. it did not so now it is time to take more action. last some of the commission took the first up by adopting a proposal that reiterated consumers rights to control the calls they see receive on both their landless and wireless phone. the proposal gave providers the green light to implement robo call blocking techniques and reassure consumers they do in fact have the right to say stop. that was followed by a series of letters to all of you, the major providers, urging you urging you to provide consumers with free call blocking procedures.
i applaud you, at&t, and for all of you for stepping up to the plate, enabling us to focus on real action that will empower our consumers with robust solutions. we want to ensure these solutions directly target the problem. the commission has a long history of prohibiting abusive or anti- can padded and use of call blocking technology but consumers want more relief. i am optimistic today this is the beginning of a conversation that we will be able to deliver to consumer, the change that they are clamoring for. thank you for allowing me to share a few words. i want to thank all of you for being a participant. the american people are calling on us to and these daily disruption. >> the question is what you make
for dessert? >> thankthank you, mr. chairmans great to see all of you here. let me paint a picture for you, one that reflects my experience and hopefully all of yours as well. one monday night in the fall, the chiefs are battling the dreaded oakland raiders and its close game. we settle in to watch america's team during a clutch fourth quarter drive but just before the snap in the hand off to jamaal charles, the phone rings. you reluctantly own own answer only to hear a recorded message aiming to be from the irs. the caller said you owe the government money and you will be arrested unless you pay immediately. you hang up angry at yourself and you realize you're even angrier when you realize you miss his play into the end zone for a chiefs victory.
robo calls as we all know them are awful. their unwanted, there and intrusive and many of them like the recent irs related robo calls are scams. they are the number one complaint received by the fcc. the senator from south carolina put it well, he once called robo calls the scorch of civilization. that is an understatement. the dislike of these calls inspires our work this morning for it we are here at the inaugural meeting of the robo calls strikeforce. this industry group has an appropriately intimidating name and they will try to develop ways to prevent, detect and filter these unwanted calls.
i would like to commend the folks who have rolled up there sleeves and committed to resolving this problem. the number of people and organizations have already expended sweat woody in this initiative. there was an app called no more robo and it has stopped 126 million robo 6 million robo calls. it is one of the leading anti-robo calling apps in the united states. second, the alliance for telecommunications industry solutions, the session initiation protocol and the internet in engineered task force identity working group have been developing standards to reduce illegitimate caller id spoofing. that will all help consumers be
able to identify and avoid fraudulent robo calls. it's a critical input that allows robo calling. i think the work of these experts is critical. and last but not least, i want to us express my appreciation to all of you, the industry participants were here today to form this task force. especially to at&t and are committee. your effort will help and the scorch of civilization, something that everyone would apply. i personally look forward to learning more about the scope of the problem and the potential solution. i hope the participants were ponder a few questions as we labor together to stamp out these unwanted robo calls. for example, should we encourage congress to pass the bipartisan act of 2015 introduced -- it's
legislation that would help crackdown on those using spoof caller id or the robo calls. should the fcc take more enforcement action against telemarketers and robo calls given the tens of thousands. we need to make it easier for enforcement bureau to track down and shut down those fraudulent robo colors. it would grant the petition of 51 consumer advocacy organizations for federal contractors and close potential
loophole in our robo call regulation. for my part, i hope everyone here, government officials, industry representatives, industry representatives and consumer advocates can rally around the purpose that i have outlined this morning. to borrow from president kennedy, let every robo caller know that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any solution and oppose to promote the piece of american consumers. please excuse me, i have have to take this call, but think you very much. >> he is bringing us a little theater as well as some threatening nuclear option. [laughter] randall, this is your party, we are out of the game now. thank you for doing this. >> thank you chairman wheeler.
i really do appreciate you initiating this and getting this going. i didn't intend to create controversy right away but i live in dallas texas and allowing his characterization of the kansas city chiefs as the american team is unacceptable. klopp at. [laughter] i do appreciate everybody that is here. if you look at the number of people who are here. being here on short notice is a really big deal. the strikeforce represents the entire ecosystem and the fact that you are here speaks to the complexity of this problem. this will require initiatives and one off blocking to address this issue. robo colors are a very formidable adversary and they are notoriously hard to stop and
technology such as spoofing makes it easier to work around our fixes and cover their tracks together we been coming at this problem and we've had very limited access because they continue to increase and grow. the strikeforce will have to take a different approach in addressing this issue. we want to deal with this and i think that system is well representative. we have network designers, developers, consumers and regulators and lawmakers will have a role to play as well. what we have to do is come out of the session with a comprehensive playbook that we all go out and execute. a lot of people like to portray this as a simple issue to address and i think we understand it is not. these unwanted calls span a wide range.
we have calls that are perfectly legal but they're not wanted. things like telemarketers and others but on the other end of the spectrum, we have millions of calls that are illegal. they are violating do not call registry's or worse they are trying to steal identity or still money. this is where government will have an important role to play. in parallel with the technological solutions we need regulatory law enforcement agencies to go after the bad actors. shutting down the bad guys is a very important step and it will be a powerful example to others and i think our goal is not complicated. we have to stop unwanted robo calls. while it's easy to say, it's hard to do. at chairman wheeler's request, members have committed to doing the following. conform to id standards as soon
as they are made available and we need to drive the standard-setting groups to accelerate our process. we need to adopt ss seven solutions, we need to work together with the industry including every company represented in this room to devise an originality of the do not call list. we need to detect, assess and stop unwanted calls from reaching the customers and we need to facilitate call blocking technologies on their networks. in preparation for today's evening, the technical experts representing us have had preliminary conversations about those short and longer-term initiatives. we will discuss those ideas in greater detail today we've created subcommittees that will be led by many industry experts.
the strikeforce is committed to reporting back to the commission by october 19. that is 60 days from now. the report will include plans and adoption of the new tools and solutions and make recommendations to the fcc on the role government should play in this battle. so many companies agreed on such short notice to be here tells you the seriousness we have about finding a solution here. i want to thank each of you for being here and for your leadership on this. for that we ready to get to work. >> thank you. allison are you going to wrap us up? >> thank you to everybody. just a couple logistical announcements. this is the end of the kickoff of the meeting. we will take a 12 minute break for strike force members and
the robo call task force. we will leave now but if you missed any of it you can see it on our website. we have this from the hill this morning. the lawyer who came up with the term net neutrality. we will bring you this and just a moment. we have campaign 2016 news to pass on. paul manafort resigned as the campaign chair after he announced. he said i he offered and i accepted his resignation. i'm very appreciative for his great work and helping to get us to his great work today. our work guided us through the process pretty is a true professionals and i wish him the greatest success. tonight at 80 strength, newsmakers who is also a longtime friend, he talks talks about recent personnel changes
in his campaign team. what to expect from the presidential debate and issues that could affect the election. newsmakers airs at a special time tonight, eight and 11 on c-span. the house and senate return to legislative work tuesday, september 6. on the agenda, must pass pass federal spending. also expected to fund and discuss funding for the zika virus and research prevention and pentagon programs as well. live coverage on the house on c-span. also republicans in the house judiciary committee have intended they intend to hear hearings on whether or not hillary clinton committed perjury. you can see that live on c-span and c-span2. up next, c-span's issue spotlight, and him depth look at subjects featuring programs from
the archive. this program focuses on trade deal, their impact on the economy and the views of lawmakers. topics include the north american free-trade agreement, the wto and the transpacific partnership. >> joining us now to look at how trade is being discussed by congress and on the campaign trail is megan kinsella, reporter for political pro. much of the discussion now is about the transpacific partnership, a deal that was signed by participating countries back in february. what is it as it's known and what is the status? >> it is the largest regional trade deal in history. it's a massive and covers 12 nations from the u.s. across the age a pacific region. it's a key part of president obama's plan. he has signed the deal as of now.
it's waiting to get ratified by congress and is facing a lot of obstacles before that can get done. >> how is this different from previous trade deals, nafta for example. >> it's much bigger. it covers a whole new region of the world and the obama administration is aiming to set the rules of trade before china or another nation does. china, as as our largest trading partner isn't involved in this agreement so the administration is aiming to make a way for the u.s. to stand out. it's different because it also includes services to boost trade and investment while raising labor standards and environmental standards. those two things are touted as the benefits of the agreement. you mention the president signed the deal but of course we are waiting for congress to act and the president would like to see congress ratify this treaty before he leaves office. how likely or unlikely is that
to happen? >> at this point it's hard to say. it's becoming becoming unlikely that that will happen due to the fact that this deadline is approaching. the election is coming in november and inauguration day is coming in january. it still looks like the administration doesn't have the right number of votes on its side. it supporters still say they have plenty of time to get that done. there still are supporters but then it's groups that are against it, labor groups say there is no way this can happen. it's sort of a toss up at this point and it will be interesting to see how lawmakers do cast their votes. let's talk about the major party nominees for a moment and what they are saying about tpp. on one hand you have hillary clinton who initially was a supporter and has supported past trade deals. you also have donald trump who has some products made in china yet he is against the steel and
other trade deals. how do you explain the opposition of both hillary clinton and donald trump? >> it's interesting to hear this issue tossed around the campaign trail and to see so many party candidates against it. i think hillary, to start was really pulled to the left by bernie sanders and in her primary campaign and she did support this as secretary of state and part of the administration. she now says she doesn't see the hire enough labor standards that she wanted to see and she feels it would hurt american working families and she's against it. it's hard to say if bernie sanders hadn't been in the race if she would've come out with that same position. in many other areas she is running on obama's ticket and on his name and legacy.av donald trump, on the other hand as we say he has many products that are made in china. in his businesses he does outsource and foreign labor. many of these practices that he is touting on the campaign trail.
he is trying to say he's fighting for the average worker in the everyday man. by saying he doesn't like this because it's sending jobs overseas, he's he's trying to appeal to the electorate. you have republicans and democrats both for and against on both sides of the aisle. how do you account for that? >> hook starkly trade is an interesting issue and a lot of that is because these lawmakers vote for their geographic district rather than the politics behind them. you have different areas of the country who feel differently. if they elect up republican they might be portrayed or the democrat may be for trade. you're looking at rust belt industrial space like pennsylvania and ohio who are wary of trade deals and then maybe you have support cities or states like washington and oregon who are really dependent on exports and on trade. it's not so much the partisan
politics but more the geographic importance of those states. >> megan kinsella, a trade reporter for political. thank you so much for being here. >> thank you. i appreciate it - now look at the 2016 presidential candidates and what they are saying on the campaign trail about trade deals in the trans pacific partnership specifically. >> the city of pittsburgh in the state of pennsylvania have lost one third of their manufactured jobs since the clintons put china they have shut their doors in this time. [inaudible] they are hanging in but they just told me it's not easy. almost half of our trade deficit is a result of trade with china.
it was also hillary clinton who shoved us into a job killing deal with south korea. as reported by the economic policy institute in may, this deal doubled our trade deficit with south korea and destroyed nearly 100,000 american jobs. as bernie sanders said, hillary clinton voted to avoid virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs. trade reform and the negotiation of great trade deals is the quickest way to bring our jobs back to our country. the t tp creates a new
international commission and the american people are no longer given the right to veto. they are great for hillary's funders who can spend vast amounts of money to influence the people on the commission and the outcome. it should be no surprise that hillary clinton she took a leading part in drafting the transpacific partnership. please remember that. she even called it the gold standard. hillary clinton and when she saw my stance which is totally
against, she was shamed into saying she would be against it to. >> when they take it in one hand and give out pink slips and the other and ship hundreds of jobs overseas, we will make them pay back those tax benefits. we will take that money and reinvest it in workers and communities and slap and exit tax on companies that hold their headquarters overseas to avoid pairing paying their fair share of taxes. we will defend american jobs and american workers by saying no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices like when china dumps cheap steel and our market or uses weak rules of origin to undercut our carmakers.
i will appoint a prosecutor who will report to the president so we are going to end the abuse of our market. the abuse of our workers and our people. >> our spotlight program continues with a look at the north american free trade agreements that was signed into law in late 1993. the purpose was to ease trade barriers from canada and mexico. several weeks before it was approved, president bill clinton held an event with henry kissinger and jerry carter. >> when he pointed out he had learned about politics from may,
he headed things over to me and said at least we have them in the right order. [laughter] [applause] i would like to talk about the form politics of this. this country has an opportunity in form politics to do something the finding, something that establishes the structure for decades to come. after it is established people wonder how it could ever have been otherwise.
they don't go through the debate when this country has technical objections. at the end of world war ii, the united states committed itself through the marshall plan and through nato, two opposing communists aggression and to uniting the free peoples of the world. especially of the north atlantic area. it led to an intense and bitter debate within this country yet the structure that was built sauce through 40 years and concluded with the victory of three people and the collapse of communism.
we have a new architecture that needs to be created. nafta is the first. there are crucial steps all over protectionism and ethnic conflict. history teaches us that when there are periods of construction two elements are needed. a shared sense of justice in the absence of military conflict. in the western hemisphere, we are very fortunate in having
both of these conditions. democratic governments have been established in every country with the exception of cuba. market economics have become accepted. the military that characterize other areas do not exist here. to which peoples have come in search of liberty, we have an opportunity to demonstrate the creation of a new international system. nafta is the first step in that direction. all of us who in government have had to deal with mexico. we are amazed that the change in attitude that has taken place in that country.
from suspicion of their neighbor to cooperation. from protectionism to free markets, and this country which will soon have a population of 100 million to whom this change was just as painful as it is for many well-meaning opponents of nafta in this country. if nafta fails, the relationship with mexico will be damaged for the foreseeable future but it's more than that. the opportunity for the united states to play its historic growth. it is standing for freedom and developing of mankind. it is setting a pattern of new international structures and they will have been dissipated
this is one of the crucial moments in the cold war time. and there is nothing more than the field of form politics that the congress is going to do in the rest of this decade. so two presidents, both of our parties have seen this vision and have committed themselves to this task. this was somebody's dream before became a reality. we have an opportunity in the post-cold war world to respond to the need of the world that is
not driven by ideological conflict, that is animated by the commitment and common purposes that the three people have negotiated. there is a spanish proverb that says, traveler, there are no roads. the roads are made by walking. we have started on the road, in the western hemisphere to create a community of free nations that can respond to the needs of our time period, that can react if there is protection in the world by having the largest trading plan. and contribute contribute to demonstrating a world architecture that eliminates a
great deal of the national conflict that we now see. that is the issue that we face we hope we can make that road by walking it together. thank you. [applause] >> mr. president, vice president gore, president carter, distinguished guests, mr. president all this talk about power of politics i think really requires that i know that it's rather ironic for me to be here in the white house on this first tuesday in november. [applause]
i apologize for my voice but i am pleased to be part of a group that does span the american political spectrum and i am pleased particularly to have this opportunity to express my support. this room is full of history. it symbolizes the power of the american presidency. for over 12 years under presidents ford, reagan and bush, i had the privilege of seeing historic decisions made at the white house, decisions that were fought with consequence and decisions that were of the greatest importance. one of the most important of these decisions was to negotiate the north american free trade agreement. all of us here today know that nafta is very much in america's vital interests. i think when natural national interest is at stake there can be no political difference.
i think all questions should stop at the water's dead edge and with the vote only two weeks away we have reached that sure. i am here mr. president to pledge to continue to work with you and your team to see that this agreement is past. i think if the fears of working men in this country and women, are very understandable. i think the responsibility of those who exploit those fears is absolutely inexcusable. our task is to persuade americans that they have nothing to fear. working together, on a bipartisan basis, we must expose the fact fudging and profits of protectionism that are playing on the doubts. i support nafta because it will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, high-paying jobs,
rewarding jobs, american jobs. i support nafta because it will encourage a clean environment and stem the rising tide of illegal immigration along our nation's southern border. i support nafta because it will promote free enterprise and democratic government in mexico as others have already noted and it will cast a vote of confidence for continuing reform throughout latin america. most of all, mr. president, i support nafta because i think it is a critical test of america's commitment to engagement. as a former secretary of treasury and state, i know how much nafta will advance the cause of economic renewal here at home as well as american leadership abroad. as an american, i know there is more at stake than relations
with mexico or even jobs because how we decide this issue and how we vote on nafta is really going to reveal a lot about what this nation is going to be in the future. even more importantly i think it will tell us what sort of people we are. i think disagreement marks a defining moment in american history. a moment that ranks with our entry into the world stage in the 1940s. first to defeat fascism and then to leave the democracy of the cold war. then as now, america faced a new era full of opportunities but also full of risks and perils. then as now, america had to choose between engagement on one hand and isolationism on the other. fifty years ago the united states of america chose to lead.
ever sense, we have been a nation nation not just in the world, but we have been a nation of the world. we've been and america prepared to defend its interest, we been in america ready to promote its values, we been in america eager to compete and we have been in america that looks outward to the world and looks forward to the future. our nation of course is a better place with that american leadership in the world is a better place because of america. in the 1940s we were right. today we face a similar historical turning point and we face a similar national decision with the end of the cold war, the voices of isolationism and protectionism are hurt again and they are heard very loudly. they stretch across the political spectrum from right to left. the argument against nafta is a
very simple one. it's an argument based on fear. fear that americans lost the competence to compete, fear that america lacks the confidence to lead. by proving nafta, congress can cast a vote for leadership in the western hemisphere as well as around the world. it can cast a vote for in america fully equal to the competition of the global marketplace. above all, by proving nafta congress can cast a vote for the american character. a character of courage optimism and of hope. you know, from home america is a very appealing slogan but it is a true siren song. i think nafta critics miss a fundamental truth and it's the truth that is understood by everyone in this room today and a truth that's been understand
understood by every american president since franklin roosevelt. you see, america already is its home and it's home is called the world. thank you very much. [applause] >> as he said, this is still a town of miracles. former presidents are notorious in deciding to disagree with each other but not a single lobbyist has been able to dig up one former president who was against this agreement. [laughter]
almost invariably they said i know that nafta is good for my country. and also know that nafta is good for my district, but mr. president, i have to get reelected. the voices i hear in my district are negative. the labor unions are putting pressure on me, the peanut producers of saying we just cannot stand up against this pressure. a lot of decisions in this great country have been made that result in temporary unpopulari
unpopularity. but our best in the long run for our nation. every former president, every former secretary of state, treasury, commerce, secretary, national security advisor, speaker of the house of representatives have had to make decisions of this kind. nafta is one of those issues. i tried to explain to the members of congress this morning not that in their particular district textile workers or thai workers or whatever would not have any jobs in danger. i don't know but i think that is a thought or the relatively insignificant issue on an overall subject, in my opinion, as i explained to the members of congress. the workers in your district will be benefited by nafta. you may disagree, a long-term effect of nafta is what we need to consider. what is best for our nation over
the years. we do a lot of work in latin america, much more knowledge in my mind about latin america than when i was president. we formed the council of former heads of government. we have 23 members of this council. every one of them in this hemisphere has been elected in a free and open and fair process, leading to a democracy. they have all served as head of the own government. some are still in comfort 17 have shared with me in the last few days a hope the audible express to this group their support of the north american free trade agreement. these are not from mexico, none of them, but they say this as a test of the relationship between the united states of america and our neighbors and friends, potential friends in this hemisphere. we tried to work to bring about democracy.
we go down and help to hold elections in various countries. jim bakker since he became sick of treasury worked out an agreement with the speaker agreement with the speaker of the house and others that we might end the contra war by bringing about a democratic election to we went down until the election in nicaragua. we have done the same thing in seven or eight countries. we've gotten to know the desire of these leaders and their people to emulate in the finest sense the characteristics that have made our nation the greatest on earth. they, however, have incipient in them a lot of anti-american sentiment of fears because we are the big brother who has quite often in the past interceded in the interim affairs. they see a new era now dawning for a second to kissinger pointed out, every country in this hemisphere has no move towards a democracy, except cuba and, of course, mexico is not
yet there. what -- they've done this with confidence in this. i don't think there's anything i can be done in this nation, in this decade that will deal a more severe blow to the growing friendship and trust and confidence, a sense of partnership and sharing, that is growing between us and our latin american friends than the rejection of nafta. this is a litmus test for them. each of them in the caribbean, central america, south america see this as a test. asking some basic questions, is it leadership on behalf of the united states of america to reject our nearest and most important neighbors? will the move towards old progress in democracy and mexico be enhanced by the rejection of
nafta, or will this be a blow to the mexicans confidence in moving toward a democracy that might equal ours someday? is there an opportunity now to correct some of the problems of the past and at the same time greatly improve our influence in this hemisphere and around the world? i think this is a crucial vote on if it is voted down there will be a devastating blow to our relationship with all of the countries in this hemisphere. it will be a devastating blow to the integrity and the leadership of our country in other hemispheres and continents in this world. and it will also be a blow to us come to our workers, to our trade, and to open his that we have with democracy and freedom and respect for human rights and end the totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. we have a lot to do with japan, too. the japanese are waiting with
baited breath to move into all these countries in this hemisphere if we leave a vacuum there, antagonism and distrust their by the rejection of nafta. we've got to protect our own future markets into one of the two major growing market places on earth. in asia, growing based on exports. in this hemisphere, growing based on imports. those imports can compromise. and not japan or europe, if we are wise. ask all of you to make free phone calls. i don't know why you could at least make as many as i made this morning. [laughter] many of the members of congress -- [applause] many of the members of congress are looking for a way to get out of the unanswerable question, what will it do to a particular job in my district? they need to look on the strategic, long-term effects of
our country and our neighbors. in accepting or rejecting nafta. finally, let me settle think we ought to underestimate the integrity and the courage of the members of the house of representatives as they face this difficult vote. we saw this indicates of the panama canal treaties were it took tremendous political courage to support that first of all unpopular treaty to the senate voted for 68 votes. i was a tremendous display of political courage. the same kind of courage and patriotism and commitment to our country exists in the house of representatives. if it can be adequately tapped by people like those assembled in this room. and now finally i want to take an opportunity to do something i've never done before in my life. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you very much.
thank you very much, president carter, mr. vice president. all the distinguished people have spoken here today. i would like to begin by making two observations. first of all after hearing what has been said, i'm pretty proud to be an american today. i think all of you should be, too. [applause] >> secondly i have been sent an extraterrestrial telegram stating i, too, and for nafta, signed otto von bismarck. [laughter] you know, it is something of
note of every living president, secretary of state, the second is the defense and national security advisers, sectors of commerce, leaders of the federal reserve, distinguished contributors to the american spirit like john carter, father hessler another great american citizens all support this agreement. for economic reasons, for foreign policy reasons, our own secretary of state warren christopher is in california even as we are talking about the foreign policy implications of nafta for our government and our country. why have all of us declared this issue above politics? why have we come to agree that whatever else has divided us in the past, this will will post together in the cause of more
jobs for our people, more exports for our markets, and more democracy for our allies? why do we all know down deep inside that this would be such a profound setback for america in the world economy, and in the new global colony we are striving to create? why are we so willing to say no to partisan politics, and yes to nafta? i think it is because we know as all of these have set in different ways that nafta reflects this moments expression of all the lessons we've learned in the 20th century. it reflects this moments expression of what we learned not to do after world war i, what we learned we had to do during after and during world war ii. it reflects the sheer economic weight of argument that mr. santos and refer to that we
have seen, even more expressed just in the last few years in a higher and higher percentage of our new jobs in this country are clearly traceable directly to exports. i see it in my own work here. for years and years and years our allies in europe and asia said well, if america really wanted to promote global growth, you would do something about your deficit and future interest rates down and quit taking so much money out of the global economy. and so we've tried to do that. we have low interest rates, the deficit is coming down on after own deficit this year was much lower in no small measure because of those lower rates but we saw this great global recession. wide? because we're not trading with one another. we are not buying and selling and investing across national lines and sparking the global growth that is the only way any wealthy country generate any new jobs. now with attacking nafta has yet
made a single solitary argument to refute this essential point. there is no evidence that any wealthy country, not just the united states, anyone, not one can create new jobs and higher incomes without more global growth fueled by trade dirk if you strip away all the other arguments, no one has offered a single solitary shred of evidence to refute that central point. and i know there's great insecurity and instability in all the wealthy countries in the world. you can say whatever you want about this being the first tuesday in november. you've seen a lot of other tuesdays come along in other nations, great political upheavals all across the world. why? because people fill the walls are closing in on them. in truth i think when you strip all this the way we are facing a decision about whether the
psychological pressures of the moment will overcome what we know in our hearts and our minds is the right thing to do. whether the same pressures that people in canada field, or france, or japan, in a time when wealthy countries are not generating new jobs and people are working harder for stagnant wages, those pressures make us do what is easy and perhaps popular in the moment. or will we do what we really should do, the honorable thing to do to respond to those pressures is to take an action that may not be popular in the moment but that could hold the promise of alleviating the pressures? if we believe the feelings, the anxieties are legitimate as having said that already speakers, then don't we have the obligation to do what will alleviate the anxieties over the long haul? instead of play to them in the
moment. that is what this decision is all about. that is what we mean when we say the secret ballot on this issue has already been one. the students over here to buy left are from my alma mater, georgetown. when i was in their place, 25 years ago now, when we were studying global affairs we cannot really worryin worry abod thinking about the cold war and trying to debate exactly how much the pattern of the bipolar world could be manifest, in every country in the world and every region of the world. sometimes we're wrong and sometimes we were right but at least we had a framework within which to view the world. as dr. kissinger said we're in the process now of creating any framework. and a lot of people are complaining about how we don't have all the answers. i don't mean we the administration. i mean we the people. i say to you, many of you in this room are old enough for
members and i think i now qualify in that category. a lot of generations of americans who would kill to be alive in this time with a set of problems. i mean, who are we to complain about this set of problems? very few mornings do i come to work in the oval office and wondered whether some decisions i make can spark a nuclear war. very few mornings i wonder whether even in all the difficulties we face we might make it economic error and a quarter of our people will be out of work as they were during the great depression. we see people in positions of responsibility going around wringing their hands about the difficult of the moment. it's a new time. it's always difficult in anytime to see the future with clarity and have the kind of framework you need. but now that is an excuse to get into the emotional pressure of the moment instead of take steps that will alleviate the pressure.
that is the dilemma before us. you know, it's true that this is good for us economically. it's also true that what mexico gets out that it is investment so that if we don't take this deal, somebody else probably will. that will be bad for us economically. as has already been said by president carter. but the real thing that this is about is how we are going to be ourselves as we relate to the rest of the world. keep in mind this is not an isolated incident. this is not just a trade deal between the united states and mexico. not even if you that affects our relationship with the rest of latin america although that's where the real jobs a long-term economic benefit to us live perhaps. that even a deal that will help us get the agreement by the end of the year, although i tell you it won't give increase leverage to the united states to push that agreement through to the end of the year if this passes, enormous. a great incentive to other
nations to support this. but over and above that this is a decision which will demonstrate whether in this difficult moment we still have confidence in ourselves and our potential. and i would say to all of you, anything you can do to the people at large and to the congress in particular to instill the confidence they can, very important. if we have lost our way at all for the last couple of years it is not having any historic memory. these are difficult problems, but for goodness sakes, give us these problems as compared with many of those our forebears faced. and give us these problems as compared to those with about to create if we start turning away from the world that is plainly before us. help us to give the congress the freedom, the confidence, the
courage that is inside every member of congress waiting to be brought out. helped to give him the space they need to take the steps they know are right for america. this is about whether we really have confidence in ourselves. i believe all my heart the next 20 years can be the best we have ever had, but they're going to require some tough decisions, difficult moments, some uncertain moments. what did you do in moments like that? do what the priests would tell you what to do. fallback and what you believe in what you know is right. what we know is right for america is to be confident to reach out, to fully process and the potential to believe that we can adjust, just as we've been doing for 200 years now. make free calls, 12 calls, two dozen calls. for goodness sake, make a mini every you can't but remember this is a test of our
confidence. every one of you can give confidence to someone else by the life you've lived, the experiences you've had, the things that you know. give it now. we needed. thank you very much. [applause] >> now a look at nafta's impact nearly 15 years after its enactment. this discussion on c-span's "washington journal" program include speakers for and against the trade deal. you also your but then presidential candidate barack obama and hillary clinton were saying at the time about renegotiating provisions of nafta. >> host: former u.s. trade ambassador under george h. that the bush. tony, what's been the impact of nafta on the u.s. and local economy? >> guest: the nafta open market when we first negotiated mexico's tariffs were three
times higher than ours, and we opened up the industrialized commodities market, eliminated the restriction on agriculture and opened up a broad range of services, protected intellectual property. actually it was the first agreement that was that broad. at the time we were in difficulty in the multilateral negotiation with the uruguay round. the advances we've made in nafta rock the members of the thin gap back to the table and we finished the uruguay round. >> host: glory of the global trade watch, same question to you in the back of nafta of the u.s. and global economy? >> guest: unfortunately didn't measure up to its promoter promises an effect caused a lot of damage. so before nafta the u.s. had a slight trade surplus with mexico and the deficit with canada. since then that trade arrangement turned into a major heart of our global deficit.
we have over $200 million, billion dollar deficit with the nafta countries from a surplus with mexico to $90 billion, the deficit. during the period of nafta views has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs. that's what out of five of every manufacturing job in the u.s. and real wages have we trade manufacturing jobs and replace them with service jobs have been flat in media real wages, even the worker productivity double. and all that you hope something good happened in mexico because it doesn't look so hot in u.s. in fact, in mexico according to government data 1.5 million peasant farmers, their livelihoods were destroyed basically by dumping of subsidized u.s. corn. so after nafta migration from mexico to the u.s. of these displaced people increased 50%. the jobs that were to be created after nafta didn't happen. it was supposed be 200,000 jobs
a year. the increase in use income didn't happen and against to mexico reduction in poverty and a document immigration didn't happen. to the contrary a lot of people suffered after 15 years of nafta prospect carla hills, both senators obama and secretary clinton said if they are elected that they oppose certain provisions of nafta and if they are elected that can attract renegotiated or scrapped altogether to is that realistic, and what kind of a threat without posed to the u.s. economy? >> guest: i think it would send a signal to the rest of the world that we are more unilateral than they think, that we don't stick with our bargains and i think it would cost us more jobs than they were anticipating lost, because the production lines have been set up so that now north america is integrated. actually that's what caused the productivity. i agree with laurie that there
have been lots of jobs lost but you really can't blame it on the nafta. if you look at them just taking manufacturing jobs, if you look at the 85-93 in the united states, we lost 780,000 manufacturing jobs. if you look at the period 94-2000 which marked where we signed the nafta come in 94 it became effective, we gain 500,000 jobs. where we got the big hit in heavy manufacturing job loss was in 2000 the recession of 2001, 2002. it's a problem that comes from technology. we are creating more output, more manufacturing output, by 30% with 20% fewer workers. i know to the worker in ohio,
the fact that he lost his job because of mechanization doesn't make him feel any happier public about what the remedies are but let's keep the trade agreement. >> host: lori wallach, both the president and senator mccain have said that nafta is not to blame, that, in fact, production is up, more people are working and that more money is coming in. why would you oppose that position transferred to both that and also what carla hills jessica is actually a database, a government database called the nafta trade adjustment assistance a database which is jobs certified as nafta job losses. to get in that list is a bit of difficulty, very narrow but a lot of people who could lose a job to nafta could get that program under the program there are over half a million real names. people in america the government has certified explicitly as nafta job casualties. the notion you can't attribute it to nafta isn't so because the cab does and try to help those folks.
but the bigger question of what is the cause, you can't blame the technological changes because our shipping out of manufacturing jobs started happening in the 1970s right after the fast track mechanism got past and we started having persistent trade deficits. from world war ii until we start with this model of globalization we have thousands trade or with surpluses. we were standing up more stuff and we were bringing you. starting with this generation of trade agreements we had reduction that the production of overseas not just with. they could being sent back contribute to deficits. it's during that period we both lost manufacturing jobs and we seem will wages. what people can earn in the media and going down as we washed out these higher wage manufacture jobs and replace them with service sector jobs. you can literally make a chart and look at where these past different agreements and you see a jump in the jobs. the 2000 was a recession but is
also the year the world trade organization had china enter and submit all the protections for investors who want to go to china hit them and it much easier to relocate production there. we saw a huge wave of u.s. manufacturing investment shift to china. during the period right after nafta we saw a big wave shift to mexico. we saw all those jobs in the trade adjustment system or you can attribute explicitly. the big issue is not trade any sense of the old trade agreements that the general agreement and trait on trade tot tariffs and more good skimming. in modern trade agreements, carla hills just that nafta was unique. wto was much broader, includes investment rules that provide incentives and the fact protection for u.s. companies to move offshore. basically these investor protections get rid of a lot of the risk that would otherwise be associate with the u.s. company going overseas.
performance requirement. normally when a youth from go to developing countries that it would take come on in but you have to use domestic power, domestic magic and transfer technology and export everything. all of those conditions were forbidden. in nafta it went farther. a guaranteed a minimum standard of treatment and we did not go to domestic court to do you disputes. suddenly all these risks that might is typical for good or even for low wages, gone because the trade agreements subsidized you moving. >> host: if you want to get involved is a listing are watching a want to get involved in our discussion regarding nafta and free trade agreements, the numbers are on the screen.
want to show some statements that have been made by senators barack obama and hillary clinton regarding nafta and then you get back to the discussion. >> i said i will renegotiate nafta. obviously, would have to say to canada and mexico is exactly what we're going to do. >> let me be clear. you will get outcome to notify mexican and canada nafta is gone in six months speak with no. i will say we will opt out of nafta unless we renegotiate it and we will negotiate the terms that are favorable to all of america. >> i will make sure that we renegotiate in the same with secretary clinton talked about and i think her answer on this one is right. i think we should use a hammer a potential opt out as leverage to ensure we actually get labor and a vibrant and standards that are enforced. that is not what has been happening so far. >> host: carla hills can what should the voters in ohio and texas be thinking about based on the statements that were made by
senators clinton and obama when they go to the polls on tuesday? >> guest: i fear they will be confused. i think to try to tell your trading partners are first largest and our second largest trading partners, look, this 15 year old agreement that has worked for all of us so that gdp for all of us is out, foreign direct investment for all of us is up, there's been an increase in aggression. our productivity is up, and out employment, in spite of the complaints about our employment, was 110 million jobs in 93, and today it's 144 million. if we weren't about mexico, it's jobs have gone from 33 million, to 44 million. unilaterally to tell your trading partners you going to opt out strikes me as a very bad way to start easier foreign policy negotiation or economic policy negotiations.
and it is a way to augment nafta. i believe in greater cohesion in north america. i believe there are things we can do together in terms of energy, in terms of perimeter security, in terms of making all regulations less burdensome so that american companies don't have to test the products three different times. i obviously am disappointed with the suggestion that a presidential candidate would simply quote opt out. >> host: lori wallach, kennedy some obligation to the nafta agreement, or does the whole thing have to be scrapped transfer i don't know if you'd call it augmentation. perhaps reduction be basically there are aspects to the existing agreement that have to be removed. for instance, for and festivals i was describing that promote off shoring. that has to go. or the nafta has rules that limit the safety standards you
can apply to imported food and imported goods, and limit border inspection rates. that has to go. or for instance, data has rules that require us to allow mexican, sal trucks into the country whether or not they meet domestic standards for safety in the department. so all of those kinds of over beaches in the agreement would have to go. then there are things that are missing. the candidates have been talking about domestic, adding labor and departmental standards to cut help the domestic effects of nafta. that just ain't going to fix it but it's those corporations that need to be changed often let's go to the fund. our first call comes from george on our line from democrats. go ahead. >> caller: have pedro rewind and have them look at this commercial. the commercials have the same actors in them. people are saying they're happy to have them both together.
>> host: we're not talking about the commercial that we're talking about nafta called it it all goes together. my question is on nafta, what does cutting off the nafta with mexico and canada have to do with the fact that we have a one-sided some perspective effort from the grid with china in which is where we get most of our goods. which is like and how that all works together. >> guest: we have agreed with 151 other nations around the world that china may be a member of the world trade organization. we believe that this has been very good for the world economy. because china has adopted the kinds of rules that eliminate subsidies and unfair trade practices that discriminate
against our products. we believe that, i would like to get othe out of economies that t the fringe of the global commerce into the wto so that we would grow the pie and increased global wealth, alleviate global poverty and enhance our security. because failing countries of those countries that are burdened with heavy hungry like pakistan, bangladesh, indonesia, are dangerous when they can't enforce their laws or secure their borders. that's a problem for us. i applaud the fact that china is in the world trade organization. it takes us out of the law of the jungle into set of rules and if the trend it wants anything, it wants a rule of law to govern international commerce. >> host: next call from chicago, illinois, our online,
sorry, churchville pennsylvania are outlined for republicans. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. mrs. hill, i absolutely believe that your intentions are honorable and clearly so much like a religious belief this idea that free trade is the only way to go. it certainly has not been profitable for the training of america since the second world war, just continued, we continue to just increase the trade deficit. last year we had what, close to $800 billion trade deficit? i remember buying a book that the former central banker paul volcker had written with a central banker from japan. in the book he talked about $100 billion trade deficit in the early '90s, which is not
sustainable and would lead to a catastrophic situation. now have an 800 billion-dollar trade deficit. i wonder if you're for me with paul craig roberts, former undersecretary of treasury under reagan? >> guest: yes paul mack ui to reduce the. you can get it on -- he has extensive, is written extensively on trade and the distortions we don't have free trade. how is it conceivable that american workers can compete with workers overseas that make 30 cents an hour in china, for instance, who are very confident, equally intelligent as us with no workers comp, no environmental standards, no social security, no epa, no pensions, no health insurance, nothing? i mean, it's impossible. >> host: thanks for your call.
>> guest: let me tell the caller that the united states with 5% of the worlds population produces about 20% of the world's output. we need to find a market where we can sell our goods so that we have prosperity. second, the economic studies that have been done about keeping markets open demonstrate since world war ii we had a bipartisan consensus favoring the keeping of open markets and the great economic interdependence advances our well being of our prosperity and our security i might add. doctor hofbauer over at the theater institute of international economics has calculated that by reason of keeping our markets open since world war ii come just days is $1 trillion per year wealthier which means that the average american household is about $9000 per year will do that would be had we close our
markets. we can compete because of 30 cents worker in china is not in the border area of china. it's in the interior. we are just simply more productive. we don't make anymore. we do make black and white televisions anymore. we moved up the value scale and, frankly, our wealth is we are a wealthier country. that are challenges that we must address. we must save more so we can invest more effectively that's a different issue from keeping our markets open. >> guest: the call is why. the huge trade deficits slows economic growth. we have a trade deficit with 6% and you have people who support nafta wto like conference and former fed chair greenspan saying it's a drag on the growth. your point is right on. also report on how can we
compete under these rules is exactly right. equation isn't cutting off trade. the question is under what rules. what's the bottom for the competition. for instance, and our current rule is come is a true free for all. is a race downward the competition is in the race for the bottom. different rules, for instance, if they did not incentives, the lowest wages would have different outcomes. so what rules that have to do with what exactly you could bring back. for all those goods from china as well as the competition on wage input question, the question is about health, safety and our current trade agreements require us to import goods that are having the equivalent safety standards, not the u.s. safety standards. why would that be in a trade agreement was not necessary but if you have the agreement having
to meet our health and safety standard would be good for our consumers and also would mean a lot of products them in a very shoddy race race to the bottom d be tactically up your actor come back on. >> host: let's take a look at nafta by the numbers according to the is trade practices office. trade among nafta nations grew to $883 billion from 1993-2006. u.s. exports to nafta partners accounted for 35% of total u.s. exports. responsible for increase of 25 million jobs from december 1993-december 2006. and nafta u.s. manufacturing output rose by 63% in 1993-2006. back to the phones, modesto, california, go ahead. >> caller: the morning. i'm a first time caller, a little nervous. since the nafta agreement has been put in place, they
companies have left this country. all of the sudden we have a huge problem with the border control. now, if nafta was so good for mexico, why are people pouring out of mexico in search of a better life? if nafta was so good for this country, why is the infrastructure in this country suffering so badly? the education levels, the schools have deteriorated. what has nafta done for our country to promote a better life? and could you please touch on the fact that what does? >> guest: have to do with nafta was pleased by those two together. >> guest: the caller has raised some issues that are quite real. keep in mind that the nafta is a
commercial agreement. the nafta does not cure chickenpox and doesn't in the migration. it creates wealth for the government to deal with their problems. and all three governments have responsibility to deal with their problems to if i were recommending a change of course in mexico it would be to liberalize the energy sector and change their tax policies so that they could create a better environment at home. if i were recommended something short own government i would urge any increase in the infrastructure, because that's what keeps us competitive. one of our earlier callers talk about how can we be competitive? one factories have good infrastructure. you put your finger on it was education. we will not make it in the knowledge age is 30% of our high school students fail to graduate. we will have a country of half and half not.
that is nothing to do with nafta. nafta is a good commercial agreement that has enhanced our productivity, that has created wealth that our government can spend for policies that will enhance our life and our future. >> ian fletcher is a conservative economist and author of the book, free trade doesn't work. speaking at the heritage foundation in 2010, he describes the history of american trade policy and how other countries approach the issue. this portion of it is about 10 minutes. you can watch the entire event by going to c-span.org and searching the video library. >> thank you. here is my book, free trade doesn't work, and as i was introduced i am indeed an economist with these business and industry council, the california office in the process go and energy talking about
problems with free trade. the first thing that i think your gravel taken seriously is the fact that historically the united states simply was not a free trade nation. for most of american history. the u.s. is, in fact, a tariff protected economy. this goes back to our very constitution. article 1, section 8 in the constitution says that congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations. you all know as conservatives that congress does a lot of things that it does not have constitutional authority to do. regulating trade is explicitly in the constitution as something that congress is authorized to do. despite the myth which is, america's heritage is heritage up your 1100% free markets, which is a very popular idea of an idea which is feature no vote both in terms -- easy to promote and to give rigorous economics
but the truth is america's economic tradition essence of alexander hamilton. he is the guy on the $10 bill. dice rank he ever had was secretary of the treasury and yet he's on low denomination money for the reason he was basically the intellectual father of american capitalism. off all the founding fathers he was the economist, he was well read in the economics literature of this day, which is remarkably sophisticated. i turn to it myself as an economist for theoretical benefit all the time. he was the money man, he went to general washington and other founding fathers and he said look, if the united states embraces free trade, which was early and i did that was in the air than as it's in the air now, he said which is going to end up as a dependent power of the economic powers of the day, which at the time principally meant great britain which was the world leading economy at the time, the world's greatest manufacturing nation.
remember that in 1776 the united states was a third world country. by present-day standards. we were a nation with almost no manufacturing industry. almost everybody was a farmer. and so hamilton said among the things we need to develop a serious and national economy, which is a necessity for military reasons, if nothing else, because of the kind almost lost the american revolution because of our inability to produce defense goods. we were rescued by the french who sent us 40,000 muskets and other matériel. but anyway hamilton said there are two things we need. this is in a famous book or super pamphlet he wrote in 1791 called the report on manufactures in which you said you had such a policy and you need a protective tariff at the united states is not historically a free trade country. abraham lincoln, the greatest republican president, his number
two policy after winning the civil war and ending slavery and so forth was the protective tariff. his famous quote is give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest country on earth. that was largely what he was known for in his own time in terms of economic policy which is overshadowed by the old civil war thing i remember that was an economy in america in the air just as there is today. and of what economic policy that lincoln was known for was the protective tariff. the point i need to make is this controversy over free trade is nothing you, and your heritage as conservatives is quite on fact o other protections cited e recent contemporary american conservatives are often split between free trade and the protectionist view is that america embraced free trade fundamentally after world war ii as a device to win the cold war.
in 1945, 46, 47, the cold war took shape and we were confronted by the fact that if we're going to unify the world in opposition to soviet communism, we need to make the dependent nations abroad depend upon us for the economic well being, depend upon the united states as an export market. talking about countries like greece for example, which was a flashpoint for attempted economist takeover in 1946-47. we needed to do two things with countries all around the world, greece, korea, so when and so forth. we need to prop up their economies by giving him an export market in the united states and to make independent upon our markets so they would know the line politically. so that the fortune of free trade as an american policy. it is a cold war policy that was obviously, there was a point to it. it worked very well. we did succeed in unifying all
the non-commies countries in the world against the soviet union. but the point i would like to submit to any conservative audience such as yourself is that the cold war is over. the present of the traditional original reasons for the united states not to be a free trade country, to be a tariff protected nation that uses the economic strategy have come back. now, anybody who's been paying attention knows that foreign nations are playing the protectionist again, playing it very well and they're playing it against us. we played the same game against great britain and the rest of your the 19th century that the chinese are playing against us today. there is no complaint them legitimate or illegitimate, did you can find that americans are making today against the protectionist mercantilist policies that beijing. you can't dig up in british newspapers in 1880s who were
complaining about how britain was trying to pursue this noble and economically rational free trade free market policy towards the world. here on these diabolical american sitting in new york and chicago tied it up, building a physical and social machine by gaming the system and these yankees just will not play fair. again is a very old game. mercantilism when you mercantilism is not something dreamed up by the dictators in beijing five years ago. because back 400 years to the dawn of capitalism. the strategies being employed in tokyo, beijing right now at the expense of the united states were originally invested 400 years ago in a renaissance italy among the italian renaissance city states of north italy, is like venice and florence which were the commercial powers of the day. those guys were very smart given the limited economic resources of the time.
work until his is a very, very old game. the founding fathers knew about it and that is what is being played against the united states right now. likely of course we have the heritage, we have the understanding and we certainly have the economics to know what to do about it. there's a myth out there that somehow economics has proved that free trade is the best policy. one of the things i learned in the course of writing my book, "free trade doesn't work," a major reason why i wrote it was simply to convey to a mass audience that when you think economics has proved that free trade is always best, that's not economics. that's what i call fake economics. it's kind of an ideological editorial-page think tank hack. i work for thinking myself. my point is we'll economics can if you actually make the effort
to say what economists have said, there are plenty out there who understand, for example, that david ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, the intellectual cornerstone of the very idea free trade is either invented in 1817 either british economist david ricardo which claims to print if you take it straight that free trade is always isn't ago your best move. this is at best a very, very crude, simplistic cartoon of the way international economics works. the our a dozen very large loopholes in it which make quite good at what you want is the absolute free trade. i'm not against international trade. if i read things we would still be in the port of new york and turn it into baking clubs but the point is having international trade are not the same thing. now should person for suggesting we turned the united states into
north korea. you can have international trade as a healthy amount of international trade but free trade means lousy their in international trade -- laissez-faire. we don't think it's usually. not really. if you go back to great republican presidents like teddy roosevelt at the turn of the last century, the united states turned away from pure 100% free markets are very good reason. iif you look even about what reagan actually did as opposed to some of his more colorful speeches, pure laissez-faire is not taken seriously domestically. what we want is a reasonable balance -- balance between free markets which are very important in a lot of ways and reasonable and prudent regulation. that's a conservative value if you're talking about real
conservatives as opposed to the can of cheese, food, product, packaged of artificial fraud that sometimes gets dished out the reasonableness and prudence in understanding of the limits is a big part of what real conservatives believe in. and yet if you want to talk about free trade, that means that this laissez-faire idea, which is not real in domestic economics, suddenly the minute you pull out your passport we supposed to play by those rules internationally. and that makes no sense. if you look at what we've economists have actually said and analyzed, you can document, i tried to do this in my book at length, that there are plenty of well known holes in the principles of free trade if we will only make the effort to make recourse to the idea that are already available to us, it's easy enough to understand why free trade is not the best policy. it never was the best policy. the people who founded this
country and rent it for 150 years understood that. and it is also not that hard for us to back off away from this mistake that we've been making at an increasingly higher cost in recent decades. i am optimistic that america can get back to original passion and rational trade policy and the conservatives are capable of leading the way on this. >> president obama has vowed to do everything he can to pass the test of civic partnership, or tpp, before leaving office. he defended the deal during a joint news conference with the prime minister of singapore earlier this month. >> we are part of a global economy. we are not reversing that. it can't be reversed. because it is driven by technology and is driven by travel and cargo containers and
the fact that the demand for products inside of our country means we've got to get something from other places. under export sector is a huge contributor to jobs at a economic well being. most manufactured products now involve a global supply chain where parts are made in all corners of the globe and converge and then get assembled and packaged and sold. and so the notion that we're going to pull that up root and branch is unrealistic, point number one. point number two, it is actually true, the evidence shows that some passive trade deals have not delivered on all the benefits that were promised and had very localized cost of their
communities hurt because plans got moved out. people lost jobs. jobs were created because of those trade deals, but jobs also lost. people who experienced those losses, those communities didn't get as much help as they need to do. and what is also true as a consequence of globalization and automation and what you've seen is labor, workers, losing leverage and capital being mobile, being able to locate around the world. that has all contributed to growing inequality held here in the united states, but in many advanced economies. so there's a real problem, but the answer is not cutting off globalization. the answer is, how do we make sure that globalization, technology, automation, those
things workforce, not against us. ntpp is designed to do precisely that. >> c-span species of spotlight on trade deals continues with trade attorney and get institute scholar scott lincicome. he says trade is incorrectly blamed for being the main cause of job losses in the u.s. from "washington journal" earlier this year, this is about 20 minutes. >> host: joining us from duke university, scotland, who wrote the cover story for national review, the enemy, the truth about trade. what did you find out about the truth about trade? >> guest: well, what i found out is there's a lot of myths and misperceptions about trade and jobs and whether trade is really to blame, for example, loss of manufacturing jobs in the united states or whether there are other more fundamental
problems of the american labor market. the conclusion as you maybe could get is that trade would isn't to blame for some the problems in our labor market. instead, one of the problems we would have in the last few years is the collapse in labor dynamism. the natural job churn in the market, the ability of displaced workers to find new and better jobs over the longer-term. >> host: yet use the exit polls from this presidential cycle, in state after state democrats and republicans, this should michigan and mississippi when they vote in this nominating process. democrats and republicans worry about the economy, and when those voters expressed concern about trade and adding one of the top issues, they are voting for bernie sanders and donald trump who are opposed to these kind of trade deals. >> guest: blaming china for
all of the ills in the american economy makes a good sound bite. there's no doubt they're still economic anxiety in this country, something sanders and trump have seized on. when you actually look at the numbers and when you review the various academic studies out there, what you find is that trade would isn't the cost of the vast majority of job losses in the manufacturing sector of the united states. .. closed factory or someone losing their job because of import compit