>> we are live in washington, d.c. waiting on the start of a conference on international trade featuring nebraska congressman adam smith. it looks like they are a couple of minutes away from getting started. in the meantime will show you a portion of washington journal. host: this is the headline biden in the georgian -- in the jordan king's begging for a stop the assault on rafa. [video clip] >> as the king and i discussed the united states and i are working on a hostage deal between israel and hamas which

would bring immediate and sustained period of calm for gaza for at least six weeks, which we could then take the time to build something more enduring. i have had calls to stand down along with the leaders of egypt and qatar to push this forward. key elements are on the table with gaps that remain, what i would encourage israeli leaders to keep working to --[end video clip] >> we would like to welcome our next discussion. this has been the top priority for the past two administrations and trade policy has been a crucial tool to bolster american manufacturing might and help it thrive in a competitive marketplace. the national association of manufacturers is the point of that spirit and we could not be more pleased to host their president and ceo to talk about

how trade can support the vital manufacturing sector. he has joined by the man behind the pen who has been telling the story about trade policy for over 20 years, doug palmer of political -- politico. >> thank you. i am doug palmer with politico and i am here to be -- i am pleased to be here with jason. of the national association of manufacturers. you have been president since 2011? >> yes. if i was under deposition i would not sure i would remember what the date was but i think it was 2011. doug: i looked at your bio and i saw that you came to washington in the 1980's and you worked as a press secretary for i think a pair of different congressman. >> so, i actually dropped out of college. i wanted to be part of,

ironically, the reagan revolution. i never got a chance to work in the reagan white house, but it was always my dream. he was really kind of my inspiration and what motivated me. his, if you will, his worldview impressed me. i could not do it there, but i was able to work for members on capitol hill who were able to enact the agenda. doug: governor alan both when he was on the hill and in the governor's mansion. jay: later i worked for george allen when he was a congressman at the government center. and he was probably the younger version of reagan, in my mind anyway. doug: cool. i guess i would just ask you to start off by giving us a brief overview of what are the trade priorities for the year and then we could dig into some issues. i have been thinking a lot about

the wto ministerial in a couple of weeks. i know you guys are interested in seeing trade legislation move and are sort of frustrated that trade agreements are not being negotiated. i thought we could talk about that. jay: that is a wrap. doug: if you could start off with a brief overview about what you would like to see done in 2024? jay: the nam was founded in 1895. we were founded under the belief we need to expand our access to markets around the world. later we got more involved in domestic policy. but our goal was to recognize the importance of -- the important place that american manufacturers had. on the world economy. and that was the impetus for the birth of the nam, and that has been part of our dna for all of that time, what is that, 129

years of the existence of our organization. but i think we look at trade, and i know our members do. i have a very small and discrete board of directors, 250 members. doug: right. jay: the good news is that regardless of their size whether they are multinational companies or the smallest mom-and-pop manufacturer understand the importance of a liberalized system of trade around the world. they know that is good for their success and communities. i was just speaking to investor montezuma, who will be speaking in a little bit. and he was making the point and makes it more eloquently than i could that trade is the recipe for peace, and the recipe for working together harmoniously. i think we look at trade through

that lens and as a facilitator to obviously economic growth. but also the export of our values and the american style of democracy. so, some of our objectives, first and foremost we would like to see more trade agreements. we have not seen one negotiated for over 10 years and the rest of the world, quite frankly are eating our lunch when it comes to negotiating these agreements. very simple issues like -- you would think they would be simple issues. like the miscellaneous tariff bill, getting that done. that gets locked up with all of the partisan back-and-forth and on an issue like that i do not quite understand it. i would probably add on to all of that issues that directly impact our ability for

manufacturing in the united states so we can trade. a stable tax policy. the tax reforms that we achieved in 2017 were important to grow wages in the united states. regulatory certainty is critical for manufacturers to be able to compete united states. immigration reform will be important because we can invest all we wanted manufacturing in the united states to become a world leader, but if we do not have the people to do the job that we would be open, 620,000, we are not willing to be able to aspire or meet the aspirations that we have for being that global leader on trade or continuing to be that. all of those are part of the nam legislative and regulatory basket. doug: thank you for the overview. i would like to dig into the ministerial conference a little bit. there is not a lot on that

agenda to give manufacturers -- to get manufacturers excited, i do not believe. i know that you are worried about one thing which is this covid-19 -- this push further trips waiver to cover therapeutics and diagnostics. why would that be a bad development from your point of view? jay: intellectual property is the lifeblood of manufacturing. we worked pretty hard, and it has always been a given from the u.s. perspective that intellectual per top -- property protections would be front and center. we saw the trips -- the original trips waiver with regard to the vaccine and the properties of the vaccine occur, and we were concerned about that, obviously. we want to facilitate the growth of manufacturing and other areas of the world, and there are

other ways to achieve what i thought the wto was trying to achieve. that was a step too far, this is a giant leap too far. if therapeutics and diagnostics are included in the waiver, the expanded waiver. i do not know how you message to manufacturers and i am sure government says ok to that first and foremost or if the wto does. but we are not exactly sure where we will see the governments come down on that. if they give the green light, how do they turn around and say we want you to invest in developing more innovations in this country if we are just going to turn around and give them away. a similar issue which is not directly related to trade, but merchant rights is another issue that the administration is talking about implementing, the ability of the government to

march in and take intellectual property or a patent away from the company if the government has been involved in helping to develop that particular patent. and so, i think we are getting a mixed message. i would tell you today, and i say this all the time. i think this president probably has a bigger heart for manufacturing than any others i have worked with. ken mentioned that trade has been a priority for trends -- for president trump and biden, or the agenda has been front and center. i would say that the manufacturing agenda was front and center. i would say that it has been present for all of the presidents i have seen in action since reagan, but in different ways. and i think we have reached a point where we had this amazing

opportunity to see manufacturing truly just explode in terms of growth in the country because of the focus on trade by reagan, bush 41, clinton and obama. because of the focus by the last administration as well as regulatory certainty, and the investment in ships and infrastructure and the policy provisions that president biden pushed. all of that led us to this pivotal point. and the ability of manufacturing to succeed in this country. but if we start chipping away but -- by saying at the very least you cannot protect a patent and you cannot protect your intellectual property, i do not think that is the right signal to be sending for any factoring and investment. doug: on the other hand it is my understanding that no other

country use that vaccine waiver and the people on the others of the issue argue that what the wto approved in june 22 was not all of that significant. and since no country actually used it, is it an exaggeration to get concerned about the therapeutics and diagnostics piece of that? maybe that would be equally as ineffective? jay: whether it is effective or not you send a message that you really do not respect the intellectual property rights of manufacturers. so, if you apply that theory to other products, whether they are biologics, pharmaceuticals, or anything. doug: and if you would talk about setting a precedent for green technology. jay: there are tractors. you could apply the same theory

to any product. so i think it is in manufacturers best interest to protect that pretty basic value. doug: there is another issue that i big -- that i believe is important today. the 26-year-old moratorium on collecting e-commerce. on collecting duties on e-commerce transmissions. that seems to be mainly like digital goods like dvds and or the digital versions of movies, movies on dvds or music on cds. also people today know that electronic transmissions is a really vague term that could cover any sort of business transaction that crosses borders. jay: that is a worry. doug: right. so i mean, how concerned are you? jay: why is it a problem? look, i think it comes down to

your basic philosophy of whether you wants to facilitate more trade, which i think most economists would say that that is good for economic activity. you are going to continue to grow economies around the world. or whether you want to impede trade. tariffs also known as taxes economic activity. it is pretty basic. sometimes governments wants to do that for various reasons. i am not sure why we would want to impede the ability of companies to grow and to innovate, unless we are trying to send a signal that we should only be innovating here. and we should only be creating here. and i do not think in a global economy, and whether politically

that is -- that resonates or not, a global economy is fact. i want to see our products treated fairly, and i want to make sure that our products have the opportunity to be exported and purchased whether that is digital or electronic, or in the traditional manufactured good. i want the opportunity to sell those products to 95% of the customers who live outside of the united states. doug: well, i am a reporter, i will be covering the wto ministry, and i am hoping there is a little bit of drama in that meeting. jay: we will create it for you. doug: what if, for example catherine is forced to choose between trying to get a continuation of the e-commerce moratorium or giving in on the

trips and the expansion of the trips waiver? what is she is -- what if she has presented with that as a choice to get the consensus to do one thing or another. is there one issue she should go with? which of those is more important to you? jay: i will state it another way, there is no instance where the united states should be forced into a compromise, period . we just have to simply lead and lead not only there, but in the wto for issues like dispute settlement, the resolution on that. we have to step up to the plate. we are not sending necessarily the best message to the rest of the world when we go into these conferences if we are not willing to consider more free-trade agreements around the

world, we are not leading in terms of expanding trade around the world. and we have not been doing that for a long time, over a decade. so i kind of reject the premise of your question because i simply do not expect the united states is going to be forced to make -- to compromise. doug: we will see what happens. jay: nor should it be. doug: maybe i planted an idea. on the subject of u.s. leadership, i mean that has kind of been on my mind heading into this ministerial. it sounds like you are saying and i do not want to put words in your mouth, it is not leaning on trade to the extent it has in the past. i listens to a speech that an ambassador gave at the center

for strategic and international studies. she talked about how the u.s. as a champion of the rules-based international trade system. and i just wondered, could the u.s. really claim to be a champion of the rules-based international trade system? given that it has taken apart the dispute settlements. it has been effectively killed the appellate body. it imposed those tariffs in the name of national security, which whether you disagree or agree with. jay: the 232's. doug: the wto ruled against it and said they would not abide. the china 3:01 refs were also rude -- 301 tariffs were ruled against. and the administration argues that they were worked out bilaterally and then we pass the inflation reduction act which

contains all of these discriminatory decisions that violate most favored nation treatment under the wto rules, so i do not know. are we still a champion of the rules-based international trade system? jay: i think we should be. and i think -- look. i am unabashedly free market proponents. and i think those rules should be based on market economies and not command economies. and i think that is truly the conflict that we have. whether we want to acknowledge it or not. we look at a country like china, which is treated as a developing economy at the wto which makes no sense whatsoever. and we have a choice to make. and, sometimes do we do it right all the time? of course not.

do we aspire to do it right all the time? i hope so. that is the goal of any elected leader in any administration. i give a lot of credit to this president for his foreign-policy outreach with regard to foreign policy. that can translate into good relationships on the trade front as well. but, i go back to and i am not sure how many folks agree with this. but, i truly believe that free market economies and democracies, generally, need to stand up for the rules-based system. because if we do not, it is a very different way of life. and i am concerned about where that leads. because it is not going to stop in terms of economic policy. it will devolve into forms of

government and systems that freedom loving people do not accept. doug: right. right. a few more questions, but i do plan to leave some time at the end for audience questions. so if you have them, thinking about those. turning to congress. you mentioned the miscellaneous tariff bill, which i believe it has been expired for a number of years. jay: three years i think. doug: you talked about the partisan bickering and that being the hold up. what do you see as the prospects? are you optimistic that anything will get done in the election year? or is another year going to come and go and hopefully get it done in 2025? jay: it depends on the day whether i am optimistic or not.

i woke up this morning and got optimistic when the senate passed the foreign aid bill. when it goes to the house, ask me then how optimistic. but look, i think you can get things done in congress. the most important thing for manufacturers and for anybody here representing a manufacturing company, it is to tell our story and explain why does this really matter? you want to stop the threats to our national security when it comes to the production of semi conductor chips? you have to have all of the input materials to go into that. some of those things we simply do not make here. the next question is why don't you make it here? my response is are you going to let me to permit a mine? what do you think the world will look like in 2039 if we do not get this done now?

we need mtb not just to meet our economic goals and not just to feed the supply chains of manufacturers, but also to meet our national security objectives. some that we'd came together on a bipartisan basis and ships designs. and that was a high point for the government when we did that. now we have to make sure that all of those ancillary issues that go into making chips in the united states gets resolved. one of those is permitting reform and tax policy and regulatory policy are important. and that ultimately and hopefully trade policy. you can see the same thing when you talk about climate change and decarbonization.

if our goal is less carbon emissions and not just here in the united states, why would we restrict lng exports? especially to europe, which are the way let us throw in the foreign policy objectives because we want europe to be less reliant on russian gas, which,, is dirtier and -- than u.s. natural gas and reliance on coal, it makes no sense. let us be consistent. you want to decarbonize and you want to lower carbon emissions then let us use what we have in this country and what we are manufacturing and producing in terms of lng. and get it to europe as quickly as possible. doug: speaking as optimistic one

day and pessimistic the other. after the republicans won control of the house in the prior election there is some optimism on the other republican agenda that they will advance trade legislation that does not seem to have mattered. jay: it started in the administration in the white house level. i personally would like to see trade promotion authority being continuous instead of renewed every two years. i just do not understand that. i know it provides good jobs for a lot of people, but i just -- it makes no sense to me. put that into effect, give the president, whoever he or she is, the ability to negotiate free trade agreements and let's do more. it is hard for congress without the leadership from the white house to really move anything on the trade front. doug: right.

jay: there are some radioactive issues in their minds anyway. doug: what do you think if biden is reelection -- reelected do you think there is more chance of what we know for a traditional free-trade agreements in a second biden term? jay: not sure of that, i have not gotten any warm fuzzies from the current administration but also not the previous administration either. whoever they select we will have challenges on the front. and i do think that it is our job, again, to explain why trade is good for communities all across these -- this country. we tell a really bad story. we have never perfected how do we explain the benefits that small communities like where i was from, chillicothe, ohio in southern ohio. it has benefited from being able

to export products made right there. the jobs that are provided, the highest paying jobs of any sector of the economy chillicothe and write up the road in circleville. if you talk to folks back home, i went to -- for those of you who are familiar with ohio know that circleville is home of the circleville pumpkin show and it is the greatest free show on earth. i was there last year and i was just talking to folks. it is a huge festival. i was talking to folks i went to high school with and others and we would talk about trade and they are just anti-trade. it has to be america only. and we are kowtowing to the rest of the world. and when i started talking about the plant right down the road and all of the jobs that it created there when it opened up in 2017, i think, so much of

their product is being exported and they cannot make that connection. and i think that is because we have allowed the partisans, frankly, to control the narrative and it is time for the business community to control the narrative. doug: tying two things together, the miscellaneous tariff bill waves -- waives tariffs on what is needed. president trump's campaign is talking about putting a 10% tariff. jay: 60% for china. doug: i mean what would that do to manufacturing in the united states? jay: well, it would -- i think the first question you would have to ask is not what would happen to manufacturing -- manufacturing in the united states from that specific action, but what would happen to the liberalized system of trade around the world when retaliatory tariffs are

implemented? i mean, this is not just a shot you get to take without being -- without getting return fire, it is going to happen. i think we know the answer to that. we saw what happened before the great depression. we keep testing those boundaries. at some point the system collapses. so i think that is probably what would end up happening. by the way it is not just trump. both parties dally with tariffs. i think -- not that i agree with them and not saying -- i am not passing judgment. i am just saying that there have been a lot of very specific targeted tariffs over the course of the last few years, but if they are broadly applied, i think you are asking for trouble. doug: we talked a little bit

about free-trade agreements and your frustration that the administration is not offering more. there is -- i mean congress in 2019 and 2020 i remember did pass the renegotiated nafta agreement. the u.s.-canada-mexico agreement. we are coming up on the fourth anniversary of that. how do you think that is working out? jay: we have a few issues. mexico and canada have a few issues, but that is the nature of agreements. and it is also why i am actually fairly encouraged. we had the three amigos summit with a major focus in that not just about the border and national security but about the free-trade agreement. the ministers met in cancun in july and i had the opportunity to lead the business delegation.

and i think that -- i think what i see from all sides is that they want this to work. they are going to figure out all of these issues. that are out there, whether they are issues with energy supply or agricultural products. these are issues that can be resolved. and i go back to one of my previous statements, or paraphrasing it. disagreement is incredibly important to our national security and place in the world. we need to expand the relationship, whether it is trade or other relationships here in north america. and we need to embrace the relationships and our allies around the world and europe, australia, new zealand, japan,

and other areas. we are facing a choice between free-market economies and mockers sees and command economies and autocracy. i want to strengthen the former and not allow the latter to start to bloom. doug: ok. i would like to pause and see if there are any questions in the audience. i see this gentleman way in the back. so, why don't we start with him. wait for a microphone to come your way. yeah, the gentleman right there. rob: rob tobias formerly with the u.s. treasury and now with the national association of importers as in alcohol. i build off of your admiration. jay: by the way, one of your most manufactured -- one of my favorite manufacturing problem

-- products. rob: in good times and all times -- and bad times always needed. and people trade up or down depending. building off of your admiration of ronald reagan a little background. i was a steady -- i was a student at uc berkeley when it was government reagan and i was in my third year in washington when it was president reagan. having experienced that, i would not say would you agree or what are your thoughts on the proponent that reaganomics, basically has set the economic stage for the last 40 years in this country, and that really forms the roots of the anger against free-trade that you saw in ohio. my minister is from north

carolina and says that anybody who ever votes in favor of free-trade will never get a north carolinian vote because of a closing of the textile mills. and i believe many of president trump's supporters are demonstrating that anger. so, the question is do you think the foundation of that anger dates from the long-term impact of reaganomics? and whether president biden's executive order can correct that? thank you. jay: well, how long do you have? so i suppose there are some roots that go back to the reagan years. and, you mentioned the term reaganomics which is intriguing because i have not heard that for a while. i really think that we are --

the only way we are going to deal with the frustrations in these communities. by the way the congressman i worked for in the 1980's, one of them was alec mcmillan and the other was jim martin, and they were all over the textile bill. i cannot even recall what the actual title was. we were scrambling to try and save textile mills all over the south. i think of some of my manufacturers like milligan in south carolina, who have navigated through all of that and they are quite successful. by the way, they are exporters of the product. there are success stories and then there are stories that are frustrating that folks grab onto and they refused to see the bright silver linings that do

occur when you expand opportunities for trade around the world. i am going to go back right to what i think is our obligation as business leaders is to tell that story better. often times you know, a lot of my companies and i do not blame them, they are trying to deal with day-to-day work and operate their company is effectively, efficiently, and profitably. and they do not want to have to tell the story which is why they have organizations like the national association of manufacturers to help tell that story. but we have to invest and tell the public the stories of what trade liberalization has done. have there been issues? sure. i do not think that we would have seen companies leaving or i would say investing in other parts of the world if we had other policies supporting a

liberalized trade agenda. i will go back to the very first thing that we talked about. we need tax policy that incentivizes investment here and regulatory certainty that gives business leaders the ability to plan for the future. we need to invest in workforce incentives. all of those and infrastructure which we have done and continue to do. you cannot just open up the trading system and not expect capital to flow outside of the borders if you do not have the right policies internally. that is where we failed. and that is what we developed over the course of the last 30 years, which was i think an understanding that we had to have those policies in place. i feel much better about where we are in terms of public

policy, although we certainly have some challenges. today more than 10 to tony or 30 -- 10 to 20 or 30 years ago. >> thank you. you touched on an important point where there is a lot of rhetoric in support of american manufacturing. but actually actions that do not support it or undermine the ability to promote manufacturing in the u.s.. and i think about some of those things, when you look at tools that are available, one u.s. foreign trade program is one of the oldest trade programs designed to promote the location of manufacturing in the u.s. and creating american jobs, and promoting global commerce and

u.s. exports. and many manufacturers in the u.s. use of foreign trade zone program particularly in industries like automotive or pharmaceuticals which have inverted tariffs which the program is designed to help them address in their global competition. and, you mentioned south carolina. bmw, which is located i want to say in south carolina is the largest exporter of u.s. manufactured automobiles. they operate in the foreign trade zone as do the suppliers in michelin, being successful. it has really turned south carolina into a manufacturing and exporting powerhouse. but when you look, a lot of policymakers really do not know much about the foreign trade zone program. and to the extent that they do

it has a bad rap. and there is a great deal of reluctance to do anything to support or enhance the program in ways that will promote its goals. i was wondering what your thoughts were on that? jay: i could not tell you. kevin monahan who runs the international trade division is much better at helping answer that. so, i cannot get into it. i will say that i do know that bmw does take advantage of that program. and i know that when she was governor, nikki haley spoke to our board. she use that as one of the incentives or reasons to invest in south carolina as she very deftly twisted the arms of a lot of members to come to her state. from what i understand, which is very little.

it has been successful in those types of investments. but i'm going to let ken be the guy who answers that afterwards. >> hello, international trade today. i will build on doug's question and a theme you keep repeating about the storing of manufacturing. jay: i cannot see you, where are you? doug: right here. and purple. jay: also mardi gras. doug: katherine tai -- >> katherine tai spoke earlier and one of the questions she received was why have you kept all the section 301 tariffs. and they cited a report from the account -- from an economist that said they did not add jobs in the heartland, they did not add manufacturing jobs, but they did help from in the republican party -- trump and the republican party and her answer i will quote it to you. "you are right that we have kept

a lot of the tariffs because we straight -- we see strategic values of the tariffs in the structure of building up the american clot -- the middle class and rebuilding american manufacturing." if this administration believes that tariffs are helping manufacturing in the next administration believes that more tariffs will help manufacturing, what do you think could change this narrative that you need to commence the unions to change their tune? if the 10% tariffs were to come into force and they also hit canada and mexico, do you need to convince congress to change the law and overrule it? what will change the trend? or do you think we will see more tariffs over the next six years or no reduction in tariffs because there is this belief that it is saving manufacturing? jay: well, i can tell you that he workers at stanley black &

decker would tell you very quickly that the 301's are not working because they have lost colleagues to layoffs because the 301's created a system where they -- where a drill coming in from china that was fully assembled is less expensive than a drill example here -- assembled here because of the opponent -- component parts being tariffed coming in. and the fully finished drill coming in from china was not being tariffed. it is a system set up in a way that is not equitable for many american manufacturers. i think too that because of issues like that, ustr needs to

get the review process completed. in terms of the exclusions because we are harming manufacturers in america who are unable to produce some of the parts that are involved in the supply chain. for a finished good. and we are -- i am not sure why anybody would think it is good to increase the cost of a product and make a manufacturer in america less competitive, that is what has happened with many of the 301's, especially when the exclusion process is arbitrary in many cases. and not very opaque. some have gotten there exclusions, some have not. folks do not understand how this is working. so, first and foremost, before

we start talking about how good and before any elected official or appointed official starts talking about how good tariffs are, they need to look at the results of how these tariffs have been applied to some manufacturers in america and how that has cost jobs for american and you facture workers. doug: i think we are getting near the end of our time. on the 301 tariffs, it seems like you were only talking about exclusions and not expecting them to like do away with the 301 tariffs. jay: it does not look at it -- look like it at this point but i would certainly advocate that that is not the best solution for trying to deal with trade and balance. this is what we said to the last administration. we said to not impose the tariffs. instead negotiate a rules-based,

enforceable free-trade agreement. and there was an attempt to do that. actually i actually attended the signing ceremony as our friends came over from china with masks and we are all sitting there without a week before the world shut down. and, unfortunately we have not seen any progress from that. this is another example of where we need to have some leadership on the world stage to negotiate free-trade agreements. china is clearly one of those. if we are adding countries, let us talk about the u.k., kenya and japan and ukraine for crying out loud. let us get these done and marry them with our foreign policy and support free-market economies and democracies. that is the way we do that. and then we negotiate with command economies, like china, so that we can hold their feet

to the fire when it comes to trade practices that quite frankly and simply are not fair. doug: thank you for those concluding thoughts. let me give it to ken. ken: thank you jay and doug, i really appreciate this conversation about trade and america's place in the world and we are grateful to all of your great work on behalf of leading american companies. everybody who is here, thank you, jay. [applause] we are taking a short break while we get the stage be set the ambassadors. do not go anywhere, we will be back in a few minutes. thank you very much. ♪ [chatter]

host: this is a headline in washington times, biden and jordan's king ask israel to show restraint. the president and the king at the white house yesterday. here is some of president biden's comments from the appearance. [video clip] >> as the king and i discussed,

united states and i -- and jordan are working on a hostage deal that would bring immediate and sustained period of calm to gaza for at least six weeks where we can find the time to build something more enduring. over the past month i have had calls from the prime minister bennett yahoo! -- netanyahu to push this forward. the key element of the deals are on the table. there are gaps that remain. i'm encouraging israeli leaders keep working to achieve the deal. the united states will do everything possible to make it happen. the king and i discussed the situation and roth. -- rafah. the is a military operation in rafah that should not succeed without a credible plan for ensuring the safety and support of more than the one million people sheltering there. many people have been displaced,

displaced multiple times. fleeing the violence to the north and now they are packed into rafah, exposed and vulnerable. they need to be protected. we have made clear from the start that we oppose the forest displacement of palestinians -- forced displacement of palestinians from gaza. [end video clip] host: if you want to watch that in its entirety you can do so at c-span.org. here is another headline on it in ". the wall street journal" israel stopping the creation as sprawling tent cities and one funded by the u.s. and its arab partners ahead of the intended invasion of the city to the south. the proposal which was recently presented to egypt "the biden administration is morning israel about going into rafah without a detailed plan to attack

civilians." we are talking over the cove -- the course of the months since the october 7 attack your view on the biden's administration support of israel in the war. 202-748-8000 if you think it has been too much support. 202-748-8001 if you think that level of support has been too little. and if it has been about right, 202-748-8002. maureen is up first out of tom's river new jersey. what do you think? caller: good morning. yes, i do think that we are spending too much in support of israel and its effort. host: why? caller: many different things. honestly, i do not condone the attacks that happened on october

7 and the hostages being taken. but the fact that it has been four months now. everything that has been done to put those hostages at risk, which is just complete asinine type of thinking. and totally counterproductive to put them further at risk. and yet the united states has given them unwavering support no matter what. financial, military, and especially with the security council. every veto that we have has gone against palestine and israel relations. and they do not need any more money for this. it is like doubletalk coming out with the entire administration. i watched the state department

briefings on youtube all the time, that's probably sad. host: marine in new jersey -- muareen in new jersey on the financial side. the aid package that passed in the past hour when the vote closed includes fort -- more than $14 billion in security assistance for israel. the lion's share, $60 billion would go towards ukraine and taiwan is also funded. the caller from tom's river mentioning the hostages. use saw the story about the raid that rescued two hostages which is the lead story in "the wall street journal." they writes that the raid freed a 70-year-old -- a seven-year-old and a 60-year-old. both israeli-argentinian

citizens that were taken on october 7 and had been in captivity for 129 days. that was -- that happened at the same time on airstrikes rating -- raining down on gaza. the number of palestinians expected killed at least reported by the palestinian health ministry some 70 palestinians dying in the airstrikes that had been surrounding that raid. that is the lead story in the wall street journal. this is crawford in wilmington, north carolina. you are next. caller: good morning. i think if anything the biden administration is doing a good job and i am a republican. we need to support our ally. and if we do not all of the people in the world, hamas, houthis in the world will keep pushing against democracy and freedom in the area. host: this is coming as a

republican, so what are your thoughts on republican criticism on the administration and how they have been conducting the aid efforts to our ally in the region? caller: i think some republicans want to see americans actually fighting in gaza or something like that. but that is too far. this is israel's war and we can give them aid and the weapons, but it needs to be them fighting their battles. host: is there a limit to the aid or just the sheer numbers coming out of gaza, the reports from the health ministry of 28,000 palestinians have died since the war against hamas began? the health ministry saying some 12,300 children or young teenagers killed? caller: i do not know how much we can trust the palestinian health ministry saying as they are controlled by hamas. either way it is very sad what is going on, the innocent life. and israel needs to make sure

they are taking precautions. but they have to get rid of hamas, they cannot have anything like that on their border. host: wilmington, north carolina. we take you to saturday the united states senate amid the debate over the $95 billion aid package. senator bernie sanders took the floor and this is something -- some of what he had to say. [video clip] >> as i've said many time israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism. it does not have the right to go to war against the entire palestinian people. and that tragically is what we are seeing. as of today, israel's military campaign has killed more than 27,000 palestinians and injured some 68,000. two thirds of whom are women and

children. unbelievably, 1.7 million people have been driven from their homes, nearly 80% of the population. that is more than twice the population of my own state of vermont. these people, displaced, have no understanding as to where they will go tomorrow, or whether in fact they will ever return to their communities. that is where they are now. pushed out of their homes, hungry, desperate, no understanding of where they will be in the future. the devastation caused by israeli bombardments is unprecedented in modern history. some 70% of the housing units in

gaza being damaged or destroyed. the israeli bombing attacks have destroyed most of the infrastructure in gaza. there is no electricity. and very little clean water. [end video clip] host: that is bernie sanders on saturday. the latest on yesterday, president biden standing with jordan's king, advertising for a six-week pause, a hostage deal including a six-week pause in fighting. today, william burns expected to travel to cairo, more negotiations when it comes to hostages with representatives from egypt and israel and others there. that is the latest.

the biden administration's support for israel. fairfax, south dakota. caller: that story you are talking about, rescuing two hostages, three were killed in that bombing. i think they said there were 31 other hostages already dead. i want none of my money to support the genocide and slaughter of innocent children in a country that is occupying -- biden and his admin to cheer israel on. -- tells him to jump and they ask how high.

gaza residents could rise up and toss the hamas government to free the hostages. he goes on to say it might if israel -- despite the overwhelming military superiority, including the nuclear arsenal, it is clear that if thomas puts down its arms, the killing of palestinians in gaza will stop. >> the international trade conference. we are pleased to welcome ambassador montezuma of mexico, ambassador liu of singapore, ambassador of costa rica, the appointed ambassador e.u.. our moderators are kristin silverberg --

>> thank you to karen and to wet a for having us here today. the ambassadors panel has become a tradition at weta. i am excited because the topic we are discussing is critical for the ongoing debate in the u.s. about our approach to trade agreements. there was a time not too long ago when u.s. administrations went unapologetically tout the benefits of trade. but that line of argument has gone out of fashion in parts of washington. you hear officials from the tone the biden administration talking about the connection between national security and trade. they are likely to be talking about the risks of trade, rather than the way that trade can be

used to advance u.s. foreign policy interests. i am thrilled to have the opportunity to put the issue to our trade partners and ask them how they think about these connections, their trade agreements with us. ambassador moctezuma, i want to start with you and this issue of friend-shoring. and a lot of people in the u.s. government, u.s. companies are worried about supply chain risk, including geopolitical risk. we have the trade agreement with mexico. that is something to advance friend-shoring. how do you think about this trend? >> thank you. i think that we are true believers of trade in mexico. we just became the number one partner of the u.s. last year.

about $800 billion in trade. if we are partner number one of the u.s., that means an incredible effort in both countries in order -- this trend. last year also mexico received the most important foreign investment -- direct shoring investment in its history. what is interesting is that many of the companies in mexico, besides -- is they are looking for human capital. if you look there speak with the people of tesla, they say that

they found out that they would have -- in mexico that will work. that was one of the most important efforts to stop that investment. another thing i can say is that when mexico exports, we have 40% of u.s. previous imports. when mexico exports, the u.s. is also exporting. what this shows you is that mexico and the u.s. on it just trade partners, but that we are producing together. there are many companies -- on the border. they are produced together.

it is not just trade. it is economic integration. >> ambassador sanchez, let me ask about costa rica's trading relationship with the u.s. when president bush signed into thousand four, he unapologetically decided strategic benefits. he said it would impact influence in the region and so on. the economic benefits of the deal around bilateral trade have expanded but you think it has also met some of the expectations in terms of strategic benefit. can you talk about the broader consequences? >> sure. i want to talk to everyone. one of the first things people ask for when they ask about costa rica, they think it is

just a place to visit. most of the pineapples and nana's are from -- bananas are from costa rica. when i told them, their number one export our medical devices, people think, i did not know costa rica did that. yes, we do. nafta has been a success story for costa rica, not only medical devices but also semi conductors and other things. let's start with costa rica. it has had strong friendships, working relationships with the united states. but it helped expand those relationships, not only with the u.s. but also within the central america, a big plus. we have two vibrant sectors. i have mentioned them already.

the medical devices are also close to national security and semi conductor's. i can tell you that until last year in august they announced a $1.2 million investment in the next two years in costa rica. this is a tiny country that people think about going to to travel, which is great. again, what are the challenges we are having? this is 20 years ago. challenges today is that there are political challenges within the central american region that probably makes the deal still beneficial for all countries, including costa rica, which is why costa rica is asking why not

look into other options? let me give you a bit of insight into how we are. i do not know if you heard the thing in costa rica, everything is true in life? it is slow but we get there. what do i know about that? you can be slow and not get where you need to go. we decided to be part of the highest standard in the world. it took us 10 years. when we first started, the current minister of trade was part of that. they said you are crazy. costa rica has two have changes in laws, regulations. 10 years later, he did it. that means that costa rica can join usmca. usmca has high standards.

costa rica can live up to those standards. it prepared us for that. that does not mean that if we start with other trade agreements that we are going to leave some behind, but we can give more and we can have higher standards. >> ambassador liu, let me ask you about singapore's trade agenda. you have now invented 27 fta's. within singapore, do you think of those your economic agenda or as a foreign policy tool? >> trade is three times gdp in singapore.

how it was forged by the u.s. coming out of world war ii. that has contributed to international stability, economic growth. like -- i think in our part of the world, we are seeing how trade has -- but also regional, even global integration of economies. when we talk about foreign policy, -- i think trade has for a number of decades -- you can see

results arising from four in the relations, -- from foreign relations, from the improvements that we find. we are in the early decades of globalization, many masked some of the problems that we see today, inequality and inefficiencies arising from globalization. nonetheless, the trading system has been a plus. mediated about singapore in the u.s. -- this year, we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the free-trade agreement to our two countries. when we have good trade data, those 18 years actually trade

between our countries has grown three times, from about $70 billion inception to now about 210 billion u.s. dollars. the u.s. enjoys a healthy supply. the u.s. runs a surplus. one masking the other. and the result of the free trade agreement, we have companies in singapore using. but singapore is a springboard to the larger region. the integration that we see across larger economies. investments of u.s. into

singapore give a sense of what it is like. it is close to half a trillion u.s. dollars. what does that mean? in singapore is larger than the u.s. into china, japan, and south korea combined. when i say that, actually they did not have economic skin in the game for the u.s. to remain deeply invested in our part of the world. >> can you that you have a form policy background from lithuania -- what are your reflections on the role of trade and foreign policy? >> would like to think the

president of the manufacturing association. if we want to advance or move together with our trade and make sure that our -- move forward, we have to do those two together. we -- in transatlantic relations, it is a value-based partnership. we were the ones who built international organizations.

we probably have to appreciate more how it works. would not be the same if we do not have those international rules. my colleague was talking about -- many more. what is happening right now in the world i think it is getting scarier with each day. turbulence around the world has huge implications on our economy. it has challenges, the price of inflation, supply chains. on the other hand, we have

reliable trading partners. even during the crisis, you see trade growing. last year, we had 1.3 trillion euros. last year, almost 5% higher. one of the reasons was that in europe, we have to make a change. overreliance on russian energy has been the issue. do not underestimate how much it

costs, making sure -- during the winter. on top of that, you have to find where alliances matter. most of the growth of the trade is due to lng. when you need to switch, when you need to change more than 60% of your energy resources, after reliable your allies. we can go sector by sector. we can go into the connectivity sector and think if you want to

have alternatives or a reliable, secure reduction will, -- production line, you will always depend on the partners of the first. >> let me stay with you. the u.s. and europe have a history of using combined economic influence to work together to address national security risks through foreign policy objectives, sometimes using trade tools in cooperation with each other. do you think we are in lockstep on china? if not, where do you see it going? >> i think the biggest difference -- the du approaches

china as a trading partner. and as a system of arrival. we can use different synonyms and you will find that the u.s. approach is not much different. national security advisor's talk about -- we have a couple of weeks to go at the end of january. there is an economic security strategy whicher includes four major sectors. semiconductors, computing, quantum computing, biotech. today i.

even sector wise, this includes making sure do export controls, investment screening? investments, how we see certain sectors. i am sure we will have to witness as well, actually looking into what we do is research -- in science. science and research can be sensitive. these are approaches which we have a format for trade and

technology. we have a possibility to discuss , not only discuss but compare, our notes. >> ambassador yew, you served in china. anything you want to add about cooperation with the u.s. on these issues? >> singapore is a small country. we are mindful of the sensitivities in the u.s.-china relationship, especially over trade in sensitive areas. the role has gone from one where the operating paradigm was interdependence to one where we are acutely mindful of overdependence.

now you are really trying to untangle to try and find ways to try and make supply chains, trade relations more robust. today, it is more focusing on a particular country. the u.s. may be overreliance on a country. not just focusing on countries but companies. you have secondary order that you have to study in the years to come. singapore is a hub for investments around the world. a significant part of it comes from the u.s. but japan, de you -- the eu, chinese companies

coming into singapore. singapore will have to thread the needle carefully. we still believe that -- in the cross-pollination of ideas and people that we must also find a cost solution. it is important for singapore to ensure -- it is going to be separate. >> we are coming up on the sunset review in 2026. we have already begun conversations around that. jay simmons was saying that canada has a few issues. some of these issues around national security will be part of that conversation.

how do you see the sunset review playing out? can you highlight that? >> usmca's success story, what i believe is that we have to start looking at the forest. that is the future of the u.s.. i am going to give just an example. if you look at production of transportation equipment, if we see manufacturing in the world, china produces 9.8% of the world transportation equipment. the u.s. produces 7.6%.

mexico produces 6.4%. canada produces 2.9%. when north america produces 16.9%, that is more than 9.8%. what we should be thinking is about the medium and long-term review. we are giving strength toward that future with the chipset science act. when they are giving credits to products that are produced in north america. the north american region has to be seen as a unit.

that means that foreign policy entreated must be lumped together as one common effort. what i am optimistic about believe that share values and the fight for freedom and democracy in the world will be led by north america, which i am sure will become the most competitive region in the world. >> the world is watching our presidential campaign play out. we are also watching yours. are trade issues a big part of the campaign? what are the issues/ >> in mexico, campaigns have not an an official structure.

there are candidates. we will have a woman president for the first time in history. but the campaigns of not started. trade with the u.s. is about 70% of our trade. from gdp, 80% is manufacturing and trade. it is good for us. >> ambassador sancho, one of the interesting approaches the biden administration has taken is instead of negotiating traditional trade agreements, they are pursuing novel trade frameworks. can you talk about that approach, whether your lien ambitions -- what are your main

ambitions? what do you think it's possible? >> interesting the -- interestingly enough, costa rica will be hosting next year in 2025 the meeting, the aipac meeting. also, president shall has accepted the are who will take on a leadership role. there is the possibility they are discussing about which countries will be part of aipac, not just the countries in right now but others there is a possibility of them joining. there is a lot happening with the apex. at the last meeting, that was in november. many presidents of the region were here discussing the next steps. costa rica has two main sectors. one is the comers of trade. the other is more of a foreign

relations. those are the two tracks that we are joining. or that we are leading. we are also leading the one on the center for excellence, which is related to these funds. costa rica will be hosting. every country will have its own responsibility but costa rica is hosting the center for excellence related to tech knowledge he. a regional center for excellence, which, as you know, probably, we do not have in the u.s. that is a problem worldwide. there are not sufficient people with the necessary skills for technology jobs. if i am not mistaken, there is a lack of 300,000 people in latin america with those skills.

that regional hub, which is already moving into costa rica, and the government is taking on, giving us a chunk of money to make a virtual lab. there will be a cloud lab. the people in latin america, from mexico, from argentina, from everywhere, can go there trained and help the region overall. in the u.s., there is also a lack of ills. we are all having the same issues. that is what costa rica is doing with apex. however, we also see apex as a great opportunity. when things are not as open as we wish the were in relation to trade, then we have to look for other venues. apex is a good other venue to start.

we will have to see how it evolves and how it actually -- we want to see results. that is what costa rica is trying to do. i think other member countries, that is what we are looking at. >> one final question for abbasid or yew -- ambassador yew . i wanted to get to the digital trade and the role singapore is playing in that. your fta with new zealand has become a standard for digital trade agreements. any talk about the future of digital trade? >> what to talk about a new economic architecture that is being envisioned. you have the cbt pp. china is knocking on the door.

you have the rcp, initiated to bring together our main partners in asia. we have china, japan, korea, australia, and new zealand. we have the digital economy partnership agreement initiated by singapore and chile. south korea is on the verge of being admitted. china is knocking on the door and so are canada and costa rica. there is a danger that the u.s. is absent from all the economic architectures in our part of the world. you look 30 years down the road.

relations with asia and the indo pacific, which is why singapore is so deeply invested in high-tech. we see huge benefits for us economically. we already have bilateral free trade agreements in almost everything, but because we the that the u.s. cannot afford it economically -- cannot afford to be absent economically from our part of the world, the digital agreement, we believe -- the way forward. we have got bilateral's with the u.k., with australia, south korea. we have got an agreement with australia. we believe that there are going

to be benefits, particularly when it pertains to -- also because for some concern within the united states. we believe that we need to work together in establishing the rules, the standards, and -- to make sure that the economy, transactions, integrations can take place in a structured manner going forward. >> very compelling points about the importance of u.s. engagement in the region. i want to ask the audience to come in now with questions. i see effect -- a question that the front table. >> i am barbara simmons, vice

chair of the international law section for the bar. we are in talks with the continental free-trade area. i was pleased to see that ambassador todd has signed an agreement with the african continental free-trade area. my question for the ambassadors is what do you see is your short long-term relationship with africa, as a continent, not a country, in terms of trade and how that serves the foreign policy approach? >> thank you for the question. it is not really a secret. you consider south africa a neighbor. there relations are as good very

stable but we are talking about the continent. there are security issues, questions about democracy and rule of law. but who is a bigger contributor for the international partnership? in other words, development. i think that actually it really paved the way for the no border trade relations. it is another project for which there is a changing mindset and moving on his global gateway. there is an approach which is supposed to encourage partnerships, not only government to government, but the private business and financial institutions, to partner in infrastructure approaches.

the would then pave the way for the more favorable trade and commerce relations. if it works, we would be in an absolutely different future of commercial relations in three to five years. >> other questions? >> doug palmer with politico. this is for the mexican ambassador. i had gotten in the mail the other day from a reader asking me if i had heard about a rumor that the mexican government was going to put forward an executive order to increase tariffs? i hadn't heard about it, but hearing him today. i thought i would take the opportunity to ask his there

some mexican government tariff action? >> not that i know of. >> [laughter] >> i am from the south china morning bulletin. we talk about elections and tariffs. i wanted to ask when donald trump says 60% tariffs, nato is not an ally, how do you view that? are you thinking about how you will deal with the tariffs? and how tariffs like those actually impact what we are talking about traders foreign policy? i have a question for the

ambassador from singapore. you talked about chinese companies. recently, we saw the ceo of tiktok being grilled. some questions -- how does a grilling, questions like that impact what you say but trade in foreign policy? someone was asked if he worked for the chinese communist party. >> the 10% impact of 10% tariffs. what is the impact? >> that would be -- that would hinder our relationship. it is against free-trade. what i truly believe is that the

future of mexico, canada, and the u.s. is to work together and have a higher view about the world's development. we are not just sharing goods and services. we are sharing values. when you start taking down the foundations of free-trade, the one that put us in these conditions, i think that is not a good idea. >> anything to add on that tiktok? >> we hold him in high regard. i think we are also going to see the line of questioning that he took and the remarks he remade -- made subsequently from two angles.

one, elections, they need to be able to mentally understand the sensitivities but also find ways to address them. that is one part of it. two, i think it reflects some of the concerns that the u.s. may have over trade relations with china, their engine self were coming out of china that would hold a significant volume of data, possibly sensitive data, of u.s. citizens. i would say something that can be understood, appreciated. i think, though, a line of question taken too far can possibly undermine the image and

standing of how the u.s. is achieved in different parts of the world, not just in asia or in singapore. i think a fine balance that needs to be struck between some of the security sensitivities and also the overall image and impression that the u.s. will continue to portray to the rest of the world. >> thank you. i think we have time for one more. >> at georgetown law. question four ambaor, you are listing the free-trade agreement in asia and saying how the u.s. is not even knocking on the door but china is.

i was wondering, it seems like china wants to get in. this position of what kind of compromise or concession are the other countries that are part of these agreements asking for from china? is there a position where you can ask what kind of concessions and can the u.s. or other regions learn from that? >> i am not privy to the discussions that are taking place. that working group that started for china as it did for canada on the issue of partnership agreements. the one for china -- we have not gone to that stage yet. across both of these agreements

is the need for consensus by all current members to accept a new member. that consensus is built on top of an assurance that an applicant can fully meet the standards. number two, that members are convinced that the applicant will faithfully abide by the terms. we believe those are standards that we will not compromise on. in healthy particular applicant will shape up, that is for the focus groups to deal with. >> thank you. the panel before us -- >> it is good to have a regional agreement, especially having in mind the topic that goes beyond

any single continent, like e-commerce or digital trade. but we have really to be sure that they are sharing the same values, that the most important thing for arranging the global agreement is wto. if we do not manage to do all of this, it should be more lateral. everyone has to be on board. i think that is like minded countries contest standards for that, we will all be better off. hopefully, the u.s. will actively join on that. >> i am going to give you the last word. iq all for joining. ken: thank you all very much. really great note as to end this

panel on, with a directive for asphalt to work together. we talked about that yesterday. our opening session was with the director of the wto. thank you for joining us. for those of you in the room, i would like to welcome you to go get lunch. if you can smell it already, it is a buffet lunch. we will bring it back in here. we will have a break. at about 12:15 p.m., we will restart for our last session with congressman adrian smith. thank you. we will seat you back up here in a few minutes.

>> friday nights, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a roundup of campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover where candidates are traveling and what they are saying. then, updated upon numbers, fundraising data. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday nights at 7:00 eastern on c-span, online or on our free mobile app. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more. >>