tv Panelists Discuss NAFTA Negotiations CSPAN August 20, 2017 3:56pm-6:00pm EDT
just in a small segment of the three old major network channels. ,ou have got a much wider swath and they are digesting so much more from different sources, so my definition of market is some.ly broader than i think the past commission failed in this respect, when they viewed things like impeding and fm radio competing. everyone is fighting over the same eyeballs, the same attention, the same advertising dollars, and doing this in a thoughtful way. announcer: and watch "the communicators." c-span 2. new talks about the free trade agreement known as
nafta. former mexican trade officials talked about the likelihood of an agreement eating reached
and how much bargaining power mexico has based on its trade deals with other countries. from the wilson center, this is two hours. mr. wood: good morning. will you come down and take a seat here. if you're looking for a place, we are willing to sell these place at an inflated price. there are scalpers outside. do not use them. just give the money directly to me. welcome to the wilson center. thank you for being here. when we talked about the event, a little voice inside my head said you are
crazy, it's washington, no one will come. they said maybe the nafta is important enough, maybe our existential questions
will attract an audience, and then we came up on bright idea of asking mexico's chief negotiator to participate. ken said yes, and this is going to happen. it is extraordinary. and then ken said, no, i can do it. so i apologize for misleading you. it was not intentional. but we got a panel for you nonetheless. let me run through quickly from left to right, as i see it. fred bergsten, at the peterson institute for international economics. fred, thank you very much working with us. it is great you agreed to provide a repost to the mexican perspectives here, and i think that will be very welcome. secondly, francisco de rosenzweig, who previously served at the mexican ministry of the economy. luz maria de la mora, the
managing director and founder of lmn consulting, and has held multiple posts within the mexican government. and my colleague, deputy director, chris wilson, who is known to you for his work on nafta, on u.s.-mexican affairs, and on border affairs, and i am duncan wood. very nice to see you. let me say a few things before we get into the substance here. there has been an enormous amount of anticipation. it is a strange moment. at this time last year, here at the wilson center, we were holding a series of conversations about, well, under the new administration, how can and we wereafta?
talking about improving, modernizing nafta on the understanding, of course, that a different person would be in the white house, because that is what everyone assumed, and a modernization of nafta is desperately needed, and how can we possibly do that? and all of a sudden, hey, presto, we have this opportunity to do it. there was a nice piece published this morning by "the global mail" up in canada that says this is a great opportunity to secure north america's competitiveness. this comes with an enormous amount of anxiety, anxiety about whether or not this can be a successful negotiation, anxiety about whether the u.s. executive branch will stick with it, anxiety about questions of timing and political change. we also see this is an enormously complex negotiation, and many in this room has sent over the past few months, how can we possibly get this done in
a six-month period, which seem s to be the preferred time period on the part of the negotiators, especially from the mexican and the american side? the canadians have a different perspective. of course, let me recognize my colleague, laura, who is around here somewhere. she may have stepped out for a second. she has been of enormous's support, and the timing question is one of the things that i think we may run up against the question of do we do it fast, or do we do it right? and that could be a very important choice, and i'm looking forward to discussing that with our panel. we have a very encouraging phenomenon of convergence between the three sides. if we go back to january or to november of last year, there was an enormous amount of concerned that we could get to a point to at least we were in the same book, if even not on the same page with regards to international trade negotiations. and it seems as if we have got
there, which i think is tremendously encouraging, and then there are all of the challenges and obstacles, many of which are known, but there is a number that are unknown out there. we do not know how things are really going to turn out if the negotiations become public, if we get a great deal of buy-in into the negotiations, if certain things are tweeted, if then we get a reaction from the u.s. president, which might draw a reaction from the mexican president, etc., etc. but what we can say is now that it is here, now that we are here, we have come a long way in six months come and i think that is a very encouraging part of the story. i am talking of coming a long way. it is worth remembering how far mexico has come since nafta was
the agreement. i know this is a story you have heard a million times, but just to remind us, before nafta, it was very common in mexico for everyday goods to have price controls on them, for committees to meet on a regular raises to set the prices of basic commodities. it was an economy that was run by state-run enterprises. it was an economy not open to direct investment. changes that took place during the 1980's because of the latin american debt crisis are then locked in by the nafta. those are things which we take for granted these days. it is an extraordinary journey. now, another point is to remember, of course, is the economic reforms that have taken place in mexico since 2012 are really trying to build upon the success of nafta. and now we have the opportunity with nafta renegotiations to lock in some of those reforms again through an international treaty, international negotiation. so without any further ado from me, i would like to ask our
panelists to give opening comments, and i will begin with luz, and the floor is yours. i know you have got some prepared comments. i would like our panelists to begin by focusing on sort of what they see as the priority but also to mention what are the red lines they see from the u.s. and mexican point of view, and then we will come to a aboutsation afterwards questions of convergence, timing, and complexity. luz: thank you for organizing this, and thank you for thinking about me. as you said, i was a mexican experienced i have in this space, so it is always a great pleasure to be back with
you, and today, i would really feel very privileged to be part discussion.a i think the nafta is always welcome, and what it means to our three countries in terms of trade, in terms of jobs, in terms of integration, but in terms of how our regions are represented in the economy. timely when we think about the fact that we will see the beginning of a negotiation process that i hope will allow us to move forward towards integration and a better understanding of what north america means for our three countries. having been part of the mexican government group that took part negotiations, and thank you for being here with running around with
papers, trying to support the , 25 years ago, and i wouldreally say that i never, ever have expected to see a position on the u.s. side to based onte nafta having to address a u.s. president into address manufacturing jobs lost in the u.s. i never would have expected that it would have been the u.s., the u.s. side, that would be the source of the questioning of nafta with what we have been presented with this year. i have to say it is still thisble for me to see through a trade negotiation. that it would be a daunting task for canada and for u.s.o to sit down with the when it seems that president trump views this opportunity as
payback time and also as outlined an agenda which is clearly tainted with nationalist and protectionist aspects. however, as duncan mentioned at the beginning, i do believe that nafta has to have resolved. after more than 23 years in place, nafta had economic results beyond anything we expected at that time, beyond the most optimistic expectations. a 19 trillion dollar market with consumers, and every day, we trade millions of dollars. at the time that nafta was exportted, we aspire to $10 million every month, and today, exports from mexico to the u.s. amount to more than $1.3 billion every day. trade past 23 years,
between the three partners went from roughly $219 billion in 1993 to more than between the three partners went from over $1.3 trillion. about 50% of total stock in mexico and $200 billion, which represents 20% of 's gdp, so i want to center my remarks on five quick points. the first is in this negotiation process, mexico is not ready to be considered anything else but a u.s. and canadian trading partner. and at the table, mexico and canada are equal partners with equal rights and equal obligations. why? because after 23 years of nafta 's implication, mexico is the second largest trading partner
of the u.s. and the second-largest u.s. export partner only second to canada. mexican16 are bought by consumers. today, the united states traits more with goods and services with mexico and canada than it does with japan, south korea, brazil, russia, india, and china altogether. u.s.'s second the largest source of imports after china, accounting for 14% of u.s. imports from the world. addition, production of automobiles, electronics, machinery, and appliances have greatly benefited from production sharing of the three has been, as nafta able to reduce costs and become more effective. my second point is that mexico should look for more end not less nafta. since the early 1990's, nafta
triggered structural reform in mexico. since its implementation, nafta has been a force for change and deep transformation of mexico's economic structures and institutions. was the really transformational experience for mexico. it transformed the face and shape of the mexican economy and opened the door of a young democracy after seven -- 70 years of one-party rule. mexico is one of the strongest engines of economic growth even with foreign direct investment. isan tell you that nafta embedded in mexico's everyday life. mexico is not ready to reverse the progress we have made in the last 23 years under nafta. created a massive consensus that an open economy is the way to go. that we need more, not less, and
that we want to be global players. for inxico should look this negotiation is ways to improve the agreement. of room fornty improvement, and there is plenty just take a quick glass of the european union integration, and we will know that as long as there is a common vision and shared leadership, there can be greater integration. i can tell you that in mexico, there is no one political party and no one for the gleaner that thinks it would be a good policy option to walk out of the nafta or that mexico should respond to aggression by closing our border or building a fortress. in fact, a recent survey conducted show that close to 50% of mexicans have a positive opinion of nafta and of trade relationships with the u.s., and , fromer, in the survey
march of this year, 73% of mexicans surveyed are opposed to getting rid of nafta. nafta has yielded winners and losers. in mexico, it means the country has undergone a deep transformation that has opened new opportunities in a variety of areas. mexico today is in a very strong position to push these negotiations for the establishment of 21st-century rule. 20th century rules are not enough and not the way, and reversing those rules are not an option either. mexico today is ideally positioned to boost the ofpetitiveness as a result what the president did in 2012. onuctural reforms touch education, telecommunication, energy, and the financial sector, and those reforms have
placed mexico in a better position to contribute to a stronger and more competitive north america. these set of reforms in addition to our participation in tpp, new areasco to have such as energy, services, e-commerce, or telecommunication. my third point is that nafta could become the latest structural reform in mexico that we need. why do i say this? has made itafta more evident of the huge disparities and inequalities that have characterized mexican development for centuries. for mexico, this is an ideal opportunity to democratize trade. it will have to lead to a more inclusive economy war more sectors taking part -- for more sectors taking part. today, more than half of the mexican exports are done by six states and the border.
60% of total exports are recommended by the sectors automotive and electronic, and a small portion of other things cap for total exports. -- count for total exports. this will lead to better business environments. nafta should the opportunity to reduce red tape. my fourth point is that nafta has to stop being a negative term. nafta has to be restated and revalued. it has to consist of the north american idea as north america as the region that could lead the world economy. maybe one of the reasons we are in suchating the nafta a contrast to the 1990's is that we never really took the time or or effort to socialize nafta
to explain the value of north america and how it benefits each one of us. of ourprobably one biggest challenges is how to restore the north american idea as a truly regional integration for the three countries to be better off with it rather than without. however, we really need to rethink the nafta, how to aposition nafta, not as result of a defensive agenda, where each one of us count its losses. needs ad north america common vision from the three countries that shows that add but we not only multiply gains in a highly globalized and competitive economy. my fifth and last point relates to what we have learned in more than two decades of nafta. nafta has offered the region a clean set of rules and predictable business environment. locked in a mexican model
of economic openness and competition. underscore the mechanism which was visionary and a novelty at the time. four the investor mechanism, and chapter 20 state to state, and chapter 19 on trade revenue have been without 'sestion one of nafta important pillars. -- region has a lot to use lose. became effective, north america accounted for 20% of world trade. comprises 18% of world trade.
it needs to offer the kind of rules that are required by a 21st-century economy, where global production sharing is the name of the game. to lose fromlot the u.s. leaving the agreement. they lose mexico's largest export market, accounting for $300 million last year and 30% of the mexico export gdp, and u.s. investment represents 40% in mexico. jobs, industrial production, agriculture, services, energy, tourism, and many others have a lot to lose if we tear for with nafta. business groups in the u.s. realize how important nafta is to them and have made proposals on how to modernize and improve it. the lowest possible denominational expectation of the renegotiation is that
whatever the results, it do no harm. if the u.s. decides to walk out , which we hope will not happen, it will certainly affect regional production, trade, investment, jobs, and economic growth. however, the agreement will still remain in place for trade between canada and mexico. we show we can overcome this very delicate situation and still develop a regional andtegy to safeguard nafta north american integration. david tray isal and another issued a report that makes the case for north america -- general david betray us -- aeus issued a report. the question is how do we toitalize nafta in order
strengthen the competitive position of the region and integrate those that have been out of the benefits of globalization. developing a new regional strategy, and such strategy needs to consider key elements. the integration of the north american market is the way to the regional competitiveness, job creation, business opportunities, and innovation. we need to reconcile integration and security. since 9/11, nafta has been torn between a driving force and building a fortress to guarantee safe and secure borders. the structure needs to be modernized, and more resources need to be allocated. transportation should be seamless doornd to door operations should be facilitated. mexico has a demographic in the region. young base, an average
of 26 years old. newh america requires resources to meet the production needs of the region. the competitive workforce is key to maintaining a dynamic region, so we need to think about the training and development of resources to meet the needs for qualified personnel in areas that did not exist many years ago. that the north american integration will be incomplete unless we find a way to sort and integrate labor markets. this is something that could take generations, even with the betweenome gap existing mexico and the two trading partners. however, there are some steps that can be taken and that are .lready part of the nafta in 2013, it was suggested to improve the professional services contained in nafta to
facilitate and expedite visas fornafta professionals, offer them for longer times, and create a worker program. i would like to conclude my in the by referring that absence of tpp, the new rules willwill result from nafta be the standard of international trade. the 1990's, the disciplines that we negotiated in the nafta became the state-of-the-art trade rules in areas such as trade and agriculture, services, investment, and intellectual items, to name a few. new rules were developed and later set out with an agenda at the wto. negotiation that starts tomorrow will be closely followed by the rest of the
world. the rules and discipline that we leave ourselves in north america will offer a very clear idea of the direction that global clade may take in the future -- global trade may take in the future. we have responsibility beyond the nafta. mexico needs nafta and needs a strong nafta. we have been able to finally pass structural reforms that will yield results in the medium to long-term. corruption and transparency, the rule of law, a seriousciary are challenge that is also acting against mexican competitiveness. for mexico to contribute to a stronger region, we need to find stronger and sustainable solutions. have triggered mexico upon his transition to democracy.
today, it may be to require force for security and rule of law questions in mexico. boosting north american integration requires political leadership and returning credibility and legitimacy to the process one of the biggest challenges, but we need to be up to it. lux.n: thank you, possible and is also emphasizing the many gains that have been secured after two would now nafta, i like to go to francisco. can address the redline's you see in these negotiations, particularly from the mexican point of view, it is up to you. francisco: thank you. i want to thank the institute and duncan. as you know, after many months uncertainty, it is
tomorrow, and it has been a bumpy road, because from the mexican point of view, there was a great uncertainty about, for instance, what the u.s. will be sending to congress, like in 2015 or if the administration was thinking about something new. so how do we know this is going to be the one? i will say that there are some where weopportunities believe we have common grounds. it is important to remember about the way to update nafta was the tpp, and it is important it has been not just the last year but maybe 10
years. former president obama was running for president issue, soe nafta maybe we did not do our hard but as was said, we did not ask to be sitting at the table to be renegotiating nafta, but we have some important issues to share. we have a great regional integration, but also, we have some issues where i think it is in the best interest of the two organize, sotry to when we talk three countries, we're talking about three countries so when, and whether it was going to be under an umbrella of three parties. to know she kicked with canada and then mexico, key issues.
of course, there are some concerns that we are going to share. canada,oncerns with mexico, and the u.s. for instance, when we talk about security or infrastructure. priorities, ife both administrations in this case, the u.s. and mexico, are willing to complete this process i would sayt year, that one of the main reasons or elements that they should try to consider is the language. not a tpp initiative, because, of course, president trump decided to withdraw on day one of his administration. and even though that trade
negotiations are not like technology and e-commerce, the truth of the latest agreement that has been negotiated was tpp , and the first wave of negotiations take place, that was nafta, and i thought we were in the middle of the second one .ith tpp sadly, it seems that tpp is not u.s., anywhere with the but also, the u.s., sadly, is losing leadership in trade negotiations because the pacific alliance is now working with new zealand, australia, singapore, and canada to have them as for us,partners, so
considering that the u.s. is our most important trading partner, for mexico's part, to have a strong economic performance and integrationeconomic with the u.s. and canada, so where thed that, mexican administration may see an opportunity and priority, i mexico, almost 99% of do not participate as a part of international trade, so one of our priorities should be to include them, to bring them on board. the second, i will say that if commerce, e-commerce in the sense that nafta does not any position, because that then, the internet did not
but talking about where mexico has duty-free shipments, and canada, and we are talking about different issues. i would say there are opportunities to reflect and to the energy reforms, labor, education. things have happened in mexico in the last years, and -- afraid to negotiate with the u.s. or other countries, and nowadays, we believe we have a strong trading team of negotiators. we have a solid minister and team at the table. of course, in the u.s., you have broad experience. but in a sense, i do believe
wages should be a red line and a dealbreaker. is arade deficit, this strange issue. 30e way that trade was seen or 40 years ago. aremember when i used to be senior official in the mexican government, -- extend in the to appropriate ways. a new narrative. in response,, leave that to the poets. the deficit, as long as we do
not talk about trade management, and something we will consider. is that most of the specific objectives released get the message they mexico and canada to the u.s.. from $50 to increase to $800. increaset only want to reverseinal content to the deficit. chapter 19, something important for the canadian.
a u.s. point of view. it is not the administration's point of view. back toed by harking history, we do this only in the sense of recognizing carla hill . graced bye, we are her appearance. i want to suggest three basic points about the upcoming negotiation. we learned about the positive opportunities that exist. aheadtrue that there lies of the group a real opportunity
to strengthen north american competitive. competitiveness. repeat and well on any of that. there is an in-depth analysis of all the topics the negotiated. reas weto suggest three a need to be focused on very intensely as the negotiations proceed. failure is an option. that ort like to say is true.ut it, but it the president told us he wanted to withdraw.
hegot talked out of that but is very close to it. renegotiate the reserves the right to pull out if he wanted. it is critically important for the other countries in the negotiation to keep foremost and everybody-- in costly that would be in the united states. why do i say failure is an option, because the united states goes into the negotiation withtwo false premises which they base their approach. the first is that nafta was the greatest disaster ever negotiated. that is patently false,
noorrect, based on analysis. it is a false premise. we have to be clear the world that. the second objective is to use of the negotiation to reduce the u.s. trade deficit. it is strange. it has never been nor can it be the focus of a trade agreement. trade imbalances are macro problems. trade policy, explicitly trade agreement is not a feasible way to introduce trade imbalance. in particular adjusting bilateral trade imbalances is impossible because if you did
succeed in reducing it be in balance with succeed -- balance would shift elsewhere. mexico is a bigger deficit country than the united states. current global globa account deficit is bigger than the u.s.. mexico is not a surplus country but is a deficit country itself. the united states is asking a death at country --asking a deficit country to help reduce our deficit. , the united states goes into the negotiation with
and that premises makes for a cup negotiation. that if he is not satisfied that is absurd premises are somehow satisfied, he will pull out. -- the united states goes into the negotiation with two false premises and that makes for a tough negotiation. the negotiating partners need to remind people that if the u.s. were to withdraw, the cost to the united states would be huge. --know the terror increases
increases would be twice as high for the united states. mexico has not found it witht valued its tariffs imes.to, it could go up 5 tu that are many nasty things could be done if nafta failed. the u.s. would be a big loser because of the failure should be kept in mind. secondly, what could be a possible way to reconcile these premises.
is there some way to satisfy u.s. objectives without doing violence to sensible principles of economics, trade policies, relations between the countries and north american competitiveness as a whole. any trade negotiation has to be based on the principle of reciprocity. reciprocity has two -- level reciprocity and marginal reciprocity. marginal reciprocity seems to be the normal level of trade negotiations. byeach reduce our barriers 20% or 50% and that is marginal
reciprocity. that the truckpt trump people say they pursue, level reciprocity, you want to lineup with the same trade barriers as the other country. when one party starts with higher barriers, that party is expected to cut more to get to an equivalent level. for levelargue reciprocity as a country could respectively go home and say we got a reciprocal deal. in the name of the nafta negotiation, there is a practical possibility. the worlde zero but
bank index shows mexican non-ta riff measures are about three times as great as the united states. that,conceivable following good trade and economic principles and pursuing its own national interests which is based on getting cheaper imports, mexico could conceivably reduce some of its barriers and that would move us toward level reciprocity, which, the trump administration could claim as a great victory, say we got a good deal and back off some of its views.treme
that might be a way out if the negotiators can find specific variables --specific barriers. cincinnatus said originated, mexico has --since nafta originated, mexico has implemented reforms. this would help serve the objective of reducing disparities between the two countries and might have a little positive effect in reducing the u.s. trade deficit. the second point is, maybe there move thoseys we can
goals to achieve a successful outcome. the third point is to remind everybody is what happens in the nafta negotiation will be affected by what is happening in other trade negotiations proceed by both nafta partners and the rest of the world as well. they areeminded that watching the nafta negotiation. the nafta negotiators have to be watching what is going on in the rest of the world. the u.s. is about to launch a negotiation with korea. u.s. isthe things the seeking what amounts to a renegotiation and significant changes.
thecase and point is current the chapter. will have high on its priority list in the korean negotiation, a currency tax. korea is the number one country in the crosshairs of the u.s. treasury, true in the first administration and this administration. labeled anot been manipulator. in the nafta talks, the administration will want a currency chapter or provision. not because it views canada or
mexico as a currency manipulator but rather to have a president ecedentuld be -- pr that could be applied to korea and future manipulators. the currency issue is a huge issue in the congress. that is the just one example. there will be other issue areas where what goes on elsewhere like in the ongoing china talks will affect what goes on in nafta both in terms of its specifics and overall policy approach. it is not only what the u.s. is what elsewhere, it is canada and mexico are doing elsewhere that counts. mexicoto tip my hat to
as the world leader in negotiating trade normalizing agreements with other countries. chile inssed sda's than anyone else. they have opened their markets, bill trade around the world and it is continuing to negotiate with several other countries. why is that important for nafta? fail, nafta talks were to then not only with the usa an increase in mexico's barriers sharply tilted degrees of preference against
the united states because of all of mexico's other agreement. the u.s. would take a double loss. the fact that mexico has been lining up to these other deals, that would add to the pressure. my advice to my friends in mexico, keep it up, she doing all those other deals. foreign pressure on a country to do the right thing that it ought to do anyway. sda. is mexico's pressure,e particularly mexico and canada should work with the japan, keep ttp ally. ve.ali you have all these combinations that would adversely affect the united states.
competitive liberalization says liberalizeies that towards each other, they create huge incentives for other countries to any late or join the party or otherwise protect themselves from having new preferences that disadvantage of them. -- disadvantage th bilaterals the negotiated, keep it up. that inevitably has an important states,n the united certainly in the white house, business community, labor community, about what happens if we do not strengthen the trade
agreements we have. the best outcome is a traditional trade like negotiation that will strengthen the mexican economy. states and the trump administration want to strengthen the u.s. trade balance towards mexico, strengthen the mexican economy. if he grows faster, it will import more. stronger peso, the u.s. will be price competitive. that is how we need to achieve the objective, not monkeying around with rules of origin. it is to go to the big stuff which is a proven success in the past and hopefully can be again. >> thank you. i'm going to turn to chris. to give your own perspective on
where you see the top going. >> thank you everyone. i want to take a simpler view of mexican strategy going into negotiations. strategythe the u.s. s-a-vie the u.s strategy. of objectivesies that are restrictionist, how do the mexican strategies run into that conflicting u.s. perspective. 80% of its exports into the united states. mexico depends on market assets
in the united states. there is an asymmetry, trade is pretty balanced. a bilateral trade relationship, there is great asymmetry, mexico depends more. access toarket the united states was at risk, mexico started to think about how he would renegotiate with the u.s.. the trump administration has been consistent in the language they will put forth. , if want to renegotiate they cannot renegotiate, they will withdraw. i think the basic response, we heard early on, to this in terms of strategy, mexico had a
concern that just in economic negotiation, mexico may not have the leverage you need to maintain market access to the united states. it started to talk about things like needing to have a comprehensive dialogue with the united states. in recent weeks we have heard explicitly from mexico what they mean by that. mexico feels like it offers the united states quite a bit in terms of security cooperation, ensuring there is never a terror attack across the u.s. mexico border and they have been doing a lot about the movement of s migrants tocan the united states. they detained more migrants from central
america that america did. mexico is doing that because it is in the united states interests. the united states has asked for mexico's assistance in that issue. mexico says let's put everything on the table. this represents the de-compartmentalization of the u.s.-mexico relationship. seen this ase had an important relationship, the number of u.s. agencies -- we have so many diverse interest in mexico. issuesartmentalize those to make sure a conflict on one front would not get in the way of our economic relationship. mexico is saying right now this
is such a national interest for us that we are going to do away with that. we are willing if necessary to do away with that process that has insured that the relationship as a whole would move forward despite conflict which will always occur in a complex relationship. int is where mexico is at terms of what to do with this on a basic level. market assets is a fundamental redline in the negotiation. that can mean different things across the different areas. the fundamental redline is market assets. there are other areas where you can see potential conflict based on this principle of a redline,
rules of origin, it is fairly clear in the u.s. in negotiating objective that they would be talking about strengthening regional content requirement. u.s.ard talk of putting a content requirement. that would be trade restrictive. limiting market access would be crossing a redline for mexico. upping that level in the auto industry could be considered trade restrictive. thing would be eliminating the nafta safeguard exclusion. right now within nafta there are limitations on how safeguard can be used. it produces a flood of imports
that could impact a u.s. industry. illuminating chapter 19, the ability to challenge domestic rulings on anti-dumping. getting rid of that, and these last two, the eliminating of the safeguard exclusion and chapter 19 is less limiting market access, it would give the united states more flexibility to express it protectionist involvement. if mexico feels market access is being impacted during the negotiations, it is going to have to use its leverage both within the negotiations, mexico
can, if we did fall back on tariules, they can raise ffs. mexico may feel the need to include the rest of the u.s. mexico relationship in the environment around the negotiation. that could work out. it is a risky gambit. it is risky because there is a compartmentalize, it is to prevent the entire relationship to be impacted by one issue. you could enter a spiral of escalation where multiple issues are put on the table. we could all end up losing quite a bit, not just in the economic sphere but in all the benefits the united states get from its
relationship with mexico. we need to be clear about the seriousness of that risk as we head into the negotiations. >> mexico has responded to tougher rhetoric coming out of the united states very mildly. the intention has been to maintain dialogue, maintain the possibility of having discussion based on a win-win philosophy. as mexico enters into election year,, at the end of this the beginning of next year, that is when it will really start to ramp up. the willingness of the ruling arty to accept that, to take diplomatic line will be defined quite a bit. the political need, the domestic political need to respond in
tough terms, in nationalistic terms will increase quite a bit. that is a place where we will need to watch during the process of negotiation, a turning point where we may enter a more dangerous period. the likelihood of reaching an agreement by the end of the year is very small. this is a complex negotiation. >in terms of the risk that might
be out there in terms of a clash of the objectives and interest. in spite of all of that, i am optimistic that we can reach a moderate update to the agreement that is good for both sides. it is because u.s., mexican and canadian interest are fundamentally aligned. at a real level, a real economic level, our interest are quite well aligned. backups filter into the doesionship -- that filter into the relationship. there are thousands of companies that depend on trade with the nafta partners. in this huget
stakeholder group that has come to depend more and more on nafta that are they're pushing within the domestic political process towards trying to keep the u.s. on track towards a successful renegotiation. >> there is also a relationship that has developed within north america since the nafta was put together our bound competitiveness. rather than compete against each other, we compete together as a block on a global stage against other regions that have production sharing. in the united states, that's in north america we have a huge level of supply chain integration. we have constructed a manufacturing platform where
goods moves back and forth across borders. half of mexico-u.s. trade is an input. we spend over $100 billion worth of inputs. factories and producers and the employees that work is planned depend on the inputs and supply chains that were developed. --if theunited states united states were to impose order taxes on mexico or canada, they are indirectly doing that to our next orders --to our exporters. if we tax them, you put a tax on them, you are breaking up and imposing a break on that system.
negotiation to an existing trade agreement. this is not getting rid of the ttp which is potential future economic opportunity for someone. this is potentially cutting into the paycheck, cutting into the business model of companies who are already out there throughout the united states. it is tough to dow that back without having -- to dial that back without having serious impact. a can dial that back to have good outcome. two want to pick up on points, one is on the timing of these negotiations. hopefully you will be able to
come up with some ideas about how important that timing is. integrated supply chains in north america, there was a lovely quote where he talked about the fact that there are, in north america, if this was eggs being cooked, there are yokes and whites, it is scrambled eggs. they cannot be separated. that is one of the things, if we to the make a pitch administration to impress on them how difficult it would be to disengage from this production platform. i would like to ask our audience. time.e a good period of we've got plenty of time.
who would like to lead us off? >> thank you very much. the cdcormer worker for in montreal. 'desirese united states to integrate them into a new nafta. i would like to ask the panel if this will happen at all. a question done here. aura dawson, canada institute. you speak onk behalf of the mexican negotiators but, drawing on the point of the link between nafta countries haveo
been part of an agreement that the u.s. wanted very much. naftae going into the negotiations, the u.s. negotiators want a lot of stuff out of tpp. are you going to give them those concessions right at the outset or hold in reserve? the japanese said they want to do tpp 11. thatuch to you take to able? ? -- that table? >> thank you for this interesting discussion a. of north american integration on making the three
countries more competitive with respect to the challenge from china. we are aware of the economics from that, the huge change depending on many factors. candidate issue that trump discussed while he was in mexico during the campaign. that.er why he discussed could you analyze that further? >> before we turn to our panelists, i would like to point out to former u.s. ambassador's to mexico are flanking her. if we could use you as our advance guard on the negotiations. >> thank you. the political timing is evidently not the best. we are at the end of a
administration that has a done a lot. it delivers a lot in terms of movements it does in terms of opening the economy. energy. why is it the worst political time, it is the end of the administration and right now we are thinking about elections, we are thinking about the end of hasadministration that there is little political capital. theo not know what negotiation may yield. we know it starts tomorrow. it is very difficult to predict when a negotiation will end.
back in the 1990's, we started 199290 and in october of there was a handshake and then came the process of approval. negotiating takes a long time. we are not starting from scratch. evenisk for mexico is though we want to get this process done as quickly as possible and i know the mexican government is working hard to get this done in the shortest time, we need certainty. we need to get a positive result even though failure is an option. that not want to give alternative the way. start a process of presidential elections by the end of this year. .lections are due
we have no idea who is going to be the next president. the actual negotiation takes place and it is not finished and it takes place in the middle of an election which is not only for president but also for congress. there is uncertainty in terms of what may happen, the most recent negotiation, the sugar deal between mexico and the u.s. took several months to work out. it is something that we will need to pay attention but as i mentioned in my remarks i do have to underscore that in
mexico there is no politician or political party that questions mexico's membership in nafta. they may want to come up with new issues or areas or they do not agree with the way negotiations have been directed but i do not think that mexico's new president will question the fact that we need to be here. issuesnd environmental has evolved a lot in the last 25 years. one benchmark to see where these negotiations may take place, if , i do think there are new ways and new disciplines to think of this issue. they are valid. for our a valid concern
economies. however i do think we need to find ways of establishing at least a common denominator. i wonder how the u.s. is going to negotiate the environmental part since the trump administration decided to leave the declaration that has to deal with carbon emissions and that really affects production. i do not know how that is going to take place in the agreement. at the end of the day we need to find ways that will help the competitiveness of the region. ttp, is of nafta and wanted to say that i do not tpp will betiating
concessions taken from one agreement to the other. this is a negotiation. although we have already drafted own balance atts the time. we may be at a better situation right now because we know exactly what we are talking about. we have been able to figure out what much of this mean and what do we want to achieve. i do not think the concessions that mexico made at the table in tpp will be identical or to nafta.d from tpp i think they will need to be part of the whole package. in terms of competitiveness, nafta gives us a opportunity to increase the region
competitiveness in the energy market. s that the u.s.d and canada brings to the table, this could be the most important boost for the region. int nafta can do is block those reforms. thatnk if we really think there is some factor that could definitely boost competitiveness in the region, it may be the integration of the energy market. bank, i want to apologize for carla and others in my initial remarks.
regarding the first question, it is important to bear in time it is -- first time the u.s. mexico is doing the same with europe. why are we talking about markets , if we are willing to negotiate a 21st century agreement we should be talking about other provisions, other chapters instead of talking about what has worked over the years. towe are going to be able redeliver by early 2018, it depends what each country follows. if you start from scratch and chapterhe tables the
with wording that has been in years, it the last 82 will be hard to deliver. if you consider some of the inguage the u.s. utilized the following negotiations, it seems we will be able to speed up the process. mexico, we will follow our own president. precedent. the pacific alliance is this initiative in mexico after nafta. for mexico toing bear in mind.
if we are able to get some , i think wem canada will be able to speed up the process. and in the areas where we may have a different point of view. information that the u.s. will enable the tax for the different chapters. i do not know if this is the official position or if it is confirmed. tomorrow we will have a better wouldf nafta negotiation take place or not. , it wille is an option be for the u.s.
mexico has worked over the years. it depends on the outcome. about said agreements and labor and environment isvisions, i would say -- if mexico can put into the agreement both the --even if we were able to deliver generally, we have no guarantee the current administration and mexico are the u.s. will consider -- or the u.s. will consider the agreement reached.
korea and panama columbia, there was renegotiation when the agreement was reached. in mexico we will have elections . left party has challenged the benefits of nafta. we'll have a new administration in a year plus. concessions, ttp as maria expressed very clearly, the concessions made back in ttp negotiations should not be the
may not comply directly. last point, which is a very good one, the een carefulion has b violate appearing to the objectives laid out in tpa 2015. it is a matter of judgment and some of us may differ in those judgments as to why they are carrying out those objectives. so far they have tried to avoid any implications they are violating congressional mandate. congress did not say go out and try to reduce the u.s. trade deficit through your trade agreements. congress did not say that.
if the agreement were to blow up because of that mistaken premise --n i think whatever they negotiate in the have toming up, they take it to the congress, system, the president proposes, the congress congresses -- disposes. in a fascinating episode, president trump said he was going to withdraw from nafta and there was pushed back from congress. wo ranking t
republican said nafta is us. it is an integral part of the life of american business. agreement,ardize the you would be doing so at your peril with the congress. when you get into specific discussions for ratification, they are going to have to demonstrate case-by-case where they went along with the dictates of the congress. i mentioned the kurds the issue, , in tpa 2015,sue you should not permit trade partners to underplay the playing field with currency manipulation. with tpa there was a lot of site agreement. -- side agreement.
if the agreement blew up, there would be hell to pay. i would like to talk about the question of having a different objective of increasing u.s. competitiveness towards china. that should be the objective of the exercise. there would be many ways specified by the panel to do that by further integrating the economy, strengthening the supply chain, etc.. the companies would do that to increase competitiveness. that would require a totally different mindset from the u.s. administration. the mindset of the u.s. administration is that canada and mexico are adversaries. definedzero sum game
by trade deficits. if i run a trade deficit with you, the trade is unfair. that is how they define an issue. those at the top level. if you define the issue as a negotiation with adversaries, you are in the opposite mindset from what should be the mindset of an update for nafta of 25 years, maybe improving the joint competitiveness of the region. it is a fundamental mindset question not just maneuvering around the margins. it is pretty basic. let's keep working to change that. >> no one said anything about the environment, i'm not an expert in that topic but i would
say there is a willingness to engage in the conversation and look at bringing the environmental part of the agreement into the body of the text. that is something we should look ttpto, we should look at and other agreement for cedent. the resolution itself will be part of the renegotiation. those things you will have to look at together. explicitlyrd this from the canadian i that there side that--canadian there will be a challenge in bringing climate into the agreement. the top canadian official said it would be difficult to imagine an environmental chapter in this day and age that doesn't
reference climate change. at the it's one example of many of how these things become much more complicated than you think they might be at the outset. that is one face of it. in general, we hit upon it but there's some very strong tension between speed in the negotiations and the timing issue and the tpp importation of language issue. it is the only way to move very quickly, to use tpp as a strong template. if you look at the objectives from the u.s. and mexico, most of the topics are topics that weren't dealt -- were dealt with in the trans pacific hardship negotiation. there's a lot to work with few -- if you are willing to do it but you have to look at who is , under the pressure. mexico is probably on the top. the united states second.
we have midterm elections next year and canada is probably third. there will be games that are played in terms of the negotiation and willingness to stretch them out to those who want to finish quicker if they really want to do that, they will have to give up a bit more faster and i'm not sure anyone is really willing to do that. that's why i think the most likely outcome is the timing falls apart very quickly and that's quickly realized by all the negotiators that it not going to be concluded by late this year or early next year. in that case, there's no advantage to conceding to tpp concessions you already made and your strategy should be to start the starting point in the negotiation, which means your renegotiating this topics along the way. i think that's a much more likely outcome. all of this leads to interacting with the u.s.
congress because it is very likely even after negotiation takes place that there is a statutory time periods that the city waiting periods before action on the trade agreement. it's very unlikely congress would vote on an updated nafta until after the elections. we need to think seriously about whether the u.s. congress would pass whatever is negotiated. nafta is an incredibly controversial topic and as we go through a mid term election process, it will become an incredibly partisan process. i don't know the answer. we don't know what the agreement will look like, but we have to take seriously the possibility that just like some of these other big issues congress has tried to tackle in recent months like health care that this is something that there could be a lot of work put into and it could go kaput when it hits u.s. congress.
i think we should take it seriously. >> chris has been a real downer today. it's the weather, i'm sure. >> just to be clear, if it goes kaput, the current nafta stays in place. >> unless donald trump decides to withdraw. >> your premise is the succeeds in negotiations, sends it to congress for ratification, congress won't do it. you may be right, but in that case, the current nafta stays in place until and unless something happens to change it. just so everyone is clear, it doesn't mean the end of nafta. >> i am seeing a number of hands go up. i know you had your hand up for a while so we can begin over there. >> pbs online news hour. can we dig a little deeper into mexican politics?
because at the moment, the candidate leading in the polls also is a populist nationalist. he happens to be from the left rather than from the right. he opposes and says he's going to undo the recent reforms you have talked about that were made possible by nafta, and to be blunt, he's a bit of an opportunist. if he sees an opportunity to use nafta for his benefit, isn't that likely? and even if he wins, is he going to have a congress it's going to be with him? your congress has to approve this deal the same as the american congress. >> thank you. pass the microphone to the guy behind you. >> berkeley research group. i want to pick up on the last exchange between fred and chris. and ask to think about 2019 and other negotiations underway. nobody mentioned brexit.
the u.k. would lose free trade with mexico and canada when they leave. both those countries are free straight with the u.k. at the moment but that has to be approved in both cases. what does the u.k. do? u.k. has expressed a willingness to negotiate bilateral with the united states and canada and that sicko. why would they do that? doesn't it make more sense to think beyond nafta and get the u.k. into a north atlantic fair and free trade if you want to call it that? start thinking about that now. if these delays take place, which i agree are certainly possible and maybe even likely, we will end up at the end of 2018 with the current nafta in place, one hopes and an , opportunity to galvanize all things by bringing the u.k. in with a generous transition . periods. . >> we are old enough to remember when nafta meant north atlantic free trade agreement. that was the proposal in the 70's and 80's.
the term got co-opted by the hemisphere. >> on the wilson center. you talked a lot about making nafta for the 21st century and watching other trade agreements are on the world. my question is about gender in international trade and incorporating it into agreements. the canadian government came out and said they want to incorporate gender into free trade agreements like they did with canada and chile when they renegotiated a couple of months ago and how they want to create a gender provision and nafta. what's your opinion on integrating gender into nafta or free trade agreements, and whether you think it's on the radar of mexico and the u.s.? >> very quickly, it is also in the mexican statement. they also mention there should be a gender dimension there.
it is an interesting question. do you want to ask a question? >> basically the question is on labor and the role it's going to play the role and success of this. if you are counting votes at the end of the process. the number one being president and vote number two being congress and they do not always mesh. the unions in the united states may play a much bigger role. how do you see negotiating through that if you have an eye on passing it at the end of the line? >> thank you very much. fred would you like to kick off , this round? >> on the last question, i think the reason you need to have a pretty forceful labor provision in the renegotiated nafta is exactly what you said -- to make the whole agreement passible in congress at the end of the day. i don't know how much those
provisions will accomplish for the goals of the labor movement or american workers, but there's strong insistence that i think it's from both sides of the island the congress to put that in. i don't think this administration is particularly devoted to that topic themselves, but if they are going to get it through congress, you have to put in their. -- there. i think you are right to flag that and the negotiating partners probably understand that as well. >> francisco? >> thank you. regarding the first question, i guess there is a political agenda will somehow influence the process? i'm not certain if mexico is in a hurry. i think the mexican administration has a strong interest to conclude nafta 2.0 during the current administration but it doesn't seem to be a must.
if the conditions require are not ones that can be met in terms of the mexican administration, maybe they won't push hard enough to get a deal? because as you may remember, it's a negotiation and also what about the responses from canada and in particular, the u.s.? regarding brexit, it's a great idea. it's something that one year ago or early 2016, this was an idea that was mentioned by the secretary. the problem we have is first,
england cannot negotiate until brexit happens, so we are talking about two years. having said that, there are informal talks between mexico and england and i understand that the same with some other trading partners. it will be a great approach to have nafta plus england. maybe north america is somehow too heavy in order to move as a block to negotiate something. mexico wanted to join tpp if we were the sole one that had in place in 2001. so it is a good idea and an ambition we should look for over the years but maybe it's going to take longer than we would
like. regarding the gender free trade provisions it is something we , should and must include and it that shoulde issues include 21st century trade agreements. regarding labor provisions, it is important to remember mexico is a country that had a labor framework 25 years ago, so my guess is the outcome we got was a positive one. we don't know what other provisions the u.s. may want to submit to canada and mexico, so we will take a look. at the end, it's about reaching balance. it is not only about the u.s. congress. it's about the mexican and
canadian parliament. in the case of mexico, we are -- if we are able to reach an agreement during the current administration there's a space , to try to approve it and if not, we will see what they may say. >> thank you. question.e the other he's clearly the front runner because he has been campaigning for the last 18 years and he's the only official candidate we have today. the other parties do not have official candidates yet, so that is something we need to consider. it is really a tossup. we have no idea who may be the next president and what may be the result of the next election. i would not discard anybody. it's going to be a highly competitive election.
now any president that comes in , office in december of 2018 will have an extremely, patiently difficult to reverse reforms. why? because any constitutional reform and that requires two thirds approval of congress of senate, then it requires the approval of each one of 32 global congresses in mexico. i'm not saying it is impossible but it is not an easy task to reverse reforms. i would say in the near future, those reforms are there to stay even though they are quite popular, especially education. but we need to give time for those reforms to yield results. those reforms will take between
two and three generations to yield the results we need to see. i'm not even that pessimistic in terms of whoever is elected president will be tampering with nafta. we in mexico had our globalization crisis in the 1980's when we decided to shift the model and we became and we negotiated nafta. i think the 1980's was the defining moment for mexico and since then we may have tempered a little bit with some of our tariffs and we have played with some protectionist measures and specific sectors and doing things we should not be doing. but nobody says anything so unless somebody comes and starts
a case and we come back to our good behavior, but in general, our policy is a trade liberalization policy and an open policy. we know we depend on international trade, international capital, international business. so we are not going to be playing with that. no one in the political platform will do that even if they said something that would question mexico's role in trade. i don't see any policy that would reverse that. brexit, i agree. the u.k. could join nafta. that is something that could be discussed earlier but we would , have to have a shared vision. the north america region would have to negotiate with a third-party. in terms of gender, i think the gender provision is part of the mexico's objectives for nafta.
it adds up to the least issues with how to build a trade agenda. a trade agenda that responds to the vast majority of people. we know in trade that there are losers and winners. so we need to find ways to offer that kind of support or adjustment to those who may not be taking advantage of globalization and we need to find ways to open opportunities to those who have not been able to take part in globalization. i think it is more raising the bar and finding discipline and programs and direct policy intervention that may help to include more firms and having a better playing field for men and women in international trade for
rural communities or those who have lost their jobs as a result of technology. i think it is part of a vision of an inclusive trade agenda which i think is legitimate but , having an inclusive trade agenda does not mean or should not be interpreted or does not translate into a protectionist agenda. i think both are compatible, it's just a matter of putting them at the table and finding ways of creating this solidarity among north american countries and communities. in the past, i had the opportunity to work with an ambassador in mexico to work on issues of gender. signed anof state
m.o.u. on how to improve conditions for women own businesses and women in north america. so i think there are already cases where we have tried to bring in. because we think it is the best way to promote that economic growth we need and to bring diversity to the table. i think this is something that tpp.ouched on in there were several examples recently that have taken waste and how do we create these new disciplines and direct interventions? how do we have a more cohesive society in north america? i think this may be a good way of addressing those issues and bringing legitimacy and credibility to nafta and north america integration. with respect to labor, labor may be a difficult issue at the table.
if we want to take labor as was posted a few weeks and months ago by some of the trump administration officials, in the sense that apparently mexico is like the bad guy in the arena because we have lower labor costs. wages and mexico are lower than the u.s. and that's a fact. the fact that exists doesn't mean we have an unfair trade advantage. obviously, that's not the ideal. we in mexico have to work hard to close that gap, but that requires many other things in to labor opportunities in the labor market. it requires education, innovation, improvements in productivity to raise wages. my concern with respect to labor is that the u.s. comes up with a
proposal that tries to intervene in minimum wages and labor markets which cannot be solved through a trade negotiation. that may end up creating a very difficult way of finding a solution to the nafta negotiation. i know labor is an important question but we have to be very careful of not offering solutions that may end up doing -- getting us nowhere. >> could i add a point? i think the notion of adding the united kingdom to nafta is a terrible idea. the reason is brexit is a terrible idea. it's terrible for the u.k., it's terrible for europe, it's bad for the united states. i'm in the minority, but i think it's going to be reversed because when the brits really realize what they are getting themselves into, they are going to reverse course and i think it
would be a huge error to feed the brexit mentality by holding out this hope of a free trade agreement with the united states, a free trade deal with nafta, all of these goodies that sound wonderful conceptually until you start trying to do it. we talked about the congressional difficulties of nafta itself and renegotiating, adding these provisions. now you add the fifth egg is the -- fifth biggest economy in the world also to problems that don't appear on the surface, the special relationship and all. it would be hell to pay. if you're going to end that, why not the pacific alliance? if you're going to add other countries, fine, but there are other countries that might the ahead of the u.k. in the queue, so let's talk about them and then what are you in? any chance of using that the to further integrate north america
would become even more impossible. but it would become an unmanageable task in terms of negotiations. let's keep that one on the shelf until or unless the evil day comes. >> let's not reward behavior. i just have a couple of things to add. in terms -- the one point i would add top of this is the -- the tone in the u.s.-mexico relationship matters quite a bit. we might have a highly adversarial tone if there is an environment of conflict that is going on. you better believe that if he should become president, he will use that. what happened in terms of his polling numbers right after the u.s. election shows he's the candidate best positioned to take advantage of an environment of conflict between the two countries wrap himself in the , flag and take up the
nationalist banner. if the environment is such that it is appetizing, he can do that and if he wins the election in a the environment, then we should be concerned about the future of the u.s.-mexico relationship because of my have two people on each side willing to take advantage of the opportunities in domestic politics at the expense of the relationship between the two countries. so tone matters quite a bit. it's on the other end of we have a cooperative relationship , functioning after renegotiation even if it is , still underway, but something moving toward a reasonable outcome, the incentives are much slower to engage in that type of positioning and that have a rhetoric. whoever becomes the next president will be responsible for the mexican economy over the next six years. you need nafta if you don't have a problem in terms of the mexican economy. it's a big risk for any
candidate but there may be , situations where there's an environment that promotes that anyway. quickly on the north america and u.k. it reminds me of a couple years ago, i was having a conversation as the u.s. was beginning negotiations with europe. there was an initiative, push, and interest in having canada and mexico join. canada was in the process of negotiations with the e.u. and mexico stated its interest in making it a comprehensive regional approach. it was to tough to conceive of taking that on from the u.s. perspective. in particular at that moment. i think we are at a much more complex moment and the willingness to find the appetite to take on that additional level of complexity when honestly that we are trying to do now is do no harm. we are trying to keep the boat afloat. there are people trying to do more than that, but that's the
primary objective of most interest right now. adding complexity is just hard. >> i would like to recognize to questions that came in from twitter. calucci asks what would happen to visas if nafta fails. would they be ended? anyway kelly anderson wrote , nafta provides opportunities , to bolster north american opportunities for innovation. what is mexico's approach? something we will have to come back with. that's an issue we hope to deal with at a later event. let me thank our fabulous panelists. thank you all for being here today. really appreciate it. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national
cable satellite corp. 2017] [crowd noise] the whiteternoon, house announced president trump plans to address the nation tomorrow night about the u.s. strategy in afghanistan. for the last several months military officials and national security adviser's have been reviewing potential options, including one that could require an increase in troop levels. the president will make his address from fort myer, arlington, virginia. coverage begins at 9:00 p.m. eastern on easement. you can watch online at c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> we have been on the road, meeting winners of this year's
studentcam video documentary content. at royal oak high school in royal oak, michigan, jarret clark won a prize of $3000 for his documentary on the rising cost of pharmaceutical drugs. the second place prize of $1500 with a classmate mary sire for her document or he on mass incarceration and mandatory minimum sentencing. also, third-place winner rebecca messner won a prize of $750 or documentary on gender inequality. grace novak won an honorable mention prize of $250 for her documentary on the relationship between the police and the media. thank you to all students who participated in our 2017 studentcam video documentary competition. to watch any of these videos, go to studentcam.org. studentcam 2018 starts in september with the theme, "the constitution and you." choose any provision of the u.s.
constitution and create a video illustrating why the provision is important. c-span's coverage of the solar eclipse on monday starts at 7 a.m. eastern with washington journal, live at nasa's goddard space flight center in maryland. our guests are nasa research space scientist, and jim garvin, chief scientist at goddard. at noon eastern, we join nasa tv as they provide live views of the eclipse shadow passing over north america. viewer p.m. eastern, reaction to this rare solar eclipse over the continental united states. live all the coverage of the solar eclipse on monday starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on seized and an c-span.org. listen live on the free c-span radio app. here on c-span, newsmakers is next with a look at the 2018 senate races and recent primary
and alabama. poersch. is jjb at 8:00, our conversation with author carl cannon. greta: this week on newsmakers, j.b. poersch, the senate majority pac president here to talk about senate democrats efforts to defend 23 seats up for the vote in 2018. thank you, sir, for being with us in studio. we also have sean sullivan of the washington post, political reporter, and alex roarty, political reporter for mcclatchy newspapers. welcome to the two of you. sean sullivan with the first question. sean: thanks, jb, for being with us. i want to start with a question about something that is in the news squarely this week. the president's comments on the deadly violence in charlottesville which have been roundly condemned by both
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on