explore the interactive constitution created by the national constitution center. there's a link on our website. >> this week on "the communicators," journalist, co-author of the book a mind at play. >> in 1948, remember this is decades before anything like the world we know has come to pass, claude shannon sits down and rights of paper we essentially shows that all types of information are the same and that permission can be turned into bits and then can be encoded, compressed and sent flawlessly so that we can take our message from .8 and have it be received at point b. all those principles seem natural to us. we think of course that's what works when i i go on twitter ad ascended tweet, it happens. so we had to lay the intellectual architecture for all of that and that is the field information theory and

that is the field that in a very real sense claude shannon indents. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at the eastern on c-span2. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable-television companies, and today we continued to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, , and public policy evens in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> with negotiations underway on the north american free trade agreement, mexico's economic minister has said his country is preparing for the possibility that the u.s. could pull out of the treaty. nebraska senator ben sasse and two former u.s. ambassadors to mexico to discuss what's next for the trade talks.

from heritage foundation, this is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundations lewis m auditorium. of course welcome those who join us on our heritage.org website, and those are also joining us on c-span network. for those in-house we would ask courtesy to see that our mobile devices have been silenced or turned off. it's always appreciated. for those watching online you're welcome to send questions or comments at any time simply e-mailing speaker@heritage.org and we will of course post today's program on the heritage homepage for everyone's future reference. leading the discussion following our special opening remarks will be david shedd. david serves as a visiting fellow in our davis institute for national security and foreign policy. luckily on behalf of heritage and welcoming and introducing senator will be kim holmes. dr. holmes serves as our executive vice president.

please join in welcoming him. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. .. eight we are working with conservatives in the republican party, we are very much involved in that and we are so pleased to have all of you here. before i introduced our guest speaker, i would like to start with a couple facts.

going into the 24th year, the north american free trade agreement has been a success story in our opinion. for all trade agreements between the three countries, u.s. canada and mexico has increased from $290 billion in 1993, the trade between these three countries, two more than a trillion dollars in 2016. u.s. manufactured good to canada and mexico support more than 2 million american jobs. mexico and canada are the first and second largest importers of american agricultural goods. often ignored are the national security benefits of this agreement which you will hear more about in the panel discussion and from senator sass. has joint economic security

expanded, cooperation with mexican law-enforcement to combat organized crime and anti- terrorism and address illegal immigration has also reached unprecedented levels. after seven rounds of contentious negotiations, the future of nafta is uncertain. it could be improved, i think most everyone agrees with that but it has also had many positive impacts on the american economy, on american national security and just yesterday the heritage foundation published a new research paper exploring these linkages. today david shedd will lead a panel discussion with security experts who have served in the highest levels of government to discuss the invocations of withdrawing from nafta. first i'm honored to welcome ben sass of nebraska who will

deliver a keynote address on wyatt will boost free trade and the security interest of the united states. we look forward to hearing your thoughts. senator ben sass represents the great state of nebraska. we were having a chat about walking beans and doing various things to corn which i dare not talk about because i don't fully understand it, but he is a fifth generation nebraska and comes to the senate after being a college president. when he was recruited to take over midland use of university he was just 37 years old making him one of the youngest college presidents. it became one of the fastest growing higher education institutions in the country. most of his career has been spent guiding companies and

institution through times of crisis. he does so with straight talk and strong determination. he has worked with the boston consulting group and private equity firms and nonprofit organizations to tackle some of the feeling strategies across a broad array of specters and nations. please join me in welcoming senator sass. [applause] >> thank you for having me. tim did tell me originally i only had ten or 15 minutes but if i would give details on agriculture, particularly the tattling corn and walking beans i could have a neck shower. you will all be privileged to get into some serious agricultural stuff. he was also complementing my boots which i appreciate and

he asked what's up with that. he didn't realize nebraska was one of the largest beef producers in the world and how you go from a cow calf season in texas and migrate north to slaughter in nebraska. this gives me an extra hour as well. you have a very distinguished panel with a whole bunch of technical things you learn from them and i'm looking forward to learning from them as well. i won't try to compete with that. there are a whole bunch of aspects to the way we do counterintelligence and border security and human trafficking partnerships with mexico that i think you'll hear unpacked by your distinguished panel this afternoon. i won't speculate on that in the timing of nafta negotiations for the mexican election but it is a significant thing i don't think has been covered in the

u.s. media, accounts of what's happening in nafta as well pad there is a lot to be discussed this afternoon. i will limit myself to setting the backdrop for some of this discussion and with limited time, i will give you something more approaching political as the kickoff for my talk and then i will unpack it in a little more detail. i would like to offer six species for your consideration. the first is when we discuss trade in our broader topic is the relationship and the economic partnerships and military partnerships across the globe, but especially in north america. we discussed rate the american people jump to job change in job disruption. there is a basic true fact that we should all have in common that we don't all have in common which is that technology, not trade, is overwhelmingly the primary driver of job change in job disruption. that is technology, not

trade. it's the overwhelming developer of job change. if you look at the effects of trade from an economics the employee, we will honestly get to national security implications as well, but if you look at trade just as an economic matter, it is indisputably good for the u.s. throughout history it's an academic theory, this is historical reality and nafta, in particular, has been indisputably good for the u.s. it's also been good for mexico and canada and there is nothing internally inconsistent about those statements because trade done right is a win-win. regularly in our public discourse, we don't talk about that clearly. i think it's useful to unpack a little bit when you look at the economic ledger and how to think about the consumer benefits of trade, the producer offensive trade and in reverse if you look at more tariffs or more protection the

producer cost of trade and the retaliatory synergistic effects where you get cost on consumers and producers that you cascade from one type of protectionism to another. trade is indisputably good as an economic matter. number three, we have very little public understanding of what the term trade deficit means. not understanding what a trade deficit is has huge negative consequences for our public deliberation. we should talk a tiny bit about what the term trade deficit means and really, we should fight hard, and for those of us in public life for a time or those of us who are in academic or think tank world or those of you in the journalistic community, i think we should stop whenever someone says trade deficit and

say when you say trade deficit, do you really just mean trade product deficit because i assume you do but for going to talk about that, let's make sure we get back to the trade services surplus and the direct investments are plus that the u.s. almost always has whenever we talk about a bilateral trade product deficit. number three, the term trade deficit is not well understood and we can deliver a well as a people about trade without unpacking a little bit about what we think were saying when we say trade deficit. number four, the american people are not to blame for this confusion practices overwhelmingly the fault of leaders to not talk clearly about where we are in economic history. unless we go slower and we unpack where we are in economic history, there is going to be so much anxiety about job change that people are going to look for bogeyman. right now trade is suffering a lot of the bogeyman negative consequences of us not

delivering clearly about where we are in economic history. we are going through a time of radical change. the technological and in particular digital revolution that we are living through may well, 100 years from now, look in the rearview mirror is disruptive, not just to economics but basic human community as industrialization and urbanization. if we are going through that kind of a revolution, we should have some sense of what we are living through so we as a people can deliberate about it clearly and this town is feeling radically to have any meaningful discussion about where we are in economic history. a lot of what feels like washington breaking down is washington breaking down at the basic level of policy deliberation but more fundamentally, it's washington not having done the first thing of leading to help the american people have a big broad conversation about what we think, what sort of problems are amendable to

political situations and which are not amendable. when we unpack that, what i would say is that we are going through a time where there is such radical erosion of social capital, radical and rapid that most people who are meant to be relational beings, people who are meant to be tribal beings, if our tribes are evaporating, we are still going to try to figure out a way to create tribe in a really lame way to create tribe is by doing anti- tribe but that's what happening all around us were people are saying i don't have a lot of try but maybe i can at least have the enemy of my enemy be my friend for time and we can be shared and what we are anti- to and right now there's a whole bunch of that going on which is some of the reason that washington doesn't look like it makes much progress on pragmatic, small ball legislative policymaking because there's not a broader shared understanding of where we are in history. number five, this is more than the mcdonald's thesis of sam

huntington and other people but number five, i would say that when you have lots of economic relationship between two countries or between a block of countries, when you have a lot of commerce between peoples, you end up building other kinds of relationships as well which often have huge global security implications. this isn't really that profound. it turns out you are less likely to go to war with people that you know and like and have shared interests with. there's really nothing profound about this, but when we talk about trade and we isolated from global security and national security considerations, we are pretending that people are just disembodied rational robot calculators making decisions about what their interests are in the world as if they aren't in body people that have economic interests and communities in relationships and friends. it turns out, when you have a

lot more economic relationship, you are much more likely to find shared understanding about global security matters both for the good of building alliances but also for the avoidance of the bad. misunderstandings tend to be dealt with better if you have lots of overlapping relationships, to take it to the literature about family breakdown, it turns out people who have to practice marriage in the context of community are better at marriage than people who practice marriage without a lot of relationships densely packed around them. it turns out if you have a bunch of little bumps in your marriage but you share lots of common friends and your family members and neighbors, it turns out you can solve lots of problems that might otherwise have been out of control. the same is true in economic and military security. six and finally in reaching far beyond our nafta discussions, we should be clear about where we are in geopolitical competition over the coming decades. china has a plan and we don't have a plan. china has a plan for thei

where they would like to see global economic relations and global security relations go in the united states surely doesn't look like we have a plan. again, those six are far more than enough that a promise i won't be able to finish on time but i will try to go very fast that through them and take a few questions and kim will pull me from the stage. that's number one, it is indisputable that what is happening right now in the disruption of work is a consequence primarily of technology, not primarily of trade. trade is a big deal. i don't think there's anybody in the u.s. that is more pro- trade than i am. i think trade has immense human benefits, and yet, trade is not really what's driving most of the anxiety people feel right now. we need to be clear about what is happening. by analog, let's what look at what happened over the past century and what is now

happening to industrial big tool economy jobs because if we understood the analogy to agriculture, we would know how to ridiculous it is to talk like we are trying to make america 1950 again. no one is ever going to make america 1950 again in terms of large-scale industrial jobs. no one will ever make it 1850 again in terms of agricultural jobs and none of us would think that we would want that. in 1900, 41% of american workers worked on the farm. today it's well under 2%. total agricultural output is off the chart higher in terms of quantity and quality than 118 years ago. 41% of americans on the farm in 1900, more than that still lived and worked on the farm, urbanization is happening but as a matter of work, 41% of american workers on the farm and today less than 2% but more total output put.

what's happening in manufacturing? the rhetoric in this town were politicians always lie and pretend they can fix whatever big anxiety you have, we will bring back industrial factory jobs from the 1950s. no we are not. that is simply not true. it won't happen and there's no economic theory to defend that rubbish. the high water mark of industrial employment in u.s. history was in the mid- 1950s where 31% of american workers worked in factories. today, 7% of american workers work in factories and there is more total output in terms of quantity and quality. the shape of the curve from the agricultural revolution, and i don't mean the revolution from 11000 years ago, i mean tech substitution at the beginning of the 20th century, the shape of the curve is really similar from 41% down to 2% in industrial jobs we've gone from 31% to 7% in the shape of that curve is going to continue to go down.

the way that it goes down matters a lot to particular family lives and we should have bigger discussions about what that looks like, but we should start by understanding where we are in history and to the second point, when you talk about protectionism as if it's going to protect those jobs, you don't have any theory to defend your position and you don't have any history to defend your position. here's what actually happens when there is more protectionism and let's talk in a little bit of detail about the current steel tariff idea. this is what happens if we put these steel tariffs in place. consumers lose. whenever there are more tariffs which just means tax on consumers, consumers on both sides of a border lose. you are telling voluntary parties who wanted to make something and sell it and other parties who want to make something and buy it that they can't go through with the

transaction and a government is going to stand between you and say we want less of these transactions so we are going to put taxes on you. consumers on both sides always lose whenever there's more protection. there are voluntary choices people wanted to make for higher-quality lower-cost goods they are now prohibited from making because of a policy. that is register one of the equation. register two of the equation is what happens to the protected industry and to other domestic industries that need that industry as an input? i'm going to come back to that in just a second because the assumption most americans make is that well, consumers may lose but producers must win and so then we net out whether or not this is on that good. that's not true but i'm in a come back to the question about the equation around producers and steel. the third register in the equation is retaliatory stop. when we decide to put protective tariffs in place, we can be sure because it's

always what has happened there will be retaliatory tariffs against the u.s. when we put tariffs on washing machines and solar panels, what did china target? i've had farmers come talk to me about what has happened to their market. tariffs are in evitable and we always lose and not register three. the only thing that's disputable is what happens in register too. let's talk about the steel industry. how many steelworkers do you think there are? take a guess in your head. how many people do you think work in production still in the united states? 140,000. how many people do you think work in industries that use steel as a primary input for their factory job? five and half million. the steel tariffs we are talking about in washington d.c. will kill jobs in america

in steel. so, consumers always lose with protectionism. there retaliated against industries that always lose with protectionism and even the lie that they will save steel jobs, it's not true. you will cost steel jobs with these tariffs. the only question is how many. two studies have been done so far and they both showed job loss. thomas had a piece out last week in their analysis says it will be 13 lost jobs for every job preserved in the steel industry. there is a bigger modeling that's been done that speculates there will be 33000 saved steel production jobs and 179,000 lost jobs so a net loss of 146,000. look back to the steel tariff at the end of george bush 431st

ministration, the administration knew by the 11th month they were losing jobs in the industry they were seeking to protect with their steel tariffs. second point is, indisputably trade is good for america overall and trade is good for workers, even in the industries we are seeking to protect. that doesn't change the fact that there are bad actors out there. china is doing bad things with a bunch of their oversupply in general in industries and in steel in particular. here's the good news. when the u.s. uses dispute resolution mechanisms that already exist, we almost always win. when we go to the wto, we win more than 90% of the time. steel tariffs against china's bad practices have led to a reduction on the order of two thirds, slightly more than that over the past 48 months

because we been targeting certain bad practices and it turns out when we are concerned about other chinese bad practices, the best way to move forward is with other people who believe in the rule of law and getting them to come together with us through organizations to try to defend antiterrorist behavior and attack nontariff barriers as well. but all of that would assume that we have enough shared literacy to understand what's happening in trade. here's one of the big problems we have. the term trade deficit sets off bells in people's mind that we are losing in some definable way because someone else is cheating. sometimes there is cheating and we should be vigorous and vicious in our response but we should be public and deliberate. we should make up a national security clause as a way to try to do something when there's specific bad action by china that we can resolve the mechanisms that already exist in the rule of law order. here's the problem with trade deficit. we have a picture in our mind of what trade deficit means

and if you go to mexico when you go into a retail still store, it is true that you are not going to find a whole bunch of products made of plastic and steel that have stamped made in the usa on the bottom. when you go into walmart 10 miles from here, you will find lots of plastic and steel products that have made in mexico stamped on the bottom. so, is the u.s. losing? are we losing as consumers or producers? we have to go one step deeper down the supply chain. it turns out if you go to the factory in mexico that is supplying a lot of the plastic and steel stuff sold in their retail stores in our walmarts, the big machines are probably made in the united states. what does that mean? it means there loaded up with service surplus. they have u.s. accounting in those machines. they have u.s. engineering and u.s. wiring and those machines. theyave u.s. product design in those machines. they have u.s. finance in those machines.

so the export of that machine carried with it a whole bunch of services and the dollars that we are spending to buy stuff to come off that assembly line in mexico are reinvested in the u.s. in terms of foreign direct investment that allows us to advance the next generation of those machines. the failure of washington to have a big discussion with the american people about what is actually happening in the economy has huge negative implications for our economics , for our civil society, and for our national security because ultimately the people need to be told the truth. the people deserve to be told and honest answer about where we are in economic history. people need not to be lied to sing were going to make it 1950 again because it's not true and is not going to help the specific workers in the disrupted industries and it sure won't help their kid to be told that the primary problem they face is that they are a victim of other people who are cheating them. that's not true.

but actually needed for the united states in our worker and our educational system, which needs to be radically upgraded is to prepare for the more nimble economy of the future which is inevitable. i was born in 1972. average duration was 26 years. average duration of the firm today is four years and change. where do we talk about that? the number one driver of uninsurance in america, health insurance is job change. the public has no idea. when you survey the american people, why do we have so much a wise uninsurance a much greater in 2010 then in 1990 because there's a radical increase in health insurance. the public thanks social economic status and health status. we don't have more sick people and we don't have more poor people. why do we have more uninsured people? because you tend to be uninsured for 4 - 6 months every time you change jobs and

once you're changing jobs every four years, it means you are uninsured one eighth of the time. that's not a small problem. that's a structural problem that means when you get breast cancer diagnosis and when you have the car accident there is a 12% chance you are going through a period of structural uninsurance that means you are the uninsurable population, you are the people of the pre-existing conditions five and ten years ago. we should talk honestly about that. we need to create a mobile economy where we would rethink the architecture of the industrial era job benefits from the 1960s. when i go back to the 1950s and 60s matter how how much anybody wanted to. the only thing the city has gotten done in the past half-century in terms of upgrading the social compact and the assumptions we make is defined benefit retirement plans. until 1986 we still had an assumption that everybody would have a defined benefit pension for the whole life from the one firm until

retirement experience, but that's not what people go through. when i was a college president we would look at survey data on what we know about the graduates of that year. what was the current expectation. the average college graduate in 2014 the last year i was a college president, the average graduate could assume they were going to change not just jobs but industries three times in the first decade postcollege. we need to radically rethink what it looks like to be a nimble worker for the 21st century and that starts by telling the truth about how fast ai and machine learning are going to disrupt this economy. the mckinsey study, i used to work at mckinsey global institute and they had a report come out in november of 2017 that i highly recommend, they spent about 18 months modeling 46 countries, 91% of global gdp and 800 job categories. 91%. their predictions based on

their modeling is that 55% of total economic task in the global economy will be disrupted inside 12 years based on already available ai. this is not to chess moves from some new technology that may be created in 2021 and be applied by 2029. this is based on ai that exist today, what share of global economic jobs are disrupted inside the next 12 years. that's not to say that 55% of jobs of operate. this is 55% of tasks which means when you bundle and unbundle, they speculate that 60% of today's jobs are more than 30% automated. that tends to set off bells in people's mind that make the assumption that no one will be up to have any stability in the job. that's not true, but you probably won't have any stability in a job if you don't plan to upscale as you go forward in your career. this is what atms did that surprised americans in the

1970s and 80s. my mom was a farm kid coming off the farm, didn't go to college, didn't know anybody who had gone to college and she became a bank teller soon after graduating from high school and this is in the late 1960s. the atm is created in 1967 in london and it's coming to the u.s. the assumption was that atms would upend all these teller jobs. you know what happened? a significant expansion in the number of tellers in america. why? because tellers to the whole bunch of different things and most of their time was spent on really low value tasks like recounting the money in the drawer and trying to match it with their book at the end of day and counting it over and over again and machines are much better than the set than people but tellers were almost a one 100% female job. loan officers were almost a one 100% male job. do you know what happened over the 20 years that the atm came to the u.s.? the average bank went from

needing 21 tellers to needing less than 13 and what that led to was a radical expansion in the number of branches and franchises that banks could afford to open and what happened was women climbing the career ladder and beginning to take over more and more of the task that had been loan officer jobs as they started to sell investment products and sign people up for credit cards and all sorts of different products that seem to be well beyond the historic role of a teller. it reoriented things that no planner could've ever predicted the ultimately in ways that led to the greater service of banks to lots of people across economy and more career opportunities. the mckinsey study suggests things like that will happen in our lifetime. all of this points us forward and i will move toward wrapping up toward this global security implications. we are in a geopolitical competition with china and we

should recognize our three global security challenges. we say russia, china, north korea, iran and a catchall category for jihad. when you look at the chinese strategy, the russian strategy, and the iranian strategy, ask yourself this. do our neighbors like them or not. why. why do china's neighbors, russia's neighbors and iran's neighbors not like them? this may seem a little too poetic, a little too romantic but because those nations don't believe in souls. we actually believe in universal human dignity. the american idea is premised on a certain set of assumptions about dignity and so we believe, particularly for the 320 million people

that were all called to serve and we believe it for seven and half billion people throughout the face of the globe. we believe they are created with inherent dignity and god gives him right by nature. government just exist to secure our rights. government isn't the author or source of our rights. no one in beijing or tehran thanks about their military invasion by talking first about the dignity of the neighbor. they talk about how they can so chaos among their near neighbors to create a buffer and a barrier against other people getting to them. they think if they are near neighbors are weak they are protected, their insulated could we believe exactly the opposite. we believe when our allies are strong, we are strong and when we are strong our allies are strong. we don't believe there's a zero-sum game between the u.s. and canada. we don't believe there's a zero-sum game between the u.s. and mexico. we actually believe that when

mexico was driving there's less chaos on our border. we believe when canada is driving the global shop floor that is north america means that bmw and mercedes start manufacturing cars destined for europe in south carolina and alabama. that's pretty extraordinary. if you go to germany today, one of the most common bmws on the road, the x series, doesn't have any manufacturing in europe. it's done exclusively in south carolina. that's amazing. why does the happened? because we have a north american shop that produces high-quality, low-cost stuff. when american public rhetoric starts and grades and declines to the place where someone can say a phrase like nafta has been bad, nafta has been good for mexico and americans here in the mind will then we must

of gotten taken, we must of negotiated some bad deal because of nafta's been good for mexico than we must have lost, that assumes that every deal is a zero-sum game. that's not true trade. trade is a win-win. there are deals in the world. in a real estate deal, if after the deal you find out that your counterparty got a really good deal, then you maybe didn't negotiate that well because if that deal went through in your counterparty got really good deal, you probably left some money on the table. you probably overpaid, but that's how trade works. trade is a really good picture of a commerce between peoples who believe in their dignity, who want the best for each other, and want the best for their own consumers and families and producers and therefore also and up thinking that military alliances between us are probably good for them and good for us. it's the best work against the chinese belt and road initiatives that you can imagine but right now we are doing none of that in the city as we deliberate what the next

century looks like. thanks for having me. [applause] >> they asked me too take one question i will defer to someone, we will go right here. you were opposed to the nomination here but where are things at this time? hasn't moved somewhere toward more free trade has always been there. how do you think gop borders will hear this message of tariffs and protectionism going forward? >> they wanted us to take one question to keep me on a short leash on time and you just asked a question that's worthy of about eight hours of response. i will say very briefly something about the folks that i am privileged to serve at home and then i will make a

slightly longer comment about if the republican party knows what it stands for. at the level of getting to represent 1.9 million nebraskans, we are the most export dependent state. capita in the union. we are the most productive land in human history. there is nobody better at feeding the world the nebraska farmers and ranchers and what we grow we can possibly eat at all. we need export markets to do well what we do great. ultimately, we want a world where comparative advantage works for us as consumers and families of moms and accept the store and producers we are better than anybody else in the world. the same way that your household shouldn't spend time doing something that would cost you a lot more to build than you could buy, no nation should want to be filled with people who spend a whole bunch of time producing something that's far more costly to produce than they could buy a broad and nebraskans get

that. where i'm from, apart from party, people understand trade is a really big deal. our politicians are a lot harder to understand what motivates these people. i am one of a single digit number people in the senate has never been a politician before, beings optical of politics is not an argument for a mushy middle, i'm the third most conservative voter in the senat senate. this is not an argument for mushy middle, but i'm really skeptical of both of these parties standing for very much right now. i think there was some survey data out last fall where when you do force choice on the american people, are you more republican or more democrat. you don't give them the choice to say none of the above. are you more republican or more democrat. about 46% of people interrupted to say none of the above. one is not a choice they still want to register their disapproval with these parties. i think it's about 29% democrats and 29% republican.

if you're my party that's scary because a 29% of democrat are much younger than the 25% but are when you look towards the future, but when you drill a layer deeper, why are you republican, why are you democrat, about two thirds of voters respond by telling you how much they hate the other party. all we are really doing is anti. i think the fair hypothesis to say america's 10% democrat, a present republican and 82% toss you all out. i get that sentiment. i think at trade, the public wants a big discussion. that's my belief. when you give them a binary choice, right now it's a lot easier to scapegoat trade than to talk in any detail about the complexities of what we are going through with automation and disruption in the economy. we need that bigger discussion so we can make rational decisions on policy about trade. inside my party and inside the 51 the public and senators i think overwhelmingly almost everyone is still free trade

but whether or not they have the courage of their convictions to say that in public is much less clear. thank you for having me. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> an afternoon. in continuation of this discussion on the north american free trade agreement and its implications, the

ambassador asked as we were walking up here, why did you schedule the senator first. it's going to be difficult to be able to top those remarks and the discussion that he engendered, but i think it does better informing, and i'm going to go out of order in terms of who is sitting up your and start with the ambassador in the interest of time, obviously everyone appear has had a very distinguished career in government and in service to our nation and so i'm not going to spend a lot of time on that, but in introducing ambassador with the first question, i would simply say, as my ambassador in mexico in the 1989 to 93 time. , i can tell you with nafta, one point oh in which we serve together, he was a five-time ambassador, deputy national security adviser, deputy

secretary of state and the first director of national intelligence where i went and had the privilege of serving with him again as his chief of staff in 2005. a distinguished career, probably because of that early start on nafta emma take us back 25 years ago to what led to why we had nafta in terms of mexico's commitment to it but also the united states and canada, what was the vision that has served us so well over the past 25 years? >> thank you david. good afternoon everybody. david refers to our service together in mexico as an absolute delight to work with you and to work with you in subsequent years as well and david did have quite a bit to do with the economic issues we are following at that time,

including the two-way negotiations. it's a long story, how do i make it brief, the u.s., i think if you have to start with 1985, mexico decides to join the gap, they take a decision that it's time to better integrate the mexican economy with the rest of the world and there and to do. of time where we were holding trade discussions with mexico on a sector by sector basis, appliances, bob loblaw. we got to the administration of carlos salinas and we sort of continued with that approach for a while, but then the presidents went to devils in january in 1990, the berlin wall had come down, the eastern european countries have liberated themselves from

the soviet union, and president salinas saw all these eastern europeans lobbying for investments and funds from different private-sector investors because they knew, going forward they would have to depend more and he concluded that mexico needed to do something more to compete for the world savings and the world's capital. he then proposed to president bush that we consider negotiating a north american, a free trade agreement. he expected it to be trilateral. eventually we went to buy lateral root. once we started down the road of pursuing the possibility of a nafta to asked to join in

that negotiation because i think he was concerned that the u.s. under the other circumstance of us having a bilateral, we would be in this cockpit where we are driving everything ourselves for that protestant nafta. i really do think it happened because on trade grounds, we realize sector by sector approach had exhausted and just how much more can you do that? you really had to move to the model where you identify the exceptions to your overall free trade policy rather than going sector by sector to decide the myriad sectors of our respective economies, what we would allow in or out.

that could take forever. you could still be negotiating sector by sector trade agreement. that's kind of how it started. the other, i want to introduce the personal and the political notion because i think it was important. the bush administration was primarily run by texans. he was a texan, jim baker was a texan, robert was a texan, they understood then, as they understand today the importance of trade with mexico. there was a political and geographic convergence there that made this possible. the rest is history. >> and the rest is indeed history, but i think there's volumes of division that the president took on as well and really, and challenging his own party at the time of looking at the north and making that commitment to go into an agreement with the

united state states. >> except that all of you know mexico know that everybody who works on economic policy in mexico in the past 30 or 40 years has gotten a phd from mit or chicago or you. i think the trade negotiators, quite a few of them are from chicago. i think that's true to the state. they were ahead of their people. they spend a lot of time selling the public on the fta. the so-called rate he would take one day a week, the different states of mexico, he would meet with ordinary people, i went with him on a couple of them and he was they're down and painstakingly explain why in fta would be in

their interest. they were not that easy to commence. there are a lot of people in mexico who were afraid of a free trade agreement including practically all the chambers of commerce that you can find in the country. so let me introduce ambassador wayne. anthony wayne, along distinguished career as an ambassador with having served in mexico from 2011 to 2015, he is a career ambassador as of 2010 in terms of your nominations and served us well as a nation in afghanistan and argentina as an ambassador and just along distinguished career. ambassador wayne, can you give us a sense of expanding what i think was senator staff fifth.about how nafta affected and continues to affect other elements of the relationship with mexico, but obviously

feel free to talk about canada, well outside the ambit of trade and finance. >> sure. those were outstanding remarks by the senator. he is exactly right on that point. when you start treating and investing and working with others, you start finding other common interest and you develop those. what we can see over the history of us-mexico relations is that this developed during the 1990s, 2000, the last decades, as you know there was large prices in 1995 and president clinton made a bold move to support mexico. that further solidified that cooperation, not just with the trade negotiators but in that case with finance and right after that, we started, we supported mexico joining the

club of largely developed and wealthier economies. we decided that in the bush administration, but, it took place in 96 as it takes a while to get in there. and then, still in the early 2000's, we had very good discussions among the financial and trade folk, but it was a little more distant. it was quite a bit more distant. our comments were here today, the former ambassador of mexico and i have talking about this and written a thesis that through the 2000's, we gradually expanded our cooperation inform policy areas, in other types of international work together and then, sort of the big jump forward was the creation of the initiative in 2008 and that was, under george bush and present called around and

what that did for the first time, not that there had been cooperation but this setup of a former program where we were just having law-enforcement people work to track down this criminal or that criminal, but we were actually working together to improve institutions and processes with the mexicans very much in the lead and those providing technical expertise and funding equipment. that has gone forward. there were a number of months when the new administration would say what we doing with united states, are we sure we want to do this. eventually they said yes, we do want to keep doing this because they thought it was of

great mutual value. what happened under this program is people often got to know each other. they built confidence with each other so now we have very intense dialogues and practical relationships across the border in dealing with migrants coming forward and dealing with drug gains and drug trafficking. it still has a ways to go in reaching the ultimate end, it's quite clear if you look at the facts, but, just the number of issues that we work on and is continued in the foreign-policy area and in international organizations in helping central america and looking up the whole host of areas that we would not have thought of cooperating about when i first came across mexico in the 70s and 80s, early in my career. so, it really has transformed

the way mexicans and americans have looked at each other and that's one of the things, very honestly that i am most worried about right now in this situation and you can see it in the polling results, the polls taken by pew and others in mexico show that from a favorable view of the united states, it shrunk down to a 30 some favorable view of the united states in mexico. when i talked to colleagues and friends, they say, our sons and daughters who grew up in the post- nafta era, who looked at the united states as a close partner, a place to learn, sometimes to live in other times to go steady and come back to mexico are now taking another look at the united states through these lenses and that i think is the really dangerous potential in

this current situation, we don't want to go back to that period of time where ambassador started off where we were characterized as distant neighbors. very well said. i can't emphasize enough the current opinion and the administration support on issues such as venezuela and the crisis that we are facing their as being part of that partnership that that reflects so it's not just the border issues. it's not just the immigration issues, it's not just the transnational crime organizational cooperation in terms of countering that. a chairman and cofounder of the financial integrity network, us colleague of mine at the white house and national security advisor for counterterrorism, i put in the category of being a national treasure and it comes to really the design and the previous decade of the illicit

finance identification as an instrument of national power. turning to you with the question of nafta in the context of international finance and a platform in which nafta has been a very useful means to an end of identifying in the transparent kind of way the issues related to illicit finance and challenges by mexico's own admission they face and that we cooperate on in our current relationship with mexico, talk to us a bit about that from your perch where you are today and your observations. >> thank you. thank you for this really kind words coming from you, it's the highest honor and thank you for the invitation to heritage for having me. i'm happy to carry the bags of

these gentlemen who have had distinguished careers. i'm happy to be a. your question is a real important one because if you take the lens back both historically and systemically, i think nafta is part of a broader story of the deepening of the relationships between the u.s. and mexico in a way that has drawn our systems much more closely together. i think to tony's point, my expense in the white house during the initiative was one in which we had built upon, very strong relationship sector by sector, institution by institution, military law enforcement, intel and the financial services sector and what you saw at that time was both a deepening of the relationships, and a sense of the strategic in some very important ways and i think there's a couple things that are worth talking about. first was the notion that the u.s. and mexico were part of a broader global environment in

which we had a stake not only in each other's success, but what was happening around us and with us and so, part of the success was the u.s. and mexico looking outward toward central america, toward latin america even beginning to talk about the challenge from china in a very interesting way. i think that began to reshape a bit of the conception of what nafta meant in terms of that relationship. secondly, it was nafta that drove this, but in recent years, a deepening of the sense of the systemic links between the u.s. and mexico, the natural links of commerce and trade and communities, border communities are well known to us but those between the financial community, those between the infrastructure

sector, the transport sector, the whole controversy around trucking, et cetera, but the very notion that we were part of systemic links that were critical and important to not only economic growth and security but also national security and in that ben was a recognition that between the u.s. treasury and the mexican treasury department, that there was a shared interest in both the security and integrity of the financial system where we face challenges from drug money laundering and challenges from organized crime groups, ms 13 is now much in the news, the ability of actors to move money easily to avoid sanctions, all the things that the u.s. cares about from a financial integrity perspective was now part of the dialogue with mexico. that has not been without challenge. we've all seen and then part of these discussions on the deep risking of banks and the challenge there. the u.s. institutions in treasury and authorities have demanded much more of mexican

institutions, but the reality has been that has forged a much deeper conversation around the systemic links of u.s. and mexico and where the shared value standard practices are. to the extent that it's actually forced and created some incredibly important innovation, the u.s. and mexico have had a strategic dialogue where the banking regulators, for example, have cooperated more closely than most other regulators between neighbors. often worried about the same banks or institutions together, you had financial intelligence units working very closely together. you've had vetted units and law-enforcement working closely together on networks of concern and we've just seen recent indictments at a san diego tied to us-mexico

related links in criminality u.s. and mexican authorities have worked very closely together. you've even had the discussion of how to deal with special interest aliens and counterterrorism and how that works. in all of its forms, the us-mexico relationship has been around the systemic links and ties and how the u.s. and mexico, through their authorities and even their private sector can work more closely together to strengthen their si systems and strengthen the ability to deal with financial integrity in a fundamental way. maybe just a final point, if you'll allow me, this is really important as we think about the geopolitical aspects of the challenge for china but also the future of regional economies because i think the reality is we are, like it or not, systemically tied to mexico, whether it's in the financial sector or the in the structure sector or because of community ties, my father comes from guadalajara so i'm part mexican, part cuban, full california, full american, but

the reality is, systemically, the ties will grow even more closely and when you listen to secretary nielsen from the department of homeland security, she is talking rightfully about the security of systems and the cascading threats that we have to be worried about and we have to begin to think about mexico as a key systemic partner when we think about things like supply chain security and cyber security and transport security. : :

i really spoke to me on the state department in the bureau western hemisphere affairs and with the u.s. trade representatives as well come a senior adviser to the white house as special envoy to the americas. if you look at perhaps as some have termed a come of the necessity to reopen it in nafta, what would be some of the object is then rolls 25 years later as to what we should be looking now by way of outcomes? >> wilbanks committed the comment as much as i was hoping you wouldn't come back so i can answer any question in the next decade. i'm glad to answer that question i'm glad to answer that indeed. let me give my thanks to

heritage and it's not just the two ambassadors who are national treasures for all four of the i shared the panel with "sesame street" as you may recall from your spec reviews have the song that was one of these things is not like the others and you had to choose which one was not like the others. clearly that is me on the panel, but nonetheless i am delighted to be with all of you to have this opportunity. the second thing i would say before i try to answer david's very important question is that senator's trend to come i completely agree. one of the things in my mind is for those of you who are looking at your ncaa brackets as many of you probably are, one bit of advice, don't ever, ever, ever overlook the mid-american conference. i had buffalo. so it is sent in for next year,

remember it is a conference to be reckoned with. nonetheless comment a very important mission. nafta was a creature of a previous time. it was almost 25 years ago. think about it in the context of everything. we heard from senator sasse about the changes they are in any of the things we take as routine today, phones, e-mail, social media and everything we do in our daily lives didn't even exist back then. but think about it in terms of the automobile you are driving in 1994 and convert to the automobile you are driving today or should i say the automobile that drives itself today. this is technological change that is rapid. it was completely unimaginable to those negotiated of apologies for all who negotiated, but you can't predict the future. nafta, however come as a document of the early 90s didn't capture these changes. we should be looking to update

and upgrade the arrangement and include all categories of beneficial economic exchange is simply didn't exist before and we should be including categories and economic exchange that did exist, but one included in the agreement for political agreement. energy was not included because it was too sensitive in mexico and it was something that was simply not timely to talk about. nowadays. mexico has gone through reform program, energy, dynamics globally have shifted. fundamentally the united states is now exporting energy as opposed to be an energy dependent on other countries. this is a shift in the global economy. we should be bringing energy into a new nafta. and why would we want to do that? one of the reasons that has been alluded to by the previous panelists, let me focus on this. the idea of locking in behavior, in other words, trying to

determine what is permissible in terms of north american economic exchange and what falls outside of that, so when there are reforms that are made, it makes it politically much less likely if not impossible to backtrack on those reforms. that is critical. that is not just an academic exercise. ambassador wang who mentioned the peso crisis of 1995. the peso would not have come out the same way had nafta not existed. the reason why as we've seen that in the 1980s in mexico went through a similar peso crisis and it in eight years, nine years to get them back to the crisis. after 1995, it took them nine months. why was that? nafta required certain behavior that mexico had to take to keep this market open, to keep the borders open and trade open with the united states and keep it as an economy to require certain behaviors of the political class

that they could not take that they might've wanted to take it did take later ron. before hand in the previous crisis. all of us have elections. canada, certainly the united states, mexico, and elections have consequences. mexico faces an election in july. we know how that will turn out. they have come to a conclusion in their best interest to lock in certain patterns of behavior for the long term, that is going to combine leaders of their respective countries to take certain steps. that is one of the things you should book out in negotiations. for example, does it make sense to put in place sunset clauses that would require a whole new negotiation every five years. probably not. not in that context. nor in the context of certainty and credibility for not just investors, but for the entire people of north america who are trying to plan the future

together and trying to figure out what the future looks like. the second point i would say along those lines is credibility. nafta was negotiated by a republican president passed under democratic presidents. it was passed on a bipartisan basis on a bicameral basis. that is about as solid as you can get in the context of the united states under supporting and underwriting anything. if now the united states is able to unilaterally say we were just joking, who has been going to come forward in any context, say to the united states yes we are going to take your word. so the whole basis of trust the three previous panelists have been talking about is not going to that. because it will be more challenging in my view to be able to come to the same place strategically to say this is that the united states will do when you can count on us. that is something we have to be very careful about.

the final thing i would suggest is where negotiations will come out that china has hardly been referenced and that is absolutely right to china existed in 1994, but certainly not the way it exists now in the global economy. and if the united states is looking forward in terms of the ability to compete globally with china, but also technology, whatever it is, you can do that in an isolated economy. you have to do it with your neighbors in terms of the supply chain itself, the u.s. content that is now in all of the mexican and canadian productions, 25% from canada, 40% for the united states. the equivalent u.s. content in chinese production is 4%. 10 times higher with mexico than with china. so if we are looking for partners to be able to build our own economic capacity, forget

about the strategic story minute. it is simply economics, the way to do that is get closer together with partners in an even deeper way, include more categories than previously existed in the agreement and find that in for the longer term. and then we've got a strategy that senator sasse is talking about in terms of needing to have something we can rely on going forward as we increasingly seek to compete effectively with china. there's a number of big issues hopefully for the negotiating agreement. >> let's continue to pull the camera back and open the aperture to the implications of a withdrawal from nafta. tony, talk to us more in terms of the credibility not only of the united states were that to happen in terms of other objectives in the western hemisphere and beyond, how do

china, russia, other countries respond and react to what they would do potentially as real opportunity to come into that particular space as well. >> well, they're a couple different angles and the one cheney single we know very well they have erred greatly expanded their trade and economic interaction with the rest of latin america. and others would certainly see a sign that the united states is pulling out of nafta as assigned to better develop relations with other countries. very happily, there is a more positive model that took place with the former tpp you have been coming together members who are many, including me were worried that they would not be able to continue the negotiation and that china would have a lot of space.

japan really started to show and demonstrate leadership working with australia and brought the other 11 together and just signed today the new agreement, which is the most up-to-date agreement, free trade agreement in the world and for the first time as an integrated internet related chapter and it really is a rules-based agreement that binds everybody, including the least developed countries like vietnam in the air and that sets the standards for them. a lot of those of course are the united states argued for and helped get in there before it left. so, at a minimum, it is these countries saying we don't want to be left out there by ourselves and we can do it working with others. you can have a multilateral rules-based agreement that works and is beneficial.

but the chinese as the senator said, as others have said, they have a long-term vision and they will work it out and they are good at having a long-term vision. they make mistakes along the way sometimes as their post-1949 history has shown as good mistakes, but right now they seem to be on an economic role. as the senator also said, it is not at all clear that we have a strategic plan and vision to take on that competition that is out there. but it's not just about competing with china. this is the global economy where things are going to be changing very rapidly. most observers agree the rapidity of that change will keep going and it is going to mean that all competitors just have to be smarter and better if they want to keep raising the standard of living effectively

as their countries and americana means. we need to do that in trade is a vital part of that. especially trade in their own hemisphere. already if you happen to look at one of these maps that shows who is the number one trading partner of countries in the world 10 years ago and who is the number one partner today, there is a big jump in china and a big reduction in where the u.s. was number one. that is a call to action for us that we should be linking with a bigger vision and working out from a basis which should be our production bases in north america. we can make this a north american century if we do it right but we can let it be somebody else's century if we fall back. >> senator sasse spoke of technology deemed a big destructor as opposed to trade.

how do you respond to those who would sit just that nafta is a big employment this locator? it is an employment loser for sectors of the economy in trying to sell the changes that nafta would project in terms of where we are within economy. >> first, let me say i agree with others who thought the senators were terrific. and also, you asked me a question about history before. one part i forgot to mention, which is actually a key piece of our ability to move from the sector base to a water base, trade negotiations and that was mexico resolved its debt issue.

the brady bonds and all of that stuff. north korea with their negotiator and rick brady was involved in citibank i think it was. and that was a bellwether event. and then someone mentioned the peso crisis. somebody who works on the issue in greece told me that if only the e.u. had responded as rapidly to greece's top one, bill clinton extended whatever that was called, some kind of a bridge loan of $50 million to mexico within weeks that when the crisis erupted and save the situation. if someone had done that for greece at the beginning, they could have spared their entire crisis. the question of job loss and technology, i haven't gone and done this lately, but you can probably demonstrate where nafta

has saved jobs in the united states by going to the point about 4% versus 40% or whatever. you can even find examples of somebody relocated to china and now are starting to come back to north america because competitive conditions here have improved. i think the answer is if you are not losing jobs and there were some instances with companies telling me by putting a plant in mexico we are saving a number of high-quality jobs in the united states. i wouldn't be surprised if that. and still prevails. i think even the broader argument is this north american platform. one other point in an area i

would be afraid of if we were not to renew or abandoned the nafta, which i personally frankly don't believe we will. if we were to do that, is in the energy sector. here we are. we are just becoming this major energy producer and i understand in the last round they agree to have an energy chapter in nafta. why create an opportunity for china and russia to penetrate the mexican energy market. you want to see the copybook, just look at what is happening in venezuela if you want to know what is going to happen in mexico long term. if we drop nafta and don't have good provisions on energy. >> i want to say amen to what

ambassador negroponte was just saying. i'm not an economist so i can't speak to data and obviously there is an issue of worker retraining and other things to deal with the technological exchanges. but the reality here is simply absent ourselves from nafta or a trade deal that binds the u.s. and mexico in north america and corridors as tony was talking about, which are the imagination and we shrink opportunity. the last example is the best because we are now at a point of being not only an energy exporter, but an energy giant in a way that has strategic impact that we haven't even fully conceived to. so if we shut off the aperture of the opportunity because of not only not having nafta in place, that creating anti-american antibodies in their system, which needs to be

recognized. i think senator sasse alluded to this. there is a human dimension to this and tony come you did as well. if we pull back, there is going to be a sense of resentment and a sense of retreat in no way that not only hurts the united states in terms in the realm of possible, but also what they are willing to do, what they are willing to sacrifice, where they are going to see mutual benefit or interest or even cost. that is exactly where the chinese and other actors are very willing to play, especially when they are perhaps playing by different rules, willing to play by different economic margins. all of the things we've seen china do in other environments. i worry about the ripple effect of both the psychological and the element of economic imagination that is lost if we

retreat. because then we are left with picking up the pieces as opposed to thinking forward and aggressively as possible. back then also has regional impact. david, you and tony were talking about this a bit. i do wonder what this does for a broader u.s. policy in how other partners around the world and in particular region view u.s. staging power, the attractiveness of u.s. capital investment or they will still be interested of course, but it will have a different tinge to it. i worry about the psychological, political and economic impact of that, which i don't think anyone can project yet and there's probably no numbers, but at the end of the day that is harmful to the u.s. overall. not helpful. >> just one fact to it that is useful to remember especially because it came out of the heritage study in 1993 i think it was.

the estimate was 700,000 u.s. jobs tied to trade with mexico. so the estimate in the 2015 numbers was for .9 million. so it is hard for me, it makes it very hard to argue a net loss of jobs. there is a loss of jobs and it's not the same people that got new jobs. that's the problem. that's what the senator was talking about and that's what we all need to talk about. but there is no question we've created jobs importantly in the united states out of our growing trade with mexico. there is another study that was just done looking at the border states and it argues that we take the next step forward in border integration will create 900,000 to 127 million new jobs

just in the border states of the united states. not counting the mexico side. so there is no question that a new modern nafta with more efficiency at the border, more con activity can create a lot more jobs and can make us more productive compared to others in the world. >> eric, and a little bit of time you have left, can you talk about what canada's demands are and where might it come off the rails in the canadian standpoint in terms of dispute resolution commentary, those are a couple of the areas where there's been some conflict, that there may be other areas in terms of canada. >> those are two of the most important areas. the interesting thing about this is the start new issues. these are issues we have to deal with for the first time.

this gives our negotiating partners another button and to expand in some cases the demands, that they are real and it's interesting in washington oftentimes we think we are the only ones, we in the united states are the only ones with interesting demands and we have to remember negotiation partners have there as well and they are equally politically sensitive in those economies and equally calming to elections of democracy and results along those lines as well. the interesting thing about canada it does not have a single electoral calendar as we do, elementary system. they are not on the mexican calendar. so they have the ability to wait this one out a little bit longer with prime minister trudeau said as much. he said love, we want a nafta, but that's what we're going to hold out for in the canadian context that is in some ways

arguing for the same things that are so controversial in the past and have to be part of the negotiation. after chapter 19 of his demand in canada and it was jim baker who ultimately had to make a call and say we are going to do this, the candidate was willing to say we are not going to do it based on the chapter nine dispute resolution. so that is something that remains a very important part of the dialogue today. so in some cases it is one of these things. the final thing, i know time is short, but there was a letter just released yesterday by 10 former commanders of the united states northern command, which is canada and mexico as well as the continental united states. former commanders of the southern command talk specifically about those issues, the issues of nafta from an economic perspective, but more

importantly for the broader strategic perspective. it is really an important statement and i think it and captures some of these issues that i think really call to attention the fact that nafta is economic agreement yes, but more importantly a strategic agreement and on that basis i would say the united states really needs to keep pushing forward to see if we cannot come to some sort of closure. >> rapid round with the four of you. two months from now, where will we be on nafta? >> i am an optimist, but i'm not quite sure. i have to think the emphasis on national economic security that is now the national security strategy for the first time in a heavy way, the heavy focus on china as a competitor and challenger in the economic space. the need for the u.s. not to

accept too many apple carts with too many allies and we've seen this in the tariff debate i think lends at least in my son lends itself to suggesting we are going to see positive progress and not a ditching of nafta. i don't know if we get a deal before the relative elections, but i am more up to mistake given both the dynamics internally, but more importantly the external dynamics which are going to be more and more important. in that regard, what is the every indeo? the questions about what happens impacts whether or not the u.s. is viewed as simply as a bowling china shop and whether they can demonstrate you can capture a win with key allies on canada and mexico. >> i agree that it's very important to look at the broader geostrategic playing board and that will impact this negotiation of where we are.

i think we are either going to make good progress and so we will take a pause as the elections take place and maybe go ahead and look forward to re-engaging or nafta will be dragging in the uncertain state until the mexican elections in the new president comes in and we have to take it up. either very late this year or next year. i hope it is former. i think that would be much better for all three countries and the united states. but i have not yet sure which of those two it is going to be. >> i think you will go through, whether it happens now or later i don't know. but it is in the mutual interest of all three countries. i think we have enough interest, affect that interest who have spoken up so that it must've registered in the white house. in fact i'm sure it has.

in addition to watching whatever happens to the array and build, i would watch what we do with china and if we take some tough measures that might take some of the pressure off. >> i honestly have no crystal ball either although one positive thing i would note is in the recent steel tariff, canada and mexico were exempted, so that's probably a good sign and i'm also optimistic in the sense that people do recognize the importance of nafta and will continue to bring this to a conclusion. whether that will be done in the next two months i can't say. the final thing i would say however is generally to this point and for obvious reasons because it's in the conversation among the three executive branches, but it is apparent the u.s. congress and senate are becoming increasingly active as well and making very clear to the white house at least what provisions they would accept.

don't forget once this is negotiated it has to be brought to the u.s. congress and if they can't pass the congress it doesn't matter. this is something that has to be brought into account and from a positive day, my sense is that congress is increasingly part of the conversation, which is should be companies to be and will continue to push forward to a positive conclusion. >> i would add to the congress a number of governors affected as well have not join the conversation. my call is nafta will continue strategic cause in the next two months and we will be lucky nodded in terms of closure. thank you, panelists. thank you heritage for hosting us and go free trade. thank you. [laughter] [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> congress returns today in sometime this week the house and senate will pick up an omnibus spending measure that will need to pass both chambers before friday's midnight deadline to avoid a government shutdown. in the house wednesday, a right to try a bill that would allow patients to try drugs that haven't been fully cleared by the fda. this week a bill that would exempt institutions from financial stress test. the senate resumes work on a bill that would make websites more accountable for online sex trafficking. also commonly omnibus bill is passed to keep the government funded through september. watch the house live on c-span. see it live here on c-span2.

>> in 1948, decades before anything like the world we know has come to past, claude shannon said down and write the paper where he essentially shows that all types of information are the same and that information can be turned into a pandemic can be encoded, comprised and send flawlessly so we can take a message from point a and have it be received at point b. all of those principles seem natural to us. of course that's the way it works. things will happen. someone had the intellectual architecture for all of that and that is the field of information theory and in a very real sense claude shannon invents.

>> we are live a senior government officials and north korean specialists are expected to talk about the pending u.s. north korean talks. president trump announced he intends to hold face-to-face meetings with north korean leader kim jong un by the end of may. the center for american progress is hosting the event this afternoon and should get underway shortly here.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]