perhaps i will put a little .cing on the cake but not a major speech. fact to grow up with the that my father was a convicted criminal. kicked it -- convicted in the united states of america, which is the biggest and the strongest country in the world. of its exceptionalism in areas of democracy and , and it was very difficult for me as a young man to reconcile with i knew about and what iersonally

learned from my mother who was his right-hand man so to speak, to reconcile that with a criminal conviction. but it was clear that he gave his whole life and sacrificed his family for african people worldwide. as he said then, 400 million african people. now we would say, 1.2 billion african people. -- largest -- third-largest number of people in the world. india andna, behind that of course us africans. from a geopolitical perspective, africa is the richest continent in the world. numbers, sooned are

our human resources are also of great significance. but what has kept us back? it has been primarily european invasion and exploitation. i don't have to enumerate the to you, because it is very well known. continuesis that it , of thethe guys quality, of integration, despite the guise of the first black , despite the guise of a post-racial society. i think we can draw a straight line over 100 years when my father came to this country in 1916 to now 2016. young black man is still being shot in the street in this

largestial era, in the and most powerful democracy in the world. i think there is a lesson here to be learned. need -- i think president clinton have a racial solve almostry to between the racist. that was just talk and talk and nothing really materialized. i think what the black lives matter movement is showing us is that the young black children are tired. they are tired of races. -- racism.

they are tired of poor education and lack of skills. they are tired of living and a themty that marginalizes and restricts the opportunities to be a full human being. it was at marcus garvey came to america. so what lesson are we going to learn from that 100 years after marcus garvey, after his philosophy and the organizational skills to bring us together as a people? you know what my father said? the knowledge of their origins, culture and history is like a two -- tree without roots. that's one of our problems. own origin andur culture. we have been disconnected.

into a slave in the process continued in terms of , and itducation continues for young men in the streets don't know their history . they don't know where they come from. they don't even connect with martin advocating and brother malcolm. everyone stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before. president be no black if it was not from civil rights movement. and dr.ot from malcolm martin luther king. names.e without the civil rights movement started with marcus garvey.

a man met my father in england and who proclaimed himself --. he talked about the negro -- rising in kenya. people stood around and listen -- they memorize the articles and then ran off into the villages. to repeat the stories. had rise to -- they rise the kenyan nation. but there was no kenyan nation created by the father, the burning spear. there could have been no kenyan national who camp to the united

states to study. do you hear where i'm coming from? we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before. this is a teaching moment. there is a lot on his plate. it's a moment when decisions have to be made. directions have to be change. reevaluated.to be not just words. it demands action. that is why we are here today. that's why we think it is the right time to join the dots between 1916 and 2016. the system has not changed in order to give the black boy and the black girl their place in american society. we think that the time is now. garvey, mye marcus

presidential post you must pardon -- poster miss pardon. thank you. just before i open it up for questions and answers i would like to thank all the analysts for your presentations. if you have questions for the

love from us will you can direct it at them. we want to thank ambassador [indiscernible] president and ceo of the constituents for african and dr. julius garvey, representative of the family of -- dissenters -- to center descendents of the family of the honorable marcus garvey. with that i would like to open it up for questions and answers. i'm not sure free of a light that goes around -- a mic that goes around. please introduce yourself. simmons.e is barbara

i just want to know what are the next step and what is the strategic plan and what do we need to do next? >> would like to address that? thanks for your support all the way from liberia. we have already submitted our brief to the united states department of justice and to the white house counsel's office. legally there are no more steps for us to take. it is now and the presidents hand. what we are looking for from supporters is to begin a letter writing campaign, which we can give you more information about how to reach us and to express your sub or whether it is from the nation of liberia or from community organizations in your

capacity so that we can let the that we areow that desperately in support for measures to be taken. there are no more steps in the process that need to be taken besides community support and outreach. >> thank you. do you have any briefer marks you like to make? thank you very much. i was trying to hide out back here. didn't work. saidan honor, sir, as i when you came up to me. there are thousands and house and some people who you will never meet who have been touched by your dad and now feel a sense of kinship to you and to this movement. i don't know that i have much to say. deliberately be

redundant. i grew up in this country. in a segregated society. liken't know what it was to see what i see today, this was before the brown decision. i will be 68 years old and a couple of months so like you i don't have birthdays either. ambassadorship us contacted me and was trying to give me a sense of how this would unfold. i just knew i needed to be here. the people who have spoken have done and fun job in underscoring the illegality of what has taken place. we know that j edgar hoover was a monster. there is no other way to put it. these trumped up charges against dr. garvey and others represent a long line of pattern of

judge,ate behavior to disrupt, and take away the credit of individuals who at different point in our nation's history, particularly in the 1900s tried to bring about a sense of liberty, dignity and pride for people of african ancestry. 1987, part of a hearing we had as a member of congress to try to bring attention to this. i want to commemorate dr. garvey's birthday with all of you by pledging that all of us who are here now who have the facts, where the links and are commit -- connected to communities will do everything we can to get this done. a good point was made, legally there is not much more that can be done. this is a battle that moves to the court of public opinion, getting people in the streets whether this a black lives

movement, members of both political parties, social clubs and fraternal organizations and professional organizations to get on board in a massive way so that we are able to call attention in the court of public opinion to a case that needs to be resolved. we were all taught as children that there is a time in a place for all things. this is the time, the place and the season for this exoneration to occur. i am glad to be a part of it. thank you. [applause] greetings. well. my cup overfloweth. i wanted to thank everybody for coming out. this panel was a dream team.

with the support of everyone i think we can get it done this time. marcus garvey capi here but if president obama can pardon a turkey, you shouldn't have a problem with this. in the same light, we can show some justice, delayed may it be -- for the honorable marcus garvey. what you are doing is an extension of his initial petition for a pardon. point that if a he were to die before he was cleared that his family would continue to fight until it was done. atm glad to see dr. julius

his mature age is still fighting. this man has been fighting for decades. we should give him a round of applause for fighting as long as he has and will continue to fight. i want to thank you all. has anyone contacted or think we could get the support of eric holder? what is your opinion may be of galvanizing support from him. you thought the naacp might be willing to support the cause? i wonder if they would in this day and age come out and support in your opinion. >> thank you. we like to respond.

>> in the court of public i don't see why the naacp will not support this. i am a member of the national press club but i am also on the d.c. house committee for the national museum of african american history and culture. i just came from their meeting today and when you are talking -- i thought -- i grew up with this too. was a garvey was saying great savior.

martin luther king was going to be here. amazing. and of course malcolm x. us, the great -- this museum hopefully is going to have an impact for all of us to learn more about the .frican-american history it is coming up very soon. i don't know where you will live . -- live. the work i'm doing is with the embassy. we have more embassies here than anywhere in the world. the history of the embassies and connection to african-american history, one of them -- people can put this on their calendar, at howard university the new ambassador of trinidad and tobago will be hosting a big concert on the 24th, which happens to be the same day as the official opening of the new

museum. all will have watch parties over the united states and here locally. for those of us at her here, i want to extend an invitation to this concert if any of you are interested you can seem afterwards. i don't know if there is something that is being done with marcus garvey at the museum , if there is history or memorabilia or maybe -- >> i have none. he needs to be listened somehow. i just bring that out because it's so timely that you are all here today and are talking about this -- the last miss only in museum that is coming on board that has taken forever to bring together on an american -- african-american history.

there seems to be some convergence there in terms of what you are doing. i am going to stick around if anyone wants to use the to that. >> thank you very much. i would like to acknowledge a lecturer dr. ryan frazier who teaches philosophy and marcus garvey to young people. >> thank you. fork you dr. garvey spearheading this and thank you just think, for your important work and going through legal channels. as dr. harvey mentioned, we stand on the shoulders of what marcus garvey started. this whole notion of a black president or black leader signaling progress comes from the energy of marcus garvey. i applaud this effort as much as i have doubts about obama heating it. will do it fori

that strong reason and also because i study in the --, as wroteow, and tony martin definitive works on her and her important influence in making onlynia that required not male but female presidents. my basic question is regarding the obama administration did reply to this question and they said that time had expired. can justin respond to this. how do we and light of knowing administration a few years earlier so the time has expired. so that legal argument comes up how we respond? ourhe good news is that time has not expired.

in 2011 is that another attorney who was unconnected to the family submitted a number of letters i got a response from life former pardon attorney saying that there was no opportunity for a posthumous pardon at that time. that former attorney has been fired and he is no longer in office. that application did not come from the family. the pardon is not illegal. that was incorrect, the information that she received. theident obama still has discretion to issue the pardon. the past two presidents have issued us to miss pardons. they have always issued posthumous pardons. they usually come towards the end of the president's term after the final election. an actuality as opposed to time being expired we are right on

time, because this is usually the time when the pardons take place. >> a question over here? maul -- jamal.oe i will be remiss if i failed to state that i am originally from milwaukee wear when i was a -- one of the story i wrote this was research into the rest -- residents of malcolm x. it is located in a place where the highway was cleared and they demolished the community to make way for the highway. milwaukee is in the national news. is there a #associated with this effort? other question and maybe there might be some suggestions.

to getre been an effort the president on the record while the cameras are rolling? >> justice for garvey. justice 4 garvey. >> i am stunned by the lack of knowledge across the spectrum. that it isy think not impossible. i think the challenge is how do , who is on ourselves

the advisory committee to make this happen. most ofthe problem is the people who have taken up the challenge are intellectuals, who write the great stuff. it's not the people who get organized. i think it's an organizing? than anything else. >> will take two more questions. reporter with the african-american newspaper. other benefits to being exonerated besides clearing the record? father would think about the state of black relations in the u.s. now? byi sort of alluded to that drawing a straight line between 1916 and 2016. i think the extra benefit is to legitimize the person and the

ideology. it's sort of like coming out of the closet. you don't have to whisper. there's a difference. i think a lot of people, because so manytigma from people come up to me and say my father or my uncle was in the organization. i used to go to meetings and so on. then i'm stumped. it's kind of a whisper thing. it's not quite proper within american society. even and caribbean society it is not necessarily robert aaron there is still something so verse is about the idea. that has to be listed. we will now be going on a campaign to spread the word again 100 years later. what he meant and so on.

#etc. etc..e the this is a grassroots movement. , differentanizations social groups, individuals to stand up. and stand up for our rights as african people. we are going to be going very, very public about this and asking for support from all africans, wherever. >> along with the #in the statement and the coin phrases and the logos and slogans is that we get the facts after that passion doesn't distort the story. because that's what happens. i live with it. let's be really clear about what

that paragraph is and where do we go for those bullet points and paragraphs. how do we state and research who garvey is. you can have a #and the t-shirt and the saying and then what? we need to be really clear about the language. who is dr. garvey, where -- why is there validity and importance, who we are now and sore for -- and so forth and so on. >> i would just like to briefly add i think that is an important point to ask what would garvey think? to me what would other black leaders in 1920's ask of the small -- of this moment. poets, the visionaries, the sculptors. theart of this movement artists be creative and -- quick

creative utterly. everybody has the same tools in the backpack. that's a statement about a moment of violence in black communities and so-called race wars. in reality it is similar to the moment. artistst perspective have an amazing way of captivating our key -- ideas. thetimes it can help tell nicer the movement. they should be a part of this does >> -- discussion as well. -- it's our normal questions from media this will be our final question. >> good afternoon. this has been an awesome experience and we all walk away

from this experience and be really pumped up and excited. , where canhe website begin additional information so that we can continue so that we can continue to pass this forward and then she said have our factswe and our facts are correct. website, i would really like to have it. if not, maybe there's a way that we can stay connected. thank you. >> and we have the media again to respond to that. it was the 27th of june when it white r given to the

house counsel's office. is that correct? >> okay. yeah, we have copies that are available. copies ofo e-mail you the petition and any other information that you are giving. d in >> i'd also like to acknowledge those who worked very much with the committee to bring this about, founder of the caribbean american heritage month. response to your question can people do, i'm going to take the liberty of to be a is is going small strategy session this thernoon at 4:00 o'clock at howard university international center. 3:00 o'clock. :00 o'clock at the ralph bunch

center. ategize thank you so much for coming to this press announcing the historic filing f the petition for the exoneration through pardon of garvey.rable marcus place at the ght right time. we need to correct this historical wrong. thank you very much. we're going close to take a photograph of the panel here. and mr. congressman, could you picture?for this >> okay. >> if you'll just stand right here. we'll do it right here. we're

if you missed this briefing at the national press club about presidential r a pardon for the late activist garvey, this will be on c-span.org and in ll be able to quack it its entirety. urban institute hosts housing finance discussion with industry experts and here on c-span at 6:00 eastern time today. concerning ry today the fbi investigation of hillary the story -mails and the republican chairman of the senate judiciary committee is fbi to release confidential notes about its

hillary clinton investigation campaign is linton calling for their full release. he fbi should make as much of the material available as possible, senator grassly, grassly, said in a statement adding the fbi has ade public statements in describing its handling of the case so sharing documents in occasions those wherever appropriate would make sense. clinton's campaign said in a statement we believe that if are going to be shared outside the justice department, they should be released widely so is that the can see them for themselves rather than allow republicans to mischaracterize through selective partisan leaks. gain, that from role call today. we've been following members of congress on their -- roll call today. been following members of congress on their summer break. house andly today the senate dealing with the natural their home states. wild fires in california and

flooding in louisiana. tweets from members in districts either in or 23450er areas, this one from paul cook, a republican who california's eighth congressional district earlier today he tweeted the blue cutted fire has forced the closure of i15 in both directions for the provides a link to an incident update website. i-15 is the main highway going northeast out of l.a. area toward laugh. another tweet from norma torrez, my thoughts and prayers are with those affected by the fire.cut please evacuate to keep everyone safe. a tweet from judy chu, 18,000 acre blue cut fire is forcing evacuations in our

area. keep your family safe by staying informed. bernardino national forest for information. now in the fire neighborhood of 30,000 acres diane d and senator feinstein of california re-tweeted a tweet cal fire with a piece of firefighters on line. that re-tweet, cal fire, the blue rs fighting cut fire northeast of the l.a. area. map put out by

fire.ca.gov. the lighter side of the congressional break, here's from charles bertram of herald leader of lexington, kentucky tweeting a rand paul nator taking batting practice with the lexington legends baseball team. posted video of the senator during batting practice. take a look. >> you're here with the legends. big baseball fan? when i was a kid, i always wanted to play professional baseball but my only route to field is through politics. but it's great being here. kids up like a lot of across america loving playing baseball. played every summer until i was 18. my brother played in college. my nephew played in college. be out here. we still play a charity game in washington. democrats. play and for the first year in six

republicans won this year. ♪ >> we'll continue to follow congress. they're on their break until tuesday, september 6th and comes back on that date to deal with a number of things remaining federal spending bills for fiscal year 2017. zika prevention and research. defense policy. a possible impeachment proceeding against the irs commissioner. back on tuesday, september 6th. c-span.e live here on >> tonight at 8:00 o'clock

eastern time, a portion of the tech crunch disrupt new york this past may. gathering ence is a of app developers and activists talking aboutntry the latest developments in the d of information technology. of one of the w participants, a cofounder of the daily newsletter the skim that about subscribers upcoming events. >> i don't know about you and i'm sure many would agree that live on our calendars. i have no idea where i'm going unless it tells me. but true fact. and so for us we have to get into that routine. ahead and theskim concept around it is inspired by ur friends who are the same ones that are super smart and literally jobs, they told us it's great that you tell me state of the union is on

already have plans tonight and i know you're going to recap it tomorrow but i would home for d to stay that. it's great that you reference house of cards monday but i didn't know it came back this have wanted would to watch all weekend. leverage ly wanted to that void that we could fill. he daily skim e-mail that 3.5 million people read makes it easier to be smarter about everything that happened everything you should talk about today. skim ahead is let's be smarter the future. tech crunch k at disrupt conference. it's at 8:00 eastern time here on c-span. c-span's issue spotlight. a look at timely subjects from the programs video archive. this program focuses on trade on the heir impact economy, and the views of law makers.

include the north american free trade agreement or nafta, the word trade organization, and the trans-pacific partnership or tpp. look at hows now to trade is being discussed by the campaign n rail is man casella, trade politico pro. the trans-pacific partnership february. in in broader terms what is it and its status. >> it's the largest regional history.al in the vers 12 nations from u.s. across the asia-pacific nation. of president t obama's pivot to asia. a lot of obstacles though before it can get signed. tpp different from

deals, nafta, for example? >> it's just much different. administration is aiming to set the rules before china or another nation does. china as our largest trading partner is not involved in this so the administration is aiming to make it a way for the u.s. to stand out. it's different because it also includes services. boost trade and investment while raising labor standards.nmental those two things are also touted benefits of the agreement. >> you mentioned the president signed the deal but of course congress to for act. the president would like to see congress ratify this treaty leaves office. how likely or unlikely is that to happen? at t's still hard to stay this point. it's becoming -- it's looking increasingly unlikely that, that

will happen. mainly because of the fact that the deadline is approaching. the election is coming in november. inauguration day is january. it still looks like the administration doesn't have the on its mber of votes side. supporters still say they have of time to get it done. there still are supporters. but labor groups, for example, that are against it say there's no way that this can happen. and a toss up at this point it will be interesting to see cast w makers ultimately their votes. >> let's talk about the major party presidential nominees for and what they're saying about tpp. ou have hillary clinton who initially was a supporter and has supported past trade deals. you also have then donald trump who has some products made in china. is against this deal and other trade deals. ow do you explain the opposition of both hillary clinton and donald trump?

this's interesting to hear issue tossed around the campaign trail and to see both major so against it.s you know, i think hillary to pulled to the y bernie sanders in his campaign and now says she thinks that this deal would hurt families.working she's against it. to say if t's hard bernie sanders had not been in whether or not she would have come out on this differently. hand, trump on the other you know, he has many products made in china. does businesses, he outsource and use foreign labor. many practices he's slamming on the campaign trail. it's part of trying to present himself as advocating for the merican worker and for the everyday man and by saying that he doesn't like this deal overseas, sends jobs

he's trying to appeal to that electorate. > in congress you have republicans and democrats both both sides oft on the aisle. how do you account for that? trade is an ly, interesting issue. a lot of that is because law for their districts rather than for the politics behind them. so you have different areas of feel differently and if they elect a republican, they may be for trade. if it's a pro trade area that elects a democrat, that democrat may be for trade. you're looking at bust belt states like pennsylvania are hi haveade deals and then you states like washington and oregon that really depend on exports and trades. it's not the partisan politics but more the geographic the states.f cassella, thank you for

being here. >> thank you, bob, appreciate it now a look at what the two presidential candidates are on the campaign trail about trade deals and the tpp specifically. pittsburgh and the state of pennsylvania have lost one-third of their the acturing jobs since wto.tons put china into the 50,000 factories across america doors in that time. his factory, because of your great owners, dave and gloria, it's hanging in. hanging in. me it's not told easy. of our entire manufacturing trade deficit in is a resulthe world and it's the result of trade china. it was also hillary clinton as secretary of state who shoved us

job-killing deal with south korea. economic d by the policy institute in may, this deal doubled our trade deficit south korea and destroyed jobs. 100,000 american as bernie sanders said, hillary for virtually every trade agreement that has this countryers of millions, millions of jobs. [applause] >> trade reform and the negotiation of great trade deals the quickest way to bring our to our country. a new creates international commission that akes decisions the american people are no longer given the

right to veto. these commissions are great for hillary's wall street funders amounts of d vast money to influence the people on he commissions and the outcomes. it should be no surprise then that hillary clinton, according bloomburg, took a leading part in drafting the partnership.c please remember that. november. in applause] or pushed the tpp on 45 separate occasions and called it the gold standard. hillary clinton was totally for just a short while ago ut when she saw my stance, which is totally against, she was shamed into saying she would against it too.

[applause] taxpayer mpanies take dollars with one hand and give out pink slips with the other of jobs hundreds overseas, we're going to make them pay back those tax benefits. going to take that money and reinvest it in workers and we're going to slap an exit tax on companies hat move their headquarters overseas to avoid paying their taxes.hare of [applause] >> and we will defend american obs and american workers by saying no to bad trade deals like the trans-pacific unfair trade d practices like when china dumps steel in our markets or uses weak rules of origin to makers. our car i'm going to appoint a trade will report to the president so we are going to

our market, our people., our >> our issues spotlight program continues with a look at the american free trade agreement or nafta. signed into law in late 1993. the purpose of the deal was to ease trade barriers between the canada, and mexico. several weeks before congress approved the deal, president held an event in the white house east room with henry ers including kissinger and jimmy carter. [applause] >> when paul samuelson pointed ut that he had learned about me, r politics from president clinton leaned over to me and said at least he's got the right order.

[laughter] applause] [laughter] like to talk about implications licy of nafta. about once in a generation, this country has an opportunity in something icy to do defining. something that establishes the decades to come. established, people happen ow it can ever otherwise. the hen one goes through debate, one is conscious of all the technical objections that

are raised. at the end of world war ii, the nited states committed itself through the marshall plan and nato to opposing communist aggression. uniting the free peoples f the world and especially of the north atlantic area. and bitter intense debate within this country. that was tructure uilt then saw us through 40 years of tension and creation with a victory of the collapse of communi communism. we live in a world in which idealologial -- eyed logical

-- nafta is the in that crucial step direction. world, we see orces of nationalism, protectionism, and ethnic conflict. when y teaches us that there are periods of elements are two needed. justice and e of of military conflict means d by a variety of in. the western hemisphere, we're very fortunate in having both of these conditions. democratic governments have been accomplished in every country

exception of cuba. have become ics accepted. nd the military rivalries that characterize other areas do not here. western hemisphere. step in that irst direction. all of us who in government had to deal with mexico are attitude the change in hat has taken place in that country. from suspicion of their neighbor cooperation. rom protectionism to free

markets. and this in a country which will population of 100 million and for whom this change asif nafta fails, the relationp with mexico will be damaged for the foreseeable future. but even more than that, the opportunity for the united states to play its historic role at standing for freedom and developing of mankind, by setting a pattern of new international structures, will have been dissipated. so this is one of the crucial in the post-cold war period. there's nothing more important

than the field of foreign policy that the congress is going to do in the rest of this decade. so, two precedents. both of our parties have seen this vision and have committed themselves to this task. every great construction with somebody street -- was somebody somebody -- somebody's dream before it became a reality. who have a duty to respond to that is of the world not driven by ideological conflict. that is animated by the purposest to common

that free people's freely negotiated. there is a spanish proverb that says traveler, there are no roads. roots are made by walking. road instarted on the the western hemisphere to create thatmunity of free nations can respond to the needs of our period. they can react if there is protectionism in the world by having the largest trading block. contribute to demonstrating the world eliminates athat great deal of the national conflicts that we now see. so that is the issue that we

all makei hope we can that road by working together. thank you. [applause] >> mr. president. vice president gore. president carter. distinguished guests. mr. president all this talk about our politics really requires that i note that is rather ironic for me i supposed to be here in the white house on this first tuesday in november. [laughter] [applause] really -- and i apologize for my voice but i am really pleased to be part of a group that does spam the american political spectrum. and i'm pleased particularly to

have this opportunity to express my unreserved support for nafta. this room of course it is full of history. it symbolizes the power of the american presidency. for over 12 years under presidents ford, reagan and bush i have seen historic decisions made here at the white house. decisions that were fraught with consequence and decisions that were of the greatest importance. one of the most important of these decisions was to negotiate the north american free trade agreement. all of us here today know that nafta is very much in america's vital national interest. and i think that when national interest are at stake there can no consideration of political difference. all questions of party should stop at the water's edge and with the vote on nafta only two weeks away we have reached that sure. i am here to pledge to continue

to work with you and your team to see that this agreement has passed. i think the fears of working men and women in this country are very understandable. irresponsibility of those who exploit those fears is absolutely inexcusable. our task as i see it is to persuade americans that they have nothing to fear from nafta. working together on a bipartisan basis we must expose the fact fudging, the fear mongering, the profits of protectionism who are playing on the doubts of the american people. mr. president i support nafta because it's going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. jobspaying jobs rewarding american jobs. i support nafta because it's going to help a clean environment and stem the rising tide of illegal immigration

along our nation's southern border. i support nafta because it's going to promote free enterprise and democratic government in mexico and it's going to cast a real vote of confidence for reform throughout latin america. most of all i support nafta because i think it is a critical test of america's commitment to engagement in the post cold war era. as a former secretary of treasury -- treasury i know how much nafta will it and the cause of economic renewal here at home as well as american leadership abroad. as an american i know there is more at taking in nafta than relations with mexico or even jobs. decidebecause how we this issue and how we vote on nafta is really going to reveal

a lot about what this nation is going to be in the future. even more importantly i think it's going to tell us what sort of people we are. think this agreement marks a defining moment in american history through a moment that ranks with america's entry onto the world stage in the 1940's. then to defeat fascism and to leave the great alliances of democracies that thought the cold war. america faced a new era full of opportunities but also full of risks and carol -- perils. america had to choose between engagement on the one hand and isolation is other -- isolationism on the other. the united states of america choose to lead. ever since then we have been a nation not just in the world but of the world. we have been an america prepared to defend its interests, ready to promote its values, eager to

compete, and that looks outward to the world and looks forward to the future. place for is a better that american leadership but the world is a better place for america. the 1940's america chose the world and in the 1940's we were right. we face a similar historic turning point and we face a similar national decision. theend of the cold war voices of isolationism and protectionism are heard again and very loudly. they stretch across the political spectrum from right to left. the argument against nafta is a very simple one. it's an argument waste on fear. fear that americans lack the competence to complete.

fear that america lacks the confidence to leave. by proving nafta congress can cast a vote for american leadership in the western as well as around the world create a can cast a vote for an america fully equal to the competition of the global market place. naftaall by proving congress can cast a vote for the american character. the character of courage, optimism and hope. come home america is a very appealing slogan that is a true siren song. i think nafta critics miss a fundamental truth and it's a truth that is understood by everyone in this room today and a truth that has been understood by every american president since franklin roosevelt. see america already is at home. and that home is called the world. thank you very much.

[applause] >> this is still a time of miracles. former presidents are notorious in deciding to disagree with each other. but not a single lobbyist against nafta has been able to dig up one formal president who has had a disagreement. [laughter] i'm beginning to feel at home here again. it was just six weeks ago. a very historic place. on sunday night reagan and sa

dat signed an agreement at camp david. six weeks ago we celebrated another piece moving in the middle east and the following day had an assembly in the same room. since then we have made a lot of progress. have chairs one the stage for people to sit in. and for another i think the public is beginning to understand some of the issues related to the north american free-trade agreement. i was listening to national public radio early this morning a little more now than 50% of the american people are in favor of nafta. quita step forward in the right direction. here and arrived to make telephone calls members of

congress. i talked to 12. doubtful congressional members this morning. the calls were very encouraging. these 12 who are still undecided almost invariably said i know that nafta is good for my country. i also know that nafta is good for my district. but mr. president i have to get reelected. and the voices i hear in my district are negative. the peanut producers are saying we just cannot and of against this pressure. a lot of decisions in this great country have been made that result in temporary unpopularity. run forbest in the long the nation. , everyormer president former secretary of state,

national security advisor, speaker of the house of representatives has had to make decisions of this kind. nafta is one of those issues. i tried to explain to the members of congress this morning. textile workers or apparel workers would not have any jobs in danger. i don't know. a relativelyhat is insignificant issue of an overall subject in my opinion as i explained to the members of congress that the workers in your district will be benefited by nafta. you may disagree but the long-term effect of nafta is what we need to consider. what is best for our nation. over the years at the carter center we do a lot of work in latin america. more knowledge in my mind

about latin america than when i was president. we have formed a council of freely elected head of government. we have 23 members of this count. every one of them in this hemisphere has been elected in a free and open and fair process leading to a democracy. have all served as head of their own government. 17 of them have shared with me vote thatt few days a i will express to this group their support of a north american free trade agreement. these are not for mexico. they see it as a test between the relationship of the united states of america and our neighbors and friends in this hemisphere. we tried to work to bring about democracy. we hold elections in various countries. jim baker as soon as he became secretary of treasury worked out

an agreement with speaker of the house that we might be in the contra war by bringing out a democratic election in nicaragua. the most recent one in paraguay. we have gotten to know the desire of these leaders and their people to emulate in the finest sense the characteristics that have made our nation the greatest on earth. they however have instituted in them a lot of anti-american sentiment or fears because we are the big brother who has quite often in the past intercede in their internal affairs. they see a new era dawning. hemispherery in this has no moved to a democracy except cuba and of course mexico is not yet there. but they have done this with confidence in us. i don't think there's anything that can be done in this nation. in this decade.

that will deal a more severe to the growing friendship and trust and confidence to set up a partnership in sharing that is growing between us and our latin american friends than the rejection of nafta. this is a litmus test for them. each of them in the caribbean central american south american states see this as a test. asking some basic questions. is it leadership on behalf of the united states of america to our nearest and most important neighbors? will the move toward bold and democracy in that recipient enhanced by the rejection of nafta or will this be a blow to the mexicans confidence in moving toward a democracy that might equal hours day. tothere an opportunity now

correct some of the problems of the past and at the same time greatly improve our own influence in this hemisphere and around the world. i think this is a crucial vote. if it is voted down there will be a devastating blow to our relationship with all other countries in this hemisphere. it will be a devastating blow to the integrity and leadership of our country in other hemispheres and continents in this world and it will also be a blow to us. to our workers and trade and openings we have carved for ourselves in the last few years with democracy and freedom and respect for human rights. an end to totalitarian regimes. we have a lot to do with japan. the japanese are waiting with bated breath to move into all of the countries in this hemisphere if we leave a vacuum and antagonism and distrust by the rejection of nafta.

we have got to protect our own future market in order to major growing target -- marketplaces on earth. in asia growing based on exports. in this hemisphere growing based on imports. those can come from us and not japan or europe if we are wise. make threef you to phone calls. i don't see why can't make at least as many as i made this morning. [laughter] [applause] many of the members of congress are looking for a way to get out of the unanswerable question what would it do to a particular job in my district. look on the strategic long-term effects on our country and neighbors in accepting or rejecting nafta. finally i don't think we ought to underestimate the integrity

and the courage of the members of the house of representatives as they face this difficult vote. we saw this in the case of the panama canal treaties. it took tremendous support to support that unpopular treaty. the senate voted for it 68 votes. that was a tremendous display of political courage. commitmentind of exists in the house of representatives if it can be added later cap by those assembled in this room. i want to take an opportunity to do something i have never done in my life. ladies and gentlemen the president of the united states. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you very much,

president carter. mr. vice president. all of the distinguished people who have spoken here today. i would like to begin by making two observations. after hearing what has been said, i'm pretty proud to be an american today. and i think all of you should, too. [applause] secondly i have been sent an extraterrestrial telegram stating i too am for nafta otto vonuto vo bismarck. [laughter] it is something of note that president,g

secretary of state, secretaries of commerce, leaders of the federal reserve, distinguished contributors to the american spirit like john gardner, other great american citizens all support this agreement. reasons, foreign policy reasons. our own secretary of state is in california even as we are here talking about the war and policy implications of nafta for our government and our country. why have all of us declared this issue above politics? thatave we come to agree whatever else has divided us in the past this will weld us together in the cause of more jobs for our people, exports, markets, and more democracy for our allies? insidewe all know deep

that this would be such a profound setback for america in the world economy? and in the new mobile polity we are striving so honestly to create? where we so willing to say no to partisan politics and yes to nafta? i think it is because we know as all of these have said in different ways that nafta reflects this moment expression of all of the lessons we have learned in the 20th century. it reflects this moments expression of what we learned not to do after world war i and what we learned we had to do during and after world war ii. it reflects the sheer economic weight of argument that mr. samuelson referred to they we have seen even more expressed in the last two years when a higher percentage of jobs in this country arcltraceable directly to exports.

i see it in my own work here. for years and years our allies in europe and asia said if america really wanted to promote global growth, it would do something about your deficit and get your interest rate down and quit taking so much money out of the global economy. tried to do that. we have low interest rates and the deficit is coming down and our own deficit this year was much lower in no small measure because of those low rates. we still have this great global recession. why because we are not trading with one another. we are not buying and selling and investing across national lines and working the kind of global growth that is the only way any wealthy country generates any new jobs. no one attacking nafta has yet made a single solitary argument to refute this essential point. there is no evidence that any wealthy country, not just the net dates -- united states,

anyone can create new jobs and higher income without new global growth field by trade. if you strip away all the other arguments no one has offered a single a la terry shred of central to refute that point. and i know there is great insecurity and instability in all of the wealthy countries in the world. you can say whatever you want about this being the first tuesday in november. you have seen a lot of tuesday's come along in other nations. great political upheavals all across the world because people feel the walls are closing in on them. in truth when you strip all this realwe are facing a decision about whether the psychological pressures of the moment will overcome what we know in our high -- hearts and minds that this is the right thing to do.

whether the same pressures that people in canada feel or france or japan in a time when wealthy countries are not generating new jobs and people are working hard or stagnant wages, those pressures make us do what is easy and perhaps popular in the moment. the honorable thing to do to respond to those pressures is to take an action that may not be popular in the moment but that actually owns the promise of alleviating the pressures. if we believe the anxieties are legitimate as set already by other speakers then don't have the obligation to do what will alleviate the anxiety over the long haul instead of play to them in the moment? that in the end is what this decision is all about. that is what we mean when we say the secret talent on this issue has already been won.

these students to my left are from my alma mater, georgetown. when i was in their place 25 years ago and we were studying global affairs we came out really worrying about and thinking about the cold war and trying to debate exactly how much the pattern of the bipolar world could be manifested. every development in every country of the world and region of north. sometimes we were wrong and sometimes we were right but at least we had a framework within which to view the world. as dr. kessinger said we are in the process of creating a new framework. and a lot of people are complaining about how we don't have all the and others. i don't mainly the administration. i mean we the people. you in this room are old enough to remember and i think i qualify in that category. a lot of generations of americans would kill to be a live in an age with this set of problems.

who are we to complain about this set of problems? very few mornings do i come to work in the oval office and wonder about whether some decision i make transporting nuclear more. -- war. ofy few mornings do i wonder all the difficulties we face we might make an economic error and a quarter of our people will be out of work as thewere during the great depression. we see people in positions of responsibility going around wringing their hands about the difficulties of the moment. it's always difficult in a new time to see the future with clarity and have the kind of framework you need. none of that is an excuse to give into the emotional pressure of the moment instead of take steps that will alleviate the pressure. that is the dilemma before us. it's true that this is good for us economically. it's also true that what mexico gets out of it is investment so

that we don't take this deal somebody else probably will. and that will be that for us economically. as has already been said by president carter. about isthing this is how we are going to view ourselves as we relate to the rest of the world. this is not an isolated instance. this is not a trade deal between united states and mexico. it is not even a deal that affects our relationships with the rest of latin america. not even a deal that will help us get the cat agreement by the end of the year although i tell you it will give the norm is -- and great -- incentive to other nations to support this. over and above that is a decision which will demonstrate whether in this difficult moment

we still have confidence in ourselves and our potential. youi would say to all of to theg you can do people at large and to the congress in particular to instill that confidence again very important. if we have lost our way at all in the last couple of years uses not having any historic memory. for goodness sakes you must these problems as compared with many of those our forebears give us these problems as compared to those we are about to create if we start turning away from the world that is plainly before us. congress thethe freedom confidence the courage that is inside every member of congress waiting to breathe -- be brought out. help give them the space they

need to take the steps they know are right for america. this is about whether we really have confidence in ourselves. my heart theall next 20 years can be the best we ever had but they are going to require tough decisions and difficult moments. uncertain moments. what do you do in moments like that? do what the priest would tell you to do. fall back on what you believe, and what you know is right. what we know is right for america is to be confident, to reach out and believe in ourselves, to believe we can adjust to change just as we have for 200 years. make three calls, make 12 calls, calls, makeen however many you can. this is a test of our confidence. every one of you can give confidence to someone else by the life you have lived, the experiences you have had, the things that you know. give it now. we need it.

thank you very much. [applause] >> now a look at nafta's impact nearly 15 years after its enactment. this includes speakers for and against the trade deal. you will hear what barack obama and hillary clinton were saying at the time about renegotiating provisions of nafta. >> carla hills, former u.s. trade ambassador, tell me, what has been the impact of nafta on the u.s. and global economy? >> the nafta opened the market. whe first negotiated mexico's tariff were three times higher than ours. we opened up the industrialized commodities market, eliminated the restrictions on agriculture,

" -- opened up a broad range of services, it was the first agreement that was that broad. at the time we were in difficulty in the multilateral negotiations. the advances we made in the nafta brought members of the then-gatt back to the table. we finished the uruguay round. host: same question to you. the impact of nafta on the global economy. guest: it didn't measure up to its promises and caused a lot of damage. before nafta the u.s. had a trade surplus with mexico and a deficit with canada. since then it has become a major part of our global deficit. we have a $200 billion dollar deficit from a surplus, to $90 billion of deficit.

the u.s. has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs. that is one out of five of every manufacturing job in the u.s. our real wages have been flat. the median real wages. even worker productivity doubled. you hope something good happened in mexico because it doesn't look so hot in the u.s. 1.5 million as farmers, the livelihoods were destroyed by the dumping of subsidized u.s. corn. the migration of these displaced people increased 60%. the jobs that were to be created under nafta didn't happen. it was supposed to be 200,000 jobs a year. the increase in u.s. income did not happen and a reduction in undocumented immigration did not happen.

to the contrary, a lot of people have suffered after 15 years of nafta. host: senator obama and senator clinton say if they are elected, they oppose certain provisions of nafta and they may try and renegotiate it or scrap it altogether. is that realistic? what kind of threat with that pose to the u.s. economy? guest: it would send a signal that we are more unilateral than they think. that we don't stick with our bargains and i think it would cost us more jobs than they were anticipating. the production lines have been set up so that now north america is integrated. actually that is what has caused the productivity. i agree with lori, there have been lots of jobs lost, but you can't blame it on nafta. just taking manufacturing jobs,

if you look at 1985 to 1993 period in the united states, we lost 780,000 manufacturing jobs. 1994 to 2000, which is when we signed nafta, we gained 500,000 jobs. and a biga big hit manufacturing job loss was in 2000, the recession of 2001 and 2002. it is a problem that comes from technology. you know, we are creating more output, more manufacturing output by 30% with 20% fewer workers. and i know to the worker in ohio, the fact he lost his job because of mechanization doesn't make him feel any happier, but let's keep the trade agreement. host: lori, but the president and senator mccain have said

nafta is not to blame. in fact, production is up. more people are working. more money is coming in. why would you oppose that position? guest: to that and what carla has said, there is a database called the nafta trade adjustment assistance base which looks at jobs certified as nafta job losses. to get on the list is a real difficulty, it is very narrow. under that program there are over half a million real names. people who the government has certified explicitly as nafta job casualties. the notion that you cannot soribute it to nafta is not because the government does and it tries to help those folks. the bigger question of what is the cause -- you cannot blame the technological changes. it is the shipping out of manufacturing jobs.

our manufacturing jobs started shipping out in the 1970's after the fast-track mechanism past. from world war ii, we had balanced trade and surpluses. sending out more stuff than we were bringing him. starting with this generation of trade agreements we started to have production move overseas, not just goods. the goods that used to be made here are being sent act. it is during that period that we lost manufacturing jobs and we have seen real wages. what people can earn any median going down as we watched -- as we washed out these higher wage manufacturing jobs and replace them with service factory jobs. you can literally make a chart and you look at these different trade agreements. in 2000 there was a recession. but it was also the year the wto had china enter. suddenly all the protection is for investors who want to go to china. it made it much easier to

relook production there. during the period after nafta we saw a wave ship to mexico. we saw those jobs in that trait adjustment system start to shift. you can attribute excessively -- the big issue is not trade in a sense of the old trade agreements that cut tariffs and then more goods came in. the model trade agreements, nafta was unique. wto was also much broader. it includes investment rules that provide incentives and protections for u.s. companies to move offshore. because basically without the protection it gets rid of a lot of the risk will be associated with a u.s. company going overseas. things like performance requirements. normally when they would go to developing countries they would say come on in, but you have to have to use domestic power, use domestic managers, you have to

export everything. all of those kinds of conditions were forbidden. in nafta it went farther and guaranteed treatment so you didn't have to go to domestic court in your dispute. suddenly all these risks that may have kept you from going there even for the low wages are gone because of trade agreements subsidizing your moving. host: if you want to get involved if you are listening or watching and you want to get involved regarding our discussion of nafta, the numbers are on the screen. independents can call us at 202-628-0205. if you want to send an e-mail, the address is journal@c-span.org. we want to show you some statements made by senators barack obama and hillary clinton regarding nafta. >> i have said i will

renegotiate nafta. you have to say that is what we are going to do. >> let me be clear. you will notify mexico and say months. is gone in six >> people opt out unless we will renegotiate. we will renegotiate it in terms favorable to all of america. >> i will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way senator clinton talks about. i think senator clinton's answer is right. we should use the hammer of potential opt out as leverage to ensure we get labor standards that are enforced. and that is not what has been happening so far. host: what should the voters in ohio and texas be thinking about based on the statements made by senators clinton and obama? guest: i fear they would be confused. i think that to try to tell your

trading partners, our first largest and our second-largest trading partners -- this 15-year-old agreement that has worked for all of us, so that gdp for all of us is up, direct investment is up, there has been increased integration, our productivity is up, and our employment in spite of the complaints about our employment was 110 million jobs in 1993 and now it is 144 million. and if we worry about mexico, johnson gone from 33 million to 44 million. but unilaterally to tell your trading partners you are going to opt out strikes me as a bad way to start either your foreign policy negotiations or your economic policy negotiations. there is a way to augment nafta. i believe in greater cohesion in north america. i believe there are things we can do together in terms of energy, perimeter security,

making our regulations less burdensome so that american companies don't have to test products three different times. i obviously am disappointed with the suggestion that a potential presidential candidate would simply, quote, opt out. host: can there be augmentation agreement or does the whole thing have to be scrapped? guest: i don't know if you would call it augmentation. perhaps it would be reduction. there are things that would have to be removed. for instance, the foreign investor rules i was describing that actually promote off shoring. that has to go. or nafta has rules that limit safety standards you can apply to imported foods and goods. and it limits the border inspection rate. that has to go. or for instance, nafta has rules

that require mexican domiciled trucks into the country whether or not they meet domestic standards for safety and the environment. all of those kinds of overreaches in the agreement would have to go. then there are things that are missing. the candidate so far been talking about adding labor and environmental standards to help the domestic effects of nafta. that is not going to fix it. it is those core provisions need to be changed. host: let's go to the phones. on for democrats, go ahead. i will do this as quick as i can. commercials have the same actors in them. people are saying they would be happy to have them both together. host: we're not talking about the commercials we're talking about nafta. >> it all goes together. whatestion is on nafta,

does cutting off the nafta with mexico and canada have to do have ae fact that we one-sided permanent agreement with china, which is where we get most of our goods? i would like to know how that all works together. with 151 had agreed other nations around the world that china may be a member of the world trade organization. we believe this has been very good for the world economy because china has adopted the kinds of rules that eliminate subsidies and unfair trade practices that discriminate against our products. believe that i would like to get other economies that are on the fringe of the global

commerce into the wto so that we and increasee pie global wealth, alleviate global poverty and enhance our security because failing companies -- countries, or those countries burdened with heavy poverty like pakistan, bangladesh, indonesia, are dangerous when they cannot enforce their laws or secure their borders. that is a problem for us. i applaud the fact that china is in the world trade organization and it takes us out of the law of the jungle into a set of rules. if the united states wants anything, it wants a rule of law to govern international commerce. host: the next call comes from churchville, pennsylvania on the line for republican spirit -- r epublicans. >> good morning.

mrs. hill, i believe your intentions are honorable and clearly, so much like a religious belief, this idea that free trade is the only way to go. it ctainly has not been profitable for the united states of america since the second world war. -- we have continued continued to increase the trade deficit. last year we had close to $800 billion trade deficit. remember buying a book that that a former central banker wrote from a former central banker from japan. in the book he talked about $100 billion in the early 1990's was not sustainable. 0 billionve an $80 trade deficit.

i wonder if you are familiar with the former trade secretary under reagan. you want to read his stuff. ddar.com. he has -- he has written extensively on trade. the distortions that we do not have free trade. how is it conceivable that american workers can compete with workers overseas that make china who weren equally as intelligent as us, and with no worker's comp., no standards, no social security, no epa, no health insurance, nothing. it is impossible. host: thank you for your call. tell the caller that the united states with 5% of the world's population produces 20% of the world's output. we need to find markets where we

can sell our goods and we can have prosperity. the economic studies that have been done about keeping markets open demonstrate we have had a bipartisan consensus favoring the keeping of open markets and he believe that economic ourrdependence advances well-being, our prosperity and our security. over at the peterson institute international economics, they have calculated by reason of keeping our markets open since world war ii the united states trillion per year wealthier. the average american household is $9,000 wealthier per year that it would be heavy close our markets. we can compete because a $0.30 china is not any border area of china, is in the

interior. we are just simply more productive. cannotot make toys, we not make black-and-white televisions anymore. we have moved up the value scale and frankly, we are a wealthier come -- wealthier country. there are challenges we must address. we must save more so that we can invest more effectively but that is a different issue from keeping our markets open. the caller is right. the huge trade deficit slows our economic growth. 6% of our gmp, you have people , like thet nafta, wto former fed chair alan greenspan think it is a drag on our growth. on how we cant compete under these rules is exactly right. but the question is not cutting off trade. no one is talking about buying off our trade with mexico or canada. the question is under what rule?

was the bottom for the competition? under our current rule, it is a free-for-all. there is a race downward, the competition is in a race to the bottom. but different rules that did not , they haveives different outcomes. so would rules the had to do with what exactly you can bring back. for all the goods from china as well as the competition on wage input questions, the questions about health and safety -- current trade agreements require us to import goods that are having equivalent safety standards. how would that be in a trade agreement? not necessary. but if you had the agreements meeting our health and safety standards, it would be good for our consumers and it would mean a lot of products made in a very shoddy way would have to clean up their act or come back home. byt: taking a look at nafta

the numbers. nations grewafta billion. partnersrts to nafta accounted for 35% of total u.s. exports. responsible for increase of $25 million -- 25 million jobs. rosemanufacturing output to 63%. that to the phones. modesto, california. >> good morning. first-time caller, a little nervous. agreement hasa been put in place, big companies have left this country. all of a sudden we have a huge problem with border control. mexicta was so good for

o, why are people pouring out of mexico for search of a better life? if nafta was so good for this country, why is our infrastructure in this country suffering so badly? -- schoolson levels have deteriorated. done for oura country to promote a better life? and could you please touch on the fact -- what does gat have to do with nafta? the caller has raised some issues that are quite real. is ain mind, nafta commercial agreement. nafta does not cure chickenpox and does not and migration. it creates wealth for the

governments to deal with their problems. all free governments have responsibilities to deal with their problems. if i was recommending a change of course to mexico, it would be to liberalize the energy sector and change the tax policies so that they could create a better environment at home. if i recommending something to our own government, i would urge an increase in the because that is what keeps us competitive. one of our earlier caller's about how can we be competitive. one is to have good infrastructure. and you put your finger on it with education. we will not make any knowledge age if 30% of high school students fail to graduate. we will be a country of has and have-nots. that has nothing to do with nafta. nafta is a good commercial agreement that has enhanced our productivity, that has created wealth that our government can spend for policies that will

enhance our life and our future. ian fletcher is a conservative economist and author of the book "free trade doesn't work." speaking in 2010, he describes the history of american trade policy and how other countries describe the issue. you can watch the entire event by going to www.c-span.org. mr. fletcher: here is my book. indeeds introduced, i am an economist with the u.s. i'm here to talk to you about the problems with free-trade. think yourhing i crowd with a fiercely is the fact that historically, the united states was simply not a

free trade nation. for most of american history, the u.s. is in fact, a tariff-protected economy. this goes back to the constitution. article one section eight says congress have the power to regulate trade with for nascent spirit you all know as conservatives that congress does a lot of things it does not have constitutional authority to do. regulating trade is explicitly in the constitution as something that congress is authorized to do. despite the myth that americans pure 100%itage of free markets, which is a popular idea. it is easy to promote, both in terms of mass political rhetoric and rigorous economics. the truth is america's economic tradition just -- the sense from alexander hamilton. the highest rank he ever had was secretary of the treasury, and

yet he is on low denomination money because he was basically the intellectual father of american capitalism. fathers, heounding was the economist, he was well read in the economics literature of his day, which was remarkably sophisticated. i turned to it myself as an economist for theoretical benefit all the time. he was the money man. he went to general washington and the other founding fathers and he said if the united states embraces free-trade -- which was certainly an idea in the air then as it is now -- he said we are going to end up as a dependent power of the economic powers of the day, which at that meantrincipal and -- great britain. they were the world's greatest manufacturing nation. states was aunited third world country by present-day standards. we were a nation with almost no manufacturing industry, almost

everybody was a farmer. so hamilton said, among the things we need to develop a economy --ustrial the united states almost lost the american resolution -- revolution because of our inability to produce defense goods. we were rescued by the french present us muskets and other material. anyway, hamilton said there are two things we need. this is in a famous book he the report on manufacturers, it which he said you need industrial policy and a protective tariff. the united states is not historically a free-trade country. abraham lincoln, the greatest , his numberresident two policy after winning the civil war and ending slavery and so forth was the protective tariff. his famous quote is give us --

give us a protective tariff and will have the greatest country on earth. that is largely what he was known for in his own time in terms of economic policy -- which of course is overshadowed by the whole city war -- civil war thing. the number one policy that lincoln was known for was the protective tariff. it is any to make is this controversy over free-trade is nothing new in your heritage as conservatives is in fact, on the protectionist side. the reason that contemporary american conservatives are often andt between the free-trade protectionist view is that america embraced free-trade fundamentally after world war ii as a device to win the cold war. in 1945, 1946, 1947, the cold war took shape and we were confronted by the fact that if we were going to unify the world in opposition to soviet

communism, we needed to make the dependent nation's abroad dependent upon us for their economic well-being. dependent on the united states as an export market. talking about countries like greece, for example. which was a flashpoint for an attempted communist takeover in 1946 and 1947. we needed to do two things with these countries all around the world, greece, korea, so on. we needed to prop up their economies by giving them an export market in the united states and make them dependent upon our markets so that they would toe the line politically for us. so that is the origin of free-trade as an american policy. it is a cold war policy that was obviously -- there was a point to it at the time. and it worked very well. we did succeed as the united states in unifying all of the non-communist countries in the world against the soviet union. but the point that i would like to submit to any conservative audience such as yourselves is that the cold war is over and in point of fact, in the present

time, the traditional, original reasons for the united states not to be a free-trading country, to be a tariff protective nation, that uses the economic strategy, have come back. now, anybody who has been paying attention knows that foreign nations are playing the protection game and playing it well. and they're playing it against us. we played the same game against great britain in europe in the 19th century that the chinese are playing against us today. there is no complaint, legitimate or illegitimate, that you can find that americans making today against protectionist, mercantilist policies of beijing that you cannot dig up in british newspapers in the 1880's, who were complaining about how britain was trying to pursue this noble and economically rational free-trade, free market policy toward the world.