then we talk about u.s.-venezuela relations with frank morra. and emergency declaration the is our guest.y washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. on theng up live tuesday c-span networks, the house returns at 10:00 a.m. on c-span for morning our speeches and a 12:00 p.m. to consider a resolution to block the president's national emergency declaration to build a wall on the southern border of the u.s. the senate continues work on a judicial nomination and on c-span3, the senate finance committee examines drug pricing in the u.s. with the ceos of major pharmaceutical companies.

mornings arenday your money segment looking at issues affecting our bottom-line and perhaps no other issue other than trade with china and the many economic ramifications for all of us, we are joined by robert daley who is the -- with the wilson center at the kissinger institute, the china and u.s. director for the wilson center, kissinger institute, robert daley, the president announcing yesterday he will postpone amp lamenting those tariffs against china. how much with those chair of -- those tariffs have been and why did the president make that decision? guest: if he had not postponed have goneices would up which would have increased the cost for american consumers and it would have hit a number of american industries quite hard. that would have hit chinese industries hard as well. why did he postpone?

he had been a very hard lined. march 1, the tariffs will go up. i'm the tariff man. but he has said there has been progress, and if progress to extend in hopes of getting a final resolution. you can look at this in one of two ways depending on your views of the china relations. there has been progress. there has not been sufficient progress is another way to put it. they have missed the deadline. and in announcing the extension, he did not put a second deadline on it. it is now open ended. china is very good at long delays. so the question is whether we are still in a state of emergency with maximum pressure on china, or whether this kind of friction and long talks is going to be a feature of u.s. china relations going forward. host: here are his tweets, announcing this he said "i am pleased to report the u.s. has made progress in our trade talks with china on important

structural issues, including intellectual property protection, technology transfer, agriculture services, currency and other issues, as a result of these very productive talks i will delay the u.s. increase in tariffs." on technology, was specifically, the intellectual property and transfer of technology, what has been a bone of contention between the u.s. and china? guest: the u.s. has for decades, not only the united states, but other nations have been very concerned about china's direct theft of intellectual property. this is perhaps going down as china develops their own technology and has become innovative. but another problem has been what is called forced technology transfer. what that has met is american technology companies, in order to get access to china's market, selling to the chinese, have been required to partner with chinese companies, and then to

give the chinese companies their intellectual property. that, or those patents, then in able the chinese partners to eventually become their competitors. so, we are pushing hard to try to end that practice. the reason it is difficult in negotiations, is china denies it has done either of these things. having always denied it has stolen intellectual property, or it is a national policy to coerce transfer, it is hard to get them to agree to stop doing this. host: american companies have admitted that this is the price of entry into the chinese markets. guest: this is where it gets difficult. china says that this was not forced technology transfer, this was a deal that american companies took in the light of day, because they made the judgment it was worthwhile to gain access to the market and china is now the world's largest collection of middle-class consumers, so they took the deal. they said it was not forced, it

was a business negotiation. there is something to that. host: our guest is robert daly, we are talking about trade talks, specifically the news of the tariffs being delayed. we welcome your calls. we have divided lines regionally. for those in the eastern and central time zones, 202-748-8000 . mountain and the pacific, 202-748-8001. and we welcome tweets on the issue as well. in then your times today, a headline with a picture of the negotiators, "trump delays deadline citing progress in china talks." "the lack of detail is prompting concern. both republicans and democrats worried that mr. trump may sign a deal that does little to change the practices that american companies they put them and their workers at a disadvantage. lawmakers will get a chance to grill the administration about

their plans, when robert lighthizer, a top trade advisor, testified about the talks and other trade actions on wednesday." guest: right, if the president goes ahead with a deal, as seems probable, which or under which it china agrees to buy more american soybeans, more natural gas, airplanes, and then only offers very vague promises to do better at some point in the future when it suits china's needs, that kind of deal would of what we've seen for several decades. and it would fly in the face of the very strong statements made by the trump administration that this time it would be different. the reason there is skepticism that the president will be put to get a deal, is that the chinese practices we are objecting to are really part of their motive running things, they will not change in china. host: let me ask about the number of stories we have seen about technology companies, specifically while way -- the

uk's citing security concerns and issues with the company. tie that into how this plays out in the u.s.-china trade talks. guest: the concerns had originally been pursued on separate tracks in the u.s. it was the justice system, the eastern district of new york, that had put out an indictment for the number two official at the company, also the daughter of the founder, who was arrested been in canada and who is now under house arrest, waiting on procedures to determine if she will be extradited. the president then brought the question in, including her detention, into the trade negotiations by saying if he got a good deal with china, he might lighten up on the woman and let her go. that is rather problematic for a number of reasons for the united states, in that he took a separate process, made it part

of a political negotiation, made it part of his relationship with xi, which in the minds of a number of chinese and some westerners, made her a callista coal -- a political hostage, rather than somebody being prosecuted separately under the rule of law. so now the question of how we treat hauwei has been brought into negotiations, and a demonstration has said the company is a threat to the u.s., an espionage threat and a threat to our digital infrastructure. if that is true and the threat is as dire as they claim, how can we say, it is ok now because we will be friends and throw hauwei into the deal? that is a concern. host: we are going to susan. good morning in maine. caller: good morning. i love the show. a comment, in the state we have a couple issues going on with a trade agreement. first thing, our lobster

industry is being devastated. our exports china have taken a big percentage of a downturn. in the state of maine, we do not have a lot of export industries, but the lobster industry is really important to us. and the other thing is, you know, the intellectual property -- uh, zte is one that really comes to mind, that we have invited them in and they are being sold around our market. they have been warned by all of , you know -- it is amazing to me that we allow them in, yet we are saying, no you cannot do this with hauwei. so, you know, in one hand he says yes, the other hand he says no. it i do not get

where he is coming from. guest: i just returned from maine, so it is good to hear from you. the concerns you have on lobster, there is also concerns about soybeans in the midwest. the issue with these trade wars or friction is that we want to make points about open and fair trade to china, to do that we have to exert some sort of leverage. the leverage chosen in this case was tariffs, whether it was appropriate it got china's attention, but trade wars end up hurting everybody. and they will hurt the lobster industry, and another -- and other industries going forward, but the administration, if it is not willing to pay any costs -- this is not the administration paying costs, but individuals -- if we are not willing to pay any cost, then we have no leverage with china and china will continue with their policies,

which are harmful to the american economy. so the question has always been, how much of a cost are we willing to pay? the chinese government and many consumers have felt that they are tougher than we are, that they are probably willing to pay a higher cost. as individual industries way in about the cost to them of the trunk tariffs, president trump -- trump tariffs, the president has become more interested in reaching a deal. so as you cite in the case of zte, we have contradictory impulses. we want to protect our own consumers and industries, we want to keep the prices down, but we do not want to accept the chinese practices. and we need leverage. and so you are right there has been, waffling back and forth. the chinese impulse will be, the fact that we have now delayed twice the imposition of further sanctions indicates that time and global chinese or global economic dynamics are on china's

side, and therefore they can play for time and we will, or we can weaken our requests. host: talking about the drop in lobster exports, we have from reuters on the over all agricultural exports, they are expected to fall, led by china in 2019. to 1.5p of 1.9 billion billion for fiscal 2019 from a year earlier, led by a decline in shipments to china, due to the ongoing trade dispute. a department official telling reuters. ian, good morning. caller: hi. i have a question. not takeen advised to my cell phone over to china. and i wanted to get your attention to an article that recommend treating

all devices as compromised after returning from china. sim cards.them or break them in half. host: robert, you have been to china many times, what is your advice? guest: it depends on what sort of work you are involved in. if you are in a business or government that has proprietary information, then you need to be extremely careful. i would bring a clean fun, not your personal phone or ipad to china. and have them wiped clean up on your return. it is true that you should assume all of your data is compromised, that if you bring digital devices to china. host: michael in baltimore. we are talking u.s.-china trade. caller: good morning. i just want to be sure i heard correctly, so the average person china, average person in

the average middle-class person is earning more than the average middle-class person in the united states, did i hear that correctly? guest: no, there are more middle-class consumers in china than in the united states. the definition varies, but in general the average middle-class consumer in america has a higher income, but china has a larger middle-class, so a bigger market, therefore china increasingly becomes the taste maker to the world on the supply and demand sides. caller: thank you. host: doug in fairfax, south dakota. caller: yeah. good morning. i'm up here in bean and corn country. and i know that the prices are down. they say even if they do get something going, that we have lost a lot of those production, because we are moving to argentina and we are building

infrastructure somewhere down there. so, to help these guys out, $1.60 a bushel on the beans . an how will they continue doing that -- and how they continue doing that? and donald trump just wanted to stay in the u.s., that is against agriculture department, because we need the global market. what are your comments on that, i guess? guest: you are correct. this is the dilemma we find ourselves in. china is and has long been guilty of a number of practices to which the president and his predecessors rightly object. and in order to get them to change their practices, we need to find some point of leverage or pressure. and that is always going to cost something. china has been a very deft. when they decided to impose tensions against the u.s. in tariffs,-- its own

they chose america's agricultural exports, which had been a bright spot in our trade relations, because they know that in the american heartland, there is a high percentage of people who support president trump, and therefore to maximize leverage on him they attempted to hit him politically where it hurt. this was no accident. wars lookat trade like. host: the governors are in town for the nga meeting and the new south korean governor is a congresswoman and she was asked about the effects of the tariffs, and tariffs on her stay on trade, and this is what she said. >> south dakota has been devastated by the trade wars going on. and agriculture is our number one industry. so when we are not able to export soybeans to the asia-pacific region, when we are struggling with commodity prices, that is impacting not just farmers on the ground, but

every main street business, everybody that has another entity out there that relies on a successful ag industry. i have been an advocate for wrapping of these trade discussions, making sure that we are getting access to better markets. our farmers feed the world, we do it better than anybody, and we need to make sure the markets are open. >> what has the response been? >> the administration wants to do this. we have been treated unfairly in the past and they want to have better trade agreements. for instance, we have shipped soybeans to china and they have rejected us for sanitary reasons, for regulatory reasons, and other issues. and have sent them back, which was not fair trade practices. i think the administration is trying to rectify some of that, the problem is this has gone on now for a long time. and farmers are used a risk. they are used to the prices going up and down and having that, but the sustained, low

commodity prices is driving family businesses out of business. host: you can hear a sense of urgency in her voice. guest: absolutely. one of the issues is, as china says in the negotiations, that they may increase purchases of soybeans. a certain percentage is just returning to the status quo, taking off the tariffs. so some of these deals with china increasing american purchases, are probably deals we could have had during the first year of the administration. and it is not just farm products. qualcomm, intel, because china is the largest consumer market, most american corporations and industries have equities in china. so we are back to the point that i keep making. she was to move beyond this, what does that mean if we are to move beyond it and come out ahead and actually change chinese trade practices? somebody is going to have to pay a cost for leverage and at these

prices, the cost has to be paid, it looms larger to the president the closer we get to the election. he is not only getting pressure from american industries, he is also under pressure because there are signs america could face a mild recession before the election. that would decrease american leverage. host: as you put it, the president did not assign a new deadline for the tariffs when he forestalled them yesterday. guest: right, and china is good at playing for time by feeding just enough fuel to the fire to make us maintain hope and think it could be right around the corner from an agreement, where it is a play for time that could go on for years. in pennsylvania. caller: thank you. you mentioned -- i was not going to call, but when you mentioned

that china was into long negotiations, i had thought about a conversation that henry kissinger had with the former prime minister of china during the opening up of china with richard nixon and all. henry kissinger asked what he had thought of the french revolution, and he responded that it was too soon to tell. get ready for a long negotiation and bye. host: gilbert in birmingham, alabama. hi. caller: this type of guy has been really wanting to discuss read the wall street journal daily about china and trade. americans douest, not have a manufacturing base. i can understand the business with investors, they want to make money, but if we do not keep -- i noticed over the last

week or so, reading the washington street journal, it seems like america is solid in their stance against china. and china, they play this thing over time. there is a slow down in the chinese economy, so if america does not keep a hard line on dealing with china today, would you say that in the next five years that china will dominate the world economy? thank you. guest: dominate the world may be strong, but the economy in its total volume will certainly surpass that of the united states. i already mentioned they have the largest consumer class, they are early adopters of technology, they are able to scale new technologies up for marketization faster than we are, because it is a less regulated environment. they are a formidable competitor, and they are very

aware of that. so when of the reasons they play for time is china is aware, as are we, that this is a long-term competition between the united states. not only in trade, but to shape security architectures, trading regimes, the development and technologies,, norms practices worldwide. china is a rising power. menu of the trends are in china's favor, even though they u.s. is more powerful today. it is in our interest to make a deal as early as possible, while we have maximum pressure. but it is in their interest to prolong this, because their interest will increase. it is a fundamental and new challenge for the united states, and it surpasses questions of tariffs, or even of soybeans or lobsters or individual industries that get hit. host: one of the stores we noted from last week, the headline

"stream of imports strain where houses." -- where houses." nation's holiday stacked up inventories, straining capacity around the neighboring ports of los angeles and long beach, which together comprise the biggest u.s. transpacific gateway." this is the time of your that manufactures are planning ahead, well into the fall fashion and holiday season. guest: right, they were anticipating the tariffs on $200 billion in goods would go from 10% to 25% and they wanted to get as much into the country at 10% as they could, to sell over the remainder of the year. now, whether the tariffs go up, we do not know. that is the better they are making. host: ed, hi. caller: i am getting tired of this conversation with china as are equal.

i remember ross perot. and truth, facts, results. street isall concerned because of all of the jobs in china and ross perot said we should adopt the trade policy of china, korea, japan and even mexico. it is a simple policy. if you do not make it here, you cannot sell it here. if we get caught up with china, this is going to help open of jobs in the u.s. and we will see an explosion in this economy. guest: right, ross perot is famous for saying, you give me the deal i gave you. we are pushing for greater reciprocity in our relationship, but china is becoming lonesome with the global economy. the world's largest market is going to be in china and east asia more broadly, and what that means is if our companies cannot compete in the market, we will not be able to compete with

chinese corporations that have access to it. it is not simply a question of reciprocal trade, we need to be part of the global flow of trade if we are to have some of the best companies. host: and looking ahead, the negotiations are wrapping up in washington, rather yesterday, delaying the implementation of tariffs. what are the next steps? where will the negotiators meet next? and there was talk of a summit with president xi. guest: we have not seen a roadmap, we do not know when the negotiations will continue. there is no further deadline, but it has been suggested that perhaps xi would come to florida woulde two leaders conclude the negotiations. does that mean solving the problem, or does it mean a permanent timeout, that this is too much for both would conclude the negotiations. nations? we do not know the answer. host: robert daly from the wilson center, looking at

>> live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning. a discussion about policies aimed at reducing the national debt with the heritage foundation. then we talk about u.s.-venezuela relations with latin and caribbean center director. .nd then a discussion be sure to watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. tuesday morning. join the discussion. president cohen, trump's longtime personal attorney will testify before the house oversight and government reform committee on wednesday. inquire into will

his interactions with the president. watch the hearing live wednesday morning beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, c-span.org or listen with the c-span radio app. >> now a discussion on expanding economic opportunity and what local, state, and the federal government can do. this was part of an aspen institute economics group series, participants include kevin hassett. this runs over one hour. [indistinct conversations] >> good morning, everyone, we