members consider veterans issues and cybersecurity. at noon eastern, we begin a session. at 2:00 eastern time, legislative business begins. you can watch live coverage of the house here on c-span, on r site and on our best on our website, and on our free mobile app, c-span now. on thursday, the senate environment and public works committee will hear a -- hold a hearing on the ohio train derailment disaster. officials and the ceo of north folk southern are expected to testify. watch thursday at 10 a pocket a.m. eastern on c-span3, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered

view of government, tended by these companies and more, including media,. >> and mediacom, we believe that wherever you live, you should have access to fast and reliable internet. >> mediacom supports c-span, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. -- >> washington journal continues. host: i'm joined now by scott paul. we will be talking about competitiveness with china. welcome to the program. guest: thank you. it is good to be with you. host: let's talk about your program. who are the members and how is it funded? guest: we have been around for about 15 years. we are pretty unique in washington, in that we are a partnership between a labor

union, the united steelworkers, and some of its domestic manufacturing partners. we focus on manufacturing policy, trade policy, we advocate for public policies that will strengthen our economic policy and manufacturing in america. host: an funding comes from the members? guest: absolutely. it is derived through public -- through public bargaining. in this case, we bring everything to the table. it gives a sale is more power that way. host: i will just remind our viewers that you can give us a call if you would like to ask a question or make a comment. our lines are by party affiliation. we do have a line set aside for if you work in the manufacturing sector. be sure to call in if you work

in the manufacturing sector on a special line, which is (202) 748-8003. you can also use that line for sending us texts. earlier this month, you testified for the house select committee. he said our hubris and neglect aided russia's invasion, hollowed out our middle class. explain that to us. guest: sure, thank you. the concern that this committee has is with the policies of the chinese coming as party and how they made -- how they may threaten security, a variety of concerns. i want to contribute also that we made missteps along the way in the united states. the way in which we invited china into the world trade system was basically a blank check and trust that china would fulfill its obligation. that did not pan out.

we must make ourselves more competitive. i think that has changed recently, but i think the policies of the chinese coming as party and the fact that we were not prepared lead to some devastating consequences. basically, stuff we were once making in the united states was made in china. host: devastating consequences like what? guest: for example, in the midwest, we lost tens of thousands of factories over a short amount of time, when that this -- within the span of a decade. major employers of these people did not particularly have four-year degrees. these were full effects show people weren't spending at the grocery stores or country meeting to taxes. in many ways, these community

suffered and they're still digging out of the hole. research has been done princeton and m.i.t. that showed that the job loss and the wage loss also contributed to some devastating social consequences. more depths of despair, higher divorce rates, lots of really profound impact for these communities in the heartland. i think we saw this manifest in politics over the last seven or eight years. let's talk about manufacturing host: host: -- let's talk about manufacturing jobs. an average of 33,000 jobs were added per month in 2022. that doesn't sound like a bad thing. guest: this is a good thing. the last couple of years, we have seen a reversal. the pandemic brought to light that if we don't want a massive amount of shortages or supply

chain disruptions, we need to invest in america made vectoring again. i think many in the private sector have woken up to that fact. i think public policies are starting to reflect that as well. we are seeing big investments in american manufacturing. there were a couple of decades where there weren't a lot of announcements or ribbon cuttings. now, we are seeing all sorts of plant opening announcements in high tech, steel, lots of other stuff as well. i think the pandemic brought into focus that we can't depend on china or other countries alone to supply the goods that we need, particularly in a time of crisis. we are starting to turn around the ship, but i think the focus on china is still important because there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. host: let's talk about semiconductors, because that has been a big problem within the

supply chain and not having enough conductors. let's take a lk the chips act. it says 53 billion dollars in grants for semicduor manufacturing and research invested in support and research for semiconductor manufacturing through 2026. give us an overview of how that chips act is supposed to work and if anything has been happening so far. guest: i think a lot has been happening and it's good news. the initial round of funding has, i think, spurred a lot of private sector investment. you have seen firms, some with brand names that people recognize, like intel and texas instruments, announced that they are expanding and building new semiconductor manufacturing facilities in the united states. all over the place. a lot of these are in high tech semiconductor manufacturing. but we will also see investments

in the supply chain as well. this is happening in arizona, idaho, new york, ohio, lots of places. the idea is we will be able to supply more semiconductors that we consume in the united states. we got to a point a generation ago in the early 1990's, when made about one-third of the world's semiconductors and consumed about that much. just last year, when aid -- we made about 7%. consumption stayed very high. we have built up a we build up a major dependence on re seeing the fruits of that. within the next couple of years, i think that will give the united states a lot more capacity, a lot more ability to be resilient. we need to make sure we can build automobiles and washing machines, all the gadgets we append on, things we saw months

and months of delays on years ago. host: they are calling this policy where taxpayers are picking winners and losers. kentucky gop republican andy barr spoke out against those calling on those to adopt this against china. [video clip] >> the ccp is entering the final phase of its 100-year marathon to replace the united states as the world's global superpower. an underappreciated dimension of this strategic competition between the united states and ccp, one of the reasons why the cp -- ccp is arguably ahead of schedule in that marathon is that the ccp's economic aggression against the west. but i believe very strongly that

the united states should not mimic the chinese industrial policy, should not copy the chinese command and control system. we should not embrace overly broad measures that would raise questions about our commitment to a market economy, which is a key source of strength to the united states in contrast to china's communist central planning policies. in other words, as this committee does its work and as we consider policy responses to the threats from the ccp, i would submit to my colleagues and policymakers in this country , we should not try to counter china by becoming more like china. host: scott, what do you think of that? he says we're going to become more like china. guest: in that hearing, i agreed with about 99% of the things said by everybody, which is where to find in a hearing.

i did not agree with that. i felt he was setting up a straw man. the chips act is so far away from beijing's command-and-control of economy, i could not draw more distance to that. these are private-sector firms that are using the lower caste -- lower cost of capital in the united states. i think it is extraordinary. the government is not going to run these factories, tell them how to produce, what to make, anything like that. there will be conditions for getting that capital, but it is going to give them a head start. it is nothing like what we see, or the government literally owns hundreds upon hundreds of water called state owned enterprises that manufacture. they have no profit motive. all of these american companies are going to have profit motive. the other thing i would add is that we tried, i think, the purest approach, the free-market

hands-on approach, for couple of decades, in terms of trying to compete with china. we have had lots of deregulation. none of that has made us in a more competitive position. he made corporations a lot richer. they are returning some of that to the united states, investing in factories here. they are going to give us a leg up. i agree with congress must -- with congressman barr, we should not be like china. the chips act is as far from that as we can possibly get. host: ylet's take a look at tps act. it says 53 billion dollars in grants for semiconductor manufactur renewed focus on chid competitiveness with china? guest: i think a couple of things have produced a harmonic convergence of events. first, as i mentioned, before the pandemic, it brought into focus how dependent we are on china for things, ranging from edison to ppe, to

semiconductors. i think that caused a bit of shock to the system. i remember this ship being stuck in the swiss canal and having to fly back and forth across the world, maybe we can simplify this a little bit. i think the theory changed a little bit as well. i will say, i have known for some time and policymakers are making up -- are waking up to the fact that the commonest party, xi jinping, he wants to use the west and our technology, use our consumer base. he wants no other part of western values. he wants to re-create a chinese state that is both powerful, driven by the party, not aligned with market forces, and he kind

of got what he wanted out of american companies, which was their technology, trillions of dollars in investment. now, he is saying, we are going to do this our way and send you to the highway. i think that also has driven some of this concern. host: and it's not just investment, its intellectual property he got from american companies. guest: that's exactly right. in some cases, it was given away, in terms of technology transfer and joint ventures. in other cases, it was stolen through industrial espionage or a lack of enforcement. piracy of intellectual property. that added up to $600 billion in losses for the u.s. economy, which is a profound amount. but i think that is a big concern. something i heard during that hearing was that that's an issue that both democrats and republicans still definitely want to tackle here. host: we are going to start taking calls, but i have one

more question about the bipartisan infrastructure law. what have we seen with that? what impacts have we seen to manufacturing capabilities? guest: that's a great question. as i was asked leaning before, one of the things we did not do a good job of is making our economy more competitive for the last couple of decades. the infrastructure act is a piece of that. we will be more efficient, have better broadband, transit, shipping. we will have that are logistic supply chain abilities within the united states. all of that is great. we have seen new orders come into material suppliers for infrastructure. you have seen president biden, democrats and republicans, some of whom do not support this bill, are at ribbon cuttings for a lot of these projects. we are seeing a lot get done. there will be $1.2 trillion investment over the next five or six years to come out of the infrastructure bill. that is going to lift our

efficiency, our competitiveness up in the manufacturing sector in a way we have not seen for many decades. host: let's go to the phones now. peter is up first in new york on the republican line. caller: good morning. esther paul, i saw you testify before congress. i had a couple of things to comment on. this issue about outsourcing started back in the 1970's, when i was a young man. this was bipartisan, republicans and democrats. they allowed american companies to outsource their factories to china and other companies -- other countries because it was cheaper for them to produce goods and services -- i mean, goods, in these foreign countries and ship them to the united states rather than manufacture them here. the problem with the way we do business is that subsidizing

manufacturing over here, i guess for example with the chips bill, is not the complete solution here. we tried that during the obama administration, making solar panels here in the united states. they went out of business because they could not compete with china. i think we need to adopt a policy that japan has, where companies who are manufacturing here in the united states cannot close down the manufacturing here. if they want to open up companies in other countries, fine. they could possibly use the profits they make their to subsidize their companies here. that's fine. and if they decide to close down and go overseas, then we tax whatever they ship into the united states, so that companies that are producing here can make a profit. also what was not discussed during your testimony was what

environmentalists played into this problem. with all the environmental regulations and every thing else that goes with it, it makes it more expensive to do business here in the united states. host: ok, peter. let's get a response. guest: thanks for the question. i think it's a good one. during the testimony, i did articulate, i think, how we have what is called the china price. it is an impossibly low price. if american firms cannot compete on a level playing field, then that's right, jobs are going to go overseas. but particularly with the case of china, a lot of the advantage built up was artificial and unfair, partly because of a lack of enforcement of their labor rights laws or their own environmental laws. if you have seen the smog in beijing, we definitely don't want to stoop to that level. it is very bad. we saw currency manipulation that made their goods artificially cheaper coming into the united states, made our goods more expensive.

we saw these trillions of dollars of government subsidies that may chinese factories more competitive. peter, i agree with you that investing in our semiconductor industry or any other industry alone is not going to do it. we also have to have a trade solution to that. part of what i think is helping drive some of this manufacturing back to the united states are the tariffs that are in place. i know they are controversial, but they do serve as a deterrent for more firms to set up operations in china and they also are going to drive supply chains over the long run out of china as well. right now, about one third of chinese products that are coming to the united states are subject to these tariffs. very few of these are consumer products. they're usually what we call intermediate goods, which going to something else. that has an impact as well. i agree that it is more than an investment solution. you need a trade solution as well if we are going to be effective in all of this. host: speaking of trade, we have

a question for you from gary on twitter. what are we going to do about that $350 billion -- $350 billion for sick with china? guest: it peaked with china a couple years ago, but that is a massive loss of u.s. capacity there. eventually, kind of like our budget deficit, the trade deficit is not just some decent tarik number that never has to be paid. -- esoteric number that never has to be paid. part of this is that we are enriching, and one of the republican members made this point during the hearing, we are enriching the ccp through all of this. but there is a lot of factors in this. the value of the dollar, consumer behavior, or companies are locating production. there's tons of things that impact all of this. i will not pretend like it is an easy solution. you cannot just wish away this trade deficit.

but it will take a focus. until there is a focus on how to deal with this, it will really not come down. host: steve is next in maryland, democrat. good morning, steve. caller: yes, it amazes me that ignorance of our legislative branch. 40 years of outsourcing and off shoring, and now all of a sudden we have woken up the big dumb giant. the big dumb giant is so far behind now in manufacturing that we are not coming back anytime soon, not in five years. it took 40 years plus to get here. technically, the legislative ranch of the united states of america enacted laws to outsource and offshore. i love it. all of a sudden, when the pandemic came, as you said, we realize we don't have anything here. we don't have anything here because we don't make anything here. the reason that is, is because the united states is no longer a

country that does. we are a country of talkers. there is no way in god's creation we are going to turn this around in five years or 10 years. it is going to take 40 years. economic policy takes 40 years to see how those policies are going to pan out. host: do you agree with that? guest: i think steve asked a great question. i am more optimistic, i'm just going to say. i think it will take less than 40 years. what i think there are a couple of things we have to be aware of. i think steve correctly diagnoses that it was both democrats and republicans that neglected all of this for a number of decades. he cannot blame one side or the other. it was a little bit of both. but what we need to do moving forward is, first of all, making sure the investments we are making in domestic manufacturing stay there. they are not rolled back in any way. we also need to understand that

semiconductors, while important, are one small part of the manufacturing ecosystem in the united states. there are many other cases where we have significant vulnerabilities and we depend -- and pharmaceuticals are great example of this. we are incredibly dependent on china for the chemicals that go into active pharmaceutical ingredients for things like antibiotics that we depend on. we need some focus on that as well. what we cannot afford to do is reverse policies that have been put into place. but it is going to take time. i think we can get there. we have never seen more manufacturing construction take place in the united states! we are right now. we are never going to re-create the manufacturing economy of the 19 70's, 1960's, 1950's, 1940's. we are in global competition. there are robotics and all sorts

of things now. we are never going to have that. but i think we can have a new manufacturing economy that still looks pretty awesome and is going have thousands of people in it. it's going to be a lot cleaner, exciting, and i think there is a lot to look forward to if we play the policy card right. host: bradley is next in west virginia. he worked in manufacturing. hi, bradley. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, scott. guest: good morning. caller: when i got out of school, i moved to cleveland, ohio and worked for at&t telephones. we manufactured telephones and stuff. it shut down. now, you get the telephone from across the water. when it goes bad, you throw it in the garbage. southeast of cleveland or steel mills, or as they called it, the flats. they also had steel plants in charlston and in west virginia.

all of those are gone. it's a disgrace that our many factoring has moved to foreign countries. the thing if it is, is the dollar. to show you a good example, back in october, i bought a brand-new general motors. it was a little buick car. i didn't look at any of it. my wife bought it and i told the boy to write up a good contract with her and everything. when i got home on saturday, i got the paperwork out and guess where the general motors car was made? it was made in china. i was so mad, i just about went out and put five gallons of gas on and burnt it. then, i had my refrigerator worked on. it is general electric. they put a little fan in it. i asked the guy to look on the box and see where that is made. i'm a vietnam veteran. we lost thousands of veterans over there in vietnam.

anyway, the guy opened the box up and guess what? general electric has moved to vietnam for the cheap labor. the fan and the motor remade over there. i got so mad, i told him you could just about take that out of here and throw in the river if it wasn't for shutting that refrigerator down. general electric, an american company. host: all right, let's get a response. guest: bradley, thank you. and thanks for the perspective from west virginia. i think it is an important one and something that gets overlooked a lot of folks in this town. i will say that gm, general electric, both companies still manufacture in the united states. you can find appliances and cars in the united states. just because it is an american company, that doesn't mean it is going to be manufactured here. looking at the label is incredibly important for all of that, and having access to it.

by the way, a lot of folks want to make it harder for consumers to know where their products would be made we are fighting back against that at the federal trade commission and in congress, to make sure there is truth in labeling and that things are well labeled, so consumers know exactly what they are buying. but it is also true, in the case of both appliances and automobiles, where there used to be a lot of domestic production, there is now a lot of imports coming in as well. there's many complicated reasons for that as well. again, i am optimistic. bradley, i have a colleague in west virginia who was just telling me that the steel mill has slowed down a lot, but there has been new hiring in critical mineral processing and some other things like this. those are exciting opportunities that are happening out there.

and virtually every manufacturer i know right now has a hiring sign outside. they are all looking for help, which is a great time to be looking for a manufacturing job in almost every part of the country right now. host: terry is next in indiana, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i will say good morning to america and thanks for c-span and taking my call. mr. paul, another couple of paul's. rand paul and ron paul are great men. i see you are part of manufacturing. i think that's great. i think rand paul would make a great president. but maybe since trump is so popular, and i love the guy too, maybe he would make a good vice president, since he is not as popular as mr. trump.

i am very happy to see that this industry is starting up here in america. we need to buy american stuff. that helps america. america needs a lot of help right now and it makes me happy to see this program. host: all right, let's go to bill in new york, democrats. caller: good morning. i tend to over talk, so if i do, just turn me off. i'm sitting here watching you on a chinese television set, wearing primarily chinese clothes, and i'm going to be driving my nissan, which is japanese. i recognize that the companies doing this are not u.s. companies. it doesn't say where my chairs

are, what the company is. most companies are, in fact, international. they are owned by people from all over the world. this chip spill starts to move in the right direction. it gives us a chance to have a regulated industry, where we can set how much they are going to give us, the consumers, the money to not have to pay for everything at the highest prices. it also, to a certain extent, says manufacturer here, don't manufacture offshore. manufacturing offshore is cheaper. we raise our tariffs, china and every other country in the world will do the same thing. host: ok, bill. comments? guest: i totally get the point about the companies, whether they are japanese or what have you. i will say this, there are a lot of global companies that do have

manufacturing operations in the united states. they have been set appear for a variety of reasons. some of it is tariff avoidance, because we have the largest consumer market in the world. where 5% of the world's population, but we buy about almost 20% of the world's stuff. it's a really good place if you want to sell into this market. i also agree, and i think you're getting to this point, that there needs to be some corporate accountability here. the chips act does provide that. you are not going to get chips money for a factory that is overseas. it has to be in the united states and we want those jobs to be good jobs. you are creating some value and ripple effects throughout the communities in which these are located. i think that is a good, positive step in the right direction. i know the prior collar was from a fiat, indiana. i and a hoosier, from the state of indiana.

i would never have believed in a million years that there would be a semiconductor factory coming to west lafayette, indiana, but by god there is, things to the chips act. host: let's go to virginia. doug is a republican. caller: hey there, thanks for taking my call. i am a big fan of c-span. manufacturing is obviously so important for the health of the economy, but also making sure that we are not shipping jobs abroad. god forbid we get into a military conflict. i think all the calls you are taking shows there are concerted efforts on both sides to maintain purchases in the u.s. if you buy a physical good, it says where it is made on the box. if it is online, that is not the case. most people who go through amazon, it is clear that it is really difficult to find where it is made or even avoid goods made in china.

i know there is talk at some point around trying to make that a requirement. dear guest -- does your guest have any thoughts on why that legislation failed previously? host: what do you think? guest: that's a good question. there is a legislative solution to this. i know that senator tammy baldwin from wisconsin was one of the sponsors of this. it was called the "country of origin online labeling act." if you buy something on amazon, target, ali baba, wherever, there are no requirements that they tell you where that product is made right now. even though a physical marking, as you indicated, it is required from everything from clothing to automobiles, if you are making the online purchase, he might not find out where the product is made until you actually get that product into your hands. senator baldwinsville, and it is

bipartisan, would change that. it almost made it into the chips act last year. it got tossed out at the last minute. i'm optimistic, particularly with this focus on the value of american manufacturing, the importance of this, that there will be an opportunity to get it done this year. you can contact her own members of congress and let them know it is important to you. host: robin is in washington, independent. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. hello, mr. paul. i really appreciated your testimony during a meeting last week. i thought your perspective was interesting. i order a lot of things online. i'm not able to be out in public to do things. i don't know oftentimes where those things are coming from.

as i watch these meetings, i feel like we are in this game of chess and that the only reason this trade with china has become a big earth of contention is because there are allies with russia, iran, enemies basically of the state. i just feel like this has been a long time coming. previously, there was a one point $5 billion debt to china. i'm just wondering how much they are pulling our strings and what you think we can really do within this administration and perhaps the next to put ourselves in a better position on the board. host: all right, robin.

guest: robin, that's a great question. one of the important things to know about the select committee that was formed is that it does not have any legislating authority. it can make recommendations, discover hearings, bring issues into more of a spotlight, as it has tried to do over the last week, and there will be a lot more of that as well. it is ultimately going to be up to their committees in congress to get legislation across the finish line. that is what i am very concerned about, because that is where those entrenched interests can get in there. there are a lot of global companies that are perfectly fine with the status quo. they're making a lot of money for shareholders, but there is a whole lot else that is suffering. i will say that we have seen both republicans and the last administration, the trump administration, with tariffs in

particular, e