>> the house has gaveled out. today members are working on several pieces of legislation, including a measure to provide tax relief for residents of taiwan who also pay u.s. taxes lawmakers are also consideri a measure to increastransparency for the incomes of certain employees of the tennessee valley the nation's largest public power provider. and later this week, we expect a bill to come to the floor that would deport undocumented immigrants, convicted of certain sex offenses, and other violent crimes. you can watch live coverage of the house when members return right here on c-span.

>> democracy is always an unfinished creation. >> democracy is worth dying for. >> democracy belongs to us all. >> we are here in the sanctuary of democracy. >> great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. >> american democracy is bigger than any one person. >> freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected. >> we are still at our core a democracy. >> this is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom. continues. host: we are joined by representative adrian smith, republican of nebraska and he serves the third district. thanks for joining us. guest: great to be here. host: as chair of the subcommittee can we get your personal thoughts on how health -- on how tariffs should be applied in the united states?

guest: tariffs have been around a long time. we found out they can have a varied impact at various times, impact the economy as well. i cannot say i am a huge fan of tariffs but i will believe they need to be a tool in the toolbox as negotiations take place. it is very important that we are tough negotiators the level of playing field. host: when you say you're not a huge fan is that because of the impact on the economy? guest: that potential. representing a lot of agriculture. we do not like it when other countries put tariffs on our products. we are good exporters of ag products. other countries like our product and value. we do not like when they placed tariffs on us. we need to keep our options on the table. host: president-elect trump has

talked about ways to achieve tariffs. what you think of the approach he is taking? guest: it is important we drive a tough negotiation. i have shared this with a lot of folks that we need to level the playing field. make no mistake. what we have seen over the last four years, a lack of action. some of my democratic colleagues just yesterday in committee criticized tariffs now that trump is coming back in even though nothing was done about tariffs over the last four years. let me say even more importantly there was such a lack of action on trade across the board for the last four years. that in action is especially damaging because our competitors, our trade partners expect more from the united states of america than what they have seen the last four years. host: what would you like to see the ministration do to specific

countries when it comes to tariff policy? guest: take kenya. the previous trump administration teed up a trade agreement with kenya. kenya already enjoys the benefits of the africa growth and opportunity act. kenya enjoys those benefits, basically tariff relief. there other aspects of trade with kenya we can benefit from in terms of market access, agriculture being one. the trump administration teed up a trade agreement with kenya. the biden administration comes in and says we will talk about trade but not about tariffs. i cannot understand why that has been the case when kenya already benefits. let's talk about market access and how our exporters from the united states can get their products into a country such as kenya on a continent that is growing in population. that is what separates africa from summary other continents is

its growing population. host: i suppose as those countries go china would top that list. what is the benefit of applying tariffs or applying other tariffs? guest: the details can be very fine. trade is a lot of work. with growing technology, diversifying economies, that makes trade even more difficult. digital, for example. that is important because the u.s. leads the world in digital trade. other countries say that is a great source of revenue, especially if it comes from another country. that can be damaging in various ways, among them access to information and the flow of information. that is important as well. china as a competitor are engaging in places around the world where we are not.

that is a problem. i think we will stand to see a vigorous engagement in this incoming administration, especially in contrast to the outgoing ministration. host: we have heard the president talk about tariffs as a toll to reduce the amount of fentanyl that comes with the country and other things. is that the proper use of a tariff? guest: fentanyl a dangerous product and if we would become dependent on that revenue, i cannot see a tariff being a good application there on fentanyl. host: if we put these against the country the country can reduce the amount of fentanyl than the tariff achieves its purpose. is that a reasonable measure? guest: that can be the case. i think we need to be careful and not become over on tariff revenue that is probably not very stable. host: this is adrian smith

joining us, republican from nebraska. he is the chair of the trade subcommittee. if you want to ask questions about trade and tariffs and other related issues, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to text us (202) 748-8003. >> we'll leave our recorded program here, you can finish watching it on c-span.org. we take you now to the state department for a briefing. this is live coverage. >> there have been times where we have been close to getting a ceasefire. and events have led to a delay in negotiations. sometimes even events we don't object. to for example, after the killing of sinwar, something the united states very much supported, that delayed negotiations for weeks, well

over a month, because hamas was not in any position to make decisions. they department have a governing structure set up, they didn't have a way to decide ceasefire proposals. we've had other incidents where at virus times the parties, you know, pushed new proposals on the table. so there have been some things that have been, the back and forth negotiations, sometimes have been larger events in the region. i think the fundamental thing that has shifted, two thing that was fundamentally shifted, one really on each side. so on the hamas side, as i said in response to matt's earlier question, they very much have realized over the past few months that there was no hope of getting a broader regional war. i can tell you at fairs times when we thought we were close to an agreement, there have been events that i think rekindled that hope inside hamas'

leadership that they would get that war. so for example, when you saw the direct exchange of fire between israel and iran, something that was unprecedented, we saw hamas pull back from negotiations. because in our judgment they thought this may be the time that we get the outbreak of war. so we don't have to agree to a ceasefire. you saw the escalation of hostilities in september and october between israel and hezbollah, hamas at the same time was pulling back from negotiations. i need to wait and see how that conflict played out. that's what you had on hamas side. on the israeli side over time we've seen them meet their overall strategic objectives. so once they had killed sinwar, that really realized the last strategic objective they had. because they had already decimated hamas' military leadership. so the conversation we have been

having with them is, without a ceasefire agreement you're going to be in a version of groundhog day, you go back never day to fight hamas militants, kill a certain number of militants, some low level. those militants are replaced by others. you heard the secretary say in a speech yesterday, we assessed that hamas has recruited nearly as many militants as israel has killed since october 7. so this becomes a bit of a -- a never ending problem for israel and so i think that ultimately made the judgment that the only way, we have been telling them, for them to get their hostages home and actually achieve lasting security that suit theirs purposes, was to sign up for this agreement as well. >> the secretary's office has -- is it still the stance that the

hamas was the holdout? >> yeah. hamas is -- has far and away been the chief obstacle to concluding this agleement. that's been true especially since august or so. now there have been times that israel has introduced new conditions and new proposals that have made it more difficult to get an agreement. just as hamas at times has introduce nud conditions and new proposals that made it difficult to get to an agreement. but that fundamentally is what a negotiation looks like. you expect parties in a negotiation to put forward propose also. people can debate whether sometimes one side or the other overplay their hand. there have been times we went to the government of israel and said we think you're pushing too hard, we want you to back down. but i will say, really for the past five, six months or so, it has been hamas that at first was

unwilling to negotiate, and then for a while unable to negotiate. so after this period in august when we thought we were getting close to a deal in july and then in august, we saw hamas around that point just decide that they weren't going to negotiate off their position anymore. they had a position, they weren't going to budge. weren't going to move at all. we were still at the table. israel was still willing willing to be at the table, hamas wasn't. that conned for some period of time. then you had this period of time where hamas wasn't able to really make decisions, could have conversations but couldn't negotiate in any meaningful way. when you hear us ceja mas has been the prime obstacle to accepting the deal, that has been accurate. >> you mentioned israel, there would be future governance in gaza. hamas agreed to this. do you think they recognized this? >> i wouldn't want to speak for them at all obviously.

but i think when you look at opinion across the region, it is not just conclusion of the israeli government that hamas has disqualified itself from leadership. obviously the israeli government never thought hamas should run israel in the first place. but hamas can play no role at all in the future of ga savage we hear that from countries across the region. you cannot have a terrorist organization that is committed to the destruction of israel that has launched this horrific conflict, that has ruled in the death of more than 45,000 palestinians, has massively increased the chance, full out war, which we got close to on a number of occasion, we were able to prevent through intense diplomatic efforts. i think none of the parties who we have talked to about contributing financial support, about contributing security support to gaza, are in any way

going to be willing to step up and do that if they see either a future where gaza is dominated by israel or if it's dominated by hamas. >> thank you. biden said americans would be coming out in the first phase. do you have any details on who and how many? >> i don't want to get into it. there are seven americans who remain held hostage inside ga czar, four alive, three unfortunately decease. we will have that information coming in the -- available not coming days. i want to make sure we are able to have the conversations with eneed to have with those families about those details before i talk about it in public. we'll make that available. >> it's still the presumption that those three are alive? when is the last time there was update on their conditions? >> there is still the presumption that they are ailey. we have various amount -- we

have differing levels of information with each of those. but that's information we communicated with the families. >> on the humanitarian surge, how is that going to be distributed? what's the assessment on the level discharge and just on the infrastructure within gaza, how do you intend to get that level of aid? will there be any reconstruction committed to assist with the aid distribution? >> reconstruction does not happen in phase one. it'll happen in phase two and phase three of this plan. phase one is really just stabilization and recovery before you can even get to reconstruction. but the aid will be distribute through our humanitarian partners, largely the u.n. agencies there on the ground, nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations. >> the structure has been destroyed is our understanding, so how do you intend to be able to do that? >> so that's true but there are still warehouses in gaza that are functions now. some of the warehouses that

exist haven't been destroyed but aid organizations haven't been able to get to them because of the security situation. we think they'll be able to turn those warehouses back on. we believe they'll be able to surge the number of trucks that go in and move around. specifics of that, i would of course defer to the aid organizations who are expert in how to do this. but in all of our conversations with them, they are confident that they will be able to massively increase the amount of humanitarian assistance that gets in once the ceasefire is final. >> do you anticipate any travel now that the ceasefire has been agreed? >> by the secretary? i do not. we still have five days but i don't have anything as i stand here at 3:15 on wednesday. >> so what are you saying? >> i'm say there's a chance, i do not anticipate but there's always a chance. >> thank you for taking our questions. to follow up on the aid, you

mentioned some challenges and we heard critical dethiestles aid search still to be worked out, due to be discussed in cairo on thursday. will the u.s. be part of those conversations? >> we will be part of those conversations. i don't have an update on who will be attending but we very much have been a part of humanitarian assistance efforts from the beginning. of this effort. and continue to be. >> and then security arrangements for the delivery of aid is one of the most difficult issues. are there security arrangements that are already agreed for this surge of aid? does that still need to be worked out? >> there are broad agreements we have worked out with some of the humanitarian partners. there are details we have to work out. of course some of this will happen as the aid organizations have more freedom and flexibility to move around gaza in a way they haven't been able to in the fast 15 months. where they will be able to, you know, i think things will look, a week or 10 days from now will

look different than they have over the past 15 months. just base those opposed, no situation inside gaza. i'm sure there are things they have looked at, that they have planned, they need to adapt once they're able to move around more freely inside of gaza. >> can you say what's agreed? >> i can't get into that. >> what about what you'd like to see in terms of security arrangements? >> we want to see that humanitarian workers are protected. that they can go about their jobs, free from harm. free from violence. that they are not put in harm's way either by members of hamas who will still be inside gaza and who still of course have access to weapons inside gaza, or by gangs and looting that we have seen be an impediment to delivery of assistance over the past few months. but specifics of that, are conversations we're having directly with humanitarian groups. >> it's been an extraordinary year, four years, and i think

been pretty full. congratulations. i wanted to ask this again. we've been asking about the incidents of israel's activities in gaza that have been investigated. are you confident that the conclusions of some of these incidents will reach the light of day moving forward to the next administration? is there anything to shore up to make sure those come to light? >> we continue to work to reach definitive answers with respect to a number of incidents we are looking at. the use of weapons are not obligations that expire on january 20. they are obligations that carry over from this administration to the next administration so we fully expect that the next administration carry out its duties under the law. there are a number of potential

incidents we have been looking at. you've seen us issue a report where we went into detail how we are looking to assess that there have been ince depts in which israel has violated international humanitarian law or its commitments under israeli law. but we have a number of incidents that we are looking at. if those aren't finished between now and monday, there are obligations that continue into the next administration. >> on the report you mentioned, afghanistan, is it your hope that u.s. officials and also indeed foreign journalists will at some point be allowed back into gaza and be able to provide evidence and information that is perhaps lacking when they come together? >> we have wanted foreign journalists to be able to get into gaza already. it has been long our position that journalists should be able to operate inside gaza.

we've heard journalists say they want to face the risk and go in and bring the truth to light. we support their efforts to do so. but certainly we want them to do so and i can't speak to when it comes to the position of u.s. personnel, i don't think i should speak to that given that it's going to be, i don't want to speak for the next administration, the ceasefire go into effect on sunday. the new administration takes office on monday. i don't think i should try to speak for them. i can say on behalf of this administration we would wan to be able to do anything we could to gather facts about potential violations of international humanitarian law. >> last question. what about the day -- on the day after, do you have any specifics about who, or if there are any parties willing to step forward and help with the deradicallization in gaza? are you just hoping that's something that will become clear if this succeeds? >> we have had conferses with a number of our partners in the

region about that. i don't think the countries are any secret. the secretary has talked about his work on the day after as he traveled around the region and met with these partners. i don't want to, there are different partners that have spoken about different aspects they'd be willing to contribute at different phases of this process. so i don't want to speak to them publicly largely because you know, the plan that the secretary laid out, we found got broad support. but there were still details that needed to be agreed. it was always our assumption that if we got to phase one, it was during phase one of the agreement that you could really force agreement on the day after plan because it takes bringing about a ceasefire to focus the mind on what comes next and to drive agreement on what comes next. so we were really looking for this opportunity to drive real agreement on turning those broad strokes into implementable

plans. so what we're going to do as the secretary said yesterday, take those plans and turn them other to the incoming administration. we've had conversations about them. it is our hope they'll pick them up and run with it. these will be decisions for them to make. if they don't, i believe there are countries in the region who will want to step up, who will not want gaza to be a source of continued suffering and pain and instability to the broader region. >> i want to thank you for your time at the podium and for every time, calling on me. i never felt that i'm less than, i sincerely thank you. >> of course, i've enjoyed it. >> let me ask you about the ceasefire. now it goes into effect on sunday. that's four days from today.

is there anything that could stop this? >> the ceasefire is effective sunday, and this is something about all ceasefires ever, there's nothing to stop people continues to bomb until the day of the ceasefire. >> we've seen the israelis go at it until the very last second. do you expect that? did you call on them not to do that? >> i'm not going to speak for what they may or may not do. we want to see the ceasefire implemented. that's what we're focused on. as i said in my opening, as, it does have the chance to finally bring enduring peace and stability not just to gaza and to israel but the broader region. >> looking back, do you feel that this administration, this state department has done everything it could to bring this to and ♪♪ to stop the suffer, to stop the killing of palestinian children?

do you think there was a time you could have probably pushed, put your foot down, the foot of the united states of america? >> yes, i absolutely do. no, i'm answering his first question. we do -- do we believe we have done everything we can, i absolutely do. i think one of the things we have always been focused on in trying to get a ceasefire over the line is not just to get a ceasefire for a ceasefire's sake but to get a ceasefire that would be enduring. we don't want to see a ceasefire that breaks down in two weeks or four weeks. or even a year. we want to see a ceasefire that sets the stage for lasting peace between israelis and palestinians. it was posh that we get that kind of ceasefire and that's what we have put our efforts from day one into achieving. it is also important, when you look at our overall policy, that we prevent the region from

really tipping into all out war. and when you look at the things that we laid out from day one, you look at things that the secretary said, the day after october 7, the objectives we were going to try to achieve, it was important that we continue to show that we are committed to the defense of israel so that its enemies across the region did not see this as a moment of division and a moment of weakness when they could attack israel and really plunge the region into the type of war that is awful, is horrible -- that as awful, as horrible as gaza has been, would have extended that suffering from gaza into other places in the region. that's another chief objective of our policy. >> when all is said and done, the real cost of all these conflict, all these wars that happen from time to time, the fact that the palestinians continue to suffer. they have been displaced for 76 years or more, 7 years.

so there was a great deal of rhetoric about palestinian state. about timely the palestinians living in dignity. i think it was this administration or this secretary of state that talked about the need for palestinians to live in dignity and to have the same opportunities as israelis and so on. what have you done to bring this about? to make it real? for this to, at one point to come about? >> let me start by addressing something you said in the run up to your question about the suffering of the palestinian people. one of the things that really has marked this conflict, let me just put it this way. if you looked at the speech that the parents of hersch goldberg gave back last -- it was at the democratic national convention. how they spoke there's a surplus of suffering across the middle east. that's absolutely true. we have seen palestinians suffer

long before october 7. of course we've seen them bear the brunt of this conflict. palestinian civilians who did not start this conflict but suffered the brunt of it. we have seen the hostages bear tremendous pain and suffering. and of course the 1,200 people killed on october 7 inside israel. as hersch bold gehrig -- goldberg's parents said there's been a surplus of suffering. we do fundamentally believe believe that the fail to realize thes a baitions of the palestinian people is one of the main drivers of instability in the region, one of the main drivers of suffering. so i would urge you to look at the speech that the secretary gave yesterday, where he talked about exactly what we have done. and to unlock a political path forward for the palestinian future. there are three stages that we see that are important to get -- to finally realizing a palestinian state. one is a ceasefire, we got there

today. two is a day after plan that starts to rebuild gaza. and three is a normalization agreement with saudi arabia which provides israel, hopefully, don't know if they'll agree to it, but provides israel the incentives to agree to a palestinian state. we have put a lot of work into developing those plans and building support for these plans and we are ready to hand those plans off to the incoming administration. now, agreement on those will require tough choices and i know everyone likes to point at the government of israel and it will absolutely require tough choices by the government of israel. it will also require tough choices by the palestinian authority which needs to make real reforms if it wants to win the support of its people and wants to win financial and diplomatic and other back big those in the region. there are a lot of tough choices that people in the region have to make to realize that vision of a palestinian state. but we have done what we can to make those choices possible and now it's up to leaders in the

region to decide whether they want to take them or not. >> two points. one is unra, they're slated to be banned from operating at the end of the month. now i know this administration decided not to about a year ago until investigations are completed and i believe they have been completed. are you worried that once it's banned from operating that aid and so on that you've talked about so much will actually be hindered a great deal? >> so we are concerned about that. it's why we called for the restoration of funding, you left one important thing out of your -- of the -- we are now under a statutory ban by congress. we don't have the ability to turn funding to una rabach on. we called for that ban to be lifted