ashley: we started down 150. we kind of calmed it down a little. stuart: we have been active trading now for 2 1/2 hours, almost exactly, we're down 85. not exactly volatile. >> right. stuart: see what you do for you, charles payne, sittings in for neil? >> is this the calm after or before the next storm? charles: i'm charles payne in for new cavuto this is "cavuto: coast to coast." the president is saying it is now or never from a "dreamer" deal. connell mcshane is at the capitol. reporter: members the senate have a chance to go back down to the storm to propose amendments. items like daca and border security that we heard so much about. the president did have a tweet on the subject earlier today

when he wrote that negotiations on daca have begun. republicans want to make a deal. democrats say they want to make a deal. wouldn't it be great if we could finally after so many years solve the daca puzzle? this will be our last chance. there will never be another opportunity. march 5th, talking about the deadline he has put in place. one interesting note on this subject, the budget director mick mulvaney over from the white house to testify on capitol hill today to testify about the president's budget and he said the white house is anticipating a daca deal. listen. >> the proposal that we sent you actually contemplates a daca immigration deal being done because we recognize the fact you have no interest in giving us money for full border wall unless it is part of a larger immigration bill so we fully contemplate that deal is reached. reporter: that is interesting. they work it into the budget projections. that is one subject. the other is trade, with members about the house and senate at

the white house this hour, meeting with the president on trade. i think the comment may have been overlooked somewhat yesterday with everything that was going on, but appeared that president trump made some news on trade with this idea for an import tax. listen. >> we are going to charge countries outside of our country, countries that take advantage of the united states. some of them our so call allies but they're not allies on trade. we'll disaing so much a reciprocal tax. you will hear about that during the week and during the coming months. reporter: details on what the president means or how a so-called reciprocal tax will be implemented, we don't have the details. reuters has a report that nothing is formally discussed on the subject at white house at this point. trade, charles, will be a big issue here. really next few weeks something for markets to watch. next round of nafta negotiations set to begin in two weeks in mexico city. back to you. charles: connell mcshane, thank you very much.

democrats are resisting on immigration and even infrastructure so will any deal ever get done? we want to go to "real clear politics" cofounder, tom bevin and nan hayworth and "after the bell" co-host david asman. charles, you're having trouble believing any deals will get done. >> there is so much pressure on the left and the right. on immigration, nancy pelosi, charles schumer they have serious pressure from the left side of their base. they want to do a tight daca deal, nothing more. republicans want more. they want changes to the visa lottery, chain migration, you know money for the border wall, all that. you won't get a deal unless those things are included one that can pass the house and senate and get to the president's desk. i don't see the ability of the

parties to fashion some compromise like that that can get through both chambers. kind of the same thing going on on infrastructure. charles: here is the problem, nan, for me. infrastructure, i hit a big pothole this weekend. it didn't discriminate, whether i was republican or democrat or independent. it ate my tire. how did they not pass a daca bill after compromising on more defense spending? how do they go back to their own constituents, we stood up for you by not getting it done? >> charles, i know, i was there in the house of representatives and politics unfortunately enters into all of these decisions. we all know painfully, we don't have majority in the senate on the republican side. so that makes it very difficult -- charles: my question how do democrats not go for this?

>> you heard what tom just said i agree with him. democrats are getting tugged very hard from the far left. we have seen what is happening in democratic politics. there is a tremendous sentiment against the president they think they can use politically. that will be their theme this year. they are going to capital r, resist, president trump. they think so long as they perceive it is to their political benefit not to go along with the president and blame the republicans, if they can plausibly plame republicans not making progress on daca, they're not giving us what we need to get it done. charles: plausible blame. that is tough one. >> plausible denial is usually phrase is used. i think nan was right up until the budget deal because it is

clear that the democrats whole strategy was based on a hate trump idea. that was strong enough to carry them through to the majority in november. then they saw how much they were able to get as a result of this budget deal. i think they were for it. you have noticed, i'm sure tom noticed this as well, the rhetoric seemed to change in past couple days since the budget deal came through. you see schumer publicly saying we can't just go into november with anti-trump attitude, we have to plan for something. they don't have that much other than daca. but the point is right now it they got so much, that's why tom has a colleague, john tamny, who edits the real clear markets website which is just as good as "real clear politics" and tam any is always saying i hope they don't do any deal because the markets will be better off and the american people will be better off. we can't afford another deal. i think that the budget deal proved that. >> a accommodating democrats. charles: on that point, tom, it

is a dangerous, it is a dangerous slope they're going down, particularly where the democrat infighting. nan talked about the party being pulled to the left. there is article in the "new york times" questioning nancy pelosi's iron grip anymore. maybe the party itself not sure what it stands for but it's a dangerous gambit i think when they have been offered so much. i don't know that any traditional republican president would have offered the things they have been offered, i think they would be nuts not to come to the table. >> well, i mean, look, trump is sort of in a unique position to, you know, nixon going to china type situation on immigration but look, this is, the left-wing base of the party, luis gutierrez, congressman from out here in illinois was among others was upset that the democrats did the budget deal. they wanted the government to shut down. they want to go to mats on "dreamers." why nancy pelosi stand up eight hours in the well of the house last week and read -- charles: the offer is on the table. an offer for almost 300% more of

daca recipients than even signed up under president obama. they don't have to go to the mattresses or the mat, anything like that, just step up to the table? >> offer is on the table in exchange for changes to chain migration, visa lottery and money for the border wall. democrats don't want to do any of that. that is the problem. charles: elections have consequences, right? >> right. charles: you lost. you lost a lot, not just this last election, last several elections, statehouses governorships. >> 1000 seats. charles: so guess what, it is nice that you want certain things but you're being offered something you probably, i just, again i think it's a dangerous gamble on their part. i think the daca recipients and those who like to see this done will see through them if they don't get it done. think i they're taking a dangerous risk. >> charles, they can't take yes as an answer from the president. they are playing a a dangerous

political game. it is an entire political game. they are not stupid, they know they could help the daca recipients. the administration expanded the offer to two million people. charles: are they that stupid, that they have a low opinion of would-be daca recipients. >> no. they perceive and i think their political calculation is mistaken because president trump has also accomplished tremendous regulatory and tax cuts that are helping this economy. >> with the exception of the tax cuts, he did that on his own. i mean with regulation. >> absolutely. >> important thing here, any deal that is made with democrats will cost us all a lot of money. >> that's right. >> that is why the market is tanking partly is because of the fact they saw the budget deal was going to -- charles: ironically when the budget was released it went up 250 points. >> it had already been baked in. charles: i don't know about that. >> deficit will be growing to enormous -- we can't sustain trillion dollar deficits

forever. deficit as percent of gdp, look at this, i put this together. the past five presidents middle president, bill clinton, everybody else was 4%. obama was 5.8%. bill clinton was .5%. back in those days it was done at a time when democrats and republicans were working together to lower the deficit. they were working together to cut costs. on welfare reform, on tax reduction. remember there was the capital gain tax reduction. there was important messages to the american people that the era of big government was over. bill clinton said that. we don't have any democrat willing to say that right now. >> that's right. the democrats have become highly polarized and highly politicized. my point was yes, with the economy improving the democrats are playing very dangerous political game for themselves. charles: i will ask tom about that. because, tom, do we have enough time? real quick, tom, the latest "qunnipiac poll" shows that

people think the economy is good or excellent is at 70%. i don't think the number got above 32% unpresident obama. now the majority give president trump the credit for this. all these polls continue to move in the favor of the white house and gop, putting extreme pressure on the democratic party. >> i agree. we've seen that we've seen that number not just in the "qunnipiac poll" but other surveys. there is definitely a feeling, public feels the economy is moving in the right direction. now trump is starting to get credit for it. that is what republicans hoped for heading into the 2018 elections. charles: thank you, guys, very, very much. volatility continues on wall street. how do we 1/2 fate through the wild and crazy swings? we'll break it down for you right after this.

charles: you know much has been made by the record amount of money exiting mutual fund last week. most observers say $30 billion that fled was part of a larger tranche of 100 billion that came pouring in 2018 in the beginning of the year. now sadly, those same observers have taken to calling these would be investors dumb money, suggesting their timing is always wrong and the market is simply no place for them, but deliberate shakeout of so-called

dumb money, with he lietz want certain privileges to themselves, especially owning and controlling stock market. you say every time i get in the market it goes down, perhaps it is not your imagination. but it is not bad timing or dumb luck either. the moment you hit your snooze button the alarm clock, put on jogging sneakers, drink a cup of coffee, latest gizmo to avoid traffic you're in the stock market, knee deep in it. it is people that make alarm clocks, jogging sneakers, retail industrialists that make the coffee for you. those are the occupations. what they all have in common as stock ownership as source of their well. guess what, they didn't dump their stocks because wages edged higher for first time in years. they didn't head for the hills because the fed must slowly unwind its balance sheet. they are not panicking over possibility of a 3% yield on 10-year treasury bond.

they make adjustments and diversify. ultimately my inmessage, don't be the dumb money claiming they are, allowing you to scare you out of elitist mon-making club. i want to bring in market watch, keith fitz-gerald as the volatility increases. keith, how worried are you right now. >> chars, i hope i'm not part of the dumb money. your monologue is spot on. here is the thing, right? you have to be in to win. that is how you tap into growth. now the market is forward-looking thing. the water is cold and maybe rough but go swimming. that is how you tap into the growth that makes you wealthy over time. charles: here is the thing though, keith. my experience with individual investors is that a lot of them miss the rally. they missed the rebound under barack obama. now they're missing growth phase of our economy so far under president trump, even though feeling it in their own lives. they got a raise. making money. optimism is higher. let me dip a toe into the rough

water keith is talking about. the first big wave they get out. it frustrates me. i see the same folks coming back and giving it a shot again at dow 30,000? >> i talk to tens of thousands of investors a year and my advice is consistent. you want to identify companies tapped into unstoppable trend, no matter what washington does, what wall street does, what the fed does, these are trillions of dollars that will get spend. prioritize companies making must-have products and services. then you go swimming. those are kinds of things will be hard to lose. they want you uncertain and fear, that is how they make their money. get over that. take the emotions out of that. concentrate on companies like amazon. concentrate on companies like apple and raytheon, in full disclosure my family recommends but does not currently own. that is the future is all about. you have got to be in to win on

that. charles: what about the backdrop? this new volatility? in many respects last year, one of the best years ever in the market, if you consider how much we were up against how little volatility there was? it was inevitable we would get the wild swings but tough for people to deal with them day-to-day. do you see this smoothing out a little bit soon? >> it does, charles and here's why. a, people forget that we used to have this kind of volatility five or 10 years ago. this is normal, guard en-variety volatility. this is technical in nature. like throwing a rock into a lake. you will get ripples and going back and forth, but the computers eventually causing all of this nonsense will calm down and we'll get smooth sailing. ceos are ones you want to watch, not the politicians, not the wall street band of merry marauders, but ceos. they're tasked into making profits. as long as they're in to win and it is a reasonable bet as an investor to do.

charles: talk about the budget and budget proposal and newfound spending by the republican party. our debt is $20.6 trillion in counting. we railed how much it will cost our nation t costs a lot of money. perhaps there is time when we're spending as much as trillion dollars a year on interests, not even knocking down the principle. how does a economy function like that? when we do get to that point what is the ramifications for investors? >> that is a very logical question. if we operated on a closed loop system. you and i have a checkbook. if we spend more money than we have we get in serious trouble. the government has unlimited printing press. i don't like one iota. there is you know what to be paid when time comes. the companies grow faster than the interest rates mount. that is what they're banking on. it is kind of kicking the can down the road but kind of serious. if you grow faster than you pay for the growth you will have profits at the end of the day.

charles: i guess the question is, nobody has answers when do we fly off the cliff? once we fly off there is no turning back? are we sanguine we've been hearing this warning for a decade now and it hasn't happened? >> i think that is a fair question. but to paraphrase a old "star trek" analogy, i'm a huge trekie, we're totally in uncharted territory right now. nobody knows what the limits of this stuff is because modern finance didn't exist when we had the dow jones created or any other metrics we look to today. charles: right. >> i don't think the risk of a crash is what everybody thinks it is. i think the risk, the more expensive proposition is not participating in the growth, whether we like how it happens or not. charles: i love that. keith fitz-gerald, thank you very much. be free and prosperous, something like that. buddy, see you real soon. >> absolutely. charles: the fallout from speaker ryan's exclusive interview with fox business, are future tax cuts, are they really on the table? can we actually get more tax

breaks? we have some brand new information on that right after the break. ♪ and made it daring. we took intelligent, and made it utterly irresistible. we took the most advanced e-class ever, and made the most exciting e-class ever. the 2018 e-class coupe and sedan. lease the e300 sedan for $569 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

charles: fbi intelligence officials on capitol hill. make berman at the white house with all of it. reporter: head of intelligence community up on capitol hill testifying publicly before one of the senate committees there. chris wray, the head of the fbi, making a host of headlines earlier this morning standing up for the men and women of the fbi. standing against the republican led memo from the house intelligence committee saying he has major concerns with it. also throwing a big bomb, wray did, into the timeline that this white house has presented over the last week or so as it relates to rob porter, the former staff secretary and the handling of his security clearance. you probably know the backstory here, both of porter's ex-wives

accused abuse by porter when he was married to those two women. the white house faced multiple questions why porter didn't go sooner. the story from the white house had been there was a review process, a security clearance review process that was on going. that was the story from the white house as recently as yesterday, but wray testifying just moments testifying moments ago, said, not so. >> the fbi submit ad partial report on the investigation in question in march. and then a completed background investigation in late july, that is soon thereafter we received requests for follow-up inquiry, and we did the follow-up and provided that information in november. and then we administratively closed the file in january, and then, earlier this month we received some additional information and we passed that

on as well. reporter: also on the hill the direct are to have national intelligence dan coats who went out of his way during his prepared testimony to sound the alarm against the growing debt, coats calling it a national security issue. >> this situation is unsustainable, as i think we all know, and represents a dire threat to our economic and national security. i would urge all of us to recognize the need to address this challenge and to take action as soon as possible before a fiscal crisis occurs that truly undermines our ability to insure our national security. reporter: charles, right now, president trump is here at the white house hosting a trade event or at least speaking with senators about trade. the cameras have been brought in before the president, and this has been going on, the president making remarks on camera for the better portion of about a half hour or so. we expect to hear from the president shortly. sarah sanders briefing at

2:00 this afternoon. that will be dominated, once again, by how the white house handled this rob porter situation, what they knew, and when, especially with what chris wray detailed today. charles? charles: blake, thank you very much. meanwhile pepsico, announcement investing in employees after tax reform. speaker paul ryan says this tax cut momentum will actually help save the gop and help save their position in the house. let's take a listen. >> is this going to be enough for you to keep the house come november? >> i think if we had not passed it would be very, very difficult. because we passed this, we kept our word, people are seeing what we're doing is actually improving their lives and seeing the other side is offering nothing but crumbs, resist all this stuff, yeah, i think we will keep the house. >> are you going to stick around and see fruits of your labor? because rumblings are you will hopefully keep the house and then resign and step down after november. >> my wife and i had that conversation in the spring of

every election year. we haven't had that yet. we'll figure it out then. charles: charlie gasparino is here with reaction. what do you think? >> a punt. i got to read something. i got interesting tweet. charles: from paul ryan? >> from jack phillips. c-payne good to see you on. keep gasparino off until 1:00 p.m. tired of the gloom and doom, real donald trump hater. harsh. charles: you have a big fan club. >> listen, i think mr. phillips will blow a gasket after i say this. i think republicans passing tax cuts it is good. it good for the economy. that should help them in the midterms. the one caveat i have is the general unpopularity of the president. now, here's the thing. his popularity, or this his unfavorables are going down. he is getting a bump from

positive economic news and maybe that will continue but he is so detested by some people, even republicans have to hold their nose to vote for him sometimes given all the antics that he has done, that could overwhelm the fact that he has done some great economic things that helped the economy. you know -- charles: don't people vote based on their economic condition more so than how they feel about the person in the white house? >> usually. charles: i have to say, charles, if you look now versus a year ago a lot of establishment-type republicans who were steadfast against president trump, a lot have come around. a lot are saying you know what? he has been more conservative than i thought. he achieved more than we thought he would, particularly considering the resist environment down in d.c. i'm not so sure -- >> his approval ratings do not -- charles: his approval ratings -- charles: same approval ratings that said he wasn't going to win in the first place. >> he didn't win the popular vote.

by the way this is different election. steve bannon said it himself. steve bannon said, the left is, and women are particularly energized in this election because of the me "me too" movement, and from both parties and the general distaste the way donald trump comports himself. my point is simply this, given the way the economy is now, obviously is getting better, his approval ratings should be better. i will say one other thing, he hasn't done well in recent races -- republicans have not done well. somewhat after sign. charles: there are coughcaveats to those. i would say the bet one to judge in atlanta, right outside of at lan tax that was third highest college-educated populace out there. those folks supposedly not voting for a republican and had a young charming democrat. he didn't live in the district. never he lost. i think that might have been the

pure gauge. but by the same tone -- >> roy moore thing opened my eyes for this. this is alabama. if a republican can't win in alabama, that tells you something. charles: got to admit roy moore very, very flawed candidate. >> but the president put his reputation on the line. it is not like he didn't campaign for him. he campaigned directly for him. charles: no. >> he still got blown out. charles: i went with the other candidate first. the rival. went with the rival first. then he went to the panhandle of florida. but he wasn't down in alabama barnstorming. >> he was on twitter saying how great roy moore is compared to the other guy. by the way that is his modus operandi for campaign. charles: but the bottom line the economy is giving better, giving republican as better chance keeping majority. >> listen, i agree. but what i'm saying is, the intangible here is donald trump and the fact that a lot of people just don't like him. charles: to, you admitted you came on even that appears to be

changing more recently in the polls. >> his favorable ratings are going up as economy continues. maybe that will change. charles: growing gas tax for infrastructure and fears it would backfire miserably. more fallout on the back and forth on immigration. "making money" we may have breaking news. they say we're close to daca deal. find out at 6:00 p.m. eastern on fox business. ♪ how did edward jones come to manage a trillion dollars in assets under care? jay. sarah. so i have a few thoughts on that early retirement... by focusing our mind on whatever's on yours.

♪ >> not a lot of money there. so i guess you could get deeper and deeper. >> the way to get the money is to raise the gas tax. the gas tax hasn't been raised. >> federal gas tax or gas tax. >> raise the gas tax which has not been raised in 25 years. everything in america has gone up. the gas tax hasn't. and if you want to develop a big pot of money, the gas tax, which built the interstate civil by

the way over 50 years, is the way to do it. charles: former transportation secretary ray lahood suggesting to neil cavuto that a gas tax would help pay for infrastructure. to fbn's gerri willis if the math really adds up. >> yeah, charles. it is out there, the white house proposing to spend $200 billion to fix the nation's ailing roads and highways but haven't said how to pay for it. u.s. chamber of commerce has idea, boost the gas tax a nickel a gallon for next five years to total of quarter a gallon. that would ways 4 h $394 billion over the next 10 years, but as you saw many republicans are on board but is it that simple? to be sure the highway trust fund according to report from the con expressional research service, $14 billion in general fund money transferred to the highway trust fund in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 to cover expanding spending needs.

that cap only getting worse. the congressional budget office projecting the gap between dedicated service transportation revenues and spending will average 20.1 billion annually between 2021 and 2026. so the funding pothole is getting deeper and deeper. rick gettis a professor at cornell university i talked to yesterday says a gas tax would be unreliable. why? gas tax is indexed to inflation. real collections decline over time. according to him the purchase power of 18.3 cents a gallon tax eroded by a third since it was implemented under the clinton administration in 1993. people are driving less. miles traveled he said, peaked in 2006. they have been declining ever since. blame those millenials. lots of cars, they don't even burn gas. those that do, they are more fish inburning less and less gas

all the time. he said like trying to fund your health care with a tax on cigarettes. charles? charles: that is a great analogy. gerri, thank you very. >> you're welcome. charles: more on gases like the gas tax, the quick we, are they best answer for our company. national taxpayers union brandon arnold is here. higher taxes a way to curt economic ails for a long period of time. america tried that for eight years. didn't seem like it worked but you're getting bipartisan support with respect to increase in the national sales tax. are they right? >> well, no, i don't think so. i think we do need to look at our infrastructure needs. we do need to address the critical problems that we have here in our roads and highways and elsewhere but the gas tax ought to be the last option on the table, not the first one. this is typical washington play here. let's bring revenues into the city, disperse them out to

states and localities because that is a fun things for politicians to do, in reality we need to fix what is broken in the system before we look attacks increases. charles: what about the notion of accountability? i think i pay, i don't know, a lot of money to cross the george washington bridge every day. i mean extraordinary amount of money. i still have my share of potholes. i still have my share of auto repairs. i'm wondering where does the money go now? seems like a promise is not kept and that fund something looted in my mind in the money used for other things other than what they say it is going to be used for? >> that is one of the problems. the gas tax revenue should go directly to projects related to roads, highways, bridges where they're needed most. they should be localized as much as possible before the federal government starts looking at a gas tax increase, states should do so. states own 98% of the roads and highways in this country. they own and maintain those. therefore they should be the key component here. they should be the key voice in making these decisions and

bringing revenue to the table. charles: real quick, because we'll have president trump here in a second, what is the answer? is the public/private partnership a reality? >> public/private partnerships absolutely are part of a solution. they need to be expanded and need to be used not just for new roads but maintenance and up keep of existing roads and highways. we have severe limitations. we need to creative like rest of the world has coming to those needs. charles: some say we should insist locally-produced materials. it sounds like a good idea i know speed is of the essence as well. how do we find a compromise there? >> i don't agree with that notion, what ultimately will do is raise costs unnecessarily. there is no harm in bringing in external sources of construction equipment, of the resources that we need, the materials that we need to build roads and highways here. we should not overly focus on just domestic-sourced materials.

we can drive down the costs of projects in other ways including labor costs. including reducing environmental review process. it is seven years on average to review a project for environmental concerns. we need to be cognizant and aware of environmental impacts. that is far too long. drives up the cost unnecessarily. charles: brandon arnold. thank you very much. here is president trump. >> thank you very much. i'm delighted to welcome both republicans and democrats. nice sound, isn't that a nice sound? we won't be discussing daca but there is plenty of discussion going on right now about daca from both the house and the senate, to the white house. we're here today to discuss a matter of vital importance to our nation's economy and our security and i've been discussing it for years and certainly discussed it very, in great detail on the campaign trail. it is america's aluminum and steel industries and many other industry where we're taken advantage of by other countries.

i alluded to it yesterday too. i directed the secretary of commerce whether steel and aluminum imports are threatening to impair national security. you see what has happened with our steel and aluminum industries. they're being decimated by dumping and, from many countries. in particular one but many countries. they're dumping and destroying our industry and destroying the families of workers and we can't let that happen. secretary ross submitted the result of the investigations to me last month. my administration is reviewing all the reports and considering all the options. part of options would be tariffs, as they dump steel they pay substantial tariffs, that means the united states would make a lot of money rand probably our steel industry and our aluminum industry would come back into our country. right now it is decimated. it will make a decision and i will make a decision that

reflects the best interests of the united states including the need to address overproduction in china and other countries. you have countries so overproducing, what they're doing, they're dumping it on us. you look at empty factories, steel factories. it is, and plants and it is very sad thing to look at. i've been watching, i've been looking at them for two years as i went around campaigning, no matter where you go, you look at them, see what happened to u.s. steel and these other companies. they were the giants. now they're hanging on for their life. i look forward to hearing your views. i would like to have some of you speak and you have very strong -- i know roy, you do, we all do probably have pretty strong views on this i look at it two-ways. i want to keep prices down but i also want to make sure we have a steel industry and aluminum industry and we do need it for national defense. if we ever have a conflict we don't want to be buying steel from a country that we're

fighting because somehow that doesn't work very well. we hopefully will not have any conflicts but we have to look at that with national defense and we can not be without a steel industry. we can not be without an aluminum industry. so what we're talking about is tariffs and/or quotas. roy, would you like to start. we discussed this over the start. do you have any suggestion? >> mr. president i do think we need to be careful here that we don't start reciprocal battle on tariffs. you know, we make aluminum and we make steel in missouri but we buy a lot of aluminum and we buy a lot of steel as well from bass boats to beer cans. there is a lot of aluminum out there. we have aluminum manufacturer closed down but with special electric rates is reopening under new management. so clearly we're concerned about those new jobs but also concerned about all the jobs,

whether it's in the electric steel area or the aluminum area, are very price-sensitive here. >> good. i understand that very well. one thing i just, i do want to tell you, we just got this notice, general motors in korea announces the first step in necessary restructuring. they're going to, gm korea company announced today it will cease production and close its gunsan plant in may of 2018 and move back to detroit. you don't hear these things exempt for the fact trump became president. you wouldn't be hearing that. moving back from korea to detroit. you saw chrysler moving from mexico to michigan. you have many other companies, they want to be where the action is. the big tax cuts had a big impact. kevin knows that maybe better than anybody. but it had a big impact on that decision. when you see that

general motors, we have a very bad trade deal with korea. very, very bad trade deal. it's a deal that, it is incompetent, that somebody could have made a deal like that. so we have a horrible trade deal with korea. now even before we do something with that because we're negotiating the trade deal with korea. we'll either negotiate a fair deal or we'll terminate the deal. but before we do that, already general motors is coming back into detroit. that is a really significant statement. many others to follow, from many other countries. mike, go ahead. >> mr. president, let me tell you that 2800 people were laid off in my district in 2015 in a steel plant that has been operating for over 100 years. the concern that we have is, is that steel plant produces the, what is known as the oil country tubular goods, octg. oct-f, when we're doing exploration and everything like that oil that we are but korea dumped 200% in the last year in

overabundance of, into that particular market. because of that, we're not able to get those 2800 jobs back. like i said, those jobs have been there. that group of people -- >> where did it go? to korea. >> all the products coming from korea now that we turned up. unless we use the power under 232, because if something goes south, all of sudden we're trying to become energy independent, these plants don't turn up overnight. we have to try to do something to work for long-term goal. >> korean agreement, as you know, mike, most of the people at this table, that was done about it last administration. it was supposed to produce 150 to 200,000 jobs. and it did, for korea. for us it produced nothing but losses. it was a horrible deal. all you have to do is look at it, you know it is going to be bad. so the korea deal was a disaster. it was supposed to be good for us and turned out to be very bad for us. your one example of it but there

are many examples all over the country. so i just think the general motors moving back into detroit is it just a fantastic thing. that is sign of many other companies to come. mike pence, would you have something to say? >> thank you, mr. president. i just want to thank all of the republican and democrats taking time to be here and their profound interest in this issue. to your point this is about our economy but about national security. the president directed a 232 review to determine whether or not our national security has been affected by the dumping of steel and aluminum and today it is very much the president's desire, our administration's desire to hear from each of you, and perspectives that will also inform the decisions that the president will make. i think, but it is fair to say that we all support national security. i think that is evidenced by the recent budget agreement that the president helped drive, and republicans and democrats have supported for historic increase

in our national defense. we also all support american jobs, and we very much look forward to your counsel as the president approach this is decision and, i appreciate the bipartisan spirit of this meeting and the conversation that will follow. >> really as mike said, i want to hear from both sides. why we have a lot of great representatives, both democrats and republicans. i want to hear from both side before we make a decision. in one case you will create jobs. you may have a higher price. it may be a little bit higher, but you will have jobs. in other case you will have lower price but not have jobs. it will be made in china and other places. so those are big decisions, to me jobs are very important. todd, do you have something to say? >> mr. president, thank you for having us here today. i represent a state that is not only major manufacturer of steel, we have u.s. steel, arcelor, mittal and others who are manufacturing but we have

the downstream users which you alluded to. clearly you understand the need to balance the two, come up with a balanced approach here. i think the main target, i will speak plainly, to you, sir, china, violating international rules, stealing our inlex wall property, overproducing steel products and other product. >> we spoken to them very, very strongly. we told them. we have something come up in the very near future you know of the we told them, it just can't continue. we have a trade deficit with china i inherited by the way, but we have a trade deficit of $504 billion, okay? so if you think of it, when you look how well they do and how many bridges they're building and how many jets they're building and fighter planes, we did it. we did it. people that sat in my seattle loud them to do this. so we're not going to allow that. we're talking to them right now, very strongly. and hopefully we'll have a great

rip but we're talking to them very strongly, todd, you're right. it is a big percentage of our deficits. and the money we've lost and the jobs we've lost in china it is unthinkable that people allowed that to happen. this is over period not just obama, this is over a erred -- period over many years this happened. thank you very much, todd. pat would you like to -- >> thank you very much, mr. president. i would urge us to go cautiously here especially with section 232. as you know, our defend needs consume about 3% of domestic steel consumption. so i think it's implausible to believe we're not able to meet the needs of our defense industry which is absolutely essential. imports in 2016 were 16% of domestic consumption. so the vast majority of the steel we consume we in fact produce ourselves. which is the way i prefer it. it is the case today. china was down to 2% of the 16%. so very, very small portion.

my main message -- >> but they have transshipping. they are shipping to other countries. and their steel would come in from other countries so you can't see where the steel is coming from. >> so what i urge, any country that is violating our trade laws and our trade agreements go after them. counterveiling duty. >> that is all countries. >> but the 232 is a different matter. invoking national security when i think it is really hard to make that case invites retaliation, that would be problematic for us. >> the word retaliation, pat that is interesting. i know you agree with us, we have some countries where we make a product, they make a product, we may tremendous tax to get into their countries, motorcycles, harley-davidson, goes into a certain country, i won't mention the fact it happens to be india in this case. a great gentleman called me from

india, he said we have just reduced the tariff on motorcycles. reduced it down to 50%, five, o, from 75 or even 100%. we have, if you are harley-davidson you have to pay 50 to 75% tax, tariff to get your motorcycle, your product n yet they sell thousands and thousands of motorcycles which a lot of people don't know sell from india into the united states. what our tax is? nothing. we should have reciprocal taxes. i'm not blaming india. i think it is great they can get away with it. i don't know why people allowed them to get away with it. there is an example that is very unfair. i think we should have a reciprocal tax. that is called fair trade and free trade. what will happen we'll collect same they're collecting or what will happen, they will not charge a tax and we won't have a tax. that becomes free trade.

we have too many examples such as that, and the word as pat said, the word reciprocal is very important word. countries are taking advantage of us. they're charging massive tariffs for us to sell our product into those countries. when they sell to us, zero, we charge them zero. we're like the stupid people, and i don't like to have that anymore. so we're going to change that and we're going to make that fair. i call that fair trade. and again, one of two things will happen, what i think will happen, they will just, reduce their taxes to the same as our tax. mike, would you like to say something? >> yeah, sure. one of the things that -- with regard to this proposed action so many things manufactured in the united states. so many jobs attached to some things manufactured in the united states, that you -- steel, aluminum are inputs. on case of steel, we're talking about 16% that is imported but

the availability of those imports and absence of additional duties on those means that those goods can be manufactured and sold more cost effectively. that keeps a whole lot of people, including a whole lot of voters in each of our states, a whole lot in mine certainly in jobs. so, even though there may be some job winners from an action like this, i strongly suspect that as at times been the case in the past, you would end up with net job losses in the united states. that is what worries me here. particularly in light of the absence of what i can see is a real national security threat. only 3% of what we're able to produce domestically is what is needed for our national security reasons. i think that ought to be >> that is going way up because of military spending. that something we all agree on. we had to do a lot with our

military because it was not taken care of properly. that 3% number will go way up. at the same time, it is not a tremendous, as a percentage it's not a tremendous number. steel and aluminum are interesting. it will create a lot of jobs. some of the jumpers will eat a lot of the tax themselves because they do it to keep people working and we do it for that and other reasons. i will say a finished product is a much simpler thing. germany sends us cars, we send them cars and they practically don't take them. how many chevrolets do you see in the middle of berlin. not too many folks. they send mercedes and bmw over here in tremendous numbers. japan sends tremendous numbers of cars. they also make cars. the way there is no tax, they do a factory here. now all of a sudden there is

no tax so they build factories here. with cars, television sets and things like this, we don't make television sets in this country. they come from south korea and to a lesser extent, japan. most come from south korea. it's not fair. i believe we should have reciprocal taxes on that likewise. that is a different product. it's a much simpler, we did it with the washing machines, it had a huge impact on the industry. by the way, you know what happened to people who made the washing machines outside this country are now expanding their factories in the united states. then they don't have to pay the 25 and 30% tax. the same thing happens with these solar panels. we have 32 companies and were down to just two. we made solar panels and every company was like that but i have to say this, we made a much higher quality, a much

better solar panel. we make them better but we couldn't compete. now, a lot of places are opening up and started to make solar panels again. with the finished product, it's a little different but we are so deal in aluminum which we are talking about today, it's a good point. the question is would you rather pay a little more to create jobs all over the country. it's possible you will be creating, you will be having much of a problem in terms of pricing because i think a lot of the countries will eat it because they want to continue to export and they are making a fortune. we have rebuilt china. we have rebuilt, with the money they've taken out of the united states. we are like the piggy bank that had people running that didn't know what the hell they were doing. we have rebuilt countries massively. look at south korea, japan, so many countries, and then we

defend them on top of everything else. we defended saudi arabia. they pay us a fraction of what cost. we defend japan and south korea. they pay us a fraction of what it cost and we are talking to all of those countries because it's not fair that they pay us a fraction of the cost and we defend them. it's a separate argument but a real problem. gary would you like to say something? >> thank you, mr. president. we have senator brown, senator peter and senator casey. you have a good collection from finance midi. i'll make two points real quickly. yesterday you released the info structure plan. i looked at it very carefully and i couldn't see even any incentive, let alone requirement to use american steel. senator brown always says it's

a great opportunity for bipartisanship. if we can work with you on that one, that ought to be a no-brainer. there's one other thing on that point, i will be very brief. actually, with respect to american steel, the way the plan reads now, it actually allows the state to walk back from commitments to use american steel so .1 would be can we work with you on that. point to is the secretary has been very forthcoming in working with us but we have been trying to see this to 32 report, and we appreciate your asking for our advice, we will need to see that report in order to give you more specifics. i come back to senator brown's point, i think there's an opportunity for bipartisanship in those two areas. >> i agree.

i think it is a bipartisan plan and i will tell you when i approve the two pipelines, the keystone, we did the two big ones, and when i approve them i said where is the steel being made and they told me a location that did not make me happy. i wrote down that from now on steel is being made for the pipelines. it has to be made in the united states. it has to be fabricated in the united states so i am a believer and that also. if you would come back with a suggestion that would be great. >> i think we could play out the report but let me second what the senator said, trade has always been bipartisan in this country until just the last few years and i really think with this and with nafta and the other things we are doing, we can have democrats and republicans voting in large numbers together and start a new way to approach that.

that's really the point i wanted to make. >> thank you. i very much appreciate the work that's done generally and specifically. i want to talk a moment for nafta, not too much. it evidences what senator portman, my colleague from cincinnati and what we been able to do on the level the playing field act on trade and trade enforcement and currency and most recently the washing machine case. we sent a letter outlining what we can do for trade and you sent back a nice handwritten note on that. i appreciate working together on tpp and 232 and to all of

those issues. the washing machine case was 3000 jobs in northwest ohio so that really matters to a lot of families. i'm hopeful we can do quick action on 232. also, i'll just conclude that we can work on nafta together. if it's written in a way that supports workers, which i'm confident that it will be, that we can deliver democrat support and it will be bipartisan if done right and that's my reputation and that's well continue to fight for. i know several other senators are on board with that. >> i actually think we can go bipartisan on infrastructure, maybe even more so than we can

on daca because the difference is we want to help daca, you don't. okay. i'm kidding. i'm sure you do. i hope we can do daca. everyone is in there working hard right now and i think we have a chance to do that very bipartisan. i hope that can happen and i hope we can do it soon. i think we will. on infrastructure which is the purpose of what we are doing today, come back with a proposal and we put in our bid. we have to rebuild our country. we spent $7 trillion and i mean wasted. we've spent $7 trillion about two months ago in the middle east.

if you want to build a road, if you want to build a tunnel or bridge or fix a bridge, you can't do it and yet we spent $7 trillion in the middle east. how do you explain that one. >> we can do it fast. >> we can work together on an infrastructure bill with real dollars plus what you can leverage in the communities and the private sector. >> i would love to have you get back to us quickly. we have to rebuild our country and our roads and bridges so the faster you get back, the faster we can move. focus on daca this week, if you don't mind but the faster you get back, the faster we move. jackie? >> thank you, mr. president. we are grateful for your analysis and talk today. i represent the recreational

vehicle industry. i get what you're saying, get what were all sitting around the table but. we are one of the largest manufacturing districts in this country. the problem is, when we look at balance, the mere threat of terrorists from some of my folks that are manufacturing, they employ some 15000 people just in my district in indiana and a guy called me this morning and said the mere threat of terrorism has already raised steel and aluminum prices by 20%. the labor cost to the industry is already up ten to 15% because the job market is so tight. this is a market that was 21% unemployment when we really had financial crisis in this country and our down to 2.1%. there concern, my concern is if we seriously have a balanced effort to be able to keep maintain and be fair at

the same time, i am one 100% supportive of what you're doing. i just ask that you look at that balance between current employees and giant growth that our tax reform helped just two months ago. >> what you have to ask manufactures too, i know some of them, they were great for me but you have to ask someone question, when you build your product and you send that the engine big beautiful product and you send it to another country, how much tax does that other country charge? therefore they don't sell it there very much because the taxes so hi, and one of the things we want to do is we want fairness. we don't want what's been happening. you look at it and you do well here but they come in and they compete with you and we take the product for nothing and you want to set your product overseas which is probably triple the market for you, but a lot of our manufacturers

have given up. they don't even talk, i'll tell you, harley davidson they said that the han 75 and 100% tax. they got used to it for so many years for they weren't even asking me too do this. i'm doing it for them and others, but they weren't even asking because they've gotten used to it. your folks have gotten used to it to because you take that great product and you sell it overseas, they make it almost impossible for you to do that. not only monetarily with the tax but they also have other criteria which make it impossible. >> i understand, but i would say mr. president, the second issue that has developed in the country with these corporations in producing the quality vehicles that they do is the true american that's left in reference to the cost, they won't even fill the products because they don't have to because i have people standing in line to buy the

them. if you can't buy this, you're out of a job. >> i agree, we want a combination of big competition including competition from within our own country and we want to take outside sources but we want competition and we want the jobs. >> and we want customer service. >> absolutely. >> senator lamar. >> thank you so much for your support and for sticking with us. i was talking to senator murray about this earlier, we are making progress. if i could use to 62nd stories, i don't know exactly what was proposed and i thank you for having us down here before you made your decision. i thank you for that. i hope you will look carefully at what president george w. bush did in 2002 when he imposed 30% steel tariffs, 30% increase on tariffs from china, south korea and a couple other places. the effect was, one that even

though is only 5% of the imported steel, it raise the price of almost all steel in the united states. two, at the same time, auto parts manufacturers who used the steel began to cut jobs and move outside our country because they could buy the steel, make the part and ship it back in without any tariff. we found there were ten times as many people in steel using industries as there were in steel producing industries and so according to the auto manufacturers they lost more jobs and exist in the steel industry. so the questions will be, will raise prices. >> nothing worked for bush but it worked for others. it did work for others. it did not work for bush.

>> i'm not recommending any solution, i'm just saying it's worth looking at what happened because it back fired and raised prices and lost jobs in the other 62nd story is that my dad worked for the smelting plant in tennessee. we don't have those for aluminum anymore because you have to use a lot of electricity to make them and never coming back. i think we only have six left. so now were lucky enough there to be making auto parts from aluminum for cars, jobs are coming back up, but if we put a terrorist on overseas, that will raise the prices and hurt our aluminum from canada and none from china. i hope you'll look carefully at where the aluminum comes from. thank you very much. >> now you're right. canada has treated us very unfairly when it comes to lumber and timber so we have to understand that. it's not just one thing or

another, canada has been very tough in this country when it comes to timber, lumber and other things and they have not been easy when it comes to wisconsin and our farmers. you try to ship product into canada if you're a farmer. if your farmer up in wisconsin and other places, you try to ship your things up through canada. it's been very tough for them. i agree with what you're saying. >> i've exported a lot of product so the fact of the matter is the most constant operates manufacturing products in agricultural products and works very well for wisconsin. what we have is that they are

promising massive overcapacity primarily in china. how do you address that? we need to be very cautious without raising prices. senator alexander was talking about 2002, spot prices increases somewhere between 59 and 82%. producer prices went up, now let me add just another dimension that number is really talked about, we talk about jobs, absolutely. one of the highest paying jobs, our tax reform will juice the economy with such a tight labor market and it's already increasing. in wisconsin, these big manufacturing state, in seven years i have not visited one manufacturing plant that can hire enough people. for most reasons we tell our kids have to get a four-year degree, we pay people not to work so we do need to be concerned about such a tight

labor market, do we have enough workers in manufacturing. my final point is it makes no sense to me to try to bring back high labor content manufacturing to america. we need to do the value-added things. i just think proceed with caution, trade abuses, address those and attack those and try to figure out how we address the steel industry but do it very carefully. >> i agree with you one 100%. i do have to say we do have a pool of 100 million people of which some of them, many of them want to work. they want have a job. a lot of them do better not working under the laws and people don't like to talk about it, but you're competing against government and they have great potential, they sort of want to work but there make less if they worked and if they stay home and do other things. we have to address that situation. that is a big problem. we have a pool of a hundred

million people, a lot of them want to work and will have a much more merit-based immigration policy where we will bring in people who will be great workers. they are going to wisconsin and they will employ tremendous numbers of people, they will build one of the biggest plants in the world so it will be very exciting. people will move their but we do have a big pool of people who want to work and they can't. just to address the one other point, we have a trade deficit with canada. we have a big imbalance of at least $17 billion. with mexico we have an imbalance of 71 billion and i believe that number is really much higher than that. i might ask bob to discuss that but were you going to say one other thing. >> there is absolutely no doubt that we have to fix a broken legal immigration system.

one of our proposal is a three wor year guest worker program managed by the state. let the states determine what industry they can cut wage rates. this bipartisan process that we actually fix our broken immigration system so we do have the workers. asked my colleagues, please work with us to fix the dreamer problem and the legal immigration system. >> i just want to make a point back to 232. our focus on steel, 232 in pennsylvania, in your opening you talked about the job impact as well as the national security impact. i'm glad your involved, i'll just focus on national security. in western pennsylvania as well as eastern pennsylvania, you have two examples among several. the two in western pennsylvania are the last

remaining manufacturer of electrical steel. they have been hammered by this, as you know and in the eastern part of the state as senator young mentioned. >> they been hammered by what. >> not having the remedy of the 232. >> okay, fine. >> to the extent that you can focus on that i think the steel executives can outline the problem. >> widened the previous administration help the steelworkers? widen the previous administration work on 232? >> i think there's a lot of us that had disagreements over the years with the administration then about being more aggressiv aggressive. >> a tremendous disservice. >> i know it's a 90 day period, but i hope you can promptly determinant. >> thank you very much. >> mr. president, i agree that that is a good example if you

see those last manufacturers, 101% over the last year in electrical steel coming into our country. it's a small market but it's a critical market for they tell us if we don't get relief they will pull out and we won't have the steel that goes into a grid. i think it is a good example but what i would say is that the response needs to be targeted and electrical steel is a place to target. the other place is the pipe and tube products, 82% increase their and frankly we can't have a single rig. they are taking chinese steel. >> that is hurting our ability to continue to have this energy independence we talked about. those are two specific areas where i think there's opportunity to do something and used to 32 which is a national security opposed to

201, but let me tell you, with regard to world steel and other products, we've had some pretty good success by going after them and their trade practices. that is the level the playing field act which is this now being implemented and i told you before i think even stronger than that would be great. >> we are very strongly enforcing it now. wilbur, you might want to talk about that, but we are very strongly enforcing and now. >> the second port part of this, and you're right, that is ron wyden and senator brown and i and others who have worked on this, but what it says is of the country tries to shift their steel to malaysia and puts a different stamp on it, we need to be more aggressive going after them and is just a matter of customs and border protection having so many other responsibilities right now. we can do more with our

existing laws and i think 232 is part of the overall responsibility that needs to be targeted. i agree with what they said about the balance and we have to be careful because we don't want to increase the cost of all these steel products i go into other manufacturing but there are other areas where we've got to stand up and help to defend. >> we have steel coming into our country from countries that don't even know what steel is. it'll make it, they never made it, it's trans shipping. it's coming from china and they send it through countries that don't make steel and it comes pouring into our country. it's free and it's a very bad situation. >> i think everyone supports you aggressively holding them accountable and in a major way, thank you for that. 242 is a little like old-fashioned therapy.

it's not used as much because it can often do as much damage as good. an example, this happened all around the country but we send steel pallets from corpus christi over the austria, this company did this amazing job and we bring it back and refine it even further, sell it to many american energy companies who use that specialized steel to compete and win against russia and china and all the other countries if they get caught up, in that case we punished three american and manufacturing companies, all of them were looking at expanding because of your tax reform plan, and my point is, we have to be really targeted, you have to be really targeted here and also we have allies

with us against china's unfair trade practice. we have to be careful as you look at these decisions to target and make sure our allies are with us. >> very good. thank you kevin. >> thank you, mr. president. one thing i want to point out, we had a conversation about the national security barriers and i think we've looked at it in the context of the defense industry and i just want to add one thing to that, it is our ability to address our own inputs, not just addressing the needs of the industry but our ability to produce for our own conception as we take on infrastructure projects so i think we don't just need to focus on those percentages but also probably how this impacts our ability to provide for our own input, and one other thing i wanted to mention, the steel industry is losing market share and that translates to economic loss and so we are keenly aware of what this can do to this community when we don't have that kind. [inaudible] >> thank you very much.

>> i appreciate your comments about michigan and the auto industry, i would like to say that big reason why those jobs are coming back is because we have the best workers anywhere in the world and they can build on time and build it with outstanding quality as long as the rules are there. i appreciate this issue. >> the problem is you didn't have good policy and that's why some of the jobs left but now they're coming back and they like coming back to michigan. >> they love coming back to michigan. as long as we have fair rules. we have to continue to push this forward. i would like to pick up on senator alexander's comments to that we also have to be concerned about the auto parts industry as well. we have more jobs and auto parts in michigan than any other industrial sectors and they all go together, they have to meet with the steel pricing issue and i agree with everything that said here but then we can have auto parts that will take away michigan jobs as well as jobs around the country.

if i can just bring up one other issue that i think we should take a look at and i'm working in a bipartisan issue related to the commerce department and the ability to self initiate trade enforcement action smaller than industry like steel or aluminum or washing machines is that we have small businesses that don't have the resources to bring trade enforcement, you go through the lawyers to that. we've got the dumping of cherries that's making it very difficult for our growers in michigan but they don't have the resources to bring that enforcement action. we would love to have more tools to help her businesses and i'd like your help. >> it's just a fantastic idea. they can't hire the lawyers, it's too small but in a double way it's very big. >> as you know, for the first time in many years they did initiate in aluminum.

there are limitations to what they will do. the main limitation is it doesn't prevent people from the transshipment through other countries, a lot of what to 32 can do for us is to solve that problem and 232 doesn't have to mean the same tariff on every single country. it doesn't have to mean the same tariff on every single product, it can be applied in a much more surgical way and we presented the president with a range of alternatives that goes from a big tariff on everything from everywhere to very selective tariffs and a very selected group of countries. there are one or two countries that fit quite prominently in all of the lists and those names will come as no surprise to you, for example.

>> the problem we have with that is trans shipping. you think you put a pinpoint on the country but then they ship it to other countries and you're not even thinking about is you have to be careful. >> so the 232 would let us have quotas on countries that we weren't putting a tariff, it's not going to restrict supply but would prevent the evildoers from trans shipping more goods for that country. >> that's a good word, of which there are many. >> you're doing a good job. thank you. you've been tough. go ahead dollars. >> mr. president, the comments have been made here about balance, managing job creation and controlling cost at the same time has got to be the major factor in this.

>> there are some people who don't believe in deficits. they think it doesn't matter. i think it matters a lot. >> two points about will make, i've got to put a stamp on what senator portman said, they were the only manufacturer that made electrical steel which is necessary for the transformers that feed and produce electricity in our electric grid. china, we are at risk of losing that industry, and if we lose that, we are absolutely, potentially at hostage by the chinese for management and maintenance of our electrical grid. number two, you made a big case, and i think you have rightfully so told the world that america is open for business and the regulatory reforms of the tax reforms you have done has put america back in business. one of the biggest businesses that is promoting job creation today is the oil and gas industry. in southeastern ohio, big

projects require a tremendous amount of steel. whatever we do in this formula has to keep cost down because those projects are huge. i mean they are massive. you are talking about six to 8 billion-dollar projects and big cost increases in steel could be a big deal. we've got to balance the job creation. >> i agree. i know the area very well. >> you are right. >> thank you, mr. president. in southeast missouri we have a real example of where we lost 900 jobs in march of 2016 because our aluminum smelter. i believe these can be reopened.

>> and for a different reason, too, because of what we've done, our energy prices are going solo, our electric prices are going so low that other countries won't be able to compete with us. we're really doing a great job of bringing them down and a lot of that had to do with the tax cuts and lots of other things. >> exactly. >> tell me about that. >> when you look at southeast missouri, the medium household income is $40000. one of the poorest congressional districts in the country. when we lost 900 jobs with the average salary of $70000. year, that hit home. without a doubt, if you look at the numbers of the aluminum production in china that in 2000 was 10% of the world production and in 2015 was 54%, there is a problem mr. president and i believe we can have the production back. we have a facility we want to open and create more jobs. i applaud you for looking at

232 and looking at a reasonable approach to make sure were open for business in all industries, not just one. >> we all have to remember there is no tax or test if they come in and build the plants in this country but were just talking about something where there is nothing. it's a little different than a car or washing machine or any of the other things were doing are talking about doing. nevertheless, you build your factory, you build your plant in the united states and there's no tax and that's a big difference. i think you'll see general motors coming back, they're coming back to areas you represent and it's a good feeling. maybe i will just have bob finish up if you want to do that. >> we need to be very careful here, there is only one american producer but there are lots of american.

the generators, the grid, all of that is dependent currently on a lot of electric steel coming from somewhere else. i think the balance of keeping that company in business where you keep all these other companies, it will take a long time to expand or have more competitors here so we need to be very thoughtful about all the other buyers of that product to has only one american source so it is a great example, but it's a great example to remember that washing machine motor as well as all the other things that electric scale is used for. >> element kickoff on what roy said, as you apply to 32, i understand the caution from

some of my colleagues. i think it's important that we always keep in mind china's excess capacity and their excess capacity doesn't mean you put 232 just on china. their capacity is spread elsewhere. korea is just the pastor point. because the at this capacity that is somewhat steel production or steel sales throughout the world, it's important not to 30 to be aimed at china's capacity and in countries all over the world. >> i agree with that. maybe you could just give a very brief discussion on where you are with nafta. it's very interesting. >> i've spoken to some of these members here and i think we are making progress on nafta. whether or not we were sure if we would be in a position where we would have to withdraw to get a good agreement. our view is that nafta has not

served the united states wellin all respects. it has served some people well but particularly with respect to the mexicans, we are making headway, we have a number of issues we stop the worker way through, but i am hopeful we will be in the position to get a good deal, one that we find acceptable but i want an agreement that the vast majority of republicans and democrats will think this is very important and we have a new paradigm in steel that we get 20 or 25 democrats in the senate and a large number of house to vote for this bill as well of course, i think it's very much and reach. [inaudible] >> i want to thank everybody very much. i would really like to see you come back with a counter proposal and i think we will get that done. i really believe we have to

fix our roads internal and bridges sometime. if you can work together on that i am ready, willing and able. this week, i know you're working very hard on daca, everyone in the room once daca and let's see if we can get that done. will be talking about that for many years and it would be a great achievement and something on a humane basis that would be excellent but i want to thank you all for being here. if you have any suggestions call me or gary or wilbur or bob, but i very much appreciate you being here. if it's necessary will have another meeting to iron out some points but on infrastructure, that is such a natural for us to get done and i think we can probably do it. thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> he met a bipartisan group of lawmakers telling them to focus on daca this week. during that meeting stocks turned around and went positive. they are leading with the rebound. we will get more into the market but first oklahoma republican, senator, thanks for joining us. a litany of issues on the table in washington d.c., it feels like the greatest urgency was getting a deal on daca. how close are you. >> we don't know. it's on the floor right now and they are working on it and there's not a timetable. >> it feels like there's a timetable, there's a march 5 deadline. >> there is no what i'm saying is it's on the floor right now

and they are working on it now. >> with respect to that, it feels like president trump made his last offer, it was the ultimate olive branch for a lot of people in fact even a lot of his core voters were shocked that all the things he put on the table, 1.8 million, a path to citizenship for the dac recipients in return for some of the things he campaigned on. where do you see the main pushback coming from your colleagues on the other side of the aisle? >> on the other side of the aisle this should be no pushback. i'm surprised there is because when i first heard it, it surprised me. path to citizenship, they're getting things were they actually lost a lot of conservatives but the other side of the aisle, i can imagine them objecting to what he came out with. >> apparently the wall is no longer the big thing, democrats upset with, a lot of them are saying i'll actually help you build the wall if we can get daca done but now it's

been chain migration. i keep forgetting but i know there's a political correct way of saying it. maybe i'll pick up on it at some point, but president trump pointed to chain migration in this role of recent terror incidents in this country and the fact that we lose a grip on the abilities who's coming into this country. is there a possibility that that will not be in the final version? >> that's just opening the door. the definition of chain is not all that specific. it means anyone can fit into that category. frankly i think the president of the good job of throwing some of the hysteria in their. we'll wait and see what happens on their. >> these are the meetings on camera that i as american appreciate because we saw significant pushback from president trump on a variety of issues by both sides of the aisle but there seem to be almost more of a consensus on infrastructure. senator wyden said he would be willing to cut a deal at the

end of the meeting trump wrapped it up saying it was a natural. isn't natural and can we get something done. >> yes we can. you're asking the right person because we had map 21 and a fast act before that, and we got it done, we did it in my democratic counterpart was barbara boxer, a very liberal democrat and i'm a very conservative republican. we accomplished some things that others couldn't accomplish. the president is going about it the right way. he recognized have come down in the bureaucracy that are permitting reform. that simply that people are dragging their feet on and is not necessary at all. construction time for each additional year it takes, that increases about 3%. the thing is, we are getting it done. i hope people don't lose sight and forget that when president obama first became president, his request with the house in

the senate and the white house, his first request was to have over $800 billion for infrastructure. he ended up getting $836 billion but you know what percentage of that actually went infrastructure? 5%. all went to his environmental agenda and we know what happened there. this will go to infrastructure specifically. the president talks about $200 billion and it gets broken down in cities and states to do things. that's half of the $200 billion. then he talks about the world programs that always seem to get left out. he's covering everything and doing a great job. >> senator, thank you for your expertise. we appreciate it. thank you. >> you are welcome. >> financial and consumer staples helping to drive the dow. will break this down as well as president trump's latest on

the reciprocal tax push which got a lot of pushback, next.

and

i think we should have a reciprocal tax. that is called fair trade. it's called free trade because either we will collect the same they are collecting or probably the one that not charging tax and we won't have attacks. that becomes free-trade. >> president trump pushing eight reciprocal tax on imports from high tax trading partners. something that can actually backfire. it's interesting brian, during the meeting a lot of republicans pushback on the idea. senator pat toomey seemed spectacle and on skeptical. others said we probably need specific abilities to stop china from dumping so why is

that a bad idea? >> i think we have to divide this into areas provided we need 1000 page trade agreements? the reason is when you dig into those things we signed a bilateral agreement and for 12 years they get to put big tariffs on beef imports in south korea and they have quotas. that is wrong. it should be free-trade. i think a free trade agreement could be one page. where he's talking about these places were china, for example, does dump and steals our intellectual property and are tariffs on our goods, i'm all for fighting back and i hope it doesn't create a trade war, but i think most people want free-trade so i think it would probably end up being a good thing.

>> when you say most people do you mean most nations, most countries? >> yes, those countries that actually do dump steel intellectual property or actually do have tariffs on our goods, i don't think we should give up our tariffs if they are willing to give up theirs. that isn't free-trade. i agree with that. >> we only have a minute but are we in danger of giving up the edge we have? as trade increases around the world and those economies gain more power, if we don't strike now with a fairer deal, will that option be lost forever. >> well, it could be. there's always the possibility that you start a trade war and that's not good for anyone. two wrongs don't make a right. there's another side to this that a value-added tax, for example in germany, there's a 19% value add tax.

if you buy something in germany you pay 19% it doesn't matter comes from the u.s. were german-made. that is not unfair trade. i hope he is not talking about trying to reciprocate against the value add tax because that just brings their taxes and put them on us to pray we don't want that. >> i will say, wilbur ross was saying specifically that 332 could be applied certai surgically so i think he was trying to appease kevin brady and the concerns you have as well. i wish we had more time to always a pleasure talking too. >> just don't let it go to a trade war. that's what we need to avoid. >> in the meantime stocks are turning positive. what is leading this market bounce for the last 48 hours of trading have been remarkable. we'll be right back.

i want you to pick a new truck for your mom or dad, knowing that they could possibly pass it down to you one day. cool. but before you decide, you should know that chevy silverado's are the most dependable, longest lasting full-size pickups on the road. which means that ford f-150s are not. (laughs) which truck would you pick? the chevy. the chevy. the chevy. there you go. boom. that was obvious. plus it looks cooler. no doubt about it. now they know what to get me. (laughs) looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor.

retail. under pressure like never before. and its connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.

>> the volatility continues but here's the good news. stocks turned positive moments ago and are gaining momentum. let's go live to the floor of the stock exchange. >> it's exciting to see the markets turn around. the volatility we've seen, the extreme volatility with the 1000-point days, we are taking a little breather for now. this is the first day we've seen with a very low volatility. look at the financial in the

green. stared gaining. what's interesting as i look at the big board, this morning it was already across the board. now we are seeing some up arrow arrows. the vixen volatility indexes to the downside and the dow jones jumped about a hundred and 50 points while the president was speaking. >> the feeling on the floor, is there any belief that we could have had a six-day correction? is the worst over. >> it's hard to know if the bottom is in. whether the worst is over, it's hard to say. the big picture is the optimism is there and we move higher even in her rising rate environment. >> that's what i like to hear. thank you very much. stocks are turning around, but

the clock is ticking. we will discuss it right after this.

. . . .

charles: they're still down from 7% from the record closes a week or so ago. where does the volatile market to? i will break it down, "making money," 6:00 p.m. eastern on fox business. now here is trish. trish: thank you so much, charles. breaking now, the markets moving into the positive territory, just in time for this show. peaking into the green. president warning congress now or never on daca. promising to put america first on trade. i am trish regan. welcome, everyone to "the intelligence report." like i said we have stocks turning positive being led by financials and consumers stocks. perfect timing. investors adding to yesterday's big gains, another day of volatility but perhapss it suggests that investors are getting more comfortable with the idea of a growing economy. and therefore, some pro--