Our Net Advantage is so huge. It means they want to avoid it as fast as they can. Im purposely prepared to walk out. It doesnt frighten me to walk out. Two, im a fairly impatient guy. I thought we would get it all done by now. The combination of not having either one makes me unhappy. Three, i was sort of bored this morning and thought it would start a new argument. You have to see those things to understand how the Trump Presidency operates. Im not trying to attack him. Im just suggesting that you have to look at the american tradition. Andrew jackson to have personalities that are as volatile and as aggressive as trump. If you go back and read how they were covered in their time but covering their time they were very much like trump and they were aggressive, they are willing to fight. Those characteristics are at the heart of how they approach everything. Look at iran. Look at nato. He is a very enthusiastic guy at picking fights. I thought that would slow you down. It did. I told the speaker last night i was in my hotel room and i didnt know what the channels were on the television. I wouldnt ordinarily choose fox news. It happened to appear on my television and there was speaker gingrich who i watched for 15 minutes. If yall havent watched the routine its worth the price of admission. I took notes and learned a lot. To the speakers point he mentioned the wall. You know, its sort of like beyonce. We dont have to say the wall between. We just say the wall. And we have had some rhetoric around over the last 18 months or so, the characteristics of migration between United States and mexico, but a lot of political rhetoric. From a mexican perspective, does that in any way limit the flexibility of the government of mexico to negotiate . Do they have to demonstrate that they are strong and can stand up to the american rhetoric number one and number two, is there a reason to be concerned about the dynamic of the negotiations as it might effect the president ial elections in mexico next year . One of the beauties of no longer being that im a recovering diplomat that you could say stuff, but look, theres no issue out there that is mexican Public Opinion such as the whole wool issue. It has irritated profoundly. You dont have to be a Rocket Scientist to figure out why in a Research Poll that came out in july and then an update in september looking at positive perceptions of the u. S. Around the world, the country where positive perceptions of the u. S. Has fallen the most is mexico. Its nose dived. One of the things that happened this parallel to nafta and a very different engagement is that it started to create between mexicans and americans. One of the historical reasons they have never been able to get along is mexicans didnt know how to speak up and americans didnt know how to listen. One of the things they changed is they tarted listens and mexicans having to come up to lobby for the votes that we were able to squeak by at the very end to get nafta over the finish line, mexico had to learn how to play the game in washington, d. C. That it never had in the past. Theres been a very profound Seismic Shift that happened where i think the 2016 campaign has been extremely poisonous regarding rapists, the wall and nafta is the worth deal ever is it round back public narratives of why they are uniquely important to security prosperity and well being. The margin of maneuver blt, given the timing of when it may end up happening because it is clear we wont be wrapping up by december of 2017, this will be in full blown president ial Campaign Mode in mexico. It could have an impact on what Mexican Government is willing or able to accept in the negotiations. I always believed you should never let it go to waste. The crisis donald trump detonated and the crises that we are facing with round four of the negotiations has kicked off here in pulling up nafta up where we have better rules of engagement, disciplines we didnt have in 1993. Those do profound the labor impact. Despite what the president says manufacturing jobs have been dropping for the past 20 years in the United States. Say so it is a very important you remember this very well, we now have the opportunity to have bringing some of these into the treaty as well. How do we prevent a frankly doctrine of my way or the highway approach to the negotiations from the deal that could be incredibly important for the Economic Future of these three countries. It will be very complex on u. S. Specific contend te content. All of this is going to have in the same way that this has had political roots. It will have a profound political bearing on what happens in mexico as we head to the polls on july 1st, 2018 and also hear in the u. S. When members of congress start campaigning for reelection in the u. S. Midterms in november of 2018. From a canadian perspective, one that there is an agreement at the end which means all three sign it and say this is constructi constructive, so a success results in the American Government declaring that as compared to the worst agreement ever they have negotiated the most proamerican in the history of the planet so the canadian government will confront the americans saying they took canada and mexico to the cleaners. A failure would be no agreement and we revert which presumably is the Free Trade Agreement to figure out what it means for the time being at least. Success is an argument that in canada will be heard that was the americans winning. Failure is nobody winning. From the canadian publics perspective, how do those two options play out . Yeah. Look, thats a tough situation. I agree with that. If i maybe get to it in a second and go off to feel free. About trump obviously he is unpreductable to me. And, you know, whether he says it is the worst deal or second worst deal ever, i really im not sure because he is unpredictable means his behavior has no consequences. I dont know how you get from here to there. The then Republican Administration said to us in, you know, categorical terms, in our judgment nafta could not be passed in the u. S. Congress today on either side of the aisle. Thats in 2006. In 2008 some of you forget barack obama campaigned in 2008 and didnt actually do anything in that. In fact we beyond the border i guess my concern is the following. We have to figure out a way this isnt going to be a problem. In the case of canada we have a current account deficit with the United States. So i dont know that theres i guess by the standards we should be the one complaining. I dont really see an issue there to fix. What is the american problem with this . I have one incite. I think the automobile sector the part of it. To put back my experience i remember sitting around at my 50th birthday signing or putting the biggest subsidy package, 50 billion to help with the United States. They had done a terrible job of running their business. They felt they had intervened to bi bail them out. We put a lot of money on the table. No sooner had kof nance exspired and they were figuring out how to move to plants to mexico. There is at least a serious issue and i would figure out how to make it work for both of us. Your u. S. Lawyer is not taking any to cover that in the deal documents. The question, mr. Speaker, i have for you, you eluded to the fact that in large measure it was the republicans in the house of representatives in particular that carried nafta over the line and i could argument that it took it to drag enough to be able to pass it. It would have been hard for the republican president to pass it. Today it seems to me that theres a large segment of the Republican Party who has become antitrade agreements and that that calls into question even if the administration was able to conclude an agreement in these dynamics, whether or not its dead on arrival as far as the congress is concerned in canada. They have a much more efficient system of government if Prime Minister of the day has a majority. Its not too difficult to get it through the house of commons. They have a process or there its a process. So they can get it through. Even if theres a successfully negotiated agreement, can it get through this congress . I think it would be very hard. I think it will depend what the agreement is and it will depend on how it is portrayed and depend what the Interest Groups do. If you have enough people that think its an improvement and all of you work on it together you can probably do it. The decay and the belief that large trade agreements are good for america has been very very clear since 1993. It was already clear by 1997 98 when we try today give president clinton extended trade negotiating ability. He was begging us not to bring it up because they couldnt deliver any votes. On our side there was a dwrgrow number, a block of people who thought it was a bad deal. We couldnt have carried a majority just on the republican side. I think all of that has gotten much worse since then. I think on the republican side bannon and the forces that he represent are going to be bitterly opposed to any agreement. Theres in agreement that trump could make that you wouldnt have the bannon forces out there trying to defeat. I think phase 2 gets to be really hard. I think if they did get to an agreement, whatever it was that they concluded was acceptable, that it would be described by trump as an extraordinary win what we need as country, fabulous breakthrough. It will be huge in its impact and we will be inthenthusiastic aggressive. We convinced all of the Major Business elements to quit sending ceos to washington and send local factory managers to meetings. If you have enough different groups to come to the conclusion that this is the future. It will be like the modernized nafta. Somewhere in that list there has to be enough things where they can cay we are against it. I think it will be a brawl. So you referred to the gorilla in the room. There are when you think about rules of origin, dispute resolution mechanism, agricultural subsidies, sunset clause, investor state, you get down into the weed and there are a lot of individual components of the discussion that could be somewhere between a speed bump and a barrier. In your mind the first Mexican Government have to conclude that there is an impairtive to get this done. I dont mean ill the a bad deal just to do a deal, but i worry that we are letting the trees take over the forest here, that we really do have to see the forest. A forest is the north American Trading block and that if we some how rejuvenated and get confidence in it, again, that with respect to the rest of the world we can do an awful lot of good for our respective populations. Is that a conversation that occurs in mexico or is it hard to have there . Ill say it very bluntly, mexico has been acts like the add adult in the past months. We are not as big an economy as the United States and we have more to lose if there were to unravel. I think mexico clearly stated that big picture of an interconnected strong resilient economy is what the three countries need to be seeking to achieve as a result of these negotiations. It should stick to what its been doing. I think it is clear that the private sector is worse than no deal at all. The added problem to your treason dynamic here is at the end of the day we basically know that regardless of ipr and ecommerce and state owned enterprises it will measure the success on two things an two things alone, on the trade deficit which in the case of mexico is a red herring. It represents 8 of the total u. S. Trade deaf stit in the world and bench mark is the issue of how do you bring manufacturing jobs back to the u. S. The issue of the automotive sector is one of the big food fight ts that will start developing heading into the negotiations. Thats a problem because i think and this is one of the reasons why i think they have announced we enclosed another chapter. A dynamic that would be important especially with the u. S. President has a very short fuse in terms of patience. If he will be impatient wait until this hits capitol hill. The problem here is how do we send a message to members of congress that stuff is getting done and we are concluding important chapters so we can focus all of our attention to those we know will be the deal brake breakers at the end of the day. My concern is that you have an administration which is obsessed with these which basically at the end of the day will measure whether it is happy with the outcome or not based on those two issues. So im going to ask one more question and feel free to go beyond my question if you have any other points you want to make and ill see if there are any questions from the audience before we wrap up. Last week in a discussion president clinton said that one of the things that he thinks he could have done better or the United States government i guess could have done better with respect to nafta is put ton the front end of the process trade adjustment assistance. In other words, what programs would be put in place to directly assist those sectors. We all have our different the y theories of what happened in the u. S. National election last year but at least one of the things that seemed to have effected it was a belief of the American Population that they were being left behind. And so in order to try and set the stage for a successful conclusion and perhaps approval by our congress and also acceptance by canadians and the Mexican Government, should we be doing collectively more thought in those who may be knowingly adversely effected by the agreement and explicitly talking about it and what we will do about that. If we just leave the opponents out there it seems like a pointless exercise. Thats my question. Feel flree to add any other thoughts. Each of you, i want a declarative prediction on whether or not there will be a finally negotiated agreement. We paid a lot of attention to what those would be. You used the phrase. Those who have perceive they have been left behind in the United States, i look at the data and they are not perceived they have been left behind, they have actually been left behind. There are large segments of americans by region, income, sector that have been badly hurt by economic developments over the past 20 25 years. It is actually a reality. We have got to address those things and that trade is relevant. We have got to address it there. Your question on will we or will we not succeed . Im not sure about this. He has more of the incite. He appears more confident than i am. As i say, i dont think it will be adequate for President Trump to have an agreement that he cannot in some concrete way is going to improve the lives of some of these masses of people who voted for him. I think its got to be a lot more than some kind of technical revamp. It think it will be tough to get to. I tell business the following, is it conceivable or not conceivable that the administration cancel nafta . I believe that donald trump would be willing to take the economic and political risks under some circumstance because he can then punt the whole issue to the congress. Secondly, i dont think a Technical Agreement is good enough. This is pretty high up. I would believe trying to understand what the consequences would be, what mitigation and what additional work i would have to do to brekt my interest as we move forward. I think whats driving this are political currents that nobody has really figured out how to address. Dont ask an economist a question about the economy i meant perceive that nafta was responsib responsible. I know what you meant. Youre a democrat and i had to take a shot at you. Just to be clear, and i do this pretty regularly. We graduated from the same high school. Whatever my disabilities are, we got it at the same place. Im in toronto. I debated last year defending trump and we started out i think it was 8416 for hillary over trump. After an hour and a half it went to 80 20 and thought it was a magnificent achievement. I am really looking forward to tomorrow nights opportunity to explain trump again. First of all, if the diplomats, if the negotiators can find a way to get to a plausible agreement that the Trump Administration would agree was a victory it was also accepted by mexico and canada then you can probably get it done relatively quickly. I doubt you can get it done this year. However if in fact the things that have to happen are larger than that then i think there are three factors you need to take into account that actually think it may be better to take much longer to finish the negotiation because i think and ill tell you why. I think there are two circumstances that may change and i got to this in part thinking how do you think about this. Some things gordon said that were very very helpful in framing whats at really at stake here. If you think of this as a World Economy in which there is a substantial advantage to having our three countries collecting supply chains, as opposed to measuring it within the three countries you get a different conversation. The number one measure other than avoiding a may vor disaster with iran or north korea, the number one goal has to be job creation. There is no other longterm justification. If he does not get substantial job creation he cannot run for reelection. The Republican Party is going to get killed with the polls next year. They really have a deep internal commitment to getting job creation. Blowing up nafta guarantees you actually lose jobs and potentially in somes of the country create recessions. Theres a really larger Political Economic concern here. The more you can tie an effective north american and im trying to think of the lang badge because you have this thinking about this differently. Ultimately the second thing i want to mention is ultimately this is american view not necessarily ultimately well want to figure out how do you maximize to get back to growing faster than china to be guaranteeing we are bigger than china and frankly bringing back that we have allowed the chinese to get either by very clever manufacturing or by pure theft. I think youre going to see this administration become dramatically more aggressive about china. If youre in washington d. C. And youre thinking through a grand strategy and creating a better supply chain and creating better Economic Opportunity becomes more desirable than if youre looking at mexico and canada within an american context. I think at a job creation level and in terms of our capacity to deal over the next 40 to 50 years with china you may see a shift in how the administration comes to see this conversation. I wont occur between now and christmas but it probably will occur overthe next year. The briefings im getting, they are startled by how many Different Things the chinese are doing that are clearly in effect waging war on us in ways that are totally shocking and therefore they are starting the process of saying all right. If this is a reality then whats the longterm american strategy . It is an ir rational american strategy. If its in a situation where it thinks its competitor is to the east. I think it will change the conversation in the white house over the next six months to a year. So main my mind you have a grear advantage with a some what slower process unless you find an easier agreement. From my conversation there isnt going to be an easy agreement. This is probably i dont want to dufrp on your previous questions but this is probably the most important of the whole panel. It is still my question. It details a lot of tensions and some of them have been addressed by the Prime Minister and by the speaker. One of those is do we tweak or do we truly rebuild . I dont think we can get anything approved on capitol hill if we just retweak. There wont be an incentive to vote for or marshal the votes or get the private sector to mobilize and support something thats just fine tuning. Second, i dont think President Trump will accept anything that is fine tuning. We go ambitious. We go for that big 3. 0, 4. 0 trade agreement that enhances our competitiveness and job creation and industrial and services resilience of our economies. But the problem is to achieve that, a, youve got to get rid of that original calendar because of midterms in the u. S. And president ial election in mexico. There is another tension there between the short time line and a much longer time line which allows a strategic argument to build. And then there are those other pieces of the equation that have nothing to do with nafta but have such a profound bear on the north american construct on everything from security to how canada and mexico have developed a growing common demeanor awareness where we share everything who is flying to ensure that someone who is on a wanted list or watch list does not shop for a visa or come in to try and undermine the National Security of our neighbor. Some of the dynamics is how we Work Together to enharass security since 9 11. All of it will get a new administration and new cabinet players to fully comprehend and fully understand what we have been building with republican and democratic administrations in the past. And then theres another issue at play here which is Prime Minister knows very well. Some of us in mexico think on several occasions our canadian friends have been throwing mexico under the bus in resilien resilience. How do we ensure that our canadian friends stay with the United States . A lot of this is incredibly important and will be playing out over a calendar which is much longer and much more complex than what we set out to do six or eight months ago. President trump has said if we dont do it he will press the Nuclear Button and denounce the treaty. There is an important at play here regardless of what happens between our three negotiating teams from here to at least december. So you didnt answer the question. I am increasingly concerned we wont get to the finish line. Okay. So we have an unlikely, increasingly concerned and probably will get there. I didnt say that. I said if we get there we have gotten there and if we dont get there it may be better to have not have gotten there. I think the current track record would indicate we have at least as good a chance as we do passing an appeal of obamacare. What did he say . Some how obamacare got in there. It had to get in there at some point. I think the failure on the health thing was a technical problem. They couldnt figure out how to do it. I think theres some danger that you could end up with negotiations with they can be the figure out how to do it. I think thats a real danger. I think it could go either way. I want to agree with what newt said earlier. I think its really important. Obviously i kind of represent canada. Im trying to look at the facts here as an economist. I dont really know what the case is that the u. S. Trade relationship has been detri mental to the United States. I dont understand it. I look at the u. S. mexico relationship and i think you can point out a few things but i think its pretty hard to make that case too, however i look at the chinese american relationship and i think you can make a pretty compelling case that it has been problematic for the United States and canada and i dont know mexico as well. Mexico has a huge current account deficit with the world. So this is a common problem we could be addressing. Some how it turned into mexico and canada and thats where we are today. So what im going to do, if there are questions in the audience, if you would identify yourself and ask the question, no questions from the press please, just from members of the audience. And i reserve the right as the moderator to amend or reject the question. There is a nafta agreement. It was widely reported that the British Government did in fact which was in fact to approach nafta as an option. Would the panel please comment on that assuming ton basis this is not purely posturing on negotiations . We did have a tea party over dealings with Great Britain a few years ago. We could consider that. I dont think it would be necessarily approaching nafta. I think it would be very real interest british free trade zone. I dont know if it would expand to i mean i do think that the administration would have an emotional interest in exploring a british free trade zone. Assuming the british can get through this and its quite a mess from what i see from this side of the ocean. I dont know if they have a plan for nafta. I know they certainly have a assuming it is not mr. Core bin. They would a lot of interest in canada an the United States and would be in our interest to do one as well. Mexico has already had an initial conversation with the u. K. Because we have a Free Trade Agreement negotiated in 2000 and is being modernized by mexico and the European Union. As a result of that one of the first conversations we had after the vote was between the u. S. And mexico because of the exit of the u. K. From European Union deal we are now negotiating to upgrade. I think that Everything Else being equal this is something that in a very complex issue like uk accession into an upgrade of north american Free Trade Agreement. Today were obviously talking about the nafta issues. Theres many in this world that are watching the nafta issues that are concerned about their own trade agreements with the three countries. So how much should these other countries be focussing and relying on the issues debated in nafta 2. 0 and how much do you think canada, the United States and mexico are considering their other existing trade agreements when youre discussing this among yourselves . Do you happen to have south korea in mind . Im an american. Let me take a stab at that. One of the side effects of nafta is that mexico along with chile are the two countries on the face of the earth that have developed the largest and deepest network of Free Trade Agreements. Were now in the process of modernizing those that like nafta were negotiated when the Global Economy looked very different than what it was today. Mexico is actively looking at that Free Trade Network that it has to develop its own plan b for a rainy day if nafta does go down the drain as to how we leverage those Free Trade Agreements that we have. In fact, mexico has been actively exploring whether we substitute ag imports into mexico of american beef and of american grains from brazil, argentina and our canadian partners. This is something that i dont think that if we were to reach a point where nafta implodes, i think mexico has clearly stated that it will continue to aggressively pursue free trade as a fundamental vehicle for its development and of its geopolitical footprint. Were already doing at a sub regional level with chile, colombia and peru. I think if we were to reach that scenario which would certainly be a bad day for north america, i dont think that will hamper mexicos willingness to continue looking at free trade as a key instrument for its growth and development. Ill approach from a different angle and just say i think every country that has an opportunity to study how the nafta negotiations go will learn things about the Trump Administration that will be useful in their relationship. In that sense i think virtually every country has an interest. How does this play out . What does it really mean . And theres probably a pretty useful course on the negotiations that could eventually be offered that could probably have 70 or 80 countries interested in what are the lessons to be learned when they negotiate with this administration. I would say that, and im not privy to this, i can only imagine that the uncertainty around nafta, both in terms of canadian investment from abroad and potential trade negotiations or actual trade negotiations with other countries, this uncertainty around nafta cant be doing anything but hurting canada in that regard. The one country that under the circumstances will want to have a trade negotiation with canada is china. Okay. Well take one last question. Weve got one over here. Mr. Speaker, if theres anyone out there that wants to get any counseling on how the negotiations have gone, im familiar with a Global Law Firm that will be pleased to help them understand. Im setting you up for that. Congratulations to the four of you. Its been very interesting and very insightful. Typically speaking, at least i heard from an economist, they said that the u. S. Is over full employment. Where is that need that you need to create jobs on the one hand . Thats going to be a very difficult thing for President Trump to do. The other is you talk a lot about the china things, that really thats where the problem is. Is there a why is the reason that he immediately went after tpp when that was supposed to be the vehicle president obama had signed which i think was through. I will never forget the words that he said this is because we want to be the ones to call the shots in the region and the area. That will mean eventually and they have said that china has gotten all that benefit for becoming a member of the wto. So is he going to be ready to withdraw also from wto and just create a trade war . Working backwards maybe. Is it likely hed withdraw from wto . No. Is it conceivable . Sure. I think you have to start with the idea virtually anything is conceivable. This is a very different personality and we dont have any boundaries to understand him with. And he has certain very deeply held beliefs. And the idea that hes going to be trapped by a bureaucratic system that is very slow and very inefficient and routine ly exploited by the chinese and hell be told hes helpless, this is guy, he understand thoroughly the concept of alexander the great cutting the knot rather than trying to untie it. He sort of thinks of that. Im not sure he knows the analogy, but he lives that analogy every day. And hes quite cheerful about cutting knots. Second. Remember this is an administration which includes a lot of us right wingers which if you said to them here is this great agreement that barack obama and john kerry negotiated. We all go got it. Kill that. We dont need to know the details. Just kill that. That was in a sense the side casualty of the nature of the campaign. I dont think they even thought about it. That was an automatic you walk in and show me what these guys have been doing, i guarantee you its not good for the United States. Im just saying i think that was a bias. I think you have to approach it from that standpoint. Your first question. Look, i dont want to be too harsh but im going to be. Any idiot who looks at the american society, skips past the study that there are ten million males who have dropped out of the work force, skips past the effect of the opioid crisis, skips past all of appalachia and explains to you that were full employment is a person who is over paid, should not have tenure, and you shouldnt read their garbage. I mean, the fact is only academics who are tenured can afford to be that far from reality. This is an economy which can grow dramatically faster. We can go dramatically faster. But it requires profound change. When maine shifted and put a work requirement on having a snap cart for able bodied adults without children, 13,000 of the 14,000 people on snap quit and went to work. So you have a society which is encouraged dependency, has encouraged people to borrow so much money on their Student Loan Program that theyre trapped because when they get out they owe so much they cant make decisions. Has tolerated males just leaving the work force in huge numbers. Has an educational system thats dysfunctional and has a totally inadequate adult retraining program. Thats the scale of what trump wants to change. If you change it, you could easily get radically higher growth. If you dont change it, were trapped in the continuing decay. Weve been at 1. 9 for a decade. 1. 9 growth. The average since 1946 is 3. 3 . To suggest to us we should relapse and accept performing at a sub optimal level for the next 20 years because were not smart enough to solve these problems i think is infuriating and i deeply dislike the academics who sit in their plush jobs sitting on a campus writing about the rest of america as though they actually knew something. Does anyone else have a concluding comment . I will point out that was a response just given by a former college professor. But not tenured. Listen, i want to thank all three of you. You have added both insight, important experience judgment and some levity to our examination of a very serious subject and i hope you will all three of you continue to be involved in the dialogue as we try and advance our north American Combined economic interest. Ambassador, do you have something . May i just, to the speaker and our american friends, commiserate with the fact that mexico was not able to return the favor by getting you into the world cup. By beating on dudas and we couldnt reciprocate what you do for us allowing us to go for the Brazil World Cup the last time you beat someone who we needed you to beat. So im really sorry. But i have no bitterness about that failure. If we cant beat trinidad and tobago, we dont deserve to go. Do you have anything . Thank you very much. [ applause ] heres whats ahead today on cspan 3. Coming up next, the house subcommittee looks at immigration policy. And then from the institute, cory booker and Nebraska Republican ben sacks. After that a hearing on drilling in the arctic. And later a discussion on health care costs. Join us tonight for American History tv in prime time. Well look at a discussion on the 70th anniversary of the 1947 hollywood blacklist hearings. American history prime time begins at 8 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan 3. The Senate Finance committee spent most of last week going through the republican tax reform bill and today well show you key moments from that meeting including an exchange between Sherrod Brown and orrin hatch and pitches to replace tax cuts. You can watch that today at 1 30 p. M. Eastern on cspan 2. And coming. Up tonight at 8 00 eastern, well kick off our road to the white house 2020. He was joined by tim ryan, democrat representing ohio at a Kennedy Clinton dinner in new hampshire. Heres a preview. Donald trump became the president of this amazing country because of two things. One, democrats b didnt turn out. And two, for some reason we stopped talking to people about what they care about. I think the first part is going to take care of itself. The energy that youre showing, the enthusiasm that this party is showing is extraordinary. But we have to remember, we have to talk to people about what they care about. Not what e we care about. We as democrats have so many issues we care about. Is and i believe in the fullness in time well be proven right on just about every one of them. But that doesnt mean it moves peoples hearts and minds. What moves peoples hearts and minds is their job, their pay, and the opportunity tr their kids. And every time were not talking about that, and every time were talking about how bad the republicans are, its a missed opportunity for us. Thats how we take this country back, in my opinion. And that just a short portion of our road to the white house 2020 coverage from the keb Kennedy Clinton dinner featuring john delaney. You can watch the event at 8 00 eastern tonight on cspan. Thanksgiving day on cspan, heres some of the highlights. At 11 to a. M. Eastern, the Liberty Medal ceremony honoring john mccain at the National Constitution center in philadelphia. At 1 00 p. M. , john kerry receiving a Lifetime Achievement award at the edward m. Kennedy institute in boston. And at 2 45 p. M. , New York Times columnist david brooks and ronald white discuss character and the presidency. On book tv on cspan 2, the southern festival of books in nashville at 2 30 p. M. Eastern. The former heavy weight chapmpin of the world. And at 3 10 p. M. , authors discuss the middle class and politics. And at 4 50 p. M. , eric ericson on his book before you wake. On American History tv on cspan 3 at 9 50 a. M. Eastern on the presidency. The life and times of teddy roosevelt. At 11 00 a. M. Lectures in history, naltive americans and california. Then at 2 55 p. M. Eastern, from the National Archives a look at the first Motion Picture units world war ii films. Thanksgiving day on the cspan networks. Now the house judiciary subcommittee on immigration and Border Security look at the justice Departments Executive Office for immigration review. That office is charged with immigration cases. James mchenry testified on b a numb of topics related to the operations including efforts to hire more judges in hopes of addressing the backlog of cases. This is about 90 minutes. The subcommittee on immigration and Border Security will come to order. We welcome everyone to todays hearing on oversight of the executive office for immigration review and now i have recognized myself for an opening statement. Today ice hearing focuses on a critical facet of u. S. Immigration policy. The executive office for immigration review or eoir is the linchpin of Immigration Law as it administers among other components the u. S. Immigration courts and the board of immigration appeals. The adjudication and appeals of immigration matters is of critical importance to the Proper Administration of justice in this country and we must ensure that our Immigration Laws are interpreted as congress intended. As a former immigration practitioner who regularly appeared in immigration court, i certainly understand and appreciate just how important tts that the courts are administered effectively and in a way that maximizings docket management and minimizes fraud and delay. Unfortunately, eoir has been plagued by management problems that have consistently hampered its ability to operate the courts. Through the past administration, the department of justices Inspector Generals Office found that the office engaged in nepotism and other inappropriate practices. These disturbing findings serve as a distraction for eoir making it impossible to focus on muchneeded improvements. Additionally, a 2014 server crash paralyzed the courts