tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 16, 2015 3:00pm-5:01pm EDT
states we are looking to open new frontiers and cooperation, and new horizons for cooperation as well. we are looking at climate change, infectious diseases, space exploration. those are just some of the topics we talk about. they are our global issues, too. and in order to effectively based upon the needs with regard to these issues i believe we need a very close cooperation between korea and the united states. now, these issues need our attention in terms of cutting edge technologies and industries that we need to develop. ..
handpicked member of the republican staff. to affirm what mr. mccarthy had already stated we then have congressman hannah to reaffirm all of it. but even if we wanted to put words to the side, the question becomes, we have been asked to not listen to the words of mccarthy, not listen to words of discussed , and not listen to the words of hannah the look at the actions of the committee. we have a situation where is clear that only look at the accents, calling this averaging in, letting the
press now about the time and location of her interview. she based on the testimony has no policy responsibilities. no operational responsibilities. was not with secretary clinton on the night of this phenomenal tragedy. it only leads one to ask the question, did the gentleman, sergeant mccarthy, congressman hannah, and mr. podesta tell the truth? that is the question. the question also becomes whether this is a taxpayer
funded effort. and when i take the statements of those three gentlemen and mess them up we have been saying all along that when we look at what they do and we look at what the woman says, they all match. it comes together. it is interesting to note that those people most closely associated with hillary clinton seemed to be treated differently. mr. blumenthal, cheryl know, ms. miss everton, jake sullivan, treated differently. and so i think i've said it from the very beginning, it
is very important that when we join this committee and the democrats join this committee i said that we would be defenders of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. when the families came to us and we met with all for families rick stevens, sean smith, tyrone woods, and lend our geek come i want to make sure ii mention your names because they seem to get lost in all this. only met with the families, do you know what they said? they only ask for three things, and they basically begged us.
do not make this a political football, we beg you. some of them with tears in their eyes. the 2nd thing that they asked for, find out what happens on that night. they asked us for a 3rd thing, do everything in your power to make sure this is not happen someone else. ladies and gentlemen, i think that no matter how you look at, when you have the number two person in the republican party comes forward, the person who makes plans with the speaker and the person who was one step away from becoming the speaker to tell you that this is all about a taxpayer funded political effort to derail the campaign of hillary clinton, ladies and gentlemen, that is a problem. and so again, i came here today out of respect for miss averaging.
and i am hoping that there will not be very targeted leaks that only give a part of the story. i said it over and over again when the e-mails released i said look, don't just released e-mails properly spell transcript so that the press and the american people can see the whole story. and we did not get a vote for an opportunity to do that. a day to explain all of this. i look forward to the testimony. i want to thank all of you
for being here. >> and next week hillary clinton will be testifying on the house select committee before benghazi. secretary clinton will testify in open committee hearing. the committees investigating the 2012 attack on the us consulate, former secretary of state says it's a partisan effort to damage her presidential campaign. hearing starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern thursday, october 22. you will be able to watch it live. most important your questions.
our student can contest giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to here the most from the candidates. follow the c-span student can contest and road to the white house coverage on tv, the radio command online. >> the cato institute this we coasted a discussion on transatlantic trade. first we will hear from an editor with the financial times that will be followed by a panel discussion on the proposed free trade agreement between the us and europe. this is an hour and 40 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> well, good morning, everybody. good morning, dan. we are going to get started. we owe it to you, we should not relate. welcome to the cato institute.
really i don't think your going to be just disappointed. an excellent group of experts, they spend the ideological spectrum, geographic spectrum, age spectrum. you're goingyour going to get a lot of different perspectives and loud matters. the announcement last week, has been quite a year for trade policy really. this has been the most bubbling of years. we will see where it all leads. it has long been presumed to
be dependent upon conclusion of the tpp or success of the tpp which was predicated on passenger trade promotion authority. we are going to embark on a robust debate. the debate has been going on in europe. maybe the europeans are frustrated that the american negotiators in public have been a little bit sidetracked or focused on other issues. but i think people are ready for this. ready to start talking about this. there are 345 people registered to attend this conference. i guess some of them have slept in, but they will be here at some point during the day, i hope. also, asalso, as evidence of the importance of this issue, c-span is year i just way to know in advance your
boss and colleagues will no, see it, find out. please stick with us. so now that they are done and this debate is about to happen we wanted to lay the table, what are the issues? a lot is complex. we want to talk about the traditional trade negotiating that has been put on the table as well as the broader complexities this regulatory coherence. this is said to be the source of the largest gain from the successful. itit doesn't look like a whole lot of progress has been made or whole lot of record on how to proceed. were going to do a deep dive on regulatory coherence issues at the end of the day
but you have the program, the information is available in the lobby. also, the participants in the conference were asked to write essays and we have been published for approximately 1500 word essays about any related topic and have been publishing them on our website and we will continue to do that through next week , next week is the 10th round of negotiations in miami. we will carry this over into that. just one other housekeeping remark. that conversation will be memorialized and people will chime in small of the world. i want to introduce the person who is going to set the table on the issue.
you all no sean donna, an excellent journalist. he understands economics keenly. ii like to use that word talking about an english publication. he writes cogently and in a fair and balanced manner. shies the world trade editor at the financial times which really is the ultimate transatlantic newspaper. he is the perfect person to set the table for us. leads the global coverage of trade and development issues related to the sea is very versatile. before assuming his current role as world trade correspondent in 2013 sean
was world news editor of financial times before the deputy news editor and before that asia world news editor command is put a lot of worlds, working his way up to the top. february the district policy knows shauna and likes to talk to. i'm happy he is here to chat with us. just a couple of other points. appears in other newspapers worldwide including the bell china morning post shauna is a graduate from boston university where he had the degree in international relations, yet he still writes very well. i would like you to help me in welcoming sean to the podium. thank you. >> thanks a lot. i will beg your forgiveness,
as dan said, i am just off the plane. if i give my acronyms mixed up and start talking about the imf, the tax measures that were passed or approved in lima or stop talking about the emergency markets, you know that i have the right set of notes here. you will now it is an unhealthy obsession, as it is for some of you as well. it's something i've been following for the last two years and clearly is an immense project. i just thought -- but it's an interesting time because we're in that kind of uncomfortable middle period. somewhere in just before the half-time whistle. it is valid.
it isit is a good time to sort of step back and think about where we are. i thought i would offer for not entirely random thoughts here. and this is how i think about it and also the conversations that i have with my editors who constantly say so when is this thing going to get done and is it going to get done? you know, what should we be writing about this. and i think it's all start with point number one. i think that it is important to remember, and i think this sometimes gets lost in the discussion of the detail that, you know, there is still a valid endeavor. it is a big and valid endeavor. worth stepping back and thinking, okay, this is a trade relationship that is
as important as it gets in the world today. something like $800 billion or the trailer more and also it's about the future of trade agreements and really regulatory coherence like was being referenced there, the tangle of regulations and business and closing the nontariff barriers that we have been writing about for a long time, but it is also sort of an interesting point in that in business increasingly command this is not a phenomenon of the last year or two, but businesses are transatlantic nowadays. multinational corporation which once was an american or european corporation that was reaching out across the world is now increasingly a transatlantic one. great examples and fiat and
chrysler and gm in the auto industry. i also think the valid endeavor goes beyond the bilateral of the transatlantic relationship and really it is that thinking of it in the context of the wto and global trade liberalization efforts and the tpp. there is a theory of trade, all these are going to complicate the world and create a tangle. i would like to patent the ravioli siri -- ravioli. a trade, that is that we are now in this ravioli. we are seeing a series of mega- regional agreements that are being written or negotiated and that eventually someday they will become the great lasagna that is the global,
multilateral. again, i am patenting that. if you use it, please. and i think that is a long-term project. i mean,, clearly when you talk to people in the us administration, part of the reasoning behind the launch of tpp and also to tip was about getting something happening in the realm of trade liberalization and moving beyond the kind of paralysis that you have in the doha round's. so i think that is an important context. it is also geopolitical, i would argue partly because of my background in international relations, but and i think that geopolitics
are as valid as they are for tpp. people talk about tpp in the context of china. it is equally valid in that context, particularly with what is happening in russia and ukraine. so you know, these are, to me, the three big pillars of why this remains a valid endeavor. the 2nd point that i think about is a great question i get from my editors which is, okay, this is big, can you actually get it done? so when your in the daily news business sometimes it turns in a slightly depressing conversation. the answer that ii offer my editors nowadays was yes it will be done but probably not anytime soon, and that may not be the answer is
some people in business and others who have a shorter horizon of thinking may want to hear. i do think that increasingly in my mind it is hard to see this getting done during the obama administration which raises all sorts of interesting questions. i think there going to try to get it done. clearly they are. they refuse to sign the negotiations, but really everything has to go incredibly smoothly to get it close. as one senior official and also may only talked after the meeting recently, really what we're laying out in front of us just gets us to the mid- game. and i think that that is something that is important,
especially in the context, and i used tpp is a reference point. it has been a joke at this thing has been in the endgame for two years if it's only just getting to the mid- game, you know, we have got a long road ahead. there are a couple of reasons why. i think this is going to struggle to get done in the obama administration. one is the complexity of the deal. a lot of the conversations feel still like there only getting started. even though it has been two years. and that is interesting. the other point is, i still think for the us administration tpp will take a lot of energy to get through congress in the next month to close, scrub, get the text out, so politically the administration will be
focused on that over the next year or so. ii don't think it is a zero sum game command clearly the folks have argued for a long time, but and political pressure as well. one of the things that you have seen in tpp is a building urgency over the last two years for most of the last six to nine months is not a year the tpp negotiators have been meeting weekly essentially and intersessional agreements. they have been on the phone, closing, especially the us and japan negotiators have been on there are constantly for most of last year. so and i don't see that right now. i may be missing something, but i just don't see that accelerated schedule. the other point is that the
political timeline ahead is getting very interesting. i don't think in 2016 it's going to draw quite the opposition or the heated debate that tpp is here in the us for obvious reasons, but i am not sure that in the context of the anti- trade rhetoric we are hearing on both sides in both parties right now that even to deal with europe it will be immune to that or some sort of blowback. you know, there is an argument that is knew syrian endeavor and his other adventurism in ukraine and so on could help make that geopolitics case and the converse, but then there is also, i keep wondering and
is taking about this on the plane, although not for that long, i wonder what donald trump would make of it. if tpp is a disaster, what you think? and i came up with some quotes, serve imagine speaking and then switched off and was onto something else. clearly there is potential risk, but 2017 is the more important year in terms of the political timeline which consent to why i don't think it will get done, and it has more to do with european politics rather than here domestically. you have three monumental folks in europe in 2017, and that is the german election, national action, french presidential election, and i
think equally importantly, uk referendum on whether or not to be in -- to remain in the eu in each of the selections. i would expect that it will be an issue that will be vigorously debated. a hundred and 50, 200,000 people on the streets of berlin on saturday protesting. that tells you that certainly there are people who feel strongly about this in germany. anglo merkel has been treading very carefully on this. the coalition partner even more so arguably, but across europe they're are now 3 million signatures on a petition against it, and that is starting to become a big number. i also think that sort of vocal opposition is bleeding
into a kind of broader skepticism that i hear from some of my colleagues were asking me european as much as economic journalists, and also here from others in the quite center. when i think that is really, really important. i also think the leaders in each of those elections or votes is politically savvy enough to know that there is a risk for them in this debate. i think the 3rd random thought is that the barriers are stumbling blocks are just not going away. in fact, they are arguably multiplying. we have long talked about the snowden affect on data and the discussion there,
how it adds to the suspicion across the atlantic, particularly in germany. that is still there. the safe harbor decision we saw recently is not technically part of it, but it is emblematic of a broader suspicion. they're, i think that the broader suspicion, but also the combination of jealousy and angst that you see in europe now when it comes to the issue of innovation and technology companies, which i, which i think is really interesting and i think will shadow the talks. gm owes, the decision by the european commission earlier this year to allow member states stopped out of any decision is important. it is a recommendation, not a firm decision, but it tells you a lot about the european commission and how they will handle the politics. the ist yes, the investor
state dispute settlement mechanism and all of the heat around that there is a view in brussels that they have come up with a solution with a recent proposal for a wholesale rewriting of the system. i think you only have to look at the us chamber of commerce incredibly rapid response to that, negative response to the proposal to see why that may be more difficult than the europeans think in terms of the negotiations. it has two main points as far as i can tell, the creation of an international court with sitting judges to here investment cases, it sounds a lot like a multilateral institution that will here investment disputes. clearly it is a poison brand
the europeans want to come up with something entirely fresh. and the 2nd is an appellate function for investment cases that would allow government to go before a panel of city judges. both fit in very much with this european idea that the answer to a problem is often to set up a new institution. i don't think that goes down so well particularly in places like this. and here in washington, i think there are a myriad other questions out there that are building, big questions on whether financial services will be included, things that should have been answered some time ago. that said, i did say yes, i think this is going to happen which brings me to my 4th and final point.
both sides wanted to happen at the political level certainly. so what has to change for it to happen? and i think that that is something that the negotiators have been thinking about and discussing. i am not sure they have all of the answers, but clearly something has to happen to get some kind of knew momentum. i think the 1st thing is really a recalibration. is this the big totemic catchall agreement that a lot of its advocates have sought? should it be that? there were people who would talk about it as the beginning of a transatlantic
,, basically a growth of the european union across the atlantic i will become a single economy and market. i am not sure given the current challenges they will get you there. that may be a good long-term goal, but it is not where this is heading, particularly with what is happening in the eu and the suspicion within the eu, the eu itself and its role. i think that is one part of recalibration. so do you focus instead on something that focuses on terror services? maybe some government procurement. do you turn the regulation project into a longer-term project? people have talked about it. there are two lines that immediately come to mind.
oneone was let's get this done on a single tank of gas the argument now is perhaps with an electric car instead of a gas guzzling. and after vw, certainly not a diesel. but, you know, there are people making this point a year or more ago, there is a kind of early harvest deal to be had and regulation has given us complexity. i think there is, you know, when i talk to listen to ask questions on regulation it is so striking to me how much the question of regulation on things like food and auto safety and so on is kind of a mars and venus thing, and i am not sure you saw the inner trade agreement immediately.
the 2nd point is to accelerate negotiations. right now we will see an exchange of knew tariff offers. this is only the 2nd exchange. it has been two years. i have both agreed to set a 97 percent threshold. turn this into a negotiation , the remaining 3 percent is see tariff lines. but if you go into clothing mode and 2016 you need to be meeting more quickly than they are planning to. tariff offers next week and procurement office in february, that takes you in the spring. european leaders need to handle politics better and be braver if they want to get this done.
i have not seen any signs of that, particularly from the european commission which has been a much more political animal than it was i think one of my questions, when she took over started thinking of her as engaging in the kind of rapid outmaneuver, if i'm going to listen, listen, and to all of the opponents and try to where them out that way. i don't think that has worked. this may be a provocative point. americans need to be better in the context of this negotiation approving their european this which, again, is not a comfortable admission for some parts of the policy here.
i have been away for 17 years and have just come back and themi'm struck by how americans of change in a number of ways. how the traditional narrative on our different economies and how they regulate has changed. the vw example is a great one. it up is the narrative that somehow europe is greener when it comes to cars. i think the food culture change is remarkable. the idea that mcdonald's is now deciding not to use any antibiotic treated meat or hormone fed chicken or beef is important command it is important in the context because these are exactly the sort of things that european consumers think about some of the famous chicken. so i think i'll stop they're
, let you chew on that chicken, if you want for those freedom fries if you prefer. and just stop. you really have an interesting day ahead of you at an interesting point in the negotiation. i think the deal will get done. but i really do think some things have to change the dynamics for it to get done. thank you. [applause] fit banddan wanted to introduce the next panel. but he has disappeared now.
i guess we could exchange jokes. i will leave this to. >> all right. an excellent overview of the issues. we will get into an exchange. please take your seat. if you are on the panel come on up. so this session is supposed to go from nine to ten past ten. it will be a conversation. the original point was to have a bunch of chairs appear like a sunday morning talk show that there were some complications with the number of mike's.mike's. it will be more like an app -- an academic set up.
the purpose here is to talk about the issues. there are lots, just to give you a taste, a lot of complexity, but i would like us to be able to debate some of the issues, at least address some of the issues. the complicated issues. the interests on the us side, european side, and get a sense of where things stand going in to the row next me to the next week. by the atlantic council.
but anyway, we talk about all these various issues. i'd like to get into some of them here. obviously trade agreements deal with tariff productions,productions, so that's on the table. agricultural protection, gm owes, saito and fido century measures which are pretty prominent. we talked about regulatory coherence. labor and environmental standards,, intellectual property protection, financial services, data protection, energy export. there are a lot of issues. let me also know that there
is a slight programming change. supposed to be with us coming later, had some logistical issues getting across the atlantic. phil leavy also on another panel volunteered to help us out. thank you. >> i want to ask a question. i have 12. he or she can start with an answer and then others can chime in. sort of exhaust when it's time to move i'll ask the next question. first question is for frederick. fredrik eriksson. by the way, all of their bios are in your packet. really quickly with the chicago council global affairs, the nfl clu, the german development institute
, george washington university. let me start with a question for you. what do you consider the most important issues to a successful outcome, and what do you consider to be the most difficult to solve? >> i think it's actually the same issue. of course the 25 member of the european union. that's the main benefit. and if you want to show command should take longer holidays. lost the european social model which of course is desperately right here, please don't take away the aleutian. so i think that is sort of ambition that we are going to have for what we're going to do. look, let me just say a couple of words on that
issue from the viewpoint of thinking perhaps through the economics and political economy at all. i am not desperately happy with this obsession that a lot of people have but estimating the potential gains and trade agreements, especially while using it in a model that we know is not really capturing some of the key benefits that come from trade. i am sort of complicit to that myself. then offered these tough offered these studies with some regularity. it itself must be put in a broader context, largely that we are seeing an end to 25 years of globalization, and aims to the idea that constant expansion of the principles of economic
liberalism is going to power western economies, deregulate economies, and that sort of deregulation is going to have very strong effects on what happens externally between countries. i have been scheduling a difference comeau we are moving from the past 20 years of corporate globalism pod global corporations. fair trade linkages across the world, so we are moving into a period which will be more characterized by global corporatism in the sense that we are seeing a revival are pretty old ideas about linkages between business and government. we are seeing a revival for discriminatory and sometimes protective use of regulation
that can manifest itself in everything from sort of skepticism toward different mergers and acquisitions deals, and she bidding for french company. i can remember the name of it right now. and how the politics around these deals came to be very sensitive and controversial. we are seeing in today's financial times, an interview with the ceo of barclays bank's who is making the case for the buildup of a global european champion and investment banking. american investment banks are getting too competitive. that is the sort of all-time government interference in the economy that we are seeing, and it is going to
cash companies and governments to become much closer, sometimes feeling about, that is the context alessi what sort of translates itself into a new type of scenario for global trade which are able to grow far more slowly. emerging markets have developed to the.much more regionally than they do. strong effects coming in asian region which is taking away a lot of the benefits that the american and european economy could thrive on.
does anyone else to have you that there is the completion of columbus' conquest. what stumbling blocks? >> good morning. if i may add, i would like to my see it not only, i see it as really not being about trade but governance, not only of competition of governance models among the countries, but also between the western model and the chinese model for a western model and perhaps in asian model. i think they are not the same. but itsame. but it seems to me that what we are talking about new issues such as regulatory coherence that is really
much more than trade. it is about governance of the united states moves from specific human rights such as labourites to a broader conception of including human rights. we have learned something from the european model, so it seems to me, what policymakers have said in terms of creating 21st century trade agreements. i think those metaphors are useful and also a little bit scary, but we need to be honest with the silliest. >> i didn't find any of these myself. we are looking at a pretty standard type of free-trade agreement negotiation, the
result will be a pretty standard type of free-trade agreement like we have seen in the past years. with infusions here and there which hopefully can at least bring some new ground in terms of dealing with more type of regulatory issues. but the idea that has been at least initially sold to the public about 21st century agreement, creating a single market across the atlantic i don't think this is going to happen which leads me to my conclusion. i think this is an agreement that at least in europe is going to be sort of one or lost on its capacity to generate more growth, more jobs. that is the politics of it. if you're going to end up in an agreement that has only small benefits then i think your going to see all of the
other problems and they going to become far more bigger. as far into chicken on have you. and run with the stream of what you seen for a lot of the estimates become an girl in the sectors that can deliver huge scale benefits by taking away tears and perhaps some new type of trade restrictions that are there. you think about services, data, and how you can sort of use the trade agreement itself to throw some friction into global trade policy in the sense that you really want an agreement here which can at least for the future, you push countries like china, india, brazil, and other large economies to become far more favorable to more of a
western type of model this issue. so if you find that sort of combination it will be a fairly good agreement, but i don't think we will have high hopes on that. >> you just alluded to the geopolitics, what sean spoke out. what do you make of the geopolitical arguments for the agreement? how important is it relative to the economics? is it about security, is it about writing the rules of trade before china and india and brazil do? >> well, i think it is both the economic and geopolitics i am going to take the bait a little bit. that link sentence. one of the things that we have seen, if you want to have success you can either make progress on very thorny issues or expand. tpp did that for quite a while.
supposed to conclude in november 2011, it did not. how do. how do you show success? bring in mexico, canada, japan. now you know we are successful because we are getting bigger. if youif you look at your they haven't having their on debates with the north versus the south, the euro zone issues. one of the major elections as well the british decide their role in europe is to be point one way of strengthening his expand, get involved in something biggerfwéúákqç, not perhaps[lñr ast5ç actually bring in the united states and is a member, but it looks that way. it is an expansion project tightening of ties. the problem that we see in all of this is, that brings its own complexities. tpp, japan,tpp, japan, and a few new difficult negotiating issues which is what we have as well, but when you ask about the geopolitics of this, geopolitically it is important to have a strong
europe. we'll talk about this more this afternoon. for a range of issues and challenges you want to have a strengthening, and thought is, this is the kind of thing that could bolster, as frederick said, having some growth, having more jobs which are many of europe sales. it will make everyone feel better about not just whatever agreement you reach but then the union itself so that it can serve as a bolstering, but that was no shortage of venues for the us and europe to address economics. and that is part of the challenge. they have been addressing these things all along. you had eight rounds of negotiations, the transatlantic economic cooperation, the council where they were doing bilateral's. if you wanted to tackle chlorinated chicken there were opportunities. doing it in this way is largely to sort of
reinforced not only is europe intact, but the bond between the us and europe which obviously is shaken through a number of events over the last decade or two, that you sort of advertise, which is great so long as it works. >> i think we are missing the point a little bit here and that there is not that much room to grow through a traditional trade agreement. through all of the rounds of gas, the wto, the fact that the us and eu have pretty low barriers whether it is tariffs, regulatory barriers , and if the idea is simply to achieve astronomical growth and grow out of austerity and the great recession because we we're going to get rid of the barrier against chlorinated chicken or hormone beef, that just isn't really borne out by data. the data shows even in the
best case scenario, the growth you will achieve is a little more than a rounding error. and with the agreement it's not really were going to move to london because that's a great off shoring platform. it's a lot of questions about who will have the final say over regulations, how we structure the economy and if this really is a new form of global corporatism working people are very concerned there will be even more corporate power in the new form of globalism because it was really not advantageous to working people under its current guys. christ is in the depend on what the rules are and how we -- where we liberalize,
with the terms are. i have spoken -- question global governance. what -- is there a good agreement? can regulatory harmonization spine great savings for business that can be passed on to knew investment to create jobs. >> what is the transparency with which it is negotiated. if workingnegotiated. if working people and other members of civil society are locked out of the room but everyone knows the big corporate lobbyists or maybe not in the room but have been the bestthe best access to the negotiators and the most influence of the rules written, they won't be written in a way that favors. and secondly, businesses achieving more efficiencies is terrific in a vacuum, but it cannot be argued based upon current economic models
that will automatically be shared with workers. in the uk and germany and mexico and south korea. workers are getting a smaller and smaller share of national income, and particularly as productivity goes up, worker income is not rising. this is problematic. if the rules don't address that kind of concern, that workers can prosper as the companies do, you will see continuing skepticism and out as you saw in germany on saturday. >> i just wanted ask a question. this vivid idea. you have mechanisms like labor advisory councils. i know that from time to time the obama administration speaks with organized labor. do you think that there is not useful communication, that the current model doesn't work to your workers say? ..
competition. that's the main driver of the gains from global trade, from trade agreements. the problem we've had for the past 25 years is that we haven't seen a trade agreement has been able to push that competition much which is why, in the 1990s when productivity growth was actually accelerating again we had more investment going into economy were had sort of a big boost in trade volumes. at that point you saw take co-pay for workers, doesn't matter where they work and how they worked, salaries were going up ever since then we've been under declining trend for part of the and as a consequence pay has increased that much. but the functional income distribution between labor and capital is basically stagnant or it's been flat for 30, 40 years.
it's not a labor itself is taking a hit and that capital is sort of feasting on the carcasses. what we're seeing is the of growing income inequality because skills are reported more than other skills and moderate income which means blue collar workers have not seen pay go up so much as in the past. but in order to shift into a different type of economy that can expose economies of given type of globalization, can focus more economies to more competition and to transmit new tech doggy and innovation at a faster pace. then we need to begin to return to trade agreements begin and to have the capacity to achieve that. >> it is a labor shares of
income is down in comparison to the past. so we perhaps maybe i'll look at different data but i think, you talked about a standard economic model for trade agreements not account for everything and part of what they're not accounting for is the movement of capital. so it's not just that u.s. producers are being outcompeted by an import sector t. it's that whole factors are shutting down and moving and companies are deciding we're going to produce overseas where it's cheaper and export back to the united states. that's quite different than the traditional model that we're both making who ever is better at it should be going to exports. not like that what we've also seen the concentration of capital since this era of trade agreements. more mergers, more acquisitions, less competition to if we are taught to become more efficient and having more competition we've got to look abou at what e effects of trade agreements on that concentration and what that does not only to consumers but
to workers were trying to sell the labor in the marketplace. >> susan wants to chime in and then i would like to ask marjorie about this is perspective. >> it seems like we're talking about three different things that are clearly related. one issue is what happened to the share of labor in terms of globalization and our trade agreements the proper place to address the problem, given labels declining influence? that's think one. i don't know where we all stand on that. it will be interesting to see. the second -- the second thing is that labou labor have influe? i would argue labor has tons of, it's seen, it's certainly heard if you look at the labor rights provisions as they have evolved over time, certainly congress has to some extent tried to make them as has there is administration. the question is why is that not working to labor? you come back to the first
question. and the third issue is process. how do we negotiate a trade agreement, who's in the room, in the process considered in spirit and accountable? which seems to be an issue we should talk about that another time but clearly i think a very important issue because it's an issue about trusting governance. and its governance agreements, as i call them, are becoming ever more influential and ever larger with more countries and more sectors, how we do it is as important as what we include in there. i will shut up now. >> marjorie, i'd like to ask you about business and how focus is the chamber on ttip? what types of problems and issues guaranteed to resolve for u.s. business, u.s. bases here as exporters and u.s. multinationals in europe speak with thanks, dan, very much and thanks for care for organizing this. the fact we're having this very
interesting conference on a federal holiday, but clearly enough people are interested in the topic that the room is nearly full. kudos to you for bucking the trend and going out and having us all here first thing in the morning. let me start by asking how many people in the room start from the premise that ttip is or can be a good thing? show of hands. cool. and how much of you start from the premise that under no possible circumstances could it be a good thing? all right. there's one on this guy in the back. >> come join the panel. [laughter] >> golly, we are to begin? look, the chamber has been a long time, first off, let's back up and realize that the chamber yes, it represents a lot of big
businesses but we also, 95% of our members are small and medium-sized enterprises. the notion that the chamber so that represent big business is a bit disconnected from the reality of our membership. business is painted as, i don't want to say the devil but business has been negative in this conversation about ttip. the practical reality is that when you talk about negotiate trade agreements, why are we negotiating trade agreements that we are talking of trying to liberalize the free flow of trading goods and services and investment flows and agriculture. wherever we can. and by definition business has a stake and a fundamental role in one of these negotiations are happening. workers have a fundamental role in them as well, because they
are employed by business. so this notion some of that there is a dichotomy between what business wants and what is in the interests of workers and consumers, it strikes me as it's an unfortunate dichotomy. i think frankly which is happening in europe right now in terms of the massive demonstrations, it wasn't just in berlin biting and shame as well. i was in the hague last week and i can tell you that dutch officials are growing increasing concern about the trends in the country as well. i think the debate, i will come back to question in just a second, the debate that you see going on in europe is much larger than what may or may not include in this particular negotiation. it's a much more fundamental conversation about the role of business and society. and, frankly, it's a much more intensive dialogue is happening in europe right now. i think that, i in some uzbeks,
at some point we'll get around having a conversation now that tbp, the negotiations have concluded. we will start to see more of that conversation. look, the chamber has been an advocate for these negotiations even before the negotiations were negotiations. we began and i think 2010, 2011 with our friends at some of, some of the think tanks in europe to look at the potential benefits deriving from a comprehensive agreement. initially looking at just the benefits of tariff production. from there the conversation grew to what could be the benefits extending beyond tariff reductions. the notion being quite frankly that in the absence of what the relative paucity of mantra
fiscal options available to the jobs and growth from that trade liberalization might in fact, shouldn't that be part of the solution. so we've been advocating for this for a long time because we do see the opportunity for greater growth in trade and investment flows. practical reality is as many you know, because we're talking about in many instances multilateral, sorry, multinational corporations, much of the trade that goes on between the u.s. and europe is intracompany trade him something like 40% of the trade that goes on across the atlantic is intracompany trade which means companies are paying duties twice for good flowing back and forth. i'm sorry but that just creates unnecessary costs in the economy. i do think when it comes to regulatory cooperation people talk about coherence, talking
about cooperation and careers. our members to see significant opportunities. you have to stop and ask yourself why. if the european and american air safety agencies can dean airworthy and airbus in europe and allow that to be flown here in the u.s. and have a boeing aircraft deemed airworthy by the faa and, therefore, flow without being retested in europe, why is it if we can do that we have to have, what does it come out if it is mattel, forgive me if i'm wrong about that, why did it to make two different versions of a baby rattle? because the standard in europe and the u.s. is different on that level of decibels, that the rattle can make next to the babies. >> marjorie? can interrupt? this issue is a big issue at its identified as the source of the
greatest games. the european left likes to talk about as a race to the bottom to u.s. standards. and the u.s. right likes to talk about global governance and exceeding to these ridiculously economy squashing standards. clearly there's a middle ground. you identified rattles. it seems that business should do a better job gettin of getting t front and coming up with example after example of products where two sets of standards, regulatory schemes need to be complied with. that achieve the exact same safety or environmental or labor protection goal, whatever it is. are you guys compiling a list? >> well, in fact we are. it's interesting you ask. there is no doubt about it, especially in europe business hasn't done enough to articulate the benefits of these negotiations. in the u.s., i would say we are doing a better job but we're doing it in an assignment where
nobody is really listening yet, let's face it. the level of the attention span of the american public is fairly limited, to the extent people think about trade right now, if you think about it at all to think about tpp. and i think the conversation that we're going to have the about trade over the next number of months as we saw over the summer with tpa been in effect a referendum on tpp and that we were not going forward with tpp is a given set of circumstances because the relationship between the u.s. and asian countries with whom tpp has been negotiated is fundamentally different than the relationship between the u.s. and europe. should the business community be doing a better job of? you bet. do we need to get more information out there? you better. i'm not spent enough of my day edifact this is my day job trying to make the case for why improvements in regulatory cooperation whether it is
sectoral or whether it's in terms of a broad framework for dialogue is important. i need to do a better job of explaining why you do need an effective investor state dispute settlement mechanism in agreement with it is an i in the name of these negotiations. the i is for investment. where it doesn't play such a significant impact an overwhelming role in the bilateral relationship. yesyes, i do think there is more that business should be doing. i think it's also more difficult in some respects to make the argument, if you will, a sort of straightforward business argument for why this agreement is needed when you are faced with what i would describe as more fundamentally emotional arguments. it easier to raise people's concerns about things like, i'm sorry to come back to them a
chlorinated chicken a race to the bottom of regulation or lack of transparency, a number of very fundamental concerns that derive, i think, from something that extends far beyond really what is the ttip negotiation, has much to do with the basic role of business in society. >> you touched upon one of the hot button issues, isds, an issue that we at cato and chamber noblest eye to eye on. axel come at quite a bit about the written a lot about it. axel, which may be share with the audience your perspective on what is problematic on what you think of the recent proposal for the permanent court. show your thoughts i think a lot of people here have thoughts about that so this could be a good debate. >> thanks very much for the invitation. it's a great conference. investor state, that's the topic
if i'm going to look at it from a german perspective, which is in the center of the debate. investor status settlement procedure of mechanisms are part of most international investment agreement and there are more than 3000 of these agreements. essentially it is about foreign investors have the right to bring claims against foreign states. that's very unusual thing in terms of international law because if you think about the wto, the world trade organization, all the states have the right to sue other states. that's a very unusual thing in international law. of course there are many issues, many criticisms you can have with regard to isdf, just to mention some. only big and foreign companies can bring those claims. so it's not really an instrument that small and medium-sized enterprises can use it is not an
instrument that international investors can use. there's a question of the impartiality of the arbitrators. arbitrators have been counselors before and so there's this whole question of impartiality. debate issues also that the decision of these arbiter tribunals are based on very vague concept, very big provisions like fair equity treatment. are called it is written about that. just imagine last point, our tech elections show that strong treaties, strong investment treaties, does that include isdf provisions do not have an additional positive affect on fdi. so there's a big question mark in terms of effectiveness and impact. now with regard to the proposal by the commission. i think it's an intriguing proposal, no doubt about that.
shawn donnan talked about it. disappointment of permanent judges, and appeals mechanism which is missing so far. it hasn't increased transparency, and so on and so on. so although i think it is an intriguing concept, intriguing proposal, i think it's missing the fundamental question. why do you need an additional layer, if you want, of international law and a free trade agreement, which is a kosher to buy two countries with rather mature domestic legal systems? just leave it out, right? it's perfectly possible to imagine a free trade agreement between two industrialized countries without idf. you can also think about enforcement of protection standards come domestic legal studies. so that would be my idea.
but, of course, another question we should think about is, in case that will be no isdf in ttip. what happens, or will the european commission take this proposal up in other investment treaty negotiations? with the likes of vietnam, china, japan and other developing countries. so that's one of the questions and also that's one of the questions when it comes to the reform of the international investment regime. so what kind of impact will this proposal by the european commission and beyond ttip? >> does anybody have -- go ahead. both of you. >> i think there are two sort of computing of two perspectives. a constitutional perspective add more probe -- programmatic interface they got exactly what was the question to which the
answer was isdf. from a constitutional point of view i think it's obvious you're it's a system which doesn't conform to basic constitutional principles and this is an easy way to solve this widget for your which we are looking for is basically to allow complainants, whether they are foreigners or nationals, to reference the initial agreement when they go to court. period. sadly, the are people arguing against that. both on sort of on the part of european governments to do what of international agreements to become part of sort of their legal and right of choice of fabric in that way. they want to have opportunities to sort of avoid having laws to have consequences for. for international agreements. a lot of the people that have been against isdf don't like it
either because what they would like to get away from is the fact that international agreements should have consequences. so that's, i think it's pretty easy to solve the problem if we really would like to sort of make the system to conform to basic constitutional principles. let's go to the much more difficult issue, understand why do these sort of agreements emerge? why didn't they conform to basic constitutional principles to start with? and what's the role that they have played in the broader landscape of the various types of international agreements, trade investments and many other issues that have been negotiated in the past 30, 40 years? the simple answer is that isdf is a sort of safety vault for a host of different types of agreements where it has allowed governments to basically ignore
or at least avoid settling the difficulties of previous agreements, which used to detail their consequences for regulations and laws in those countries that have contracted for our party to them. perhaps to become far more detailed and descriptive but the consequences for laws and regulations that international agreements should have. we need to negotiate much more on the basis of the actual laws and regulations on the books in the country, not on broad textual pencils much of an international agreement. that's a different type of international negotiation we are looking at. if we take away the safety board, then we have to become far more prescriptive, we have to lock in government in greater details than those that exist. >> i'm a bit more favorably
disposed toward isdf. first o on the constitutional point, maybe i'm not grasping. we hear this all the time where if you think about trading goods, for example, brothers, if you say i wonder whether the u.s. approach to foreign sales corporations is conforming. we don't say take that up in u.s. courts or through the u.s. administration says. there some sort of broader body that arbitrates that, dispute settlement mechanism does these things. i think the case of record that there there is an investment component to trade is a very important thing. is not tangential. and that hell link to these are that this is not about shipping computers to a numbers across the sea. this get to the question of how does one address is it. i think on investment matters the real challenge of the ttip
context is that isds look slightly out of place because it's largely a measure that would happen if you have concerns about the of the country's legal system. having some sort of redress is good for investors. you can say the european legal system looks pretty good and so does the u.s. documenting what happened would talk about vietnam or the room and peruvians will criticize their own legal system. at the problem i think particularly for the united states, president plays a very big role in u.s. trade policy. that we will continue to see the difficult moving trade agreement through congress. part of how this is accomplished is you keep agreements relatively consistent. people will talk about slight changes at the march but not read an agreement, reopen discussions all at once. i think there's two reasons for why you want to include them. one is sequential which is a
precedent if we do this, fine, maybe will not be used frequently in to inspect the question you raised is this is a fundamentally bad thing for is how it all within how it operates? as john mentioned, if we are ultimately in torso of a grand harmonization of all those where we get away from the ravioli and the noodles and we have our big lasagna, credit, then, then it can be far easier if the pieces fit together from the start as opposed to have a bunch of disparate rules that they need reconciliation. >> what about the hyper national treatment aspect of this? we are giving foreign investors to pass to resolve other issues whereas u.s. investors have one, and vice versa. is that not precedent-setting or problematic in some we speak with i think is will depend entirely on how this operates, that it's like having an
appellate mechanism for example, that you can say someone gets to cut the question. it depends on how to operate. if one is automatically returned than that is problematic. if this is something that looks or problematic instances and says only in those rare circumstances where something went very wrong, and is much less troubling. >> i think whe we were looking t first principle on this, we've never actually had any in. of data that foreign investors are systematically discriminated against before the united states, for example, has gotten into an isds agreement with any country biggest things like that's a place where you start, not just people think roofing courts are been. if they are bad or that for everyone who lives there. not just the foreign investors -- people think peruvian -- i
think first we need to show that the problem exists and insight is isds given what it is the best solution? or even the investment court system which now the commission has proposed. we haven't talked about there are plenty of other options, state to state dispute settlements as you settle all other trade disputes whether it's in trad trade agreement or affidavit you. there's political risk insurance. there is a disparity about how domestic investors are treated versus international investors but it's also the rest of society. we have to look at how isds privileges one form of rights and those are property rights versus all other rights. so to take an extreme example, this is from a paper by a professor, canadian professor, if the owners of a foreign investment are tortured by a host government, quite extreme, those investors can use all the domestic system that their
disposal, plus isds. if the workers of that foreign investment are tortured by their own government, they can't use isds. they had to go to the domestic system. so at what point have we decided that in terms of global governance there's one bright is quite privileged, and all of the rights have to use whatever is available to them regardless of what an inefficient system is. >> everybody wants to say something about this. it's a hot topic but we're running short of time. i will go to but maybe we could put it in the context of into tpp there was the tobacco carveout. talk about precedent-setting. tobacco is carved out. what does that say about isds and what does it say about the president has been set for other industries getting similar discriminatory treatment?
anybody. >> i'm so glad there's at least one other person up here who thinks isds is not a demonic, most demonic element of these negotiations. look, let's be very clear on the fact that what we are talking about is again what i would describe as relatively emotionally driven debate about what is a pretty fundamentally basic construct of international law and precedent that's been in existence for 50 years. it isn't the case that a company can sue a government if their employees are tortured. there are very strict and narrow definitions on when isds, when
an investor can infect pursue the root of isds. is a very limited number of circumstances in which contractual obligations have been violated, or there's a perception of violation. it's interesting to me that in this whole conversation so far the one thing that we haven't heard which, in fact, is what's driving most of the conversation in europe is this notion that some of its corporations that are going to be writing regulation. and that they'll take away governments right to regulate. and hit again the practical reality is that if you talk about the tobacco case, i'm not going to speak to the specifics of the case in australia because we don't yet know the outcome, but the practical reality is that somehow the notion that this mechanism will allow a company to force a change in a government regulation is simply a misrepresentation of the facts.
>> susan? >> i think we need, if i can rephrase where we are at. the question, first question is to investors need the protection? and in the second question is how should that system go what should a system look like? it seems to me that in countries where the rule of law is good do you really need a separate legal system, and what does that do for the rule of law? we do have two systems. we have the legal system, but the losses at times you to go to the arbitration system as opposed to the legal system, for example. i won't get into the details of that but what we've seen i think is real but if the corporations system. that is what is fueling discontent as well as the notion that do investors deserve a separate legal system? so let's look at that. if you look at for example, the
canada the way willie -- eli lilly case where government policy states make decisions related to intellectual property protection has been challenged by a company. the company believes its patent deserves that protection, and it is used on multiple venues to try to get that straightened out. it seems to me we need to ask them does this need to be in this particular trade agreement? i want to get to point about precedent. the president bashir is really interesting because the united states does include things hundred and 34 in his trade agreement so it evolves over time but also takes things out when they are not relevant. and i would say a trade agreement with pakistan, you probably would want to investor-state dispute settlement. do you really need it just for
the reason to have the president of the next trade agreement for eu-u.s.? and i think given concerns about the way that system has been used over time, we should really be asking that question. >> again, i'm sorry, i just have to say -- >> real quick because we want to move on. spit real quickly to close it up and realize all conversation and all sort of kerfuffle in europe over isds has, in the context of one negotiation confidence with the u.s. so you have to ask yourself why. you know, okay know there's some question about let's go back and look at what's been written on paper able to be interpreted in a way that is imports with the sort of basic principles that are reflected in commissioner malmstrom's new proposals. i think you have to step back and recognize that part of what's driving this is not infect a rational conversation
about the upside and downside of trade. susan, just as you could ask why do we need it, i could see why not have it put because how can you pick and choose which agreement you're going to put it in? >> do you have any concluding remarks on this topic speak with you. again unprecedented because that all sorts to the good that we have about ttip because that is increasing the argument how policymakers are trying to sell tiki. we need this approach is that the global standard. with regard to isds and ttip, a lot of attention is on china. we need isds because we're negotiating these two treaties with china. but we are forgetting that china is doing this since late 1990s. they include the isds in their treaties prevent increasing interest in having these isds
things in their treaties. china just recently concluded a treaty with australia with isds. you may know that australia is one of those countries that exclude isds from a treaty with the u.s. so i think it's a weak argument, as president argument can do this again relates to the whole debate we have about ttip. we are having trouble selling ttip on the basis of how much export really generate them how much income will generate. so we attempted to use these more geopolitical arguments, china, a and argument in a way o sell ttip. >> thithis issue is a very prominent i don't think we will resolve. but if you want resolution go to our website at cato and read -- you will be convinced. i want to bring us out of the way to talk about some of the other issues. to me these agreements, i find
these new vacations, i find the european negotiators to been my side because they're trying to open up my market. they want to get after the procurement market, they want jones act reform. financial services reform. these are things that are important. to u.s. consumers and businesses. so what are your thoughts? what are your thoughts about some movement in those areas? is the u.s. going to agree to some reforms on jones act, on government procurement? is financial services told off the table? what should we expect ample europe walk away from a deal that doesn't include reforms? >> i will let our european title speak to whether they will walk away. what you did on his i think sort of the core challenge of the ttip, which is as a sort of
noted, it's different from most other trade agreements you take up in that there's so much civilization that's taken place in the past. that's a good thing. you have a healthy relationship. we talked about some of the geopolitical reasons why you wouldn't want to this bonding if one can pull it off. the problem is the areas you just decided are the traditional, highly intractable trade issues. yes, it would be nice to change the jones act. i don't advise anyone to hold their breath until the jones act is changed. so that's the problem. a whole bunch of survived sort of time after time where people look for deliverables for some bilateral and you just couldn't afformove on these. i think that's what we saw with agenda setting right from the start when you said audiovisual with friends. on the u.s. what do you do on financial regulation? as you come it was a great idea
to have working on things but the remaining issues are without enemies more difficult negotiate dynamic because often we talk about the mid-game or the late game. often there is this sequence, let's tackle this traditional easy issues, build confidence, work together, note how all the progress we've made. when it comes righ right down tt they will hit the hardwood. in ttip unit the hard one shot off the back. there's no pc, maybe that's why we are in the mid-game because there was no beginning. you get right to the difficult issues. yes, it would be great to tackle these things. there are entrenched political interests are behind them. it's why we have acted on these things. and you have a question which is either you sort of summon the political will to overcome those which would be remarkable if they do, or well, you come up with something that is much more
modest than he first intended and declare victory, or you walk away. i think those of the difficult choices for the ttip spent does anybody else have any thoughts? >> i think the reason why some of these have stuck around as you said, you really wanted to intractable. in some sense there's a reason for that and maybe it's not necessary a bad thing. the other option is to have absolutely no regulation at the extreme so that there's no conflict over what that regulation is, and anything goes. if that's not what we're trying to set up, a sort of super red tory council that can whack-a-mole and back and anything that is not the least trade restrictive model, that's where you're getting political pushback and that's the idea that citizens want to be able to some say in what their economy looks like. in some, some citizens want greater government intervention in the economy.
katowitz had less government intervention in the economy. these are really, really important questions. it really gets to again i think marty's question when she said raise your hand if you only think ttip is a good thing and you afford. i sort of went halfway up that we're in a sort of could be camp. this again gets back to the question of power that we often don't want to talk about in trade negotiations. if you are already for it and you don't any idea how it's goingoing to come out, that meas you're pretty confident it's going to come out in the way that benefits your interest. and i think for working people, we are theoretically for because we haven't yet seen one that really comes out that takes to proposal that we put in and they get put into place. it's a really critical, critical question about how confident you are that your influence and your power is going to determine the outcomes. >> thank you. marjorie?
>> you asked the question about some of the more intractable issues. i contribute that like cato a chamber actually sides with the europeans on a number of these issues. we do think financial services should include in the regulatory portion of the conversation. we do think that there is government procurement liberalization to be had, although i don't think it's purely european offensive interest. i think it's a u.s. offensive interest as well. we do support the notion of lifting the ban on crude oil exports which is one of the drivers for including an energy and rominger's chapter. i think we are like you interested to liberalization occurred not just in europe but there are things that have to happen here as well. i just had to say very quickly, i don't think celeste was saying that this is what we are doing, which is to say advocating for
the elimination of all regulation. that's not what business is advocating for. what basis is advocating for is a structure that allows for dialogue among regulators to identify ways to, if, where possible and it isn't going to be possible in every instance, but where possible to reduce the costs associated with regulation. no one in this country these any more interested in reducing protections for workers and consumers and the environment than they are in europe. we have the same level of concern in this country. so the notion i don't think you are saying this but i just want to make it very clear that business is not saying that in the context of this negotiation we want to use of this key element of predatory cooperation as a way to simply eliminate or have a race to the bottom on regulation. >> just very quickly.
citizens want to have a say but it would notice on many of these issues one of the things is public opinion surveys. you could strike in strong numbers in terms of public support for trade even when you very specifically things the ttp ortega. when we look at some of these obstacles come to spend the representing sort of the citizens. is much more interest group politics. >> just to follow on that last point, i think that's true get out of anyone should be afraid of having sort of a big, broad principle debate about open trade neither in ttip or other concept. the point is that when you look at the political economy of trade liberalization you will not find many in world history where external to liberalization or external negotiation has pushed through an enormous amount of domestic the regulation. what we find is that external negotiations in the wto or other formats they have managed to lock in an existing patterns of
openness to trade domestically. every now and then, perhaps pushed coaches all but to open up more. but trade agreements, they are broadly defined by the biggest sort of trend of political economy inside each country. right now and for the past years we have been on a big deregulatory trim. we are on a train or regulations are at some point increasing but more important for trade negotiations are becoming evermore complex and ambiguous by design, that regulators have been afraid of doing regulations simple, transparent and readily understandable for each and everyone simply because they don't want to face up to the consequent of the full effects of regulation when applied. they are good story in the economy the other week with a sort of were making the point
about how the slew of financial regulations that have emerged in the post prices era has screwed a lot of uncertainty in the financial sector. quoting one financial regular who was explaining the compliance of philosophy behind financial regulation was basically we call the banks in compliance them up and then we shoot one of them. so that the others are going to get the message. >> ouch. [laughter] >> right. that is not a cato endorsed policy as you know. [laughter] >> i want to make three points. perhaps it's a worrisome but i don't think that in the future labor will ever be happy with trade agreements. because i don't think they are meant to really address the problems of workers, which is both unfortunate. i think what we've done over time this try to come up with
some fixes. so in the work that we participate in something for the company keep up with new ideas. they are all on the margins can not really in the end point to change the situation yet i think the situation must be changed, that we need to find ways to empower workers in the global economy. second point, what i love about ttip and tpp, i agree that public seems more and more supportive of trade but it's also been revealed that our legislators are evermore, i don't want to use the word protection is because i don't know what word to use, but skeptical because of all the interest group pressure. yet i'm really helpful -- hopeful as i see trade agreements evolve over time because i do think we need to find common ground on spillovers that affect people's privacy and their equality of work and environment, et cetera.
as the practice because i think more transparent, i think i see more people engaged in debate and i think that is a good thing. i hope that more people will learn about the economic of the global economy, economics of inequality. i think having debates help to get people thinking about it. that doesn't mean the pundit class, of which i'm probably one, isn't involved in student debate in some way. but i still think we have more opportunity to modernize trade policymaking committee more accountable and that's a good thing. the board you have that between government and the governed, that's a good thing. what the united states does affects europeans, this is what china does affects south korea. >> and by the way, susan brought a very thoughtful essay on our candle online forum about how do
you address labor concerns. so i heard you believe is that we are just about out of time and i don't want to be accused of having dominated the questioning some good ask, does anybody have a question in the audience? feel free to raise your hand and ask it. okay, this woman right here in the middle. >> please identify soap and adjust -- address your questions and make it a question, please. [inaudible] >> i wonder in terms of capitalism and we are talking about free markets -- [inaudible] but the u.s.a. has big population and has small people. u.s.a. did not represent all
people. how could it represent all of the people in the situation and economy? and if we can see regulation and the global trade, then we can have a good negotiation, a good law and the united states, they can implement a good law to protect all the people. so how are they going to handle this global situation in this global trade agreement? >> thank you. i think she was addressing you, marjorie. >> so the u.s. chamber of commerce doesn't represent everyone. the u.s. chamber of commerce is an advocacy organization that works on behalf of business. it happens that some of our members we have businesses of all sizes and across all sectors. we have us-based headquartered companies among her members. we have european headquarters in congress among our members to quit other non-u.s. companies
among our members. i'm not entirely sure that i understood the point that you're making about the chamber. the point that you're making about regulation and how can we propose to promote better regulatory practices in an agreement like ttip if we don't ourselves have entirely effective or adequately represented the approaches to regulation in this country, i think it's frankly the subject for much, much longer conversation. i think it's a fair question but i don't know that we have the opportunity to answer it here. here. >> i don't think we do. i must say we are out of time. i got through about half of the question i would ask so i have to do a better job of putting things in the future. we are going to a coffee break the and i think we continue at
>> the house judiciary committee last week held a hearing on planned parenthood about whether the government should in federal funding for women's health care services offered by the nonprofit group. virginia congressman bob goodlatte charter fishing. it is three hours and 10 minutes. -- cheered this hearing. >> good afternoon the judiciary committee will come t to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on planned parenthood exposed them examining abortion procedures and medical ethics at the nation's largest abortion provider. i will begin by recognizing a sovereign opening statement. before i go to the statement on that i would like to take a moment to remember the life of
former congressman william edward sai who passed away this month at the age of 100. donna edwards was first elected to congress in 1963 we had a distinguished career worthy of the voting rights act, civil rights act answered on the house judiciary committee during the investigation of the watergate scandal. during this time on the judiciary committee john edwards over former congressman caldwell butler whom i worked for at thae time. when donna edwards left office in 1995 after 32 years of congressional service, he was succeeded by our very own zoe lofgren in california's 16th district i had the opportunity to serve for two years with congressman edwards myself and appreciate his service. it is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member two share a few words about our former colleague. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee and our
witnesses and all of our friends that are here in the hearing room, i knew congressman donna edwards and worked with him, and he is left a lasting legacy. he was a progressive principle man who never stopped believing that the coercive power of the government should be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny, and i think we still carry on that tradition in the judiciary even now. he also wanted us never to forget that our government exists to the consent of the governed with the purpose of preserving and not eroding our rights. i'm grateful to have been a
colleague of him, of his during his service and career in congress, and we will miss him and remember him. and i thank the chair. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just briefly would like to join in the eulogy for congressman donna edwards. in 1970 i graduated from stanford university and came up to washington without a job, and donna edwards hired me. and i worked with him for nine years both in washington and also in the california office. we went through incredible impeachment of richard nixon along with his prior boss and many other issues. he was a marvelous man, a mentor to me and some who is widely admired not only in the congress but in the district that he
serve. i was honored to be able to succeed him in the house of representatives, and kept in frequent touch with them. he watched all of us in his retirement and he lived to the ripe old age of 100. so he had good satisfaction of life. he made his mark and i which is like numbers denote that we'll be having a special order about congressman donna edwards on the 21st of october. members are invited to participate and like mr. conjures, as a staff i sort was a huge admirer and i think that chairman for allowing me to speak. >> the gentleman from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to add a few words about the late donna edwards. that i had the honor of serving with them for two years i was elected in 1992, and i knew of
them will before i came to congress to undo them as one of the leading defenders of civil liberties in the united states adequately admired him from afar. when i came to congress and i told the then speaker i was what can you like to surf on come on like this one the judiciary committee, i was told that welcome everyone to serve on the judiciary committee i had to get mr. edwards approval. estimate added on civil liberties. and so i had an interview with them at that must have satisfied his interest in my attitude towards civil liberties because he put it and it became this committee. but such was the esteem in which he was held by the leadership that he was given a pair of that prerogative new members come and he richly deserved that he was a leading voice of civil liberties for many, many years and he serve this country well, and we should thank them, thank his
memory for that. i yield back. spent the chair thanks the gentleman and now i will begin my opening statement your and we have votes on the floor but perhaps i am i breaking them can get our statement in before we go to vote. a child's heart begins to form three weeks after conception. by the fifth week her heart begins to beat pumping blood out her little body, and her arm and legs begin to grow. are brain begins to develop. her eyes and ears begin to form. by the sixth week her hands and feet begin to form. the following week her toes can be seen between this time she kicks and will jump if startled. by eight weeks that babies facial features become more distinct in weeks nine to 12 the baby may begin sucking her thumb. backing weeks she can you on there by 11 weeks she can make a wide variety of facial expressions, including a smile. by 12 weeks, which marks the end
of the first trimester, she is capable of making a fist. but on any given day are developing parts, including her heart and brain may be harvested at many planned parenthood clinics that participate in this project -- practice across this country if her organs are harvested she will not carry a name. at most she will be referred to as a product of conception. despite the horrific nature of these practices, planned parenthood's average has been directed not at harvesting of baby parts but at the people who cut in talking about doing it on video. indeed, planned parenthood argues that the videos released by the center for medical progress are highly edited but it is noteworthy to point out that the group hired by planned parenthood to review the videos found that their quote analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video