tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 13, 2015 3:00am-5:01am EDT
productivity, and not down. a gatewayge degree is to a life of opportunity, a trapdoor to a lifetime of debt. to thehere our shoulders great challenge of our time of climate change and actually create a 100% clean electric energy grid by 2050 and create 5 million jobs along the way. let's be honest with one another. it is about actions. each of the goals i have put ,orward, things like cutting the deficit from gun violence in half over the next 10 years, all of these have dates attached to them. why? dreamfference between a and a goal is a deadline. these problems will not solve themselves. we need to solve them. thank you for having me with you this morning and in this way.
i look forward to your questions and more importantly, i look forward to your answers and i need your help. thanks a lot. [applause] >> thank you very much, governor. if he were here, he would write the in the center of the knowledge. it is all around, all sides. is comingquestion from a lady, i saw a hand go up over there. let's start with you, ma'am. i am jessica. i want to thank you for being with us. i question to you is brothers this effect. what would your energy policy look like. think we should utilize our natural resources to create jobs and grow the economy while also working on solar and wind power?
governor: i am the only candidate in my party, or i should say, i am the only candidate in either party to put forward a plan to move us to a 100% clean electric energy grid by 2050. we did not land a man on the moon within all of the above strategy. we landed a man on the moon because we faced up to a huge engineering challenge. we were intentional about the choices we make. -- and i commend you, please go on my website. martinomalley.com. we have put a pretty specific proposal out there. among some of the leading actions to move us to that claim, electric energy grid i believe we need to stop subsidizing fossil fuel
extraction and instead enact [applause] long-termd, enact investor credits for solar and for wind. embracee we need to clean technology and energy conservation technology. go through more affordable housing. the advent of a new type of housing that is net zero and its energy use that can bring forward a new era of clean design and clean architecture in built environment. we need to make the investments in a clean energy grid that will enable us to move the natural resources, and renewable resources we have, from places where wind is abundant to places
where energy is heavily used. that means instead of drilling for oil off the chesapeake they and the east coast, we should be laying the vertebrae and the power lines so we can create wind off the use, where so many of our people live. and in the heart of american cities where unemployment is actually higher now in many cities than it was eight years ago, when he to throw ourselves into a program of training, workforce training, and retrofitting of older buildings in order to reduce energy consumption. if we do all of these things, and if we invest more, rather than less, and developing cleaner, greener technologies like the next generation of safer nuclear, we can get to 100% clean, electric grid by 2050. it will not happen by itself. it will not happen by embracing nostalgia. every job is important.
we need to be intentional about those that may need to transition in this claim economy, but we will not get there without solving this problem. that is what i intend to do as president. [applause] see in the, you can room, we have all of these green shirts. with a super who will ask the next question. he is right here in the room. he has the mic and is ready to go. governorolver man: o'malley, can you here me. o'malley: do have a theme song? problem solver man: i do not. i am in spandex. i have some advice for you. you are going to las vegas tonight, right? martin o'malley: i am going in about one hour. problem solver man: i'm good to
give you advice my grandmother told me. don't gamble. i guessed my question for you is, governor. he spoke about how you would be bipartisan president. within your first 100 days of office, which bipartisan restaurant would you take john boehner to, or whoever? o'malley: i did not know restaurants where bipartisan. wereught food and alcohol decidedly nonpartisan. can i -- >> there is a question in there somewhere. martin o'malley: let me answer the question that is in there somewhere. this is what i have learned as mayor and governor. you have to call the legislature all the time. you relatere that and talk to people like people. in other words, it think it was
hat one of the unique things about america is the strength of our soft ties. our ability to hold different political opinions and views, but still relate to one another as human beings. one of the said byproducts, if we are not careful of it, of is we canmation age, program our phones, program our ams, we can program the stre of news would receive so we only talk to people who think most exactly like us. there is a danger in that. we got the things done in maryland we only got done with republican votes. that happened because we were very intentional about having nonpartisan-bipartisan pizza night at the governor's mansion.
we made sure we broke bread and to a holiday open house and all sorts of other things, regardless of party labels. where not for some republican votes, i would not have been able to repeal the death penalty is. that is something that took us three tries and we were only able to do with their votes. it would not have been able to pass marriage equality. that took us three tries. we were on the able to do that because of republican votes. [applause] as we went back and researched the priority bills that i put in as governor, i was happy to see that 75% of the governor's bills, and we only do about one dozen every session, 75% of them received bipartisan support in one house or the other, or rather, a majority of republican support in one house or the other. we have to stay focused
on the goals that unite us and the principles that unite us. our belief in the dignity of every person, and our own responsibility to enhance the common good we share. thank you, problem solver man. soblem solver man: essentially, or pizza parties in congress. o'malley: it is not that it doesbut sometimes, come down to treating people like human beings and picking up the phone and calling members and asking them their prospective. knowing their wives names, what they do in life, knowing who their kids are fal. [applause] >> we have 10 minutes left. martin o'malley: let's to lightening around. 30 seconds andas i have 30 seconds. >> my name is ken mason and i am
a resident of new hampshire. i made the mistake of going on youtube and looking at the 1992 residential debates. was the exact same issues that are brought up this year. nothing me that effective has happened in more than 20 years in washington. of great person influence, and i think that is great. what i am asking you today is, what will you do to unlock that gridlock, regardless of whether you are the elected president or not? [applause] martin o'malley: okay. leave all of us have a responsibility to stay at the table, not to check out. not to assume that it money has taken over our politics. not to assume that the outcomes we have theefore
conversation. that is what i intend to do. that is what i have done all my life. there is no easy solution to the gridlock that we see now. i would push back on you a little bit. i think it is actually a lot worse than it was in 1992. certainly, we suffered a huge setback when our country was nearly plunged into the second great depression. this is what i believe. talking to young people in our country, i really find that thinkamericans under 30, that we shouldn't come together and do something about climate change. i really find young americans who don't want to help immigrants. [applause] i really find young people who want to deny rights to gay couples and their children. that tells me we are moving to a better condition, a more connected place.
thatl continue to speak to place and call for the good energy of our next generation. >> i guess our lightning round has resulted me in a lightning bolt taking the off the stage. ur want to thank you for yo willingness to be here. number one. you are the first, but from a be the last. ank you for taking somem questions. ladies and gentlemen, martin o'malley. [applause] lawn, c-spannd takes you on the road to the white house. unfettered access to the candidates at town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies, and speeches. we take your comments on twitter, facebook, and phone. every campaign we cover is available on our website at www.c-span.org. >> we have more live road to the
white house coverage tomorrow on c-span. jeb bush delivers a health care speech on repealing the affordable care act. that is live from manchester at 10:00 eastern. john kasich takes questions at a town hall meeting in new hampshire. let coverage begins at 12:30 eastern. journalext "washington ," we are life from a correctional facility for a look inside the correctional system. here is a preview of the program. >> a job seeking assistance program for the inmates who are housed here. only one. the what we found is the needs of offenders who are looking for work. it differs than the mainstream population.
that is why we are here. the earlier they can prepare, the likelier they are to get appointment. what we do is we actually go to the units and recruit them. this is a voluntary program. sign up to come to the program. we actually go into the units and we tell the inmates, or soon-to-be customers, what is available here, what things they can do. there is a months or less on their sentence. they cannot be in pretrial. they cannot have a detainer in another jurisdiction. consists of aself 16 week curriculum. there are six weeks of job regulations. the six weeks of job search. of there are four weeks training. >> many do not have previous
legal work experience. they have to talk about their topges full when you and i go into an interview, we don't have to explain our criminal record. additionally, sometimes the educational level is not as high as the traditional job seeker. much of it is confidence. we prepare them on how to present themselves. we work with them for a number of months. them to haver individuals come from within the community and work with them so they can get a feel for different personalities. individuals they can see are willing to help them. it is important for the community to come in and see what we are dealing with. sometimes they can be a scary environment. you automatically will be afraid to deal with ask offenders.
but feeling they can come in and see, this is a person that is here. are made a mistake, but now working towards an opportunity to be a better tax paying system. that is the benefit from individuals coming in from the outside. >> we are at the correctional facility, talking about the criminal justice system with robert greene. he heads the corrections and rehabilitation department. we look at the challenges inmates have repairing for life after jail. us.ra jochum joins then, the role that mental health and substance issues play in prisons. journal" is live on c-span and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. c-span, then conversation on the goals of transatlantic trade. then, we will cure from martin
dan: welcome to the cato institute. to our long gestating conference, which we have called "will the transatlantic trade partnership live up to its promise?" on behalf of my colleagues and the 35 other participants, i want to thank you for choosing you to spend your time on this most festive of federal holidays here at the cato institute. idle think you will be disappointed, we have assembled an expert group of experts. they spend the ideological spectrum, the geographical spectrum, and the age spectrum. we will get many different perspectives on a lot of different matters. it has been quite a week for trade policy. we made the announcement last week at the completion of the ttp. it is been quite a year for trade policy. this is many post doubling of years. -- this has a band of the most
bubbling of years. this is dependent upon the success of the tpp. that was predicated on the passage of the trade authority . debate has been going on in europe. europeans are frustrated that the american negotiators have been a little bit sidetracked, or focused on other issues. i think people are ready for this. we are ready to start talking about this. people registered to attend this conference. i guess some people slept in, but they will be here at some point throughout the day. also, the evidence of the importance of this issue? c-span is here. broadcasting live and recording it.
if you plan to leave early, i will let you know in advance that your boss and colleagues will know. they will see it and find out. please stick with us. now that's the ttp is done and the debate is about to happen, we wanted to lay the table. what are the issues? it is a lot, it is complex. you want to talk about the traditional trade negotiations and the broader complexities, the geopolitics. what does this mean for multilateralism? there has been a lot of debate about that. people want to understand more clearly what this regulatory coherence business is all about. this is said to be the source of the largest gains. it does not look like a whole lot of progress has been made, or that there has been a whole lot of accord on how to proceed. we will do a deep dive on
regulatory coherence on issues at the end of the day. people ask what these economic models are all about? and are the important? we will have a session on that at the end of the day as well. program, thee information is available in the lobby. also, the participants in this conference were asked to write essays and we have published approximately 1500 word essays. we have been publishing them on our website and we will continue to do that through next week. oft week is the 10th round negotiations in miami. we are going to sort of carry this over into that point. just a housekeeping remark. if you are inclined to tweet about anything going on here, #cato. hashtag
i want to introduce the person who will set the table on the issue. i am sure you know shawn donnan. he is an excellent journalist and understands economics. he writes cogently and in a fair and balanced manner. shawn is the world trade editor at the financial times, which is the ultimate transatlantic newspaper. wheelhouseht in the for him. he is the perfect person to set the table. world tradeity as editor, he leaves the global coverage of trade and development issues. he follows the imf. he is such a sport that he got peru, where from the imf meetings are held, and is jumping right into this. before assuming his current role as the world trade correspondent in 2013, he was world news
editor. before that, the agent world news -- the asia world news editor. he is working his way up to the top. who does trade policy nknows shawn. besides the financial times, some of the work shawn does appears in newspapers worldwide. such as the post, l.a. times. he graduated from boston university, where he has a degree in international relations. yet, he still writes very well. i want to help me in welcoming shawn to the podium. thank you. [applause] you, dan.an: thank your forgiveness.
as dan said, i am just off a plane. if i get my acronyms mixed up and start talking about the imf or the tax measures passed or lima, or start talking about emerging markets, you will know i have the wrong set of notes. is, for those of you who it is me on twitter, an unhealthy obsession. it is an immense project. it is a really interesting time in ttip. we are in that uncomfortable metaiddle period.
we are somewhere just before the half-time whistle goes and i think it is valid -- it is a good time to step back and take a look at where we are. notought i would offer four entirely random thoughts about ttip. this is how i think about it. also, conversations i have had with my editors who constantly say, when is this thing going to get done? and, is it going to get done? about?ould be we writing one.l start with point i think it is important to remember, and i think this sometimes gets lost in the discussion of the details that ttip is still a valid endeavor. endeavor,g and valid
worth stepping back and thinking, ok, this is a trade relationship, this is as important as it gets in the world today. something like $800 billion worth of trade or more last year. and also, it is about the future of trade agreements and really, that issue of regulatory coherence that weas reference there. that tangle of regulations. those nontariff barriers we have been writing about for a long time. it is also sort of an ineresting point that business, increasingly, and this is not a phenomenon in the last year or two, but businesses are now transatlantic nowadays.
great examples in fiat, chrysler, and the auto industry there. the bilateral of the transatlantic relationship. really, it is thinking of it in the context of the wto. and wto efforts. noodble bowl theory of trade. that we are going to complicate the world and create tangles of noddles. i will patent the ravioli. of trade. i call it the dumpling theory of trade. we see a series of make a regional agreements that are being written or negotiated.
at that eventually, someday, they will become the great lasagna that is the global, multilateral deals. again, i am patenting that, so, if you use it, please. long-termat is a project. clearly, when you talk to people in the u.s. administration part of the reasoning behind the ttp wasf ttip and getting something happening in the realm of trade liberalization and moving beyond the kind of paralysis that has been built now. that is an important concept. ttip is also the geopolitical agreement, i would argue. that is probably because of my background in international relations.
i think the geopolitics are as valid for ttip as they are for ttp. in thetalk about ttp context of china, but i think ttip is equally valid. look at what is happening in russia and the ukraine. these are the three big pillars of white it remains a valid endeavor -- of why it remains a valid endeavor. the second thing i think about is a great question from my editors. this is big. can they actually get it done? if so, when? newsyou are in the daily business, this turns into a slightly depressing conversation. i think the answer that i offer yes, itrs nowadays is not get done, but probably
anytime soon. that may not be the answer some people in business and others who have a shorter horizon of thinking may want to hear. that increasingly in my mind it is hard to see this getting done during the obama administration. that raises all sorts of interesting questions. i think they are going to try to get it done. clearly, they are trying to get it done. they agreed to accelerate the negotiations. really, everything has to go incredibly smoothly to get even close. and as one senior official involved told me when we spoke meeting recently, really, what we are laying out in front of us gets us to the
mitigate. i think that is something that is important, especially in the context -- and i use ttp as a reference point. it has been a joke that this thing has been in the endgame for two years. we are only just getting to the mid-game. long road ahead. there are a couple reasons why i think this is going to struggle to get done in the obama administration. one is the complexity of the deal. i think a lot of the conversations feel like they are only just getting started, even though it has been two years. i think that is interesting. the other point is, i still think for the u.s. administration, ttp is going to take a lot of energy to get through congress. to get the text out. sell politically, the
administration will be focused on that over the next year or so. ustr havee folks at argued they can walk and chew gum at the same time. there is a question of retention in political pressure as well. one of the things you have seen in ttp is the building urgency over the last two years. 6-9most of the last months, if not here, the ttp negotiators have been meeting weekly. they have been on the phone, they have been closing -- especially the u.s. japan negotiators have been on the road constantly for most of the past year. so, i don't see that in ttip right now.
i don't see that accelerated schedule there. the other point is that the political timeline ahead is getting very interesting. ttip isthink in 2016 going to drop quite the opposition or the heated debate u.s., fors in the obvious reasons. i am not sure that in the context of the anti-trade remarks we are hearing on both sides, in both parties right now, that even a deal with europe is going to be immune to that, or some kind of blowback. that putin argument has syrian endeavors and his
ventures and ukraine can make his geopolitical case and the congress. is something -- i keep wondering, and i was thinking about this on the plane last night. i wonder what donald trump look make of ttip. if ttp is a disaster, what would he make of ttip? i came up with some fun quotes, sort of imagining him speaking. then i switched off and moved on to something else. there is potential risk of air. i think 2017 is the more in terms ofar the political timeline. this gets into why i don't think this will get done in the obama administration. i think that has more to do with european politics. rather than here domestically. there are three monumental votes and europe in 2017.
that is the german election, the national election, the french-presidential election. equally importantly, the u.k. referendum on whether or not to be, to remain in the eu. in each of those elections i would expect ttip will be an issue that will be vigorously debated. 150,000-200,000 people on the streets of berlin protesting against ttip. that tells you they are certainly many whose feel strongly about this in germany. angela merkel has been treading carefully. 3ross europe, there are now million signatures against ttip. that is starting to become a big number.
ishink that vocal opposition bleeding into a broader skepticism about ttip that i hear from some of my colleagues about theking me europeans and the economic journalists. from others in the quiet center. i think that is really, really important. ders in each the lea of those elections is politically savvy enough to know that there is risk for them in this debate. i think the third random thought barriers are just not going away. in fact, they are arguably multiplying in different ways. we have long talked about the
and theeffect on data discussion there about how that adds to the suspicion across the atlantic. particularly in germany. i think that is still there. i think the safe harbor decision we thought recently from europe is not technically part of ttip, but is emblematic of a broader suspicion there. is -- a broader suspicion is a combination of jealousy and angst that you see in europe now on it comes to the issue of innovation and technology companies. which i think is really interesting and i think will shadow the talks. the decision by the european commission earlier this year to allow member states to opt out of any decision is important. clearly, it tells you a lot about the european commission and how they will handle the
politics. isds, and i can't believe we've gotten this far without mentioning the isds. all of the heat around that. there is a view in brussels. they have come up with a solution with it recent proposal for wholesale rewriting of the system. you only have to look at the u.s. chamber of commerce's incredibly rapid response to response, to that proposal to see why that will be more difficult than the europeans think, in terms of the negotiations. it has two main points. the creation of an international court, with sitting judges to hear investment cases. like a multilateral institution that will hear these
investment disputes. but clearly, that is a poisoned brand. the second is in the pellet function for investment cases that will allow governments to go before a panel of sitting judges. i think both fit in very much with the 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 in washington, more broadly. there is a myriad of other questions out there that are building. they questions on whether financial services will be included. these should of been answered some time ago, i would have thought. yes, iid, i did say
think this is going to happen. that brings me to my fourth and final point. both sides wanted to happen. at the political level, certainly. what has to change for it to happen? i think that is something that the negotiators on both sides have been thinking about a lot and were discussing during that recent meeting. i don't think they have got all of the answers. but clearly something has to happen to get some kind of new momentum behind ttip. the first thing is a recalibration of the endeavor. uh, big totemic catch-all agreement that a lot of its advocates have thought it should be? there are people when i was
still based in london, that will --k about ttip, transatlantic basically the growth of the european across the atlantic. becoming a single economy and market across the atlantic. givent sure that ttip, the current challenges, will get you there. that is a good long-term goal. that is not for this is heading. particularly with what is happening in the eu, and the suspicion within the eu itself and its role. point ofhat's one recalibration. so if you focus instead on something that focuses on riff services. do you turn the regulation project into a longer-term project? people have talked about ttip.
there are two lines that immediately come to mind. one is, let's get that done on a single take of gas. the next is, what an electric car -- instead of a gas guzzler. and after vw, certainly not a diesel. people, ande are this point was made more than a year or more ago, that there is an early harvest yield to be had. had.arvest deal to be listened, or asked questions on regulation. it is still striking to me how questions on regulation on things like food and auto safety is sort of a mars and venus sort of thing.
i'm not sure you solve that in a trade agreement. the second thing is accelerated negotiations. right now, we will see next week in exchange of new tariff offer s. this is only the second exchange of new tariff offers. it has been two years. it was agreed to set 897% threshold. to turn this into a negotiation with the remaining 3%. if you are going into closing mode in 2016, you need to be meeting more quickly than they were going to at this point. offer is next week and the procurement offer is in february. that already takes you into the spring almost. i think the second point is, european leaders need to handle the politics better. braver ifto be
they want to get this done. i have not seen any signs from hat, particularly from the european commission. it has been a much more political animal. i think, one of my questions is, over, i started thinking of her as engaging in the kind of maneuver of, i am going to listen, listen, listen to all of the opponents and then try to wear them out that way. i don't think that has worked. clearly, we saw that on saturday in berlin. i think, and this may be a provocative point, americans need to be better in the context of this negotiation at proving their europeanness. which again, is not a comfortable admission for some
policy here. years been away for 17 and i have just come back and i am struck in how americans changed in a number of ways. how the traditional narrative on different economies, and how we regulate has changed. exampleactually, the vw is a great one. it upends the narrative that somehow europe is greener than the u.s. one it comes to cars. food culture changed. nowidea that mcdonald's is deciding not to use any antibiotic treated meat or any hormone fed chicken or beef is important. it's important in the concept of because european consumers think about this when they think about ttip, the famous chicken.
i think i will stop there. i will lead you chew on that idea, on that chicken if you want. or those freedom fries, if you prefer. you really have an interesting day ahead of you. nd an interesting point in this negotiation. i think this deal is going to get done, but i really do think that some things have to change in the dynamics for it to get done. thank you. [applause] dan wanted to introduce the next panel. he has disappeared now. is he coming right back? okay.
if we could exchange ttip jokes? if they were any good. [laughter] shawn donnandan: overview of what we are going to get through. come on up. this session is meant to go from 9:00 to ten minutes past 10:00. the original idea was to have a lot of chairs up here like a sunday morning talk show. i think there were complications with the number of mics. "it'sll be more of a
academics." the purpose here is to talk about the issues. give are many, as shawn you a taste of. there is a lot of complexity. it would like us to debate some of the issues, to address some of the issues. thist you to leave session with the sense that there are complicated issues. they might be difficult to resolve. it might make sense to take them off the table. it might make sense to compromise in other ways. i would like you do have an understanding of some of the major offensive and defensive u.s. sidehe and european side. and get a sense of where we stand going into the ttip round for next week. that counsel liked
because it identifies 28 or so issues that are on the table. they produce the results of a survey where they asked trade experts on both sides of the issues areout which the most complicated to resolve, and which are the most important. they plotted it. the most difficult to achieve or up inost important the top right. they talked about these issues. i will get into some of them here. trade deals deal with tariff productions. sanitarynd fido measures. we have a whole panel devoted to that later. labor and environmental standards. property protection. financial services. energy export. a a lot of issues.
let me know if there is a slight program change. she is coming later. she had logistical issues getting across the atlantic. is also on another panel, volunteered to help out. thank you, phil. i want to ask a question. i have 12 questions here. i'm going to direct my question to a panelist and he or she can start with an answer and then others can chime in. when we have exhausted, or when it is time to move on, i will ask the next question. the first question is for frederick erickson. all of their bios are in your packets. the leader inkson global affairs.
developmente german institute. susan from the george washington university. at me start, frederick, with question for you. what do you consider the most important issues to a successful outcome for ttip? what do you consider to be the most difficult to solve? frederick: i think have the same issue and shawn drew attention to it. mean, that is what is going to come out of this. you should show us your increasing europeanness. these, don't take away green parts. that is the sort of ambition we are going to have with what we
will do with ttip. let me say couple words on that issue from the viewpoint of thinking through the economics and the political economy of it all. happy withsperately this obsession that many have with estimating the potential gains, especially by using fairly standard models. they aren't really capturing some of the key benefits that come from trade. thatsort of complicit to myself. i offer these studies some regularity. think it has to be put in this broader context. that is largely, that we are seeing an end to 25 years of globalization as we knew it. and and to the idea that constant expansion depends on
economic liberalism. that are going to regulate economies -- going to do economies at home. and that that deregulation will have strong effects on what happened externally between countries. have a book that is coming out in a while and have been sketching a difference in reo than what we are seeing right now. the move from the past 20 years in corporate globalism, powered by big and global corporations. we move from that into a period that will be more characterized by global corporatism in the sense that we see a revival for ideas for linkages between business and government. we see a revival for
discriminatory and protected views of regulation. that can manifest itself in everything from skepticism towards different mergers and acquisitions. ge bidding for a french company. i can't remember the name of it right now. around the politics to be very came sensitive and controversial. we see in today's financial times, an interview with the bank. parbarclays that is the sort of government
interference in economies that we are seeing. it is going to make companies and governments quite closer. that is the context that i see for ttip. into aanslates itself new type of scenario for global trade where trade is going to grow far more slowly in the future than it did in the past 25 years. we are going to see reorientation of trade. emergingcause asia markets have developed to that point in the economy where they begin to integrate much more regionally than they do globally. asiane this in the region, taking away a lot of the benefits of the american economy and the european economy could thrive on for the past 20 years. >> i just wanted to pick up on
the point you made earlier about the united states becoming the 29th european state. does anyone else share that view? that ttip is the compilation of columbus coming to america? [laughter] what are the big issues? what are the stumbling blocks? >> issa it a little bit differently. i see it as not only -- i see it as not about trade, but about governance. between the western model and the chinese model. or a western model and perhaps an asian omodel. i make that distinction because i think they are not the same. it seems to me that when we are talking about new issues, such as regulatory coherence, and new
sectors, such as information slows, i think that is much more than trade. it is about governance when the united states moves from focusing on specific human rights, such as labor rights, to a broader conception of human rights. we have learned something from the european model. could -- ifme ttip you buy some of the things that policymakers have said in terms the 20th-century trade agreements and building blocks, i think those metaphors are useful and a little bit scary. i think we need to be honest about what this really is. just to jump in there. i don't buy many of these metaphors myself. i think we are looking at a standard type of free trade
agreement negotiations. that's the result of it will be a standard type of free trade agreements that we have seen in the past years. with infusions here and there. tot hopefully, can leap new grounds, dealing with regulatory issues. but the idea that it needs to be initially sold to the public, like a 21st century agreement creating a single market across don't thinkc, i this will happen. that leads me to my conclusion. i think this is an agreement that at least in europe, will be won or lost on its capacity to generate more growth, more jobs. that is the politics of it. if we are going to end up with an agreement that has only small benefits to that quest, then i
think you are going to see all the other controversial issues magnified. they will become far more bigger. go for theu want to big benefits and run with the stream of what you have seen from a lot of the estimates that come from potential growth and go into those sectors that can deliver hugest scale benefits andaking away tariffs trade restrictions, you need to think about services, data, and how you can use the trade agreement itself to throw some friction into global trade policies in the sense that you really want an agreement here, which can, at least for the future, they were trade. at least in the sense that you countries like
china to become more favorable to a western type or model. find that combination, it is going to be a fairly good agreement. i don't think we should have higher hopes beyond that. >> you phil, what do you make for the geopolitical argument? is it about security or writing the rules of trade before china, and india and brazil do? phil: i think it is both. both economics and the geopolitics. this with theo geopolitics. one of the things we have seen we have seen this in ttp and were saying this with ttip, if you want to have success with tackling a difficult trade
agreement, you can make progress on thorny issues or you can expand. that for quite a while. it was supposed to conclude in november 2011. it didn't. how do you show success? bring in mexico, canada, japan. we are getting bigger. if you look at europe, they've been having their own debates with the north versus the south. one of the major elections is what will the british decide the role in europe is going to be? is wayt to strengthen expand, get involved in something bigger. not so far as ringing the united states and is a member, but it looks that way. it is an expansion project, tightening of ties. the fringes own complexities. own-- that brings its complexities. i think when you ask about the geopolitics of this, there is
geopolitically, it is important to have a strong europe. this morel talk about this afternoon. for a whole range of issues and challenges, you want to have a strengthening, and the thought is, this is the kind of thing that can bolster, as frederick growth,ving some having more jobs would cure many of your's -- many of europe's ills. so, it can then service of bolstering that way. was, becausehat there were no shortage of venues for the u.s. and europe to address economic matters. the challenge. they have been addressing these things along. 8 eight rounds of gatt negotiations. the transatlantic -- council where they were doing bilaterals. if you want a have coordinated chicken, there were
opportunities. i think is this way, largely to sort of reinforce not intact, butpe then this bond between the u.s. and europe, obviously shaken during a number of events that you advertise that that is stronger, which that is great so long as it works. celeste: i think we are missing the point a little bit here in that there is not that much room to grow through a traditional trade agreement. through all the rounds of gatt, through the wto, the fact that .u. have lowd the e barriers, whether it is tariffs and the idea of the ttip is simply we are going to achieve astronomical growth and grow out of austerity and grow out of the great recession because we're going to get rid of the area against chlorinated chicken or isn't borne, that
out by the data. the data shows even in the best case scenario, the growth you're going to achieve is a little more than a rounding error. so that does not appear to us to be and now of an advantage of the ttip to really live with a lot of these other things that working people are pretty concerned about. and with the ttip agreement, it is not really, oh, we are going to move to london because that is a great offshore platform. but it is a lot of the questions about who is going to have the final say over regulations. over how we are going to structure our economy. if this is a new form of global corporatism, i think working people are very concerned that there is going to be even more corporate power in the new form of globalism, because it was really not -- advantageous to working people. it depends on what
the rules are in where we liberalize? i've spoken, i've questioned global governance as opposed to trade. susan mentioned it as well. is there a good agreement? greatgulation spawn savings for business that can be passed on in the form of new jobs and lower prices and things like that? celeste: absolutely. and i think there are too many -- one is the transparency with which it is negotiated. and other people members of civil society are locked out of the room, but everyone knows the big corporate oom,yists are not in the r but have the best access to the negotiators and the most access to those rules, those rules are not going to be written in a way that favors workers. businesses achieving more efficiencies is terrific in a vacuum, but it cannot be argued
economic modelt set that is automatically going to be shared with workers. what we see, and not just in the united states but in the u.k., germany, mexico, south korea, is that workers are getting a smaller share of national income. and particularly as productivity goes up, workers' incomes are not rising. thate rules do not address kind of concern, that workers can prosper as company-sponsored -- prosper, then you will continue to see continue skeptic is skepticism about ttip. idea are workers locked out of the room? you currently have mechanisms like labor councils. do you feel that there is not useful communication, that the current model does not work to give workers a say? celeste: it is not really about
communication so much as about influence and balance of power. certainly there are labors so advisers.00 or about 30 of them represent labor. just numerically you do not have a fair representation in regards to the number of workers in america versus the number of businesses. but more important than the numerical representation is the impact commit influence, and the effect. the obama administration has an open door policy. we present issues, have meetings, they take our phone calls, but in terms of our proposals translating into what's put down on the negotiating table and trying for the things we do not see it. let me just sort of contest that idea a little bit. globalization, trade
deals deliver benefits for the economy when the expose economies to more competition. that's the main driver of from trade agreements. in the last 25ve years as we have not seen these agreements be able to push competition much. productivity when growth was accelerating, we had more investment going into the economy, where we had a big boost in trade volumes. at that point, you saw take-home oesn't matterrs, d where they worked and how they worked, salaries are going up. ever since then with, we have been on a declining trend for productivity. pay has notence, increased that much but the functional income just jewish income has not
increased that much. labor it set -- it is not that labor itself is taking a hit in that capital is feasting on the carcasses of labor. what we're seeing as you are having growing income inequality, because skills are rewarded more than -- in the skilled economy. but in order to shift into a different type of economy that can expose economies, different type of globalization that can andse economies transmit new technology and innovation at a faster pace, then we need to begin to return to trade agreements again and to design trade agreements that have the capacity to achieve that. from thethe data is
federal reserve bank and it does say that labor share's of income is down. we are looking at different data. you talked about the standard economic models for trade accounting for everything. and part of what they are not counted 4 -- accounting for is this movement of capital. it is not just that u.s. producers are being outcompeted by an import sector. it is that whole factories are shutting down and moving and companies are deciding we are going to produce overs these where it is cheaper and export back to the united states. that is quite different than the traditional model. not only that, but we have also seen a concentration of capital dence this era of tra agreements, more mergers, less competition. if we are talking about becoming more efficient, we have to look at the effect of trade agreements on that concentration
and what that does, not only to consumers but to workers who are trying to sell their labor in the marketplace. dan: susan wants to chime in. and then i want to ask marjorie about business perspective. susan: it seems like we are talking about three different things. one issue is what has happened to the share of labor in terms areglobalization and is ou trade agreements the proper place to address that problem, given labors declining influence? so, that has been one. i do not know where we stand on that. it would be interesting to see. the second thing is does labor have influence? i would argue labor has times of it's certainly hurt if you look at the labor rights provisions as they evolve over time. certainly congress has to some extent try to meet them, as has various administrations. the question is why is that not working to help labor?
the third issue is process, right? how do we negotiate a trade agreement? who's in the room? is the process transparent? clearly, i think is a very important issue because it is an issue about trusting governance. and if governance agreements, as i call them, are becoming ever more influential an ever larger with more countries and more sectors, how we do it is important is as -- as what we include in their. i will shut up now. need to ask you about business. how focus is the chamber and business on the ttip? and what types of problems can ttip result for u.s. business? as exporters and u.s. multinationals in europe?
marjorie: thanks to cato for organizing this. we are having a very interesting conference on the federal holiday but clearly enough people are interested in the topic that the room is nearly full. thes to you for bucking trends in having us all here first thing in the morning. let me start by asking, and how many people in the room start from the premise that ttip is or can be a good thing? shorthands. -- show of hands. cool. and how many of you start from the premise that under no possible circumstances can it be a good thing? all right. there is one on this guy in the back. dan: come join the panel. ] laughter] marjorie: golly, where to begin? up andff, let's back
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. so the notion for starters that the chamber is only about representing business is a bit disconnected from the reality of our membership. as, i do notainted want to say the devil, but business is painted negatively in this competition -- this conversation. when you'reis talking about negotiating trade agreements, why are we negotiating trade agreements? we are talking about trying to liberalize the free float of trading goods and services. wherever we can. and by definition business has a stake and a fundamental role in why these negotiations are happening.
workers have a fundamental role in them as well, because they are employed by business. so this notion somehow but 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, what you see happening in europe right now in terms of the massive demonstrations, it was not just in berlin but in amsterdam as well. i was in the head -- the hague last week. dutch officials are becoming increasingly concerned about the trends of their country as well. the debate you see -- and i will come back to your question and the second -- the debate you see going on in europe is much larger than what may or may not be included in this particular negotiation. it's a much more fundamental conversation about the role of business and society. and it is a much more intensive
dialogue that is happening in europe right now. i think that i, in some respects, we'll get around to having that conversation now that tpp, the negotiations have concluded. we'll start to see more of that conversation. but the chamber has been an advocate for these negotiations even before the negotiations were negotiations. 2010-2011n i think with our friends at some of the atnk tanks in europe to look the potential benefits deriving from a comprehensive agreement. initially looking at just the production.ptariff from there the conversation group to what to be the benefits the aunt that -- beyond that. the notion being that in the absence of where the relative
prosody of monetary fiscal options available to promote jobs and growth, that trade liberalization should in fact be part of the solution. advocating for this for a long time because we do see the opportunity for a greater growth in trade and in investment flows. is, as many ofty you know, because we are talking about in many instances sorrylateral, multinational corporations, much of the trade that goes on is intra-company trade. something like 40% of the trade that goes on across the atlantic ntra-copy trade, which means the companies are paying duties twice. 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 coherence, our members see significant opportunities there. you have to stop and ask yourself why. if european and american air safety, agencies can deem europethy and airbus in and a launch be flown in the u.s. and have a boeing aircraft deemed air worthy by the faa without being retested in europe. i we can do that, why is it, do not know if it is mattel, why do they have to make two different versions of a baby rattle? because the standard in europe and the u.s. is different on the level of decibels that the rattl e can make next to the babies ear. dan: can interrupts ?
this is you is a big issue. left likes to talk about a race to the bottom to u.s. standards. and the u.s. likes to talk about global government and exceeding to these ridiculously economy squashing standards. there is a middle ground. you identified rattles. it seems that business should do a better job of getting on front and coming up with example after example of products where two sets of standards need to be complied with that achieve the exact safe safety or environmental or labor protection goal, whatever it is. are you compiling a list? marjorie: in fact, we are. there is no doubt about it. especially in europe, business is not done enough to articulate the benefits of this, these negotiations. in the u.s., i would say we are doing a better job but we are n environment where
nobody is really missing yet, let's face it. the level of the attention span of the american public is fairly limited. and to the extent people are thinking about trade right now, they are thinking about ttip. and i think that the conversations we are going to be having about trade over the next number of months as it, as we saw over the summer with tpa being a referendum on tpp, that we will now have going forward set ofp is a different circumstances because the relationship between the u.s. and the asian companies is fundamentally different than the relationship between the u.s. and europe. should the business community be doing a better job here? you bet. do we need to get more information out there? you bet. i am not spending enough of my day trying to make a case for
why improvements in regulatory cooperation, sect oral o -- or in terms of a broad framework for dialogue is important. i knew to do a better job of explaining why you do need an effective investor state settlement mechanism in an agreement where there is an "i" in the name of these negotiations. the "i" is for an basement. -- investment. there is morek that business should be doing. i do think it is also more difficult in some respects to make the argument, if you will, straightforward business are for why this agreement is withd when you're faced what i would describe is more fundamentally emotional armaments. it is easier to raise people's concerns about things like, i'm
back to have to come chlorinated chicken or race to the bottom on regulation or lack of transparency, a number of very fundamental concerns that i think from something that extends far beyond what is muchtip negotiation, has more to do with the basic role of business in society. dan: thanks. you touched upon one of the hot button issues, ifds. it is an issue that we at cato and the chamber do not see eye to eye on. axil has written an awful lot about it. would you may be share with the audience your perspective on it. why it's problematic. share 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 is a great conference. "the" topic from a german perspective which is in the center of the debate. investor status -- are part of most international investment agreements. thesehan 3000 of agreements. essentially, it is about foreign taketors have the right to claims against foreign states. that is a very unusual thing in terms of international law. if you think of the wto, only states have the right to sue other states. that is a very unusual thing in international law. of course, there are many issues, many criticisms you can h with regard to it. and foreign companies can bring those claims. so it is not really an instrument that small and
medium-sized enterprises can use. it is not an estimate that international investors can use. there is the question of the impartiality of the -- arbitrators. their arguments that arbitrators have and counselors before. so there is this whole question of impartiality. the big issue is also that the decision of these tribunals are based on very vague concepts treatment. and just to mention the last point, our calculations show that strong treaties, those that provisions, do not have an additional positive effect on fti. there is a big question in terms of effectiveness. now, with regard to the proposal by the commission, i think it's an intriguing proposal.
no doubt about that. shawn talked about it. there is no appointment of judges. there is an appeals mechanism, which is missing so far. and so on and so on. so, although i think it is an intriguing concept, intriguing proposal, i think it is missing the fundamental question. why do you need an additional layer, if you want, of international law in a free trade agreement which is negotiated by two countries? my proposal is just leave it out. it is possible to imagine a free trade agreement between two countries without ifds. you can focus on liberalizing markets for investors. you can also think about enforcement of protection standards. so that would be my idea.
and, but, of course, another question we should think about is -- isds inthere will be no ttip, what happens, will the european take this proposal up in other investment treaty negotiations? of vietnam,es china, japan and other developing countries. so, that is one of the big questions. and also, that is one of the big questions when it comes to the reform of the international investment regime. what kind of impact will this proposal have beyond ttip? dan: anybody have? yeah, go ahead. both of you. frederick: you can have two perspectives. a constitutional perspective and a pragmatic, political economy view where you are trying to
figure out exactly what was the question to which the answer was. from a constitutional point of obvious -- that is a system which does not conform to basic constitutional principles and there's an easy way to solve this which is for europe -- what we have been arguing for is to allow complainants, whether they are foreigners or nationals, to reference international agreements when they go to court. period. sadly, there are lot of people arguing against that. ofh on sort of the part european governments who do not want to have international agreements to become part of and regulatoryal fabric in that way. they want to have opportunities to avoid having laws to have consequences for them. for international agreements to have consequences. a lot of the people that have
don are going against isds not like this, either. what they want to get away from is the fact that international agreements should have consequences. think it is that i pretty easy to solve that problem if we really would like to sort of make the system to conform to basic constitutional principles. now, let's go to the much more difficult issue which is about the economy and to understand why did these sort of agreements emerged? they conform to basic constitutional principles to start with? and what's the role they have played in the broader landscape of various types of international agreements, trade investment and many other issues that have been negotiated in the past 30 years? well, the simple answer is that vaults a sort of safety 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, wishes to detail their consequences for regulations and laws in those countries that have contracted to them.rty perhaps to become far more detailed and descriptive, what the consequences for laws and regulations that international agreements should have. we need to negotiate much more on the basis of actual laws and regulations on the books in the country, not on broad principles that you have an international agreements. and that is a different type of international negotiation than at.are looking if we take away the safety belts, we have to lock in governments through greater details than those that exist.
phil: i'm a bit more favorably disposed towards isds. on the constitutional point, maybe i'm not grasping. we had if you say i wonder if the u.s. approach is conforming with commitments made in the past? you do not say what the administration says but a broader body that arbitrate that. a settlement mechanism that does that. the cases is clear there is an investment component to trade that is a very important thing. are,hat how linked these not a model of shipping containers to unknown parties across of the sea. the issue of how this addresses. in investment matters, the real challenge of the context is that
i is df looks out of place. what happen is you have concerns about the other country's legal system. having some sort of redress is good for investors. you can say your legal system looks good and so does the u.s. system and what happens when you are talking about vietnam or peru and peruvians will criticize their own legal system. problem, i think for the plays atates, precedent big role. we have seen and will see the difficulties of morning trade through congress. par of how it is accomplished is keep it consistent. flightwill talk about changes but not read doing agreements that open up the conversation. 2 reasons why you would want to include.
one is sequential. we dove a precedent and this. maybe we do not think it will be used much. a question you raised earlier, is it fundamentally bad or how it operates? hawn mentioned, if we are going to a grand harmonization where we get away from the ravioli and noodles and have -- then it is far easier if the pieces fit together from the start as opposed if you have a bunch a disparate rules. about the hyper national treatment? foreign investors 2 paths to resolve were u.s. investors have one and vice versa? is that not precedent-setting or problematic?
phil: it will depend on how it operates. like having an appellate mechanism. you say it is 2 because of the question. it depends on how it operates. one is in overturning and that is problematic. is it looks for problematic instances and say only in those rare circumstances something went wrong. celeste: when we are looking -- first principles on this, with never actually had an empirical data that foreign investors are systematically discriminates against the forward united states, for example, has got -- with any country. that is the place where you start. not people think of movie and c -- not that people think are bad.corps you're trying to solve a problem we have never demonstrated
except in the first place. first, you need to show that problem exists and say is isdf the best solution or the commission has not proposed. we have not talked about there are plenty of other options pretty state to state dispute sentiments as you saw all of .our -- all other trade political risk insurance. and there is a disparity about how domestic investors are treated versus international. it is also the rest of society. we have to look at how isdf privileges one form of rights and those are property rights versus all other rights. to take an extreme example, this from a paper by a professor am a canadian professor. if the owners of a foreign investment are tortured by a host government quite extreme, those investors can use all of
the domestic systems and other disposal. plus, isdf. if the workers of that foreign investor is tortured by their own government, they cannot use isdf. they have to go through the domestic system. at what point have we decided that in terms of global governance, there is one right that's quite privileged and all other rights have to use whatever is available to them regardless of what an inefficient system it is. deming everybody -- databank everybody want -- dan: everybody was to say something. we are running short on time. maybe in the context of the ttip . precedent talk aboutprecedent -setting. what does it say -- talk about precedent-setting and what does it say?
anybody? yeah? marjorie: i am glad there is one other person here who thinks , mosts not the demonic demonic element of these negotiations. let's be very clear on the fact that what we're talking about here is again what i would describe as relatively and emotionally driven debate about what is a pretty fundamentally -- umm, basic construct of inational law and precedent place for 50 years. not the place the company can sue a government if their employees are tortured. and narrowry strict definitions on when isdf, when
an investor can in fact pursue. yes, a very limited number of circumstances in which attraction will obligations have been violated or a perception of violation. it is interesting to me in it is home conversation so far the one thing we have not heard is what is driving most of the conversation in europe is the notion that somehow it is corporations that will be writing regulation. and they will take what government's right to regulate. the practical reality is that if you talk about the tobacco case, i am not going to speak to the specifics of the case in australia because we do not yet know the outcome. but to the practical reality is thisow the notion that a mechanism will allow a company to force a change in a government's regulation is a misrepresentation of the facts.
dan: susan? think we need to -- i cannot rephrase where we are. the first question is do investors deserve protection? and then the senate the question, how -- what should the system look like? it seems to me in countries where the rule of law is good, do you really need a separate legal system? and what does it do for the rule of law? the united states, we have 2 systems. says sometimes you have to go to the arbitration as opposed to the legal system. i would not going to the details of that. what we have seen israel abuse by corporations of that system. that is what is fueling discontent as well as the notion that do investors deserve the separate legal system? let's look at that.
and the tobacco. at for example that canada, they eli whitney case where government's policy makes decision related to intellectual property protection has been challenged by a company. is company believes it deserving of that protection. it is used on multiple venues to try to get said that straightened out. it seems to me that we need to to be in thisneed particular trade agreement? i want to get to your point about presidents. it is interesting because of united states does include things that never includable for in trade agreements. but it also takes things out when they are not relevant. i would say while a trade agreement with pakistan, you would probably want investment
-- do you really need it for the reasons to have the precedent in the next trade agreement? theink given concerns about way that system has been used over time -- we should really be asking that question. dan: real quick. marjorie: the whole conversation about isdf has come about over one negotiation and that is with the u.s.. you have to ask yourself why? ok, now some question about let's go back and look at the what is written on paper able to be interpreted in a way that is with the basic principle reflected in the new proposals. i think you have to step back and realize part of what is
driving this is not in fact a rational conversation about the upsides and downsides of trade. susan, just as you could ask why do we needed? i could say why not have it? how do you pick and choose. dan: any concluding remarks. -- remarks? e, the biggeredenc debate about ttip that is increasingly the argument about policymakers. we need to invest. -- we need this. it, a lot of attention on china, right? we need isdf because we are negotiating the 2 treaties. we're forgetting china is doing this since the late 1990's. they included ttip and their treaty.
their treaties and china concluded a treaty with australia with isdf. australia is one of those countries and that excluded from a treaty with the u.s. this a weak argument, precedent argument and relates to the whole debate about ttip. trouble selling ttip on the it will how much generate for how much income it will generate. tentative to use the geopolitical arguments, china especially arguments in a way to sell ttip. -- dan: this it issue is permanent but if you will resolution, go to our website. i want to talk about some of the other issues.
we are not going to get to everything. i findthese agreements, these negotiations, the european negotiators to be on my side. they are trying to open up my market. they want to get to the federal want john's act reformed. financial services reformed. these are things that are important. businessessumers and . what are your thoughts? phil about some movement in those areas? agree tos. going to some reforms on a jones act of government procurement? totally off the table? what should we expect and will europe walk away? phil: i will let our european panels speak away. what you have hit on is i think the core challenge of the ttip
which is as i sort of noted, different from most other trade agreements you take up? there's been so much liberalization in the past. that is a good thing. a healthy relationship. we talked about some of the geopolitical reasons why you would want to have this bonding. is, the areasm you just cited are the traditional, highly intractable trade issues. yes, it would be nice to change in the jones act. exactly. i do not expect them to hold their breath until the jones act is change. that is the problem. sortle bunch have survived of time after time where people looked for deliverables for bilateral and you cannot move on these. that's what we saw from the start when audiovisual with friends. on the u.s., would you do with financial regulation?
working ona to have things but to the remaining issues are tough and difficult wn wasc because often sha talking about the mitigate or late again. often there is this, let's tackle traditional, easy issues and build confidence and work together. note the progress we made. when it comes to it, we would hit the hard ones. with ttip, you hit a hard was off of the bat. there was no beginning game. right to the difficult issues. yes, it would be great to tackle these things. interest political interest -- entrenched political interests. and a question which is either the political wherewithal to overcome those which would be remarkable if they do. of wascome them or come
something more modest than what you first intended and declare victory. or walk away. those are the difficult choices for the ttip. dan: anybody as have thoughts? >> the reason why some have stuck around are really politically intractable. in some sense, there's a reason for that and maybe not necessarily a bad thing. the other option is to have absolutely no regulation, right, at the extreme so there is no conflict. and anything goes. trying is not what were to set up, super regulatory counsel that can back it down anything not the least trade restrictive model, at that is where you are getting political pushback. that is the idea that citizens want to have some say in what their economy looks like. and in some sense, some citizens want to greater government
intervention. cato would say less government intervention. these are really, really important questions. it gets to marjorie's question, if you say ttip is a good. i went half way up. we are in fact could be camp. this gets back to the question often do not want to talk about in a trade negotiations. and do notfor it have any idea how it will come out, you're pretty confident it will come out in a way that benefits your interest. for working people, theoretically for it because was not seen one that really comes out that takes the proposal that we put in and put into place. the really critical, critical question about how confident you are that your influence and your power is going to determine the outcomes. dan: thank you.
marjorie? marjorie: you asked the question about some of the more a tractable issues. i can tell you like cato the chamber sides with europeans on a number of issues. with the financial services should be enclosed in the regulatory portion of the conversation. we think of that government procurement liberalization to be had a but not purely a european obsessive interest but a u.s. offenses interest. we do support the notion that lifting the ban on crude oil exports which is one of the drivers for including an energy and raw materials chapter. i think we are like you interested to see liberalization occur not just in europe but things that have to happen here as well. i would say in very quickly is celeste wast think saying this but we are doing
which is to say advocating for the elimination of all regulation. that is what this advocating for. his did this advocating for structure that allows for dialogue among regulators to identify ways to, if where possible, and it will not be possible in every instance, to reduce the cost associated with regulation. no one in this country is any more interested in reducing protections for workers and consumers and the environment then as they are in europe. with the same level of concerns in this country. level ofe the same concerns in this country. i want to make a clear business is not saying in the context of this negotiation we want to use of regulatory cooperation as a way to eliminate or a race to the bottom. fredrik?,
citizens want to have a say. you get strikingly strong numbers in terms when you asked specifically about things like ttp or ttip. when we look at some of the all schools may not be representing the citizens. as more interested. up -- bank to follow fredrik: to follow up, a big, broad principle debate in other contexts but the point here is when you look after the political economy of trade liberalization you will not find many in world history were externally liberalization or negotiation has pushed through at a norma's amount a deregulation. what you will find -- in norma's amount of deregulation. -- what you will find is managed
to lock in existing openness to trade domestically. every now and then perhaps, pushed countries a little bit to open up more. but trade agreements, broadly defined by the biggest sort of trend on political economy inside of each country. right now and for the past years, on the big deregulatory trend. on a trend were regulation are increasing. more importantly for trade negotiations, more complex by design that regulators have been , -- ofof door regulation becausegulation, simple they do not want to face of the consequences when it is applied. the good story on the economy the other week where they were
making the point about how the slew of financial regulations that have emerged in the post crisis in era has created a lot of uncertainty in the financial sector. one financial regulator explaining the compliance philosophy behind regulation was ofically -- lining the banks an we shoot one of them. so the others will get the message. >> ouch. [laughter] >> all right. endorse policy. susan: i want to make three points. one, i do not think in the future labor will ever be happy with trade agreements because i do not think they are meant to really address the problems of workers which is both unfortunate and i think what
will done over time is come up with fixes. and it is that we participated in and we came up with a new ideas. they are on the margins and not really in the end going to change the situation. yet i think the situation much -- must be change to empower workers in the global economy. second point, what i love about ttip and ttp, while i agree the public seems more and more supportive of trade and also revealed our legislators are ever more -- i do not want to use the word "protectionist." but skeptical because of all the interest group pressure. yeah, i am really helpful as i see trade agreements it evolves time because i do think we need to find common ground that affect people's privacy and
equality and work and etc. as the practice becomes more i see more, i think people engaged in the debate. and i think that is a good thing. i hope that more people will learn about the economics of global economy and economics of inequality. i think having these debates help to get people thinking about it. that doesn't mean the pundit class of which i'm probably one is not involved in skewing the debate in some ways. i still think we have more opportunity to modernize trade policymaking to make it more accountable and that is a good thing. the more you that food -- feedback loop between the government and government is a good thing. what the united states does that affect europeans and vice versa. dan: you brought a thoughtful
essay on at the cato online forum about how to interest labor concerns. we are just about out of time. i do not want to be accused of dominated the questioning. does anybody have a question in the audience? feel free to raise your hand and ask it. ok. this right here. please identify yourself and address your question and make it a question please. wondering in terms of capitalism and were talking ,bout free market [indiscernible] usa has a big population and a small people. usa did not represent all
people. how could it represent all of the people in the situation and economy? and regulation and the global trade and cannot even have a in the united states implemented to protect all of the people. how are we going to handle this global situation and global trade agreement? dan: thank you. i think she was addressing view. mm, the u.s. chamber of commerce does not represent everybody. organizationcacy that works on behalf of business. among our members we have businesses of all sizes and across all sectors. us-based headquartered and european headquartered companies.
we have other non-us companies among our members. not entirely sure that i understood the point you are making about the chamber. the point you were making about regulation and how can we propose to promote better regulatory practices in an agreement like ttip if we do not ourselves have entirely effective or adequately represented approaches to regulation in this country i think is frankly the subject for a much, much longer conversation. i think it is a fair question but i do know we have the opportunity to answer it here. dan: i must say we are out of time. got to through half of the questions i wanted to answer. i have to do a better job of time and things.
we will go to a coffee break and we will reconvene at 10:30 a.m. please help me in thanking the panel. [applause] dan: check out the people twitter and what did they have been reading. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span has her coverage of the roadhouse does road to the white house 2016. where taking our coverage into classrooms with our student cam getting students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow c-span contest and road to the white house coverage on tv, the radio, and online at www.c-span.org.
announcer: remarks from ohio governor john kasich on the federal budget, defense spending and federal highways. governor kasich spoke at the no labels convention in new hampshire. [applause] believing ♪top gov. kasich: thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much for being here. [applause] gov. kasich: my congressional district right outside of virginia. when i came in we have a great speaker coming up. picture this -- a divided
government, record deficits, government shutdown, and what happened? this was the 1990's. we had john kasich who negotiated and balanced a budget agreement with a democratic administration and got a strong vote out of congress and led to four years of balanced budgets. ,e did not just talk about it he did it. our agenda says the goal of balancing the government's budget by 2030. our next speaker from there he left congress after a collision -- from left undefeated there he left congress a coalition and came back as governor of ohio. they were running deficits. ladies and gentlemen join me to welcome the governor from ohio, john kasich. [applause]