Skip to main content

tv   Washington This Week  CSPAN  October 18, 2015 6:00am-7:01am EDT

6:00 am
how do we make the system compatible. are we talking about multilateralism things that should not be multilateralist at all? i leave that question with you. and then i will have an announcement by the organizers which is that the luncheon will be held on the second floor in m eagerge and -- george conference room. restrooms on the second floor on the way to lunch. thank you very much. i would like to thank the organizers. [applause] >> more now on the trade agreement with a look at public opinion and the current political environment in the u.s. and european union. this discussion was also from the
6:01 am
6:02 am
6:03 am
6:04 am
6:05 am
stokes of the pew research nter in which he unveils recent analysis that they had done on public opinion in both europe and the united states regarding trade. the fop up question for all
6:06 am
those who answered the question in the negative not being happy with t tip, what's the reason or that? 50% of americans responded were concerned that t tip would lead to job losseses and lower wages. omen 17% of the germans were concerned about that. wever, only 12% were oncerned that t 50% of ame in environmental health safety standards. automobile standards. americans were not at all concerned about that. 61% of germans think they're going to give their safety away completely if t tip goes into effect. real interesting contrast. with that as background, gentlemen, what's your
6:07 am
assessment of public opinion surrounding trade at this time. ? background, gentlemen, what's your assessment of public opinion surrounding trade at this time. ? i think the numbers are interesting because they represent a reversal of what it was just a year or two ago where the german are interesting because they represent a reversal of what it was just a year or two ago where the german and all the european support for t tip was much higher than it was in the united states. it was thought this was going to be the difficult part. going to be till -- politically difficult here. tip would lead
6:08 am
clearly there are a number of thing that is have happened in europe that have diminished the support for it. there is the growing nationalism. clearly there are a number
6:09 am
of thing that is have happened in europe that have diminished the support for it. there is the growing nationalism. there is the growing division, german public by entire, all leaders german public by leaders be in government or business. you have to remember we had a switch in government government. so you had elections then transition to a new government. attention went elsewhere.
6:10 am
if you look at similar polls in italy, sport gal, spain, grease. you have a lot of support. so i think it's very balanced mixed views, mixed things. specific alls for two reactions. we've been doing much more in terms of what it is not. but it has to be done together with leaders and people who are trusting in their own public opinions. public o european opinion. elsewhere. if not there was a big fight over in
6:11 am
nafta but fairly the opposition at the time from unions the groups was kind we
6:12 am
6:13 am
6:14 am
6:15 am
really don't know yet. it was said for a long time that tpp would be the very -- should have been the easy one to negotiate but a very tough one to pass. and t tip on the other hand should be easy to negotiate since we have two very larbling similar integrated economies on both sides of the atlantic. a -- a ugher one to to negotiate one not many weeks ago the s on
6:16 am
european parliament blessed a different concept for ininvestor state. clearly there is a progress that is political leadership level to move forward. >> right. i think what has been reassuring for the negotiator is that the things like patents and
6:17 am
intellectual property and the chickens and political leadership including european parliament in june and july has continuously supporting the negotiations. when if you listen to prime rensie or the spanish prime minister british prime minister they're all in favor and want us to move ahead so i think british prime minister they're all in favor and want us to move ahead what americans is that european leaders need to make a better explanation. i can tell you from the inside rom the european commission, we work very hard to make it more transparent to explain more. we never communicated about a trade agreement in languages other than english. ludges we in in 22 have more than ten documents explain what it is and is not.
6:18 am
so the tools are therefore people to communicate about it business to communicate about it. i think it's true that european companies are not used to do any work in favor of trade agreements. so they are awakening. but it's a slow progress and in an environment where companies are cutting budgets for it's not affairs, so clear what you do are you going to put any zime on the table or not. then yes to do it the government left to the government to do it. i think if you look at the concerns in germany and other european countries expressed over the weekend, you will hear concerns about consumer rights. so t tip or big american companies are seeing the danger rule so good workers
6:19 am
rights environmental standards nd even democracy. we have said all along we will not anything shate standards or protection. we have said all along we would not negotiate data protection rules as such in ttip. and still it's seen as this trojan horse that will bring all these bad things from the u.s. there's an effort to be made. i'm sure we can do more. as been doing much more than previous commissioners on transparency and communication. and we will keep on doing more. there will be a limit on what we can do as long as the negotiations haven't progressed enough as one of the fficulties we are confronted with of course is that as long as there is no negotiation
6:20 am
while you can sell anything, you can say we aim to do this and we will not do that but for the rest give us a bit of time, and we need to work on the negotiation get them done and then we will be able to sell hem. also important to remember that t tip was launched in a period where i think there was much stronger support for the trade position in europe than there is today. all the european commission was a former commission was very forcele in ensuing a trade agenda going -- t tip is part of an agenda. it's not a single project for the european commission. we negotiate with japan we've done with one with vietnam, with canada. we've had negotiating on and off with india.
6:21 am
central america columbia, peru. ukraine. a number -- and african countries. so we're very ambitious trade policy agenda across the world d we're probably launching negotiations with australia and new zealand, greater with mexico and chile. agenda and big strong support for that agenda. i believe there still is public opinion has become much more critical about this project hich is called ttip. >> i would like to reinforce damian's point about what the commission has been doing on the transparencey front. so i think there are lots of things swirling about in public opinion but one of the arguments you hear very often that all of this is being
6:22 am
secret that corporations have outside influence and that ordinary people don't know what's going on and can't affect it. i think in the context of how the u.s. has traditionally handled its trade negotiation strategy that has a lot of legitimacy. all countries have, you look at the advisory committee structure. it's heavily weighted towards the interests of business. so there's a lot of that critique that i think has considerable legitimacy. and as theas move into areas of as they do more and more into areas of consumer and environmental agenda and strong support for that agenda. i believe there still regulatio becomes a lot more questionable. when you're talking about trade-off on tariffs that are sort of profit loss issues for the companies maybe makes a little more sense to handle that way.ns but in these new areas there's much broader public interest affected by the outcome. so i've been encouraged by what i've seen the commission doing. it will be that way. but in interesting to see how that plays out when the negotiations get further along and you're trading offers.
6:23 am
i think really trying to tackle very head on that criticism about seeksy. i'm hoping that the united states will follow that lead. it will be a big change of direction for the united states. one other unrelated comment. it comes out of that pew poll that you mentioned. you drill down one of the interesting things gets to the disconnect between the public and congress. you've got a democratic party opposition.d in republican party that's quite supportive even the tea party elements. nationalists or ant government grounds but generally been fairly supportive. drill down to that poll that bruce was part of democrats actually democratic voters are to trade avorable now than opposition. republican
6:24 am
and i think part of that is the kind of changing demographic of democratic voters. a lot more young voters. multiethnic hispanic g grants who have become u.s. citizen voters and the parties haven't completely caught up. certainly in the way this is who have become u.s. citizen voters and the parties haven't completely caught up. certainly in the way this is likely to be handled when it comes to the congress. the polling data shows that democrats by and large the people identify themselves as democrats support trade to a greater degree than those who identify themselves as republicans. quite a reversal. and as you said we really the p democrats by and large the people identify themselves as democrats support trade to a greater degree than those who identify themselves as republicans. quite a reversal. and as you said we really the parties really haven't caught up with that it's going to be interesting to see particularly how the democrats react to this as their younger voters entrepreneurial voters social media voters come to the foreif they're going to change their position on the trade agreements. >> let's shitcht and say a few words about the role of elections themselves in
6:25 am
fluencing the whole domestic political environment. this morning shawn mentioned three elections upcoming in europe that may have some influence. german general election, the presidential election, in the the referendum eu on whether they should stay. >> the u.k. >> on whether they should stay in the e.u. would you offer some thoughts? >> it's clear that elections in large member states have more influence on what we do overall and it's clear that elections i large member states have more influence on what we do overall and the project that is we pursue and the base in which we pursue those projects. i would tend to think that the a
6:26 am
6:27 am
germany and the u.k. yes it will be a topic in the campaign. but what will impact that will have on the negotiations is too early i think. so we will see. so yes they have an impact. of course. what impact i think is premature. i would say for next year it should only incentivize us to move ahead and try to conclude. but substance will have to
6:28 am
prevail over speed. that's for sure. the european commission will not try to rush to a deal with the obama administration if it doesn't feel the deal is good for europe. i'm sure you will hear the same who will say yes we will try to get it done. it has to be a good and ambitious deal. so we'll see. >> ted, ready or not we have an election coming up in this country in a little more than a year. both congressional and presidential. last i checked, none of the leading candidates of either party seem to be much inclined toward trade liberalization. how do you read the implications of the u.s. election for what might happen? >> i mean, the timing is difficult. i'm going to crib a little bit rom my lunchtime conversation. so i apologize if i steal any of his thunder here but we were talking about this that you do the problem from the u.s. perspective is the majority for
6:29 am
trade is so narrow. a handful of votes. and so particularly when it comes to the tpp vote. i steal any s of his thunder here but we were talking about this that you do the problem about t tip but in the sequencing t tip comes after. so congress has got to be able to deal successfully before we even get to the question of whether t tip can pass. i actually do think in the u.s. it will be a much about t tip b in the sequencing t tip comes after. so congress has got to be able to deal successfully before we even get to the question of whether t tip can pass. i actually do think in the u.s. it will be a much easier sell in the congress than tpp is. and so there just isn't all that much room for error. if i look at these things historically my read is that the geopolitical importance of an agreement like tpp or t tip if it's concluded is so enormous that even some of those who are skeptical in congress are inclined to support it at the end of the day, because saying no at that blow to an a important ally tpp to australia. the closest american allies i
6:30 am
should throw in canada and mexico as well. but at the end of the day congress will support this but the timing is really difficult. the obama administration obviously would like to do this in the spring. if we're still in a blow to an important situation in the spring where donald trump has done well in the first couple of primaries, obviously secretary clinton has against the tpp rather awkwardly i think given her historic position on this. but she has. so that's going to make it harder for some democrats. so i do think at the very least there's a possibility of the election against the pushing al this back even farther. the tpp vote gets nocket back o the lame duck. at tend of the day i still believe that congress will pass both agreements assuming it can be negotiated but certainly it's a problem in terms of timing. >> you had the opportunity to get up close and personal with the electorate 11 times? i stil believe that congress will pass both agreements assuming it can
6:31 am
be negotiated but certainly it's a problem in terms of timing. >> you had the opportunity eah. you've been through some of these conflicts before. what's it look like before to you? >> trade was never that popular even in arizona despite 22 years of trying to educate my zwents about the value of trade agreement so it was never that popular. but i will call the coal by mantra on that the benefits of trade are wide and diffuse while the benefits for protexism are narrow and focused. it's all the people you've been who have a very narrow focused agenda. that's why trade has become such a difficult political issue. the situation looking into this next year is as cloudy for trade as it is for the presidential elections but i will make one prediction that i think with absolute serpty. for is if the two nominees president bernie sanders and donald trump take your trade agenda and forget about it for the next four years after that. but that's probably not likely
6:32 am
to happen. but i do think it's likely that secretary, if secretary clinton continues to be the lead in the poll that looks like she's going to be the nominee i think the democrats will have to feel that they can't vote on tpp next year and that push it is whole trade agenda back. i think it's very unlikely. but i said this before i think even without that i think it's unlikely t tip can possibly be done. and virtually impossible that it could be voted on before the next election. maybe in lame duck. t tip can't be completed before that time. it's going to be up to the next administration and we just don't know who that is going to be and exactly what approach they will take if it is president clinton she would undoubtedly want to reconsider certain items in the it's going next administration and we just don't know who that is going to
6:33 am
be and exactly what approach they will take if negotiations. so in some sense you kind of start over. but this is not going to be ide of the house or senate. >> one thing. if it does get kicked over, it gets kicked over by if you look at what happened under president obama you realize there's enormous pressure to continue with the agenda on trade at least that your predecessor set out. so president obama ran on a fairly anti-trade platform. and admittedly took him a while. he didn't move to it immediately but he's kind of more from being the candidate to is very skeptical wanted renegotiate nafta. but wanted to really kind of go back and tear the thing up to becoming the president who is presiding over the most ambitious set of trade liberalization in two decades now. so i do think there's a lot of pressure to kind of stick with he program on the trade.
6:34 am
faked out his own team and tried to score with the republicans. it's a very interesting situation. i hope he did it for good reason. i believe there's a lot of pressure on trade to keep oving forward. the federal government versus state and local government how they handle certain issues and that's also a potential concern in europe. ted, do you have any thoughts? is the united states going to heads? knock are we going to have to heads? are we going to have to get various lels of government to coordinate better in order to make t tip what it should be? >> i mean, the answer is yes. but what i personally would like to see is a complete
6:35 am
mentioned the advisory committee structure. there is a state government advisory committee but it's been more of for most of its history and not terribly effective. if you look at the interests of the states and trade policy they're very dramatic. so most states now are very actively in the investment promotion game. a lot of large cities are. they're increasingly looking at what their export opportunities are to plug a competitor if you look at the work they're doing about identifying export opportunities for large municipalities. state and local governments are waking up to the importance of international trade policy for their economic interests. when we talk about from the federal level it's about getting the states to open up their procurement markets which i think should be done but the way you do that is to bring the states much more deeply into the formulation of trade policy and the u.s. government says we're going to do these things on the investment
6:36 am
front and the exported promotion front. and in exchange you've got to do some stuff for us including finally getting serious about opening your procurement market ors taking care of tax problems where they exist. so i would like to see a much, much closer ongoing working relationship between state and local governments and the federal government. canadians have done this well on trade policy. there are only ten provinces but i still think it's something we can do. i agree with you and iltthrike see that happen but it isn't going to happen. we aren't going to -- states aren't going to open up themselves on procurement. it's really interesting as you said states have many of them ave foreign trade offices in london and tokyo and elsewhere. they take trade missions with business people. you have very narrow on some of the tax issues and certainly on the procurement issues where they tend to be locally focus
6:37 am
on this in protecting buy america not obble buy america but it's buy california or buy oakland. and they have these kinds of provisions in there. so i think it's kind of a dual head, look at this thing. i just don't think we're going to get there on procurement though i really wish we could do that and it's a big headache for our european friends to see that we have these kind of 50 different approaches to things ut i guess we can now say well you've got 28 of them now that you have to deal with over there. so it's in a sense a little bit the same. >> tell us a little bit about those 28 frictions and give me the competencies between the national governments and brusselses. >> right. you've got as someone said earlier today the european market is more unified. more harmonized than the u.s. depending on the services the that you look at or
6:38 am
good sector you look at. but indeed what states have been doing they have put in place is an issue that we need to address in negotiations. that's clearly a request from ur side in the negotiation that is we need to that is we need to address that at the state level also federal level that market access discussion. matter for get a the negotiations we will see where those discussions will take us. but it's more than that and there it goes both ways. the rules regulation ace dopted at state level are a reason of concern for companies who wish to do trade across the atlantic and we're trying as much as possible to look into this. it's true that our canadian friends the provinces actually
6:39 am
in the room where we're easier ng so that was of course if transaction cost is easier because you have ten provinces or 11 with territories, with u.s. a bit more difficult. so it's not up to me or to the u.s. what they should do but that's a concern that we've expressed if you look at regulated professions there are activities architects engineers accountents lawyers regulated at state level. if we want to facilitate we need to have the states and the member states talk to each other or be proxies or people who represent the member states in order to find more solutions of utual reg nigs
6:40 am
professional qualifications. that's an area we still need to look at very much and it's clear that we could not from a european perspective accept a deal that would impose, on member states. even the subnational member states nothing of the federal level. that would not be a balanced agreement. even if you look at the center of graft for example of markets there's much more money being procured. so we need to keep that in per spect kwlive as well. still that would be part of the balance in how people will look at this. it's easy. we only have one real good opportunity matter for the to improve this atlantic relationship. we've been looking at this for 20 years trying to do low hanging fruits, specific stuff. but these haven't had significant influence on our relationship. now is the time to improve it so we need to take the time to do it.
6:41 am
i've been surprised. with europe and the united states being the two largest providers of financial services sort of ld, some harmanization might make sense and i think that's been the european position. if i understand treasury secretary lieu, he's not been at all enthused about the idea of having any discussions with those nasty europeans about -- i'm putting words in his mouth. but what sort of harmanization might make sense and i think that's is the state there? jim, are you following that? >> well, a bit. i'm probably not as expert as some others are on this but certainly i think you're right that the -- because we are two such gigantic financial markets the opportunities in liberalization there are harmanization are tremendous. the benefits of it flow from that are probably the large as anything you can think of in
6:42 am
the entire t tip agreement that could flow from that. in the united states the reluctance on the part -- and i think we should be doing it. in the the reluctance united states is the passage of dodd frank and nobody wants to -- it's too new. obody wants to tamper with that. nobody wants to tink we are that. i think it's definitely needs some tinkering with. but nobody really wants to deal with dodd frank. and the secretary of treasury, this is a little bit of turf battle. the secretary of treasury saying that's our area. trade negotiators don't give in to these financial services issues. that's for treasury to negotiate so i think they've been reluctant because of the pushback they're getting from capitol hill about doing anything on this. even reluctant to really try to en the door that much on financial services. >> ted. > i don't have a lot to add.
6:43 am
i think the trauma of the financial crisis and dodd frank, a lot of that hasn't even been implemented yet. and i don't think treasury wants to touch this. >> if it's too late to add it if the negotiation goes? > it's in there. i think the position. it's still on the table from our >> let me clarify our perspecti. on't see why, if in the
6:44 am
implementation of those global agreements there are differences and these are a tly are not necessary from perspective or safety of the system. so we think that financial services, national cooperation should be part. >> probably aren't going to get much disagreement up here. we need to bring somebody from treasury in. >> just one additional point. it's not very different from other areas where some medical devices, where we have the regulators in the room. not that trade negotiators want
6:45 am
to take over. no. we want regulators to be in the room and treasury officials together with our counter parts in the commission. is it ok? and so i think the turf battle e can accommodate that you are in charge actually if you attend any talk you cannot but i do. the people talking doing the talk are the regulators. it's not the if you attend any talk you cannot but i do. the people talking doing the talk are the regulators. it's not the trade negotiators. so that's also one of the reasons why we can confidently say that we will not lower level protection financial services products and medical system. ecause so the people who are doing the talks and assessing what is possible are the regulators themselves. we just coach them. >> i will make one additional point there because this emphasizes the difference between what is being tried in the people who the re doing the
6:46 am
>> one of the areas where this is breaking new grounds. so maybe part of the reason is difficult. brur not on substance simply setting up the structures to discuss later. so it's not like in cars or medical devices where we are trying to have findings in t tip on sbh stance. it would be the process. >> well, before we open this up for some audience questions, i have one more issue that i would like to put out here. and it is the sanry fight oo sanitary issues.
6:47 am
and the reason i raise it it is an important domestic political issue in the united states for the agricultural community. my sense is if we conclude a t tip that does not allow some additional trade of genetically modified organized organisms and my chickens and meat that might be treatd with hormones or something if there's nothing in there for agriculture i'm not sure that we can get the votes to pass a t tip. so is it possible to get something on those issues? >> sure. before we agree to launch a egotiation, we looked at sps issues on both sides and we looked at a number of files that have been there in the drawers on each side, application that is have been pending for years. we're trying to move along on these individual issues. and for example i can go into the example i'm not sure it's really necessary. but we've made some fundamental
6:48 am
anges for example on carcasses of beef. in slaughter houses in europe -- sorry i have to be a bit detailed here -- used to be the case that car cacks were only washed with water. discussion was what's water? the temperature, and we received a request to from the united states to allow carcasses to export with 5
6:49 am
we get that it's important. > slightly different lifment so we do get so we do get that. and if you look at agriculture from a european perspective we have the stronger rules. we don't find it normal that spanish farmers have to wait 15 years to get the avocados approved. we don't find it normal that apples and pears from europe most countries are not approved here. so there are thing that is can be done on this side as well. we can have stronger rules to facilitate trade for farmers. we can do wto plus issues. that will require authorities sides to agree to be
6:50 am
bound by deadlines, by clear rules. >> ok. let me pile in on your side and say i hope to be able at some point to buy cheeses from europe that are made from milk that has not been past rised. i think that would be very nice because there's some interesting cheeses made that way. so we have our own shugs here that should be put on the table. >> enough of that. let's turn to the audience and see whether there are any questions. jim. >> thank you. jim burger from washington trade daily. i was interested in your comments i guess a new not new but the younger democrats voters moving towards free trade or freer trade does that indicate that hillary clinton is totally out of touch with her party? >> she's not out of touch with those who she will need in the election but those she will need in the primary tend to be different kind of shoters and those she needs who will supporter with the workers volunteers and that. no she is not out of touch in that sense there.
6:51 am
but what you're seeing is a change that will catch up there. >> one more thing. while there is a shift on trade, trade is not a highly salient issue. >> pretty far down the list of things that people vote on. >> here. >> >> i had to two quick questions. kind of framed around is it getting harder and harder to tip giving some thing that is have been happening. first, isps approach unveiled by the commission is the u.s. going to accept that? that seems to be highly -- seems to be the opposite of what's in the model bid in terms of what the u.s. views as a model investor state dispute mechanism. and although they made some changes in t tip we'll see what
6:52 am
hose exactly are to soften the investor mechanism a bit. but is that going to be another red line that cannot be crossed? i know you don't like to use the word red line in the negotiations. just last week you saw the safe harbor decision. i know data rules are not being negotiated but businesses want ata flow rules in these deals. how are these two issues linked? how will the decision affect the t tip negotiations? >> thank you. great questions. we don't talk about it any more. we talk about ics. anyway. step back have to
6:53 am
and look at the essentials that we've been able to preserve. first of all, is that you would have and we are very much in favor of rules to protect the foreign investors. in many countries it's actually quite brave to invest. and you want a bit of extra protection because you're not country. new think with the proposal and the reserved european parliament we have maintained that principal, that foreign investors do need additional protection and host states should have fundamental proposal and the reserved european parliament we have maintained that principal, that foreign investors do need additional protection and host states should have fundamental obligations. but also the right to regulate to achieve legitimate policy objectives should be clearly reaffirmed in our trade agreements. and second they should be dispute resolution step back and look at the essentials that we've been able to mechanisms whereby states waive their immunity which is an exception actually in international affairs. ually states have immunity and so you cannot sue a state unless under specific circumstances. so by maintaining these two and so you have to have
6:54 am
protection with the right to regulate that has to be reaffirmed. and the fact that states should be subject to dispute binding dispute resolutions. we think we've the principals back on the table and we are able to negotiate on this topic. important topic of investment protection whether the u.s. will agree or not we haven't our proposal and that will be a matter for the negotiations. we have been in a situation with for a year-and-a-half where we could not negotiate . cause we wanted to conduct we had 144,000 comments on our questions. so we've had a very intense discussion on the matter. now we're able to negotiate again. on the safe harbor, a couple of points. first of all, questions. so we've had a very intense discussion on the matter. now we're able the questions from the irish court so people say the court didn't do this or that. the court was very much limited
6:55 am
in what it could do. it was asked questions by the irish court and it answered those questions. the safe harbor decision of the commission has been held invalid by the courts. which in a way was in the line of the opinion of the advocate general who came out of two or three weeks earlier. does it come as a surprise? yes. in a way. but we've been working with the national data protection authorities to come up with coordnailted answer and to ance to companies on how handle the new situation. this being said the safe harbor was not the only ground to transfer data. you had standards to contract trull provisions that is a way companies to transfer data that had been use bid companies. you had binding corporate rules to transfer data within your own groups. you had also the consent of consumers. so if companies ask european consumers their customers do you agree have to that your dat transferred outside the european union as far as the
6:56 am
outside of the long list of provisions then it remains valid. it remains legal. so those are all ways to transfer data remain valid and so the impact of the safe harbor decision needs to be looked at into the perspective. it's not all data cannot -- all data transfers are banned in the future. but impact it will have on the negotiations i think it's too early to tell. it also depends on how european and national authorities will handle the situation going forward. we had been discussing -- > our time is very nearly out. all we take -- is it a quick question? ok. do one quick question. >> yes. i'm a law professor in paris. i have a question on t tip and public opinion. you said the need to change the narrative around t tip in order to conquer popular opinion. the narrative has changed.
6:57 am
in the beginning question? ok. this is less of a concern from the u.s. but this has been ongoing narrative surrounding trade agreement. i think if we see a situation where we've got a t tip that has strong regulations that cover the two largest consumer markets in the world, that puts tremendous pressure on the rest of the world to move up to those standards. this is a ly think
6:58 am
real race to the top opportunity. i like to see that happen in substance. also agree with the question i would like to see it present that had way. >> anything? >> sure. i think in a way that's what we've been doing. but i think a number of skeptics will not believe us. they have not believed us that when we're saying it's not a race to the bottom that they will not believe us it's a race to the top. >> jim. >> i think that this is a great opportunity for us to be the two great powers economic powers that set the rules for the rest of the world. and i don't mean that we dot-com nated but we could set the standards and the rest of the world hopefully will follow along. geopolitics then if we don't do that, you can be sure whether china or somebody else or the plethora of different kinds of arrangementless do that. so i think it's a great opportunity for us when you say to kind of have a race to the top. >> my perspective is that what we're trying to do here is
6:59 am
raise the quality of the trade policy debate. i hope we've been able to accomplish that in some degree. please join me in tharninging my fellow panelists. >> [applause] >> "washington journal" is next live with your calls and this morning's headlines. followed by "newsmakers". later former newsweek reporter talks about his imprisonment in iran which was the basis for a 2014 documentary directed by ohn stewart. coming up op today's "washington journal," a look at how the media has been covering the campaign. also the democratic socialist
7:00 am
of america talks about their support for presidential candidate senator bernie sanders. and the discussion with author matthew green about the current rates for house speaker and ♪ host: good morning. congress is back in session this week, following the columbus day holiday. among its priorities, voting on whether to authorize the export, import bank. it is also a vote on whether to increase the debt limit. that deadline is before november the third. and, a decision on who will be the next speaker. live coverage on c-span all week. it is sunday morning, october 18. in additio a


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on