tv Question Time CSPAN July 4, 2016 12:38am-1:01am EDT
that the country has to decide what the next prime minister will decide is the sort of access we want, what are the costs and benefits of having the access and we'll talk about that in a moment when i give my statement on the european council. >> the prime minister will be aware consulting and staffing unions as we do share the work force and the company has approached the u.k. government to receive support from the u.k. export finance. from the 40 billion pounds on his only received a guarantee to the value of one of his tracks. will he commit to meet with me to discuss this perilous situation and was support his government can provide. >> i'm aware of the announcement about further job losses and this is obviously difficult time for workers in families. i understand the scottish and u.k. governments have been working closely together over the past couple years as part of the partnership action
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> monday on the communicators, senior vice president at verizon and the new head of public policy and government affairs operations in washington on the key issues in telecom. like met neutrality. she's joined by "wall street journal" technology reporter. >> there's some characteristics of this spectrum that make it complicated in that environment. there's a very narrow line of sight. >> it doesn't go through walls very well. >> exactly. there's a some issues with that. there's actually a lot of kind of complex engineering developments that have
developed these new antennas. bean forming, so there's actually a way to kind of adjust for that kind of issue with the spectrum and will make it more usable in that kind of environment. >> watch the communicators monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> the house returns this week from the july fourth break with a busy agenda that includes gun legislation. we could see debate on that as early as wednesday. other legislative items include i.r.s. spending and extension of f.a.a. funding and a vote to go to conference on defense authorization. live house coverage on c-span. as for the senate, that chamber returns wednesday to consider a judicial nomination. follow the senate live on c-span2. for more on the week ahead and that anticipated debate on the gun measures, we spoke with a congressional reporter. host: the u.s. house will return to work after its july fourth break.
billy house of bloomberg news, you write that speaker ryan plans a house vote on gun provision after sit-in by democrats. what exactly are the main details of that bill? guest: the speaker's office just released details. it's very much -- it's a -- it's wrapped up in the counterterrorism, not gun control, in the wake of orlando. that's the spin they're putting on that apparently. the homeland safety and security act. it will include a provision to prevent terrorists from buying guns. it's much like the bill in the enate from senator cornyn. the democrats in the house and in the senate have already rejected that idea as insufficient. host: as you said, that was -- the pretty close to what john cornyn, the majority whip in the senate, had offered and the senate blocked that. so why do the republicans think
that that's the appropriate measure here? guest: if you're a house democrat on a conference call early this afternoon, you were saying that it was because you're letting the national riffle association write your legislation for you. they want to limit whatever gun aspects of that bill as much as possible. whether that's true or not, who knows. but certainly house republicans are feeling pressure to do something with the word guns in it. perhaps not do so much that it might upset one of their big backers, the n.r. a. host: you talked about what the democrats may be planning, what they're talking about. house minority leader nancy pelosi released a statement that reads in part that democrats will continue to push house republicans to give the american people a vote on meaningful gun violence prevention measures that will
save lives and protect our communities from terrorism. with expanded strengthened background checks and meaningful no-fly, no-buy legislation. so what exactly are you hearing about what the plans of house democrats are for the coming week, both on and off the floor? guest: exactly. what we're talking about are the same things democrats were asking for last week. they're asking for now. they want background checks on gun sales and ban firearm sales to those on the government's no-fly list. this call isn't new. but the been stepped up in the hills of the orlando shooting where 49 people were killed. i talked to john larson, one of the leaders, organizers, with of course civil rights icon john lewis of georgia, but john larson of connecticut tells me that he and lewis have written to speaker ryan, they hope to have a meeting with him early next week. but if their amendments can't
be put on this republican bill, other, quote, dilatory tacticses tied to the 1960's civil rights movement may be considered. not so certain that they're going to do another sit-in. they seem to think they won't be a second act on that. but, for instance, he said, protest march. now, whether or what kind of march that might be, whether a circling of the capitol or actual march to, i don't know, the lincoln memorial or anywhere else in washington, i don't know. but that's what they're talking about. everything seemses to hinge more on this meeting they hope to have with the speaker and what comes out of that and if anything happens to get their stuff into that republican bill. host: house speaker paul ryan called the democrats' sit-in on the house floor a publicity stunt. and said the republican leadership was looking at all their oppings, talking to the parliamentarian, the sergeant
at arms. what sort of rules exactly are they talking about and what kind of rules were potentially broken by the democrats during this sit-in? guest: there are rules with regard to whether the house is actually in session, what you can and cannot do. other rules are a little meeker. you can't take photos or videos of action while you're on the floor. all that stuff that happened in the sit-in didn't technically occur until late in the morning had they quickly jammed some votes in. most of that happened when the house wasn't technically in session. you're right. the speaker has said he's looking into what can be done. not quite sure what can be done other than, you know, forcing them off the floor, arresting them perhaps. democrats who won't move. but the notion of arresting a civil rights icon, john lewis, on tv, in front of millions of
americans, is something they really don't want to have engrained going into the november elections. i'm sure speaker paul ryan doesn't want that forever imprinted in a 2020 campaign effort for president, if he mounts one. i do know that republicans have advised him and they have their own conference call yesterday, please, whatever we do, let's not handcuff these people. host: billy house is congressional correspondent for bloomberg news. he's on twitter @houseinsession. you can read his reporting at bloomberg.com. thanks very much for being with us. guest: thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. and coming up monday morning, we'll discuss the concepts of freedom and liberty in the u.s. today with terry jeffrey, he's editor in chief at cnsnews.com. and eleanor cliff, washington correspondent for the daily beef. we'll also discuss this year's
presidential campaign, the brexit vote and the possible effects on the u.s. economy. and what's ahead for congress, especially on terrorism and gun violence. and then michael, former iraq intelligence advisor to generals petrino. he'll sculls the retaking of fallujah by iraqi forces. u.s. air strikes and what's next for iraq in their war with isis. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" beginning live at 7:00 eastern on monday morning. join the discussion. >> u.s. trade representative michael froman talks about pending trade agreements and the global economy. then we'll hear about global development and foreign aid. policymakers and leaders in business and finance. it's just under two hours.
>> it's a great pleasure to have ambassador mike froman here with us today. he's one of the key players in the world on international rade and he has a lot of things going, t.p.p. in asia, trying to get approval for that. also ttip in europe and in fact he has the negotiator coming here tomorrow to talk with him. mr. rhodes: not to speak of trying to work on an investment treaty with china. mike has done a great job, as i said, in his present role. but he also was in the white house in the first obama term. worging -- working on international economic affairs, advising the president. i had a good chance to work with him both on the korean free trade agreement, as well
as negotiates -- negotiations with brazil. so we're very fortunate that he's with us here today. mike, would you please come up and then we'll have some questions afterwards. [applause] mr. froman: thanks very much, bill. it's an honor to be here, talking about the importance of u.s. leadership with this distinguished group. i think the title for that previous session of multilateral cooperation in a turbulent world seems to be particularly timely at the moment. in many parts of the global economy, growth is uneven and weak. in china, progress on reform seems uncertain. russia and brazil continue to face headwinds and in europe, between the migrant crisis, the lingering effects of the financial crisis, the rise of euro skepticism, and now the vote by the british people to leave the european union, these
are turbulent times indeed. one of the greatest concerns we have is in the last couple of years, global trade has slowed. rather than driving global growth, trade is growing at a slower pace than the economy as a whole. a revival of international trade is indispensable if full employment is to be achieved in a peaceful world and with standards of living which will permit the realization of man's reasonable hopes. those are not my words. those are the words of the end of the conference. but they continue to resonate today. here at home, we've been growing for the longest un interrupted period in recorded history and we're doing so at the high end of the spectrum among industrialized economies. over the last six years, we've added 14 million new jobs and cut unemployment from 10% to under 5%. manufacturing output is at an all-time high and we've marked our sixth consecutive year of net manufacturing jobs growth, the longest uninterrupted streak since the 1960's.
adding over 850,000 manufacturing jobs to the u.s. economy. wages have finally begun to tick up. 2.5% last year. seem to be on the same track thus far this year. again, too little, too slowly, but at least the a positive trend. still, there's a great deal of anxiety out there. evidenced in the current election dynamic in the united states. not to mention much of the developed world. some of that is certainly rooted in economics. between the changing composition of jobs in the united states, years of wage stagnation and rising income inequality, there's a concern that the system may be working for a few, but not the many. that the game is rigged. and that other countries don't follow the same rules we do, but instead act unfairly. that the economic recovery of the last six or seven years hasn't found its way to many americans. it's important that we not ignore these concerns. they are real and legitimate. and the question is, what do we do about them?
most economists will tell you that automation has more to do with the changing nature of the work force and the suppression of wages than globalization. but certainly both contribute. the problem is that we don't get so vote on automation. nobody vote on the next generation of computers or on when the next generation of robots should be deployed. nor do we really get to vote on globalization. it's a process made possible by the containerization of shipping, the spread of broadband, the opening -- opening of economies like china and eastern europe that had been closed to the rest of the world and are now integrated to the global economy. globalization is a force that you can't wish away or put the jeanie back in the bottle. what we do get to vote on are trade agreements. so they become the vessel into which people pour their legitimate anxieties about the changing nature of the work force, wag stage nation and inequality. agreement trade
it's -- agreements aren't the cause of the problems i've alluded to. they can be part of the solution to them. along with other sound economic and domestic policies such as investment in infrastructure, education and training. trade agreements allow us to shape globalization to our advantage. they're the vehicle through which we help write the rules of the road for the global trading system, which reflect our interests and our values. we start from the fact that the u.s. already has one of the most open economies in the world. in large part because decisions made decades ago and supported by 12 presidents since, six of whom happen to be democrats and six of whom happen to be republicans, our average applied tariff is less than 1.5% and we don't use regulations as a disguised barrier for trade. when you look abroad, we see markets that are shielded by higher tariffs, and opaque and slanlted regulatory systems. with the trans-pacific partnership, we can level that playing field by removing barriers to those markets, raise standards in them and as
a result increase our export-related jobs which pay 18% more on average than nonexported jobs. right now we compete with low wage countries all over the world. and the question is, what are we going to do about it? t.p.p. will open up some of the largest and fastest growing economies to our manufactured good, agricultural products and services exports. it will for the first time take a comprehensive approach to imposing disciplines on state-owned intersurprises -- enterprises so when he when they compete against our private firms they'll have to do so on a fair and level playing field. it will for the first time take on issuings of the digital economy, the free flow of data, pushing back against digital protectionism, maintaining an internet that's open and free. and it has the strongest ever labor and environmental provisions strengthening workers rights and protecting the environment and does so in a manner that is fully enforcement -- enforceable. all these provisions underscore that there's something broader at issue in whether and when
t.p.p. moves forward. it's the rules-based system itself. and no group of people understands the importance of the rules-based system better than this one. the principles of open markets, shared responsibility and shared benefits animated the conference 72 years ago. and the rules-based system put in place then allowed japan and the countries throughout europe to rebuild themselves after the war, it allowed developing countries like south korea and brazil to become emerging economies, it helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. as successful as it's been, we can't take that system for granted. we cannot be complacent about it or expect it to endure if we turn inward. because there are alternatives being promoted. alternatives that are more statist in nature. from our perspective, it's very important that we maintain and strengthen the rules-based system, where every country has certain rights, where all countries are expected to play by the same set of rules.
and if they don't, where there's fair and equitable resolution disputes, where big countries can't push little ones around. that system is key to maintaining a stable and prosperous asia-pacific region, the also key to ensuring that the global economy is working for our workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses. and it's critically important that we're not just sitting on the sidelines but proactively shaping the global economy in a way that reflects our interests and our values. if the united states were to turn inward, the results would be economically devastating. history has prove beyond a doubt that protectionism doesn't work. raising tariffs on our trading partners would leave those countries to respond in kind and block our exports. that is a trade war. and we know that no one wins a trade war. turning to protectionism would not increase employment here, it would reduce it. it wouldn't boost economic growth. we know this from experience.
in 1930, congress passed and president herbert hoover signed the tariff act. which essentially walled out the united states from imports. the thinking was that that would lead to a resurgence of manufacturing and employment in the united states. we had a spectacular trade surplus then. and the great depression. the high tariffs worsened the great depression in the united states, they crnted -- crbletted to the decline of the global economy, which in turn led to the rise of nationalism in europe. the economic stakes of isolationism are clear, but so are the strategic stakes. rejecting t.p.p. would undermine u.s. leadership, not only in the asia-pacific region, but around the world. our allies around the world couldn't help but question whether we the wherewithal to make good on our commitments. as singapore prime minister lee put it, if you're not prepared to deal when it comes to cars and services and agriculture, can we depend on you when it comes to security and military arrangements? the good news is that as i meet
with members of congress, they're increasingly appreciating the benefits of the agreement to their constituents, as well as the costs of not ratifying it this year. the cost of the delay are high. we already see our markets share in priority products eroded by other countries that already have preferential access to key markets. the peterson institute has estimated that a win-year delay in putting t.p.p. in place would impose a $94 billion cost on the u.s. economy. 700 equates to about a $ tax on every american household. moreover, if we don't get it done soon, the other asia-pacific countries aren't going to just sit around and wait for us. as new zealand's prime minister put it, these economies aren't going to stand still, beijing will step in to fill the void. the negotiations of china's t.p.p. equivalent are well under way with a major push to get it done this year. not surprisingly, it doesn't raise labor and environmental standards, it doesn't impose disciplines on s.o.a.'s, it doesn't require the free flow
of data across borders and a free and open internet and it doesn't strengthen intellectual property rights protections. i always ask opponents of t.p.p. a simple question, do they think we're better off living in a world where those are the rules of the road? because the choice isn't between t.p.p. and the status quo. it's between t.p.p. and what's likely to evolve in the absence of t.p.p. and that cannot be in the interests of american workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses more than moving ahead with t.p.p. the minister who represented france said, to govern is to choose. and today our government has a choice. we can write the rules of the road for 40% of the global economy or we can leave that job to others whose values and interests don't necessarily align with ours. we can move forward with t.p.p. or we can walk away. and be remembered as the generation that inflicted a crippling wounds on america's leadership in the asia-pacific
region and around the world. china is executing on its strategy, the asia infrastructure investment bank and other regional initiatives. we are one vote away from cementing our leadership in the asia-pacific region or ceding that role to others. it's just that simple. . we have made a lot of progress and our goal remains to create an ambitious