having for traits. i need one basic. energy capture drives everything off. the other pitch about how people use energy. the capture is the big thing. but hat i did for the energy capture i looked again at the social opposition, look at what is the highest level of energy capture on record, and the year 2000 a.d. it was the united states. the average american in terms of 220,000 killer calories per day, which is a staggering amount of energy if that were to the unique about 2000 killer calories. you will maintain your weight and be healthy. modern americans on average consume, i think it's 4368, or maybe 3000 -- 3004 and 68 which is a lot, which is why all of us have some issues with this. actually what we do, the calories we eat are relatively

expensive calories. most of us eat fancy things. they said if you listen -- the few living have it on me, one calorie of me to consume us taken 10 calories of grain to feed the animal to produce one calorie. if you look, the tucson meet, you will consume i should $35,000 to if all you eat is, it takes 10 calories of cow today one calorie of lion. 10 calories of grain is one calorie of cow. 33400 hours of lion would produce $34,000 to produce. so we eat quite a lot but the real thing we do with energy of course is easy to take the redeye community and come down to washington and to have things like the world affairs council.

this, of course, is what we do with the. but anyway, we have staggering energy consumption level. that means, something like 912 calories per day per person scores one point for that society. in the year 2000, east japan have the highest level of consumption which i think is little over 100,000, so only about half the u.s. it. there's 104 points that school. go back to 1900, difficulty guide with when you get past the toy century. we've got enough data to be working. you can calculate energy scores for the year 1900 do it again for 1800 on and on you go back into the past. it's difficult to do but the interesting thing is when you go all the way back to the hunter gatherers, it's not that difficult within certain limits of margin of error. these guys almost certain on

average were catching about $4500 per day. if they captured more than that we be able to see it in the archaeological record and the things they were doing. they would consume a half inch as food, the other half ago and firewood, simple shelter and this kind of thing. then the most difficult part of writing these books has been documenting energy capture a cross the intervening 50,000 years. i can pin point 14,000 b.c. fairly confident. it's just the past 16,000 years in between that is headed. so it took a very long time on this and just the last few months i've gotten involved in this, actually very good nature, an italian economist most how to do things in a very different way.

it is difficult to do. the nature of the evidence changes so much as you go back through time. but i think it is doable and it is basically the driving force behind the whole of the development index. >> thank you. please join me in thanking them. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> booktv is on facebook. like us to interact with booktv guests and viewers. watch videos and get up-to-date information on events. facebook.com/booktv. >> lori wallach, co-author of "the rise and fall of fast track trade authority," describes how trade policy and negotiations went from being under the authority of congress to being largely under the authority of

the executive branch. she argues that this development is bad for american democracy. this program is a little over one hour. >> well, thank you, andy. for hosting this event, and having the wonderful space at busboys and poets. we're so -- were so much great stuff happens. i want to thank some of the folks who make the writing of this book possible. our formal global trade watch research director todd cochran forget a lot of the research and help us in an earlier version. a bunch of friends who did editing. so fast trac, as a practical matter if a legislative procedure, arcane and boring. so why should people who are not trade walks care? why should it merit a whole

book? two good reasons. one, fast track is how the united states had into trade agreements, trade agreements, like the world trade organization, wto and nafta, the north american free trade agreement. and the dirty little secret about those, they're not mainly about trade. rather, they impose constraints on a wide array of policies and give numerous rights and power to foreign investors that undermine both the practice and principle of democracy, but many of our most important non-trade laws and food safety, financial regulations, the environment, and more. this is intimately connected to fast-track. number two, fast-track has totally upended the balance of power. and it basically ripped up,

shredded, a vital checks and balances built into the constitution by the founders concentrate on what turns out to be vast power to unilaterally impose policy in the process that is heavily influenced by large corporations to fast track, among other things, officially empowered over 600 official corporate advisors to have access to tax secrets of august doesn't seek an end to direct imports. so even though public citizen, the organization were at work, is very focused for 40 years on good process to good policy, fast track is even worse than the usual bad process, and that what it is basically allowed is a formalization of use of trade agreement to come in a slow-motion, coups d'état quietly take over democratic

policy space. that is vital, not just you but in other countries, to be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. fast track was coming to an end in 2007 before the, some of us started thinking, all right, this is outdated technology, as you're going to hear, it was cooked up around the time of eight track tapes, yes, it's 1973 technology of richard nixon. so we started thinking what should replace it? it is way overdue. this doesn't make sense anymore. and in standing around we realized there wasn't any really good source of information that was primary source about the different ways that trade of sorts have been dealt with the so thanks to a grant from the sloan foundation route we were able to send research into the musty bowels of the library of congress where they went through hundreds of lines of 18th, 19th and 20th century

records, news clips and we have the original sure, which is told largely in the book which believe it or not it's actually a fun great and i'm not saying that because i'm the author, it is told largely in the voice of the people who are participating in the debate in those days. and not to give away too much because it is worth reading, it's remarkable how through the decades some of the exact same warnings, words, fears, messages came out. there were and each 50 years of congress ignoring the upset, the good lord, this could undo the entire constitution crowd. the story starts at the very beginning with the boston tea party. yes, ladies and gentlemen our country was started with a trade war is a fact that is not largely known but the whole fighting was over border taxes, otherwise known as terrorists on t. so as not a stock is undervalued

but together the constitution, they were a little sensitive about how that trade was going to go. they had just seen what happened when the team, literally, could unilaterally declare a trade policy that at that point was all about something else, his foreign and take a much in your. he needed cash to fight the spanish to the u.s. constitution had a very intentional check and balance in article one, eight, where the legislative branch has exclusive authority over the trade policy. the executive branch had authority to negotiate agreement. so over the history of the country there has been some mechanism for sharing. and what our research found was that for 200 years, congress was the body that may trade policy and wrote our laws. until fast track. fast track in a way that was

able to slide under the radar dramatically changed both roles. it undermined both roles of congress. not just making trade policy but writing non-trade laws. over the last few decades, presidents, democrats and republicans alike, have used fast track to effectively diplomatic would legislate, pushing through congress policies that congress wouldn't otherwise suggest. but let's not jump to the head of our story. the first 100 years of the country, congress kept a very tight control on our trade policies. we've got a backdoor five distinct eras of how congress, and was congress to do, delegated or didn't delegate authority on trade. five distinct periods. and congress, holding control of the substance, makes fast track

a striking anomaly, given that fast track as we learned gave it all up. we're going to skip some of the five errors, so actually it's pretty interesting what was going on that led to some of the different fights. i'll just jump to 1890, which was the first time that congress started experimenting with delegating some authority. the overarching theme would be congress would start to delegate a little bit of its authority to the executive, executive branch would grab it all and hauled it away. then congress would say, we're not doing that. take it back. it went back and forth seesaw like. so the 1890s congress delegated authority. executive branch to a little carried away, have to take a back to 1934 was a big first major delegation. it left the executive branch negotiated tariff cuts but congress set the band, set the

dance for products from howuld r product. but congress did not do that as long as a tariff cuts are in that van. they could be declared into place. it was supposed to be an emergency measure that such a crisis, global depression would go away in three years. the executive branch kept coming back, just one more year, two more years. and overtime congress slowly sorted delegating chunks of it. it was under this authority that the original gap was negotiated and other rounds, sanctions and negotiations. however, here comes congress pulling it back in. because by 1958, as the importance of trade and the economy was increasing, but also the number of countries and issues being more public it, congress realized these conclusions that they didn't have a lot of control over were

actually having a lot of impact. they established legislative deal at that point in the authority to in the johnston administration comes to grab it all back. congress to delegate authority to what's called the kennedy rent the this is the antecedent of fast track. candidate round -- they basically said you can do tariffs but nothing else. johnston, well, he said show me. he ignored congress, signed an agreement that rewrote some anti-comment laws. that's still trade policy. and congress basically exercise and said fine, we're not going to prove that part of the agreement. johnston was mortified, declared a tariff that. there was no trade authority for 10 years after that knockdown drag-out. congress had had it. incomes richard nixon, the next mechanism. nixon saw that crisis that had been caused i johnson as an

argument for why he ought to come back with an even bigger grab of power. we basically said is no country would negotiate on the next round of the capitalists the u.s. have some incredible congressional handcuff mechanism in place. i got a little complicated because in the next round started, never came to the table. so nixon got a little grandiose how shocking of any came up with an idea that he said would speed up the negotiations. he should be up to negotiate agreements before congress votes and proclaim changes. not just for tariffs by the u.s. federal law. this of course would be unconstitutional very clearly. thankfully the senate -- a very sad story what happened in the house. the ways and means committee chairman, was wilbur mills, who some say

people know headphone into severe alcoholism. this is right at the. of the whole any fox tidal basin hysteria about to get thrown into rehab the situation. he actually let nixon lunatic fast i go through ways and means committee. the senate field that back but here are the two features that lasted. for the first time ever a president could negotiate a non-trade issue. specifically procurement standards which mean met technil standards which we know as a product safety standard. and they could sign agreements before congress voted that have those kind of rules and then, unprecedented. that went through with a lot of controversy and pledges, amongst the pledges was the nixon administration said they would only use that nontariff authority directly relate to trade, like dumping. in fact, what end up happening

was from the construct of what was then created, fast track has expanded and expanded. so what is the actual mechanism? congress has given notice, and after a simple notice of intense negotiations the executive branch has the following rights that would otherwise congresses. get the countries negotiate with, that's the content. negotiate the deal. signing the deal. congress still has not voted. right legislation which cannot be marked up, and amended in committee or on the floor of the house. the only bill in the executive branch actually writes start to finish with no congressional tweeting. automatic vote in 60 days, up or down, noah minutes, including innocent.

a legislative loose run. congress gives notice, all the authorities go, congress is only role can be five years later to say yes or no on an agreement that that has been signed with or without a country they may may not want. fast track authority with the narrow scope of what it covers was granted again and 79. and incomes reagan. reagan then transform what was nixon's really enormous power grab on the congressional authority, into an instrument of allowed the patient through trade negotiation of a huge array of non-pay policies that in the -- that affect our day-to-day lives from energy, how expensive medicines are, how safe our roads are, to our jobs and investment policy, and in land-use policy even in our domestic local communities. this form of domestic diplomat

legislation and really international preemption of state rights, ironically happened to a very conservative, under a very conservative president who was very nervous about international agencies and the preemption of state's rights. congress did in 1988 try to take back some of its turf but they didn't change the underlying structure of fast track. a sort of trick to all this that has come up, if you look at the history, whatever congress rights and objectives are totally ignored every time. so it turns out that the fast track, unser, video, that was used for nafta and transport required labor standard. be living in the fight recently such a controversial issue. that was required in the 80th fast track.

totally ignored in nafta and wto. alternatively the 2000 you fast track bush created explicitly forbid inclusion of labor standards in trade agreements. and actually though they're not great, he brought it -- the broadest labor standards ever, that and the inclusion of labor standards. similarly, members of congress as will start to play out with the world trade organization negotiations learned that the reagan administration was time to negotiate a new international organization, the multilateral trade organization, a global commerce agency. that had not been contemplated much less congress had authorized to have started. now, the fight with bush one, with reagan over fast track came to a head when bush went announced he was going to use fast track to negotiate free trade agreement with mexico. at the time that he was pushing

this multilateral trade organization. for the first time in 19 anyone congress stepped up and shot down both fast track. unlike all those in as, in 19 anyone, the house said no, we're taking it back. you do not get it. the problem was that is not a majority make. so there were numerous accounts after that to roll back the power, all of which are detailed in the book, none of which actually worked. some of them passed, none of them worked. the bottom line was that by the time clinton had used that fast track that bush one had gotten and had not taken away, to push through congress wto and nafta, he had no more authority. very intricately known detail, clinton only fast track for two

of his eight years. 130 trade agreements done under his era, without fast track. really busting the myth is needed for passing trade agreement versus negotiating and congress would not separate people wonder why i'm using those because i don't know what because there's all this delicious quote one of my favorite is when we found out the trade represented the look at our record on trade i really don't think the lack of fast track ever and get our ability to achieve our major trade deal. 1995-2000 you there was no delegation begin. congress really have had it. for fall out from now to start becoming. a whole string of domestic cases from two new laws, clean air rules have been challenged under the wto. the public was being upset. the polling was turning, and in comes bush who has his agenda on getting fast track. what indeed was a long and ugly

two-year battle to try to get fast track but it took enormous political capital for bush. ultimately, only passed in the middle of the night with a big or recess. members of congress were screaming regular order, regular order. because it had been defeated on the floor. the republican leadership actually got several members of congress to flip their votes, those who lost an election over it, and create and the delegation of fast track. as if -- ultimately bush's use of the actual fast track power end up really ruining its legitimacy. so that fight was in a way to set up for this fight that could happen now. many democrats are supporting fast track in the past now were very upset about what had been used for good most of them saw it because fast track keep them out of paying attention to the

jurisdictions. that huge swath of the nontrade domestic policy agenda was being and then, financial services, copyright limits. they realize now how this authority was encroaching on their domestic legislation. many republicans did not so much criticize all of the policies, but they sure didn't like the idea of having more trade authority for clinton, or any authority for clinton. actually they wanted him to have a slip to go to the bathroom inside the white house with the explicit authority. so ultimately, fast track is voted down on the house floor in 1997 and 1998. now you come to 2002, and bush is back at it. some of the democrats who have been the strongest for fast track in the past now are on the

house floor, and i think one of the most poignant commentaries actually comes from robert matsui was a longtime free trade supporter. i stand before you as a free trader, but this vote is about much more than that. it's about the fact that the very nature of international trade is radically changed. trade is no longer primarily about tariffs and quotas. it's about changing our domestic laws. the constitutional authority to make laws at the heart of our roads of congress and our sovereignty as a nation. when international trade negotiators sit down to hammer out agreements, they are talking about harmonizing nontariff barriers of trade. that may include everything from our antitrust laws to food safety. now i believe the president -- there's no question, but that does not mean congress gives the executive branch its constitutional authority over congress and domestic laws without adequate assurances.

congress must be a partner, not a spectator or occasional consultant to think about what we might be bargaining away. our own domestic environmental protection, our food safety laws, competition policy. that's the air we breathe, the food our children eat, the way of our business to the nature of trade has changed and fast track authority must change with it. i believe in the principles of free trade, but it will not put my constitutional authority over domestic laws. and my response to his own constituents on a fast track to the executive branch. to put it in perspective that is a guy who is the leader in passing nafta. that's a guy who never voted no on many fast track delegation, any trade agreement ever. the outcome, the actual balance of power issues had really started to shift the entire congress. right now the current ranking member, the democratic most senior member of the ways and means, sandy levitt at the same

moment said this fast track maintains a meaningless and last minute role for congress at a time when trade policy is increasingly intertwined with all areas of domestic policy and congress as a larger role. ironically, though bush got his fast track, how fast track got a very bad reputation, though since all but i'm going to describe actions occurred, the whole congress can have the congress has changed out, so warning label, a lot of members of congress would actually have no idea that there was ever any way to do trade beside executive branch dictating it and then being handcuffed. they think fast track is synonymous with great authority. they're not sure they have the constitutional authority to a thanks that's something the president has and it is nice he gives them a little bit of it. and moreover, they weren't here

when bush actually fully his fast track for the first time, which is to say he used the trigger to force a vote, the colombia free trade agreement. he demand a vote go to the house floor despite the congressional leaders saying it wasn't time for the schedule. that a build of a present to literally take over the congressional floor schedule resulted in a bipartisan backlash. now, that whole lesson, battle history, that resulted in no more fast track for bush to mac. each time there is a huge abuse, there is a swing back. incomes obama, witness to what bush tried to do. obama criticized fast track and promised to replace it. i will replace fast track and the processing determine appropriate negotiating objective and i wish you the congress plays a strong and upon i

them efforts to amend existing agreements. still waiting on that one. he then went also went on to create it -- sad to say the obama administration has not yet come forward with something new. in fact, just recently they started to ask for more of the old archaic moldering, outdated fast track. sort of tantalizing for president to have that incredible power, which one do trade, one called a legislative laxative. that is extremely bad for the u.s. constitution. so what is obama asking for fast track for? ..

and geoffrey m. if you like so far you would like dpp. the copyright chapter as a back door. congress pitch was a loose said no to that. a fast track reauthorize to become the mechanism to preempt a public opinion and the congress end of force into place all these rules. now, it has been under negotiation for three years and 16 rounds, and has not been in the fast track. one thing it shows is you don't need a fast track. the other thing it shows is unfortunately what is now the natural course of how all of

these years of congress exceeding its authority since 1973 has led to a psychology to a resumption with the obama administration now negotiating the biggest trade agreement since the wto with enormous domestic political implications of policy implications, as if article 18 of the u.s. constitution simply did not exist. the congress had no role. not only has congress not delegated the authority or given instruction, but this time obama is not letting congress see the negotiating text. they're going to sign it with congress not seeing it. in the past they could see it, they just couldn't do anything to change it. this time they're actually going to try and sign this massive agreement without congress seeing it, and can low-level of outrage about this is very i. question, which has led to no fast track?

take, for instance, ron white, a man who, like mr. matsui, has voted for all these trade agreements and very strong fashion. the chairman of the subcommittee on trade in the senate finance committee. for instance, he is the guy who actually has legal authority over the trade agreement. he had to get to the senate floor last year to say, right now the obama administration is in the process of negotiating what might prove to be the most far-reaching economic agreements the world trade organization was established nearly 20 years ago. the goal of this agreement is economically bind together the economies of the asia-pacific and involves countries ranging from australia, singapore, vietnam, chile, peru, the united states, could include japan, korea, and canada and mexico. if successful it will set norms for trade in goods and services including intellectual property, access to medicine, internet governance, investment, government procurement to mortar rights, asians feature for years to come

, impacting the way congress intervenes in next on the behalf of the american people represents. maybe the u.s. representatives current job to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of the u.s. , but article 18 of the u.s. constitution gives congress, not the executive branch, the responsibility of negative foreign commerce. it was our founders intention to ensure that the laws and policies that govern the american people take into account the interest of all the american people, not just a privileged few. yet, the majority of congress being captain of darkness to the substance of the dpp while representatives of the u.s. corporations like alberta, chevron, farmer, comcast, and the motion picture association of america are being consulted and made privy to the details. as the office of the u.s. pr will tell you, the president uses power to keep information about trade policy secret, and let me tell you, making full use of this a party every at the same time, republicans have free-trade supporters to write

the oversight committee chairman have been locked out of the observer status, something that was also allowed in the past for congress. keep in mind, this is the authority of congress. there being locked out are seeing a. six months ago, the administration is once again choosing to block congress from even observing the negotiations of this vital trade agreement. this process should be transparent and open to oversight. it will impact multiple sectors of the american economy, especially our ability to an increase sexual property as well as preserving open internet. congress has a constitutional duties and oversee trade negotiations and not act as a rubber-stamp. when i had hoped that the dpp would parade to observe the round of this, our efforts will continue. this always out a picture where we are now.

2007 the last delegation and it, shockingly some members of congress currently i thinking about reviving it. others are thinking there should be no delegation of any authority given the way congress has been treated some earlier shading techs are open, until they're is a renegotiation about the content, and a third camp things that we should come up with a new way to the territory that keeps a steering wheel and certainly an emergency brake for congress if the initiator is i'm not following mandatory negotiating objectives from congress. either way, where we are now and where the book includes and while conclude is, we have -- we need a structural fix, structural. there is no 21st entry mechanism for dealing with this vital check and balance where it trade negotiations are being hijacked to diplomatically legislate the public interest

and the principle and practice of democracy. so the last chapter of the book actually lays out some interesting proposals. one even made by the corporate association, one that actually have some overlap with the proposals made by the progressive groups and the unions this does give an indication that fast-track is in some trouble. the real question is not the different ideas that can be laid out about how to do it. the question is, will congress actually act to reassert its right? and on that question i cannot give you an answer yet. i can give you some ideas of what will decide it. and public review five different areas of how the congress figured out to coordinate the state during congressional rolls , all but the las ones that congress calling the shots. that is the executive branch

during errol was negotiating. and through all of those different mechanisms, and many times and there was a delegation authority and all trade expanded so this notion that somehow fast-track is needed for trade expansion is simply empirically a myth prove with footnotes and this book. that has not stopped fast track supporters from rather cynically renaming it trade promotion authority. apparently fast track and the whole image of congress being tied down the tracks and being railroaded over is not popular, given that is how it worked. trade promotion tory, very cynical. in fact, just other tidbits from the book. of the free trade agreements that were initiated using fast track, our export growth to those countries, the u.s. of a lasting years is 38% lower than our export growth to the countries we do not have trillions with. this is not good. when our trading remains actually undermine our export

growth, but in fact, that is all we have gotten from fast track. now, one of the things of the book shows which is what congress is now, about every two decades since 1789 congresses, but a new way to delegate trade authority, the company sharing mechanism, and they did that according to what was going on in the economy, congress, and also, to some degree, how much political tolerance they had from being railroaded by the executive branch trying to grab all the power. so, in the pendulum back and forth we now have fast track. so i am way up here up the tree, except it ran out in 2007. with all of these rather seismic shift elections that we have had another are a lot of members of congress or not around to see how it was abused by democrats or republicans. therefore, the big question is, well this congress did

bamboozled with the usual arguments and doing another delegation of the old authority or will it get replaced, much overdue given up until now, well, 40 years of fast track matadi years overdue for change. dressed in a description by president kennedy, 1961, what he thought needed to happen with trade authority, which was when the old delegation mechanism this does not meet the needs of the current era, it must not simply be renewed but replaced. and that is from kennedy and where the bookends by laying down actually what a replacement could look like. again, it may sound like a want fest. this is got to me, the difference is when your kids having say food or as having to import food that does not meet u.s. standards. this will be the difference between a farmer being able to attack the prize the pce savings and obamacare was actually being implemented.

this is going to make a difference about whether we have the whole country fractus smithereens or continue to not export liquid natural gas. this is going to decide whether we have by local, by green, vice let free, and by american procurement, which is being traded away command congress does to the side cannot or it is done in a trade agreement and it is done in imposed. all of these decisions have including, chilly weather that big box store it happens to be a foreign one, can be built in your backyard, a shoes that are being dealt with under this fight over trade authority. so, is clearly not the battle of protectionism versus free trade. is a battle about democracy, governance. among the people who are going to live with the results are going to be able to make the decisions. the quest for the next system of trade authority, schering is actually already begun, and it

builds off of all of those other efforts which have names, according to their sponsors. all of these ideas were then used to create something that became part of a build, a trade nt which was introducedoy initially to congress as ago. senator sharon brown of ohio and congressman mike me show. just before describing what it is, this legislation that over 160 co-sponsors, bipartisan in both chambers. that included the house to mother acting committee chairs got 13 subcommittee chairs, and very diverse geographic and political province. that model basically restores the checks and balances, and what it does is break up thedeg. it may be the only thing the democrats and republicans can

agree on because it has to do with the structure and the power of the congress. it requires that congress set binding objectives, that congress set criteria for what countries can be negotiated with , and that before an agreement can be signed and entered into congress to vote to approve it. what would that do? throw the focus of congress on what is in the diagram at the time that something can be done about whether something horrible was in there. for instance, imagine the shock when many members of congress will but found that there were emigration visas and several of our trade agreements in the middle of the last big fight over immigration. there is a whole chapter on immigration being negotiated. as congress ostensibly is right now making policy. the politics are perverse. the real question is, will the same not really conservative republicans, particularly in the house, who attacked president obama as the imperial president think he is concentrating power entrusted to do anything, are they actually going to be

responsible for giving president obama a huge delegation of their constitutional authority to make very strict constructionist. i should be worrisome. that tramples fundamental checks and balances and sets up the president to do international pre-emption of states policy space. from that perspective, that sounds basically conservative to say nothing of the provisions in t pp that would submit the u.s. to the jurisdiction of the united nations which by doing can order the u.s. treasury to pay an and the compensation to foreign corporations. it if this is over the top, that is one of the only chapters that leaks. and you can see it in our website, trade watch and an analysis of was dead. from a conservative perspective they are very straigh perspectives, same issues, the a

different way of talking about it. this is an issue where the two parties could actually come together to actually restore to the policy-making process that might more represent what people in this country need, not just in trade, but allow the fight domestically that need to happen domestically to be done here because the trade agreements once negotiated cannot be changed, on like our laws. so i'm going to stop by to saying that one of the reasons to do the book was to try and move from the really tired, incredibly boring debate about fast-track that has been going on since 1973. we have 1973 technology outdated and inappropriate being applied to 21st century realities with enormous peril. so the real question should be, what trade agreement negotiating and approval system

trade agreements that attain the most prosperity for the most people and also preserve the fundamental democracy, checks and balances, states to become the laboratories to improve its domestic law in this era of globalization. the bottom line is an arcane seeing discussion, actually, must be part of making the decisions that affect our everyday lives and those of our families in almost every conceivable way. and that is why it was worth writing a book on fast-track predatory. thank you all very much, and alex forger questions. [applause] >> hold on. someone needs to get to mike maybe.

>> a couple quick questions. tell us what happened out there in virginia this summer with some of the secret negotiations. how many corporations figures are in the cookie jar? and house citizens united democrats to my has changed the dynamic of the surviving super pak spirit and a note as recently as 2012, federal candid it. for contributors committees to operations can go after camino, members of congress and defeat them if they cannot vote the right way on trade. >> the carper question is at the

center of this because what fast track did fundamentally is to really big things, concentrated all of the controlling authority in the executive branch, place it is very hard. and, it gave a formal role to hundreds, now 600 corporate visors. so, not only are they able to see the text they're able to use their inside information about what they want in the text that threaten members of congress to help them get what they want in the text that they cannot get in the sunshine of congress. it sounds convoluted, but there are a lot of things that we know presidents are in the dpp that congress is explicitly rejecting this congress and the previous congresses. and it is not hypothetical. i mean, who does not gripe about our medicine prices here. how many people know, we were forced to go for my 17 year monopoly patent to a 20 year monopoly patent because the consumer groups got beaten by the pharmaceutical groups and congress.

no, actually, we won that fight. because of the world trade organization agreement the pharmaceutical companies were able to state that in through their privileged role the fast track and once the u.s. side we after to conform domestic laws. so the role of corporate power through fast track through these agreements is enormously amplified. what happened in leesburg, and i would say one of the strongest arguments for why fast track is to be replaced is because absence the congress and each of us being able to hold accountable are members of congress, absent a change, that concentrated corporate power right now is literally dictating provisions into these agreement that will literally and do almost every progressive achievements that they have managed to claw through the course of agencies or congress. now, with respect to leesburg, what happened in leesburg was around the trans-pacific part of the initiation, and kristin was

running for congress in the area that includes leesburg. and so what happened was about 800 folks from all 11 countries came under sort of security state lock down procedures and had a private talk where the members of congress last very senior members of congress asked to come as observers, and it was to my you know, 45 minutes from washington, from the capital. they were told, no, you're not allowed command you cannot see the text. article 18. members of congress at this point a gun so upset that 140 of them got a letter basically saying, all right. we have had it. secrecy has to stop. this is going the wrong way. but if the obama administration were able to get fast-track they can do what repeatedly other administrations have done, which is basically steamroll the normal function, both of the public and of congress.

>> can you please -- how would the resumption of facts and the initiations over the proposed trade agreements? >> so, the administration is under zero lot of pressure right now from congress, both about the dpp, where there are totally being ignored. party fred -- barney frank was ignored of financial regulation. henry waxman is being ignored. congressman rose of the laurel is the door on food safety. you name it and someone is getting ignored on issues that they won in congress. so what happened if fast-track were in effect is congress loses leverage. right now the administration does sign this agreement until congress of verizon to. that is the big thing. you can sign the agreement and

put it to vote. there is no fast track congress to approve this agreement which means that congress has some leverage over the content of the agreement. the administration has recently started nosing around batting fast track, and i suspect the reason actually because they don't want have any spotlight focusing and what they have been up to on the substance and the reason congress people would ask is that what is that their delegate and a constitutional story about. there is now a new agreement has been launched at definitely bears watching, the transatlantic free trade agreement. that whole agreement is about behind the border deregulation. there are only 3 percent average tariffs between the u.s. there's nothing they're to cut. entire agreement is about a corporate agenda, for instance, rolling back europe's food rules from labeling and segregation of gm note to their better meat safety rules to rolling back their chemical regulations to much a rolling back our better

insurance regulation cannot undermine the volker rule with european officials to release a week after reviewing the negotiations. who elected that guy? that is what fast-track test. right now the european guy can say whatever he wants, but he has absolutely no ability to do anything about it ellis its majority in congress, and a majority in congress put a in place. fast track or in place, that negotiation could rewrite that piece of siege financial regulation that took years to achieve. >> two people appear. >> i have a question. fast-track is a sample of helping trade.

a nation involving the free trade agreements like behind, non fd asians. 30 percent. it sounds bad for business. why would initiate something -- i have not read the book obviously. but it sounds like the benefit of congress. and i did let the bielefeld. >> that is a very, very good question. so, you know, the point is, if such leave the trade agreement is being issued under fast track and slowing and export growth, who the heck doesn't like it? i made the message to the business does a looking for. be upset if you are fire -- environmentalist given the wto

and other agreements to attack dolphins and clean air. navy as a consumer activist your event checking a medicine prices. all that has happened, but if your business issue like it. the answer is body export growth actually presumes you have an interest in making it here and selling it there. so export growth measures how fast, how big the amount of things made here and sold some place else are. this is a different measure. if you are boeing, if you're making a year and selling overseas. boeing exports, for short, our friends in the machinists are year. that is great. it will also be very interested in having a trade agreement that lets you move the business of manufacturing someplace else. notice no longer exporting anything but its capital and jobs so these agreements include investor protections that actually make it easier for offshore jobs.

they literally take away most of the risks of leaving, not the least of which is setting a poll said of guaranteed rights and standards, including compensation, part of treasury for regulatory costs, and the right to never have to gut said domestic courts to sue whole governments as if an individual company was the equal of a sovereign nation. those provisions make it much easier. now they're not exporting. they become part of the trade deficit because things that used to be made here are now being made there. brands may be u.s. and and they're being sent back here. so since fast-track went we have seen net 5 million manufacturing jobs lost. that was one out of four of every u.s. manufacturing job that existed in our country. and we have seen our real median wages, 1972 stock even though worker productivity has soared.

that kind of break between worker productivity and wages is now what happened in that time before and before these trade agreements. not fast track alone. is the agreement that fast-track enabled. so your question actually points out one of the most interesting factoids, which is, the trade has expanded, including export commodities agreements, imports have expanded a lot faster, and worse, growth in exports have a penalty for doing these kind of a grievance. we cannot prove this empirically. there are too many factors to control. we suspect one of the reasons that finding is true is because so many of the big u.s. companies that used to be big exporters are no relocating to of shoring and are no longer exporting. so once we have one of these agreements that makes it easy top short of that particular country, exports to that country drop because the just to make it there and send it back here.

>> in that same vein, i am wondering if you could talk about japan entering into some of the dpp and what you think that will mean regarding the different administrations are congress on the japanese role, given us some of the democrats have been very outspoken on japan injuring dpp. >> that is a really interesting one. the latest countries that may enter the dpp is japan. that has caused a lot of attention in congress. prior to that the dpp include the countries of all those countries we already had free trade agreements with most of the once the really already have free trade agreements with countries that comprise 90 percent of gdp of the block. so japan changes the story, but japan also involves being one of the beast equal partners with the u.s. and the negotiating seen and a whole new dynamic.

so the u.s. is not going to be in a position to dictate. they will have to negotiate. the interest commercially that japan has is not necessarily the same ones for the u.s. for instance, one of the things that both business and unions and members of congress have been advocating for in t pp is to have discipline currency. so countries lower their currency to try and get an advantage. then manipulate their currency. there is some discipline in the agreement. that is not something of japan will never agree to under any circumstances, and at the u.s. today has not really pushed it that hard, but now, if they did, it would come up against serious problems. as well, there are a whole set of issues where the u.s. is pushing for things that are damaging for japan. that dynamic is something that has led to a huge fight back in japan, where there are major street protests. not the least of pledges perversely given obamacare for

all of the big targets that the u.s. pharmaceutical and health care industry as is to try and of privatize the hospital and health care system in japan and to figure out a way to have higher medicine prices. japan has mandatory formularies. the government has pharmaceutical boards that set prices on medicine, and that is the reimbursement. in their prices are much lower. health care levels are like ours, but the medicine prices are much lower. same thing in new zealand and australia which has mandatory formularies. so there are provisions to allow the pharmaceutical companies actually challenge the decision of these pharmaceutical boards. so japan has a lot to lose. what happened in japan has been analysis, of members of congress were not so involved before and that started to talk about it to apply where i think it actually changes the prospects and the dynamic of territory. would say that there are sort of

three categories. the wholly owned subsidiaries of companies seahawk. those gusty whenever they want. some may or may not believe in these series of free trade agreements and have nothing to do with free trade. the free-trade philosophers are rolling in their grave to see these agreements. but aside from that you have those votes. does not matter what it is. they love the fact that it is easy for them to be bored. you have some people do have a very progressive analysis of the use of these agreements to undermine the progress of domestic policies, and they have added. they are on to it. some of them came too late. some of them voted against it. others had to see their favorite log it killed in one of these tribunals, and now there with the program. on that side are also some very conservative members who cannot

bear the idea of these agreements basically stepping all over the u.s. constitution. pre-empting states which they do. they become federal law and reinstates. the notion of submitting the u.s. to ease foreign tribunals that can break our treasury, undermining our sovereignty and our solvency, and the notion that they would rather have it done in congress, when some lose some, but you can change them, so when the progress of thing happens, heaven forbid, they can and do it later when the when the majority as compared to trade agreements which super glue and one set of policies, some of which they may like and some of its imminent. so in the middle leftover is a category of swing voters.

i am not an expert, but what you said is that everyone here, if it is writing, the benefit. a good reason to get into the implications of that.

the discussions that we have been too. so the one outcome that we have discussed, the free-trade agreement. the first is reducing export. i think the answer is not quite add up this thing a lot of shoring. it is a simple reason. even if you're saying is taking place, the data is still reflecting the total value of the products sold, even if a very small portion of it or actually made in the u.s. that cannot be an explanation. alternative explanation to much you may -- could well. it is simply one that the countries that you have not -- the united states has not signed agreements with all the countries. so they're very good natural economic reasons why with the rate of your exports growing more.

that is something that is easy. >> we did. >> okay. the next thing is about the infringement that goes back further. yet given a few comparisons between fast track and non-track certainly to this audience is seems to be something that we think undermines democratic things. now, that is going to depend bella but the question i am asking is, do you have a comparison between a grievance with the agreements signed, there is never a slow track. whether these alleged undermining this, what we think a democratic work, and fact, on the fast track.

no reason, and you can tell the intuitions in the behind giving -- taking away the power from congress was elected a kind of legislation. regulate recapture, earmarks and these sorts of things. and again, i don't understand why we think it would be a priority. again, to go back to the first point. the process. i'm just more interested in the have come. >> so the substance can next. very direct. how you actually compare the policy space for the non fast-track agreements verses fast-track once. .his is a level of longitude. for folks who read the book, you

will see that there is a thing called tariff proclamation of party which is the residual rights for the presidents of the will to negotiate about tariffs and proclaim those changes without congress involved. were congress gives extra authority, hopefully never again to fast-track is for the non-tariff issues, the domestic policy issues. various possibly the processes tied to substance. so those rules that are not about terrace the promoter of shoring, you have to have some additional delegation of authority as not being congress, the executive branch, to go meddling with that or to middle of domestic procurement law or state level zoning laws were domestic food safety our immigration laws. those are all additional delegations that don't exist in this tree space. so you can very specifically look at some of those other hundred and 30 agreements. the clinton administration, those are on us to get trade agreements. those are about getting rid of tariffs, border taxes, or before

the wto went into effect, about removing quotas, limits on how much stuff you can bring in the more facilitating customs inspections. so the traditional trading agreement does not need fast track. what nixon did that was an anomaly, historic and catastrophic was it that territory that has nothing to do with trade under the jurisdiction of a trade authority. the executive branch could unilaterally decree policy. now, as far as the data on of shoring, we wondered about china and brazil and some other countries that have decent growth rates and so we actually control the data. we don't act export all that much to china, but we control the data it and we actually ran the date it. without china, with up brazil, with both of them. the percentage of the increase of the export penalty is reduced in part because of the country's

, but the phenomenon does not change. we still have an expert panel to that a sizable, even if we take up the bid. and that is fundamentally troubling because the point of your trade agreement should at least partially be to expand your own manufacturing base in exports and send u.s. products overseas. as far as the priority, i think that would be a better system to not have all this power concentrated in the executive branch. i am not so naive as to think that the u.s. congress is a paradigm of corporate free territory but rather as a practical practitioner, a democratic policy space, there is something you can do about it in congress. it is very hard to hold an unelected executive branch trainee initiator so many steps down the road from the president who stands for election every four years accountable. it is so hard to hold the head

of a large agency, the trade representative or the secretary of commerce accountable for something specific in policy. but individual members of congress, the house every two years, the senate every six years have to stand for election and face up to folks at home. and it is a level of accountability that an individual member who is elected faces that command fact, if you look back at some of the literature around how the constitution now framed, including one of the federalist papers, if you ever wonder why you had to read the federalist papers, back there in school, yes, elliott, thank you, mr. peterson, i am actually finding a useful because one of the federalist papers actually did talk about the importance on this very reason of having these kind of decisions in the body closest to the people and relating directly.

>> more beholden. >> and what happened to a bunch of those members of congress who voted against what their constituents wanted to let something that the people in those districts can have something to say about and, in fact, some of them i think -- you have seen what happened cents. you have seen the ads that have gone up against them. these are people who stand to election. am not saying it is perfect. and i might even have to think that there is not a lot of corporate influence. the differences we have mechanisms of leverage and commerce as citizens, but we don't have them over on elected unaccountable negotiators. many the congress to set standards for what these agreements should and should not include batman mini that to be done by people we can hold accountable directly if it does not go the way this is the public interest.

>> thank you so much. this is really informative. sit here and listen of friday night. thank you. [applause] >> john marshall public high-school and wisconsin. they were very serious, as many public-school teachers are, making sure we knew our civics and constitutional rights. as i thank you for hosting this, i will let me that that was the you're right up are not afraid for circulating a petition because i learned about my right to petition. it was at that point that my father started putting aside money knowing other i would neil lawyer or be a lawyer. thank you very much. >> visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs that you see here online. type the author or book title in the search bar on the upper left

side of the page and click search. you can also share anything you see on booktv.org easily by clicking share on the upper left side of the page and selecting the format. book tv streams live on line for 48 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors. book tv here is a look at the best-selling nonfiction e-book in print titles according to the new york times.

>> welcome, everybody. draw a crowd like this this early in the morning at the aspen institute. the book is the new digital age. eric schmidt is a software engineer by bringing, was chief technology officer at sun microsystems, ceo of novell. he has, for those of us who love the digital age, even the oldes