.. >> and, you know, they were very focused on the health of the watershed. they were not thinking about, you know, the rivers that flooded last september or, you know, the wild, destructive wildfires in isolation. >> right. >> they were looking at this as this is our watershed. we need to protect it.

yeah, that, you know, the fact that they can live there and prosper and grow is as a result of having a healthy, a healthy watershed. >> right. >> so this sort of picking apart of the protections is, you know, is troublesome in that, you know, we have tried in addition to the regulatory work to really look at kind of watersheds whether they're sort of the big, iconic, you know, ecosystems that we think of, the everglades, chesapeake bay, the bay delta in california or, you know, the watershed that supplies fort collins and its neighboring cities that we have to take more holistic approach particularly in light of a changing climate. >> so you've served in two different decades, two different presidents.

what's the thing that -- not, not how are the presidents different, but just in terms of politics, what's the biggest change you see? >> well, i actually think there are two, and one of them is very positive, and one of them, i think, is very negative. and the positive one is something that was alluded to which is when you and i were at epa when there were questions about the environment, they were all about ep a&e pa regulations and the important work that epa did then and continues to do. but i will tell you that the biggest surprise i had coming back to washington was that every agency believes the environment's part of their mission. and i would start with biggest one, department of defense. and i can recall a few times during my time at epa mt. '90s that -- in the' 90s that we didn't get along so well, and there was this sort of national security versus the environment.

and it is a complete and total shift where national security and the environment are linked together. national security, climate change is a national security issue. that saving energy, you know, is good not just because it lowers department of defense's energy bills, but it saves lives of men and women in uniform on the front lines, all that. so that is, i think, just very important thing that's happened. and it's not just in the federal government. i think we start to see this all across the board, and you see, you know, companies like coca-cola and walmart really taking sustainability on not out of altruism or wanting to, you know -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah. it's now really a bottom line business imperative.

and i was at the last u.n. meeting in warsaw, and we did a number of panels where we had businesses. and they wanted to do it. they wanted to tell their story. they wanted the world to know why they were taking on sustainability. so that, i think, is a very, very positive development. and i think as we continue to need to make progress to deal with carbon pollution and climate change, that that shift is just going to be very important. the negative side, i think, is just, you know, the breakdown of bipartisan consensus on the environment, that, you know, you could have a knockdown, drag out fight 20 years ago about how to achieve an environmental goal, but not whether it was worth doing or not. and that total breakdown of that and the failure of the congress

to even seriously consider important policy issues around environmental protection is just, it's, i think it's just a very unfortunate thing that's happened. >> i, when i was, had my hearing to the epa administrator, so that would have been in december of 1992, john chaffee, rhode island -- great, great environmentalist, great republican leader, said to me, publicly said to me in my hearing, i hope i never hear you use the word balance, because your job at epa is not to balance, your job is to protect. and you don't hear that a lot these days. [laughter] >> not so much. >> so what will you miss the most? >> you know, what i'm miss the most -- >> 7:30 meetings? >> yes, those early morning meetings. it's really the people and the sense of mission and, you know, i just feel tremendously honored to have worked for a great

president who is forceful on these issues, to have worked with just an incredible team of people, you and our other colleagues around not just the white house, around the administration and my colleagues at ceq who really, you know, worked day and night to make this country a better place. so that's what i'll really, that's what i'll really miss. >> well, i want to applaud you and thank you for your public service. i really think it's been exemplary, and i think -- i said it in the l.a. times, i think you are somewhat unusual among people in this town where it wasn't about you all the time. it was about doing the right thing. and i think that's really, really admirable, and i also want to recognize the important work you did. i think you leave behind a

really strong legacy, and you did it in such a way that it will be sustained. you know, there will, mike boots has stepped in as the acting. he'll be great, there'll be a successor. but you really laid a template, and we've already seen progress because of that, and i think we will continue to see progress. so thank you for what you've done. we wish you well. >> thank you. >> in what you do, and enjoy your last day. >> thanks, thanks. [applause] >> thank you all for joining us on this icy, slippery, treacherous -- i think it's getting better -- >> some news on this tuesday afternoon, president obama's ordering a new round of fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy-duty vehicles by march of 2016. the president's highlighting empty improvements already

undertaken to cut back on gasoline costs for fleets. the also said companies that want to join an existing public/private partnership will get specialized resources and the technical expertise from the department of energy. we kid cover the event with the president -- we did cover the event with the president earlier today, and you can see his comments in c-span's video library. and here's what's ahead this afternoon. at 1:45 eastern, we'll bring you a live discussion on u.s./europe trade looking at the latest developments on a transatlantic deal. also taking part in that discussion, former u.s. ambassador to china jon huntsman. that'll be live in about 35 minutes hosted by the atlantic council right here on c-span2. also coming up on c-span, a conversation on u.s./russia relations, examining the history of the relationship and the dealings between president obama and russian president putin. new york times correspondent peter baker is among the speakers. that'll be live at 2 p.m. eastern, again, on c-span. and in prime time tonight on the

c-span networks, c-span will have interviews with two senators, tennessee republican bob corker and minnesota democrat amy klobuchar. here on c-span2 we have booktv prime time while congress is on break week and a look at careers in washington. and on c-span3 it's american history tv prime time and a look at the clinton impeachment. that's tonight beginning at 8 eastern. >> the beauty of america is that in this country we have the ability to write the script of our own life. we are in the sense in the driving seat of our own future. and our biggest decisions in life are made by us. america creates this sense of possibility, and out of that you can become an activist, a community organizer. in a sense, what are you doing? you are living off the great capitalist explosion of wealth

that you didn't even create. >> so many strong men set up, it's hard to know where to begin. nobody said america's the most terrible place. nobody -- but there are a couple of assertions that you have to take on faith that are astonishing. one is the idea that america, america's great invention was wealth creation, not based on thift at all. what about the theft of the entire continent? that was a theft. that doesn't mean -- [applause] 90% of the residents who lived here were murdered, and that was a part of it too. >> bill ayers and dinesh d'souza debate what's so great about america friday night at 8 eastern on c-span. >> idaho congressman paul labrador recently addressed marriage and religious freedom issues. he spoke at the heritage foundation's conservative policy summit. following his opening remarks, congressman labrador took part

in a discussion with panelists on the same topic. his comments are about 35 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. we have made it to our last panel of the day. thank all of you for being here, and this has been a tremendous day where we've gotten to coffer a lot of -- cover a lot of of really great and important issues. this last issue is another very importantn issue. we're going to talk about religious freedom on in this last panel today. is to talk to us about that, we have raul labrador today representing a new generation of conservative leaders. you know, he's been conservative through and through since he got here. he does not bend, he fights fore principle, and he is, i think, one of our most talented young, up and coming communicators in the house of representatives. and for that he's been, he's

been the subject of much speculation and much whispers as to his future in this town. and i think that those speculative whispers are wellsuj deserved. today he'll talk to us about religious freedom.pecu like so many of the topics we've talked about today, this is an issue in which the federal government is overreaching in in chilling and scary ways. it's an issue that gets to the very core of the fight we face right now against the callous and indifferent federal government that seeks to impose its world view on its citizens. we fight against a callous and indifferent government that seeks to imposes it rule on the citizens. raul has done great work in this area and continues to make a name for himself in other areas as well. for example he is leading an effort right now on prison sentencing reform and this work is attracting strange bedfellows.

liberals, conservatives, all coming around the issue. and he con founds a lot of the labelers around there which i think is a refreshing thing. please join me in welcoming congressman labrador to the stage. [ applause ] >> thank you for your kind words. good afternoon. it is great to be here. i want to be really brief and then we'll sit and have a panel. but let me start by thanking heritage for doing this terrific summit. my staff -- i've been flying most of the day so i haven't heard most of it but my staff has been listening to it and given me amazing reports. i appreciate the opportunity to be part of this distinguished panel and sharing ideas of what i think may be the most important issues in the next few years and that is religious liberty and the growing threats to our religious liberty. regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, i think

you can agree that religious freedom is one of our core values and i am deeply concerns that the administration may use the federal government to discrimination against individuals and organizations who believe traditional marriage and believe it in for religious reasons. the administration has a history of pointing their decisions on rulgs institutions and we know about how the administration is forcing religious and other faith based organizations to spend money on things like abortion pills that violate their most basic beliefs. we also remember how the irs targeted conservative and tea party groups and trying to take away their nonprofit status as part of a coordinated agenda. we also remember, and we should not assume that the irs will be any friendlier to organizations that support and want to continue practicing traditional marriage. in fact we've seen things happen at state level.

things are moving in the wrong dissection. last august a new mexico supreme court ruled a christian photographer violated state law by refusing to photograph a same sex marriage even though it would violate his religious beliefs and others involve foster care and adoption, and there was a bill making its way through legislature that would have removed boy scouts of american from certain tax standards and those who hold traditional values about marriage and sexual morality. it passed in the california senate by a vote of 27-9 before being tabled in the state assembly. such policies are creating a climate of tolerance for those that believe that the marriage is between one man and one woman and this could escalate to the federal level and that's why i

introduced hr 3133, the marriage and rereligious act. which will protect freedom of religious views. it is tailored to prohibiting the government from targeting organizations or individuals who hold the religious belief that marriage is one man and one woman. hr 3133 prohibits the federal government from making tax exempt status contingent on a group's status about marriage. no group should be denied or lose tax exemption because it has a religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. my bill would ensure the foerlgd government cannot could not deny or exclude a person from receiving a federal grant, contract, loan or certification, employment or other similar position or status. tax exempt status isn't just for those groups that win the favor

of a particular government institution or administration. while americans are civilly free to structure their personal relations as state law permits, they should not use government to penalize those who think and act differently. protecting religious freedom does not infringe on anyone's freedoms, all should be able to act in the public square without fear of any government penalty. all people should be treated with dignity and respect. that includes not using the law to coerce and penalize those who seek to follow their conscious. hr 3133 currently has 100 co-sponsors and has been referred to the house committee on oversight and government reform plus the house ways and means committee. i'm excited to have five of the six ways and means and four of the five sub-committee chairman to be co-sponsors. to be clear, our bill doesn't take anything away from anyone, all it does is protects the

religious freedom of those who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. this is a great bill that social conservatives and libertarians can rally around and generate support for both parties and pass both houses of congress and become law. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you, congress, we appreciate those remarks very much. i would now like to invite the rest of our panel to come up. austin nimmock is with alliance defending freedom. and he spent -- he is the director of legal advocacy for marriage and family there. we also will have sarah torre joining us. she is our lead policy analyst on this in the center for religious and civil society here at the heritage foundation. i think i'll kick it off with a question or two and then open it up to everybody. austin, we saw the supreme court

strike down part of the federal defensive measure act last summer, how has the government moves to protect that freedom and produce civil liberty now. >> since the windsor decision came down last year has used it in a way that the federal government did when doma was enacted. you will see the supreme court condemned congress for putting its thumb on the scales and influencing how states would choose to conduct their own marriage policy. and now we see the federal government since the enactment of the windsor decision enacting through soft law at various administrative levels what we call a place of celebration rule with regard to marriages, saying that if you have a marg license -- marriage license from one jurisdiction, we will honor it in every jurisdiction, including ones that don't

recognize same-sex marriage. so if congress put its thumb not to enact same sex marriage and now they are using this opinion to coerce states to enact same sex marriage or what the supreme court called two regime of marriage laws in any given state. so for example if you have a state that does not honor same sex marriage like missouri, but are from new york, they will receive federal benefits but not state benefits. and this has implications for religious liberty because where we have seen same sex marriage take root it has and imated same sex law in regard to marriage. so we are eliminating the cases

that exist in same sex and nonsame sex marriage states and the impact of that continues to be seen and will continue to be played out. >> i think i would like to -- congressman may have to jet a little bit early so i would like to direct a question to you before you have to go. you mentioned you have 100 co-sponsors. what is it going to take to get this on the floor this year? >> i've been working very hard with the chairman of both committees and that is run of the withins that we work hard to get the chairman of the sub-committees to be co-sponsors. and i think as we keep getting more and more people ready to support this legislation, i think we'll be able to have hearings on that. and it is something that i think both parties can agree to. because we are not trying to discrimination or change the windsor decision. my legislation is narrowly tailored and i spent a lot of

time writing it because i wanted to make sure we were not trying to overturn windsor in any way and some people might want to do that but this just tells the american people if they have a deeply held religious belief on marriage, they are not going to be discriminated against by the federal government. and i think it is just pretty simple legislation that the american people can agree to. >> do you have some democrats in mind ready to support this. >> we have a couple of democrats that are co-sponsors and we have several that said they would support it when it comes to the house floor. >> wonderful. for sarah. what are some of the ways that the redefinition of marriage has threatened americans religious liberty. >> so as austin mentioned, we have instances in states where the redefinition of marriage coupled with sexual orientation laws and nondiscrimination policies have combined to threaten people's religious freedom. so adf is actually leading the

charge in one case of elaine photography, a photographer in new mexico that she declined to use her expressive or artistic abilities to take photographs of a same sex ceremony because that violated her religious beliefs. and the new mexico supreme court ruled she was violating a nondiscrimination policy in that state and they have now appealed that case to the supreme court. and i might austin to add anything since it is your case. >> well the supreme court should grant cert, that is what i'll add. we have a reply brief due later this month on that and we'll find out in a couple of months whether a cert is granted. >> let's open it up to questions. yes, sir. we have a mic coming down right

now. >> this question can be for any of the panel, how do you respond to those who say that discrimination against gay people is the same as discrimination against african-americans, sort of like a loving v. virginia for sexual orientation. >> that is a good question. this bill said you can believe whatever you want on same-sex marriage but the government will not take away your tax exempt status. for example, when i give money to my church, my church will not be penalized by the government because they believe in traditional marriage and i won't have my tax deduction taken away because i believe in traditional marriage. i'm not forcing my views on anybody else, i'm just trying to make sure that my views are protected like they are enshrined in the constitution. >> and i have two responses to that question. number one, there is a massive distinction and i think the congressman just animated it,

enacting because of a deeply held belief about marriage on the one hand and acting because you don't like somebody who defines themselves as gay or lesbian on the other hand. and so we talked about elaine photography and it is clear she had served and would photograph gays and lesbians but then being asked to participate in a same-sex ceremony which was contrary to her religious beliefs and so that brought forward the distinction -- you may have heard about the florist in the state of washington who was asked to provide flowers for two them who were long time friends and clients of hers who she had been serving and providing flowers for a long time. they were friends and they hugged and they know each other but when it came to we want you to participate in our ceremony, that is where she drew the line and when it happened, they gave each other a hug and walked off and seemed fine and the next

thing she knows he is slapped with a lawsuit and the attorney general is after her. there is a distinction between the two events and if we are going to examine the issue and talk about tolerance and having a plurallistic society, we need to understand the differences. in the second response, it brings to forefront the purpose of nondiscrimination laws. why do we have them? in all of the cases that we have, what is fascinating about them is they all have one common thread and that is this, in each sense the gay or lesbian couple got what they wanted. they got photography services and for less money. in the florist case, they got florre florrers. our t-shirt printer in the state of kentucky, the gay and lesbian for pride folks get their t-shirts for free and so our

client did them a favor. they go after the people with religious beliefs. that is not why we have nondiscrimination laws. the purpose is to help secure the market place for people and when there are people falling all over themselves to help out those regardless of what the religious beliefs may be, is it necessary for us to go after and persecute the people who hold deeply held religious beliefs and when you see that common thread in all of the cases that everybody is getting what they need, the question of why do we need to persecute those with deeply held religious beliefs is a serious one and mentions why senator labrador's bill is so important. >> yes, jerry. >> it sounds as if there are no damages suffe-- suffered, who w refused services, they found what they wanted elsewhere.

so what is the claim? >> well the way the laws are is that they are very strict. if you refuse service -- you can't refuse services for this reason and if you do, you are liable. and if they are not contingent upon whether you found services elsewhere or anything along those lines. but there are damages. let me be clear. there are damages. when you violate somebody's constitutional rights and take away their free exercise and speech rights which is what is happening to our clients, that is damaging. and it may not be on the side that our opponents think that the damages are on, but i think there are damages and consequences associated with the conflic conflicts. >> the business -- >> the business is damaged. that is exactly right. what you are ultimately pitting, in our cases what you are pitting against, is the hassle of having to make another phone call or do another internet

search versus a constitutional right or arguably a constitutional right against a state nondiscrimination law assuming there is a prima facie case of discrimination. in either circumstance, and i realize i'm bias because i represent them, but i think our client should win because that free exercise of religious and that right of free speech is most important, especially when you do have a free market place and those who are petitioning for services are able to find what they want and that is the story that nobody wants to talk about in the media and about all of these cases. it portrays the same-sex couples as victims and that is not the case in the way all of these things have happened. >> yes, sir. >> i'm a pastor from across the potomac in virginia, and i'm curious to understand virginia as a commonwealth, we have what we called an unincorporated association and eric stanley

helped us with one of our cases for truant children for school disabilities. and because i believe god creates life in his image male and female, somehow i would lose a tax benefit to contributors. >> that is what this law is trying to prevent. some things this bill doesn't address. there are state-based complaints and there are some states, my state of idaho is trying to pass state legislation that would fix those issues but i'm trying to prevent exactly your example. just because you believe that god created man and woman and created a certain traditional marriage ceremony that you are not going to have your tax exempt status taken away from you or your contributors will not have tax exempt status and

tax contributions denied. and people -- a few years ago, kept saying how is that possible, that would never happen. but when you look at what the irs has done, when it comes to tea party and they disagreed with the ideology and agenda, they not only tried to deny them but they made them jump through so many hoops to get the tax exempt status and it should frighten all of us that this administration would be willing to go that far. and when i have talked to people actually in congress, some people say, well why shouldn't we be able to take away the tax exempt status if they believe in traditional marriage, which is quite chilling and is quite contrary to the constitution and our founding principles. >> right here. >> in 2003 i took photographs

that human events published, called god the temples of government, my images played in the ammic us brief of van arden versus perry and i began to promote my images and i was asked from mission state and i said well, after great thought, the freedom of artistic expression, which is something the young lady on the panel addressed, and back then i took a picture of the jose ortega on constitution avenue whose frog on his boots is shaped like a cross and i said someone will come along one day and say take that off because it looks like a cross and offends me and i've been watching the pattern of more of these examples happening globally, so it is a broader conversation. but just included in that is the faith artist who wants to draw prejudices.

and i tell them you may be the artist arguing against it but someone who draws a dog can have people come along and say dogs offend me and where does that stop? >> it is a good point. it reminds me a cases where we represented a british airways flight attendant that was not able to wear a simple cross necklace because somebody may be offended and it brings a notion the ideas of tolerance and diversity even in the workplace that somebody can't wear a cross -- a cross necklace without being persecute and we were able to get a victory for that young lady with the european court of rights. it was nice. >> and i think a number of the circumstances and in the hhs mandate the congressman referred to, you see it coming down to a freedom of religion, and

something you don't bring to the workplace. but that is not what our founders envisioned. our founders envisioned the ability to go into business, to create jobs and grow the economy and to do so in accordance with your values. so in a number of religious freedom cases in the marriage debate or elsewhere, we have a fundamental misunderstanding of religious freedom going on. >> well i have to go back to congress but thank you very much and continue to speak and thank you very much. >> we have time for a few more questions. yes, sir, right here in the middle. >>. [ inaudible question ] assuming you win, who pays for all of that? >> the question is assuming you win your case, who pays for all of that for the people watching. >> well obviously the cases -- some cases we are defending, and some cases we are prosecuting.

the wedding photographer in new mexico, we are defending her and this case is being prosecuted by the new mexico human rights commission and i believe has gone through -- i think we're now in our fifth tribe unal with the united states supreme court. if i recall correctly, yes, fifth tribe unal, and who is paying for that for the fifth year of a lady who wants to take photographs that are pleasing to god and who is paying for it? the taxpayers are paying for it. by enlarge the taxpayers are paying for it. i mentioned our t-shirt manufacturer in kentucky, after two years we're still in the administrative level and it keeps going the same path, it will be another six or seven years with that case and the taxpayer of kentucky are going

to fund that. even though the group, they got their t-shirts for free and the event is over with, life has moved on and we have years of litigation at the expense of kentucky taxpayers likely ahead of us. so it is really unfortunate. >> austin, every year i walk on the church property and behind that wholly desk and i do not give up my first amendment rights, so i tape and dvd and send the notes of my sermon to the irs as part of the adf speak up. i think 3000 churches, is that correct, that participate and how many have lost their tax exempt status? >> not one church in the history of the united states has ever lost its tax exempt status, period, paragraph, no exemptions, not one. it has never happened and that is why we're trying to pick a fight with the irs.

to get -- what the pastor is alluding to is the 1954 johnson amendment that tries to take parts of the voice away that the pastors cannot preach life or when it comes to candidates and what not. so we've been having pastors across the country now give pulpit sermons and send them to the irs that says look at my violation of the law and please come get me. and they haven't gott come and got -- come and gotten them yet and it is a very important movement to maintain freedom of speech and worship and the freedom of the church. because if the government can control any aspect of the church it can control all of the church. and that really flies into the face of the idea of separation of church and state. >> the archbishop of chicago said a few years ago, he said i expect to die in my bed, i expect my successor to die in

prison and i expect his successor to die a martyr in the public square. and this is -- that is a feeling that is running through a lot of faith communities. so it is more than just religious freedom on marriage, it is a tax and religious freedom across the board. i wonder if you could talk about some of the other attacks on religious freedom that we see cropping up on the horizon out there. >> i think one of the largest is the hhs man date, this is the obamacare rule to require -- and you can get fined. and in addition to preventing job creating companies, hobby

lobby and others at the supreme court level that are creating jobs, really growing the economy, in addition to hampering their ability to do that, by restricting their freedom to do that in accordance with their values, you are also hampering a whole host of civil society corporations. you have the little sisters, these are nuns that take a vow of poverty and help the poor across the country. they can't do their work according to this mandate. so back to what i was saying earlier, this incredible dim un is of religious freedom to just a free freedom of worship, within your home and if you step outside to serve your fellow man to create jobs, to provide goods and services, your religious freedom ends but that is not what our founders envisions and that is not what the constitution rightly understand it should protect and that it is

a very concerning -- hopefully this is also at the supreme court so hopefully that mandate is struck down and we have a better recognition and protection of religious freedom. >> thank you. >> others? yes, sir. >> i'm just wondering, have you found any instances of pastors or other faith community individuals being targeted by the irs for audits for personal taxes? like we've seen with the tea party groups, has that started to bleed over into religious communities? >> there have been some churches that have received some letters from the irs and undergone some audits for being accused of engaging in political activity. i don't believe that any of those circumstances have resulted in any type of punitive circumstance. i also note that there was a

congressional investigation into some, i think, television ministry that may still be going on for all i know. but i'm not aware of any type of irs targeting personally, of pastors or ministry leaders for anything they may or may not be doing. of course just because i don't know about it, doesn't mean it is not happening. and it could start tomorrow for all i know. but i'm not aware of anything to this point. >> we have one more in the back. >> about a week ago microsoft acquired four square or bought the data from four square for $15 million and designers are finding they are being tracked to gain studies. i would offer with that invasiveness of technology and to our mobiles and to our home, and our e-mails are going to be tracked, sooner, even on our

faith issues? >> well we know that the government has a lot of levers of mechanisms and controls to exert power over the people. and i think what the business -- what adf and heritage and a lot of other allies are about is maintaining those freedoms and especially when it comes to religious freedom in making sure that government doesn't suffocate. in my opinion, this is something that made this country great at one point in time and can still do so. >> one more down here. >> i served in the military for about eight years. i saw -- i served in the military for about eight years and when i first went in i saw a lot of things -- soldiers prayer, rangers prayer, and as i was getting out, i saw those scrubbed and in the last six years that i've been out, i've seen fights against public crosses at memorials and things

like that and also the v.a. trying to prevent prayers at funerals so i'm wondering what is being done? is there anything to fight that? >> great question. as far as the military is concerned, that is an arena that has not been exemption to the -- what is the word i'm looking for -- the pressure on religious liberty. we have had the privilege of representing chaplains and chaplain endorsers in the military and the resulting squeeze that this current administration and the department of defense have been putting on the free exercise of faith. and our response is very simple. we should not be denying our men and women in uniform the basic freedoms for which they are fighting and dying in many instances and chaplains are there, the u.s. -- the court system has made very clear, not

because they have religious redom but to secure the religious freedom of men and women in uniform. we send them to remote desolate places where they don't have access to our families and faith community and home services. the chaplains are there to make sure they can minister to them and when you are facing death on the battlefield, the only hope you have is god. and that is why chaplains are there, to help secure that. and when we start taking policies and actions that threaten the ability of chaplains to serve in our armed forces and minister to the men and women in uniform who we honor and love and need so much, that is one of the most basic egregious violations of civil liberty that i can personally imagine and i'm glad we have a lot of allies working hard on that. chaplain alliance for religious deliberate ert, archdiocese for religious issues, and the

concern is legitimate and real. >> okay. final question, right here. >> thank you both for your remarks. tyler o'neill with the christian post. my question is, i've heard a lot of reporting with c.p. about these issues, about religious liberty and religious freedom and how it is being asulted in the -- assaulted in the public square. but how do you get millennials those so easily riled up about the abortion issue and same-sex rights and those sort of thing, how do you get those people engaged on this issue. >> i think you tell them stories. so you tell them stories about some of the hhs mandate plaintiffs. these are salt of the earth people doing the good work of restoring lives and educating the next generation and providing health care for americans and they are not able to do that under this rule in accordance with their beliefs, the beliefs that motivated them to go out and do that in the

first place. so to talk about social justice and empowering the poor and taking care of those in need, you have to let people do that in accordance with their values and not immediately penalize them through threat of government penalty if they are going to do that in accordance with their religious beliefs. >> the left has successfully won the narrative on this. right, the tearive -- the narrative put out there is if you believe in traditional marriage, the narrative is you are the one imposing your beliefs on everybody else and i think we need to find a way to win the narrative and pull back the curtain and show what is happening and that is why these stories are very important because they highlight that. >> and i think it is important to highlight something the congressman said, this doesn't take away anything from anybody else, this is about the government using their power to coerce people into recognizing

same-sex relationships as marriage or using their power to force companies to provide coverage of abortion inducing drugs or life-ending drugs and devices. >> and you don't win the narrative without really smart, articulate people out there making the case and that is why we've had these great people today. so thank you all for coming and please join me in thanking the panel. [ applause ] we help you can stick around. we have some drinks and appetizers out in the foyer. and thank you, again, for a great day in being here. [ applause ]

>> live coverage now of a discussion on u.s./europe trade with a focus on the the latest developments on a transatlantic trade deal. among those taking part, form per u.s. ambassador to china, jon huntsman. this is live from the atlantic could council here in washington, d.c., should start at any moment. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] 4r-rb [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> again, we are live this afternoon from the atlantic council here in washington, awaiting the start of a discussion on u.s./european trade focusing on a transatlantic trade deal. we expect to hear from 2012 presidential candidate and former u.s. ambassador to china jon hunts match. it should start in -- huntsman, it should start in just a moment. president obama earlier today traveled to the maryland suburbs to talk about changes in fuel efficiency standards for medium and large-duty vehicles. here's a quick look. >> we're taking the next step. heavy-duty trucks account for just 4% of all the vehicles on the highway. i know when you're driving

sometimes, it feels like it's more, but they're only 4% of all the vehicles. [laughter] but they're responsible for about 20% of carbon pollution in the transportation sector. so trucks like these are responsible for about 20% of our on-road fuel consumption. and because they haul about 70 percent of all domestic freight, 70% of the stuff we use, everything from flat screen tvs to diapers to produce to you name it, every mile that we gain in fuel efficiency is worth thousands of dollars of savings every year. so that's why we're investing in research to get more fuel economy gains. and thanks to a partnership between the industry and my administration, the truck behind me was able to achieve a 75%

improvement in fuel economy over the last year. 75%. that's why we call this supertruck. [laughter] it's impressive. this one right here as well. i mean, these are, first of all, they're really big. [laughter] but you can see how they've redesigned the truck in order for us to save fuel economy. and improving gas mileage for these trucks are going to drive down our oil imports even further. that reduces carbon pollution even more, cuts down on businesses' fuel costs which should pay off a in lower prices for -- off in lower prices for consumers. so it's not just a win/win, it's a win/win/win. >> just a portion of what the president had to say today. you can see his remarks in their entirety.

go to the c-span video library at c-span.org. we're live at the atlantic council this afternoon awaiting the start of a discussion on u.s./european trade. the commissioner for trade will talk about the latest developments on a transflick trade deal -- transatlantic trade deal. and among those taking part, former u.s. ambassador to china, jon huntsman. this should get under way in just a moment. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> y'all ready?

good afternoon and welcome, even. i'm jon huntsman, the new chairman of the atlantic council. my maiden voyage, so cut me a little slack today. i'm delighted to have joined the atlantic council at such an interesting and exciting time for the transatlantic relationship, and the transatlantic economy in particular. so as a former governor, ambassador and deputy u.s. trade representative, not to mention a career in business, i'm keenly aware of the positive impact trade and investment can have on a company, state or relations between sovereign nations. the transatlantic trade and investment partnership that the united states and european union are currently negotiating has the potential to become the largest trade and investment deal ever negotiated. covering fully 47% of global

gdp. along with the united states' efforts to promote trade with many countries across asia and latin america, through the trans-pacific partnership, tpp, ttip represents the most ambitious american trade agenda in at least a generation, if not ever. moreover, trade liberalization represents one of the very few bipartisan goals and policy priorities that are left here in washington. for those of you who are interested in actually getting things done. despite the overwhelming economic benefits on the table here at the council, we like to think of ttip as far more than a traditional free trade agreement. indeed, these negotiations mark a singular strategic opportunity to revitalize the transatlantic relationship broadly, providing a powerful economic counterpart to the greatest military and security alliance the world has ever known.

by revitalizing the world's two largest economies, the e.u. and the united states, we can powerfully demonstrate to the world that a system based on strong protections of intellectual property, labor and environmental rights and the rule of law can still succeed and serve as a model for others to aspire to. ttip will go well beyond the classic approach of removing tariffs and opening markets on investment services and public proto curement -- procurement. its most ambitious goal aims at making e.u. and u.s. regulations and technical product standards more compatible. whether through mutual recognition of each oh's rules and regulations or streamlining the regulatory policymaking process for few rules in the future. an ambitious ttip agreement could create over 740,000 jobs in the united states alone. ..

>> they have highly skilled jobs that drive competitiveness. clearly that ttip is a product

work working for. even like genetically modified foods and differences in data protection these are well-known and well entrenched. it is my sincere hope that we will see more advocacy efforts from the obama administration. leaders on capitol hill and influential voices from berlin, paris, london, and the rest of europe coming out strongly in favor of this agreement. but the united states and europe have a lot to gain here. on that note, i am delighted and honored that we are joined this afternoon by the leading players in the eu when it comes to ttip. european commissioner. carl has come to the council directly following a series of meetings with the u.s. trade representative where they have discussed the current state and the united nations and planned out where the two sides are headed from here.

ambassador bob kimmitt, a friend of 20 years is also here and will be moderating our conversation. bob is a very influential member of the atlantic council board of directors who has done great work on trade and investment policy and we thank you for joining us today. let me just note that our event here today is on the record and it is also being live streamed online. carl was appointed as the european commissioner for trade in 2010 during his political career he had served as a member of the european parliament and the belgian parliament and international trade and foreign affairs. among many other distinguished post. in 2009 he became the european commissioner for development and humanitarian aid. this is an important

conversation and the floor is now yours. [applause] >> thank you. >> it is good to have you here. [applause] >> good afternoon, governor huntsman, ambassador kimmitt and ladies and gentlemen. i have been here these last few days to take stock with the ambassador over the transatlantic trade partnership or ttip. or it is spelled ttip in europe come as we call it. it is the achieving convergence is people stumble on both sides of the agenda. however you want to say it, it

was time to see how far that we have come. mike and i agree. our negotiating teams have taken a close look at who all the issues on the table and we have identified areas of common ground and we need to to recognize the areas that need more work. certainly it is larger than the common grounds, but we now have a picture of the entire thing. the next page is going to be harder. this is the renegotiations that again. if you want to finish on the now proverbial situation, we need to step it up a gear, unless, of course, it will go even lower. so i would like to use my remarks today go through what that will mean in practice.

and also to remember why this process is necessary. the european union and the united states have a shared goal. to create new parts for small, medium, and large sized companies do business in ways that create jobs and respect people's rights as workers and consumers and protect health and safety and the environment. to leave that whole efficiently, we need to treat the different areas. we have work to do on all of them. the first area is markets. goods and services in public procurement. our average levels may be low, but we need to keep our ambitions high and that means making sure that we move through

this quickly so our economies start reaping the benefits as soon as possible. i'm confident we will be able to change that soon. we both know the huge potential for greater services and the importance of high-quality services to the rest of the economy. that is why we both have to have high ambitions for new markets opening and commitments to keep services open as we have today. and we also need to make steady progress with the public procurement and opening markets here offering significant economic gains and greater government efficiency. our objective should be to remove discrimination in all of our markets. all aspects of the market are equally important. it is essential that we move

forward on all of them in parallel to keep the goods overall balanced. the second area that we need to work on in the coming months is what we call trade rules. i am thinking of the vital work that we are agreeing on, which will take the u.n. and the u.s. customs systems at the world trade organization ministerial agency. we know that smaller companies find it the security restrictions especially difficult to navigate. i'm also thinking of a hugely important disciplines that we are establishing on state owned enterprises. setting high standards is crucial for our efforts to encourage other state partners to play by the same rules as we do in terms of government support for our business.

and the same goes for rules and energy. we are best served if markets are regulated in a transparent manner and there are no restrictions on energy. the exports and politics that undermine the common groups and has no place in the transatlantic trade. and are thinking of the crucial issues of labor and environment. we need to make absolutely sure that the transatlantic trade and investment support it rather than undermines our high standards on the sustainable development issues. we will not sacrifice this game. this agreement offers a potential to go beyond the what we have been able to include on these issues.

and the final area that we need to work on a certainly the most difficult and also the most important, reducing regulatory differences to facilitate the trade. it is difficult technically and politically. the technical difficulties are obvious. and what might be called the good old days, negotiators only had to work with those negotiators and the tools were very simple to understand and however the discussion becomes broader and much more focused. due to its obvious regulators in the trade negotiators are in charge of the regulations is we will get nowhere without the full application. so if you want to do this

without undermining your objectives of regulation, we need to come to grips with all areas and all-new areas of the policy. and you must understand and respect the purpose of the laws and the rules that we are dealing with in this includes the environment and stability. we must come to terms with new expertise, biology, chemistry, even psychology and we already know a thing or two about that. we also must master the legal mechanism to that put the regulatory goals and to the practice standards and inspections and as to the politics, both the european union and the united states tried to remove all politics from regulation. and for good reason. like independence and impartiality are at the core and how our systems are designed.

despite this fact, and neither suspend how we've been able to eliminate politico politics have we been able to eliminate them. when it comes to basic regulatory choices, and this includes the new council access by the assistance on the basis of the proposal. even the regulators have full delegated policy and we know that every day we are forced to make judgments and judgment calls based upon the information available, even when it is imperfect. in certain cases it is a fact of life. which is why this plays a role in our systems and its situation. alongside all of these decision-making processes we know that the debate of all is

every bit as political as any electoral containment. regardless of whether it is the primary rule or executive action. that is a complex way we talk about it if he takes place. as a result we have rdc and that people have very serious concerns about what it might mean for regulation. and so what it means is that our shared objective to lower values to trade and investment to have a real economic impact, keeping the levels of this as the citizens have chosen is going to be a pure challenge. let me begin as soon as possible. thirty years ago the european union went much further than we would go. they were able to demonstrate to people that it was possible to adapt the rules and reach common

standards while still maintaining the highest levels. but it required hard work from negotiators and regulatory authorities in the coming weeks and in the coming months. and that means looking at how we make resolutions solutions to current specific problems with equal care and a result that makes a difference and we need to look at the way we produce regulations. can we make the processes more transparent so that we can get used to feedback on the early stages of the regulatory process? and we encourage them to deepen their relationships so that the solutions are part of new challenges together? and if we want to be credible we need to find a typical mass of regulatory solutions for our specific sectors if just to give some examples we can see of the

standards fit together with inspections with the medical device plans if we can make sure that we implement and agreed to the national rules on finance and compatible rate. it simplifies the procedures for avoiding applications in areas where the product safety rules are the equivalent and we will have a possible impact on our economy straightaway. and buckling down to take all of these areas forward with rules and regulations and barriers, it will either a lot of effort. so we had better know why we are doing it. the answer for me is very clear. jobs on the one hand and strategic vision on the other. a growth and jobs argument are clear. open markets boost the demand

because exporters a access to new customers because to smaller companies. even more than the large ones because they don't always have the resources to find a way to raise the values. also it's on the supply side by lowering prices for consumers and intermediate goods for companies. again, small and large. the level of competition makes the economy more productive overall. and so when you apply those effects to the largest trade and investment relationship that we can expect, we will see the significant results and our own estimates expect our economy to expand by more than 200 billion by the time the agreement is situated. in a time of recovery, we need to seize the opportunity like

this. and we also need to remember the strategic reasons for getting down to this work and this is why both regulatory agreements are so important. morse basic level, it provides future global disciplines. last year has grown new momentum and we are working with their counterparts in geneva to use that momentum to make progress on the rest of the mandate. but even if we manage to meet all of those goals, the rulebook will still remain. convergence on how to build those gaps is a mystery even though it is global rulemaking.

we want to find solutions that can later be applied, especially as they would rdb operating in the sense of the world economy. looking further ahead, one thing about the 21st century is certain. it will be neither american nor european, the united states will still be an important player than in the past. he could drop by as much as half by 2050. and that is a consequence to be relevant. it will, however, have an impact on the rules that we have championed together in the last 60 years. that system needs to adapt and accommodate the new rising

players as the government has shown us is possible. but europe and america and the world as a whole shows that the system continues to be based on principles. we have high standards for help in the environment and labor and consumer protection. we share much more by bringing us even closer and we strengthen the position of our shared values on the global stage. ambassador, ladies and gentlemen, these single goals will be a challenge. but as you see, there our reasons for us making the effort. doing so will require seriousness. i know that despite our heavy political differences, europe is ready to make the challenge. and i have every confidence that the united states is going to join us.

there are many leaders that the united states can look to in these efforts. but we can use the most relevant one. in 1962 for it the first round of trade involving the embryonic european union, it would ultimately be named for his memory. he said that trade is no longer a matter of local international interest but of striking a volume with the current markets to make a flow of freedom. that is the possibility that we again have the fourth and i'm looking forward to us working together. i thank you very much for your time and attention. thank you. mark.

[applause] >> thank you very much for those comprehensive remarks and what a great readout of the negotiations and the long-term goals. you are describing your official responsibilities and i know that you also keep a close eye on politics on both sides of the atlantic and a lot of talk recently about politics in the u.s. with statements over the past several weeks by president obama and majority leader harry reid, vice president biden. and of course, our midterm elections coming up in november. six months before that he will have important elections before that and the european parliament at least looking at it that we will be very strong in the

elements of this new parliament that is skeptical about the european union and perhaps had some skepticism about trade. and we would like to get your views on how politics will play out in the near term in europe area. >> okay, first, [inaudible] okay. so first on trade, at present the european parliament is not skeptical on trade and we have a lot of questions on sustainable development, environmental issues, health and safety and the rights. but generally speaking we are not -- we are not against trade because without major problems, we have managed to get the trading in korea adopted and the

one with colombia and central america and the ukraine for obvious reasons. we can very easily pass this. so the idea that there would be skepticism, i think that that is not true and i'm pretty sure that if we were to reach a deal, it would be very widely debated because it would be a big deal and there's more interest on the business than any other because the idea is to a certain extent merge the two markets so they both have growth experience. and i'm pretty sure that it would make no major problems. the developments in europe, one

of the lessons i have learned after 35 years of politics is that whenever you have an outcome of elections and it's different than what you had expected and sometimes very different. and it could be that we have this with the european parliament. but you can expect to have skeptics and if that were to be the case, it could change the

relationships between the that institutions. the european parliament is now work more or less like the american congress and then you have a legislative proposal that can be across the board and to have all kinds of specific coalitions on this, which is a little bit different than the democratic system that i have made in the european union. and so that could change because we have skeptic members of that will have to manage this with 50% off of this. and so what i expect to happen

is that you will have a closer relationship and more political relationship between the european commission and parliament. and thereby he would move in the direction of having a majority based commission and this is presently not the case and that i think would change. and i'm not sure, but you would move more in the direction of a real governmental problem which you can then execute and from time to time we will have to adopt it. but it would have no effect on the ability of the relationship between institutions. so whether ttip, order ttip, for one thing it is different about

this disagreement, it is the explicit terms of the investment and that's not really surprising on the u.s. side because there continues to be a political debate around trade. and we seem to have coalesced about the benefits of the foreign direct investment in the u.s. we have 5.5 million americans who work for companies headquartered overseas and that's roughly 5% that they account for it, but they account for 20% of our exports. the jobs pay on average 25% higher. 40% of the jobs are in manufacturing. 50% of the overall economy. 12.5% are unionized versus 8.5% of the overall economy. so the investment side is something that i think is very much animating the u.s. political debate in europe. i saw over the weekend the president hosted the top 35 business people encouraging more direct investment and that looked really good.

and i have also seen some hesitation with a dispute settlement mechanism and wondered if that is a concern in particular and how americans see the direct investment? >> well, i don't think so. and i would say that we would recognize as earlier than what we have done in the united states and we have to combine them if we want to have the globalization for the economy. until we have a difference of opinion and in the left it puts

us into doubt. it's something that is generally speaking that it there is a understanding that you cannot have this without a parallel of investment and that is because you have so many investment with companies in the united states and vice versa that trade is worldwide and that is proven by all of the studies that have been done about it. and yes, it is different. the political environment has changed for the simple reason that recently i had two cases. the case by phillip morris against australia for the packaging of cigarettes in the

one against germany on the nuclear sector. so what is at stake is the path that was not so clear and that's the real question. to what extent does this mean that it limits policy? we have been negotiating with canada. and that was precisely to make sure that the ideas do not limit policies. it's less clear in the existing agreement trade because only think of the little agreements. but there's no condition of that. and now we have seen we have put this into question and it's very important to be much open to the

sides are not. and if we don't do that, the existing investment protection agreements of which we have yet to start will remain in force. member states of the european union in the past have included about 1400 investment protection agreements. and by the look of them you have that style with the u.s. provision. and i think that we are all on the same page. and all of a sudden we have a discussion about and that is why i have decided to relaunch this, hoping that it will shed more light on what the real goal of all of this is. it is a supplementary element and a number of european member states do not have agreements

with the city members. of course, the united states as well. but they have half of these provisions for the united states. and how you bring up together? that is the real challenge and it is about preserving a policy and more transparency and the possibility that you do not agree as a result and so to modernize the whole process. and i hope that we can do this. because what we need to know is that in all the cases it is the country that has launched a procedure. so the idea is something that is

directed by the united states against us in the completely wrong. you know? to 2% of the cases are launched by the e countries. it means that they are convinced that we need it. you know? >> thank you. last question on the floor. on the basket of issues that are being addressed. you mentioned briefly financial services in the atlantic council has done a lot of work in the area trying to encourage convergence on financial services and regulatory standards and the effort is also underway in the g20 and elsewhere. finance ministries included u.s. banks that are somewhat restrained in their enthusiasm of putting the regulatory issues into trade negotiations

bilateral, but especially multilateral. could you give us a sense of where the financial services chance today in the negotiating process when a. >> there are differences of opinion. but the european side is adamant that will be part of this and that the result is then merged into this and that is something that i don't mind. let me give you two examples. there's a lot of regulations that have been changed and influenced by recent decisions by the g8 in the country and the committee. but we have to make sure that when these decisions of

principle have a regulation that is compatible, but this will not happen overnight. and recently there has been made an agreement between the u.n. and the u.s. and then we see we tried to put it into practice and nec discrepancies. so i could give you more examples, it means that you really have to go and do this work of making it compatible. not letting or surfacing differences that have no special political polls. and that is what we should try to avoid. so this is definitely part of the regulatory package. whether we do it now or not, i don't mind. but the results should also be in financial services. we have much more regulatory

convergence and it's not market exercise. there is no real problem in market access for financial services. so once you put it into access, you say okay, no promise with respect to the markets in the regulations. >> thank you, commissioner. we have about 20 minutes before the commissioner has to leave for the airport. i would like to ask their questions be quick and your comments quicker. we will have a microphone brought to you. if you would please identify yourself and your affiliation, that would be a big help. >> yes, sir? right here?

[inaudible question] >> it matters for the people in the back. >> gordon university of new hampshire. normally i work on ttip issues. so in a sense i have experienced great but the issue i want to raise comic yesterday senator dick durbin came out against the trade promotion authority's. my basic question is this. the ttip has raised enormous public debate on every kind of issue. pharmaceutical issues, internet issues, every kind of issue. so far the ttip has not generated that kind of opposition. so is there a reason why it seems so much smoother for ttip then the ttip have experienced?

>> okay, it is a different kind of negotiation. i'm negotiating this and there's a different kind of registration. because you have the partners and there is a difference in terms of current development and we also have experience with this kind of regional approach is not easy. we will remember with respect but we have tried to do so because there again you have the differences in the economic development and also cultural diversity. so to have all of this in one agreement, it is more difficult with this level of ambition. and let me be very clear.

i hope that you can include as soon as possible a good agreement with ttip. i am very much in favor of it. because it would be part of the puzzle that we also discuss japan, for example. so i'm very much in favor of that. and we hope to meet as soon as possible because the sooner you can do it, the sooner we can get to the endgame of ttip also. >> yes, ma'am? >> thank you. >> mr. commissioner -- >> could you identify yourself? >> [inaudible] >> mr. commissioner, do you

think that the country to some level should be included in the negotiations were ttip? >> which countries? >> candidate countries. >> well, we have a policy on that. we're not a part of the negotiation, because the member state or part of the european union that are negotiated in the executive branch indicates that they're performing this on the basis of a mandate until he could not invite candidate countries to the negotiating table. we couldn't do that. and there is a possible impact

that those become members of the european union with whom we have, for example, impartial customs union. so it can impact them and the end of next week i will discuss this about these problems. >> right here, please? >> hello, i'm with the u.s. chamber of commerce. thank you for being here. a very simple question. how do you perceive the engagement of the european business community in the course of the negotiations currently? >> i would like to see them more engaged. right now i hear voices about

ttip in europe. they tend to be the negative ones. it's not only business. not only in the interest of business. but the interest of the economies and growth. and those who are in favor can talk about much more loudly and clearly and i accept that in europe and i hope that you also accept that for the united states. >> yes, sir. >> hello. [inaudible] you had mentioned the posit you have called for over the investor state provisions to

directly challenge health and environmental laws. we have expressed concerns and negotiations. and most of us came out of the proposal causing much of the same concern just to name one that you are familiar with. this includes chicken treated with chlorine order treated pork or beef. so given this proposal for calling for a parallel paths in the convergence area. what he said?

>> this is the first time that i get this question and i always answer the same. you're probably ardea where we're going to answer. i expect the same to happen in the u.s. [inaudible] because it would mean that we have to change legislation. because it will mean that you have to change this with a legislative proposal by that so we will keep and speak to the regulation if we come to an

agreement and we will be able to export more beef to the european union. [inaudible] >> in a strange but i get this question all the time. [laughter] >> commissioner, doug nelson. he spelled out very clearly in three general categories of what needs to be negotiated in this trade agreement. does your mandate from you to

focus on one or two of those were convergence for another day. we have the mandate that weekend and that is very broad. and so theoretically, yes, we could do that. and we want to do it with this agreement on all aspects. which i personally consider forward-looking and the most important way. so it is -- either we make this agreement or we don't make it. and for example we would have

this agreement only? no. because it would make sense and it would never pass the european parliament. so that is out of the question. the theoretically, we could. but politics is not about terri, it is about practice. >> right here. >> thank you. i am coming to the back of the room until i have seen her hand. >> i work for productivity and innovation. we have precautionary principles that manage risk. on the u.s. side we do not have the risk assessment which is the rough counterpart in part of our culture. if it were somehow managed or

included in the negotiations, how can these two reconcile over the agreement reign. >> we also have something that is much more clear in the european legislation. and the importance of the principle is higher in the european legislation in american regulations. it also has to do with culture. there are less risks and they are less risk-averse and we are more risk-averse. in this culture we are not going to change that overnight.

and so i am not very much interested in having a long conversation on the cautionary principles and the transatlantic relations because that could leave us nowhere. so of course it will be on the back of their minds when we talk about the regulatory approaches. it it will be difficult to go into the technicalities of that. i think that what we have to do is make a combination of mutual recognition and more compatibility and common approaches especially with risk assessment. forward-looking suit can avoid the differences of opinion and to avoid them.

but it is a complicated thing. and i have been reading about this and on the other hand i believe that this is the most important part of the agreement. i am also confident that we will be able to make important progress. maybe not on all sectors in the first instance. but we are so concentrated on this that we are confident that we have to do this and we have to meet that challenge and we will have a significant approach and we will do it.

>> just? >> thank you. you emphasized in your speech the important balance across all tracks. you indicated in some earlier comments that the ambition of the u.s. market access did not match the level of ambition in the eu offer. can you offer details about where the u.s. is falling short on this regard, and how important is it to see reciprocity in the market access element in order to advance parallel negotiations in the regulatory talk? >> the answer could be very short. i'm not going to give very detailed information. because i will have to go onto a longer answer. we will make sure that we

arrived together at the end station. with the same level of ambition and that should be the goal. >> one last question. my name is paul stern. >> back onto the question. >> clearly there are certain set sectors because of convergence and cross investment and trade over many years. is it conceivable that within that arena that we will see more disparity in terms of convergence sector by your, like in autos, it could be more

advanced than others. this is my experience when i worked on the transatlantic regulatory business dialogue, the regulatory standards by sector and we could harvest on this much quicker than others. can you give us your views on a map. >> we have a number of sectors that have agreed to this on what they think is needed in the specific center. and that gives you a formidable stopping point. the risk of disparity, i think, by addressing the aspects and the political aspect, you will have to develop discipline that become the backbone and you

cannot have this one to another. i believe that if in a pragmatic way the backbone of that kind of regulatory convergence or existing measures were measures that we have to take for the future. we should develop it in an organic and pragmatic way. but if we want to keep this manageable for the future, it's important that we also converge depending on the sector and once it is accepted as a discipline, it also means that people are inspired and they already tried to put into place regulations.

of course the economy is something that we will start asking for. and you need to make a political choice in the decisions will be taken. the fact that you have an agreement between the companies on each side is a very important thing. >> on behalf of the board, chairman jon huntsman, but to offer three quick words of thanks. number one, two fred kemp, derek and other members of the staff will put this together. and second to all attendees, to have you turn on the first day after a three-day holiday with a little bit of snow on the ground. and thank you, commissioner for joining us.

and not all take time to go public soon after a set of negotiations like this. we take that as a remarkable respect for the council and are open dialogue in this important areas. we wish you and your team, mike and his team, the best of luck in the difficult months ahead. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[applause] ..

many democratic incumbents are parting ways with the president's concerned about a loss of jobs important to libri unions in this election year interval of drawing primary election opposition. again, that from the associated press this afternoon. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watched the public policy events, and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on book tv. you can see past programs and get our schedules that website. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> the new york times is reporting an 8-term congressman is planning to retire. the 65-year-old democrat is a research physicist who specializes in science issues in congress and chaired the energy and mineral resources.

he joins 12 democrats and 21 republicans not seeking reelection. >> the defense department deputy chief information officer outlined steps that the dod is taking the three of spectrum in ways that the perot government and private industry can form partnerships to increase innovation of protecting national security. here's a portion of what he had to say today. >> we are going to have to do more in the future. we understand that we are going to have to do it right which required technology and regular policy. we're working hard to make that happen. technological innovation is the key to that particular piece every culture change with everybody. all federal agencies as well as industry. we have to understand that from our perspective, from an apartment of the fans' perspective this is harder, more problematic, and when you are focused on ten different things all over the world things are happening every single day from the department of defense perspective, and you are worried about the next threat to our nation was sometimes does not