>> host: this week we talk with members of congress about legislation they are proposing. first up this week is senator al franken. senator al franken, the judiciary committee, you hailed the failure of the comcast/time

warner merger as a win for consumers. why? >> guest: well because i firmly believe that if comcast were allowed to buy time warner cable, that they would have been too big a company, they would have been anti-competitive, not in the public interests. it would have led to higher prices for consumers less choice. and if it's even possible with these two companies, worse service. >> host: is it because of the size of the company? >> guest: yeah. well size and what parts of the market they have, they have about 30% of cable between them and about 57% of internet broadband, high-speed internet broadband. that's just too big. and i had a lot of content providers, networks come to me and say they were opposed to this deal, but they were -- it'll just give you some idea of

what happens when you get this big, they were afraid to say so, to be public, because they feared retribution. >> host: did comcast come to you? did they try to influence your opinion? >> guest: they did not. but i think they -- see i've been against the comcast/nbc universal purchase, acquisition, and for the same, some of the same reasons. this is much worse. [laughter] as far as i was concerned. but they knew that i wasn't going to favor this, so they didn't try. and i was opposed to this from the very beginning. >> host: senator franken, fact that charter communications is now kind of sniffing around time warner is that something you would also oppose? >> guest: that's something i would look at, but this, this is of a whole different magnitude. comcast is the largest cable tv provider, it's the largest interinnocent provide -- internet provider, it would have

been buying the second largest cable tv provider and the third largest internet provider. it was just from the outset too big, and i think this deal ultimately collapsed of its own weight. >> host: what about directv and at&t? is that something that you have an opinion on? >> guest: that's one i'm skeptical about. i haven't -- i've been so is focused on this one, because this one i knew -- [laughter] but when it started 15 months ago, i think most people thought it was a fait accompli. i didn't and i think i'm very happy with what happened and very proud of my role in that. >> host: well, something else you're probably in favor of is the net neutrality decision. >> guest: yes, absolutely. >> host: that opinion put down by the fcc. >> guest: yeah. i fought very hard for that. >> host: give us your view on that. >> guest: well, net neutrality

has been the architecture of the internet from the beginning. the fcc has been trying to establish net neutrality rules of the road and has actually had the isps in the past go to court against them, and the circuit court in d.c. ruled against the fcc and the circuit court was basically saying they had to invoke title ii and basically say that the internet was a utility, and they did that. and what -- i think what really focused everyone's attention was when tom wheeler the fcc chair, over a year ago put out some proposed rules which called for the antithesis of net neutrality which is some fast lanes that you could pay for if you were a

deep-pocketed company, and then everyone else on a slower lane. and the whole point of net neutrality is it's treating everything on the net neutrality an open internet, allowing everything to flow, essentially, at the same rate. so this, i think got people mobilized, and the -- and i was very much ooh -- opposed to what chairman wheeler was proposing then and had been an advocate for net neutral the city for years. neutrality for years. this got over four million comments from the american people which is more than twice that that the fcc's received on any other issue. and i think that over that time that chairman wheeler saw the light and understood what was at stake here and calm down very firmly for net neutrality. so that was a very good outcome

as far as i was concerned. and i think that in a way the comcast/time warner cable thing played into that. there were about a million comments, i believe, to the fcc on this. and also when you're talking about a company getting 57% of all high-speed internet i think that that bodes ill for net neutrality in the future if you think about the power of that and the fcc's composition may change. so i think that was, became part of the issue as well. >> host: really a big grassroots push to prevent -- or to promote net neutrality. >> guest: yes. i just think that people knew it was -- look this wasn't just small businesses and start-ups and individuals, this was big businesses came out against this. ups, bank of america others

formed a coalition because no one -- every business in america uses the internet. and so any manufacturer puts its specifications over the interinnocent, and everybody -- the internet. and everybody the internet's used by everybody all the time, and the only people that would have benefited from a fast lane/slow lane is really the isps. and that would be passed on, again, to consumers who would end up paying more because those who bought fast lane would pass that cost on to you. >> host: well, it's said that your neighbor in south dakota, chairman of the commerce committee john thune is preparing with fred upton from the house side some legislation to overturn -- >> guest: yeah. >> host: -- the fcc's rulemaking in this area. >> guest: yeah. >> host: is that -- is this

going to, tend the uncertainty for years? >> guest: i just think this'll be very, very hard to overturn and turn this back but we have to be vigilant. there's no question about that. but i've had colleagues that just don't understand what the issue is here. i've heard members of the house get on the floor and say things like i don't know why we need net neutrality, look at all the innovation we've had without it. and, you know, you don't have to know anything to get on the floor. it's not a rule. [laughter] >> host: and finally -- >> guest: you can say whatever you like if you are elected. >> host: finally, senator franken, you are the ranking member of the privacy subcommittee on the judiciary committee. >> guest: yeah. >> host: want to get your thoughts on the issue of privacy on the internet but also on potential reenactment of the privacy -- of the patriot act.

>> guest: well, in terms of these, the surveillance, for example, nsa surveillance, i've supported transparency. i think that there's a balance you have to strike and that's hard to strike between privacy and national security. and i think everyone recognizes that. i voted against those programs that snowden revealed the 315 and the -- 215 and the 702. i'm only saying it with those numbers because this is c-span. so there's a few people watching. [laughter] know what i'm talking about. and i voted against them because there wasn't transparency. and i think that americans should have the right to know what's happening so they can make a judgment as to whether that balance is being struck. dean heller republican of nevada and i offered the

transparency and the last bill on this that got 58 votes in the senate. i hope we go forward again. we need something in place to make sure that we're not attacked again, but we need to do anytime a way that protects -- dodd it in a way that protects privacy to the extent that we can. my committee was i was the first chair of the privacy technology and the law subcommittee in judiciary. jeff flake is now the chairman since they took over the majority, i'm the ranking member. but basically what this is about is technology just keeps accelerating, and we have to think about that. the founding fathers never, for example, conceived that there'd be the telephone. and at some point somebody had to decide whether, you know, wiretapping a phone was a violation of the fourth amendment.

and it was decided that it was. and we now have technologies that are just, you know just head spinning. there was one named an app called, i think, name tag that -- with facial recognition. they wanted to put it on your google glass. you could walk around and look at people, and it would identify them and then connect to their dating web site. so i wrote a letter when i was chairman of the committee i said don't do that. [laughter] and they aren't. they aren't doing it. but there's all -- this is just going to keep accelerating, and there are a lot of privacy issues, you know your location's being taken all the time with your smartphone or it can be. i think that americans have a right to privacy and that includes who's taking your location information, and i think you should be able to opt

in it's fine with you but if not, i don't think your location information should be taken. >> host: do you see bipartisan support for that? >> guest: there is -- yes. there is bipartisan. it depends on the exact application of that. i had a location bill pass two congresses ago in the judiciary committee. we didn't get that taken up on the floor. we'll be pursuing that, especially on stalking apps which is something that's become an issue in terms of domestic violence and in terms of slipping into your smartphone an abusive partner may slip that on to their partner's phone and then always be able to know where they are. that's very dangerous. it has been dangers. it's led to some pretty ugly stuff including murder.

police, law enforcement is now understanding that and so i -- we're going to be addressing that hopefully, in this congress. >> host: senator al franken democrat of minnesota. >> guest: thank you. >> host: and you're watching "the communicators" on c-span. we also caught up with house judiciary committee chair bob goodlatte to talk about some telecommunications legislation. judiciary committee chairman bob goodlatte is here at ces on the hill. chairman goodlatte, when you think about the judiciary committee, why are you down here? what are you looking at? >> guest: well, technology is something that is very important to all americans and the judiciary committee plays a critical role in promoting innovation and technology. we have jurisdiction over intellectual property, patents copyrights trademarks, trade names, trade secrets. we're work right now on the innovation act which is a bill designed to combat patent trolls, the cea and overwhelming majority of these member

companies are strong supporters of that legislation. but we're also working on something important to technology companies dealing with people's privacy and protection of their civil liberties. and that is legislation dealing with the nsa and the fisa court, the foreign intelligence surveillance act court, dealing with the revelations about the gathering of telephone metadata. this bill, which passed the house with a big bipartisan vote in the last congress, we're about to bring it up again bans metadata collection and storage by the government but still protects our national security in many good ways, but increases our civil liberties protection. we're also very interested in issues like making sure that brilliant young people who are educated at america's universities but come. >> around the -- but come from around the world are able to stay here and start businesses here, create more jobs for americans. lots of issues the judiciary committee deals with that are of great import to the tech sector of our economy.

>> host: well, recently, just a minute ago you were talking with two companies google and qualcomm. google has an issue in europe that it's facing. will our judiciary committee have any input -- >> guest: well, we already have. we've communicated with some key people in europe to say that in the united states our antitrust laws are focused on protecting the consumer, not on protecting other businesses. and we're very fearful that the europeans may be envy yous of the environment we have -- envious of the environment we have in the united states for the creation of new businesses like facebook and google and so on are trying to use their antitrust laws to disadvantage these companies. and one example, google told that they couldn't do certain things with their searches, okay we won't offer it in spain. so for about two weeks you couldn't use it in spain and then after the spanish officials heard from the people of spain that they wanted it, they backed away from it.

but that's the kind of situation that we've got to combat. we want to make sure that interest laws serve a good purpose, but that's to promote competition, not to distort competition, not to favor domestic companies or for reasons that don't benefit the computer -- the consumer. >> host: and finally sir, now that the net neutrality rules have been published in the federal remster, is the judiciary committee going to follow up with any hearings on that issue. >> >> guest: yeah, we had a hearing just a couple weeks ago with the chairman, chairman wheeler and commissioner pais and also -- pai and also some of the commissioners from the federal trade commission because our position there is also very strong, that you can protect the openness of the internet a better way by having competition protected by antitrust laws. that's the historic way we've done it in our country, to have the fcc usurp the authority of the federal trade commission, the ftc, is a very bad idea.

it's going to lead to regulation of the internet in ways that some of the people who have been calling for that have not imagined. and so we think that's a bad idea. the internet has grown and become so important in everyone's lives not because of government regulation but because it has been relatively free of that kind of regulation. and now to use an industrial age regulatory scheme that was used to regulate the monopolistic bell telephone company of, you know, half a century ago to regulate the internet, that just doesn't fit. that doesn't work. that's what they're trying to do. we're opposed to it. it's going to be tied up in litigation, i think but we also should be acting in the congress to move in a different direction to protect the internet. >> host: so do you foresee legislation? >> guest: could very well be. i know there have been bills introduced under the congressional review act which is a way to stop action to disapprove what the agency is doing. that's one avenue.

there'll be issues related to funding, you can always limit an agency through the power of the purse. and i believe that our antitrust laws are good, but if they need to be tweaked to make sure that a small business, for example can feel the protection of our antitrust laws, we should look at that. but what we should not do is have the fcc get their nose under the tent of the internet and begin regulating it in the way they are. >> host: judiciary committee chair bob goodlatte, frequent guest on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you, peter. >> host: and finally this week representative doris matsui, democrat of california. she represents the sacramento area. we talked with her about a couple of issues spectrum and net neutrality. and now joining us on "the communicators" is representative doris matsui, a democrat of california. representative matsui, you're co-chair of the spectrum caucus. what do you do on that caucus, and why'd you form it?

>> guest: well, my co-chair is brett guthrie from kentucky, and we really felt that spectrum is such a suital resource in this country -- vital resource in this country and a lot of people don't understand how it's used. it powers almost everything we understand as far as our ipads and our phones and everything else. and we really felt that it was necessary for people to understand that this is what really powers our economy. it really is something that is important. it really is kind of the oxygen of our digital economy. and whether you're doing you're measuring your heartbeat whether we're measuring your heating in your home, energy efficiency whether you're doing like in california we have to think about water efficiency and things like that, you need sections for all of that. and so we felt it was important for the rest of congress to understand in this vital resource. it is our, i like to say it is our invisible infrastructure so

to speak. and people don't see it, but without it, we wouldn't be where we are today. >> host: is it controlled by enough entities or just one entity? how would you like to see it controlled? >> we really have to harness it in a way that is fair. and we have to also locate some of that spectrum too. we have the aws iii auction. now, this might sound kind of nerdy, but people who watch your program will understand this. that was unbelievably successful. it pays for actually, the firstnet so we have public safety. and at the beginning when we had this auction, people believed that we wouldn't have paid for that. as it turned out, you know, wireless spectrum $45 billion worth in the auction. what we're looking at now is the fact that it is something that

is so critical and quite frankly, we're going to have other auctions too. this sort of -- everybody looked at it and said we can't believe that this happened. at first the broadcasters were very very lukewarm about it. but look at the value of spectrum today, they're looking at this and saying, wow there's an opportunity here. so we believe that more people very broadcasters are really participating in that auction and it's really helpful that we had a successful aws iii auction. and beyond that in order to do the aws iii auction we really had to work with the d. of defense -- the department of defense because 1750, 1780 band there was critical in order to insure that we have a successful auction. and the pentagon likes to

control spectrum. and as you know with the pentagon, they can always say you know, for security reasons we can't possibly move off of it, or we can't share. but we developed a relationship it was a bipartisan effort we developed a relationship with the pentagon the generals and everyone else so that they understood where we're coming from, and we understood where they're coming from. and the process took maybe six months or so initially. and they understood how critical it was that we all work together. so it was very helpful to start out with the pentagon as far as releasing some of the spectrum. but what we did with them was we looked to see where they can move themselves off where we can share some spectrum, and also the broadcast ors were very -- broadcasters were very helpful with that too because they got into it and really helped us work work with the

pentagon for places where they could relocate. so it has been one of these things where nobody really controls it, that's the nature of the internet and everything else we do. i think that's a part of it that a lot of people have difficulty with. and if you saw the net neutrality debate also, that was unbelievable in the sense that people understand that the internet should be free. and there should not be people who get faster access or not. so when that occurred, that whole energy that happened with that when chairman wheeler because of the overturning of the open internet order, when he had to have a new proposal out there, when he just hinted that there might be paid prioritization in which that really means that from the

internet provider to the end user which is the customer, in essence, that they may have to pay for faster speeds or whatever, i mean, four million comments? that was unheard of. so to me, and i think for most other people, it demonstrated that people in this country have this feeling about the internet and free expression. and so, obviously chairman and the fcc came up with another solution which in essence, balances out where broadband should be for everyone, you know, free access and in a sense banning prepaid prioritization, banning fast lanes for certain types of industries or people. but giving enough authority to the fcc so that they can do things like lifeline and faster

broadband and also to insure that we might also be able to have the ability to have cable and other companies be able to do some things into these areas like that so you're not dependent upon a big carrier to do that. so there could be competition in all that. it is an area that i'm very passionate about and whether it's net neutrality, whether it's spectrum, it is the future. and a lot of people know about it. and a lot of people don't. and as i said, it is invisible infrastructure. it's just as important as roads and highways. it really will get us to places. and it's even in this day and age, the 21st century it might even be more important. >> host: what do you say to the companies and the start-ups back at home in the sacramento area that have succeeded without net

neutrality being regulated by title ii? >> guest: you would be surprised at what they're thinking. because when i had a hearing, i had a hearing in sacramento and last year in september, you know, we'd never had a hearing in sacramento or maybe down south or silicon valley, had it in sacramento at the state capitol. and i really, i had two commissioners come out commissioner clyburn and rosenworcel. i had a california commissioner also on the witness stand. i had our county librarian on the stand, and i also had venture capitalists and i had a screenwriter there from hollywood. and it was totally incredible. my constituents came out to the hearing, and many times they don't come to hearings at the capitol, state capitol. but they came out because the word went out. and these were, these were, you know people who were

entrepreneurs just getting started who really did understand about this. they didn't care whether it was title ii or not. they really wanted to be sure that they got the access they needed, and they didn't have to be prioritized in's sense. in essence. so this is really something where it is participation from the ground up. i was really thrilled with that and the policymakers in my state also took notice of that too. so it's really, to me very, very end couraging -- encouraging. for young people who want to be creative the screenwriter was saying, she's a woman, she said that if we had if we didn't have net neutrality, if we had paid prioritization, she would probably not be able to be creative and get things up. she works with, you know, independent type people with content. and so the it's one of these

things -- it's one of these things where the young people, the creative people, the innovators totally get it. and that to me, was just very thrilling. and it gives me hope for what we need to do for the future. >> host: just very quickly back to spectrum. the federal government still controls quite a bit of spectrum -- >> guest: yes. >> host: -- and you have some legislation in play. >> guest: absolutely. it's the federal -- [inaudible] spectrum act, and it's important because what happened with cod we realized that we could actually work together and we're thinking there are orr agencies why don't we incentivize them to really look at the spectrum to see what they can do with it. so what our bill does and in essence, it's brett guthrie and myself we're co-chairs op all these things -- on all these things bipartisan, what it does is that whenever we go and they identify particular parts of the spectrum to go to auction,

incentivize them to release their spectrum, and they would get a percentage of the proceed. and when you think about the fact that we got $45 billion from the aws iii auction i think that's great incentive. so there's a certain percentage that we're going to put to that. you know, as we go down and, you know,st got very -- it's got very bipartisan support here, i believe it will work with some of the incentives there. but it is something that has interested a lot of people, you know, republican and democrat, gotten support from some of the commissioners. and a lot of -- obviously industry. and a lot of the federal government agencies are really looking at this too. they want to get involved in this. and if they see that we can do it with the the president of defense, surely we could do it with the other agencies too. >> host: doris matsui is a member of the energy and commerce committee and a democrat from california. thank you. >> guest: thanks to you. >> host: and "the communicators"

airs every week, saturday at 6:30 p.m. and then again monday on c-span2 at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. c-span.org/communicators, if you'd like to see some of our previous programs. >> coming up on c-span2 secretary of state john kerry on transatlantic trade. then live coverage of the european trade commissioner on continuing negotiations with the u.s. and other countries. after that a discussion on south africa's government and economy since the end of apartheid. secretary of state john kerry recently spoke about two trade agreements that would affect u.s. trading partners across the atlantic and pacific. his remarks to the atlantic council are half an hour. [applause]

>> general jones, thank you very much for a very, very generous introduction. more importantly, thank you for your absolutely extraordinary years of service to our country. you've held so many important positions and working your way up from a young lieutenant in vietnam all the way to national security adviser and many, many places in between. we admire -- can -- i admire and i think the world appreciates the extraordinary contribution to our country's security. i mean it. thank you very, very much. [applause] the only thing i worry about is this notion of a terrible toll on my health. i feel great folks. [laughter] i haven't noticed it. [laughter] i thought you were going to say terrible toll on my family and their life. [laughter] ambassadors, madam, thank you so

much for being here today. it is an important statement about the importance of this topic that so many ambassadors are here reflecting their interest in this issue of trade. i'm really delighted to be here with all of you fellow atlantaists. it's good to be here. i'm going to surprise you a little bit because i'm going to talk about both the atlantic and the pacific today. i'm going the talk about security and trade. which is a very timely topic and almost a guaranteed way to get into a pretty good argument. [laughter] within or without the outside the beltway. but that's exactly why we're here. the atlantic council has certainly never shied away from controversy. and for more than half a century this product, the

council of the greatest generation, has been an extraordinarily important bulwark of support for nato, for close economic ties between the united states, canada and europe, and in that time the council's had a lot of superb leaders beginning with christian herder. coincidentally a former u.s. secretary of state from massachusetts. fred kemp also belongs to that good tradition of visionaries and internationalists, and i appreciate his invitation to be here, but i also appreciate his leadership, but i think all of you do too what he's doing with the atlantic council. the introduction of the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act is, in fact, very good news. why? because it reflects exactly what our nation needs a bridge over

three divides; the executive and legislative, between the senate and the house, and between the two major political parties. so i want to commend orrin hatch, the panel's ranking member, ron wyden and house ways and means committee chair paul ryan. i commend them for providing a framework for moving forward on a pair of the most significant trade negotiations in our history. the trans-pacific and the transatlantic trade and investment partnerships. those of you fond of acronyms, tpp and ttip. now, if enacted, the new bipartisan bill will fully respect and preserve the rights of congress. but it will also give the president of the united states the flexibility that he has to have to negotiate credibly and

effectively on our nation's behalf. and make no mistake, the question of whether a president should have trade promotion authority in the end really does come down to whether the united states should even pursue significant free trade agreements. that's what's at stake. during my 28-plus years of service in the united states senate, i had a lot of conversations on this subject with factory workers union representatives, business people and other professionals and often these discussions were heated emotional challenging. because men and women are understandably upset if they see a company close down, jobs lost, and they deem the causation to be directly responsible for a

particular trade undertaking. it's only natural that people are going to look around and in their distress they're going the find someone or something to be able to blame m and it's sometimes easy. as a democrat and somebody who won the nomination to my party for the presidency, i understand those tensions as well as anybody. but i voted for the trade agreements including nafta when they came to united states senate. i had a lot of other conversations too on the other side of that coin with entrepreneurs and innovators people who were eager to take advantage of new opportunities and whose ingenuity helped to create jobs move our country forward, change our economy open up new opportunities reinvent the mix of our economic

base in cities like boston, philadelphia chicago, los angeles, new york, elsewhere. whether we like it or not, my friends, what is new particularly in business -- not in everything, but particularly in business -- ultimately catches up with and ultimately overtakes the old practice. that's the reality. you can trace that from the beginning of the industrial revolution. it's what we've always called progress. and, yes with unevenness sometimes in the social fabric it has more generally than not brought you that progress. but the resulting gains, it is fair to say don't come often without some element of loss at some point. and that's why we put in place trade adjustment assistance that's why we've done a lot of other things in order to respond.

the it's always created somewhat of a dilemma for policymakers. but should we try to stop change as inevitable as it is? is that even realistic? should we fight as hard as we can to maximize the benefits, minimize the dislocation that sometimes accompanies that change? my own convictions are twofold. first, in the modern world we simply cannot expect our economies to grow and generate new jobs if all we do is buy and sell to ourselves. ain't gonna work. trade is a job creator, period. and the record of the past five years, the past twenty years the past hundred years or more bears that out. as i speak, exports support

about 11.7 million american jobs. exports. and that number is only going to go up. why? it's pretty simple math. 95% of the world's consumers love beyond our borders -- live beyond our borders. if for some reason we decide not to do business them, our economy absolutely will gradually wither and shrink and we will see boarded-up windows and going out of business signs from one side of america to another. embracing globalization is not easy. i understand that. in fact, it could be hard. but trying to pretend that it doesn't exist would be catastrophic. my second conviction is that we -- and by that i mean the united states -- should be deeply engaged in helping to write the rules for trade. once again, common sense.

why would you sit on the sideline and let other people do that? do you think they're going to go for our high standard automatically? you can measure what happens to companies all across the world in the application of the foreign corrupt practices act. how many cups try to ask their -- how many countries try to ask their companies to operate by that standard? failure to do this would be a felony against the future of our own economy. we have to be engaged, because if we don't protect our interests, no one else is going to. and because we've learned from past experience to insist on tightly-written and enforceable standards on the issues that we care about the most. that is why it is is so important that these lessons are the very center of the bipartisan bill that is now being considered by the congress and of the high standard trade negotiations that are currently

underway. let me look at that for a minute. the proposal now on capitol hill goes well beyond any previous measure of its type. rather than settling for the status quo, it is designed to raise the bar on issue after issue. it says to our trading partners that if they want to take part in this global market, then it's important for them to comply with the core international labor and environmental standards. they have to fight trade-related bribery and corruption. they have to color within the lines on intellectual property rights. they have to enable legitimate digital trade. and they have to accept effective dispute settlement mechanisms in order to insure that promises made are promises kept. now, all of this, all of those

things i just listed that have to happen that are in the context of this agreement, they are the direct product of the lessons that we have learned and of the listening that we have been doing over the course of these last years. it adds up to a policy that pursues trade not just for the salk of trade but -- for the sake of trade, but to insure that our workers and our businesses are, in fact going to be guaranteed that they have a fair chance to compete. now remember, when president obama took office, we were in a recession. in fact, we were facing the greatest financial crisis in this country since the great depression, and we were looking at the prospect of even entering a great depression. the entire financial structure of the country was on the brink and ready to collapse. and i'm not saying that, that's what a republican secretary of the treasury said to me and to my colleagues in the united

states senate on an afternoon when he came up to literally implore us to engage in a bailout of that system. unemployment was approaching 10%. the housing market was in shambles. today nobody's claiming victory but since 2010 u.s. businesses have added over 12 million new jobs. we've put more people back to work than all the other advanced economies combined. and the single biggest cause of this success? our exports have reached a record level. and that's more than a statistic, folks. that's a policy. because when we increased the sale of u.s. goods and services our payrolls get bigger and american paychecks get fatter. on the average export-supported jobs pay significantly more than other jobs. and all of this matters e knorr

mousily because as -- enormously because as president obama has often observed, america's capacity to lead globally begins with our economic vitality here at home. now, if we're all satisfied with our progress, perhaps we could sit back, forget about trade agreements and about the chance to further pry open international markets where 19 out of 20 of the world's consumers live. but we're not satisfied. nor should we be. because we know that if we attempt to stand still, we're going to get blown away economically. we've got to keep generating new jobs. and we've got to insure that american workers farmers, rap commerce and businesses -- ranchers and businesses receive equitable treatment. you can't do that by sitting on the side of the road, folks,

while other countries write the rules for world trade which is where the future is going to be defined. most americans understand that. a recent gallup poll shows that almost 60% of our citizens view foreign trailed as an opportunity. not a threat. and here's the reason: the u.s. market is one of the most open markets in the world. and our environmental and labor standards are among the highest in the world. that's why we actually have so much to gain and nothing to lose by reaching deals that lower barriers and raise the norms of business behavior so that our businesses can actually wind up selling more in other places. now consider that small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of the american economy by the way they face a unique set of challenges when they're trying to increase exports. for example health enterprises

in north attleboro massachusetts, ships consumer health care items to more than 60 countries. but it's hurt by bureaucratic issues such as costly re-registration process in the event u. -- e.u. the seattle-based cascade designs company exports outdoor equipment, recreation equipment but it faces high tariffs in tpp countries. an agreement would change that. endisableing both -- enabling both ec ports and payrolls to grow. concord supply in san antonio texas, is a seller of industrial materials, and it depends on patent enforcement in order to keep it innovative products from being ripped off. more generally the united states is the world leader in many service industries, and therefore, stands to gain significantly from greater openness in that sector.

the list goes on, long list. our companies need agreements that will reduce both tariff and nontariff barriers to trade. thereby enabling them to participate more fully in the new global supply chains that are creating unprecedented opportunities to establish winning connections around the world. in fact, the economic case for tpp and ttip is actually overwhelming, and i've argued a lot of cases over the course of my public career. however, as secretary of state i'd like to offer just a little bit of additional food for thought here wearing the secretary of state hat not the business or trade hat. it is no secret that we have reached a very fluid stage in global affairs where people are wondering all around the world frankly, how the world will look

a couple of decades from now. this turbulence that we are witnessing comes from a combination of factors but it comes significantly from technology changing, economic and political relationships. it comes from the fact that even as the world grows closer, there are powerful forces driving us apart. these include terrorism but also extreme nationalism. conflicts over resources the imbalance between the number of people coming of age in many regions and a dangerous shortfall in economic and social opportunity. we also know that everybody in the world is in touch with everybody in the world all the time, every day. and believe me, that changes aspirations, and it changes politics. it changes possibilities. it makes it harder to build

consensus, harder to govern. and when we add all of this up, we are confronted by a couple of very basic questions. are we going to look backward and decide that the best way to prepare for the future is to try and recapture the past? are we going the fear change and give up even attempting to negotiate a trade agreement that will spur sustained growth? and address precisely the labor and environmental concerns about which critics have previously complained. i sure hope not. because the fact is that we could try to build a wall around our economy as big as fenway park's green monster, maybe bigger. it'd be a lot more harmful than it would be helpful my friends. instead of walls what we ought to be building are alliances and partnerships and understanding

and rules of the road by which we can all act with certainty rather than hunkering down and just thinking somehow the storm's going to pass over you and you're going to be okay. we should be and we are, believe me using all the diplomatic tools at our disposal to generate shared prosperity so that we and our partners can move forward together. and we need to make certain that everybody up and down that food chain, the economic food chain shares in the benefits of this much more effectively than they have at some times in the past. now, the good news is that our engagement has been welcomed across every ocean not because we always agree with all of our friends on every part of this or all of the impacts but because we know that our markets -- and indeed our very futures all of us -- are linked.

and that when the chips are really down, our partners will be able to count on us. and just as we know, in fact, that we can count on them. that's what will give the world greater strength and frankly, greater stability in this extraordinary moment of challenge on a global basis. the right kind of trade agreements are actually critical because they create habits of cooperation that help us not only economically, but in everything else that we are not only determined to do, but that we need to do in order to reduce the instability and address the challenges of the future. the united states and europe are bound together. as shakespeare put it, by hoops of iron. ttip will enable us to take further advantage of our combined economic muscle. a few years ago when it was

first talked about i remember in the middle of the economic crisis people said, wow, this is going to be able to really help us get out of this crisis lift up, create the jobs we need. that hasn't changed, that need. there's still crisis in a number of countries in europe. and as we look at greece struggling with the euro and other challenges, ttip has the opportunity to be able to provide the economic kick that people need and want. and thereby serve as a strategic pillar of the transatlantic community. it will underscore the democratic solidarity that has defined us and united us since the berlin wall was pulled down by the indomitable courage of people on both sides that barrier. and looking ahead ttip will reinforce our effort to counter violent extremism support the sovereignty of ukraine build

energy security and independence for many nations in europe that currently have to rely on one source is, russia. and also it will help us address global problems such as nuclear proliferation and climate change. that's what comes out of this kind of collaborative effort and the growth that it will spur. of course, the asia-pacific is also a major focus of our international economic policy and our diplomacy. the markets there are huge. they are growing very rapidly. and expanding right along with them is the range of american economic political and security interests. seven asian countries are among our negotiating partners on the t, pp -- tpp. these include japan whose prime minister will be in washington next week for a state dinner and to address a joint session of congress. the transformation of the united states and japan from enemies to

allies over the past seven decades is truly one of the most magnificent achievements of all history. for both countries. an example of a remarkable turn around and reconciliation and of possibilities. the tpp is one way to guarantee that our bilateral ties already strong, grow even stronger. while serving to reassure all of our allies that america's commitment to the region is both deeply rooted and long term. and because the asia-pacific matters so much, president obama announced early in his presidency a plan for a rebalance in our foreign policy. but that rebalance is grounded as well in the need for regional partners to perceive a level playing field within asia. so that the geopolitical clout is not overly concentrated in any one country including us.

we're not seeking that. we want to see it spread and shared and understood and engaged in by all countries rather than a great game as we have known it in too many places through all of the last few centuries. that equilibrium is crucial because the economic models and trade standards that hold sway in the asia-pacific will have a decisive impact on the norms elsewhere. it's in america's interests in our allies' interests that these standards be as high as we can make them. because when the competition is fair, those cups that pact -- those countries that practice by those standards are are the most productive in the world and i'm glad to say the united states is among them. the bottom line is this: 2015 is simply not the time for us to decide that trade negotiations are too hard or to somehow

vacate the field and let 70 years ofless ops from the great depression and world war ii get tossed aside. it's not the time for us to sit back and allow the principles of free and open trade to be supplanted by the barren twins of protectionism and mercantilism. why on earth would we ever think that to do so would be in america's best interests or in the interests of the world? but that's what's being offered by others opponents. why would you even consider that? if there's any message being sent by, to governments by the young people in the world today which really was at the heart of the arab spring, at the heart of the revolution that was attempted in syria, at the heart of tahrir square, at the heart of that terrible incident of one person, a fruit vendor, burping

himself to death -- burning himself to death in tunisia igniting the rest of the aspirations of people to overflow in those squares and hope for jobs and opportunity and education and a future. if we don't meet the needs of those young people today in their demand for openness and freedom, the desire to give nature and the environment the same protections that we pursue for commercial contracts and property, these young people insist that we live by the rule of law so that the corrupt are held accountable. and it's possible to achieve prosperity without being east a giant corporation -- either a giant corporation or born rich. as americans, these aren't the kind of demands that should worry us. these aren't aspirations we should be scared of. we should welcome them because we've encouraged them all over the world for decades. they are, on the contrary, the hopes and expectations that the united states should embrace.

they reflect principles that can help us modernize and strengthen our partnerships across both oceans. they can elevate the way the whole world does business. and the road to their realization gips with the approval of -- begins with the approval of trade promotion authority for the president followed by the completion of these two agreements. each of which represents an agreement with 40% individually of the gdp of the world. ultimately, my friends trade issues cannot be separated from larger questions about america's global leadership or about the choices yet to be made by our generation. if we retreat on trade, our influence on the global economy will diminish. and if our economic stature is in doubt our ability to deliver on defense and political challenges will be increasingly questioned. in our era the economic and

security realms are absolutely integrated. we simply can't pull back from one without diminishing our role on the other. we have to be fully engaged in each. more than 50 years ago when christian herder led this council, american exports were worth only about one-twenty yet of their value today. in the decade since our commercial relationships have been utterly transformed. our leading manufacturers have changed. our trade and services has exploded and technology has made what was once barely imaginable now the new normal. we are living in a wholly different world except for one thing, the need for american leadership. like the greatest generation, we face tests that we cannot allow partisanship or any other source

of internal division to prevent us from meeting. we have an opportunity before us to shape and to elevate the global rules of trade for decades to come. on these rules will be written the economic history of this century. in congress prominent leaders from both parties are poised to open that door, and it is absolutely vital my friends at the atlantic council that you and we all together do everything possible to make sure we walk through that door together and that we get this job done. thank you very much. [applause] ..

we certainly feel that way. we've launched our own trade and security initiative today. we've launched our own business initiative for trade and security. we will do whatever we can to help get the job done because we consider it a historic event. thank you so much for being here. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> we have more for you on trade this morning as we are live at the center for strategic international studies here in washington for remarks from the european trade commissioner. she's expected to touch on the ninth round of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. those negotiations recently concluded in new york city. live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] i didn't waiting to hear from cecilia malmstrom, she is the european trade commission and should be talking about the ninth round of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations that wrapped up recently in new york. this is expected to get underway in just a couple of moments. live coverage here on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning and welcome for

the -- binding binding scott miller. i'm a senior advisor here at csis and a pleased you could join us for this morning's statesmen's forum. i'd like to also welcome our online audience. we are webcasting this event live at csis.org and the digital video and audio will be available at csis.org following the event. you can also follow us on twitter at hashtag csis lives. the ninth round of negotiations for the transatlantic trade and investment partnership concluded in new york last week and as part of a commitment of our guest today and ambassador michael froman to meet following each round cecilia malmstrom european commissioner for trade is in washington. we welcome the commissioner to our forum is only. dr. malmstrom became

commissioner of trade for the european union in november 2014. argue that she was commissioner for home affairs, and long career in this field. most importantly in her early days she was an intern at csis. so this is -- [laughter] this is a welcome back to csis for the commissioner. thank you again for joining us, and please help me welcome commissioner cecilia malmstrom. [applause] >> thank you so much for this. good morning, everybody. it's really nice to be here and it is especially nice to be at csis where as well as that i had an internship almost 20 years ago. i think those 10 weeks laid the ground for my interesting in american politics and it's

really good to be back again. this is even bigger. i am here indeed in washington to meet with ambassador from on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. we are going out with the sure to assess where we are and to make sure everything is on track. that's the third time i meet with michael froman this year. that is more often than 90 some of the numbers of my family. i hope that is not the case for him. why do we do this quick because we can see these negotiations their social. social. want to promote or perform those negotiations, we want to make sure this has a political touch with a regular exchange viewpoints come that we take stock of where we are, assessing the difficulties, the possibility and it's economically important for europe and u.s. and that's why we will keep on

having his frequent meeting until the very end of the process. but we also know that on either side of atlantic is ttip the be all and end all of trade policy. here in washington understand the biggest buzz is about the trade across the pacific, and that makes it since of course. the pacific region is an indispensable part of the world economy and the tpp trans-pacific partnership come is a group that has been negotiated for many years so we followed as closely as well. also in brussels our trade a strategy goes far beyond one notion one continent. it changes over time as well and right now at the beginning of this new commission i took office the first of november last year we are updating our strength -- trade strategy. so the things you have a very deep and thorough discussion in washington. maybe i thought it could be interesting for you dear about our discussion on trade.

because we are now setting and a strategy and that is of course not an easy task because strategy icing means planning for future. that is unforeseeable. was easy to give up and you focus now to the decisions you have to make every day. in my country, sweden, we've to say there are two things that are taken for granted taxes and death. for the rest -- is improvising. improvising is something you should resist as well. as a great american once said you will be better if you don't know where you're going, you will end up somewhere else. that's important to remember. he was right. we can't predict the future but we have a plan for it. so how are we doing that for uk policy today? we have been starting to see what works already. we are looking closely at how the world has changed since we last -- five years ago and we are looking to answer the questions those changes raise.

we know that eu trade policy is helping us to do two things today. prosperity to protect and project europe's land. first, prosperity. the eu is the largest exporter of goods and services at the export support over 30 million jobs across our continent. almost one in seven european workers owes his or her job to the export as well. but the benefits we get from export go beyond. our imports are also part of the economic because not only do consumers get goods and wiser choice businesses become more competitive. in a world of global value chains can almost 60% of the upper export is made up of imported goods and services. two-thirds of enforcing our energy come from materials and intermediate goods. and all these inputs also support jobs in europe. we owe these economic benefits

to trade to entrepreneurs but also all of them to open trade policy at home and abroad. european union itself with the 20th members is a large cache judgment large free trade area for almost seven years we have been pressing for greater openness to work trade organizations, and we continue to do so today. with our partners in wto come with the u.s. and others. these efforts create a framework that underpins the state's open global economy and the benefits it delivers. we take those for granted today but they were essential to prevent a return to protectionism in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. and more recently we've been using our bilateral negotiations to bring more openness and more opportunities for european people. last year alone we conclude negotiations with candidate, singapore and ecuador. these agreements are very effective at opening markets. they remove barriers to trade

goods, services and public procurement. they loosened relations with traditional barriers and if they work. and 2011 out agreement with south korea came to floor. and since then exports up 35% compared to the year before we launched the deal. exports are up with 90%. we have evidence that our policy works and is helping to great prosperity on the ground. but europeans as i guess americans are demanding people. i want to trade policy that is beyond economic, promote european values around the world, values that we share with you, democracy and human rights, protection for the vibrant and quality. we know this works. let me give you a few examples. eu trade preferences help to reduce global inequality. where the world's largest importer of products from developing countries.

that's because we have a good and big market of 500 million consumers, but also because we offer full duty and free market to the world's poorest countries. and because we are far more limited, still very fallible trade preferences to all developing economies. we are also using special trade preference to strengthen labor rights and environmental protections. we have a program that gives better access to the eu markets to vulnerable developing countries if they sign up to international conventions, everything from combating racial discrimination to biological diversity or corruption. if they don't implement them they can lose that. thirdly, we are seeking seeing some results of innovative tools like a contract with the bangladesh on working conditions and closed factories. this is a compact come at you

between us, between you, between the human, bangladesh government, trade unions and employers. in two years from the terrible tragedy in bangladesh for over 1200 people, women come lost their lives, we have seen some important improvements in the working conditions and workplace safety. there's still a very long way to go but pressure through trade can bring change, and they must continue to do so. these are just three examples how trade can support values at the core of our identity. i think we can be proud of those successes but they -- their server room to do more. the world is constantly changing so we must change for it if you want to keep going. a few recent changes are particularly important for trade policy. of course, first the world economy has changed. the global economy is becoming more integrated through the value chain. emerging economies like china continue to become more

important meaning that when they need to find ways to connect to them economically. 90% of global growth will come from outside europe. so we need of course to engage with others. technological change means that trade is not only physical but it is increasingly electronic. digital communications are making new parts of the economy tradable and they're creating new fields of this. and innovation is not confined to the private sector. the last two years was incumbents come up with new and creative types of trade barriers, and these include localization, local content requirements, subsidies like export restrictions on energy and raw material. and trade policy is changing too. there's a new positive move in the world trade organization. the european union and united states are working together to support director-general in his efforts to conclude the doha

round, and this is extreme important if we could reach an agreement by the end end of the year, especially for the poorest countries of the world. the most dramatic trend in the world policies today of trade is the proliferation of bilateral free trade agreements around the world. standing still is not an option. that would put european exports are huge dissidents as others improve. another change is the politics of trade in europe. they may not be obvious in washington but there is an intense public debate around ttip in europe. it's a front-page daily on basically all european papers and the equivalent in social media, a huge debate and many people are very concerned about this. that debate has shown that the people are concerned about what they perceive as ttip possible impacts, could get public services, regulatory protection,

arbitration, environment et cetera. many of those fears are not justified at all by fax but they show that people see distance from politics, from trade policymaking. they want to be involved in this is something we need to address. for our children to provide a broad response to this and other challenges. we are doing that by asking questions about for groups of issues. first, how do we find a way to seek broader engagement and broader trusted from the public? this has been one of my priorities for ttip. so far we've put basically all documents on the european side online so that everybody can see what we are negotiating and what we are not negotiating. so we are looking at know how we can be more transparent across the rest of our agenda. and that means also we need to work very closely with eu member states and, of course, our european parliament. they represent our citizens and their essential for our work because in the end they need to give their consent to any trade

agreement. second can. [inaudible] a broad conceptual how to advance our values. trade cannot solve every problem of the world that it can drive the right kind of change. .com we do more to strengthen human rights, labor rights come development? what i did we want to export for that is responsible so i changed. we are also working to address issues around raw materials conflict zones around the world. a question is whether we can look at for the ways to address these issues by promoting the concept of fair trade more generally. third, our strategy must be broadly comes to hard economics. the scope of trade policy has expanded greatly. it was a time when the main negotiation was about tariffs. and trade agreements to a few weeks. this is not the case anymore. we have to continue to broaden this if you want to be defective. we need to explore new venues

like trade mobility of people who want to provide services and maintain goods already sold and new subsidies. our surgeon must look at how we would keep an existing working there like energy and regulatory operation. we are issues are perhaps the court issued for trade policy over the next decade. can we find a way to make a different regulatory decision more compatible while making sure it still protects people at the? fourth with limited resources we need to pick up the broad geographical scope of a trade agenda make sure we deliver on it. the best way to tackle many countries at once is to escort the deputy a. we need to look at a post doha agenda. we will need to seek ways to use the energy of bilateral negotiations to drive the multilateral process. but the bilateral agenda itself

but also been did not affect trade cover that opens trade routes to two-thirds in the coming year. in asia we have deals with korea and singapore people are moving towards concluding with vietnam and japan. we want to finalize our investment agreement with china. within malaysia last week we met with trade ministers and we discussed how we can move forward in a region to region trade agreement in the future. we are also exploring bilateral negotiations with countries such as malaysia, indonesia et cetera. we are moving towards a new phase in a relationship with africa. laughter we concluded partnerships agreements with 27 african countries, and these are very much about development but also about partnerships. because countries need to slowly, gradually and sensitively open their markets and this is a positive step that

signals a new maturity of new africa trade relations, a partnership of equals. in the americas lester we concluded a groundbreaking agreement with canada. latin america we have a broad network that includes central america, caribbean and entire pacific coast. our new strategy will also look at filling that gap by deepening our existing but old agreements with mexico and chile. and then of course, we have to deliver on ttip. to make a deal with our trade partners would make a major contribution to expand the amount of our trade covered by ambitious trade rules. ttip is also the lead negotiation to the most advanced trade disciplines. both sides plan to go for predatory cooperation in particular than any other free trade agreement including this tpp. we want to strengthen predatory protection while facilitating trade. we want to make sure we can set

joint standards globally. and we want to make sure that we set a state-of-the-art rules on everything from state-owned enterprises to small and medium-sized enterprises. when it comes to the politics of trade, ttip is essential to the new ways of engaging with people we are trying to is a testing ground for the rest of the trade policy. ttip is of course very much all about strengthening our shared transatlantic values your never forget that the p. stands for partnership. we chose is the outcome everything from open markets to i love regular protection from environment, health and consumers, but also our dedication to democracy, human rights and rule of law. and by coming together around these principles, the u.s. and europe can strengthen our partnership to defend them also global. and that's why ttip will be a vital part of the future sector

of the trade system. as the secretary said last week by working together we create habits of cooperation that spreads to every other part of our relationship. that gives us a chance to meet together. so ladies and gentlemen, making trade policy is not easy. it always involves tough discussions and negotiations with partners all around the world, except discussion with many different interests at home. you know that and we know that. in keeping up-to-date is not easy either. it involves learning new skills and address a new political challenges. but it's worth the effort if we live in a world that becomes more integrated every day. the canadian philosopher marshall mcluhan said the human family not exist under conditions of a global village. that was in 1962. and it's hard to conceive what he would have made out of today's international connections. openness to the world is an essential natural response and

as a resource we have to develop. only by engaging actively and continuously consistently with the world can help to shape and benefit from it. a trade policy backed up by clear subject is a vital tool to did that it would global trade agenda for globalized world. this is what we are aiming to do with the european union. i know that these challenges i've outlined are anyways the same strategies were discussing and he was so we're looking forward to working closely with you on that. and with that, thank you very much for your kind attention and i'm looking forward to the discussion. [applause] >> commissioner malmstrom, thank you so much. you are the best advertisement for a csis in turn. you, too can become a european

union commissioner take as much. good morning. my name is heather, senior vice president for europe and eurasia. the last time we hosted you commissioner malmstrom, was in our old building angie and former deputy secretary of homeland security were in a dialogue on cybersecurity. and we can turn to that but we are just a letter to have you. what we have i think we have about 45 minutes of conversation, discussion. i'm going to get you warmed up a little bit before we let our audience ask you some questions. i know the title is "ttip and beyond" but if you'll forgive me i will focus more on ttip rather than the beyond. and i know you are fully prepared for the. me begin come as an entrée person i'm confused. i'm confused about the investors out of a dispute issue. the european union just completed an agreement with

canada. the approximate 117 cases worldwide last year ugly isds, 35% were used by european firms towards european governments. why now do we have this huge concern about isds privatization of arbitration what this could be a real showstopper and i think we are concerned because this is what well over 50% of bilateral trade instruments. help us understand what has happened between ttip that is greater this enormous concern and response from europe. >> it's a very good question and it does not have an easy answer because these agreements, isds is that the most toxic acronym in europe all over. of hundreds of thousands of people who talk about this every

day. if you google that you'll find isds needs international shepherd dog society but that's all we're talking about today. [laughter] we are talking of these bilateral investment protection agreements that exist, and i think is almost 3000 globally. but it is somehow become a symbol of the big companies challenging the right to govern or the right to regulate for governments. right along, that is how it is perceived. i spend half of my working time talking about this. i know there's a debate here as well that is going. i think it has to do a little bit with the economic crisis would economic crisis were caused by big companies and they were not following the rules, not following the rules and

putting states in difficult positions, sort of a big company blame game a little bit. in some countries this is more frequent than others. so but we started to do and my predecessor indicated agreement to reform to make them a bit more up-to-date. it is do their bit old-fashioned and when it occurred in the '60s they had more more other countries -- the copies interest that, of course with consumer protection and so on these things have grown. so what we're trying to do in the maternity in the canadian agree with reform to make a it more transparent, more open, more limited to make sure that they can only be used for other cases of discrimination or xo progression or went investments are in question. what we are doing now is moving from the even more towards a more modernize the system of investment arbitration were of course investors can feel safe, that their investment will not

be confiscated or discriminated or nationalized but it's in an open, transparent ways that creates confidence. and we are working with this intensively -- is my first i thought that actually and we will present some ideas this week to the uk parliament and to the member states. hopefully then we can have a question resolved or at least we can focus on other aspects. >> let me move to another issue that we are following carefully. last week we issued a new report fueling online trade imagination the digital agenda come how critical that is your yet we know data protection transatlantic sharing of the data is a very difficult subject to the safe harbor agreement is now being reviewed, renewed and we know there's enormous impact

over the nsa revelation. tell me what your perspective is on data protection and getting that right. because we are seeing obviously a lot of activity on localization of service. obviously, the commission is taking some very strong measures against google and others at the american information technology sector is a dominant in europe and other some reaction to that simply the competitiveness. how are you approaching data protection about important transatlantic sharing of digital information? >> this is a very important part of it because data flows across the atlantic every second and we continue to do so so it's important we facilitate safe stuff. trade and david and data flows in companies. this is the future in many ways and this we will do. we will be discussing this. when it becomes difficult is

when we talk about personal data and how it is used. and that's what we have so far the data protection regime of europe is not going to be negotiated with ttip paper updating our rules. we also have as you mentioned that safe harbor come as i understand this is about to be sold very, very soon. we welcome that and we're also negotiating my colleagues are responsible for justice the issue of an umbrella agreement between the u.s. and why that is not part of ttip come it would be very beneficial to sort of set the standards and the umbrella conditions there. so we will find a way to facilitate of course data flows but to make sure that personal data is treated in accordance with u.s. i know if you are also updating us. the president has been very active in correcting some of these nsa, how shall i put it?

some of the ways in essay was using data that was also not appreciated by lots of american people of course. i think this is a movement that welcome and that is moving forward. it has created it has created problems for the trust between us, this will issue. and it's important we build on the reforms that are being made on both sides and on the reforms we are working on together. >> you said broadly the european parliament is a more focus on a date in question and the privacy protection issue, more focus on the isds concern, give us a sense for what is the european parliament concerned about today? >> a long list. [laughter] but the data protection issue has been very high on the agenda for many years and rightly so. they are elected to represent is other people.

these are concerned people feel battled in the nsa snowden context but our issues internally as well. and also with the fight against terrorism to get the balance right, yes, we should fight terrorism that there should also be protection for integrity. there were concerns that for a long time which is good but i would say these two issues and with isds in the ttip concept are probably the most complicated ones. >> let me ask you an unfair question, so forgive me. when i speak with european officials that are engaged in the ttip discussion, i hear a concern, concerned that the united states is not as ambitious as europe would like forward leaning come and using ttip as way to push boundaries competed with its tariff reduction which is that are low but still, or you look at some of the regulatory issues. would you agree that that statement, that you which the u.s. side was a bit more ambitious, more dramatic and pushing forward its goals?

>> welcome we would of course like to fish the negotiations as quick as possible but we are aware of the political realities. i know that in the congress right now there's an intense debate on the trade promotion authority is also that trade with the pacific partnership, the finales of course. this is limiting a little bit the possibilities for the administration to fully focus on ttip with businesses they wind up, we hope can -- we hope the full focus can be a ttip. we really want an ambitious agreement because we did have a few agreements, that could've been done years ago but that's not what we are aiming at. we trade billions every day but we will get this broad

agreement. tariffs are still done, but also look at access to our markets when it comes to the public procurement, when it comes to rules and regulatory. we talked about energy. it's a very ambitious agreement that we have sort of in our preparatory work, so we hope and we trust and we think of both sides come it will not be easy. hasn't been easy when we did a long time ago but we can deliver and make really the biggest free trade agreement ever. >> that question of timing is -- >> because you have an election coming up. >> a little something happening in 2016, i think remembering when the political rhetoric, the forger. remember that one tank of gas we're going to get ttip? it's going to be a previous because we're going to be on this one tank for a while. and the concern is tpa tpp and

take enormous amount of political energy here that in 2016, election years are not the best time for big steps to be taken. and i sort asked a similar question to ambassador solomon last week saying it feels to me we sort of solve -- so old it. no no. this is the boring bit. this would get quiet and focused that you don't see. okay, its board. it feels external link that is losing all of it of its energy and this is what a lot of the groups who don't want this deal to be successful. imagine the toxicity in europe today. that's what feels like is taking hold. i worry that we're going to get into 2016 and this is going to look like 2017. the u.s. has never won and won the recession started and completed a trade negotiation ever. >> well, famous british

philosopher, optimism is a duty. that's my motto. we will try. elections are of course to be welcome. they complicate the timetable for i have done. either intel 2019 unless there's a revolution. [laughter] but with plenty of elections in european union. there's 28 countries and regional elections, local elections. a big one that we all very know very well in united kingdom. and then next year we will be busy yes. but hopefully that's what we're aiming at intensifying the debate. some of the really political issues can be solved now and leaving the boring technical things when the debate becomes an intense and maybe we will see. >> it's going to be challenging. let me turn again, a bit back on the question of ambition. the one ambition to negotiators

have had is great energy chapter and that has not been, my words something that's been very attractive to the u.s. side. do you feel you're getting some traction in getting the energy, natural resources question out there? or quite frankly this is something the americans are simply not interested in exploring? >> this is a difficult issue. you are aware of that. but i think since we sort to write our articles common agenda the paper of the high level working group we set out our joint admissions, since been quite a lot of things have happened. from our side with some countries in the european union almost 1% depend on energy imports from russia. and -- 100%. we need to diversify this. this is something that the u.s. support and courage of course. in order to do that we need to import from other sources.

the u.s. to be one such. i think it has a very important strategic dimension as well. we have not really gone into that chapter to negotiate yet but by that i think there's a mutual understanding that it is important, then we will see how the actual negotiations go. i'm aware of the sensitive issue but it's very important for us. >> one final question, i think you've been warmed up to get ready for tough questions from our audience. we certainly know turkish government has expressed some concern. the eu is updating and reflecting i think the customs union and integrating that. norway, iceland and other non-eu partners, mexico of course. help us understand your approach to third parties concerned. >> all these countries, special of course turkey with on we have a customs union since many, many years ago and in iceland and

norway who are not members of the european union but who are part of the free trade area of an good partners in many other ways so they of course are following this with great interest. we keep them informed about what we are doing socome in the loop and if expressed the willingness to be able to login to the agreement once it's done. i think that's a good idea. if we can achieve an ambitious ttip and other countries that are neighborhood, and others would want to log into that. i think that's a good idea and we should keep that prospect open for them. but, of course -- [inaudible] >> perfect, wonderful. it's time to welcome our audience into the discussion. we have some microphones around to give you could raise your hand to identify yourself, affiliation. we would like to keep, to very short. your questions very focused. some going to start in the far back corner.

i stand back there. we've get to a microphone to come right there. sometimes the very loud into the microphone so don't be afraid to speak loudly. >> thank you. commissioner graham usage were working on several ideas. can you give us any hints what those might be? and will you can to free trade agreement been reworked to include some of the new ideas before it is ratified? >> we share those ideas with european parliament at the trade ministers next week and i will be sure to share them with the press as well. >> so we will get next week. this week. this monday. >> wonderful. we have three questions right here in the middle if we can have a microphone here. excellent. yes, thank you. >> thank you. the coalition of services industry. thank you, commissioner malmstrom, for your remarks

today and your leadership for freer trade. at the beginning of the comments you talked about the broader agenda in trade negotiations, that different subjects that has become part of trade negotiations. i don't think you mentioned currency manipulation and i would be interested in your views on whether you think it's appropriate to include currency manipulation discipline in a trade agreement? thank you. >> i think that depends. probably -- you know more about this is a discussion be discussed with the tpp discussions. is not part of our ttip negotiations. so i think it depends on, on your partners. >> we will have a question right up front please. >> dave thomas with inside u.s. trade. the eu has made clear that government procurement is a strong commercial interests for

the eu in the ttip but the u.s. seems to have refused to offer really anything significant on it. i was just wondering how long can this scenario i guess continue? how many more concessions can the eu offer the u.s. until i just enough is enough? >> well, we just finished the night negotiation round last weekend in new york. we have one more plan for july and that's what we think is needed to have everything on the table, all the technical issues and then hopefully we can go into more political part of the negotiations. public procurement is very important on the european side. it has been good for our economy and for our consumers, and we will of course be seeking greater access to the american market. there are no sort of ultimatums or deadlines.

we will be discussing this with our american partners as well and we have not set out specific date or timetable to do that. but this is a very big interest on the european southern i don't think we conclude that i can conclude an agreement if we don't make progress on that. automatic. >> if i do think we could conclude an agreement i would do something else. >> optimism is a duty absolutely. right there, please. >> hello. melinda st. louis from public citizen. you mentioned your efforts to increase transparency for more public trust, and so i was wondering if in your conversations with ustr froman a few encouraging u.s. to follow your lead in terms of publishing textual proposals? and if the u.s. would be great if you would also agree to

publish composite tax at regular intervals so the public can be following the negotiations that have a sense of what is being negotiated and what is something is not being negotiated, as you mentioned? >> that's a great question. there will be in some ways more transparency on european second potential on the american side. >> well, of course we're discussing this and what is happening, the eu internal debate i think our american partners follow that quite closely so there are no secrets no sort of dark moves here. we have decided to publish rtu text, basically all of them. not all of them. the are some very sensitive issues such as tariffs that you cannot put them online while you're negotiating but all our legal proposals all our position papers, all the reference to the different reports of also summary of each negotiation round has been published online for you and others who seek.

we also the broad engagement with european parliament and different stakeholders group we are we report after each negotiation round. we will continue to do so as we develop coming positions in the eu. of course, we cannot publish american documents. that's for you and your constituents decide how to do that. i think as we start to go more into delivering results, because of course everything is a link, taking boxes from everything but as we start to deliver more i think you'll it will be desirable if we could communicate about together come and we need to find a way to do that. >> thank you. we will now go here. >> thank you. i'm tom with the foreign policy discussion group. it's interesting that you haven't yet mentioned agriculture, and yet we know that relations between the u.s. and europe, agricultural issues

had been going on seemingly forever. would you discuss some of the agricultural issue roadblocks you were dealing with? >> that's a seminar in and of itself. >> but very briefly, yes, of course agriculture is always a big part of negotiations like this. they are sensitive issues that i know they are here in the u.s. they are very sensitive and our countries as well. we are looking at ttip as a basis, across the board. but there are obviously here in the u.s. and in the eu some sensitivities that will have to be excluded and that's for the and again. -- and again. we think it's interesting that for us to increase the marketing american market and i know that for the americans, producers and some of the areas, they want to increase access to our markets. i think on many of these issues

we have mutual interest or compatible interest so that will not be a problem. there will be a few sensitive products that we will be discussing. for us and for you we have some laws that cannot be changed but from the european perspective are very important when it comes, for instance hormone beef is not about in european legislation to give other issues that are forbidden in your legislation. we cannot change our respective legislation and that has been clear from the outset but we will try to find ways to open up as much as possible in agriculture. they are always sensitive, all negotiations, even with big partners such as the wto as well. so i don't know if i should develop more on this but -- >> if i can try to find them if i can toss out love it because he is a week a decision on gmos not letting the member

states decide ambassador froman was clear that was not necessarily where the u.s. was wanting to be more open. i think we have seen geographic indicators. and again how do you manage, again in the early days just finished a ninth round, but these are pretty big obstacles. how did you manage through those speak with us or with geographical indication. this is one of the priorities. we have thousands of them protected internally. indicated aggregate we managed to agree on 154 of them i think it. so this is something that is the important on the part of many of our member states. certain parts of our negotiations maybe. i know the youth counselor totally different tradition so this'll be a difficult issue but i'm sure we can solve that as well. on gmos at the same time as we adopted sort of procedure or we didn't buy.com we propose to do not what has to be endorsed by member states and in

parliament. we also gave permission for 19 gmos that has been cleared. we have assigned to the agency, so those 19 were put there. which have been the u.s. demand for quite some time. the new procedure is compatible with the wto and intro markets. so i'm quite confident that this impact would not change anything in any of the practical applications. >> fantastic. all right. we have a question over here. >> thank you, heather. my name is sean donnelly from u.s. council of international business. commissioner, thank you for your remarks today and for your strong leadership. for my organization and i think for business in general the strong investor state dispute education are essential in the ttip. and while you can speak out very strongly, i don't see many of your fellow commissioners or

european political leaders doing that. they seem to be hanging back a little bit. at a time we see president obama frankly speaking out very strongly and confronting members of his own party on trade and investor state dispute settlement. so my question is why aren't more european leaders out there now strongly trying to explain the benefits that ttip and particularly of investment? thanks. >> well, i think that is gradually changing come as heather said in the beginning this is something that has been part of the eu bilateral agreements for many, many years. and then a few years ago it started to become a bit toxic and people start to look at them, maybe they need to be reformed a little bit. i've taken all my fellow commissioners to a crash course in isds. and everything now and they're preparing pashtun ethnic went

out into question because they do, because this is the most well-known acronym in europe. which is a bit strange but true. so they know i know the deal. also with the trade ministers who have asked us in the mandate to put in isds, so we are negotiating based on a mandate that we did before negotiations towards. the hacker trade promotion so that this sort of after. it is in our mandate. some member states are increasingly becoming active on this. some could be more come absolutely. i keep telling them you have to be out of their in debate as the but sometimes this is a difficult issue in the national parliament so that are defined away. that is trying to find ways to reform them to have the more updated version that is more transparent. that is clear that is based on

the limitations when it can be used and under what conditions and so one. so i hope that once we make a proposal which, of course, have been discussed for months but also working to encouraged to get out there. >> commissioner, if i could tag on one quick question. you served in the previous commission that they don't have super commissioners. you now serve any commission where there is a bundling of super commissioners. has it changed your work? i just trees if there were any structural differences and now? >> well, my mandate on trade is of course very specific. but it has changed it into the but the we don't call them super commissioners. we call them the vice president's. but it's actually a good thing because as in many governments and i served in the swedish government as welcome between

the department and the ministers there's always a very thick wall. and nothing to did come no policy every is within those walls. a different other of the ministers, commissioners in order to get there. and this is what we are doing with the commission. i worked very much with the vice president on the super commissioner of economy vice president, former prime minister of finland, to coordinate the economic part of what we are doing to of course trade is a very important economic part of our economic recovery into european union and for our future to but i also work with high representatives, and the team who works with development, with foreign policy, with neighborhood and enlargement with human to assist to get the political part of trade because trade ended up it is collected trade of course is a very important foreign policy tool. wewe sit together and go through our priorities to make sure we

know what we are doing and fit into a different agenda. it's a more modern way of working. >> thank you so much. we have a question writer down in front. >> one of our job and mentioned is google your president obama -- one word you have initiatives google for president obama labeled the efforts by the competition office at the commission as a form of protectionism. are the efforts of the competition office colliding with your efforts in terms of undermining trade, particularly when you think that no less than a martin shultz who was here three years ago trying to launch ttip is now on the anti-google bandwagon. >> what the commission was responsible for competition is doing on google and on gazprom and on many others is is to look at

what the congress of different kinds are abusing their position. nothing to do with ttip and hes committee chair a couple of weeks ago and presented what she's doing in the question so she has been asking excellent. so this has kept under her services very clearly away from our negotiations in ttip. >> we have a question in the back. [inaudible] i am from kenya. you talked about africa looking at the 27th of you you've signed with. what are you looking at in terms of transparency, corruption, human rights and -- [inaudible]

what makes you agree with them that this is a country that is better and we do better importing and in business? so what are you -- [inaudible] who are you watching in africa? thank you. >> we are working in africa with groups of countries, regional groups. so we've regional agreements. there's one in the western africa, one in eastern africa and so on. they are regional agreements where we give increased access to european markets but also in these agreements were talking about sustainable development. there's also provision for aid for trade to make sure we can help moving out to the infrastructure to be able to deal with trade.

there is always discussions on good governance and labor rights and so when. so that is a much included in the dialogue we have with those countries, and we're hoping that these agreements can be signed very soon. they still haven't agreed but not ratified yet. so this is a process that is ongoing and we will seek to deepen those and to engage to make sure, the wto side where we hope.com a special continue whether will be the ministerial from wto ministers from all over the world will meet in kenya in the summer to try to agree on the doha round. ..

>> last time we had the pleasure of talking to a swede in relationship to trade was many, many years ago when there's a man who was very well known, but maybe in the historical records. you're as good as he is, that's great. [laughter] three questions for you one, i assume all plans will be in deep kimshi if we do not get fast track passed. many of us think it would be a nice goal to get this before the change in