at that same cato event looking at the pros and cons of the transpacific partnership, former agricultural secretary discussed the impact of the increased tariffs on u.s. trading partners. this is about an hour and ten minutes.

the earlier panel dealt more with the substance of tpp, this panel will deal largely with -- three major obstacles stand in the way of congressional approval. the financial services provision that allows governments to prior banking data to be stored locally, the length of data protection provided to biologic pharmaceuticals, and the tobacco carve out provision from the isds requirements. minutes. my first reaction from seeing ttp provisions is the calculations that it would be a good thing to do to take a sharp stick to poke senator mcconnell

and hatch. hatch because of the bio logic. it is a surprising way to smooth the way on the hill. certainly, provisions as they came out did nothing to strengthen the republicans support for the agreement. financial services problem appears to stem from the administration wrapping up the negotiations before the negotiations were really finished. financial services pivoted against the united states against the united states. u.s. tr verses treasury. u.s. tr played a high priority of ttp and had no doubts of requirement force any sector. the treasury very much wished to maintain ability to the regulatory agencies to have u.s. access to data. and frankly, treasury won that dispute and u.s. chair was left

in the rather uncomfortable position coming back with the agreement that accomplished data flows and not others. so subsequently, treasury and the regulatory agency thought about this issue more and as ambassador mentioned they have a py paradigm that goes forward and they can still regulate the data on the other side of the border. frankly, it would have been nice to see administration have done their homework and advance. the biological pharmaceutical, they have received twelve years of data in the united states under statues since 2010. the agreement ends up providing five and eight years and i am not going to go into all the details of how that might sort out. but, it is understandable why other countries might prefer to have the united states bear most

of the cost of regulatory approval and if they can get the genetic versions more quickly, that looks good to them. of course, the u.s. industry very much wants the broader global community to help fund our costs. this issue is viewed very important to senator hatch. he's a copy write holder himself and feeling strongly about intellectual issues. its annual budget submissions repeatedly proposed a short time, this position was reiterated most recently in february 2016 when their budget proposal for 2017 shortened of the seven years. it might be challenging for the pharmaceutical industry and its supporters on the hill to think that u.s. negotiators had been

working really, really hard to get twelve years. the tobacco cargo will be addressed in more details by mr. ula. my colleagues and i have written about isds that it is not an essential component of trade agreement because fundamentally it does nothing to libberize trade. >> we can see through the past years that there were oppositions of isds among government and organizations. this was given a hint that that provision may complicates ttp. >> what is clear that by turning around and excluding tobacco from the isds provision, administration have lost several republican votes in congress and gained a total of none. my big concern of the tobacco car lot is the precedented sets

for other products and future negotiations that may not be unpopular. >> i am concerned of what people in the european union might wish to do with modified items. that's enough of my background comments. allow me now to introduce the panelists today in alphabetical order. >> phillip levy at the chicago counselor and global affairs. >> i am envy of phillip, and since i used todd do the same thing for 15 years for minneapolis, i know how much better the world often looks as you get away from today's of imagination of what's happening in washington. he's here with us today and i appreciate that. >> he does have plenty of belt way experience. just to mention a few, he served

the resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. he went over to the department of state on the policy planning staff for secretary rice. he's taught at academic institutions including the university of virginia and columbia and yale. phd from stanford. gear ula is working on jt international at the firms global head quarters in geneva. that means he also has the positive and perhaps conditions some what by close proximity to the gto. your work for the european free trade in geneva where he supported the negotiations of trade agreements and provided technic

technic technical assistance. a beautiful but often some what rainy city on the west coast of that country. committed to cato. i won't try to speak anymore. clayton yidear serves to law firm. he served in several roles in the 1970s which was before i knew him. in the early 1980s, i was work ng the senate and it was not hard to become acquainted to him. he was the ceo of the agriculture committee in the hill. he had clear views and he a articulated them >> the next thing i knew after that, bill decided to retire.

when he became ambassador in july of 1985, the u.s. dollar was very strong relative to other currencies and u.s. exports were suffering. in the midst of that doom and gloom which is similar to the situation we have today, clayton's message to those seeking protection from imports was basically cheer up. this large volume of imports is not the end of the world. it gives us a lot of leverage as we talk to other countries of the need to libber liberalized. >> he studied year round in 1986 after improving the trade picture, he shifted to the department of agriculture where he served two years as secretary

for president george bush and moved onto republican national committee. i am a bit younger than clayton but have been involved in many of the same issues. i have to admit, i am much impressed. >> i suppose i should not be surprised of a conversation i had once fall a few years ago grilling brutwors in my neighborhood. a new neighbor asked what do you do for a living. well, trade policy mostly. well, you might know my father-in-law. and i did. [ laughs ] >> i have a hard time escaping clayton. he holds a law degree also from the university of nebraska.

two other note worthy items. he served as a value member of the advisory board for trade policies here at cato. he was honored by the washington international trade association with his lifetime achievement award in 2014. he concluded his acceptance speech with this exertation. never give up. perhaps none of us have completely escape his influence. mr. ambassador. the floor is yours. [ applause ] >> dan, thank you so very much. that's wonderful introduction, thanks to dan, and inviting me to come over to participate in this program. i am going to try to do my part

fairly quickly and stay on schedule and not take time away from my colleagues up here. i would like to say two or three things in response of what has been said already this morning and moving onto what i am supposed to be talking about here. first of all, in terms of tpp, tpp of the congressional approval, you will discover that my answer is a resounding yes with more enthusiasm that's been projected by some of the people here thus far this morning. and i say that notwithstanding the fact that we have two presidential candidates who are taking the opposite view including one of the presumed leader of my republican party today and all i would say to that is first of all, you are

both wrong, dead wrong. in secondly, to the members of the press who are here, i wish you begin to do your jobs and ask them the questions that have not yet been asked thus far and that is if you don't like the ttp agreement, tell me why and explain your position. what is it about ttp that you don't like? do you just want to tear it up without understanding the consequences? if so, you better defend that. there is been very few hard questions like that from the press with either candidates thus far and i think that's most unfortunate. >> with respect to cato analysis here, there are a couple of items where i should shade it a little differently and maybe dan, you guys are correct and i am wrong.

but, i was a little disappointed in the market access provisions. i would not graded them as high as you all did. i thought we were lacking in ambition in market access. i particularly want the agriculture part of that where we certainly could have done much better and with both japan and canada. you know, the same thing is true in other market access. my original demand in that area where i u.s. tr and leaving that negotiating team would have been a whole lot higher and more ambitious than it was. but, never the less -- i will always come to the point president reagan made during my ten years which was just

applicable here and which derek smith this morning in his emphasis thar emphasis, that is better moving forward than standing still and moving backward. ttp moves market liberalization forward and the way president reagan used to put it, get all that you can but at the end of the day, remember that half a loathe -- loaf is better than no loaf at all. if you evaluate ttp as half a loaf and most of us would. never the less, that's bet than nothing at all. and, i firmly believe that would be a big mistake to have nothing at all.

it is true that in these difficult food safety kinds of issues. one can take this case to the wto because it has excellent senator provisions that we put in. as a matter of feedback, the insistent of the u.s. those provisions move slowly. they're a lot faster than they used to be but never less dispute settlement of the wto. i don't know how fast it will be in ttp but i hope faster than wto. if so, you are likely to see countries rather using these provisions in the ttp rather than going to the wto. finally, i want to make two

other quick points here and then move onto politics. one of the advantage of ttp that got not mentioned until the tail end of the last panel discussion is the advantage of being on the inside of a trade agreement rather than on the outside. the benefits if you will, preferential treatments with ttp. it is going to be in the inside. that's a lot better than on the outside looking in. you know we should not under estimate that. look at the benefits in nafta which is another agreement that people supposedly want to throw out now. look at what we have done to develop north american business enterprises and not u.s. or canada or mexico, but north american business enterprises who have a huge advantage in

international competition over tl re the rest of the world because they are on the inside and not on the outside of nafta. my other point here is u.s. leadership. we have not talked about that a lot today. that's really important in the ttp contact. there is only one country that could lead of what we called a western world and that's the u.s. ttp is an opportunity for the u.s. exercise leadership in asia. these kinds of opportunities don't come around often. we have been sitting in our hands for a number of years now in terms of demonstrating the ability of the u.s. lead internationally. we backed off instead of asserti asserting ourselves and that needs to change badly and we need to get it done. okay. to politics and i will do it quickly. first of all, if there is to be any chance of getting this done between now and the election,

which would contribute to the obama legacy for our president of eight years in government. there is going to have to be some tweak to ttp as an absolute necessity. my two colleagues are going to talk about the tweaks. i won't do that here in terms of the tobacco cargo and what we may do of farmer provisions and bio logics. those have to be resolved. this administration in negotiating ttp insisted on some provisions in these areas that troubled a lot of us. and troubled too many people in the u.s. congress for ttp to be approved in my judgment between now and the election. first, imperative would be to

make those changes. i don't know whether the votes would be there either of those changes were made. in the absence of if i cfixing issues, they're working these issues and i am not sure what it means. they're going to have to work them harder or there is no chance what so ever that this agreement would be approved by congress between now and the election. i still think the chance is between slim and none. never the less, the administration is really trying to be apart of the president's legacy. they need to get off theand get these changes done. the next question is can you get approval of ttp in the -- that's an interesting question because

it may depend a lot on at the election outcome and not only the presidential race but in the senate and the house races between now and then. normally, i would say that there would be little chance at all of approving ttp or any trade agreements because it is too short. how do you take up of complicated issues in a session that's short? members of congress have just gone to tough elections cycle, very tired and they want to go home and they want to do their christmas shopping and they want to spend christmas holidays with their families. oh, they don't want to talk about ttp, in the post election period. but, they might. the reason they might is because there maybe some shifts in control and not just exec utive branch but maybe in the

legislative branch as well. you have to say in respect of how those come out whether members of congress or the administration might say is this a good time for a little bipartisan ship in order to get a really tough issue off our agenda and start of the next year fresh, should we have a clean slate coming into 2017, if that's so, would it be nice to get these issues off our backs in 2016 a. don't ride it off completely because there maybe some interesting bipartisan politics that could emerge and get it done. if that does not happen and i think you have to say the chances are well over 50/50 that nothing will happen until after the first of the year and you have a new government. then what to you do? >> one of the courses is that it spills all the way to 2018 o or

just dies on the vines because people get tired of waiting and other countries in particular get totally frustrated with the united states and say what kind of leadership is this, you know, you ask us to get approval of our government of the ttp agreement, politically, we had to bite those bullets and they have not been all that tasty. you don't even want to do that in the u.s., and therefore, you know, you need to suffer the consequences in terms of asian leaderships. i think there will be a lot of that argument made if things spill in 2017 and maybe beyond. it is going to be difficult for the in coming administration which has to put a new government together which means probably a new uscr and all the entired tou entire tough negotiation team.

if this builspills into 2017, in spills into 2018 which is not a happy situation. >> answer is the people benefiting the most of this. that would be agriculture and non agriculture in the u.s. who has considerable amount to gain from this. they would have the next january say look, guys, we cannot wait until 2018. this got to get done now. we'll give you all the support. there maybe a good chance in early 2017 if it spills that far. but, that'll only happen if a business community in the agriculture community weigh in in a big way and make it happen. i will stop right there. [ applause ]

well, thank you, it is pleasure to be here and especially of the ambassador and finding myself in an agreement on a lot of things. i would like to see the ttp to pass. he gave an excellent description of many reasons why this is important. i am skeptical than him about the prospect of the passage. i guess i would note that we had repeated statements of the discussions of ttp that it is really important that it passes. i agree with that but that's not a plan for getting it passed. something that's vital is not the same thing than having a strategy. imagine we are on one mountain peak and we see another peak near by and we should really be over there.

great, how do you get there? sort of devalium between them and what do you do? i want to come back to some of the points that the ambassador sketched and say what are these steps and how would this actually happen and use it to justify where i have additional skeptism. it passes through the house committee and the senate floor and if you get everybody approving and you have protections in the senate and you know longer have to worry about a filibuster. if everyone approves, you get your ratified trade agreement. it is a bit of a challenge to analyze the timing on these things because the tpa lays out often restrictions on executives than congress. it does some and here is the

sort of maximum time period of the house ways and means committee can examine. we have blown way past all of those things that the house and means committee could take up to 45 legislative days. i am not sure we have that left in a year. that's just the house and means committee. the other challenge and analyzing of these things there is a difference between impossible and improbable. if you have the majority to be able to do something including ppa, blocking things and filibuster is limited on what they could do should they get it together. here is why it is problematic. one reason we end up on the focus of the lame duck when we try to imagine scenarios is if you look at the house calendar and it is available online, you

see they're not around that much that they meet until mid july and you start having conventions and you have elections, they come back at it a little bit in september and the moment our schedule for two weeks, i believe, later in november. now my understanding from people who have worked on the legislative side, if you look at over the last decades or so and say what's the quickest one of these things got done. that we manage to do in one and a half weeks. plus, we are assuming this would be a major focus of what they do. you may have frequently in a lame duck session of budgetary issues just as there maybe a consideration of whether you should address the trade agreement if you looking at an

upcoming change. you have al reconsideration of whether you put forward and confirm tl supreme court nominee depending on what happens. whether that's occupying the same legislative party. will congress be around for that period of time and of the time it is around, will it have enough to devote trade agreements. the navorrrowness and the last l measure we have of this was the ppa passage a year ago. in the house, i think you had 218 votes. just what you needed for passage. and of those, i think 190 republican votes and 28 democratic votes. this is why i am wondering of bipartisan surge, that'll be a real novelty in terms of where we have been on this. i guess those are two of the things that i would notice of

obstacl obstacles. one that you really have not had great congressional support from the support. we have not had that for a while, we had a partisan split. on the republican side, you have as the ambassador pointed out, you had a series of objections. when they voted for tta, i see the potential of the agreement and they voiced a bunch of concerns and i like the idea of this sharp stick in terms of a response. it was by no mean of a master class maintaining a congressional coalition.

the way that ttp was negotiated, it was clearly an enormous urgency to get it wrapped up and perhaps that was what motivated things. but, it is going to be much more eagerness to proclaim the progressive endeavor than to solidify a narrow collision support. that coalition, you can lose people and you can lose some because of things like tobacco and bio logics, if you are doing this in the lame duck, you can use your principle objections. i don't know how many you will lose but you have room to lose essentially none. these are some of the major concerns on top of the questions, had the administration even done what it needed to do win back key members. i want to move on then.

>> final point on this, have anyone been watching on the house of republicans. it is not exactly been a group that has fallen into line diluted and done whatever that's necessary. this is what comes to mind to me when people talk about okay, we'll get past the election and everybody will do what they're supposed to do realize what's necessary and they'll support this. i believe there will be large numbers of republicans who would feel that way, i don't think there is 218 of them. i think that's a real challenge. lets suppose we move beyond and here is where i am noticeably pessimistic than the ambassador. presidential htly noted that

election matter but lets start there. donald trump was talking about trades to my mind in a misguided session, saying something should be better is insufficient. but, he does not seem to incline to be advance in this rapid order. clinton supported the ttp will find herself in a tough position even if we stop the conversation now that i fear that her situation is going to get worse as the campaign progresses. she find herself in a tough situation now because she said she does not support the ttp as it stands. some of the criteria he says shf improving it are difficult.

probably the best you can hope for in terms of restrictions. this is get to the core. the best you can hope for is a sort of side agreement that states good intentions on everybody's part and moving for transparency. that's what the ambassador delivered. she declared that's insufficient and i need more. she set herself a much higher hurdle when bill clinton faced when he was going reverse himself. these were key elements to the agreement. that was a big part of what japan thought got out of this agreement. that would involve opening things up. this is not a minor addendum. the other real problem, two problems that secretary clinton would have of presidency, one of them is that she would likely be told even if she emerged for the

rest of the campaign, madame president, you have 18 months to get done the big things you want in office. this is your time period to focus on that. does she want to make one of those things a ttp agreement which would alienate labor support and it is hard to say it splits the democratic party right now. so, she maybe facing one or both houses of the democratic control. that's a challenge. the final challenge that i will note on this is as the campaign goes along, i think what you are going to see is donald trump, we have seen it this week pressing her on the sincerity of her opposition and trying to pin her down and the concern is that we'll move towards a read my lips no ttp commitment as they fight this battleground on the

industrial midwest. that would post real challenges. as a guide for this and i will close here, what's the best historical example that we have? i think when president obama was elected in 2008. a number of his supporters who were protrades and multi vat lists had visions that three pending trade agreements of columbia, panama and korea would be you shalled throuusher thro agreement. this is late 2008 that were all supposed to slip through. they were passed in the fall of 2011 after a great deal of arm twisting that came later. that's the best and most optimistic model that we have. i will stop there. thank you. [ applause ]

thank you for the opportunity to speak today. there is been several tobacco issues. i am going to give a little background of what this is all about and what it means and why is this so important. coming from jay international. so we hear that tobacco industry is abuse ing the iscs system an that we are stifling government's ability to introduce tobacco control policies. some governments don't have enough money to pay for the

legal fees against tobacco industries. therefore, we are viewed as a big user rather than abuser of the isds system. well, what is the reality? tobacco is one of the most regulated products in the world. but, in real life, tobacco industry has not used isds system very much. actually just in two cases. these two cases are again it can be described as extreme regulations for any sectors but passes down the line for tobacco. >> we see that these regulations are in general are not based on science and evidence as good hallmarks for good regulatory practices. since the commencement of these

dispute, one of them have been dropped of the cases between pmi and -- the remaining 694 cases are against our countries by other industry groups. so, this 0.3% of the case loads that is tobacco related really an abuse of isds system? i don't think so. the claim that countries don't have enough money to defend themselves against tobacco industry, is that really true? let me give you a little background. tobacco industry pays $15 billion a year in taxes, excess taxes and vip. two of those ttp countries,

only. $15 billion. a little bit of money coming from the tobacco industry itself that could be used for whatever they want to do and protecting substance against those not numerous kids. in addition to that, bloomberg and gates have set up a fund, in case it would be challenged by tobacco industry. on that basis, it is safe to conclude that there is money to mount legal case against tobacco industry if a country would like to defend extreme regulatory proposals. the big gain by the supporters of tobacco public health now, lets play a little game of where is waldo's trade expert.

i will tell you to look at the slide where you have tobacco exclusion in the background. i would like for you to find the word health or public health menti mentioned. they are not there. they have gone to a great length and such as inspection and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. all these activities are practically of such attracting to public health that is not protected by isds. really? it is obvious that the goal has not been to bring about public health benefits but to introduce and giving a lot of headlines.

in reality, this does not exclude anything. what does this all mean? there are a number of protection of ttp and gives the companies an ability to challenge the government directly. we heard from members who are happy about these protections and they are there. they are fair and in equitable treatments. and, tobacco might be controversial, but why it is still legitimate in the industry and bringing about employments and revenues. why should tobacco industry not

be able to defend themselves by discriminatory regulations? i don't know. i am not sure if you are aware of this. tobacco industry in other countries are facing jail time because the challenging and governments and introduction of some not even handed customer evaluation procedures. these procedures found compliant but the legal challenge scale goes on against tobacco and e c executiv executives. now, why should we be able to protect tobacco industry just like any other industry and open the door for this.

who's next? food? alcohol? minding? another protection in the ttp is about transfers. the ttp chapter ensures that private companies like ours should be able to transfer capitol and dividends back to the country from where it came from, back to normal business practice, right? it should not be securing to shareholders. performance requirements. this sounds technical and boring but it has a practical side. performance requirement could be policies read by government of all cigarettes should be made by domestically grown tobacco. this is not how cigarettes are generally made. they are made from tobacco come

f ing from all around the world. >> a convection country is only allowed to make chocolate only a factory. this is really not fair. and the ultimately form of government intervention and appropriation. lets say something of cigarette factory, they invested of tens of millions and you don't want it to vanish at any point in time. you have this protection under ttp if you happen to produce cigarettes, you don't. why would government expiration is -- a lot of industries are

controversial and you see some of them up in the screen here. some of these industries are big users. opening the door to exclude an industry can have ramifications that were not imagined. the government that concluded ttp keep on repeating exclusion of tobacco is not be repeated for other industries. what does government look at ttp and taking samples, hey, this is great. now we can start excluding any industry where our populati population -- >> who's next? and where will it end? i would like to quote senator warren who said the following. i am glad it is protected from ips but what about food safety laws or any other regulations designed to protect our regulations.

the slippery slope is already there. just to conclude, i would like to remind you that tobacco industry is not a big rise. 694. they're there of policies. this is also very badly drafted policy. ttp and tobacco exclusion lists all possible activities that tobacco companies are enrolled in. it includes not one reference to public health. movi [ inaudible ] this is a goal that free traders

want to promote and someone will be next. tobacco is always at the forefront of extreme regulationregulation regulations. but, the ttp tobacco does not address the issue that it is supposed to remedy. the tobacco industry is a legitimate industry and ttp tobacco exclusion leads us of the only industry and no protection. this is not fair. the ttp tobacco exclusion, this is entirely unnecessarily. in the u.s., lets recall that the u.s. want its own legislature agreed to the exclusion. the u.s. congress directing it to and i quote, protecting the right of u.s. investors without product discrimination and

ensuring all u.s. investors. this is in the senate finance committee of the tta report. thank you. [ applause ] okay, well, when i call on you, please wait for the microphone to arrive so everyone can hear your question and identify yourself if you would. lets focus on questions and avoid detail commentary. i will take the moderator's prerogative and ask the first question. getting to gear's issue and realizing that the u.s. austria fta does not include an isdf provision. in a hypothetical situation where ttp was re-negotiated to remove isds, would the u.s.

community support ttp in this case? >> that's phil. my guess was a real push. one of the key character is they all build on each other and served as precedents so you get a lot of push back to removing isds together. >> i think there is good reasons to have isds in ttp because i think there are times when american companies need that kind of protection internationally. i fully agree that where you should not have any discriminatory activity in there, the tobacco exclusion was wrong. i have no brief for the tobacco industry, i am a non-smoker and

i have been a non-smoker my entire life. i don't want anybody discriminating against them or anymore against anybody else. >> questions. first of all, mentioning the fact that our friends in the press, a much more strictly on their implications of their trade positions. there is a lot of rhetoric out there that people don't get challenged on. i would like to ask you questions on your experience of negotiator and agricultural, one of our candidates in the speech in kansas of the day he was elected, he would make sure that we slash japanese duties on

america. can you tell us a little from your experience about the practicality of that statement? >> certainly. >> there is a lot of commentary. all of this rhetoric is really troubling and most of it is simple and is coming from both sides, some of it from the candidates and some from the staffers. there is a lot of loose language and unfortunately, it is getting worse rather than better or at least it has in the last few days. i think that's saying for the rest of the world thinks we are crazy on these trade policy issues and i can understand how they can come to that conclusion. to be specific answering your question, you cannot do that. i mean we certainly can raise

tariffs and following day in japan or anybody else if we want to. >> we pay a price. there is no free lunch if we do that. if we do that, japan has the right to retaliate against us and they would and they should. so, you know, we need to honor our obligations and we ahave a lot of trade agreements in the world, we ought to honor it all. when we talk about tearing it up, that's nonsense. we can end up, i was thinking about this last night, you know if that really happened and we went through all of these carna carnage, i might not witness it much in my lifetime in my age. i worried of the carnage that

would affect my kids and my grand kids and great grand kids. i am appalled of this loose language that's being thrown around today >> i just mentioned of the best of my knowledge, members of the press present today have not had the opportunity to interview any of the presidential candidates. i am sure if they did, there will be elaborations of trade policy issues. another question, please. >> hello, i am with the cato institute. i follow the ttp for a while. when we are talking about obama administration, it seems like in the last year or so, more emphasis have been placed on asia and it is not explicitly talking about china per se but

everyone who knows about east asia can say oh yeah, this is meant serving to some sort of china economic influence. is this a strategy that you believe should be successful or the way to go or do you think it will play well with congress or having a chance to exceeding that and focusing on the economics or strategic benefits, thanks. >> dan and phil, if you want to comment as well. it is a really good question. personally, i maybe showing some of my political biases here. you know this administration does not have much credibility on foreign policy issues. there is not been in success stories. i think ttp maybe the most successful of all. never the less, as i pointed out earlier, we need to demonstrate

leadership in asia. we are in competition of that leadership world. i don't see china is an advisary. i also believe that if they are in the leadership role in asia, you will not have principles and rules of international trade that are as effective as they would be if we were in a leadership role. in other words, there is going to be loser and will not have the disciplines that are necessary. so i want ttp to go in effect because that then becomes the base of which we build and the point i made earlier being on the outside verses on the inside is so valid here.

it is not by accident that you have a whole slew of countries lining up wanting to join ttp already. that's important. i think that's one of the great benefits of this potential agreement. as flawed as it mayb be. it is the best -- eating on the plate at the moment and as a consequence, you are finding maybe as many as a dozen countries who would like to be in the next time of ttp negotiations. if that happens, that solidifies ttp is the foundation of trading for everybody else. i think that's good. it gets to the point of a sec d second, and a few years down the

road. >> i would agree of all of that. >> i do think it resonates some what on the hill of those who i spoke with there. i think they handicap themselves on the economic. he argued that it will cost a million jobs. which means that their economic argument has to be you did not like previous trade agreements but vote for this one. that sort of self inflicted wound is then leading into an strategic argument. >> way in the back corner there. >> i just want to ask a quick question about. >> and you are?

>> i am my own man. [ laughs ] >> that's good. [ laughs ] >> with respect to this idea of who's writing the rules of the road primarily, that seems to be a sticking point of a political perspective of why we should engage in ourselves and international trade agreement in the first place. but, it seems to me that sparta did not join the league just because of the biggest spock around. at the same time you have russia and china creating alternatives of trading oil and so on and so forth. why do we expect china on the one hand stepping into a vacuum that ttp creates. on the other hand, if they do

step in the vak rcuum, why is i problem and essentially forms regardless if the open benefit is economic american consumers. >> i will start in on this. i think the u.s. does this because it is in our self interest to have this sort of stable political situation and in asia we have a huge interest there and to get other countries to lower their barriers. i agreed of what was stayed earlier. we are not posed to china. the u.s. has an advance economy of a lot of the way we interact with others in the world involves provisions of services

and investments. this sounds familiar from all the chapter headings you are seeing earlier. that's no mistake. this is thing as how do we succeed and how do we do business. if you look at china, they reflect more of the way china engaging. they're simpler and it is for the barriers and they'll do a much worse job serving the economics. from the standpoint of proving ourselves a reliable partner in the region would be damaging to withdraw. >> phil is so correct in that respect and as you probably know, has a regional trade agreement sort of under way in asia which is viewed by some at least as a bit of a competitor to tpp. that agreement is not really going anywhere at the moment because everybody's -- not everybody, most everybody is putting their attention and

emphasis on tpp, which is to our advantage and the fact of the matter is if you switch and go the other way and follow the chinese lead with their agreement you end up with a lot less effect ive rule making in the trade arena. in other words there will be a lot more games played under that agreement than ever will be played under tpp and it's not to our advantage to give other folks a chance to play games because that works to our -- you know, we like to play by the rules. not everybody else in the world does. >> question right here. >> david orden from virginia tech. this may not be fair to the speakers or the audience, but i'm really struck by the fact that the multilateralism in the wto has barely been mentioned today and if you think back to

the nafta and uruguay rounds, those two forward that clinton pushed together, i think there would have been more about tpp in the context of the multilateral negotiations simultaneously. so i know it's late in the day but if you think especially about a tpp process that might role into 2017, 2018, is there any wto window or is tpp the only trade agreement, leaving aside dispute settlements, the only trade agreement on which the next administration is going to organize the u.s. position on trade. are there any windows or interface these these things is the wto as a negotiating forum not on the agenda for the next five years? again, my apology to the speakers for raising something that could be a day seminar but.

>> i'll do the best i can and phil will supplement because i'm probably more biased than anybody from having been such a participant in the multilateral process during my days in ustr, particularly in the uruguay round. i'm sad about that, as a matter of fact, that since the uruguay round the wto process just hasn't worked very well. part of that is because there's so many more countries in. it was about 100 when we did the uruguay round and, man, it wasn't an easy task to herd those hundred cats. now you've got to herd more than that. almost double and the negotiators found that to be very, very difficult. when we finish the uruguay round, to just give you a personal touch to this, i said that i thought it might be the last round of trade negotiations

ever and maybe i will turn out to be correct in terms of successful multilateral trade negotiations. i'm sorry about that, but it's been happening since then. our hope with tpp and with ttip, if you could do the tee tpp andn ttip, if you could fold those agreements into the wto you could in a sick cant way i believe prove the wto without having 180 nation trade negotiation. so i have hope for that but we have to get tpp right and tpp approved before we can even think about whether that can be

a base for a -- maybe a partial wto negotiation that would move a lot of that outcome into the wto. >> i like this image of trying to herd a hundred cats. one of the things that was available, though, in the uruguay round was you recalcitrant and wanted to hold out we could say well, you won't be a member of the wto. but we found in the doha talks is that you do that you have 150 countries in there, maybe 160 and now you have to try to get unanimity. the big split comes back to this question about the u.s. approach versus the chinese approach. do you try for high standards and ambition oar for something that's less ambitious and useful? countries ended up split and it hasn't been clear how to move past that impasse.

so there is a path from the ground up where you do tpp and ttip. it would be nice to do it from the top down. a dozen years of trying hasn't been very effective. >> well, i'm -- i'm not going to try to herd cats. rather i'll just say that we need to conclude now and i will provide guidance for how to get to lunch. people will tend to respond well. lunch is served upstairs one level on the -- at the -- in the yeager conference center on the second floor so take the spiral staircase up. there are restrooms on the way so -- on the second floor at the yellow wall. i thank you all very much for being here, for your participation. please join me in expressing appreciation to the panel. [ applause ]

[ indistinct conversation ] on july 1, 1976, the smithsonian's national air and space museum opened its doors to the public with president gerald ford on hand for the dedication. friday marks the 40th anniversary of the museum and american history tv's live coverage starts at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. we'll tour the museum and see one-of-a kind aviation and space artifacts including the "spirit of st. louis" and the "apollo" lunar module. plus live events at the front of the building. eleven more about the museum as

we talk to its director, the curator and valerie kneale, chairman of the museum's space history department. and you can join the conversation as we'll take your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. the 40th anniversary of the smithsonian air and space museum live at 6:00 eastern on c-span 3's american history tv. >> i never felt the urge to -- as i mentioned before, make money. what turned me on in the 60s, and as mirer of the kennedys, was to make policy that always is what drove me. sunday night, a two-part interview with former public interest lawyer and politician mark green, author of "bright infinite future" a generational memoir on the progressive rise in which he talks about his life and career in public office. >> you've got to have a drive that maybe undesirable in a spouse or a friend but you have to wake up and go to sleep and

think i want this so much i will -- if you do everything you win, said lyndon johnson. part one airs sunday 8:00 e "q&a" and part two will air sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. the federal emergency management agencies top flood insurance official testified before the senate small business community tee on the impact of rising national flood insurance program premiums. business owners discuss the impact of escalating premiums for homeowners in low-lying areas and argued that private insurers might be able to offer lower rates. this is about an hour and twenty minutes.