-- around trade, we seem to have coalesced. we have americans who work for companies based overseas. that is 5% of our private work is. the account for 20% of our private exports. those jobs pay higher on average. many of them are in manufacturing. 12.5% are unionized. that is versus a .5% of the overall economy. the investment is a big part of u.s. political debate. in europe, president francois hollande hosted investment groups. hesitation seen some on the investor side. i have wondered whether that is a concern about that mechanism

in particular are whether there is some divergence between how europeans and americans see the benefit of foreign investment. >> i do not think so. i would even say that we have recognized what you have done in the united states. trade and investment are very alike. if wee to combine them want to make a profit from globalization for your own economy. there may be a difference of opinion. exclude that he would have some political parties to the left who have doubt. speaking, there is an understanding that you cannot have an autonomous development developing in parallel

with investments. you have so many investments with european countries in the united states and vice versa. trade between the eu and the u.s. is high. that is proven by all studies. >> it is different. it is not new. the political environment has changed. it is for the simple reason that you had two cases recently. ones against australia cigarette packaging by philip and one against germany on being nuclear sector.

stake is the effect on the policy space. that is the real question. does -- to what extent does isds limit policy space. we have seen this recently with canada. the purpose of the negotiation was to make sure that we do not limit policy space. that is less clear in the existing agreements. there is no clear definition. seen, it is very important to be much more precise on that. that, forot do existingn egypt, the investment protection agreement

will be made for us. our member states have been concluding about 1400 investment protection agreement. them, it says ds provisions. is we're on the same page. all of a sudden, there's been a lot of discussion. we have decided to rebalance the consultation. we are hoping this will shed more light on the renegotiation. a number of european member states do not have isds agreements. the united states is a member. do havef member states

that kind of provision. a number of member states do have that kind of provision. it is about preserving the policy space. it is about the possibility that you do not agree with an arbitrator. result, you have to modernize the whole process. i hope that we can do that. that inneed to know is cases, a 52% of them, it is a european company. somethinghat it is directed by the united states against us -- that is completely wrong. 52% of the cases are lost by european companies.

they are convinced that they needed. >> velasquez in for me and then we will open the floor. -- last question for me and then we will open the floor. in your third basket, you mentioned services. atlantic council has done a lot of work in the area of encouraging convergence on financial services regulatory standards. the financial stability board and elsewhere have been involved. finance ministries, including the u.s. treasury and central-bank are somewhat restrained in their busy at the about putting their regular -- in their enthusiasm about putting their regulatory issues out there. can you give us a sense of where this stands today?

>> there remain differences of opinion. side is evidence that it would be part of the negotiations. i do not mind about it. i am interested in the result. we need the result. i will give you two examples. there are financial regulations that have been changed by recent divisions. we have to make sure that these decisions are translated into actual legislation or rickets -- regulation. this will not happen automatically.

secondly, recently there has been an agreement between the eu and the u.s. about derivatives. what we see is that when you put this into practice, there are discrepancies. examples,ve you more but you have to do this work of making it compatible. you cannot let surface differences that have no special political effects get involved. it should be part of the regulatory package. the result should be in financial services. we have much more regulatory convergence. it is not about market access. there is no problem in market access for financial services. once you putarise

into practice the market access. it is about barriers. more marketu even access. there are no problems with respect to market access. class thank you commissioner. we have about 20 minutes before the commissioner have to leave for the airport. i would ask that your questions crisp, your comments crisper. we will have a microphone brought to you. please identify yourself and your affiliation. yes sir? >> microphone? >> it matters were the people in the back. >> i am from a university in new hampshire.

i am here under a false flag. the issue i want to raise with you is that many of us know that senator durbin came out against the trade promotion authority. my question is this. you have raised enormous public debate with the ttip on every kind of issue, pharmaceutical issues, internet issues, every kind of issue. so far the ttip has not generated that kind of opposition. is there a reason why it seems so much smoother for ttip? >> let's try to keep it like that, no? [laughter] it is a different kind of negotiation. then tpire about ttip see.

it is a different kind of negotiation. you have several partners. they are very different. in terms of economic development, we have experience in the past that this kind of approach is not easy. we have tried to do so. my predecessor tried to do so. it did not work out. there were huge differences in the economic development. there was also cultural diversity. to test all this in one agreement is difficult. it probably has an impact on the level of the mission. let me be very clear. i hope that this will conclude as soon as possible. i am very much in favor of it. puzzled be part of the

that we have tried to make with ttip. we are also discussing our service. i am in favor of it. i wish that we could do it as soon as possible. it, theer you can do sooner we can get to the end game ttip. >> yes ma'am? >> thank you. >> could you please identify yourself? commissioner, do you candidate countries for membership to the european union should be included in discussions on ttip?

>> we have a policy on that. we keep them informed, but they are not part of the negotiations for the simple reason that the in directtes are not party to the negotiations in the european union. the executive branch of the european union is doing this. they are performing negotiations on the basis of a mandate. we could not buy candidate countries to the negotiating table. we cannot do that. there is a possible impact if those countries become members of the european union. there's a possible impact on have aes with whom we

customs union. we have at least a partial customs union with turkey. it could impact them, so we keep them in form. at the end of next week, i am going to is simple to discuss ttip with the turkish government. >> yes, right here. >> i am with the u.s. chamber of commerce. thank you for being here. how do you perceive the engagement of the european business community in the course of the negotiations? >> i would like to see them more engaged. voices about europe, they tend to be negative and critical ones. it is not only business. it is not only in the interest of business.

it is in the interest of the economy, the interest of growth. ttip who are in favor of should come out much more loudly if they want us to succeed. i accept that for europe and i hope that you will except for the united states. >> yes sir? >> you mentioned because -- because that you would call for given the rising concerns about threats that would be posed by corporations rectally challenging health and environmental laws. many groups have expressed concerns and called for a similar pause over regulatory

convergence. received -- there is a perceived similar threat. they called for a equivalent u.s. standards. it caused much of the same concerns. people were concerned about eu approval of chicken that was treated with chlorine from the treated pork or -fed own-and -- hormone beef. for calling for a pause? >> this is not the first time i get this question. [laughter] i am always answering the same. you are aware of how i will answer. we are not going to change our legislation.

i expect the same to happen in the u.s.. to be very clear, we are not going to change. it would mean that we would have to change our basic legislation. it would mean that we have to change our basic legislation and we do not want to do it. there would have to be a legislative proposal for that. it has no support in parliament or from the commission. we would stick to our .egulations within the framework of those regulations, for example, we will expand trade. it would come to an agreement, people in the united states will be to export more beef to the european union.

that will have to be a hormone-free be. -- beef. that is what is happening in canada due to our agreement with canada. they have put more ormonde-free f into the production line. ree beef it is strange that i get this question all the time. [laughter] >> thank you. doug nelson. quick question. you thought of these three general categories of things that need to be negotiated. knowermanic permit you to focus on -- does your mandate permit you to focus on 1 or 2 of those things?

>> as i explained, we negotiate on the basis of a mandate that we get from the council. it is a very broad mandate. theoretically we could do that. we are not going to do it because it is not on our minds. it is a broad agreement. it covers all aspects. i personally consider it forward-looking, the most important one. it is a non-starter. we make a proper agreement, or we don't make one. to have an agreement on tariffs only, no. it would make sense, but it would never pass european powers.

that is out of the question. theoretically, you could. but politics is not about theory. it is about practice. >> yes? in the center aisle. >> thank you. i'm coming to the back of the room next. i see your hand. >> i work with the manufacturers alliance for productivity and innovation. theeu has been trying cautionary principle to manage risk. on the u.s. side, we don't have the risk assessment. it is part of her business culture. -- our business culture. if the risk assessment were included in the negotiations, which way do you see a compromise going? how do these two different philosophies become reconciled

over the agreement? say, we havee to something that hints in that direction. it is much more clear and european legislation. principleance of the european in legislation and regulation than in america. i also see the culture. rse, we less risk-adve are more risk-averse. as a culture, we are probably not going to change overnight. i am not very much interested in having a long conversation about the meeting of the precautionary principle in our transatlantic relations. that would lead us nowhere.

it will be in the back of our minds when we discussed regulatory approaches. difficult to go into the technicalities of that. do is make ave to combination of mutual recognition and complexity. we need common approaches with is --t, for example, rick risk assessment. we need to have a forward-looking corporation and you canon so that report differences of opinions and practices from the start. we can avoid them that way. it is a complicated thing. i have to tell you. this. been reading about sometimes it gives me headaches.

hand, i believe that this will be a poor part of the agreement. i am confident that we will be able to make very important progress. sectors, but we on theconcentrated legacy, we are confident that we have to do this. we have to meet that challenge. we will find a way out. we should not have a very theoretical approach on the principles. but we will do it. >> yes please? >> thank you. i'm from inside u.s. trade.

emphasize in your speech the importance of negotiations across all tracks. you indicated in earlier comments that you were under the impression that the u.s. market ambition did not match the level of the u.s. -- eu market level .mbition our oriented to see reciprocity -- how important is it to see to enhance regulatory aspects of the talks? >> the answer could be very short. i will not give any details of that. longer, we will tried togetherwe in the end station with the same level of ambition. that is what the goals should be. >> one last question.

>> thank you. i have a question on regulatory harmonization. clearly there are certain sectors, certain industries, which are further advance in terms of convergence because of cross investment and trade over many, many years. is it conceivable that within morearena, we will see disparity in terms of convergence sector by sector? it sounds like some areas may be more advanced. this was my experience when i worked on the regulatory standards by sector.

we get harvest on so much quicker than others. can we get your views on that? >> thank you. there are a number of sectors and have agreed on what they think is needed in their specific set for that sector. -- specific sector. that is giving you a comfortable idea. -- iisk for disparity the verticalessing aspects, you will develop discipline. it will become the backbone of a sector approach. you cannot move from one sector to the other. in a pragmatic way, we will be able to develop a backbone of

that kind of regulatory convergence for already existing measures and measures we have to take for the future. it should develop in on organic and pragmatic way. there could be some disparity in the beginning. want to keep is manageable for the future, it is important that we also converge. depending on the specific these specificities, it is making work easier for the future. areeans that people inspired by disciplines, when they tried to place new regulations. i think this is a very organic process. we muster member at this moment in time what we're asking or.

we are not putting this into practice. we need to make political choices. the decision will be taken in the negotiations. there will be an agreement between companies on each side of the atlantic. that is an important issue. >> on behalf of the board of the atlantic council and are determined, jon huntsman, i want to offer frequent words of thanks. thanks. words of i want to thank the staff for putting this urban together. -- putting this program together. attendeesthank all for turning out after a three-day holiday. i also want to thank you, commissioner, for joining us. not all visitors to washington after ae to go public senate negotiations like this. we think it is a real mark of respect for the council and your

commitment to an open dialogue in this important area. we wish you and your team the best of luck in this difficult months ahead. we all have a stake in your success. >> thank you. [applause] >> we thought he could handle it. he wanted people, young people of both races, to come into the supreme court as they only by the hundreds and thousands and somebody to say, who is that man up there? and somebody would say, he is a negro. thurgood marshall served as solicitor general to the johnson administration. hear more from the justice as c-span radio concludes its

series on oral history interviews with former supreme court justices. you can hear it online at event or. -- c-span.org. >> coming up, interviews with senator bob corker and senator club which are -- klobuchar. and president obama talked about fuel efficiency standards for trucks. the president ordering new for medium and heavy-duty trucks be issued by 2016. although heavy-duty vehicles of vehicles in the u.s. they account for 25%