time, the traditional, original reasons for the united states not to be a free-trading country, to be a tariff protective nation, that uses the economic strategy, have come back. now, anybody who has been paying attention knows that foreign nations are playing the protection game and playing it well. and they're playing it against us. we played the same game against great britain in europe in the 19th century that the chinese are playing against us today. there is no complaint, legitimate or illegitimate, that you can find that americans making today against protectionist, mercantilist policies of beijing that you cannot dig up in british newspapers in the 1880's, who were complaining about how britain was trying to pursue this noble and economically rational free-trade, free market policy toward the world. and here are these diabolical

americans sitting in new york and chicago building up this incredible industrial machine by gaming the system and these yankees just won't play fair. the game is a very old game. mercantilism is not something dreamed up by dictators in beijing five years ago, it goes back 400 years to the dawn of capitalism. the strategies being employed in tokyo, beijing right now at the expense of the united states were originally invented 400 years ago in renaissance italy among the italian city states of northern italy, places like venice and florence. they were the commercial powers of the day. those guys were very smart, given the limited economic resources at the time. they were the commercial powers of the day. those guys were very smart given the limited economic resources

at the time. mercantilism is a very, very old game. the founding fathers knew about it, and that is what is being played against the united states right now. luckily we have the heritage, we have the understanding, and we certainly have the economics to know what to do about it. there is a myth out there that somehow economics has proved that free-trade is the best policy. now, one of the things i've learned in the course of writing my book "free trade does not work," -- in fact the major reason i wrote it, was simply to convey to a mass audience that when you think economics has proved that free-trade is always best, that is not economics. that is what i call fake-enomics. it is a type of ideological editorial page, think tank hack. ,i work for a think tank myself. my point is, real economics, you actually make the effort to see what economists have said, there are plenty of economists out there who understand that david ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, the intellectual cornerstone of

the very idea of free trade is a theory invented in 1817 by the british economist david ricardo. it claims that if you take it straight, that free-trade isn't always your best move. this is at best a very crude, simplistic cartoon of the way international economics works. there are a dozen very large loopholes in it which make quite clear that what you want is not absolute free-trade. i'm not against international trade. if iran things, we would not and the ports of new york long beach into bathing clubs. but the point is that free-trade and international trade is not the same thing. no sane person is suggesting that we are turning the united states and north korea, but you can have international trade and a healthy amount of national trade. but free-trade means laissez-faire in international trade.

the problem is we do not take laissez-faire seriously. not really. it is very easy to make after dinner speeches in this country about how lasez-faire and free markets other right answer. but if you go back to great republican presidents like teddy roosevelt at the turn of the last century, the united states turned away from pure 100% free markets for very good reason. and if you look at even what ronald reagan did as opposed to his more colorful speeches, pure laissez-faire is not taken seriously domestically. what we want is a reasonable balance between free markets, which are definitely very important in a lot of ways, and reasonable and prudent regulation. that is a conservative value. if you're talking about real conservatives as opposed to the cut of cheese, food, product, packaged artificial fraud that sometimes gets dished out. reasonable and prudent.

understanding limits is a big part of what real conservatives believe in. and yet, if you want to talk about free-trade, that means this laissez-faire idea, which is not real economics, the minute you pull out your passport and we're supposed to play by those rules internationally. that makes no sense. if you what real economists have actually said and analyzed, you can document -- and i try to do this in my book at length. there are plenty of well-known holes in the principles of free-trade. and if we will only make the effort to make recourse to the ideas that are already available to us, it's easy enough to understand why free-trade is not the best policy, it never was the best policy. the people who founded this country and ran it for 150 years understood that. it is honestly not that hard for us to back off and away from this mistake we've been making at increasingly higher costs in recent decades.

i am actually optimistic that america can get back to a rational trade policy and that conservatives are capable of leading the way on this. announcer: president obama has vowed to do everything he can to pass the transpacific partnership or tpp before leaving office. he defended the deal during a joint news conference with the prime minister of singapore earlier this month. president obama: we are part of a global economy. we're not reversing that. it cannot be reversed. byause, it is driven technology, and it is driven by travel and cargo containers and forfact is that the demand products inside of our country

means we have to get things from and our export sector is a huge contributor to jobs and our economic well-being. most manufactured products now involve a global supply chain where parts are made in all corners of the globe and converge and then get assembled and packaged and sold. and so, the notion that we will pull that up, root and branch, is unrealistic, point number one. point number two -- it is absolutely true, the evidence shows, that some past trade deals have not delivered on all of the benefits we were promised and had very localized cost. there are communities that were hurt because plants moved out. people lost jobs, jobs were created because of those trade deals, but jobs were also lost.

people who experienced those losses, those communities, did not get as much help as they needed to. and what is also true as a consequence of globalization and automation, what you have seen is labor workers losing leverage and capital being mobile, being able to locate around the world. that has all contributed to growing inequality both here in the united states and in many advanced economies. there is a real problem, but the answer is not cutting off globalization. the answer is, how do we make sure that globalization works for us, not against us? tpp is designed to do precisely that. announcer: c-span's issue

spotlight on trade deals continues with trade attorney and cato institute scholar scott lincicome. he says trade is incorrectly blamed for being the name -- main cause of job losses in the u.s.. from washington journal earlier this year, this is about 20 minutes. host: joining us from duke university, scott lincicome. he wrote the cover review for national review, enemy of trade. scott, what did you find out about the truth about trade? guest: what i found out is that there are a lot of myths and misperceptions about trade and jobs, and whether trade is really to blame for, example, the loss of manufacturing jobs in the united states over the last several decades, or whether there are more fundamental problems with the american labor market. the conclusion, as you maybe could guess, is that trade really is not to blame for some of the problems in our labor market.

instead, one of the problems we really have had in the last few years is a collapse in labor dynamism. the natural job churn and the ability of the displaced workers to find new and better jobs over the longer term. host: you have exit polls from this presidential cycle. state after state, democrats and republicans, this is from michigan and mississippi when they voted in the nominating process. democrats and republicans worry about the economy, and when those voters express concern about trade and that being one of the top issues, they are voting for bernie sanders and donald trump, who are opposed to these kinds of deals. guest: blaming china for all of the ills in the american economy makes a really good soundbite. there is no doubt that there is still palpable economic anxiety in this country that these candidates have seized on.

when you look at the numbers and review the various academic studies out there you find that trade really is not the cause of the vast majority of job losses in the manufacturing sector of the united states. for example, one recent study found it was only about 10% of total job losses since 2000 in the manufacturing sector were caused by trade. the rest, 90%, were caused by productivity. these are things like robots and computers. not only is trade not the driver of those job losses, there are a lot of benefits that americans don't really see on a daily basis. they see a closed factory or someone losing their job because of import competition. what they don't really see are, for example, the lower prices we all enjoy at walmart and target and the rest because of free-trade. or they don't see the fact that

american manufacturing output in terms of total value in the american manufacturing sector is setting record highs. and that is because we don't make t-shirts anymore, we make airplanes and satellites. and things that you will not see on the shelves of walmart. there's this great disconnect between perception and reality. i think that folks like sanders and trump are more than willing to exploit that misconception and economic anxieties and say that everything can be solved, all their problems can be solved by just cutting off trade with china. unfortunately for the voters out there, that is just simply not the case. host: scott is a contributor to "national review" and he is at duke university, as a senior lecturer. he is an international trade attorney with the experience in trade litigation at the united states commerce department before the u.s. international trade commission, the european

commission and the world trade organization. he has also advised corporate and sovereign clients on trade agreements and u.s. trade policy as well as wto matters. so, your questions and comments and what you think about trade, coming up. so, continue dialing in, we will get to those in a minute. but first, i want to bounce off of you, bill's column today in the "wall street journal." why trade critics are getting traction. doran has found that import penetration from china has been responsible for up to 20% of job losses in manufacturing since the end of the 20th century. in the process, they say that china's advance has toppled much of the perceived empirical wisdom about the impact of trade on labor markets. the parts of the country dependent on industries most exposed to significant import

penetration from china have been hit hardest. guest: yeah, actually i covered the study in my piece for national review. it is getting a lot of traction. it is important to note right in the quote that you read, 20% of manufacturing job losses caused by trade. the other 80%, so, the vast majority have had nothing to do with chinese imports. now look, no one is scoffing at the 20%. those are millions of jobs, potentially. it is not that. the problem, though, and this is something noted in that study, the problem is not trade. the problem is the american labor market's ability to adjust to shocks. whether they be technological progress, changing consumer taste, or trade. things that are beneficial overall but do cause disruption. in that paper, those authors and in other interviews note that we

need to focus on is the collapse of labor dynamism. as i argue in my piece for national review there are a lot , of government policies, very misguided policies, that have caused or contributed to the collapse in labor dynamism. again, the ability of displaced american workers to find new jobs and become employed again. in the 1990's, this type of labor dynamism was quite positive. but it collapsed in about 2000 and has remained in negative territory ever sense. so, what we really should focus on isn't chinese imports, it is instead what is wrong with our labor market that workers cannot find new jobs, that workers cannot resume that kind of natural job churn that the american economy used to be so good at? host: paul is a democrat. paul, go ahead.

caller: i have watched -- i have written about trade since the 1980's. i agree with some of the comments made -- i watched a lot of automation and that sort of thing, and temporary agencies do away with permanent jobs and so forth. and that is a factor. however, the trade agreements have worked perfectly the way they wanted to. they moved industry into the south, and they could not manufacture cheap enough or bring the wages low enough there, so things moved offshore. and i'm a promoter of fair trade. we don't have fair trade. and it is all in pursuit of cheap labor. host: there are a lot of calls lined up. i want scott to respond to what you are saying. guest: well first, i am thrilled to hear that we are at least talking about automation in terms of manufacturing job losses.

the other thing i would just reiterate is that the idea that we don't make stuff anymore is a -- is simply a myth. american manufacturing output is setting records. not only that, the caller mentioned the american south, there are gleaming new manufacturing facilities across in northcan south, carolina, south carolina, alabama, and georgia. a lot of these places are booming. so, the idea that there is this great offshoring of american labor is belied not only by the data but our own eyes. we can see it firsthand. host: sandra is next in georgia. independent. what do you think? caller: i think the trade deals we have made over the last, what, 15 years, have not been good for the united states. you have china with their money manipulation, their cheap labor. things going to mexico.

and now all of these people are losing their jobs because these different businesses are being automated. but regulations and the demands made by our government are making it so difficult for businesses, particularly small businesses, to stay in business. and something needs to change. host: ok. scott, your response? guest: i think it is a great point. the reality is, there are a lot of government policies, whether they be tax policies or regulatory policies, that are making it very difficult for american businesses to remain globally competitive. but this is not a trade problem. this is a domestic policy problem. we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. we have onerous regulations that strangle us. the caller mentioned small businesses.

trade deals get a lot of flack, but again, the reality is that those trade deals have nothing to do with our skyhigh corporate tax rate. at the same time, if you look the numbers, there is not a strong connection between the passage of, for example, the u.s.-korea fta and the loss of american manufacturing jobs or a decline in the american economy. host: scott, respond to donald trump yesterday in janesville, wisconsin. it is a city and a community that has lost jobs to manufacturing. take a listen. mr. trump: wisconsin has lost 15,000 net jobs to mexico since nafta. kasich you understand, is running as well, we forget about him, kasich voted for nafta. both of them want tpp. tpp. transpacific partnership. both of them want transpacific. that will make nafta look like a baby. and wisconsin will be hit so hard.

host: a couple of points there i want you to take on. did nafta hurt wisconsin in janesville? will tpp do even more? guest: right. so, obviously, i'm not going to be able to speak to janesville, wisconsin's employment numbers, but if you look at the broader national data, the fact is we've been losing manufacturing jobs in sheer numerical terms since 1979. long before nafta was ever in force. we lost about the same number of manufacturing jobs in the years leading up to nafta as we did in the years after nafta. the idea that it is some great job destroyer is again simply false. as far as tpp goes, it makes a great political target. president obama is pushing it right now. it is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with trade policies, so people can

claim. but the fact is the tpp has some good things and some bad things, but just like nafta, to blame all of wisconsin's manufacturing problems on nafta or the future tpp is just simply false. trump would be far better served looking at some of the problems in our corporate tax sector, regulatory sector and our labor market instead of just blaming china and mexico for what is obviously a much bigger and more complex problem. host: ok scott, what if we didn't go forward with the transpacific partnership? you write in your piece for "national review" that even if it were morally and economically advantageous for the united states to embrace protectionism, it is almost certainly impossible for us to do so. u.s. manufacturers have involved over decades to become integral

links in a breathtakingly complex global value chain. guest: correct. the numbers i site there after that are fascinating. 40% of everything we export has chinese or mexican or canadian content in it. and about 30% of everything that chinese, mexico and canada export has american content in it. when you look at so-called american cars, it is quite likely that they will have various parts from all over the world. you look at an iphone that says it is made in china, actually it was only assembled in china. it contains parts from japan and taiwan and the united states and relies on american engineering and marketing ingenuity. so, to simply try to tear all of this apart, to remove american manufacturers and the american economy from this very complex global value chain would not just hurt america, it would

hurt the global economy. you would be trying to kill the virus of global trade and in doing so, you would certainly kill the host, being the united states economy. announcer: you're watching c-span's issue spotlight program on trade deals. up next, lori wallach, the director of global trade watch at the group public citizen. she discusses the role of the world trade organization, which is tasked with enforcing trade rules between nations. she is co-author of the book "who's trade organization." this portion of an event from 2004 is about 40 minutes. >> from the end of world war ii, there was the bretton woods summit. there was created three global institutions -- the international monetary fund, the world bank and the gat. it was to keep the gold standard going and to give very short term

loads to float trade. -- loans to float trade. they would finance that float. it would give very short, with no conditions, loans to countries. the world bank, which everyone now knows for bad projects now, was set up to reconstruct europe and japan after the bombings of world war ii. it was supposed to go away. the gat was supposed to set up multilateral rules. some very basic ones. most favorite nation, sometimes called mfn, that means any trade status you get to one trade partner, you have to give to everyone in the same agreement. seems fair. national treatment, nondiscrimination. what that means is you cannot treat a product differently for regulation, taxes according to where it is actually produced. if you have a three pesticides

prepare rule for domestic farmers and imports have to have the same treatment. at zero.t have it and then there were tariffs. it only covered trading goods. we see the image of the ships, that was the gat. that was a we had as a trade system with rounds of negotiations for 50 years. -- wherein wears come to the reagan and thatcher era. hate to bring up that guy in the context of his recent funeral, where he was roasted and toasted as the great leader, but he was behind so-calledtorm of this neoliberal agenda, a set of policies you see embodied in the current wto, which replaced the gat. it is a whole formula that

basically translates the conservative vision of reagan and thatcher and implemented it. here's what is interesting about it. it is a set of policies that in domestic legislatures in various countries have been rejected. there's the stuff we know about. trade liberalization, but also investment liberalization. what that means not allowing government to regulate who owns land, or things like zoning. all of the big box fights about kmart and walmart. the way it is regulated is basically a retail service, cannot occupy more than a certain amount of square feet. , ase kinds of regulations neoliberal mindset that undermines the efficiency of the market. what.l as, who could own

should the water system be public or price it. things you want to just not have in the private .ector, like schools, water in setting up rules beside that. also, finance mobilization. there are stock market concurrency, making it freely tradable, as opposed to having how much trade you can take in our takeout. a lot of developing countries have roles on currency to avoid things like the asian financial ,risis, which we should note after the implementation of double eto rules, a lot of countries that had no infrastructure, regulatory systems, found themselves having their currency traded. they thought there would be no exchange and tilde currency rate went back to normal. to decades of

.evelopment and the value of it cut in half. imagine you know what something costs, you go to the bank and you have half the money and the prices the same. that is what is happened in these asian countries. also in the smorgasbord is privatization. taking assets in the private sector and -- from the public sector and into the private sector. selling things like hospitals, trains, schools. but also, privatizing what is sometimes called essential services that are not always fully in the public sector such as deregulating things like energy. now, privatization and deregulation, are what for instance caused the california electricity shut off. when u.s. trade negotiators run around and say that everyone ought to deregulate their energy systems, the wise trade negotiators look at them and say, california, hello?

we only have brownouts once every three months in our developing country, your whole place will shut down for three months. why would we do that? but that is part of the package, part of the push. and, there are new property protections. intellectual property rules, guaranteeing patents and copyrights, and also trademarks. which is to say, for many developing countries, they don't allow patenting of certain things like medicine or seeds. a lot of countries don't allow patenting of things like lifeforms or human cells for moral or ethical reasons. but under this package of policies, this is one of the policies that we are supposed to adopt. plus, harmonization. anything that has not been deregulated, it is supposed to make one global, universal standard. so there is one standard for what is safe for a pesticide contamination. you can imagine when you have a global standard, you end up with a least common

denominator. a lower common denominator. what does this have to do with my country? the way it works with wto and nafta, when a country signs on, they must conform all of the domestic laws to the rules on all of these diverse things that have nothing to do with trade. what does how your local school or hospital works have to do with trade? it is a local service issue. or what does intellectual , property patenting of medicine in africa that shoots up the price of aids treatment have to do with trade? no one is actually moving drugs across the border. the question is, what does the patent law have to be within the country in its domestic operations? or for that matter, what exactly should be the role of one-size-fits-all rules on a whole set of value judgments? the biggest transformation into

global corporate rule to agreements like the wto was to shift from the objective, for instance, the gat, which treated everyone the same, to this objective. such as, how much pollution are you allowed before you stop? how much poison is accepted in food? will you make access to medicines for everyone in your country a priority or patenting a priority? making those value decisions is what transformationally is what the wto and nafta got into. this was the big shift. this is the difference between international trade and globalization, as in one big homogenous glob of globalization. sothere is the international and there is the globalization glob. the idea is to have everything around the world as follows

policy and regulatory matters set within these rules. in fact, the operating clause in the world trade organization is, all countries shall ensure conformity of all of their laws, regulations, and administrative procedures. so, the best way this was ever described, this was in the trade organization book, was by a rancher i met in wyoming who is trying to why the u.s. was in a fight over what european meat was like, and why european meat was ruining him. why are we a big spat with them? they were trying to explain what was going on, and he said, i get this exactly. what we're talking about is a high-voltage electric fence right around the pasture. you can't get out of the pasture. the cows can do anything they want in the pasture, but you

can't bump into the fence. what you're saying the wto has , set a high-voltage fence around all of our governments. state governments and local governments turned on the juice and basically said, you have two inches to the right, two inches to the left, and if you're not inside the fence, you will get zapped but good. the idea of free roving democracy is finished. you are in the pen. and that is a pretty good description. because as well as having all of these rules that every country has to change their laws to meet, there is strong enforcement. to give you one example of the kind of changes, because people are saying, maybe is not that big of a deal. here is just one. note, 700 different pages of non-trade stuff. the u.s. used to have a patent duration of 17 years. that meant that when someone discovered a new medicine, they had 17 years of monopoly.

once they registered the patent they were the only ones who could sell it. everyone here has heard of motrin, nuprin, all the different ibuprofen drugs. under patent, they had 17 years. in those days, each one of those tablets cost as much as a thing of 40 of them is now. $8 a tablet when i was a kid. it was under patent. they had singular control, and they could set the price. the aids medicine, because one person has a monopoly. 17 years was the term. the u.s. pharmaceutical industry spent years trying to get that extended to 20 years. they just could not do it. between all of the consumer groups and everyone's grandma and grandpa, it was a nonstarter. what do you mean you will raise my prices for three more years? in comes the wto. this is one of many stories we tell in this book to make this clear. in the wto's agreement on trade

related intellectual property. let me share a footnote, anytime you see the term trade related, it is an indicator that the chapter has nothing to do with trade and has been could the boost into the world trade organization. they put the words "trade related" before it. this is a monopoly protection thing, it extends the term of patenting protection to 20 years. every country who signs must conform their domestic legislation. so, a couple of weeks after the wto happens, congressmen gets a call that is it -- it is not trade. everything is what congressman think there in charge of everything is about to get , handcuffed away from you.

they say, did i miss some legislation? it seems i have gotten notice that the patent notices have extended for 20 years, how could that be? how do they get from 17 to 20 years, that is impossible? and they say, sir, sir, silence, coup d'etat. could it be that the wto made you do that? you thought you were in charge. you thought for something like that to happen it is jumping up and down in front of you. when in fact, through the back door, something that had been won for consumers for decades. that is just one of literally hundreds of examples. which gets back to the book. so, i have all of the stories in my head because i've been paying attention to it for 15 years. i will admit, it is true, i'm a recovering trade attorney. i'm recovering from that condition because now that i work in an activist group, we do fun things instead of reading in the dark

basement. but as a recovering trade attorney, i've been able to go through all of the stories and learn them. a lot of people said to me, you have to write this down. whenever you talk to someone, we get it. in our book we have written out all the stories. let me give you another cut on the issue of enforcing these rules. which is the wto sets up and nafta sets up its own internal tribunal. all of the existing agreement, the human rights treaties, the labor rights treaties, those are all under conventions. countries agreed internationally on the terms, but then every country has to enforce them at their own border. so you take the convention on the international treaty on the environment. every country agrees what is on the endangered species list, but it gets enforced country by country.

there's no tribunal. the u.s. passes the endangered species act and starts to implement the treaty. at the wto and nafta, there are tribunals. in fact they are the only self enforcing international agreement. so, when you hear a critic of one of the agreements say it is the only currently enforceable world government, it is actually not hyperbole. thu.n. has great policies that cannot be enforced. what happened at the wto is that these tribunals are set up by three trade attorneys. to get on the list, you have to have represented your country at the wto. someone like me who knows all this jurisprudence until my eyeballs roll, i am not qualified to be on one of these tribunals, you have to have a stake in the organization. you can imagine you do not get the most fair judgment when the people who are the judges have

worked and are being challenged. they meet in secret. totally in secret. as in, no press, no public. the tribunals are typically set up in geneva, and a professional legal staff does a lot of the work, meaning they have a lot of the power. these three panelists with the help of the secretary at -- secretariat, the -- they are basically empowered to judge whether your domestic losses within the constraints set by the wto. if they rule it does not, there's no outside appeal. there is an internal appeal. it does not seem to overturn these cases very often. the wto rules are so lopsided that we found when we analyzed for the book all of the cases that have come to the wto, the plaintiff, the person who takes the case challenging a domestic law, has won 95% of the cases. you bring a case, it is almost impossible to save your domestic law by proving it is inside the rules. and the kinds of laws that have

gotten sacked include the u.s. clean air act regulations and gasoline cleanliness, u.s. endangered species rules on excluded devices and shrimp nets, the u.s. protection act, the korean food long shelf life regulations. there have been a series of rulings against india that have basically forced that country to start patenting seeds, lifeforms, etc., even though india, the world's largest democracy, has a constitution that explicitly forbade the patenting of seeds, lifeforms, etc. and pharmaceuticals. , there have been a series of rulings against different countries, food security policies for the developing countries, who had it with the rich countries dumping their subsidized food on them, to keep they dumped food out. under the wto rules, the dumping is allowed.

it is not disciplined. the border canof be challenged as a violation to the wto. on and on both the cases. go the cases. the tribunals have the power to order the country to change the law or face sanctions. they used to call it a kangaroo court. but our allies from australia said that was extremely insulting to marsupials. if you don't change your domestic law, you face perpetual trade sanctions. there's only one case where let me give you an example. there's only one case where country has not changed a law over a long time. it is a disgusting case that shows how extreme the roles are. we go into gory detail. fightan consumer groups it out with the pharmaceutical and farm groups to get a ban on artificial growth hormones in beef. there was a big domestic fight and they won with referendums.

the whole european union passes a law that says we will not allow the use in europe of artificial growth hormones for raising beef or the sale of beef grown with artificial hormones in europe. which is to say, we don't let you use it here and you can't import it either. it is not discriminatory. under the old gat rule, you treat them the same. you are treating imports and domestic food the same. so, what is the trade issue? one of the wto tribunals ruled that the rule violated the wto food standards rule because those rules forbid you from using the so-called precautionary principle. you actually put a ban on something and make the industry prove it is safe. which by the way is about how half of u.s. products are regulated. like pharmaceuticals. the burden is on the pharmaceutical company to show that they are safe and efficacious.

up to the government to prove it is dangerous. under this particular ruling, the ruling was that the burden was on the government to show that the beef were conclusively harmful. the fact that they had seen some evidence, for instance that some of the hormones cause cancer, when people directly consume them, that there had not been long-term studies of what happened when you consume the beef that is consumed the hormone. but we already know they are carcinogens. that should be enough. there's been other pieces of scientific evidence. not enough to be conclusive but enough to worry. wto says no. no acting on precaution. you cannot take the measure to avoid harm, you have to prove it is dangerous. europe has been paying $150 million in trade sanctions for the last five years to keep out our hormone-tainted beef. yes they have to pay a ransom , not eat the food they don't want to

eat, which was passed by a referendum that is also applied to their own domestic farmers. sounds crazy, but it gets worse. now with the wto's track record, so uneven, we found in researching this book is now a mere threat of a challenge is often enough to make a country drop a policy. one of the most gruesome cases has to do guatemala. guatemala had adopted what is often called the nestle's code. you guys are probably too young to remember this, but there was a huge global boycott of nestle in the 1960's and 1970's because they were promoting breast milk substitute, baby formulas, incredibly advertising to illiterate women aggressively advertising to illiterate women in developing countries, , insinuating they would be healthier, babies would be healthier drinking the formula. of course, if you are not in a place with safe water, and you mix dirty water with formula, the baby dies of infant diarrhea. so the u.s. and the world health organization got together and

started a campaign that was run out of churches, and it was the fight against an epidemic of needless child death. that is how they describe it. it was the world council of churches, hardly a radical group. they fought and they fought and they got a u.n. treaty. the treaty had a couple of rules. no deceptive labeling. you had to have a plain package you cannot have a picture of a , healthy baby, so someone who would not make assumptions. you cannot have promotions and hospitals. five days later and the breastmilk was dried out and they are hooked. you could not have advertising by health officials. these were basic consumer rules. country after country adopted the treaty. guatemala adopts it, and they become the poster child for unicef because their child mortality rate goes way down. it is really working for them. at this point, the wto is about to be approved and we are

already fighting with consumers around the world. i got a call from the guatemalan health minister. at first i thought it was a joke. i thought it was a friend trying to get through to me. but it really was the guatemalan health minister. he said i heard you work in a consumer group. i have this outrageous letter -- i have this outrageous letter from your state department that is claiming that our adopting the unicef baby milk code is a violation of the wto and we have to get rid of the treaty which is saving babies otherwise they will take us to the dublin -- take us to the wto. did you look at these documents and give us opinions about whether they are trying to spook us and ignore them. do we have to respond to this? yes, send it away. so i get the packet, and sure enough it was a state department letter.

gerber, has a trademark on their fat baby face. under the plain packaging world, you cannot have a depiction of a fat baby. what they're asking gerber to do is to just have a plain package and to get rid of the fat baby. but in the wto's trade and intellectual property rules there is a trademark attachment. ,so the letter says our trademark protection rights trump this u.n. treaty. whatever treaty is later in time as a matter of law, does trump. so they write this letter and it is very intimidating. i start looking through the different parts of the wto that would apply. there is a health exception in the property rules and i think you should fight it. we can try to help you get lawyers. you will still have to pay some, but this is outrageous. if nothing else you can make a

, moral case. just embarrass them into not pursuing it. about three months later i hear back and it will cost $1 million to defend the case against the wto. i heard back from the minister, and he said even the way you laid it out there was a 60% chance. for us, when million dollars is almost our entire immunization budget. can we spend $1 million gambling and because stop a wto challenge or we could stop immunization which kills babies. immunization is a sure thing, but we have a 50-50 chance. it breaks our hearts but we have changed the law. u.s. products do not have to comply anymore. and they do not. but we have tracked the data on infant mortality, and these documents we have made publicly available among the many that were leaked to us. so much of the stuff is secret. you can't know. there are all these kids, the most vulnerable citizens in very

poor countries who have gotten squashed by the wto and it never even went to a tribunal. for us, why this is so interesting is people tell us about these cases because they know they are trying to track the effects. the bottom line is how this works is you estimate the pros and cons and if it's not working, then you have to change it. the one thing that seems clear about this model of globalization, as it stands it , is not survivable. the question becomes can we figure out a calm and reasonable change to rules? you do not need one-size-fits-all on everything, but you need rules on trade. if you get rid of some of the baggage, or just wait for everyone to start ignoring it and the poorest countries get into a total state of misery because of the outcomes of these agreements. and this gets the final point which is the economic track record.

two of the chapters of the book are based on the economic track record. the reason i did not focus on the economics but focused on the the policies first is because most people are more familiar with the economics fight. most people don't realize this one-size-fits-all imposition business. fyi, in the u.s. we did weaken the protection act. it is back to the days of chasing the dolphins with boats and circular nets it only means , that no one observed a dolphin dying. net's the size of 10 football fields. for someone to observe them when it is observer required in it vote does not mean a thing. the clean air act regulations were written to reimplement something that the epa had thrown out. it is unenforceable and useless that would increase carbon emissions by 5%. the endangered species act rules

on turtles were weakened. that shrimp is allowed into the country, but does not meet the endangered species act. what happened economically? in the u.s., perhaps the most telling statistic is the following, which affects your futures. everyone gets to hear from the parents and grandparents how after world war ii until the early 1970's there was a great boom. for the first time people were able to buy houses and cars. the real median wage and the real wage were adjusted for inflation from world war ii until 1972, which was the top of one of the growth cycles -- it increased 85%. the median real wages in the u.s. increased 85% and that chunk of time. if you go from 1972 until the current time, trade is now two

times the share of gross national product of the u.s. but , our real median wages are flat. which is to say it is basically the same as it was in 1972. if you look at certain sectors in factif you look at certain sectors of the country we have not to the real median 1972. wages are lower than they were in 1972. yet trade is now two times our gross domestic product. trade is a much bigger share of our economy but real wages are very flat. a bunch of economists have said is there a connection? we better figure that out. it has been economists that support the nafta and the wto. then you have a bunch of economists that are saying this is very odd, what could because in this income inequality to be growing so much? the top is going way up the

bottom is going down in the middle is staying where it is. the new york times called it the new era of the robber barons. there is not been a growth in income inequality in the u.s. since the turn of the century. it is shocking. it is happening within many countries and between countries. between the rich countries and poor countries the gap is growing. so, what is the cost? interestingly, the institute for international economics, which is a think tank that is very much pro-nafta and pro-wto, their analyst and again , all of this is written out in the footnotes he estimated that 30% , of the inequality --me the theory has a production of a

theory of increase -- these guys will recognize it is true. they just want to measure what is that effect. the way free-trade economics works is that the gain is on the import side. it is the general benefit to the consumers of lower prices created by competition. if you gain in free-trade it is because the price goes down. you also in their he see wages in certain sectors going down. but, the theory holds that if the overall gains in the economy , by lowering the prices, will compensate for the fact that only some people's wages will go down and you expand the pie. new people get new jobs, and then you have to help the people who are losing a piece of it. but the net is always positive because everyone gets the consumer benefit and only a few people get the hit.

an interesting study was done and they took the conservative pro-nafta and proto economist estimates of inequality caused by trade and then they plugged in the real bid on median wages. what they found it was at this point with the free-trade economics was working domestically, basically by readjusting the types of jobs that exist, it does not mean that you looked at the net number. you look at what kind of jobs and then what those pay. that shows you where the inequality is. they did this study were they applied the conservative estimates, and they found at this point the savings at the consumer and are now outweighed for the median by the loss of income. which is to say using the actual theory you can show that a huge chunk are actually losing under the

current trade globalization. that is a really interesting piece of research. i'm no economist, and one of the good things about the book is that we did not send a chapter to anyone's mom. i had to understand that chapter because i had to write it. we go through the whole free-trade terry and applied numbers. you can find data that says the following. the u.s. has lost almost 3 million manufacturing jobs in the era of nafta and wto. that is one of six in the entire sector in almost 10 years. if you think of the eriod wherezation p we went from an agrarian society to an industrial society, 50 years in the midst of that huge strife, the creation of federal legislation, and you have the shift. we have now one in six manufacturing jobs gone in 10

years without any particular safety net set up. the newest trend is off shoring not just manufacturing jobs but service sector jobs, high-tech jobs, computer, engineering, and even medical diagnostics. this is all being done without paying attention to existing u.s. regulations on things like banking and health information. when it gets offshore it -- , because of these service roles, these rules don't apply overseas. the bank was sending information for processing and they got held basically ransom. if you do not pay me more money i'm going to post this on the web. your privacy laws do not apply. since i am working in pakistanyour privacy laws do not apply. it is worth paying me a bunch of , money so i do not post your entire database to the world wide web and get you sued. you're going to get sued for $3 million.

it is worth paying me. besides blackmail it is little worry some that your health and financial status, and your identity could be stolen. it should not be out running about. once again you have a whole set of issues with the government has been handcuffed about how you want commonsense regulations. although in that when i am happy to say that congress is fighting back. we have seen a total shift in manufacturing. but in the developing world, the news has been pretty gruesome. that is actually where i'm going to stop. the most important economic fact to learn if you're not going to read the whole book, pick up the fact sheet. each color is a different chapter and it summarizes the key findings. if you have ever wondered why in the developing world, india, malaysia, indonesia bolivia, you , have millions of people on the street protesting against the wto, the imf.

when the social movements saw that we finally had a protest in seattle in 1999, they had e-mails saying, congratulations but it is about time. ,we told you, it is your structural adjustment. we have 30 years experience. it was nice that you finally got with the program because we have been fighting this for 20 years. in the developing world, why people are out on the streets, is the following. because the price now for goods is basically set below the cost of production. it is called dumping. what it means is you have food -- the rules allow the rich countries to keep their subsidies. a thing called export subsidies which is what the grain trading and meat companies get.

not the farmers. and, domestic support which is what the farmers get. they were both frozen in place. it was a bit of a decline but what that means is if you were a poor country that didn't have a lot of money, you would get it frozen at zero. have zero. even though the rich countries are frozen at high subsidies below the cost of not only what it costs their farmers but what it cost your farmers. farmers torupt or have a counter subsidy. those are the wto rules. the chapter on agriculture is one of the ones that is probably as far as deciphering the rules were the most useful. isexplains exactly how it that right now more people in the developing world are facing nine in half years

after wto. we were promised that the wto would increase global wealth and the wealth of the poorest countries, how more people are living on one dollar a day. that's the world bank's model for extreme poverty. you hear people come back and the thing that's good is the percentage of people living on one dollar a day has declined a bit. let me share with you one of the economic tricks we reveal. that number includes china. member ofa was not a the wto until the last six months. gave the raspberry to wto. , the countryorts

still is not tradable. you cannot raid the chinese farms. you can't crash the currency. you can't do with anything with the currency. investment is regulated. problemsnment has many regarding human rights. what they do with investment is really clever. you are going to make money it needs to benefit our development. here the conditions. if you invest here you have to do this, set up this road or some part of the electricity over here. conditions are precisely what is forbidden in the wto. all the stuff the chinese did and had fast growth rates and lifted many of poverty are exactly the things you cannot do in the w-2 oh -- wto.

china, you take the total of china and the growth of china out there is a huge percentage gain in one dollar a day. all of the rest of the developing world which had to stay with those rules has seen growth decline. america youat latin see during the. of pre-globalization from basically 1950 to the mid-1970's you see gold rate -- growth rates capital growth rate. it's not the best measurement but it is the one the world bank is using. the growth rate 72%. not bad. then you see that country structurally adjusting. the imf does it more than a wto. you follow the whole set of formulas. 70%.

per capita income growth until 2000 -- 2001. positive growth rates are 32%. second. all structurally adjusted growth rate is -23%. basically africa has lost wealth following this model. what the data shows is that no country has developed under the current rules that are being imposed by the wto and the imf on developing countries. the base ofat why the movement is in developing countries is because they have been lifting -- living with the most terrific results for the past 30 years. candidate bernie sanders has been an opponent of modern trade deals. shortly before the official start of his campaign he took to the senate floor to speak out against the transpacific

partnership or you can find entire speech by going to c-span.org and searching the video library. >> mr. president, was very important. but he showed the headquarters of nike to tout the benefits of the tpp. nike does not employ a single manufacturing worker who makes shoes in the united states of america area not one worker. 100% of the shoes that are sold by nike are made overseas and low-wage countries. founded, this is the transformation of the american economy. but when nike was founded in 1964, just 4% of u.s. footwear was imported. we manufactured the vast majority of the shoes and the

sneakers we war. all of the shoes that are bought in the united states are manufactured overseas . today over 330,000 workers manufacture nike's products in vietnam. is $.56 an wage hour. president obama and other proponents of tpp talking about a level playing field. does anybody think competing against people -- desperate people who make $.56 an hour is a level playing field? is fair to american workers question we want to see poor people oh over the world to see an increase. we have to play a role in that. but you don't have to destroy the american middle class to help low income workers around the world. president, the obama

administration says trust us. forget what they said about nafta, but korea. forget what they said about china. this is different. really different. and yes it may be true that every corporation in america -- corporations that have shut down factories in this country and move to china, they support this agreement. it's true that wall street, whose greed and recklessness have almost destroyed the american economy, they are supporting this agreement. , whoharmaceutical industry charges the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, they are supporting this agreement. not to worry. we should trust these guys. really are thinking of the american middle class and working families. trust us. when they tell us a trade agreement will be good for working people, we should trust them. meanwhile, every trade union in

america the vast majority of environmental growth in this country, they are saying be careful about tpp and vote no on fast-track your in 2011, tom daschle and former white house chief of staff andrew card produced a report on trade policy for the council on foreign relations. theiriscuss recommendations with david wessel of the wall street journal, topics include improving enforcement of trade rules and making investments to help people in loser jobs. this is 40 minutes. i will start with one big question if i've made. this, the growth of global trade and investment has brought significant benefits to the united states and the rest of the world. facilitated by the role the us-led by implementing has alleviated poverty, raised

average standards of living and discourage conflict. that enough a lot of americans are not convinced that global trade and investment has brought significant benefit to them. they think it is hurting them. i am curious. to them to say convince them that this is in their interest, not only the interest of big multinationals? we have to ask what would happen had we not done these things. the world is going through a most transformational moment. it is changing dramatically. we are coming from more integrated and interrelated. we recognize that the real developing markets for the products that we produce and the services we provide are in the developing continents of africa and latin america and asia. as we recognize his transformation, we also have to toognize that we have to do engage with the world in order

to ensure that our economy remains strong. we also in the report note that there are a lot of things we can do better. we can do a lot better with enforcement. we could do a lot better with regard to training our workers to cope with these transformational circumstances than we do today. we recognize there are many challenges up there. but the world is changing. we need to adapt as the world changes to suit the workers and the needs of our country. we find that multinational corporations have a disproportionately large growth factor when it comes to workers in the knighted states. -- united states. they had been adding jobs even as i have been expanding markets and that is a good sign. we have been a magnet for direct investment. that is challenged right now with the world. this report is not written to be the perfect answer. if you are looking for perfection you should probably go to an academic institution.

describen effort to and it think is needed is the practical recognition of the challenges on free trade between the old debate of what would it look like in the new debate is what about me? the is a balance about theoretical value of free trade, and the practicality of we need to do more for the american worker. to demonstrate the ground rules are there. the united states will be a partner in making sure people play by the rules. this is in an effort to recognize the climate as well as the economic climate -- climate and the reality that the world has changed. we don't have permission to be the exclusive carrier's of economic growth to the world and we don't have permission to be isolationist. we are going to purchase a paid

in the global economy and we think this is a roadmap for more realistic participation. our interests will not conflict with the theoretical expectation of an open market. as you know, the report argues that there are lots of ways in which trade and foreign investment in the united states and u.s. investment abroad are good for the united states. says if you took a poll of the democrats in congress, you might have a trouble getting a majority. what do you say to them? is this really in america's interest and not just corporate america's interests? aref you look at where we soft us today with regard to the economy, it is the expectation of how we will grow jobs. one of the major takeaways of this report has been that we really need and much more

aggressive, pro-american investment policy. that investment policy has a couple of components. it is encouraging foreign investment into the night -- united states. done ang we have not good job of encouraging, but it means encouraging american investors and manufacturers to also invest in america. in building the kind of partnerships to do that is really what will grow jobs in the long-term. we will hear a lot of debate over the next several months about how we grow jobs. we think there is a significant trade component having to do with investment, related directly to job growth in this country that we need to focus on if we will get this job done right. mentioned thatu not all workers benefit from trade and it suggests that the government policies that could be used to share the benefits of trade more broadly.

it mentions calls for this thing called wage insurance, which is a way of compensating workers who may lose a high wage job because they may be one of the losers and -- in this. both trent lott and bill thomas subject to that. sale to republicans like aboutwho are uneasy extending the trade adjustment assistance program. isn't that important? of a right? >> a right the global context of spending. i think with regard to the united states, they are saying put that in the same prior to -- priority when this deficit reduction commission meets to say how do spend money. i think there are benefits for free trade, and if the benefits can be shared with people who have been dislocated it's not bad. , am not just for spending

spending. in the context of the overall discipline that has to count into spending. i don't disagree with their do disagree with their reservation. i think we put together a plan that was practical from a political point of view as well. that is some recognition there will be adjustments that will be needed to address people who aron the cusof hanks angst, so that's what i favor. i do -- i did talk with senator .ott and bill thomas i completely understand their angst. in the context of overall spending i think we can find a way to show that if benefits are real from free-trade than some of those benefits could be the concerned of the workers that are displaced. >> political practicality.

dictatesoday's world that we understand the importance of trade adjustment assistance if we are in favor of a robust rate policy. they go hand in glove. you cannot have one without the other. you are not required to remain silent. -- comparednk you councilade ago when the on foreign relations did on trade, one thing that is different is the role of china. what does the report have to tell us about what we have to fear from china, what we have to gain from china and what role does our government play in making sure that china plays are the trade rules that we play by. force of all, the reality of china's growth is evident to us

all. so are some of the problems in china. i would like to see and i applaud the administration's support to be more flexible, how their currency is traded around the world, what level it has in dictating the value back to china. i also am concerned about intellectual property. i think it is a reality that self initiation by the u.s. government has not been very present. we have covered on current corporations and businesses to come forward with their concerns and they are reluctant to raise a level of concern to the federal government. i think the federal government should be more active or more proactive and calling attention to violations of trade and whether you are not being respected. this report calls for our government to to be self initiating. a big company that

feels like china is breaking the rules and not being able to stand up for itself? >> that concerns a lot about retaliation. by the chinese government. , if i had totion categorize the report it would be in four ways. all of them apply to china. the first is that we ought to have a much more proactive trade policy. we are to be focused on policies .hat can produce real results as we target where we can do the most with trade, china is a major factor. the second is investment policy. ofrecognizes the importance relationships and encouraging more investment. china is one of those major players were we could make a difference. the third is enforcement. we have to do a better job with enforcement. what better country to

than china. finally, the trade adjustment assistance. we have to help our workers. relates to china because we are being heard in some ways echoes of the bilateral relationship we have today. all four takeaways apply to china. aboutthe report you talk one of your recommendations, the national investment initiative to coordinate investment policies to create more high productivity jobs in the united -- united states. what is it that we are not doing to encourage investment? >> it means that all of her investments in the united they should have an eye towards competitiveness. how are we going to remain competitive with the rest of the world as it has become increasingly imperative to us. we need to have more investment in our infrastructure. we need to have more investment in education. this is a recognition that the united states alone is not going

to be the engine that drives all economic activity around the world. are asking for an investment in our infrastructure and our education so we will be competitive with the world, that is increasingly competitive against us. >> to add one thing, we saw in the report that the national investment -- would be complement in this. a lot of what this report is about is attracting investment in the united states that is related to export and markets. if you have never done this in a systematic way. most countries have national level investment promotion efforts where they are looking overseas to bring and companies to get them investing. we don't do that at a national level in a serious way. we talk about tax policy, about the way in which our corporate tax system discourages

investment in the united states. the goal here is to have the complement the national export initiative to say they are linked. as we are promoting exports we need to be promoting foreign investment. >> when these multinationals expand abroad, you have discovered a set of policies to allow expansion abroad to connect and as mayor -- connect with jobs in america as well. have denominated -- dynamic growth markets. >> you talk in the report with approval of the german and the france

chancellor as being better salesman for their export industry than american presidents. in europe, the governments are and closer to businesses the relationship between government and business is different here. most of the time the rhetoric it of business in america is stay out of my business and i will stay out of yours. do you imagine -- should the president of the united states, democrat or republican, be spending more time beating on the chinese to buy jets or the germans to buy microsoft software? >> i don't know if i would say beating on them. greaternk creating a and a more successful partnership as we look at international competitiveness is a good thing to do. to do ahink we have better job of linking jobs with

this whole effort. that's what i think we have failed to do. we haven't really made the case about how jobs can be affected and how we can build a jobs agenda around doing a better job of selling ourselves to the world. that partly is what this is all about, recognizing there is a that hasnt of rhetoric to be considered as we make our case that has not been addressed effectively past years. >> i remember that presidents of the united states, they don't not put is for u.s. exports. it's done with a bit of awkwardness, like we ought not to be too mercenary about this, because we are the united states of america. is that a good thing or is that a problem? >> >> i don't think it's a problem. presidents have been champions of u.s. corporations competing against foreign co-op versions. cooperate -- corporations.

they want the playing field to be as level as possible. they want the rule of trade to be expect -- respected on all sides. that is what we are asking the federal government to do, to be proactive to make sure the rules that are there are being enforced. corporationson our to say you are breaking the rules. we should step up and blow the whistle and call attention to it. pro-americana trade policy. that is what this is saying. i don't think it is inconsistent with the fact that the u.s. is the best example of a free market system, and we want to spread free-market systems around the world. andgnizing that are free andet a system is great there is enforcement, and we will make sure that spreads across every border.

>> the way that america taxes corporations is controversial at the moment. we are the only country that tries to tax everybody's profits no matter where they are in the world, while other countries try and tax only the profits earned another country. congress isensus in that we should have tax reform, you talk a little bit about taxes in your report. would either of you talk about how we think about corporate tax reform in the context of trade and investment. or is a huge influence on our success in international trade and competitive this. -- competitiveness. we created an array of incentives to do different things. the bottom line is we still have a very high tax rate as it relates to other parts of the world in business.

recognizing that and creating a equilibrium, a fair and more competitive tax climate is something i think both democrats and republicans, this administration and congress, in spite of the polarization you searound taxes, seem to agree. >> you cannot have a trade debate without talking about taxes. -- acknowledges that reality. we heard from a number of business leaders, from every leader we spoke to, the tax policies have a greater impact on the trade policies. call to thee to attention of congress is a take a look at tax policy to pay attention to what is happening in the global competitiveness. our abilityimpact to attract more jobs and investment here and keep jobs. we put some controversial suggestions in here with regard

to the tax debate. it is not in the context of a trade bill. it's in the context of a tax bill that will have to be written. written want that without paying attention to the ramifications and international trade. >> you also talk a little bit about the process of getting tax legislation through congress. once it upon a time -- once upon it would all happen in 30 days. 30 days seem to stretch to 3000 days. with countriess about the size of providence, rhode island. you propose to make the trades legislation project -- process more efficient? >> if we tried to write a perfect document, you could write a perfect way with which to deal with trade legislation in the congress. that isn't going to happen.

nobody thinks congress is perfect. i think we, the realization that trade promotion authority legislative avenues are not something that are very realistic today. withve to look at ways which to address these agreements outside that context. making the case that on a bilateral basis with countries as important as brazil and india and china. on that basis alone we are to be the to find consensus on most important priorities relating with trade with those countries. we will not create a framework in which all of these things can be done. there is no one size off its approach to trade policy as we go forward. we have to recognize that today. >> trade promotion authority would be great in a perfect world. the reality is congress is not likely to approve trade

promotion authority and even if they did do it, there would be strings on it that might mean it wasn't trade promotion authority. of the an acknowledgment reality of the political climate today. i advocated for it when i was working in the private sector and i lobby congress to pass the trade promotion authority. i thought it was a great tool for a president to have. it is not likely to begin in now. -- now. one thing about this report is it suggests that there should be strategic consideration with regards to trade. we are suggesting -- take a look at the unique challenges of china or brazil, or india. deal with them. it used to be that you would take the cookie cutter out and poke it into the world and columbia,showed perfect example. we don't have a cookie-cutter anymore.

we have to deal market to market and reality to reality, but it's also in the context with a political response. >> we have had examples where we have been able to do this. we have to go back and find what and useside of tpa those principles and experiences again. would love congress to give tpa to the president of the united states. i don't think congress will do it. >> just add one thing to be clear, there was broad agreement in the best of all worlds trade promotion authority for the president makes sense. what we wanted to avoid was a big ideological battle over in theory does the u.s. want to go forward on more trade agreements? harden up both sides positions. you go up there and present to the congress specific deals that the administration can bring home.

tpa inll probably need the agreement that is being negotiated. >> it allows for a fast-track procedure. so you don't get into the game with congress amending trade deals after they are negotiated. i think it is easier if you have changeable -- tangible agreements that you can present to members of congress, saying here is what you grant and this is what it means and try to build up confidence. >> let me turn now to what you think that ceos of big companies are to do and say? 1990's, multinationals created about two jobs overseas, every job they created here. in the to thousands a day them. they increase their employment

overseas by 2.4 million and disgrace their workforces in the u.s. by 2.9 million. the responsibility of the ceos of the hundred largest multinational companies in terms of talking to the government, talking to the people about trade. what should they bring to the table >> --? >> we have to be competitive in the world. should, our government say what are you going to do for us? they have some suggestions. sometimes the rules of the game as muchlow them to add value to the united states as they would like to. but the competitive challenges that require them to make sacrifices at home for return on investment. jim owens is the best example. he is out there, working very,

only to provide jobs in america but to meet the challenges that consumers have around the globe. he has done it well. we were tying his hands frequently. sometimes it was our tax code, sometimes the lack of infrastructure in the united states. he found a way to do it. we listened to him. we listen to the practical challenges as he was competing around the world and those see your -- and so desire here at home. i think ceos have the same responsibility that public officeholders have, to do with this report calls for. put the attention and the focus where the american people really want to hear they think it should be in a design jobs. what are ceos doing to do a better job than we had been doing on creating jobs here at home?

what our policy makers doing? what incentives, what kind of infrastructure do we need to is profitable and rewarding for businesses to create those jobs right here at home. that's really what we have to do is emphasize what it will take to build those jobs. the perception is all we're doing is building -- is creating those jobs abroad. we have to bring them home and make sure people believe that it is a priority and it is the highest element of our agenda when it comes to trade. i think the ceos can do is inform and educate. they are the ones that are seeing every week every corridor , how the opportunities are growing and how challenging the business dynamic is. hopefully connecting in a way that kenexa jobs in the united states. you go back to the 1980's and

1990's, the united states corporate tax cut was similar to that of other countries. the changes in dozens of countries to simply cut -- simple father ted: -- fact -- tax code, they are seeing things in real time. me ask you one economic question. there's a striking quote in this report from its predecessor, a by1 report that was chaired bob ruben. interesting directed by tim geithner at the time. in that report, just 10 years ago they wrote the gains in trade are broadly shared. asoughout the last decade

the u.s. has become significantly more open u.s. employment and wages have increased. that's not a statement you could make in 2011. what changed? >> the academic in me says we are still working on trying to understand that. it's clear that on an amazing in which technology the world has become more global has something to do with the fact that job growth has been slower in america. wage growth has been nonexistent majority ofe american workers. that's the deep reality of the global system. it's difficult to pin down which part of our government, each forces at play. it is a reality that we can build off of this to make a more set of innovative policies to generate more income growth linked to opportunities abroad. >> also a recognition of

reality. in government owned entities around the world are increasingly challenging our corporate structure to be competitive. how do we deal with that? with an expectation of government owned entities would be the major competitors in these markets. eeing the u.s. government being more proactive to make sure the rules are being followed. playing field must be as little as possible to meet the demands of consumers around the world and provide jobs back at home. tesla at think the american people are expecting the government to be more aggressive with regards to enforcement here at if there is one word that concerns them the most it is enforcement. why don't you be more aggressive and be more successful in taking

on the lack of competitive fairness as you look at some of these markets. of thisinal portion issue spotlight program features u.s. trade representative mike froman.ichael he joined the obama administration in 2009 hundred and trade representative in 2013. his remarks at the cato institute are about 10 minutes. you can see this entire event and all of the events featured during this issue spotlight by going to our website, c-span.org and searching the video library. --ks thanks very much. i feel a little bit like one of

these things isn't like the other. there are a number of things we don't fully agree on, but here is an area where we may well agree. i welcome this opportunity and thank dan for the invitation. i am delighted to see one of my predecessors here in the front row here. one of the great things about this job is how bipartisan it is. have gotten great advice and support from all of my predecessors. i want to thank the trade team summit, bill sudan for bringing their expertise on debate.sues to the we welcome this report that is being issued today and look forward to reading it and the analysis on this issue. tpp will be the largest trade

policy advance in more than 20 years on a wide range of important policy goals with the withts very well mesh principles common to conservatives, liberals and libertarians alike. if you are interested in reducing taxes, promoting market ace competition, internet freedom and entrepreneurialism there is a lot to like in this agreement. it will eliminate more than exports.rrorists on it will increase the standard of on poor americans. it will have to maintain the competitiveness of manufacturers who relied on components. american company selling cosmetics or cars to vietnam will find new opportunities as fannish.f 20% to 70%

for part of -- proprietor of a grocery store will save yourself .oney's as u.s. tariffs drop tpp will be the first agreement since 1994 to cut a subsidy program prohibiting fishing subsidies. that's an improvement both for the removal of a destroying practice and a conservation measure. economy,on the digital preserving the integrity of the internet. digital-- prohibiting -- tpp will for the first time take a comprehensive approach to imposing disciplines on state owned enterprises to make sure that when the computer against our privacy from they do it on a player -- fair playing field.

these are just a few of things. and a number of studies done on the benefits of tpp from the peterson institute to the american farm bureau, they have all found that it will support more well paying export related jobs come at purchasing power and spur economic growth here at home. findhe peterson institute that the majority of the benefits will go to workers through higher wages. great deal of anxiety among the american people and across much of the world would there is concerned that other countries don't follow the same rules we do and act unfairly. the system is rigged in favor of a few. it is important that we not ignore these concerns. they are legitimate.

the question is what to do about them. most of the time they will tell you that technology has to do with the changing nature of the work force than inflation. we don't get to vote on technology. nobody votes on the next generation of computers. nor do we get to vote on globalization. by thezation is a fact spread of broadband and the opening of countries like china and eastern europe that used to be closed to the global economy and are now part of it. globalization is a force. you can't just wish it away. what we do get to vote on our trade agreements. should they become a magnet of concern, a scapegoat for broader set of factors that contribute to economic anxiety. it is important not to equate with globalization. trade agreements can be part of

the solution. trade agreements allow us to shape globalization to our advantage. it will help us write the rules of the road and to do so in a way that reflects our interests and our values. the international trade commission released a study on the effects of traded dream and since 1994. it found that in aggregate our bilateral and regional agreements have added increased jobs and wages, giving consumers lower prices and more variety. the largest purchase gain going americans.come we start from the fact that the u.s. has one of the most open economies in the world in large part because of decisions made decades ago and supported by 12 presidents, six democrats, six republicans. our tariff is less than 1.5%.

50% of all u.s. imports come in duty-free. we don't use regulations as a to trade.arrier long we look abroad, we see markets that are shielded by higher tariffs outpaced transit regulatory system. we can level the playing field -- playing field. praise standards in those markets and increase our export related jobs which pay up to 18% more. right now we compete with low-wage countries all over the world. tpp will open some of the largest and fastest-growing goods,for manufactured agricultural products and services. tpp will help level the playing field for american businesses, farmers and ranchers. there is something broader at issue and where and when tpp moves forward. that's the rules-based system itself. japan item helped

rebuild after the second world war, allow developing countries -- south korea and brazil-become emerging-market spirit it help with -- to lift people out of poverty. added 13imated to have thousand dollars in purchasing power to average americans. we should not take that system for granted. hent system is under attack more alternatives are being promoted above, call for isolationism and protectionism here at home. it is vitally important that we maintain and strengthen the rules days system where every country has certain rights, where all countries are expected to play by the same rules. fair andon't a equitable resolution of disputes. best system is key to maintaining a stable and prosperous asia-pacific region and key to ensuring the global economy works for all americans.

important thaty we not just sit on the sidelines the- but proactively shape global economy and a way that reflects the interests. if the u.s. were to turn and of thee results economically devastating. history has proven that protectionism does not work. raising tariffs on our trade partners would leave those lead in those countries to block our exports. that is a trade war. we know that nobody wins in a trade war. not increase employment here, it would reduce it. it would retard economic growth and drive the economy into recession at worst. we know this from experience. 1930 congress passed and president oversight a tariff act which walled off the united states from imports. hoover's view was that this was essential for an era in which he believed america's could not compete against low-wage countries in europe.

tariffs -- tariffs would lead to manufacturing employment in the u.s. but in fact the opposite happened. we wound up with many fewer jobs, we may have had a sizable trade surplus but we had the great depression. not only did high tariffs worsen the great depression but they contributed to the decline of the global economy to the demise of nationalism in europe and asia. as president reagan once said, protectionism not open the market but will close in. he said it would mandate the united states to violate rules of international trade and expose our most productive farms and industries by retaliation to other industries. the economic states of isolationism are clear. rejecting tpp would undermine u.s. leadership around the world. allies couldn't help but question whether we had the will to make good on our commitments.

as singapore's prime minister lee put it, if you're not prepared to deal when it comes to cars and services and agriculture, can we depend on you when it comes to security and military? more than ever, it is important to move ahead with the approval of tpp. earlier this week i read a piece of the wall street journal and the author was describing his sentiment after participating in a discussion on the impact of brexit on your. he said that the fate of the entire post world order hangs in the balance and with it the prospects for democracy will ride without vigorous american leadership, the prospects are not bright red between the is ant crisis and there serious risk that europe will be preoccupied. we cannot afford a self-inflicted wound to american leadership at the same time. that as i meets

with members of congress, they appreciate the benefits of the agreement and the cost of delay. the cost of delay are high. we are ecr market share in products by other products that have trade agreements in place. it is estimated that a one-year delay putting tpp into effect with impose a $94 million -- tax.on dollar soon,don't get some -- .hese economies will not stand as other countries move forward with their own preferential market access, our business stance two-seater market share in these countries shrink rather than expand.

instead of seeing our rules put in place they face implications with the free flow of data, the integrity of the internet and for cooperating against counterfeit medicines and consumer goods. to their country has a choice. we can play a leadership role in writing the rules of the road for 40% of the global economy or leave a job to others whose values and interests don't align with buyers. canfailure to move forward undermine american leadership. >> join us now to look at how trade is being discussed by congress and on the campaign .rail is megan cassella much of the discussion is about pacific partnership, a deal that was signed by countries back in february. in broad terms what is the tpp as it is known and what is its status? regional tradest

district in history. it covers 12 nations across the asia-pacific region. it is a key part of president obama's visit to asia. it it isgned, but facing obstacles and congress. >> how is this different from previous trade deals, nafta for example? >> it's much bigger. it covers a whole new reason -- region of the world where the obama administration is an me to set the rules of trade. china as our largest trading partner is not involved in this agreement. it's different because it also includes services and boost rates and investment while raising environmental standards.

those two things are touted as some of the benefits of the agreement. >> the president signed the deal, but we are waiting for congress to act. the president would like to see congress ratify this treaty a 40 leaves office. how likely or unlikely is that to happen? >> at this point it is hard to say. it is looking increasingly unlikely that will happen, do to the fact that the deadline is approaching. the election is coming in november. it looks like the administration does not have the right number of those on its side. says theystration still have plenty of time to get labor groups for example say there is no way this can happen. it is a tossup at this point. it will be interesting to see how lawmakers toss servos. hillary clinton, who

initially was a supporter and has supported past trade deals who hashave now trump products made in china yet he is against this deal and other trade deals. how do you explain the opposition on both hillary clinton and donald trump? to hear thisesting issue tossed around the campaign trail. hillary to start with really pull to the left by bernie it.ers and she did support now says she doesn't see the high enough labor standards that she wanted to see. she thinks it wasn't her american working families. it's hard to say if bernie sanders have been in the race if she would have come out with that same position.

hand, trump on the other as you say has many products that are made in china. does use huge foreign labor. he is trying to present himself for advocating for the american worker and everyday man by saying he doesn't like this deal. congress you have republicans and democrats both for and against on both sides of the aisle. how do you account for that? >> historically, trade is an interesting issue and not bipartisan. felt for these geographic districts and not the policy behind it. republican might be for trey and a democrat might before trade.

industrial states like pennsylvania and ohio which are weary of trade deals. some states are dependent on trade. it's not so much the partisan politics but it is more than geographic importance of the state. >> things are much for being here. >> thank you. three years after supreme court ruling overturned part of the voting rights act courts across the country have struck down a number of state laws saying they discriminate against specific groups of voters. saturday not c-span's issue spotlight looks at voting rights and the impact on the 26th election. we will feature part of the 2013 supreme court oral argument and shelby versus older. members of congress look to whether to just -- restore the

voting rights act and whether it is necessary. here's what they presidential candidates have to say. >> nowadays a lot of places aren't going to have voter id. what does that mean? you just keep walking and in voting? >> what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchised people of color, poor people and young people from one end of our country to the other. >> watch our issue spotlight on voting rights saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. coming up in a few minutes we will take you live to the urban hostinge in washington, a housing finance policy discussion this evening with current and former administration officials, as well as industry experts and consultants.

that is coming up live and scheduled to get underway at 6:00 eastern time. later this evening on c-span, portions of the annual techcrunch disrupt conference from new york city that took place in may of this year. the annual event gathers developers, venture capitalists and activists to talk about the latest developments in the world of and for malik -- information technology. novaks a preview with bj talking about his app that process users to create lists that everybody can use and share. we are already over 250,000 lists on the platform so you can imagine what directions you can go. will pretend not to have or to of us is an adult film star, she made an app on if to prepare for work to

,ou ask someone in this room could you write me a quick essay on what it was like on the way to disrupt? you were to ask could you just list your thoughts and your way here it comes that easy. that's why we expected it to be a little bit more practical but it is very impersonal. it's saying a lot about you and that is what comes out in the margins. bj novak one of the participants in techcrunch disrupt new york from this may. conversations with a number of apple developer is coming your way starting at 8 p.m. eastern time here on c-span. live now to the urban institute and tonight's discussion on >> as well as is great esteemed panel. my name is faith schwartz, i'm

am presenting core logic tonight. those types of information to inform their insight. tonight is a collaboration we have had with the urban institute for going on for years. we are pleased to be a cosponsor of this event with the urban institute. thank you so much for being here. tonight it will talk about mortgage servicing. i bet you knew much about mortgage servicing seven or eight years ago. high-margin business. financial crisis. fast-forward and we have a lot to talk about it mortgage servicing, including the model, the alignment of interest, the cost of servicing, origination, access to credit. you will hear from