roosevelt has had tpa. every president should have it. that is the baseline case, answering clearly in the affirmative. it's my pleasure today to turn the microphone over to to distinguish speakers who have another take on the effectiveeffectiveness and limitations to trade agreements and the appropriate roles for the congress and executive branch and setting trade negotiations in evaluating the results from most agreements. lori wallach is a familiar figure among trade experts in washington a graduate of wellesley and harvard law. she served as director of public citizen's global trade watch. whether or not they agree with her those who care about trade and globalization recognize that the different knowledge and her hula teacher translates the legal points into plain english. that is a challenge, lori. lori has done us all a service by researching and writing a book called the rise and fall of fast-track authority. it is being studied and analyzed in many congressional and lobbying offices these days. tom buffenbarger is the president o

tpp, which is the trans- pacific partnership -- a lot of alphabet soup here, i think has to follow tpa. i don't think that the united states can negotiate the final agreement without letting countries know that we have a fast-track way to get this done for a yes-or-no vote on the floor of the house and senate, so i think you have to start with tpa. that's certainly been the experience over the years, so let's get that done first. then, i think it'll be easier to deal with the trans-pacific partnership. >> max baucus also was the democratic -- foremost democratic champion of some kind of tax reform, working withdave camp in the house. that's pretty much dead now, isn't it? >> no, actually - >> in this congress, will we have big tax reform? >> on trade and taxes, i would also make the obvious point that ron wyden is the likely successor as chairman of that committee. i spoke to ron about this today, in fact. he is very interested in the trade agenda, always has been. he believes in trade, he thinks we ought to knock down barriers to trade. i worked with him when i was u.s. trade represen

i do think the next benchmark is his trip to asia in april, and before we goes he better have tpa, on the hill, and going in the right direction, or this agreement could be in trouble. >> and remind people what it is? >> trade promotion authority. it means that congress will get to vote up or down on an agreement, they don't get to put all the onments like a christmas free on the bill. >> is there one issue or another that is getting most of the attention from these dozen or so states? what might the sticking point have been this week? >> i would say two issues which have really come the the floor. and are creating complications in this negotiation. one of which is deemed to be a 19th or 20ty century issue. the 20th century is market access. but market access related to sensitive items. which is difficult for developed countries to concede -- to make concessions on, because the level of protection is very narrow but significant. the other sector on which there is a significant amount of -- impacts on the interest of the developed world, is intellectual property rights. it is a fear an

reason five, to do any of the above, they argue, america needs tpa. tore are four points here -- finalize his agreements, congress must approve tpa. the constitution gives the congress authority to regulate international trade, but it gives the president authority to negotiate with foreign governments. thisuilds on constitutional partnership by requiring the executive branch to insult extensively with congress. during negotiations, while assuring u.s. trading partners that they will receive an up or down vote at the end of the day. the last argument, every president since franklin d roosevelt has had tpa. every president should have it. that is the baseline case answering clearly in the affirmative. it is my pleasure today to turn the microphone over to to distinguished speakers who have another take on the effectiveness and limitations of trade agreements and the appropriate roles for the congress and the executive branch and setting trade objectives, conducting trade negotiations and evaluating the results from those agreements. i would you ladies f

we have to start with the tpa, clan, then wethe can deal with the transpacific partnership. >> max baucuseen the champion of tax reform. that is dead now? >> on trade and taxes, i would make the obvious point that ron wyden is the likely successor as chairman of the committee. i spoke to him about this today. he is interested in the trade agenda. he always has been. he believes in trade. he thinks we need to knock down barriers. on tax reform, he has been very aggressive on that. he has his own tax reform proposal. year, i think if we join forces with ron wyden, it can maybe happen. it is unlikely to happen right after the first of the year. take on ahas to bill first. orrin hatch is very interested in tax reform. i think we have a chance at it. if we do not do it, we are hurting american jobs during our tax code makes it more advantageous to be a foreign company than domestic company. that makes no sense. >> you see the best can see the entire interview at political capital at 9:00 tonight. yellen's nomination advanced in the senate. the 59-34 telly sets up a final vote soon. if confirme

you know, it's very important to us to bring home international agreements or tpa. we are working with congress to get that authority. it helps us define our objectives of congress. it lays out the processes and procedures many to follow through one of these agreements in place. it is important, so we are hopeful we will be getting that authority in the near term. in terms of the overall timetable, as i suggested. within a couple weeks, pretty much as quickly as one code, we have a second round and we worked very closely, intersessional at the turnaround to make progress but a tree in the round and second and third round. we are committed to moving very quickly on this. but the main important thing for us is to get it right. so we are working hard, quickly, but we don't want to sacrifice the ultimate quality of the agreement. at the end of the day, we should have point to an agreement that does increase growth jobs and international competitiveness. we are going to move quickly and get it ready. [inaudible] >> if i turn this around a little bit and nasty sounding ne

know what they mean by political capital, but -- >> the president has made it very clear that he wants tpa to pass, and he will work hard to get all of the trade agreements passed, but he will work to get the best deal possible. we do not just what a deal for the sake of a deal. we want to make sure that they are with our values and protect workers, and that is very high on the president's agenda. he just had a meeting this week with his economic advisers and the national security adviser to focus on our trade agreements. >> you obviously socialize a lot with the obamas, and you celebrated your birthday with them. happy birthday, by the way. >> thank you. >> the business going on with the white house, what is the social relationship with them? >> just stuff, just like you do, just stuff. >> he is the president of the united states. >> at, you know what, he is also a father and a husband and a friend, and i think people lose sight with the fact that he is human. spending time with family and friends, that is what he also likes to do. it is grounding. he always talks about when he goes upsta

what has happened over the last three-year four months skulks within the tpa the outcomes and others have had a dialogue with some of the people focused on security issues. it has not alleviated of the conservative helps them to understand of breath of the problem but i don't want to leave this conversation without emphasizing again that i do think is important to have the appropriate scope there are changes to maintain national security and inhalants consumers. and also needs to happen in the transatlantic context systemically did not mean that you would go into you trade policy but i just thought those of us in the room who are familiar in the world how the conversation ends with the u.s. and e.u. would have done projective with privacy almost at the talking points levels you are better armed to. >> i and charles freeman i am better to identify myself [laughter] >> publicly i have lost their right to privacy. but for your recognition of the security issues from the commercial issues but american companies and others have different approaches of the immelt process daybed they don't

last performance, never this is the folks of the european commission level and folks with them that tpacommunity in europe, the data protection of the arctic community, the article 29. they have had a dialogue. here in the united states with some of the people who are focused on security issues. and i think that that has -- it has not alleviated all of the concerns, but is to help them understand the breadth of the issues in the butt of the problem. but i don't want to the lead is part of the conversation i think it is important that we are having this conversation about the opprobrious go. whether not what is happening is appropriate and whether or not there are changes that can be made to maintain national security and enhance privacy of consumers. and citizens. that is a conversation that the nominees to happen here, but also in the transatlantic context. >> i do need to suggest. we will make you tell them to trade policy are been involved in negotiations they have not been part of it all. i thought for those of us in the room and are familiar with what is going on and as others in t