Cspan. Org. We will go to washington for a discussion of President Bidens trade agenda on cspan. All right, everybody, i will ask our speakers to ok, everybody, let me ask you to find seats. I just have to say how wonderful it is to see real people at a conference. We have been doing Hollywood Squares for so long, and it is good have an actual audience. So much fun to have you here, and i want to say thank you all for coming we always do a little security announcement. Im going to be responsible for you. If anything happens, follow me, we will go out through that door. I will take care of you, dont worry. We will go to National Geographic and ask them to open the icecream parlor. This is a wonderful opportunity this is one of our signature events, to future former u. S. Trade representatives in a dialogue about the world we are in. We do it because this is a most difficult and unusual, and position that we have, because it not only requires strategic intellect, seeing the great purposes we have as a country, but you have got to work all the details. It is the details that matter when you are a trade representative. We are going to have four masters of this with us today, and we are going to be learning from everybody. I am so grateful that ronald kirk is here. He rarely gets here from texas because he is such a demand. Michael froman. Mike has more positions in the federal government than anybody except George Herbert walker bush. But he is fortunately here and we are really delighted he is here. Susan schwab is in the Washington Area and we are so grateful for that. And of course we celebrate carla hill every day. She has been so helpful to us. I also should tell you she is the recipient of this years state ski spigner brezinski Zbigniew Brzezinski award. [applause] we were going to have rob portman with us, but the Departure Time to 11 00 this morning, so we missed him and he wanted to specifically say he regrets not having the chance to be with us. J this is it is really important to have this conversation about trade policy in america. Im not sure what our trade policy is right now. Weve got something called Foreign Policy for the middle class. It certainly looks like protectionism to me, but i could be wrong. I may be learning here. If i have a chance to listen rather than talk. The best thing to do is to get off the stage and turn it over to bill reinsch, who will lead the fascinating conversation. Would you welcome our four panelists and bill reinsch . Thank you. [applause] bill thank you, john. It is a pleasure to be doing this again. Good to be live. The last two were remote, as i recall. We have a very large online audience as well. To do the one housekeeping detail, if you have questions, there will be time later for questions. If you are here in the audience, we have a mic you can line up behind. If you are online, you have apparently a qr code you can scan, not that anybody is going to try to scan that one. But you can scan that one and submit questions that way, or you can click on something on the invitation and send us questions online. I will do my best to read them from the screen in the back and which we are using the biggest font available. Hightech operation. Anyway, as john said, this is i wouldnt say we unnecessarily at a turning point. We will talk about whether we are at a turning point. We have an administration that has articulated a trade policy that is a bit different than those who have gone before, although some of the things theyre doing are not that different from the things they have done before. We can tease that out of a little bit. The world is in the middle of a lot of changes. Covid, which had an enormously disruptive effect on supply chains that we are still living with. The war in ukraine, which also has an effect on supply chains in europe and causes people to rethink globalization and talk a lot more about global fragmentation both in the Digital World of the internet but also production. Trade in goods and services. We are at a point where, to misquote lenin, two forward and one two steps forward and one step backward. Are we getting one step backward or still two steps forward . Where do we go next . As dr. Hamre said, we have experts who will work through this. You know from the past version of this event, they always have thoughtful, wise words to say. Senator portman, unfortunately, is missing. Sad part is another person is missing, too, bill brock, who never missed one of these. Passed away last year, and i know we all miss him. I am sorry that happened. But the event lives on, and these people are just as wise as he was. Looking forward to the conversation. Before i turn it over to them, one of the things senator portman said before the his schedule changed and he got on the plane was he really was said to ms. It and he wanted to show you a short video telling how sorry he was he missed it. We will do that first i go to the conversation. If we could play the video, that would be cool. Sen. Portman good afternoon, everybody, and greetings to my fellow former trade reps. Im sorry i cant be with you today. I am in the air in latin america. But i want to thank bill reinsch and csis to allow me a few minutes to join you by video. This is one of my favorite events of the year. I always learn something valuable from this group. We are having this conversation at a time of uncertainty about the future of trade. The wto reported that it expects trade to chris only 1 over the next year come down from the 3. 4 the wto previously expected. The reasons for this are very the lingering effects of covid19, certainly, high energy prices, the effect on the economy generally of inflation, the war in europe, just to name a few. Efforts by many countries to reach shore manufacturing contribute, too, as nations become less reliant on others for critical goods. Congress took a step in that direction when he passed the signs act at the end of the summer. Many of these efforts are motivated by go concerns treal concerns that trade singly with china have hollowed out Americas Industrial base, making it difficult to compete. I share these concerns and a proposed legislation to level the Playing Field in order to challenge the new ways that countries engage in antifree market practices. But it has to be about fairness. Im also concerned that sometimes this debate causes us to lose sight of the benefits of trade. Trade is a valuable tool in our competitive arsenal and we must continue to deploy this tool in service of american workers, manufacturers, farmers, service providers. Nowhere is this more important than in the wtos negotiating mandate. This requirement has empowered countries to act as spoilers, defeating the highambition efforts to liberalize trade. I am worried that our multilateral trading system is at great risk. I supported blocking appointments to drive reforms and i believe we should be considering what specific or forms can be achieved to correct past abuses. This is why i propose a bipartisan resolution on the wto to signal the senates interest in backing reform that ultimately recharges the wto to face these new trade challenges. Putting off the aspirational language from the resolution, i proposed the trading System Preservation act, a bipartisan bill with senator chris coons. This is a timely proposal. I believe each one of you at one time or another have expressed favor for the general concept, allowing the negotiating authority for sectorspecific agreements. The United States should continue to liberalize agreements with those countries with a similarly high ambitions in sectors such as environmental goods, digital, services, medical countermeasures as an example. The benefits of these agreements can flow to its members. Drawing on the Government Procurement agreement as a guide, we can bypass vetoes to get deals done with our allies on moving supply chains away from our adversaries. This is one of the best protrade proposals we can pass right now, in my view, and the more we can talk about it, the more likely we can get it done. So if you agree with me, lets all talk about it more. The same goes for a trade agreement with United Kingdom. The uks negation agreements with countries negotiating agreements with countries. They are one of our best allies come of course. We are 4 5 of the way there and came very far in the last administration. Ive also introduced the special relationship act with, again, senator chris coons, a bipartisan bill to get tpa for the u. K. Agreement. Getting a freetrade agreement done makes a lot of sense for both countries, and having tpa would be incredible he hopeful right now, even if it is not narrow. I was disappointed there was not a trade to title to the chips and science act, but im ready to negotiate a grand bargain on trade with my college in this lameduck session of congress we are about half after the election. We only have 81 days left in the senate, three hours and 14 seconds, but whos counting . But i plan on doing all i can during that time to ensure that these policies are advanced in the lameduck session when we get back. I will have more free time in 2023, so i look for to seeing more of each of you over the next year and beyond. Angst very much for letting me come on this morningthanks very much for letting me come on this morning via video, and i hope you have a great conference. Bill well, that was a long agenda. Lets turn to our live people this time. Lets start picking up where i left off. For each of you, what is different now than it was when you were in charge . Are we headed for the more fragmented, compartmentalized world some people are afraid of, or are we not . Carla, you are senior. You want to go first . [laughter] carla you are asking what was different then. I think politics not only here at home, but globally, has become much more polarized. Its too bad. We need more of bill constantly talking about the merits of trade and we need to think about the fact that we have 300,000 exporters, 98 are small and mediumsized businesses. And then we want to be workercentric. There are to be a connection there, and we ought to be thinking about the benefits that flow and create opportunities here at home, which is not to say that we dont have to do things to help the lowest quintile move up as the Technology Changes the economy. But lets not turn off the faucets of growth and exchange of ideas and things that have made us prosperous. Lets try to deal with the problem that we have and make the prescription for much better than we have in the past. Bill who wants to be next . Susan what she said. [laughter] well, we are more optimistic for that we were upbeat about what we could accomplish and what it would accomplish. We were right on some things and less right on others. On the bilateral Free Trade Agreement side, some of thes lateral, we made progress. We ran aground on the wto. Some of the optimism was wellplaced, some of it was misplaced. Today you look around and you see just a lot more partisanship and a lot more skepticism across the board. Some of which come one could argue, is wellfounded. A lot of which is illfounded. Bill ron and mike, you did this more recently than these two. The thing i love about being here, one, to celebrate our friend who has been such a great champion, leader for all of us. I have to start with saying that. And i thought about knowing there is always so much among us. To me, right or wrong, it is if i can take off where you said, carla, a fracturing of the traditional coalition we relied on, presuming we wanted to get something i want to be careful of not pointing fingers, but traditionally we knew we could count on 75 of republican votes, coupled with 30, 40 democrats who could vote. During the last administration, for the first time in at least a while, trade became less well thought of among the republican party, even though i think behind the scenes people get it. But in the sense that i think senator portman and you both mentioned we need to talk about it more, that we have not created an environment right now that american politicians feel there is a lot to be gained by going out and talking about trade. The good thing when you peel away that curtain, wek now we know intuitively that we cannot decouple from the world. That is not in our interest. So when you ask if we are one step back, two steps forward, im always helpful. I was the guy always sitting at the side, pretty boy like mike, hoping somebody would be left for me to dance with. Im going to always hope that when this ends, we are going to find a way to restore that coalition. But it is going to be different. It is going to have to be articulated in a way that the American People feel speaks to their values, including the workercentric trade policy, whatever that is. Bill we are getting to that. Michael i would jump in there. First of all, you will find it is a very boring conversation because we agree with each other. Bill we are working on that. [laughter] michael i agree with what carla said about the deteriorating politics here and around the world. Also with ron, as you said, traditional coalitions fraying. But i think we have to look underneath that. I wish we could wish away politics, but we can one thing we have all learnedbut we cant. One thing we have all learned over the last two decades is there are groups of people who feel alienated and left out by the system, but the system is not serving them right. Those are legitimate concerns. And you may attribute that to immigration, attribute that to trade agreements. Whatever they attribute it to, there is a real issue that domestically we have not spent as much attention on policy point of view, congress, executives, republican done democrat republican and democratic, figuring out how to address those issues. The issues of helping people who feel like the widening income inequality and the difference in impact of Global Economic developer and are leaving them behind. If we ever hope to get back to a coalition that can support a more proactive trade agenda, we are going to have to address that. That is a lot our domestic colleagues in the cabinet, a lot of our colleagues in congress who had a hard time legislating in this area. I think we have to focus a lot there. The thing about two steps forward and one step back is at least it is forward movement. So i am an optimist there. I would be happy with 26 forward, one step back at the moment two steps forward, one step back at the moment. Not sure we are exactly there. There may be questions about the worker centric trade policy is. Whatever you want to label it, we have to address the concerns of people who feel left behind by the system, and we have not done that effectively. Bill well, that is right into what you alluded to a couple minutes ago, trade policy for the workers. What does it mean . Anybody have a clue . Ronald we started this discussion a little bit when we worked together during the obama administration, and i remember doing a panel like this. Alan greenspan was going to be invited to interrogate us, and i was scared to death. I remember he looked at me i sent, i did 12 . The reality is i dont know that it is much of a change in philosophy as we have not done a good job of articulating how the benefits of trade and what we do and what we sell and how we engage around the world flowing through average families at home. You remember we worked with other groups to get businesses, big employees like boeing, to make sure suppliers knew all of these flags on planes arent we are selling planes. That is how you keep your job. I think we have to rebut the accepted opposition among most americans right now that we have come out on the short end of trade could know we get cheaper clothes and cheaper electronics, so they believe the jobs have gone elsewhere. I think to me, workercentric is being much more focused, more plain about making sure these workers know how you are going to create the jobs you are worried about for your kids. It is largely dependent on our being able to sell what we grow, what we create, to all these emerging markets. If we do that, this can be a great opportunity for us to engage with the world and create the jobs that americans are so anxious about. Carla i would agree with ron, as i usually do. I dont think having worker centric trade as a policy is sufficient. We have to understand that the economy is changing. We will be doing more than making clothes and shoes and so forth. As the economy changes, we have to have a population up through using and improving the economy. Theres nothing wrong with the base. I am a great and fervent believer in the wto. What i say is it needs to be upgraded, just like a house needs to be repainted. Things needed to be made clear. There is a clear path of what we should do. For example, on the wto, we could support a form of the dispute settlement mechanism. The walker principles from the ambassador of new zealand spell it out beautifully. Jennifer tillman was on the panel and agrees and thinks that is the stuff we could take. We could describe that, but it might be a little too much in the detail. We need to do video we need the wto. Which doesnt mean that regional agreements arent good, but it means we have a Global Economy and we need rules of the road for the Global Economy. And often having a good regional agreement provides a path forward because people say i want that, too. I would like a good intellectual property protection. I would like to have services covered, too. That makes me a big fan of the transpacific partnership. Get us into it, bill. Bill well we have recommended that, to no avail. I want to push you a little bit. I want to push you a little bit on the trade policy for the workers. We will get back to the w geo. Wto. Michael i think when i was there i dont want to speak for the others we thought we were pursuing trade policy for workers and farmers and ranchers , and everything that we did was based on that notion that 95 of the worlds consumers were outside the United States and that exportrelated jobs pay more than nonexportrelated jobs. We were open market generally so we could export more. We would be helping and supporting workers in this country. Having said that, i think it is not enough to be able to say, as economists do, that trade is good. Trade is good in the aggregate over time. But the benefits of trade are not equally shared, and they are not equally shared at the same time. Folks who are displaced by the competition need support. Education, training, and trade adjustment assistance is a small measure in the right direction, but its a very small measure. We need to have domestic policies that look for how to support workers from different stages of life succeed in a Global Economy. Weve never been able to address that. On the wto, i agree with carlas view on the dispute settlement mechanism. We should fix that. Im a little less optimistic about the wto having a strong future in terms of the negotiating forum. To her point, open plural lateral is and where coalitions of the willing get together and negotiate good agreements and open them up to others who want to live on the same high standards may be a better and more productive weight, at least furthering trade liberalization agenda among those who are willing to take those high standards on board. Susan i would like to come back to the wto. I got back from geneva. I came back a lot more optimistic once i got over my ptsd. 2008. But i want to go to the workercentric trade policy, because everything you describe is a worker policy, liver policy, not a trade policy. The implication that the solution to the very real issues you are describing requires trade policy, those are not trade policies. Those are education policies. Of course we are. If less than 10 of your workforce represented by organized labor is at the top of your hierarchy of what you listen to, you are going to come up with a trade policy that doesnt take care of workers, that doesnt necessarily take care of farmers, ranchers, doesnt necessarily take care of consumers, god forbid we should think about consumers. So, you need to have a balance. I hope we may get into the juxtaposition of National Security policy and trade policy which is another set of issues. If you care about workers, you need to be thinking about supporting those whose jobs are impacted and careers that will be impacted by import. But also those who should and in an affirmative way be impacted by exports. That includes microliberalizing trade agreements. Even the trump administration, who some might argue was protectionist got it about trade agreements and trade liberalizing agreements. U. K. . Japan. We have to get this interesting here. On your point, this is cutting across multiple administrations, the trading system is a powerful tool. Market access is a powerful tool. Using it to raise labor standards in other countries is very much part of a worker centric. We been doing it. We have been doing it at varying degrees. We were mc a being the you mca being the recent example, the new labor enforcement mechanism to raise the standards in mexico is positive step forward in that regard. Theres a bit of sequence. We all represent an agency whose goal is about opening other markets. Also enforcing our trade routes. Leveling the Playing Field. Bullying bringing the rest of the government along so youre not opening those markets in isolation but you are doing it in the context of a robust, domestic policy strategy. That hasnt been the case. To your point, youre right, 10 is a small portion of the American Workforce that is unionized. But the people who feel resentful of the trading system is broader. Its a job of any administration. I agree with that. Its part of our job now. Its not the principal part. But you cannot we cannot be in the field by ourselves just saying trade is good. When you were i was doing it. But was it our job . We elevated it more. I remember specifically making a strategy after my first year in office to visit as many cities that felt that they were grieved by trade. I went to detroit. I went to maine. I went and let them bang on me. I wish i kept it in the wall street journal, they wrote this scathing column we do nothing trade ambassador. My argument was if we can make people of detroit and maine in those communities feel part of it, thats why we cant get anything done. It wasnt our ability to finish, it was the dissent. The job has become more complicated. But i dont get hung up on the labels whether it is workers centric. Usmca, so trump can say he did something because of the disastrous decision, the withdrawal from the transpacific partnership. They called it usmca. Find. Other trade promotion authorities as fast tracked. Somebody else will call it something else. Call it whatever you want, lets just get the damn ball moving so we can go forward. Thats another conversation. Im not finished with you yet. Lets go back to something that mike said. Its an important point, which was when you were all doing this you thought you were pursuing policy. I remember you say, every time they said you were not, you would give a speech saying why you were. But now we have administration that says no you are not. That i passed trade policy the past trade policy did not do that and it was a failure. We need to do differently. What is different means not look at Market Access, but to look at rules and labor enforcement elsewhere. Presumably, we dont need that here. That is the assumption. Sustainability and regulatory approach. The question is, is that enough . I am asking you. [laughter] is the answer that it is not enough . You need to be doing these things as part of a broader packages. Theres a reason why ustr is in the executive office with the president. It was part of the state department. Congress said, wait a minute, theres too much of a Foreign Policy overlay in trade agreements being negotiated by this group over in the state department. We want them to be thinking about labor. We want them to be thinking about manufacturing. We want them to take all of these other issues, agriculture, into account. Lets stick it in the executive office, against the will of the president. That is just one policy. We have an educational policy. We have a labor policy. When bush senior was president , we would get together, the five cabinet officers for breakfast every tuesday. We would talk to treasury, commerce, labor, agriculture, and just say, what are you running up against . What are the problems . We would try to address that. I think your point is very well taken. You try to create advisory groups that bring in diverse points of view. Listen to what they say. So, that you can hear that there is resentment or there is applause. It does make a difference. Working with governors, with mayors, rotary clubs, going out and making the speech, about what it is that they are interested in, that makes a difference. But you have to have a cohesive policy. I do think that having prolateral agreements sets an example. One example that i will never forget was the fact that uruguay rounds collapsed in europe in 1991. It was done. If we think trade is bad now, that was a time of real sadness. When we negotiated the north american Free Trade Agreement we started in june of 1991. We completed it in august of 1992. Bush senior signed in december and the three president s, clinton read it to us in congress. The way we got it done was to talk to these various groups. Interestingly enough, when it took affect in 94, within four months, the 123 members of the wto, it wasnt the wto, it was a general agreement on a terrorist and trade. It went back to the table and picked off all the things that has stepped forward, like internet show property intellectually Property Services like agriculture and created a settlement mechanism that they call the wto. A pure lateral agreement can be a shiny house on the hill that shows the way forward. But, we have a lot of work to do. I think we have to be more conscious of talking at the local level of my trade matters. I dont think you can do it in washington. Bill, it seems like were talking about everything, im glad senator artman mentioned. Portman mentioned. We are doing our best to get to this place. The last 24 months have been remarkable. Covid was a shock to our collective conscious, for health, to the trading system. We are having the system. I wish we were having a three weeks from now, we could be looking back on the General Assembly in china, at least making a more informed decision. The world, congress, the american public, have thrown away any notion that we are in a period of collective engagement with china. To ignore those two big elephants and the impact of how it is changing, the discussion of trade, it would seem to be not terribly productive. We are not perfect but we were moving in the right direction. For two pretty big shocks for the system. I think we got to look again. Particularly, president xi has said we have gone as far as we are going. Not only are we not going any further, we want to go back. That has changed, very much a lot of people have felt about trade. Even though i dont like the articulation, that could be the opportunity. Americans like the common bogeyman. The only way you can get 534 votes in this congress is if you were to say china is bad, lets go get them. They all vote, yeah you know, one of the ways that may be we articulate a worker centric market opening trade policy is to do it in the spirit of restraining, competing risk that, containing china. Containing. You run faster if you are in a race with people who are following pretty closely. You have better tennis game if you have a good person on the others of the net. Lets compete. Lets not be so accusatory. Since several of you lets turn to the wtos. Some of you have brought that up. Lets take a closer look at that for a few minutes. A couple of questions, maybe for susan. You said you came back with more optimism than he left. Tell us about that. What made you more optimistic . Well, youve got, this force of nature who kicks ass and takes names, which is just a refreshing change. The wto members are kind of amused by this, their conflicted, there is an organization, you can have a dg tell you what to do. Then there is the elitists, we have to get something done. Shes incredibly talented and mc12 looks small in certain ways. When you get to geneva you discover, they were excited they got something done finally. And mc12 is the builtin agenda for mc 13. They are all talking about it and there seems to be an increasing number of voices in geneva, it seems to me, being optimistic it is all relative. There is an increasing number of voices saying, weve had enough of these theological debates with indiaa nd south africa, india stopping everything in particular. Lets just do it. Lets start negotiating pure laterals. Lets try to get higher ambition deals and if someone tries to stop us maybe we can have a conversation if they are or not, lets go to the next step on some of the things, fisheries and some of the other issues we are addressing, take a look at one of the few things that came out which is trade solicitation, which was most valuable that could have come out of all the things that were in it to begin with. There is the sense of lets just start the ball running and you can have conversations about confidence building i go back a long way in this business but you dont actually have to have a formula to negotiate trade agreements and Market Access. You can do request offers. Like i will put this on the table, if you put that on the table. All of a sudden you feel like youve got something whereas we spent, how many years in the doha round negotiating about negotiations. So, theres interesting thinking, that includes, even on the dispute settlement mechanism. I am pleasantly surprised. That includes the u. S. Delegation. I think the indians have worn out their welcome or are wearing out their welcome and theres a lot of emerging economies in developing countries that are going im not sure these guys are really talking on my behalf anymore. It is interesting. Do the rest of you agree that that is the way to go . Its a step forward. You set an example. Particularly, if Major Economies adopt rules. Others will at least study it. I would be disappointed if we did not rejoin the transpacific partnership. I think we would have given more muscle to that agreement, the size of our economy and it could have been built on. I also think it would reverberate and others would have wanted to come in and that is one way to get to the general, brought agreements. That sets an example. Thats awkward happen. Thats not going to happen, lets get a trip digital trade agreements happen and stop pouring about this moratorium on digital commerce. You can start negotiating it in the wto, parallel to the wto, if you cant get it done in a wto, you can take it outside. Theres a whole lot. Just start moving in that direction. It doesnt have to be all the same countries,. Some of the questions at the bottom of your list, that is a bit of what the end of Pacific Economic partnership is doing. It is taking digital taking a group of 13 countries and seeing whether they can build on what is in cpt pp what some of the countries in the regionss have done between singapore and new zealand, japan, south korea and begin to build up a Critical Mass of countries that are willing to uphold the high standards for what is arguably the most important set of new issues for the economy. Looking forward and what is likely to be an increasingly important part of the economy. Does that mean msn is dead and does it matter if it is. I like the way susan articulated. We are beyond language in those concepts. I violently agree with susan that you get a coalition of the willing at that point you can say, now we can talk about what msn means. We are not going to be constrained by these three or four countries. That always stand in the way of doing anything. Let me give you an example. Off the top of my head. All of us at some point in time, maybe carla, but certainly the other three of us, the environmental goods agreement. Its a nobrainer that we shou ld, by now, have had an agreement to eliminate terrorists on products and services that facilitate the elimination of emissions, reduce emissions, eliminate those carbon stealing into atmosphere. That is been held up by china. There was an agreement on 54 products. You guys could have closed it, for bicycles. Im sorry. If everybody else is willing to agree and bicycle comes in at the last moment as the 55th product, who was spiking the ball . At that point, is india going to be part of it . I dont know. If everyone else is willing to do the 54, go to zero on the 54 products, this is a world is in the world a better place . Then you can decide where you can ago zero on the 54 products are you going to go zero on the 54 products . Maybe not, maybe china will decide they want to be part of the deal even without bicycles. We did a study of that, trying to figure out why attained and what to do about it white it why it tanked, and what to do about it . Its an interesting policy. The reason white is more complicated, there are other issues. More interesting to us is why hasnt it reached restarted and why havent the americans try to restarted . The rumor seems to be that we have in restarted, because we think china will be the biggest beneficiary, and we dont support that. Climate will be the biggest beneficiary. [laughter] im not disagreeing. But the fact is we have done nothing. We have done nothing. Nobody thought that when trump was president that it was going to go anywhere. Now we have a president for whom climate is important. Its a priority. We dont do Market Access. I dont know that we know what we are going to do, until after the midterms. Satisfactory to you. Everything changes after the midterms. It goes on. Then you get to the steps, and pose it. Every administration does it. They deal with their domestic priorities. And we find an open line to bridge and move forward. I agree with your approach. That its time to put our talk cards on the table. And say were going to play, with or without you, we will have a game. Its curious. One of incipient plurilateral under plurilateral underway in genevas ocean plastics, which is a big problem, especially if you are nile and state. You see these giant things floating out there. But were not participating. No. I dont know. No, lets finish on the wto, by getting back to something carla alluded to. I think it seems that we are not really dispensed with it. But the plurilateral roote that is one that is promising. It gets us to institutional reform. Is there something we should what should we do . It is gone, does matter if it is gone . Should we have panels . The white house argues its going with the panels and stopping there . His complaints about the body were similar to the obama administrations about the body and the bush administration. Its not like this is just something that came up recently. So, what do we do about it . We just let nature take its course, which Means Nothing will happen for a long time . We need leadership. We need to have a plan and strategy. I think a slogan is not a strategy up for trade. Trade has to work with all the other policies, what we mentioned, the environment and labor, and health, and a host of other things. But theres no question that if we can get a good agreement with a group of willing and likeminded nations, and the prosperity is absolutely obvious by reason of the agreement, youre going to get a lot of others that want to find assign aboard. I think the u. S. , because of the size of its economy, has an obligation to take a leadership role and to try to make things happen. I i worry we are falling behind. So that is a disappointment. But im not going to be pessimistic. Look at all the people out here, you know about what we need to do to advance our economy. We cannot with 5 of the worlds population produce over 50 of its output, say were going to pull a wall of our country. Its not possible. We could be much stronger. Even if we were to start making the usmca a stronger agreement. I can remember that bush senior wanted to have a freetrade from the tip of alaska to argentina. We have not been setting that example. Where we to do that, an were we to do that and spread out, it would make a huge difference and i think it is doable. I dont know as much, but i liked what you articulated early when you referenced the body. We need it. One, without us having a fine line on it, what you heard is agreement, we are much more likely to have plurilateral path that a global agreement out of the wto. Within that dispute, resolution becomes incredibly important. I hope we are not headed to a death solution of that, it sounds like, what you referenced. It may be the best way going forward, even though much as ambassador swanson, nobody is telling him what to do but then they say lead us. The fact that it is coming from new zealand, australia, could at least get it going rather than being seen as capitulating to the complaints of the u. S. And others. I hope theres a path forward and that. Theres development so theres no question that it if the u. S. Were to remove the block on the condition that they do a number of things, deliver the terms that have been spelled out, i think that the eu would get the dispute settlement back and i agree with you. You have the wto having rules that are not quite as sophisticated as some plurilaterals. But if the plurilateral flourishes, believe me people will either want to bring those into the wto or they will want to join the plurilateral and it will be much larger. So, one of the things i observed in geneva was, there are conversations going on. The u. S. Is very much engaged and its one of those areas where they are trying to get away from this theological dialogue about that we feel reform wto reform and see if they can get things done. But i suspect all of us would agree that if the u. S. Walked into the general counsel today was a piece of paper that said this is what we want, even if it was the things you are describing, it would be locked out of the room. There is no way it would happen because the u. S. Walked with it. It is sort of involves on these conversations ground up, its not just appellate body, it will never be the appellate body. I am very sympathetic to the complaints about the appellate body. We would and walk in there alone, we would walk with likeminded nations that believed as we did. I think you could cause that to be an attractive option. We have not been doing much walking lately. The point is, the conversation has gone now. We have to have Enforcement Mechanisms. Effective Enforcement Mechanisms otherwise your trade agreements do not count. Lets go back to the way it was before. It has lost so much credibility in terms of how long it took to get a resolution. By the time you run a case, the industry you were defending has gone out of business. We cant go back there. Whether it is the u. S. Demands or other demands that might be different, its gotta be seen and in reality and an effective mechanism to get resolution quickly. In various conferences, we always disagree on this point, i think we spend a lot of time talking about the institution. If the political consensus was there as to what we wanted out of the multilateral trading session and maybe it is an appellate body, we would get there. Its not about the institution its about the political consensus in capitals. That is where our leadership has to come, with the key trading partners being willing to expand political capital. They think it is important and they have sources behind them. Lets turn to the elephant in the room. China. I would like to talk about trade. We dont have to talk about the whole difficult issues we have a china. What should we do about china . Is the administration doing the right thing . Who wants to be brave. We have a variety of views on china. If you limit it to trade, there are other factors that will creep in. Theres no question, we could sit down with china. I had hoped we would gradually remove the tariff, neutrally,. The tariff we were imposing in the last administration, for the most part, they are in existence still. We ought to be able to do stepbystep dealings with the areas where we need to deal with china. The administration came in, saying they wanted to be competitive, they wanted to have a cooperative. And that would be the problem. Lets consult. In the past we have worked with china. I think theres an opportunity to take small steps, each of us, that will tend to reduce the friction and make a difference. I will agree with that. Do you agree . The problem on resolving the u. S. china trade relations. We are all waiting to see, coming out of this party congress, maybe putting too much emphasis on the party congress, what is the direction they will take, in personnel . Are there reformers in the system . What role do they play . And policy . In the first few days of the party congress, we have not seen any significant indication of moving back to market reforms. But that is what we need them to do if were to be able to resolve a number of these issues. Theres debate over whether the tariffs in place create leverage for us or not. Im not sure they do if china has already adjusted to the impact of the tariffs, by moving factories to other countries or otherwise. The question is, leverage for what . Its great to have leverage. As negotiators we love those few moments in our live or we have leverage over others. [laughter] that leverage is only useful if youre actually in conversation with the other side and have a clear and distinct a list of what your demands are. I think we are still working towards that. No conversation is going on right now. In the press, the chinese may be moving back from the agreement meeting between president she a president xi President Biden next month. Without any conversation, its hard to see how we put the issues on the table and how we use the leverage. I agree. We are not going to change china politically. We do business with vietnam. We are good trade partners. If we could just begin to have winwin, stepbystep progress on areas where it would make a difference and benefit both sides, it would be a big plus. Why dont we turn to another part . You mentioned the ips earlier. As sort of a plan b, keeping pb in plan a. What do all think about it . Is it the right approach, initiative . What are its chances . Its something. [laughter] its an endorsement. [laughter] asked me in a ask me in a year or two. Its forward movement. Theres a trade component to it. We talked about digital trade, that would be terrific. Theres a some countries, we will see. If other countries opt out of the difficult stuff or you end up with the lowest common phenomena or deals, youre not gone very far common denominator deals, youre not going very far. Our partners are pleased the u. S. Is taking initiative. The jury is out. Theres a limit to what we can do to make it meaningful. Im a little skeptical. Its the Missouri State kind of thing. You heard me earlier. Eight years. I am still struggling to get over the fact that we greet created this Incredible Opportunity and walked away from it. In the spirit of what might and susan said, we are in a practical world. Its the vehicle now by which we can engage. Im still hopeful that once we get past the midterms, that will create more space for ambassador ties to be more robust. Our allies just want to know we are engaged and they will go forward into the work. We cannot let it be the enemy of the goods. I want to go back to the discussion on china. Weve got to be sober, thinking about this. And opportunistic, because how do you think we collectively engage with china versus trump . We know president xi has radically changed the nature of this conversation. I dont think its in our best interest to keep sitting youre saying, we will look for it, we have to be ready to compete and engage. Theres opportunity where we can find common solutions. Weve gotta be very sober about the fact that we are entering an engagement for with a different china. I agree entirely. We cannot be negotiating with ourselves. Its a response to china that does not appear to have any interest at this point. It would be useful if we had a meetings regularly and working groups cash had meetings regularly and working meetings regularly and working groups. Tell that to the chinese. Weve had so few meetings with the chinese it is shocking. Since it is the big challenge on the horizon. At least we should be talking. To have regular highlevel meetings would make a difference in my view. If you decided you wanted to move in a certain course, i mentioned neutral reductions of tariffs that were put on by the last administration. And then the reaction to retaliatory cars. Maybe we have a panel of five on each side with economic and political background and we could decide which one is first, how fast, i think it would make a difference. Can i add something . This is where i am going, we have left out a very important component of china strategy which is you have to do a better job of working with our allies, that includes not just trade policy but it includes trade policy. You cant be conducting a trade policy that systematically alienates your other trading partners and think that is going to make them warm and fuzzy about your china policy. Just before we leave the asiapacific, i am in the glass halffull caucus on the pass. I think it relates to what we are discussing with regards to china as well. It is not cpt pp. It creates a real opportunity for the u. S. To get the table. To reengage. While much has been made of the fact that tariffs are not on the table, i remind people that over half the countries that were in tpp, already had freetrade agreements with the u. S. They were not getting any Additional Market access to the u. S. Through tpp, yet they were willing to sit with us and negotiate high standards around labor, environment, rightful property, investment, and other Digital Economy issues, and a number of other new areas because it was important for them to have a partner like the u. S. , a partner in the u. S. , in the region to serve as a counterbalance to what else was going on in region. That remains the case today. Im optimistic about it. When we look at the issues that affect the economy, we are all we are around productions. 80 of our economy is services, 80 of our employees, services is our largest export area of surplus, the Digital Economy, all of those issues we look ahead to, its not that the tariffs are unimportant, but compared to standards and nontariff barriers, those are far more important to the future competitiveness of our economy. And far more difficult. And far more difficult. As weve all talked about, its great to start with the plurilateral agreement among the coalition of similarly situated countries and build out from there. That has the potential. It has to be fleshed out. It has the potential to be just that. In glass halffull category, remember what was said, the optimist as the glass is halffull, it doesnt mean the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is the wrong size. Just add another drop of water. [laughter] problem solved. Susan had a good segue, which is europe. One of many allies will look to. We have a long history with europe, of a frustrated plurilateral relations of trying to solve individual problems. My favorite is chickens. We dont need to do that today. [laughter] thats a dead end. But, what do you think about the trade situation of europe now . Is the trade and Technology Council going to be having a better shot of dealing with these issues . What should the administration be doing in europe that it is not doing . I didnt get his question. On europe, i think the trade and Technology Council is a good place to start. It is a pragmatic way of taking issues and trying to mark them down one into the other. We learned during the obama administration, the operations that europe initially articulated was something they were not prepared to do and mobilize Political Support for. It collapsed under the pressure of criticism. I dont think a big trade agreement with europe is likely anytime in the near future. In the meantime, the same sense of issues, Digital Economy issues, data flows. But really important to the future and both our economies. Theres a lot we can do to sit down and resolve those. Position us, you think of asia, and doing some of these issues with europe, you assemble a Global Coalition that can become a magnet for others. We want to be part of a competitive Digital Economy. That is where innovation will come from, from those countries, where we are in the dialogue with. If others want to be part of the innovation economy, they will want to join as well. I agree. I think we ought to be working on the Technology Issues with europe. Not only would it be a magnet, but they are the largest, one of the largest, groups that we have to deal with. And we dont have rules in this area. It sets a good example. It would be nice if we set a template on a bilateral with u. K. Everything helps, but its sad to see the u. K. Cut bonds with oil. Scotland is thinking of leaving. When i was in college i spent a semester in england. Then it was the United Kingdom with tentacles around the world. Today, its a sad i worry about the future for britain. Well, the last time we did this, someone complained i shortened the rest of the world in talking about china, asia and europe. Let me ask questions about the developing world, which we have always done in these sessions. It looks like our main program for devolving countries are primarily gsp, which is expired, which has several morley years before it expires several more years before it expires. What should be doing with developing worlds . Anyone want to take this on . I dont think its enough. I think the Development World would welcome that next evolution of engagement. Its got a come in the context of us doing a better job of explaining to the american public. I used to love it before the fair trade, i would say, but you all vote for a goa and gsa. You think its a good thing. Now, that theyre mature enough to have a trade remit like colombia and panama, then you want to say no, that makes no sense. This is the next evolution of it. A lot of it is just bandwidth. Its what you can get done. Africa, my experience, many of these countries like the of our partners in Southeast Asia would welcome more engagement from the u. S. , so their only option in dealing with a very overbearing china. But its our appetite for how much. Its incomprehensible that we have let gst expire again. Gfp is because of the way it is set up and he keeps expiring, it fails to do it new to do for the emerging economies. Not to mention it excludes a lot of things. What trade agreements do is create a certainty and the stability that enable investments to take place. If you look at the u. S. Morocco freetrade agreement it has a particularly increased u. S. morocco trade. But it has done a lot to increase morocco european trade and further investment in morocco, not by u. S. Companies. Moroccan investment, rather than capital flight, in morocco. A lot of countries want to do these trade agreements because they want to self impose at of these rules, the rule of law and the stability on their own economies. The emerging economies and developing economies want to do that. The challenge comes, goa is a good example. Perhaps south africa is the best example of how things can go wrong. Where youve got south africa benefiting from agoa, and benefiting from the eu version of agoa, and being right hand in glove with indias wto taking hostage every trade agreement, every trade initiative that others at the wto would like to go through, because they can hide behind their free Market Access to the u. S. And eu, because of our policies because of our agoa policy. An agoa that does not include south africa may make sense than an agoa that include south africa because it has those collateral damage. One challenge. Im complicating europe. Your stewardship, whether you attended are not, you are talking about the benefits of gsg, and whether we could do it longer. I know we are talking trade. Part of our problem is we have a fractured government at home. If were not willing we cannot do trade outside of the context of having a congress that will not do things that make sense. Weve got a fix our politics. If we could do that, we can, we know the answers to all of these things. But our politics are broken. So, we eventually, like gsg expires. We have an attack on the export import bank. I agree with you. But if you are looking for an inexpensive, costeffective way of projecting power, of making friends and influencing people around the world, its through trade. I dont disagree. Thats a fraction of what an f35 would be. I dont disagree. My frustration is we are i n a moment in our politics that we cannot agree, whether an election is fair or not. Or whether joe biden is president. Or whether what we also on january 6 we saw on january 6 exist or not. Thats it dangerous thing that is a dangerous thing. Much like china, we have to get back to a world where we have two parties where we can sit down and debate these issues, the big tough ones, but also the easy ones like that. We should remember, we are not perfect on the trade regime. In the last year bangladesh paid its war in tariffs, then france did on that was much higher. Why we still have huge tariffs on soy, rice, sugar, a whole host of things that poorer countries create or rely upon. Renewing gsg, the general system for helping poor countries is a step in the right direction. But if we didnt have such political split, as ron has spelled out, we would not have the problems of renewal that make it an uncertain program. Let me segue to an institutional question. Audience, start thinking of your questions. If your online, and you want to send in a question, now is the time. Lets spend a minute on congress. You reflect widely different administrations with different majorities, the other party had a majority the entire time, i believe. Maybe not only part of the time, in congress. All of the rest of you functioned, with switching back and forth. So, how is Congress Different now on trade issues than it was when you were in usgr . Is there a high level of expertise there . Do we need to have information sessions for our members of congress . You probably will not want to answer that. Maybe stick to how is a different now . As it has been pointed out, politics have changed. Ive seen two republican administrations. In most experiences, we had a Democratic House and senate. They had lunch together. They went on retreats together. They talk regularly together. We handled general fords kids to school. It doesnt happen today. Some dont even know each other. They have lunch at the republican table and the democratic table. It didnt used to be that way. It used to be a table of republicans, democrats, union leaders, Business Leaders were invited, and they had all five retreats, all of those i have mentioned, there were invited, and we could hear what their problems were and the political flexibility. Some of this is politics. That doesnt happen anymore. Although, trade policy has been bipartisan for many, many years, since the 50s. It was one of the last things to become partisan, and arguably it has become bipartisan again, but not where we would like to see it. [laughter] if you take a look at the last votes on major trade agreements, usmca was a very bipartisan vote. The freetrade agreements that went through, when you all were in office were very bipartisan. I think the committees are, i worry more about Senate Finance committee, maybe because i was more familiar with them in terms of focus and partisanship. Rob portman is going to be a problem. You are losing some expertise and folks who really are deeply in the weeds of this. But that will not mean that you dont have other members that say this will not be there issue. Maybe in a good way. By my definition. What i think about it, i give president to president clinton who got it through our congress. It wasnt that popular. There was a lot of resentment on agricultural side and a variety of other agreements. He had friends all over the republicans and made a former usgr over to the east room to talk about this about why they should care about the nasa. He got a through. What happened today, i think partisanship has become more polarized. That worries me. I think, i always found, private members of congress were thoughtful and well educated on trade. They didnt always have the flexibility to express that when they left the private room and went into a hearing. For other purposes. But, i think the one argument that really cuts across in a positive way in bipartisan is the strategic argument for trade. Wherever people fall on labor, environment, Market Access, the one thing they all get is that trade is a key component of National Security positioning in the world and our capacity to demonstrate leadership. To engage allies. Not everything can be about military alliances, but that there is an economic element to this relationship. I found those arguments, wherever they disagreed on, any issue, those were the arguments that got them over the line. I think that is correct. The other thing i would add is, and all of us have explained to our counterparts that we have spent as much time negotiating with our domestic constituencies as we did with them, when we were in office. Spending time on the hill with members of congress, both sides of the aisle, no matter which party you are in, is time will spent, no matter how much you may enjoy or not enjoy it, it comes with the territory. Its critically important. Any administration who does not do it, [indiscernible] lets go to some audience questions. Theres a microphone over there. We will start with a question from online. It didnt come out very well. With the benefit hindsight, what any we are scrolling here we have lost the rest of it. [laughter] what any of you have done there we go, have any of you ever done anything differently while drafting trade deals . Absolutely. Do you want to elaborate . Several thousand things. [laughter] i think its in the drafting. I think the balance between focusing on what is in the trade room and how the trade agreement is being sold and understood on the outside, i would instruct it differently. At the end of the day we have an agreement that solved a lot of particular issues and various constituents were willing to support enthusiastically, we dont pay enough attention to how it is being explained and received on the outside. I think it doesnt matter whats within the agreement. Lets go to the next one. Do you think biden should involve congress when it comes to trade negotiations . I think we already said that, didnt we . Didnt you. All right. That was easy. Stepping to the microphone, if you have a question, say who you are and asked the question. Thank you, and thank you for this interesting conversation. I am from the european union. I am here in washington. We have not heard a word today about subsidies. I think it is very important because, it looks like we are moving, more towards a competition on industrial policy. A competitive industrial policy in the years to come for reasons we can all understand. Its going to create quite a number of issues. The other reason as relating to your conversation about plurilaterals. What can we do on that aspect on subsidies . We know this is one of the reasons why the wto has been in such dire straits, the fact that sometime competitive behaviors are affecting the entire structure. So, how can we move ahead on disciplines on those elements which are important . Thank you. Your first question was about clear lateral agreements how do we move forward. But what i understand is yeah. Well, the activists now. Well, we are moving toward more industrial policy. He is right about that. But, we have a little history giving money by the government but in the past theyve been given to resort Research Organizations and that kind of thing which help build up our sciences. And it is to give it directly if you produce something in north america with north american product, i think it does not set the kind of example that we have set in the past. So that is a problem. I do not know whether you agree with that. But we have rules and one of the areas that we created differences with is on subsidies because the Enterprises Get free taxes and a host of other things and we say that is not fair to be was someone who is out and promise as who is not close to the subsidies. And in the organization we have a governing act that does not permit prevent governments from giving money to a university for research from a certain source. If i could build on that i have been very unhappily that the trilateral conversation going on between the u. S. Japan and eu which would be the most obvious place to reach a deal on industrial policy and subsidies and come up with definitions of discipline. And why that has not been realized by that has not come together because it would seem to me that if you can come up with definitions there and you go to you are looking at trade distorting impact what youre talking about is trade distorting impact. And you take a look at what is happening with china and the chinese filled production and around the world and the impact it has had on everybody else that would be a nobrainer. I do not understand. I am not close enough to it but i do not understand why that has not come together. In the past, ive been told the eu has its own state enterprises which is part of a challenge here. But yeah. If we look at what the Common Elements are even as we move towards more industrial policy in response to china or worker centric, whatever we are doing. How much of it is is there a way of containing the trade distorting and on the other side we have one more online here. Fighting over policies and european trade workers. Should we be recognizing that current air of Great Power Competition and be sure that we are jointly supporting democratic values. Is the answer yes . [laughter] yes but i am not sure where that leads you. Europeans should drop their objects and objections then. Think we are about out of time. There was one about trump and it disappeared i do not know what we will do about that. You spoke earlier about a worker centric approach. And in economics they always teach us about the Economic Cost of trade area i am wondering if there is a hidden inside reality that certain aspects of the Manufacturing Sectors cannot be compensated for it and that workers cannot be effectively retrained into the Service Sector or hired technology industries. We seen the evidence you mentioned mixed reviews do you think that is the case or that we have not had the right policies to target specific Manufacturing Sector . Thats a really good question. I think answered that more honestly. And i think we need to make that omission that there are some industries that will come back. We have a surface safe economy that is where the center of our jobs are but we still have the u. S. President ial elections coming down to the industrial michigan pennsylvania and all of that. So everybody thinks we will bring back jobs and we say that and we did not want to dishonestly say. Weve got to move people into a different way of thinking of education training. That is what i think was told about us for a mobile policy not just in training but terms of education and that is the challenge we have how do we prepare for various different workforces. Because one thing that frustrates all of our administration, there are millions of jobs out here that are open that americans are equipped for. So we have to more honestly in that conversation think about how we prepare for those opportunities. And i think that is broader than just the trade. I could not agree more. If we were negotiating together and i am urgently for free trade and you say no its really going to hurt by electric. And i say what are you looking for . And you say im looking for more education and then we could try to get a program and we could put that together and make it a more attractive package. That is what the benefit in my view is of when we every tuesday had five cabinet officers who had different approaches and priorities. But you could try to make your priorities by listening. And thinking about how to make their priorities more realistic. I would like to defend my honor against rons comment. I am not prepared to give up on American Manufacturing. I think American Manufacturing is changing. 49 of workers in the manufacturing vector are performing service jobs and increasing service jobs are Digital Services related jobs and we need to be better positioned as a company. Because your question, i think my answer is we have not figured out or pursued the policies we need to pursue. We looked at the Training Programs there are done sins of worker Training Programs in terms of having demand for the worker Training Programs where people know where the jobs are needed and what they need to do to get those jobs. We look the on just four Year University education and unnecessary criteria. We look at skills and hiring that the private sector is going into now read theres a lot better we can do here that would link to the demand of the market with worker retraining and create the kind of confidence as we are buffeted by economic ups and downs and while we are competing in a Global Economy, that the worker cannot only survive, but thrive. That is the worker central policy. And that is the change in manufacturing i talked about with the Washington Post this morning. We did a article about exactly that in ohio and how the nature the nature of things is very different now than it was 20 years ago. What is your thought on Agricultural Production out of the United States. In 1790, 90 of the u. S. Workforce was on a farm. Today it is less than 2 . And no one would argue about having in agriculture. We are also highly productive in agriculture. We are over time so i will ask you each one sentence your meeting with President Biden and the states a traditional question. You have one minute to tell him something. What would you say . I will go that way. Will start there and go this way. What is one thing you would tell us. If he could accomplish everything he wants to do with lifting up workers and rebuilding our economy and finding a way to reengage the departments. But i will take his new approach. I would certainly encourage joining the transpacific partnership. But also, having small working groups on specific issues to try to find a position of compromise would be a good thing. We do not have a good rhetoric for those deemed to be adversaries or those that are partners. It took us five years to bring back the high level that we have with mexico. I do that we did not need to talk about some of the things that we could move forward on. The longest single sentence in a century. Very little good goes on in the world of trade without u. S. Leadership. And u. S. Leadership requires engaging in the National Economic system as well. Last word. If we are back in the era of power tech there is no more Cost Effective means of u. S. Rejecting soft power making friends and influencing people then trade policy. A lot of words of wisdom. I would like to remain hopeful for you. These think our guests. [applause] thank you all for coming. Be