Micd you up in two minutes so i know that it is a hectic night on the hill. So as we have reported, and others have, that you are really on the verge and right on the verge of the usmca deal and you have said for months 5 yard line, 5 yard line and where are you now . 10 yards from the goal line or about to go over the goal line . Well, you are smart to say that we are about the 5 yard line and somebody said the 7 yard line and i said, oh, my gosh, what do i not know. We are close and not quite finished yet, but we are within the range. That is the way i would say it. It is something that hopefully if we can work out the final details which is like a moment of truth. It is not discussing any longer, but yes no terms of both sides on this. It is something that i take an ambitious approach to that we would not only have a trade agreement for mexico and canada, but it is a prototype and a template for the future trade agreements and recognizing that globalization is a fact of life, and it is inevitable, and now how do we participate in a way that, again, is productive and predictable. And now, i have a couple of specifics that i want to get to, and can you enlighten us, and tell us about the final sticking points a little bit and what you are trying to get over the line here . Well, the main issue that i have talked about over all along is the overarching issue of enforcement, and that is what we are getting down to the final details of now. And in is particularly involving the enforcement for what . Wages for auto workers . Well, that and the enforce. To environmental provisions in there and the rest. And then do you mind me asking if the question that we have not quite reached the terms the on it or simply making sure that everybody is on board with the kind of the language that you are working out or some suggestion that your caucus wants to see what the final language looks like before they are on board . So in other words, it is something that yes. Everybody here does, too, by the way. And just for your information and you may all know this and so forgive me. Two things. One is the agreement with mexico and canada. Pretty much we are where we are going to be on that. You have heard that the trade rep is going to mexico or wherever, and he is always going to mexico, i mean, he has been wonderful by the way, mr. Ambassador lighthizer listens and we have the candor back and forth so we dont waste each others time. And one aspect of it is the trade agreement. Now, once that is the treaty that we originally received the proposal was totally unacceptable, and so, this is why we have taken this time to take it to a different place. The trade agreement, and the treaty is one thing. The implementing language is part of our discussion now, and what it means in terms of the implementation and the resources that need to be available. There is some debate and i dont want to bore the audience, but on some provisions with the Mexican Government on particularly how long the implementation lasts and how long it is going to be enforced and that level of detail . Well, with the mexican agreement, that is part of the treaty. You know, in other words, nothing to do. And so, with a couple of things like we have a u. S. mexico annex which does not necessarily apply to canada. I mean, it is not necessary in terms the of some assurances that we want it from mexico with all due respect with mexico and it is a great country. Then now we are working on the implementing language, but i have always said that i wanted to be on the path to yes, how do we get there, and then you get to the point whether we are yes or no, and we will have this discussion. And so because we have an audience of ceos and understanding the details and the politics is no anyway still a possibility on the deal in my mind and so if you think it is details of getting over the line . Well, that would destroy all of my leverage in the conversation. Now, wouldnt it . I certainly hope not. Well, you know, as you know, Jared Kushner is on here later and he is planning to go to mexico tomorrow oh, my. And so, the aflcio was there i am not sure that the representation was timely. What was wrong . I didnt see it. I dont know, but somebody told me that they came out and in a positive way before they had the meeting. So i think it was more optimistic. But, it is, we have made great progress in terms of this, and this is one of the fears that people have, and that is whatever it is that we are doing is not stopping outsourcing. But the fact is that if you are going to have a reasonable trade agreement, you have to list out the brokers in all of the countries, and you cant say, well, this is good for american workers. If you are not lifting up workers in mexico, you are contributing to outsourcing, because the jobs will flow there and the migrants will flow here, and that is not a good idea. And so i wanted to ask you about a couple of ideas about the politics first and i wanted to warn you, too, that the clock is changing in front of us because you were late, so i will try to move as fast as i can, because you have to get to another event. Well, you have a program to go forward with. So we will talk about the politics of it, and obviously, the president wants it top ha, and you do, too, right . It helps the moderate democrats in the swing states it doesnt have anything to do with the politic, but the trade template for future trade agreements, because it is not just an episode. It is a mission. Explain what you mean by that, because you have said it before. Template in terms of the Worker Rights or the labor rights or the ability of washington to come together even in a divided time and find Common Ground and what do you mean by templates on labor or trade agreements . So, under president bush, we have had a successful may 9th agreement that we would have certain principles that any trade agreement would have to abide by these principles, and so you were starting further down the road than you might, and that is going to take us further down the road. What we did with president bush is helped us in some agreement, but it started us at a better place. So i was not necessarily talking about bipartisan agreement, because i believe that we will have bipartisan agreement on it, but i never, and i think that this is probably one of the easiest trade agreements, because there is general agreement that nafta has not worked for many people in the country. They wanted to replace nafta. I, myself, voted for nafta. Yes, i had my disappointments about it, but the disappointment that people were opposed to it from the start was just that intolerable, and they could not tolerate nafta. So one thing was to replace nafta, but not to replace nafta with a trade agreement that was like nafta with the sure ggar o top. It is going to be more tasty, but it needs to make a difference and so this is substantially different and i believe it will be. Two things, replace nafta. If you dont like nafta, you should be well inclined to be open to where we are going next, and then secondly, come a long way from what the original treaty said that did not have our input, but now it does. Can i put you on the spot one more time on this, just once more. You can. You may. You are a careful vote counter, and famously careful vote counter, so what i am inferring is that you are in a good place, but you dont have all of the democrats on board yet that you need on board to make sure that this deal would pa pass. Well, i wont comment on that, butly say th li will say dont have to have unanimity, but consensus, and people say, would you pass it with 70 democrats, but that is not, it doesnt address the values that we want to see reflected in the trade agreement. The respect for all of the aspects for mexico, for canada and u. S. And the friends in labor and the Environmental Concerns that we have, and for issues that relate to the pharmaceuticals that are in there, and perhaps going to be part of the discussion, but we also have to implement it. Let me just say that once we go down that path, we will be okay. And so, let me ask you about a couple of the specifics. And let me stay on this, because you asked a political question earlier and it didnt have anything to do with the politics. And we have to, i believe is that the urgency of replacing nafta is important, and the opportunity that could be here now, we cant have as a missed opportunity. So it is not really about politic, and although, there are those who i read about and one place and another who say why would you give President Trump a victory . And why wouldnt we . This is the right thing to do for our trade situation, our workers, and lifting them up, and other multilateralism among the three countries that we would have, and why wouldnt we . It is not a factor for me whatsoever. And there is actually a way in a perverse way a little kinship between the members of the Democratic Party and President Trump on some of issues that are different than where the gop is, and some of the worker issues and you dont agree with that . Kinship. Shall we say practicality from time to time, but kinship, no. I know that you are desperately eager to get on impeachment. Yeah, im desperate for that, right. And so, probably the clock will hit zero as we hit that, but quickly, a couple of areas of the usmca that is important is that it would give the Technology Companies the rules on mandating the International Flow of data, but some debate in your office about the Liability Protections that you wanted the take out. Are you in a good place on that . Is that a continuing issue or have you come in well, came in late with that, because i didnt know that it was in the treaty, and i had said to the what was the purpose of that . Well, the wellbeing of our children and what happens on the internet, but that Business Model is just exploiting all of that. So meaning that you preserve the freedom if you see the need to still do some regulations. I am not for it. I want it out. But i said to the trade representative whom i respect very much, we are not moving any goalpost, because hed say, you are moving the goalposts, and no, we are not. Maybe we didnt understand each other so clearly, but we are not moving the goalposts, but here are the issues, lets decide on them yes no and then decide whether to move forward. Late in the game, i found out about this section 230. I was very, very upset. This is the section this is totally wrong on this. I live in hightech Community SanFrancisco Bay area, and so i am very upset, and so since i had said to him, we are not nothing new into the areas of debate. I didnt have the leverage i might have had in an earlier time on it. So it is still in . It may be. Maybe. Okay. What about biologics. And tomorrow, we may be making, and we will see, because tomorrow, my understanding is that the trade representative is going to mexico. I dont think it is to go to the Beautiful Museum that is there, and to have a wonderful mexican meal. I think that it is for another purpose, and when he goes through, you will see what is in there. That is in the treaty. That is not implementing. And you do have to leave washington to get good mexican food. You can go to california. You can go to california. You are wellcoare welcome to tomorrow to update us, but in the area of biologics. Do you think that i am going to tell you the provisions in the legislation, but i will say it is a top priority for our members. So you are not yet quite ready know and hopefully tomorrow what happens next and the time frame . Well, we had, as i mentioned, you have the treaty, and that is pretty much what it is. When that is announced, youll see what is in that. Then we have the implementing language which has more to do with how we assume the responsibilities within taking funding to do some of the Capacity Building between the u. S. And mexico, and those kinds of things in the implementing language. So tomorrow night, and if you were here, where would we be, do you think . Tomorrow night . Would it be done or set . The treaty probably would be. The treaty probably would be, but let me say that this is, i mean, when we did nafta for the first time in the 90s, it was brutal. I mean, brutal. I voted against my leadership on it, and with president clinton on it. I was disappointed because of the representations that just were not honored, but i did not have the same attitude toward nafta as other people did, and this the worst place to go. And this is a terrible fight, but this is something completely different. We just had to come to our terms and hopefully, hopefully, and again, when you get down to the end, that is when it is yes no, so it is not a question of being evasive of what you have to say, but we have to have a couple of more meetings in the morning, because we are at the moment of truth on it. You have to see if you can well, it was not hard. China is a different story. I have been looking at china for 30 years and the lack of the Market Access and the piracy of the intellectual property and all of the things that go into most humanitarian issues that they have, and proliferation of the technologies of mass destruction and missile technology, and so i have been fighting that fight for 30 years, and i think that the president is right to address it. It should have been done in a multi lateral, and any time you go multi lateral, you are in a stronger position with more leverage. I want to get to china, but i know that you want to talk about the impeachment while you are here. And a couple of things about impeachment, and you have been talking eloquently about how you think about the case. I think and not about feel. And you think and you have talked passionately about the concerns of the president s conduct, but i want to ask a slightly more practical view, and the near consensus view in this town, and you are a careful vote counter, and it seems that the democrats have the votes to impeach, and the senate will not acquit, or they will acquit. The senate will acquit. And so separate from the merits of the case which you feel strongly about, do you agree with that assessment . Why have you talked to that path . Well, first of all, you may think that i am eager to speak about it. But we are not eager to impeach a president , and nobody comes to congress to impeach a congress. T this is a sad time for our country. This is very sad time for our country, but we do have a responsibility to uphold our oath of office to defend our constitution, and that is where we are. On, an issue like this, you dont count the votes. I have never asked anybody if they are for it or not, and never. People will make their voices known on it, but it has never been, and i have not counted votes nor will i. And they will do what they will do after hearing the facts. The last facts presented today with a report from the Intelligence Committee to the Judiciary Committee, and shortly the Judiciary Committee and the intel will talk about where we go from here, but there is no glee in any of this. It is prayerful, it is somber, and sad for our country. Id hoped over a long period of time that it was something that could be exculpatory for the president , because nobody wants to think that the president of the United States would be in a situation that would be made necessary the actions by his actions that we have to take now. And why not censure at this point . Is that alive . No, it is never alive and never had a life. That direct enough for you . That is great. The house as you know debating this week whether to include obstruction charges or limit to ukraine or mueller do you think that i am going to tell you the articles of impeachment. But now you have a point of view of the proper way around it . Well, we are at a place where the leadership of the jurisdiction have gotten the last input of it and the q a and the question and answer from the Minority Side on all of this, and they will make a determination, a recommendation as to how we will go forward and what the articles will be. Okay. This is going to be a broader one in the context, and particularly in this event, because it is the 12th year we have had this event. Congratulations. And so if you are talking to the ceos, it is fair to say that this is going back to before President Trump was in office and one of the big themes that we have talked about in the last five years is uncertainty and uncertainty of the partisan divide and this is true when president Obama Left Office and a broad sense of frustration that the government feels divided, and it is hard to know where the policy is going. So i know that you have decried that as other leaders s have an impeachment is feeding that, but a way to pass the divide to a period of sort of governmental consensus and clarity, and how do we get there . Impeachment has nothing to do with that. I dont want anybody to think that the economy is going to suffer because of impeachment. We have the vitality of the private sector, and thank you for all that you do to grow our economy and create jobs and create wealth in our country. What we have to do though is to come to terms about a very serious matter which is the disparity of income in our country, and how productivity and wages should be rising just the same as corporate pay is. We have a challenge of the existence of the planet in terms of the climate crisis, and we have to, as we deal with it do so in a way that lifts people up, and creates good paying jobs, and i see it as an answer, and a way to bring people together and have people be participating in a way that they never thought possible, because it is many new technologies, and i came back from spain and i had 15 of us over there to say that we are still in the paris accord and very well received. Excuse me. A long trip. We were only there 48 hours back and forth and we never rest. Resting is rusting for us. So, but, excuse me. What we did conclude, and not conclude, but what we went with and the message that we bring back is that as we address these issues, we have to do so with everyone at the table. With everyone at the table. Whether it is a climate issue or the how we build the infrastructure of the greenway or how we address the disparity income, we have to do so with everyone at the table. Okay. We will get the signal that you to get on, and so if you will indulge me, that you have mentioned the economy quickly, and you saw the powerhouse nu