United states in these agreements, iran is now feeling emboldened. As of today we are officially putting iran on notice. Senator Charles Schumer debates the Supreme Court nominee process. And if the nominee cannot gain the 60 votes, cannot garner bipartisan support of some significance, then the answer is not to change the rules. The answer is to change the nominee. Republican nominee Jason Chaffetz and democratic representative steven lynch at the House OversightCommittee Investigating russian hacking. If you want me to start issuing subpoenas on the d triple c im probably not going to do it but go ahead and suggest it. How about some of the fbi gentlemans time has expired. You asked me a question. No, i did not. You asked me if i wanted i did not ask the gentleman is out of order. Will the gentleman yield . Mr. Chairman, i think we need to come down here a little bit. All cspan programs are available at cspan. Org, either on our home page or o. By searching the video library. Next we go to capitol hill for discussion on President Trumps trade policy agenda. From the center on business and Public Policy at jrnlgtown university. This is 90 minutes. Thanks very much, marcia, thanks, everybody, for being here. Is there somebody who could help move this away so half the people could see us . Thanks. You, steve. Somebodys here. It is she. To shes the managing director. What are you going to do . Thanks very much for being here. There will be some other people coming in and well seat them as they arrive. This is a really high moment for us all. L. Wede all here have been engagedn trade policy for a long time as observers and participants in u. S. Andnd other countries Foreign Trade policies. Ive been engaged with trade policy sincece 1966, when i word for a Senior Member of the ways and Means Committee during the kennedy round negotiations. I do not remember any time in which u. S. Trade policy has been so roiled, when the foundations of our policies legal, institutional, and economic have been so challenged. So our topic today is cleaning the slate or starting fresh. The administration has made a number of controversial proposals that are intended to do adso. Such as renegotiating existing trade agreements, unilaterally imposing new trade barriers on imports from selected countries and enacting new tax policies that would dramatically affect trade. Xith the tpp, the transpacific partnership. In its way a monumental achievement. Suggesting new Bilateral Agreements with the uk but also eu members that remain in the eu, thus perhaps spurring destabilization in europe. And expanding use of remedies against unfair trade, a very important aspect of our trade policy. Today rather than start with formal Opening Statements one by one we thought it would be more productive and fun to pose a few questions that eachs panelist n respond tope as he chooses from his own perspective. So im going to read them quickly. As the newhe administration and its policies take shape what are your opinions about the direction theyre taking . What will u. S. Trade policy look like in a while, in a year or so . What outcomes might we expect . Can tpp be salvaged by a number of bilateral trade agreements with its remaining participants . Can nafta be improved for negotiation . Would it be more useful to focus on issuesnv posed by the major trade and investment challenge that is china. For example, its overcapacity, et cetera. Have we in fact seated economic and Strategic Interests to china . What are the implications of a border tax . If we do a border tax as unilateral action to mexico and other countries is it a real possibility. There ways ae apeterson instit publication that said the one outcome of the trump policy if fully enacted could be implosion, that is to say, that the economy couldnt withstand thee disruption. Should our trade enforcement regime, should Congress Take a look and the administration at our trade enforcement regime, countervailing duties be made more robust to make it more possible to return to marketopening incentives down the road . Were watching serious strains eu. Elop in the what is in fact the impact of trumps approach to brexit in the European Union . How could dissolution and weakening of the eu hurt the u. S. . Ill start with the front question, that is the broad question, and ask each participant to commentis briefl and then well move down the list as is appropriate in the discussion. So the first question is everybodys got it. As the administration and oh, i wanted i didnt do my intros. So we have as every panel, every panel is distinguished, and this panel is particularly distinguished. On my right is gary huffbauer, who is at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Around town extremely eminent. You have their bios. Each persons bio on the paper in front of you. Its a pleasure for me to say that gary succeeded me as Deputy Assistant secretary of the treasury and didn a much finer job than i. But weve known each other for that long. That was in the carter administration. Next is claude barfield. Claude and i as well have known each other for a long time. He is at he is at the resident scholar at the American Enterprise institute. And also very well known around town. Whos next . Terry stewart is the leading partner managing partner of the law offices of stewart stewart. Im very h happy to say that i knew his father when i worked for congressman curtis. Gene stewart. Gene stewart. Very eminent outfit. Captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac the European CenterInternational Political economy in brussels. And the ppi that is wellestablished hear the the chief intellectual to modernize politics. So i will begin with the leadoff question would europeans your opinions quick. Everybody negative is listening the first point is that this is a period of opportunities lost. With no trade and services agreement. They are opportunities lost with the benefits that could have been had but losing something you might have had and trump has cedar miss power as the enormous power and he has to go back to congress with that unilateral power. However clear with the judiciary idol see any Court Challenges that are sustained there are checks and balances in the system the first is congress with respect to negotiating this and the second check is the Financial Market he will use these powers in the most draconian ways and to be a financial repercussions and the Financial Advisers would tell him that. And his desk would be overflowing with individually they are fairly small i dont see that as a macro problem but the fifth point is there is a is a conflict between trumps desire and decrease the trade deficit. With tax reform and infrastructure in defense spending. All of those pushup the deficit meanwhile the notion you can reduce the notion with the Bilateral Agreement but he can say it was because of trade negotiation items see any big implosion will lot of sound and light. Key made my task easy i agree with everything he said. [laughter] there is a much American Enterprise institute agreed with american obama a data speak with the institute but in my case he started pretty poorly running with the most protectionist rhetoric in modern times but he turned around within two years but that was because of the diplomatic and security situation as has happened with most of the credit president s whenever that Democratic Party was going in relation to trade they have read advised clinton and carter read a predisposition. So obama turned around but i dont think we will see that with this administration. For the first time republican president coming in with a group of economic pfizers peddling economic nonsense in my view. I have no hope so basically my view is that the direction i will not go over them individually and sectors of the tepee p. But it seems it is unfortunate with uh diplomatic and security future. Finally what will be fascinating to watch his what are the politics of trade . In the summer of 2015 the House Republicans voted we lost 50. Where does that stand now plaques in the number of geographic areas has delayed from a traditional support for more liberal trade agreements it is hard to know how that will play out but looking at the Republican Leadership in the house i dont think it has changed so the political dynamic is how that will play out or that radical change from mr. Trump or his advisers. I will stay stop there for as a slightly different angle you have to cut below the statements the underlying concerns. The river essays significant part of the American Public who have perceived trade policy over the last 50 years and has not focused enough on the implications. One camlet kathy trump agenda to get back from the extreme rhetoric to say they are looking for a time out search of a day are against multilateral deals so that flows from their perception they do from others in developing there is any thing wrong with the objective as it was done back in the 90s and obviously the administration used tpp to use nafta recently in canada. There are things there. I agree that trade is to segments and congress has their own views and the republican tax proposal which is poorly aimed at tax rates as with then its opportunities to eliminate what is controversial to come from the president. Many perceive to that there has been the focus of the jobs lost from the Worlds Largest trade deficit of 750 billion. We can search the Commerce Department records federal giving a figure to tout how they are created from 1 million of imports. And the atlanta scored two touchdowns figure you out if you figure out if they win or lose. But there are positive opportunities that the administration presumably has and to agree with the rhetoric. I have basked to provide a couple of comments on europes reaction. Push the button. The Trump Presidency is highly disruptive for european policy. There is a reason for that. I would even argue to say most it has not sunk in and i am pretty sure they think it is a bad dream able wake up and Michelle Obama is president. [laughter] but we have to start what is the nature of the partnership in europe . And if you think with of partnership of territory or conflict of economic values . Primarily it has been about values. We are friendly competitors but in terms of territory you could argue that they no longer see russia as a problem. This is the reason the number one reaction is primarily about the concern that it scares the living daylights out of Eastern Europe as a security guarantee that they cannot provide themselves. This is yet to see ken from china or japan but actually want the opposite that the United States must remain in europe rica not afford our programs because we have to spend money on defense. Also in terms of trade we have to bear in mind not only the u. S. Mission ship was completed at the end you could even argue there is no european trade it still looks for a narrative and also very much to find defined by tepee p. M. Although we dont know the exact window if what will take its place it is very clear that all negotiations with the Asian Pacific countries will come to a halt simply because every betty is waiting for the United States or the Trump Administration to react. How this has had an impact on the european, reaction on trumps presidency not only trade policy but also migration issues. We have braced for the worst and in a sense you could even say that we are starting to react to the United States trade policy a little bit like north korea. Its perfectly rational to be irrational and we as a power cannot deal with that kind of transactional policy because we will be asked to do things that we are not prepared to do and we dont have the power to do. And this basically i think leads to the last concern which we have seen now in the press is that the Trump Administration is now offering free trade negotiation with individual eu Member States. Thats legally technically and also politically impossible. Its based on the assumption that europe its better to divide and conquer and for the eu not exist but its also based on speculation. To think that the European Commission in brussels is europe , it is not. What is happening latest crisis is all that power has come back to the Member States and that means basically that europe is still actually united between the Member States. Divide and conquer with china and russia. Brexit is an anomaly. I could talk more about that but i think my time is up. Extremely provocative. Thank you very much. He happened to be in new york and contacted me and i said get down here and he did. We are very glad to have that perspective. Before we go to will cannot have someone close the doors, those doors there. Okay, going out too well will. Thanks bob and marshall is good to be here at the Georgetown Center again. I want to step back. We have so many titans of trade policy here across the transatlantic world at this table. Im not an economist even though ppi have advocated trade policys for a long time. I want to put Donald Trumps approach to trade into context. In his inaugural speech i learned something which is his worldview can be described as a coherent world and i dont agree with that at a Large National economic 70 years of internationalism predicated on trade liberalization, International Economic cooperation as a pillar of American Security and economic interests in the world. As part of our leadership strategy. Thats now being directly challenged by President Trump and mr. Bannon in favor of this America First idea which by the way used to be until trump resurrected it was a discredited idea in American History because it was connected with Charles Lindbergh on the eve of world war ii and it had a bad aura around it. Now mr. Trump, what is being proposed not just a radical change in trade policy. Its a radical change to our leadership world over seven decades since Franklin Roosevelt so this is huge. Now im not opposed to radical change necessarily if its based on sound empirical diagnosis of what is wrong with our economy. This is based on a misdiagnosis of the impact of trade and what is essential economic challenge facing our country but its also based on a canard that mr. Trump uses all the time that there has been a bipartisan conspiracy basically to negotiate bad trade agreements. We have had nothing but incompetent trade negotiators on both both sides republican and democrat who are dedicated to selling out america. This sounds like a great Conspiracy Theory that this is what i hear our president now saying. The third reason that this radical change doesnt make a lot of sense to me is that it is grounded in widespread popular support. So i think the first is that all of us who care about these issues have to defend objective reality against the assault that its under. Trade has not destroyed millions of manufacturing jobs. This comes straight out of the realm of alternative fact and we have to say that over and over again. Read delong has a great analysis out the shows since 1950 only 5 or less of manufacturing job loss in the United States reflect the big trade agreements mr. Trump talks about or chinas entry into the wto. Nonetheless theres acute stress on the country as jerry pointed out thats driving this change since again the distress israel but it is not really because of trade. It has more to do with technological change and the broad structural transformation of the economy and its much easier though instead of talking about these forces its easier to scapegoat for an trade and immigrants coming into the country. I do think its important to go to the heart of the problem which is in many ways to think about quality and how many ways to capture that i will talk about this great divergence that is basically demarcated by education attainment rate americans with College Degrees now account for 50 of household income. Thats up from 37 in 1991. Those were just a High School Degree or less that count for only 5 National Income down from 12 so it has been a calamity for people who work with their hands. This transformation away from the manufacturing and industrial economy to a postproduction analogy economy is a seismically traumatic for a lot of americans is to shift from an agrarian economy to an industrial