I am an emeritus law professor from the university of arizona. Very pleased to welcome all of you. Our five first of webinars of the implication of the trade agreement of the usmca , which as everyone knows was forced about two months ago on july 1. In october, the usmca provisions on auto parts account for 25 plus Percentage Points of manufacturing trade in north america then then, in november, we will talk about other provisions and in december, we will switch gears and focus on some of the stakeholder issues. At the companies that are directly involved in importing and exporting across the north american borders who are dealing with the new enforcement provisions. Origin and kind of other challenges, the nittygritty that determines whether trade is going to work or not. All of these webinars are free. You do need to register to get on big marker. We thought it would be a port appropriate to start the series with a question of context. You have the usmca. It was negotiated back in the late summer and fall of 2018. Signed november 20, 2018. Move forwardot until fall of next year. Mostly october, november, particularly december, where it was modified modified and the downside appeared to be difficult negotiations. By chairman neil and Speaker Pelosi, and the u. S. Trade Representatives Office and Steve Mnuchin. We were fortunate in convince and convincing two significant members of the ways and Means Committee to join us today for this discussion, some of the factors that led to approval of the usmca. These members of the committee are going to share their observations. Means is by far and away the most Important Committee in the house. It is not only responsible for trade and tax and tariff policy, but also tax and social security, medicare, welfare, and related registration legislation. Kevin going to start with brady, a republican from the eighth district of texas. He is a ranking republican number of the ways and Means Committee. He was an executive for the chamber of commerce and served in the texas house of representatives. He is a person of broad interest. Health care, small business, chair of the house committee, he has been working hard over the years to try to improve American Health care without increasing the cost and he has been a key participant in bilateral efforts over the year to deliver effective Disaster Relief for communities affected by hurricanes like harvey, maria. From west virginia, in the past he has had other important posts. He served as Lieutenant Governor of virginia. Interests inrought Climate Change, individual disabilities, those on welfare, programs designed to discourage High School Dropouts and teenage pregnancy, and a series of reforms in the state of virginia. Also, quite important many , he wasportant for many a strong proponent in switzerland during that. , working with the u. S. Justice department to try to call the abuse of Swiss Bank Secrecy by americans who are trying to shield their income from u. S. Taxation. Here we have two experts and we asked both of them to speak for each and give their observations to help understand this process. I have asked congressman brady to speak first. Briar hasessman. Inished his remarks, i will those of you in the audience who have questions, please use the q and a function. Short keep your question and related to the subject matter, and i will try to have as many of those answered by our esteemed colleagues here as possible. Jim and brady, it is your floor it is your brady, floor. Here. Nks for having me we are fortunate to have you in that role, so thank you for that. It has been almost two years and a week since you had me to talk about the prospect of the usmca, and i am glad to come back to talk about the context and dynamics of it. I am proud to be joining congressman briar, who is a friend and while relatively new to the committee means more to you than you know it because he brings his business expertise, digging into policy issues, working on finding common ground. There is so much more that unites us then divides us, both in america and in congress as well. The usmca has turned out to be a historic moment where members of congress and the administration put their differences aside and achieved something very important for the american people. Youve asked us to talk about the context and dynamics of this, which will be followed by a series of seminars or webinars dealing with the specifics. Lets talk about the dynamics. I will give you my view from having worked on 13 of the 15 trade agreements that are in place today. Having led several of them, a over wto reforms. Let me give you some of the dynamics. First, we have a 25 year agreement, really the largest of its kind in the world that has achieved many, not all, but many of its original goals, including quadrupling trade between three partners, making products more affordable, integrating the economy so that our businesses could compete better abroad because of this agreement. It was economically successful, yet clinically very unpopular. We have a president ial candidate who had vowed to renegotiate it was this time not because of his campaign promise, it was because as we know, President Trump has held decades thatfor america had not been a winner in past trade agreements or in global institutions. Work in his view, it was American Workers that paid the price for this. There was recognition among north american trade leaders that nafta, despite its successes, was outdated. Andeeded to be modernized there had been a global search, bilateral and trade agreements have also left america outside of it. What we knew, clinically, and what i have seen since nafta with very few exceptions, within congress, there had been a gradual insignificance. And i mean dramatic deterioration of bipartisan support in congress for trade. There was growing opposition within the democratic party, oftentimes leading to very sparse support for traderelated issues, and in some cases political issues. And in some cases, political punishment for in the primaries, for democrats that crossed the trade line to join with what was the overwhelming republican support for new trade rules. View, at the my moment, there was opposition in the Democratic House to initiatives by President Trump, yet very strong support for continued trade with our largest trading partners, canada and mexico. Part of the untold story here is what happened next among all of those dynamics. Not even mentioning steel and aluminum tariffs and other issues. I think what surprised me in looking back is that President Trump and his trade ambassador, bob lighthizer, made it very clear from the start the usmca would be a bipartisan agreement. And it would gain strong support by democrats and republicans. I think don would agree that that was met with skepticism from all corners here, including me. But the negotiating objectives that they set forth immediately reinforced this approach, as well as extensive confrontations consultations that Robert Lighthizer held with what had been traditionally antitrade labor democrats, as well as labor unions that had always been opposed to trade agreements. When the agreement came out in october of 2018, it did a number of things, but it was clear it had given labor democrats concessions in trade that they had long sought but never achieved, even coming close to any of them, with past administrations. ,specially in the area of labor dispute settlement, and automotive rules that required higher wages in mexico and i hear u. S. And north america content in these vehicles and cars. From there, Robert Lighthizer continued to listen to and meet with democrats and republicans and labor unions throughout congress. And i think, too, his background in the senate with ustr as a steellabor attorney gave him really the skills to work with both parties. And i think it was crucial to working group that Speaker Pelosi created something that focused on standards and funding, as well as leadership by democrats, such as our chairman reaching new. Our chairman richie neal. I think that contributed to what turned out to be historically a somewhat shocking bipartisan vote in congress. Theres no question the agreement is sound and retains the successful foundations of nafta, including zero tariffs on u. S. Goods that we sell to mexico, nearly all products we sold to canada. It open to the Canadian Market further for dairy, wine, and poultry. It locked in many key reforms in mexico on energy and telecom. It created a level Playing Field for financial services, investment, and established really the best digital trade rules of any trade agreement in existence today. Which helps people in their online commerce, regardless of the size or type of business. Theres no question, because it protected u. S. Intellectual property, tools to guard against piracy and counterfeiting, that it will spur u. S. Innovation. I will make this point, too. The working relationship excuse me, the business relationship between the u. S. , mexico, and canada was very strong. So our question was, how much bigger, with the agreement, could we grow that relationship . The short answer is it will and it will be significant over time, but i think the benefits of this agreement were not in quantity but in quality. This agreement set standards for what a 21stcentury trade agreement ought to look like. Endet standards to discrimination in regulations. Removed tactical barriers to trade, modernized the custom process, so we can move legitimate goods across the border pastor and faster and more affordably. I think it was vital that america came up with a number of key changes there. Of importance to democrats and republicans is this includes the strongest and most enforceable labor provisions in u. S. Trade history. And i think this agreement requires mexico to create a true union system, including rights that all workers will be guaranteed, like collective bargaining rights, the right to strike, and tools to protect Mexican Union workers against violence. In many ways, this was those sections were in effect dream provisions for labor democrats who had long worked to see this in trade agreements. An i think itd the final it ended the predicament we had forced workers to compete with artificially low mexico wages. The final point, i think the whole agreement is enforceable, unlike nafta. That means no countries can block the panels that can resolve disputes the ultimately occur. I also think because it created certainty where there was uncertainty within the trade and economic community, i think this was an area where the usmca will create further growth in all three countries. This is an area where ultimately republicans, democrats, President Trumps trade team worked together to find consensus. It was an allhandsondeck effort, as don will tell you. He was deeply involved in this. And i am immensely proud of the bipartisan support. Ive counted noses for a lot trade agreements over the years, and for me, watching the house watching every member of the texas delegation, house and senate, vote yes for this agreement was something i never thought i would see. With that, thank you for having me. I yield the floor to my friend, don. Rep. Beyer thank you very much. I am thrilled to be part of this. My youngest is a rice graduate, so when i heard from the Baker Institute and with kevin brady, it was an instant yes. David, thank you for hosting us and for moderating this. I totally agree with you on the importance of the ways and Means Committee. Chairmanan brady and neal often point out, it is the only committee mentioned in the u. S. Constitution, the oldest committee, and the one that we get to brag about most. You mentioned also that i was in switzerland. One of the most biggest responsibilities in representing your country overseas is trying to stimulate positive trade relations between that country and home. And i was very proud that tiny Little Switzerland was the number one investor in 2010. I wish i could get credit for it. [laughter] and i am delighted to serve and do this with kevin brady. I served with kevin when he was the acting chairman of the joint economic committee. And watched with envy as you chaired the ways and Means Committee for a number of years. And, kevin, you are such a good guy, and often we have different viewpoints in the hearings and debates, so it is a thrill to be here to agree with almost everything you said. [laughter] and to reaffirm your notion that we have much more in common than what divides us. So, thank you for being with us. The usmca really does stand as one of the very few real bipartisan achievements of the last few years. It is the product of two negotiations, both of which at times came a little closer to failure than success. It was a courtship between Robert Lighthizer and his canadian and mexican counterparts. And i wasnt part of those. In the seminars to come we will hear about them. But the second negotiations between House Democrats and Robert Lighthizer was no less critical to the success of the final product that went into course earlier this summer. In november 2019, after the president had signed the original agreement, we knew that it had many positive elements, a lot full from nafta, but also from the perspective of the House Democrats, that were fundamentally flawed. There were concerns around the dispute mechanism, which is written because the panel blocking was fundamentally broken. That meant whatever its merits, this is not an agreement that was going to go with legal force. This was especially true when it had to face votes from the house and senate democrats, who had become ever more suspectd of trade agreements and of the impact on the american worker. Remember that only 27 House Democrats voted for a democratic trade Promotion Authority for a democratic president , barack obama. And very few, you could count them on one hand, of House Democrats were enthusiastic about the tpp, as it was presented. I am one of the very few, so i can say that. So if i had to handicap the prospects of the agreement at november 2019, i would have been pretty pessimistic. However, there were key elements that made the ultimate deal achievable, including recognition across the aisle that after 25 years nafta needed to be updated. In fact, people on both sides, those who are making public statements, had underlined the difficulties, but also outlined the elements that would make the deal possible. Once other governments understood the process we had to go through in the u. S. , and were willing to make the necessary changes to be part of the negotiations, that led to the bonus areas in the agreement. You know, in certain areas, like the dispute resolution mechanism, i learned American Partners probably prefer the house position, but mexico in particular was asked for a difficult political move. The negotiating structure was clear. Investor lighthizer was ambassador lighthizer was motivated and empowered to make a deal on behalf of the president. We see in the current impasse over the sorely needed covid assistance package, that im sure has mr. Brady worried about every night, that it is how difficult it is when there are too many cooks in the kitchen. To torture a mixed metaphor, that really conveys the message and the situation. I believe if Steve Mnuchin and nancy pelosi alone were doing this, we would have a deal already. We are still hoping and praying they will get one soon. Despite what people said about the negotiations, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was committed to a workable agreement. She kept saying, we want to get to yes. Something that could pass the house, and then help with the uncertainty over the american economy. So she created an unorthodox negotiating process that ensured the final agreement had the necessary buyin from the House Democrats and senate democrats, that assured a remarkably Strong Majority in both houses. The house counterpart to the ustr was not always popular in our party. There were many of us. And it drew criticism from people who thought that members of the working group signaled a hardline approach unlikely to get to yes. For example, rosa delauro, who led the fight against trade Promotion Authority, was on that working group. Jan schakowsky, not a fan of trade agreements, on the working group. The final product actually made the structure pretty clear. With stalling or personal to ersonal animus to the president , but when we finally got to an agreement to it shed light on that theory, that we were ready to go to work as long as the administration recognized that political pressure could not substitute for reform. So the reforms kevin mentioned the good things, including language that allowed parties to block the formation of the dispute settlement panel, which had be devoted the original agreement. And for the First Time Ever it created rules of evidence that would help the u. S. Litigate intensive disputes. Of course, the most difficult and the most consequential part was the labor enforcement mechanism. Chairman kevin brady talked about the dilemma with developing meaningful trade unions, labor unions, in mexico. But this was able to set the structure, including in mexico, to move forward on that. It is underappreciated how novel and important and progressive it is to have an agreement that holds participating Companies Accountable for bad behaviors, companies, not just countries. It is like putting the ises on its head. They had rights of action to sue countries, but here we are rebalancing the dynamics by making companies, arguably the greatest beneficiaries of the trade agreements, also accountable. What is also remarkable about this agreement is what it does not contain. Republicanh for my friends to swallow the restrictions and the limitations that the industry demanded. But that also helped to do the tpp. On the democratic side, despite advances in environmental enforcement, there was still heartburn of our inability to secure provisions about Climate Change. I would say that most of the no votes from democrats were usmca does not address Climate Change at all. But the debate will go on on how we enforce it, it comes up every day. One of the things i am thrilled about is the environmental package. I was in california at the Wastewater Treatment above the Tijuana River and we watched the horrified as untreated human waste dumped into the pacific ocean, flowing north to san diego. Part of what was helping with with the bill was securing millions just to address the crossborder wastewater into the pacific. This has not been an easy process or a perfect one, but it does represent a remarkable achievement, given the context in which it occurred. It is my hope that the passage of this agreement with a bipartisan vote would have put an end to the uncertainty that has governed the trade relationship between these members, and it is critical that this agreement provides economic certainty. I confess i am disappointed by the tariffs on canadian aluminum. And i certainly hope that we minimize the adversarial stances between our countries. But i also suspect that that like much else will be decided in november, whether it is joe or vicet trump President Biden or kanye west. And i look forward to the congressional role in the process. As a humble undergraduate, i have studied a lot of development economics, and i learned a country cannot grow from within. Trade is essential. In the postworld war ii liberalization we live in with international trade, theres been reductions in hunger, poverty, dictatorial political systems, and huge increases in health and life expectancy. Substantiveved by discussions with the working group. It is a new archetype by which all future u. S. Trade agreements must be measured. It is my further hope this agreement will pursue a new bipartisan commitment of trade. I look forward to working with chairman brady on this and the other 13 trade agreements in the years to come. With that, i yield back. Thank you both, members of congress, for your illuminating remarks. And again, my congratulations for this remarkable bipartisan achievement. I was off for a couple of minutes due to my comcast internet going down. But it seems to be back up for the moment, so i apologize for being away for a while. I would like to talk about a couple of things that i believe both of you have touched on, but pursuing further, particularly congressman beyers last comment. To what extent do you believe at least a significant part of the usmca can be a model for future trade agreements . The Current Administration has begun negotiations with kenya and africa and with the united kingdom, which is in the process of withdrawing from the european union. Some other countries have been mentioned from time to time. How do you see this as working, s suppose that however is that whoever is elected in november, discussions go forward with u. K. That is likely. But even with kenya or even that new panafrican customs union, what about those, what about others . Is there something that we have learned besides the bipartisan cooperation that would make moving forward on those future agreements easier . I will start with kevin brady. Rep. Brady so the short answer is, i think there are a number of standards set in usmca that are the Gold Standard globally. The Digital Services side of this, trade would be one area, the service sector. 21stcentury agreements have to do two things, not just focus on goods, but services, and america is very good at this. Exports make up a large part of our local economy. Past agreements have often overlooked them. The other 21stcentury realworld challenge is that barriers to trade are pretty sophisticated. They are just not done at the border with tariffs and quotas. Seend that, oftentimes we in regions and countries barriers that are not always clear. And for american businesses, it can be like putting an american plug into a european socket. It is designed not to merge and match. These trade agreements go beyond the borders into removing those barriers. Usmca, i think, sets some real standards in tearing those barriers down, regulatory, facilitation, fairness, small business, a number of those issues i think are very key. The labor and environmental provisions have always been a flashpoint in trade. I think how this model goes forward depends on the country we are negotiating, or region we are negotiating with. Each of them face different challenges. As we have discovered, labor, environment, services, ag can play very different roles depending on whether you are dealing with a kenya or a u. K. , whether you are reaching out in latin america, strengthening the trade partnership in europe. And so the short answer is i think a number of those provisions have set the standard. Some of the will also be models, terrific starting points for discussions with other agreements. Like don, i agree it is not enough to buy american, we have to sell american all throughout the world. We have a lot of barriers that we need not apply around the world. Trade agreements that are free and fair, that our 21stcentury models can help us sell more around the world. Dr. Gantz thank you. Congressman beyer . Rep. Beyer i agree with everything congressman brady has said, including the fact that we need to sell a lot more. Only 2 of american businesses is export. It is a relatively small part of our gdp. I speak of the things i know. Switzerland has seven times the export volume per person then we did. Obviously, they are a Little Country and they have to, but it would be good for us to grow that piece of it. And kevin, i was reluctant to use the phrase Gold Standard because i dont want to move back to the Gold Standard, so archetype or benchmark instead. I agree, what usmca has done has shown democrats, who have been very trade reluctant and skeptical for a couple of decades now, can come back to the table and support them, as long as they know there are strong environmental and labor considerations. I think there is a real win for everybody. We want the people in vietnam in fact, my strong support for tpp was about lifting the labor standards in those asiapacific countries. That was necessary. You think about the environmental challenges. The one thing we did not mention was the multilateral agreements included in usmca, marine pollution, wetlands, whaling, etc. All of these can be included in future agreements, whether it is kenya, u. K. , and that will be good for the world. One of the small differences that i think Many Democrats have with ambassador lighthizer is the strong emphasis on bilateral agreements. Nothing wrong with bilateral, and i know he is very skeptical of the multilateral, but there is a middle ground where you can go plurilateral trade agreements. Because with 200 countries, or however many there are, bilateral could take a long time. Dr. Gantz thank you very much. Again, it i guess a related again, i guess a related question. Other candidates are out there. I have heard taiwan, vietnam. For some in the administration, they have also talked about an agreement with vietnam partly because there is a huge trade deficit. Have you thought about that one, congressman beyer . Rep. Beyer i would love for us to reenter tpp. It became the tpp 11, they left a space for us. It is probably not going to be the exact same as what was negotiated in the obama administration. I think maybe even President Trump, if reelected, would be open to that if it looks more like usmca than tpp of president obama. But failing that, we can deal with a subset of that. I know this administration has worked very hard with mixed success on the china trade stuff. I cannot offer any simple solution because it is incredibly complicated. But i do think the more we can build a group of countries around china to work with us, vietnam, malaysia, japan, korea, australia, the stronger negotiating position we will have with president xi and china. Dr. Gantz congressman brady . Rep. Brady no, don makes great points here. One thing in context, when you look at what this administration is focused on, whether it is renegotiating nafta, which had been promised by administrations and not followed through on, continued discussions with europe , u. K. , the phase one agreement with japan, the phase one agreement with china, they targeted where the sales and markets are. That the administration is focused on, probably three fourths of our exports around the world. It is the top priority in trade, to close out those agreements, whether they are with with the u. K. , i hope the eu can get serious about ag, some issues there. A broader agreement with japan. I think the second phase of the china agreement, which, frankly, i was stunned in a pleasant way by phase one. Barring covid, i believed we would have seen a phase two by the end of the year. Nonetheless, while we look at more bilateral in areas where we clearly have a u. S. Interest in engaging, such as africa, really important. I think the top priority for any executive in the white house should be finishing out a super ambitious trade agenda already, frankly, in the works. Dr. Gantz thank you very much. Let me move now to a couple of questions from our audience. I am doing some paraphrasing. One of them has to do with what both of you mentioned briefly and maybe you can elaborate on. How are the labor provisions going to be effectively enforced by mexico, the u. S. Administration, and more precisely, what role, if any, do you see for ways and Means CommitteeGoing Forward in helping this process work the way that Everyone Wants it to . You have bipartisan support, some republicans thought it would help to raise wages in mexico, which many of us think is a great idea. Others of us were simply worried about a situation where, for many years, independent unions have essentially been barred. I think one of the key enforcement issues under the agreement would be appreciated. Congressman beyer. Rep. Beyer thanks, dr. Gantz. I am actually pretty optimistic about it. Among other things, there is an independent mexico labor board created by the legislation. There were 12 different members, injure agency Interagency Committee members among u. S. Agencies. I dont remember if it was 3, 4, attaches tour mexico city, but we are sending labor at over to mexico to see over this to make sure that they were not only passing laws but to allow democratically elected labor unions to form, as opposed to the ones that are formed by the companies before the workers are even hired, and that they are properly funded, that mexico has the people to do that. We will be watching that closely, and continuing to work with a lot of pressure on our mexican folks. Because it is not going to be easy to have this remarkable culture change among their workers. We want them to be much closer to where we would like labor to be in the United States, but many pieces are in place to do that. Dr. Gantz thank you. Congressman brady . Microphone please. I am not hearing you. Rep. Brady there we go, it took a minute. Sorry about that. The changes in mexicos law on labor in my view are transformational. When congressman cuellar and i from texas visited mexico during the negotiations, i was struck by the desire from mexicos leaders to transform their labor environment. It was one of their as one of their ministers told me, in mexicos Economic Future, it doesnt lie in low wages. We have tried that. Our Economic Future lies in productivity, competitiveness, innovation. What was important about usmca is that it reinforced and supported those types of changes. Secondly, there are a number of Enforcement Mechanisms here that i think are key. In negotiation with the working group, ambassador lighthizer, in a sense, that was a negotiation between the democrats and the white house. It was almost a negotiation between congress, the white house, and mexico. We were drilling deeper into the Enforcement Mechanisms, to ensure mexico and canada were held accountable, were working together to make those changes real. In my view, we did delay far too long on this agreement. I believe 99 of the agreement stayed in place. But that 1 , in the end, mattered in the sense that it really created a process for labor democrats to drill down, even those who were not going to support it. I think it was an opportunity for ambassador lighthizer, the white house, to drill down deeper with mexico on specific timetables, funding and all of that. So from my view, again, working on a number of these agreements, i think the labor provisions matter in a big way in the enforcement, which republicans and democrats both support. And as you mentioned earlier, no trade agreement is agreeable to all. There are areas of this that i strongly disagree with. Investor state resolution, not protecting American Investment in new medicines. Nonetheless and i think don could probably provide a list as well. Nonetheless, this agreement found a way to bridge that gap. I really commend every player in this for finding a way to do this. Dr. Gantz thank you. That is very helpful. I have a question from someone who says, with the onset of ecommerce, among other provisions, as you know, in usmca, it makes it much easier for american suppliers like amazon to send small packages backandforth to both canada and mexico, which up until now had ridiculously low thresholds for such transactions. With ecommerce, there is a problem not limited to north america. If americans are buying pharmaceutical and food products, sometimes by ecommerce rather than the supermarkets, how do you assure the regulatory agencies in the u. S. , department of agriculture and others, and their counterparts in mexico and canada, are going to be able to police some of this expansion in commerce . It could affect not only our own citizens, but also those in mexico and canada, particularly with food products. Congressman beyer . Rep. Beyer that sounds like something that congressman brady should answer. Rep. Brady if it were autos [laughter] rep. Brady it is not a phrase that most americans use, but the de minimis rule simply means, at what value of a product moving across our lines have duties attached to it . In the u. S. , it is very high. Mexico and canada were unacceptably low. Ambassador lighthizer gained some space there, certainly not as much as he or others would like. I dont believe those thresholds contribute to less security, especially in the types of products that are brought across national lines. I think there has been terrific bipartisan work, both in stopping shipments of fentanyl from china and other countries. There has been a concerted effort on transshipments between the u. S. , mexico, canada. Our customs and border patrol, 2015, we redesigned that agency to focus on the security and the speed at which goods travel across our country. We have seen significant reforms in that area that moves goods both quicker but with more security as you do that. I will finish with this. Every country is very aware of ecommerce and its upside, which is just dramatic. Usmca again sets that standard for that modern 21stcentury economy. We also know that we have to be even more vigilant on the evidence for illegitimate trade of those goods crossing borders. And i think that will continue to be a priority. Dr. Gantz thank you. Rep. Beyer going along with kevins comments on de minimus, that is a part of the agreement that candidate in mexico raise minimum standards, which makes sense. As we are seeing in this covid19 world where so much stuff is being shipped to our home. To the larger issue of what is in these packages, we have been struggling for years with medications coming out of china in particular that dont include what they are supposed to. This is part of a much larger effort that proceeds usmca, many that precedes usmca, many other regulatory agencies, to figure out how to protect americans from things that come through the mail rather than picked up off the shelf. There can be no substitute for lots of reporting by individual consumers to the relevant agencies. Dr. Gantz thank you very much. I will modify the question, but the question essentially says, how we can talk about the obama administration, trump administration, we can talk about the future how does the president s views translate into an agreement . In this particular case, mr. Lighthizer and the president worked together well. Perhaps it is worth talking about how tpp worked out. What is the relationship there, what makes it work . Keeping in mind that under the tpa, members of the committee should be deeply involved in the process. Representative brady . Rep. Brady Congress Holds authority over approving trade agreements. We delegate to the administration the ability to negotiate based on our objectives, our goals. We require considerable consultation throughout that process, and then Congress Holds the ultimate power with regard to the Voting Agreement up or down. Secondly, any Smart Administration is going to listen to congress, republicans and democrats, in negotiating and shaping that agreement. Not that you get everything you want you dont, as a country, or as individuals necessarily. That is key. The other thing, too, trade policy is implemented by the administration. Who is president matters. Usmca no question reflects the priorities of this president , to see that bluecollar working class man or woman getting a better deal. Final point and you sort of asked this in your last question. Don and i referenced it. Ways and means plays a key role. Once an agreement is approved by congress, the hard work begins. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done before an agreement enters into force. I think the white house was right to push for a july 1 entry into force. It really required everyone to dramatically engage, to industry, government in the three countries to move forward. We have a lot of work to do. A role of ways and means here will be in monitoring the implementation, taking the viewpoints of our businesses and stakeholders home into this implementation process. The oversight of issues like enforcement that don talked about on these provisions, all of that, in the house at least, rests with the ways and Means Committee. That implementation is as equally as important as the negotiation of the agreement itself. You have to make sure that agreement follows what we reach consensus on. Big role for ways and means, members, and again, we are fortunate to have leaders like don with his background as we move into this phase. Dr. Gantz it has been fun to hear the former chairman of the ways and means pointing out just how important the ways and Means Committee is. Obviously, whoever is president has enormous impact on what happens in our legislation and trade agreements. I think every president in our lifetimes has been protrade, recognized that america can best grow if we are able to fairly tear down barriers, tariff barriers. Im not sure kevin is as much concerned about it as i am, but when obamaconcerned was president and i now that trumps president the concentration of power in the presidency has been moving in that direction away from congress. Im not sure how you reverse that. As a member of congress, i would love to see a better balance of power. In the meantime, i dont think that is affecting the trade agreement very much. Dr. Gantz thank you very much. One more question, maybe two. There are obviously enormous challenges that businesses, particularly in the u. S. , but all over the world are facing. One is covid19, and one is the trade war with china, which has raised prices for goods coming from china for a lot of businesses. Some feel between covid19, the trade war, National Security issues, this is a great time for better investment in north america, not just in the u. S. , which is the administrations preference, but also in mexico. For example, to take the automobile example, the domestic content requirements in usmca going from 62. 5 to 75 . Most of that will come presumably out of asia and chinese production. Some of it may benefit mexico. How do you see these affecting things, congressman beyer . Rep. Beyer i think basically in a positive way. We have already had a number of roundtables and hearings on reviving the supply chains in the United States in the wake of the covid19 crisis. We discovered that for ppe and many other things, we may have been far too dependent on, for example, china. To the extent we can rethink u. S. Manufacturing with a greater emphasis of building it and buying it here, i think that is good for all americans. Dr. Gantz congressman brady . Rep. Brady i agree, there is a real opportunity for north america. One of the lessons from covid19 is america learning that we are vulnerable to bad actors like china on crucial medicines, medical supplies, ingredients, as well as technology. It is a lesson that we need to learn from. Ways and means republicans have introduced a package of bills within the last month on behalf of house republicans, to make america more medically independent from china. It includes very aggressive incentives to anchor, not contain, but anchor reliable , resilient production of those crucial medicines for example, the that we can ones stockpile, the ones that we need for defense. Those ppe elements that, frankly, we need to have stockpiled and ready to go. It is those production lines and supply chains that should run through reliable trading partners like mexico and canada. I think it is a real opportunity, both for medical security, but to, frankly, bring our countries together again, for everyones benefit. Rep. Beyer i want to add to those wonderful comments that kevin made. I think back to a paper that David Petraeus wrote years ago. If the 20th century was the american century, the 21st century could be the north american century. You put the power together of canada and mexico with the United States, we would beat everybody. Dr. Gantz that is a very good point, one that Prime Minister trudeau said months ago, north america ought to be developing 5g as a group rather than relying on other countries in europe or china. I dont know how much time we have i think a couple of minutes. But i will ask one quick question. One of our listeners says why are we calling it different names in canada and mexico. Rep. Brady the answer is no. Call it what it is in each country. That works just fine. The home country ought to lead with this agreement. It doesnt come tripping off your tongue, no question about it. But the benefits are real, and i think that is what matters. Rep. Beyer a rose is a rose is a rose. Dr. Gantz yeah, and i would point out in mexico, nafta was tlcan. I suppose if this had been nafta 2, nobody would have complained about it, but it doesnt seem to be causing problems compared to some of the other challenges we have. I believe we have to quit soon. Is that right . Do i have more time . No, we got to go. Dr. Gantz we have more time . We have to go. [laughter] laura is the endall and beall of this arrangement. Maybe we will go ahead and cut short at this point, since we have exhausted the audiences questions and most of my own. Our esteemed members of congress have added useful context. Just as i had hoped. Once again, i congratulate both of you in being instrumental in getting this Historic Deal for north america through. Thank you again for appearing today. Thank you. Today, the Harvard Kennedy school hosted a virtual discussion political reporters on the campaign 2020 president ial campaign. Live coverage begins at 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Trump held asident Campaign Rally in pennsylvania. Cspan, cspan. Org or listen with the free cspan radio app. Tuesday, President Trump decimated wilmington, North Carolina as the first u. S. World war ii heritage city. The announcement came during remarks to commemorate the 75th and diverse array of the wars end in front of the battleship North Carolina. This is 15 minutes. President trump thank you very much. And that was some greeting we had in North Carolina. Ill tell you, i dont know if you saw the crowd outside, its pretty amazing. But we had it in texas and ohio, South Carolina and florida its just incredible whats happening please sit down. Please. And im honored to be in