The announcement at the Bipartisan Policy Center. On how nafta affects the business. This is about an hour. Good afternoon, everyone. A pleasure to welcome you here to the Bipartisan Policy Center for what i think will be a pretty exciting and important conversation about opportunities to strengthen, modernize and reform the north American Free trade agreement. As i think you are aware, we have two actionpacked conversations. Talkingfirst start out it to of the leaders of the key industry that will be influencing this discussion. We will be joined right around 4 00 by the secretary of commerce. Let me just set the stage for you for a couple of minutes, then we will get into our conversations. Those of you who follow our work know we try to accurately define problems. We have a quaint affinity to evidence and are best efforts to come up with rigorous facts on which people can have a good fight. We like to try to move forward and develop practical and Creative Solutions we think and generate the kind of broadbased support, not just to pass laws, but to pass resilient laws that have the actual investment of the American Public in their success. Finally we advocate. We have ac c4 action. We dont think the world will fall to its knees just based on the genius of our insight. Like the tournament to my left, we get up in there and mix it up. It is not a gentle sport. It requires a real commitment and investment. We are proud to play that role where we can. For the last several months we have been very dis engaged in the discussion around nafta because it is critically important and is far from perfect. Facts you are all generally familiar with, canada and mexico are responsible for one third of our nations exports. 43 of our nations 50 states trade more with canada and mexico than any other countries. Of jobs, some say 14, some say 11, some faith for, millions of u. S. Jobs are part of this north American Value change. At the same time, this is an agreement that obviously needs improvement. It is a 23yearold effort. Bip,s signed in the age before iphones. It did not engage intellectualproperty in a way i think we believe it should. Were going to hear opportunities in the Energy Sector which could not have been contemplated when the agreement was first struck. But more than that this issue is emblematic of one of the core questions that where grappling with as a country what is the future of our nations economy and role in the world . What is the future of American Workers in the Global Economy . I think the idea of the American Dream that so many of us take for granted in this country is not real in the minds of many people who have lost jobs in the last decade. Wages have been flat, cost of college has multiplied by a factor of three. There is a lot of pain and a lot of grievance in that country in this country. A lot of that is channeled into the conversation into trade and inequity, which has become the nafta discussion. We believe this is an issue that is essential, but also essential to bring together the fabric of the country. With that heroic opening, i would like to now turn to two gentlemen who lead industries that are critical to our domestic security and our global power. That of course are our energy and agriculture industries. I want to introduce chip. Who is the chair of the National Corn growers association. Hes the real deal. A thirdgeneration farmer with over 1400 acres of grain production, soy, wheat, barley. His family has been working since the 1700s. Chip is not new to the conversation, he is also not new to politics. He has been working with the usda farm ranch committee. He is vice chair of the u. S. Farmers and ranchers alliance. First easterner to chair the corn grower. Jack gerard, you are probably familiar with. Jack is the ceo of the foundation for the oil and gas industry. State,y of the federal, local and global level. But some people dont fully appreciate that he also serves the industry. The core of the training, certification, best practices. A lot of what happens is below the waterline. It is incredibly important work. Jack is no stranger to these issues. Previously worked with the American Chemical Council of the National Miners association. Two gentlemen who understand the importance of these issues. Let me start with you, chip. You run a farm. Why are you here . Why you care about the north American Free trade agreement . Mr. Bowling i do run a farm. I live and work on a farm everyday. I live about 45 miles south of washington dc where most people dont think there is any farming going on. It is important to me because it has been working. Mexico is the biggest buyer of american corn right now. About 525out buy million bushels every year. They have been easy to deal with, they want our product and right now with the way input and crop prices are, nafta and mexico and canada are the deal for americas corn farmers. Mr. Grumet if the seamlessness of that relationship became higher in transaction costs, what do you think happens . Does mexico just tough it out . What fills that void . Mr. Bowling what happens is we have other countries that grow corn like we do. They dont grow good quality corn like the u. S. Farmer does but brazil and argentina are waiting for mexico to buy corn. Theyre are looking for customers just like we are. We need to work everyday day to protect that market that we have worked for years to build up. I have been to mexico on corn trade missions. They like our product, they like dealing with us, they like the quality. And it makes sense to have corn going from this country into their country on railcars, sometimes interrupts. Ship vessels across the gulf of in trucks. Ship vessels across the gulf of mexico. It is an easy deal for us and them and it makes sense. Mr. Grumet jack, lets turn to energy. Since you took over the helm of api, the Domestic Energy industry has exploded. I think, whether that is cause or coincidence we will leave to the crowd to decide. But the idea of north American Energy selfsufficiency, which was always a talking point 18 years ago. Now actually feels like it is within our grasp. I wonder if you can talk not just about nafta but the importance of the integration of the north American Energy economy and what you see as the potential there. Mr. Gerard thank you for having me. Chip, it is great to meet you and visit as well. A couple points, think you hit it right on the head. A few decades ago if you would of thought or projected that today the United States leads the world in oil and Gas Production and refining, yet just a short few years ago we were building import terminals to import natural gas to benefit the farmers and ranchers and others out there. Really what has happened is remarkable. Therefore, when you put it in the context of nafta and you look at it more holistically across north america, we now have an integrated market that essentially is interdependent on each other. We have situations where we are importing heavier crude oil from canada. We obviously refine it in the United States. Other instances we taken in from mexico, turn into gasoline and send it back to mexico. There is a lot of interdependencies taking place today across the broader north America Energy market. Leading experts believe that by 2020 we could become energy selfsufficient. Selfsufficient as opposed to independent because what we mean by that is we have a capability to produce as much as we consume right here in the north american continent. Nafta, the stability it is brought in terms of our ability to move across borders with full import and export, has been more beneficial. At the end of the day the real beneficiary is the American Consumer because the more you bring the law supply and demand into play, the efficiencies that come with crossborder trade, even the farming and ranching Community Get to experience the lower fuel costs. Aaa estimates the average american saves over 500 a year at the gas pump because of lower gasoline and diesel fuel prices. To us it is very important as we enter into this debate is to recognize the way the markets work, the real value for the u. S. In that broader context of the north American Free trade agreement. Mr. Grumet let me ask you to were not going to forget about canada. The trinational agreement. We tend to focus initially on the question of our relationships with mexico. The mexican approach to energy in terms of foreign investment, openness of market, are fundamentally different today than when nafta was adopted two decades ago. How important an opportunity is that . How much has changed in terms of u. S. Company investments in mexico . What you see as the future there . Mr. Gerard it is still in important stages. Mexico has fundamentally changed their approach to energy just in the past few years. Different than what it was 60, 70 years prior. What we have seen is stability brought to us by nafta and other regulatory regimes is the ability now for us to invest in this broader marketplace. Mexicans being more open to that. If you look at some of the sales , for example, in the gulf of mexico and mexico side, you see very significant investments in from coming in from u. S. Companies. Foreign investment, for in job creation. It benefits us up and down the value chain. The Mexico Energy approach today is very different than it was a few short years ago. Nafta brings us some of the certainty you need and the confidence you can have bringing judicial systems and others that gives certainty to those investment dollars to find a friendly place to land. Mr. Grumet chip, if the environment became less favorable to u. S. Companies, what do you imagine happens with those mexican resources . Mr. Gerard one of the problems , in terms of uncertainty it creates, is capital will go where it is most wanted. When you look at our business, we are a global industry. Were trying to find places where we had the greatest opportunity but also where we are welcome. The situation in mexico in particular, has been in canada for many years, provides great certainty to us now. Anything that would discourage that or create uncertainty would perhaps chill the uncertainty of the economic ability. Mr. Bowling stability. Markets fluctuate every day, every hour on the chicago board of trade. Ever since there has been talk about getting out of nafta, all add commodities have trended down. Even when we decided not to get out of nafta the market trended up. We are in a position now, as agriculture and farmers that we cant afford to drop any more than where they are. If you take u. S. Corn out of the market and the picture, then stability and uncertainty played play a big role. We grow 50 billion bushels of corn every year this country. We export about 2. 5 billion. Trade has been somewhat flat for us over the last several years. Any disruption in trade has a big impact on our farm costs, our financial picture. We have to make sure we dont disrupt that in any way. Mr. Grumet are there other Global Markets you could see shifting american exports to, if the markets were not distracted . Mr. Bowling for us, we would like to go into the asian market. That is where the growing population is. We have some issues. When it comes to biotech in china, we are working on that. Japan,er asian markets, korea, we would love to get more in there. But when you have a Business Partner who lives right across your border and the ease of trade back and forth, thats the best way to go. Mr. Grumet i am sure you agree that no human enterprises perfect. Are there ways that you can imagine the agreement strengthening opportunities for u. S. Export, jobs . Mr. Bowling any agreement can be strengthened. As we mentioned, this is 23 years old. We would want to work with the administration and the usda as far as making the channels of trade clearer and easier. It works very well for us right now. You can always strengthen an agreement. We are open for negotiation. Mr. Grumet jack, same question. I know the fundamentals you have but before a pretty sound, can you see the agreements being improved . Mr. Gerard to be clear, our view comes from the energy standpoint. I cant speak for other sectors to where it might be important for them to strengthen, alter, update, modernize, however you want to characterize the situation. But from our standpoint we believe the best principles are was the free market principles. You protect the environment, you protect the workforce. Then you allow the free flow of goods and commerce. Because ultimately it will find its equilibrium, which then benefits the consumer. I think at the end of the day as we look at north america as a continent, we talk about energy selfsufficiency. Our import, export activity in this country has increased significantly or are the same time we are moving away from other sources of Energy Around the world, thus making us energy selfsufficient. The implications from that are much larger than just the trade question. National security implications, and the list goes on. The geopolitics of Energy Around the globe have changed dramatically. The United States or i should say north america is really becoming the epicenter of energy in the world. Again, something no one would have thought 10 years ago. Mr. Grumet say it little more about interconnectedness. A lot of people imagine trade as you build something and you sell it to someone else. In this linear fashion. But there is a lot of integration between crude mexico going to the u. S. , then going back to mexico and other markets. How entertaining gold is that . Intertangled is that . How different would it be if proverbially the treaty was ripped up . I think suggested in more political forms. What with the industry do in that reality . Mr. Gerard again, uncertainty creates great concern. I would encourage we left this behind somewhere, but we have shown a quick diagram, if you will, of the interdependence of the trade in the north American Community between mexico, the u. S. , canada and the u. S. What you find is that it is not only interconnected today, but those markets are finding their balance in their equilibrium. Refineries, we have in the gulf today that import 135 barrels a day from mexico. For these to be refined in the United States. We turn right around to that same refinery and it has exported over 9 Million Barrels of Refined Products right back to mexico. In many ways, that interconnection is creating 3000 jobs in houston, putting americans to work. What we are doing is taking a mexican crude oil product, bring it to the United States and adding value, turning it right back around to consumers in mexico. We see the same dynamic and relationship with canada and others in terms of natural gas imports and exports. The graph gives you a simple visual to show you the quantity of the movement, both north and south, on both borders. Mr. Grumet lets turn to our polite neighbors to the north. The agriculture connection to canada are as significant as mexico. Talking little bit about obviously, corn and grain to mexico. Whats the dynamic look like with our northern border . Owling we work with canadian corn growers as an organization. We dont send a lot of corn to candidate we send corn byproducts. Sweeteners, ethanol goes into canada. Our livestock friends. They feed corn to the cattle in and they import a lot of our livestock. Its a big part of our trade barrier there. Mr. Grumet in a few minutes i want to ask you about the parlor game of prognostication. Always challenging, probably more so challenging now than ever before, in my experience. Do you think congress should resolve this . Should the administration . Would you think . What you think . Obviously something is going to change with this agreement. Do you have any suggestion for the best process to achieve that . Im looking at you, jack. Mr. Gerard i was waiting for chip to answer that one. President has given a notice to congress in their interaction back and forth, think they both have a role to play. The appropriate level of each at the end of the day, we need to balance that with the broader u. S. Interests. It is hard to predict at this point in time as i think we are in the early stages of a substantive conversation. We have had a lot of conversation of Public Discourse about that is good or bad, etc. , but now it is time to really sit down and back to the point you made about bipartisan, we need to focus on the facts and reality. That is an area where i think energy brings a cooler effect to the broader conversation. The reality is, when you look at that interdependence today, a greatly benefits the United States of america. I think we want to take a breath and think long and hard about how we approach any potential changes, and then clearly understand the implications, not only for business, investment, different industries, but ultimately at the end of the game, the American Public and American Consumer. In many instances they are the ones concerned about these relationships and these agreements. And so we should not lose the Vantage Point of that perspective. Mr. Grumet chip, i know like us you are a big fan of secretary sunny purdue. He was very engaged in these questions. Say what you can about your interactions. Mr. Bowling as we know, the administration will be heavily involved with what happens with nafta. We can hope for, along with the help of mr. Purdue, would be to bring people like me to the table, corn, soybeans, wheat, any agriculture commodity bring us to the table. We know that nafta has worked. We dont want to have any part of blocking trade. So they bring us in, work with all of us as a unit, and make sure that if they are going to be changes, that it will be positive changes. The hardware stores, the local card billy ships. Local car dealerships. When farmers out in Rural America are making less money and having trade issues, it affects people way down the line. More than just our 300,000 checkoff members and National Corn growers. It affects thousands and thousands of people. Mr. Grumet i could keep going for a while, and i may, but with the audience like this, i will have the opportunity for questions. We have some footage somewhere. If folks could just announce who you are. If we have a microphone back here. Maybe they are finding their mi c. What are you just end up and project. Oh, there you are. Jack, two years ago there was a major effort for crude. Your organization spent a lot to make it happen to allow u. S. Producers to export crude. But you did not imagine that the biggest threat to energy trade would come from a republican administration. I wonder obviously this is a process. Are your members prepared to spend as much resources and efforts to keep nafta energy trade flowing . Is that a comparable effort or is there something you are going to do along with other things . Mr. Gerard well, we work on a lot of different issues. You talked about the u. S. Crude oil ban being lifted. I think it is very consistent with the broader conversation were having today about trade generally. We operate in the foundation of freetrade principles. Our view is the American People benefit most when we allow for free trade, when we allow for open borders, and allow the markets of a capital to find what is friendly to invest and produce that energy for the benefit of consumers. What is happening in the marketplace is a result of lots of supply coming on, primarily driven by Technological Advancements on horizontal drilling. Yet again, the consumer is the major beneficiary. Overtime, we believe we have a constructive dialogue with the administration and with congress on this issue and our hope and expectation is as we ground this in a fact based conversation, the outcome will be positive. We will eventually get to where we be in this conversation and many others because we will ground it in reality and fact. I think it is premature to project exactly where it is going to go. But clearly we want to be engaged in that dialogue. Right now it is a very constructive dialogue with the secretary and others to make sure we have open avenues of communication. Mr. Grumet other questions . If you could pull over thank you. Im a reporter from the toronto star in canada. In april the president complained about canada on a few issues. Some of which are known as bilateral irritants like lumber. He also mentioned energy. None of us in canada really knew what he was referring to. Did you know what he was talking about . Are there any irritants that you can see in this u. S. Canada Energy relationship . Mr. Gerard im not sure what he was talking about at that time either. Our view is as long as the border is open, i think some of the irritants that the president may have been referencing i would have to see this quote might have been over the keystone xl pipeline conversation. In our view that was totally unnecessary. Through multiple reviews it showed there was minimal impact to the environment. Yet once again it was consistent with freetrade principles allowing some of the heavy Oil Production from the oil to essentially be brought to the United States. Much of our midwest refinery capacity relies on heavy oil coming in from canada. I am not sure what other irritants he may have been referencing at the time. At the time the Keystone Pipeline was a big part of the conversation and that may have been what he was talking about. Mr. Grumet right up front. The National Association of Foreign Trade zones. I was interested to hear your thoughts or concerns if an overarching objective of these negotiations is to reduce the bilateral merchandise trade deficits with canada and mexico. Mr. Bowling for us it would be huge because there is a deficit when it comes to Agricultural Products coming from mexico into this country. We rely on them buying a lot of our product and we rely on them being able to do that relatively easy. I said before, we have a willing customer that wants to buy our product. If they cant return the favor, so to speak, by us buying back, unfortunately it is one of those casualties of war i hate to say it that way, but we have a willing purchaser of our product and want to make sure to keep it that way. Mr. Gerard in the sense of the energy trade, it cuts both ways. Sometimes your a net import, sometimes you net export. The president s directive is focused on job creation and Economic Activity in the United States. Thats why it is so important we understand what that means. The refinery i referenced earlier, bringing in product from mexico then send it back in the form of a refined product, that employs 3000 americans. These are not small institutions, these are big industries. When you balance all that out i think you need to look at it at a holistic way to make sure you dont unintentionally adversely impact something by merely relying on a number and not thinking through what the numbers really represent and what it means for our society and our workforce, for that matter. Mr. Grumet i have another question while our shy group mulls. That is to try to put this issue in broader context. Trade is obviously a very significant aspect of our economic capacity. Deficits are one part of that conversation. If we really are focused on the underlying essential goal of increasing economic strength and jobs, where do you place the nafta issues in the broader context of tax reform and regulatory reform, the full basket of aspirations to strengthen the economy . Mr. Gerard its all part of an integrated global system. The earlier question, for example the u. S. Lifting of the crude oil ban. That was a significant shift of policy in this country because it brought us to a global marketplace, an opportunity for us to produce more domestically with our modern techniques and technologies, yet have markets for the free flow of exports, to have product to be able to find markets elsewhere. As a mentioned earlier, when you look at this in the broader context in the geopolitical perspective, we had a lot of allies in europe who would love to import u. S. Produced energy. When you look at nafta, while it is north americacentric, itll it all contributes that broader conversation. We are hopeful that when the substance is really looked at, it doesnt in pete impede or hinder that free flow of goods. We were talking about increasing our imports in this country to fuel our domestic economy. Now a decade later we are talking about selfsufficiency. It is brought about by supply and demand, freemarket principles. Were hoping modernization of this agreement will take all that and a global context in mind, not limit it to north america. Mr. Grumet do you see what happened to nafta being a predicate for the global trade discussion . Tpp is a conversation of the past but those issues remain. Does your industry see nafta as a predicate for that conversation . Mr. Bowling we do because it will probably be the first one that comes up as far as being renegotiated. Yes. We cant afford to not have trade all around the world, as jack said, global trade. We need to make sure our product moves freely to whatever product whatever country is willing to buy. Whatever renegotiation of nafta will set the precedent for other countries to see how we manage the situation and how the u. S. Is looked at if we are a willing seller and a buyer. This first one is going to be the biggie. Mr. Grumet another question here . Right up front. Bill thompson. Itc is looking into tariffs now of ideas for new tariffs, duties on mexican products as part of this renegotiation. Is that one of the things that concerns you . In other words, if there are new tariffs on mexican products tariffs right now on corn or wheat is that what you would consider to be collateral damage, maybe, a possibility . Mr. Bowling there is no tariff right now on corn going into mexico. We have heard is there could be a 37 tariff makes brazilian and argentinian corn cheaper than u. S. Corn. So, the mexican officials we talked to come we had a reverse trade mission last week when we had mexican grain buyers and feed manufacturers here in d. C. They have already said they had started to negotiate with brazil and argentina. If we falter on u. S. Corn going into mexico, they have willing sellers that come from that country. If there is a 37 tariff put on, it does not make us the cheapest supplier anymore. Mr. Grumet ladies and gentlemen, you could not get a better warmup. Im pleased to share with you that the secretary is in the building. So if you could join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] mr. Grumet they promised they are going to work out this ethanol thing as they head out. Mr. Grumet mr. Secretary, we got you a fresh glass of water. Appreciate that very much. Welcome, sir. [applause] mr. Grumet everyone says that our guest needs introduction and they go forward to introduce, and of course thats what im going to do. But im going to keep it short. As you all know, secretary wilbur ross is the 39th secretary. He was sworn in february this year. He was recently in for quite a few years the chairman and chief strategy officer. I like that you hung on to that. That was them by standby what is the president trying to accomplish with this negotiation . It is a variety of things. The first guiding principle is do no harm, because there were things achieved under nafta and other trade agreements. So the first rule is do no harm. Then the second rule of thumb would be, there were a number of concessions the nafta countries made in connection with the tpp. And so, we would view those as sort of a starting point for discussion. But think about it it is an old agreement. It didnt address digital economy, a really didnt address much in the way of services, especially not much in the way of financial services. There are big holes in it. Beyond that, there are issues like intellectual property rights, regulatory practices, customs procedures, sanitary regulations, labor issues, environmental issues, issues about dealing with the snes, and most of all, enforcement. There is not much point going to the trouble of making an elaborate trade agreement if you are not going to enforce it and really get the benefits of it that you bargained for. Mr. Grumet thats a great list and we are to have a chance to dig into a lot of that. I think a lot of people in this room and others are really comforted by your initial statement, which is the goal first and foremost is do no harm. The president made some people nervous a few weeks ago. I think the president was elected on a mandate to shake things up. Nafta certainly is among the things that was being shaken. What can you share with us about that kind of commitment to do no harm . Can people not take it as a given that the idea were going to tear up the agreement is no longer part of the conversation . Sec. Ross the president never announced he was going to tear up the agreement. That was speculation, mostly in the media. So i dont think you can hang that on him, or for that matter, on me. Mr. Grumet fair. [laughter] mr. Grumet all the list that you mentioned, you talk about tpp concessions, where you see some of the lower hanging fruit that could be the engine of that negotiation . You have a lot of places you can start. Where are some places you might pick first . Sec. Ross well, the easiest ones will be the ones that were not contained in the original agreement because that is new territory, that is not anyone giving up anything. By and large, though should be the easiest issues to get done. But they are important because one of our objectives will be to try to incorporate into nafta basic principles that we would like to have followed in subsequent freetrade agreements rather than starting each one with a blank sheet of paper. Mr. Grumet say more about this principles. I think we had a conversation before you joined about the importance of nafta and the first step of this much larger global conversation. What are some of the predicates that you think are going to be critical . Sec. Ross well, one of our big objectives is to reduce our trade deficit. There are lots of ways of doing that. The way that we think is the easiest, not just for these two countries but for anybody with whom would partner, would be to divert to u. S. Sources products they are already buying from abroad but from a country other than the u. S. Some of the Agricultural Products they buy come from brazil. This would give us a better market share than we have now. That is just one example of many. Mr. Grumet the issue of deficits is obviously significant in the administrations policy. The department has held public hearings on this. Are all deficits created equal . I mean, it means a lot of Different Things to a lot of different people. Sec. Ross i dont know if i would classify them good, medium, and bad. I think theres no question that trade surpluses are more beneficial to a country than trade deficit. But within deficits there are two categories that i would call. One is what i would call blameless deficit. For example, we are not yet selfsufficient in energy. So naturally we are going to have something of a deficit caused by importation of hydrocarbons. So, thats an important consideration because relative to canada, more than our entire deficit comes from hydrocarbons that they export to the u. S. I dont call that blameful exports. What is blameful are things that are subsidized or not within a label level playing field, or come from some other inappropriate behavior rather than a natural course. Mr. Grumet talk about the process of renegotiation. One process in which the president has initiated the conversation, to what extent do you think it is possible the changes could begun within the scope of the existing statute . To what extent you think congressional action is necessary . Is there the possibility of a hybrid of those approaches . Sec. Ross by and large, any be change would need congressional approval. That is why we labored so hard to deal with the socalled fasttrack approach. That has some procedural steps that still have to be followed. We did send the socalled ninetyday letter on may 18. That will mature on august 16. That is when the debt negotiations can first get going. There is also a waystation in between in midjuly 30 days before the end. We have to have a very full discussion with the congressional committees about more detailed objectives then we have put forward so far. Mr. Grumet so obviously that would be formal negotiations. There have been quite a few informal conversations happening between the three countries. How productive have those been and what can you share with us about the tenor and focus of those conversations . Sec. Ross well, those heaven have been longstanding have been trying to clear away some longstanding issues between the countries. In the case of mexico, sugar is a principal one. And in the case of canada, there are two. Softwood lumber and dairy products. Mr. Grumet and do you imagine those will be solved within the context of the renegotiation, or do you think they will be readdressed . Sec. Ross well, we have been negotiating on both for quite a while. They are many years in the making. So whether we can get them finished in the remaining few days before nafta, i dont know. In both of them, if there is no formal negotiated solution, there is they are the outgrowth of trade cases, so we will impose the duties and antidumping in those cases if there is no negotiated settlement. Mr. Grumet i want to ask about the process of government here. The trade focus and commerce obviously has the lead. But there are Significant National security questions. Having Close Friends on both our borders matter a lot. There are questions about immigration enforcement. What has been the process through which you and your peers have been having this conversation . Sec. Ross well, Security Issues are pretty clearly defined. They are not name of the province of trade negotiations. Homeland security has spent quite a bit of time with their mexican counterparts and with canadian counterparts, for that matter. So, there may well be some issues incorporated into nafta, but those are sort of separate discussions. Mr. Grumet and you think from a political standpoint, it is possible there will be more security conversations maturing in that same timeframe that could come as a package . Sec. Ross i think there are Border Security discussions underway all the time. Mr. Grumet i want to ask a little bit about, beyond just ux , u. S. canadao conversation. I would be curious in your sense, how specific are the conversations between canada and mexico. D think these are the same things that had influenced our conversations with chancellor merkel . Sec. Ross they are a member state of the european union. All trade negotiations are handled at the European Commission level. So while there are differences in our trade relationship with the various member states, it is not possible to have separate negotiations. So that is not on the table. We do have, however, and overall trade deficit with the eu. So in that sense, it gets subsumed within it. Mr. Grumet i want to turn back to a broader question about the importance of nafta, not just in the psyche of the nation. The president spoke passionately during the campaign about people who he felt had been left behind. The American Dream had really become less available to so many people in this country. Unfair trade, emblematic around the conversation in nafta, has become a symbol of that larger conversation. I wonder if you agree with that premise. My second question is, the expectations that we are creating about the influence that improving nafta can have on that broader conversation. Are we setting people up for unrealistic aspirations . Sec. Ross well, not all the unemployment problems and not all the joblessness problems are a result of nafta or any other trade agreement. Some of them are simply due to increased automation, robotics, artificial intelligence, things of that sort. And those are problems that will recur on an even broader basis in the future. So no one is saying this is the Silver Bullet that solves every problem for the country. But it is one of the ones where we have some degree of control, and therefore it is one that very much should be addressed. Mr. Grumet do you have a one of the questions that a number of people have raised is there is a significant elections process happening in mexico. And obviously one of the candidates doesnt have the same kind of affinity for the u. S. Capitalist system as the other. What is the sensitivity to having this conversation happening right in the middle of that domestic political challenge . Sec. Ross well, we had hoped to have had it earlier, but it took longer to get congress to the point of the ninetyday letter. So it would have been preferable to have had it even earlier so that it was a little further separated from the mexican election. But there have also been elections British Columbia just had an election, and some of our trade conversations with controversies are very much with British Columbia. So there is always somebody having an election. And my guess is that we probably have the best window from now until december or early january. Their election is mid year so the closer you get to it the more complicated it will become, particularly in terms of getting the Mexican Congressional approval. But we also should not forget the trade expires next year. We too have midterm elections. Those will undoubtedly have some impact on congressional views. Mr. Grumet im not asking you to name any names, but have engaged, how effective have individual members been in addressing their concerns . Do you think there is a constructive, delivered effort underway . Sec. Ross concerns about what . Mr. Grumet concerns about ways in which changes could undermine their district. Are you hearing a lot about members from congress . Sec. Ross we hear a lot from members of congress all the time on a variety of topics. On individual trade issues, on individual problems of individual companies. We hear from them all the time. They are not at all shy about expressing their views. Mr. Grumet not being shy and not being effective are not necessarily the same thing. Do you think you are getting good information . Sec. Ross at the end of the day people will hopefully have a new agreement to look at and then you can judge of what has been effective and what has not been effective, and if we have overall done an effective job. Mr. Grumet a couple other questions before i let you go. I know you have to be across town soon. The mere act of change creates uncertainty. You cant have progressed without uncertainty but there has been quite a bit of anxiety and youve seen a lot of Market Movement around different stages of this process. When the president people thought they would be ending the agreement, you step in. How possible is it to put boundaries around the negotiation . I think you laid out a a pretty clear framework. But there is an imagination that the u. S. Might walk away from this agreement. Can the administration say more explicitly that these are the boundaries of the conversation, these are the components that you think are meaningful and should be sustained . Sec. Ross i think the last thing you want to do in any negotiation is to announce an advanced your ending point because that will become the starting point. Mr. Grumet i wouldnt to the outcome, but you could talk about what is on the table for discussion. Again, i think the list you laid out sec. Ross well, i just did. Mr. Grumet well thats important new information for the country, that i appreciate very much. Breaking news here. Secretary, i want to and by end by giving you an opportunity to talk about where you see other opportunities to discuss the president s opportunity for growth. What other aspirations the you have a congress and other places that will provide that kind of package . 3 , 4 , 5 growth that would make us all very happy. Sec. Ross trade is one. Regulatory reform, which we have also been helping out on, is a very major one. Maybe in some ways the most major one. Infrastructure is another important one. Not least of all, tax policy and energy policy. All of those are essential components of getting to a more rapid, more robust growth rate. Mr. Grumet mr. Secretary, you have a big job ahead of you. Im going to let you go back at it. We greatly appreciate you joining us this afternoon. Sec. Ross thank you. Good to see you. [applause] mr. Grumet we have a 10 year lease on the building, so i will welcome you all to spend time and interact with one another but we are going to try to let the secretary exit stage left. Thank you, sir. X a discussion about the state of congress and how it differs from the founders vision. Former congressman mickey edwards. At 8 00 eastern here on cspan. Sunday on q and a. X there is a political structure that was structured Herbert Hoover and those roles 90 years ago still govern the way we actually allow resources to be used in our economy today. Professor and former chief economist at the fcc, thomas hazel it talks about his book which looks at the history and politics of u. S. Communications policy. Motor went to the system when we went through the system for looking at our renewing licenses but very carefully noting that propaganda stations will not be allowed. Early on, 1929, you had left owned by the w cfl union, ao, a labor socialist that bought a station near new york city. They wanted for political purposes, free speech they wanted to espouse their opinion. Propagandadubbed stations and when they were renewed, they were told to be very careful about expressing their opinions. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern on cspans q and a. Next a conference on internet regulation. We will hear from the new fcc neutrality privacy in wireless innovation. Ok, well everyone is so quiet that i think we should get started. That was really good