Transcripts For CSPAN3 Institute Of International Finance Policy Summit Trade Policy 20170505

Global Affairs Global Government Affairs at policy at ge. Laura fraedrich, partner at jones day and warren maruyama, so please welcome them to the stage. Well, we saved the most timely topics for last and thank you for joining. One of the reasons this is particularly interesting is because President Trumps views have been developed over the 30 years so when you look at his public statements from trade in the late 80s, he uses language strikingly similar to today. In light of who hes picked to go into the administration, karan, how do you understand the president s objectives . First of all, kristen, i would say theyre evolving. What we saw coming out of certainly the campaign, coming out of the early days of the transition was a very strident, i think a lot of people used the term protectionist tone. I think we have seen even within the span of 90 plus days sort of an evolution in some of the messaging. I think take the nafta letter to congress for instance that was recently submitted. Much more measured frankly not particularly surprising tone. So i would say first of all, i think theres been there has been an evolution, may continue to be an evolution. The second thing is, theres not a single view within the white house or the administration. I think you have sort of a at least two or three different sort of theories of what trade policy should be and what it should look like. What unites them all theyre all focus on addressing trade deficits and i think they are focused very much on enforcement. But again those are not untypical or atypical topics for a new administration coming in. And so i think what i will say, i think where the differences lie to some extent is the question how do you address the trade deficits . I think you have one school of thought that perhaps a more Republican School of thought that can generate more exports. And address it through the growth side of the equation. I think you have another school that is heavily focused on the import side and looking to see what they can do in that sphere. So look, i think it is a fascinating period to be watching how this evolves. Its actually on that point, gary cohn said earlier that the president is happy to close the deficit with china with exports. I think a lot of the Business Community hopes thats the way it proceeds. So we have talked today about on a lot of topics where congress operates as a real constraint. We talked about tax reform, budget and so on. To what extent is that true on trade policy . What things can the president do on his own . Yeah, theres quite a bit of things that the president can do on his own. Theres a number of trade remedy laws that have been on the books for some time that we havent heard of recently. We actually heard of one of them yesterday and today and the actions related to section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1964. So the secretary of commerce has initiated investigation into the effect of steel imports on the National Security of the United States. Generally this investigation will take about 270 days, but President Trump today said that he wants to expedite it and hopefully have something done in as quick as 50 days. So after the investigation is completed, commerce makes the recommendation and its possible that the president could actually impose some sort of import barriers or some sort of tariffs. Thats an example of one of the less likely used laws that can be used by President Trump without congressional action. The others are things like the trade remedies laws. They have been used a lot in the past by u. S. Industries who are injured by either dumped or subsidized imports, but its also possible for the administration to selfinitiate cases. We may see more of that here from one of the executive orders that well talk about later. Its clear that President Trump is very concerned about enforcement in the adcdv area and i think there will be some more cases. Some selfinitiated by the administration. For example, in all of 2016 there were 17 cases filed in the adcdb area and there have been seven filed. If we were to continue with that trend, we didnt have quite that many filed at the beginning of this year. But if we were to continue with that trend now, you know, we could have something along the lines of 45 cases filed. I think well see more there. There are also some other more unused laws like section 338 of the tariff act of 1930. That allows for the imposition of up to 50 add valorem tariffs on goods if theres a discrimination action with regard to trade. Thats in the trade act of 1974. But those are again laws that the president might be able to use looking at whats been done in other countries and imposing some sort of duties on goods coming into the United States. Finally, in the trade remedy sort of area, we have a law called its the International Economic International Emergency economic powers act. Which we call ieepa. We refer to it as ieepa. It has broad provisions, its related to the National Security. Some of you might be familiar with it because its the underpinning of our economic sanctions laws but it has very broad provision that allows for an investigation and possibly terrorist or actions to be taken if there is an extraordinary threat to the National Security or Foreign Policy or economy of the United States. So its possible that something along those lines could be used to bring additional tariffs on to goods. This isnt exactly too farfetched because the trading with the enemies act which was sort of a precursor to ieepa and also the underpinnings of our cuban sanctions was actually used in this context back in 1971 to put the 10 tariff on steel imports. And that was actually upheld in the courts and its possible that Something Like that could be done under ieepa. Really broad latitude broad latitude in other areas such as sanctions. A lot of the economic sanctions laws are done through executive order. Thats something thats clearly available to the president. It could also probably withdraw from nafta on his own. Theres been some debate about that. Implementing legislation said that parties are permitted to withdraw, but it does not specify who. But most of the trade practitioners think its quite likely this at the president can withdraw on his own. In addition to the memorandum that laura mentioned we have some hints about where the administration is headed. One of which was a written trade policy agenda that the administration sent to Congress Last month. Tell us, laura, what was your take away from that . Well, it was one of the first documents that the administration put out. So im not sure how much stock to put it into it. Some of the parts of it are pretty standard. U. S. Trade rhetoric and could have come out of the past administrations including u. S. Tr when karan and i were there in the george w. Bush administration. But some of them signalled a new direction in u. S. Trade policy. We have to see exactly how those play out. The first is a focus on bilateral negotiations and mega regional ftas, like ttp. The second is a focus on reciprocity and trade deficits as a real test of the effectiveness of u. S. Trade policy and, you know, the value of trade agreements, which is i think pretty debatable. And the third and i think the one that got the most attention was the aggressive vows to defend u. S. Sovereignty. Its pretty clear that the administration doesnt plan to be bound by the rule and plans to defy the wto dispute Settlement Center when it comes to decisions that constrain the u. S. Remedy trade action. As far as the effort to try and pursue new agreements, what theyre interested in is bilateral deals. And this is sort of a change because in the past, the u. S. Has pursued multilateral and bilateral simultaneously. The best known is when george w. Bush went after nafta and the uruguay round at the same time. The multilateral part has faded a bit. Particularly since it started to look like a lost cause but theres a lot of interest in big regional ftas. But the Trump Administration i think is going to be unusual in its focus on bilateral, oneonone negotiations between the u. S. And foreign countries. That has plus and minuses. Professor that garo is right it will increase trade, and a big regional negotiation does run into lowest common denominator problems if youre in the wto the lowest common denominator can get very, very low but bilaterals have problems of its own. It leads to different and conflicting certification requirements. Rules of origin. So in the end, you lack the sort of the strategic component of Something Like ttp where i think part of the obama administrations vision was to knit together the free market economies in the asiapacific. And also bring together our u. S. Allies into the situation where potentially down the road we could negotiate with china as a you know, cohesive block with the single set of rules and trade flowing across the region. The other thing and its a practical problem is trade agreements have to pass the congress. Im not sure that some of these bilaterals are any easier to get past our congress than ttp. So well have to see. And whats left of the outside so take a tough vote, but with less potentially less economic upside. So laura, you mentioned the eos earlier. So whats the upshot of on march 31th, there were two executive orders signed in the trade area and one was the increased enforcement in the counterdumping and countervailing duties. Its difficult to collect those duties. In some cases those who have imported subject to the additional duties go out of business, they disappear. Theres nobody around. Sometimes they just other Companies Just dont pay or they pay late. So this executive order asks to look into enforcement of collection of the duties and particularly if there are importers who have no record of importing into the United States before or who have paid duties late or who have not paid duties. The idea is to look into the enforcement mechanism that would require more security from them at the time that they import the goods. Theyre allowed to use a bond now and so theyre going to look into possibly requiring them to actually either single entry bond that would include all of the duties possibly or more some type of more bonding to make sure that the amount can be collected in the end. Secondly, there was an executive order signed to do an omnibus report on the trade deficit. President trump is very concerned about the trade deficit. Hes got a lot of the different agencies who would be interested in this looking into the causes of the trade deficit. I think that what comes out of this report could lead to some use of those trade remedies laws i was just talking about a minute ago. And the federal register notice came out this week that says that by may 10th, interested parties need to file comments and a request to appear at the hearing if they want to on this issue. And the hearing is going to be held on may 18th. So thats a particular opportunity for companies who think they have been injured or impacted by goods that are imported that are causing the trade deficit and by the way, china accounts for about 50 of our trade deficit. So thats an area where we could see action related to china. And then this week, the buy american hire american executive order was signed where theres going to be an assessment of buy america enforcement by Government Agencies. So various Government Agencies have requirements to buy American Goods under certain circumstances for the goods they buy. So they want to look into the enforcement of that and the issuance of waivers under that. Theyre going to be look at the various trade agreements that warren was talking about. And they want to see if some of those need to be tightened. Theyre going to look at the h1b visa program to make sure that u. S. Persons are hired when theyre available and have the skills that are usually part of that program. And then just today, a president ial memorandum was signed on that section 232 case i mentioned to investigate the National Security impact of steel imports. Again, if congress recommends an action then the president can take some action that can impose some additional duties. This is rarely used. It was last used in the iron other and semifinished steelcase where Congress Found there was no threat. Well see what happens in this case. You want to pick up on one of the points, the president focuses on the measure of the trade policy. Whats your reaction to whether thats the right measure . So look, i mean, economists and warren alluded to this before are going to tell you the trade people in general are going toll the you thats not going to tell you thats not the right thing to focus on and you have to take a more holistic view and deficits in a whole may not be a bad thing. At least within certain periods of time. I get the economic argument. I mean, the analogy that i have heard used as well as thinking of it from a corporate perspective. You are going to have bilateral surpluses with your end customers. Going to have bilateral deficits with your suppliers. Its focusing on any individual partner doesnt make a whole lot of sense, but i will say i think whats motivating the Trump Administration to some extent here is just a sense and frankly, a lot of the American People who voted for him is a sense that the International System is not working well. And that there are companies there are countries out there that are cheating. And there are agreements that are incomplete or have never been fully implemented. And that in the absence of some, you know, easy way to measure that, thats accurate, look at the bilateral trade deficit. Look to see is it perfect, no. But is it a proxy to some extent of whether the other country is living by the obligations, thats the way i think theyre tending to think about it. I also think there may be frankly a more negotiated related sort of sophisticated reason here. Which is the sense that i say this as a former trade negotiator. Warren will i think agree. There is this perspective that ustr has extraordinary powers to go out there and force people to comply. Force new agreements to be reached. The reality is that american trade negotiators have long had sort of one hand tied behind their back. So the perception at least that youve got an administration, a president , that is willing to a sort of really focus on the bilateral relationship, hold that particular country to account and may use some of these powers that are out there. In fact, perhaps arms our trade negotiators more they have been armed before and secure either Additional Market access or corrections to the violations of the International Trade laws that have been agreed to. So i think to yes, the sheer focus on bilateral trade deficits most would say is unsound. But placed in the broader context of how theyre thinking about this, there may be some method to it. I wanted to turn to some of the regional questions. We talked a little bit with gary cohn earlier on china. Coming out of the summit, President Trump basically reversed himself on his Campaign Pledge to designate china as a currency manipulator and to be very fair hes not the first president to shift on china post election. But im wondering how do you see this sort of evolving on the trade and investment side . Well, kristen, i think were seeing the responsibilities of being president of the United States start to sink in. Its clear that the overriding concern for the administration is the north Korean Nuclear threat. Having someone with Nuclear Weapons and in the final stages of developing an icbm with a potential to reach los angeles and San Francisco does affect your priorities. So its not surprising that some of the trade issues got pushed back. I mean, we havent heard anything about 45 tariffs on china for months i would say. They didnt designate them as a currency manipulator on day one and thats not going to hoappen and its not clear if china is actually manipulating the currency down, its probably propping it up. The big thing out of maralago was this 100 day review. Karan and i have both negotiated with china unfortunately and theyre very adept at these negotiations. Theyre very well prepared usually. And they know exactly what they can do and how far theyre prepared to go. And theyre very good also at offering very tantalizing hints about removing various trade barriers. The one concrete thing that seems to have come out of it was a commitment or probably at the end of the 100 day process to open up the Chinese Market or reopen the Chinese Market to american beef which has been shut out for about ten years because of the mad cow disease or bse where two u. S. Cows were found to have bse. This is an instance of repromising since i think the chinese already promised this to the obama administration. They also dont have much of a leg to stand on because japan, china, korea have all reopened their markets and the International Body which handles the meat Safety Standards have said that the u. S. Beef is safe. But its smart because as a deliverable at the end of the 100 day process, it probably gives trump a lot of political cover. The beef industry is quite strong. Im sure theyll be overjoyed at the thought of 1. 2 billion chinese eating beef. Our beef, that is. And theres probably enough to clear the 100 day exercise to declare the 100 day exercise a success. I think with china know even if we dont see a big blowup we can see a big blowup if theyre less helpful with north korea. We can see the section 232 that laura mentioned, section 301 if they pull that out of the u. S. Trade arsenal where its been sort of buried for about 20 years. So youre going to see some fights around the edges but it doesnt look as though hes ready to really blow up u. S. china trade. Gary mentioned the discussions at maralago around services which is very welcome do the people in this room. Whats your level of optimism on that side. Well, the chinese have been studying whether to allow u. S. Banks and Insurance Companies to acquire a majority ownership. I suppose its possible it would happen. They have been very keeping control of the financial system. So i wouldnt really count on it any time soon. Karan may have a different view. No, i dont necessarily have a different view. I think that i think theres going to be a fascinating negotiation because youve got sort of interesting politics on both sides, right . Youve got President Trump whos clearly sort of signalled that china is the to some extent be all and end all of effective trade negotiating. Its clearly the largest bilateral trade deficit. On the Services Point i tend to think his focus is much more on the manufactured goods side of the equation. So i think not that that wouldnt be relevant and theres sophisticated people in the administration who understand the importance of that. But i think its going to be looking much more on that. On that side. I think the ag side will get some attention. So i think you have that set of pressures. On the chinese side you have got pressures with the congress coming up towards the end of the year. President xi anxious to not look weak in the face of sort of this pressure. I understand there was some discussion about whether a hundred days was the right length of time. Wouldnt it be better on the chinese side if this had been 180 days or whatever it is. Push past the congress and i think the administrations credit was able to keep it on the shorter time line. So look, i think youre going to see i think you will see a ratcheting up frankly in both the level of public pressure around this. And i also thing youre going to see a variety of the kinds of things that laura and warren were referring to in terms of steps on the antidumping, the countervailing duty, the trade remedy side that at some point in time people are going to say, this is not simply a one off thing. I mean, when we were in the administration, it was much a single antidumping case over steel at that point. If youre thinking about the array of things that are potentially being thought about here, you could have quite a different dynamic. So my own anticipation, i would imagine at the end of the day in will be some declaration of success around the negotiation here. But i think in the interim youre going to see at least the perception of sort of growing pressure. If you see that, whats your response, if you see them start to ratchet up . I think the chinese have sort of clearly identified and have signalled to the world that theyre going to look they would reciprocate against american exports which they certainly could do. Theyre a sophisticated trading partner. They wouldnt be the first one to play that game. I think the connection to the National Security issues, warren mentioned its very interesting. It looked like the trade issues were going to dominate and some of the National Security issues including our relationship with taiwan might be on the table and that seems to have been entirely flipped. It looks like north korea is going to be the sort of the primary motivator, and that some of the trade issues are up for im sure the others have thoughts on this. I dont disagree with that. I think the observation about china and north korea is certainly apt in that regard. But from what i understand, this president , you know, in the multiple bilateral meetings hes had not only with china, but many World Leaders becomes engaged and animated when the subject turns to trade and actually has a very transactional view of this. So, you know, presented with an example of a specific sale or a tender or something or a Market Access barrier that it will become quite direct with the foreign leader on it. So while i dont disagree at the end of the day Foreign Policy calculations are going to figure into this, i also think you do to some extent have somebody whos going to always have that focus on the trade because they resonate. Theres something thats something he has spoken of for a long time. I think trade and National Security is getting linked. This 232 memorandum is about trying to see if the import of steel is affecting the National Security of the United States. That memorandum also listed semiconductors, automobiles, ship building. Aluminum. So there are other industries that theyre trying to link with the National Security of the United States. Another area im seeing it linked in the committee on the Foreign Investment access. Theres a law that allows the president to divest themselves if they have control and theres National Security or Critical Infrastructure concerns. So normally when were in front of the committee the parties can go to the committee. Its an Interagency Committee that reviews the transactions and will clear them so they never have to worry about being required to divest. Normally when were in there talking about this, were only talking about National Security issues. Are there government contracts, is this a military business, whats the export control status of the products . Recently we were talking about things like if this transaction goes through, how many jobs will be saved in the United States . Looking at a different view of sort of trade policy and National Security from what we have seen before. So i want to go to the audience questions via the ipad in a minute. Feel free to send them through the app. But we should certainly talk about nafta. Laura mentioned theres some possibility that the president could even withdraw from nafta. Without congressional support. Nafta was one of the cornerstone issues in the Trump Campaign and so warren, what do you expect with respect to renegotiation or even withdrawal from nafta . Well, the signals have been all over the place. I think about three or four weeks ago the ustr had some draft objectives that surprisingly or not surprisingly leaked. It was heartening for a free trader like me that the objective seemed relatively limited and it started out with a very heart warming paragraph about the benefits of nafta and the jobs and everything like that. But i think what that suggests is that it probably was written by career staff and its not clear that bannon or Peter Navarro saw it. If you heard or read the transcript of President Trumps remarks yesterday, a couple of days ago in wisconsin when he announced his buy american hire american initiative, he reverted i think pretty completely to Campaign Mode where he called nafta a disaster. Said he was going to demand i think big changes and he was prepared to walk away if the mexicans didnt fork over. So its not completely clear how those two pieces will come together. I personally think that its probably going to bend toward the usgr approach. Simply because most Big American Companies have supply chains that are close he integrated with closely integrated with canada and mexico. And for a lot of them, mexico particularly is a big, big market. The Canada Agreement would likely stay in effect even if we walked away from nafta because it was suspended. But the other factor here is american agriculture where mexico has turned into the huge market and this remember trump won for two reasons. One, he got the blue collar vote and broke the democratic blue wall in some traditionally democratic states but he also swept just about every rural county in america, often by 70 margins which is how he offsets losing to Hillary Clinton in the cities. If you go around the Rural Counties what you see are soybeans, wheat, beans, corn, beef, pork, all of them trump voters and all who would walk away if we lose our access to markets like china and mexico which are our second and Third Largest agricultural export markets. But youre going to have is a tough negotiation. There are a couple things that are, you know, bringing in parts of the ttp that are broad u. S. Support. But some of them are going to be pretty controversial and hard for the mexicans and canadians to swallow. Chapter 19 which they want to eliminate was canadas big gain in the nafta negotiations. It provides for review of u. S. Dumping and countervailing duty cases by National Panels which typically have tended to strike down u. S. Orders. We have a big case going on right now on canadian soft wood lumber. If anyone needed to remind the canadians why its important. Theres talk about fiddling with tax differentials which appears to be a reference to trumps long stated goal of dealing with v. A. T. Export rebates and you have references to toughening up Government Procurement so it would allow more u. S. Content which is hard thing for the canadians particularly to swallow. So probably youre going to have a very long negotiation. I think the idea that its going to be finished by the end of the year is a pipe dream. Its probably going to stretch on into next year. And next year you start bumping up against congressional midterm elections and the mexican president ial election where the candidate mr. Oeberdor is gaining ground. Its an interesting set of pieces you have to pull together, especially since they have to get it through the congress. So we have a couple of questions from the audience. One is how do you achieve more bilateral trade agreements with the back group of the rhetoric . Who would like to take i guess i think that in any negotiation its going to be a dialogue and not a monologue. I think when we hear President Trumps comments and what he wants to do, he makes it sound like oh, this is all going to be what america wants. But i think its mitch more of a much more of a dialogue and im sure the negotiators on the panel will have more to say about that. I think i would say the following. First of all, we have to differentiate and, you know, warren sort of is making this point as well. We have to differentiate between the president s rhetoric and how the rest of the administration goes about, you know, implementing the actual agenda. I think the president again, to some extent to in fact strengthen the hands of his negotiators. And some extent simply because this is just the way this president is is going to push forward with the America First rhetoric. I dont think thats going to change and at the same stage the reality is many of our trading partners around the world are happy to enter into bilateral trade agreemds with us agreements that move us forward. And i dont think theyre irreconcilab irreconcilable. I think at the end first of all, i think the world going to become inured to some of the rhetoric and i think secondly, i think at the end of the day theyre going to do a very clear mind and clear eyed calculation is a trade agreement in our best interests or not . So i actually think there is a path forward. I think they need to get their heads into what goes into the bilateral trade agreement. If it is an export led, export focused growing the pie kind of exercise, youre going to get support for it. If it is a figuring out how do you carve back on the multilateral and the bilateral relations that exist, youll have hard time. The measurement of the deficit changes when taking other measurements like the import content of export, so is there any possibility the administration is going to use alternative ways to measure the deficit . Well, they have floated the idea of jiggering with the trade deficit calculations. I suppose thats an easy way to get the trade deficit down but they backed away from it pretty quickly. The trade deficit is imperfect since a lot of stuff, you know, like huge deficits with china. I dont think you can do anything to wash those away. But a lot of american content goes into Something Like the iphone. Including the ipr and a fair number of the parts so its and when you look at canada or mexico, some of the anecdotes that are being thrown out, some of the car parts cross the border seven times before they go into the car and at the end of the day, that car may be is probably has well, not dual, but triple citizenship. Another one, the administration will not designate china as a currency manipulator. Will they designate anyone else . We did i did an interesting piece on this, i recommend to everyone. You know, i cant take a position. We have members from 70 different countries. Sure. I guess it depends on if you need their help with north korea. I dont i dont see that happening imminently would be my guess. Theres certainly cases to be made. I understand that some there may be countries that are doing it. I still dont think its likely that youll see the administration do it any time soon. That would be my guess. I dont know. I think theyll go ahead and do it. For someone like korea, who has intervened in the currency markets in order to drive down the yuan. There are some mechanical criteria laid out by obama and carried over by trump and if someone crosses the thresholds youre going to have to turn yourself into the pretzel to justify not naming them as a currency manipulator. But the other thing is being named as a currency manipulator is not the end of the world and the remedies that are possible are very i would say very weak and are possible are very k i would say very weak tea and unlikely to deter going down the drain because the currency is overvalued. Last one, im para phrasing here, ttpp is dead, would you expect any interaction with respect to trade to europe . Uk . After brex it, bilateral negotiations with the uk . Probably the Free Trade Agreement, major Free Trade Agreement thats out there. Cant think of any industry that has concerns about uk . I agree with that but i dont thing you can simply ignore europe as a whole. What they will end up doing is having discussions with europe that may be central discussions and may be discussions with tax policy and discussions over how they jointly approach their countries like china. I think its probably the uk if youre talking about trade discussions more generally, they are going to have continue to have them, perhaps increasingly with Member States rather than with brussels. Thats all right. Provocative point to end the day. Anyway, thank you all very much. Great fascinating discussion. Please join me in thanking our panel. [ applause ] so that is it for today. Thank you for being with us. I hope you found the discussions insightful as we look ahead to the next 100 days of the administration, thanks to ey for their generous sponsorship and thank you to our cspan audience and of course thank you to our speakers who gave up their time to give us their perspective. This weekend on American History tv on cspan3, tonight at 8 00 on lectures in history, Messiah College Professor John via on the people and ideas that shaped the pennsylvania constitution. The continental congress, right, the representatives from all of the colonies have instructed after the july 4th declaration, instructed all of the colonies, now states to form new governments. Sunday at 4 30 p. M. Eastern, secret service and fbi agents reflect on protecting president reagan following the 1981 assassination attempt. When i heard the shots go off i immediately went to my weapon because i recognized shots had gone off. Then i only had seconds obviously to determine where the shots were coming from. By that time you saw the smoke from the weapon and individuals moving towards the potential assailant and moved directly toward him as well. At 8 00, on the presidency, historian Annette Gordan Reed on the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and enslaved hemmings family. People could be bought and sold and that was the thing that many members of the hemmings family, despite whatever privilege Sally Hemmings and her children might have had they all lived with the specter of the possibility that that could happen because the law con trued them as property. And jefferson construed them as property. For our complete American History tv schedule, go to cspan. Org. Tonight at 8 00 on cspan, supporters and critics of President Donald Trump on Foreign Policy during his first 100 days. Heres former u. S. Ambassador to germany, john emerson on the president s credibility with foreign leaders. Lets say were going to talk more about this with the iran nuclear deal. Lets say iran does more than what it typically does. They always walk right up to the edge of violating that thing and we have to pull them back. This happens on a weekly basis. It is a lot of work to kind ever keep that deal moving forward as it has been, which is good. But lets say they violate it. Now, that was a six country deal, right . You had the chinese and russians and germans and french and brits and the americans negotiating with iranians and youve got the other allies, they like this deal. Now President Trump, who by the way spent a good deal of his transition denigrating the Intelligence Community and the quality of information they get and spends time saying that the press is the enemy and that anything he doesnt like is fake news, so now how is he going to go to his allies and say weve got intelligence that shows the iranians are violating this agreement an we need to walk it back and reimpose sanctions . Do you think they are going to believe him . Thats a problem. Breitbart news Senior Editor joe pal lack and former policy anl sift from the Reagan Administration also review the president s early Foreign Policy efforts. Watch the whole thing at 8 00 on cspan. Former secretary of health and Human Services on end of life health care. She reviews the recommendations along with the National Academy of medicine