the

U.S. Trade Policy Priorities: Robert Lighthizer, United States Trade Representative

I am not competent to introduce the US

Trade Representative but fortunately I

got two who are and especially one who

is a close personal friend and that's

Bill Brock Bill Brock senator Brock

chairman of the Republican National

Committee I think he's headed up five or

six national Commission's on education

but one of the things he's most

interested in and proud of as having

been US Trade Representative it was

through his good offices that he was

able to enlist ambassador light Heiser

to join us bill would you come up and

make the formal introductions please

welcome bill Brock

good morning I want to remind John that

there are two other ambassadors here

that he can take care of if something

happens so Karl I'm speaking for you and

me so thank you

I was privileged to hold this trade job

a long time ago and I did love it and I

used to say that economics economic

policy can have more to do with the

peace and stability of the world in all

the diplomats put together maybe it's an

unfair shot but but I do think there's a

fundamental truth to that and the

strength of this country in economic

terms is the source of our strength in

addition to what I think is our moral

strength the fun of being US trade is

that we were trying to open a lot of

doors and particularly in the area of

services intellectual property

investments we were doing some free

trade agreements with Israel in Canada

and when you when you're in that field

you work with the Congress or it doesn't

get done I had a terrific relationship

with Russell long Lloyd Bentsen Bob Dole

and I had a terrific opportunity to work

with the staff director and chief

counsel of the Senate Finance Committee

and it was Bob white Tyson so when he

when he was given the opportunity to by

President Reagan in this case to become

the deputy USTR it was a combination of

people that have worked together and I

think I was very comfortable with that

and the thing that made me comfortable

about this nomination of Bob this year

was that having worked with him I

learned what an extraordinarily

intelligent thoughtful a caring person

he is and frankly I had watched when he

was working with us at UCR him do dozens

of bilaterals if I remember a whole

bunch of so having him with that

background that experienced Senate

Finance USTR leads me to a considerable

comfort in the fact that he knows the

rules and he knows that the rules work

that's important in today's world there

has to be some pattern some consistency

so when you talk about World Trade

Organization or US trade rules the

different sections of trade policy

understanding them and employing them

productively is a fundamentally part

important part of of the job of the US

trade rep so it is with a great deal of

pleasure that I want to introduce

somebody for whom I have a lot of

respect

Bob White has it

[Applause]

Thank You senator

ambassador hills senator frock friends

probably some out here distinguished

guests first when I was asked to do this

and asked by Senator Brock I you it's

not one of those things you can say no

to so I'm happy to see yes but one of

the things that that that I was reminded

of was very early on when we work

together so I'm going from the staff

director of the Senate Finance Committee

to work for for ambassador Brock who I

always called senator Brock and we're

taking our first trip together and I'm

you know a newly minted ambassador and

proud of myself of course and and we're

in those days used to have to fly from

here to New York and then to Paris so

we're going to trip Paris and on the on

the first leg of the trip I'm seeing

actually the senator and I said I

thought I know I'm missing something but

could it be

well it was my passport so I'm I'm an

ambassador flying with my bosses and

ambassadors in the cabinet and I don't

have a passport so I sort of about

halfway through I leaned over and I said

I said senator I think I forgot

something and and I signed my passport

and he it was cool he said not a problem

so we get off it makes a couple of calls

I fly to to Paris with him when they let

us write through somebody brings my

passport the next day and I I come by

and talk to Carol browning CB who was

his secretary that time I said I felt

like such a jerk I forgot an idiot but

he was really cool about it and she said

yeah he was cool he's forgotten yes

three times

literally that's literally a true story

it's one of those things that you kind

of remember when it happens to you

hopefully it won't happen to you now I

have people who tell me you if your

passport bomb that's like my passport I

have been blessed in my life by having

some great mentors and none greater than

senator Dole and Senator Brock everyone

knows my affection for Senator Dole and

I have an equal affection for Senator

Brock he's been a great friend and a

great teacher he was a this

extraordinary career you almost don't

know which title other than governor I

don't think there's a title that I know

of that you haven't had a legitimate Lee

so but something people don't generally

know is that he is is is a bit of an

insurgent he's kind of challenges

orthodoxy when he was when he ran for

Congress and then and succeeded of

course and then ran for the Senate and

succeeded there he ran more as an

insurgent he was not part of the

establishment he was I think of it is is

a little bit like a 1960s or 70s Tea

Party guy it's literally true that's

what he did he took on the kind of the

Baker machine and and and beated and

then at the at the RNC he at some point

he can go through the details but there

were a number of things that were

controversial not the least of which was

going to Detroit for our national

convention which was thought it was

probably not the most hospitable place

but it turned to be a great success at

USTR he also did a great job of

balancing our international obligations

and moving the trade system forward also

defending American industry so we end up

with the Reagan trade policy which is in

insisting that we get fair treatment on

motorcycles and steel and and and

especially steel and semiconductors and

automobiles so and I might say my own

view is that that the reason the

Japanese companies originally moved the

United States was because of Senator

Brock and what he in the policy

President Ronald Reagan

and Senator Brock and the policy they

put in place so when I do things that

are kind of challenging the orthodoxy

you know where it's coming from it's

coming from from my mentor and he should

get all the blame because I developed

that that people who know me know I'm a

bit of a contrarian myself so let me

just make a few points and then sit down

and take some questions of course these

are very interesting times for trade for

decades support for what we call free

trade has been eroding among the

electorate there has been a growing

feeling that the system that has

developed in recent years is not quite

fair to American workers and

manufacturing and that we need to change

in 2016

both major political parties ran

candidates who to one degree or another

were trade skeptics on the Democratic

side of course we had senator Sanders

who campaigned hard on this issue and

from that perspective their ultimate

candidate Secretary Clinton did not

espouse the trade views of her husband

or for that matter her boss when she was

Secretary of State she professed some

degree of trade skepticism on our side

the views of President Trump are well

known well some politicians can be

accused of changing to populist

positions to get votes this cannot be

said of the president if you go back 10

20 30 years or even longer you see a

remarkable consistency he has been a

critic he's been critical of the

prevailing US trade policy of so-called

free trade deals and in their effect

their effects on workers so we will have

change in trade policy let's talk

briefly about our philosophy

I know that many sincerely believe that

the prevailing world trade policy has

been great for America and that those

who complain are often people who are

victims of economic progress these

analysts think that the whole problem is

one of getting the correct message

through really not a policy Direction

issue but a failure to communicate they

believe that the voters are ill informed

or in some cases perhaps ignorant if

they only really understood they would

support these trade agreements the WTO

and all the rest most of you know that I

am NOT in that group I agree with the

president I believe that Americans can

compete successfully with anyone in the

world if the conditions are fair not of

course in all sectors but in most I

believe like many of you that removing

market distortions encouraging fair

competition and letting markets

determine economic outcomes leads to

greater efficiency and a larger

production of wealth both here and

abroad I'm sure that most here also

agree that many markets are not free or

fair governments try to determine

outcomes through subsidies closing

markets regulatory restrictions and

multiple similar strategies the real

policy difference I submit is not over

whether we want efficient markets but

how do we get them what is the best

thing to do in the face of market

distortions to arrive at free and fair

competition I believe and I think the

President believes that we must be

proactive the years of talking about

these problems has not worked and that

we must use all instruments we have to

make it expensive to engage in

non-economic behavior and to convince

our trading partners to treat our

workers farmers and ranchers

fairly we must demand reciprocity in

home and in international markets so

expect change expect new approaches and

expect action second the President

believes and I agree that trade deficits

matter one can argue that too much

emphasis can be put on specific

bilateral deficits but I think it is

reasonable to ask when faced with

decades of large deficits globally and

with most countries in the world whether

the rules of trade are causing part of

the problem now I agree that tax rates

regulations and other macroeconomic

factors have a large part in forming

these numbers and the president is

tackling these issues but I submit the

rules of trade also matter and that they

can determine outcomes in a simple

example how can one argue that it makes

little difference when we have a two and

a half percent tariff on automobiles and

other developed countries have a ten

percent tariff that it is

inconsequential when these same

countries border adjust their taxes and

we do not or that it is unimportant when

some countries continuously undervalue

their currencies is it fair for us to

pay higher tariffs to export the same

product than they pay to sell it here

third I believe that there is one

challenge on the current scene that is

substantially more difficult than those

faced in the past and that is China the

sheer scale of their coordinated efforts

to develop their economy to subsidize to

create national champions to force

technology transfer and to distort

markets in China and throughout the

world is a threat to the world trading

system that is unprecedented

unfortunately the World Trade

Organization is not equipped to deal

with this problem the WTO and its

predecessor the general agreement on

tariffs and trade were not designed to

successfully manage mercantilism on the

scale we must find other ways to defend

our company's workers farmers and indeed

our economic system we must find new

ways to ensure that a market-based

economy prevails fourth we are looking

at all of our trade agreements to

determine if they are working to our

benefit

the basic notion in a free trade

agreement is that one grants

preferential treatment to a trading

partner in return for an approximately

equal amount of preferential treatment

in their market the object is to

increase efficiency and to create wealth

it is reasonable to ask after a period

of time whether what we received and

what we paid were roughly equivalent one

measure of that is change in trade

deficits where the numbers and other

factors indicate indicate a

disequilibrium one should renegotiate so

we had an election no one really ran on

maintaining the status quo in trade

President Trump won we have a different

philosophy and there will be change I

look forward to working with many of you

in this room on these issues as things

develop and to returning from time to

time to talk about progress as we move

forward I look forward to answering your

questions

[Applause]

wherever you comfortable thank you good

morning and let me add my welcome to all

of you here in the auditorium and online

at CSIS I'm Scott Miller I'm a senior

advisor and the show chair in

international business and we're

delighted to have you here today let me

say that this is in my five years at

CSIS this is without question the

largest most prompt and and the

interesting crowd that I've seen which

says to me is be a good career move if I

spent more time with Senator Barack as

we do appreciate all you've done here it

did work for me in any case the

ambassador has given us an amount of

time to interact with questions because

of the large crowd in the short time I

would ask each of you if you have a

question write it under the 3x5 card and

pass it to the center aisle you there

call it three centers here but get it

some ways away from the the outside

staff will pick it up and we'll get the

questions up here let me put on my

reading glasses and let you know there

is some preference given to readable

print so thank you for that and and

thank you mr. Bassett er for doing this

actually gave senator Brock the first

question so he had a question about

trade agreements with sunset provisions

did some conversations about this from

officials in the administration it

struck he and others as unusual that

given businesses prefer to have a stable

predictable environment and certainly in

tax law and regulation most businesses

asked for a stable predictable period of

time under which to to operate how does

the idea of a sunset provision work and

what's its level of support and what can

you tell us about this as a technique or

a tool in trade agreements well let me

say first of all that that I'm not going

to talk about any permissions that are

out there that may be in the

in this agreement it's just in the in

the NAFTA cream and that's the context

of with it I'm I'll have the Afghan sir

that privately was okay senator Briana

let's ask a broader question then you

were in office in the 1980s during the

Reagan administration between now and

then but a lot of changes in the US

economy a lot of changes in trade policy

as you take office again after after an

absence in private practice what are the

most important changes to the US economy

and the most important changes to trade

policy that affect your day well in the

first place I guess the whole economy is

totally different than it was when I was

in in the when I was working for Senator

Brock there was no internet I don't

think we had cell phones so when we when

we got off the plane auto in New York

you had to find a place to put a quarter

and make a phone calls probably what

happened there was no digital economy I

mean the the economy was very different

the other the other thing that I would

say is that we we were focused on a

mercantilist policy from Japan that that

we had challenged had to worry about and

I think now it is on a scale multiples

of that with with China it interestingly

I have the Japanese come in and meet

with me and they say we have them

something about this mercantilism from

China that they're they're very worried

about it so you know that's the

principal challenge we face to me at

least is how do we deal with China in a

in a in a global trading system how do

we deal with China in a situation where

we want market efficiency to dictate now

in addition to that there are a lot of

other other things other challenges we

have we we have trade agreements that we

don't think it worked out in our

interest and we have we have to create

rules really that work well for services

and for and for the digital economy and

all these kinds of things but to me the

biggest

that we face right now the biggest

difference between now and those days

was is really the the appearance of

China on the scene okay well let me

follow that with a question on a sort of

the Trump trade policy for Asia since

the Reagan era there's been a sort of a

key focus to the rising Asia and Asia of

course vitally important to many US

firms because it's the home of the

global middle class so age where it

broadly certainly in the Reagan

administration it was it was at trade

tensions with Japan but soon after Bush

Bush 41 I think you'd characterize it as

expanding membership in the gap but also

the formation of APEC which turned out

to be a reasonably useful institution

the Clinton administration mainly

focused on China's accession to the WTO

the Bush 43 administration did free

trade agreements with Singapore

Australia and Korea all key allies the

Obama administration worked a lot on the

trans-pacific partnership what what what

is your thought about the Trump policy

toward a rising Asia

well I mean the first place we we prefer

bilateral trade agreements to to the

plural at or multilateral trade

agreements the working assumption is

that if you have an 18 trillion dollar

economy you can do better negotiating

individually you could argue both sides

of that I haven't agree with the

president not only can you negotiate

better agreements but you could enforce

them more easily because usually in a in

a in a multi-level or a plural lateral

agreement is difficult to enforce the

agreements because as you're disrupting

too many things in a bilateral agreement

I think you can so the policy will be as

stated by the you know by the president

as an administration will be to engage

the countries in that region and on you

know in bilateral agreements we have to

determine when we're going to do it and

what the order will be in the like

there's interest in various countries in

that so clearly this administration

wants to

very much engaged in Asia and we expect

to do that

excellent while we're on the subject of

bilateral is the one that has gotten a

lot of attention really since Prime

Minister May visited the White House is

the possibility for a UK u.s. bilateral

FTA obviously the honor kingdom has some

matters to settle with their article 50

process and that's going to take some

period of time stated by statute two

years but probably longer but in any

case what are you what are your views on

the the bilateral with the UK what's the

vision and what how do you expect that

to play out well I have met with dr. Fox

and talked about these issues at the

appropriate time I think the United

States will enter into that process with

the UK I'm confident that that will

we'll come to an agreement it's you know

that's beneficial to both both parties

and that's probably a year or two off I

mean it's not even even the deadline

even when it's going to happen it's not

quite clear yet until we know how there

of their exits going to go but we have

had meetings we've talked about about

how we will proceed it's two-way to have

a negotiation they don't have competence

in that area but but it's something

that's on the horizon that the

government's have spoken about and at

the appropriate time I think we'll have

a negotiation there and I'm sure it'll

be a successful one excellent thank you

let's turn to the multilateral system

before for a moment there is a

ministerial conference coming up in

weather Saudis this this fall and can

you tell us what's what's on the US

agenda for the ministerial conference

and more specifically what what does the

Trump administration plan to do with the

ongoing negotiations such as the one for

well for the trade in services agreement

well I would say first of all we are in

the process of looking at all of these

agreements and trying to make some

decision as to as to which ones we think

are in our interests which ones we want

to pursue we have a USTR is doing a

study on that and it'll come out hope

and in another month or so our view is

that it's unlikely that the the

ministerial in Buenos Aires is going to

lead to negotiated outcomes I there are

a number of areas where we would be

willing to engage but there seems to be

something blocking it in every case

hopefully we'll end up with a good

conference one that that we decide what

the the upcoming agenda will be and well

there'll be agreement on that clearly

services are you know our important

priority for the United States we have a

250 billion dollar trade surplus in

services so so that's a very important

part of our what what we want to

encourage an American company even with

that big service is a surplus could be

much much bigger if we had if we had

better rules and if we didn't have

countries blocking us exports of

services so that's a that's a major

thing for us and I've had a lot of

services executives in talking to us and

they have a whole myriad of problems

trying to move around the you know

trying to sell their services around

them around the world to continue with

it with a WTO the United States has

raised some objections to the dispute

settlement understanding and the way the

bodies are formed and that process could

you tell us a little bit more about what

what the u.s. is trying to accomplish in

terms of changing or reforming the

district settlement body well I guess I

would answer that in two parts one there

are a number of issues which on which

there's pretty broad agreement that the

WTO and dispute settlement understanding

is deficient I mean there are

transparency issues there are issues

with the staff there are there are a

whole a whole variety of issues that we

have a problem with and I think there's

a general agreement that there are

problems but I think even beyond that

the United States sees numerous examples

where

the dispute settlement process over the

years has really diminished what we

bargained for or imposed obligations

that we do not believe we we agreed to

there have been a lot of cases in the

dispute in the dumping academy on duty

the trade remedies laws where the were

in my opinion the decisions are really

indefensible and and even a lot of

people who have a much more free-trade

orientation who read these question and

we've had tax laws that have been struck

down we've had other provisions where

the WTO was taken really I think took

the position that they were going to

strike down something they thought

shouldn't happen rather than looking at

these the GATT agreement as a contract

so what we've tended to see is that

Americans look at the WTO or any of

these trade agreements and we say okay

this is a contract and these are my

rights

others Europeans but others also tend to

think they're sort of evolving kinds of

governance and there there's a very

different idea between these two things

and and I think sorting that out is what

we have to do if you if your appellate

body or your dispute settlement process

really thinks that we're trying to

evolve into what's good for trade that's

one thing if what you're going to do is

look at the exact words and say here's

what was bargained when ambassador Hill

sat down and and and negotiated she had

a very precise idea of what it was that

the United States was giving and what it

was we were getting and anything that

doesn't enforce that in that way

his troubling and I think that the DSU

has evolved in a way that it it creates

new obligations and it and it

it has reduced a lot of our benefit so

community grips with that both in the

procedure around but also just

practically is really what we have to

worry about in them in the DSU and it's

a fundamental part of the of the WTO I

mean it's it's a very amazed a lot of

you know very major issues with a WTO

yeah if it makes sense well on the

practical level well in the last twenty

years or so of dispute settlement cases

those two patterns that have come out

first the big traders have a lot of

cases on both sides which is not

surprising at all and that there is that

responded that complainants tend to win

much more than a coin toss which says to

me that there's a selection of cases

that are worth the prestige of the

country bringing them and so since the

us both is involved in a lot of cases

and often as a respondent how do you

think that there's sort of the practical

the the decisions on cases will affect

the reform process well I mean to the

extent that we're that that we're

objecting to the process is because we

don't agree with the what the way the

the in many cases the appellate body has

approached this we think the Dubna the

appellate body has not limited itself to

precise to precisely what's in the

agreement so I mean that is that is the

nature of our complaint and and that's

not to say that we don't win cases of

course we win cases back when when when

senator Brock and I were there and there

was a system it was before 1995 before

the WTO under the GATT and there was a

system where you would bring paddles and

then you would have a negotiation and

and you know trade grew and we resolved

issues eventually and and you know it's

a system that's that you know was

successful for a long period of time now

now under this binding dispute

settlement process we have to figure out

a way to have from our point of view to

have it work helpful let's talk a minute

about the recent case excuse me the

investigation through one investigation

on intellectual

property in China large problem for a

lot of American firms IP of complaints

in China are by no means new the

mechanism of say of using section 301

for an investigation is somewhat new at

least we haven't done that recently can

you talk about how this is going to play

out and what your expectations are and

what we should expect to see well first

of all it is an investigation so I can't

true judge it we have a hearing coming

up on the 10th of October and then we'll

gather facts and we'll decide what what

the situation is and and if needed will

will recommend remedy to the president

so we haven't prejudged anything but as

you say there are an awful lot of

complaints about forced technology

transfer CEO has come in to see me

continuously and almost every CEO of a

major company at some point in the

discussion will say they're having a

problem with China forcing them to join

into joint ventures turning over the

intellectual property to the joint

venture having to license their

intellectual Prostate less than market

value and then in addition to that

there's another issue which is whether

or not there is just piracy of

intellectual property so we're looking

at both of those things we're not going

to prejudge it but but there's an awful

lot to indicate that there's a problem

here and intellectual property is one of

the one of the real competitive

advantages that the United States has

not that the rest of the world isn't

clever also but the United States has

developed an enormous amount of

intellectual property and getting the

benefit of that for our for our

companies and their workers is is is

very very important so to me it's a it's

a fundamental case why are we using 301

because that's the investigative tool we

have if there are if we turn up WTO

violations we'll bring them to the WTO

we're not concluded from doing that

finding means by using 301 if then if

there are things that are not covered by

trade agreements that we

think are unreasonable and restrain us

trade then we'll try to devise other

other other remedies that we think will

get us to the point where we end up with

with market forces and market efficiency

it really was what I was trying to talk

about in my just briefly in my opening

statement we all want to get to the same

thing and we have confidence that if we

get to the point where we're approaching

something really like free trade that

the United States will do great the

question is what do you do to get there

and do you are you have a more muscular

kind of an approach or do you hope that

if you talk about it people will see the

light I guess part of what I wanted to

say about about about my old boss was he

kind of walked about down both sides he

tried to do one and he also did the

other so you know hopefully we'll do

that too as we as we move forward fair

enough

a question on NAFTA I think you were

quoted as saying that the negotiations

are receiving a warp speed if you didn't

say it you should you should take credit

for that because it's a great expression

and you has so far we're here we have

about a little less than two weeks

between negotiating rounds my question

is about consultation because in 2015

the trade priorities Act Congress was

fairly specific about its expectations

for ongoing consultations during trade

negotiations how are you and your team

other than say not sleeping how are you

and your team handling the consultation

expectations that Congress has set and

advancing at speed you're advancing in

the NAFTA yeah well we're moving at warp

speed but we don't know whether we're

going to get to a conclusion that's the

problem we're running very quickly

somewhere we have a series of five-day

sessions as you say seven of them

between the beginning and the end of the

year five more to go and other ones

starting in Ottawa in another week or so

the objective is to get it finished for

a variety of reasons there are elections

coming up in Mexico plus in the United

States there are a lot of people that

this the whole process is having

real-life effects on will farmers and

ranch

businesspeople who are trying to do

business and particularly in the United

States and in in Mexico but also in

Canada so there are reasons to move

quickly on a renegotiation if that's

what you're going to do as quickly as

you can do it the consultation process

is complicated as most people know the

first time that that this process was

was used was in in 1979 when we did when

when the Carter Administration and and

ambassador Stas came up and did that did

that agreement since then every time

they've renewed it I think this is fair

to say but it's notionally true if not

precisely they've added some new fill up

or twist or something right that

somebody said well why don't you do this

why don't you do that also and the

reason for that is is that of course the

Constitution gives power over trade to

the Congress and they're delegating it

to us so they have a right to say what

the terms are we have to consult with

the Congress we have to consult with our

cleared advisors we come up with text we

draft it we have to clear it first

through the interagency process or at

least give the interagency process an

opportunity to be heard then we have to

go to the Congress and then when we get

many proposals from from the other

countries we have to do the same process

so it's you know it's difficult it's

hard on us but it's also hard on the

people on the hill and it's hard on the

people in the in in the in the advisory

groups but you know the the the

alternative is that that you would

stretch this out for a period of years

and you would have a real negative

effect you know unintended you know

collateral damage negative effect on the

on real people you know selling product

you know selling product so it's it's

it's difficult it takes a lot of time

it's fairly intense and it's part on

everyone but it's it's something that

has to be done and I think we're doing a

pretty good job of it thank you

one bilateral negotiation that is

theoretically underway and we haven't

talked about at all is the TTIP the

transatlantic trade and investment

partnership now this is something that

exists obviously and it's bilateral

between US and Europe it never really

got much past

stop taking impolite information-sharing

phases in the previous administration

what are your thoughts on trade with

Europe it's still a big relationship

there is a bilateral framework what does

this go well I mean it's a it's a huge

relationship and a very important

relationship you know that agreement is

one that we're looking at there has been

you know reason why they have to look

forward and that has been a series of

elections in Europe which would make it

hard to me to to do much with it but on

the broader question the relationship

isn't extremely important there's just

an enormous amount of trade between the

United States and Europe so improving

the rules there is something we should

do and working with Europe on a whole

variety of other things including the

challenge with China but also

negotiations within the WTO was also

important and and I think we have good

relationships there we certainly have

tried to develop them

I certainly have done with with my

counterparts and I know other people

have done the same thing so it's an

important relationship we hope it

develops whether we start that agreement

up will you know winning if is is

something that we're looking at right

now I know they're looking at also but

the meantime we're coordinating quite

closely will them excellent one final

question on services we talked about the

trade in services agreement and what

you're hearing from companies it is

clearly it's a major share of the US

economy and a major source of

comparative advantage for the United

States in the world what's your vision

for where services negotiation can go in

this administration and and how should

we see that play out well the objective

of course is to open markets and to

allow our people to compete and we see a

lot of barriers to trade and a lot of

countries that want to create their own

national champions in this space so when

we think of services firstly the

the biggest single part of it by the way

is tourism and the like it really isn't

what what a lot of people here might

think of as services but we think of as

financial services as being probably

more than and and that's an extremely

important aspect of US trade not just

because it generates income and wealth

and jobs but also because many of these

companies insurance companies for

example really are the source of

investment in the economy throughout the

world so if if all those companies are

Chinese then you're going to get one

pattern of investment if all those

couple are the biggest of those

companies are American and European and

others then you're going to see a

different different way that capital is

spread around the world and our hope is

that that if if our model is followed

it's going to be more efficiently

distributed it's going to go based on on

economics so we certainly understand the

importance of services we understand

whenever we have a bilateral meeting

services always comes up we always have

a list of a list of complaints those

very specific barriers that we have to

work our way through and we have a

certain amount of leverage in some and

and and not in others but you know we're

doing what we can to open the markets

for services and we're right now we're

doing on a bilateral basis almost across

the board very good let me be the first

to thank you for coming here today

for having a candid forthright clear

vision of the what you're doing it where

I found your remarks very helpful and we

hope we've been efficient with your time

but we do appreciate you or your being

here and your candor in the QA thank you

and we wish you the best of luck

please very nice it was pleasure

[Music]