I'm George Pillsbury president of Sergeant management company and a member of the Minnesota meeting. It's a great pleasure to welcome all of you to the Minnesota meeting today. Today's speaker. Robert millat is the chairman and chief executive officer of FMC Corporation, one of the leading producers of machinery and chemicals for industry Agriculture and government. In fact, he has some very good customers right here in the Twin Cities.He is one of the strongest advocates for a broader more sophisticated more understood trade policy and is a prominent voice in warning against imposing trade barriers and other protectionist measures. During mr. Mellott stalk, please jot down questions on the white index cards at your table. And then if you'll hold them up during The Question Answer session Jane marachek executive director of the Minnesota meeting will move through the audience with microphone and approach those of you with raised cards. It is my pleasure to present to you Robert malotte. Thank you very much George. It's a great pleasure for me to be here today and to address this distinguished form on the issue of America's trade policy. Later, this summer. You are going to dedicate Minnesota's new World Trade Center. This Center will serve as a testament not only to the dynamic vision of your business community. Which I consider myself a part but also to the economic realities facing the United States as we approach the end of the 20th century. There was a time when Americans could afford the luxury of a haphazard trade policy shaped by ad hoc crises and special interests that time has passed. Today our entire nation has no choice. but to compete vigorously trade now accounts for 20% of the United States gross national product 1/3 of us Farmland grows crops for export 70% of US manufactured products compete directly with foreign manufactured goods today economic policy is trade policy. We cannot simply isolate a few of our economic problems and arbitrarily assign them to the trade agenda. Instead a strong and coherent trade policy must begin with a thorough examination of every facet of US economic policy to determine its impact on our ability to compete for World Markets. I may be the only person in the room today who was willing to admit this but I continue to like the word competitiveness. I like it because a genuine focus on this this topic namely competitiveness would force us to focus our attention Beyond this month's trade statistics and the alleged inequities of our trading partners and a concentrate instead on the underlying strengths and weaknesses of our economy compared to the economy of our trading partners throughout the world. And making this observation. I do not mean in any way to belittle the seriousness of the United States current trade problems because those problems are indeed very serious. Our trade balance in serpent in Surplus every year from night from 1893 until 1971 incurred a 170 billion dollar deficit in 1986. For the first time since 1914. The United States is a net foreign debtor. us agricultural exports which grew almost six-fold from 1970 to 1980 have declined by more than a third since 1981. Non agricultural exports increased fivefold from 1970 to 1980 and since then they have largely stagnated. Even in the area of high technology where this country was at one time dominant American industry ran a 2.6 billion dollar trade deficit in 1986. these statistics offer genuine reason for concern but they should not serve to obscure what I consider the even more disturbing long-term decline in US economic performance. Over the past 15 years us investment as a percentage of gross national product that is the rate of u.s. Capital formation has been fifteen percent lower than the average among industrial Nations. And 45 percent lower than Japan's the number of patents granted each year to us inventors. After increasing over thirty percent from 1960 to 1972 has fallen by almost 20% since that year. Signaling in my judgment a major decline in the development and application of new technology in this country in the last 25 years u.s. Productivity has grown by only one point two percent a year during the same period German productivity grew at almost twice this rate and Japanese productivity at over three times this rate. These are very fundamental changes that have occurred over strategic period of time these Trends will not be reversed by tactical trade protectionist legislation and quick Fisk fix subsidies for non competitive Industries. When everyone in Washington began talking about competitiveness last year early this year I had hopes that we would finally witness a serious debate about fundamental economic reforms that were necessary to restore this country's ability to compete in World Markets. With enhanced competitiveness as the widely accepted measure of success Congress and the administration in my judgment had a rare political opportunity to undertake a thorough examination of such things as our tax regulatory trade and legal policies and to determine their impact on Capital formation on Innovation and on productivity. This opportunity has been squandered instead today's competitiveness agenda is crowded with proposals that give voters the impression of activity most of which in my judgment will do genuine harm to this country's long-term ability to compete. The most prominent feature on this agenda is obviously straightforward protectionism. The participants in today's trade debate would prefer a more innocuous phrase undoubtedly such as fair trade or perhaps even just reciprocity, but I can only label as protectionist a proposal to impose major new tariffs and quotas on countries that produce too many products that the American Consumer wants to buy that of course was the essence of the Gephardt Amendment which the House of Representatives Representatives adopted in the trade bill that it passed in April. We will not reclaim our leadership in the World Market Place much less improve our standard of living which is sometimes overlooked in this whole debate. By hobbling are competent our competition. It will not be done. That way protectionism can only weaken the incentives for American industry to invest in new plant and equipment to pursue Innovative new products and Technologies. And a Spur the sluggish pace of productivity growth. Moreover protectionism can only dampen our sense of urgency at a time when we should be acting decisively to reverse our long-term decline in the ability our ability to compete for World Markets. In light of the failure of our political leaders to address these more fundamental economic problems. I believe that the business Community must now assume the responsibility for recasting the debate over trade policy. It is the business community that must reshape the trade agenda. My own competitiveness agenda would begin with a thorough examination of four major policy issues that have largely been shunted aside in this year's trade debate these four issues our tax policy environmental regulation intellectual property, right protection. and product liability reform while these issues have all been extensively discussed and debated Rarely, are they evaluated in terms of their impact on this country's international trade in January of 1985 the president's Commission on Industrial competitiveness under the leadership of John Young issued its report. Citing and I quote a tax system based against investment unquote as the major reason for the United States lower rates of capital investment and higher costs of capital. The commission's recommended that the president proposed new tax and tax incentives that will lead to higher levels of saving and investment. Four months later President Reagan did proposed a new tax plan. a plan to eliminate the investment tax credit to lengthen the the capital depreciation schedules to recapture so called depreciation Wind Falls. to restrict savings through individual retirement accounts and to raise the tax on long-term capital gains. Every one of these proposals ran counter to the recommendations of the young report. The new tax law will raise net corporate taxes by a projected 120 billion dollars over the next five years. The president's own Council on economic advisors estimates that this law will raise the cost of capital by over 5% 6% will raise the cost of corporate investments in equipment by someplace between 40 and 60 percent and will lead to an actual long-run decline a decline in the growth of this country's capital stock. Even before the so-called reform the cost of capital in the United States was almost twice the cost of capital in Japan and almost two-thirds more than the cost of capital in Germany. The u.s. Already has had a capital cost recovery system less favorable than those of many of our trading partners now we rank close to last. Without higher rates of capital formation. The United States will continue to fall behind American industry will continue to lose markets to competitors that have invested in more modern Innovative and cost saving equipment and plants. There is honest disagreement in the business community. Including some of you in this audience. I'm sure over the best structure for our tax code. And very little enthusiasm obviously ism is for engaging in another tax battle anytime soon. But surely we can agree that the future tax that future tax revisions should at least be examined in light of their likely impact on our International competitiveness, which was not done at all during the debate in 1986. if we don't and the in and if the result is that us firms continue to be disadvantaged in an element of cost as important as the cost of capital, I can almost guarantee that this country will fall further behind in the all important objective of improving our productivity relative to that of our trading partners. Another issue that has never been given its proper place on the economic reform agenda is the dish up disproportionate cost and the uncertain benefit of certain of many of our us environmental regulations. according to the Council on economic advisors the United States spent sixty eight point five billion for pollution control in 1984 that amounted to 1.8 percent of our gross national product. A Brookings institution economists further estimates that invite estimated estimates that environmental regulations have slowed u.s. Productivity the growth of us productivity by an estimated 1.5 percent per year. These economic costs must be weighed against the environmental gains. Some trade-off is inevitable and appropriate. In the interest of preserving a clean environment we must address this very difficult issue yet, most of our environmental laws and regulations do not permit cost-benefit analysis nor do they offer us industry much opportunity to meet pollution reduction targets at low at lower cost through the use of different Technologies. Current US laws and regulations generally mandate specific Pollution Control Technologies such as scrubbers for power plants catalytic converters for automobiles. Doubleline landfills for hazardous waste disposal sites industry is given neither the incentive nor the opportunity to develop cheaper and more efficient routes to attain given Pollution Control objectives. Japan by contrast has developed a more flexible and creative environmental policy that relies heavily on cost benefit analysis and gives industry incentives to find the most efficient means of meeting environmental targets the result according to the Congressional budget office is that the Japan actually maintains stricter environmental standards than we do here in the United States get achieves these goals with one fifth of the productivity loss experienced by us industry. While the Reagan Administration claims to favor reforming environmental laws and regulations. It has failed to translate rhetoric into action. For example, when the Clean Air Act came up for reauthorization in 1981, the administration neglected to propose any specific reforms and the old Act was merely extended with a very few changes. For this reason while I welcome the president has called for a reinvigorated reinvigorated regulatory reform effort. I am skeptical of its success without much stronger leadership on the part of the administration. Congress still still needs to be convinced the current laws and regulations are harming America's trade position and that they can in fact be reformed without harming the environment. The / the protection of intellectual property rights is the third issue that I believe deserves a more prominent place on today's trade agenda. While intellectual property rights enforcement makes an appearance on the laundry list of competitiveness proposals. I'm not persuaded that our political leaders recognize the crucial importance of this issue to this country's trade balance. Or their own responsibilities as a matter of fact to enforce the laws that already exists against intellectual property rights violators. U.s. Industries competitive position in World Markets depends heavily on its Edge in technology and innovation. Secretary Malcolm baldrige. However, has estimated that 20 billion in total of our domestic and Export sales by American companies which amount to as much as maybe 750,000 jobs in this country are lost each year to foreign competitors sometimes with the encouragement of their governments who produce counterfeit products that violate American patents trademarks and copyrights and these figures do not even include the substantial losses that intellectual property rights violators inflict on foreign subsidiaries of us companies. Let me share with you an example from my own experience. In 1977 FMC learned that a Hungarian state-owned Trading Company was selling an FMC developed and patented product. if a pesticide named Puritan in Brazil We had established patent rights in Brazil. Well before the hungarians entered that market nevertheless, even though Brazilian Court upheld the validity of our of our patents FMC was not able to stop the shipments from from Hungary for five years. Nor has the problem disappeared there now doing the same thing in Indonesia. To understand how seriously such intellectual property theft can undermine incentives for Innovation and new product introduction consider the fact that FM speaks FMC spent 35 million dollars to develop our fuhrer it insecticide Nomad aside. We must synthesize approximately 15,000 compounds in our laboratory to yield on average one successful product. And by the time the product is fully tested licensed and introduced as much as half of the patents life has already expired. A foreign pirate company that copies the final compound. On the other hand has no front end cost and therefore enters the market with a significant advantage. You may ask what power does the United States government? What could they what could they do in a case like this? Obviously, it involves foreign manufacturers and foreign governments selling outside of this country. The answer is in my view that the government has considerable power. If in fact it would be willing to use it. My own suggestion in the case of Hungary, which I made to the state department was that the United States should threatened to revoke hungary's most favored nation status unless hungry agreed to enforce and recognize intellectual property rights. I don't think any of you need to speculate how enthusiastic the state department was with that suggestion. And as I mentioned earlier Hungarian violations continue to this day. The trade Bill recently passed by the house of representatives does in fact strengthen the US trade representative's hand in imposing sanctions against intellectual property rights violators and while he's changes are welcome. It should be emphasized that the real test will be the extent to which they are enforced and it remains remains to be seen how aggressive the president will be in imposing strict penalties on Nations that refused to comply with International standards in this area without stricter penalties intellectual property theft in my judgment will continue to undermine the competitiveness of leading us export Industries. Another problem facing us industry and rarely expressed in the context of this country's ability to compete in Interline in international markets is the exploding number and size of product liability lawsuits yet. America's tort litigation crisis has significantly damaged the competitive position of us industry by raising costs by removing actually removing products from the marketplace and certainly discouraging new product innovation. For example, the product liability costs of an average at an average of a hundred thousand dollars to each US manufactured general aviation aircraft. They likewise account for an estimated 15% of the cost of US manufactured Machine Tools. A study by the Commerce Department recently revealed that some manufacturers of machine tools and textile Machinery must support liability product liability premiums that are some twenty to a hundred times greater than those paid by their foreign company competition. The high cost and the high-risk imposed by our product liability system have likewise driven many American products from the market place. For example last year Piper aircraft and Beech aircraft each suspended production of all but one of their general aviation aircraft while Cessna suspended production of all piston-powered aircraft, there are no longer any domestic producers of trampolines ice hockey protective equipment. Anesthesia gas machines. The liability related costs were too high to justify continuing production. Hey less visible, but in my view ultimately more important threat to America's future competitiveness is the failure of products to reach the market in the first place because of potential liability risks. In 1986 the conference board undertook a study of 232 major corporations and this revealed that over 10% had declined within the past three years to invest in new products or Services because of the cost of product liability. small companies in high risk high potential Fields such as Pharmaceuticals chemicals Environmental Management Often cannot obtain product liability coverage at all. This creates a serious impediment to new product development which obviously is critical to our future competitiveness. For several years now Congress has debated in re debated and failed to enact any kind of product liability reform. to overcome the powerful opposition of the plaintiffs bar proponents of Reform must convince legislators that the current product liability system undermines US economic performance both at home as well as abroad again genuine reform Will require more leadership from the administration and more responsibility from Congress. I have outlined a with you today an ambitious. Although not of course complete competitiveness agenda namely tax reform regulatory reform stronger sanctions against intellectual property right rights violators and an overhaul of our current liability laws. All of these are trade issues, although they're not debated as such with any frequency all need to be examined in terms of their impact on our ability to compete for World Markets. Unfortunately, I see little evidence that Congress or the administration understands that a wide range of economic policies have damaged this country's competitiveness and I see no evidence that our political leaders have the courage to address what are obviously sensitive political issues. Enacting this agenda would force Congress and the administration to stop looking for excuses quick fixes and scapegoats for America's trade problems and to start reviewing in fact every facet of our economic policy to determine its impact on America's competitive position in World Trade. Obviously this this would be hard work. It would not reap the immediate political rewards inherent in an acting protectionist legislation for example would nor would it please the single-issue constituencies that support trade barriers and oppose more fundamental economic reforms? Competitors has in fact proved to be a useful slogan for our political leaders useful not I regret to say for focusing the trade debate on lawn long-run economic problems, but useful to them rather for covering covering protectionism with the gloss of genuine economic reform. Now the business Community faces the challenge of assuming the leadership role the Congress and the administration have abdicated. Now we must accept the responsibility for placing new policies on the competitiveness agenda policies that will help restore strong rates of capital formation Innovation and productivity growth. You may you may wonder whether Business Leaders any more than political leaders really have the stomach for this responsibility. In my view we have no choice if the United States is to remain a preeminent economic power in the world competitiveness must become not the buzzword, but the rather the by word of American Economic Policy. Thank you very much. Thank you very much now, mr. Mellott will be very happy to take questions from the audience. And as I suggested hold your hand up and at this time though, I'm going to turn the meeting over to Jane who will manage the question and answer session Jane. I'm right over here George. Thank you. We have a question right here. Mr. Mellott. Do we have the can we have to leave his lights on? Simple answer. Yes, what should the u.s. Do to encourage Japan to import more of our food products? well I'm not quite sure. I can answer that question. Where are the microphones? I mean, I'd like to look at someone here. You know the you at the US trade representative is Clayton wider from Chicago and those of us in the business Community there. No him rather well and the Day after his appointment as ustr was announced. I happened to be at the same lunch into the Chicago club with Clayton and rather than come over and give them the congratulation that convention I went over to him and I grabbed his arm went like this. He said what are you doing? I said, I'm trying to figure out how big a two-by-four you can pick up. II don't know what the answer is with Japan, I don't think it is to give back to nakasone after two or three weeks 20% of sanctions that were supported aggressively by the business community in this country and by most of the administration, I just think the problem in Japan has existed for a long time those of us who do business over there some rather successfully I might add. Realize the fact that the solution is there is no easy solution the my collar report, which I think was very encouraging came out several years ago written by the head of the bank of Japan had some very fundamental reforms that they would that he suggested they introduced that would raise Japanese consumption. Which I think would have been very beneficial to World Trade. It's very obvious from the experience that FMC is had that they're going to resist at change very aggressively and it's going to take a very aggressive action on our part to do to do much about it. I would guess off hand. Agriculture is probably the most sensitive area that any country has to deal with internationally. And Japan is no different than France or the United States or anyone else when it comes to to the political pressure that the agricultural sector has in terms of the decision making process. So I just don't know. I mean, I have no constructive suggestions accepted a general. I think I think we just have to keep after it and we have to keep after it very aggressively the Ambassador from Japan once said to me Mr. Mellott, why don't you use the usual Japanese approach to negotiating? And I said, mr. Ambassador. I said I tried that for 10 years and it didn't work. Whether the alternative will work. I don't know but I'll tell you we have not been very successful to date. Question here. Mr. Mellott. Yes. This is a follow-up on that same one. I was going to ask if you agreed with the sanctions against the Japan for the electronic chip problem. Did it go far enough? Well, I'm not in that business. So I don't know but generally speaking. I think we have got to be much more aggressive in in in the action that we take and I think we've got a lot of opportunity to do just that I don't know the details of the chip problem, but obviously that the in my judgment the the action was almost without exception supported by the American Business community and and I think whether went far enough or not, I don't know I certainly wouldn't have of done what the president did yesterday. What are your expectations for the outcome from this week's economic Summit? I think they're more political and economic. But probably not much of either one. I'm not sure a proper job was done in developing an agenda, which was pre agreed to in terms of the conclusions. That should come out of a meeting of this kind. So I my expectations are not as as high as Howard Baker who indicated yesterday thought some major things would come out. I don't think they will. Okay many businesses. If not all seem hooked on protectionism. Where do you find the support for your program in the business community? And if you could maybe you could comment on the federal deficit a bit more as to what part it plays and how you see that changing and who's going to do it. George you told me the questions would be easy. I don't obviously the federal deficit is a major factor in terms of the problems that we're having with trade it does. Having major impact on International cash flows, which will have a fundamental long-term impact on the value of currencies, including the US dollar but I think that that that the deficit problem is substantially more important than just the trade issue. So I think it's one that has to be very high and everyone's agenda I think basically the business Community is not protectionist in nature. So I think you'd find support for maybe not for my program I'm talking about but I think you'd find General support against narrowly construed protectionist legislation fairly generally in the business Community the problem that of course that we have in the business Community is that our constituency has perceived by those in Washington is so small that no one pays any attention to us and we haven't found the mechanism for expressing our opinion very effectively in such a way that we can be heard. But I don't think there's a lot of support in the business Community for some of the for the for the narrow protectionist legislation that we've seen with greater frequency in the last being proposed in the last year and a half. But I might be mistaken. I don't see it in the business community that I deal with. Mr. Mellott As a follow-up to that what what would you see as as possible strategies for the business area to take in focusing the debate on trade as you said, you can't rely on government and that it's up to the business sector to focus the trade give us some of your ideas of what strategies you may see as appropriate and focusing that and as a second part if you could design what that debate would look like in the 88 presidential discussions, what would you like to see discussed? And once again, would that be a possible strategy the business area could use I I think that the the business Community through such organizations as the business round table and the Chamber of Commerce the N am small businessmen's Association. Have to start to have the mid create the mechanism for cooperating with one another in terms of positions that we take. Each individual organization while we think we're effective generally where we're effective in dealing with ourselves, but we're not very effective in dealing with Congress. So one of the mechanisms I think we ought to adopt and some of this is starting to go on in Washington now is to develop Cooperative ways of getting a broader constituency constituency together to talk about these issues, but I'm fairly discouraged about being very constructive and answering your question. I mean literally I think there are you could count on the on one hand the people who can spell International competitors in Washington and and and I specifically asked Jim Baker who have great respect for incidentally who in the treasury reviewed the 86 tax bill for its impact on international trade and he said no one. I mean, it wasn't very long conversation. It was not very difficult for me to misinterpret what he said. And he said that's your responsibility you go do it and you know, that's so there's a lack of there's a lack of comprehension in Washington generally about the relative importance of international trade. It's coming up in it that it's higher on the agenda than it used to but recognize the fact that for years and years and years. International Trade representative 5% or 6% or 8% of our gross national product and all our trading partners their very existence for centuries have been based on international trade and and their percentage of gross national products 30 or 40 or 50 percent based on that. So they have a they have a head start on us, but I think right now I think slowly there is because they're the perception is developing that that the Chicago manufacturer who's interested in broadening his markets can't look to Rockford Illinois and that and I think that in time people will recognize the fact that this is a much more significant element of our total well-being than it then has been recognized in the past until that happens. I am not sure that there's very much it can be done. But frankly this Administration has not put international trade very high in its agenda and you can't push a wet piece of string uphill. So I'm afraid I can't be very helpful as far as the the What can be done during the presidential debates or election coming up on this issue? I don't know here again. And I think until there are more people in this country that recognize the importance of international trade. It won't be very high in anyone's agenda. Although I did read a speech yesterday. Given by Presidential hopeful Joe Biden and if his knowledge on the subject of international trade is is is any guide to us were in trouble. I just don't know. I don't think it'll be very high in the on the agenda unless it takes the unless it takes the less it follows along the kind of thing that gets hard tried. I mean he literally is running for president on the Gephardt Amendment and if there be the politician perceive that that is popular then then it could could be an issue but it will be very negatively in terms of the long run solution to the problem. We have a question back here, mr. Merlotte. Mr. Mellott my question deals with the subject of dumping. There's a presumption that there's a close government Business Partnership in Japan you speak strongly to the competitiveness syndrome not to the extent that dumping is sanctioned in practice by Japanese manufacturers. How do we cope with that? And if you were calling the shots and sitting in the White House, how would you deal with this and advise American manufacturers to cope with this syndrome? I think you can bring 301 cases very effectively today on anti-dumping. You have a secretary of Commerce in mac baldrige and a ustr and in Clayton yeutter both of whom understand it and and are perfectly willing to bring 301 actions. There have been more brought in the last two or three years and I think been brought in the previous ten. It won't solve all the problems. But but it certainly is a mechanism which at least those two are willing to bring I've been part of the debate as to whether or not some of those cases should be brought recognizing the fact that if we went to Washington brought him that we'd get support by at least by Clayton wider to follow through on the action. It's a very difficult decision to make because usually were trading with the people were trying to to to impact by a successful 301 action. So you have to walk on eggshells for a while, but It would be very helpful. Of course, if we could develop in this country something that approached the cooperation that exists in in the country. You mentioned between the business community and government The quedan Ren and meaty and Japan work very very closely with the business community and it's too bad that we can't I wouldn't wouldn't want to emulate what they're doing. But it is too bad that there has to be as much of an adversarial relationship between business and those helpful Regulators in Washington as exist in this country. I'm afraid I can't be very helpful to you. Although I should say that you if you you can bring a successful dumping anti-dumping act with a 301 action. Yes, Holly effective is American Business on the hole and actually selling products abroad I have in mind like knowing the language is knowing the customs of the people to whom we try to sell products making very careful canvas of the possibilities of a market and so on before we go in or do we just sit in our offices or golf clubs or so and expect the will say Japanese or German or whatever you have it intended buyers of a product to come to us. I think we deserve the business Community deserves more credit that's being given in terms of the effort that we make in terms of of our our export in international business efforts. It's very popular particularly in places like Japan to say that we don't understand don't speak the language. We don't understand the markets some of that. Is true we are a we are not very well educated when it comes to foreign languages in this country and we must do a much better job over the long run in terms of that. But I find that there's a lot more going on in the international on the international scene by a lot of companies including a lot of medium-sized and small companies in terms of recognizing the international potential and doing something about it. So I sure there are things that we can do to improve prove our performance and you've mentioned several of them, but by and large, I think we're doing a lot better than we give ourselves credit for Mr. Mellott you started your remarks by mentioning the Minnesota World Trade Center. Do you have any other thoughts or suggestions as to what states or cities or local communities can do to address the issues that you've raised? Well, I think that state governments can can do a part to create an environment that is that is encouraging to International Trade both in terms of bringing foreigners to this country for manufacturing purposes as well as to Aid and assist our manufacturers in in exporting. I think I can't tell you in detail what Minnesota is done. I know in Illinois, we have trade offices in four or five different countries around the world which are very effective not for a company like FMC, but for small to medium-sized companies and assisting them in identifying identifying markets. I'm not quite sure that I agree that. Subsidizing a Toyota plant to the extent of 350 million dollars, whatever it was. I ridden Wall Street Journal of days being his happening in Kentucky or Tennessee or some place is the right answer. I think there's a tendency may be to put too much front end subsidy into attracting manufacturing facilities. And I think that the discounted cash flow on the payout you'd find is probably pretty long pretty long. So I think some of the things that states are doing in bidding for some of these overseas foreign plant locations is probably going overboard and I'm a little concerned we do too much then but I think in terms of Employee training programs and things of that kind I think the states can probably continue to do a better job. They're doing although I think most of them are doing fairly. Well right now, Mr. Mellott. I have a question. You talked a lot about the need for political leadership. I'm right over here given the current and it's a pretty big crop presidential candidates. Are there any among them that you think speak to the trade agenda that you'd like to see the u.s. Adopt? None that have much chance. I think Pete Du Pont has some fairly sound ideas on trade in spite of the fact that his only past job of note has been governor of the state of of Delaware, but I think he has a fairly effective effective agenda. But I just think that most of the debate on this political debate on this issue is going to be fairly unsatisfactory in terms of any depth and any major fundamental impact on what I see is our long-term competitiveness challenge. Thank you.