about - the 4g been the norm, you have the over-the-top services as we would call them. in other words microsoft spent $8 billion got skype so skype interrupts essentially the service provider, any of these hundreds of local service providers they also skipped over, but grabbed the four and traffic and paid to make a crawl outside the country to download the skype application now owned by microsoft and the use that. google, apple, microsoft, tons of over-the-top services say that's a major factor in this industry. companies like a white square sprint controls along with of the cable companies and when we talk of a sprint we are talking about a complicated point in terms of its ownership and how would interlocks.

on any case, building out the wi-fi to set the wi-fi in somebody's house instead of being good for 300 feet, it's good for a quarter of a mile, something like that, and of these technologies are coming as well. so that's number one. they define the industry as with a voice and the industry isn't voice. going forward it is almost all of data. savitt of the industry wrong. that's the first problem. the voice competition in terms of carrying. the second thing is on like when they reviewed the merger where they specifically said while they are national networks the decision is a local decision so when you look at the key cities across the u.s. and the order of say the top six or seven there's six or seven in the market you

see that as a correlation from one city to another is not that high so you might see verizon number one or 30 in the top 100 cities and probably more than that in for a rise in the largest provider. but, the local -- then you go down the line and for the first five they are not going to correlated very highly because they are going to be different in different markets. in this case like the alltel case the justice department said we are looking at for national companies and we want to keep the national companies. in such we do have national networks but you have real local markets really easy to disrupt based on price and agreements etc.. so those are the two big things to read the third thing is the public policy issues they can say but the public policy issues including jobs are supposed to save the jobs in this case it's not just about the jobs of the loveless of the jobs in rural

america and the economic development that's going nowhere because we are not getting the high-speed. >> do you know if you would be opposed of sprint is this for sprint t-mobile merger? >> would depend on the conditions. the two main things we cared about, jobs, which means and offshore even the technical jobs erickson moved them out of the country so first would be jobs and second would be the broadband build up and take the highly complex financial structure we wish them well and we do have the cable company backing them, warner and comcast so we don't see the do willfully danger something i heard a few minutes ago here because it's not in the interest comcast, time warner if and fcc and sprint and some people talk about that in this congressional

hearing verizon has their hands full in the different combination of the wireless company in the world and your eyes and people don't realize they own 40% of verizon wireless. there's no way that verizon is trying to focus on buying after sprint, so these are the issues that we see this sort of underlining all of this and to your question about sprint and t-mobile will see it as a very troubled merger in terms of the public interest questions and also obviously our number-one thing is employees and the sprint record key looked familiar which is the family connection for sprint but before the national relations center offshore the work out of the country in san francisco. mostly latinos lost their jobs when that center was closed. >> we have time for one more

question for juliana gruenwald. >> the obama administration decision to fight the merger have political consequences for the president and for democrats allies? >> i think it does have political aspects. again, the question is here is the justice department and the white house would say they are only looking at numbers and the policy decision at the level instead of local. the president has had a policy for the builds are yes we are concerned. if we stating we will build that and when we have the chance to get it for think it's a problem. islamic this is the communicators and larry cohen of the communication workers of america is the president and has been our second guest today. we will continue to follow this issue on the communicators. c-span.org/communicators is our web site. mr. cohen, ms gruenwald come

thank you very much. >> thank you.

former senate majority leader tom daschle and former white house chief of staff andrew card talked about u.s. trade and investment policy. both are co-chairs on the task force of the council of foreign relations on trade and investment. the task force recently released report on u.s. trade and investment policy which called for enforcement of u.s. trade laws. this is about an hour.

>> good morning. while we are getting settled think you all for being here on a chilly monday morning. i'm the director of the council's task force for them and it's my pleasure to welcome you here to this special event to release the report of the independent task force on u.s. trade and investment policy. the task force is chaired by andrew carter and thomas daschle and is directed by the two senior fellows edward alden, matthew speed, with more on the panel this morning. let me say a few words about the task force between the discussion to a task force are non-partisan, independent. ca4 takes no institutional position on issues and the members are responsible for the concept of the report and each member participates in his or her own capacity. the consensus document. the members and was a general judgment the not necessarily every finding your recommendation. taskforce members may submit additional views and find at the end of the report.

the members are all listed on the back of the report and several of them are here today and we thank them for the contribution and say thank you for being here. many others of course were instrumental in the level of like to say a special thank you to my deputy and from the back, thank you very much. we would also like to thank google for the generous support of the project and i'm pleased to turn things over to david wessel. thank you very much. >> thank you. there's a couple chairs down here, a remarkable report that looks like this in the standing room crowd only. i am very pleased to be here today with tom daschle, the former senate majority leader and now a piper. in the card is the bush school of government and of course former staff to president bush. ted alden at the council for foreign relations and was the

contract of the task force and matt slaughter from the dartmouth tax goal was also a co-chair of the task force. what we are going to do this morning is i'm going to ask some questions particularly of mr. daschle and mr. card for about half an hour and then open up to questions. i promise you that we will not spill the report by telling you everything that's in it. since they are giving away free copies, feel free to read it. let me start with one big question if i may mr. carter and mr. daschle. the record report quite eloquently says the growth of the global trade and investment has brought significant benefits to the united states and the rest of the world. the trade and investment facilitated by the u.s. law negotiating and implementing has alleviated poverty if raised average standard of living and conflict. now it seems to me that an awful lot of americans who are not convinced that global trade and

investment has brought significant benefits to them. they think it's actually hurting them soak more what you say to them to convince them that this is in their interest and not only in the interest of the u.s. multinationals? you want to start? >> david i guess i would start buy simply saying we have to ask what would have been had we not done these things clucks the board is going for the most transformational moment and is changing dramatically coming far more integrated, how more into related we recognize that we are the developing markets for the products that we produce and the services that we provided on the developing continent with africa and latin america and asia and so as we recognize the transformational moment we also have to recognize that there are things we have to do to engage with the world in order to ensure that the economy stays strong. we also in the report notes that there are a lot of things we can do better. we can do a lot better with

enforcement than we can today. we probably can lot better with regard to the training our workers to cope with the transformation of circumstances than we do today so we recognize there are many challenges out there that the world is changing. we need to adopt as the world changes to suit the workers and the needs of our country. >> we find the multinational corporations actually have a disproportionately large growth factor when it comes to workers in the united states. so they've been adding jobs in the united states even as the expanding market opportunities in the world and that is a good sign. we've also been a magnet for breasting investment, but that is challenge right now with the world and this report is not written to be the perfect answer. if you are looking for perfection you should probably go to an academic institution and they will give you perfection. this is -- >> or church. >> this is an effort to describe what we think is needed and as a

practical recognition of the challenge on the free trade and the debate over what it would look like and the debate is what about me, so this is a balance between the theoretical value trade and the practicality that we need to do more for the american worker and to demonstrate that the ground rules are there, the united states is going to be a partner in making sure people play by the rules, and so this is an effort to recognize the political climate as well as the economic climate and the reality that the world has changed and we don't have permission to be the exclusive carriers of economic growth for the world, and we don't have permission to be isolationist. we are going to participate in the global economy and we think this is a road map for the more realistic participation and the pro-american interests are not

going to conflict with a theoretical the expectation of the open market. >> senator, as you know, the report argues that there are lots of ways of which trade and foreign investment in the united states and u.s. investment abroad are ultimately good for the united states. but my feeling is a ticket pool of the democrats in congress you might have trouble getting the majority for the proposition so what do you say to them? why is this really in america's interest and not just corporate america's interest? >> i think that if you look where we are softest today with regards to the economy it's the expectation how we are going to grow jobs and one of the major takeaways of this report and our steady over the last year has been that we really need a much more aggressive pro-active pro-american investment policy and that investment policy has a couple of components. it's encouraging foreign investment into the united

states as we see already in many other parts of the world, something we haven't done a very good job of encouraging. but it also means encouraging american investors and american manufacturers to also invest in america and in building the kind of partnerships to do that is really what will growth of jobs in the long term. we are going to hear a lot of debate over the last several months how to grow jobs. we think that there's a significant trade component testing to do with investment, really did it directly to job growth in this country that we need to focus on that we are going to get the job done right. >> we mentioned the report picks up on the fact that not all workers benefit from trade and that its suggested the government policies could be used to share the benefits of trade more broadly. the report calls for wage insurance which is a way of compensating workers who may lose a job because they are one of the losers in the trade.

but in effect exception to the report and the commentary, both trent lott and bill thomas objected to that. would you say to the republicans like thomas or trent lott on the hill now who are uneasy about extending the trade in the program? is that really important? are they right? >> i think they are right in the global context of spending, and with regard to the united states they are saying put it that in the same consideration everything else will be in this deficit-reduction commission needs to say how do you spend money? i also think there are benefits for the free trade and with the benefits it can mean to be shared with people who dislocated it's not that but i'm not just for spending and spending. in the context of the overall federal discipline that has to come in to spending i don't disagree with their tanks to.

i did disagree with the reservation because i think we put together a plan that was practical from a political point of view as well and so i think there was some recognition that there are going to be adjustments needed to address people who are on the cusp of in cost because the free trade jeopardized the positions in the job and so that's what i favor and i did talk with both senator lott and the former chairman of the ways and means and i completely understand their tanks but when it is discussed in the context of overall spending, i think we can find a way to show that the benefits are going to be real from the free trade than some of those benefits should show the concerns of the workers displaced. >> it's critical and that is the practicality to read the political practicality in today's world, david, dictates that we understand the importance of trade adjustment

assistance if we are in favor of a robust trade policy to go hand in glove. you can't have one without the letter to the estimate i should say that matt and ted are not required to remain silent. they're mostly going to help on the q&a. it didn't want you to think they were just assigned to nada free time. [laughter] >> compared to a decade ago when they did a report on trade something was different as the wall of china. and so what does the report have to tell us about what we have to fear from china, what we have to gain and most important what role does the government play making sure that china plays by the same rules we play by? >> first of all the reality of china's growth is evident to us all and so are some of the problems in china would i would like to see and support the of

administration's efforts about how the currency is and what effect it has in dictating the value and i am also concerned about the intellectual property. i also think it is the self initiation by the government hasn't been very present where there have been violations swiss counted on the corporations and businesses to come forward with their concerns and their increasingly reluctant to raise a level of concern to the federal government, and i think that the government should be more active in calling attention to the violations of trade and where the rules are not being respected so this report also calls for the government to be self initiating. >> a big company feels china is disadvantaging not willing to stand up for itself. >> retaliation to really think they are concerned about retiring and the effect --

>> by the chinese government. >> but to your question, and i think it is a very appropriate and important question, if i had to categorize the report it would be in four ways, the fourth takeaways. we ought to have a much more protective trade policy. we have to be focused on those countries that really could produce the results and china and brazil and three good examples so clearly as we target where we can do the most good with trade china is a major factor. second as investment policy. we have a policy that recognizes the importance of the bilateral relationships and encouraging more investment. china is one of those major players that we can make a big difference. third is enforcement. we have to do a better job with enforcement and what better country to demonstrate we can do enforcement and china and finally the trade adjustment system, the need to recognize we have to help our workers, that

especially relates to china because we are being hurt in some ways by the bilateral relationship we've got today. so all four takeaways apply in a very significant and consequential way to china. >> and the report to talk about that one of your recommendations on the national investment initiative to coordinate investment policies and create high-wage productivity jobs in the united states. what does that mean in reality? what is it we are not doing to encourage investment? >> first of all that means all of our investments in the united states should have an eye towards competitiveness. how are we going to remain competitive with the rest of the world as it has become increasingly competitive to us? so, we need to have more investment in our infrastructure and more investment in education. this is a recognition that the united states alone is not going to be the engine that drives all economic activity around the world and we have to be more competitive and we are asking for an investment in the

infrastructure and education so that we will be very competitive with the world that is increasingly competitive against us. >> we saw in the report the national investment initiative would be complementary to the administration's defense national export initiatives. that a lot of what this report is about is attracting investment in the united states that's related to export markets and the united states has never done this in a systematic way. most countries have national level investment promotion efforts where they are looking overseas to bring in companies to get invested in the united states to retain the investment, we don't do that at the national level in any seriously we do that the state level. we talked about the tax policy about the way in which our corporate tax system is out liar and discourages investment in the united states and we talked about as senator daschle mentioned china and the developing country, so i think

that the goal is to have some of these complementaries export initiative to say trade and investment are intimately linked and as we are promoting exports many to be promoting foreign investment and more broadly -- to invest more in the united states. >> to have a set of policies in the united states to allow the expansion abroad to cut jobs in america as well to allow them whenever mode in the global economy to have thereby the dynamic market with china and others to translate back into jobs and come here. >> you talked in the report with and approval of the german chancellor angela merkel and nicolas sarkozy as being better salesman for their export industry than american presidents have been. i want to talk to you a little

about that. in europe, the governments are much closer to the businesses and then the relationship between the government and business is different here and most times the rhetoric of business in america is stay out of my business and i will stay out of yours. as you mentioned president of the united states whether it is a republican or democrat be spending more time to bite objects or beating on the germans to buy microsoft? is that what we think of that? >> i don't know that i would say beating on them. but the right burba i would use but i do think creating a greater and a closer and more successful partnership as we look at the international competitiveness is something we should do i think it's a good thing. we also have to do a better job of slinking jobs with this whole effort. that's what we fail to do. we haven't really made the case about how jobs can be affected

and how we can build a jobs agenda of around doing a better job of selling our souls to the world. that partly is what this is all about. recognizing there is a huge amount of rhetoric that has to be considered as we make our case that hasn't been addressed effectively in the past few years. >> the president of the united states, they don't not push for the u.s. exports but it's kind of down with a bit of a dhaka court mislike we ought not to be mercenary about this because we are the united states of america. is that a problem or is that a good thing? i am not sure. i don't think it's a problem. the presidents of the united states has been unabashedly championed. i'm going to say u.s. corporations were compete against foreign corporations. it's when they compete against other corporations that they don't get engaged, but they just want the playing field to be as level was possible, and they

want the rule to be respected on our side and i think that is what we are asking the federal government to do is to be pro-active in making sure the rules are there that are enforced and we are not going to count on our corporations of the time to be the ones to say they are breaking the rules here. we want to see whether the rules are being broken and we should step up and call attention to it, but yes we want a pro american trade policy and that is what this is saying. i don't think it is inconsistent with the fact that the united states is the best example of the free market system and we want to spread through the systems around the world but we are going to do it recognizing that our market system is great because it does have several small and there is enforcement and we are going to make sure that spreads across every border in the world. >> the way that america taxes corporations is quite controversial the moment. we are the only country in the

wild that tries to tax everybody's profits no matter where they are in the world, other countries generally try to tax only the profits earned in the country and there's a great consensus now in congress that we ought to have tax reform as long as you don't try to find what it is they are talking about. [laughter] you talk a little bit about taxes in the report and i wonder if you can talk about how do we think about the corporate tax reform in the context trade investment? >> first of all i think there is a recognition that tax policy has a huge influence on our success in international trade and competitiveness so we have got to look at it from that perspective. we've created a whole array of incentives to do different things. but the bottom line is we still have a very high tax rate as it relates to other parts of the world in business. and so recognizing that and creating a greater equilibrium, the fair and competitive tax climate is something democrats and republicans, this

administration and congress in spite of the polarization you see about the taxes seem to agree. >> i feel very strongly that you cannot have a trade the date without talking about taxes and this report acknowledges that reality and we heard from a number of business leaders in fact every business leader we spoke to that the tax policies have a greater impact on some of the trade policies than of the fury of trade, and we would like to call to the attention of congress as they take a look of the tax policy to pay attention to what is happening in the global competitiveness how does it impact the ability to compete overseas and to keep jobs at home or attract new jobs and more investment here but we've put some very controversial suggestions in here with regard to the tax debate the congress will have to have that's not in the context of a trade bill. it's in the context of the tax bill that would have to be written but we don't want a tax

bill written without paying attention to the ramifications on the international trade. >> you also talk about the process of getting trade legislation through congress. once upon a time to make it better we saw that the process the president would propose and congress could amend and it happened in 30 days but 30 days seems to stretch to 300 days and 3,000 a day is on the agreement some of pledge your with countries about the size of the providence rhode island. so how would you propose to make the trade legislation process different if you what? >> well, first of all, i guess we as a and he said, if we try to write a perfect document, we probably write a perfect way with which to do the trade legislation in the congress. that isn't going to happen. >> nobody thinks congress is perfect. [laughter] >> that's the problem. >> i think we come with the

realization that the trade authority of legislative avenues are not something that are very realistic today. so we have to look at ways to which address these outside of that context making the case that on a bilateral basis with countries as important as brazil and india and china that on that basis alone we ought to be able to find a consensus on some of the most important priorities and aspects relating to trade with those countries. we are not going to create a framework with which all these things can be done. as said i think before the program started there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the trade policy as we go forward and we have to recognize that today. the trade authority would be great in the perfect world and the reality as the congress is not likely to approve the trade promotion of 40 and even if they do it would probably be strings on it that might take away the

promotional of 40. so this is an acknowledgement of the of reality of the political climate today. .. did used to be that you would take your cookie-cutter out and poke it into the world and bingo, it showed columbia, perfect example. we don't have a cookie-cutter any more. we have to deal mark-to-market, reality to reality and that is

also in the context of political response to congress. >> we have done that before. we have had examples where we have been able to do this and i think we have to go back and find what worked in the past outside of epa and use those principles and experiences again. >> but i would love congress to give tpa to the president of the united states. i think it is an appropriate response to article ii of responsibility. i don't think congress is going to do it though. >> just to add one thing to be clear in the debate we had, i think there was broad agreement in the best of all possible worlds trade promotion authority by the presidents make sense. what we wanted to avoid was a big ideological battle over you know, in theory does the u.s. want to go forward with more trade agreements? that makes both sides harden in their position. i believe what we are saying is to go out there presented and present to the congress pacific deals that the administration can bring home. the is probably going to need tp in the context of this

partnership be negotiated and if you can go to members of congress and explain what tpa is. >> it allows for fast-track procedures through congress of the bill can be amended essentially so that you don't get into the game of congress amending trade deals after they are negotiated. some say we have ended up there anyway with pantomime columbia but we would like congress to pass the agreements of the administration and negotiate things but i think it is easier if you have got tangible -- tangible things that you presented members of congress and say here's what your grant of trade promotion authority for this agreement is going to be and try to build up confidence in that way. >> let me turn out to what you think the ceos of big companies the companies want to do and say. you know, in the '90s, multinationals created about two jobs overseas for every job they created here. in the 2000's they didn't. they actually increase their implanted overseas by about 2.4 million decrease their workforces in the u.s. by

2.9 million. what is the responsibility of the ceos writ large mull of multinational companies in terms of talking to the government and talking to the people about trade and what should they bring to the table? >> i think they should bring to the table -- we have to be competitive in the world. help us be competitive in the world then yes, i would say what he is going to do for us? i think they have some suggestions. sometimes the rules of the game don't allow them to add as much value to the united states as they would like to, but the competitive challenge requires them to make sacrifices at home for their shareholders return on investment so i think it is a challenge. we heard, i mean jim owens is the best example. he is out there. he is out there working very, very and has been working very

hard not only to provide jobs in america but to meet the challenges that consumers have around the globe. and he has done it well. fight, he said we were tying his hands frequently. sometimes it was her tax codes and sometimes it was a lack of infrastructure in the united states that allowed him to be competitive but he found a way to do it so we listen to him. we listen to the practical challenge he had to face as as if you is competing around the world and his very very sincere desire to add value here at home. >> i think ceos have the same responsibility that public officeholders have, which is to do what this report calls for and that has put the attention and the focus where the american people really want to hear where they think it should he and that is on jobs. what are ceos doing to do a better job and we have done in recent years on creating jobs here at home? what are policymakers doing? how can they worked together? what incentives and what kind of

infrastructure do we need to ensure that it is profitable and it is rewarding for businesses to create those jobs right here at home? that is really what we have got to do, emphasize what it is going to take to build those jobs here because the perception is all we are doing is building and creating those jobs abroad. we have got to bring them home but we have to make sure people believe that it is a real priority and the highest element of our agenda when it comes to trade. >> i would just echo what tom and andy said. part of what ceos can do most importantly is inform and educate. they are the ones that are seeing every week a reporter, how fast the changes are in the global economy and how the opportunities are growing but how challenging the dynamic is for how to grow those markets hopefully in a way that connects with jobs and opportunities here in the united states. like international tax is a great example. you go back to the 80's and 90s in relative to many other countries the united states

tech -- corporate tax code was similar to that of other countries but the changes in dozens of countries to simplify the tax code has made the u.s. more and more of an ally. whether tax or protection of property they are seeing things in real time that can guide the focus of policymakers here i think on this effort to grow more jobs links to the global economy. >> let me ask you one economic birth question as long as we have you here. there's a striking quote in this report from its predecessor, 2001 report that was written by a task force chaired by the former secretary-treasurer and the former republican white house staffer, which was ironically or interestingly directed by the little-known bureaucrat named tim geithner at the time. and in that report, this was just 10 years ago -- it was the cfr that wrote the gains from trade are broadly shared. throughout the last decade, that the u.s. has become significantly more open, u.s. employment and wages have

increased. that is not a statement you could make in 2011. what changed? >> so we don't fully know, but the academic says we are still working on trying to understand that but it is clear and amazing amount of technology innovation in the different dimensions in which the economies of the world to become more global and interconnected has something to do with the fact that job growth has been slower and the fact that in particular the wage growth has been nonexistent for the lowest majority of american workers. that is a deep reality of the global economic system. doesn't depend on which parties or what part of our government plays and again what is new in our report is saying this is an economic reality that we can build off of hopefully with a more innovative set of policies to try to allow more job growth and more income growth link to that opportunity abroad because it is not just coming automatically. >> i would say that also a recognition of reality in that government owned entities around

the world are increasingly challenging our corporate structure to be competitive. and so, how do we deal with that? our rules really weren't written with an expectation of government owned entities would be the basis for competitive market so that is where we are saying the u.s. should be more proactive as -- and the u.s. government should be more proactive in looking to see whether the rules are being followed and the playing that the playing field is as level as possible when you are out there competing to meet the demands of consumers around the world and provide jobs back home. >> that is where i think the american people expect the american government to be a lot more aggressive when it comes to enforcement and we have been in the last 10 years. if there is one word that i think concerns them the most it is that it is enforcement. why don't you go -- be more aggressive and be more successful and take on the lack of competitive fairness as you look at some of these markets

because of state-owned enterprises. >> okay we are going to turn to questions now. i thought we could skip the usual washington warning to turn off your cell phones but we did pretty good for the first 29 minutes. i want to remind you that this is on the record, so if you speak, you will be on record in there is a c-span camera there. please wait for the microphone and use it. please say who you are, and remember that questions and -- with a question mark. who has got to my? do you want to start right here in the front? >> good morning, paula stern. thank you. my question goes to both of you all. thank you so much for your presentation. with regard to china, and with regard to the issues of enforcement of our trade laws and our obligations and those of

china under the wto and specifically with regards to the green tech arena, which is so important particularly to this administration's initiatives. we have been treated to the article about bolts, the gm and ford seeing differently how to deal with china, with regard to the requirements i guess you would say of the government of china, regarding trek -- tech transfer is a condition of those two automotive industries investing in china and enjoying the chinese market. you suggested mr. card that went to different u.s. corporations may not see eye-to-eye, on a particular policy it makes it very difficult for the president and the administration to come forward actively with china.

what would you suggest be done with regard to china, given the retaliation concerns that these corporations have. is that the onus now on the u.s. government and how does it resolve it when it gets to different industries, particularly in the automotive area that are so important? >> first of all i feel the united states should help all of our intellectual property be protected in the world, so we should be proactive and helping to protect the ensign actionable property that america has discovered and implemented. i also respect that sometimes there are corporate interest that don't mind sharing their intellectual property. and that is a business decision made company by company or corporation by corporation. i don't think there should be a blanket rule that says no intellectual property can never be transferred to any other entity. that is a corporate decision. that is not a government decision.

the government decision says we have an intellectual property of the law and we are going to respect and we are going to make sure people around the world respected and comply with it. so that would be the difference. so when it comes to gm and ford and how they might negotiate intellectual-property with the market, that is for them to decide rather than for us to impose what we should protect the overall intellectual property rights that exist in america. >> there are in a trade rules provisions that discourage performance requirements, the discouraged countries from saying you have to do axe in our market is so you are product so there are things to discourage things that may work against the development of these technologies in the united states so that gives back to the question of enforcing the rules as they're written. i agree with secretary card you can have a blanket prohibition but there are rules that are in place to discourage this sort of thing. >> thank you. steve at george washington university law school. i didn't hear anything this

morning about by american. i didn't see it in the report. i did see it at the end of the report, endorsing buy america so here's my question. last week the president sent out the jobs bill with sections for -- for public works. is that something that the task force discussed and wide was it left out of the report if it was discussed? >> i think it is mentioned, isn't it? >> briefly. >> briefly. >> my view is a task force member which is the complicity of the global economy makes buy america provision is more and more difficult to conceive of in measure and i also think that the narrow sighted in terms of the broad goal of trying to build millions and millions of jobs in the global economy for trade investment. other cub -- countries pay attention to our country and the reality is that dynamic growth

opportunities that are american workers need to tap into our more and more outside of the u.s. border so i think those policies don't work well and they might cause a lot of retaliation. >> i would put it in a little different context actually because we really do put a lot of emphasis on what we call the pro-american approach. there's a difference between pro-american and by american in my view in that row american has a much broader array of approaches that will allow us to have a greater expectation of some result, whether it is dealing with countries that can really make a difference in our trading relationships with china, brazil and india, whether it is an investment policy, whether it is important in our trade adjustment assistance. all of this things are a pro-american approach that go way beyond just the buy america more narrow focus that i think doesn't really lend itself to the kind of environment we are facing today. >> there's a gentleman here on

the isle. can you give him the the mic? >> good morning, i am from afghanistan. you mentioned about the investment initiative. do you recommend any incentives for foreign investors in the united states? >> my question goes to both of you. >> i'm not sure i understood the question. >> wants to know d. recommend offering incentives to tax and other incentives to get people to invest here, correct? >> we did not call for that. we don't look at specific targeted incentives. we are talking about setting up an environment that is attractive to investors. >> we want to make sure we have a very attractive environments to bring in foreign investment, and return some of the profits that have come in the multinational and multi-corporate challenges but we want more money to come back

home because our tax laws look at her. so in the context of the tax debate we would like them to consider the global implications of taxes, not just big parochial interest in taxes. >> thank you. steven with u.s. council for international business. this question is for. matt: and others about the national investment initiative. the governors that doesn't love -- they have a parade and celebrate and they throw money at them into all sorts of 70s but our investment is somebody else's outward investment. your mercedes mercedes-benz pâée plant in alabama, hyundai does something in tennessee. those workers get upset. so we have to establish some linkages between outward investment and inward investment the president's investment policy says nothing about outward investment in the linkages so if you could say samore baobab, how we focus and bring together the linkages of inward and outward and also in the context of keeping these

fast-growing markets where our competitors as you have noted our state-owned enterprises. should we really be pushing for serious disciplines on enterprises to have a level playing field? >> a great question. a couple of thoughts. won his distinctions between inward and outward investments get more and more blurry as global business gets more and more interconnected, so with ongoing rise of outward m. and a transactions beyond the countries, kind of who is the ownership changes more and more so i think they get about those distinctions as clean and permanent is not helpful. and on your second thought, historically there is some academic research data shows expansion abroad by us-based multinational companies tends to support more job creation and more capital investment and importantly a lot of outward fdi pulls from that market. the challenges from our reporters trying to think about

what consolation policies we can have an america to allow that complementarity to continue in in the future and that speaks to things that we have been discussing like enforcement, requirements and in those foreign countries protection of intellectual property's. >> can i respond quickly? you are facing a dilemma. the united states could i suppose say we are competing with these heavily subsidized enterprises and competing with enterprises that get all sorts of tax breaks and other advantages are corporations on it. we can try to match that subsidy. that is not going to happen in the current u.s. economy. far better to negotiate rules, be they in the context of the trade agreement like the bvp through the oecd and perhaps the india that began to establish some common rules for what level of government in perfect -- intervention, typical negotiation and i'm not pretending for minute that's easy but we have faced a lot of the same issues with japan in the eight -- 1990s so we have

confronted this before. i just don't think in our member the task force and the united states can close its eyes to this problem because it is a big and growing competitive challenge. our primary goal is to see productive activity located in the united states. corporations will move and will locate elsewhere if the incentives require them to do that, so we have to be able as a country to challenge that i continue to make the united states a good location for people who invest in great job's. >> if i may i just want to express it think it is important people don't think i'll go that means no c-span should've should abroad of any kind whether by u.s. domicile corporations board -- they will have the connections the trick is to try to think of a set of policies that support their ability to tap into fast growth abroad to mean more jobs and economic activity here. that is the challenge. >> susan munson from mckinsey global institute. my question is about infrastructure investment. the u.s. needs all sorts of infrastructure investment to

create jobs. we need it in ports, airports, clean tech, transportation. at the same time we have foreign investors who are interested in helping fund u.s. infrastructure investment. however in the past we have had a little bit of skittish attitude about foreigners and things like ports are airports or energy sector, so i have several questions for you. one is, do you think it is appropriate in a good idea to try to attract foreign investment in the infrastructure in two if you do you see any sort of signs that u.s. attitudes toward such investment is changing and if not, is there anything concrete that can be done to help facilitate this type of investment? >> well, i personally think that it is a very important part of our infrastructure elemental investment policy, that we ought to be encouraging yet and i am hopeful that we are going to begin to see a greater and more proactive approach on the part

of government officials in that regard. it seems to me it all comes down once again to this whole notion of jobs. and a recognition that because of the tremendous center reliance and interdependence we have today, that those jobs are very real and that if that is the only way with which we are going to be able to see a really robust infrastructure development policy in this country, it seems to me that is just a logical extension of what we have already seen in the past. so, i would love to see much more of it. i think probably at the end of the day you will see morbid. >> there seems to be a resistance to weather was dubai ports or german company buying a phone company and all that stuff. how do you talk people out of that fear that if the foreigners by her infrastructure we lose control of our destiny? >> that is the word, control. to what extent can we create a framework within which control is still ours? that is really going to be the

most important question. we want investment but we simply don't want to turn over the entire infrastructure management and portfolio to a foreign investor, so control is key. but along with control is a recognition that we can manage these things well if we can do them with that understanding and the realization that good jobs, permanent jobs, going to be a part of this investment. >> i would echo the senator. if a long-standing process and united states to ensure the national security concerns are legitimate with inward transactions and our infrastructure is met. in terms of -- i think the merit of jobs is really critical here. this is one of things globalization is done in the past generation is around the world there is a lot of global best practices that operate in the infrastructure space. there a lot of countries around the world that that is built out their ability to fund and build and maintain infrastructure projects by relying on these companies.

the more we can rely on those american and arab type environments, the better we will be able to build out an infrastructure that will help support job creation in america in the future, hopefully. >> as we are pushing for their markets to be open for business, america wants to be open for business. this report says that, so we are looking to say, yes, we would like to have your investment here. we do pay attention to governance and we do have a process in place to make sure national security interests are respected and complied with, but we are open for business. we are open for investment and we want that investment to come because that means jobs. >> day on with the -- foundation. at a question about trade promotion authority with respect to tpp. in the report, you talked about, it is not terribly clear what you are suggesting on trade promotional authority and i'm wondering if you would address how specifically tpa could be

granted to tpd because tpd is moving forward. >> the abc's here. tpas a trade authority that allows a person to negotiate agreement and supposedly get it through congress on an up-or-down vote quickly and tpp is the transpacific partnership which involves a, help me here, japan is not part of a. >> the united states and a number of southeast asian companies. malaysia and others and the ideas to have the building blocks of a broader regional trade agreement and the u.s. is intensely involved with the negotiations now. the hope is for major progress by hawaii in november. >> tpp is being negotiated as though it has tpa. >> it is, yeah. i actually think we were pretty clear. i think the big distinction is we didn't say okay obama

administration go out next week and ask for a broad brand of fast-track trade promotion authority so you can go out and do a bunch. the fear is that then becomes another ideological battle over whether trade is considered and we have had too many of those so what we have said is go out and ask in the context of specific deals and i think the part bishop is a very good example where the administration when it gets to the right stage will be a will to go to congress and say look width is do we can bring home and here are the advantages that it will bring to the united states. we think you the congress should grant us this vehicle to bring this home. i think that is where we are politically. >> work out the principles of the deal didn't go to congress and get the negotiating authority rather than ask for the famous blank check. >> i think that is where we are in this but you wouldn't necessarily have to be this far along. the united states to go to congress and say we want to do an agreement with india like the european union is currently negotiating. this is a big market for us and these would be the broad parameters of the deal. give us the authority to go do

that so you are talking specifics rather than generalities. >> in the back. >> bill lynn with caterpillar. my boss formerly was doug oberhelman and i have to say i was sort of taken by andy's comments because while it is absolutely true over the last 10 or 20 years we have increased u.s. employment pretty dramatically and increase non-u.s. employment dramatically, but 36 years at caterpillar i've never been to winning where executives got together and said the goal was to increase jobs. the goal is to increase sales, to reduce costs and improve quality, to be safe, to promote diversity but never once is business folks gotten together and said i don't care about profits. i care about creating jobs. but if you do these other judges properly you do create jobs. most of this discussion has been about jobs. do we make a mistake by leaving with jobs rather than what it

takes to help this economy in pointing out the jobs that will follow? >> i don't think it is either/or, frankly. what i think we have got to do is say how is it that we get the jobs because i think jobs are uppermost on the minds. i don't think most americans are necessarily as concerned about how much profit caterpillar makes but how much ultimately it means in jobs as a result of the profit that you do make. and so, putting it in that context seems to me just recognizes the political reality today. until we can convince the vast majority of american people that a proactive, pro-american trade policy actually does mean better jobs and more jobs, i don't think we are for going to get to first base on a trade policy. that is really what it is. it is not necessarily saying anything differently than what the ceos talk about in that room, but to put it in the context of a message that the

american people will hear and -- >> i view it as the context under which the trade debate takes place today is in the context of jobs and what does it mean for america? that is why this is a pro-america plan and yes, we want every corporation in america to be competitive around the world, so we are looking for a very competitive environment around the world. that we are also asking, is that procompetitive environment going to complement america's interest in creating jobs? and we think there is a balance. we are not suggesting that any ceo should say, my first job was to create jobs. i think the first job is to be competitive with the world and the jobs will come so that is why would we met with the ceos of the number of companies, they talked about what it would mean to be competitive and they want to be competitive in the united states. they want to be competitive as a global corporation, but they

also want to be competitive in the united states against or with or in complement, so i think that is what the context is. we had a wonderful group of task force members and i see connie cheering us on. we had a very healthy debate over a jobs priority or a competitive priority and we thought it was going to be a pro-america priority. it includes competitiveness and we hope we'll have a complement to the creation of jobs and american stability in the job markets. >> and i would just add that the task force was great. a lot of conversations about what that competitive means to the ability of america to grow jobs and i think the report strikes the right balance and saying, trade investment policy competitive u.s. companies in the global economy is a piece of that but is that intimately related to a broader set of challenges like infrastructure, like corporate tax, like educational system, our

immigration system and you you w big knowledge that in the task force report and try to get people to think about hearing those policy conversations and issues in a different light now and to link up with their ability to grow those jobs. >> is that a response to -- the man in the aisle here and then we will do the one here. >> ted kassinger with o'malley admires. there were number policies that should be part of the conversation but when you haven't mentioned that has been a prominent over the last decade or more in the trade policy with environmental issues. and easing trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties to an effect exports u.s. values in that area. we have seen the u.s. recently lost another wto case to the labeling issue. the obama administration recently initiated a labor rights case in the guatemalan

agreement. what does the task force have to say about the proper role of integrating environmental policies with trade promotion and investment policies? >> well that is something that i raised probably more than i should, but i did race it several times and i must say, it was something that i think that the task force generally found to be supportive of. it comes down really to the question again of enforcement. how do we do a better job of insisting that we level the playing field with regard to many of the challenges we face with practices and other parts of the world, especially in the developing world today. and making it as high a priority as it should be, and taking a more proactive approach to enforcement is something that i think the task force wholeheartedly endorses. >> and just add, think the approach the united states is

taken to the environmental laborers union has been something that is built up in the past two decades going back to this agreements with nafta and the clinton administration. we accepted that as part of the landscape right now and we didn't want to refight those battles. we were reasonably comfortable with u.s. policy was the most issues. we saw these other issues live in talking about up here is really more pressing at the moment. >> in the back in and a red tie. >> thank you. andy olsen. i wanted to follow up on enforcement. everyone supports more enforcement, but it got me thinking as you were talking wto cases are complicated, difficult, for the u.s. to actually bring one it requires getting consensus in the last business community because there are differences of opinion as to whether or not to bring one and how. and i'm starting to think is more small and medium-size enterprises are either in direct we are even direct lee exposed

to the global economy, and i'm thinking here of companies that i've spoken to who said you know my intellectual property rights were stolen by a company in a particular foreign country. do we need more tools in our toolbox? i mean, how do we address their needs again, because doing it at that wto level can be complicated and expensive. >> i think we have got plenty of tools in the toolbox. we want to see them used and i think you will always have a debate on whether not we should have more tools. we have the debate over are the tools being used? so we were saying, the world has changed, and we want the united states to me more proactive about a pro-american trade agreement. that would be proactive in making sure that the rules of

the day are followed. yes we can have debates over the rules and other tools, but this was not a desire to find other tools to use. it is really an encouragement to use the tools that yard he have and invite the government to be more proactive in seeing whether or not unfair trade practices are a reality in a country rather than waiting for a complaint from a corporation. >> do any of the people and the task force want to weigh in at all here? we did a great job? okay. we have time for one more question. the woman in the back. [laughter] >> i'm going to talk about another tool in the box that no one seems to have thought about. it might unclog the one of the major arteries of growth the u.s. economy has which is the construction in the real estate sector. that sector, when it was booming

was easily 16 to 20% of gdp and contributing to employment, to aggregate demand and to linkages with the rest of the world. and that artery of growth is plugged. there is a huge derailment in that. the mortgage sector which is one fueling that growth of course has stopped and then it should have been stopped because it became abusive and its practices. so the tool in the box that no one seems to have considered is to equalize the after tax treatment of rent payments to mortgage payments, so why not think of something that will immediately unplug the real estate sector by allowing ranchers to conduct rent payments of their income tax, which i think we'll do a lot to begin occupying a lot of empty houses in mobilizing the real estate and generating trade in

generating openness to trade? >> that i'm sure was not in the report. [laughter] >> now, it was not budding connection with the previous comment about small and medium-size enterprises, i will point out one of the many studies or task force relied on was a good report done by the u.s. trade commissioner earlier this year looking at enforcement of intellectual property of us-based companies in china. and they survey several thousand u.s. companies, large multinationals for small and medium-size enterprises and they tallied up the loss of revenue through war and affiliate sales and export them and tried to come back and figure out how many jobs were lost in america that meant relative to the strong ip protection in china. the number they came up with 2.1 million jobs. it wasn't just in the large global engage corporations. for small and medium-size enterprises and the effect that has for things like residential real estate. so the point is one of the thames in our report was trying to think about the benefits of

globalization can help america not just immediately for the large global corporation but for small and medium-size enterprises and things that are nontradable. i think a more american workers and their families see those kinds of connections because they are smart and they see these, the more hopefully they will be broader support in america for being able to build those kinds of jobs. >> totally outside of the trade context, your question race is really one of the primary dilemmas that most members of congress and the administration face today, and that is number one how do you pay for provision like that a number two, where does it fall in this overall challenge either to simplify the tax code and eliminate a lot of the tax provisions to create this more competitive corporate climate that we have been talking about, and how do you do that, given the array of provisions that exist today and the need to begin to find ways in which to simplify. those dilemmas will play themselves out over the course

of the next several weeks and months. >> for example the value-added taxes deductible in the context of the international trade. the united states does not have a deductible value-added tax that is a competitive disadvantage for example. the tax debate is a very important debate to have in the context of international trade and our invitation to congress is that when a debate taxes, they shouldn't endorse impact on competitiveness in a global economy. without i want to close and thank all of you for your good questions and your attention and for staying until the end including you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

next israeli and palestinian youth leaders talk about the middle east peace process and assess efforts to organize a grassroots movement in support of a two-state solution. this is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> welcome. i am the ceo of one voice international, which is a grassroots youth movement that is focused on constituencies in

israel and palestine for two-state solution to the israel-palestine conflict. one voice operates by trying to mobilize the vast majority of moderate voices on both sides. our work is politically focused on the ground in israel and palestine, and not clinically focused so much in the united states. through parallel actions that are one voice office in tel aviv and ramallah undertake to try to bring together people to build support for a two-state solution to understand the compromises of a two-state solution will require and to prepare people for both the costs of cost of making those compromises and for an appreciation of the benefits that will accrue to them when

those compromises are made and we finally have an end of conflict and it ended claims in israel and palestine. this year, our international education program youth leader tour, which is over here, was scheduled as it turned out, for a very active week in the u.n. during which the plo is expected now to present a resolution on the palestinian statehood. this has created an enormous buzz. when we first began planning this we wondered if this was an appropriate time to do it. my view was we couldn't have a better time because of the attention that will be brought to this issue in the media, in this country and around the world. so we have now in the context of this u.n. issue, the u.n. initiative to youth leaders, shapira from onevoice israel

and shtaya from one voice nine, who are here to talk with you about their personal stories, to give you a palestinian and an israeli perspective from the grassroots. on the issues and how they see the solutions and what they are trying to accomplish as youth leaders and activists in the grassroots movement in the field. let me say that their views about the grassroots and about what is going on in israel and palestine are perspective, that we usually don't get in the united states. but they are not really here to talk about u.s. politics and other political dimensions of the u.n. initiative, and i know we won't be able to avoid that but we will try not to put them on the spot with that. and i would also like to say that our co-sponsors in this,

the american task force on palestine and americans for peace now and the foundation for middle east peace have helped us put this together. we very much appreciated, but it is important for all of you to know that whatever views are expressed up here by eyal or alden others don't necessarily reflect the views of sponsoring organization so with that i would like to like to turn it over to bill wilcox to introduce obada and eyal. phil has become an old friend. he is the head of the foundation for middle east peace, someone with whom we have worked with in advancing the objectives of a two-state solution. thank you. >> thank you and thanks to one voice for taking this initiative and bringing obada and eyal to the u.s. for a week where they

will be very busy on universal campuses holding workshops and talking to the media. we need to hear your voice, and i think that it is worth thinking more about onevoice's program which in a way is unique. many of us sometimes yield to the illusion that peace is made by diplomats and politicians, and that in secret sessions they will negotiate historic these agreements, and then announce them to the public. that isn't true at all. pieces not made unless the citizens of the adversary negotiators support peace, and thus far, very little effort has been made by the governments of

palestine and the governments of israel and claims sorry to say the governments of the united states in trying to promote peace not simply as a motion or a principle, but as a detailed elaborated concept to the public. i know -- i should say i know -- i don't know but based on my long experience with both communities i think there is substantial minorities -- majorities in israel and palestine who desperately want peace. they realize that can only be achieved to -- through two states but until those majorities are mobilized to speak out to their governments, to the world, it will be much more difficult to make peace.

so, you are certainly contributing something very important. until the israeli public and the palestinian public and the american public are ready to speak out to their leaders in favor of peace, and willing to accept the ingredients of a piece, those that are painful and those that are positive and both sides are going to have to accept some compromises in order to gain their level it needs. so hats off to onevoice. i think you will find in your context here a lot of american enthusiasm for real peace, two state peace in spite of what you may see as the conservatism of our politicians. the same is true in israel. an example of that i think is in this heated controversy about

the palestinian initiative to the united nations seeking a member status or some modified but elevated status, a good number of senior respect did israeli former military leaders and seasoned politicians have spoken in favor of this against the views of their own government. there are strong voices in this country obviously for and against this initiative as there are and palestine. well, we are here to hear your views, both of you. eyal shapira is a student of international affairs and law at the hebrew university in jerusalem. he is one of a large number of onevoice supporters and leaders in both communities.

and shtaya, a student at the university in noblesse, who has studied for a year in turkey is one of the leaders of the movement in the west bank. it is hard for the partners in this organization to work together because of the physical separation between them -- israel and palestine, yet they do. and they have mobilized, i think it is 660,000 supporters in both societies, roughly an equal number of supporters. that is impressive. so certainly have chosen the right path to making a real contribution and we wish you well. i hope you will talk about the u.n. initiative.

i think it is important. it is not of course the issue that will either lose or win the peace for the basic problems there. it is the basic problems that have to be resolved and a u.n. initiative however it comes out, will not resolve the problem. you can offer your own thoughts on whether it is going to accelerate the movement towards peace or away from peace. my own view that it is not going to probably do either, but that under the circumstances, while it is a tough choice to make, the palestinian bid for self-determination, statehood and membership in the international community is a worthy one and not to be supported by the rest of the world. so which one of you would like to begin?

eyal, okay. >> hello, i am very excited to be here and i want to thank you all for coming. i would like to share and am glad to share with you my personal story. my name is shapira. i'm from jerusalem. i'm 25 years old and i'm studying at the hebrew university, law and political science. i grew up in jerusalem actually in a small town just outside of jerusalem called -- with my family. i have two sisters and right now i live in western slum. let's assume all of you know living in jerusalem either in the eastern part of jerusalem where most of the palestinians are israelis live or are either in the west part of jerusalem means dealing with the israel

palestinian conflict on a daily basis. when i was 15 years old, the second intifada broke out and it was days of horror in the streets of jerusalem. i can say that a terror attack took place on a weekly or a daily basis, but it was something that we feared off on a daily basis. one of the terrorist acts that took place was inside of a high school in jerusalem. for high school students were killed in that terror attack. i didn't know them personally but i knew many people that did know them, and it attracted me that they were the same age as me. they had the same desires as i did, which was teenagers all over the world just going out

with friends, wandering around and going to a party or something like that. every household in israel had the same in those days which was rather we should wait for the storm to pass or whether we should go out and keep on living our lives as kids and not letting terror win us. my family and all of the families in israel but i know decided to not let terror win and keep on living our lives despite the danger and despite me knowing that going out, my parents having a sleepless night, or it doesn't matter what other circumstances, we decided to keep on living our lives. when i was 17 years old, there

was a terror attack that took place in a city north of israel, and in that terror attack, a good friend of mine was killed. that was a very very hard time for her especially but for us as friends, to help her and to be there for her and dealing with a situation which a teenager shouldn't have to deal with. the feeling that i had, and i can say that us as friends and i can say of her that she had was that something has to be done and that we cannot keep on counting victims on both sides. we should take things in our own hands and we should try and change them. so i will get to that after i

will tell you about my military service and what we are doing. when i graduated, i went to the army which is in israel. i served for three years. i was a combatant soldier. i served in the west bank. i served in gaza, and four months after i turned commander, the second israeli lebanon war broke out, so i took part in it and i was commander of soldiers during that war. the experiences that i had in the army strength in the feeling that both people are big dems of the conflict and of the situation. either one has a relative who died or the other has business because people are afraid to come to the area or the other

has a fence and his fields. it touches all of us so we are the ones that should take it in our hands and we are the ones that should do something about it. those are the feelings that made me join onevoice. as howard was describing, an organization which is norman -- which is working in both societies but is emphasizing each society, the interests of the specific society. like is working in israel, we are talking about the israeli interest of getting to an agreement and when we speak to palestinians, they are talking about the palestinian interests. the feeling that i have is that, if we as onevoice, they can

have a forum which was made together by israelis and palestinians. it is something that is giving me hope that it is possible, not only with onevoice but between the two states. this year i was the coordinator of the jerusalem branch of onevoice and hebrew university, and we held many events this year. the main event was a debate between a former palestinian minister and a professor who is an international law professor. ..

to the jewish student and arab israelis that came to the event was very moving to me. they said the audience left the event much more optimistic than what they came to. than how they came.

and what i heave in mind when we work with the israeli society is that i feel that the most important thing we can do is preparing the society, the israeli society, for painful compromises in a day that -- in the day that an agreement will come. i do think that we can effect the leaders but i don't think this is the main thing we should focus on, because that's the most difficult thing to do. but i do think that because it's difficult, just because working with the society, and preparing them to think of compromise, is something i think, when it's coming from civilians talking to them face-to-face, i think this is something very, very powerful. so, in order that we were standing during the year talking to people, standing also in the

drizzling streets talking to people, we had a very, very big project with onevoice in 2018. imagine 2018, which was taken in palestine and in israel. we went to people, talked to them in the street, and asked them to imagine how they see israel and palestine in 2018. what we did in israel is that we had on facebook people had to write their own headlines, and putting the picture, their own picture of how they see 2018. that's the way we tried to engage people into action, and what we did with that is we have caucus in israel. we established the first two- state solution caucus in the

israeli parliament. so the big opening of the caucus was us bringing the headlines and pictures to the caucus and showing them to the members of the caucus. the caucus was established by a member of kadeem ma, and he is a youth leader in onevoice. other than that, i'm getting to september. what we work now about september is we see in september a chance for both people, both societies to get back into negotiations and bring back the two-state solution into the table, and it might seem -- i want to emphasize that what are israeli interests in supporting the palestinians going to the u.n.,

what i really think is that if we will support -- go back to the negotiation table now, after the palestinians visit the u.n., it will be limited on time, but mainly limited on conditions. the palestinians bring their conditions to the u.n., which is something that can be a very, very good base, and something that can -- it's not something that israelis will be able to just sign on that form, but it will be a very good base of starting to talk, and going back to the negotiation table. other than that, people sometime wonder that maybe a two-state solution is -- what i'm trying to say is when we go back to negotiations, it will be sure that the two-state solution is a solution that both the states are looking for, without any doubts, and so what we doing in

order to engage in needs for other people is we arranged during the demonstrations, the housing demonstrations in israel, there was a very, very good successful -- a very successful project they were doing, spreading tables all over tel aviv and talking to people about all the issues. so what we did is we're spreading tables all over tel aviv, bringing professionals to be the head of the fable -- head of the table and talking about the core issues we think are very important to share the people and show the israeli interests in september. thank you all, and -- [applause] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen and gentlemen i'm so glad today standing before you

and talk to you about this palestinian-israeli conflict and to share my personal story with you to begin with, my name is obada should tie ya. i'm but sugar a degree. basically i'm coming from an open-mined conservative family living in a little village, and i have one brother, he is studdying medicine in germany. my interest in politics, literature and sports, and i'm a member of the palestinian karate federation sports and i serve as the interpreter for the team in international stages. my experience with the israeli occupation began when i was one

years old and i'm 19 years old now. the first of them took place in this experience is the compile exile of my father the south of lebanon. they were taken from their houses and taken to a mountainous area where they experience the winter and heat of summer, and they lived a horrible year there. after one year under the pressure of the international community and the international red cross, they're allowed back in palestine. these 417 people are going back to their homeland, feeling they're going back to their families and happy about that. but unfortunately they found a bitter fate waiting for them in palestine. most of them were arrested by the israelis again to spend another period in the prison, and my father was one of them.

he spent another year in the prisons back in israel. actually, most of them, it had never been approved on most of them that they're active in militant things or like in poll -- they were not taken to court. they were taken from their houses and sent to the south of lebanon, and when they're back in palestine in the prison issue it was like they were japanese, just like in the prison. at that time is when one year old and i had to move with my father to live in my grandmother's house. this experience was really painful for me and for my brother, for my mother, especially that this area of imprisonment for my father counts nine times until 2007 when the last time he was arrested. it's correct that my father was a political activist in the

university and the hebron university, but has never been attached to any of the stuff at the university. he was just head of the student council there. actually, the city where i'm living, and the whole area was exposed at the a very long series of closings, and what i'm going to talk about now is the second i experienced. the second began in 2000 and ended in 2006. during the period it was really tough on the palestinians. it was a very dark period for them. like it was a black period. in 2002 there was the invasion of the israeli occupation of my city, and it continued for almost three or four months.

during the period there were time where we could not leave our houses to school. the schools were even closed by the israelis for two months, and when they were open there was a curfew on the place and we could not leave. like sometimes we tried to go, but it was going from, like, through -- muddy ways on the mountains to reach the school. so when you reach the school, you're already tired. this was a very bad period for the palestinians, as also not able to sleep. like it was almost every day house storming. it could explode on the city and coming to the house, sometimes -- like following an escape or something like that. so we could not live our normal life. palestinians of this age could not live their life. they could not live the life of

the whole world. they don't feel like they were children. the only activity they could do is going out and throwing stones at israeli jeeps. in 2008, the -- that was the first year for me at the university. during the period i was interviewed to onevoice by one friend, named mohammed, and he invited me to a town hall meeting held in my city. talking about the two-state solution and how they see the two-state solution as the end of the israeli-palestinian conflict. actually, went to -- after i win to the town hall meeting, and while one of the youth leaders was talking, the record and memories took me back to the city, and i remember the straight houses in the city.

i remember the persons whose fathers were killed by the israeli. i remember the photos of the mud filling almost all of the walls in the city. and something came to my mind. we have tried the first and it was violent thing. the second we tried it also and it was also most of the time violent action and we got nothing. the only thing we got from the first and the second is more closures, more demolition, and more checkpoints. that stop us from going to the city that is 45 minutes. it used to take two or three hours at the checkpoint and then go back to the city. what i realize is we need something different. that is, the message of one

place. nonviolence movement that is working on the palestinian side and on the israeli side separately, but together to bring a solution that may end the conflict. realizing that one hand cannot clap, like even the palestinians want to have peace. how can they have peace without the israelis? so this is one way. in 2008, i joined the movement, and i was active for almost six months, and after that i traveled to turkey, what an exchange student there, and during the period of my active -- during my active period i was involved in maybe of the activities and am going to talk about some of them now. one of them is a town hall meeting. this is important thing that onevoice is doing in palestine and israel. and this town hall meeting there is a youth leader, like us, like

eyal and i, and trying to invite people to a public place, sometimes at the universities in israel, and in palestine most of the time it's in a village or a city, and we talk to them about the status issues, and about the conflict in general. we try to bring them a lot of close to the conflict, because on both sides we have got so many indifferent people to the conflict. palestinians, whenever you talk to them about the conflict, they say, you been negotiating for 20 years. what are you going to bring us? what we are trying to do is sending hope to those people. that is the two-state solution, this is what we're working on, the borders, and in 1967, base borders, the refugees, this matters. so when you bring them close to the conflict, they're like, yeah, that might be possible. like they reach this realization, and this very good, actually. most of the time we begin

talking about it like, okay, conflict. they don't actually respond a lot. after that they begin asking questions. we do this or that inside the borders, they get motivated. the other activity we've been working on since 2010 is imagine palestine and israel, and imagine palestine in 2018. he was talking about it just a an hour ago -- less than that. during this activity we go to the streets in palestine, and we, like, record some videos with the people. we ask them this question. how do you imagine palestine in 2018? most of the time they say, what do you mean? how can i imagine palestine 2018 in the same thing is today. they can't imagine palestine 2018. when onevoice said about the project, i said i can't imagine

palestine 2018. but like we used helping the people, that is, okay, do you think that we're going to get a state in 02018? do you think that efforts are going to work? do you think that the settlements are going to be inside your house if we don't sign agreement from today to 2018? and by that we began hearing things positive things from people, and they began to be optimistic a little bit. and this is one of the projects that has much effect on the palestinian side. like, what we were trying to do is building the palestinian state inside the palestinian -- inside the head of the palestinian before going to a bilateral agreement that is going to be signed by the leaders. the important thing is this. most of the time palestinians have been negotiating and working. but like the last point in their framework is liberating palestine. if we liberate palestine today,

we need the economy, we need so many things to be done in order to get a state, a democratic good, like, visible, viable state. so, this was a very great project. what we are working on these days as onevoice palestine and israel also is a project and a campaign supporting our president, both in the united nations and some of the activities we're doing is town hall immediatings also, and in this time we're trying to keep the conversation about the two-state solution alive. we don't want people to forget this thing, because if we forget it as palestinians and israelis, we either just immigrant from the country or we go back to violence, which is very bad, and which is like not recommended. so, these days in bethlehem there are -- one voice activists

are going there and motivating them. what do you think about this or that? they're trying to raise issues. what are you trying to do if you get a state? what's your role as a engineer or teacher. the third thing also we're doing is a very huge campaign with the media. that is one of the projects we got from imagine palestine 2018. i am also dreaming of such a things, because when we come to here, we go to -- through the crossing point and go from the jordanian airport. so it was a nice thing also to have this video is now published on most web sites in the palestinian and the international media like bbc and al -- when onevoice began in

2010 -- 2002 it was not very much popular in the palestinian street but now as there is some talk about the u.n. vote, it is getting more popular and popular, because palestinians, for example, 2008 and 2009 and 10 were asking us, like, okay, been negotiating for 20 years, didn't get anything. so what onevoice is working on? we were answering this way. onevoice preparing you as the population to get this, like to be ready for the two-state solution, and now the u.n. vote is very important, helping us, that is there's something important here. do you support it? if you support it, this is the chance we have to get. and let's support our president to go to the united nations and get this recognition. this is very important because

the only following solution might be negotiations. this is journey to share with you, and the important thing i would like also to talk about is our message as onevoice and particularly and more importantly as palestinians, to the americans. whenever it's i'm going to the united states, people are saying, okay, we would like the united states to be more -- we don't want them to be one-sided. we would like the united states to put some pressure on israel and some pressure on our president mahmoud abbas to sign the agreement. we, palestinians, want to live a normal life. even if we are not living in palestine. we have this understanding in the palestinian street, actually, and said that many times and it's truth, and the people is with you. it's not that we love -- it's not that we love the palestinian less. it's that we love the

independent state more. so an independent state in the 1967 borders is okay with the palestinians. we wish that the united states come to push this peace process forward and succeed very soon. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. let me ask you. you are engaged in democratic politics in creating, mobilizing, strengthening public opinion on behalf of two states and peace, and particular positions on final status issues. in addition to the work you're doing with the public, how do you transmit your organizations' views and the views out your supporters to politicians who ultimately will make the decisions? how do you help influence their

choices? do you use the internet? do you use e-mail? do you pay calls on politicians? you mentioned you use the media, but i'd be interested -- all of us are involved in similar advocacy here. how you take your message to your elected leaders to try to change their views and do the right thing. >> the way that we chose do it, the main thing we tried to do in israel is what i was talking about before. the caucus, and what i was talking about, what we did with the caucus, that was the opening event we were doing together. but the caucus took place that we're trying to engage the

politicians and to bring them the voices and the ideas that we collect from the israeli street. a big project we had just two months ago was helping bb and we had a paper which was wrote about, like -- we wrote how would you help bb getting into an agreement, and people were supposed to bring their own ideas and write their own imaginations of anything that would help bb and palestinians going back into negotiations, and the way that we tried to engage the politicians is meeting with the caucus and with the representatives of the caucus, and this is the way that we deliver our message, through them, but we deliver the message no longer of the people in onevoice, the people that we talk with in the streets.

>> actually, in palestinian, be mentioning, in onevoice palestine, we have many of the important figures in the palestinian -- like, those policymakers, and we have them in onevoice involved, and we're being working with them like on maybe papers or something. one other thing is we have been also making meetings with the palestinian politicians, and also the head of onevoice palestine had a meeting two months ago with president mahmoud abbas. so we have been talking to them directly, and this is very important actually. and we have sent many letters to president mahmoud abbas and other politicians through the immediate a. publishing some letters in the palestinian newspapers.

>> will you endorse political factions and parties in the forthcoming palestinian and israeli elections? >> actually, no, we're not involving anybody. but we welcome anybody to come and join onevoice in the effort that -- we will come any palestinian from any party. >> and for the israel, same thing. >> i'm sure the -- i'm sure some of you have some comments and questions. so, please present them. >> talked about the tables. can you talk a little bit about what we heard are the challenges getting people involved in protests to look at the

political conflict -- [inaudible] >> cancan you talk about the ise of two-state, one-state. i was on the west bank in june, and talking to people, and certainly is on the ground palestinians that really maybe the time is up for the two-state solution. something i deeply disagree with but i imagine that's serious for your work. so if you could speak to that. >> the main thing we deal when speaking to the israeli society and the israeli people in the street, was two things. first of all, fear about the u.n. bid and about the things that can happen after that. when we speak about the u.n. resolution, people say, all right, even if general assembly will accept the palestinians'

bid, then nothing will change on the ground and we fear of any violence from the palestinian side, and i think that it's coming up to any -- to, like, people feeling that this fear was talking also about the thing in egypt now and the problems with turkey and al around together. it is something that brings the israelis to firstly and immediately say, no. but then what we try to do with those 50 tables that we're trying to stick to people -- show them the interest i was presenting before of israel, but affording -- supporting the two-state solution and supporting the palestinian u.n. bid, and talk about the demography in israel, we speak about the urgency that we see in a two-state solution. we speak about how -- what i was

talking before, that if we will accept the palestinian going to the u.n., talking about the two-state solution, this is something we will be able to say in the future that they want a two-state solution and no one will be able to doubt this is their way to end the conflict, and not a one-state solution like you're asking about, and those are the things we have to deal with when we try to speak to israelis, but what we do with the 50 tables, i will not be a speaker, let's say, at a table. we bring professionals, politicians, but also very professional people from universities, from all over the country, to speak, and to get their ideas and to show how they see the conflict. >> for me, very important thing,

i understand and i think i believe in is that the public in palestine and israel are not to be asked what do you want? i think the one-state solution you're talking about is not the one-state solution that americans know. the palestinians talking about the one-state solution. it's the one state for the palestinians and just for the palestinians. and maybe that was -- how long was that? yeah in june. i don't know. now i think that we're receiving more support to the two-state solution as president mahmoud abbas doing something on the ground. before that he was not doing anything, and the palestinians were saying that he is just following the american and israeli policy. so now we're receiving more support for the two-state solution, and like i'll go back to the first point i mentioned. that is, people are to be offered a solution. that is, they won't give compromises and then go back to live the same life they're living now.

if you bring them the two-state solution, this is the state, this this state of palestine, they would happy with that, i think. thank you. >> first of all, thank you so much. this is a good start for what's going to be a tough week. i thank you for what you're doing. i have a question for you. what hazard do you take -- how much working together -- [inaudible] -- you mentioned the city of the palestinian state. you mentioned what they've been doing and creating --

[inaudible] -- with the u.n. motion, after the -- [inaudible] >> okay. first of all, talk about the challenges we're facing in our communities. one important thing is that people are frustrated. they don't have hope for the future, and this is a very important thing. to focus on. and like to get results. because there have been fighting and negotiating for so long time and they're getting anything, they're feeling they're tricked by the israelis and by the international community, mainly the united states. the united states supporting israel openly, and is not supporting the palestinians,

they stay in the palestinian street, and this is a very important thing. we have nothing like -- we don't have any powerful point. we -- in palestine, can't put any pressure on any of the sides in the international community. this is one of the challenges. another one is that, like, while working on some project for the people, they go back to the -- return to the days of the palestine -- we want the whole country back, but how we overcome this problem, this. we bring them to the reality, to the logical understanding of the conflict. that is, we have another part. we can't ship them out the country. there's six million more than the palestinians and this is the solution that is bringing the end of the conflict for the palestinians. what was the other question,

please? >> do you have something for the palestinian -- [inaudible] >> actually, not speaking of the government because this question is to be out of president abbas. he decided that. i think that -- i don't know if the u.s. is going to really cut the aid or not but i think on both sides we're winning. the palestinians have to feel this thing. what you need is not aid. what you need is a state. so it's better than the one we had prior to 1985, and it has totally eliminated the pay as you go pensions. >> let me ask you if -- are you familiar -- are there other states that have just an aggressive kind of -- both monitoring and enforcement of the payment requirements? >> i know of states that have a monitoring program. i don't know of any that has the

same level of enforcement, the mandate we do. basically your municipal bonds and pension obligation are your number one and number two expenses. >> the pressure on the palestinians to pressure the international community their leadership that what we need is a state. you should work on a state, not unlike collecting money from the country and bringing us to live in palestine. this is what i can say from my point of view. >> if you will speak first from the thing that we deal in the israeli society is what i was talking about before. but one more thing is that what we try to do in onevoice is describing empowering the vast majority in israel and in palestine which support two-state solution, but as we all know, usually the

minorities, the extremist people, are the loudest people, and the vast majority or the ones that are the most difficult to bring out of their houses. although what we saw now in israel in the past three months, about the house demonstration, giving us hope that it is something which is possible to bring a vast majority of people who support -- doesn't matter in my opinion if it's a two-state solution or housing, just to see that people are going out of their house, caring about the country and caring about issues. this is the main thing. but this is a very difficult thing we deal with, that people have lost their trust, i think, on both sides people have lost their trust in the other side, and many people have lost hope,

and so what we tried to do is to bring people back their hope in an agreement for themselves, for the children, for the whole region, and this is the main thing. if i would say two words about the hate you're mentioning. i don't see how it plays to the israeli hand, cutting the aid by the united states, because mahmoud abbas, at the beginning of his idea of going to the u.n., he was talking about shutting down the palestinian government if it doesn't work and then what will happen. who will support the palestinians? i don't see how cutting the aid is playing to any of our hand, not for the palestinians nor the israelis, and i feel that it's something that i would like to deliver and to say that this is not something that the israelis can support. >> one important thing i would like to mention is that once the

difficulties on the palestinian side is that onevoice is working with israelis. palestinians don't see this point of parallel and separately. so we're working on the need the israelis but we're not working for the israeli interests. everytime we go on a town hall meeting in palestine we press the point we are -- our interests are the palestinian interests. we need a palestinian state. the israelis are working on their interests and we're working on our interests working with the israelis they're the most important side to work with. it's not europe or the united states. mainly the israelis and the others because they're part of the conflict. thank you. >> i was just wondering if you could speak about what your interests in the grassroots -- why did you choose onevoice instead of a political party to further your interests?

why grassroots? what is the power you feel with working with people rather than working with some other form? >> what i feel is that, as i was describing before, going to the people and speaking to them as a civilian, going to speak to the people in the street, and not the politicians or as a political party, going to people, talking to them in the street as a grassroots organization, it is something that we bring the idea that we believe in to the organization, the project that we held is project we have made, it's something that we truly believe in, and the way -- the thing i have in mind is what i was saying before, when i'm working with the civilian society, it was the civil society, is to prepare the society for the

painful compromises that they will have to agree and what i feel is that the leaders have to know when they come to the negotiation table, that the society is willing to get and to accept those compromises. so, when we come as a grassroot movement with the things we believe in, and just as i'm just standing on the street eyal shapira, this is the most effective way to address the people, those ideas. >> actually, in palestine, the importance of onevoice is this. most of the political in palestine have certain ideology and they're trying to impose them on the palestinians. that is you either go with

hamas. there is no movement going through the streets asking about people about their needs and then they add them to their ideology. so this here is the important of onevoice, we're taking from the people on the street and adding to ideologies. we are working for the public. this is a very important thing that onevoice is working on. another thing is that onevoice is different, like we have some grassroot organizations but they are the dialogue organizations. what they're interested in is bringing the two people together, and, like, just having fun and going and playing some music. working for real solutions. we're taking people out of this miserable situation they're living. thank you. >> i would like to add one thing about what we talked about, that us as israelis working about the israeli interests and the

palestinian working about the palestinian interests. we work about our own interests but we do understand and we work in parallel with the palestinian society and we know they're working for the palestinian interests and we accept that and we like that and we want them to keep on doing that, and when we talk to people, and we say -- we tell them that we have palestinians on the other side working on the same road we're working at, i think this is something which is very, very important and very, very -- addressing people really good, and it's a very, very -- also, as a -- >> all age levels in your society, is there something distinct and more progressive and wise about the voice of israeli and palestinian youth that onevoice has helped to mobilize or not? >> actually, one of the most important programs in onevoice is the youth leaders program.

so what we're trying to do is training the youth to become leaders, because what we've got in palestine, most of the leaders are not young. they're older. so, what we're working on is motivating those young people and making them the leaders of the future, and we are not just preparing them to lead the conflict, like leading to the end of the conflict. we're also working on what is after the conflict. and giving them skills to work on building after the conflict. and the other thing is that most of the palestinians working -- we working on our university students and schools. in palestine, i think also in israel, we have launched a campaign going to the palestinian schools, most of the time to the high schools, talking to them about the coming election and how they should think seriously about the one they're going to vote to because it's important and this is their

future. that's what we're working on. >> i would say first of all we do try to work mainly with young people. with youth leaders, trying to -- we work for universities univern israel. ...

so in palestine we speak about the court issues trying to show the students the possibilities of every issue we don't take a side as we go through high school we just speak about the possibilities about where each core issue is coming from and where does it stemmed from, and trying to show the palestinian one conflict is something that can be shown and an israeli supporter of from palestine it can be for one voice, but it's not something that you should take and this is how we try to build them up.

>> [inaudible] there has been [inaudible] first of all i have to say that the air of a spring was something very good bringing changes today, and most of the things for nonviolent and that is what we are working on the. most of the leaders are young people and this is great and the palestine actually has many times before and this brings the frustration that they are not giving us most things, so now going to the united nations i think that they are supporting

them and not going to the streets alone. we've got some demonstrations but they are not going to the streets alone. they are supporting them just like if you ask the support them they do. i guess after we get the states we are going to get revolution for the palestinians but for the palestinian state that is if you go out and begin asking for improvements on the ground and building the economy to move on her. >> of the voice palestine stands. >> the petition the to the

palestinian is something very common around the world and it's not the palestinians who invented this thing this is something very known between the political parties. the other thing is for the palestinians in general. now we have got the president trying to have two governments but the president is the one with whom they agree. we are very important as palestinians. i think also hamas is not opposed to the u.s. vote. the official speaker spokesman didn't say anything about that, in vote but some are going to say something's from the media so this was important for the palestinian side and it's also bringing support of the international community. we felt that it's going to get us back to the negotiations but

the united states and israel are not very happy with their reconciliation in spite of the fact bringing lots of benefits today to the two state solution. >> i don't see any -- i don't think that israel has to have any preconditions to go back to the negotiations and when there was the reconciliation, many people announced hamas to talk to so we want to talk to fatah, but not hamas. as far as i see we don't have to have those conditions, and i do think that it's better for israel to have someone to talk to which you know they are representing the palestinians and the palestinians are united and you have an agreement with

the people you talk to the palestinians will agree. other than that i think it helps the palestinians on the conditions going to the u.n. to have an essential government, but mainly i think that of course i oppose any violence or anything going out of hamas or any other organization in the area, but i don't think that if there is violence in the area it has to be a precondition for the negotiation how we should prevent violence in the future.

>> [inaudible] i'm curious how this goes with what you are doing with your friends and families speak to >> for me personally i'm coming from the board. what i'm talking about the support my personal family, very supportive if i would talk about the generation quite more difficult because the two-stage solution is to understand the progress and the generation of our grandparents so you were not able to just say we want a

palestinian state. that was something kind of already, what are you talking about. so it's quite more difficult. but with my friends, with my family to most of the people live close to i have a lot of support coming here to the united states talking about it that i am talking about, and of course it's not all of the israelis that would support me. there are israelis and that within the israeli government many talking about september and the issues that the vast majority would support something like the government is saying some think that we should say no to and just keep.

[inaudible] >> i said when i was telling my personal story that my family is conservative but open-minded, and these are opposite things in the united states may be but they would like to stay in palestine. most of the people are religious in the sense they pray five times a day and this palestine and the same time open-minded. that is my father is religious, my mother is religious but we all go to europe for example sometimes two, three times a year. they are representative since palestine, so how we are open to the world. actually this sort of organization like one voice is not easy to spread in palestine as it is working in partner with the israelis. but for me personally i am spreading it. that is why don't come to give it just like whole thing is we

are one of voice and give the message of juan her voice. we begin with it going through the conflict and we reach a conclusion at the end of the day that this is what we need so it is not a big problem. my family does not support me and does not oppose me. they have their own stance but they don't stop me from going to one place. >> you're of the israeli defense force like all young israelis you did your service and you said you served both lebanon and the west bank. did that experience change your views in important ways towards peace and reconciliation between the israelis and palestinians in the creation of two states?

>> i what say that i came to the army with the same feeling i went out of the army with. it's just strengthened those feelings. like going to the front line standing on the borders seeing first of all how palestinians are dealing with those situations, but second of all the soldiers that are with me and seeing what is it doing to them and what is it doing to me and having the conversations in the situation and think how does it affect the israeli society and like the west bank having to go into the villagers see in the life of the palestinians, seeing how they live in the frustration, but they have all those things that really

strengthen what i was talking about before we are all victims of this conflict and the situation and that we have to do something with our own hands and take it into our own hands and we are the ones to do it. >> comments or questions? >> i want to thank one voice for bringing them here and to both of you for speaking honestly, outrageously and an impressively about the work that you are doing in your hopes and dreams for your respective communities. it's very impressive. i think the kind of wisdom and commitment that you have expressed therein lies the

future for these struggling societies. so thank you for sharing your experience with us. >> thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

william jennings bryan one of the best known speakers of his time and the first politician to campaign on the backs of railroad cars and automobiles

ran for president three times and lost but he changed political history. he's one of the 14 men featured in c-span's weekly series the contenders live from the fairview the common link in nebraska friday at 8 p.m. eastern. learn more about our upcoming programs at c-span.org/thecontenders." >> more a look at the house of commons first session. canadian prime minister stephen harper started the meeting praising the late new democratic leader jack clayton. he also talks about canada's economy, crime and security of the canada u.s. border. this is about 45 minutes. [applause] >> the honorable leader of the opposition. [applause]