>> mr. speaker [inaudible] when he looks of the economy in 2008 he refused to see the signs. we have been told canada is on the brink of another recession. moody's has sounded an alarm that investments are down and the government solution is to cut services. when will the prime minister when will the prime minister take action to create jobs and prevent another economic crisis. [applause] >> the honorable prime minister. islamic mr. speaker, first i would like to congratulate the member for her first question as the leader of the opposition. [applause] >> the government position is clear. our concern is the economy. we are part of a fragile global

we are part of a fragile global economy and that is the message i have repeated on several occasions over the past year, and we need to continue to focus on job creation using measures on job creation using measures to invest in research among other things. mr. speaker. [applause] >> the honorable leader of the opposition. as the mccuish of over 5,000 more jobs. more and more canadians are giving up because of the lack of job opportunities. to reach the same proportion of the working canadians of the recession we need to create 420,000 new jobs. the canadian leader where is the job plan? [applause] >> the leader of the opposition to get her facts right there are

more people working in canada today than before the recession. [applause] >> it remains focused on jobs for making targeted investments in the canadian economy and things like research and innovation, keeping taxes low, opening the markets and of course, mr. speaker, making sure we do not see the kind of deficit and debt problems in canada that have caused the global recession throughout the world. [applause] >> mr. speaker, the prime minister has created a structural deficit by giving reductions of income taxes paid by the corporations contrary to what he says companies aren't investing. they are not creating jobs. >> there is some $500 million that is being set aside not used to create jobs. the government strategy isn't

working. where are the investments, where are the jobs? [applause] >> if the honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, there are more canadians working today than prior to the global recession and canada is the only industrialized country to be in the situation and that's why we have focused on keeping the taxes low not just for corporations but also for individuals and families. mr. speaker, this government can fully understand the situation. we will create jobs by increasing taxes. [applause] >> [inaudible] the prime minister needs to look at the situation as it is there's an increase in

unemployment money is being wasted on large corporations and tax cuts. we need to put an end to that and put in place the job creation strategy. [applause] >> we have a serious situation in europe and some weakness in the u.s. economy, but the plain fact is that we are the envy of the evidence the economy in the world with respect to jobs. [applause] >> we have created almost 600,000 net new jobs. and more than that, mr. speaker, 80% of those jobs are full-time jobs for canadians. [applause] said the honorable member?

>> mr. speaker with the conservatives have treated as a larger deficit in canadian history and still follows short on job creation. it is something for nothing corporate tax giveaways have failed canadians. another 420,000 jobs would have to be created just to keep the same proportion of jobs we had before the 2008 recession. one of the finance minister stop these reckless corporate giveaways? will want to target support for the real job creators? [applause] >> i don't know who the member thinks the job creators are ever in the business in canada. [applause] the government creates jobs for hiring people the public sector? it's the small businesses which is why we have the hiring of credit for the small business in the budget this year and i hope it will support the budget. [applause] >> with respect to job creation

is among the best in the developing economies. we realize the unemployment rate is too high and we have to keep working at it the way to get there is not to have a 10 billion-dollar tax increase on the business which is what the opposition has suggested. [applause] >> the honorable member. [applause] >> to all the rhetoric a few facts emerge which i think canadians will understand. the first one is that there are 1.4 million people who are officially unemployed and many hundreds of thousands of others who have been discouraged from working. the second fact is that the economy contracted in the last quarter and that the economy right now clearly is not growing these undeniable fact sprigg last year the government produced an economic statement on october 12th. can the prime minister commit that he wants an economic statement the devil's deal berkeley with the jobs crisis? [applause] >> the honorable prime minister. [applause] >> the member will know first

very well it will continue with its primaries on the economy as a priority to create jobs and growth and mr. speaker, obviously we have a fundamental difference here with the opposition of all stripes we understand that you cannot create jobs by raising taxes. we will keep taxes low as a part of our job creation. [applause] >> mr. speaker the prime minister is refusing to acknowledge that the economy isn't the same as it was. the economy has contracted here in canada in the united states and in europe and we will ask the prime minister again will he commit today to holding a clear statement for having the minister of finance to

october 12th? the honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, our economic policy is very clear. mr. speaker, on a reiterated to the global economy the global recovery is very fragile and clearly canada is facing risks due to that the government will take responsible action. we can't however create jobs through the debt as we are seeing in the united states. this has led to huge problems in the global economy. we don't want to have policies like that here. [applause] >> the other day the fact that the deal on the permit of the security is now between the united states and canada and we've learned of the president's plan, president obama's plan or

reinvest in the united states includes several by america provisions which will cost canada tens of thousands of jobs that come to the infrastructure in north america. i would like to ask the prime minister how can this government possibly have come to any kind of agreement with respect to the security and at the same time security and at the same time allow the administration of the united states to carry on direct discrimination against their country? [applause] mr. speaker to deal with the united states certainly i don't remember doing it. [applause] >> the fact of the matter is important initiative, mr. speaker, to sustain not just our security but obviously our access to the american market in which so many jobs are based. the number will also know the minister is been very strong saying we certainly do not

support the measures included in the latest a bill as we have proposed those in the past that we will continue to do so and when we do so in this party we do so in the only party that has an unadulterated record of commitment to free trade. [applause] >> the honorable member? >> the general to protect the hard earned tax dollars after all the general exposed the liberals foster ship schema. that question in the bureau could come a political staffer or minister intend to keep them in the program as leader of the spending and misspending of money around the g8 within the minister agree that what constitutes a very serious breach of public trust? [applause] >> once again to the democratic

party is the same old. let me tell you the story directly mr. speaker. canadians spoke to get these in the last election we voted for the government with a job creation of economic growth and that is exactly what this government is doing. [applause] >> mr. speaker when the general tried to investigate this $50 million of pork-barrel spending they were not able to find a paper trail. that's because the auditor general wasn't told the projects were run for the member's constituency office, wasn't told the senior bureaucrats participate. was the researchers with the help of honest municipal -- [applause] i would like to ask the members who directed the democrats and who told them to give disrespect for the canadian taxpayer? [applause]

>> there's nothing new but i can say is by the infrastructure canada this dirty to different agreements for each project and all of these are finished on time and on budget and every single dollars accounted for. we appreciate the good advice and even more transparent thank you. [applause] mr. speaker, we know that the minister sent report to the general the minister of foreign affairs said he wasn't involved but we know that this is false a senior deputy minister was part of the leadership group. will the president and the minister of foreign affairs give directives to their officials to directives to their officials to hide their involvement in this sense. [applause] the minister of foreign affairs.

>> no, mr. speaker. >> no, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker. during the election campaign of 2008, the current head of the treasury board provided meetings of the local leadership group. this group is one that is spending considerable amounts of money when he was in fact a candidate can the minister explain how he found this to be normal presiding over this group in an election campaign? >> mr. speaker, same old, same old, nothing whatsoever. the general came forward with -- she can forward with specific recommendations how we can be more transparent on the specific recommendations on the program administration. the good news is the infrastructure projects were all constructed and came in on or under budget and are all public

infrastructures for the people in the region for many years to come. [applause] >> mr. speaker, the ministers funding process signed off on inaccurate statements that the office this stage about the founding meeting and what i had with these meetings in the middle of an election campaign allocating funding out of back rooms of your office. will the minister finally a polis to canadians for this abuse of their trust? [applause] >> i only have 35 seconds and it is impossible for the inaccuracy of that member's question for the infrastructure projects on the public the tiemann on or underbudgeted for many years to come. [applause]

>> mr. speaker, the president of the treasury board $50 million spending purchase involved the region to provide feedback on the funding. let's be clear they ask them to set criteria for the funding that they would be receiving. with respect to his involvement and that of federal employees and downs this slush fund. [applause] >> the minister of foreign affairs. estimate this government works from coast to coast providing infrastructure and support to the infrastructure and every province in ontario and to the jury to the minister polities from coast to coast. the good news is it is because the infrastructure project we solid economic growth and more jobs and more hope and more opportunity. that is why canada is leading the world into the economy is

among the strongest in the industrialization and why mr. speaker the minister of defence was named the best for last year. [applause] >> the honorable members. [applause] estimate the ministers are developing quite a passion for the use of high-flying government jets. the minister of finance and defense particularly use of these liberal jets. the prime minister says everything is fine because the equivalent of the airline ticket. why have the conservatives abandoned the commitment to restore taxpayers' dollars when it comes to jetting around the country? [applause] >> mr. speaker, just to throw a few facts into the mess. [applause] lostroh all ministers require the commercial travel be utilized for public business, government aircraft when commercial travel was not available and let me just remind you when it comes to the liberal

use of the aircraft a conservative government has reduced the average annual spending of the minister of challenger flight by approximately 80 per cent. fox to make it clear that they look to fly but a few conservatives can travel to boston to see a hockey game or to have a coffee. for some ministers the job transportation went up 50%. >> cannot be justified as the government have a better excuse than to say the liberals were worse? that they did worse? [applause] >> there they go making things up. the reality is they are used for government business, they are used in commercial flights are

not available. we've reduced the amount of time in which they are being used and they are used for another important purpose and that is for the canadian forces and the sar aircraft that were purchased in the 1980's, the most was purchased in the 90's. these aircraft are part of a fleet of aircraft owned and operated by the government but operated under the auspices of the canadian forces. [applause] >> mr. speaker the cost of the recent tax payer funded trips to the defense like football games, hockey games and the stand team have shocked canadians. the government is now planning significant cuts to the canadian forces. forces. well this only apply to soldiers, sailors and airmen and women had not for the rest? why does the minister of defense approve over $1 million to be taken by the chief of defence act?

[applause] >> the minister of defence has outlined the rules under which the minister's use government aircraft and have spoken to the chief she understands what those expectations are and certainly are prepared to live with those according to those rules and fly frequently on government business with the alternatives look into that usage. >> the fact is the 1.4 million >> the fact is the 1.4 million canadians are out of work and that is 300,000 more unemployed canadians just three years ago and the canadians have given up looking for work altogether with so many canadians out of work will the finance year use the opportunity of the following economic statement to introduce a real plan to create and save canadian jobs? [applause]

>> i hope the member in this party will support the budget measures which include the hiring of the tax credit for business in canada that will give 525,000 small businesses an opportunity to hire more people in canada. that's important as you know we've put a limit on the rate of increase of the employment insurance payments by employers. our tax reductions continue brought in our originally in 2007 that helped create jobs and we have continuing infrastructure programs plus work sharing and there's lots of government activity in the economy today, and that's why we have 400,000 -- >> the honorable member. [applause] >> mr. speaker farmers on the canadiens to stay. the post in 2009 and i quote will the four hours of spoken. we recognize that this time this is what farmers are asking for and will certainly work to make

sure the board delivers to them in the best way possible. you know who said that, mr. speaker, the minister of the mr. speaker, the minister of the agriculture. the law is clear and farmers have spoken again. why doesn't he honor the will of the farmers and keep the force? [applause] estimate the honorable minister of the agriculture. estimate mr. speaker the farmers always love to hear someone from ontario. [laughter] [applause] let me close a glorified survey she's admitted that it's not binding and we accept that. [applause] [inaudible] the farmers and saskatchewan had indeed spoken mr. speaker. i appeal to the prime minister

who claims why would he stand up for the prairie farmers and the guaranteed we will have fit well into the future? [applause] estimate of the right honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker first of all that's interesting to have a question from a member who doesn't have a single farmer in his riding. [laughter] [applause] >> let's talk about the fact. not only are they significant portions against the force but it didn't include the tens of thousands of farmers that what the way from that institution. mr. speaker they get to take their own voters and i guess that to do that the level of the party can even win an election. [applause] >> the fact of the matter is the vote for the marketing.

[applause] estimate the honorable member? estimate the government is planning to spend billions more on corporate tax giveaways. on corporate tax giveaways. you can't find money to help address the crisis of the crumbling infrastructure. just this summer montreal with the section of highway 720 collapsed luckily no one was injured. mr. speaker, canadians are at risk. so why is the government now cutting back on infrastructure spending? [applause] >> [inaudible] [applause] >> the party voted against.

[applause] some of the honorable member? >> cutting infrastructure spending. >> mr. speaker, the government is avoiding facing its responsibilities and that is the measure necessary to halt greater montreal. greater montreal. we cannot expect to modernize montr infrastructure because this is the economic future of the city that we are talking about whether to seize this opportunity and promote sustainable development through power-sharing and public transit. [applause] >> mr. speaker, one of the things important to the government is the jurisdiction and my colleague knows full well that in quebec the decision to invest in this infrastructure is the responsibility of the government expect the three bridges between the provinces so when it comes time to invest in

the infrastructure in quebec we have the municipalities and the prairies of course the provincial government as we do in all the provinces of the country and we will continue to do so mr. speaker. the honorable member's triet >> mr. speaker if the government's priority is the economy, it should prove that in greater montreal have been the direct economic consequences it's reached the end of the life span yes the government is looking for excuses not to replace it. mr. speaker, when the government assumes its responsibility to protect the economy is a national issue. what announce the building of a new bridge? no to the [applause] speed the honorable minister of transport. [applause] >> mr. speaker, we have invested in montreal, that is including the bridge.

we have 50 million in order to ensure and to make these installations even safer. i think it is interesting to hear the of to say today. >> mr. speaker we now know that the people were running real risks even before the bridge is closed this summer so it is an economic issue but it is also one of public safety. it is irresponsible to plead with the safety of drivers, checkers and those who use public transit will the government take the measures that must be taken now to ensure the people there can travel in all safety and security. the honorable minister of transport. [applause] >> mr. speaker, because we have to understand what the situation is by the investments of

$137 million for several years the work ended this and has continued to do its job and its work and we talked earlier about the provincial share of the bridge, and the federal bridges in the region are in good shape for the people. [applause] thank you mr. speaker. my question relates to the serious issue of anti-semitism in the national community. the government's global leader in combating anti-semitism for the simple the government anywhere in the world to announce it would not participate -- [applause] [applause] >> my question to the minister of the citizenship is the following. would he advise the house as to any other action taken to fight anti-semitism? [applause] >> i would like to thank the member and the anti-semitism

directs the work as well as helping us to coordinate the global side of the parliamentarians here in january which led to the protocol and i pleased to announce the minister of the foreign affairs will on behalf of canada be the first government in the world to sign the protocol, indicating that canada will continue to take a leadership role in combating anti-semitism including the current which seeks to target and vilify the collective state of israel. we stand in solidarity with the jewish people in a space state. [applause] >> the honorable member. [applause] estimate there is no case for abolishing the of ideological crusade plain and simple the majority of the producers voted to keep the single monopoly of

the workforce. mr. speaker i offered the speaker is both honor bound to uphold space well -- democratic well to respect the act that defined his ministry which guarantees a vote before the government interferes with their ability to market their grain. [applause] >> it left out a hole in the middle the right for the farmers to voluntarily choose and that's the way we campaigned on and have made a the result giving the authority to move forward and give those farmers the right and the opportunity to market their commodities at the time and place and place the see fit, the same as the cousins and ontario. [applause] >> bna there's certainly see the

benefit because 13 times they've gone to the wto trade tribunals to complete its an unfair competitive advantage. now, now for a minister of agriculture is going to do the americans dirty work for them. my question is simple. mr. speaker what side are you on? why your you standing up for the american agricultural giants and is not standing up for the canadian grain producers who benefit from the canadian force? [applause] [inaudible] we will continue to export jobs on the prairies to give them a chance to buy grains from the farmers. mr. speaker i never see the minister he said the only

mistake made was not doing it sooner. we look to that very positive for the farmers and we know they will go to that same model and have a better chance of prosperity. [applause] mr. speaker for the foreign affairs there's a very important position that requires professionalism and discretion. they've become a distraction. there are unanswered questions about the parliamentary secretary and potential security so my question is will the parliamentary secretary step aside from his responsibility until the situation will be investigated? >> mr. speaker we of course not found no information to suggest otherwise.

>> mr. speaker, foreign affairs must be treated with more seriousness and one of the minister's is taking care of the queen of's pictures and the parliamentary secretary was taking care of personal affairs so who is looking after the affairs of this country in the case that concerns the parliamentary secretary? we are told that the investigation has taken place and he has nothing to answer for the opposition in the house and have a copy of the report that was produced as a result. thank you. [applause] for >> i'm not sure what this has to do with the business but it's quite clear in the statement he denied any inappropriate

behavior and there is no information to suggest otherwise. [applause] >> the honorable member? >> mr. speaker the industry has had a promise of the harmonization of quebec would be by september 15th. there's no funding for them we are still waiting for the new champlain bridge so why have they ext. of quebec because the new communications or ought telling them why have they dropped? >> i think the question should >> i think the question should be profitable nothing happened over ten years. there was a fiscal imbalance and they deny it to date but there was the harmonization. these are all issues be in

balance they've created what we recognize and what more well, we've done more than they have in the previous government. >> mr. speaker, canadians fail to understand how the funds allocated by parliament to increase the border infrastructure where you build a gazebos and washers that have nothing to do with an subjugate summit even according to the auditor general. this phials troubling if the conservatives claim to support accountability and the clam to have nothing to hide except a review of the fund by the standing committee on the population. [applause] >> the minister of foreign affairs. estimate we have to have this issue by the auditor general's based altbach recommendations that transparency department we

expect of the recommendations and i say to the member this is the same old type of tactic suggested in the last election they won their parliamentarians and governments to be focused on jobs, economics and opportunities and that is exactly what this government will continue to focus on. [applause] >> second thoughts about regulating the oil sands industry it turns out he needs more time to consult with the leal industry. will the minister explain to the canadians why he's decided to take his time when the government has spent its own inadequate 2020 target by dropping whopping 75%? [applause] >> conwell, my colleague's question. we do have a plan and our plan is working and as my colleague knows full well, we began with a

sector by sector regulatory approach a year ago starting with the transportation sector which is of the greenhouse gases. i have just posted the new regulation for the coal-fired electricity sector and we will proceed sector by sector. estimate of the honorable member. >> mr. speaker the government has nothing better to do this summer than to cut 800 jobs at the department of the environment cut into the strategic sector for the economy development and the future for development and the future for all of us. this will not be without consequence for canadians mr. speaker on what analyses of the government consider the cuts for canadians? [applause]

>> mr. speaker this is correct the numbers speak too uninformed comment on this issue is a great comment on this issue is a great difference, mr. speaker, between 776 permanent employees who might be affected, 300 positions which will be declared and the smaller actual number of employees that may eventually be separated from the department and none of the sort of services will be compromised, mr. speaker and the prayer regime remains the key. [applause] estimate of the honorable member [applause] >> i want to thank you, mr. speaker. a 2011. flight attendants served 72 hours' notice to strike, a

strike that could take place at 12:01 wednesday morning. because air canada played a vital and the canadian economy could the minister of labour please give the house an update on the status of the labor negotiations? [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker and i went to thank the honorable member for the question to read if the resolution is always to reach themselves and engage with the parties we are very concerned that the disruption of the air service would damage canada's economic recovery. a strong mandate with respect to the recovery they want to focus on the economy we will ask for to protect canada's economy. [applause]

>> mr. speaker the trip to cut 120 service canada centers 120 service canada centers 22 over the next three years. the high unemployment makes no sense. the economy why this government remains a logical. it results in the gulf of well paying jobs in canada, jobs we cannot afford to lose. by that time we need the government more the government continues to cut instead of focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs. [applause] stomach during the global recession the number of a applications for employment insurance spite. to make sure they got their payments in a timely manner we hired additional temporary workers.

[inaudible] the good news is the action there aren't as many applications so we don't need those temporary workers anymore. [inaudible] [applause] >> mr. speaker, the canadians that learned about the cuts in canada, and what we know is that these jobs are important in terms of speeding up the processing we know there continues to be a backlog in the areas around canada but will this minister explain to canadians why are they making it harder to access a program that canadians have paid in? [applause] we want to make sure canadians to access the services which they are entitled in an efficient manner. we have a mandate to make sure that we preside our services efficiently. up until now it is mostly done

by paper so we are trying to take a leap into the 21st century of committing a lot of it because it is more responsive and responsible way to deal with things. mr. speaker the services are being captured in the program if we want to make sure that we are responsive to the canadians if they get there quickly and in a responsible way regarding their taxpayers' dollars. [applause] >> mr. speaker canadians from coast to coast are horrified when he was adapted from his home in columbia. no family should never have to endure the kind of fear and uncertainty felt by this family when their son was taken from them. it to the joy and relief of everyone involved he was returned safely. mr. speaker -- [applause] ho our government is committed to keeping the streets and communities safe and to

protecting our most vulnerable. could the minister of justice please inform us on how the government is acting to strengthen the justices taha and keep canadians save? [applause] >> i want to thank the honorable member from columbia for his interest in this and we all join we have concrete steps to protect canada's most formidable and we raise the consent from 14 to 16 and strengthen provisions for the offenders because we believe those who commit violent crimes should serve sentences and i am proud to be part of the government puts victim's first. canadians know they can count on this government. [applause] >> mr. speaker ten years ago the government of canada, ontario and toronto created and funded

the agency waterfront toronto for the purpose and part of developing the port lands in the socially and environmentally responsible way. waterfront's toronto plan is ready for implementation of search rigorous consultations with the citizens of the city. now the mayor of toronto is seeking to take control of the agency and implement his own plan. as minister of finance come from the commitment to the waterfront toronto sticking with its plan for the departments. [applause] >> not only can i confirm the commitment of the federal government. in fact the commitment was $500 million about $492 million of that money has been spent. in fact most of the projects that have gone ahead including the medical park, canada's sugar beets should were done primarily with federal money on the toronto waterfront so we supported the waterfront toronto project throughout its time of the advancing. i anderson and the mayor of

toronto and the waterfront ontario are having some discussions, and i expect that they will come to an amicable resolution. [applause] estimate of the honorable member disconnect he strongly in tended the will to maintain the position of the house of commons by increasing the number of by increasing the number of seats while saying that quebec was trying to use blackmail buy not wanting to see it slow down. with respect the government has the nation. [applause] >> mr. speaker, each canadian vote to the greatest extent possible should carry equal weight. we will be taking reasonable action to restore the limitation in the house of commons of putting protecting quebec's

constitutional representation. unlike we will pursue with astaire and principled. [applause]

william jennings bryan one of the best speakers in his time and the first politician to campaign on the backs of automobiles ran for president three times and lost but he changed political history. he's one of the 14 men featured on c-span's new weekly series, the contenders live from fairview the home in lincoln nebraska. friday at 8 p.m. eastern degette learn more about the series and upcoming programs at c-span.org/thecontenders.

former senate majority leader tom daschle and former white house chief of staff andrew card talks about u.s. trade and investment policy. those are the co-chairs on a task force of the council of foreign relations on trade and investment. the task force recently released a report on u.s. trade and investment policy which called for enforcement of u.s. trade laws. this is about one 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 task force program and it's my

pleasure to welcome you here to the 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 card and tom daschle and is directed by the two senior fellows, edward alden, matthew slaughter all of whom are on the panel this morning. let me say a few quick words about the task force before we turn to the discussion. task force are non-partisan, independent. ca4 takes no institutional positions on issues. the members are responsible for the content of the report and each member participates in his or her own capacity to the task force report documents manning the members endorsed the general thrust and detriment though not necessarily every finding or recommendation. task force members may submit additional views and you'll find these at the end of the report. members are listed on the back of reports and several of them are here today. we thank them for their contributions.

thank you for being here. many others of course are instrumental on the effort and i would like to say a special thank you to the back thank you very much. we will also like to thank google for their generous support of the project and i am pleased to turn this over to david wessel who will help guide the conversation and have an interesting discussion. thanks very much. >> thanks very much. there are a couple of chairs down here. it looks like this and the standing room crowd only. i'm gerry pleased to be here today with tom daschle who's the former senate majority leader and now at the l.a. piper and the card is the acting dean of the bush public and government and of course the former chief of staff to president bush. ted alden of the council of foreign relations it was the co-director of the task force and manslaughter from the schools also the co-chair of the task force.

what we are going to do this morning is i'm going to ask the questions of mr. daschle and mr. carter for about half an hour and then open up to questions. i promise you that we will not still the report i will tell you everything that's in net. let me start with one big question if i may mr. carter and mr. daschle. the report quite eloquently says this. the growth of global trade investment has brought significant benefits to the united states and the rest of the world. free trade and investment facilitated by the will of the u.s. law to negotiate and implement has alleviated poverty, raised average standards of living and discourage conflict. now it seems to me that an awful lot of americans who are not convinced that global trade and investment has brought significant benefit to them. they think it's actually hurting

them. so i'm curious what you say to them to convince them that this is in their interest not only in the interest of the u.s. multinationals. >> i guess i would start buy simply saying we have to ask what would have been had we not done these things. the world is calling for the most transformational moment. it's changing dramatically. we are becoming far more integrated and far more interrelated and recognize the real developing markets for products that we've produced and the services that we provide in the developing continents of africa and latin america and asia. so as we recognize the transformational moment, we also have to recognize that there are things we have to do to engage with of the world in order to ensure that our economy stays strong. we also in the report noted that there's a lot of things we can do better. we can do a lot better with an force meant. we also can do a lot better with regard to training our workers to cope with these transformational circumstances.

so we recognize that there are many challenges out there that the world is changing. we need to get out as the world changes to suit the workers and needs of the country. >> multinational corporations actually have a disproportionately large growth factor when it comes to workers in the united states cities been adding jobs in the united states as they've been expanding markets around the world and that is a good sign. we've also been a magnet for direct investment but that is challenge right now with the world and this report is not written to be the perfect answer. if you are not looking for perfection you should go to an academic institution they will give you perfection to whether this is an effort to describe what we think is needed and it is a practical recognition of the challenge on the free trade between the old debate and the

new debate on what about me and this is a balance between the theoretical value of the free trade and the practicality that we need to do more for the american worker and to demonstrate the ground rules are there. united states is going to be a partner in making sure people flee by the rules. and so this is an effort to recognize the cynical 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 isolationists. we are going to participate in the global economy and we think this is a road map for the more realistic participation. pro-american interests i'm not going to conflict with the theoretical expectation of the market. >> senator, as you know, the

report argues there are lots of ways in which trade and foreign investment in the united states banned u.s. investment abroad are ultimately good for the united states. if you to get all of the democrats in congress might have trouble getting a majority in the opposition what you say to them why is this really in america's interest and not in public america's interest? >> i think that if you look at where we are our softest today with regard to the economy is the expectation of how we're going to grow jobs play. one of the major takeaways of the report and our study over the last year is we need a much more aggressive and productive pro-american investment policy and that investment policy really has a couple of components that's encouraging that the investment into the united states as we see already in 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 spending and building the kind of partnerships to do that is really what will grow jobs in the long term. we are going to hear a lot of debate over the next several months about how we grow jobs. we think there is a significant trade component having to do with investment. the way to direct to job growth in this country that we need to focus on if we are going to get this job done right. >> as you know and you mentioned the report picks up on the fact that not all workers benefit from trade and suggest the government policies could be moved to share the benefits of trade more broadly. the report calls for this thing called wage insurance which is compensating workers and they lose the high wage up because they are one of the losers and trade. but in the of the exceptions of the report in the back, the commentary, but trent lott and

bill thomas object to that. so, what do you say to republicans like bill thomas and trent lott in the republicans on the hill who are uneasy about extending the trade adjustment in the program is that really important, are the right? >> they are right in the global context of the spending and they are saying put that in the same priority in the consideration everything else will be in this does is it reduction commission to say how you spend money. there are benefits for free trade and the benefits could be shared with people who would be dislocated it's not bad, but i'm not just for spending in the context of the overall federal discipline that has to come into spending i don't disagree with their ex to. i did disagree with the reservation because we put together a plan that was

practical from the political point of view as well and so i think there is some recognition that there are going to the adjustments needed to address and people who are on the cusp of thanks -- angst just arrived position of the jobs of that is what i favor and i did talk with folks and the former chairman of the ways and means bill thomas i completely understand their inkster 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 in the free trade when some of the benefits should mitigate the concerns of the workers displaced. the two words and deemphasized here are so critical and that is political practicality. political practicality in today's world dictates we understand the importance of trade adjustment assistance if we are in favor of a robust trade policy they go hand in glove. you can't have one without the

other. >> i should say that matt and ted are not required to remain silent. we agree they are going to mess it up in the q&a. they were not just assigned to nada every time. [laughter] >> compared to a decade ago with the council on foreign relations did the report on trade one thing that is clearly different is the role of china. and so, what does the report to tell us about what we have to fear from china, what we have to gain from china and most importantly, what role does the government play in making sure that china plays by the trade rules the weekly bi? >> first of all, the reality of china's growth is evident to us all, and so are some of the problems in china. i would like to see and i support the of the restoration effort to be more responsible about how their currency is operated around the world and how that is dictating the value

and i also am very concerned about the intellectual property. i also think that it's the reality that sells initiation by the u.s. government has not been very present with violation and we counted on corporations and businesses to come forward with their concerns when they are increasingly reluctant to raise the level of concern to the federal government come and i think that the federal government should be more active and more proactive in calling attention to the violations of trade and where the rules are being respected. so this report also calls for our government to be self initiating what it comes to some of the -- >> the company that feels the disadvantage by breaking the rules not willing to stand up for itself. >> retaliation. >> i think they are concerned a lot about retaliation and the effect by the chinese government, but i think it's a very important and appropriate

question. if i had to categorize the report it would be in four ways to read the fourth major takeaways. the first is that we ought to have a much more productive trade policy. we ought to be focused on those countries that really could produce real results in china, india, brazil are three good examples. so clearly, as we target where we can do the most good with trade china is a major factor. the second is investment policy. ..

to encourage investment here. >> first of all, 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 s. so, we need to have more investment in our infrastructure. we need more investment in education. this is a recognition that the united states alone is not going to be the engine that drives our economic dvd around the world and we've got to be more competitive and were asking for investment in our education so we will be very competitive with

the world that is increasingly competitive against us. >> can i add one thing? we saw in the reports of the national investment report would be complementary to the administration's national export initiative, but a lot of what this report is about is a track team the united states that is related to the markets. it's never in a systematic way. promotion efforts, where they are looking to bring companies and invest in the united states and retain investment. we don't do that at a national level. mostly at the state level. we talk about tax policy in which our corporate tax system encourages investment that we tackle out of senator daschle mention about china in developing countries. the goal here is to have something complementary to trade and investment are linked in as

we are promoting exports, we need to be promoting foreign investment and were probably -- >> drying more foreign countries to invest in the united states. >> in the u.s.a. to have a set of policies in the united states throughout the expansion abroad to connect returns to america as well. so it they can do global engage companies in america trying to out them whatever the motive interactivity with the global economy to have their ability to have the manic growth markets to translate that into jobs when it comes here. >> to talk in a rapport with the provost of the german chancellor and the french president nicolas accorsi has been better salesman than american presidents. but governments are much closer to businesses in relationship to government and business is different here.

most of the time the rhetoric of business in america instead of my business and i'll stay out of yours. so, do you imagine -- should the president of the united states, whether it's a republican or democrat be spending more time speaking on the chinese to buy boeing jets or the germans to buy microsoft software? is that which you think ought to happen? >> i don't think i would see beating on them is really the right verb i would use, but i do think creating a greater and closer and more successful partnership as we look at international competitiveness is something we should do. i think it's a good thing. i also think we've got to do a better job of linking jobs but this whole effort. you know, that's what they think we failed to do. we haven't really made the case about how jobs can be set to and how we can build a jobs agenda doing a better job of selling

ourselves to the world. but apparently is what this is all about, recognizing the huge amount of rhetoric that has to be considered as we make our case. that hasn't been addressed very cautiously in years. >> i remember presidents of the united states don't not push for u.s. exporters, but it's kind of done with a bit of awkwardness, licquia not to be too mercenary because we the united states of america. it's not a problem for a good thing? i'm not sure. >> i don't think it's a problem. the president of the united states has been unabashedly championing, i'm going to say come u.s. corporations competing against foreign corporations. it's when they compete against other u.s. corporations that they don't get engaged. pictures on the playing field to be as level as possible and they want the rule of trade to be respected on all sites and that is what we asked the federal government to do is to be

proactive in making sure that the rules they are are the rules that are enforced. we are not going to count on our corporations all of the time to be the ones to say hey, they are breaking the rules here. we have her own ability to see whether the rules are being broken and we should step up and blow the whistle and call attention to it. we want a pro-america trade policy and that is what this is saying. i don't think it's inconsistent with the fact that the united states has the best example of a free-market system and we want to spread free-market systems around the world, but we are going to do it recognizing that are free-market system is great because it does have the rule of law and there is enforcement and we are going to make sure that spreads across every border in the world. >> the way america taxes corporations is quite controversial at the moment and were the only country in the world that tries to tax everybody's profits no matter where they are in the world, while other countries tax only

profits earned in their country. there's a great consensus now in congress that we had to tax reform as long as he don't try to define what it is they're talking about. you talk a little bit about tackle. how do we think about corporate tax reform and the agenda of? be my first of all, there is recognition that a tax policy has a huge influence on her success in international trade and competitiveness. we've got to look at it from my days. we've created a holy way of incentives to do different things, but the bottom line is this will have a very high tax rate as it relates to other parts of the world in business. it's a recognizing that and creating a greater equilibrium, a fair and more competitive tax claim it is something both democrats and congress in spite of all the polarization ec about taxes seem to agree.

>> i feel very strongly that you cannot have a trade debate without talking about taxes. and this report acknowledges that reality. we heard from a number of business leaders, in fact, every business leader we spoke to at the tax policies in the theory of trade. and we'd like to call to the attention of congress as they take a look at tax policy and pay attention to its happening in the global competitiveness. how does that impact our ability to compete overseas and keep jobs at home or attract new jobs and more investment here. but we've had some pretty controversial suggestions in here with regard to the tax debate that congress will have to have. it's not in the context of a trade though. it's in the context of a tax bill will have to be written, but we don't want a tax bill read without paying attention to ramifications on international

trade. >> you talk also in the bill a little about the process of getting trade legislation through congress. once upon a time to make it better, we set up a process that the president that proposed in congress could amend and it all happen in 30 days, but 30 days seems to stretch to 300 days in 3000 days. the trade agreements on the countries about the size of providence, rhode island. so how would you propose to make the trade legislation process different if you would? >> well, first of all, as andy said, this is not -- we tried to watch a perfect document, you probably ready perfect with which to deal with transit station in the congress. that isn't going to happen. >> nobody thinks congress is perfect. don't worry about it. but i think we, the realization that tpa, trade promotion authority, legislative avenues are not something that are very

realistic today. so we have to look at ways with which to address these agreements outside that context, making a case on the bilateral basis with countries as important as brazil and india and china but on that basis alone we had to find consensus on some of the most important priorities relating to trade with those countries. we are not going to create a framework in which all of these things can be done. as andy said before the program friday, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to trade a policy as we go forward and we have to recognize that today. >> trade promotion authority would be great in a perfect world. the reality is congress is not likely to approve promotion ability. if they did, there would be strings on it that might mean it was sent trade promoting authority. so this isn't knowledge meant that the reality of the political climate today. i thought for a trade promotion

authority. advocated when i worked in the or and yes i to pass trade promotion authority and i thought it was a great tool for a president to have. it's just not likely to be given now. the one thing about this report is that it suggests there should be strategic considerations with regard to trade. so we are suggesting, take a look at the unique challenges of china or brazil or india. and deal with them. used to be you take your cookie cutter out and poke it into the world and bingo, it would show columbia, perfect example. we don't have a cookie cutter anymore. we have to deal market to market, reality to reality and that is also the context of political response congress kids. >> and we've done that before they got examples where he been able to do this. we have to go back and find what worked in the past outside of

tpa and use those principles and experiences again. >> i would like congress to give tpa to the united states. it's an appropriate response to article tuesday's possibility. i don't think congress is going to do it, though. >> just to be clear in the debate we had in the group, there was broad agreement in the best of all possible worlds for the president makes sense. it's a good thing. what we want to avoid is an ideological battle over him. as the u.s. want to go forward more trade agreements? that makes both sides hardened in their position. what we say is go out and presented to congress specific deals that the administration can bring home. it will need someone in this partnership be negotiated. if you go to members of congress and explain -- >> you know, it allows for a fast-track procedure through congress of those can be amended

essentially, so you don't get in the game of congress amending trade after negotiated. to some extent we ended up there anyways. >> we would pass the administration negotiate. it's easier if you've got tangible -- if you got tangible agreements to congress and say here is what you're trade promotion authority for this agreement is going to need and try to build up confidence in that way. >> let me turn now to what you think ceos of big companies had to do with today. >> you know, in the 90s multinationals created about two jobs overseas for everyone they created here. they actually increase their employment overseas by about 2.4 million decrease their workforces in the u.s. by 2.9 elion. what is the responsibility of the ceos of the hundred largest national companies in

terms of talking to the government, talking to the people about trade and what should they bring to the table? >> they should bring to the table, we have to be competitive in the world. our government should say, what are you going to do for us? they have some suggestions. symptoms throughout the game allow them to it as much value to the united states as they would like to. the competitive challenges require them to make sacrifices at home for the shareholders of return on investments. so i think it is a challenge. we heard -- i mean, jim owens is the best example. he is out there working very, very, very and has been working very hard, not only to provide jobs in america, but to meet challenges that consumers have around the globe. and he's done it well. but he said we were tying his

hands frequently. sometimes it is our tax code. sometimes it is a lack of infrastructure in the united states that allowed him to be competitive. that he found a way to do it. so we listened to him. we listen to practical challenges you to you to face as he is competing around the world and is very, very sincere desire to add value here at home. >> i think ceos have the same responsibility that officeholders have, which is to do with this report calls for. and that is but the attention of focus for the american people really want to hear what they think it should be. what are ceos doing to do a better job than we have done in recent years on creating jobs here at home? what are policymakers during? how can we work together? 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's really what we've got to do is emphasize what it's going to take to build those jobs here because the perception is all we are doing is building those and creating jobs abroad. we've got to bring them home. we have to make sure people believe that it is a real priority and is the highest element of our agenda when it comes to trade. >> i would just echo what tom and andy said. but the ceos do most important is inform, educate because they are the ones that are seen every week, every quarter how fast it changes on the global economy, how opportunities are growing, but now challenging the business dynamic is for how to grow those markets and hopefully connected jobs and opportunities in the united states. national tax is a great example. go back to the 80s and 90s and relative to countries, the corporate tax code was pretty similar to that of a lot of other countries. but the change in dozens and dozens of countries to simplify the tax code has made the u.s. more and more of an hour later.

whether thumbtacks are intellectual property, they see things in real time that can guide the focus of policymakers here in this effort to good jobs in the local economy. >> let me ask you an economic professor questioned. there is a striking quote in this report from a predecessor company 2001 report written by a task force chaired by bob rubin, former secretary and former republican, which was ironically her interest in the direct did buy a little-known bureaucrat named tim geithner at the time. in that report, just 10 years ago, the cfr row, the games in trade are broadly shared. throughout the last decade, 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, not? >> so we don't know. we are still working to

understand that, but it is clear that an amazing amount of technology innovation and the different dimensions in which the world has become more global interconnectedness something to do with the fact that job growth is authority america and wage growth has been basically nonexistent. that said, but the deeper reality of the system. a deep set of forces are at play. what is new in our report is that this is an economic reality that we can build off of a more innovative set of policies to allow more job growth and more income growth link to that because it's not coming automatically as it did in the past. the >> i was a also a recognition of reality that government owned entities around the world is increasingly challenging our corporate structure to be competitive. and so how do we deal with?

they are written with government owned entities to be a major competitors in some markets. the u.s. should be more proactive in the u.s. government should be more prior to see whether the rules are being followed and plain as level as possible when competing to meet the demands of consumers around the world and provide jobs at home. >> that's what i think the american people expect the government to be more aggressive on enforcement than in other years. if one were concerns that the most common it is enforcement. why don't you go be more aggressive and more successful in taking on the lack of competitive fairness of the look of some of these markets because of state-owned enterprises especially. >> we are going to turn to questions now. i thought we could skip the

usual washington warning to turn off your cell phones and he did pretty good for the first 29 minutes. i want to remind you this is on the record. so if you speak, you will be on the record interstices being camera tear. please pray for the microphone and use it. please say who you are and remember that questions and with it? so, who's got to make? want to start right here in the front? >> hi, good morning, paula stern. my question goes to both the video. thank you so much for your presentation. with regard to china, with regard to issues of enforcement, of our trade laws and obligations of those of china under the wto and specifically with regards to the green tag arena, which is so important, particularly to the

administration's initiatives. we have been treated to keep articles about walt. the gm and ford seen differently how to deal with china with regard to the requirements i guess you would say of the government of china regarding tech transfer as a condition of those two automotive industries investing in china and enjoying the chinese market. he suggested, mr. card, that when two different u.s. corporations may not see eye to eye on a particular policy, it makes it difficult for the president and the administration to come forward actively with china. while reducing just be done with regard to china, given the mortality concern for corporations have, is it the

u.s. government and how does it resolve when you get two different industries, particularly in an automotive area that so important? >> well, first of all, the united states should help all of our intellectual property be protected in the world. so we should be proactive in helping to protect the intellectual property that america has discovered and implemented. i also respect that sometimes their corporate interests that don't mind sharing their intellectual property. and that is a business decision made company by company or corporation that corporation. i don't think there should be a blanket with his new intellectual property could ever be transferred to many of the entity. but the corporate decision, not a government decision. the government decisions as we've intellectual property law and we are going to respect it and make sure people around the world respect it and comply with it. said i would be a difference.

when it comes to gm and ford and how they might negotiate over intellectual property with the market, to me that is for them to decide rather than us to impose. we should protect the overall intellectual property that exists for american companies. >> can add one very small thing? there are provisions that discourage performance requirements, but discourage countries from saying you have to do x and our market. there is rules that the u.s. government can use to discourage things that may work against the development of these technologies. the packets back to to enforcing the rules. i agree you can't have a blanket prohibition, but there's rules in place to discourage this sort of thing. >> state-chartered bits at george washington university law school. i didn't hear anything this morning about white american and i didn't see in the quick look of the reporter. i did see a dissenting view endorsing americans. here's my question.

last week the president set out a jobs bill centerpiece demanding by americans for public works. is that something the task force discussed? why was it left out of the report? >> so, if it gets mentioned, is the net? >> briefly. from my view of the task force member, which is complexity the global economy makes more and more difficult to conceive of and measure. in broad terms. other companies -- other countries pay attention to this performance requirements the reality of dynamic growth opportunities that are american workers need to try to tap into for more and more outside of u.s. borders. >> that i would put in a little

more context 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 and my view of the pro-american has a much broader array of approaches that will allow us to have a greater expectation of some result, whether it's dealing with countries that can really make a difference in our trading relationships. china, brazil, india. whether its investment policy come enforcement or trade adjustment assistance. all of those things are your pro-american approach that go way beyond just by america more narrow focus that i think doesn't really lend itself to the kind of environment we are facing today. >> is a gentleman in the i/o. can you give him a mic? >> you mentioned about the investment initiative.

do you recommend any incentives for both domestic and foreign investors in the united states? thank you. >> my question goes to both. >> he wants to do recommend offering incentives to tax and other incentives to get people to invest here? >> we did not call for that. we don't look at target incentives. we have a very attractive environment to bring in foreign investment. from the profits that come into multinational or multi-corporate challenges and we want more need to come home because her tax laws with better. you'd like them to consider the global implications of taxes,

not just parochial taxes. >> thank you. stephen kanner with the council for international business. this is one act and others about the national investment initiative. i don't think there's a governor. they have a parade come to celebrate, for money, do all sorts of subsidies. our investment is somebody else's outward investment. put the plant in alabama. hyundai does something and does we have to distinguish outward investment and inward. the investment policy says nothing about outward investment and the linkages. if you could say some more about that, how we focus and bring together the linkages of inward and outward and also in the context of the tpp, the stock or in markets where our competitors, mr. card, state enterprises.

should we really be trusting serious disciplines on state owned enterprises to have a level playing field? >> so, great question. a couple thoughts. the difference between inward and outward investment get more and more worried as global business gets more interconnect did. so if i'm going misys outward m&a transactions for countries, kind of the ownership changes more and more. so thinking about the distinctions as clean and permanent is not helpful. enter second thought is historically there's academic research that shows expansion abroad by u.s.-based multinational companies come attempts to support more job creation, more capital investment and the fbi pulls into those foreign markets. the challenge and weather report is thinking about what constellation of policies we have in america to allow that to continue in the future and that speaks to things we've been discussing, lake enforcement

requirements in those foreign countries and presidential property. >> can i just respond quickly? i think you're faced with a dilemma. the united states code, i suppose, say we can do this heavily subsidize enterprises and enterprises that gives tax breaks and unfair advantages in corporation. we can try to match that subsidy. that's not going to happen. it's a very difficult thing to do. far better to negotiate roles in the context of trade agreements like the tpp through the oecd, perhaps the wto for what level of government level. i'm not pretending that these ear. we face the issues with japan we have confronted this before. the united states can close your eyes to this problem. it's a baking growing problem.

our primary goal is to see located in the united states. if the incentives required them to do that. so we have to be able to as a country to make this a good location for everyone. >> people think that means no expansion abroad of any kind, whether it's u.s. domicile corporations, that they are going to have those connections. the trick is to think about the set of policies that support their ability to tap in the fast growth abroad to mean more jobs and economic activities. >> can see from there as global. and it's about infrastructure investment. the u.s. means creating jobs and clean tag transportation. in helping fund u.s. infrastructure investment.

in the past we've had a little bit of skittish attitude about foreigners invest in things like ports or airports are energy there. so i had several questions for you. one is coming to think it's appropriate in a good idea to attract foreign investment and infrastructure? to comment tuesday in a 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? >> i personally take it is a very important part of developed moral policy. we are to be encouraged and i am hopeful that we are going to begin to see a greater and more of approach on the part of government officials in that regard. it seems to me it comes down once again to this whole notion of jobs. and a recognition that because of the tremendous interim

alliance and interdependence that we have today that those jobs are very real and if that is the only way with which we are going to see a really robust infrastructure development policy in this country, it seems to me that is the logical extension of what we party scene in the past. so i would love to see much more of it. i think at the end of the day you'll see more of it. >> there seems to be resistance whether it is dubai ports or german company buying a phone company and on that stuff. how do you talk people out of that stuff here that foreigners buy our infrastructure will lose control of our destiny? >> i think the word is controlled. to what extent can we create a framework to which control is still ours? that is really going to be the most important question. we simply go on to turnover the infrastructure management to a foreign investor.

control is key. along with controls that we can manage these things if we can do them without understanding and realization that good jobs, permanent jobs would be a part of this investment. >> i would echo with a long-standing process in the united states to ensure the national security concerns are legitimate and that? been a change of public opinion, the narrative of jobs is really critical here. one of the things globalization has done is around the world there's a lot of global best practice companies that operate in the infrastructure space. there's a lot of countries that is no doubt their ability to find and build and maintain infrastructure projects by relying on these companies. in an airtight disco and i am, the better will be out of the structure that has to create lots of industries in america in

the future hopefully. >> is pushing for markets in other business, america wants to be open for business. this report says. we are looking to say, yes, they too to have your best. we pay attention to governments in a process in place to make sure national security interests are respected and complied with. but we're open for business. rubin for investment we wanted to come because that means jobs. >> dan bob with a scout foundation. i had a job about trade promotion authority with respect to tpp. the it's not clear to me what you're suggesting nontrade promotion authority. i wonder if you could discuss how specifically tpa could be granted to tpp because that too is moving forward. >> it's the abcs here. tpa is a trade promotion authority which allows the

government president to negotiate and get through congress on an up or down vote quickly and tpp is a transpacific partnership come which involves a japan -- >> japan is not part of it. snape united states and asia countries. vietnam and malaysia and others in ideas to building blocks on the broader regional trade agreement. the u.s. is intensively involved in negotiations. in hawaii ttp is being negotiated as though -- by ustr as though it has tpa. >> i think were pretty clear. the big distinction as we can say obama administration, go out next week and asked for a broad grant arif here is that becomes

another ideological of other trade is contributing. so we said jordan asked in the context of specific deals and if that's a very good example where the administration gets to the rates they will be able to go to congress and say we have this deal we can bring home here are advantages. we can keep the congress should grant us his vehicle to bring the steel home. >> so it's a sequence he questioned. work at the principles of the deal and then get the negotiating authority, rather than us for the famous blank check. >> i think that's where we are. you would necessarily have to be this furlong. united states has a lot to with libya like the european union is negotiating. vis-à-vis the broad parameters of a deal. give this authority to do that you are talking specifics rather than generalities. >> in the back. >> bill lange with caterpillar. my boss formerly was jim hollings.

current one, doug oberhelman. i was sort of taken by andy's comments because while it is actually the true over the last 10, 20 years would increase u.s. employment dramatically in non-us implant a blister manically. in 36 years at caterpillar, i've never been in a meeting for executives got together and said the goal is to increase jobs, the goal is to increase sales, reduce costs, improve quality, to be safe, promote diversity, but never once have business folks got gathering say i don't care about profits. i care about creating jobs. the dvd the other judges properly come you do create jobs. most of the discussion is then about jobs. do we make a mistake of eating with jobs rather than leading them but it takes to have a competitive economy and point out that jobs will follow? >> i don't think it's either or frankly. i think we've got to say, how is

it that make it the jobs? jobs are uppermost in the minds -- i don't think most americans are necessarily as concerned about how much profit at caterpillar makes. it's how much ultimately needs in jobs as a result of the profit that you do make. so putting it in that context, it seems to me it recognizes political reality until he can convince the vast majority of american people that proactive, pro-american trade policy does mean better jobs and more jobs. i don't think where can i get to first base. that's what it is. it's putting it in the context that the american people will your resume. spirit the context which are

jobs. what does it mean for america? this is a pro-america plan. and yes we want every corporation to be competitive around the world. so we are looking for a very competitive environment around the world. but we also ask income is that procompetitive environment going to complement america's interest in creating jobs? and we think there is a balance and were not suggesting that any ceo should say my first job is to create jobs. i think the first job is to be competitive with the world and jobs for calm. that's why when they met with the ceos of a number of companies, they talked about what it need 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 orbit for an complement. that's what the context is. we have a wonderful group of task force members.

i see the congresswoman down here. she's sharing a sign. we had a healthy debate over a jobs priority for a competitive priority and we said it's going to be pro-america priority that includes competitiveness and we hope will have a complement to the creation of jobs in america instability in the job markets. >> i would just add that the task force is great. with a lot of conversations about what the competitive needs for ability of america took her job. the report strikes the right balance of saying a trade investment policy and global economy is a piece of that. and it challenges infrastructure of the corporate tax, educational system, immigration system and we acknowledge that in the task force and try to get people to hearing those policy conversations and issues in a different light now and link it

with our ability to grow those jobs. [inaudible] >> the man out here that will do the one here. to him first and then we'll go to the back. >> thai kassinger with o'melveny & myers. one thing you haven't mentioned, but has been prominent over the last decade or more in the trade policy debate is environmental issues. and using trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties to in effect export u.s. values in that area. we have seen the u.s. recently lost a wto case and i can't turn a laboring issue. the obama administration initiated labor under the guatemala agreement. what does the task force have to say about the proper role of integrating environmental policies? what does trade promotion of investment policies?

>> well, that's something i raise probably more than i should. but i did reason several times and i must radio buzz -- it was something that i think the committee -- 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 prayer as those in other parts of the world, especially in the developing world today. and making it as high of a priority as it should read and taken a more proactive approach to enforcement is something that i think the task force wholeheartedly endorses. >> just too had too had come in the approach the united states has taken to environmental labor issues has been built up over the last two decades, going back

to the nafta negotiated in the clinton administration. we just accept that as part of the landscape right now and we didn't want to refight those battles. we are reasonably comfortable with where u.s. policy was. we saw other matters we've been talking about appearance of a more pressing at the moment as without the priorities. >> in the back with the red tie. >> thank you. andy olsen with travis and rosenberg. i want to follow up on enforcement. if one supports more enforcement, but she got me thinking, wto cases are complicated, difficult for the u.s. to bring one that requires consensus in the business community because there's different that opinion whether or not to bring one and how. they're directly or indirectly exposed to the global economy. i'm thinking of companies i've spoken to who said 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? doing it at the wto level can be lengthy, complicated, yes. >> i think we've got plenty of tools in the toolbox and we want to see them used. i think you always have a debate on whether or not we should have more tools. we had the debate over, rather tools being used? so we were saying, the world has changed and we want the united states to be more about a pro-american trade agreement. but be proactive proactive in making sure that the rules of the day are followed. we can have debates over other rules another tools. this is not to find other tools to use. it's encouragement to use the

tools and invite the government to be more proactive in seeing whether or not unfair trade practices a reality, rather than waiting for complaint. >> to any people in the task force want to weigh in at all? do you want to have anything? we have time for one more question. woman in the back. >> she's starting to get out. that's not a good sign. [laughter] >> we're going to talk about another tool in the box that no one seems to have thought about that night and put one of the major arteries of growth the u.s. economy has, which is construction and real estate sector. aspect here, when it was booming comeback intrude into measly 16% to 20% of gdp was contributing to employment, aggregate demand

and linkages with the rest of the world. and that artery of growth is called. there is a huge tirrell meant. the mortgage sector, which was the one feeling the growth of course stalled, stopped and it should have been stopped because it became abusive and its product or service. so the toolbox that no one seems to have considered his equalize the after tax treatment of rent payment to mortgage payments. so why not think of something that will immediately unplug the real estate area by allowing renters to deduct rat payments of their income tax, which i think we'll do a lot to begin occupying a lot of empty houses in mobilizing real estate and generating trade and generating openness to free trade? >> and that i'm sure was not in the report. >> it was not, but it connects

the previous comment about small , medium-sized enterprises. i'll point out one of the many studies. there is report done by the u.s. trade commission earnestness here, cannot enforcement of intellectual property at companies in china and several thousand u.s. companies, and the lost revenue through sales and exports and try to come back and see how many jobs lost in america that meant relative to the world for strong ip protection. the number they came up with was 2.1 u.s. jobs. but it wasn't just in the large globally engage corporations. it's small and medium-sized corporations in the knock that has for her real estate. one of the teams the report is trained to think about the benefits globalization can help america not immediately for the large global corporation, but small and medium enterprises and things you think is

traditionally been untreatable. the more american workers and families see those connections because they are smart. the more hopefully to build those kinds of jobs. >> totally outside of the trade context, your question raises one of the most members of congress and administration face today is number one, had you pay for a provision like? number two, worked as a fall in this overall challenge either simplify the tax code and eliminate tax provisions to create this competitive climate we've been talking about. and how do you do that given the right of provisions that exist today in the need to begin to find ways with which to simplify. those will play themselves out over the course the next several weeks and months. >> the value added taxes deductible in the context of international trade. the united states does not have a deductible added tax.

that's a different vantage. the tax debate is a very important debate to have in the context of international trade in our invitation to congress is when they debate taxes, they shouldn't encourage impact on competitiveness in the global economy. >> with that, i'll close in thank you all for your good questions and stand to end. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [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 about middle east peace process and discuss efforts to organize a grassroots movement in support of a two state solution. this is about an hour and 10 minute. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, well found. i am howard csonka, ceo of onevoice international, which is a grassroots youth movement that is focused on dubbing constituencies in israel and palestine first two state solution to be palestine conflict. onevoice 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 politically focused so much in the united states. through peril actions that are one voice office in tel aviv and are one voice office in ramallah undertake to try to bring together people to build support for a two state solution, to understand compromises that a two state solution will require him to prepare people for both the costs of making this compromise is in for appreciation of the benefits that will accrue to them when those compromises are made and we finally have an end of conflict and end of claims in israel and palestine. this year, our international education program you later

toured, which is what we are hearing about was scheduled as it turned out for a very active week at the u.n., during which the plo is expected now to present the resolution on palestinian statehood. this is created enormous buzz when we first begin planning us, we wondered if this was an appropriate time to do it in my feeling was we couldn't have a better time because of the history product in this media and around the world. so we have now in the context of this u.n. issued, to leaders, not shapira -- eyal shapira from israel and obada shtaya from one voice palestine who are here to talk with you about their personal stories, to give you a palestinian and israeli is from the grassroots on the issues and

how they see the solution in what you're 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's going on in israel and palestine are perspective that we don't usually cast in the united states. but they're not really here to talk about u.s. politics and other political dimensions of u.n. initiative and i know we won't be able to avoid that, but we'll try not to put them on the spot. and i'd also like to say that are cosponsors that is, the american task force on palestine, 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 us to know that whatever views are expressed up here by eyal

shapira or obada shtaya or others don't necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring organization. so with that command like to turn it over to ambassador philip wilcox to introduce obada and eyal. phil is an old friend of the foundation for middle east peace, someone with which we've worked in advancing the objection of a two state solution. thank you. >> thank you, howard 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 meeting u.s. universities and workshops in talking to the media appeared ready to to hear your voice. i think that is worth thinking

more about one voice's program, which in a way is unique. many of us sometimes yield to the illusion that pieces made by debt is not some politician indicted in secret sessions they will negotiate historic peace agreements and then announce them through the public. that isn't true at all. peace is not made amongst the citizens of the adversary negotiators support peace. and thus far, very little effort has been made by the governments of palestine, governments of israel and i'm sorry to say, the government of the united state in trying to promote peace not simply as a notion the principle, but i said detailed,

elaborated concept to the public, i know that -- i should say i know -- i don't know, but based upon long experience with both communities, i think they are our financial majorities in israel and has a desperately want peace and realize that can only be achieved through two states. but until those majorities are mobilize to speak out to their governments, to the world, it will be much but difficult to make peace. so you are certainly contributing something very important until the israeli public and the palestinian public in the american public are ready to speak out to their leaders in favor peace and

willing to accept the ingredients of a piece, those that are painful and those that are positive in their appeal. both sides are going to have to accept some bitter compromises in order to gain their fundamental needs. so hats off to one voice. ..

and seasoned politicians have spoken in favor of this. against the view of their own government. there are strong voices in this country obviously for and against this initiative as there are in palestine. we are here to hear your views, both of you. a student of international affairs and law said that he -- hebrew university and is one of the one voice leaders in both communities, and obada shtaya of

the one voice university studied for one year and 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 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's impressive. so, you are certainly you've chosen the right path and you are making a real contribution, and we wish you well. i hope he will talk about the initiative. i think it's important. it is not of course the issue that will lose or win the peace the basic problems it is the

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

>> hello. i'm very excited to be here and i want to thank you all for coming. i would like to share with you my personal story. my name is eyal shapira. i'm from jerusalem and i'm 25-years-old and i am studying at the hebrew university law and political science. i grew up in jerusalem actually in a small town just outside of jerusalem with my family i have two sisters and right now i live in the city of tercel. i assume all of you know living in jerusalem either in the eastern part of jerusalem or most of the palestinians or air of israelis live or either in the west part of jerusalem means dealing with the israeli-palestinian conflict on a daily basis, and when i was 15-years-old the second in fatah

broke out and was days of horror in the streets of jerusalem. i can say that the terror attack took place on a weekly or daily basis but it was something that we feared on a daily basis. one of the terror attacks that took place where beside a high school in jerusalem, and for high school students were killed in that terror attack, and i didn't know them personally but i knew many people that knew them, and it attracted me that they were the same age as me. they had the same desire as i did which was as other teenagers all over the world ran out with friends wandering around going to a party or something like that. and we got every household in

israel had the same dilemma those days which is whether we should call look at home and wait for the storm to pass or whether we should go out and keep on living our life as we please and not letting terror when. my family and all of the families in israel that i knew decided to not let terror win and keep living their life in spite of danger and me as a teenager, despite me knowing that, going out meaning my parents having a sleepless night or it doesn't matter what other circumstances we decided to keep on living our life. when i was 16, 17-years-old there was a terror attack that took place in this city in the north of israel, and in that terror attack the father of a good friend of mine that was a

very, very hard time for her especially but for us as friends to help her and to be there with her to be there for her dealing with a situation which a teenager shouldn't deal with. the feeling that i have come and i can say that us as friends and i can say of her that something has to be done, and that we cannot keep on counting victims on both sides. we should take things to 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. so when i graduated, i went to the army which is in israel. i served for three years.

i was a combat soldier. i served in the west bank. i stood in boarders, i served in gaza and then a full month after i turned commander, the second is really lebanon war workout. so i was -- i took part of it, and i was a commander of the crew of soldiers during that war the experiences i had in the army have strengthened the feeling that i was talking about before that both people are victims of the conflict in that situation. either one has a relative who died, or the other has business because they are afraid to come to the area, or the other has a fence bordering his house in the fields, but we are all victims and it touches all of us so we are the ones that take it to our hands and we are the ones that should do something about it.

from those are the feelings that made me do onevoice and as howard was describing, an organization which is non-partisan and which is working in both societies, but is emphasizing in each society the interest of the specific society like us working in israel we were talking about the israeli interests of getting to an agreement and the one voice palestine when we speak to the palestinians they are talking about the palestinian interests. the feeling i have is that if we as one voice our -- we can have a form which was made together by the israelis and palestinians it is something that is giving me hope it is possible to do not

only in one voice but in the state's. this year i was the coordinator of the jerusalem branch of onevoice in the hebrew university, and we held many events during this year. the main event was a debate between a former palestinian minister and the professor who is an international law professor, and the debate was about the thing that is coming in september. we held it in may, last may, which was a full month before, but we knew that the palestinians were going to the u.n., and we were talking about all of the possibilities of the

palestinians and what can they do and what are their reactions of the israeli government, how should they react, how we think they react, what are the possibilities that we think they might take. the main thing that i felt about this event was that first, seeing a palestinian former minister coming integers lamented the university putting a lot of effort into explaining themselves to the jewish student starting in the hebrew university and the arab-israeli is was very, very moving to me, and i felt that the audience has left the event much more optimistic than when they came to read what i have 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 painful compromises and a day that, in the day that an agreement will come. i do think that we can affect the leaders, but i don't think that this is the main thing that we should focus on because that's the most difficult thing to do, but i do think that not because it's difficult, but just because working with less society in preparing them to painful compromise is something which i think that when it is coming from civilians talking to them face-to-face and so to that we were extending talking to people with jerusalem's's talking to people and we had a

very big project with onevoice in 2008 which was taken in palestine and israel to talk to them in the street and ask them to imagine how they would live in 2018 and old we did in israel was that we have on facebook people had to write their own had lines and put a picture of their own picture of how they see 2018. that's the way that we try to engage people into action. what we did with that is the we have the caucus in israel we established the first to state solution caucuses in the israel parliament. so, the big opening of the caucus was us bringing the headlines and pictures and to

the caucus and showing the damage to the members of the caucus, and the caucus by the way was established by a member of cuddy -- cut the men in the voice. other than that, i will -- i'm getting to september the what we work now that september is that we see in a september the chance for both people, both societies to get back into the negotiations and bring back to state solution to the table, and it might seem -- i want to emphasize what are the interests in supporting the west indians going to the u.n.. what i really think is that if we will support and go back to

the negotiation table now after the palestinians have been to the u.n., it will be limited on time, but mainly limited on conditions. the palestinians would bring their conditions to the u.n., which is something that can be of very, very good base and something that can -- it's not something that the israelis will be able to just sign on that form, but will be a good base of starting to talk. and going back to the negotiation table. other than that, people sometimes wonder that may be a two-stage solution is -- willing trying to say is when we go back to the negotiations it will be sure that the two-stage solution as the solution that both the states are looking for without any doubt. so what we are doing to engage in order to address it to the israeli people was that we

arranged during the demonstrations, the housing demonstrations in israel there was a very good and successful, very successful project that who they were doing spreading tables oliver televisa and talking to people about all of the issues and so what we did is that we are spreading tables all over televisa bringing professionals to be the head of the table and talking about of the core issues and things we think are very important to show the interest. thank you. [applause] islamic good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i am so glad today to stand before you and talk about this palestinian-israeli conflict, and to share my personal story with you.

to begin with, my name is obada shtaya. i'm 20-years-old. i'm a palestinian muslim, lived and grew up in the northern city of west bank called nablus. for now i am pursuing a degree in english literature at the university. basically coming from an open-minded conservative family living in little village beside nablus and i have one brother, studying medicine in germany now. my interests generally our politics, literature and sports, and i am a member of the palestinian karate federation sports and usually i serve as the interpreter of the team of the international stages. my experience with the occupation, the israeli occupation began when i was one-year-old and the first place in this experience is the exile

of my father to the north, to the south of lebanon along with 417 palestinians. they were taken from their houses and sent to the south of lebanon. it experienced the cold of summer and the heat -- sorry, the cold of winter and the heat of the summer, and they live horribly. after one year under the pressure of the international community and the international red cross they are allowed back in palestine. those 417 people were going back to their homeland feeling that they are going back to their families and happy about that, but unfortunately they found a better face reading them back in palestine. most of them were arrested by the israelis again to spend another program in the prison and my father was one of them. he spent another year and a half in a prison back in israel.

it had never been approved. on most of them that they are active in things like they were not even taken to court, there were taken from their houses and sent them to the south of lebanon and when they're back in palestine and the prison it was like. at that time one-year-old i had to move with my father to live in my grandfather's house. this experience was really painful for me and my brother and my mother. especially that this series of and presents from my father continued to count nine times until 2007 when the last time he was arrested. it's correct that my father was a political activist and the university and the hebrew

university but never has been attached to any of the stuff at the university. he was just the head of the student council the rear. actually the city of nablus where i am living and the whole area was exposed a very long series of closures during the first and second and what i'm going to talk that now is the second as i experienced. the second began in 2000 and ended almost 2,006. during the period it was really tough on the palestinians, it was a very dark period for them, it was a black period. there was the occupation to nablus, my city and it continued for almost three or four months. during the period the was the time we could not leave our

houses. he the schools or even posed by the israelis for two months and when they were open there was a curfew in the place and we could not leave but it was going from the moneywise on the mountains to reach the schools when you reach the school your tired and exhausted this was a tough period for the palestinians as also they were not able to sleep. it was like every day housewarmings, explosions around the city and coming to the house sometimes they like falling in an escape for something like that, so we could not let our normal life palestinians of this age could not live their life, they couldn't live like the teenagers of the world. they do not feel like they are

children. the only activity they could do is going out and throwing stones in the the israeli jeeps. in 2008 the intifada was almost done and that was the first year for me at the university. during the period, i was introduced onevoice by one of my friends, his name is mohammed coming and he invited me to a town hall meeting that was held in my city of nablus. onevoice is talking of the two state solution and how they see the two state solution as the end of the palestinian conflict. it actually went to the town hall meeting and while one of the leaders was talking, the record of memories took me back to the city and i remembered the destroyed houses in the city of nablus. i remember the orphans whose

fathers were killed by the israelis. i remember them filling their walls in the city and that that time something came to my mind that is we've tried the first intifada and was a violent thing. the second we tried it also and it was also most of the time violent actions and we've got nothing. the only thing that we've got from the first and the second is more closures, more demolition and more borders and checkpoints that stopped us from going the distressed 45 minutes from nablus it used to take no more than three hours and sometimes stay on the border on the checkpoint two or three hours and go back to not less the kannapolis. what i realize is that we need something different. that is the message of onevoice to read in non-violent movement that is working in parallel 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 quite like even the palestinians want to have peace how can the without the israelis. so this is what we are trying to do in palestine and israel as one voice. in 2008i joined the movement and was active for almost six months and after that i traveled to turkey as an exchange student and during the period of my active period i was involved in many of the activities and i'm going to talk about some of them now. one of them is the town hall meeting. this is a very important thing that one voice is doing in palestine and israel and this town hall meeting there is a youth leader like us and we try to invite people to a public place sometimes at the

universities and sometimes it is in the village of the city and we talk to them about the final status issues and about the conflict in general. we try to bring them a little bit close to the conflict because on both sides we have got so many different people to the conflict but palestinians whenever like to talk to them about the conflict they say we've been negotiating for 20 years. what are you going to bring us? but what we are trying to do now is some hope to those people. that is this is a two-stage solution, this is what we're working on in the borders, the refugees, these matters. so when you bring them close to the conflict like they realize yet that might be possible. like the reach this realization and this is very good actually. most of the time we began talking about it like okay conflict they don't actually respond a lot but after that

they began asking questions. devotee when we get this city without inside the borders to get motivated. that's one important thing. the other activity that we've been working on since 2010 is a match in palestine and israel and imagine palestine in 2018. eyal was talking about it an hour ago, less than that. during this activity we go to the streets and palestine, and we, like record videos with the people. we ask them how do you imagine palestine in 2018? most of the time they say what you mean, like how can i imagine palestine in 2018. the same thing is today. we can't even imagine palestine in 2018. and even when one voice told me about this project first i said how to light a match in 2018. but we used helping the people that is okay, do you think that

we are going to get a stake in 2018? do you think that the 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 2018 and by that, we began to like curing things, positive things from people and they begin to be optimistic a little bit, and this is one of the projects that had much effect on the palestinian side like what we are trying to do is build the pub steny and stayed inside the heads of the palestinians before going to the bilateral agreement that is going to be signed by the leaders. the important thing is this because most the time the palestinians have been negotiating and working but the last point in the framework is an lubber meeting, but what is after that? like even if you liberate palestine today we need the economy, we need so many things to be done in order to get the

state, the democratic good like visible of the viable state. so this was a very great project. what we are working on these days as one voice palestine also is a project in the campaign supporting our president going to the united nations and some of the activists fear dillinger town hall meetings also and in this time we are trying to keep the conversation about the two state solution alive. we don't want people to forget this because if we forget as palestinians and israelis weeder just emigrate from the country or we go back to violence which is very bad and which is like not recommended. so, these days in bethlehem and novelist there are on the streets one voice activists are going they're talking to people and motivating them what you think about that and what you think about this, like they are trying to raise some issues in

their mind. if we say what are you planning to do as an engineer what is your role as a teacher in etc and the third thing is a huge campaign with the media. that is one of the projects we have got from palestine in 2018 as a palestinian book that i'm also dreaming of such a thing because when we come here we go to the crossing point and then the jordanian airport so it was for me very nice thing also to have this video is not published on most of the websites on the palestinian and international media like we have seen. so these are the efforts that we are paying on the society is working on to get the two state solution. when onevoice began in 2002, it

wasn't very much popular in the palestinian street but now there is some talk about are you involved? it's getting more and more popular because the palestinians frank sandlin 2008 and in 2009 and in 2010 were asking just like okay if been negotiating for 20 years and didn't get anything so the thing they are working on we were answering this way. one voice is preparing u.s. the public to get this to be ready for the two-stage solution and now the vote is very important. if there's something important here. this is a chance that we have to give to support the president to get to the united nations and get the recognition and this is important because the only following solution might be the negotiations, like nothing other than negotiations.

this is generally what i would like to share with you and the important thing that i would like also to talk about is our message as one place and particularly as and more importantly as palestinians to the americans. whenever i suddenly to the united states people say okay, like we would like the united states to be more like we don't want them to be one-sided. we would like the united states to put pressure on israel and on the president mahmoud abbas to sign the agreement. we palestinians want to live a normal life even if we are not living on the historical palestine we have got this understanding in the palestinian street actually and we have said that many times and it is written on the papers with you, like it's not that we love the historical palestine less, it's that we love the independent state more so in independent state in the 1967 border is okay with the palestinians.

we wish that the united states don't push this peace process forward and it's going to succeed very soon. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, obada and eyal. you are engaged in the democratic politics in creating mobilizing from strengthening the public opinion on behalf of the two states and pace and a particular positions on the final status issues. in addition to the work that you were doing with the public, how do you transmit your organization's views and views of your supporters to politicians ultimately will make the decisions? how do you help influence the choices? do you use the internet, e-mail,

do you pay called on politicians? do you have -- you mentioned to use the medium by would be interested all of us are involved in the the similar efficacy, how you take your message to george elected leaders to try to change their views and do the right thing. >> the way the we try to do it in israel, the main thing that we try to do is what i was talking about before which is the caucus, and what i was talking about with the caucus that was the opening event that we were doing together, but it is the place that we are trying to engage to politicians and bring them the voices and the ideas that we collect from the

street. a big project we had was something of a we had a paper like we wrote how would you help getting into an agreement and people were supposed to bring their own ideas and write their own imaginations of anything that would help get the palestinians and back into negotiations and the way that we try to engage the politicians is meeting with the caucus and their representatives of the caucus, and this is the way that we deliver our message through them but we deliver the message not only of the people that are in lund, the people that we talk about, that we talk with in the streets to respect actually onevoice perlstein mentioning in

the voice of speech you will -- onevoice perlstein we've got them in the onevoice involved and we have been working with them like fahmy the monthly basis or something. one of the things we have also been making meetings with the palestinian politicians and also the head of the one voice palestine had a meeting to weeks ago with the president so we have been torn to them directly and this is important other than we have sent many letters to the president and other politicians through the media publishing some letters in the palestinian papers to this, will you endorse the factions and parties of candidates in the forthcoming

palestinian and israeli elections? >> we are not involving anybody but we will come out of it at the common end and let dry and warm voice in the efforts that we are nonpartisan but we will come from any party. >> i'm sure some of you have comments and questions, so please present them. >> you talk about the tables until the aviv, the recent social justice protest. can you talk a little bit about what we've heard us the challenge of getting people involved in the social justice protest to look at the broad political context, the occupation and the need for peace because my understanding from the people i've talked to

is can you talk a little bit about the issue of the two state and one state, which i was on the west bank in june and talking to people about novelists who is the there's a sense on the ground for the palestinians that really maybe the time is up for the two-stage solution, something i deeply disagree with what i imagine that is a serious challenge for your work so if you could each take those >> the main thing that we feel when speaking to the israeli society and the people in the street for two things. but first of all this fever about the things that can happen after that. when we speak about the u.n. resolution, people say all right. even if the general assembly will accept the palestinians did, then nothing will change on the ground, and we fear any violence from the palestinian

side coming and i think that it's coming up to people feeling that this fear talking also about the things that are going on in egypt now and the problems with turkey and all-around together it is something that brings the israelis to the first and immediately say no. but then what we try to do with those 50 tables that we are trying to speak to people we are trying to show the interest i was presenting before by supporting the two state solution and by supporting the palestinians in the u.n. and shoving them first all we talked about demography in israel, we speak about the urgency that we see in the two state solution, we speak about how what i was talking before that if we would accept the palestinians talking

about patristic solution this is something we can see in the future they want patristic solution and no one will be able to doubt that this is their way to end the two state solution like you are asking about and those are other things we have to deal with when we try to speak to the israelis but what we do with the 50 tables is that we are not -- i will not be a speaker at that table. we bring professionals, politicians, but also very professional people from the universities and all over the country to speak and to get their ideas to show how they see the conflict. >> for me the very important thing i interest and and i believe in is that the public

and palestine and israel are not to be asked what you want and i think the one state solution that you're talking about is not one state solution that americans know. the palestinians talking about one state solution it's the once did for the palestinians and the palestinians how long was that? in june and we are receiving more support of the 2-cd solution as the president is doing something on the ground and before that he wasn't doing anything and the palestinians were saying that he's just following the american israeli policy. so now we are receiving more support in the two-stage solution and i would go back to the first point i would mention because that is people are to be offered a solution that is a lot of compromises and then go back to live the same life that they are living now. if you bring that to state solution this is the state, the

state of palestine they're happy with that i think. >> first of all thank you so much. this is a good start. it's great to be a tough week. [inaudible] the question is what the changes that you face in the communities as hard mentioned working together what are the main challenges that you face and you mentioned the thinking of the palestinian state you mentioned what he has been doing to create some of those little the things we with the founding for the

palestinian government to be stopped can you tell me what are implications of law and order of the economy. >> first of all talk about the challenges that we are phasing in our communities. 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 rid of because they have been fighting and negotiating for so long time and they are getting anything. they feel that they are tracked by the israelis and the international community mainly the united states supporting israel and not supporting the palestinians they say in the palestinian streets and this is a very important thing. that is we have nothing like we don't have any powerful point.

in palestine we can't put any pressure on any of the sites in the international community. this is one of the challenges working on some projects with the people they go back to the return to the days of palestine, we want the whole country back. but how we overcome the problem is 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 of the country. there are 6 million more than the palestinians come at this is the solution that is bringing the end of the conflict for the palestinians. what was the other question, please? >> get a gut funding for the palestinian institution with get the reform?

>> actually i'm not speaking of the government because this question is to be asked of president of loss. he's decided that, but i think that -- i don't know if the u.s. is going to cut the lead or not, but i think on both sides we are winning. the palestinians have to feel this thing. when you need is not eight. what you need is a state. >> it's better than the one we had prior to 1985 and it has totally eliminated the pay-as-you-go pensions. >> are you familiar are there other states that have just as an aggressive both monitoring and enforcement of the pnac requirement? >> i know what states that have been monitoring program. i don't know of any that have the same level of enforcement,

the mandate that we do. basically your municipal bonds and pension obligations are your number one and number two expenses -- >> to pressure the international community and the leadership what we need is a state you should work on the state of collecting money from the countries and bringing us to live and eat in palestine. this is what i can say from my point of view. this can occur if he will speak first on some things that we deal with in these societies are talking about before but one more thing is what we try to do in the onevoice is in power in the the majority in israel and then palestine which support the two state solution, but as we all know, usually the minorities

are the loudest people and to the vast majority 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 it doesn't matter in my opinion it is a two-stage solution or housing just to see people are going out of their house caring about issues this is the main thing. but this is a very, very difficult thing that we deal with that people have lost their trust on both sides i think people have lost their trust on the other side and people have lost hope so what we try to do is bring people back through

hope in an agreement for themselves, for the children come for the whole region and this is the main thing. if i could say two things about the need that you were mentioning i don't see how it plays causing mahmoud abbas at the beginning at his idea of going to the when he was talking about shutting down the palestinian government if it doesn't work and then what would happen like who would support the palestinians. i don't see how cutting the need is cutting to any not for the palestinians or the israelis, and i feel like it is something that i would like to deliver and say that this is not something that i can support. >> one important thing i would like to mention some of the difficulties of the palestinian side is that onevoice is working in parallel. the palestinians don't see this

point of parallel so what we are working on is that we need the israelis but we are not working for the is really interest. every time we go on a taha meeting in palestine, we press the point that our interests are the palestinian interest. what we need is a palestinian state. they are working for their interest and what we are working on is our interest. why we are working with the israelis because they are the other side and they are the most important side to work with. it's not about the united states and the israelis and the letters because they are the part of the conflict. thank you. >> i was wondering if you could speak a little bit about your interest in the grassroots movement is to read why did you choose onevoice instead spending your free time working with any political party to further your interest? white the grassroots movement, what is the power that you see of mobilizing people rather than working in some other form of

the organization. >> as i was describing before coming to the people and speaking to them as a civilian going to speak to people on the street and not to politicians or as a political party, talking to them in the streets as a grass-roots organization it is something that we bring the ideas that we believe in to the organization, the projects that we held our projects that we've made that are we truly believe in, and the thing i have in mind is what i was saying before when i and working 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 accept the compromise as. so when we come as a grass-roots movement with of the things we believe in and does just as i'm standing on the street as nothing else talking to people i feel that this is the most effective way to address the people and those ideas. >> actually in palestine the importance of it onevoice is most of the political parties in palestine have certain ideologies and they're trying to impose them on the palestinians. that is either going hamas or fata. there is no real like movement in palestine that is going to the streets, like asking people about their needs and like the

things they need and then they add them to their ideology so here's why is the importance of onevoice taking from the people on the streets and having to the ideologies and adding to our interests. we are working for the public. this is a very important thing that we are working on. another thing is that it's different like we've got some grass-roots organizations but they are the dialogue organizations. they're interested is bringing that to people together and like just having fun in playing some music working for the solution. we are taking people out of this isn't mobile situation that they're living. thank you. with >> working about the palestinian interest we do work in the israel society about our own interest but we do understand that and we do work in parallel

with the palestinian society and we know that they are working for the palestinian interest and we accept that and like that and want to keep on doing that and when we talk to people and we tell them that we have palestinians on the other side working on the same rule that we are working and i think that this is something which is very important and very addressing to people. -- more progressive and why is it the voice of the israeli and palestinian youth that onevoice has helped to mobilize or not. >> actually one of the most important perkinses the youth leaders program so what we are trying to do is training the youth to become leaders because

what we've got and palestine most of the leaders are not young they are older so what we are working on is motivating those 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 but we are also working on what is after the conflict building the state after the conflict. and with most of the palestinians are working on in the university's and schools. in palestine a think also in israel we have launched the campaign going to the palestinian schools most time to the high school talking to them about the coming election and how they should think seriously about the vote because this is important and this is their

future. >> i would say first of all we did try to work mainly with the young people, the youth leaders, we work for universities and israel. we have a branch in each university and in the colleges and we are working inside the campus. but we try to go also to the jerusalem trucking to grown-ups, talking to people when i go to the street i try to talk to religious people, people from all over just all of the edges of the society coming and i do see it very big importance of bringing the young people to speak but i think if that we should address to everyone, and we started the project with a high school so in perlstein case could about the elections and we speak about the core issues,

trying to show the students all the possibilities of every core issue. we don't to decide when we go to the high school we just speak about the possibilities about where each port issues coming from and where does it stem from and trying to show them like that the israel palestinian conflict is not black and white. it's something that can be shown as a conflict and you don't have to be an israeli supporter or pro perlstein. you can be pro peace or one place but it's not something that you should take as black or white and this is how we've tried to build them up. that's it.

>> [inaudible] throughout the region even through israel to you see the possibility for this happening and if this were to happen to you think it is something against the occupation be at hamas or fata where are we at this point? >> first i have to say that the arab this spring was something very good and its bringing changes to the area and most of the things for nonviolent and that is what we are working on most of the leaders are young people and this is also great. palestine i would also like to say the of spurring many times before and to the frustration that is they are not giving us much. so now going to the united nations to think that they are supporting him. they are not going to the streets a lot. we've got some demonstrations,

but like they are not going to the streets a lot they are supporting him just like if you ask if you support him or not they do. i guess after we get the state we are going to get some resolution for the palestinians on nobody but the palestinian state that is if the drought and began asking for improvements on the ground and for building the economy and asking the leaders to move on them. >> you talk about the palestinian reconciliation and what that means on both sides for the israeli -- what onevoice stands on that. estimate actually the politician as something very common around the world and it's not the palestinian's way. it's something very normal about the political parties. the other thing is that i found out that they've reached a

reconciliation, they've signed it in egypt and i think this is important for the palestinians in general. now we have got the president to try to have two governments with the present mahmoud abbas is the one with which she signed the agreement said the presence of palestinians when you go to the united nations we are important as palestinians. i think also hamas did not oppose the u.s. vote, the u.n. vote. the official speaker spokesman didn't say anything but that mahmoud abbas should have come and talk to us but some are going to see some things in the media and they are not representatives of the party so this was important on the palestinian side and it's also bringing support of the international community. we felt that it's going to go back to negotiations but unfortunately we were surprised that the united states and israel are not very happy with