what's going on in the home on the agreed. but the school can do -- the school system can do more to prepare all students particularly those about resources to be prepared for the first day of kindergarten, and then also after they enroll to give them wraparound enrichment services to make up for what they are losing out on at home and technology as well as other areas. ..

are actually getting a return on your investment. what we started to do now is figure out what's not working. where we are spending millions of dollars and shift those resources to things that we know are going to make a huge difference. when we look at what techno to does, children two, three, i have a six-year-old, they are motivated and engaged by what's happening on technological devices. and also provides the opportunity for customization. you can have a differentiation, you could have a roomful of 25 kids you're in completely different places and technology can allow you to teach them all at the same time at their own pace. they can advance as quickly as possible and what do. we see kids advancing more than a year in over a years time because of some of the digital solutions. but on the issue of equalization of resources, i want to challenge of did not think about it will decision but to think

about equity. the difference for me is equal as asia means everybody gets the same thing. what i would mention to say is my lowest performing kids, my minority kids are struggling with real challenges actually need more resources than some of my higher performing kids. so to be able to figure out what the ride allocation is of resources so that the people who need the most support actually get the most support is the thing i think we need to do. >> we are going to open up, if anyone wants to kind of join the conversation. be happy to take your comments or questions. did you want to say something? >> i was just thinking, the one point that was made about the equity issue is that those young people that need those extra resources often have the least voice in the political process. >> absolutely. >> that's one of the problems we get the intersection of policy

and politics, and you know, the squeaky wheel gets the greece. so if you don't have the voice you can't articulate the need. you can't affect the outcome of political decisions. >> thank you for the good panel. i'm chester hartman, the director of research for the poverty and race research action council here in washington. two of the most serious problems as both cause and effect of the achievement gap unsure quite aware of this are high dropout rates and high class room turnover. the latter, schools in low-income and minority areas, it's not uncommon to a 50-75% churning in a given school year, which the research shows has deleterious effects on graduation rates, school performance, et cetera. >> or a substitute teacher to be teaching those. >> right. so one question is what to do about it.

the other on the high class room turnover, are actually before you were deemed at howard law, we did a conference at this at the law school, and aye added a special issue of howard's journal. one of the important contributions by sheila crowley who is head of national council coalition was to point out the way in which school stability is a function so often of housing instability. i'm an urban planner. i know we can create housing stability, but the importance of bringing together reform groups and strategies between housing and health, housing and schools, jobs and immigration, the criminal justice system, et cetera. so we would be much more effective if we have joint analysis and joint strategy. so whatever thoughts you have, even on those two problems or that particular route of solution, i would be very interested in hearing. thank you. >> so, one of the pieces i think that is really important to

understand, at least in washington, d.c. around mayor will control over schools is that for the first time the school district has unprecedented access to other city agencies to be up to sit down and to jointly come up with solution. we sat and met with the director of housing to map out what her strategies are verses, or against our strategy, to figure out how we could support communities where we see schools losing enrollment. and say these are my forte lowest performing schools, could you refigure your targeted attention to these 40 schools, because we want to provide the wraparound services that we know are necessary in order for our young people to be successful. so i think that's one of the benefits of mayoral control is bringing to bear a citywide approach to solving some of these issues. >> we created something called the human resources subcabinet when i was in office to try to

do what kaya is saying. we also noticed in addition to the issues that you described, that the world and trucks is having terrible impact on our kids, too. because we had a lot of young people whose parents were being incarcerated. they would then go to grandma or two and somebody, and they would never round picks we didn't have as high as 70%, but on any year at least 33% of our middle school students were moving from one school to another. the other issue that came out was a need for some common curriculum, so that when they moved from one school to the other they wouldn't be dramatically behind. they may not be in the same week, but basically the same types of issues were being discussed school by school, and that would help. >> i think, change gears a little bit. i think that one thing that

helped improve dropout rates and -- got the other issue you mention. >> talking about the unity. >> one of the things that are work on -- [inaudible] research has found that basically integrated schools -- that's me, so sorry. spent i think they're going to come from above. [laughter] >> like this mission impossible things. >> who knew the hair would make such noise. >> i would know anything about that. >> nor would i. [laughter] >> now i know what everybody needs to get a bobcat. i think that integrated schools are sure to have teacher turnover, more stable student bodies, as well as parents

involvement. so i think one of things we need to look at is how to create racially integrated schools, which often also lead to more economically integrated schools and look at the ways in which school districts can use policies are still in their toolbox under current supreme court, and to try to achieve that. >> if i could kind of use part of your question, formulate another question, i read with great joy in the university systems of the united states the fastest growing are the largest group of students is hispanic. in other words, there are more hispanics attending university than other minority groups in the united states, but the other fact is that hispanics have the largest dropout rate are any group in the country. i have my own theories. they are not important to i would like your theories as to

maybe hell he can best deal with these groups of people that have traditionally highest dropout rate and don't seem to be minimizing those rates because if it were something new you would say it's changed form of this in the pic but it's been happening for a long, long time. >> you know, some of the community colleges better serving a large lake in a community have done an outstanding job. miami-dade is just a great example. what they're basically doing is saying okay, let's make sure that we do with some of the basic fundamentals of your education, and get that established well before you go on to a four year. or, what i think is very important, you may not need a four year. two-year is fine. one of our national politicians recently said, not everybody should go to college.

he was not very articulate and what he was trying to get at, but i do think that we have to focus in on the fact that there are wonderful opportunities for our young people, if our education system can adjust to that, provide for something post-high school but not necessarily for years for everybody. and i think that a lot of the more successful schools better deal with a large leigh keno, given with everybody, but particularly the latino population, have recognized that and that's why the trend for our booming. >> briefly, i think what you're saying actually, some of the data that we go to english language learners. in college, within the asian community, for instance, a lot of immigrant students who are still english language learners when they graduated a minute and a great at the like which, they do the trick you into many

colleges or institutions of higher education but there's their high dropout rates. often take far more than four years to graduate. and so i think part of what's needed with regard to english language learners specifically whether they are latino or asian or whatever it, is going back to my earlier point about standard in high school and having a curriculum that actually prepares them, in a meaningful way that is tailored to english language learners, to align standards with what students are being taught in the curriculum and with graduation requirements, to make sure they get the actual number of credits as well as others to be graduate on time and prepared to do well in college with or without mediation. >> i think ike skelton's have -- now the conversation is really

about getting to and through, and what you see are now lack of organizations that work with school districts and with institutions of higher education to eight, facilitate a conversation because previously we were talking together as well as we could, around what we need to do on the k-12 and to better prepare folks to persist through college, but where to look at issues of funding, right? there's significant issues around what it costs to get a college education these days, lots of folks don't persist because of that. but there are cultural issues around whether these institutions are places that are kind and accommodating to an adversity of people. we have a lot of work to do on that front. so i think there are a number of reasons why folks drop out, and we have to work on all of the pieces. >> yes? >> i'd like to thank you for a

very intense discussion here about education. but i'd like to recognize that i believe that the gap is widening in america. >> absolutely. >> in terms of this educational divide, whether you want to call, but it's of color, whether we want to call it of gender, are we not seeing the number of girls succeed and be successful, and education. it appears that you talked extensively about the urban environment. but i'm concerned about rural america. those kids who are literally forgotten. i'm just wondering, what's taking place, is it on our american agenda to do something for rural america kids all across, all across the country? and jimmy give more attention to looking at, in terms of achievement? can we do a better job of partnership being with parents? i know we can't force. no, but i think we can deal stronger and better partnerships

with them? >> i'm interested in your question though. you raised a gender question, and you kind of flip it. i thought you're going to say where are the boys. >> i was going to get their. >> the college and the professional school level we see increasing number of women. and wondering where the young men are, but you are saying something different. >> i'm seeing something different. out here in these middle schools and high schools. those kids are not really highly engaged in during process. if you look at in getting involved in the stem, okay, and the science technology and engineered and math, and mathematics. they are missing from those ethics i'm saying how can we engage that population? because i believe that if we can engage that population, we might be able to slow down this dropout rate that we are getting.

i think that also, too, we are missing some prime time of getting people into the education system of waiting until they turn five years of age, six years of age. why do we get them at about 12 weeks of age? ok'd spent our made would be very happy with the. we have a universal pre-k program. we now in washington, d.c. have seats available for every single three and four year old in the city to go into a pre-k program, and he is trying to figure how to get a fetus into a program. [laughter] so he is with you, but we have paid tremendous attention to early childhood education. at the same time we are paying tremendous attention to science, technology, engineering and math and ensuring that both girls and boys are encouraged and supported in that work. we just had the first robotics competition, and 18 from wilson senior high school came in first. there were women on the team and men on the team. but the piece around engagement,

and again i say we're doing schools the way we did schools 100 year's ago. kids don't get information the way they did 100 years ago, but we put a book and a piece of paper and pencil in front of them and read to them. we stand in front of a group of 25 people and talk at them. that's not how you work every day. you don't go into building and move from one meeting to another meeting to another meeting where somebody stand and talk at you for 45 minute. or if you do you will be in my career for very long. we worked together. we do things. we have to completely rethink how we do middle and high schools so that our kids can participate in doing project-based things that have some connection to what they might be doing in the real world. we need to look at a conference based graduation is a specific credit-based graduation system where if i'd done a body of work over the course of a semester or whatever, i can present a project and have a multidisciplinary team come in and look at it and assess my

work and getting grades across a number of subject areas. we have to create a very different way of doing school so that our kids are engage. when i look at what the kids are able to do around creating robots, and low-income communities all across the desert, they have robots that can shoot a basketball. why? because he got interested in basketball. i'm smart and i couldn't create a robot to shoot a basketball. it will take them from shooting basketballs to building airplanes. >> the last question -- >> i had something about this. >> go ahead. >> i just wanted at something relating to rural communities. specifically about asian community, latina community, other committees, rural communities, the area in between the two are areas that have had unprecedented growth in new immigrant and refugee communities. a lot of times the school

administrators and teachers simply do not now how to deal with them. they don't have to do with english as a second like which. they said they don't know how to do with them. a few years ago, most of the work i do is in urban areas but a few years ago i worked with a student, a young woman, laotian american student had been an american school system her entire life, we been an honor student both in new york and in california. they move to a small town in iowa that actually seen an unprecedented rise in immigrant let your community because i don't know if there's a meatpacking plant there that was drawing community members, including this girl's family -- in the midwest, yes. i think more in minnesota but i think growing in iowa as well. this was not in des moines. this was in storm lake. but in any event, so this young woman as i said was an honor student, had never been in english language learners and

was placed in an english language learners program. which he filled out her survey she said laus as your homeland which kid, not that you need to speak flawless english to be flawed, but she did. she had straight a's up until high school. that makes no sense whatsoever that they would be -- not that they should be a statement to that but in this case you didn't need. that's just one example of the kind of things that can happen when you have the school system that isn't prepared to do with this influx of students. >> what are we doing about this functional behavior and educational environment? gangs, fighting and other behaviors that disrupt the learning process of other children speak with thank you very much. that's a great question. >> the very first thing that we do, are doing and needed to is to radically increase the quality of instruction.

when kids are engaged in their not distracted and they are not off test into it is kind of behaviors. but in addition to what we're doing around the instruction, of course we're out in the communities. we partner with a number of community organizations. our metropolitan police department's, and all kind of agencies and nonprofits to help us tackle gain issues, to help us provide wraparound services for young people who are true and. schools -- true wind. in that we have to create a web of services that are able to meet all of the different needs and challenges that our young people are presenting with and the best way to do that is by partnering with experts who know how to do that well. >> as mayor, agencies deal with? >> we saw a combination of things from connection law enforcement with schools, but also we recognize the problems

of cutting down an extra cricket activity. every time we would say, you know, we would get rid of some extracurricular activity we would find come with young people wandering around now, wanting to do something, and they get lured into some good, some bad, but we did see an increase in the. so once you invest in the activities you start to see a reduction and people getting lured into the gangs. >> part of the response also needs to be good community building between students and different races and ethnicities. one of the issues that i work on is on at the immigrant harassment, and often an urban environment where immigrant students, of all ethnicities, i tend to work with asian students but is often immigrant students who are warehouse in these large struggling schools with nativeborn students also have their struggles throughout their education. and our approach is to advocate for progressive discipline, with

the school intervenes at an earlier stage before major discipline is required of large and dangerous situation in iraq is so you don't tolerate violence or harassment in the school that necessarily throwing the book at the smaller infractions. >> with the supreme court scheduled to revisit the affirmative action issue soon, i'm wondering, particularly for asians who are in this kind of awkward position of being a minority, and often complaining about not being admitted into some of the higher levels, universities, in fact they are told there are too many of you in berkeley and ucla. i mean, you hear that about the ucc system a special. i'm wondering what the panel thinks about that. and also, you know, certainly related to that, some people say the recent me passionate

recently jeremy lin, athletics, merit does count but nobody cares about diversity on athletic teams but nobody wants a short asian, for example. but then on the academic side, so the on the academic side and diverse student body does matter. >> thank you very much. >> i'll start on this question. i was a -- >> actually you will end on this question. >> i will and. i think, first of all i want to say that my organization of the asian american legal defense and education fund, i think it is beneficial and creates a beneficial learning environment, as well as there are segments opportunities as i said earlier that the benefit, who are very unrepresented in higher education. i think that the issues you raise of the possibility that certain asian students and certain of the institutions may be held to a higher standard in

order to get admitted, compared to what? and i think specifically compared to whites, that could be, that could be a problem but that would be discrimination, and that is not the result of affirmative action. there's absolutely no and why having an affirmative action program that's legal right now under university of michigan case, which is current supreme court law, which says in admissions you can consider race as one of many factors in admissions to look at how that will increase the diversity, not just racial diversity but overall diversity of which race is a factor. in that type of situation there was no quota. in an affirmative action program of that sort, it doesn't matter if your quote unquote over represent versus whites. there's no such thing as over representation. but if your group is

underrepresented, then your ethnicity and race can get considered as one factor among many. so i really think that with asian american specifically you need to separate the discussion about affirmative action from discrimination, which is negative action which is what you're describing. the two things are not related at all spent i just recall the chief justices comment in the public school case that they had to do with just a few years ago, and he said in order to eliminate discrimination. to eliminate discrimination. and he seemed to view affirmative action programs as a form of discrimination. so i'm not really optimistic about what's going to happen in these cases, and we are, once again, going to have to rethink how we approach higher education, if these programs are ruled unconstitutional. >> in wrapping things up, i would think of some of the questions the gentleman asked

earlier today. i'm fortunate enough to be married to a public school fourth grade teacher. and when our children were born, and talk about college and what to do, she taught me something that i keep reminding myself, she told me your daughters university education begins begins the day they are born. and what we do and how we deal with children at an early age really determines if they continue on with their educational dreams. so i've learned a lot today. i hope you all enjoyed it as much as we did. and this is the first band i've done in a long time where everybody starts their first name with a k. thank you for that. it easy to remember that. [laughter] >> close to the alphabet. i think you -- i thank you very much. and thanks to all of you for letting us be a part of your afternoon. have a good day.

>> coming up live on the c-span networks today, president obama is in florida talking about the economy, and we'll have that live starting at 2:55 eastern on our companion network, c-span. moore road to the white house coverage coming up later today.

>> [no audio] >> the former chief think you're a shooter during the korean nuclear crisis, robert gallucci, said the u.s. is living on borrowed time during a national press club discussion. on preventing nuclear terrorism and security friday here in washington. >> welcome to the national press club. i am an editor and writer, a member of the club's committee. and host of today's newsmaker on global nuclear cicada. after our panelists be for proximally 40 mins, we will take

questions from the audience for the remaining time. press club gives preference to journalists, preference from members of the media. and many of those around you are working journalists so please respect their heritage a. if there are -- we will invite you to ask your question. please keep your question brief and to the point. no speeches, please. so we can get in as many questions as the time allows. everyone asking questions, please identify yourself and stay the agency or your organization to represent. before we begin i'd like to mention a few upcoming events of the club that may be of interest to you. on may 9, billie jean king will speak at a press club luncheon. again, please turn off all cell phones and other electronic devices. today's panel will discuss global nuclear security and ways

to prevent nuclear terrorism. topics which are relevant today, given concerns about the future, nuclear ambitions of north korea and iran. our panelists today are, for my immediately, robert gallucci, president of the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. he served in government for 21 years including as a special envoy to deal with proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and as assistant secretary of state on political military affairs. on my immediately right is sharon squassoni, director and senior fellow with the proliferation prevention program at csis, or the center for strategic and international studies. if you don't know what the acronym is. she was a senior associate in nuclear nonproliferation program

at carnegie institute for international peace before joining csis. on my far left is alexander glaser, assistant professor at princeton, woodrow wilson school of international and public affairs. professor glaser's work focuses on the technical aspects of nuclear fuel cycle technologies and policy questions related to nuclear energy and nuclear weapon proliferation. finally on my far right is joseph cirincione, president of the ploughshares fund, a global security foundation. mr. cirincione is the author of bomb scare, the history and future of nuclear weapons and deadly arsenals, nuclear biological and chemical threats. and previously served as director for nonproliferation at the carnegie endowment for international peace. now, the order in which the

panelists will be present in the order in which they will speak, and after the last panelist has spoken we will open the floor up for questions. mr. gallucci, you are up. >> thank you. thank you all for coming. thank the national press club for hosting us, and i want to say how pleased and honored i am to be here on this panel with alex, sharon and joe. the subject of nuclear security was the purpose of meeting in seoul and the president traveled to. as we traveled all the way there and all the way back. he, like previous presidents and candidates of the presidency, have said that that issue is the most important national security issue of the united states of

america, namely the possibility that a terrorist group would acquire a nuclear weapon and detonated in an american city. the single most important threat. that was the conference, international conference, to deal with the single most important threat. it went almost entirely unnoticed, even with the president traveling there. what got into the newspapers and was highlighted was an open mic incident. this is really sort of too bad, but worse than to bed. what we have, i think, is not a scenario or an idea that just makes good television show, but a real-world threat to this nation security. it has been lost on me why so many people seem to take solace in the fact that it hasn't happened yet.

what i'd like to persuade you to is that we are living on borrowed time, a much better concept. and what i hope you know, if, as most of people who do these kind of calculations believe, that the nine to two of the threat to the united states has something to do with just what are the consequences and what's the probability of happening. i'm going to try to persuade you the probability is nontrivial now, and growing. and the consequences aren't extraordinary. think in terms of tens of thousands of people dying promptly in the city, or another american city. perhaps a lot more, maybe 100,000. the image i'm trying to create is of an improvised nuclear device. how could that happen? i'd like to persuade you that it would not be difficult, except

for one thing. getting the fissile material to make the weapon. the enemy is out there, the enemy is known to want terrorists, fissile material to have a nuclear weapon to cause the destruction. and i'd like to persuade you that the other steps in the sequence of this area are not insurmountable for the dedicated terrorists. in other words, design and improvised nuclear device, manufacturing and improvised nuclear device, delivering an improvised nuclear device, not easy, but not overwhelming obstacles. the thing that keeps us safe or will keep us safe is preventing the terrorists from getting the fissile material. focus your mind on fissile material. that's why the summit was nuclear cicada. the security of this material. i'd like to think about a couple of scenarios under which a

terrorist entity could get the fissile material. i find these plausible and do what i would like this issue to be conceptualized. to waste simply, by the transfer of material or by the theft of the material. by transfer, i mean that some government decides that they will transfer the fissile material to a terrorist group. you may say that's the movie stuff. i will say think again. 2007, what did you learn, what did we all learn? that north korea, who we had ask, is it ever possible they could sneak out a baseball sized amount of plutonium, which is all it would take to destroy an american city? they not only got a baseball out, they built a plutonium production reactor industry. think about that. they build a reactor in syria. what was that for? to produce plutonium.

what for? one purpose. to make nuclear weapons. so do you think they could get a baseball out? do you think they would do it? i think the answer is clearly yes, but the only reason that isn't pumping a plutonium now five years later it because of the israeli version of nonproliferation policy. take another case. take iran. i'm not here to talk about the iran case here except to make one point. everybody is focused on iran with nuclear weapons and what it means for stability in the middle east. it's all serious stuff. i take it seriously, but states with nuclear weapons are open to deterrence. i'm talking about a threat that is not open to deterrence. iran right now is the source of conventional arms transfers to terrorist groups. i am concerned long before iran gets nuclear weapons, once iran could have fissile material. again, i don't need a prescription your for this case.

that's another topic. i'm saying if you're going to look at these cases, the north korea case, the iran case, in addition to think about nuclear weapons and instability in northeast asia and the middle 80s, think about this issue, all right? transfer. the second image of what you have in mind is theft, in three ways. firstly, where is most of the fissile material we we about? i think, and alex will correct me if i get this wrong, russia is the answer. there's an awful lot of material that is better secured now than it was 20 years ago, thanks to the cooperative threat reduction work, et cetera, but still not up to standard we would like. a concern leakage out of russia. that is to say, not preference of transfer. second is pakistan. not only is there a lot of petroleum -- kinds of weapons and delivery systems is all growing. again, but not up to the

standards, the security gridlock, nevermind the fact we don't like that it is growing and they're building weapons, but material access to mitchell is something we worried about. russia, pakistan. and a third case i want you to have in mind is any country that adopts the use of plutonium as fuel. now or in the future. if you have large flows from large throughput reprocessing facilities, taking spent fuel and extract plutonium, i don't care of the chemical process, and end up with some type of mixed outside chill with plutonium fuel, i do believe we are making this threat substantially worse. so prescription, and then i am done. let's first secure the material that is there. graham allison talks about the gold standard i'll accept that. secured to a high standard. then get rid of it.

if it's highly enriched uranium, blended down, we do that, do it more. plutonium, either burned it, my favorite option, better than nothing, better than stockpiling a. or treat as radioactive waste and dispose of it. and, finally, a bit of prescription. the prescription one has heard when you're in a hole, first stop digging. so the prescription is simple. it would be for all countries, all countries to forsake any future production of separated plutonium, or highly enriched uranium for any purpose whatsoever. that means no plutonium used in the current generation of thermal reactors, no, i

commission a plutonium with separation for future fast reactors, no reprocessing of spent fuel for radioactive waste management. none. no research reactor fuel with highly enriched uranium for radioisotope production. no naval reactors fueled by highly enriched uranium or additional highly enriched uranium. and it. the proposition here is that if we are serious about this being the greatest threat to national security, let's act as though it were. thank you. >> thank you. good morning. i'm going to switch gears here a little bit and talk about the soul nuclear security summit and provide some general and specific comments and also some observations.

in essence, seoul was about president obama passing the baton on nuclear security. did that work? i would give you a qualified yes. yes, because seoul got country there, pull it off as and then and there were strong support for this process. and it's important not to underestimate this for two reasons. one is that nuclear security is not president box strong interest to the are a kid have weapons useful material, that is highly enriched uranium our separate platoon picked for the south koreans nuclear terrorism, the nuclear terrorism it worries about is north korea. the second reason not to underestimate the sole summit is that few leaders are endowed with president obama's power to persuade. so the good news is that the dutch, will host the 2014 summit, have a strong interest in global issues and equities

and nuclear issues in particular. so here's the qualification. however, not only was the off mic or on mic comment targeted or folkestone by the me, but to me was completely focused elsewhere. it was on north korea. and you might have expected that. pyongyang stole the limelight with the development of a planned satellite launch. but that really raises a big question. the media and the public wondered why the summit wasn't about the two biggest nuclear threats that we face, north korea and iran. and this raises the question, how do you focus attention on the threats that are not visible, the kind of threats that bob was talking about, versus attention to the threats we know? and that's the primary challenge that the summits were designed to meet. so here's the problem. even in cases such as north korea and iran, where they have clearly violated treaty regime

of problems eliminating the threats, these threats are still with us. so how much harder is it to reduce risks in a system where there are no enforceable standards of behavior? and this is exactly the case in the nuclear security regime. so i'm going to talk about a bit about the specific achievements of the summit, and some missed opportunities, and then give you a few observations. specific achievements, the summer, it was a reinforcing mechanism. it helped speed up some activities that were under way. so you have some highly enriched uranium removed from ukraine, quite a bit of it. the store you don't hear about is we've been asking the ukrainian since 1995 to remove that material. so the summit, both in 2010 and in 2012 helped. we took out some of ag you from mexico. we convert some of the research reactors. we've got a little bit of plutonium out from sweden.

so that's the one specific achievement of the other is that the summit has, or create a few new activities. so you have two important agreement, one is by the u.s., belgium, france and the netherlands to eliminate highly enriched uranium used in medical radioisotope production for the non-geeks in the audience, this is cancer therapy. so there's agreement to eliminate the use of that introducing these cancer treatments by 2015. there was also another agreement, very practical step, develop alternative fuels for research reactors. and this was something done by the u.s., south korea, france and belgium. and the third thing was, and this kind of an innovation from the summit, they develop joint working groups called baskets, as if you go for forward process. there was some very concrete plans that emerged, particularly with respect to how countries

write laws, combating illicit trafficking and transportation, security. so what were the opportunities we missed? well, one, the lack of enforceable standards and continued focus on sovereignty means that everyone has a right to do very little. and so in a summit declaration, you have language which when i was in the state department, we called weasel words. we encourage states to consider doing certain things as appropriate and consistent with national security consideration. that kind of language. the second is that this summit really took the spotlight off individual countries. and that creates a problem. so you let specific countries off the hook. there were a lot of countries there at that summit who could have done more. russia comes to mind. pakistan, south africa. so how do we know for? i just want to make three points

here. in criminal progress is good, but as bob described, the problem is be. you need leadership, buy-in and again plan. otherwise what we can expect in 2014, the next summit, is that victory will be declared because it's defined as what was achievable. second, you need to tackle this issue of enforceable standards. this is a tough one. you might start out with more sort of peer reviews, but you need to move forward to actually, you know, when pakistan says it has excellent nuclear security, wouldn't we all like verification of that? third, and here i really agree with bob, you need to do more on plutonium in both the military and civilian sectors. if we win the battle on highly enriched uranium, that will be important, but it does nothing about the plutonium that is generated every day in power and research reactors.

so in closing, i would like to bring your attention to something that president obama said when he was in korea at hancock university on march 26. part of the speech was strong support for nuclear energy, but he also said we simply can't go on a chelating huge amounts of the very material, like separate plutonium, that we are trying to keep away from terrorists. and then he said, we need an international commitment to unlocking the fuel cycle of the future, remarking that the u.s. is investing in the research and development of new fuel cycles so that dangerous materials can't be stolen or diverted. this conjures up a nuclear nirvana that does not exist. experts agree there is no purely technical solution. so countries need to begin now to give fuel cycle choices, whether it is to develop faster

actors, like our friends in china, russia, south korea and india, are doing, or to engage in enrichment and reprocessing. they need to do those choices through nuclear security lens. and ultimately, this would be a more equitable, but i didn't say easier, approach to reducing nuclear risk. thank you. >> good morning. i'm alex glasser from princeton university. and before i turned to the idea that bob gallucci introduced at the beginning, to propose my set of action items, let me briefly summarize where we are today with regard to system zero stock and reduction. i'm a member of the ip of them, the international panel on fissile material, which annually

updates our best estimates on global fissile material, stock and production, partly based on government declarations on all things are estimates. and you should've found in your press kit our report which summarizes our numbers. overall we are looking today at almost 1450 tons of highly enriched uranium, and about 500 tons of plutonium. worldwide. and combined, this is in principle in the for several hundred thousand nuclear weapons, which is a staggering amount of material, of course, and the potential of destruction is, i guess one cannot really imagine. but at the same time, securing and eliminating say, 2000 tons of the two is technically not really a problem. you could put in a small warehouse i guess, and deal with

the material. now, at the security summit in 2010 now two weeks ago in seoul, these some as a primary dealt with securing and consolidating civilian stock of heu which account for about 1% of global stockpile of fissile material. now, this effort, as has been pointed out, is actually important, but it's often extremely narrow, obviously. we are literally missing 99% of the problem, and i think -- the proposal that cheap made in the beginning. okay then, if it's not, if that effort is not good enough, and hope we can kind of a great if we focus on 1% of the problem, and it's probably not good enough, you know, what should be done. i think the first step could be reduction in the fissile material stocks held by the united states, russia and some other nuclear weapons states.

and to begin this process, weapons states could offer and put under safeguard fissile material that is no longer a nuclear weapon. and a second step that could be verified, position of these ex-stocks. and it's already being done in the case of heu and can be done in the case of plutonium. i think to begin this process, however, we need to develop a culture in a sense where these excess stocks are identified and declared that such. this aspect hasn't been made really paid much attention so far. in a sense we have made progress with regard to reduction in a nuclear arsenal. we had new start quite recently, but, you know, that really, this is where it stops. we kind of agree and it certain limit but we don't ask what happens, what's going to happen to these weapons and was going to happen to the material that

you recover from these weapons. and i think we will have to change. but i also think we need to go further and focus on new protection on fissile material also. the p5, the weapons are no longer producing fissile material for weapons but there's no collective statement to that effect. and i think the npt weapons state could make a joint announcement of moratorium on producing more fissile material form weapons purposes been a is a material kind of tree. india and pakistan have been mentioned before, are building up their fissile material production. they will join when they are ready. i think, and anytime we can we can encourage them to join such an effort by conditioning any future civilian nuclear system on and and, protection for nuclear weapons program. the verification of such a ban

is feasible. it's already done in non-weapon states as part of the npt so i'm not going to focus too much on that aspect in my remarks. but there are some hard cases, and i don't want to try to brush them aside. some countries have heu enabled react but most importantly the u.s. navy, uses about one to two tons of heu per year. but the excess stockpiles of u.s. heu was so large that new production wouldn't be necessary even if the u.s. navy continue to use heu in the 22nd century. so there's enough material for 50, 60 or 70 years easily. so that it wouldn't prevent a moratorium from making sense. another hard case as we look at processing, been mentioned also, plutonium separation from spent fuel for use in power reactor fuel, about half of the global stockpile of plutonium,

250 tons, has been a committed as a result of fuel reprocessing programs. reprocessing doesn't make economic sense today, and nuclear energy expanded dramatically over the coming decade, there will be any conceivable uranium shortage for many years to come. so again i think there's a case on moratorium. countries could store this spent fuel and still keep the option of reprocessing one day, if they think, now is the time. without any really opportunity costs. the spent fuel, plutonium is sitting there in the spent fuel just as well as if you -- and get some countries of course are committed to reprocessing. there is a chance that some of them, including i guess japan, the uk and maybe even france might reconsider their reprocessing programs, but the hardest cases i think are russia, india and china. and i think we need to engage them in a dialogue about the

risks and costs of reprocessing. but then they want to learn it the hard way. i guess we will find out. so, in conclusion, i think fizzle zero is technically feasible. i think it would strengthen the regime in many ways. it would support nuclear disarmament and it's also the ultimate reduction against nuclear testing. and that's it. thank you. >> thank you very much. i'm joseph cirincione from the ploughshares fund and i'm batting clean up your. i will take up much more done because i know there's lots of questions in the audience. let me just reinforce a couple of things that people have said. tie some of this together. i think there's no question that all of us believe that the administration worked very hard

on december. we know many of the staffers who involved in this, and we know personally how many hours they put in an that difficult these things are. but i think we all share the belief that in the end, this was an underperforming summit. it had a minimalist agenda. one of the reasons that the off mic comment, and other issues grab attention, is because the summit itself didn't demand attention. it did not produce any breakthroughs. it didn't reach for new goals. as other speakers have said, it basically sped up things that were underway anyway. image look at the declarations, when you look at the press releases of the achievements of the summer, they are all good things but a lot of these are pretty small potatoes. pretty small potatoes that are all gathered up here to make it look like a more formidable banquet. and national security strategy

of the united states says that the number one threat to our nation today is the threat of nuclear terrorism. but the administration is not acting as if that is true. they are not devoting nearly the resources, both financial and personnel, to this task. and it shows up when you come to a summit like this. we can't let this pattern continued. i know people are already working on the dutch summit in two years. they have to be told now that they've got to do better than this. otherwise, the summits are in danger of becoming like the nato summit, where everybody comes together, they have a great time, lots of speeches and nothing really happens. everything is brought down to the minimum acceptable level. we can do better. we have to avoid things like the problems we had by facing the summit itself to one of the

reasons plutonium didn't get a lot of attention, i'll be frank with you, is that south korea wants to produce plutonium. south korea wants to be processed plutonium. this is their big thing. they have a lot of nuclear reactors and they would like to take those reactors and start fueling them with what they call mixed oxide fuel, it's plutonium fuel. putting plutonium into fuel rods to impart burn up the platoon but in part to reprocessed the plutonium from their storage fuel. we see the potential dangers of this in the disaster of fukushima a year ago. reactor number three at a partial load of plutonium fuel. it raises very serious environmental concerns, as that fuel, the particulate from that fuel, were spread over many square kilometers in japan, adding a new and unnecessary poisons to the already serious radioactive debris from that

plant. so it's understandable that the administration was under some constraint about pushing plutonium come but it's also because the administration has, frankly, a very weak internal policy on plutonium. .. and then sell it to power companies in the united states for fuel. one big problem, no power company in the united states wants to buy at.

the fuel is dangerous, expensive and requires major modification of the reactors. so you've got to this plant producing fuel to know where that's charging ahead based on contracts and political commitments that will actually the problem worse by developing a plutonium economy by starting to develop a market for plutonium that will encourage people to make more plutonium to mix it in the fuel. it's exactly the wrong path to be going on. there are things that the administration could be dillinger and should consider several of them. you've heard them today. i strongly support the idea of fissile zero of not producing any more highly enriched uranium, any more plutonium anywhere. so, in south africa summit went home and announced a was starting a new production of highly enriched uranium to 96 per cent highly enriched uranium for its research purposes, the

united states should have had a statement regretting that decision. but as far as i know, there was silence from the united states. you've got to make -- this is a priority. if you want to stop the proliferation of this material, if you want to stop nuclear terrorism you have to make this a priority in your relations with other countries. you can't continue to be governed by state provisions and with this issue down at the bottom of your to list. there was a very in "the new york times" by assistant secretary of state bernie arrison starting a initiative with brazil. brazil will be visiting next weekend brazil was very interested in expanding its uranium enrichment program. but brazil could set a model for the world by abandoning this uranium enrichment process. it needs the encouragement from

the united states to do so. it needs to feel that it's part of a global effort to stop the spread of enrichment technologies. we are flooded with enriched uranium in the world. we have plenty of enriched uranium for fuel coming out of existing facilities. we don't need brazil starting up a new facility in south korea or australia or other countries, or jordan or other countries that have flirted with this idea. this should become part of the administration's plan, stop not just the production of fissile material that can be used in weapons, but we do see the amount of fissile material for fuel facilities for rich material everywhere. overall, as the president has spoken in south korea, you concede this effort to prevent a nuclear terrorism as an interpol part of his plan for how to deal with nuclear threats, and the president of the united states has presented the most comprehensive coherent program

for dealing with nuclear threats of any president in u.s. history. he puts together the three critical factors and moves them all of them together. prevent nuclear terrorism, present new states, reduce existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons. you have to do all three of these together. the problem the president has had is that while he's doing these, he's doing all of these too slowly. he's shown progress when he announced the program in prague on april 5th 2009 but it's proceeding much more slowly than he himself wants. the president has to find the personnel in the administration who believe as strongly in this vision as he does and put them in charge of these missions. he's got to find the members of congress in both parties, and they, are there, who believe as strongly in this mission as he does and work more closely with them. bring them into the white house

discussions. and we've got to work more closely with people like you. he has to work more closely with the press both himself and his close associates to explain what the mission is, to build up public support, to overcome the number one obstacle to all this that we face today which is cynicism, but the president calls our deadly adversary, the belief that we can't do this. we can prevent new states and nuclear terrorism. we can reduce the almost 20,000 nuclear weapons that exist in the world today. but we need public support, political support. the president has a vision he needs more help accomplishing it. thank you. >> thank you to the panelists and now open the floor for questions. mr. cirincione said there would

be questions. come on. all right. >> if president obama kept in place the bush administration officials in charge of the national nsa during the mock plan to add to the savannah river site there still on going with that project, who publicly is going to stand up and lead the way in terms of stopping the molecule in south carolina? >> the question as a direct it to -- >> either mr. cirincione or ambassador gallucci. >> i'm guessing mr. gallucci would have the answer to that question? >> i will. >> i actually don't know if that is a technical question or political authority and i'm not in the position to answer but let me just say one thing and that is that i like the way that joe framed it, which is to say

that whoever is helping the president freeman these issues, and as sharon said, probably drafted those words it's let's look at this exciting future we are going to have with plutonium fuel. and as joe put flesh on that by pouring into the mox fuel facility this is a matter in terms of authorities it might get the president, because the political implications at sea or suggesting in the question might be quite significant locally and nationally. what i am saying here is this issue i think needs to be shaped up as a way joe was suggesting and sharon was suggesting it ought to be shaped, which is to say this probably certainly, drop the word probably here, and of drafting a communique -- this certainly makes no economic sense as joe used a metaphor it's a bridge to nowhere in the list the fabrication facility

with no reactors that what the utilities that want to buy the fabricated fuel. this makes no economic sense. there are political interests certainly there will benefit from this economically. but it's not a good national policy. and the terms we are talking about here goes in exactly in the wrong direction as well as being done. so if you can shake this up that way i think the president could make a decision and that exactly what the authorities are i can't go to, but it has to be captured in that way i think. joe? >> i'm going to let sharon comment. >> i think for the record we need to remember that this plutonium disposition agreement that we had with russia goes back to the clinton era so there's a lot of politics certainly about spending in south carolina on this facility, but there's also some bureaucratic inertia. this is a big construction

projects bureau heads and the department of energy support coming and you might know that the u.s. nuclear industry has been languishing for decades, and so there's a big push coming even though areva, a french company building this, there's a lot of money going to u.s. contractors. so this is an old, old project coming decades old. i don't think you can pin it on the bush administration but it's very emblematic of the problems you face with these big ticket items where they are entrenched interests and by every it has to be viewed through a different lens. >> final your saying to the president of the united states going against the political forces and softer line and cancel the plant. >> what i am saying is who is going to stand up if the president -- i wasn't blaming the bush administration. i'm just saying the policies have continued through, and it

doesn't seem to be politically anybody wanting to leave in that direction, so we are setting an example as opposed to trying to get other people to set examples. estimate of a plutonium fuel plant is a perfect example of this inertia that a new administration carries forward from decisions made by previous administrations. and we have to do two things about this. one, let's be honest that many of the decisions we face in the nuclear area don't have anything to do with national security or nonproliferation, thereby jobs and contracts. this is a jobs program. this is a big profit operation. so if you want to go up and stop that, you better have jobs and contracts to replace it. so, the only person who can do that is the president of the united states. it's in his budget, the plan is going forward under his department of energy, so he has to propose a different program for south carolina or he's never going to be able to overcome

that. let me give you another example. one of the problems the president has in reducing the number of nuclear weapons isn't that the military commanders say you know what, we need 420 intercontinental ballistic missiles. we absolutely have to have those for the national security of the united states. the military commanders don't say that. the centers in the five states that have those 420 long-range ballistic missiles say that. the 4 million icbm caucus. people laugh when i tell them about this. there's an icbm caucus that demands the president not cut the number of nuclear weapons in order to preserve the jobs and contracts and bases associated with these hydrogen bombs that are stationed in montana, wyoming, north dakota and colorado. if you want to achieve the president's vision, you better have a program that's going to replace those jobs and contracts with other jobs and contracts that are more beneficial to the national security of the united states and the economic health of those states. you can do that, you just need a

staff that will help you develop those plans and then implement them. >> i'm going to direct the question specifically to mr. cirincione. you said the summit was underperforming. what perfect storm have to exist for the 2014 summit to be performing? >> you have to have a president of the united states who believes in the mission, and whether it's president obama or the republican candidate, they have to lead. this is all happening because of american leadership. and in fact, it's one of the shining examples of how important american leadership is in the world today. as the secretary of state, former secretary of state madeleine albright said come in this area at least we are indispensable. we have to leave. the second is that you have to start planning pretty much now. so, that means the president has to start developing a plan that says okay, what could we achieve, and in what could we

achieve more than that. what is the goal that i want and then start bringing republicans into those discussions, start making it the bipartisan effort the way that it's been a bipartisan effort to define the champion. reward them for working on this issue. those are my recommendations but others on the panel may have more. >> you have any other recommendations? >> do you have a question? the proposals that we have heard today from you to your experience and i may add patriotism. as to the position of president

obama and defense markets, perhaps they are questionable. as to russia, russia, not the soviet union russia has a long story of relations. russia is the first country interested in not having a nuclear war. as to your suggestions think i would agree with all of them. but there is a point you haven't touched, which is the collapse of the united states aside from the damage we have received for the whole world in the foreseeable future the collapse of freedom. so, after approving and being complete agreement with what you said, i would say that the

safety of the world and the future of freedom in the foreseeable future is overwhelming america's military power. >> now you have a question? >> you insisted on all those reasons he gave, but i think that america in general did not stop the creation of atomic weapons. >> again, do you have a question? >> the first question and then opinion. we want a question. >> how do you add what you have been saying with our freedom as u.s. citizens? >> thank you. anybody? going once.

>> i agree with the customers view the united states plays a role in the stability peace and bureaucratic transitions in the world. and i would not say there is is any weakening in the capacity to play the essential role. there is nothing in what i or my colleagues have recommended that i believe would weaken america's national security ability to defend america's security or to defend that of our allies or to play the central role around the world that it has played and is playing now. >> anybody else? okay, chairman.

>> my name is eric from the observer. but i'm interested in knowing is basically in this kind of, like mr. risch and in washington to talk about budget cuts and everything comes of this nuclear thing and then -- it's not going to get a front seat in the situation when everybody thinks that the cuts, you know, all these things -- we are not talking about weapons. we are talking about doing more and what you've been doing now. do you see that there would be more difficulty in convincing -- you talk about like difficulties with the republican party on their interest in doing this. there would be some sort of solution to think about in this point. >> the question is directed to? >> mr. cirincione and mr. gallucci. >> let me start. something very interesting is happening in the united states currently. we have a president of the

united states that has a very forward-looking 21st century vision of u.s. national security. he's united his administration and putting the military leadership are around this issue. in this vision, nuclear weapons play an increasingly smaller role coming and you hear the secretary of state, secretary of defense, the joint staff and the president himself say that they want to reduce the number enrolled in the nuclear weapons. this is happening. we are reducing this and we have been doing this the last 25 years. president george h. w. bush cut the nuclear stockpile in half. president george w. bush cut the nuclear stockpile in half. president obama cut it by 7% so far. but we will see how much more time he has. while you have this policy shift going on, suddenly now you have a budget shift that is carrying up with the policy shift. the defense budget is no longer growing, it is shrinking.

the budget is coming down and when the joint chiefs have to choose, they do not use nuclear weapons. the choose a weapons the need for their troops to accomplish the missions. they actually have against the real world threats. so, you will see in -- you are seeing it now and will see in the future that the nuclear weapons part of the budget will start to come down. i believe that is also going to affect things like the plutonium fuel facility. this is just a good government business-like approach. you have less latitude to a ford products that you truly don't need and are just doing for political purposes. when you have to have somebody preserve the programs that are actually essentials. the program's three absolutely essential in this agreement are things like what you heard our colleagues talking about. these uranium and plutonium disposal programs, these programs to shift production of highly enriched uranium to the

low-enriched uranium. those are low-cost and have huge national security payoff. so that cost-benefit ratio tends to favor programs like this and shifts away from big-ticket items like the plutonium fuel plant. >> i agree with everything that joe said it but i would like you to focus on the last part because what we have been talking with here is nuclear security, and while it is organically connected to the policy with respect to nuclear weapons, that's what the central focus that we have had. and i wouldn't want any impression here left that this is a budget issue and nuclear security issue is not so much of a budget issue. yes, there are going to be those who will use the environment which is where there is a serious budget issue to take on

programs they do not like. for example, it may be used to knock out a social program or the social program is not a budget issue but you can use the budget as an excuse. in this area that we are really focused, these aren't generally speaking large budget issues at all. we are talking about matters of national policy, and then there are of course, as we were saying in the case of the fuel fabrication facility there are going to be local issues where it is a budget concern and is a political concern. but fundamentally, i would disconnect the current budget environment from the policy prescriptions we're talking about here. these are not the tickets associated with the cost associated with the prescriptions that we are advocating are not much. >> i would just like to add stepping back from the u.s.

budgetary issues, if you have to -- fighting a war in iraq to discover the weapons of mass destruction that were not there, that was a very expensive than. spending money to reduce these risks where you knew where the nuclear material is, it's a whole lot cheaper than trying to find that needle in a haystack than trying to inspect every single cargo container that comes into the u.s. or other ports. it is, you know, i think of it as more bank for the dhaka. i like the way that joe characterized it as, you know, low-cost huge national security pay off. so that needs to be the message really. it doesn't cost a lot of money. it's the most effective way to do this compared to the other option pure islamic the gentleman in front and the woman in the back. >> ryan at the boston globe. maybe all of you can weigh in on

this quickly. iran obviously comes of as a primary concern for proliferation. what is less dhaka is the world turns parents come and i think that the package you put out today on the nti material index is israel. and i am curious if you -- a quick answer to what extent you think even as a response donation, israel's inability and unwillingness to be more transparent of the nuclear program, how much it affects the iranian and any other so-called bad actors who may be will pursue nuclear weapons no matter what we do. so quickly because i think that doesn't get talked about a lot. professor glaser? >> let me say this about that.

i don't believe to take on what i think is the pointed end of your question that the i iranian weapons primm i do believe it is a nuclear weapons program whether it ultimately produces nuclear weapons, that is its purpose has anything much to do with the israeli nuclear weapons program. in other words, were there no program and there would be an irony in a program -- iranians program. i don't believe that iran is threatened by the nuclear weapons program. i do believe that the -- to the extent i have consumed the literature of this i do believe that the israeli nuclear weapons program was developed as a deterrent, but largely against the soviet union the qualitative edge to have conventional arms in the united states and have supported has been with a have wanted to deal with the threats they perceived in different ways over the decades since the

creation of the israeli state. but the nuclear capability had particular reference to the possible soviet intervention that they wish to deter. i don't believe it is provocative certainly in the rhetorical sense, and i think what one could imagine circumstances in which we imagine it all the time in which the peace process and that's usually put in capital as succeeds from and the need to have nuclear weapons diminishes and the two year rates so that they don't in the future. they are not there yet and this is not an apology of the defense of the program it is a description of at least in my perspective why it looks like it does now and why it's not going away anytime soon and it's also an assertion that at least for now it isn't the cause of the current problems in the middle

east knopf. >> i agree with that assessment. new gingrich says i've written several books about this and here is where you can buy them. [laughter] israel has said nuclear weapons since 1968 we estimate the arsenal to be somewhere between 100 or 200. i think it is on the low end of the scale and it has many delivery vehicles by missiles and a jet fighter-bombers hit his it's widely under delete could default this it hasn't been a cause of proliferation of nuclear weapons in the middle east those that believe in the nuclear domino per go thinking that they will automatically lead to other countries getting a bomb, take a look at israel. israel got the bomb other countries did not get the bomb. it's been a sore point but it hasn't been the source of the arms race in the middle east in

the end as a part of any comprehensive middle east peace solution that recognizes the national integrity of all the countries in the middle east and rejects to overthrow any of those countries you are going to have to have a disclosure of all of a nuclear facilities and all of the weapons in agreement to get rid of those nuclear weapons. it's inconceivable you could get peace in the middle east with one, two, three or four nuclear states. so that is the end state. i believe we are actually having to that end state and we have had it happen in other areas and other continents. i think the middle east is a tough problem, but in the end israel is going to have to the bombs out of its basement and put it on the negotiating table it is just a question if it is going to be part of a comprehensive solution to be a part to feel secure enough to do that. and understand that this is in their security interest that they are not three or four nuclear weapon states middle east, but none. >> last question.

>> i hope you would agree with me in saying that the u.s. would be able to act in the 2014 summit by being a pioneer of new alternative energies. so basically you mentioned that plutonium is the energy of the past. what would you say is the energy source that we should be focusing on and are there other countries that are leading the effort? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> well, obviously very strong views about the future of nuclear energy, and i think that fukushima has highlighted this. it's more uncertain today than it was two or three years ago. i do think that there will be some countries that will pursue nuclear energy as one of their options, including the u.s.. but as we, you know, i guess

agree on this panel we don't think that reprocessing needs to be or should be on the table. that doesn't mean, and unfortunately it doesn't mean that we probably will need enrichment and some would argue this in itself is a serious proliferation risk coming and coming back to israel and iran, the question i don't think we will make a lot of progress towards the nuclear weapon released while iran has one on one facility control. i do think the future and sharon and loaded to it we have to contemplate the option of having the facilities under basically the regional facilities on the multilateral control. that's not a bulletproof solution but it may be the only way we can kind of imagine using the the nuclear energy in the future in a sustainable way. i also do think some countries are walking away from nuclear coming and i do think that could

become a you know, that could set important precedents. if you take the example of germany, if they manage to phase-out of nuclear energy meeting its carvin target's, carvin michigan target's it would set a very strong example and others might follow its lead. if germany feels that it would send a very strong signal. >> nuclear energy is special because of the risks of nuclear weapons production. unfortunately, that also makes it prestigious for a lot of countries. and so, i don't think that this administration and certainly the one before it hasn't done a very good job in sort of taken the shine off of the nuclear energy. it means it is really just another way of boiling water. and so i agree with alex. if germany can make a go of a

nonnuclear future it may sound ridiculous to you now and make solar, wind and geothermal a whole lot of other things as an advanced country that will go far i think towards diminishing the nuclear power. but we also have to do our own job and not make it such a special thing that we can confer on our good allies and try to keep away from our not so good allies to disconnect don't think it cuts, contradicts our cuts across even of my colleagues is that this panel has been about security. this wasn't a panel aimed at against nuclear energy. no one came up here to speak about nuclear energy picture, we can talk about the nuclear security issue. so if sharon says it is absolutely correct that you

wouldn't eliminate the nuclear security issue or the proliferation issue or the nuclear weapons issue if there wasn't a link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, but if you didn't have the nuclear energy, then the nuclear programs what unambiguously be connected that would be set and clarity but that's not and actually what we are about, how can we do it in a way that doesn't hit the existence of humanity and that's where we are coming from and putting it against or for any particular energy mix. >> that's the last word. i would like to thank the panelists for their enlightening presentation, and i like to thank the audience today for joining us. with that, this proceeding is over. thank you.

this past friday, six former u.s. trade representatives discuss u.s. options for expanding trade with countries in asia, the middle east, europe and elsewhere. several speakers were critical of the obama administration saying the white house lacked a comprehensive trade policies. topics include recently announced high-level trade talks between the u.s. and tear up. the center for strategic and international studies is the host of this event. it's about two hours. >> okay. folks. good morning everybody.

welcome. we're delighted you're here. i must confess when meredith broadbent said that she wanted to hold this event on a friday before a long weekend, i thought you're crazy. no one is going to show up for this thing. but it just shows the enormous gravitational pull of the u.s.. my name is john hamre, president of csis. delighted to welcome you here. i'm currently reading a fabulous book. i never understood america until i read this book. it's about the early history of america to meet you get right down to it. i'm a political scientist, so my version of history is all about the geopolitics. that's not america's history. america's history is about trade.

just amazing. and you start opening up the shaping of the american republic was very much driven by the way we were going to connect in this larger world, how we were going to do it. and god knows we have been through a lot of different episodes in our history. we were as protectionist as you could get. at one time in our life we passed legislation that said it was free and open territory to steal anybody else as trade secrets. and we had a pretty rich history of irregularities, so now it's about time that we be humble with it and think about where we are going in this world, and frankly the world would be improved dramatically if we had a much stronger and more active policy. you know, in america. so we are going to talk about that. we are going to talk about that today. i want to say thank you to all of you for coming. you have a very important role in this coming and that's to make this a lively session. i know the intellectual content

of our presenters. i know that you are in for a very rich discussion, but it's going to get a heck of a lot better if you are engaged and active in this and so i would really ask you to draw on that and so to bring the best out of these remarkable the individuals. we are grateful -- i'm grateful, and i know i speak for all of you, grateful as a nation of these women and men were willing to leave in such an important way for the country, and they are still willing to be active in the policy life of america. i just had a short session upstairs when we were talking about this and it's exciting to have people that are still -- just committed to making this a better and stronger country come and working through the tough issues as we face. so, we are very thankful for that. where is moore. where are you. thank you for coming. former director-general of the

wto. we are going to send you back to you can take care of russia. [laughter] you're going to have your hands full, buddy. that's a big one. now she's here just as ambassador during a phenomenal job and we are delighted. thank you. welcome. [applause] okay. i'm wasting the time because i am taking it from the experts who are here. so let me turn this over to meredith broadbent to get this started for real. we are going to have a series of things. david camp is going to be with us april 26, and we invite you to come, because he wants to deliver a major address on this point. we would like to invite you back for that. let me turn to meredith and i'm going to pull this out the ways of you down there can see. >> thanks, dr. hamre. >> turned the mic on. >> thanks for coming today.

this is an event that we all look forward to. i am thinking for next year we need to order to tables. we have to tears here, somebody on the upper level and some on the lower level. as we are not falling off the end of the table. this is an exceptional group of political leadership and negotiating experience, and they've taken their time to collectively give their views on the priorities for the u.s. trade agenda. although i do want to join all the different perspectives, my assumption going in today is that there's a huge amount of agreement on these individuals that have served the united states trade representative under four different presidents going back to 1981. they are here i believe because the care about the world trade play in strengthening the global position of the united states. i should mention to those of you that hour in our electronic audience that the united states trade representative is a cabinet level official that so

far with the rank of ambassador holistically responsible to the president and congress for trade policy. and i would be in trouble if i didn't say please follow this yvette on tour at csis.org #6ustr. as the united states looks ahead this year there is more of a blank slate on the president constructs -- can construct the new trade policy than there has been for quite some time. the decks have been cleared, thankfully, and all of the pending free trade agreements are done. negotiations on the transpacific partnerships are a work in progress and several trading partners and close allies seeking to join in freezing strategic considerations in addition to the economic market size and growth potential. the countries have declared the

wto broadbent round to be at an impasse makes it certain what the the comprehensible why trade liberalizing result that might have been possible is not to be in the near term. gone, for example, is the global mechanisms that were proposed, like the hugely powerful swift and terror cutting formula which would have wiped away anachronistic peak in developing countries and advanced developing countries. what we do have i would argue is more freedom, more freedom to calibrate and refine the u.s. trade policy based on the growth opportunities, in particular regions and countries. when it comes to pursuing the job-creating benefits of trade, there are many like-minded countries in the world. and we hope to hear about some of the targets of opportunity that are out there today. we are honored to have the sixth former ustr with a sea of the trade agenda. we hope today's discussion will

result in some practical suggestions on how to move the trade agenda for word. in terms of organization, each panelist will get a five minute opening statement to address a few selected topics of understanding that the trade agenda is so full but we are not able to do justice to all of the major issues. with that, i am encouraging the panelists to comment on each other's presentations as the feel inclined to do so and then we will turn to the audience for your questions, so please, keep them in mind. with that i will introduce the panel. there longer biographies are available on the chairs in the room. ambassador mickey kantor served as secretary of commerce for president clinton. ambassador kantor as a partner at mayer brown llpa. he serves as senior adviser to morgan stanley and is a member of the board of directors at cb richard ellis. he led the interest in the negotiations resulting in the

north american free trade agreement, and the agreement on labor and environment. helping to work with congress for passage of implementing legislation. he served as chief negotiator to the uruguay negotiation to make the world's largest and today's most successful trade pact. and he supported the president and hosting three of the early successful apec meetings of the asia-pacific region. to investors before to's right is carla hill, the u.s. representative from 1989 to 1993 and the administration of president george h. w. bush. during the negotiation of nafta and the uruguay round she was responsible for the blair house agreement that broke the agriculture that led to the conclusion of the uruguay round. she's the chair of the committee on u.s.-china relations, the inter-american dialogue, and she has cochaired the advisory board here at csis as well as some of

the trustees. ambassador clayton yeutter served as u.s. jeal deferred 1989 in the reagan administration where he was negotiated the u.s.-canada free trade agreement and launched the uruguay round that brought the negotiations to include services, intellectual property and agriculture. in 1989, ambassador yeutter was then secretary of agriculture. in that post he steered the 1994 bill to congress and also served as the president and ceo of the chicago exchange. ambassador charlene barshefsky is the senior international partner to that she served as the u.s. from 1997 to 2001 and is also in the clinton administration. she was the chief negotiator of the u.s. china wto agreement. as well as the global agreement in many sectors as well as

global agreements in many sectors and areas including financial services, telecommunications and high-technology projects. ambassador brock as counseling and trustee here at csis. senator brock served for four terms as a member of congress and the senate seat and in the u.s. senate he was the u.s. t.r. in the reagan administration 1981 to 1985. and also served as the president reagan's secretary of labor 1985 to 1987. he's chairman of the brock office is specializing in international investment and resources. finally, ambassador susan schwab is the strategic adviser in mayer brown's chief of global trade practice, and professor of public policy at the university of maryland. she served as the u.s. t.r. from 2006 to 2,009 in the george w. bush administration and negotiated and achieved congressional trade relations with vietnam and the bipartisan

may 10th, 2000 deal which addresses the labor and environment. she also negotiated u.s. bilateral wto agreements with russia and the investors have been involved in the negotiations at one time or another. in addition, ambassador schwab oversaw the government decision to join the transpacific partnership negotiation, and an initiative which has increased and pursued by president obama. with that, we will go to five minute opening statements, starting with ambassador kantor. >> thanks very much, meredith. i appreciated -- i don't know where michael came from what we tell you that was my mother, no one else. [laughter] >> that's what it says in your paper. >> first of all, i do question the sanity of every one of you being here on this friday. [laughter] and passover weekend, when you could be on a beautiful day playing golf or doing something else, so i do question that. second, let me say how honored i

am to be with my colleagues and friends. it's really interesting. i think we all have been friends and colleagues, we have shared almost virtually the same can if you want to call it ideologies, certainly this in support of trade with very few differences. and i am honored to be with all of you, thank you so much. it's terrific. i'm going to be very brief. i'm going to lay out very quickly we have 45 minutes later in the program. [laughter] >> he is making a question now. islamic i know you'll want to stay here for that, but that's okay. let me lay this out very quickly. in my personal view the way i think a trade policy of to go in the next administration, whatever that administration happens to be. obviously you have different republicans sitting here so therefore this is not about politics. it set out hopefully eighth

legitimate rational workable trade agenda. let me say this trade agenda has to take advantage of what we all want which is the rules based trading system that controls on the rules law and it implements discipline on all of us. not just united all of us in terms of international trade. that's what we need and that is the big and small agreements are about. we just need to do more of it and it needs to be put in some free-market of trade that can work and it seems to me that that lead to mutual dependence on each other enhances globalization and economic issues and strategic you cannot provide these days. what you do in trade and what we do strategically and politically together it is critical in this globalized world, so let me get to it. first of all i'm going to start with the enforcement is a major

role to play. it enhances the credibility of our agreements and gives confidence to trade especially for the american people and congress. it's important for access to markets and it's what we did i think what carless started so well and we were able to finish in the ground in terms of the settlement system. it's worked well and it's a critical component of trade. these kind of disciplines are important. we need to continue them. second, we need the next president of the united states to advocate trade. i'm going to talk of the u.s. in this section right here very quickly. we cannot push a trade agenda unless the president of the united states, whoever the next president will be whether it is president obama or whoever the republican president believed to nominee happens to be if they do not petraeus the top of the agenda, and i can tell you it

just won't work. we won't go anywhere the contras would follow, the people will follow, we won't sell trade and it will enhance our businesses and jobs and economy, and frankly our safety and freedom as well as political and strategic issues to reverse of the president has to advocate. third, i'm going to say doha is it would be admitted to each other. there are certain things that were critical that we can get done so for instance as charlene can tell you, the agreement which he did so well the telecom agreement, the financial services agreement or what, 15-years-old, 17-years-old? what happened just in the information technology since then. we were in the dark ages 17 years ago. we've got to redo these agreements and make them more effective than they are. we have a great opportunity. we ought to look at the financial-services the same as telecom.

second, we need to work on it, deal with worker rights and the environment. multilateral. third, we have to protect intellectual property and have the investor protection as well. we men in agriculture development. remember in the crowd agriculture was to be a separate negotiation and a separate agreement. we agreed to do it. it's time to turn and i love how clayton talks about that, do something about it. we if a chance in these areas to make some real progress if we quit spending so much time worrying about something that doesn't exist. it's the doha round and will make a difference. frankly the information technology agreement, the financial service agreements taken together were as big or bigger than the uruguay round economically as we ought to go back to them and make them more

effective, and what makes a tremendous boon to trade. the fourth area is the transpacific partnership. not because it's called the to specific partnership, not because susan schwab did a good job putting that together. where is mike? starting with new zealand and three others, then it grew and now it is mined countries including the united states. it means to be bigger. we are the fastest-growing terrie in the world, fastest-growing economy in the world. we are growing a bowl of noodles trade agreements. what are we doing, we have the assian plus read trying to reach an agreement, we have the trans-pacific park russia, bilateral agreements. we have got to come together and begin to address the critical issues of trade which would address the 55% of the trade to the u.s., canada, mexico

involved with japan and the line right now, and by the way, we have split why? we have a trans-pacific partnership in indonesia is and in, thailand isn't in, burma is sent in. we need to bring these countries in. now it's not going to be easy to define understand that. every one of your knows how tough that is. but if we don't think big, if we don't begin to reach four large bowls, and what types that are very large goals, then we are not going to make progress, and what we are doing is allowing trade internationally to draft, and that is very dangerous. supply and suggesting today in these areas is not to allow it to drift but to address large issues and to try to make that happen over the next four to eight years. thank you. >> this is a real reunion and

the six of us have a terrific time when we get together which is this morning we have had a lot of fun and i agree with a lot of what mckee has just said. i have a few points of differences but this morning we will discuss a variety of trade initiatives, some being negotiated and some simply being dreamed about and assessing the relative importance, i always like to think about what a good trade agreement can accomplish and a great multilateral trade agreement should strive to accomplish five strategic, and i underline strategic goals. one, to open the global markets which will generate new growth for rich and poor nations alike. number two, reduce the global poverty which furthers the united states development goals.

dr. william cline has been a wonderful study connected with the peterson institute for international studies showing that a 1% increase in trade by poor countries reduces poverty 1%. three, to advance our security ames. impoverished nations don't govern well. they can't steal their borders. they become field states and they become breeding grounds for international terrorism, crime, narcotics trafficking and a lot of bad things. for cut integrate poor countries. bangladesh and indonesia, pakistan and to our trading system, and that creates future markets for our entrepreneurs just like the marshall plan. so they get a dividend, but it's down the road, and finally to enhance the will fall and transparency.

now bilateral agreements can accomplish some of this but because there is a geographic reach much more narrow and, they can't accomplish as much. but if began at the can stimulate the members of the multilateral community to move forward on multilateral liberalization. we saw that with nafta to be the the uruguay round collapsed in brussels in 1991. we came home and began to negotiate nafta. president george h. w. bush signed it in december of 1992 and was put through congress the following year. within four or five months we completed the round. people came back. they didn't want to have the north american market which was so large to not have the benefits for the global economy. my friend to my left thinks doha

is dead. i agree is on life support plan also believe there's a way to bring it back. >> and he's still on my left. [laughter] >> no change at all. and i believe doha could contribute to the strategies i just mentioned but i don't have time in my five minutes to go through but i will tell you there's a simple package that would harvest some games and i would move forward if i had the chance to do so. now the trans-pacific partnership is the only trade agreement this administration is negotiating and i think it could great. the stated goal, and i quote is to bring together economies from across the pacific developed and developing into a single trading community to serve as a platform for the broader regional integration, and eventually a free trade area of the

asia-pacific. now, as mckee has mentioned, the trans-pacific partnership involves nine nations. we have trade agreements with singapore, chile, australia and peru. four of the nine command new zealand, malaysia and vietnam would be add-ons. the potential for the trade if kept as the current size would be quite small. the five largest economies, china, japan, indonesia, india and south korea are not included in the account for 75% of the gdp of asia and the great majority of asian people. so, for canada, mexico and japan who want to be admitted to join that without real heft. after these leaders, that is the

canadian prime minister, and the president obama and president held our own this past week and he said to the press the administration has slipped on whether they want canada and, and the minister ferrari said he wants an answer by the end of the month and for the ttp to achieve the strategic goals and portugal would require the additional economies, and while i favor the concept of moving forward with the tpp i see the risks if we keep it small. ..

it could, it could induce a competing trade bloc because china is not in. these concerns would be diminished we housed the transpacific partnership making it open to any member that wanted to be bound by its terms. that is exactly what we did.

the government procurement agreement which has served us well and with information technology agreement. moving from the pacific to the atlantic we have a high level working group studying the possibility of a u.s. e.u. free trade agreement and in spite of the two group's's financial challenges together we command more than half the world's gdp and bilateral agreement would have real steps. both governments, we might be able to come to an agreement removing or reducing agricultural support and that is a question for my friends clayton to my right. we have negotiated a similar trade agreement with south korea which could be used as a starting point for the

negotiations and expedite the process. a u.s./e.u. accord, platinum quality, could stimulate incentives to move forward on a multilateral front. finally in the western hemisphere now that the u.s. has traded grievance with every single government that borders the western pacific and except ecuador, why not focus on brazil? the president of brazil, meeting with president obama with commodity prices hy and brazil seeking agricultural reform they might have grounds for very interesting conversation. with the private sector still where bridge hugely and our government continuing to spend more than it collects, it is providing a much-needed economic

cushion. whatever we do let me just say we have to work with congress. whether we are able to get trade promotion authority, so-called fast-track, we need to meet regularly with congress to explain our strategic drive, what we can accomplish. if we don't have an arrangement with congress it is tough for our trading partners to sit down and put their tough political issues on the table, take the heat at home and not to be a short that this agreement will be voted up or down. >> to double our exports by 2014 legal the redo's global poverty, advance our development globes rather than handing out cash, create future markets, strengthen our security and enhanced rule of law we need a trade strategy to move ahead aggressively on opening world

markets. sir >> a pleasure to see everyone this morning and be on the podium with our long time friends here all of whom think pretty much alike as has been indicated before. i will try to cover mostly agriculture this morning because obviously that is of interest to everybody. you don't put much of anything in the way of an agreement through the u.s. congress if you don't have agricultural support so whatever the context that is really critical. so knowing how u.s. agriculture thinks that the moment about trade issues is pretty important. the first thing on everybody's mind without question is ppp. i don't think agriculture has given up on the goal but as a

sliver that remains there. mall bilateral market access to agriculture is pretty important. tpp is wherever one's focus is at the moment not because there is a lot there now. there isn't for agriculture. but because of its potential. that starts with japan among the three countries that have indicated an interest. japan comes in, that makes everybody's eyes light up in terms of agriculture because there's a lot of protectionism in japan that could be eliminated over time and that opens up some excellent trade opportunities. also important for japan to be in because it could jump-start the economy for the first time in twenty years.

what japan needs to do to be invited is another matter. we had a longstanding beef controversy with japan almost as long as the negotiations, that needs to be fixed. fortunately it looks like japan has awakened to that and may fix it soon. we hope that is the case. another longstanding controversy is japan posts which has implications to the u.s. insurance industry. japan at the moment seems to be going in the wrong direction. that is certainly could jeopardize japan's opportunities for participating in this negotiation. there is a little of that with canada as well. the canadiens, it would be wonderful if we were invited to join this negotiation and everything is on the table but where dairy and poultry are concerned we have to find a way

to take sick care of things. if that doesn't go well in the u.s. for countries like australia and new zealand then have an interest in the case particularly -- the u.s. in both areas. the canadians have to be really serious if this is going to happen. if you have to add those three, that becomes a meaningful negotiation for agriculture and everything else. i am not sure anything else gets added in the first trunks of negotiations but i agree with you that for real payoff for tpp is a number of other countries come in at a later time. just indicating the ones where u.s. agriculture would have a tremendous interest in the second crunch with countries like taiwan, the philippines, thailand and indonesia. there you really have some

growth in agriculture. a couple additional quick points on agriculture. one is russia's entry into the wto is important. we can talk about that later but u.s. agriculture had good access in russia from time to time through the years of beef, pork and poultry and like to do more in processed food products as well. that has been a roller-coaster and wto disciplines russia would certainly be welcome. it is not going to happen unless we get ntr taken care of in congress. it really has comparative aspects because we know competitive in brazil and argentina will take advantage of russia's accession to the wto and we might not be there. we could talk a little more about the farm bill later. i don't need to spend a lot of time right now because we don't

know what will happen in the farm bill. is up this year and expires in september and all i would say at this point and i could embellish on questions and answers in the question and answers section if you will that there is no consensus among u.s. organizations. will there be a safety net? notwithstanding the fact that farm incomes are at record levels just because farm organizations will insist on it in the volatile environment that exists in the world today and a lot of people would share that view so there will be a safety net. there will probably be several safety nets this time. i doubt it will be a one size fits all on commodities as it has been in the past. is probably going to be three or four safety nets organized in their own respective manners and all of that has trade

implications. will the costs of the farm program go up or down? they will go down in the short term. in the long term nobody knows. i can remember the roller-coaster of the 70s and 80s when everything was rosy in the 70s and everything collapsed in the 80s. we bankrupted thousands of u.s. farms and don't want to go through that again. in addition to cost what will be the trade implications? will the new programs be more or less trades? i don't know. i can't tell because it is too early. there is indication that direct payment programs are likely to be eliminated. those are the least distort of of farm programs. not the most distort of -- the storagei -- distortive.

just a word on u.s./european union. i have long been an advocate of doing a free-trade agreement with the european union and i am delighted that finally people are picking up on that and paying attention to it. the first question is can agriculture be handled in that context? the answer is yes. i say that notwithstanding the fact that i spend half my life criticizing the common agricultural policy in vivid terms. the fact is over the last 20 years our two agricultural policies and from a commodities standpoint have grown closer and closer together. agriculture is not the issue that would preclude the satisfactory conclusion. that challenge is the non agricultural market access to greater degree in agriculture.

we can solve agriculture in the context of the go around and we consol agriculture in the context of the u.s./european union free trade agreement. >> you will hear a lot of repetition. i should probably say to most of us they will take u.s. the are over the cabinet. [laughter] [applause] second, we have got to keep in mind the united states is not just a little bit, we are unique. we are the only country that has the capacity to truly lead in an affirmative action. we can only do that by example. we can't do it by force or pushing. we have to do it by example.

we have to understand and recognize our strength is not in our military but our economic capability. if we use that particular strength we can avoid a lot of adverse situations. lastly in the largest since we desperately need a trade policy. we don't have one. we need something that sets the parameters or the goals for basic approaches. we focus entirely on a multilateral system that gives us rules by which we can adjudicate or do we have something more fundamental to achieve? i am going to shift you around to half the world. meredith asked me to talk about the middle east and north africa. i am not sure i can say anything

more than the stakes in this area are incredibly high. we have problems that are not going to go away. they have -- the arabs spring, the phrase that is used to describe something that is enormously complicated and fast changing. the question is what do we do? how do we do it and when do we do it? each has an affect on the others. understanding the political situation there and here at a whole range and the lot of factors 11dds a whole range and the lot of factors 11 look at our approach.

it is totally poor and dependent on one export work resources. in most cases very inadequate or almost nonexistent. some manufacturing sectors or service sectors, huge amount of bureaucratic interference, governments at least intrusive if not counterproductive. bureaucracy, too much corruption. the problems are endless. if you look at it, the region does have something of an identity. they have to be treated at least in one fashion in that particular context. one of the things i hope we begin to think about more

directly and immediately is a regional approach. there are a number of ways you can do it. in 2003 president bush suggested a mideast free trade agreement. president obama has been very clear in establishing the urgency of economic development has a priority of u.s. policy. there is an understanding in the congress and in the obama administration that if you begin to create a more coherent approach to give some sense of hope to the people of that region you begin to change the political dynamic that would advance our cause and that of our allies. there are a lot of ways to do it. we had the example of in africana and the caribbean basin preferential agreements on a multinational basis. that is one way to begin.

week expand the gps program. and make it more effective, more comprehensive. too many areas are not covered nationally and in terms of product. those of the types of things that could begin to compose a reasonable approach and create a sense that we know we have a stake in the region and we are willing to stick our neck out again by examples of -- to begin to address the political and security issues we have. not just on the basis of political insecurity but the basis of economic strength. let me go to the specific nations. a huge number of countries between iran and more rocco. there is one that we have dealt with over the last several

decades that is and has been for several thousand years -- egypt is more at risk than at any time in my lifetime. when i first took this job by was negotiating a free-trade agreement with israel and the went to egypt and offered to have free trade agreement with that country. not ready and are not ready now but having said that i don't think we can ignore the opportunity and responsibility we have to that country. we have to put a lot of eggs in that basket. we had a really dangerous situation over there. not just because of the advent of the muslim brotherhood. it goes beyond that. if you look at the riots in the

streets, they were not only a bunch of college kids who were unemployed looking for freedom. most of the people on the streets were hungry. they couldn't afford the price of bread. you have a country that is reliant on subsidized fuel and subsidized wheat, bread, to keep the country stable. that is an unsustainable model. they're running out of resources. they're running out of their reserves. they are going to have to -- currency will raise the price of imports and good. they have to import their own fuel. we have a very serious problem. i would love to see us begin publicly to work toward a free-trade agreement. not that it is going to solve a problem. that is a long-term solution but i don't think it makes sense even though we trade people to think in terms of trade being an answer without a lot of other

factors. we have to think about how to effectively support them in terms of the quality of their government. we have to get more involved in giving assurance to u.s. investment. 1% of worldwide investment goes into this region. 1%. that is crazy. we have to raise the level of assurance and european business can invest. my statement is we have a deeply rooted, serious, complicated problem. it will not be solved by trade with you don't by using trade as your entry vehicle you don't use that as the example by which we approach a range of other problems. you are not going to get there without facing the prospect of a very different egypt and a very different middle east that will be more of a hazard than a help. last one i would like to make is

we have got to raise our efforts in all these areas. it is really important not to overpromise either there or here and have a chance. >> thank you. how many former u.s. geologists' does it take to screw in a light bulb? >> six so far. >> i was going to say none. we will persuade you you don't need a light bulb. let me say i agree with mickey that there's no effective trade agenda without presidential leadership. the second once, on the strategic underpinning of trade and trade agreements. the five under pinning the shea

pointed out have been a consistent rationale for trade. really sins the end of world war ii when roosevelt and truman recognized that without trade, a fragile peace would never take hold and without trade countries would have no commercial interests in each other at stability. importance of trade. we are probably all aligned on the bigger issues that need to be seriously considered the specially to bill barack's view and emily's that advocated a broad holistic approach on the

economic treatment of the larger muslim world which is 37 nations many of whom are the poorest on the earth. i think with respect to particularly sectoral agreements which proved effective in the 90s, mickey is right. global telecom and financial services agreement need to be updated. the world has changed very much since then even though those agreements were forward leaning. the information technology agreement is going to be renegotiated if you will and extended and expanded which is important but i do think on the sector side there are a number of other areas that need to be considered both in the services area as well as what we would think, as newer areas whether it is environmental goods and services with which men make a like -- a nice agreements or agreement on fisheries which is another sectoral agreement or

agreements that are newer to the global economy in which there are far fewer vested interests. it is very important that all this talk about the trade agenda we not lose sight about the single most important thing, united states could do. that pertains to the domestic policy measures. there is no reason we can't fix the problems in this country particularly with respect to our fiscal and macro situation and without that, many of our trade initiatives will fall flat. we won't have the leverage that we need. we won't have the sympathy of the public that we need in doing these kinds of agreements. it is extremely important that the u.s. domestic policy agenda be set in motion and fixed.

looking at the external challenges that we face there are many when you think about global trade. one that are want to focus on as meredith asked me to focus on, really has been on the front page for some time and that is china and the treatment of u.s. intellectual property and technology in china. this is an absolutely pivotal issue for the united states because it speaks to the potential of our intellectual capital which is extremely serious. let me just say that -- let me start at least with two minutes on china's technology policy because to understand where the policy comes from is to

appreciate how difficult it is for the u.s. position. china's goal is to become an innovative economy. is a great goal. the problem is the implementation of that goal. and so you have a number of underline degrees in documents that have been around for a long time. the thing about china is if you read what you put out you learn quite a bit. it is reasonably transparent. i would just pick two. one was their medium-term blueprint for science and technology where china is determined to reverse the ratio of technology from what they

calculate at 60/30 to the reverse, 34 and 60 in china. it laid out a series of projects. it played out china's technical orientation, it laid out a series of makeup projects all in the technology area laden with sophisticated intellectual property. it laid out the notion that it would become the world's largest buyer of patents. already almost did. that it would be in the top five of countries whose -- major scientific publications. it is a very long way from that. and the rapid commercialization of its own land. it wants technology and ip ready-made for applied science. that is for manipulating in to

commercialize products. second big plan is the plan 2015. china points out in this plan that it missed the first industrial revolution. this great economy. the third of the world's wealth until early in the last century but it missed entirely the industrial revolution and is still catching up. the goal of the second plan is to not miss the second industrial revolution in which we are all in but have yet to leave. the second industrial revolution. with the aspirations and here, and a variety of industries are against -- special attention from the government and a variety of focus on technology, intellectual property and its importance to china and indigenous in china and you have the twelfth, five your plan.

70 strategic industries, almost all the same industries over all these years. you just have to read the stuff. and indicates the strong technology orientation of the chinese economy. all of this is great. it is laudable. it is impressive and all the rest. the problem is there is an enormous gap in china between aspiration and the ability to actually execute. there is an enormous innovation and ip gap in china. lots of reasons for why the economy for 4,000 years became one of the world at least inventive economy but such as it is it is the case. is a heavy attack absorber. not have the technology creator. so who fills the gap?

between aspiration and current ability to execute? u.s. companies. european companies, multinational companies who are in china and who because of a series of intervention policies are increasingly under pressure to transfer technology to transfer intellectual properties. i don't know of any major company to hasn't felt this pressure. and a series of policies that try and force indigenous technology. patents have to be filed first in china. or r&d facilities need to be set up in china as a condition of future market access. or special encryption algorithms and unique national standards to which companies have to conform and show conformance you have to

expose all of your ip. there's a range of programs here that are involved. they all interlinked some intentionally and some by accident and some in a very powerful way. there are lots of responses to this. pure commercial responses, what do you do about patent registration and so forth? there are china government relations responses? how do you work with the chinese government? there is protection around your own ips located in china and the u.s. government and the u.s. government has 68 ongoing dialogues with china. i suggest we are over dialogueed even though you can see i like to talk. and the u.s. uses other mechanisms. it is missing a fundamental mechanism for helping navigate

this area and that is a bilateral investment treaty with china. it started talking. there has been a very long hiatus purely on the u.s. side for various reasons. but using a bilateral investment you could allow u.s./european and other companies protection of intellectual property they can't get in the wto. all these measures diminish the value of human investment in china. they diminish the value -- they diminish the value of your fbi. that means it is a treaty violation if you get such a treaty and that means not chinese courts but international arbitration. it is a whole different playing field. a whole different playing field. so i would add to the list of policy prescriptions for the

next administration getting on the dime and negotiating an extremely broad, including an ip and technology focus bilateral investment treaty to china. >> got one? >> i suggest bilateral investment treaty with a bunch of countries. >> i was making a wise remark which should not be picked up by a microphone. [laughter] okay. we are at the point where everything has been set but not everyone has said it. i am going to -- i am delighted and honored to be here with my colleagues, the former and echo the points that we do need to question all of us for being here on this beautiful day.

but thanks to csis for hosting this event. we do need to give this audience credit and to give my colleagues credit. part of the reason we're here is we actually care about this stuff. we do genuinely care about these issues. that is kind of fun and we are kind of wonky. my assignment was to cover what my colleagues have uncovered which is not a lot. wtos trade agenda, i am to your right, and your sandwich by folks who do agree that doha round is dead. we don't need to get into that theological debate. we need to get beyond doha round and that is my court premise here. whatever we want to call it, let's just declare victory and

move on. so that is what i am going to talk about. i think the key in terms of what is going on in geneva today sadly is that we have a number of in particular a couple of larger emerging economy looking at what is or what was on the table of the doha round and realize even though this is not going anywhere and believe me it is not going anywhere the next generation they realize is not going to be as sweet. whatever the next iteration is going to be particularly on industrial goods that there will be a differentiation between developing countries and developing countries and the larger developing countries aren't going to be treated the same as the smaller poorer developing countries. there will be more of a

continuum and probably hanging on to what was on the table even if it means nothing ultimately happens. but it is in everyone's interest to move on for many of the reasons i think, so ably articulated. who is hurt the most by the fact that there is this proliferation of bilateral regional deals? the answer is the smaller players out there. the poor players out there. if you look at the 300 bilateral free trade agreements that are out there they tend to be among the larger countries. so my focus today is going to be really on why all roads whether we are talking about bilateral regional deals or sectorals or laterals i will touch on all of

those. why all roads should be leading ultimately to a reinvigoration of the multilateral system. making sure that we are ultimately reenforcing the multilateral system over time. in the near term recognizing we are kind of stalled out in mid geneva. while we engage, we have a proactive agenda on the bilateral front, sectoral front, 40 collateral front -- floral lateral friend that those activities should not preclude taking actions that will strengthen the wto and the multilateral system. i do agree that at the end of the day the folks in geneva should be focused right now on moving on to be on the doha

round. that should be the number one, two, three, fire and ten things on the agenda and on the agenda of the g 20 leadership as far as i am concerned and when the gee 6, 7 or 11 or whenever configuration of wto ambassadors get together that is what they should be talking about. how do we move on for the health of the system? a number of you heard me say before the biggest threat to the wto is the doha round. while we are waiting for the next multilateral round to show up, what kind of bilateral regional agreement should we be talking about? we talked about some of those today. i would just stress some of the points that have been made here. how do we make sure that these can be evolving systems?

call it plug and play or designs such as they can be concentric circles so that they can grow. such that we can open them up for countries that are willing to take on the responsibilities to take on the new issues that are built into them. after all, some of you were here csis for the discussion we had earlier this year on a specific partnerships. one of the most significant things i think about the tpp negotiation is the next gen, next-generation of trade negotiators, regardless of what they are going to negotiate or who they are going to negotiate with the precedents are being set in the tpp negotiations. whether it is about fate of an

enterprises or state-supported enterprises for labor and environment. these are things that will get reverse integrated into the multilateral system at some stage or will be proliferated through other bilateral regional sectoral deals. so watch this space. if you can build out concentric circles, what are these presidents going to look like and how will rules of origin be designed? these are not closed sins sins. ultimately you can build a concentric circle and rivers integrate and these can become wto plus structures and ultimately wto supported structures rather than exclusionary structures that work against the multilateral system so these can close the wto system sectoral deals. we talked about information technology agreements.

that is exhibit a. and charlene deserves a huge amount of credit. 1996. today i would commend any of you who haven't read it. i t i f put out a study a couple weeks ago on the heights he a. i t a. 90% is covered. this is an ms an agreement that definitely needs updating. the u.s. doesn't need any authority. we have residual u.s. residual authority to expand coverage. the agreement was negotiated before gpss were invented. there are new semiconductor technologies that could be put into this expanding coverage. it is the absolute perfect example where the countries that aren't signatories. brazil for example.

have so obviously shot themselves in the foot when you look at the data. the free rider on the slowest car on highway. so that the benefits that have accrued to producers and consumers have accrued not just the producers and consumers of i ct equipment but the consumers meaning the users of that equipment and make any number of other things in any number of other sectors and it is really a compelling example of how liberal trade makes amazing multiplier effect. sectoral agreement whether it is in this sector or we talked about this in this room. we talked about medical equipment. we talked about medical, pharmaceutical, a variety of goods and services.

plurality of services be in front and center. great example where we should be doing this unilaterally. we should be waiting for other countries to agree. as it happens there is a group in geneva called the really good friends of services liberalization. there are 16 of them. i don't know what really good friends mean the. group that showers together. [laughter] [talking over each other] [applause] >> this is a no-brainer. whether it is financial services, express delivery, transportation services, ecommerce. these are things we should be doing unilaterally but if you can't get your own legislature, leverage somebody else to do it.

let's all hold hands and sing to my offer --kumbaya. it will make our own domestic economy grow. we talked about a variety of these kinds of things but you get where i am going with it. trade facilitation again those are like -- why let things sit at the border. transparency. we are trying to get rid of corruption. what better way than to build transparency and single windows. apec members have been doing this. we should be doing this and geneva. -- carla mention architecture. great example of that. let me close with just echoing one fame. russian and tea are.

we talked about leadership and priorities and comprehensive trade policies. russia is going to be a member of the wto's this summer, june and july. whether congress moves russia or not toward jettison the provisions or not, therefore it is not about russia joining the wto about whether the united states is going to benefit from russia being a member of the wto. t n t r is not everybody's leverage. the sooner we go about doing it the better because it is in our interests to do it. it has nothing to do with russia. that requires leadership. the word came up several times at the table. it requires the administration, white house, the department of state and foreign policy establishment and debate and

discussion of foreign policy, in a rights debate discussion because there are legitimate foreign policy human-rights issues associated with russia not having to do with trade but the sooner the better that the administration stepped up. it is a bipartisan issue. congress on a bipartisan basis should move. i would argue and have argued in writing that it is in the u.s. interest for foreign policy reasons, is in russia's interests. or pharma reasons. it is in the economic and commercial interests of both countries. i leave it at that and there's plenty to talk about. with this group. thank you all for inviting us and being here today. [applause] >> can i get some help up here

to move this back? thanks. first of all -- [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> who wants to respond to what someone else said? we want you to respond to each other. no one likes to respond. no burning comments. all right. chris. you still come with a microphone there. [inaudible] >> the mike is not on. >> one of you had mentioned -- >> it is not on.

>> now you got it. >> i have never been accused of not being insured. all of you referred to leadership. put yourself in position where you are labeled president obama or other candidates. what is the most important sound bite you give that would be meaningful and credible to listeners of fox and msn b.c.? >> you want one? >> what a good question. >> i will give you one and everybody can -- i don't know if it is a good one. 95% of the consumers of the

world live outside our borders. we are 20% of the world's economy. we are going to be less percentage world economy over the next 10 or 20 years. if we are going to grow economically, grow jobs, grow in come, be able to finance what we want to do we are going to have to take advantage of a globalized world and you can only do that economically through trade. that would be my sound bite. >> that is a key point. what he said. >> i would only add to that just a simple word, jobs. people don't seem to realize that global trade creates jobs everywhere. for the importer or exporter or producer or manufacturer or transborder, there are millions

of jobs that are related to trade and the more trade the more jobs. we need to get off of this pit that export is good and imports bad and all the jobs are with exports and there are no jobs with imports. >> if you want a bumper sticker trade makes u.s. prosper and then go to the hill and personally and cells that idea, call people into the white house and explain to them 5% of the world's population is a little less, 20% of the world's output. where are we going to put it? and what the opportunities are in terms of security, national interests and reducing poverty and so trade really makes the u.s. what our national interest is all about. >> i would like to ask something

which is if you look at polling data and longitudinal data you discover that when presidents are out there talking positively about trade, when candidates a negative things about trade you see more negative attitude among the population of that trade. so when presidents come out of presidential campaigns having talked down having trash talk trade. and when they become leaders of the free world. win saying positive thing is. about trade. there is a positive impact or

positive opinion. it counts on the -- campaign cycles. that is worth noting. candidates pay for their negative rhetoric about trades. >> the president you work for who was the best in articulating? >> george h. w. bush. >> reagan. where you talking about? >> can i respond? bill clinton was always very frustrated in the sense that he never fully felt he found his public voice on trade. unbelievably phenomenal president on the trade side. what he did in eight years is

breathtaking. >> without -- [talking over each other] >> than we did all the central agreements. it didn't hurt at all but here is what i would say. is a challenge. his challenge was that the visual on trade moved to mexico. one picture tells an unbelievably powerful story. the benefits of trade are more diffuse in an economy. 50 more jobs here and some there and general rise in living standards but it is very hard to put that in as powerful a context rhetorically. needs to talk about this quite a bit because he was a huge believer in open trade but always found it is very

difficult to bring the issues at a public level in adds powerful laymen as a one picture closed. >> let me quantify that quickly to give you a fact. i hate to deal with a fact. i remember in by of 1993 nafta was supported by 53% of the american public. by the time we got to november when nafta passed congress have the american public supported nafta and only 40% were opposed. you can move the needle as has been suggested and i hesitate to say anything. just lacking for bill clinton again. well i am. it is just an example. other presidents have done it as well. not the only one. presidents have to do it more. that was my point i tried to

start with. >> i would love to hear candidates a what are we afraid of? we are the strongest and most productive people in the history of the world. what are we afraid of? the opportunity is there. let's get some jobs. i think you will see a new president. >> university of maryland and peterson institute. so-called experts who ask questions. we think we know the answer. i haven't the foggiest notion of the answer and a number of people who are energy experts have recently been arguing that there is underway a fundamental revolution in terms of u.s. position in energy markets

driven by low cost of natural gas which has implications for manufacturing competitiveness as well as trade balance. like a lot of things that affect trade policy this comes not in trade policy. not -- anything we have done but does this change or impact the way you think of what we should be doing? what our priorities should be in trade negotiations? assuming part of this so-called good news about the relative u.s. position and advantage managing markets comes through? >> i will take a quick shot at that. i don't claim to be an energy expert at all but i think we have to be careful about overpromising in that area. this is another area where

unrealistic expectations can get us in a great deal of difficulty. i think it is great we are working in all these alternative sources of energy and agriculture is heavily involved in that through ethanol. may be the next generation beyond ethanol and so on. but the fact is we are going to be dependent on heavily dependent upon false fuels for a long time to come. so we need to figure out a way to generate greater production of fossil fuels from areas other than countries who don't quite as very much. >> the blue tie in the front. >> okay. i am from inside u.s. trade. two questions i was hoping to

draw on all your experience as a negotiator and working with congress. the first question about negotiation is about the tcp. you have two competing priorities. do we finish the tcp this year as soon as we can with folks we have or do we bring in the new players, mexico and canada? and many of these indices, that is important bringing a new folks in in order to broaden their economic value of the deal. that how do you as a negotiator deal with these competing priorities? do you see they should say if let's slow down these negotiations and bring in the new important players or try to finish it this year? the second question is dealing with congress. some of you talked about russia. to use it is doable in an

election year? and you know how politics can come in to play especially in an election? thank you. >> tcp membership and broadening it and russian tnt. >> i may say that if you have open architecture and have your agreement tied to the wto the way charline did with government procurement agreement or intellectual property or i t a agreement, then it would be an open door for all those able to meet the commitment. you don't have to slow down. just have to keep your door open. ..

and you can do that. this is not rocket science to be able to move this forward to do what we did in the ita and bring in japan, canada, mexico, the rest, i think that is difficult politically. if we don't -- we've got to do that, and also we've got some countries in asia and, not who are poor and this is going to hurt them. it's divert trade, and i think we ought to move on both the same. i think we can do it and then leads to what we refer to a

bigger agreement in the future and i hope the near future finally involving china this is the critical element and we've got to do this and we have to take the steps toward this and this is the way to start and it doesn't matter we can do this now. the election-year doesn't matter what you're doing in the credit limit negotiating, to start now and i hope you do. >> i don't know whether i am agreeing or disagreeing with my colleagues. i think you have to -- negotiating guy who bilateral and negotiating with eight other countries is very different, and negotiating with eight versus 12 is orders of magnitude different, okay? and when the others include japan or what canada with supply

management and to bury for example, just to pull a hypothetical example, or japan whiff as clayton mentioned posed some sensitivities and agriculture. i agree as i mentioned that to the ttp when we launched it and envisioned it originally, tpp was the path to take it to the key for plus the u.s. through to the ftaap or to get outside of the region that if the e.u. or brazil or china and he or anybody else was willing to take on very robust tygart commitments and ultimately

reverse and integrate into the wto doubles final. however, the first requirement is the precedent setting. the precedent-setting has to be a high regard. i'm not sure you can achieve that high bar if japan is sitting there in the first negotiating exercise of, and so i say that as an open question. but when we are this -- as far along as they are coming in by not sure how far that is because i'm not privy to the negotiations getting them at high bar and then putting in place the opportunity for others to come in recognizing if you think of the tpp mine as tpp 1.0, and perhaps tpp 12 alves tpp 1.5 as opposed to tpp 2.0

that's probably what we are talking about here. we have a big player coming and there are things that are going to change perhaps fundamentally. you're soe soc provisions might change if you are talking about china coming in at some point. maybe not. i mean, ideally you'll write soe soc provisions are the ones that you would like to see china signing up to. but i don't come in negotiating tpp with the original line as opposed to the negotiating of with the 12 is a very different proposition. as a, i'm not sure you are not adding three, 547 years to the exercise that you wouldn't want to add on. >> i'm not disagreeing with the

additional complexity. but in terms of the approach, we have an opportunity in japan that doesn't come very often. you've got a government with a significant portion of which would like to do this. >> do the japanese want to do this? >> it depends on who you are talking to. but there are all lot of people in leadership roles that would give a lot to be able to do this and would help them deal with some domestic issues that at the same time they have to deal with. you may not have to bring them in. i think you have to say we want them in and there's a difference. i think we have to say we have not said enough about how we would feel. we've been dancing on this. >> i would love to have the

japanese and tpp. >> i'm just saying that we have -- >> if we have a tough agreement with an open architecture and we say this is it and we want and welcome and encourage i would be clear and say japan, because i think that country has got -- we really need that country and we are not playing any right cards at the moment and i am discouraged about it. >> could i just add one point? if you're going to negotiate trade agreement with the country you have to understand what their intentions are, or taking on a huge amount of work for absolutely no payback. so i agree with schwab but it's

split away the tpp is set up, but the fact indonesia has no desire to be in tpp, and on that basis i would say move ahead with those that will, move ahead, don't wait. similarly, japan. so, i had a very interesting discussion with a number of high-level japanese who assured me they were very interested about tpp, and i said i'm delighted. i am, too. i read that in the newspaper. what are you going to do to really sure your interest? we are going to reemphasize the interested we are. and i say no, no, no. what are you going to show that you would be capable of doing by the end of the year, doing by the end of the year, silence.

so until japan has its own internal situation of course we don't know if we will have the same from mr. in the u.s. should move forward with those that can and having said that there's no question this agreement needs to be bigger to be of economic consequence and therefore of strategic consequences if and i agree absolutely with a bill that we have to indicate to those countries that are not part of this negotiation, number one, we wanted them in. to work with each one of them as we proceed on this negotiation to find out informally where they have heartburn. and find out how that is going to get resolved. so as mickey says, walk and chew

gum at the same time, the same time coming and at some point as and indonesia are japan can actually make the lead they are ready to make it and you are ready to agree that it is a significant. [inaudible] and brazil was starting to do the same thing. what is the solution for these increasingly complex localization requirements, some of the more traditional, local content measures and some of them are more complex. the tpp has a few provisions

that are helpful in that he commerce come encryption and will be out of date even though the u.s. tiahrt is trying to make a living agreement what are the ideas in this space because we are one of the industries that is targeted as a strategic sector for the enforce institution and i don't this is going to go away anytime soon. thank you. i don't think this is a 64 million-dollar question and by that i mean i don't have any particular simple answer and there is no silver bullet. india, brazil, korea, china, and number of other countries are following this example of indigenous innovation and of localization of, forced local content focusing on the one element they don't have enough

of and that is intellectual property and so this is an extremely serious problem the u.s. could suggest to those countries where this is a problem that we should come to an understanding of the rules of the road here beyond the wto and it will affect affirmative we the investment environment in those countries as well as the industry and we're not here for their investment. the difficulty here frankly are the very companies that complain so if you are china and received $70 billion of general investment last year and what would you change, nothing and that is one of the difficulties in these countries have to feel the sting of investments and going elsewhere and in that

regard thought that it is missing a very big bet here. i think you'll see an extraordinary amount of investment going in order to other, and i think the u.s. as a policy matter and i would put as high on the agenda it's great to have to think through some form of agreement or understanding among the other major players in this space of this is julie going to get worse, going to get worse. i agree with what charlene has set and let us remind that we have been contemplating the the new bilateral investment treaty for two and a half years china has also repeatedly to join with

us in a bilateral investment treaty to prevent discrimination and danced in would invest and how the domestics are treated and we've decided as a bilateral matter what the and invest in the country is going to uncover. second it is true china has $70 million worth of investment but also has a largest number of new patent holders and the best way to get a country to move forward on intellectual property is when the pressure comes from home, and we are already beginning to see that at the last meeting at the jcct there was a commitment by china that there would be an audit central, provincial and local of intellectual property protection and since that time, he has been

made the standing committees direct person to get complaints to. this isn't a perfect answer, but at least china is putting it on the agenda. so bilateral investment treaty, pressure from home, and continuing talking about this is what we need to do. >> thank you congenital from the marshall fund. a couple of you commented on the importance of the rules based system and specifically on the issue of enforcement and the importance of enforcement. what i see in this trend where we now have a significant number of regional and bilateral agreements, 400 some of which have their own and settlement mechanism when you look and practice what has happened it's very few of the district settlement mechanisms within the regional trade agreement has

been very well utilized or proven to be very effective. in other words, even many disputes between the united states and mexico, united states and canada, which could very easily have gone to the panel and have instead gone to the wto. many disputes instead of going have gone to the wto. what happens though when we now have a tpp agreement or others where there isn't the wto lally on the issues of the dispute cannot really go to the wto it has to go in the regional trade mechanisms how do you see this getting a result with if you will trade enforcement being viewed as a strong wto and i would argue week on for regional trade agreement. >> i would say that having negotiated the last four and gone through the canadian lumber deal and so on, it is one of the frustrations with the bilateral

regional deal and it's one of the things that makes me optimistic that ultimately we will cycle back to the multilateral system because there is no comparison and what is done you are starting to write into bilateral deals arbitration panels come arbitration but that is a very blunt instrument and for those of us in the trade policy arena the wto process where you have a panel of peers and the opportunity to try to work out something that makes sense because as you know the date you in the case or retaliate you really lost it's a much better process, and it's a much better means of enforcement. so i hope at the end of the day the reason we will cycle back to

a multilateral framework, but for now, the bilateral approach is much less enforceable or satisfactory enforcement outcome mechanism. islamic the other element here is there are 400 agreements and so on. most are glorified tariff agreements. very few deal with agriculture, very few deals with services. the rules are quite close and there often discretionary in any event. in my own view because the u.s. is very far behind in this race, the single most important agreement would be zero tariffs and he would completely disarm almost all of the 400 as a discriminatory mechanism because they are glorified to agreements to take away the tariffs globally, what is the point of the agreement. they're back to the wto on the dispute settlement, and if

economic studies and you notice, the lower the tariff the greater the growth because the tariffs are taxes. that's all it is. on your own and put which is ironic. so the u.s. ought to be looking for as many as zero tier of options as it can find on a broad sector basis. >> i would agree with that statement because we have the middle the tariffs on some of the poorest countries in the world. bangladesh, for example, pays 16% tax on a very small quantity of exports to the united states. great britain less than 1%, and i can go through all the poor countries that are large muslim countries, indonesia pays six times more. pakistan, we are trying to make friends, pays ten times more. this makes no sense at all but

in answer to your specific question, under the wto rules under article 24, if you have substantially all trade been covered, you can put the agreement in the wto services agreement, similarly article for. and if you have the agreement within the wto then you have a dispute settlement mechanism that everybody understands and doesn't have this complexity of rules. >> jeff with the peterson institute. let me go back a little further than your time in office to the tokyo round, and in the tokyo round, one of the things the united states wanted most to get out of the agreement was the change in u.s. countervailing

law and an injury test to our own so that it would be more efficient and benefit the u.s. economy. up until the last few minutes, there hasn't been a whole lot said about what the u.s. should want to change out of u.s. practices in any each of these trade initiatives to strengthen our own economy, though as has been said increasing the imports is an important reason why we participate and these agreements. so what are a few of the highlights that you would recommend to be a top priority that we should seek to change in an agreement where we get adequate compensation from our trading partners. >> that's a really good question as a matter of fact. and since i'm the only one here i think that was alive at the

tokyo round i can start off because i can remember those very discussions that you're talking about, and we had an injury provision into law at that time as you recall the great assistance of the european economic community as it was called then come and we got zero in return that was made in the entire tokyo round. but it specifically says in response to your question that seems to me that anti-dumping laws would be a great place to start if we are going to make changes in our system. we have said in my view a terrible example for the rest of the world in the way that we've run it now. the rest of the world is now copying us so we are getting a kick in the rear for what we

have been doing to the rest of the world for a good many years. the fact is anti-dumping laws basically everywhere now or rigged in such a way that one could find in the 90 plus% of the cases, and that's not the way they should function. what we ought to do is she put anti-dumping law everywhere come and as bill was saying earlier the u.s. needs to set an example of some of these areas, and exercise some leadership and that's one example where we have fallen down. >> jim from washington trade daily. i just want to think everyone here for the great presentations it makes me feel ten years younger actually. but one thing that wasn't addressed and there is a lot of momentum here about trade going

right down the line and actually right through the decades i might say. it seems to have dropped off what happened the day that you left office, and why did it happen? >> why do we have this policy now in this administration essentially no trade policy, which i think you all have been implying someone once told me who is on k street here and has been around the president just doesn't get. [laughter] >> alright, i will take a shot. i think for most presidents come and you may have a different view of this, for most

presidents, the first couple of years in the first term are typically spent on domestic policy. for bill clinton, it was a little bit different because sitting there was nafta and the end of the negotiations so there was a kind of momentum and imperative to make the administration decisions of to go forward in the labor environment and so do we go forward with the uruguay round but that is a typical sweating for this administration with the president coming into the situation that he did, which is to say massive deficits, so on and so forth, and then of course the war, etc.. i think that his attention was probably occupied elsewhere

frankly, and one could argue appropriately so. it seems to me that under those circumstances it would have been why is to the end of ministration to better and power its cabinet, which i think was something of a surprise to many of us that watched. but i do think that with this embrace especially in the passage of the korea fta in particular i think the administration is beginning to see that actually this can be an area of important advance for the president especially in light of his exportable of doubling exports in five years, so my hope would be its president a bomb in the next four years or a new president, my hope would be the momentum that has begun now just very recently and the with the

continuation of tpp that a little momentum is now put behind these efforts. but i do think you are right to say that all of us agree in one form or another that there is a bit of a slowness of the block in terms of trade. >> i didn't imply anything. [laughter] >> are you running for something? >> the rest of us will imply you can't understand cahal you've made commitments to your constituencies in the case to labor more precisely and you have others to deal with but at some point we have to make a decision about what the policy is and we have yet to see that

decision and it's not tpp. we don't have a trade policy, period. either the president or his opponent has to say we have an economic problem in this country and it's not just the fiscal deficit we have treated all critical problem, the opportunity is out there for us to grab we are not seizing it because we are not taking the initiative they are not going to take it for us. somehow the country is to start talking about trade as an issue of political consequence. we don't do that. we treat it as an issue for the tax industry or the ethanol industry and that kind of thing, and it does bother me that we seem to sort of sit back and let the - take control of the date,

and i think that is dangerous for all of us. in the administration they really don't see trade as a big deal. they see domestic policy as a big, big deal as a kind of ignored trade as being not a very important to the united states. it was more than 20 or 30 years ago, and somehow people have to get that through their thick noggin did estimate that's why i continue writing and we should make it very clear the strategic issues are not only on the economic bilateral benefit of the trade transaction but also how it affects foreign policy, development policy, security

policy and economic growth and prosperity. >> in that regard in that regard towards the end of a courier, the usaid worked with the secretary eagleburger for a year to study the future of the foreign-aid program and quickly developed into a study of all u.s. programs for the developing world and i think i counted 26 of the time. it's infinitely more than the bilateral develop and assistance, but another point was the u.s. program is not very well coordinated there's all kind of fiefdom's around this town. there's an element of training of the ustr in the developing world and there is the x m

agriculture and so on. my question is how we get trade to have a bigger voice in the broader council of government? because it does affect the global poverty and security and everything else. and is there a way that we can better coordinate without having to reorganize the government. thanks. >> i was going to say i think it is very well coordinated and the clinton administration which is why he created a national economic council which is why there was complete coordination on the economic side as well as on the security and diplomatic side through the nsc and the joint meetings there were held all the time. islamic what me follow up, i was going to say that, she obviously says it a lot better than i can.

the nec under president clinton when we set up the payment it wasn't your deputy, it wasn't -- it had to be with the president insisted as bob rubin was there, lloyd bentsen was there, bob was there, warren christopher was there, i was there. it was forced -- and forced the discussions about issues and decisions were made in a way that was coordinated. you are right it needs to be done better. there's no doubt about that. we tend to think of these things as we all have silos that we all have our own problems and agendas and our own priorities and we don't often enough share them and share the cost of government. it ought to be done better, but this isn't going to make it go down frankly. and that is the only point i

will make on that. the fact is that we have an interest now, we have an opportunity to to get in touch of a world that is changing and changing for the better, not for the worst but for the better, and we need to provide the leadership and trade is a critical, not just an element, a critical element of this. >> but we do know how to do this. >> i would say from my experience we had a jury tightly controlled process. we had a free cabinet person involved from state to treasury commerce, the u.s. t.r. -- ustr, but we know how to do and we've proven that it works to all i can say is why not now? >> we used to have a weekly deputies' meeting on the most contentious issues of trade,

bringing in agriculture, commerce, treasury, state, and when you articulate the issue, the parties tend to roll towards the consensus in the middle and it's very good to do it regularly and at the deputy level because then you prepare your cabinet officer for the issues that you've got to the middle. you need a president who as clinton would meet with bentsen, george h. w. bush have lunch with danny who chaired the ways and means so she knew what was on the mind, and if we gave him a note of something we wanted him to raise, that is the president to raise, he raised it, but it was important to him, trade was important, and i think we have to elevate it because it is absolutely vital to the u.s. prosperity and peace.

>> does anyone at this table think you get to accomplish these objectives of better coordination, higher priority for trade by voting into the commerce department? >> we don't want that to rheostat -- >> anyone at this table supported? [applause] >> i want to conclude that the csis tpp will have david camp on april 26 to talk about the trade agenda if he would put it on your schedule appreciate the attendance today and have a good holiday. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] today's third prize winner selected the first amendment. ♪ in the summer of 1789, the constitutional convention was in session. politicians debate about adding

a bill of rights to the constitution. federalists said it was unnecessary to write down someone's natural born right. whereas antifederalists argued the rights couldn't probably be protected unless they were written down first. and on september 25th of 79, congress passed an amendment to the constitution. these amendments are known as the bill of rights. ♪ >> the first amendment to any legal rights. >> first amendment right. >> emphasizing his right to burn the flag and protest freedom of religion. >> our country's first national

law get the declaration of independence spoke to the inalienable rights given to america's by our creator. the truth is that over constitution says that we are guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. you're given our right from god including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we as americans believe the right from got it is in god we trust. >> religion is of the world's most recognized controversies since welcome the beginning of human history. many countries still don't recognize certain religions and don't give you the natural rights to choose what you want to believe in. the first amendment glanced the right of freedom of religion and it's a huge part of our society, and i life, this is my church. united methodist church. to fully understand the relationship between the government and religion, my family took a trip to colorado springs where we visited the united states air force academy chapel one of the first chapel

commissioned by the u.s. government the chapel not only accommodates many religions and different forms and levels but also has a specific history to deal with the first amendment to rigs to nixon's 1973 all of them and 1972 the supreme court ruled it was unconstitutional to require some it's been a voluntary to respect this freedom is not only important to me because of my regular attendance and church, but because i am a part of the experience, a traveling music ministry. ♪ >> although many do not share the same religion, the fact is that we all have this freedom. >> look, we are all capable of making a sound and rational decisions. if i hear someone talking about something that is outside of my religion i certainly know even if it can't get up and leave at

that point while i may become strained and have to listen i don't have to incorporate that as any part of my personal belief. >> to of free speech that knowledge a man who makes your blood boil standing at the top of his long as that which could spend a lifetime opposing it of yours. >> recognized as one of the most important freedoms written to the constitution. it ensures freedom of expression and the ability to say whatever we want to say. not only in a speech but in music as well. >> music is a huge aspect of my life as a performer i have to use expression as well as voice and speech to tell a story to a stack although it is open communication, many believe there are stipulations in which it is better not to speak. >> freedom is not the ability to

do with every want to do. freedom is the ability to do what you ought to do. specter rights are clearly important but we are also a nation that is based on rules law and we are all aware of the classic example it's to say anything you want, but you can't stand up in a crowd of the stadium and yelled there's a fire because people could be hurt and stampede to get out. >> even with these limits it is agreed that a risk is taken every time one news is free speech. >> a spoken word in class or on the campus that deviates from the view of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. the constitution says we must take the stress petraeus connect it is a risk of have to take when you speak out to do is commit with a free expression, freedom of speech gives everyone the opportunity to have their voice be heard.

>> is america dangerously unprepared? >> there is danger. >> you better think again. >> not only what tell you it is sweeping too much. it is another right given to us in the first amendment also some consider doubling as it is in many cases to help americans get their daily information. the director for the market organization of broadcasting rac everything from local news to sports. seeing many of the information, most people recognize that the media is biased. however, it comes down to one simple fact. >> we have more information than we ever had before and we've accessed more information but at the same time, we have the ability, we have the ability to pick and choose what we consume and what we give to that.

estimate the final freedom given to us in the first amendment is that of the right to assembly and petition to address their grievances. although we have many examples of protest of assembly in the past, the most recent is that of the occupied movement. >> people across the country are exercising their first amendment right and petitioning the government and showing their grievances to disconnect it is used often this freedom is not always used in the right way to the estimate you have the right to assembly and that is assured in the constitution but remove the word feasible is associated quite closely to that right to assemble to the estimate no matter how unpopular this freedom is everyone. secure to plame in this land is the land of freedom than a simple love your country cannot just be a flag. the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn the flag. >> the congress shall make no

law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or the press or the right of the people to assemble the government. >> it's everything we are about to the estimate and it is everything we are about from religion to petition, this is the land of the free. >> the head of planned parenthood one's politics kept out of women's health issues but the message that cecile richards brought to a recent forum at princeton university woodrow wilson school of public and international affairs. the daughter of the former texas governor ann richards she spoke to a student audience in new jersey about the nationwide conversation about birth control and health care. her speech along with questions and answers in the audience last

about one hour and 20 minutes. [applause] >> i have to say i'm honored to have the opportunity to introduce cecile richards who served as the head of planned parenthood since 2006. every year for nearly 800 centers nationwide, this 95-year-old organization provides family planning, reproductive and sexual health care services to nearly 3 million people. during her tenure, ms. richards has expanded the organizations advocacy for access to health care. she has led a nationwide campaign to preserve access to planned parenthood's preventive care through federal programs. she started the youth initiative program that trains young people each year in leadership skills and health care advocacy and invested in planned parenthood

online, a website that provides mobile access to health information and is visited by 33 million visitors every year. under the leadership of the number of planned parenthood supporters has doubled, reaching a total of more than 6 million people. before joining the planned parenthood, she served as a deputy chief of staff for the house democratic leader nancy pelosi in 2000 for she founded and served as the president of the american vote, a coalition of 42 national press reorganizations working to maximize the registration, education and voter participation. in the 2011, richards was named to the "time" magazine annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world, so we are very privileged to have her here. she's also been recognized as the national leader with the national council of jewish women, u.s. action, and the

nation prize for creative citizenship. she's a 1980's a graduate of brown university, and in 2010 she received an honorary doctorate from brown. she also served in her spare time on the board of the ford foundation. so today's talk, keeping politics out of women's health is being presented at a critical moment in a nationwide conversation about women's health. the public outcry after the susan komen withdrawal and reinstatement to planned parenthood for breast cancer screening, the debate in washington about contraception and religious organizations, whether they can be obligated to provide health insurance coverage and even the affordable care act has brought stark attention to the question about what the appropriate role is for

government and nonprofit organizations and for insurance companies and promoting women's health. of course for many of us that study or advocate on behalf of these issues or for those of us that just care about these issues questions about access to health care are not new ones. researchers at the center for the health and well-being and the office of public, the office of population research has focused on the importance of access to the reproductive health around the world. worldwide an estimated 358,000 women died from pregnancy related causes each year. princeton's colors like christina packs and have examined how access to health care in sub-saharan africa impact the rate while studies the process governor access to health care in brazil. the most of these occur in the developing countries, the united

states is one of the highest maternal mortality rates among the developed countries 1,000 maternal per year. among the developed countries, the u.s. also has the highest incidence of low birthweight and infant death, something that is not unrelated to maternal health chw betts c armstrong studies policy approach to improving the maternity care system. my own research has shown that extending public health insurance to poor women and children has improved health and reduced mortality but clearly there is a long way to go given that pregnancies are unintended. clearly planned parenthood continues to fill the vital need. one of the newest of the limits of the center for health and well-being has done research showing that political persecution by does advantaged citizens affect access to health care and infant health in

brazil, and when i was preparing these remarks, i couldn't help but thinking about the different parts of ms. richards career looking at political participation and also access to health. it may be the links between women's health is inevitable, but ms. richards will speak to that. please join me in giving her a warm welcome. [applause] >> thanks so much, thank you. >> thank you very much for that nice introduction, and it's wonderful to be with you this afternoon and was great to be here all day with a lot of interesting students at the

woodrow wilson school, and thanks to all the students and faculty who hosted events and got me a around campus and particularly the professor and that's the armstrong and all of you for having me here. i also want to acknowledge angelo the interim ceo of planned parenthood who is here today and i know a lot of our planned parenthood supporters are here in the ways a welcome to all of you to get it's nice to be cured princeton. before i give my remarks, i don't know -- you don't know that much about me or i don't know that much about you. i was actually born in texas, which has been my -- i was born and waco, texas evin. [laughter] which someone had to be. [laughter] but my folks were actually from baylor university which is a baptist school, and they were high school sweethearts and then they both went on where my mother said everything they did was that much more fun because

it was either against the rules or it was a sin the baptist convention disallowed having sex standing up because someone might think you were trying to dance, which of course course is completely forbidden. i know you did it now. anyway. laughter echoes of that was sort of my family upbringing. it kind of made them, you know, sort of tough, but our family was just one where every issue and every movement that came through town they got involved in. i grew up in dallas where in the height of the civil-rights movement they were involved in that and they were involved in the women's movement and the farm workers movement, the dinner table is and where you eight or sorted whenever they were working on in the campaign to involve them but that is why

-- thou me and my siblings were raised, and my mother, she was a traditional housewife and she raised four kids and in the 50's and 60's after all but we moved austin and the height of the anti-war movement, so everything was kind of going crazy, and she was invited for the first time to actually run a campaign, which was unheard of for women in those days, and was for a young woman that wanted to run for the citadel as a chicken and women for running for office in those days eaters of the whole thing was a little bit cracked, but she said what the heck. the altar can pay all these years or think i will get my hand at it, and they all got to be involved and were so excited with all these critical political skills you need for your lifetime cannot bumper stickers and stuffing envelopes and taking down your guard signs it was a very tough race, very competitive but this gentleman one and was thus to the legislature in her name is sarah

and many of you will remember, some of you are too young to remember but the age of 26 argued the roe v wade case before the united states supreme court and course spent her entire life fighting for the women's rights, so if you like in some ways my entire life has come full circle being and planned parenthood. of course the moral of the stories that my mom kind of got hooked on politics and seemed like so much fun she would run for office herself, and she did a series of times was elected to a variety of offices there was one moment even in the state of texas when the sort of stores and the moon and everything aligned and the elected the first and only completely pro-choice woman governor of the state of texas, my mom, anne richards. [applause] and i just think about we all stand on the shoulders of those that came before us and so i'm going to really get a special acknowledgement to all the women

who years ago fought the battle so that we wouldn't have to fight them. and yet here we are all over event so please all of you that our actual scholars, don't look this up because it's not going to sound quite right, but something like life isn't one thing after another but it's the same thing over and over again. and it kind of feels like what we're dealing with. since it is princeton university, i did prepare some remarks about the topic i think is interesting and i hope he will come to that. i want to the acknowledge what a fabulous forties under the woodrow wilson school and how lucky brown university is to steal her away and my all modern and i mention that because my first experience with planned parenthood was after brown as a student because i needed a birth

control in college and it was unthinkable to go to the campus health center and planned parenthood was the only place i knew anything about birth control, and it's kind of funny because a lot has changed since i walked into that center of providence rhode island years ago but a lot of things haven't changed. that's how millions of women actually first to get birth control is at planned parenthood. i have a bit of a cold, so apologies. every day hundreds of people, primarily young people come to our health centers and ask the same thing. i need to get birth control and i need it affordable. i don't have money to pay. or i'm afraid i'm pregnant, i'm afraid i'm pregnant. is their somebody like to talk to. or i think i need testing for in st to become an std. it was started with margaret sanger in brooklyn and new york out of the concern that women, and particularly immigrant women

in new york were unable to get information about birth control and certainly were unable to get any kind of birth control devices and were unable to plan their family. margaret of course was drawn to this work from seeing her own mother who had died at the age of 50 after hitting 11 children and seven miscarriages. her body literally wore out from so many pregnancies and so that is all margaret got into work. the time the law prevented any but control information or devices and you read about the early days in which women, you know, brought diaphragms over from europe in their suitcases and smuggled them through trains and it wasn't until 1936 that the laws or rolled back and they were not finally repealed until 1970 which were not that long ago. of course it wasn't until 1965 that the griswold supreme court

decision actually finally legalized birth control for married couples in america. okay. i'm glad we are not facing the the decision with the supreme court. i've got to be honest. but from where margaret began 96 years ago and fast forward to today where planned parenthood is one in five women in america come to planned parenthood at some point in their lifetime for health care and 3 million patients come to the centers every single year as has been mentioned and for so many women now actually family-planning center like planned parenthood that is the only doctor's visit they will get all year because so many women but of their health care and increasingly become for birth control than they also get breast cancer screenings or cervical cancer screening or sltt test they need it's the last year we've seen an

unrelenting attack on women and young people being able to go to planned parenthood for basic preventive care and getting a we should talk of the question and answer all of the political battles that have been fought over the last year. politics seems to be increasingly used to limit access to sex education to basic information for young people and reproductive health care. i actually believe there's a huge opportunity on the horizon, and that is true technology. and i think the technology is a way i hope above and around and beyond a lot of the political barriers that are being put out, and to the women and young people and being access to care because there is a revolution under way in this country about how people access information and health care and nowhere more the area of the reproductive health care.

that's always been our goal of planned parenthood. ever since margaret started was to reduce the barriers to get access to reproductive health care information and services. .. >> or birth control or std testing. the additional barriers are the social stigmatization that often comes with just getting basic access and answers about health care needs, and it limits too many people from getting the care that they need.

so this is my dream, is to give you a glimpse of the future where i believe, actually, we can deliver information and education and health care in a digital and social age, and it's critical that we do so. so to level set this, and i think it was alluded to already, five years ago when i came to planned parenthood, we started planned parenthood.org. literally, we had no one universal web site. and it's a place to get information about birth control, whatever else you needed to know from planned parenthood x. this was a classic case of sort of if you build it, they will come. the minute we got ourselves together and organized, every new addition to this site generated more and more traffic. we finally were able to put up so you could actually type your zip code and find a planned parenthood health center anywhere in america. we became the fandango of reproduct i have health care --

reproductive health care in america. [laughter] a very simple 12-step program, and women filled it out everywhere because it helped them to say, hey, i've heard about this other kind of birth control, another one that helps you figure out if you need an std test, or another one that's emergency contraception is something you should get. and so although three million patients came through our health center doors last year for hands-on, what i think of as hands-on care, last month in february more than four million people came to us online in one month alone. for access to information that they might not be able to get anywhere else. and last year we moved things to mobile phones, um, so in 2012, this year, we estimate we'll see 40 million people online and half of them will be through their cell phones, okay? and any of you, some of you look like you might have kids. if it's not on their cell phone, it does not exist in the world.

[laughter] so it is absolutely transformative to begin to provide access to information at planned parenthood through their cell phone. other the last couple -- over the last couple of years, i feel like planned parent hood has been a living digital library where we're able to track what's on people's minds, what do they need, and particularly young people how they look for it, and so we started piloting really innovative programs to try to, again, reduce the barriers for young people in this country, this whole new generation coming in to get access to care and services and try to eliminate some of the barriers that we have in a bricks and mortar world. because it's important, we have to do this. one of the things, and i know a lot of you work in public health, despite all the things we've been able to do in this country, we invented the ipad, um, which has revolutionized the world. we are one of the most backward countries when it comes to sexual and reproductive health care access. so the numbers speak for themselves.

we have the highest unintended pregnancy rate of any other western developed country. teen pregnancy in this country is inexcusably high. on average 730,000 teenagers will get pregnant every year. and the vast majority of these are unintended and undesired pregnancies. we know that being a teenage mom is a huge contributor to poverty later in life not only for the mom, but for the children of a teenage mom. children of teens have a 64% chance of growing up in poverty. bless you. so these are really important issues. the other thing that's become -- and there's a lot of conversation about this, and the cdc has been really focused on it, is the rate of stds among young people. so i don't want to depress you or make you feel like you've got to pick up the phone and call your kids immediately -- [laughter] but this is pretty frightening. 15-24-year-olds account for nearly half of the 19 million

new cases of stds each year, okay? now, they're not having half of the sex that's happening in the country, but they are, they are getting half of the infections for stds. and with most, you know, bad health outcomes it is disproportionately falling on young people of color and young people who have fewer economic options. so stds and teen pregnancy, they take a huge toll. i actually was just asking what does it cost this country, what does unintended pregnancy cost the taxpayers in this country. depending on whether you -- between the ambiguity macker institute and the brookings institute, it's $11-$12 billion every single year. so it's not only a bad health outcome, it's a terrible drain on our nation's economy. but the thing that, um, i think is heartening is that we actually know how to keep young people from being a statistic. there is work that we can do together to make a difference.

um, right now millions of young people do not get birth control information before the first time they have sex, right? and even though 80% of parents say that they talk to their children about sex, when you ask teens, they say their parents never talk to them about sex. so go back and have a conversation with your, with your child tonight. and getting sex education in the classrooms can be exhausting and politically very, very challenging. i don't know if you saw, i was actually in utah last week, and the governor, with enormous pressure, the governor vetoed a bill that would have eliminated any kind of contraceptive information for kids in utah, but that was a major, pitched battle. in my own home state of texas where we like to lead the country in things like teen pregnancy, unintended pregnancy -- [laughter] uninsured people -- [laughter] you name it, we only have abstinence-only education, so see how that's working for us in texas. and be, um, legislatures in other states are making it a lot

harder for folks, for young people to get sex education even though everyone in america supports sex education. this is one of the most universeally-supported, you know, rardless of -- regardless of religion or background or anything else. wisconsin's on the verge of repealing the mandate they have for reversing sex education, other states are tirg figuring out ways to do the same thing. we've got the figure out how to get it through the legislature, the school board, through all the barriers that exist, and that's where technology comes in. so this is not going to surprise you, 13-29-year-olds spend an average of seven and a half hours a day in front of a screen, okay? i don't know what else they're doing, but basically -- [laughter] that's my son, the rest of it he's sleeping. and usually it's multiple screens, and often at the same time. i don't know if you try to talk to your kids at dinner where they're looking at the tv, under the table they're texting. there's a lot of competition, and that's where young people

are. four out of five teenagers have a cell phone, and by the end of this year half of teens age 13-17 are going to have a smartphone, right? so they have access to everything. this may not surprise you, but 87% of teenagers sleep with their cell phone right next to their head, okay? [laughter] so we'll find out later what all the medical issues are related to that. [laughter] but literally so they can hear texts as they are coming in during the night, right? how many of you do that too, right? i do as well. [laughter] and the average teen, i think this number is low, but the average teen sends 3400 texts a month. so this is something that they are living with every single moment of their lives. used to say the car was, that was a sign of freedom for young people, they would get their driver's license, get a car. now it's getting a smartphone. it literally transforms their lives. and can the good news is, i think, it's actually bridging the digital divide which existed when most information you got was through a static, east a

laptop or -- either a laptop or a stationery computer because african-american and latinos are 50% more likely to use their cell phones to access the internet than other teens. they live online. they're tall all the time, and they're -- they're talking all the time, and they are looking for information about sex and reproductive health care. news flash. [laughter] about a half of young, really young people, 12-17-year-olds use the internet to search for health-related information, and a lot of it is information that is sensitive. the top three things that they search for information about; drug use, sexual health and depression. right? um, so you can see now why this is so important that we get this right. in short, they're looking for information that they may not want to talk to their parent about, they may not want to talk to their teacher about. and so they're going places like yahoo! and getting information

and too often what they find is inaccurate. i just read in the other day, this was on answer.com. someone asked, can i use a plastic glove instead of a condom? i mean, i don't even want to think about that. [laughter] but the web site tagged this as the best answer. well, one time my brother used one, and the girl didn't get pregnant. [laughter] so that's, you know, it used to be that you just got bad information at a slummer party, right? or, you know, on the school bus. now you get it online. and so the need and the demand to get in this space is critical. so to reduce teen pregnancy, reduce std rates and get young people information, we need to be aggressively in the social online space. so we've been piloting some things, we're using facebook and twitter now to literally get boo these conversations.

we started hey pp which is focused on teens, questions that we know they ask because they come to us all the time and frequently-asked questions for young adults, and we're developing a presence on tumbler and other teen sites where they are having these conversations already. we're also working with bloggers that focus on parents because what the other single biggest demand we have for sex education is from parents who say i have no idea how to deal with the explosion of information that my kids are are faced with and yet not able to have a real honest heart to heart about sex education. this is the single, one of the single biggest things that parents are talking about on blogs. but there's three concrete areas that we've invested in that i just want to mention because they show that we can actually make an impact, and the first is texting. so the days of the 1-800 number is going away, right? that's, um, it's being replaced by text and chat. so we've been piloting a text

and chatting program in three communities in this country allowing young people to get in touch with a planned parenthood person anytime about anything that's on their mind. over the last year we've talked to, as they say, 65,000 folks, mainly young people. is so, and we advertise through tv shows that they watch, through partnering with mtv's "16 and pregnant," really interesting. mtv said to us, you know, we run these shows, but we don't know a lot about what to say to young people who are concerned about getting pregnant before they're ready to have a child. so it's being able to advertise and work with and partner with media entities like that. our first year evaluation shows enormous success, and it's like the immediacy of what people can get. so the conversations are incredible. i'm just going to give you one that we got a text from a young woman last week. she text -- i mean, again, it's not even like, hi, my name is

jane, they get right to the point. i'm afraid i might be pregnant, she texts. so we told her -- and so we had this conversation with her, well, why do you think you're pregnant? she had unprotected sex the night before. you can still take emergency contraception or the morning after pill, the vernacular, and there's a slight delay, and then she texts back, i can? and there's, like, exclamation points and, you know, going like this. [laughter] you could actually, like, feel the relief through the text, right? suddenly, she's in crisis, she's terrified that she's pregnant. she didn't, probably didn't mean to have sex. she's not on birth control, and now someone on the other end of a text is telling her, you know what? your life may not end. it may not be over. and so, again, then we were able to help her get an appointment at a local planned parenthood, do the follow up so she could

get emergency contraception right away. these are the same questions we used to have in the gym class, right? and now there's a way through text and chat to get answers immediately and to really avoid unintended pregnancy and to help people in their moment of need. um, and we're finding, too, a lot of things kids don't even want to say the words out loud. i mean, how many days might chef waited to actually -- chef waited to actually pick up a choan and admit she might be pregnant? we're learning a ton from these programs. they follow a pattern. they ask on text and chat exactly the same things that you would imagine they were asking, like i heard i couldn't get pregnancy the first time. that's a question you hope you're asking before the first time. [laughter] you know, can you get pregnant if you're on, already on, if you're still on birth control. can you get birth control without your parents knowing? a huge issue for young people. um, some are quick answers, some are more complicated.

but the most exciting thing is it's able, we're able to get in at the moment of need regardless of where young people live and regardless of their situation. i think it's the single most promising realtime technology that sort of takes away barriers and, again, these are for kids in texas who may have absolutely no one to talk -- not to keep picking on texas, but i think it really, and i fairly soon we'll be the biggest program of its kind in the united states. another way to reach people is telemedicine. i know this is something that has already been invented in the world, but we're seeing application for reproductive health care. more than 50 medical specialties already use telemedicine to connect people with expertise. university of virginia is using telemedicine for prenatal care, for high-risk patients, you know, being able to videoconference their local care providers and get state of the art testing and treatment. va, of course, has been pioneering this forever to try to help their veterans in rural

areas go to local clinics where they can actually videoconference with a doctor. so we've been experimenting and beginning to pilot with this as well across the country. so patients come into our health center and meet with a health assistant or a nurse, and then with a doctor they can join by videoconference in a realtime and interact about birth control, about -- most of them are about birth control, also about std testing. the provider on the videoconference can walk through pulling the blood sample or taking the swab, talk the patients through the testing, what the results will be. we're also exploring how to plug planned parenthood into networks to provide kinds of care that we can't deliver in our health center and vice versa, making sure that we can partner with others so that our expertise, which is reproductive health care, we can partner with others through videoconferencing and telemedicine to other health care providers for whom this is not their specialty. and the last area where i think there's just huge opportunity is sex education. again, i told you i was born in

waco, i grew up in texas. my sex educator was a coach, and he was a great guy. he was not particularly comfortable talking about women's reproductive organs, and he did the best job he could, but we could do better in this country. um, and traditionally sex education has taken place in schools because that's where we can reach a lot of young people, um, and -- but i think that what you know is increasingly as i said earlier, there's too many states where they're banning sex education. sometimessal it takes is one parent, and sex education goes away. even now only 21 states really require sex education. 21 states. and, of course, it's the states that don't require it that often have the highest teen pregnancy rates and std rates. two weeks ago there was yet another study, so just to remind any of you who aren't, you know, don't spend your life thinking about sex education, there's yet another study in a long line of studies that show sex education

actually helps young people change their behavior. it helps them delay the first time they have sex, and it also, it helps insure a greater likelihood that they will actually use protection when they do decide to become sexually active. so we know it works. the problem is we're not in enough class rooms. but if i look at the number of people we see online now, basically, each month it's equivalent to about 160,000 classrooms in america, right? so just do the math. this year, um, more like 1.9 classrooms in a year. and so it's an enormous opportunity to get young people the information they need the way they, in the way they get it. so we're creating digital sex education, um, based on science and behavior change. one of the key elements for young people is norms, and a lot of you who study, you know, behavioral science one of the most important ways for young people to delay becoming

sexually active is to learn -- well, kids have sex because they think everyone else is having sex, right? i mean, everyone wants to be -- they want to be like everybody else. so we're getting key messages out there we know actually change that behavior which is when you teach a young person that on average people start having sex at age 17, that's the single most important piece of information you can give a young people that will help them then delay their own onset of sexual activity. the second most important thing they can learn is 80% of young men use a condom when they have sex. that completely increases condom use, and that's how we can get to the other 20%. you might wonder do these health kind of interventions work? they absolutely work. and, i mean, we see repeatedly in all kinds of things, mental health, smoking cessation. but only a few in the area of sexual reproductive health care, so there's enormous opportunity ahead. we are creating the large

intervention related to sexual and reproductive health ever based on both science and what we know people like to do online, particularly young people, like play games and fill out quizzes and share things, right? so imagine being able to share a really cool video about, um, bringing up with a new partner that you want to use a condom, that it's really important to use a condom. or having the question you pose in yahoo! answered by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. [laughter] that is really exciting. and, again, i think that it's, there's an opportunity here to use videos, um, and we've already seen it beyond having ones of cats playing the piano and stuff like that, which is great, but there are actually ones where we can change because young people are looking for information. this is what i say to my friends. the thing about planned parenthood is we don't have to create a demand, it's already there. i don't have to convince young

people about global warming, i don't have to convince people that there's poverty. young people are interested in what we do, and they're looking for this information, and we have to be there, um, for them. so it looks different than what margaret sanger started this work 96 years ago, but it's actually kind of the same thing. we have the ability now, obviously, to reach millions more young people with honest information in realtime through a means that they have within 4 hours a day -- 24 hours a day. and i think the real struggle, so you say, okay, what's the big problem? why can't we just do this? the single biggest struggle is dealing with the politics of it all, right? the barriers that politics are putting ahead of the well being of young people in this country and of women. because i feel like every time we make two steps forward, there's another step backward. partisan politics is driving reproductive health care policy in america. in the bricks and mortar world in the last couple of years, we

have faced enormous challenges, um, by congress and by others trying to prevent not just access to safe and legal abortion, we are now fighting in this country about whether women should have access to birth control. and, my friends, we are not going to go back to those days. we are seeing attacks on access to family planning, access to breast cancer screenings, access to pap smears. you know, we talked about this a little bit earlier with one of the classes, but i think it's important to remember that the vote that the u.s. house of representatives took a year ago to end planned parenthood services in this country had nothing to do with abortion. abortion in this -- federal funding for abortion ended decades ago under the hyde amendment. and personally, i think it's wrong, and i think low income women many this country have suffered for decades as a result of that bad law. no, but the attacks that were made in this congress were about ending all the preventive care that we do; birth control to 2.2

million people every year, more than four million tests and treatments for stds, 730,000 breast exams and more than that of pap smears each year. that was literally what was at stake, and that's what the house voted to do. so we are now literally fighting for the right to get preventive care in this country. and, i mean, it's an obvious point, but you'd think, you know, if you really wanted to reduce the need for abortion in this country, wouldn't you come volunteer to a planned parenthood health center? because we do more every single day to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion than all these people carrying these picket signs will do in a lifetime, right? last year a lot of states passed laws that really target regulations at reproductive health care clinics. virginia, a very egregious law making it much more difficult

for clinics to stay open. we're also seeing a slew of new bills aimed at nothing more than really humiliating women. texas, i hate to keep returning to the scene of the crime, but, you know, texas actually has passed and now implemented the required vaginal ultrasound bill, right? so that now women in the state of texas regardless of what point they are in their pregnancy have to have a forced vaginal ultrasound the day before any procedure. we're facing 24-hour waiting periods. all kinds of procedures that aren't medically necessary, but that are required and legislated by lawmakers who, by the way, are not physicians and are not medical providers. i think most of us believe in this country that health care shouldn't be politicized, and it certainly doesn't come with a political label. and i want to just say, i mean, i just left arizona where, um, very proud that, um, actually we just voted down the birth control, um, ban in arizona just

not too long -- i literally just got it on my text, so good things can happen. but arizona, planned parenthood was started by peggy goldwater, barry goldwater's wife, right? and we have hundreds of thousands of republican supporters. planned parenthood is the ultimate big tent. we are republicans, we are independents, we are democrats because we believe that women's health care does not come with a political label. all the same tools that we are using to expand information and access to health care that we talked about we're also using to advocate, and i hope to organize against some of these efforts. and in the last year i feel like we have seen what young people around the globe can do in the face of censorship. and what our supporters can do when planned parenthood is under attack. this is the other power of technology. it's the power to connect

people, the power to tell our stories, to get our message out and to drive social change. um, in the last year more than a million brand new people joined planned parenthood as activists, and half of them were young people because they saw their very access to health care under attack. when the house of representatives voted to end all federal support, young people got mobilized like never before. but that was just the beginning. and it was alluded to when the komen foundation announced they were severing their relationship with manned parent to do. 1.3 million tweets were sent in the space of three days and drove mainstream media coverage that changed that story. when the virginia legislature was trying to pass the same bill that texas did on the vaginal ultra sound, through facebook women and young people mobilized

and literally, physically ringed the -- made a human chain around the capitol and walked that back. and when, again, oh, my gosh, why does he keep coming back, texas governor rick perry -- [laughter] when he ended the fake family planning program in texas, thousands of people rallied across the state in small towns and in big cities, and they learned about it through social media, through facebook and through twitter. so i think at a moment in which it feels like there are some folks in this country who want to take us back to the 1950s, i actually take comfort in this fact, that 96 years ago margaret sanger was arrested for distributing information about birth control, literally just pamphlets about birth control. but this coming year more than 40 million people will have access to that information through our web site. so you gotta say that's a little bit of progress. [laughter]

oh, dear. i broke your microphone. sorry, i hope that works. [laughter] um, so it's not everything, but you have to take hope in the opportunity for the future, right? because otherwise you get just too darn discouraged. um, i think there's enormous potential not only for planned parenthood, but for everyone who believes that access to reproductive health care, information and services should be available to everyone. because it can change people's lives. so technology itself isn't going to change the world, but i think all of us can together. thanks so much for being here today. [applause]

>> i hope that's okay. i don't know whose that is. i just want them to come fix it if they want to. >> that was absolutely terrific, so thank you so much. >> absolutely. >> so, um, time for some questions, and i guess i can take the prerogative as the chair to ask my own question first. while we're waiting for some people to come down. so i think it's fascinating that you have all of these different ways of reaching people now, and i thought if you could expand one thing, what would it be that you would pick out of your initiative? >> i think, i mean, it would absolutely -- it absolutely would be text and chat because i have, i read all of the interactions we have, and, um, you know, it's kind of funny. one of the real blessings of this work is i get to meet people all across the country,

and i will, um, it's like every week someone will come up to me and say, you know, planned parenthood changed my life or -- and i don't know if any of you went to planned parenthood, but if you did, i would imagine you can tell me exactly you remember -- you can put yourself back in that day exactly. no one ever forgets. because it's usually a in which you're anxious, you may be embarrassed, you might be afraid, you don't know what questions to ask. and planned parenthood was there. and that's what i see in these texts is young people who are like the young woman i read her story who are so relieved that there's someone on the other end of the wire or whatever it is, i don't know how it works. [laughter] that can be their, in their moment moment of crisis, and you can literally feel relief through the phone. even if answer's a tough one. even if it's a tough situation. that to me is, like, the single most important thing we could be doing.

>> okay. >> hi. thank you, ms. richards, for your talk and the very important work you do. so i have a question relating, um, you spoke -- touched briefly on all this legislative backlash that we're currently seeing regarding reproductive rights and health, and i'm wondering whether planned parenthood has kind of, like, a long-term vision, plan of action in termsû of rolling things back. because technology is extremely important in getting informatioû out there, but then my next thought is, well, there's allû this censorship that's still happening, and in some schools you can't access information or ifô public libraries, so i'mû wondering what the plan of action is in helping roll back these laws. >> right. so i think one thing the great thing, i probably didn't do as eloquent a job as i should have. now you basically get a cell phone, and that's where i think we're moving to, so i feel it's literally in the hands of people

to get information that they, that historically found very difficult to get. i actually, i'm going to put it back on you because my hope is your generation. and i, you know, there are a lot of things that give me hope. i've been an organizer all my life, so i'm sort of like a perennial optimist despite all the incoming information -- [laughter] and i have seen in this last year young people get organized and take on these issues in a way that i have never seen, um, i haven't seen in decades. and it's not just young women, it's young men. you know, the fastest-growing population coming to planned parenthood now are young men coming for health care or coming with their partner, so they are taking on these issues as well, and that's a great sign because these issues are, these are issues of human rights. they're not issues of one gender or another. so i think the most exciting thing, and i -- look, i'm an old-fashioned organizer.

i just want to know how many people can you bring, right? who's going to actually, at the end of the day, stand up and make a difference. although i will tell you, it's interesting, in the affordable care act yesterday the supporters of the affordable care act outnumbered the opponents in front of the supreme court 5 to 1, right? [applause] so that was not, um -- and a lot of them were young people who got active with planned parenthood or women's health care issues during, over the last year. so i just think there has never been a better opportunity, and there's never been a greater need to stand up for your generation and to demand your right to access to health care information and to health care services that will help you live your life. um, so that's my charge to you. okay? you up for it? [laughter] all right. >> hi. my name's ali, and i actually had the privilege of working in the south boston clinic in the

central texas affiliate -- >> no kidding? wow, so happy to see you. great work there. >> it was fantastic. i was privileged to work there. i wanted to ask your opinion on this new legislative trend of seeing legislators introducing bills regarding men's health. i mean, obviously, it's very -- they're couched in humorous terms and the ridiculousness of it all, do you think it's a successful tactic? is. >> well, i think it's great to try to actually call it, call these bills for what they are. because most of the bills that are being passed limiting women's access to health care underlying them is a fundamental, um, ten innocent that women are incapable of making responsible decisions without the legislature intervening in their personal lives. and that is just absolutely unacceptable. so i love the thought that, actually, we are going to equal the playing field and say if women are incapable of making

medical decisions, then men must be as well. and just try it on and see how it fits. look, i, i think, and i do think social media, um, has played a great role in this. i'll just use an example which i know probably all of you saw, but when the hearings were held by darrell issa on capitol hill, actually, a planned parenthood, a gentleman who works for us, oliver kim, went to the hill and was sitting at the hearing, and he looks up, and here are five men about to explain why women don't need birth control. so took a picture on his cell phone, sent it back to the office, it got posted, and the rest became sort of viral history. so i think it is really, it is -- the thing i love about this opportunity now is that people can through social media tell their stories, and they can expose what i think has been a lot of hypocrisy around the treatment of women and women's

health care issues. now we have the means to do it, and we just need to be, um, need to be using it. it's, you know, absolutely, i think, transformative. but thanks, thanks for what you do and thanks for the work that you -- texas is one of the most challenging places now. they have closed, we've closed some planned parenthood health centers on the rio grande border because they ended the family planning service support in that state, so it's a sad day. >> thanks. >> hi. i just wanted to say thank you so much for what you do, and it's a great honor to have you here. i actually, um, just learning about the leadership respondents you've held -- responsibilities you've held over the course of your career and that you continue to hold, it's incredible. and i was actually wondering if you have any tips for young people on how to manage your time if you want -- [laughter] continue to lead in this capacity. >> i'm sorry. >> how to manage your time?

we were all like -- >> how to, like, maintain the energy to lead on these issues and fight for them even when it's such a struggle sometimes? >> um, well, i have no idea about time management. i think that's a -- once you have kids, it becomes even more complicated. but i guess my only, the only thing i would say to you, and i know some of us talked earlier in some of the classes, i have been unbelievably blessed in my life to get to do work that was meaningful to me and make a career of it. and so, i guess, all of you young people who are starting out and thinking about public health or working in nonprofits or whatever else, if you can find manager that you're passion -- find something that you're passionate about and do that for your job, i just can't tell you how great your life will be. and it doesn't -- look, i could do this, and i do, all day and into the night. there isn't, um, there's nothing more energizing to me, um, than getting to do the work that i do

at planned parenthood, to organize more people and young people and interact with them and learn from them. so, um, that would be my, that's my only advice. you'll never be able to manage your time, so just find something that you like to spend time doing, and it won't matter, you know? and you can do it. you can do it. and good luck to you. [laughter] >> hi. thank you so much for coming and spending a couple days with us. one of the wonderful things about the woodrow wilson school is all of the international students who are here, and in talking both today and, also, just in the past year with our international class mates, most of them have been shocked at the political turn of events in the united states. and i was wondering if planned parenthood is looking to international models at all, or if there are any, anything that other countries are doing or not

doing this terms of politicizing these issues that planned parenthood is looking at to get ideas of other ways to move forward? >> well, first, let me say -- let me join the international students in saying i, too, am shocked at the political direction can on these issues. [laughter] i mean, particularly the issues of women's health. and i also want to invite anyone from any fortune country who has any suggestions about how to get out of this fix that we're in. i'm more than open to suggestion. i do think that there's going to be a point in which folks say enough is enough, and i actually, i hope we're getting to that point. i actually think in an interesting way, and it's not the way i would have liked it to -- it wouldn't have been the forum in which i would have liked for it to happen, i feel it kind of happened in the komen situation when, again, our fight was not with the komen foundation because we share the same goal which is we want women to get early detection of breast

cancer and early screenings and education that can help them. self-detect breast cancer. it was the folks that were out there trying to demonize planned parenthood and drive a wedge between planned parenthood and komen. that was a real problem. and i think what we saw in that example is the american people thought, okay, that's too far, right? that's too much. we're not going to play politics with breast cancer screenings in america. and that is the reason why in three days that turn around. so -- turned around. so i just feel like we, frankly, have got to speak up more and got to talk about the fact that the issues we are dealing with, these are health care issues, you know? the only person who calls birth control a social issue is someone who's never used it, right? [laughter] the average woman in america, well, 99% of women in this country if they're ever sexually active use birth control at some point, and 98% of catholic women, right? so this is normative. this isn't a strange social phenomena.

[laughter] my favorite statistic is that the average woman in america plans to have 2.3 children or something along those lines. i guess two or three or something in between. and she spends five years having children, you know, getting pregnant and having children. the average woman spends 30 years trying to avoid being pregnant when she doesn't want to be, okay? that's a lot of birth control. that's not a social issue, that is a major public health issue in this country, and we should do everything we can to help women get birth control when they need it. um, so off the soap box, okay. [laughter] i'm getting the cut sign, okay. [laughter] >> thank you for coming and giving this talk, and thank you for your work. the recent presidential campaign was that even though it was supposed to be so much about the election, this contraception issue kept floating up and, you know, with some of the things you mention, 99% of women use birth control, 98% of catholic

women use birth control, it doesn't even seem to be good politics. so my question to you is why is this issue continuing resurging despite its political inviability? >> okay, you're really smart. [laughter] maybe you could talk to them. [laughter] look, i think there's a couple things happened. first, i would just take an opportunity to kind of a little opening you gave me there. the 2010 election, i don't know if you all remember the 2010 election when everything got realigned in this country, um, birth control, abortion wasn't mentioned at all, right? that was an election about people who were concerned about the economic decline, about unemployment, about home foreclosures. the new congress when they got in, did they start dealing with those issues? no. did we have a jobs bill? no. the first thing they did was go after planned parenthood and ending the national family planning program, okay? so we have been on this roller coaster now for about a year, and it's not what the voters

voted for, and it's not what the voters wanted. and, in fact, you know, i don't like to be that competitive, but after this entire, um, you know, back and forth we did with congress over funding, defunding planned parenthood, planned parenthood's approval rating was, went up. 69% of people in this country approve of planned parenthood, and 10% approve of congress, okay? [laughter] [applause] so to your point, i don't think it makes political sense. the concern that i've had and, obviously, i think all of us have had watching this republican presidential debate, it has literally been a race to the bottom. it is like everyone's trying -- every debate it's like their trying to outdo themselves. no, i would be worse for women's health, no, i would be! [laughter] and then the birth control. so i actually think, unfortunately, and i say this because we have a lot of republican supporters who are

very discouraged about the turn of events, this republican presidential primary has been a fight for the hearts and minds of a very small segment of the united states public. and it is an enormous disservice both to what i think of as traditional conservative republicans who believe the government should be small and not in your personal business, um, and it is rewarding folks who are trying to hold this party hostage to a very extreme agenda around women's health. i don't know what the end result will be. um, i do think women are upset, and i do think that one thing to remember is that women will be the majority of voters in november. um, if past is prologue. 53% of the voters in the 2008 elections were women, and that will probably be what it is in 2012. i actually believe, and i'm sorry, i know there's a lot of men in this room, and i'm really grateful that you're here, and you're going to be important, too -- [laughter] but women and young people are probably going to determine who

the next president is of the united states, so it's kind of in your hands whether this country on these issues moves forward or whether we go back to, um, the days of "mad men" and, you know, no one being able to get access to birth control. but i don't think it makes political sense. >> we have a question -- >> thanks for your time. >> welcome. so glad you're here. [laughter] >> my question is pretty simple. one of the most common arguments i hear against planned parenthood and prevent i have and informational services is that they encourage irresponsible behavior amongst kids and, frankly, i hear the argument from my peers at princeton all the time, and i struggle to respond to it because it's a principled argument, and i don't know that much about the facts of how true that is, so i was just wondering what your take is on if that's true or sort of -- >> so, excuse me. sorry about this. so i think there's a couple points. one is, and i mentioned it

earlier. there's, like, studies, you know, like for years that providing young people information about birth control, the sex ed part firsting right? the more young people know about sex education, that they know about birth control, they know about contraception, they know about stds, they know about prevention, the less likely they are to engage in sex before they're ready, because they will at some point in their lifetime, chances are -- [laughter] i mean, that's what i think we forget is you may teach kids in high school. it doesn't mean they're going to have sex in high school, but at some point they're going to, right? and we need to teach them how to get birth control. the more likely they are to use protection, to use a condom, to use birth control. as far as your other, i mean, i think part of your question is i don't have to talk about sex for young people to think about it. [laughter]

and i don't want to be, i don't want to be -- i'm not trying to be funny about it. sex is everywhere except when it comes to providing real information and honest conversation. and so, i mean, i think of my own kids who grew up watching "gossip girl," you know, "one tree hill," let's just go down the list. sex is everywhere. it's in music, it's on the movies, it's on television. and yet somehow we don't want to teach sex education or provide access to good information. so the cat's out of the bag, you know? [laughter] and i think that the most important thing we can do, and we take this very serious hi at planned parenthood -- seriously at planned parenthood. when young people come to planned parenthood and when they tex u.s., often what they want to know is am i normal? is it weird to be a virgin, you know? are other people having sex? this is the way i'm feeling.

and they're coming to us because they need someone to talk to. and our goal is to help young people delay having sex before they're ready and to make sure that when they do make that decision to become sexually active, that they use protection, and they use contraception. that's our whole goal. so good luck. [laughter] and thanks for the question. it's a really good question. >> hi. i wanted to thank you once again for coming, and i also wanted to -- >> you are the politest students i've ever found. [laughter] really. [laughter] >> you're also hilarious, and i really appreciate that. it gets me through my day, definitely a highlight of my wednesday, yes, so thank you for that as well. i wanted to bring the conversation back to what you mentioned with women and young people being the highest percentage of voters in the past election and most likely will be in the 2012 election as well. and the reason i wanted to bring the conversation to that was because there are politicians and other people making the

decisions for women, and i wanted to ask you, um, on behalf of your organization if you have a message or you'd like to create a message for these women because although this does have a lot to do with their personal concerns, you see them backing and supporting different politicians or pieces of legislation that would otherwise harm them regardless of whether or not they're in this party or that party. >> right. >> so is there something that should be done, is that like a lack of access to information, or what really needs to happen, what message needs to be out there to say, hey, this is important not just for yourself, but, you know, i mean, i don't know. >> yeah. no, it's a great question. i'm going to kind of put on another hat here. i'm not only the president of planned parenthood, i'm also president of the planned parenthood action fund in which we do our advocacy, endorse candidates, work in elections. and one of the things we did this year was launched a program called women are watching, and it was an opportunity to start

posting things candidates are saying that relate to women's health care access. because it's very hard to follow the ball, right? it's just there's so much going important to us that women and men know the candidates' positions, certainly that are running for president, but also that are running for office all across the country. and that's one of the things that we hope to be able to provide. you know, one of the things we've found in the past elections is that, this is kind of true about women in general, they're pretty skeptical of politicians. shocking. [laughter] and, um, and they don't -- you know, so they discount a lot of the information they hear at election time. but they really trust planned parenthood. because they feel like we're an honest broker when it comes to women's health care issues. so i think that it's important for us to, again, in a totally nonpartisan way just say, hey, here's what these candidates are saying, what they're committing to on women's health care

issues. and it's, listen, i, i keep thinking i've seen it all. i've never seen an election like this where literally issues of access to birth control may be determinative in the presidential election. it's kind of crazy, yeah. it's kind of crazy. so -- >> yeah. >> not to be redundant, but thank you again -- [laughter] >> you guys always thank people, you must get taught when you're freshmen, but that's really nice. it's my honor to be here. >> so my question is, it's surprising -- so you talked a lot about the breadth of services that planned parenthood provides, but a lot of times when you mention planned parenthood to people, the first thought is still abortions. and i think that was most clear when jon kyl said over 90% of what planned parenthood does -- he didn't think anyone checked

that statistic. [laughter] the image of women's health is still abortion, and how do you sort of change that to talk about what seem to be much more important issues? >> what a perfect opening to tell a couple of stories. you know, i think that's right. and, again, i think that i want to be really clear that it is really important in this country that abortion is legal and it is safe and that women can get access to it. and there's too many places around the world that women die, and they did in this country as well before abortion was legal. that's, so, it's part of women's health care. but it's not all of women's health care. as you mentioned, more than 90% of our services is preventive care, and be we could do more, obviously, we could have fewer unintended pregnancies in the first place. but we have to continue to tell the story, and part of it is through opportunities that were

provided, for example, during the congressional debate, and part of it is by having our patients be the face of planned parenthood. so two examples, i think, one was, of course, that was an interesting moment because it is sometimes our opponents who kind of, they give us a little bit of an opening. so when senator kyl said 90% of our services were abortion and then, of course, it kind of got called on it, and they put the press spokesperson out there to say, well, actually, it wasn't intended to be a factual statement -- [laughter] and then, anyway, then stephen colbert just had a heyday with that. he went on that it wasn't the only moment, and it was great because this is what we do, and i remember, actually, i was on tv that night and had the opportunity to say what we did. you know, there are an array of services we provide. but another one was great, i don't know if you remember this, but at some point the fox newscasters -- [laughter] went on and said, well, this was

during the big debate over whether planned parenthood should exist. they said, well, women can go to walgreens for preventive care like pap here? s and stuff like -- pap smears. so walgreens immediately put out a statement saying, no, gosh, women, don't come -- [laughter] but, of course, that evening stephen colbert goes on, he just can't let it go, and he goes on that night to say, yes, women, go to walgreens, you can get your pap smear, just look for the stirrups in between the kitty litter and the swiffer refills. that was a moment that provided us an opportunity to educate people about all the array of services that we do. so we have to do, we just have to do more of that. in this last year, we've had thousands of patients tell their stories on tumbler, on facebook, in congress. one woman, carolyn smithers from florida, was a patient of ours in her 20s.

that's where she got her early detection of cervical cancer and was treated. her two daughters in their 20s now are planned parenthood patients. she went to congress, i think, three times and made a television ad. so really trying to put a face on who planned parenthood is. um, actually, there was a book here, i don't know if i brought copies, but it was called "stories from home," and it was we got one story from all 50 states, put it in a book and took it to members of the united states senate so that they could understand there were women from every single state in this country who were writing in their stories. so we just have to continue to do that and let, and help educate people about the entirety of what women's health care is in this country. yeah. >> hi. thanks for coming. [laughter] >> it's a game now we're playing. >> i'm struck that the name of the organization is planned parenthood, yet we're only talking about one-half of the prospective parents, so i'm wondering if you could talk about how you have an initiative

to bring the men into the picture, talk to them about their risks for stds, how they can inform their girlfriends or whatever, how they can inform their boyfriends -- >> absolutely. >> can you talk about how you could bring men in, young men in this so they can grow up and be, you know, better lawmakers? >> yes. [laughter] [applause] >> i knew you had an ulterior motive there. [laughter] it's, i'm so glad you asked that, and i forget because we've had so many classes today that we didn't talk much about this. men are, um, not only the fastest-growing population coming to planned parenthood, um, again either as partners or as patients themselves, but we do an enormous amount of education with young men. a lot of young men who are already participants before they wanted -- parents before they wanted to be parents and training them as peer educators to work with other young men. i know we do some even here in new jersey to help other young

men, teach them when they need to know everything from negotiating skills to literally information about contraception to help them, you know, finish school if that's their goal, finish college in in if that's their goal, and not to become a parent before they're ready to take care of a family. i actually feel like young men are a huge part of this and a growing part of our organization. i was just in oregon at our national conference, and we train, um, we train, have a huge young leadership training conference there. a third of the young activists and young peer educators are young men. and they are amazingly committed. and they come to these issues from a whole lot of different, you know, sort of walks of life. you know, some of them come because of lgbt issues, some come because they're concerned about birth control and stds, some from a social justice point of view. to me, if i look at the future,

a couple of things i see. i've already given you my pitch about technology, but the other thing is if you look at this new generation in the united states of america, it's the most diverse ever in the our history. it's so exciting. it's diverse ethnically, racially, sexual orientation, you name it. and that's, to me, who planned parenthood is, and that's the future we're focused on. and, again, with gratitude for my mom and others who led the fight for women's rights back when they did, we can't let them down. but we've got to bring a lot more people into this, into these issues and understand that these are basic human rights issues, they're not just women's rights issues. so, and i'm glad to see so many men here tonight. let's hear it for the men that are here. [applause]

and here's one right now. [laughter] >> um, hi. thanks, again, for coming. [laughter] so i was just wondering in the light of recent comments by rush limbaugh that everyone's heard about, you know, calling a woman a slut and a prostitute for wanting contraception even though it was in the con text of vain cysts and explaining the reasons why you need birth control to prevent cancer or -- so i guess my question is, what role do you think sex positivity should have in women's health? you know, is it acceptable to say we need, you know, birth control to prevent cervical cancer or ovarian cancer, or do you think it's just as legitimate to say we need birth control because women have the same right to have sex as men do? >> here here. [applause]