a show which we just published last spring it was striking that a significant majority of elites in of elites and they should think the u.s. will be the leading power in the region in 10 years and outside of china and one or two other countries a significant majority particularly among our allies said that they want the u.s. to be the leading power in asia in the coming years. so there is a lot of opportunity for the rebalance and the pitted to succeed but their problems and the president's trip is going to be important in terms of addressing those. there are three i would highlight. these are things we have noted for some time in our writing at csis. the first is that how the president and the cabinet talks about the pitted keeps changing. even the kind of bumper sticker keeps shifting. for a little while for exampl

example -- senior officials and cabinet members were talking about a new model of great power relations with china. a phrase that is not popular among allies because in the chinese formulation of a new model no other asian countries a great power. the administration appears to have dropped that. we have an article coming out in washington quarterly next week that catalogs all of the descriptions of the pitted on rebalance in every major speech on it from the administration and their stars are listed three of four priorities. i won't read them all but they change every time. most recently secretary kerry said the core of the pivot will be sustainable economic growth the clean energy revolution or rules-based stable region didn't bake security in operation.

a very different list than tom donnell and susan rice. there is some confusion i think about exactly what the bottom line is. the president will be giving a speech in brisbane at the end of the trip. he usually speaks most consistently about asia. it's an opportunity to lay down clearly what the strategy is and what the priorities are and what his commitment will be which gets to the second problem right now which is i think most people who look at asia would argue that tpp the transpacific partnership is an essential pillar of a credible u.s. focus on the asia-pacific. mike from and the trade rep is working are the demonstration strategy as many of you know is to get a deal on tpp particularly with japan and then use that to fast-track authority

to the hiltzik investment to pass the fast-track authority that would allow the deal to be completed. it makes some political sense but it's completely backwards. every trade deal we have done we have done the trade promotion authority of fast-track first and then tpp. that is harder in the u.s. congress but without it we have not been able to get deals with major trading partners. why? because they question whether they should be putting their best deal on the table at the president has not secured authority from congress. i was in japan on monday and i can tell you the highest levels across the japanese government there's a sense that there is progress. there are a few issues left but they are done. they basically put the best deal on a table that they can put until they see some evidence. they were waiting for the midterms, that the white house would reach out and work with congress to get fast-track trade

promotion authority. in my view and i think matt agrees it is not the past. there has to be some movement. a very compelling strategic speech on tpp to on tpp to a forum organized at the chamber of commerce. the best rationale for tpp i've ever heard any never mentioned the letters tba. there has to be some outreach of congress and the has to be some sense in japan in particular the congress and the republican congress is on board or we will possibly be stuck with -- with where we are. the rebalance of the pivot will have real legs in the last years of the administration. the president will meet prime minister abbé. the dynamics are pretty frosty right now between the u.s. and japan right now but it's a chance for us to reboot, hate to use that phrase but to reboot it and get it done.

the third challenge other republican pivot is there a broad impression hardly knew that the u.s. has lost interest in east asia, syria, isis in the ukraine. will be key to focus on security commitments in asia. it's a tough balancing act because china is reacting to everything that comes out of the administration and calling a containment. a very unforgiving chinese interpretation of what the u.s. is up to. let me turn briefly before i hand it to matt on the specifics of the u.s. china security peace and that will be the economic piece. secretary kerry in his speech at sites gave a generally positive view of china, an optimistic view which i think is appropriate and he didn't pull punches on some of the key security and political problems we have pretty called for self-restraint and the completion of the code of conduct with respect to the south china sea where china is

using mercantile and maritime pressure and coercion on smaller states in the region. he raised fiber, try to frame it as a issue where the u.s. and china could agree because u.s. has such interest in intellectual property rights. it's a good framing of the issues and trying to avoid turning these into zero-sum topics in the u.s. china relations. the problem is although there have been some important chinese contributions china sent 1000 medics to help put the bowl in africa and has promised to cooperate on terrorism with respect to cheng zhang and the uyghurs and to join rimpac for the first time naval exercises we do in the pacific.

but the fbi has been pretty clear there's no change in china's policies on cyber. the fbi has been more open about the increase in hacker attacks. the senate armed services committee recently reported penetration of u.s. military contractors, computer systems and the fbi has revealed data downloads of nonmilitary u.s. health care data from china. on the south china and east china sea and the maritime front also no real change. there was some hope that the coast guard and new activities in the south china sea vis-à-vis vietnam last summer when they ended that there might be a more relaxed chinese attitude certainly in japan the number of incursions on chinese ships went down but when the south china

sea operations and at the incursions in japan went right back up. then in october there is a two-week period were some people saw optimism because of a number of incursions by chinese coast guard vessels into and around seven, down. when the data came out of turns out that was because of the tsunami him excuse me because of typhoons and weather. in fact the operations around the south china sea are out of routine regular level. what is troubling is the navy which used to operate 2.5 or three hours is now within two hours sailing time so it's gotten closer to what is basically a coast guard standoff. you have probably seen reports that china is extending its military. beijing will be used for regular patrol of the district in which

a lot of a lot of people and the reason -- regency is a precursor to another announcement of the air defense comparable to what china did in the east china sea. this is a cut not to -- tough nut to crack for the president. he can build confidence that the facts on the ground are still not a crisis but are still trending in a way that's going to make this a challenging trip. let me and there and turn it over to matt. [inaudible] >> thanks mike. economics is going to run throughout this trip on almost,

at almost every stop and i think a broadly three themes that will run throughout the trip. growth, trade and infrastructure. the good news is that everyone in the region wants all three of those things. the challenge is that there are some pretty significant differences about how to go about achieving those things. so that is sort of the preamble. just to take the three economic stops as it were. first aipac. the apex summit as mike said will be held on november 10 and 11th at jan chi who wishes a suburb 50 kilometers north of beijing. aipac was established as the foreign ministers meeting in 1989 elevated to the elitist label in 1993 so this is the 22nd summit. aipac is a group made up of 21 asia-pacific economies and if you're writing about this be sure to economies are not countries.

it's designed to promote regional economic integration. china last time i posted a pic was in september 2001 a few weeks after 9/11. china has laid out three basic themes for its aipac year. one is regional economic integration which is a standard theme for aipac. every host has that is one of his three themes. second economic growth, structural reform particularly with the adjectives and updated than inclusive growth and reform attached to that theme and then thirdly connectivity meaning both hard and soft connections of infrastructure, people and institutions across the asia-pacific region. this is where infrastructure comes up. it's going to be a major topic. there has been a lot of work at aipac over number of years and

there will be a focus probably this year on public-private partnerships and creating enabling environments for infrastructure in the region and generating long-term financing for infrastructure. then aipac does a whole bunch under those three themes and whole bunch of pic and shovel work to promote greater trade and investment in the region including as a commitment to a 10% improvement in supply chain performance by 2015. so i focus on global value which is the story on trade in asia. fossil fuel subsidies, health, women's empowerment and anticorruption. there's a whole array of issues that apex covers. here are three nonheadlines as it were from aipac. one is t. pps mike mansion.

tpp is actually in some sense born from the rib of a patriots made up of 12 of the 21 aipac economies and it is a path towards the ultimate aipac vision of a free trade area of the pacific. as mike said right now the negotiations are not completed. there has been the a hope that tpp might be agreed by the time of the apec summit which now we can say with great certainty is not going to happen. the key dynamic that needs to change as the u.s. and japan need to agree on a bilateral -- bilateral market access deal. there is a tiny hope that could be done before next week but i would say that's also pretty unlikely at this point. as mike said tpa is key to this so the question is whether the noises yesterday by the

president and the republican party leaders was promising because it indicated trade within tpa specifically were one of the things they might be able to agree on. the second thing that is probably not going to deadline here except in a way that i'm sure some of you will write about the free trade area of the asia-pacific there was a goal this year of setting a deadline for achieving a free trade engagement in the pacific and doing a feasibility to start negotiations towards that end. that is now probably not going to be part of this. the free trade area something that the u.s. champion in 2006 or 2007 so in part to aipac story but the u.s. and other tpp partners are reluctant to agree to a firm deadline to achieve a free trade feasibility study towards that end until tpp is completed. the third thing that will be

sort of lurking around but not central to the aipac agenda is the asian infrastructure investment bank which china proposed recently assigned about two weeks ago i guess among 20 asia-pacific countries. this is a chinese initiative to promote a greater infrastructure investment as i mentioned in the region. so far some of the major countries in asia have not signed on. india has signed on coming in need -- indonesian nasi mounts about korea australia japan and the united states have not signed on to this bank. i can talk more about that but that's going to be working around the aipac core doors. it works now. okay.

just to dg 20 and skipping so the trip chronologically where escaping from the aipac meeting in china to the g20 meeting in brisbane australia which will be held november 15 and 16th in brisbane as i said. again a quick background. this is the ninth summit of the g20 liters since the first, then washington in november of 2008. it's actually, the g20 is actually achieve 49. i counted last night. it's actually 19 individual countries plus the european union which brings another 28 minus four e.u. states that have their almonds dates plus six invited guests and those invited guests are spaying singapore myanmar is the chair of asean mauritania as they chair of the e.u. and senegal as the chair of

the new economic partnership for african development and for a reason not entirely obvious other than solidarity new zealand will also be there this year. australia has laid out to themes for the g20 this year, growth and resilience of the local economy. growth is very traditional core of the g20. as with the leaders have been talking about since they met in 2008 to preserve and enhance global growth. obviously right now global growth is weaker then everybody would like. the u.s. is growing but not as fast as that might following the deep recession. everybody else has growth challenges. europe is on the brink of a recession possibly inflation. china is slowing and japan is still struggling to get onto a faster growth trajectory. growth is something that

everybody at the g20 is going to be concerned about. the specific australian approach to deal with growth is to get the finance ministers of the g20 back in february 2 agreed to a target for raising global growth, actually raising global gdp by 2% over five years from the level of gdp that would be implied by current policy trajectory. by 2018 the goal is to have an additional 2% of global gdp. to put in place new policies that would achieve that objective. everybody is going to come to the brisbane summit with individual growth strategies to achieve that target and contribute that target. those growth strategies are probably going to center around infrastructure, trade,

deregulation competition and structural reform. just a quick word on trade, the g20 has done two things on trade since the first summit. one is to make a commitment of the standstill on protectionist measures. that commitment has been nodded in the breach in many small ways but fundamentally in the 1930s dow protections and so to repeat that it is to encourage the round of multilateral trade to get to conclusion. that is not succeed although last year they did encourage this trade facilitation agreement so that's a minor success. unfortunately and he has since implementation of that agreement but that will be another topic of conversation. the rest of the agenda is under

the resilience banner. there will be financial regulatory reform a central core of the g20 since the beginning. largely you are going see a victory lap about all the good measures that the financial stability board is put in place to strengthen bank capital standards to deal with firms and banks that are too big to fail to do with shadow banking and over-the-counter derivatives. a tax agreement that deal with tax evasion and tax avoidance may be the biggest headline the australians are hoping to come out of this summit. evasion, there has been agreement to automatic transfer of information on tax holders to crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance there's a focus base erosion and profit shifting

and there's a two year action plan to do with that. that's going to be a major focus. also on the agenda of the international institutional reform. what is holding that up now is the united states congress has not passed the legislation to implement imf quota reform in the u.s. is paying a big price for that in the g20 and more broadly in terms of the global economic governance story. there will be energy transparency of energy markets fossil fuel subsidies energy efficiency and creating a more up-to-date architecture for dealing with energy issues since you have the old world of opec and the iaea but all of that needs to come together. finally one final thing about the g20 is the australians are aiming and you'll be glad to hear this as journalists, or three-page communiqué.

if they achieve that it will be historic and i very much wish them luck with that. finally now skipping back to china and the bilateral stops in china quickly. i traditional source of stability there is growing friction so the goal of president obama and president she is going to be remove or manage that friction and to find ways to expand cooperation in economic matters. again both sides have a mutual interest in restoring a balance growth and on the u.s. ui side there will be a focus on domestic economic reform in china to promote growth but also to level the playing field for u.s. business bear so there'll there will be a u.s. focus on the old intellectual property protection and industrial

policies and so forth plus some new serious concerns on cybersecurity and on the implementation and the antimonopoly law in china which in view of u.s. business has been implemented in a discriminatory way. china will focus on the investment climate in the united states and high-tech exports from the united states and china. both sides are going to try to put an emphasis on the bilateral investment treaty, negotiations which have been underway for number of years but which the two sides agreed to accelerate last year. in theory they are going to complete the framework at the end of this year and china's going to come forward with a negative list of investment restrictions next year. frankly this is going to be tough slogging and it's going to take probably a couple more years to get to conclusion on a

bilateral investment treaty but i think that will become a new organizing principle. then you have cooperation on economic related issues like climate change, ebola and then they were probably be talk of a partnership in the infrastructure bank. i'm happy to talk more about about about that in questions of your your your adjusted. >> nobuo go to our southeast asia chair. >> welcome everybody it's great to see standing room only on the sunday morning in washington. i'm glad to see the washington media is pivoted towards asia. that's very good. welcome to csis. this is going to be a tough trip for the president. i think when southeast asia looks at this trip and am coming they are wondering who is barack obama now after the midterm elections? i think they will be trying to discern whether he has the

commitment and political capital to follow through on earlier commitments that might talk about. i think that's important. i think they will measure him particularly on economics for southeast asia, economics is the foundational bedrock of security in asia. that means tpp so i think the southeast asians want to hear from the president who i think it's probably been spending capital on elections and not on trade but is quickly shifting gears as we know and was meeting the republicans friday, tomorrow to talk about areas they can agree on. it looks like trade is one of those of us very positive. i think that will be seen positively by southeast asian leaders. other signals that they expect from the white house, they have 40 seen, southeast asia was

mystified by the cancellation of the secretary of defense chuck hagel's trip that was planned for vietnam and myanmar earlier this week. that is being read as an indication the white house wants to focus on the economic aspects of the pivot. the southeast asian will be looking for that when he arrives in myanmar for burma for the east asia summit and the east asean summit. this will be of a mind to east asia summit that president obama will be getting back on track. you have to remember that he missed last year's east asia summit because of budget wrangling with the same republicans that have not taken the senate. he will be back. he will be looking -- the u.s. will look at it as a security

aspect where his debut at aipac ntpp as the economic development of the pivot or rebounds to asia. that is not the way southeast asian seen necessarily and this is something i hope the white house will work with economic managers and the u.s. government to address as they look to pivot to point out order resetting of the pivot. southeast asia can't imagine an economic strategy for the united states or asia that doesn't include china. tpp looks a little strange to them. tpp as matt mentioned and includes including the united states but it's not eligible and not even all of these asean countries are eligible to join tpp. i think everyone wants to see tpp get them and they want to see the president spending political capital on that. i think the southeast asians believe the indicator for that will be a strong statement out of the friday meeting with

congressional leaders and a commitment to actually get tpa trade promotion authority which they will see as a down payment on political capital by the white house on trade. next year the malaysians will host the east asian summit and so a lot of attention will be put to sea or on the structure of the east asia summit today think the americans and the white house want to talk about rationalizing a structure and how to work, how we asean regional form and the asean defense ministries plus meetings relate to the eas so i think we will see some work on the structure of the eas ahead of its tenth anniversary. the president will also participate in the u.s. asean summit which has been institutionalized since president obama has been in

office for my leaders meeting which was a clever way to say the white house wasn't sure they were going to show up that year for a u.s. asean meeting. it's now a summit and with great credit to president obama and the asean site for institutionalizing this important level of engagement. ..

not eligible to run for president. i think the americans would like to see constitutional changes

made before the election so she would be able to run. there's going to be a question, and i think this will be hard one -- between the white house trying to support continued reform, economic and political reform in myanmar, because after all this is a country that had cloistered itself for four and a half decades and has made an incredible amount of political and economic reform; but there's a real push from senate and house legislators, including the new senate leader, mitch mcconnell, on human rights and democracy in myanmar show. president's going to have to address this, and i think he should. the fact that democracy and reform in myanmar cannot be allowed to stall but there's a recognition that you have to be practical about how much change the country can handle at one time. the other two issues he has to

address while he is there is the plight of the rohanga and theft to achieve regional cease fires. if myanmar has strong-core berman population that they have cease fire negotiations with, wide group of minorities on the privilege ray of that center, and actually that's going very well. so, sovereign -- the sovereign integrity of myanmar is important, and those cease fires having a political basis, not just military basis, is vital. finally, i think it's a very important story that this is the new president of indonesia is coming out party, joko widoto, or joko -- wi, will be at the apec and the g20 meetings. there was a fear he might go to

the g20. he is going. i think -- and president obama will meet him for the first time and do a bilateral with wi australia. and they have half of the country's economy, and what we're going to see is a much more -- maybe nuanced and finance japanese characteristics, which means nuanced and indirect, but the indonesians will play a big role in areas like foreign policy and national security concerns in edition asia. under the five year term. and coming to that, i think one thing that you'll see out of the east asia shot i -- shot i --

east asia summit is a growing determination to stand up to chinese on the maritime security threat that china has very practically posed. mike mentioned, and he is correct, the chinese have not let their foot off the gas on the south china seas. rhetoric from china on a code of conduct -- the best way to look at this, like the charlie brown cartoon where china would be lucy holding the football and the country is charlie brown trying to kick and it the football is the code of conduct in the south china seas. they say kick and it then pull it back. i think they really want the united states to continue its role in putting this on the agenda. talking about it. and we see increased cohesiveness behind he south

china sea issues. there's also a quiet determination in the southeast asia countries, despite joining the investment bank, for the united states to not be in a defensive crouch on these economic initiatives. i think the united states has been put into that sort of reactive mode on the asia infrastructure, investment bank and on the f tap study, and the tie get around this is play offense and what we haven't seen from all the good things from the white house, we have not seen a comprehensive economic strategy for asia. if it's not hard to put in place, they've got all the pillars of it right, but if they can get -- their act together and articulate a strategy

ex-think southeast asia and the rest of asia will be game for that, and they're very much interested in not having a cyno centric organization or god forbid political integration in asia. so thank you very much. >> we're going to wrap up with dr. morrison, the director or the global health. and then we'll open it up for questions. we'll pass around a microphone. >> thank you, andrew. thank you very much for pulling this all together and good morning. i'm going to speak brief live about the mission we had to myanmar in late august, but before that a few words at ebola. the president yesterday announced a $6.1 billion supplemental for

ebola. the majority of that money for overseas purposes. both in west africa and in support of the broader global health security agenda. that's a lot of money. it's twinned with the isis request, and clearly it's something that is going to have to be negotiated carefully with congress and it may carry a price tag to it in terms of compromise on travel bans and going out to asia, going to raise the issue of getting others to do more. we have been the lead power in the response with a billion dollar plus commitment on both the military and civilian side. this steps up the game significantly. we cannot do this alone. others have come to the table. the u.k., the world bank, the e. c. and others, but the response

from other parts of the world and other major powers has been rather paltry, and this is despite a very aggressive diplomacy led by ambassador nancy powell and john kerry and others. australia announced a $24 million commitment recently, following the announcement of the travel ban, which was itself quite controversial. china is the exception within the region in terms of its response, announced up to $200 million of commitments, deploying self hundred healthcare workers and making the case it has special capacities and experiences dating back too pandemic flu responsement most of its efforts are concentrated in the sear ha leone and u.s. responses are concentrated in liberia. this is a very welcome, positive development to have the chinese making a commitment of this kind, for multiple reasons. the region itself is alive to

the threat of ebola. you'll see this in terms of intensified scanning at airports and other points of entry. you'll see the region is really quite alive to the threat, and i think that's changed significantly in the last six weeks. i will try to minimize any of the redundancy with ernie's comments, which i completely agree with. the delegation we took out in august to myanmar to follow on to an earlier mission a year previous, focused on health. and this was with the southeast asia studies. ernie, deputy murray hebert, who i hope is here, was the co-leader of that with me. we went out there really prompted by what we saw, the hardening of attitudes here in washington, away from a forward-leaning opt -- optimism

about the transition, and we framed up this around the question of which direction are things going, and we put a focus on the governance issues, around elections and constitutional reform, around the peace negotiations with the ethnic states and around the development agenda with the special focus on health. congress is moving to be more aggressive and impose greater restrictions legislatively. the opinion climate has hardened and that's something the president has to deal with as he moves forward here. i just -- in terms of our impressions, the electoral season is fully upon folks in myanmar. you'll see this has become after overriding prism. there's a lot of excitement, a lot of interest, there's a lot in play, and we don't know what's going to happen in terms tv discussional provisions and what will ultimately be the

calculus of the state. this is a fluid set of negotiations and back and forth right now. on the cease fire negotiations in august there was a commitment toward federalism as a goal and towards long-term negotiations on the political agenda. there's been further bad news around that, which we detail in our report. so it's back and forth, and still hard to draw conclusions. on the health agenda what is remarkable is you have major interests, global fund, world bank, usg, the u.k., on a long-term basis to facilitate the form of that sectar and as we detail in this report they're beginning to show substantial gains. but they're making those calculations on a three-to five-year time frame, not -- it's not keyed to whether the electoral cycle isful at the end

of 2015 it's key on the notion is a government to work with, partners to work with and the environment is favorable. on health we put a big foes cuss on artimus and malaria. it may be technical but it's a threat to disable the therapy that exist globally right now in control of mall la ya. the resistance is in maayan are in and there's an enormous amount of activity underway right now. we put detail and emphasis on this. the military have to be brought into the equation. they are. the global fund has done a remarkable job of putting resources in. the gates found is involved, and the like. ernie mentioned dish -- during i think during our visit when we talked to parties, both government, nsf and others, it was fairly brutal assault back

in march upon the msf and the u.n. the state, federal union authorities, pretty much abdicated responsibility and stood back and now there's a press of trying to repair the damage. congress and the president has put special emphasis on this. it's problem that is terribly complicated and difficult to reconcile and move forward and is not going to be fixed tomorrow but something we can't turn away from, nor have we, and i am boar mitchell has done a sterling job at putting a stake in the ground, standing up to this abuse and insisting on holding the government to account for and it deserve enormous amount of credit. i won't go into the land grabs, crackdowns on journalists, but the -- it's in the report. on the big issues around the constitutional matters and the

electoral preparations, and the like, it's just stay tuned here. our view is that the u.s. has struck a middle path of being engaged but being cautious and continuing to call out those areas that are most problematic. the u.s. engagement there draws broad and wide support across the political spectrum. it continues to -- we have been able to navigate as a country a very difficult and politicized environment. i -- on the electoral piece, the central prism leading into 2015 for making judgments, ndi, iri, isis, are on the ground, operational and doing a terrific job. we put a spotlight on that and call for stepping up that effort in specific ways. on the health, we applaud what has happened and call for a doubling of the u.s. bilateral

engagement and continued very strong port around the global fund and the world bank. just in closing, we need be realistic around u.s. leverage, realistic around this come -- come --.complex transition and we shouldn't make conclusion about where things are and where we'll be in a year. not a particularly pruett way to judge something as complicated at this. thank you very much. >> thank you. we'll hope it up to questions. first to george. >> two questions. one you talk about some specific things on u.s.-china relations how would you characterize the overall state of the relationship? what role doing this election play? you mentioned little things -- how much has the region and the regional leaders paid attention to the u.s. election and the guy they once saw as a rock star, is

he a weak lame duck or are they looking back to -- does he still have to prove he is a leader on this trip? >> i think the china watching community in general in washington has been a bit surprised that ping as leader has been less accommodating and tougher than expected. the saying in beijing one hears now is he talks like dung, acts like mao, and the expectation was that simultaneous pressure against india, japan, the asean companies, cyberattacks on the u.s., this would lead to a natural pushback, and as ernie said, for asean, which doesn't like tension there, has been an unprecedent it amount of

pushback. what is surprising is it hasn't appeared to lead to any calibration in chinese foreign policy. so, i would characterize the u.s.-china relationship as one that is not in a downward spiral but one where a heightened level of tension is the new normal. the challenge for the president is to continuing framing the relationship in a win-win way because, as matt and others have said, an economic -- on broad economic issues, management of north korea and regional integration, we're still generally on side. it's noteworthy that china is hosting a -- apec, transpacific grouping, putting enormous effort into it. this is not an apec summit in beijing designed to push the u.s. out. quite the contrary, china wants to accelerate. a on the free trade area of the

asia pacific, which would include all the apec members, us, mexico, chile, canada, and so forth. the rope the administration and others are saying no, it's too fast. we have to get tpp done and through the congress before -- for two reasons. one is to set the rules before we get into deep negotiations with china. the second is, congress can't digest a trade agreement that includes china. so wore slowing china down but china's theme is more integration. so the context is not one of downward spiraling hostility, but the level of tension is higher. the chicago council on global affairs last year released its biannual survey of american views of the world. 49% of americans say u.s.-china relations ares a very sayreal, 48's sayre cooperative. 3% of americans didn't have an opinion. probably about right.

>> i would just say on the -- what are the asia leaders think of the rock star, is he a lame duck. the jury is out. the hope -- i think the narrative among a lot of the elites, including leaders, is that president obama has the asia engagement dna in his blood. it's what he wants to do, but he has been hijacked by domestic politics and the elections in the united states, and that now he may be able to turn to asia for legacy issues. look, the guy wants -- he said himself, his self-prophecy was, i will be the first pacific president of the united states. he speaks indonesia, he was born in hawai'i, grew up in indonesia, and for the southeast asias they hope this is a guy who can help talk to americans and set a foundational

understanding among not just politics but among americans that asia vital to the future of ourselves and our kids and not only our jobs but our security and that's the hope. there's still that hope there that because he lost the election, that's what he'll have to accommodate, work with the republicans do trade, and then start to talk to americans about asia. >> just want to make sure i got one fact right. the chicago poll said 49% said cooperative. 48's adversarial. i think i said it the other way around. >> gideon. >> sounds like is almost a tacit battle of influence between the u.s. and china and gaining friends. you mixed asean is welcoming american engagement and american pushback against china and the south china sea. which countries in the grouping

are leaning more toward china? i guess cambodia. but thailand perhaps? >> i think it's a fair question. i think the -- from aseason reside point of view, we have to remember balance over everything. balance in everything. is the americans had all the ideas and china was on the back foot there would be a pull for more chinese engagement for the aseans. right now, we have a historic window in the united states. it's the three as, obama has abbott, in australia pulling for him. pulling for more u.s. engagement. he has abe in japan, and asean. everyone is lined up. they want to see the americans playing offense in asia because of the proximity, geographical proximity of china, because of china's -- this disconnect

between china's rhetoric, what it says it wants to do and what it is actually doing on and under the seas. that worries asean, and, quite frankly, they want it all. they want china to feel safe, secure, and be economically successful so they can share in that success, but they want the americans also to be economically engaged, successful, and deeply engaged on a security basis, so china doesn't use its new-found economic might to impose its own definitions of sovereignty on smaller neighbors. >> i personally -- i think this is overplay. i talked to the cambodians. and told me, you guys misunderstandy we are on china. we want the americans to be engaged. he sounded like every other asean leader to me.

he wants balance in practice, his foreign minister has been off the reservation on that front, and that's being very kind. it's because where cameras are rolling, but i actually don't think it's particularly useful too do sort of a spectrum of the asean countries on this issue. >> christian. >> thank you. what should president obama's message be on hong kong? obviously a lot of americans watched the prodemocracy protesters and will have a lot of interest in that. how fine of a line does he need to walk? and also in terms of the constitution in myanmar, is it realistic to think it can change before the elections, and what specifically would have to happen? what does that bros -- that process look like? >> on hong kong, there's concern

in the administration because within chinese media and government circles, there are accusations that the united states is the evil hand behind the protests. my recommendation would be, don't worry about that. that the president should speak out clearly for -- in support of what these people in hong kong are asking for. i think there are ways to wrap it in language that suggests this is good for chinas development, good for china's relations with other parts of asia and across the straits of taiwan and so forth. i think, as margaret thatcher might say no time to go wobbly, and judging from secretary kerry's speech, i think that's where they're coming down. it's always harder to do this when you're in beijing and don't control the media environment, and it may be that secretary

kerry was saying this so the president didn't have to say it as loudly. i remember traveling with president bush and trying to think about how to talking about these issues in beijing, but he found a way to talk about religious freedom and other issues, but frame it what's in china's interests. >> if i could stitch the two together. i sure hope mike is right. i think the americans have to talk about this. the president has to talk about this, because if you look around asia, there's a lot of analysis going around that democracy is being sort of stepped back. i think that's absolutely wrong, and i think if you look at the two events happening at the same time, the democracy protests in hong kong and wi rising out of nowhere, small town in the center of java, not part of any political party, not part of a scion of a great indonesian

wealthy family. where do you think asia is going? i can and have made the case that i think southeast asia, notwithstanding the -- i think we just have sort of a bubble going on in thailand, is moving forward. the middle class, empowered middle class, is moving forward and they want to hear president obama supporting this kind of event. on myanmar, i'll ask steve because he has been on the ground. that's a very good question. it is legally possible to -- there is time to change the constitution. politically, very hard to see how that could happen. so, it would be extraordinary, and i think part of what the white house is trying to manage right now, is the honest read is it's almost impossible to get that done before the elections, and partially because the elections are coming, and so if

that -- if it doesn't happen, what we should be worried about is throwing the baby out with the bath water and saying, okay, well, myanmar's economic and political reform has failed because they didn't get across the line. i personally, having spent fair amount of anytime myanmar and some of it quality time with suu kyi, she didn't say this but i felt like -- i thought there was an understanding that she wants this chang before the election, about if it can't be, think there's the iron determination to continue to fight and maybe if her party, nlb, wins issue thought she thought that there was room to get enough votes potentially to make changes after winning and controlling the parliament. >> we detail in here, there's two provisions that have been at play. one provision within the constitution is the one that

bars her because of citizenship issues, and the second is the provision around the set-aside of 25% of parliamentary cede seats for the military and much of the debate in the constitutional committee and parliament has centered around this. i agree entirely with ernie. the signals are clear, the odds of seeing resolution of the first of those two or the second to open the press sufficiently where there's a clear shot at full victory by aung san suu kyi, those odds are long and we face a proceed diskment. first, she and he opposition have to make an internal calculation at some point in time about how much do they lean in and play and how much do they lean back and not play. and those determinations have not been made yet. but the u.s. government faces a broader predicament of trying -- how do we reach.

on what is free and fair in 2015 if it doesn't include those major reforms and an opportunity to have a full run at possible victory. and i think that's what ernie is getting at. that beyond those 2015 elections, there's a real question of what is the u.s. approach and what is good enough or what is sufficient to be able to continue, because the election outcome is going to determine, i think, a great deal of what our bilateral relationship looks like post 2015. >> i'd fault the administration on this one. there was high-level engagement. secretary clinton took a risk on this issue, kurt campbells and others at senior levels, achieved an important historic shift. the white house chalked it up as one of the signature achievements of the pivot, and then example for our friend,

dirk mitchell in rangoon, senior officials in the state department of the white house dropped this. now the president is going -- i'm not talking about civil society engagement. talk about senior u.s. officials. they just put this on the scoreboard and dropped and it now they're scrambling, and there probably should have been higher live sustained engagement, not just to turn the corner with myanmar but to make sure that we were engaging at high levels to make sure we didn't hit the difficulties we're having now. i think i'm with my colleagues. i'm not sure we could have or aung san suu kyi could have achieved a full and free election in 2015, but look at the range of issues and problem, we would have benefit from more high-level engagement over the last two years than we have had. >> thank you. heather.

first, you mentioned that the imf reform is jeopardizing u.s. legitimacy or u.s. leadership in the region. can you give specific examples what that is costing the us? and you said that the u.s. needs a comprehensive strategy on asean. they've got the pillars but don't have the full strategy. can you explain more what you mean and what that would look like? >> well, the imf quota reform is something that the u.s. championed in 2010 at the korea summit of the g20, and it pushed it because it is recognized that for the imf to continue to be an effective institution of global economic governance, ability to do surveillance and monitoring of economic policies and to make loans where necessary, it needed to address the so-called shares

and shares in balances of governance of the institution itself, and so it pushed this agreement. everybody agreed -- everybody has implemented and it the u.s. failed item policemen it because of congress' -- implement it because of congress' unwillingness to approve a relatively minor -- there is a budget dear hit but it's relatively minor. main lay transfer of money that was already committed to another pot. and i think that's had tremendously damaging implications for the imfs effectiveness, for the united states' ability to sway others on imf related issues or broader growth issues in the g20, and specifically i think it's fed the frustration of the large emerging economies that want more voice in global economic governance, and i think you can draw a line from this failure by

the u.s. to follow through on this commitment directly to the establishment of this asian infrastructure bank which may be useful pieces of the architecture, depending how they're governed and run. in terms of the -- if the u.s. has an interest in supporting the best elements of the system it helped champion in 1944, then it needs to follow through and do this reform. i'm certainly hopeful that in a new congress this will be taken up again and passed quickly because it is getting in the way of a lot of things we are trying to do in the region. >> can i ask a followup. is there an economic affect, is it spilling over into this negotiations as well? >> in a broad sense, yes. it's affecting our ability to be champion of the rules are based order -- rules-based order we're trying to update and uphold. i don't think it specifically comes up in tpp negotiations or

is an on -- obstacle to agreements but i think in a broad sense it does affect u.s. credibility and effectiveness. >> we've got important pillars in place. like the tpp. it's not a u.s. strategy for engagement in asia economically. it's an important pillar. if we did that, it would have set a high level rules-based model that others to dock into. we need to do that. but what we're failing to do is articulate a broader -- connect-the-dots, basically to connect the dots of the tpp bilateral investment treatmenties we have negotiated, free trade areas we have with australia, korea, and singapore. what we need to do is articulate

over the tpp a vision for why asia is important to americans and what our strategy is to make sure that we are not only deeply part of -- which we are -- but that we are driving this rules-based order of how asia will be structured, integrate, and this isn't hard. we have all the pieces in place. we have to sort of talk to what we think, and i think opposite we do that, we're going to be in much better -- >> i can add a quick footnote? i agree with that but in thierry the tpp strategy was designed to incentivize a growing group of asia-pacific economies to join this updated rules-based system, 21st century rules are based system and it's actually worked in the sense it started with five countries, is now 12.

when japan china, china immediately took -- when japan joined, china showed new interest, and when japan joined, china understood this was a strategy of trying to draw china and others into this global rules-based order, and the reason i say that is just -- while i agree with ernie, you need a broader framing because it's not just about tpp. the reason tpp is so important is that it is a design to pull people into this higher standard system. so, it's just absolutely critical as a trade and broader economic strategy in asia. >> julie pace and then howard. >> thanks. julie pain from ap. i want to follow up on something mike said about khi being less

accommodating and what the administration's thinking is on this because they had a lot of emphasis on obama invited and build a persons relationship. >> i think one of the fundamental conceptual flaws of the pivot has been a failure to assess the nature of china's behavior in asia, and i think there have been different views within the administration. until recently there was a strong view that much of china's assert stiff behavior in the east china sea and south china sea were driven by domestic pressure, nationalism, by the philippines or japan or vietnam, provoking china. there's been another view, primarily in the pentagon, which is that this is in fact part of a chinese strategy, if you will, to steadily assert more and more

control over the so-called first island chain that stretches from japan down, and to do so first by denying or complicateing u.s. access, and then asserting control. i think the -- my sense is that the center of gravity in the administration in terms of trying to understand china, is shifting toward the latter view. part of the reason is because, as i said earlier, beijing under cheng chui ping is not adjust organize calibrating at countries push back. why is that? i think part of it is that chi himself has history and tradition from his father, from his time as a staffer, in the central military commission, thinking strategically about china's interests and how to secure them, especially in the maritime area. i think part of it is that which

is a marxist, literally, and sees the forces of economic favoring choir over time, and -- favoring china over time and there are views in asia, across asia, southeast asia i've heard this, japan and elsewhere, from certainly officials -- that, frankly, chinese side is not calibrating because they see a certain distraction and weakness in washington and they see a window of opportunity. before they get hillary clinton or a republican in 2017 who will be harder line. that's hard to prove it has been striking to me i've heard that hypothesis in a number of asia capitals, and so you take your pick. bottom line is i think the consensus is growing there's going to be more tension with china over the next few years. doesn't mean it's a downward spiral but it's going to be

coming at a time when the administration has a lot going on in other parts of the world. >> thank you. on tpp specifically on the u.s.-japan trade access agreement, i thought i heard maybe a little discrepancy in views. i think michael talk about frosty talks, and then matthew talked about being quite close. so i'm wondering where that is and actually, and maybe how you see the mid-term election results -- how influencing whether or not the president gets gpa. >> frosty but close. these negotiations are very hard, very complex. you have 12 countries of

different levels of development and different ruins these issues, different -- different views on these issues and different capacities, and you have with the u.s. and japan, a lot of history and baggage, and then personal issues. so all of that is leading to a strained set of talks, including the bilateral ones between the u.s. and japan. that said, both the u.s. and japan and other ten countries in tpp all have a very strong interest net going tpp done and that's ultimately getting through the -- whatever tensions or feelings people have in terms of interest, everybody wants to get this done, and certainly the u.s. and japan want to. i think the -- they are close. i think the gaps are well understood by both sides and it's just a question of some final political impetus behind them to get it done. that lead to the second mart of your question. the real obstacle -- i agree

that in practice, the lack of tpa authority has made it more difficult for the u.s. and japan to reach this agreement, and it's time for tpa to move. i'm encouraged by the early indications, as i said, of both the republican leadership and the president himself, that they are ready to work on moving forward tpa and i think that must happen in order to get -- i mean, as a technical matter, tpa has to be passed if only five minutes before tpp is put in front of the congress you can't have tpp nickeled and dimed in the congressional debate. so it has to happen. >> last week in tokyo i heard from ministers and senior trade negotiatingors this is the worst dynamic since the trade wars of the 1980, they can't stand each other, the tension in the room

is pal able. i said, oh, just like every other trade agreement right before we finish it. butt pa is really blocking this because the abe government which probably has bigger economic and political stake in tpp than the u.s. does, is nevertheless stuck internally because of questions about whether the president can deliver to congress. >> and that's based on the history how he have done these deals. always done tpa first and based on how things have gone with the congress. so rays of hoch on friday may turn that around. if it doesn't, sadly we'll be stuck five yards from the end zone. >> if i can shamelessly buy a sound bike it's always noisiest before the dawn in trade agreements so i'm encouraged when i hear stories about tension and noise because it

shows the two sides are getting close to compromises that have to be made so it's consistent. >> i have a question. as you mentioned that the aye -- aiab has some 20 countries sign up already, and according to recent reports, australia, korea, considering to join in the future. so the question is, how likely will united states change its position? the aib has already gained a lot of support. under what kind of of circumstances or conditions might u.s. consider to join it in the future? >> i think that possible as a matter of administration policy, whether this administration or some future admission.

in fact i might even say that's ultimately likely if this institution gets up and running. but as practical matter, let me just be clear. the united states cannot join this bank in the near term as long as congress is not willing to do the things it needs to do to enable that. i they can't pass imf quota reform, a relatively mine you're change with a relatively minor budget hit do you think they'll approve muscle -- multimillion dollar appropriations for a chinese bank? i don't think so. that said in answer to you question, i think like the united states, korea and australia have their own -- and japan have their own concerns about the way this institution was launched and there are a number of questions about the governance structure, how the shares and shares and that institution are going to be divided up, and in particular how the operational lending standards are going to be set. going to be environmental

standards, debt sustainability standards, open procurement so that anybody who gets one of these loans can buy products and services from anyone? or will there be a favoritism for certain supplies? there are bunch of questions like that which are legitimate questions that the country is thinking about joining this institution need to work through with china. and china needs to explain those things. i think actually the concerns raised have actually moved the needle, and china issue think, has realized that some of these issues need to be -- they need to address them themselves to make sure that this institution can work effectively but they also to convince people they're going to need to clarify how those governance and operational questions are going to be followed through. so, i think that -- i'm not sure whether korea and australia will join. there's an argument in both countries that joining them

would enable them to work within the bank 0 to shape the issues, but also an argument that once you're in, it's very hard to change the dynamics and the bank will be based in beijing with 37% chinese capital is the target. so it's going to be lard for other participants to change things once they're in. >> time for one more. right here. >> i just want to ask what expectations might be from the obama formal summit on wednesday -- are we going expect something good? anything like previous summits? >> not much came out of sunnyland. the most important part of that was bilateral investment treaty, and -- i don't think there's been enough movement.

matt would know better -- to announce a significant landmark let alone negotiation. the administration's gertors are folk cud own -- focused on tpp. secretary kerry previewed an agreement on co2 emissions and the environment that will be of some significant and will be announced -- there's a possibility of an announcement on military to military transparency. for example, and then some agreements on people to people exchanges and things like that. i do not expect some large framing agreement on u.s.-china relations. the administration tried that in 2009. they issued a statement in beijing with -- where they would d issue unraveled. the new power negotiations the

2012-2013 effort to do that again fell apart. i suspect the president's going to be wary of some effort to reproduce produce the famous three communiques or something like that and be business like, and have to speak out, and i'm sure he will, on hong kong, and find some positive examples of cooperation. cheng chui ping will probably talk about great power roleses and other things for his domestic audience. so two parallel narratives that don't square ask that's probably way for now. >> with that i want to thank everybody for coming today. this briefing will be posted online later this afternoon at csi.org. please follow us on twitter@csis you. 'll get advance notice there as well. thank you very much.

[inaudible] conversation

president obama awarded the medal or honor posthumously to army first lieutenant alan sow cushing. he received the medal or honor for his actions as a commanding officer during the civil war. from the roosevelt room of the white house, this is ten minutes.

>> please, everyone, have a seat. well, on behalf of michelle and myself, welcome to the white house. 151 years ago, as our cubbie struggled for its -- country struggled for its survival, president lincoln dead okayed the battlefield out gettysburg as a final resting place for those who died there that the nation might live. today the nation that lived pauses to pay tribute to one of those who died there. to bestow the medal of honor, hour highet military deck carbs, aren't first lieutenant alonzo h. cushing. now, typically this medal must be awarded within a few years of the, a but sometimes the most extraordinary stories can be lost in the passage of time. i want to thank more than two dozen family members of

lieutenant cushing who are here, including his cousin twice removed, helen ensign, from palm desert, california, who will accept this medal. for this american family, this story isn't some piece of obscure history. it's an integral part of who they and are today our whole nation shares their pride and celebrates what this story says about who we are. this award would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of supporters who worked for decades to make this day reality and i want to especially acknowledge mar get zerwekh, an historian from the town where lieutenant cushing was born. and margaret back there. and she is also the greatof a union veteran and lives on a property that was once owned by cushing's father. when she discovered the store she spend over 25 years researching, writing letters and

raising her voice to ensure that this american soldier received the repping -- recognition he deservedded and even sewso she managed to bring republicans and democrats together to make this happen. margaret, we may call on you again sometime. [laughter] >> this medal is about more than just one soldier or one family. it reflects or obligations as a country to the men and women in our armed services, obligation that continue long after they return home, after they have he moved their uniforms and even perhaps especially after they laid down their lives. so this medal is a remind near the matter how long it takes, it's never too late to do the right thing.

he was raced in new york. his mother is poor, highly committed and her son will do honor to the position. after graduating from west point, lon was assigned to bootery a, fourth united states artillery, from bull rum, from chancellorville to fredericksburg, lon fought bravely and developed a reputation for his cool, confidence, and courage under fire. but it was at gettysburg, what one newspaper later called emphatically a soldier's battle, where lon would be immortalized. it was july 3, 1863. the final day of a grouping three-day fight. lon command his battery along the wall on cemetery ridge, fending off punishing fire from the confederate troop inside advance of what you now noes pickett's charge inch the chaos of smoke, lon and his men could barely seed ahead of them.

one colonel later described the terrible grandeur of that rain of missiles and that chaos of strange and terror-spreading sounds. lon was hit and badly wounded. his first sergeant, a soldier named frederick fugar, urged him to go to the rear, but lon refused and said, he'd fight it out or die in the attempt. bleeding, and weak, he moved his remaining guns closer to the front. over ten thousand con fad rat infantrymens a vanned, bowl to elbow, and rows over a mile wide. peering through field glasses honored his men to continue firing at the advancing columns. he used his own thumb to stop his gun's vent, burning his fingers to the bone. when he was hit the final time as a poet wrote, his gun spoke out for him once move before he fell to ground and alonso

cushing was just 22 years old in a letter to lon's sister, fugaa wrote that the bravery of the men that day was entirely due to your brother's training and example set on numerous battlefields. etched on lon's tombstone as west point is the simple, faithful unto death. and his memory will be honored later this month when one of our navy's cruisers, the uss gettysburg dedicates the officers dining hall as the cushing boardroom. here today we know that lon and the others that fell they'd do coot no -- we know what they could not, that gettysburg was a turning point in the civil war, and it was proof that thousanded of young soldiers committing acts of hero jim who saved our union and freed a people and re-affirmed our nation as one nation under god, indivisible.

i plight not be standing here today if not for the ultimate sacrifices those courageous americans. today we on one of those men, lieutenant alonzo clerk who, as lincoln said, gave their last full measure of devotion. his story is part of our larger american story, one that continues today. the spirit, the courage, the determination, that he demonstrated lives on in our brave men and women in uniform who, this very day, are serving and making sure that they are defending the freedoms that alonso helped to preserve, and it's incumbent on all of us as americans to uphold the values they fight for and continue to honor their service long after they leave the battlefield. for decades. even centuries to come. so, with that, i'd like to ask

helen to join me for the reading of the citation. >> the president of the united states of america authorized by act of congress march 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of congress the medal of honor to first lieutenant alonso h. cushing. united states army. first lieutenant alonso h. cushion distinguishinged himself by acted acted of bravery aboved beyond the call of duty while serve as art tillry commander on july 3-1863, during the american civil war. ...

>> and it opened wide gaps in their lives directly impacting those in charge. the extraordinary extorted fm above the call of duty at the cost of his own life in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflects rate credit upon himself, the fourth artillery, army of the potomac in the united states of america. [applause]

[applause] >> let me ask members of congress that helping to make this happen to join us for a photograph. that's it the secretary and the two secretaries to come on up here. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you so much. >> all right. turnaround here. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] [applause] [applause]

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> okay. >> friday and american history tv in prime time, we medal of honor recipients discussed their service in world war ii and vietnam and afghanistan. we will bring you the event hosting by the u.s. u.s. naval institute in annapolis at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> friday, nightly news anchor or broke her foot on his career and in 1989 all of the berlin wall. you can see his talk from the museum in washington dc at 9:40 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> the va secretary robert mcdonald spoke about this date of the veterans affairs department after his first 100 days on the job. from the christian science monitor breakfast, this is one hour. [inaudible conversations] hello, folks. good morning, i am a monitor in thank you for coming. our guest today is the secretary of veterans veterans affairs, robert mcdonnell, we thank them for making time in his schedule to be here. our guest was born in gary, indiana, moved with his turn to a chicago suburb and became an eagle scout and one admission to the united states military

academy in 1975 at west point. he was with the 42nd airborne division before joining the procter and gamble company. during these years, the guests rose to a variety of responsible positions, working in canada, the philippines, japan and belgium, before becoming the chairman president and ceo in 2007. in addition to his management experience, the guests are gone the board of u.s. steel. he left in 2013 and was confirmed by a vote of 97 to nothing as secretary of veterans affairs in july of this year. thus concludes the biographical portion of the program. as always, we are on the record here and please no tweeted and no phonies of any kind to give

us time to listen to what our guests says. to help resist this bloodless purge we will e-mail several pictures you see as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you'd like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal that raised eyebrows and i will happily call upon you. let me note that i'm a veteran and have two sons in the military and known in this clan is collecting veterans benefits. without putting this disclosure behind us, we will start off by offering our guests the ability to make comments and then we will move to austin from his table. we thank you. >> it's my pleasure. please call me bob. i'm encouraging everyone in veterans affairs to do that.

and please feel free to enter into the discussion after i conclude my remarks and i look forward towards russian this morning. since being sworn in and getting confirmed, a we have embarked on something called the road to veterans day, which is first 90 day plan. actually today is my 100th day since being sworn in. so the little bit more than 90 days. in those 100 days i have been with 21 different use and i have visited over 41 different va facilities and we did that repeatedly and we visited every kind of facility from the medical center to other areas and we've spoken at 11 different medical schools with 11 different individuals to recruit the health care health care professionals that we need. i've spoken in most of the conventions and a few that i've

missed the timing of the confirmation i've spoken with members of congress before it was confirmed and i spoke with 67 senators. all of this was designed to gather as much information as i could possibly get in as to what that road should look like. a 90 day plan was focused on rebuilding trust in the first strategy of that plan. we know that trust has been compromised with the va and we know that we are going to have to earn back that trust one veteran at a time. and i think that our mission is very clear to care for the veterans of this country and they are our customers and everything that we do should be looked at through the lens of the veterans. we also have another responsibility to make sure that we are good shareholders and

users of taxpayer money. so we balance caring for veterans in making sure that we are stewards of shareholder trust. the values are the right values and many of us have started wearing these pens with the acronym that i care, gunnison ackermann that not only shows about our veterans but represents the different values of the representation. these are what the letters mean for our veterans and each other, the kind of program and the kind of health care that we want to provide. not surprisingly with what had happened in the past, it read of the crisis and the first thing that i did was ask every leader in the organization to meet with

their subordinates and talk about the values and the mission and we commit themselves to those valleys and to that mission and i asked a report that and i felt it was fundamentally important to start there and i felt that every year on the year that the d.a. was started, we would have a time to discuss our values and mission in talking about various scenarios where people have positively exercised those values in the behavior on the job, or negatively done so in we are going to make sure that everyone understands what the expectation is. and relative to changing the culture, a lot of the culture is about accountability, and i know there's been a lot written about this. you can imagine that if you are in my chair, they talked about

the number of leadership opportunities i've had around the world and changing cultures is one of the most important things that a leader can do, particularly coming out of a crisis situation. and it's obviously in my best interest to move as quickly and aggressively as possible in changing the culture and one of the ways that we do that is hold people accountable for their behaviors, particularly when they've violate the values of the organization. right now we have over 40 disciplinary actions in process with senior leaders and we have over 100 investigations in the va by the inspector general and by the department of justice and by the fbi. when they are complete we will take aggressive disciplinary action and there's been much written recently about the

priority of various investigations. we need to wait for the fbi to complete their investigations before we can act. the disciplinary action we take is an administrative action and not a criminal action and the criminal action needs to be concluded first. obviously the easiest way to include an evidentiary situation , we are waiting we're coming back everyday and we just got one this week from the fbi from the department of justice based on criminal behavior including we need is aggressively and consistently with the law. at the same time we worked with the office of special counsel under the whistleblower

certification program to certified us and we are making sure that all employees know in the department that we want every employee to be critical of our operation with critical processes to help us improve those. and we want our employees to be critical and we value the feedback that we've gotten from whistleblowers. we have 41 plus visits, and one of the things that i do and collectively we also meet with union leaders and i want everyone, and inclusive organization to help include operations from the lowest level to the highest level. we work with the office of special counsel to resolve this situation that we have.

there were three individuals in particular from the phoenix situation where they all have good jobs and we are making progress. they have a responsibility to the organization and to the veterans for improve our operation every single day. you can't do that if you're not critical. the roads to veterans day focused on access to care and we want to thank the west point classmate and one of my dear friends from the deputy secretary and that is the early part of this road. we began the resources to places where the resources were needed to get people to drive down the disability backlog and to reduce

homelessness. i heard and facilities all over the country about how we have had extended clinic hours in the evening and the weekends and we have mobile units that we have brought to the various locations like phoenix and we have hired more doctors and nurses in order to be able to extend that. we've asked people to work overtime and these results have been effective in getting people off the wait list and into the clinics. >> this is part of the program i'm rude and i say if you could do another minute or two. >> if i don't get the questions, they will march on me with this. >> the va has scheduled more than 1.2 million in the past two months of the same. not a year ago. and we have this va care

authorizations of 47% increase including people going to the private sector and we have reduced the new patient primary care wait times by 18% and we have completed 90% of this within 30 days in the desired time and in phoenix which was the first place i visited in the wait times are down 37%. >> everything has to be looked at through the lens of veterans and we are also taking the biggest reorganization of this in our history and we are calling it might be a and we can talk more about that in the question and answer time since david is pushing me forward. we are working on the implementation of this choice and accountability act and that is under way and we are sending out cards to veterans who exceed the 40-mile limit so that those

individuals can choose to get care. another was the blueprint for excellence, and this includes the former under secretary of health and the interim secretary of health led by that effort and of laying out the strategies for beginning this preeminent position. and as i have taught, then to universities to recruit doctors and nurses and we've moved forward with that and we have reduced the claims backlog and veterans benefits benefit administration by 60%, we've reduce homelessness by 33% and we are going to facilities with best practices around. one of our strategies to do that is employing this six sigma,

what does an obvious technology that has been used in business and not quite as obvious and the countries. this includes health and benefits and we had an organization that arnie worked quite well. including customer satisfaction index even higher than companies like this in google and we want to take the earnings and expand them across the department. encouraging me at the va, the vast number of employees have worked very hard to care for veterans and i've met the researchers led helped invent the shingles virus vaccine and those who have won the nobel prize winners and award winners and we've got tremendous capability within the va and

it's a matter of providing the leadership that i think that we need to get us back up to where we need to be. including defining success that is the satisfaction of our veterans and our customers. >> that was good, thank you, sir. the roadmap is that i'm going to talk about women and we will go to michelle part of theirs. and this includes dave from reuters and others as well from time. and that will get us somewhere into this. so you have had vast experience in management and it's a fast challenge. 820 clinics, 6.5 million activations among 317,000

employees and this is the toughest challenge of you have ever faced? >> guesstimates a tough management challenge, but different than the other ones that i have faced before. it's tough in the size as you have mentioned, 340,000 employees about three times the size of proctor and gamble. the largest health care system in the world and i've been in the health care business before and not in the hospital area but in this and people die in hospitals and it is unfortunate, but people die in hospitals and it makes it a very tough business because as they would tell you, you want this with the potential for catastrophic outcome. that makes it important.

i'm doing it in english. when you have to do it in japan and you have to do it -- [speaking in native tongue] and that is how we say appeared when you do it in english, it's a little bit easier than doing it in a different way. it's a similar initiative. one of the beauties of it is that procter & gamble we have this every single day. and this includes using at least one procter & gamble product. that includes the 9 million in our health care system focusing

on customer service. >> we are very critical and there's a lot of mismanagement has been going on and we have to and we are moving as aggressively and viciously as possible. this is the primary actions all over the rule are ruled by different ones and one of the things we have to look at is we have to make sure whatever happens is that we are

successful. >> the appeal time includes the senior executive service employee has been reduced in half. and that includes all the rest of the va employees and the only change is the appeal time. so the ones that didn't grant any kind of power that would give me the ability to walk into a room and simply fire people, i wouldn't do that anyway. our constitution provides the due process and we are following this and as i said, the fbi is involved in many of these investigations and the department of justice and the

inspector general and as all of that evidentiary material is created, it is passed on to us if they decide not to do criminal prosecution, because that has the priority and the administrative disciplinary action as well. >> can i do a follow-up? "the wall street journal" quoted the head of the house committee on veterans affairs jeff miller, and he sang the department appears to be having an opportunity to quit or retire without consequence. does that mean that that is an unavoidable thing? >> i am sure that the law says that you cannot claw back the retirement earned over careers

unless the person commits treason were a treasonous like activity and that is a criminal violation. so i have to wait for the fbi and department of justice to determine if the criminal violation has been committed in which case they would prosecute before i can take disciplinary actions. i do not have the authority to crawl back into retirement and a ceo does not have the authority to do this as well. that would be violating the constitution property rates because it's been over a long time. it would have to be criminal egregious behavior that would allow you to call back. >> these things are clear and i'm skeptical whether members of congress understand the law including how we are trying to create controversy using veterans to do that and i don't

think that that is appropriate. >> and this includes not just health care and he said by december or january at all equally intelligible veterans would be a part of us. do you have an idea of how many veterans there are of 9.1 million in the va and do you have an idea of this? >> we have estimates, but i prefer not to share the estimates because we will learn along the way. one of the things that we are doing this is that as we work the plans in advance, we work with the veterans organizations and the staff members of

congress and one of the things that the veterans service organizations groups pleaded with us is the implication would be if you receive this that you are eligible to use it. and what we wanted to do is to make sure that as we roll this out do we explain to the veterans who is eligible and who is not and we've done a lot of training with the veterans service organization so we know how to answer the russians and we have this set up with a recording in and you'll be directed to help. so we started with those who we believe are above and beyond the 40-mile distance is the criteria and we thought that was the best place to start. in the next group are those who might be waiting longer than 30 days. we thought that that was the next best place to go. and then we are going to go to everyone. so we thought that was the best

approach that the staff members of our two committees encouraged us to follow. >> it's been confirmed that the falsification of the patient's records is nationwide and systemic and deliver it and separate from that was after the special counsel in june had a lot of cultural retaliation and yet in that time we had talked about despite this, we could basically have the ability to way for us.

and so you consider accountability to immediately. >> first of all, at least in what i have read and may be wrote it, i don't recall, was an unnamed source that the house committee had talked about at the justice department. you are adding more certainty to it than i had and perhaps your law degree is more credible than others. but i would encourage you to talk to someone who is an expert in constitutional law and federal law and just check your sources a little bit. secondly, in the case of phoenix and in the case where you talk about people violating our values, i've been very clear all

along, as i have been this morning that we will not tolerate that and that we will seek a separation of those people and when i talked about the 40 plus cases where we were seeking disciplinary action, the majority of those are senior executive service and you should know that the veterans affairs department separate over 3000 people per year in the list of people that i'm currently tracking for potential separation is over 2000. so i'm just talking about the leadership positions that have been more written about in the news. the inspector general testified that the house veterans affairs committee hearing, that he arrest the 500 people on average per year from the veterans