are enjoying their jobs more because they feel as if overtime they can have more of an impact and they are getting more help from the community because the community has seen them and knows them before this crisis. before there is an incident. it is not just this response. it is not after the fact there is a crime, there is a dead body there is a shooting and now we will show up. it is we are here all of the time and hopefully we can prevent those shootings from happening in the first place. [applause] >> tomorrow a senate judiciary subcommittee will look further into police and law enforcement with a hearing on body cams. it gets underway live on c-span3. the new congressional directory is a guide to the congress with

colorful pictures bio twitter handles and a district maps a look at congressional committees the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governments. it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the online store. >> next, west virginia senator joe manchin talks about improving government. this is brought to you by the brookings institute. it runs 50 minutes. sglp >> good afternoon i am a fellow at the center for effective public management and managing editor of the fix gov blog. i would like to welcome you to the brookings institute and today's event.

i would like to thank c-span for being here and invite everyone watching to follow along on social media. it is no secret the american government is in a problem of dysfunction. gridlock crippled the institutions trust in government plummeted and instead of getting answers, all we are getting is more problems. too often we adapt to a dysfunctional system rather than work in a way to reform it. that is a serious problem. it results in a system that makes ills rather than cures. through the political realism project we are engaging scholars in and out of house to look at the types of reforms that will help rejuvenate the system get

it back to work get public policy moving in the right direction. it is a robust and decisive debate sometimes but it is vital to public democracy. we are joined by a member of the united states senate who is engaged in similar types of debates with his own colleagues in his own institution. we are pleased to recognize an additional voice. joe manchin serves in the senate coming with a unique perspective. he is one of ten senators who formally served as governor. they bring a critical perspective. they are problem solvers and charged by the their state to govern. they oversaw state agencies and crisis and a public that demanded a lot out of them and the expectation for them was to

deliver. together these ten members have formed the former governor's caucus. a group committed to bringing their governing experience to bear in ways that reform public policy but the new institution they serve in. before turning it over to the senator i would like to offer a brief introduction. joe manchin is the senior senator having been a senator from 2010. he served as governor from 2005-2010 and a 30 year career in the public service serving in the west virginia house of delegates, state senator and as secretary of state. it is my pleasure to welcome senator manchin to brookings. [applause] >> i want to thank brookings for hosting this event but importantly for helping to

tackle this important issue of how we can make government working. i want to thank you john for the introduction and your hard work on this effort. i know it isn't sexy and doesn't grab headlines like the divisive issues when you operate from the fringes of the right and left it gets people fired up. but making government work more effectively is critical to getting the country back on time. in 2010 when senator bird passed away in june of that summer i had to make one of the most difficult decisions of my political career. i had to decide should i try to go to washington and leave the straight state i love? i was two years in my second term. i made the decision and it was the toughest decision i made but

it was made on this premise. i felt like we contributed so much. we brought people together. we had a super majority of democrats in the senate and legislature and never let them beat up on the republicans. i said by the grace of god it could be us. we need everyone work together. we would work together identify problems we had for the state we didn't make it political. we took that premise and did everything in state that needed to be done. it was critical. i made the decision and said if i can take the experience i had and the successes we have enjoyed in west virginia and bring that maybe i could be of help. i could contribute to something. i made the decision and felt good about leaving the state with the job we had done. i remember senator bird telling us about the senate and he was a master of the senate and wrote

the book. he truly loved this place. he had the upmost respect for this senate and we still abide by a most of them. senator bird served in a time when the senate worked and policy trumpet and when members sat down for a meal together and knew each other's family and children and what they liked and disliked. unfortunately today in washington we live by the concept you are no longer guilty by association you are guilty by conversation. if someone sees you talking to the opposite side or somebody that might not have the same thought process or philosophical belief it is like you have gone to the dark side. i said how can we learn our differences if we don't communicate? gone of the days are the days

where they would break bread in the main room. i used to hear about the main dining room and the dining room on the left. senators went in there having their meetings. when i first came i said i don't know why they are not doing that. every tuesday we have a caucus lunch. tomorrow both the democrats and the republicans will go their separate ways for lunches in two different parts of the building. very seldom do we ever get together for a bipartisan meal. when you see us on c-span on floor it that is the most time we spend together. sometimes when you serve with one member on one committee you don't have that. i tried to break that.

i started the bipartisan lunch and it has worked. you can understand most of the former governors are the ones that show up quite a bit because they understand we have the same problems; highway education medicare problems. and they want to find out who had something that worked. we would exchange back and forth. i had no problem calling mitt romney in massachusetts or rick perry in texas. so problem whatsoever. we had great relationships. we are lucky to have ten former governors. five democrats, one independent and four republicans. the caucus is with the democrats. we bring a more common sense approach to governings and we don't get to meet as a group as

much as we would like we gravitate toward each other for gills and common sense legislation. when we ran our states basically most of us had -- 46 states have balance budget amendments. that means the first thing you want to know as governer and get elected they take and show you the revenue of the state and what you have to work with. you work on your budget for the coming here put things together, and every tuesday afternoon i would have the budget analysis and all of my budget people would come and meet with me and they would tell me what our forecast was, how our collections are going, how much we had to work with and areas we had to changing and make adjustments. that was something always on our minds. can we pay for what we promised or would like to do. you start picking priorities based on values. what is the value of the people

in west virginia. it was about children getting a start and children being able to obtain an educational degree getting the skill sets to compete, taking care of veterans and seniors. people said how can you balance the budget and i said i said no more and yes more. everybody wanted all of these things to be done and i said here is what i have to work it. tell me the group you want to tell we cannot do that anymore. if i picked one that was wasteful we will pick one that is more. we will take the same approach and find common sense ways to approach and make a goal work. it is a challenge. the first day about the first day i came to the senate, i said what is our revenue. i was told we will spend

$3.5-$3.7 trillion. how much money will we have? we don't think we can cut much out. and i said you want to spend $3.7 trillion. how much do you think we have to pay? $2.2 in revenue. i said we are not high end mathematicians but we can add and subtract and finish you are 1.5 trillion short. it doesn't work that way in washington they said. i have not figured out the new math in washington. i am trying. i am having a hard time myself. you know we had efficiency of using taxpayer dollars. i will share another example as governor. this can be done through property funding and the revenue positive office. the revenue positive office is one that we would have that

basically would do budget reviews general counting offices, and things that say if you did this and this you can save a 100 billion and you have a redundancy in government. every president like every governor has a platform. and every legislature wants to -- the first honeymoon session wants to get the new president or governor a honeymoon if you will and abide. what we had is a layer on top of layer adding up over the years. and every now again you have to have a correction. and you have to change and you have to consolidate. it makes government harder and hurts the country and our government when you don't do this. most people tonight realize offices particulary inspector generals, can identify inside and outside abuse. when we had to cut back and they

would say revenue is short in the state of west virginia. i would say show me where there is an agency putting out more than we are investing. the department of revenue. for every dollar i spend on outside audit i get a $100 return. people would say this is a gray line. we will stop it there. if they say something we will say it was a mistake. you have to have auditors watching continuously. when we cutback budgets i would increase it because it would help me get out of the whole quicker. it is common sense and no different than how you would run your household or business. spending is positive investments. we tried to cut funding and did netloss to the government. when the offices experience

funding cuts the federal government loses money and we lose out on their about to save from other programs. that is why i am introduced legislation that will show offices that saved more than they spent. we needed to know if the taxes we imposed helped or hurt. if we reduced taxes and accelerated the reduction it would catch up. and we put triggers in to stop and take a pause to see where we were. there are things people would do. if you run out of money, people would rob a piggy bank and sweep the agencies so it isn't noticeable to the average public. then they will make cuts within government. they will cut back and lay people off.

and the last thing they want to do is raise taxes because then somebody messed up. that is what they believe. so basically what you have to do is look at the wholistic approach. everybody is afraid to talk about taxes. you look now and we cannot even agree on the definition of revenue. that is hard to believe. you would think we cut the taxes right? if we got rid of the junk in the box, the give away and the problems that ever lobbiest has done, every one of them with all of that being said, that is a tremendous with drawl on the revenue. no one says how much does that

cost? and that is what we need to know. and that is what we will be working on. i focused on the tax reform and there is no question i have been a big simpson supporter. i thought the president missed that to make it a bipartisan effort and tweak it but had a three-prong approach. you fix your revenue and you can take care of everything. if you get your revenue under control you are in great shape. if you don't, you have an eight ball and indebtness to see unmanaged makes you a cowered. it certainly does. tax expenditures have the same budgetary affect as spending increases. we know about the charitable deductions and don't appreciate

the cost of the tax expenditures. we can start the process of overhauling the process and not harm businesses or our own voters. i will introduce legislation to allow congress with the budget office to include tax ex expenditures. they are line items today and they will have to take them the same way we do. as a form were governor i warranted to know if the actions we took were working. in washington every time we do something we think of it as something that needed to be done. we never acknowledge we made a mistake. it didn't work. if that is the case why do they need us to come back? we fixed everything if we are that good. the reason i think our founding fathers had us coming back is to

make adjustments. i made a mistake. it didn't work out. the information i got was wrong. we will fix this. that is what i am trying to say. in washington it is no different than back home in west virginia. i told people if i got something wrong, i made a mistake and i can fix it. it didn't work out that way. so let's go back and correct it. one way to address this is to reform the regulatory system. i am introduce legislation to reestablish the office of technology assessment. up until 1995 this office provided non partisan information to congress on cost benefit analysis on regulations and reg lor tory changes. the only source for this information is the whitehouse office of information and regulatory affairs. it should not x from the whitehouse's office when it comes to make state department's decisions in the government. congress needs their own system

for ret prospective review with existing ways to identify various regulations and terms. there are common sense bills out there to help identify ways for the government to work more efficiently. last congress i introduced the duplication elimination act to make it easier for congress to eliminate duplication and overlap. the bill would require the government to submit a proposal each year on how to carry out recommendations in the outlining of the government's accountability office. some years it could be $3-$400 billion in cuts. in 90 days of the goa's report the president must provide congress with a draft proposal and report explaining which are

excluded and why they are not included. why did you pick some but not take the recommendation to consolidate. we think that would work well. both chambers of congress must vote proposals in ten days. and any dollars achieved must be used for deficit reduction. we are not making tan attempt. and no one is worried about the $18 trillion deficit. this is a win-win deal. it gets rid of government waste and holds the government accountable for unnecessarily and unacceptable redundancy. we are starting to see a glimmer of hope and that is one reason i decided to stay in the senate. if it was ability personal

politics and not private. i felt like i accomplished something back home. i left the state in better position. i see the changes. i think there is more to be done but i feel like we can make a difference. but we are making more. we are having more bipartisan talks and debating legislation and i feel there is more work to do. i know the campanile seen is ramping up and we are likely to see political combiefbknives coming out. i am hoping colleagues will join

me in the pledge i took. they said why doesn't the place not work? and i said let me give you the scenario. human nature is this. it is hard to say no to your friends. it is truly hard. with that we have no relationship and not many friendships. and i will work with you. i said on top of that every day i come to work, they expect me to make phone calls and raise money so that can be spent against our colleagues. i am a democrat and they expect me to go on the trail and campaign against a republican. they expect all of my republican colleagues and friends to do the same. how in the world on monday can you come to me and say let's sit down and work on this. i have a good idea. i know last week you spent money on ads against me and went to my home state and told people they should not vote for you. what makes you think i will sit

down with you and work it out. i took a pledge i will not raise a dollar and not campaign against anything. i will not. i think it makes it horrible and if you want to know why we don't get along is because everybody is afraid to talk. guilt by conversation. they are afraid to talk because it could be used against them in an ad. that is one pledge i would like to see the whole town agree to. we cannot campaign against each other. that is what i am joining and trying to do. there is not one colleague of mine even ones i disagree with who i cannot work with and one who can look at me and say joe manchin defeated me and tried to take my job away. not one. so it is easy for me to cross over the aisle and work with the

them. i always say i am a the dull weather person. they bring it to me and i say let me bring it to my colleagues. i don't believe it is working like senator bird told me it did. but i am not going to stop fighting. i think it is well worth the fight we have in it to make this fight work. we have had a lot of greater challenges than this and we have overcome them all. i think we can overcome this, too. i guess we will have questions now. thank you. [applause]

>> senator manchin and senator bird were on my mind. we have been talking to senator manchin's staff for some months now about the interesting and valuable perspective that former governors bring to the united states senate. one of our ad ppvisors is a former governor mayor and senator and when he left the senate we lost the champion for sensible government reform in the senate.

i must say i am impressed with the reform agenda he has outlined. from agendas like returning to bipartisan lunches and the governor's caucus itself to the groups. we have talked about this in the think tank world. it needs to be something we are grappling with the return of the office technology assistance. one of the few valuable small i think the whole thing had 90 people in it. small pieces of government that was well worth its weight and somehow has got chopped. i would like to open senator by asking a sort of general question. why is it so hard to get the united states congress

interested in these common sense, non-partisan reform issues? >> well as i said in the speech, they are not sexy or something that make you want to go out and vote or write a check and help somebody. right now they are chasing to end the vote. there is a never ending cycle. everyone is in cycle. it is a six year cycle in the senate, four year for president, everyone seems to be in an election cycle. if you notice when people say outrageous things and people of responsibility you would think that doesn't make any sense at all the country is so divided with the 24/7 news cycle we are on overload. paranoia is ramped and people

are fired up and say they you are talking about stuff and the last thing i heard about was special forces taking over texas. i could not believe it. they said we have them coming in and being trained. if you are that worried i said.

>> let's go to tack reform for a minute. this whole notion of tax expenditures and many in the room know that over the last several decades as the discreationary part of the budget has declined we legislatured the tax expendi expenditures. we didn't increase government spending. so they are very seductive to

politicians. do you think we can break that habit?

put is on the path of, i think solvency. if we stayed under the clinton tax rates we would have been totally tax -- debt-free as a nation by 2012. by 2012. we had two tax cuts that came. we had two wars unfunded, and it started tumbling from there i tell democrats if you want to blame republicans go right ahead, they're at fault. i tell republicans you want to blame the democrats? we're at fault. we're all to blame for this. so when you can't agree on revenue, when you get a tax code -- bowles-simpson took the approach revenue expenditure and reform and everybody has to take a little haircut but no one is willing to sacrifice a vote for that, or a bad ad on tv against you and i think what we ought to do is gate bunch of senators who are thinking about

retiring who can cure less about getting re-elected and say, we'll sacrifice ourselves and be the ones that will fix this thing for the next generation. we have done tax reform in 17 years. we haven't had reform since 1986. so i tell my republican friends who took the no-new tax pledge, i ask them how are we going to pay it down without revenue? if i reduce the tax, 39 to 33, corporate from 35 to 25, 26, 27, i get rid 0 of a lot of the credits, a lot of the offsets another of the goodies you have written in, and those good away and the end of the day we spin off a trim dollars yours'll have dynamic growth, it happens when you have confidence there's fair system. when you know the system is fair and you're treated fair, sky is the limit because you have confidence, and you'll do

things. so with that being said, how do you spend a flint i asked my republican friends take this position. we have a global competitive rate and permanent and corporations. they can't go offshore. got to pay here. so we do that. and then we got money coming in. even though we reduced the rate. you'll have a few friend saying, my rate was 39-6 but i had a lot of offsets and i'm paying nor now at 33 than i was at 39.6. that could be true. with that being said, let me tell you how i made the democrats spend if you're a republican. 60 coached every new dollar went to debt reduction until we get to 65% of debt to gdp which is manageable which is what all of the economiststle you is manageable. the other 40 crepts of every dollar goes to infrastructure. only can be used for infrastructure in the united states of america. no where else. that's it. so you build america got a cash

flow into a bank, and it's an 80-20 match and 60-cents of every new dollar goes into debt reduction, so the republicans have held the democrats' feet to the fire, can't expand entitlement programs, and the democrats out a fair system in and were dedicated towards getting rid of the debt. you can have a balanced budget in 10-15 years. that's why dish talked to him. you go home and defend yourself. i think i can. i said, let's try it, then. let do something. >> that's great. it remind -- when you talk about retiring senators reminds me of the famous movie of abe lincoln just out where when he was counting up votes to pass the 13th amendment was the first thing he did? he found everybody who is guessing read -- getting ready to retire. >> a lot more courage then. >> that's right. we have a great audience here.

a couple of questions. we have time before the senator leaves. let's see. right there. say who you are please. >> i am gray women if at the policy news web site. no last week, mayor bill be blastow came to washington and outlined a different policy agenda than yours he called for $15 minimum wage, paid sick leave, closing the carried interest loophole. why are he and senators like elizabeth warren wrong to advocate a more progressive or liberal agenda and what is the future of the democratic party if it goes down that path. >> there's knock long. the there's not a hedge fund for benefits. even today we'll defend it. so it should be done away with. with agree on that. the $15 you know, minimum wage -- i'm for raising minimum wage. i think it should be indexed.

i think a lot of things should be indexed. but minimum wage from the extend is not going to raise the middle class. we're not going to be able to. we're ready to pass on the largest trade deal, a one of the largest trade deals in the country, if we do that without understanding what happened to us and hindsight is 2020. go back to 1992 when nafta came in my state of west virginia lost 31,000 jobs since and a half tamp it's hard for me to say this is going to be different so much better. i if you look at where our jobs were lost was in the inner city. where a lot of the textile -- a lot of things going on. we lost all that. now it's rampant with crime high unemployment. how are we better off? we need to look at that. minimum wage is what they think we can raise any type of quality life we're in trouble. the other thing is that no one

good- -- you haven't heard anybody talk about drug abuse. not sexy. not one of this is is in room doesn't know someone in our immediate family or extended family hasn't had a prescription drug problem. it is rampan, epidemic proportion. we can't find people that are clean enough to work. our education is not pushing them to get skill set's so they can complete globally. there's lot going on there i'm fine. i can look at a progressive i can look at it conservative. if it's somewhere in between you have to -- i said this. i'm not right on every issue but eye not wrong on every issue. i have something to contribute, and when mayor de blasio came, god bless him. we want their all his ideas and elizabethway is a good friend of mine and we've teamed up on a lot of amendments together and trying to put some balance into this thing. but on the other hand you can't chastise everybody out there investing and trying to get a

return on investment, out there willing to take a risk, and we just got to make sure that we can continue for this system of ours this unbelievable system of ours. the economy we have is $18 trillion. the closest i one is china 10 trillion. everything else falls off from there nobody rise above 5 trillion. so we are the big people. we are the super power. we have a super economy. people want in this marketplace but we should protect jobs we have here and grow some jobs. that's the problem. a lot of things i agree on or disagree bit i'm always trying to find the balance because i've been able to talk to the people from the far left and far right and tell them, sound goods but doesn't make sense. i can't sell it back home. >> let's see. right here. yes. that's okay. we'll get somebody.

>> i'm john, just here by myself. i was wondering how you see the trend of your state over the long term? i've noticed in previous election cycles it's gone very hard to the right and i know lots of that is probably in reaction to obama and i was wondering do you see things improving maybe after obama and then also i would like to hear your thoughts on mr. justice who is going to run for -- >> first of all my state had -- since bill clinton was the last presidential candidate to win as a democrat in west virginiaful we have gone progressively republican since then, even though we still have 62% of adult citizens registered democrat. you would thick -- but i tell them we're a little different democrats in west virginia. it's a -- i try to describe

myself itch tell people, i'm fiscally responsible and socially comp passionate. that's most people. whether you're a democrat or republican, kind of a lot of people in that arena. with that being said, our social agenda is much more conservative than the national democratic agenda, and with that, we have to be able to articulate that a little bit clearer. jim justice was a republican, just turned democrat to run for governor but jim has been a republican democrat, jim is one of those guys that crosses over. a great person, created a lot of jobs. and he'll be a job creator. he thinks outside the box. so that would be good. the democratic voters need to be looking more to candidates -- president obama brought in a climate agenda that we differ with, and it's not because we

don't want to -- we want clean climate. we want clean air and clean water and all that. but there's a balance between environment and economy and only thing i've said, if it's not obtainable, it's not reasonable. he put some things in play here we don't have technology in place. the federal government wants to invest and find the technology that does a certain thing and you decide you're not growing to do it because it costs too much? i'm sorry. you're out of business. if the technology has not been developed and you're doing the best we shouldn't push you out because we don't like what you're doing. and that is what is happening so when a coal miner and family loses an $80,000 job and all they got is a service job for 20 25,000, this is personal and it's got deep seats. there's just deep animosity towards the president and his policy and all the democrats are suffering from it. >> let me ask the senator something i've been thinking about since you brought up this

revenue positive job -- offices. it's very interesting. i wonder how your republican colleagues will feel about this. if you do in fact go identify these, the argument then is made that for every say medicaid or medicare fraud investigator, we ought to hire more. it actually would be an argument for increasing the federal work force, which of course the republicans seem to be completely allergic to. so you think that enough fact you could prove that there were in fact revenue positive offices you would get some momentum for helping them bring in more money? >> i would like to think they would look at it that way. i would sure try and sure really think they would accept it. but makes sense that if we can show you that rather than changing the whole makeup of social security and medicare and medicaid reform it. president clinton reformed

medicaid which helped send a positive manning. five years and you're out. you have to find a job. we're not rehabilitating anybody. the culture of america is, we don't want to seem to hold you responsible for accountable. we give you something and if it doesn't work we'll give you twice as much. why didn't it work? what did you not do? why didn't grew to the doctor? when i was doctor skid waiver because i cooperate keep up with the cost of method okayed and i had a lot of people that needed help. i told the federal government you should not make me take care of a healthy poor person the way i thick have a moral responsibility to take care of a sick poor person. that sick poor person has very little option. the healthy person, if i can get them back in the workstream can get back on their feet and do something. we call mountain choices rewards. i roar warded you.

pain and suffering for dental and eye care, and i said if you went to your doctor's visits and no go to the emergency room, if you join the healthy choice, healthy lifestyle eat properly and exercise, i'd have you ready to go back into the work force. federal government fought me tooth and nail against that type of responsible reasonable approach. just makes sense. if we can't hold people accountable and responsible would tell my republican friend, let us try. i said before you want to privatize this or that, you can't privatize social security and medicare. i'm 65, 70 years old. you want me to make my best school in my negotiating days are probably over by then. i'm not as good a negotiator as maybe i was a little while ago. so don't put me in that position because i'm going to get hurt. that's just a humanistic approach to some of these things. doesn't even wring true. we keep -- doesn't ring true.

we keep looking for fraud social security. we have more people sin upping for total disability than ever before. and there's people that know -- i go anywhere in the country you know somebody that is receiving a government check that shouldn't? everybody is raising their hands. i know somebody. why aren't we checking? make them come back to re-evaluate if they're still totally disabled. given lifetime award. that's the jackpot. you done hit the lottery. and those types of things. we need look at that. and tell me why on social security we've capped it at 112 -- all we have to do is get that up to where the average of 250,000 and index it from there and we have cash flow that will keep us going for quite some time. that's not offensive. the senator and congressmen we

make 174. so at 174,000 we're -- you can see our pay changes.seven eight months into it. seven or eight months, i've already learned how to live off what i was getting for the six or seven months so it wouldn't hurt me to keep taking that out. that just makes sense. and we talk about these things, and people just have a hard time understanding it. and i've talk about social security. talked about cola, cost of living increase. there's some people that have to have coase of livingen crease because it's all they've got. and there's other people that might not. my parents didn't need the cost of living increase. my parents would have been fine with no cola. my aunt wouldn't have been fine without a coal la. -- cola. so in real world how do you make this work? do you say anybody that has income of greater than 250 or

even 300% of the poverty guidelines, might be 60, 70,000, should they be exempt from getting the cola? no one is going to get exempt from getting their social security you'll get your social security check. but if you're ball certain level you get the cola. if you're not your might. we have all the fights and arguments going on with the colas and no one is having the real hard discussions on this stuff. >> right there. >> yes ma'am. >> hi. i'm sharon. last wednesday ross rowland had a coincidental meeting with me. the train legend that did the american freedom train and buy send tenaille. reagan reside appointment and he basically said our meeting was god's way of acting anonymously, because there are republicans that want to fund amtrak infrastructure, and

they're scared. they're actually nervous, and people that are experts in both parties that want to help provide information to the senate and the congress, but what avenue would they go to? there's a list of politicians open to hearing from a bipartisan coalition that would like -- >> well, what we'll do on that, anytime you have somebody that wants to get a point across and has something, three-quarter committees that it would -- look at the commitees that's probably commerce. get a senator myself, i'm on commerce anybody ask them if they can present at a public hearing. they can come to a public hearing or 0 come to a subcommittee hearing they can get their point across much better that way and see if it's worthwhile than trying to run the hauls and fine somebody sympathetic simple recommend they go to somebody and ask to

be an 0 subcommittee panel. >> thank you so much, senator. you have lid out a pretty amazing reform agenda here today. i'm hoping that the former governors caucus is going to become a real force in the united states senate, and remember it is a bipartisan caucus because some republican former governors as well as democrats, and therefore those at brookings are at your disposal to help you make a government as good as it can possibly be. >> let me just say we have used you extensively and i think all of democrats and republicans looking to find that common sense and the middle of the road. it's going to have to be people speaking out before we hit the proverbial wall, and the financial wall is the one i'm concerned about. wall street can't be doing this tremendous when everyone else is not feeling -- getting the bump they should be getting out of

it and before long people will lose confidence. when they lose confidence you'll see a big switch. when the switch happens you see a lot of people that are very reluctant and very scared. and when that happens then you have serious problems on your hands as we did in 2007. so we're watch it very closely and will be outfield and i encourage all of you keep involved in our offices, up of us have web pages and your comments, web pains are another way to get to us. our staff monitors that and gets it right -- any concerns you might have and some great ideas that we get from you. still government of the people, by the people, and for the people and last thyme checked it was all of you all not just news congress. so stay involved. thank you. >> thank you senator. [applause] [inaudible question] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] transportation and infrastructure issues including the future of amtrak are being debated in congress. on our next washington journal we'll talk to congressman david jolley of florida who serves on the transportation appropriations subcommittee. then a conversation with new york representative jerrell indiana -- nadler whether congress should renew the nsa programs that expire? june.

later a look at the effect the current drought in the west could have on the u.s. economy. washington journal is live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> we'll close out may at book expo america in new york city. then on the first week in june, we are live for the chicago tribune printer's row lit fest, including our three-hour live "in depth" program with lawrence wright and your phone calls. that's this spring on c-span2's booktv. the human rights watch and protect our defenders organizations released a new report today on military sexual assaults. it focuses on retaliation against victims who report their attackers.

the organization held a news conference to unveil the findings and tell the story two of assault victims. this runs 40 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> we can get started. thank you for coming today for the release of our report, and battles, retaliation against sexual assault survivors in the u.s. military. we appreciate your coming today. i thought i'd give you a short overview what to expect over the next hour. we'll start with a video which will be five minutes and then megan rhoads will summarize our findings and then miranda peterson, program and policy director from protecter defenders, will give a few remarks. after that, vicki phipps, who

recently last week, left the army we'll get her perspective from someone who was a commandser and witnessed retaliation and experienced retaliation herself, and then at the end we have sayre a bridges whoa will do most speaking in the video but will also be available to answer questions about her experience in the air force, and i'm sarah senior counsel in the u.s. program and human rights watch. >> reporting sexual assault in the military is not easy. you hear these stories. they all have the same ending. never ends well for the victim. i've been in the military -- i joint in the milner 2008 before all of this happened, my initial goal was to outrank my father, who served for 33 years. >> we interviewed 150 service

members and veterans across all branch's the military who experienced retaliation after reporting sexual assault. >> administrative punishment and all that. >> we're talking about serious threats, harassment, loss of job opportunities, and promotions, disciplinary actions criminal charges being brought against them. essentially for many people they found reporting was the beginning of end of their career. >> often times in the military when you report sexual assault the person who committed the crime against you is somebody who also you work with and also you live with, and so you have to share the same friends same acquaintances, same employers, same managers, and so there's no escape. >> rumors going around within my squad dan i was a troublemaker, liar and i was isolated from my

squadron. i didn't feel comfort aable going to squadron functions. i could hear the whispers. she said so and so touched her. i don't believe that. >> once the air force really realized that sierra whereas not going to give one, she was going to continue to pursue this, i feel that our daughter was retaliated against. one of the particular supervisors had sent out an e-mail to all the other workers win her area, and they were telling those individuals not to even communicate with her. >> we had this concept of team, and they view the person who made the complaint somebody who is not a team player, versus the person who committed the crime. >> in some cases retaliation can mean even more sexual harassment. >> escalates to the point where i felt they were purposely putting me on shifts with the individuals that were assaulting me. there was an incident where

fortunately i had to go over to the gentleman's office to retrieve some keys, and he forced me on top of his desk, and he just started masturbating until he was finished. >> a number of survivors toll us after they reported it, they felt like their supervisor started actively looking for things they had done wrong and were writing. the up for poor performance evaluations, which then can be used to create a record to discharge you from the military. >> she got an award for being an outstanding worker wind her section, but now -- within her section but now all of a sudden she was not the good airman they said she had been and these infractions were hard to disprove because she was late for work but she had permission. she did leave her stuff but this was stuff that was commonly done within her work station. >> i was relieved to finally be

leaving what i considered to be my hell, but i was also sad. i felt like a failure. i had a lot of goals and very ambitious, and it just hurt to see all that kind of go down the drain. >> we know that 62% of our survivors who report are retaliated against. yet there is nobody prosecuted. nobody punished for retaliation last year, or the year before. the year before that. and when in one is held accountable for retaliation sends out a horrible message. the message is, keep going keep doing it. >> the military needs to demonstrate it takes retaliation seriously north by words bibi actions. they need to show the people who retaliate against survivors will be to hold account for people people retall racing is far worse than the sexual assault itself because they had faith the military would support. the and then to have their

peers and their supervisors whom they would give their life for treat them this way was devastating. >> good morning. last month defense secretary ashton carter addressed officers and training about the estimated 18,900 sexual assaults that occurred within the military last year. the described sexual assault as a disgrace in any form, and a particular tall change and a particular disgrace to the u.s. military. wore here to talk about the soldier on the point line of the challenge, those who come forward and report they have experienced sexual assault and harassment. without question, reporting sexual assault in the u.s. military is an act of valor that is, an act of tremendous courage, in the face of danger. reporting is an act that entails

service members putting their careers on the line, exposing. thes to their scrutiny of peers and leadership, and laying there in profound and personal trauma. it is an act of valor for many is motivated bay deep devotion to the military, its values, and the safety of their brothers and sisters in arms. however, our research shows that its an act of val already that not rewarded but punished. our analysis finds military service members who restaurant sexual assault are 12 time as likely to suffer retaliation for doing so than to see their offender, if also a service member, convicted for a sex offense. in the research human rights watch conducted over 250 interviews including 150 with survivors. in order to focus on the current context and count for recent reforms the report we released today is based primarily on the accounts of 75 survivors who are

currently serving or let of left service since 2012. the picture of retaliation in these accounts is stark. threats and bullying by peers and supervisors including threats, vandalism attack series ya social media. the physical and verbal abuse would be intolerable in any context, and the all-encompassing military environment it is also inescapable. military retaliation is not limited to a nine to five work day and can note escaped with two weeks notice. service members are not mere coworker with their perpetrators and their friends. they live together. especially for junior enlist evidence service members the military controls every minute of their time and aspect of their lives. many service men's are found by contract to the military for fixed terms. the retaliation was not limited to service men peer. survivors were label troublemakers by superiors

targeted to disciplinary action that was undeserved outer line with common practice. super propers moved victims to poor work assignments removed them to from their career traumatic and cause them to miss out on train examination deployments. survivors who had been on the career fast tract and received recognition for outstandings performance, suddenly found they were denied medals or given poor performance reviews. this made it more likely they other would not have their enlimits renewed or be administratively discharged. in interview after interview service members told us that reporting sexual assault marked the beginning of the end of their careers. in addition, some survivors faced court-martial or discipline for mine nor misconduct like underage dirk organize adultery that only came to the military's attention as a result of their coming forward to report sexual assault. this is not how a military that wants to end sexual assault treats the soldiers who are coming forward to put a stop to a problem that is plaguing the

institution. to be sure, congress and the defense department have made numerous retomorrows to to the military justice system to protect victims rights. over 200 provisions of law secretarial initiatives and independent recommendations have been undertaken within the last three years. the defense department cites increased rates of reporting of sexual assault as evidence of the progress made. while reporting rape have improved dramatically in recent years, in surveys service members consistently cite fear of row tallation from the perpetrator or the perpetrator's friend or concern about their careers as reasons for not reporting. alarmingly our research indicates that those fears are well grounded. the positive trend in reporting will not continue as victims see that those who report their sexual assault experience retaliation and that no action is taken to address the problem. in other words ending retaliation is critical to effectively addressing sexual

snail u.s. military. -- sexual assault in the u.s. military. >> good morning. my name is mr. rap da peterson this be policy directorror protecter defender i recognize the incredible work of human rights watch in shining thelight on the issue. we have been honored to work with them on this report. i'd also like to acknowledge automatic of the survivors both here today and who contributed to the report for september mon straighting so much strength -- demonstrating so much strange and sharing stories of retaliation and reprical. this report exposes the grave reality for the majority of survivors of rape and sexual assault in the military. retaliation this the norm and is often severe. superiors either look the other way or they're engaging in retaliation as well. this report affirms what we see daily through our network which is that service members members who face retaliation have nowhere within the system to turn and know that most likely no one is going to be held accountable.

this leaves survive yours with two practical options either suffer in silence or leave the military that you love. last year, as you heard according to the pentagon's own numbers, 62% of victims who reported their assaults experienced retaliation and that is a number that has gone unchanged over the past two years. you would think that these numbers would be raising alarms and would result in effective action from military leaders but inset the pentagon seems intent on downplaying the severity of the problem and discrediting victims. by labeling reports of retaliation as perceptions or perceived retaliation the pentagon is insin waiting victims are too sensitive to aclu accurately interpret their environment and what is reported as retaliation is exaggerated responses to harmless behavior such as not been invited to parties or being unfriended on facebook. this approach is shameful, it's offensive and it minimizes the

extreme harris ragment and abuse that so many survivors are facing every day. contrary to the pentagon's portrayal, this is not about hurt feelings. as a human rights watch report shows this about survivors facing relentless harassment and isolation from peers and superiors and going uncheck. about being assigned menial task biz supervisors like picking up garbage after you report your assault. it's like suddenly receiving a downtown graded performance report and ending a promising career. it's about being charged with minor offenses that were only revealed as a result of reporting your rape or being misdiagnosissed with a personality disorder as a way of getting rid of you. this is what retaliation really looks like and it's life-destroying. in refusing to acknowledge the true nature of this problem and failing to hold bad actors conditionable, the pentagon is tacitly sanctioning the ongoing harassment and abuse of

survivors who have already suffered so much from their assault. survivors frequently tell us that while the actual saul was devastating, the betrayal of a corrupt system and retaliation by both coworkers and commanders is even more traumatic. the pentagon must take the energy currently being spent opposing reforms and dismissing retaliation and begin taking steps to prevent assault and to protect and respect survivors of sexual assault. it's time for the military implement a transparent ask professional justice stem and hold those who make the environment a hostile place for victims of rape and sexual assault to account and we hope the president will take action to support this. thank you. >> good morning. i am vicky phipps, retired army captain. my father was in the army and i knew i also wanted to serve as a leader. i was an rot dr. college and joined the army full-time in 2004.

after four years i was on track to reach the highest levels of command and i had exceptional reviews. from the moment in rotc, when i learned about the duties and responsibilities that a command position required, awaying that position was my goal. in 2008 i took my first command position in oklahoma. and we later moved the unit to korea. throughout my military career, receiving and hearing of inappropriate comments were commandplace and continued into this position as well. one of my senior ranking officers began brushing against me and touching me inappropriately. i reported this to my commander and he told me that it had two choices in the situation. he toll me kyrie move you for cause and end your career right now, or you can find a way to deal with it. the perpetrator was the officer that was responsible for the entire battalion's training and mission readiness evaluation.

after reporting this situation this officer began to push all of my units schedule evaluations dates further and further into the future. for instance, during a field training exercise, my unit stayed on the field for an extra five days to complete training. this affected me directly by making me miss the training and readiness goal my commander set for me. these metrics are used at a bulk of an officer's evaluation review. i'm not sure if the secondary retaliatory effects were intentional but the they that's corrected me much more than knowing my own evaluation was in jeopardy. these secondary retaliatory effects were that because my unit missed these trainings and readiness goals my soldiered missed out on recognition for the accomplishments. the lack of visual wreck nix and the recognition of awards and certificates of achievement actually equated to my soldiers missing out on promotion points.

this retaliation did not just affect me. it affected over 100 other people. their careers and their future earnings. while in the same unit, over the course of one year, i was assaulted a total of three times. and absolutely i do think that the climate facilitated these crimes. i chose not to report two of them because i knew that if i reported at that point my career was gone. id a has witnessed what happened to knees unit who reported sexual assault. i saw several cases handled badly. each victim was blamed. information about cases was not kept confidential and victims were branded as liars. i took a chance and reported one of the three assaults that happened that year. i thought that i would be able to change that attitude towards sexual assault victim biz reporting. i thought reporting would stop

northwestern traitor from continuing to hard's me or others. when i reports evidence it to my hander his response was the sage when report erred to senior officer earlier deal with and it do your job. army criminal investigations division cid eventually substantiated my case and the perpetrator confessed to the conduct. that person was golfing buddies with my commander. and he only received a local letter of reprimand so when he went to the next duty station his slate was completely clean not to mention that he didn't even have to register as a sex offender. from that point on my commander method it clear that he wanted me out of his unit and he set me up to fail. an example of a retaliatory action that happened in this unit was my change of command ceremony. as i was leaving two years of command time with my unit. the entire battalion and some

member's of he brigade attend this event when my commander gave me a date, i began to plan the event and send out invitations. a day or two later the brigade commander issued a mandatory training event for the entire brigade. i asked if i should change my date and the commander told know get it done. my ceremony was bare bones only my own unit attended and a few outside guests. despite my outstand egg valuation reviews i did not receive an award. at all. which sent a negative signal to the promotion board. i knew that was the beginning of the end of my career. during my last command position, which was my last two years in the army, a whole new set of problems arose. about six months into the duty position, i was assaulted for the fourth time in my career. i reported it to my commander

and my commander had the noncommissioned officer issue an apology. was labeled troublemaker from that day forward. later during the command my first sergeant made an inappropriate sexual remark to me at a training conference. i councilled him some referred tim the to battalion commander for action. i could not bare the thought of him saying something like there is to my soldiers. my first sergeant and i were counseled in writing way. counseled foe failure to maintain better control over my first sergeant. my battalion commander broke protocol and asked me to step out of the room into he could issue my first sergeant a reprimand. once i stepped out of the the room and closed the door, heard a roaring laughter from my battalion commander music battalion command sergeant major and my first sergeant. i immediately complained about happening of this incident to the inspector general who then referred me to the military

equal opportunity office, who then instructed me to address my brigade commander. i met with my brigade commander and he spent 30 minutes intimidating me, trying to get know drop it. from this point i felt that my entire chain of command was on a mission to undermine my credibility and fire me. i began to receiving metive counseling statements for things like not returning a call or an e-mail immediately. i was subject to several nonstandard unannounced inspections that none of my peers received. and i was given extra paperwork to complete that was not required of any of my peers. after my chain of command and the ig both failed to resolve the ongoing retaliation i wrote to my senator. my brigade and battalion commanders the subjects of my complaints led the congressional inquiry. as a result, my chain of command began an investigation that was supposed to be a look into my

battalion commander's behaviors toward me and the retaliation i was receiving. during this investigation my deputy brig grade commander interrogated me for over two hours, asking me, there are any unusual circumstances about your enlistment? my soldiers and coworkers informed the they were questioned about my mood. after issue ago a command climate survey, my sergeant major met with me ncos and said ma'am tell me everything she does wrong. after neating one of my ncos told me, ma'am, down know what you did hut he is gunning for you. and in 2013, my annual military medical exam triggered the initiation of a medical evaluation board. i became eligible for medical retirement. the retaliation continued. my chain of command threatened to stop the emed process and look further into my medical records themselves.

my commander read through any medical records and including some records about my previous sexual assault, and in training meetings he referenced specific issues in my medical reports as examples of what medical issues soldiers could have within the battalion and to ensure that we pay special attention to these soldiers. two months before the end of my med process i was told i would be send to a u.s. army reserve unit. as an active duty soldier. but i was also able to fight that. however i was once again penalized and i was denied a retirement award. despite how overwhelming these prolonged situations were for me my multiple years as a commander, and a survivor, provided a knowledge base for know anticipate what was coming, and from whom. as well as navigate the field of questions and interrogations,

and the bout of probing questions and threats that i knew that i should challenge. i can only imagine how difficult this has to be for the young enlisted personnel who don't know what they don't know. whistleblower retaliation and reprisal has now outlast mid military career and i wonder when i'll get to move on with my life. on a personal side note, of all the many great leadership lessons that the army has taught me the ability to present and brief the bottom line up front is helpful to me in offering you my point of view. the bottom line, is a have learned, becomes more impactful when dollar figures accompany that issue at hand. so when i look back at my nine years of service i considered all the money the army inved in me as a resource and an asset to

the organization, between the multiple clearances, a a did levels civilian schooling both undergraduate and graduate, special military training and schooling, rotc and associated training temporary duty in various locations and my salary, the arm invested well over $1 million in me. due to the conditions that i was subjected to, i was medically retired from the army. i cannot currently place a dollar amount on what the department of the army will spend on paying for my retirement because that is a life-long payment. the impact of this issue now also begs begs the question, how much will the va system have to contribute to improving my quality of life? because the current systems in the military cannot appropriately address whistleblower reef tallation. disseems to be the very definition of fraud waste and abuse.

>> what was striking to us, basically victims have no recourse. service members unlike civilians, can't quit and they can't sue the military. their exclusive legal protection for retaliation in the professional context is the military whistle blower protection art. our research found that the act has protected zero survivors of sexual assault who experience retaliation after reporting their assault. dod surveys indicate that 32% of people who report a sexual assault experience professional retaliation. using that figure, between 2000 and 2013 we would have expected to see about 5,700 people who may have had professional retaliation that could have been

the subject of complaints with the inspector general which oversees the isle blower protection investigations. over that same time period, the department of defense inspector general has a report of 38 complaints. of which five were investigated and none of which resulted in any relief for the victim who reported the sexual assault. so the legal protections for service members as they exist right now are a dead end. service members could also go to the boards of correction of military records and seek relief for an injustice to their record directly. the board are the administrative bodies designated within each of the branches to correct any injustices to service member records. we an lied 18 years of recordses that are available and we found only 51 sexual assault survivors

who had even gotten partial relief from the boards of correction what was also surprising is that over the same time period, 98 perpetrators had received correction to their military record. we found that four time as many perpetrator as victims go to the board have to their records corrected, and this is the case even though victims are actually far more likely to experience administrative actions that could require corrections than perpetrators are. the other important piece of this is holding the people who retaliate to account and despite numerous requests to many sources we were unable to uncover information that indicates they people who retaliate against survivors are held account enable anyway way. we found only four instances of any action being taken at all

two investigations which had been opened into retaliation neither of which resulted in punishment for the person doing the retaliation and two cases in which people who harassed and abused a victim were given extra physical training or extra duty and one of those instances was 15 years ago. the military has the tools to discipline people who are behaving improperly. and we believe they need to be utilizing them against the people who are committing retaliation instead of against the victims. we in -- the reality is unfortunately very few people -- that very few people see justice for these kinds of crimes in general, but in the military, this retaliation is a problem that affects most people who come forward and without addressing that as megan and others have said, the overreaching problem of sexual assault can't be effectively

addressed. at a minimum going forward what we would like to see is the military whistleblower protection act strengthened to be a meaningful legal protection for survivors to at least provide them the same level of protection as civilians get who are designated as whistle-blowers and so it can recommend -- both the inspector general can recommend disciplinary action and the victims can request disciplinary action as part of their rear life and the legal justice for service members act of 2015 is an act we believe will encompass many of the suggestions we would like to see going forward to improve the legal protections for victims. we'd also like to see collateral charges for minor misconduct that come's to the attention of the military as a result of someone reporting a sexual assault, taken off the table as

a potential source of punishment for victims who come forward to report. one of the thing wes found is that many people are afraid to report because at the time of the assault they might have been engaging in conduct that is illegal in the military, such as underage drink ago fraternization or adultery. and that is one of the major barriers for people 0 to come forward. the military says that they actually rarely punish people for those infractions. and that is also the custom in the civilian world. they know it's more important to punish people for the more serious offense of sexual assault than to pun u-them for other -- punish them for other minor infractions but we found that people were actually punished for these -- for collateral misconduct that dime the attention of the military during a report of a sexual assault and ask even if pine-ment is minor letter of rep rye manned or slap on the wrist, that can be devastating

to someone's career in the time the military is downsizing and a bad mark can be an excuse to not re-enlist someone. that's another area we like to see legislative action. otherwise dod has taken important steps in ill proving how it handles sexual assault cases including special victims counsel and we load like to to expand those capacities to include the able to deal with retaliation in addition to the criminal justice system. so with that, we are happy to take any questions you might have. if not i wanted to say we have a number of survivors here in the room, and addition to on the panel, who -- some of whom are active duty and cannot be identified but are willing to share their stories with people and we have other two who are also willing to speak even with their identity being revealed, and we have maria mcforland here in the front row who is

available for spanish speaking questions and interviews, and i think we have -- do we have an attorney -- yes okay. right in front of me. sorry. terry who are here for a different reason. they have put together a petition of 130,000 -- over 130,000. >> over 130,000 signatures with respect to the mjia and they're happy to speak to people if anybody has any questions after this. yes? >> with stars and stripes. i'm wondering if you guys take a position on the ability of commanders to overturn verdicts in these cases? >> well, article 60 was amended about two years ago to make it more difficult for commanders to

overturn a verdict. but they still have control over the entire prosecutorial process. and i think -- protecter defenders, our position is that as long as commander have the authority to say who is going to be -- which cases are going to trial and which cases will be prosecuted that contributes to the division of units and it undermines unit cohesion and couraging people to take sides and ultimately injects bias into the process where instead there should be a more objective and impartial system in place. >> i'm steve with military times. on the -- there's a lot of what has been described as stuff engrained in the culture. you spelled out ideas you had for how to stop retaliation but

oh are how should the military change the culture that might have allowed this to happen? >> i mean, it's a difficult question and it will take time, but i think the key is for them to demonstrate -- i think some of this is beginning to be done or will be done. it's to start by training at the lowest level what to expect and how to treat people. i think ultimately the key will be showing through actions that retaliatory behavior will not be tolerated...

and what are we looking toward having the people that allow these things to go on, when is it going to follow there record? how can we start making this follow there career? >> that is a good question. this is -- i mean, one of the things in the legal service to file legal justice for servicemembers act is to be able to hold accountable leaders who knew or should have known about retaliation and failed to take action. that is one of the expanded definitions of prohibited personnel practices in the proposed law that might be helpful in terms of putting

responsibility on commanders for ensuring that this kind of behavior does not happen. also if there is disciplinary action and the move toward holding people accountable that is to be done and transparent invisible way so that people can see across the branches that this is not being tolerated and that it will have an impact on the record going forward. it will be an important part of it. >> thank you. you heard that whistleblowers have a tough road ahead. is there anything that is going on that could go back and review their dismissal as opposed to honorary versus not honorary. hopefully we have made better strides. >> you have given us a good lead into our next. thank you. we have actually there is a

discharge review process all problem although problem of people who were wrongfully discharged from particularly in the military mental health discharges. very common. other kinds of discharges as well for misconduct related to trauma stemming from sexual assault the resulted in bad discharges and can be stigmatizing and inhibit people from getting the benefits that they need. and also certain types of jobs and it is a huge problem for people who have had that. and the remedy is to go to the boards of correction military records. we are actually doing because the whistleblowers for more protective of active service members who

feel that they have experienced retaliation after reporting that is the focus of this report which also has relied on active service members were is our next report will look further back and what happened to people who have bad discharges and how difficult it is for the remedy that. >> high. i think one of the things that we see a lot of is the people do not understand the military members do not understand what there dd 214 says. a think that is probably an area that needs to be addressed because there are codes on their. unless you know what they are you have no way to do anything about them. for example, there was an article not long ago it's

about the secret codes. my husband and i were were scrambling to grab our 214's and take a look at what they are. so i. so i think that is something that probably needs to be addressed thank you. >> and that is true. we found that in our research people do not understand what the discharge meant until after the fact and it was too late. that can be devastating. that is in one of our recommendations to have a special victims counsel's so that they are insured their rights are protected. people especially in the midst of trauma might be anxious to get out of the service that they agree to any kind of discharge. so without understanding the repercussions, that is an important issue.

okay. okay. well, if there aren't any more questions thank you for coming and we will be available afterwards. >> coming up on c-span2 the south korean ambassador discusses the trade relationship between korea and the us.

>> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate for proceedings in key public policy events in every weekend book tv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. watch us in hd like us on facebook follow us on twitter. he is followed by a panel of economists and trade

scholars. >> good afternoon. i am the president and ceo. i welcome i welcome you here this afternoon for what should be a very interesting exchange's. china to tpp with a ?-question-mark meaning going even beyond. this is going to be a very interesting forum. we welcome you this afternoon. it is my opportunity to introduce the ambassador. when they finished we will leave hopefully ten minutes for questions and then troy will be bringing up the 1st panel. my opportunity to meet the ambassador goes back to

about a year before he became ambassador. june of 2012. a very interesting conversation. the lid i realize you become the us ambassador to korea he would become the korea ambassador to the united states. learned a lot about the tremendous background, deep background that he has an international trade. he will be our 1st speaker followed by doctor hooley. the president of the korean institute for international economic policy. along background of the international trade and also korea's sherpa to the g 20. many hats, tremendous background and traded international policy. ambassador lee the floor is

yours. [applause] >> thank you so much. can you hear me well? such a one-day. i congratulate you for braving the heat and humidity. thank you so much. there are so many people i should be thinking. all of my colleagues here. coming all the way from korea to hear. i look today. this is not a group of panelists. top-notch panelists here in washington dc. thank you so much. having said that this is something we were chatting

just before coming in something we were just checking, the timing of the similar. i have been ambassador in this town for about three years now. and in the issue of trade and trade policy has been never higher the interest and issue of trade and trade policy has been never higher in this down for the past two years. now we all understand what is happening to congress and of course we hear all the things about how they are deploying in order to have it happen. and then all the academics and all of the journalists. they are continuing to educate us with the wonderful work of international trade. so all of these developments and listen to all those discussions and i just ask

myself this question. korea ambassador in washington dc and korea and united states and of course we have something from korea us fda. can make any contribution the ongoing the lid contributions. what is the answer? my answer is yes resounding yes. the reason why i say that is because it's very simple. three years. it has been working very, very, very well. very very very because i tried to look at trading goods. and trading goods between korea and the united states

very very impressive. for example when it comes to pharmaceuticals it includes more than 100 percent. when it comes to automobiles here i should be very careful because there is james coming. i should be very careful. for the for the past three years the export of automobiles the united states to korea includes 140 percent. and then if you look i was coming on agriculture. meeting with the members of the chamber of commerce. and there was an export. mr. ambassador, i am so glad. why? because my was being exported to korea increased by 50 percent last year. and then there was another group it increased by 70 percent. where i go in this country i

here all those wonderful things. as i told you my my 1st goes for trading goods. it is increasing. last year you export to korea. us export to korea increased by 9 percent. what is happening? korea in fact is the 6th largest trading partner for the united states. we caught up after. we used to be seventh-largest. we caught up with one country and became the 6th largest trading partner. you know west countries to be the 6th largest? just have korea uk. we took the place of uk and became the 6th largest trading partner for korea. secondary goes to trade in services. when it comes to trade in

services i don't have to remind you you are the most competitive provider of service and trade's. so trade surplus in favor of the united states by $10 billion. very impressive. it's a ghost investment. smaller than investment from united states to career. but they change it. last year korean investment in the united states it was $3 billion's that us investment in korea. so all these things are happening to a large extent it was because of korea us fda which entered into. it's at the same time more

importantly i hope that korea us fda could in fact serve as a kind of best case scenario the ongoing deliberations and discussions in this town of trade and trade policy. what we are doing today thanks to the arrangement as i told you top-notch panelists i think it is an occasion. how well they are working. and we continue to work in the days to come. thank you so much. [applause]

>> okay. i have okay. i have prepared a presentation. being an economist on it to talk about numbers. it's the issue that i'm going to cover related to trade my couple of other things like to touch base on today. as i was traveling around i noticed that there have been a lot of misperception of what is going on. i have prepared some issues that i would like to try for the sake of communication between korea and the united states relating to external issues are not easy to address'. so let me talk about the

rising current account surplus was many people are talking about including people in the united states's. as you can see, the current account surplus largely attributed to the growing trade surplus in korea. the net services are still negative but not large relative to the overall trade gross. we did a structure using the compositions to try to figure out what is contributing to the growing current account surplus. i won't bother you with the technical details. it's essentially there are key factors like world trade and change trade and other unidentified issues. but in particular the last couple of years we found in

terms of trade and domestic demand to have been the major contributor to the growing current account surplus'. here i am showing you the same chart from three years to clarification. as you can see, here we are missing actually the other component. the sharp drop in oil prices also contributing to current account surplus. but domestic demand is also can to read generated significantly. the exchange rate in terms of contribution has been small except for one quarter and another earlier on this that i will come back to. now we asked the question as to why domestic demand in korea was flowing. the answer is that we have very poor growth in consumption of particularly private consumption. private consumption has fallen below 50 percent. it's then of course

investment would still accounts for about 30% 30 percent which related to our history is not high and it is not actually holding up well. given the sluggish growth in consumption and investment 95 percent of domestic demand which is slowing and has not been growing very rapidly. here i show you the normal growth in consumption versus the inflation rate. consumption in real-time has actually been almost flat for the last ten years. this is a factor not many people outside korea now. it's you know this chart are going chart not going to explain all of this but the.i tried to make the macro balance approach we use that the imf to assess external balance. the.i'm trying to make is that the situation is very

difficult to solve through macroeconomic policy conditions. because it's neither the macroeconomic policy exchange rate interest-rate actually having a notable impact on domestic demand. for fiscal policy very short-term impact. very slow growth. what we found was actually after the crisis you can see the 1 percent standard deviation has hardly any impact on domestic demand. this can be explained in many different ways, but i have prepared a couple. the 1st is on consumption. it seems that interest rates

it is not impacting consumption months because it seems to affect private sector balance sheet interest rates go up on the asset and liability side equally or similarly to the extent that the overall growth and consumption is not really even though we had a very large notable output gap and inflation is declining. and recent and recent moves on the interest-rate have not really had any impact. and on investment as you know if the rate goes down maturity structure on the long-term is influenced but long-term interest rates which essentially is key for investment pick up is not affected by short-term policy rate but by us

long-term interest rates. so this is a problem that we face at the moment in korea. investment follows us monetary policy. and this is shown here clearly. two things lining. this one is korea's long-term interest rate us long-term interest rate measured in ten-year t-bond. you can see that the correlation has gone up to 80. before it was about half. and even the country risk premium seems to be collapsing's. short on correlation but the.that i mentioned, the short-term interest-rate a decent transmission working with the policy rate in the

ten year korea interest-rate correlation they almost zero there is no path through. if you look at this 90 percent cost of central exchange does not have an impact. most of the trade is on the product. a different type of relationship.

the goods. it's the initial impact on the exchange for depreciation is actually a drop in the current trade deficit because we import a lot of stuff. as that feeds through the production it has slight positive impact. again, 90 percent constancy. another reason the exchange rate doesn't really have much impact on the current surplus as you can see here the largest component intermediate product import export for part of the global value chain every this component is essentially forget which one is which. it used.

these are the intermediate product that we export and then the 3rd countries who import and use them as part of their import for export. import use this. i agree it exports we use this much and with larger. this makes of intermediate goods coming in and out korea being the most fully integrated into the global's and the exchange rate then we look at what is actually affecting the exchange rate in korea. did some analysis with key variable reserves and out of control variables and found the significance in terms of trade.

impacting the exchange rate in korea. so what that means is that if reserved reserve goes up for whatever reason obviously because intervention plus other stuff than the exchange trade appreciates less. if oil prices go up the exchange rate depreciates. that is the relationship. here again we divided the relations between the two the pre-quex is in the post crisis. crisis. and the gap between this line in the shaded line the extent to which reserve accumulation's has affected the exchange rate. if you see this large gap here this means the exchange rate could have appreciated by this amount

is actually prevented the exchange rate relative to the market determination. we don't have no space anymore area and the last five years or so the exchange rate has been market determined. the gaps one or two exchanges market determined exchange rates. and this illustrates in a graphical way the.that i was just making come in the last three years i looked into the times through the composition that i showed the beginning during which time the exchange actually had some impact on the surplus. identified to. here and in this.

no other movements. you can see that the reserve accumulation was flat in nominal terms, nominal impact in terms. essentially means that because of their capitol account movement the us dollar depreciated. influencing the current account surplus. it's so these are sort of some underlying factors for analysis behind the current account surplus. was for the macroeconomic policy. so if any of you have an answer please let me know.

and then they're are a few other related global economic issues. probably related to trade. the huge global stocks. this is particularly an issue. in particular if you look at the reporting bank balance sheet which is much easier to control and monitor they have this growing non-bank to non-bank cross-border liability which continues to grow. much more difficult to monitor. it's we have now increasing financial products that are linked through options the financial price developments in advanced economies. we have products linked to the us stock market. and you know that