>> a separate subject. a proposal to discuss coordination and military coordination with russia in targeting al-nusra nseers you. i'm just wondering, you've been a skeptic in the past about cooperating with russia militarily in syria, given that their motives are different than those of the united states. has something changed, which supports -- >> we do have a professional relationship with the russian military to make sure there are no incidents and no safety issues as we both operate in the neighboring areas. syria. but i said before that russians got off on the wrong foot in syria. they said they were coming in to fight isil, and that they would assist the political transition in syria towards a post-assad government that could run the

country and put that terribly broken country back together and give the people the future they deserve. they haven't done either of those things. i'm still hopeful that they will do both of those things. i think that's what secretary carries talks which are very frequent with the russians are all about. but meanwhile, we have a channel which is focused on safety issues and we maintain that, and that's a very professional working channel between us. >> can ask you something else, follow on to the question, you will known to be skeptical of the russians and some of the things that the military has done. so really straight up, are you willing, are you in favor now of an expanded effort for military cooperation with the russians inside syria? most people in this town think you are not.

>> if the russians would do the right thing in syria, and that's an important condition, as in all cases with russia, we're willing to work with them. that's what we've been urging them to do since they came and. that's the objective that secretary carries talks are aimed at. and if we can get them to the point, that's a good thing. spent a follow-up on two small items. are you willing to include an ever for the u.s. to begin airstrikes against al-nusra? may also ask you about raqqa. as the world watched what's happened in istanbul help urgent are you beyond the new discussion -- to see the other fighters get to raqqa? >> very, very eager to get them to raqqa. this is the same group that we have been working successfully with as they been successful. we've been enabling and

supporting them in to envelop and take, which they will from isil, a city which like rocket isn't as well known but it is a city from which external plotting has been conducted by isil into europe and into the united states as well, and was part of the transit hub from the turkish border down to isil in syria. so that was an important objective. those same forces at that same approach a really the same approach in some larger forces actually are the ones that we pledge, and i just was discussing this with general mcfarland the other day along with general dunford, those are the forces that we're going to position do, i didn't envelop and collapse isil control of raqqa. the reason i want to do that as soon as possible is that raqqa

is the self-proclaimed capital of the self-proclaimed caliphate of isil. and it's important to destroy the isil in iraq in syria, because that's actually necessary. it's not sufficient to avoid all kinds of radicalization and so forth but it's necessary in order to eliminate the idea that there can be a state based upon the ideology. that's why we are so intent in our military campaign against isil on iraq insurgent. we would really love to get raqqa as soon as we possibly can, like everything else. chris? >> mr. secretary, a couple of questions about what this change will mean for the transgender servicemembers. can you verify that the military

health care coverage will cover all aspects of care including gender reassignment surgery? second, will the pentagon add gender identity or transgender status to the military equal opportunity policy in the event a trans gender service never feels like they'r they're experg discrimination? >> the answer to the first one is the medical standards don't change. the transgender, like all other servicemembers, will get all medical care that doctors deem necessary. they will have to do that with their subject to, if it's not urgent medical care, subject to their commanders. because if they need to be deployed, they need to be deployed. it's normal that if you have a procedure which is not urgent, that you have to defer that if you are being deployed. we would not have a different medical policy for transgender servicemembers than others. our doctors will treat them,

give them medically necessary treatment according to the protocols that are determined by the medical profession. >> will you add transgender policy speak was under the specific edge to do. i assume the answer is yes, and peter is telling me yes. it certainly stands to reason that we would, makes sense. let's see. cori. cori is not here. how about paul? >> i want to follow up on that question. so there's been some debate on whether the military would only cover hormone therapy versus covering full reassignment surgery. so we'll reassignment surgery be covered speak with this is for currently serving members to again, that's going to be a matter that the doctors will determine in accordance with what is medically necessary that the decision that they make with their physician. and the timing of it, if getting treatment of any kind, like any

other not urgent medical care will be something that their commanders will have a voice in for the grace of a recent that we come in this matter as in all matters, writing is and deployability are critical. no? >> mr. secretary, you said current servicemember. >> only because -- >> so incoming servicemembers who transition, would not be eligible for the transitional surgery? >> it depends, nick. if someone who is transgender and comes out, will need to in be required to have undergone transition and be stable in that state for 18 months before they can enter the military. >> but the u.s. military will not provide that surgery? is that what you're saying? >> they will not be in the u.s. military at the time because

they will not have access until they've undergone transition. try to? >> how many transgender troops have been dismissed under the old policy? and also i'm wondering why general dunford isn't to discuss this policy since it affects -- >> let me take the second part first. this is my decision. however, we have arrived at it together, the senior leadership of the department. they support this timetable and its implementation plan. as indicated, actually made some adjustments in it. specifically to take into account some of the desire by some achieves to have all the more time on the fund, particularly for the commanders in training guidance. so i agree because i thought that was reasonable. i have a general principle around which is very important, which is that it's important that the people of the intimate decisions be part of the

decision-making, and the armed services are the ones that are going to have to implement that. so it's very important, they have been part of the study, but now they're critical part of implementation because day and i all agreed as i said before, simply declaring the military open to transgender individuals does not constitute effective implementation. we have work to do and we will do it, and we will do it together. >> mr. secretary, in light of events this morning at andrews air force base, are you getting a little fed up of all these false alarms for an active shooter? why the communications problems this morning to? >> i wouldn't say that it because i think we have to take you seriously when they occur. i think the mistake was made you or someone an early date, they were not doing that on purpose. it also shows a high degree of readiness and rapidity of response if something doesn't care based on information i

have, that this was a mistake. and that this was a drill that was going on that was mistaken for real event. and response was made. and that is something, because it has happened before i think we need to pay attention to, how to minimize the chances of false alarms like that. at the same time i think it's important to have a reasonable level of awareness of the possibility of this kind of event, and what to do. and i thought the response was strong and solid. so that's the good news. advantages is that it is a been a mistake, and we would like to reduce the number of mistakes made in this way, no question about it. >> i'm still confused by your answer to mix question. so he was already in the military, if he or she is being

medically, sex change surgery is deemed medically necessary, the military will pay for a? >> that's correct. >> what happens now, and you explain to the 18 month stable before you commit but what happens to a service man or woman who joins? >> they will receive -- >> join as a man or woman and then decide at some point after their joint of the service that they need -- >> if any medical treatment in that instance that is determined to be medically necessary by their doctors will be provided like any other medical care. however, i do emphasize, this is subject to the normal readiness requirements that are imposed upon the military servicemember. >> one time offer. this is going --

>> our offer in this is in all medical. there's no change in medical policy. medically necessary care as determined by doctors, which is appropriate, will be provided to servicemembers as is part of our promised about medical care in general. one more. >> in response from capitol hill, there's a way things work in this electronic age as chairman mac thornberry has already reacted your announcement even as you're still making it. if i could just read a tiny bit of this statement edges get your response. he says quote, this is the latest example of the pentagon and the president prioritize and politics over policy. our military readiness and internatiinternati onal security is dependent on our troops being medically ready and deployable. administration seems unwilling or unable to assure the congress and the american people that transgender individuals will meet these individual readiness

requirements. >> well, the chairman is right, that is chairman thornberry, is right to emphasize readiness. that's a key part, was a key part of our study and will be a key part of implementation. and the chairman and other members of the committee, committees i've heard a variety of opinions on this, some urging us to move even faster than we have moved, and some, it is a very legitimate to understand what the effects of produce and the effects of for this and so forth are but with some principles here. we have a necessity of it going to act upon the we will do any delivered and thoughtful and step-by-step manner but it's important that we do it. >> thank you. >> one question? >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> you can watch this again on our website at c-span.org. news organizations including cbs reporting some senior military leaders believe the department is moving too fast and ask and resolve many details. the service chiefs of recommend the pentagon set up a study panel and implement the policy in phases over the next year to ensure decisions were consistent across the services. relative to this change, senator durbin tweeting out an important step toward equality. defense department let's ban on transgender individuals serving

openly in the military. house armed services committee chair mac thornberry issued a statement saying in part this is the lives example of the pentagon and the president prioritize and politics over policy. the administration seems unwilling or unable to assure that congress and the american people that transgender individuals will meet these individual readiness requirements at a time when our armed forces are deployed around th world. this from the hill this afternoon the head of the department of homeland security said u.s. airports can expect to see a stepped up security presence over the fourth of july holiday weekend. days after suicide bombings killed 42 in turkey's airport. dhs secretary jeh johnson told the senate judiciary committee that the transportation security administration, state and local enforcement when all beef up their efforts at airports and other transportation hubs. we covered that here in this way

and we'll air it again tonight on the c-span networks that use a portion of what he had to say this morning. >> we also heard testimony from a former employee of the department of homeland security, bill lane, that in october 2009 more than 800 customs and border patrol documents were ordered modified, scrubbed or deleted, to remove references to jihad or the muslim brotherhood or other similar references. was his testimony that the department of homeland security ordered over 800 documents and altered or deleted? was that accurate? >> i have no idea. i don't know who he is. i would know if you walked into the room. >> so you have not investigated whether your department ordered documents to be monetized in 2000 on and remove references to jihad, radical islamic

terrorism, muslim brotherhood? you have not investigated that question? >> no, i have not taken the time to investigate what he i has sa. no. >> when the senate judiciary oversight conducted hearings on that, did you or anyone in your staff inquire into those issues? >> know, but you had me right here right had to ask questions. >> your answer is you don't know. i am asking you, in 2009 and 2012, mr. haney testified there were two purges at the department of homeland security to remove references to radical islamic terrorism but is it accurate that the records were changed in -- >> said answer i gave you before but i'd have no idea. >> you have no knowledge of the records been changed at the department of home it's a good? >> same answer. i have no idea. >> would be concerned if it was accurate? >> senator, i find this whole debate to be very interesting but i have to tell you, when i

was at the department of defense giving the legal saga on a lot of drone strikes, i did particularly to whether the baseball card said islamic extremists over islamic extremist to think this is enrichment makes a difference to me in terms of who we need to go after, who is determined to attack our homeland. the other point i would like to make is that, effective think in practical terms in homeland security to i think it's all very interesting. makes a good political debate but in practical terms, if we and our efforts here in the homeland start getting the islamic state the credence that they want to be referred to as part of islam or some form of islam, we will get nowhere in our efforts to build bridges with muslim communities, which we need to do. in this current environment right now that includes

homegrown violent extremists. they all tell me -- >> my time is limited -- >> hold on just a second, please. they all told me isil has hijacked my religion. and it's critical we bring these people to our side. >> you are entitled to give speeches other times. my question was if you were where the information has been scrubbed. i went to the title went to the type of entry for tuesday was willfuwillful blindness and a testament to the full committee now is that you have no idea to go have no intention of finding out speakers that's not what i said. >> materials have been scrubbed. and you suggested just a moment ago that it's essentially a semantic difference. i don't believe it is a semantic difference, that when you a raise references to radical jihad, it impacts the behavior of law enforcement and national security to respond to red flags and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur.

>> u.s. trade representative michael froman says it's the administration position that protectionism does not work. no one wins in a trade war. he also emphasized the importance of the trans-pacific partnership in achieving congressional approval issue. following his address a panel talk about global development goals and the role of foreign aid. he spoke earlier this week to the bretton woods committee. [inaudible conversations] >> it's a great pleasure to have ambassador mike froman with us here today. he is one of the key players in the world at on international trade, and gives a lot of things going, tpp and asia, trying to get approval for that. also ttip in europe and, in fact, has the eu negotiator coming here tomorrow to talk with him.

not to speak but trying to work on an investment treaty with china. mike has done a great job, as i said, in his present role but he also was in the white house in the first obama term, working on international economic affairs, advising the president. i had a good chance to work with him, both on the korean free trade agreement as well as negotiations with brazil. and so we are very fortunate that he's with us here today. so, mike, would you please come up? and then we will have some questions afterwards. [applause] thanks very much, bill. it's an honor to be here talking about the importance of u.s. leadership with this distinguished group. i think the title of the previous discussion multilateral

cooperation in a turbulent world seems to be particularly timely at the moment. in many parts of the global economy, growth is uneven or weak. in china, the progress on reform seems uncertain. russia and brazil continue to face headwinds. in europe, between the migrant crisis, the lingering effects of the financial crisis, the rise of euro-skepticism and now that vote by the british people to leave the european union, these are turbulent times indeed. one of the greatest concerns we have is that in the last couple of years, global trade has slowed. rather than driving global growth, trade is growing at a slower pace than the economy as a whole. a revival of international trade is indispensable if full employment is to be achieved in a peaceful world and with standards of living which will permit the realization of man's reasonable hopes. those are not my words, those are the words of henry morganthau at the end of the bretton woods conference, but those words resonate again today.

here at home, we've been growing for the longest uninterrupted period in recorded history and are doing so at the high end of the spectrum for industrialized economies. over the last six years, we've added 14 million new jobs and cut unemployment from 10% to under 5%. manufacturing output is at an all-time high, and we've marked our sixth consecutive year of net manufacturing job growth, the longest uninterrupted streak since the 1960s, adding over 850,000 manufacturing jobs to the u.s. economy. and wages finally began to tick up 2.5% last year and seem to be on the same track thus far this year. again, too little and too slowly, but at least it's a positive trend. still, there is a great deal of anxiety out there, evident in the current election dynamic in the united states, not to mention in much of the developed world. some of that is certainly rooted in economics. between the changing composition

of jobs in the united states, 15 years of wage stagnation and rising income inequality, there's a concern that the system may be working for a few, but not the many, that the game is rigged, and that other countries don't follow the same rules we do but instead act unfairly, that the economic recovery of the last six or seven years hasn't found its way to many americans. it is important that we not ignore these concerns. they are real and legitimate. the question is what to do about them. most economists will tell you that automation has more to do with the changing nature of the workforce and the suppression of wages than globalization, but certainly both contribute. the problem is that we don't get to vote on automation. nobody votes on the next generation of computers, nobody votes on whether the next generation of robots should be deployed. nor do we really get to vote on globalization. it's a process made possible by the containerization of shipping, the spread of broadband, and the opening of economies like china and eastern

europe that used to be closed to the world and are now integrated into the global economy. globalization is a force. you can't wish it away or put the genie back in the bottle. but what we do get to vote on are trade agreements. so they become the vessel into which people pour their legitimate anxieties about the changing nature of the workforce, wage stagnation and income inequality. they become the magnets of concern for a much broader and largely unrelated set of factors. trade agreements aren't the cause of the problems i've alluded to, they can be part of the solution to them, along with other sound economic and domestic policies, such as investment in infrastructure, education and training. trade agreements allow us to shape globalization to our advantage. they are the vehicle through which we help write the rules of the road for the global trading system which reflect our interests and our values. we start from the fact that the u.s. already has one of the world's most open economies in the world, in large part because of decisions made decades ago,

and supported by 12 presidents since, six of whom happen to be democrats and six of whom happen to be republicans. our average applied tariff is less than 1.5%, and we don't use regulations as a disguised barrier to trade. but when we look abroad, we see markets that are shielded by higher tariffs and opaque and slanted regulatory systems. with the trans-pacific partnership, we can level the playing field by removing barriers to those markets, raise standards in them and, as a result, increase our export-related jobs, which pay 18% more on average than non-export related jobs. right now, we compete with low-wage countries all over the world. the question is what we're going to do about it. tpp will open some of the largest and fastest growing markets to our manufactured goods, agricultural products and services exports. it will for the first time take a comprehensive approach to imposing disciplines on state-owned enterprises so that when they to compete with our private firms, they do so on a

fair and level playing field. it for the first time takes on the issues of the digital economy, the free flow of data, pushing back against digital protectionism to maintain an internet that is open and free. it has the strongest ever labor and environmental provisions, strengthening workers' rights and protecting the environment, and does so in a manner that is fully enforceable. but all of these provisions underscore that there is something broader at issue in whether and when tpp moves forward. it's the rules-based system itself. no group of people understands the importance of the rules-based system better than this one. the principles of open markets, shared responsibility and shared benefits animated the bretton woods conference delegates 72 years ago. the rules-based system put in place then allowed japan and countries throughout europe to rebuild themselves after the war. it has allowed developing countries like south korea and brazil to become emerging economies. it has helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of

poverty. as successful as it's been, we can't take that system for granted. we cannot be complacent about it or expect it to endure if we turn inward, because there are alternatives being promoted, alternatives that are more statist, more mercantilist in nature. from our perspective, it's very important that we maintain and strengthen the rules-based system, where every country has certain rights, where all countries are expected to play by the same set of rules and, if they don't, where there is fair and equitable resolution of disputes, where big countries can't push little ones around. that system is key to maintaining a stable and prosperous asia-pacific region. it is also key to ensuring that the global economy is working for our workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses. and it is critically important that we're not just sitting on the sidelines but proactively shaping the global economy in a way that reflects our interests and our values. if the united states were to turn inward, the results would be economically devastating.

history has proven beyond a doubt that protectionism doesn't work. raising tariffs on our trading partners would not only violate the rules-based system, but lead those countries to respond in kind and block our exports. that is a trade war, and we know that no one wins a trade war. turning to protectionism would not increase employment here, it would reduce it. it would not boost economic growth. it would retard it at best and drive the economy into recession at worst. we know this from experience. in 1930, congress passed and president herbert hoover signed the smoot-hawley tariff act, which essentially walled off the united states from imports. the thinking was that that would lead to a resurgence of manufacturing and employment in the united states. we had a spectacular trade surplus then, and the great depression. not only did the high tariffs worsen the great depression in the united states. they contributed to the decline of the global economy, which led in turn to the rise of nationalism in europe. the economic stakes of isolationism are clear, but so are the strategic stakes.

rejecting tpp would undermine u.s. leadership, not only in the asia pacific region, but around the world. our allies around the world could not help but question whether we had the wherewithal to make good on our commitments. as singapore prime minister lee put it, if you are not prepared to deal when it comes to cars and services and agriculture, can we depend on you when it comes to security and military arrangements? the good news is that, as i meet with members of congress, they are increasingly appreciating the benefits of the agreement to their constituents, as well as the costs of not ratifying it this year. the costs of delay are high. we already see our market share in priority products eroded by other countries that already have preferential access to key markets. the peterson institute has estimated a one-year delay in putting tpp into effect would impose a $94 billion cost on the u.s. economy. that equates to about a $700 tax on every american household.

moreover, if we don't get it done soon, the other asia-pacific countries aren't going to sit around and wait for us. as new zealand's prime minister john key said, these economies aren't going to stand still. beijing will step in to fill the void. the negotiations of rcep, china's tpp equivalent, are well underway, with a major push to get it done this year. and not surprisingly, it doesn't raise labor and environmental standards. it doesn't impose disciplines on soes. it doesn't require the free flow of data across borders and a free and open internet, and it doesn't strengthen intellectual property rights protections. i always ask the opponents of tpp a simple question, do they think we're better off living in a world where those are the rules of the road? because the choice isn't between tpp and the status quo. it's between tpp and what is likely to evolve in the absence of tpp. that cannot be more in the interests of american workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses than moving ahead with tpp.

pierre mendes-france, the minister who represented france at bretton woods, said, to govern is to choose. today our government has a choice. we can write the rules of the road for 40% of the global economy or we can leave that job to others, whose values and interests don't necessarily align with ours. we can move forward with tpp, or we can walk away and be remembered as the generation that inflicted a crippling wound on america's leadership in the asia pacific region and around the world. china is executing on its strategy, rcep, the one belt-one road initiative, the asia infrastructure investment bank and other regional policies. we are one vote away from cementing our leadership in the asia-pacific region or ceding that role to others. it's just that simple. that doesn't strike me as a difficult choice. before i stop, i'd like to say a few words about ttip in the aftermath of the vote in the uk. the people of the united kingdom have made their choice. our relationships with the uk

will remain special, and our relationship with the eu will remain strong and enduring. we are evaluating the effect of brexit on the ttip negotiations. the economic and strategic rationale for ttip remains strong. we've made a lot of progress on the agreement during the last eight months, and our goal remains to continue working with the eu to conclude an ambitious, comprehensive and high standard agreement this year. to do so, we're going to need a creative, pragmatic approach to resolve the outstanding issues, not ideology. the europeans have had a lot on their plate, the brexit vote, the migrant crisis, the rise of skepticism about brussels and other difficult issues. we sympathize and we hope they can summon the needed focus and political will to get this done. indeed, there is more at stake now than ever, given the questions that are being raised about the nature and future of the european union. can the eu deliver for its people? can it take the bold actions

necessary to promote the kinds of growth and jobs clearly being demanded across europe, and create the future opportunities its young people, in particular, need to thrive? will the eu be able to play a leadership role in defending the open, rules-based system, raising the standards for the global economy? it is very much in the interest of the united states that we have the strongest possible europe as a partner, outwardly facing, capable of working together with us to pursue our shared interests and values. that is certainly true in the economic arena. it is equally true across a range of security, transnational and strategic matters. turbulence is often unavoidable. the question is how we manage it. there's a great deal at stake in the answer to that question. over the years, there's been no more important voice for the responsible management of turbulence than the bretton woods committee, and i look forward to working with you through this important period. thanks very much. [applause]

>> thank you, mike, for making is always a very positive case for the trans-pacific partnership as well as ttip in europe. i guess i've two questions for you before turned over to the audience i'm sure who has a lot of questions. there's somewhat of a confusion with some of the statements that president obama made when he was trying to help prime minister cameron to get the remaining people adopted by the british people. and he talked about being at, uk being at the end of the line with the discussions with the eu. he was very positive on the special relationship with the eu.

do you see it as a possibility that you could be negotiating with both the eu as well as the uk at the same time or does one need to come before the other, or this is something that has to be worked out based upon what happens over the coming weeks and months? >> i think you probably answered the question yourself. our focus is on negotiating these platform agreement, ttp and ttip, both of which are intended to be open openly to other parties who are able and willing to meet the standards. that's where our focus is. obviously, there's a lot to be worked out between the uk and the eu in the coming weeks and months to determine exact how they're going to interact with their respective trading partners. >> i think moving onto asia and the trans-pacific partnership, so much progress has been made by you and your equivalence in asia over the last years,

months, one of the problems that a lot of people, i was at a meeting recently with some of the chief trade people both under president clinton and president bush, and when they see the statements of the major candidates, hillary clinton who at one point, i sat next to her when she made the comment a few years ago that this was sort of the golden, let's say, possibility for a trade agreement, tpp. but she's come up against a big bernie sanders very much and, obviously, i'll drop. and so -- donald trump or how do you see that -- it's one thing for candidates to say something when they're running for office. for a presidential election. that's another, the impact they will have on congress, going forward with this vote takes place. >> well look, i've been spending

a lot of my time on capital meeting with mayors of congress and groups of congress but i think the biggest is that fundamentally, members of congress are focused on what's the impact of the agreement on their constituents, on key stakeholders. what's the impact of not approving the agreement on those constituencies and key stakeholders? as we walked through what's in there, there's a very good reception on their behalf for what they see there. it goes to the issue of timing as well. i'll give you one example. australia has a free trade agreement already with japan. so australia beat exports to japan pace and lower tariff than we do that as a result our market share is declining in japan. the longer we wait to improve tpp, the more the differential, the wider the differential will be, the more we will lose market share. already we are losing over $125 billion of exports each

year. that's only going to win members of congress from rural areas who have beef producers in the district here that, understand that, here it most importantly from their congressman, it tends to focus attention on how are we going to get that done and win. you can multiply that by dozens of sectors, dozens of countries. we are building the support, answering questions, working with congressional leadership. i think at the end of the day they are confident that those will be there but we've got to get it done this year. >> final question that i have and then we'll turn over to the audience. as you know there's a lot of support for an investment treaty with china. how do you see that fitting in? you were just in time and i know you were talking with attorneys about this, with all tpp effort.

>> is on a parallel track. we've had negotiations for a number of years and but for the last three years in earnest as the begun to negotiate until the call a negative list of bases and protecting investments at all stage in the process. those negotiations are continuing. i was in china recently and had conversations with the leadership there then. the chinese have been here since and they have given us a new version of their negative list which we are evaluating. i think the key thing is it's got to be a high standard agreement. and that means it has to effectively open up china's economy and moving from a world in which everything is prohibited or regulated and less is explicitly approved, to which everything is approved unless explicitly regulated. that world of things that has be regulated needs to be quite narrow and quite short. and also to do with issues that

come up in the particular environment that china presents for investment, issues that our impressions of that over the years, make sure to deal with that as well in disagreement. >> do you think their weight around to see what happens with tpp before they get serious in doing anything? >> i think all indications, president xi on down is that they're taking this process very serves a, putting a lot of effort into it, and i think they would try to get it done. >> what i would like to do is, right there, is to go to the audience because i think, i'd like to get a lot of participation before mike has to leave. can we have a microphone over there? right up front first. right there. >> robert schrader with international investor. i like simple questions. mine is, the purpose of the trade agreements is to stimulate

our exports more than imports, would you expect to see the ratio of our exports rise versus the imports that come to our nation if these are past? >> since i'm in the holes of the imf, filled with much better economist is that i could ever aspire to be, i would simply say most because will trigger a lot of factors that go into trade balances and current account balances, including relative growth rates. so it's hard to pin point in particular the impact of a trade agreement on a particular balance. what i would say it is sent out a point average of up lectures is 1.4%. we face 70% tears on autos in some tpp countries, 55% on machinery, 40% on poultry 38.5% on pork, sometimes 100% on some agricultural products all of which need to be eliminated or

greatly reduced. we would expect to see where exports. we are going to be lowering our barriers of their little. other countries will be lowering their barriers in a much more significant way, and at the same time raising standards. >> the lady in the back. right by the microphone. >> i have two quick questions. one, in light of the bretton woods conversation, these plurilateral agreements seem to be in contradiction to the whole philosophy of the wto organization, whereas by avoiding or not using the wto forum. the second question is the concern about the state dispute resolution mechanism in which a corporation can sue a state if somehow their expected profits

are not gained. >> first on multilateralism, we continue to believe that multilateral trade liberalization is the highest and best form of trade liberalization. but at the wto, when it comes to the doha round, has reached a deadlock. that's why in bali and would have years ago and then in nairobi, in the summer the wto move forward with, and the first is, multilateral trade facilitation agreement. in nairobi, an agreement on agriculture and export subsidies, but also a recognition that was to longer a consensus that the doha mandate, the doha round should continue as is. and that we should be focusing on creative ways of dealing with outstanding issues but also new issues facing the multilateral trade system whether it is e-commerce or small,

medium-sized businesses were other issues. our view on plurilateral as it is if it went tpp and ttip we will have some free trade with two-thirds of the global economy and that's before other countries who have expressed interest essentially joined the agreement to join. when you have two-thirds of the global economy beginning to get their head around a certain set of rules, work of the difficult issues domestically that allowed them to open their markets and sign up to higher standards, it helps give momentum to the process as well. ultimately, we would like to see those rules multilateralized and that is the goal. right now is probably the most open, honest, frank discussion going on at the wto in 15 years where our ministers and ambassadors in geneva are really talking about what is it that we can get them multilaterally, what can we do multilaterally my but still make sense to do perl latterly with the goal of having open plurilateral is that other

countries can join overtime. and when circumstances are what you can ultimately multilateralized it. aren't investor state dispute settlement, interestingly ttp, over the years, i'll give one minute backer there are 3200 agreements in the world that sums sort of dispute settlement the u.s. is party to 51 of them. since 2000 we've been working in all of our subsequent agreements to reform the process by raising standards, tightening them up, adding procedural and safeguards and then closing the polls were recounted and other countries agreements. one of the species is you mentioned in tpp and exclude the fact that you cannot sue on the basis of disappointed expectations with regard to profits. that that is alone is not a basis for a suit. that's one of two dozen reforms in the agreement that help make sure that it is being used for

what it was intendedo be used for, which is for what our government comes in and ask appropriate property, for example, but not being used in ways that was not intended for. >> yes, back there. >> thank you. steve with dick and policy advisers. mr. ambassador, interrupted the reason u.s.-china strategic and economic planning on the a lot of press reports of the several issues that would be on the table. one of those included the ongoing solar panel dispute and resulting polysilicon tariffs from china. however, in fact sheets they came out there was emphasis on skill and some of the other issues but i saw no mention of the sort issue. i was just wondering if you could give us a status report on where that stands? thank you spirit we did discuss the while i was there. a moscow minister and i, our

team continued to discuss the issue. it's a long-standing, outstanding dispute consulting would like to try to find a way of settling. and our discussions will continue, and i see the minister in shanghai and a couple of weeks. >> yes, in the back and then we will take the one in the front. >> this week president obama and president nieto are going to ottawa for the three amigos summit. candidate is notably not taken a position on the tpp. i believe it's the only of 12 countries not to state whether it instance to ratify or not. do you think of the hopeful for a candidate to join with mexico and the trick to make a strong statement about the tpp? would that help with the ratification process? do you think that is likely? >> tbp was negotiated during the

previous administration in canada, and wendy trudeau administration came in they made clear they wanted to go through a robust consultation process around the country, different sectors and different parts of the country to make sure they have wide range of stakeholders before moving forward with tpp. that's the process they are undergoing. we respect that decision and respect that process. i don't think it has a significant impact here in the united states on congress' consideration of the tpp. >> i'm looking at this rate different perspective. my name is martin apple. i'm a scientist represent a very large number of scientists. we would look at these kinds of things we would support if you got a whole bunch of people who agree on something and when he doesn't, and you would to make a

decision that the whole bunch of people agree to go ahead and do something, and the one who doesn't would have a choice of either joining at this stage they are or pulling up and see if they can negotiate a better deal by themselves. would that be a feasible option? >> are you referring to the wto or -- >> tpp. >> in canada? >> ours. the agriculture industry. >> tpp, the intent is for all 12 countries to join together. we have procedures the courage to do for the if at the end of the day not all, all the tpp countries are in the process of going through their respective approval processes. some are further along in terms of ratifying it. all of them are engaged in that process now. if all 12 countries are not ready to approve entry into force together, there are provisions for a subset of those countries, six countries

representing 85% of the gdp represented by the tpp countries to go ahead and bring it into force. that effectively means u.s. and japan could be part of the group that brings it into force but we don't have to wait for all of the countries if some of them are going more slowly. >> good morning. i'm paul. come back to china. you mentioned in your opening remarks the challenges with rebalancing. i think it's the first speaker this morning that didn't accept those changes as inevitable. when i look at what's going on in the tightening of domestic and was going on south china sea, those don't look to me, those look like changes in tone and they don't look quite positive changes. have you seen the same things happening with the chinese island trade? do this continue pretty much the

way, prior to the last couple of years? >> i think we see mixed, a set of mixed data points. on the positive side, as bill was asking, i think they are quite serious about bilateral investment treaty process. because a lot of senior level attention being paid to it, to bring different parts of the government and economy in to try and chart a path forward. and they seem to genuinely want to use it as a way of helping to drive reform in parts of the economy. whether or not we get to the mr. high standard remains to be seen by do think they are serious about putting effort into that process. at the same time you go back and look at the statements coming out of the third plenum of years ago, very forward leaning about reform. you look at statements about soe reforms from a few years ago,

and it's been less certain the degree to which those events fully followed upon and implemented. i think the record is rather mixed. and that affects the trade negotiations as well. >> hello, ambassador. continuing on the subject of china, i was out at this int individual that i was involved in some of the track to discussions, and i was conducted the political part of the political and economic dialogue. to me at least in the security sphere, and public and economic come it seems that going forward, and the next decade, i'm not talking about just tomorrow, that the more we can work with china to accomplish local objectives, the more likely we are to be successful. and the converse of that proposition is that if we are in

serious disagreement on particular questions, then it's going to be hard to get things done on a global scale. i'm thinking of a wonderful example of the climate agreement that we reached bilaterally as an accomplished in paris with top 21 or 22. do you believe in adopting an inclusive approach to china in thinking about the future of the global economic system? and then added the things you been working on in the past few years, if you agree with that proposition, advances towards that goal? >> very good question to the answer is yes, everything as the second largest economy in the world, and by some measures the first largest trading economy in the world, china has a very significant national interest in the health and strength of the global trading system.

and we need them to take on responsibilities commensurate with the role in the global economy. that was one of the driving forces behind the g20. it certainly is one of our efforts, one of the driving forces of our efforts within the wto and other trade negotiations, to engage with china and urged them to play a leadership role in some of these areas. take the information technology agreement negotiation. it was stuck for a long time to we reached a bilateral deal with china. it took breath longer than it should have to reach that you but once that was done, together we were able to work to bring other parties along and reach an agreement. we are trying to do the same thing now in terms of engagement with the chinese on environmental goods agreement. with countries representing 90% of environmental goods market ready to move ahead with an agreement to eliminate tariffs on a whole range of goods which is good for the economy, good for the environment.

no kind would benefit more than china in terms of both a producer of these goods and as a country that desperately needs this technology to deal with its environmental challenges. we are urging china to come to the table and be an active part in helping to lead those negotiations. and certainly the wto, we are always encouraging them. they played an important role of the vote andt the wto ministry of along with a handful of other countries to help guide the process. that fundamentally rethink the rules-based system has been very good for china. they have benefited enormously from it. we think it's necessary now for china to step up and play a ball with greater responsibility for that system. and commensurate again with the size of its economy and role in local trade. >> one more question.

frank vocal, because i promised tto get my cabinet here by 11:1. mic. >> quick question. given the political balance of the election, is the tpp going to all or nothing in the lame-duck session? are you going to wait for them rather than try to get politician to do it themselves before the election? >> we are working day in and day out with the leadership, the committees and individual members to lay the foundation. i think august is a challenging political director trade votes are always hard. they are always close, and this environment is of course presents its own unique challenges but we are working out angel with individual members and feel very good about those conversations that the necessary support will be there whenever the leadership determines that the appropriate window is open. >> let's give mike a big hand for working on -- [applause]

>> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, ambassador kirk thank you, bill. two straight shooters. refreshing about the mic. papineau we're moving into our final segment of the program on global development challenges and solutions which features folks who are real movers and shakers at the world of sustainability are happy to have helene gayle, ceo of mckinsey social initiative. eric postel from usaid and craig stevenson from the asian development thing. the segment will be moderated by scott morris who has been a committee member since he left his days at treasury and is now a senior fellow at the center for global development. he's also director of their

rethinking used the taliban policy initiative i that space o broaden u.s. government approach to development. antiworker issues related to the isi and particularly the relationship between the isi and the united states. with that, scott, i believe it to you. >> thank you, randy. let me start with format. we are going to be having a conversation here, not formal remarks from the podium. i want to briefly introduce what

is an excellent panel and really pleased and looking forward to having their insights on the broad topic of global development. i'm going to try my best to do a few minutes of framing of the issues before i turn to them for some questions, and then turn to you all for some questions. .. >> >> the really with the

development costs -- policy. the new ceo with the initiative and we're looking forward to hearing more about that and coming from a very successful tenure apparently before that the leadership positions with the cdc and the bill and melinda gates foundation with a broad way it -- array of commissions and finally to have the challenging task in washington post united states and canada for where i sit u.s. focused with the engagement with the u.s.

government particularly at a time as to talk more about this for that bank in particulaparticula r to have the shifting landscape and that is central with the u.s. engagement and prior to that is impressive career including areas challenging themselves as afghanistan and even with myanmar. those are impressive speakers with that diversity that they represent and i hope we can explore more of that.

so in two minutes when we try to lay out what i say in the development landscape as the first question on the set of issues to see that was a core mandate from what emerged insisted over about seven decades it is entirely fitting that we are here talking about the development talking about other issues today i will organize in three areas with

a landmark sets of new commitments with the sustainable development goal as those are reflected there then in the savior and very mention of the understanding of the international community with that approach jointly at the same time you have a commitment with the new multilateral development bank and while it is regional in nature it is from latin america and europe and africa not a member it of the united states but with these challenges in the development very visibly the

refugee crisis we have had pandemic threats over the last couple years that has caused us to think hard about policy responses you see the economic headwinds and even what it means for developing countries and to associate those things and when that will do for the goods and services that are hugely important of development finance for these countries. and have a real question about political retreat and perhaps to benefit more than

the other from integration. and finally to look at new opportunities of the global landscape but it is the nature of finance today flowing through the developing world and within the developing world with the size of the domestic resources the globalization to a bed is real progress paul so to raise questions about what is traditional foreign assistance going

forward. of what continues to be an anchor and also the reality and what that looks like going forward in we will hear more about this but that agency that happens to be the largest and that has been very actively reforming and how we see that in the community for the world bank and the asian development bank and then finally outside of this official sector is a new model that

the capital of the expertise resources better not for profit model and we will see that as well. so that is a tour of the global landscape in you can either approach that so what do you see the issue as the most consequential going forward with the developments today? and then we will go down the road good morning.

there is a lot of change going on around the world. as a follow up i don't think it is business as usual in one that is a challenge because ec closing spaces and openness. in but we see leading to conflict that hits the macro

as one of the most dramatic examples of the implications of that and i see this is one of the drivers of the problem the area that is very difficult for anybody to challenge as well but nonetheless for everybody to work on together. >> and first and foremost, what they have done for the global community is tremendous. it does give a framework it is more than just the ad on. it is the paradigm the way it is created with a different dialogue first and

foremost, of these over arching blueprint as we tackle the challenges of the world going forward and to the point of being a pessimist i go back and forth between both of those it is an incredible amount to be optimistic with poverty and disease as interest rates are going up up, we have been incredibly hopeful the some of those are embedded and some are not as clearly as bought out but the issue of income inequality yes, poverty has been reduced but both in and among nations will continue to define for the

foreseeable future and if they don't see that we will continue to have some of these consequences we already feel in terms of the conflict that arises. also the whole issue of migration the migratory population will only get bigger and we hadn't thought enough of the solutions that we all wish migration of the refugee crisis would go away but the reality is we will have a larger and larger portion of our population who will not be in our home country so what does that mean to think about adapting the way we do business from their home country? the other one that would say

is the reason for optimism is gender equity. i think it is one of the most hopeful opportunities that we have to make a difference in the world just to make sure we have a gender equity across the board whether workplace or policies or leadership positions we can dramatically change the outcome peace and security and stability that is incredibly optimistic and a simple solution to have a huge impact the difficult part is we're talking about how do we change the status of women around our world and a lot of optimism on the

other hand,. >> the list of development priorities of the development banks that they're looking at is long. for example, then need to create jobs. the development community that focus on helping now with job creation and workplace conditions by supporting education for particularly young woman on top of this there is indeed dead as already stated to enhance gender equity that is required with the new innovative financing with

the activities that we find to come up with new technologies and i will -- and that my remarks to improve the project implementation with the rise of the development aid and infrastructure bank it is a more competitive market an used to be. and how much emphasis he puts on project delivery on the timeframe to respond to those political imperatives. all along the same line banks need to come up with the improved pipeline

project centers the short -- a shortage of the developments to affect the ability to develop the sustainable goals and address other development needs. with that flow of bankable projects to go to public-private partnerships. and this is an urgent need and i to go into that aging population with the inclusiveness agenda the refugees with the global pandemic six and then we try to deal with all of them at the same time.

we're doing a the best that we can we have a pretty good history to respond to these challenges. >> ellen to stick with the big picture. with the center of global development that is more than i see myself on these issues but from a number of standpoints as i listen to them which in a way of these goals in the foreign assistance actor much of it

was how to reallocate directly to support maternal health. they are casting a wider and more complicated net. so can you talk how is usaid as an institution thinking about itself these days? of a foreign assistance provider and how do you think it is about partnerships in relationships.

>> i would say that for us in terms of the changes. and the best way to describe that is of the development exercise that all of the official development with the fact that ngos and others are providing just as much money or more. and if i remember a the ranking. to have investment in

countries that they never would have dreamed of thinking about and now they all are. the fundamental driver was the fact that was a minority partner is partly about innovation back when usaid was formed with the development around this country and that ngos. and then in the developing countries.

with the development breakthroughs are not necessarily coming and as he did the grand challenge and that was so hot in west africa that allows people to work longer. and that is an amazing collection of people. for the use in the hot climates. and thinking of the implications and is usually transformed with the minority partner.

so those are the changes on the refugee side. and all of those things as they have been working for decades. and then the final for a good governance and things like that. and to have business as usual. >> so of that category when me ask you a little bit about that.

edge of a visible or tragic situation. and there's always a silver lining. it didn't occur overnight. and with more attention paid we're starting to address stand a better powhatan it is this strictly a short-term crisis it is long term it nation -- in nature. and as part of the humanitarian sector to have more that development focus

but really have longer-term development to think differently about our approach of the displaced populations or other types of disruption concept crisis >> into touched on the earlier comments those who are working in this space with the humanitarian and development realize that it needs to be out as a continuum in the east to be primarily humanitarian in crisis that grew out of the fact it is harder when you think about up population

those same populations are very likely to have a crisis situation so few are committed to a community than you need to be committed whether in a crisis stage door long term also realize if we could put more into prepared this intervention to have a lesser impact so as an example when we were working on the issues of security during a crisis we could show demonstratively that the countries that we worked with on full security from a development standpoint were the same countries that rebound it more rapidly with the immediate food crisis or

even human conflict so let's get the work of climate change in helping the population is adapt if you can shift people's livelihood to the mid term attend crisis from a drought or flooding you can make them more sustainable i was working in bangladesh where cyclos become much more frequent and we work with the populations to shift the intercom generating wealth

as taking people who use chickens as their economic engine to shift back to ducks because chickens will drown but ducks won't so now they're moving from chickens to ducks where there are cyclones or flooding because of the headstreams they were wiped out every time of a crisis situation so simple ways to learn how to adapt when a crisis does occur that is the continuing between development is so important to keep in mind. >> sometimes just recognizing mother nature.

>> tell us about the new approach. >> the global consulting firm decided one year ago they do a lot of social impact work purely philanthropic we have to give the assets of those broader contributions to society? with the real sense that today's solutions primarily will no longer be one sector or the other as now becoming a minority partner though the actors are and if it is firmly rooted with very strong ties and the

not-for-profit sector than those traditional solutions of those types of approaches to solving problems so how do you bring these partnerships to develop the different types of solutions you mention and use the unemployment now is in five different countries u.s.-mexico spain and india looking at the reality there are so many people who want to be employed that they cannot find enough skilled entry-level workers giving young people the skills so

we have reached out to the private sector with employers working with civil society in working with the public sector that sets the policies for their locality we have now trained and placed over 10,000 young people to find a high return on investment and to bring together all the sectors to make a dent in the big global problem that we know will only increase.

>> usaid is actually under the program with the partnership. >> and they use that skills that to first understand the situation in a seven dash at scale and as a historical approach to have many successes but the cost was too high but i feel this is a huge that we want to take, those into everything that we're doing and

following it closely. >> parol of technology is replicated in the back to being optimistic when we save that technological advances to leapfrog the development that has helped us to scale the program very rapidly. >> what they make clear is the requirements are huge no one organization will meet them think initiatives that

they just described are excited i got to know than the past few years they hate to use a surfing analogy but but this is a good wave coming up and i am pushing back hard and we're still looking at that because it is thus the change we're talking about with the partners with whom we worked and reading some of those development challenges of the year up against are as important. >> so i think it is hard in

the midst of the discussions to remember or think about how much of the existential handwriting was occurring around the world bank with the events that played out in washington from the investment bank but there was almost of crisis i think a lot of that has calmed down with the maurer purvey issues in beijing but nonetheless and there is

plenty of discussion but if we bring bad back to the world bank can you talk more in the asian context of what it was responding to i think by all accounts the next five tenures so what is bad agenda all about? how is that adapting to respond more rapidly.

>> with the 2009 of 2.3 $8 trillion with their regional never structure to sustain that works out $750 billion per year it is a drop in the bucket what is provided for development internationally locally bilaterals and civil society and governments globally only addressing 16% just to

give you an idea of the amount of resources acquired of what we see across the region today. traffic for mass transit hospitals and schools and i could go down the list. the world they and others are not providing the resources of not making much of a dent in that infrastructure challenge that therefore it is a welcome addition of the subscribed capital over five

years and it has paid in capital and that is what issues to a the support for the member countries. so they will make a dent in those to take a the formative stages with the roadway project in pakistan last week and we will be:financing and the possibilities for more projects otherwise cope financially we will have rules of regulation safeguards and that will

have a major responsibility to implement the projects it to get a capital increase that will exceed that were beyond but the concerns of last year and what it meant for the region that provide $17 billion of financial assistance of $27 billion total and 80 percent of that was for infrastructure with transport energy irrigation

so look like what it is doing but i can say in these meetings but the aim of both institutions is to work closely together in parallel on things if not actual call mingling of finances. it has every intention to live up to the safeguards of what is important and they will be a good partner moving forward. >> i wanted to do this earlier to use the

opportunity of that multilateral banks over the course of though last year and in the months ahead we have brought together very good group of actors but it suggests it is really about bringing more capital and to is the degree maybe we will

not see it in the near term of a matter as basic capacity as they committed themselves so o powers and development are they having a different model for development? we put a lot into this that there is an early much different but beyond that one institution had we think of that approach to

development does that cause us to think of our own approaches or can we simply welcome the additional amount of capital? >> either one of you. >> i guess i would say that overall more money for development is a good thing that's the more we're able to strengthen capacity to be at the core of the leaders

of how development funds it is less of what china is doing but are we all strengthening the country's ability of our resources are used? and until that happens there is the chaos that exists also as we have said through different kinds of actors that we can think about it as simplistically as we did before and then the better all of this will be. >> it is the bretton woods annual meeting of the

policies and institutions matter i think finance is one paying public get the experience of japan and korea so they have the policies and institutions right to achieve that level of success and if more countries across a region work from the legal and regulatory environments and the judicial systems of transparency and predictability then they probably would not have the problems they have today with foreign investors

coming and with the public-private partnerships not getting off the ground as much as they would like the finance is one paying. >> we're constantly looking at a model for a good idea is it isn't restricted to china so with the local community so we're constantly looking we have big goals to have every good idea and also that is true for everyone to have a strategic dialogue with the

chinese as the u.s. head of aid was last month and then talk about concrete projects were general development architecture type of issues and then very early-- her for - - . in the numbers of staff with regards to the intersection of our work with china. >> i will ask one last question. that is more critical in nature but frankly all of us

that we do have to think of the issue of how the electorate is feeling these days and with globalization that the enterprise plays what is that every step tiv of this issue but the elections will have consequences when it comes to pursuing that agenda and i would argue coming to political support talking about foreign assistance historically as a charitable

function with us and disease of that and it is becoming more of a challenge and if you look which is a universal exercise. that is richer average taxpayer would pay all i'd like some of that for myself. so our we adapting to make the case? it is a responsibility but i wonder if any of you have the thoughts as this may be of a development of something that we have to confront it is a constant

discussion with the american taxpayers and to have incredible support because of their skins are very generous in there is widespread support with the criticism of the humanitarian crisis. increasingly one thing that has made it easier for the development parts of the enterprise with my personal opinion as a result people

may justifiably say we don't care about this country they are trapped in a terrible cycle it isn't a priority because we do want to do what is necessary. held think as many americans have these because what happens if you don't have a good global of architecture. and then somebody comes down with ebola. and then 24 hours later there in the dallas hospital.

and it has many facets that basically there is no spot left on the planet it having a discussion of national security intelligence so from that point of view and you can see a lot of bipartisan collaboration. it would be completely understandable and then congress would pass a bill there is one getting very close in africa and those

working with people across the aisle on bills and that shows that people do see that they need to have development from the bush administration and 150 generals that passionately feel that way and then they ask americans how much you think your spending? with your tax dollars the average response is 20% but the reality is everything is under 1% but we just keep having to have a dialogue.

>> and this is bipolar and sometimes i am optimistic and adding to your kaiser data and whenever foreign aid is a building people really interested in what that means that if you ask what we should be spending they will say 10 percent above to have 10 percent. but my optimism to see the things that you talked about and talk about global health and people believe it is wrong for people to die from malaria or hiv that is very

tangible and very concrete with the government's initiative you get into a different sort of dialogue but then it every day we would have volunteers for our lobby to see people from across the united states usually 45 or 50 states represented anywhere from 500 or 2,000 people who came just so they could be a voice for these issues on capitol hill to see the crowd of people learning about these issues to help

the elected officials understand why they matter to everyday people so, added that hugely optimistic so those who feel very differently coming data that election period is very strong and disturbing ways that everybody doesn't understand obligations and why it matters and we have to do a better job to take those connections to help people understand why really does matter if you get beyond those tangible things that you have a much harder job they just don't get more

those underlying issues as we deal with development. >> i neglected the audience too long. i am sorry we only have time for a handful of questions. >> from george mason university and read that positive it did -- the dishes sometimes it practices in peril of the chinese policy banks and is funding the infrastructure projects and how idiocy this

practice and what type of impact does that have? >> em from george mason university have a question for craig you mentioned the shortage of bankable projects so what is the concept of a bankable project? is there a difference of how they view risk? if you cannot directly address that but to be more specific about the criteria of the determining whether the projects are bankable?

>> eight you are referring to the recent article of "the financial times" of the china development bank combined and the multi lateral development banks and i guess you want to know what i think of their role if it is a good thing? >> of those developing countries how do they approach this different?

. .