[applause] c thanks so much. c are right. thank you so much for being here today. we are excited to kick off the conversation. i want to take a step back about what you are doing here, what your messages. what is the message you are bringing to washington on the strip? >> my full-time work is that the gaetz foundation and we have two big things we focus on. one is u.s. education and the other is global and u.s. government is a key partner in both of those that have it is.

in case of the health work for all the diseases we work on the nih is either the biggest funder of the second biggest funder. making sure that research is making progress and understand how it can work together better and the overall foreign aid is $130 billion. the u.s. is the biggest single country at 30 billion of that. a percentage of our economy is more than others like .22 versus the european up 1% and some are .7. like germany and the uk but the huge pool of resources and our foundation is about 5 billion a year so we partnered up with all the donors to fight polio

eradication and hiv is miraculous in terms of vaccines. there's a lot of discussion about the money allocated to these things on the execution of these things. >> when the white house came out last night we learned that you are visiting the president today talk about what your experiences on the message going into the white house. >> i think it's a fairly interesting time because-- okay. [laughter] budget wise. in a sense there was a demand to

get the defense budget up and demand that the non-defense leia not too far behind. the defense overall will be making a 12% increase on the omnibus passing without change. that's pretty unusual. >> of almost anytime last decade and the discussion about okay of that 12% increase over the problems? this is a serious amount of money. that's 30 times greater than what our foundation gets, the gates foundation as a measure. so the idea of where should that go isn't education, and hearing

how people are thinking about that and where does the decision to print down the 12 bills and where does that get me and what are the best ideas from every political group, the good news for the area of greatest concern for us which is foreign aid but it means that we for two years have the normal discussion about hey where does this really go and is said perfectly and someone else do this for us, that challenge will be far less. often when i come here because i get to go to africa and see pepfar and the initiative and i can come back and say we really are measuring this stuff. there's a huge benefit to the u.s. in the long run in terms of

having a stable africa and talking about the measurement and the way we make sure the money that we are getting together with u.s. government we make sure that done the best it can be. >> writers want to talk about the budget for second and you alluded to this. the government will shut down which we don't anticipate that if you could wave a wand and get one or two things done or get congress to do one or thing-- one or two things what would those be? >> while it's important to remember-- >> you can't leave that one. >> congress makes policies. the private sector in science deliver most of the miracles and those two need to go together. the internet was funded by darpa which is part of the defense budget. most of the advances that have

been made are because taxpayers are so generous with the nih. way over half the money discovering how to cure cancer is here in the united states. it's a win-win. we get the company because the people involved in the research act with these products in the world benefits immensely from that. if i had a wand that would mostly waive it to create a magic clean energy source that is very cheap or to take the work we are doing on malnutrition which is a great problem and say okay let's understand and get rid of malnutrition. congress is super important that the miracle requires a hands-on private sector piece as well.

>> when you think about your meeting with the president what is the best scenario coming out of it? i did this and i'm going to go and travel to africa. >> two clear messages. one is about foreign aid where we are partisan with the government to help articulate why even if you just look at the benefit to america, stability, and disease being less likely to come here this is very beneficial than having a strong relationship and maintaining that commitment, continuing to tune it. there are great things that are coming out of that and that has been in my primary message. because it's such an increase the effective message for me with the there such an opportunity to take on tough unsolved problems. one that i would highlight would

be the preparedness we have for a pandemic either a cause pandemic or a bioterrorism pandemic. we don't have the tools, the preparedness or the capacity to deal with that and yet the science is, fairly small portion of that increase. you could do something quite miraculous in terms of health security and their-- it's very confiscated because the civilian side of the defense side both need to work together to achieve that. it's something to prioritize. >> let's be clear the president has tweeted in said another settings that foreign aid is the

cause of our budget deficit and the country spends way too much on helping other countries in its time to start helping our country. that is the message that the president has said both times in multiple venues. how do you get a president who is allergic it seems to some of these ideas? >> foreign aid is so obscure that people bring it up in a negative sense. and to have a chance to explain to people that it's less than 1% do a budget and often you don't connect with saving lives with hiv medicine. the pepfar program with the malaria piece to it is a very big part of the 30 billion is

that pacific disease. if you explain that to them and should we continue to save those lives so that isn't something that gets out of control and in turn we get a vaccine which then will enable us and the hiv epidemic and a lot more people will need more treatment, would you say it like that people respond more positively. >> you could invite them. >> there are a lot more voters. absolutely getting members of congress to see this work people like lindsey graham or very active this. i think that's partly why many

elements of foreign aid particularly pepfar have continued without this very very strong response. i think an executive budget puzzle including potential cuts really didn't consider cutting that funding because they do have a commitment to it. >> are you concerned about the president? >> i don't agree. that is i think the alliances that we have built over time and the countries of lifting them starting with the marshall plan and supporting the united nations in the bilateral things we do we have a the world a more stable richer place and i think that's good for my purer humanitarian point of view.

i do think foreign aid because the foreign aid budget is so small that we take things that are so effective that even if it just benefits americans, americans don't want out pandemics and americans want to create stability in africa. we spend over $600 billion a year on-- and $30 billion a year in foreign aid and that's a 20 to one ratio. the ratio is pretty close at three to one. president bush thinking we are going to exercise hard power wanted to make sure the soft power of peace that made it strong and that's why he picked pepfar, general mattis says if you cut it you've got to give

more money for weapons. i'm a huge believer that framework does not say that we should cut the money. >> when donald trump-- the presidency he talks about being a businessman and that's why he was all it did. in your experience running businesses and running big business and creating business do you feel like you have a good sense of how he thinks and has anybody that you have met in your time, in your career prepared you to deal with somebody like him? [laughter] >> in business you may note-- you meet a lot of different kinds of people and you have to be good at adapting to the

different styles of workings. i was in the new york real estate business. obviously i missed the whole approach. we find things in common that you believe then and i think president trump would like to take the money and have something that is new and makes a big difference with leadership with that. what can be taken to him that would serve the country and really resonate something where the president's leadership would be important to make it happen. >> one of the questions we would like step back to his any of

that it ever had, what is your daily routine? walk us through a day in the life of bill gates. >> the foundation takes most of my time. i spend 10% of my time at microsoft attending a board meeting on monday and tuesday. i helped shape some of the strategies there and maybe two or three days a month. i do something with the pep of our and i kind of work on clean energy grade i work for a vision company and a whole bunch of energy related thing. most of my time is at the

foundation. we just had two weeks of strategy reviews where we go through all the things we are doing and what's going well and what isn't going well. we do k-12 and higher ed. and the key components there. i travel a lot and i need to go to africa. next week will be in chad and nigeria to spend a lot of time on nigeria because it's a quarter of the population of sub-saharan africa and the challenge comes to the government system. a lot of the trips to other countries the uk and germany give more than half of what the

u.s. does because even though the population is dramatically smaller talking to them about their joint work. the single biggest project that i put time and on because we are in a very critical period there. three countries, nigeria, afghanistan and pakistan are countries that had fires in the last three years. this will be the last year and a any child gets paralyzed with polio ever. [applause] >> we asked some of our readers to send questions that they would like to ask you and they won't give you all of them but one that was very interesting is how do you decide what areas to

fund? this is from a reader who said malaria, tb and polio are three things that you abort to eradicate. there are other things that i will hepatitis which i am not as familiar as you might be but take us through your thought process. >> so we picked two areas we were going to work in just based on our values and nobody can work in all the areas so u.s. education global health. once we did global health then within that we are extremely rational about saying okay of this money will can have the highest impact and we can save a

life for less than $1000 a day. it sets the bar when we work on cancer because the pharmaceutical companies with the r&d budget 25 times bigger than ours as a group are working hard on that and the incremental benefits of any new advance their is more in the 400,000-dollar-- going out and getting more measles vaccines that is $1000 so we are working on diseases and things where they are achieved drugs they can be invented and get them out to people to their biggest metric is--

and over 10 million children under the age of five died per year pay that number has been cut in half and it's under 5 million and that's because of what we and our partners have done in improving the primary health care system. by 2030 we will cut that in half again so it won't go from 5 million a year to 2.5 million a year. it's a huge progress in a fairly dramatic way and so diseases are very rare we won't work on. we have made so much progress on the big ones. we just funded tom frieden to go out and look at heart disease and hide but pressure in africa and we are talking sickle cell

and now we are making progress it might be begin figure out the right treatment or new invention and help out with that. it's about 2% of the deaths in nigeria are specifically due to sickle cell. we funded group called the international health metrics. the university of washington where the understanding of getting the numbers right is 100 times better today than when we got started and we didn't have to do things that are hard. they are our no autopsies done from these poor children who die. we created the thing called a minimally invasive autopsy where we take samples of the lungs in the brain and have them analyzed in labs created in africa to get a picture of what do we need to do to save these lives?

>> one of our reporters, and i don't know where they are sitting. >> i'm make everybody. thank you for being here today. i cover foreign policy for political. my question is what reasons to the trump administration given terms of wanting to cut ornate budgets? it they feel like other countries are not doing their fair share? they say that the u.s. gives more than it should and it makes other countries dependent on us. i realize you mentioned we do get significant amounts of my question is isn't the argument-- isn't this the shock therapy or wake-up call that the rest of the world needs so that other institutional step up and give more in line ways to give-- to be less dependent on usaid? >> the figure of merit is one

her scent of your gdp you give to foreign aid. noise come 1.1%, uk .7%, germany .7%. we are .22%. we are substantially less than most countries are. if you like shock therapy it is true not getting hiv drugs is a form of shock. you die and those people no longer will need foreign aid because they will be dead. the theory of foreign aid is to allow countries to lift themselves up to become self-sufficient and when the u.s. started giving aid after

world war ii at first a lot of that aid went to redevelop europe. by the time you get to the 1960s you have a wife or kid a world where you have rich countries and were countries and almost nothing in the middle. partly because of finance and economic development. america will take place which is most people live in middle income countries in those countries are neither recipients. brazil, mexico, india, china. most of the 7 billion people live in those middle income countries which are not substantial recipients of aid. but you do have still, poor countries, the low income countries in those countries in order to get the education so they can have their own domestic

tax collection they need foreign aid. when you have malaria and hiv epidemic there is no source of revenue that will let you buy those hiv medicines and in particular the surge to create a malaria vaccine, the resources and expertise are not in those core countries. when we get a 30 million-dollar grant we became the biggest malaria vaccine fund or. the markup is not going to provide it and get in terms of humanity we have made a lot of progress. if i told to hey they are still kids dying in this audience would take those two kids i think people would respond to the cost, $14 per bed net. can we manage $20?

those two kids would be dependent on us. think of it, that's awful. they would be dependent on us. it's hard for me to understand the notion that helping people that are poorer than we are is a bad thing. it's kind of in the bible. [laughter] >> in terms of finding partners i wanted to ask you a question. when you are at microsoft you were with the government now so much of your time is spent trying to get countries to give more money, doing this diplomacy effort. have you had to reshape your framework of where your government should be involved? >> no. government is a necessary thing.

justice, military and it is true microsoft has its own lawsuit threatening by the district court. saying it was a good day in court even when it wasn't sometimes. the doj lawsuit was not a small thing but i'd love my time it microsoft and it is true, people treat governments nicer as a philanthropist than they did at the capitalist. but that's understandable. >> you have to be a capitalist before you become a philanthropist. >> it does help. otherwise you're going to be a particularly large philanthropist and that will have an impact.

you could say when i started the foundation i thought our primary role would be the invention of the new tool and that is the half of what we do. the hiv vaccine, all those things. the idea that we would get involved in the delivery go in and help improve the primary health care system and partner with the government to look at okay how do you train those people, how do you measure their work, which part of this should be digital? i did know that was going to be necessary. i think the demand was there other people would make sure they got out but in fact it turned out that wasn't realistic there were tools that have been invested. ..

>> yet, those support kids were not getting that vaccine. that vaccine if you make the right guarantees and do it right way is about $3 for a full dose of that vaccine. now virtually every child in the world is getting the rotavirus vaccine. and has some element of how we went from 10 million down to 5 million. it has been 15 years since -- was very effective in your view, the pass congress in a very bipartisan way. i wonder now what you encounter when you try to build new allies

on capitol hill. he went to shake shack yesterday and took a selfie and had some hamburgers. tell us what you encounter and do since resistance? >> also lindsey graham and -- are champions of some of these causes it but their veteran lawmakers. how do you go about finding the folks in convincing them for needing global health are important priority? >> our team led by rob i assumes every member is for nate something you'd like to learn about. even people who come in with a fairly negative attitude, our view is somewhere you learn about it the more you will

realize this is real and so, whenever we, fair portion of the time is sitting talking about the progress in hearing what concerns they might have. we probably more focus on people and committees, but we don't limit ourselves to the because the simple ideas about foreign a we want to rebut those, even the press coverage of foreign aid if there is like -- had a scandal which is awful recently the good news doesn't travel quite as fast as the bad news. trying to make sure people have the overall picture, some things are not managed that well but overall whether it's health,

agriculture, sanitation, this time has been the best ever in helping poor countries uplift themselves. >> we have one more question from the reporter. >> facebook, twitter, and google has harsh criticism of line in their platforms to get out of control which is russia's effort to influence american domestic politics. if had some experience with government oversight. to think the government needs to step in, if not, why? >> the interest in do these platforms polarize people in a way that exacerbates

polarization that is already taken place, and do they allow foreign influence that should not be allowed were trolls, hate speech to come on and affects people's views? those are interesting questions in a democracy. in the world the media there has always been rules about how media is used politically. yet, even if people have a desire to say they need to do something different take facebook in particular, the specific recommendations about what they should do i find fake. is there an exact line where free speech stops in one starts? what is it that foreigners are allowed to say? foreigners can go into the forms and talk, you're probably not only going to have u.s. citizens

talking to each other, when does it become political influence and what visibility should it have? there were some bills that would have created transparency about who is buying ads on the platforms. there definitely is something that needs to be looked at. the actual solutions are little less clear. >> what you hear from foreign leaders who you meet with about the united states? >> the way the world has benefited from u.s. leadership is hard to overstate. most of their policies they look at the say what did the u.s. do,

how did the u.s. get great universities and how did they organize research, even on an issue like what we do to prepare for a pandemic, the cdc is the best in the world for what they do. is phenomenal. the un system has benefited from the resources and personnel. people from cdc are working at a world health organization help in that organization work well. there is an expectation that the u.s. cares about world stability and world progress. as we surprise people instruct a pullback or we say our role will have a short-term focus on our soul benefit in those activities as opposed to long-term benefit for all the members, that is

potentially a problem and creates a vacuum of leadership. people miss. so when you say do love the united states the say no it's this dominant country that doesn't do everything well they pick some things to get involved in that they shouldn't. everybody has an opinion of how the world's leader goes about exercising its leadership. as that engagement goes down people are very much missing it. >> there is no leadership at the state department with mr. pompeo coming in as head of that agency. to know him, we work with him? is it important to have a top diplomat for this country?

>> we have always worked with the secretary of state in march is the administrator the money there's an aids coordinator but a lot of that money is going out to cdc and so there is a deep collaboration there. it's the hiring of good people in the morale of the state department can be improved that would be a good thing. i will certainly go and meet the new secretary and talk about partnerships we've had and how we can manage those. >> one thing we haven't talked about a new interest of yours is alzheimer's, a lot of your work is a broad so doesn't touch the u.s. as much as it does in other

places but what are you doing on alzheimer's and how could you have a big impact? >> the big thing and the u.s. is complicated but super important area. alzheimer's is unusual because there's a gigantic market. whoever creates a drug that creates tears alzheimer's will make billions of dollars. yet it's very difficult. it's the disease that there have been more failed trials on than any other disease. they're very expensive trials. the gold standard is improving behavior on a cognition test. that sometimes take six or eight years in the early trials recruited patients that were too far along in their disease for the drug to have a benefit.

and even getting the drug to the place in the brain is very difficult. so the cost and economic cost of dementia broadly is gigantic. that liability for long-term care will fall on the government. you could say even though we are generous compared to other countries our investment in solving the problem at a research level has not been enough. congress with a few people be an active is taking that budget from a few years ago gone from about 400 million and is likely to get up to about 2 billion. that's is faster growth as the national cancer institute had at

the beginning of the war on cancer. my role saying this is a disease that requires different actors to commit, my role is funding people for a biomarker, getting the data organized. u.s. government data that's not available that they can learn about disease progression and that's what we have done with how young children grow and when they falter. doing that database goes back to my microsoft background and how you reap empower researchers. there's a few things like investing in early-stage high risk companies that have new approaches. the mainstream approaches where you clear very directly.

>> i want to ask about education because that is a big priority of yours. secretary divorce has done a lot of changes that are not line with your foundation. how concerned are you? >> i read articles. the truth is, the federal government under the obama administration was very active in trying to say how do we manage teachers? are we looking at how their achieving things? are we getting feedback and a lot was done to say the federal government has some ideas about how we can go change that.

once we had the reauthorization the role of the federal government was greatly reduced. now for k-12 most accounts is at the state or district level. there have been slight tweaks but not a dramatic set of changes to the title i money. even in the areas they talk about the idea of school choice, there's quite a bit of that we agree with that having strong charters that try out things that can be very positive. we'll never have more than 10% of kids in charters. even if you do the best job possible if to use that as a learning letter for the 90% who are not going to be in charters.

we are in a lot of states no. we tried out those things. when we started the foundation i thought global health would be a hard thing would make little progress in because it's tough and quick wins in education. maybe move math stores up 5% reading scores 10%. really get that to builder confidence. it has been the opposite. every school we have gotten involved whether it's a public school or charter, great things have happened. but when it comes to taking it and scaling it up and getting other schools to adopt or even the school that were in say it's three years after we have been there, does it persist or does

that mentoring program go away? we feel good about the direct intervention. but if the philanthropy in k-12 it's 600 billion per year been spent in that market. all you're doing is a pilot programming type thing. if you want to move the macro statistics you have to figure out that only good ideas that work for good ideas that get massive adoption. there the field has not had a huge success. where people drop talking about the dropout what rate up until then, people talked about the entering senior class to the exiting.

the most dropping out takes place in the first three years. dropout number has gone down some. it's nothing like what we have achieved in global health. >> we are almost out of time. you do expect to can move president trump off his america's first rhetoric. >> i will take his brain work and explain why things like health security and foreign a even that narrow framework where you give no credit for saving lives, even without that this is money well spent. >> thank you for this great conversation. [applause] a special thank you to our host for being so generous. have a great day.

[applause] >> tonight on c-span, for -- christopher li while he speaks. he says the brexit vote was one through fraud. >> i'm convinced that there was common . all of these companies somehow,

for some reason all decided to use aggregated -- as the service provider. they have no media app, no website. the only way that defined them is go to another website. so the first question i have is why is it that all of a sudden the company that has never worked on anything analytic that is no public presence somehow became the primary service provider to these independent campaign groups. and secondly, what i provided to the actual commission is three binders of evidence about e-mails, documents invoices, chat logs and activity logs of conversations happening inside in particular with reference to

the this project and when you look at the accumulation of evidence, i think it would be completely unreasonable to come to any other conclusion that this was must be a common purpose plan. when i went to aggregate iq's office because because after buzz feed is that it was are that the 625 pounds in the last two weeks of the referendum in this canadian company that nobody heard of receive -- and having introduced darren to this

and i was genuinely concerned that something unlawful happened. it doesn't pass the smell test. when i went and spoke with aggregate iq who were very pleased with themselves with how the project when, understandably, they want but ask any show me actually what was your secret how did you win and what did you do? they conceded to me, and i stand by i remember them telling me this it was quote totally illegal 2.7. the first point is, when you're caught at the olympic stoping

there's not a debate about how much illegal drug you took or you probably would come in first anyway or if you only had half of the amount. if you cut cheating you lose your metal. because if we allowed cheating in our democratic process and we allow this than what about next time. this is a breach of the law, this is cheating. the thing that's important understand is this is not a council racer by election. it's an irreversible change to the constitution of the government of this country. and if you cheat on exam you failed. you should not win by cheating. the second point, to the actual substance of your question, he said a iq take could not have

one without a iq. having seen the effectiveness of the conversion rate on the online as they put a, they're incredibly effective. when you look at online anson you can get programs with conversion rates of one or 2%. the conversion is people are aware such as someone cnn add not just the internet and clicking on it, it's clicking on it and then performing an action. >> are you saying that had these not cheated the outcome might have been different. >> i think it is completely reasonable to say that it

could've been a different outcome had there not been in my view, cheating. >> what th watch the new reports late at 10:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> thursday morning were in washington for the next stop for the 50 capital story. washington governor will be our guest during "washington journal" starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern. c-span, where history on full daily. 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today we bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in d.c. and around the country.