discussion here, he took part in a seminar to present the opportunities of investments in a huge infrastructure program that launched earlier this year. it's projects that total around $100 billion. and there were 250 representatives of chinese companies. and i think there was a great deal of interest. especially in projects related to transport and logistics that could make it more efficient to the export products from the region to china. and i think there is -- the recent increase, especially last year in invest, chinese investments in brazil, i think it is a factor of convergence of factors. the need of chinese companies to invest abroad. the evaluation of the currency

that made it cheaper to investment in brazil, and also something that we might see the effect more in the future, the huge investigation of corruption scandal in brazil, that affected many of the large brazilian companies that used to take part on infrastructure products. >> i want to have one last round of questioning, just quickly on the u.s. implications. we obviously are here in washington, so we would be remiss if we didn't talk about the u.s. implications, but then the last few minutes to open up questions to the audience. i know there was one in the first row from the last panel. we can take that first. but u.s. implications. miguel, you were -- you served most recently as a diplomat, peru's ambassador to the united states. and i think we've talked about in this panel that the potential

implications that renminbi has for bringing in more investment into latin america, i think the panel seems to conclude that there is probably less potential that that will bring for latin -- countries of into china. when you think of chinese investment into the region, how do you see this as having political or economic ramifications in the u.s. relationship with those countries in the region with which there will be even greater commerce and investment with china as a result of this? >> actually, i think more important is the lack of approval of tpp than the discussion to tell you the truth. and actually, now that apec is being chaired by peru. there is a tension in terms of actually pursuing a free-trade

agreement where china is part of it, and that's the blueprint being discussed in lima at the end of, you know, you know, in november, when we have the summit, summit of leaders. and what will happen, you know, if the tpp postponed until who knows when. that's more important in terms of the impact on latin america, china, plus relationship. i see real tensions. i see, you know, a concern from the u.s. administration. of giving away space for, you know, chinese involvement. obviously, the rmb will be a vehicle to accelerate the flows and to -- it is another way to join both regions. but i suspect that actually now the focus will be what happens with trade agreements.

and that's actually something that we are more concerned as a former ambassador. >> as a former ambassador. you still carry the title, though. barbara, do you agree with miguel? also along those lines, maybe this can be an opportunity of not necessarily of u.s./china competition, but does this present an opportunity of working together on, you know, the, you know, kind of greater good, which is the economic development of latin america, and rising up the good of the region as a whole? >> so i can't disagree with miguel, even though i'm supposed to. >> i'm trying to get something to disagree with each other. >> i like your scenario, the u.s. and china working together for the greater good of latin-american, but i'm going to disagree with you. >> perfect.

>> i'm trying to get somebody to disagree. >> we first need to stop about building walls against our major trading partners in the region and also just, you know, making statements about trade wars with china is not helpful for the greater good of the latin american region either. peterson institute has done really nice work on what that might mean for the u.s. economy, for the latin american economy, it would be a disaster. the u.s. and china being two major trade investment partners. so if we want to constructively engage with china, yes, that would be wonderful and maybe apec is one forum for which that is being done to a certain extent. and that could be used as a springboard for that. i think the united states has an opportunity to show latin

america that it is committed to the region with a strong latin america policy that does not include trade and investment barriers. >> i want to make sure we have time for questions. so we're going to go back to jerry's question. >> no, it is a different question. >> okay, good, different panel, different question. >> i just spent two weeks in china recently, and one thing that i find out is that the odi in 2016 is going to be first time higher than the fdi. so china is going out to invest. having said that, the investment in china out of the financial, like the chinese development bank in brazil, we didn't see too many projects coming in the infrastructure of the real projects we can touch. the biggest one was probably bahamas which was a failure. $3 billion went down.

and the -- i don't see many more investments going to mexico, because it is kind of coke and pepsi. so where you see real projects going, this is a question they asked me, so i'm asking you, going into latin america? specifically, there has been an announcement of $250 billion going to latin america in the next five years. >> thanks. >> infrastructure still, you know, would be the sector. we still have huge gaps to fill. i don't know whether -- each country has its own framework, but we follow private/public partnerships. chinese have been quite interested in many of the big projects, extra line of subway in lima or other countries. there is also this pragmatic view. huge train, 60 billion between brazil and peru, and now it is a commuter train in lima.

there is some realism into many projects. i would say infrastructure and energy. >> do want to add something? >> it shows how difficult infrastructure projects are. everyone was expecting that things would go much more quickly and now reality has set in and expectations are being ratcheted down. hopefully, pragmatism will prevail. the viability of funds will stimulate. there is still a pretty good potential. i think brazil being a big potential market, but this last year hasn't been easy for brazil and for big infrastructure projects in brazil either. so i would say with time, take a medium to longer term view rather than short-term excitement fireworks view.

i think that is an area in which there can be, not to be negative on u.s./china cooperation, but where u.s. and china could help increase welfare. >> i think the case of brazil, it is also infrastructure, and i think there is an effort with this government to redone the regulatory in which environment in which this projects are done. there is decisions also to do public/private partnership, and i think one area that will probably be attractive is oil and gas. there is to date, they are voting a change in the rules expiration of the reserves. and eliminate petro grass having 40% participation in each project, which will make it more attractive to foreign companies. >> as a huge development, something we at our center had a report on that in july about

brazil, the potential of brazil's oil and gas market, specifically how to propel it. we have time for one last question. we can maybe take these -- i saw your hand. sorry, sir. i had the fifth row first. say your name and organization. >> benjamin christfelt, johns hopkins university. i would be very interested to know if the opposition of renminbi in latin america increase scrutiny or maybe ease transactions, ease the sort of ease in, looking at transactions between china and latin america? they're both very cash based. i'm encouraged having taught in colombia that generally young entrepreneurs don't even know what the rmb is, but there will

be possibilities of easing trade, easing transactions, and i wondered whether this will enable greater scrutiny. we focused on the high end, big investments, but the possibility of easing trade, trade flow and trade flow between china and latin america. >> thank you for that question. miguel, barbara? >> i would say -- so, i think that's what jason is hoping in his question with you, cautions against these investments that may not be as transparent as we would like. i think that trends are going in that direction already, the internationalization won't be a silver bullet for that but will certainly help increase the -- increase visibility, i suspect that this panel is an indication that people are paying more attention to this. and i suspect that that also

depends on how much latin-american companies and governments use the renminbi. so i think that people like yourself, paying attention to this and writing papers and so will probably help increase the knowledge among young entrepreneurs that the renminbi exists, and it may become an option and may be able to take advantage of that potentially. >> barbara, that's a great way to end our discussion, give homework to the audience. to help us. i would like to end by thanking along with peter here, i want to thank maria, standing in the back, working tirelessly to help make this happen along with ivy and her whole team at the art center. i would like to thank adrienne, our founder, for being here today, and also jerry and the whole team, martin, jim, everyone over at hsbc, for their sponsorship, not only their support but this whole

initiative, this allows us to do, washington and beyond, looking at the details of the chinese relationship with markets like latin america, and realize there is no black or white answer. the answer always lies somewhere in the gray. thank you very much, panelists and douglas and andre for excellent report, which you haven't read. it is right here. [ applause ]

>> and had this to say. >> donald trump disrespects, aggressively disrespects more than half the human beings in this country, he thinks that because he has money that he can call women fat pigs and bimbos. he thinks because he is a celebrity that he can rate women's bodies from one to ten. he thinks that because he has a

mouthful of tick tacks that he can force himself on any woman within groping distance. i've got news for you, donald trump, women have had it with i goes like you. [ applause ] and, and nasty women have really had it with guys like you. yeah. get this, donald, nasty women are tough. nasty women are smart. and nasty women vote. [ applause ] and on november 8th, we nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our

lives forever. [ applause ] >> while congress is on break until after the november elections, we're featuring american history tv programs that are normally seen weekends here on c-span 3. tonight, congressional history, at 8:00 eastern, former senators bosh dole and nancy casabon talk about congress. at 9:25, it's the history of african americans and congress. and shortly after 10:00 eastern, the 50th anniversary of the national historic preservation act. and 10:45 tonight, the dedication of the thomas edison capital in the u.s. capitol. c-span brings you more debate from key u.s. senate races. this evening at 7:00, live on c-sp c-span, the pennsylvania senate debate between. republican senator and on wednesday night at 10:00 on c-span. a debate for the florida senate

between marco rubio and democratic congressman patrick murphy. and thursday night at 8:00 eastern, republican senator kelly ayotte and democratic governor maggie what'sen debate for the new hampshire senate seat. now until election day. follow key debates from house, senate, and governor's races on the c-span networks, c-span.org. c-span where history unfolds daily. >> treasury secretary jack lew recently talked the global economy and the role of the u.s. financial system. the 45 minutes event was hosted by the peterson institute for international economics here in washington, d.c.

>> good morning, everyone. welcome back to the peterson institute for international economics. i'm adam posen president of the peterson institute. and it's my great privilege to welcome the 79th -- excuse me 76th secretary of the treasury of the united states jack lew. secretary lew has returned to the peterson institute to give us his thoughts ahead of the global economy and the u.s. agenda heading in to the annual imf world bank meetings. he's sfoins before and we're grateful to have him back. of course all of you know that secretary lew prior to becoming secretary of the treasury in february of 2013 served as white

house chief of staff and previously as director of the office of management and budget. we do not have the kind of permanent civil service at the highest levels that our friends in the uk or japan or france or even mexico do, but jack lew comes very close to being a permanent civil servant public servant i would say and his distinguished career long before his cabinet appointments including as omb director in president clinton's cabinet is really outstanding. i'm not going to go through it all. i'll just say among his many recent accomplishments for us in the international economics sphere were his final delivery through the congress in imf commitment took great skill and principle and which we at the institute are very proud of him and to be associated with that victory. and speaking in my personal capacity his and his team's

excellent management of currency diplomacy over the last year and a half since the chinese financial turmoil a summer ago we've seen stability and constructive management from the chinese government which is to the credit of the chinese government in their own interest but i do believe the diplomacy from secretary lew and the treasury during this period was whefl that. so thank you very much secretary lew. today the secretary is speaking on the record as you all realize. he chooses to do in this a conversational format before taking questions from the audience and it's my pleasure to turn that over to strength weisman who is vice president of publication here at the peterson institute. just a quick reminder for those who don't know steve although i think everyone does he joined the institute now eight years ago in 2008.

he previously had been chief international economics correspondent for the "new york times". he has a distinguished career at the "times". has published numerous articles and books outside of the "times". bureau chief in new delhi. last january we here at the institute published his book "the great tradeoff confronting moral conflicts." it got noticed outside of the "new york times". we're thankful for the davos organization for that work. most of all, he's an expert in thinking about tax issues and american public issues and we look forward to the conversation he will have with secretary lew. over to you, steve. thank you again, mr. secretary. >> thank you, adam. thanks for the privilege of having this conversation. thanks for the book plug, adam. secretary lew, welcome. pleasure to have you here. privilege to be with you. we've known each other a long time in my earlier careers.

so as adam said the global economy is on the agenda this week. but the outlook is very mixed. the imf and others here at the institute have said that prospects for growth are not great. my colleague david stockton said last week the global economy is like a driverless car in the slow lane. you shown take that personally, but tell us your -- tell us your sense of the outlook and especially what are the prospects for fiscal stimulus which everyone seems committed to but in the case of the united states it's been challenging to carry that out. >> well, first, steve, let me thank peterson for hosting, thank you for moderating and adam thank you for the very kind introduction. i think the global economy has been a challenge to get into high gear.

but it's not a recession. we have to be clear that we're talking about slow growth, not either a financial crisis or a recession. and the question is how do you go from slow growth to the kind of growth that will really help lift people around the world and deal with the frustration that is pretty broad about feeling the benefits of a growing economy? you know, you asked about fiscal policy. we have been trying for many years now to make the case that we, the economic policymakers of the world have to use all the tools we have. you can't just rely on monetary policy, you need to use fiscal policy and fiscal reform and use all the tools to get an economy into gear. when i became treasury secretary almost four years ago there was

a pretty heated debate about austerity versus growth and it was as if you could cut your way to growth was one theory, or just spend your way was the carcicature. we used the model how do you use all the levers? when he an aggressive use of monetary in a fiscal policy. one could argue we should have used more fiscal policy. but without a doubt the recovery act and enactment of payroll tax cuts repeatedly, and then after a period of, i think, premature tightening in the short term going back to easing, to support growth by putting savings more in the out years less in the front years. we did that with, in conjunction with a fed that use used its monetary lefr -- levers very creatively and extensively but reforming our financial system

which was the big structural reform we needed. four years ago, there was not a lot of support around the table for using fiscal tools. there was an exhaustion with fiscal tools. perhaps it was because of the debt overhang. perhaps because of what the immediate spending at the moment of crisis was. taken from china to canada, from japan and south korea to europe you're seeing more willingness to use fiscal space. not every country has an equivalent amount of fiscal space. it has to be a case-by-case use of the tools but you look at japan, japan could have put more

excise taxes in place and thrown the economy back into recession. they didn't. now it doesn't mean they don't a big debt as percentage of gdp. they have a long-term problem but you don't solve a long-term problem by causing a short-term recession. you look in china, china in its national people's congress have committed to use moreover its fiscal space by increasing its deficit and very much pushing structural reforms. in europe the spending that europe has been burdened with to deal with the refugees crisis has quite self-consciously not come at the expense of other spending but it's been additive. and there's a hidden germany of a possibility of a tax nut the next year or two. i think the efforts we've made to press to use all policy tools

has broken through, we've also had political developments that have made it more acceptable in many countries to have this conversation. >> you left out the united states. of course that will be determined after november but it does sound like you're hopeful there, too. >> well, i think in the united states we did use more fiscal firepower during the recession than other countries did and we sustained it for longer and if you look at the period between 2011 and 2014 we because of the political situation in the united states shifted in 2012, 2013 into short-term cuts and annual spending when we should have been doing long-term savings to deal with the longer term fiscal path. but in the last three years, fair lie quietly you've seen a couple budget agreements that have replaced short-term cuts

with longer-term measures, freeing up space so that there's a modest tail wind from public spending as opposed to a head wind. i don't want to overdramatize it. it's not a huge gust but it's in the right direction and i think you look at the discussions today about things like infrastructure, things like education and training, things like child care, there are domestic needs we need to address, not all of which should be done at the price of deficits, we have proposed how to pay for a lot of those things but it wouldn't be the worse thing if we rebuilt our infrastructure with a bit more long-term credit. >> let me shift focus a little bit. i think in a few square miles around where we're sitting there's a lot of support for globalization, liberalized trade, but it's no secret that around the world but especially in the eyes and europe these days there's been a backlash. did you -- were you able to anticipate that?

let's -- let me ask it a different way. shouldn't you have anticipated that? and what can be done about it in this very contentious era? >> first, having worked on trade legislation over a course of four decades, it's never been easy. it's always been contentious and i think in the current economic environment we should and did anticipate it was going to be hard what i think we have done is produced an agreement in the form of the transpacific partnership which meets the test of improving standards on labor, improving standards on environment, improving business practices, leveling a playing field, giving the u.s. the ability to help shape the terms of global trade. so when others come up to our standards we become more competitive. i think we've produced an agreement that can withstand

careful scrutiny. why is it a challenge? i think it is -- it's fair to say that if you win the argument that a trade agreement grows the economy, you should be most of the way there. you should be able to make the case that a growing economy is better than an either this linking economy or an economy that's growing less quickly. you don't actually have more ability to help people with an economy that's not growing as fast. why is it so hard? i think there's a broad sense of anxiety that growing economies don't necessarily get to people where they live, it doesn't get to a factory worker, it doesn't get to people worrying about their children and the opportunities they're going to have. i don't think this is about tpp. i think it's really about what are we doing to address the concerns that people have that government needs to be meeting domestic needs.

if we were investing more in infrastructure -- which i believe we should -- if we were investing more smartly in education and training and child care, i'm not so sure that we'd be in the same place. i think you look around the world and what i've described is not just a u.s. phenomenon, it's a broader phenomenon. so our tax policy has to reflect the fact that there is an awful lot of accumulation of wealth in assets and in very high incomes that is not very heavily taxed. and that gives people a sense it's not on the level. i pay my taxes i'm not getting the services i need and now you're telling me that i'm going to benefit when the economy grows, i'm not seeing that. i don't think that's an excuse not do tpp because i don't think you can win the argument by saying let's grow the economy more slowly and i think we will

prevail on tpp with the quality of the arguments but we can't stop there, we have to focus on these long term issues. those are all long-term ideas to build up support for trade but you have an urgent timetable to get tpp enacted next month, believe it or not. how are you going to do that? >> i think the vote we had last year was a harder vote, it was an abstraction. it was giving permission structure for process for an agreement. we now have an agreement. i can point to countries in the world where labor standards are being raised because of tpp. it's actually already having the kind of effect that we have predicted it would have. i don't know how you improve competitiveness by stepping back from that. i don't know how you improve competitiveness by saying in the fastest-growing economies of the world we won't write the rules,

we'll leave the space open for others to write the rules. we have an economic and geopolitical imperative that's very strong. the arguments that i'm suggesting are not an excuse not to do tpp but it's a reason why you can't only talk about tpp because i think we have a habit of talking about things like trade adjustment assistance at the moment of passing a trade agreement and there's, i think, a growing skepticism about what happens in between and we have to make it clear that these are commitments that are important that don't just begin and end with one vote. now i think we can show a fair amount of credibility on that because we've put forward concrete proposals as an administration in these areas for several years. it will ultimately come down, as it always does, to votes. >> yes. >> i think that, you know, if you voted for trade promotion authority and the standard was

to have an agreement that would raids standards and meet the high bar i think we can meet the test and we are going to make the case over and over again and ultimately it will be counting the votes. i think we can get there. >> hope so. let me switch to something you mentioned a second ago about taxes and specifically corporations that are going abroad for tax havens. the u.s. is -- your administration has been pretty tough on wanting to get rid of these tax havens and yet in the case of apple you were upset that the europeans went after apple for getting a special tax deal in ireland. is there a contradiction there? >> no. i think if you look at what the european commission has done -- let's start with what we agree on. we agree that large

multinational corporations should not be able to game the international tax system to avoid paying taxes anywhere or to pay at such a low rate that it is offensive to our common sensibilities. we agree on that. what we don't agree on is having one sovereign entity reach into another sovereign entity's tax base and change tax laws retroactively, which is what we believe the state aid decision did. so the solution is for us to fix the u.s. tax code. we built a fair amount of bipartisan support for the idea that u.s. income, whether it comes home or not, should be subject to a minimum tax. if we were doing that, i don't know that the pressure would have been as high. we have a broken business tax system, we have a statutory rate that's the highest in the developed world, an effective rate that's about average and we have other countries with low

tax rates that are essentially a race to the bottom to be a magnet for companies that are looking for a way to avoid paying what is the average rate. we have to fix our part of the problem which is not be so far above the average because we have a tax code riddled with loopholes and deductions. others have to feel some international pressure not to run that race to the bottom to create the disparity. the answer isn't to reach into each other's tax base. it's fundamentally inconsistent with the whole notion of how we work on tax policy together internationally and each of us independently. over the last four years we've made more progress on the international space in base erosion and profit shifting than people did in 20 years. dealing with issues like transfer pricing. dealing with how to word nate our systems. the answer is more work like

that and less reaching into each other's areas. >> you did mention bipartisan support. but there seems to be a disagreement about how to handle that $2 trillion that -- some of which would be repatriated. where is the deal there? i actually think amongst the tax writers there is a broad sense that there ought to be a minimum tax on income overseas. i wouldn't say we've all agreed on what the rates should be but if you could get around the negotiating table and there's a low and high rate you're in a place where traditionally our political system is able to find a compromise. this has not been an opportune moment to see bipartisan agreements on big policy issues but even in that space there

have been conversations that have laid a ground work. there's also a crossover on international tax reform. purpose to apply minimal tax rate produced oversea, it would be a one time revenue so you'd end up losing money if you just cut rates. the question becomes what do you do with it? some people would say reduce the deficit. i think a much stronger argument is invest in infrastructure. we've proposed putting several hundred billion dollars into infrastructure. i think the combination of europe moving pretty aggressively on the state aid issue and the, i think, bipartisan desire to find a way to pay for more infrastructure creates perhaps the perfect storm where you can overcome the inertia of inaction. where you can overcome an environment where making political compromises hasn't been the popular thing over the last couple years. overcome the special interests that don't want to change the status quo because everything that's one person's loophole is another person's treasure.

it's not easy to do business tax reform but it can be done. you have the intellectual work and consensus to do that. it could happen early in a new administration. >> let me ask one more question also in the news, deutsche bank. deutsche bank's problems seem to illustrate an issue identified by the imf, the fed and many others the systemic risk posed by undercapitalized banks in europe. how do you see that? do you see that as a problem that has been unmet that hasn't been addressed? >> first, i'm not going to comment on any individual financial institution. >> you notice i didn't ask you to. >> as a general proposition we have been very clear coming out of the financial crisis that we had to make sure our financial

institutions were well capitalized. we had to make sure we had a resolution structure where if there was a problem there was transparency and a process to resolve them and we had to make sure that we worked globally to raise standards because coming out of the financial crisis there was a real clear signal that no country has a -- an ability to separate itself from global financial risks, we have worked very hard with international parties and the g20 and the fsb to raise international standards. you were has made a lot of progress. they've moved towards a resolution system that is still in development. it's moved a baby step towards an fdic-like system. they still have work to do i think europe's financial institutions are much stronger

than they were in the recent ecb stress tests established that. but we've been clear for years pressing they need to do more. we took very dramatic action in this country and i think it's helped stabilize not just our financial system but our economy and confidence in our economy and i hope that we see around the world more pressure. the danger is complacency. you can hear in the united states let's roll back dodd/frank, ease up on regulations, you hear in the other places as well. this would be the wrong moment to think you take your foot off the gas or maybe you'll reverse. one thing we know for sure is risks don't just stop, they change, they have new manifestations of where they're

coming from and how you deal with them. the mistake that we made for the decades before the financial crisis was not thinking ahead. you need to look ahead, keep your eye on what forms of risk could be the challenge of the future and you need to adapt to it. sometimes it means changing what you've done but it doesn't mean saying we're out of the woods, let's roll back reforms. >> thanks, secretary lew. let's go to the floor now. questions, please, raise your hand. i think there's a roving mike. jessica back there. gentleman here. excuse me for interrupting but would you please identify yourself and also please keep your question an actual question and a succinct one. >> my name is tom ellis, a journalist from greece, thank god greece is not the top issue anymore but still somewhere there. the greek government is pushing

for that reduction. the prime minister met vice president joe biden in new york last week and he asked him to use his influence to the german chancellor or for european general. i was wondering, is the u.s. working on that? is it a major issue anymore? is it -- has it subsided? what's the situation with greece and the debt particularly. >> well, we have been deeply engaged on greece and issues related to the financial situation in greece and the debt for a very long time. happily we're not in a moment of immediate crisis and you've asked the question at a moment when you can say what should we do to avoid having another moment of crisis. we've been clear and it was important in the last agreement that greece reached with the

partners that debt restructuring had to be on the table. that there's an unsustainable debt and greece had to make progress on implementing its plan and then there would have to be a coming together where debt restructuring was part of the picture. i have always believed the sooner you get to that, the better. the only stable answer for what is an unsustainable debt is to restructure the debt and the longer you put it off the harder it gets because you weaken the economy that's supporting the debt. everyone talks about debt to gdp. the thing you have to remember is the percentage goes down when the gdp grows. so even with a stable debt a growing economy. if the economy shrinks the burden gets bigger i hope that as greece continues to engage the institutions, the issue of debt restructuring remains on the table.

i believe it was put squarely in the mix the last time. obviously with a question as to how it should be executed and the sooner that can be worked through the better. >> next question, yes, right here. >> secretary lew, phil tuttle from tudor investment corporations. you mentioned the corporate tax reform and the bipartisan nature of that. seems like in the last few days we have a new issue coming on the radar screen which is the distortion in the personal income tax system and well known issues with that. but do you think more as a citizen looking ahead to the treasury secretary do you think in the next administration the issue of broader reform,

personal tax system will come up as an issue given the distortions in that? >> our position as an administration is reflected in what the president called for and what was enacted in 2013 where the top tax rate was restored to where it was before they were rolled back in the previous administration. we don't believe that's the entirety of what we need to do. if you look at the proposals we have put forward, one thing we have been saying is you have to take a hard look at things like asset valuation increase. we allow assets to be passed on and basis in the assets to be stepped up so the appreciation of very valuable assets essentially goes untaxed forever. that's not right. it's not right because working people don't get to say i'm not going to pay payroll tax or income tax on my earned income. and what we in our budget proposals have suggested is that it would give you the resources

to invest in education and child care. and the things people need to see the government putting much more effort into for the benefits of growth to be broadly shared. so i actually think if you care as deeply as i do about both liberal democracy and free market capitalism this is an issue that not just in the united states but around the world we have to attend to. it's not the question of populism, it's just simply a question of common sense, how do you pay your bills and how do you do in the a way that's fair? so i think this is at the heart of what ought to be a discussion about balancing where do we need to invest and how do we pay for it? >> next question. yes, sir.

>> thank you. secretary lew, when talking about the tpp you said we have to make the case that trade agreements help to foster economic growth but i have the feeling that part of the debate is about the distribution of the benefits of these growth of trade agreements between different categories of people and how does the tpp address this issue that it's not benefitting the wealthier and arming the poor people and how does the government want to communicate about that? there's a very, very strong anger on this issue. >> we know that jobs that are related to trade have higher wages we know that with a gdp that is growing faster there is more income in the country is -- country, i think the problems we have are the confluence of

concerns. winning the argument that the tpp will grow the economy is easier than addressing these longer-term concerns people have about what does my economic future look like? and it's not all trade we have concerns about technology, trade, changed business structure and change distribution patterns all happening at the same time. tpp helps by growing the economy and making us more competitive. it opens up the fastest markets in the world to u.s. goods and services. i think we have to talk in a full voice about these other concerns and separate out what you address through a trade agreement and what you address in other ways. the worker who is concerned about their job or their kids having a job will not do better

if we have a slower-growing gdp and we see a decline in high-wage jobs but that doesn't mean that it's not fair for that same person to ask what are you wage jobs. it doesn't mean it's not fair for that same person to ask what are you doing to make sure you are dealing with other problems in our system. and we have to separate the conversations. i think the case for tpp is very strong. i actually think -- i haven't heard that it doesn't help grow the economy. and i don't think that these other issues are being caused by trade agreements per se. in terms of tax equity in terms of what we invest in the future. it is personal reasonable for people to be asking, what is the government doing to make sure my kids have a better chance than i did. we have to answer that. it is not by shutting ourselves off and saying by growing more

slowly we'll do better. that's not answering the problem. >> question in the first row back there. yes. >> okay. thank you. i'm with shanghai media group u.s. news center i have two questions for the secretary. the first one, in your perspective, what do you think are the impacts for the economy of this inclusion into sdr currency basket? the second one, can you tell us a little bit about where we are the u.s./china bilateral investment trade. thank you. >> let me broaden that, secretary lew, so assess the major challenges facing u.s./china relations as well. >> the u.s./china economic relationship is the most important in the world, two

largest economies in the world. i think the desire to be included in the special drawing rights basket at the imf was a very helpful incentive tore china to make reforms in how it manages currency, how it manages its economy. it is important for china to make those changes. you can overread what being in the sdr basket is. it is not the equivalent of being a global reserve currency nor does it reflect a completion of the agenda. china has made important policy changes. they meet the standards at the imf. i think the challenge for china going forward is going to be to stick is with the reform agenda to reform the economy so market forces play a much more dominant

influence to deal with the problem of excess capacity so that china doesn't end up choking on things that there's not a market for is and that capital doesn't get where it needs to. >> you're referring to the steel, i think. >> well, i'm talk building steel. i'm talking aluminum. i'm talking about real estate. when you don't have market forces driving investment. when you don't have bad investments allowed to fail, you end up with resources being allocated in a way that ultimately chokes the future of economic growth. so i think this is fundamentally about china being in a position to do well in the next decade as much as it is about u.s./china relations. now, it is also about u.s./china relations. for a decade we had fierce debates about exchange rates policies. we prosecuted that case -- i

prosecuted that case quite aggressively. china has changed how it is is managing its exchange rate. that is less of a hot issue today than it was five years ago. and that's a good thing. it doesn't mean we have taken our eye off the ball. we are going to continue to watch. i have said consistently the real test is when there is pressure to appreciate. they have certainly said all the right things. the jury will be out until we see the macro economic circumstances that tests that. it cannot be a good thing if excess capacity becomes the exchange rate issue the next decade. it wouldn't be good for china, the u.s./china relations or the global economy. it is not just a u.s./china issue. this capacity is deeply troubling around the world wherever steel and aluminum are made, which is most industrial countries.

fundamentally, it's just not good for china because china is not going to end up having the economic strength that it needs. i believe there's still room for china to manage what is the hardest transition from a heavily industrial to a much more consumer can-driven economy in the second largest economy in the world. they have space. it is is not infinite space. it is unpopular in parts of the country. sit essential. in terms of the bilateral investment treaty we had extensive discussions at our strategic dialogues, our margins of the g20 meetings. there have been exchanges of offers. fundamentally it has to be a high quality agreement that offers access in both directions in a meaningful way if it is going to come to closure.

we have made the case that this is the best time to do it. we're going to continue through the duration of our tenure to try to get it cued up so it as close to done if not done as possible. making progress but not there yet. we are looking at a calendar that gets shorter and shorter. so the time to really put a shoulder yon to it is now. >> our time is getting shorter and shorter. i'm looking for a signal from your staff. i wonder if i could exercise the prerogative of asking a final question that i -- that's also in the news. sovereign immunity. when the justice against sponsors of terrorism act was passed over president obama's veto, the administration said that it would have disastrous consequences. what is treasury doing to avert

some of those disastrous consequences? >> so, steve, look, i'm a new yorker. i was in new york on september 11th. i stood there on the corner and watched the building fall down. i know how emotional the issue is of sympathy for the families of victims and for victims. jasta is not a good solution. jasta is something that exposes the u.s. to great risk, in terms of u.s. citizens working overseas, u.s. business overseas. and obviously there is a question as to whether or not that will have an impact on economic activity. we are keeping an eye on it. i want to reassure you that we have the deepest and most liquid treasury market in the world. we're not worried about the treasury market. but we don't think jasta is a good thing. we worked very hard to have this

be safe for u.s. officials and businesses to do business in. we work hard to make sure we protect the u.s. from harm. jasta is a solution that has many problems, which is why the president vetoed it. >> but there are other problems that people have raised other than the security of treasuries. what else are you looking at to try to minimize? >> i think the risks that we focus on most immediately are the kind of sovereign immunity risks that have to do if other countries were to take actions to tretaliate. >> right. >> it has an impact on public and private citizens. i'm not going to anticipate what

economic issues arise. obviously we have focused on the treasury markets because that's the most immediate one. and i'm not concerned about treasury markets. i think if you look at u.s. economic growth our founding, making ourselves a safe haven for investment has been, along with having immigration policy that welcomes people into our country, the two key ingredients to our economic growth. i think closing ourselves off in any way is bad. and i think jasta, you know, is something that puts a warning light out there about doing business in the united states. that doesn't mean that we should be anything other than dogged in our determination to hold people responsible when they commit horrendous acts. and i think we have proven in our administration through our actions, not just our words.

>> secretary lew, you have been generous to give us time in an especially busy week. we will live up to our promise to get you out of here now. thank you for joining us. thank you for your great answers and wishing you good luck. i'll let things turn back to the adam. >> not at all. thank you, steve, for managing this. thank you, everyone, for joining us. our thanks to secretary lew and the staff at the treasury department for including us in the secretary's busy schedule this week. we will allow the secretary to leave in peace. and i'll keep the rest of you in your seats for one more minute. we should note as the institute for national economics, as honored as we were to have the treasury secretary, we have a couple other people coming through today. so in 10 minutes we will have is a presentation by european commission vice president on the

state of the world and state of the european economy. he of course is the vice president for social cohesion, vice president in charge of financial issues and economics is and finance at the commission. we also later today at i believe 1:00 p.m. -- the maybe it's 1:30, will have governor of the central bank of argentina discussing issues there. we hope you all can join us. again, our thanks to secretary lew. this meeting is adjourned. [ applause ].

while congress is on break until after the november elections, we're featuring american history tv programs that are normally seen on weekends. tonight, congressional history. at 8:00 eastern, bob dole and nancy cast bomb talk about congress. and the history of african-americans in congress. and then the historic preservation act. then the thomas edison statue dedication. the american-arab anti-discrimination committee held its national convention here in d.c. over the next hour, a discussion on political rhetoric in the 2016 election.

>> we're going to get started. so if everybody could have a seat. the moderator for the next session is sam mccullough who will introduce our esteemed panel and our guests this morning. over to sam. thank you. >> so what we have decided to do on this panel is talk hate elf rhetoric that's been going on in the local process this year. as we know, we have seen some of

the more bomb bass particular statements regarding muslims, immigrants, regarding latinos and hispanics. so with this panel we will sort of discuss is it working, is it not working. what is being said. what is the effect on the community and the political process. this is going to be more of an interactive discussion. i will ask the panel to give opening remarks. i will ask questions. we will have a little dialogue up here. i will open it up to the audience to ask questions they may ask is the panelists. >> ronni is associate editor of the weekly podcast -- >> thank you. it's really great to be here with you this morning. thanks for coming. this is a very important topic obviously given everything

that's happened since the elections began. i want to start off by saying anti arab and anti-muslin hate, it's really become a edge issue in american politics in a way like never before. it's kind of taken the place of things like abortion and homophobia and opposition to gay marriage. those things have now been replaced by the issue by islam phobia. and it is is emanating largely from the republican party. and i just want to cite this one statistic because i think it is pretty shocking. since the presidential elections kicked off in march of 2015, georgetown university bridge niche active documented 18 ins, including 12 murder, 34 physical assaults, 56 acts of vandalism, nine arson attacks and eight shootings or bombings. it is a shocking number even to

me, somebody who does track what politicians are saying. it just demonstrates the republican party has taken hate to the a new level. that said i don't want to let democrats off the hook. they have participated in this as well. a lot of things that trump says is just making explicit who u.s. policy is implicitly. and i want to take, for example, he wants to ban muslims. you look at the refugee issue. to a large extent we're taking in only 10,000 refugees a year because of fear of muslims. so there is already somewhat of a ban on muslims. hillary clinton has a record of saying she wants to do it more. we can't let the immigrants off

the hook because they don't talk in such extreme terms as republicans do. not very many people are familiar with this. hillary clinton, when she ran for senate back in 2000 in new york, she was running against this right wing guy. there was a smear campaign against the hrus minimum political groups that have given hillary clinton money as donations. it was a smear campaign from one of the most discredited operative, steven emerson. supporting terrorism against israel. and hillary clinton, she played into this. instead of saying, no, you're wrong, she played into this. she gave all the money back to the muslim organizations and she refused to meet with arabs and muslims for the remainder of the campaign in an effort roux pro israel jewish voters. she will throw arabs and muslims under the bus to win over pro

israel voters. that's what the democratic party does. i think it is really, really important to recognize that there is a common theme when it comes to arabs and muslims. it is not as open as it is is on the republican side. in terms of israel, this kind of hard line support for israel is a central driver of what we call the islam phobia network. since 9/11, be hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into groups devoted specifically to demonizing and vilifying muslims. that's a lot of money just for hate. they are hard line supporters of israel. if you demonize here, it is like, on oh, america is fighting

a civil war. that's going to have an impact. we see republican politicians repeating. trump. one of his advisers is frank gaffney, be one of the leader of the islam phobia network he is a total anti-muslin conspiracyist. he's advising donald trump. that's scary. it isn't about this reactionary hate and bigotry. it is necessary for legitimizing u.s. military policies abroad, in the middle east specifically. that's why a lot of weapons companies also pour money into these anti-muslin groups. and i just mentioned frank gaffney. he received money from lockheed martin and general dynamics and all of these weapons companies that profit off war.

you have to dehumanize the people that live there. if they're predominantly muslim, that requires a lot of anticipate muslim hate being pumped into in this country. i don't want to take up too much time. i also want to mention we have also seen this ramp up. it is is also anti immigrant stuff. this rising xenophobia that trump is rising into. we can't let democrats off the hook. so we can't let democrats off

the hook just because they don't speak in such extreme terms as republicans do. they are putting women and children inside family detention facilities. refugees. like parts of central america are in private prisons for women and children. so people yes, are right to be outraged by trump wanting to round people up and deport them and by trump wanting to like put people in camps. but we also have to recognize and be just as outraged when we actually have an administration doing those things. trump talks about building a wall. we already have a wall at the border. i've seen it. it actually by sects people's neighborhoods and splits them from their families. there's barely any opposition to that wall because it happened under a democratic

administration. it was interesting, there was one primary debate where hillary clinton was asked what the difference was between trump's wall and the wall she has voted for and vocally supported and her response was, his wall is taller. so we have to oppose these things when democrats do them too or else we risk having the right wing take it to a new extreme level where it has devastating consequences on our own communities. i want to give a chance for everybody to talk. those are just some things i wanted to point out. >> i'm not going in depth in bios because the bios are in the book. i'll let you read that just for time. our next speaker is marcia johnson blanco, the codirector of the lawyer committee's voting rights project, manages the project's programmatic and advocacy profiles which including leading election protections and so forth. marcia? >> thank you. thank you for having me here. i'm going to talk about the charged feature we're currently in intimidation from a voting rights perspective.

so this is an election season like no other. and that's a very dramatic statement but it's also an understatement because it's just hard to describe what we're witnessing since it's so unprecedented. and some of the themes that we are dealing with it's very divisive. there's disruption on both the right and left. and then there's this charged rhetoric that we're dealing with. and this is combined with the lack of confidence in our election system. and that's based on some false premises such as there's rampant voter fraud but it's also because of laws such as the voter i.d. laws or restrictions on early voting that's undermining access to voting and it's causing a lack of confidence in our election administration system and making it harder to vote.

and in preparing for the panel, i went and looked at, you know, what is the recent history of intimidation and challenges at polling places and i wanted to talk about some of those and then also to talk about how we can fight back against them should they occur. this election cycle particularly because we have one of the candidates who's actually inviting people to go out to the polls and make sure those who are not eligible don't vote. and usually those people who are targeted are people who are from minority communities or people who are from communities that are -- when i say minority, i mean racial, ethnic, religious. you appear different and therefore, you're challenged.

and every state has challenge laws where either elected officials or just state officials or private citizens can challenge your right to vote. but there is a process and a procedure and they cannot be based on racial or ethnic or any other identity. so it's really important to know that just because there's a law that says you can challenge, you can't just use it in a discriminatory fashion. and there's some examples where that has been done. so what is intimidation just as a start? the federal prosecution offenses manual says it's subjective. and there have been just looking back at doj in recent years four instances of prosecution for voter intimidation. and so it's not something that is generally prosecuted or litigated but there have been

some notable cases that i want to talk to you about. the first is dnc versus rnc, the democratic national committee versus the republican national committee. and this comes out of an incident in 1980s, 1981 to be exact, where republican operatives were at polling places in new jersey challenging voters. some of them were armed. and they were targeting voters in minority communities. and that litigation resulted in a consent decree that is still in effect today, and it's been used in subsequent voter challenges and what the court said there very clearly is you cannot target voters based on their racial or ethnic identity. and so when we hear certain candidates today saying that you

know, there should be election observers out making sure that people who shouldn't be able to vote are not able to vote, you have to ask, is that in violation of this consent decree that exists today. there was also an incident in the city of hamtramck in michigan, which i'm sure you know has a large arab-american population. and in an election in 1999, those of our american identity were asked to take an oath by the citizens for a better hamtramck before being able to vote, and the department of justice brought a suit against the city which resulted in a

consent decree that required improved training and also allowed for federal observers to observe subsequent elections, and that consent decree did expire in 2006. but there is of note right now, we are in the first presidential election 50 years without the full protects of the voting rights act. and one of the implications of that is that now, the federal government, the department of justice has determined that it can no longer have a formal observer program in the past,

under the provision of the voting rights act, the supreme court has nullified in the shelby county versus holder decision the department of justice can no longer have a program where they recruit thousands of trained federal observers and put them in polling places to observe elections and having observers is very important because if you're being watched you're less inclined to do something that

you shouldn't. and so that's one of the challenges that we're facing this election cycle is that that program is no longer going to be in effect. the doj will still send out its attorneys to monitor elections but it wouldn't be the same as the protects that were afforded by the voting rights act. some other recent instances of intimidation, and this would fall into rather than the explicit category, the implicit category, are deceptive on bill board of that we've seen in recent elections. and so we've had flyers that are passed around minority communities and particularly in presidential election years, one that's really popular is if you have already voted this cycle, then you can't vote in november. and so if you voted in a primary and there may be some confusion

you already voted this cycle, can i vote in november so it's a way to deter voting. it's also if anyone in your family has any interaction with the justice system or have been arrested, then you can't vote. if you owe tickets or traffic tickets, et cetera, can't vote. and these are passed around in communities. i've noticed that i've been doing my work since 2004. this is my fourth presidential election. i've seen a lot of different things.

before there were flyer that were strewn around in communities. now we have facebook and social media and there are messages that are being shown on therein, as well. so something to look out for. in 2012, there were billboards in predominantly minority communities that said he voter fraud is a felony which is true. but when these billboards are placed only in minority communities, they stigmatize those communities and then they raise questions, what is voter fraud. if i, you know, i'm afraid of doing something wrong. in order to be able to vote. we actually successfully got those billboards taken down in 2012. and so when you have this history of intimidation with voting, and you combine it with the current divisive charged rhetoric, there's a question about what will we see there during this election cycle. and so what we at the lawyers committee and the election protection program have been focused on is empowering voters because my theme for this election cycle is an educated voter an empowered voter. so make sure that voters have

the information that they need in order to push back against anyone's attempt to take away their voting rights. so what we've done is we've sent letters to both parties, both the democratic national committee and the republican national committee saying that they need to ensure that candidates under their umbrella are not doing anything or acting in any way that intimidates and challenges voters and that we will be looking out to ensure that this doesn't happen. we've also sent letters to election officials in states where this rhetoric has been discussed, you know, there's the famous speech that candidate trump gave in altoona, pennsylvania, where he said you know, the system is rigged and we need to have folks out there including law enforcement making sure that only the right people are voting. this is -- this is adding to this charged atmosphere and it's something that we are paying particular attention to. and are asking election officials what are you doing to ensure that people are not intimidated and harassed at polling places. and with election protection we're also working with our volunteers to make sure that we can document where this occurs. the voting rights act has been a very powerful tool in protecting voting in the u.s. and there's section 11 b, there's an expolicity provision within the voting rights act that prohibits intimidation based on race or ethnic identity. so that is the tool that's out there available to push back,

and then with election protection, we have the 866-our-vote hotline. when you're out there voting this year, if you find any challenge, any problems, please call the 866-our-vote hotline and we are going to be sure to be on top of following up with both justice department and local election officials to ensure that as quickly as possible, we stop any intimidation that's happening at the polls this cycle. >> thank you very much. our next speaker provides international business and government climates with strategic and public affairs consulting services. he is a regular contributor to a number of media outlets in the united states and internationally such as cnn, bbc. he is a former adc staffer. a current adc national board member. >> thank you, samer. >> i'd like to focus on different area, and that is why we have hate speech in u.s. politics, any politics in the world. this requires three things. the politicians have to believe in it, the donor that funds it who pushes that message and the crowd that likes that message. these are the three elements. and these elements have always existed in all democracies, but we see increase in it when any

of these three elements have reason. in the u.s. elections and since 9/11, i think these forces have been there but they didn't have the justification. i want to focus on the anti-muslim and anti-arab rhetoric in u.s. elections. in the mid '90s, members of congress used to tell me that the guy by the name of david horowitz, i think many people know of him, he's a former marxist who became a neo-con, big right wing zionist who believes palestinians don't exist, he used to go to capitol hill to members of congress and encourage them to do something about christian arabs. this was 1993, '94. he used to go market the war in sudan as a war between islamic -- anyone that knows southern sudan, christians were the smallest group. they made up a majority of the populations, christians and

muslims were second and the war was really between the north and the south which include muslims in both parties. and if horowitz cared really about christians, he doesn't have to go far. he can go to israel and ask the israeli government to treat christian palestinians better than they treat them. everyone knows that palestinians get treated very badly by the israelis whether they're muslims or christians. after 9/11, these groups became an industry. and this industry according to different studies progressive -- >> center for american progress did a study, it says that this industry gets about $120 million a year.

and then some of those big donors are the sugar daddies of republican presidential candidates. if anyone thought that marco rubio hated islam so much because he hates islam he should know marco rubio was funded entirely by someone, a big designonist both him and ted cruz were funded by two big right wing zionists who didn't believe in rights. the hedge fund guy from new york and sheldon adelson, the casino guy. if ted cruz had any christian values he should not take money that came from casinos. this is the ultimate hypocrisy. these guys have been pushing this anti-muslim message and trying to force the war exactly

what isis message is, that there is a war between christianity and islam. the difference those guys won't christian and muslims to fight for the sake of israel and this is reality some so they've been pushing it and, of course, this resonates among right wing crowd that believes in this message and i think muslims have done some horrible things, not as muslims but some muslims in the name of islam whether it's isis or al qaeda targeting civilians, killing religious minorities but their biggest victim really are muslims. but these details are not important in this season and this election season. i remember four years ago, in one of the republican debates newt gingrich said palestinians are invented people. but if people didn't know that

these words were echoed before him by sheldon adelson, he had a gathering in his hotel in las vegas where he said those things are invented people. sheldon adelson picked newt gingrich as his candidate and he was bankrolling him. he gave him $10 million, and this guy became just a mouthpiece for sheldon adelson. this is the difference between the election now, the election 10 and 20 years ago. i worked for the bush campaign in 2000 and bush campaign had no tolerance for bigotry. on the opposite, bush won a governor of texas twice with a big chunk of the votes come prosecuting latinos. so he always cared for the latino votes. he never had, whether you like republicans or not, he really looked at america as all together.

and not dividing it into blacks and latinos and muslims and indian and so and so forth. he cared so much that he formed what's called for all minorities american dreamers where we used to meet in texas and prepare for the elections to get votes. so if you cared about votes, you're not going to insult them. if you are trying to go after the rural areas where whites think that there are under threat of losing their country, then the racist message becomes your message. this is exactly what trump did. trump didn't plan to run for election just a year and a half

ago in march when he launched. everyone knows that he registered trademarked the let's get america great again the day obama won the election, the re-election in 2012 because that's when he start changing from being more with the democrats into a republican. i bumped him two years ago at a american conservative conference at the national harbor where he starred attending republican functions and starred act is as a republican. he calculated what would make him win.

he also thought that the message that ron paul was able to get 25% to 27% of republican delegates in 2012 he thought he would get that group. so he added that to his message. he starred claiming that he was against the war. ron paul we know that always against wars. they were against account iraq war and rand paul, that's how he won 25 to 27% of the republican delegates in two conventions. so he enters that same group and he added to it the other groups that we start seeing now, neo-nazis are backing him, david duke is backing him. and also the far right wing jewish elements in the jewish community. they even have offices for him in the west bank that are campaigning for trump even though he has the backing of anti-semites and there are ten times more than the right wing in his campaign. going back to this message, unless there's a market for this message, it would not exist. that's why i think it's a duty of everybody not to label it as a republican message because it's not. i remember four years ago, we were unhappy, many muslims were unhappy, went to the republican party and said, during these debates, it becomes like muslim bashing. and some of the republican leaders agreed and they wrote to those candidates, i think ed gillespie is one of them. proposed saying these are not

what we believe in. and again it, as long as the funders or the biggest funders in the republican party are pushing for this message, i think this message will continue. and like he said, it's some do that when they feel it's to their advantage. i think many people on the right used to call any muslim activist -- in 2008, you know, mr. schwartz wrote a book the wahabi lobby which he included me in the book with grover norquist who is a methodist christian but also included jim zogby in the book. now the last two years it changed. they start calling people muslim brotherhood. they even named a shia as a muslim brotherhood. anyone who knows anything about the brotherhood, it's exclusively a suny movement. though don't care about facts and their crowd doesn't care about facts. this is a big problem. the other problem is the media. many of the people are so lazy or so bigoted they share these opinions that they repeat these accusations. example, fox news is the right one but it's not the only one. if any of you have fios or verizon tv, now i get four right wing stations they all compete and who's more right wing from blaze to one american network to

news max and i know many people on the right complained that the media is a left wing conspiracy but there's more on the right than there is on the left. so the message continues through these channels. thank you. >> thank you. we're going to have a little discussion amongst ourselves before i open it up to the audience. i want to talk about the issue of normalization. i know growing up, we always thought that there are certain things you don't say. certain things you don't discuss in public. has ha changed now with this political rhetoric now that we see these candidates espousing some of those things? how does that affect how we as a community, as a nation think? >> i think it's interesting to look at children. i have neighbor who have -- it's like a mother, father and

they've got two kids who are like 10 and like 8 or something like that. and they're an iraqi family. and the two kids like they're not going to be deported or anything like that, but the two kids who were like little and in grade school, this tell my nephews and nieces if trump wins, they're going to have to go back. that's how normal it's become. children at the age of 8 are hearing this. trump is everywhere. this rhetoric is everywhere. and it's so intense. it is like hard not to hear it. people are talk building it in second grade. the environment is a lot more hateful and a lot more openly

bigoted than it was before. and that's scary. >> it's really heartbreaking to hear about children who are paying attention and listening and they're bombarded with so many messages now. both with television and social media. equally in my children's elementary school, they are concerned about what this election means for their lives. being politically correct, you have matters or you can call people any type on of name and be just offensive. and so we are seeing that a public discourse is actually becoming very course. you are managing political campaigns you haven't heard before. and this is leading to the a climate where there is very

divisive rhetoric being displayed. there really is a question about how that is going to show itself in the ballot box in november. because the climate that we are engaging in right now is one that we haven't seen before. and i think it is driven by this message that, oh, i no longer need to be politically correct. so i can use epithets against people and that's not being sufficiently challenged by our leaders as unacceptable. >> i think two groups of people in the community have the heavy advice on this. kids at school. so this rhetoric is not without victims. it is an increased number of attacks and verbal assaults, physical assaults. and there are many, many reports that do that. so it really has a serious negative results which i think

that's why we need to come back. i think for many years white supremacists and neonazis have that message but they are a small crowd listening to them. now they have huge microphones and tens of millions of dollars. they just did a trip to europe. they have been advertising since april he wants to the show americans places called muslims free zones in europe. it's a joke. anyone that tells you -- he in paris there are areas where nonmuslims can enter. the same was said about birmingham and uk. i was reading this garbage. he had 10 people with him.

and that was his success. but the silliness is to this extent, a guy who claims he's a scholar that spends the time to prove to people that muslims look at america the same way. and those are contributing. there is a new person now on the block. a new bigot. and they try to always bring muslims to attack islam. a lady last week testify in front of the house committee about the danger of islam and america. and she said that attacking muslims is not racist because it is is not a race. this is a silly argument. i found she started her work in 2014 with the first donation from middle east quarterly in 2014. so this is like a branching network of bigots and racists with the money coming from big donors and foundations causing more damage. i think a coalition is important

to be built not to go only after those people. those people should be exposed. >> you keep bringing this to the point of funding. is this one of the big problems of citizens united where you have these small individuals getting so much money, or is this a product of something else? >> citizens united is not an issue. it is an issue of funding elections. the decision was taken by the supreme court 5-4. any amount of money can be given in campaigns since money is speech. everyone has to go. every election circle. they can get the check. and this is really something shameful. no. this is coming out because some

people figured out that the number of muslims in this country is increasing. they will have more political influence. they are concentrated in eight states. four of them are swing states. so they know, for example, in the state of virginia you need muslim votes. 250,000 to win any statewide election. the state became a swing state. and the last two senate and governor races were won by 50,000 votes. that's a small margin in a state like va ra. stkpwhrfp a lot of billionaires are funding islam phobia. there is another side to this, which is a lot of people are also funding efforts to defund public programs. they played a big part in pushing for defunding any sort of welfare that exists in this

country of destroying labor rights in this country. a lot of the same groups that fund islam phobia, all the same people also fund efforts to take away rights from workers. and so there is this also dynamic around this taking place is using it as a wedge issue. the culture wars of the 90s was abortion. it was gay marriage. it was women's rights overall. now, you know like this -- back to the traditional family stuff. sit like islam phobia and hate that is really tapping into a lot of economic anxiety in this country that is real with a lot of economic anxiety because people are having a hard time. things are not easy for people right now. that's what people like trump are doing. they are tapping into these -- the you mentioned all of these white areas. people are not doing great economically. they feel like they are losing something. instead of offering some sort of

answer or like a solution to their condition, helping them understand their condition, they are being fed hate. that's why bernie sanders was i think somewhat successful in offering a different message. that's why there was some crossover and where you heard a lot of trump receivers be like, yeah, bernie is a good guy. he was offering the message that did speak to their economic issues. like democrats in general have been a part of the establishment that's been defunding health care and education and taking away from things and wanting to privatize social security and medicare and things like this. so i think that plays into it too. >> pull is singa funded gay marriage in 17 states. so he is not right wing on every issue only extreme right when it comes to muslims. he funded gay marriage in 17

states. >> trump is isn't anti-day. he is more into hating mexicans and muslims and black people. >> going abouting to citizens united the fact that it has opened up the flood gates and the top 1% just spending exponentially more than everyone else in the nation. it leads to lack of confidence because it causes certain voices to rise to the top and drown out the reasonable voices in our society. it is lead to go this divisive rhetoric because it is flooding the airways and the voices of the ordinary people who care about their economic well-being and who care about the issues are being drowned out by this rhetoric as well. >> several months ago england or great britain went through what is called the brexit vote.

one of the driving forces during that campaign was the anti immigrant, anti refugee backlash. i'm not an expert on what the effect of that election -- those issues on that election. what i want to talk about is that sort of a prelude to what may happen here. is that a danger that quite possibly trump may win because of the rhetoric? in other words, this hate, it can be successful in an election here in the united states. >> i think it can be. i don't know if it will be successful this time around. i think trump is a very ineffective demagogue if you can believe that because he's kind of an idiot. there will be someone who is smart and charismatic who can-can give the trump message in a more coherent message. and that will be really scary. globally we are seeing this resurge answer of the far right

globally they are tapping into this rhetoric. around the world you have this increasing economic inequality where the top has so much and people even in -- like well-developed countries, the masses are starting to lose a lot. like the past several decades. everything has been stagnant and in decline. because of like these sort of global meal liberal policies have been put in place by establishment politicians. and the problem is there is not like a counter to this right wing demagoguery. so people don't have an analysis to understand what's happening to them except for the right wing side because the left is so weak. whether it's in europe or here. so they end up buying in to these -- it's not just in the uk. you have the movement in germany and other right wing groups that are winning elections all across european countries. and i think that in america

we're seeing trump is sort of the version of something that has been taking place in these countries the last several years. and islam phobia is a very big part of that because it's the wedge issue now. the refugee stuff too. the refugees are being demonized. refugees are also an outcome of a lot of wars that the u.s. is and western countries have been involved in implementing. we're at a scary point. what we need to do in order to deal with that is we have to be building like a progressive left that's like independent and able to counter the right wing narrative. and the only good size to that is i feel one positive aspect is younger people. they voted overwhelmingly for bernie sanders. they are overwhelmingly supportive of jeremy corbin.

it needs to be built on with coalition and other things as well. >> two things that i took away from brexit was turnout. because, you know, who voted. it was a very low turnout comparatively speaking. and the fact that the day after the trending search on google was what's brexit. so that education piece is really important and people paying attention to voting opportunities that shows, you know, in a democracy one of our challenges particularly with a lot of noise and dealing with this location is finding the time to pay attention to the issues and then to eventually vote. because inevitably, the day after the election when people wake up and say, wait a minute, what just happened. there is that need to pay attention beforehand. >> i might differ with my friends here on this issue.

i think the reason brexit won and the reason also it resonates is because there is some real concerns. these concerns, whether we like it or not, is reality. it is a serious problem. during the reagan era, they agreed to 10 million people and the promise they were not going to do it again. so as a result people keep coming through border and keep staying there. and i think this is an out of control problem. 10 million people here. i don't know what's the solution. but i think there is a message that resonates. unless it is addressed and answered by democrats as well as republicans, someone like trump would win over people with this message. >> part of the problem too, countries like honduras, el

salvador, guatemala, that's where they're coming from. or even in mexico. nafta ended up destroying the t all these mexicans coming to the u.s. for work. they have to work, otherwise their children are going to starve. u.s. policies are destabilizing countries south of the border. those people coming in are being demonized. we can't look at it as an out of control immigration problem. the establishment, if you will, has -- we have all these networks pumping up giving platforms to people like donald trump, who are explaining it in these really raucous terms, why there are undocumented immigrants, or undocumented immigrants participate in the economy and billions of dollars in revenue come from the work of undocumented immigrants. that's why we need a left that

has a counter narrative so all of the right wing demagoguery cannot separate out the issues from islamaphobia, but the problem is we're creating the refugees with our policies. >> i'm going to open the floor up. i would ask you, a, this is ab opportunity to ask questions, not necessarily give a speech. so keep things a little short. i would ask you to be respectful, not only of the panelists, but also one another and each other's time. i know there will be a lot of questions. let's be respectful to everybody's time. >> hi, thank you for the panel. my question is twofold. one is we know that a lot of the trump crowd is there, or people who do not want to -- precisely they want change, right. the challenge with hillary, right, is that you don't get more establishment than hillary. despite the fact that she has the competence to achieve all

the things to achieve, for that voter, she looks like more of the same. it could be a monkey against her, they would still vote for that, because they're voting for change. how do we tackle, as you said, not interested in fact. they just want change. how do persuade that trump is a bad change and clinton a bit better, but definitely a positive change, a possibility of positive change with clinton, but negative change for you, because these people are hurting. not just bigots. just like brexit, again, people are hurting and want change. the second question is for those other crowds, right, because we don't want to preach to the converted. who don't want to vote either way. it is also problematic. we don't need just trump to lose. we need to like lookse with a vengeance. we need to make a staple. again, some of them, parents, my daughter's friends who think trump of course is bad, but hillary is also bad, so i'm not

going to vote. virginia is a swing state. i've gano where to persuade them that i know she is horrible but how can we change their mind. >> adc is a nonpartisan corporation. i have to say that. i'll let you guys answer that question. whoever wants to answer it. >> i think hillary came because of the establishment brought her. bill clinton and hillary had so much of the money in the democratic party that has scared anybody from running. that's the reality. that's one of the reasons trump's message resonates, they're trying to control who comes, they endorse. i think the establishment for the republican party for example, their favorite before the primary started, was the governor of wisconsin, scott walker. and when he pulled out immediately, they scrambled to

find someone. was it rubio, since ted cruz built attacking, that's when they start backing, and but many people, the republican crowd, really disliked the republican establishment and vote for trump and that's why he won. the problem in the democratic side, they scared all really good democrats from running against her, because they knew that all of them will be pouring into her campaign. so it is a valid point, but i think in the end, it is a judgment, whoever you want to vote for. i don't think you will convince that they're both bad. they should go vote for either one. >> yeah, i'm sorry go ahead. >> yeah, i will also state unequivocally that the lawyers committee are nonpartisan, but i do think to the question of the dis effect, we had the lowest turnout in 2014 in over 72

years. and now we're having this presidential election following. and i think one of the challenges we face is that there is a lot of attention paid to the presidential ticket. but there are lots of other seats and offices that are going to be on the ballot, and i would argue that part of the education of the public needs to be about the local races. we see now with the police involved shootings, a lot of action around that, the young people are very involved in protesting that. sheriffs are elected. proos cu prosecutors are elected. there is a challenge where a lack of civic education and understanding of how the system works. the top of the ticket, the divisiveness, we have a congress that isn't working very well, and just right before, you know, the budget term comes, they rush and pass a few bills, but

generally, there is not a lot of legislation being passed. there certainly any bipartisan legislation being contemplated in congress. and then the public becomes disaffected, and part of it is not just the candidates, but the disillusionment with the system overall. >> yeah i would agree with that for the most part. people just aren't excited about this election, because look at our choices. obviously there is a big difference between clinton and trump, but i don't -- at this point, like i don't know that you're really going to convince -- you're definitely not going to convince people by shaming them. that's one thing i can say for sure. there is nothing that makes people want to vote less than like telling them that they're awful if they don't like vote for hillary clinton. but i think what's more important in the grand scheme of things, is we can't just also think about just the election, like it shouldn't just been during presidential elections that we get involved in presidential politics.

there needs to be a sustained effort to build something. outside of both parties, that, like, people can organize around and, like, and use to maybe even run candidates. i don't know, maybe an independent party after this election. i don't know. but there has to be something different. people from what i've seen is so disillusioned and so disaffected, they're not going to vote. that's so sad. people that care about politics, won't vote. that's a sad state to be in. >> public relations makes us or breaks us. i have a question. i have an individual in georgia who was a city councilman for four years. somebody couldn't believe that he is an arab. so when he came to reelection, look at that fellow, who's

elected. he is a southern baptist, deacon, helped to start a baptist char baptist church, served in our army, and still this fellow, through lies, said he is an arab and terrorist. this person lost 200 votes. we need to go back to grassroots. forget about trump and forget about hillary. we need to do some homework that people can get by by lying, and defeating a person that really serves our nation, and by saying arab and terrorist, you destroy his election. >> thank you. that's awful. >> if you could keep the questions to questions, thank you. >> i'm from oregon, where we

have the most honest voting system. you receive in the mail a letter giving the candidates and the issues, and you put your mark on it, and send it back through the mail without even putting a stamp on it. i don't know what the record of increased voting is, but i think it is much higher than the national average. my question is very simple. is there anyone working to get money to really attack the

supreme court decision on corporate personnel, person to persons making corporations persons? this is the problem that we are going to have forever, unless someone gets 10 to $20 million, which is what it will probably cost, to take it up to the cour courts. is there anyone working on this? >> from what i understand, there are, like, i mean, even i know bernie sanders is working on pushing to get citizens united overturned and a lot of other major players, like even hillary clinton claims she is going to. who knows if she will. also, elizabeth warren wants to. i know there are