goes through one consolidated pipe. so that's something that needs to get fixed. we did a project in texas, dr. yehia, myself, members of congress from that area and the hospitals in that area. it is an area where a lot of care moves downtown in all types because they have a community-based outpatient clinic. it has been that way for a long time. some of the hospital offices of four had a 50% denial. they did not know how to file accurately. we took it down to 10%. we all own a part of this responsibility. it starts with the provider filing accurate. then it goes to us making sure we have processes that work and it is streamlined and

consistent. so you do it one way. it is making sure it cycles back. what i will tell you is from my perspective as an actor that spent time in the d.o.d. space back 20 years ago the same issues existed then and they got fixed. so those that are in the provider community they are leaning forward. thanks for doing that. thanks for hanging in there. because what i'm going to tell you from my perspective, what i have seen with my sleeves rolled up is the v.a. team is right at my side. and there's some separation with what we are trying to accomplish. we pay the bill and then the v.a. pays us.

>> i do agree completely with the one pipeline. as a provider we are used to dealing with rules. every payer is different. medicare is a great example. it is is very tight around certain treatments that you provide medicare recipient as to what the diagnosis has to be. but as providers we know what those rules are, other systems that we can incorporate into our many processes. and so we know when a medicare recipient comes in for certain tests exactly what the diagnosis has to be and deal with it real-time all the payers had their own rules. they are consistent rules of that payer is and we can develop systems and processes and deal with them. i think to the extent there's

one pipeline, one set of rules, areas that the providers can develop the their process and systems around would be very beneficial. >> folks, we have time for one or two more questions. as we are winding down i would love to ask you to please fill out the blue evaluation forms before you leaves us today. let's turn now to a question at the mike. >> hello. i'm with med page today. i wanted to ask you about the condition on care report that was put out a few months ago. i wanted to get your response to two of those recommendations. one was for an independent advisory board and one was to eliminate the time and distance requirements for the choice program. the first idea is obviously controversial and unconstitutional. but i still wanted to the see hypothetically what would be the impact of either of those two

changes. dr. yehia and anyone else who wants to comment. >> sure i will comment more on the latter. the secretary and the president kind of out our response to the commission. and in the president's response is they actually call out our plan to consolidate karas an alternative approach to some of the recommendations in the commission. most of those are mom and apple pie. like we want to be able to do those. and you pointed out the ones that are most controversial. we believe our plan that lays out really getting all of these different programs into one, coming up with an eligibility plan that makes sense and that also allows flexibility so when myself as a doctor am seeing a patient can make a decision, oh you would be better served at this institution in this community is important. getting away from the single way

of doing researches, monitoring quality utilization and timely payments wrapped around customer service. all of that is really laid out in your consolidation plan, which is what the department and the administration is putting forward as an alternative to some of those specific recommendations. in there it also lays out what we need to do that. what are the specific legislative changes that are required and also what is the budget required to do that. and i think that's a really good starting point of where we hope to get to. >> i'll comment on the second recommendation. eliminating time and distance requirements effectively opens up purchase care to the all veterans enrolled in v.a. 21 million veterans in the united states, 6 million use v.a. health care in a given

year. most veterans who are enrolled have some other choice. they have medicare and private insurance, tricare, and they choose whether to use v.a. or another factor. one is cost is and access, things like that. so if you open up purchase care to the whole veteran population, what you are certainly going to see is a different increase in command. some of the 3 million veterans enrolled in v.a. care and aren't using it, now go to their local doctor. v.a. will pay for it. they will probably not face a co-pay because it is through their v.a. benefit. if they're not facing a co-pay. so the choice of seeing your same doctor, v.a. will pay for no co-pay. you have a co-pay or deductible is kind of a no-brainer.

do we transition to a private sector model. you can't really have both with open access to either. and reason for that is as people choose to use private sector v.a. care, fewer people will be using health care facilities. it is not sensible or reasonable to maintain those fats. and that decision from my perspective really needs to be a thought out decision. it needs to be decided and not

something that happens as a death spiral of v.a. facilities closing. >> and if i can follow up on what kerry is saying because you said that so eloquently. when folks sometimes think about privatizing the v.a. and giving everyone a card, as a clinician again what is missing there is care coordination. so when you think about medicare and the way that program works, it for the most part is like a reimbursement system. you handle your own care. and then the government pays the bill. how do you make sure needs are met. and i think the greater extent is just people doing it all on their own, while it might work for a small segment of the population, for many folks it

doesn't work. from a veteran centric patient care approach, do you want to have a coordinated system or everyone to do it by themselves? >> thank you. okay. thank you. do you have a question? go ahead. we'll let you have the last question. >> okay. thank you. my question is about what's going on technology space as far as companies like apple and other app development companies that are giving patients the ability to be in control of their own medical data. has the v.a. considered partnering with apple or other innovative technology companies in silicon valley that will allow veterans to have their own medical data with them so when they go to visit providers they can have a dialogue based on the

information they have. >> yes. who has heard of blue button. it is exactly that. it is a very easy way to be able to download an electronic version of your entire health record. the veteran can take it, do what they want with it, share it with their community providers if they choose. we have an entire digital services team that leverages folks from folks such as silicon valley that are thinking of creative ways we can partner and continue to exchange information. so absolutely. >> and you said blue button. >> blue button. >> i was surprised when i accessed it. we can get you medical records and also military records.

the first thing you do is sign up for blue button. it works wonderful. >> okay. we have reached the end of our time. fill out your blue evaluation form. i would like to thank ascension health and our panelists for a very informed conversation, and also thank you to all of you for being here today. thank you. [ applause ]. >> and, marilyn, thank you.

more live programming coming up this afternoon, including a discussion on access to the court system and the right of individuals to sue. federal appellate attorneys host bid georgetown university hospital. that's 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. our road to the white house coverage continues as the campaigns wind down. later today, hillary clinton stumps in the battle ground state of north carolina. we're live from raleigh, 7:45 p.m. eastern from c-span. and a number of state race debates this evening. first, the candidates that represent new york's 22nd district in the husband of representatives. republican claudia tenney is up against kim myers. watch that live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. later, we'll show you the debates for the texas 23rd house district and iowa's first. that's all tonight on c-span2. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday

night at 8:00 eastern on lectures in history, colin cal away at dartmouth native american history through the colonial era. >> they presented themselves to the us as allies and friends but they are occupying our lands and at the same time by cutting off and withholding gifts, limiting trade with us. that is essentially a dethe clairation of hostile intent. >> later at 10:00 on reel america, incumbent democrat pat brown and challenger republican ronald reagan. >> my experience has turned me inevitably to the people just

instinctively i find i believe and put my faith in the private sector of the economy i believe in the peoples right an ability to run their own affairs. >> and every single solitary category that tells whether the california economy is good has proven we have done a good job. >> road to the white house rewind. >> you will go to the polling place and make a decision. i think when you make that decision it might be well if you could ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? >> our proposals are very sound is and very carefully considered to stimulate jobs, to improve the industrial complex of this country, to create tools for american workers and at the same time anti-inflationary in nature. >> the 1980 debate between incumbent president jimmy carter

and former california governor ronald reagan. and at 7:00 -- >> a realist would not have devoted his life to fighting slavery. and a realist would not have said this, which is a dissolution of the union for the cause of slavery would be followed by a war between the two severed portions of the union. . it seems the result may be ex and clam to us and tkes lating as this course of events may be so glorious issue that god shall judge me. >> at the new york historical society author of john quincy adams militant spirit and columnist robert kagan debates the question, was john quincy adams a realist? they talk about foreign policy views and the legacy of the sixth president. for our complete american history tv schedule go to c-span.org.

>> now, a discussion on the refugee crisis and how international organizations are work to go solve the problem. speakers include representatives from the world bank, the world food program, and mastercard. from the center for strategic and international studies in washington, this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> okay. we're going to get started. i hold the chair here at css. we're having a conversation today about international organizations in the refugee crisis i think many of you aware that we have the highest number of refuse zees and displaced people since world war ii. i think it is 65 million.

there have been a number of summits and meetings in the last year. whatever meetings we have had are probably not enough to respond is to the enormity of this task. this is a problem that will be with us for decades. the folks that are refugees stay longer as refugees. conflicts are lasting longer. so there is a whole series of reasons this is happening. we can talk about some of those reasons. in the past perhaps during the cold war many conflicts that were kind of underneath the surface were kept under wraps if you will and with the end of the cold war and a series of things that happened since then, that is one of the reasons. there are other reasons as well. the good news is there is a whole series of countries that are joining the ranks of countries but there are 20 or 30 that are fragile and vulnerable. some people call them the bottom

billion. folks that are off times in this those countries. i think development agencies and emergency agencies will have to be thinking a lot more and a lot harder about fragility, vulnerable states and refugees. one of the major challenges we are going to have to face. so ava right of institutions, including the world bank group and others are responding. so i think we will hear about that today. so we have three very thoughtful speakers. we have doctor mcguire, u.s. director at the world bank. representatives the united states. u.s. ambassador to the world bank. that is not exactly his title but that is the concept. john brown usaid, national security council. two stints in u.s. government and two stints now at the world food program. thank you for being here john. and my new friend.

ni a neot. mastercard humanitarian solutions branch leader. so thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. >> i will start first with dr. mcguire. think about how the world bank is thinking of this refugee crisis. thanks for being here. >> thank you very much. let me pick up on what the challenge is from a development

perspective. from a world bank or development perspective is part of the huge shifts we have seen the last 30 years have included a decrease in people living in extreme poverty around the world. a accident command. low incomes. selling to those in the markets. and the point is -- >> we're having a technical difficulty. >> okay. the point of that is that.

getting out of extreme poverty is the end point. clearly we have a lot more to do. the types of solutions have to get a bit more focus. this goes to my colleagues who are up here. one of the ways we have to think about solving these big economic development challenges is partnering in different types of institutions. so the u.n. and the world food program historically thought of doing one set of things to humanitarian issues. world bank thought of doing a separate set. these are really merging. and the big player increasingly on the scene is the private sector and the trillions of dollars of capital sit issing on the sidelines as it were and not working in some of these countries as it might be. so what i would say is the big challenge as we think about it, how do we turn humanitarian

crises into opportunities. that may sound a little too buzzy and like a grand idea that people have. but what i would say is a way for us to think about this a little bit is clearly a lot of people who cross borders and flee have extraordinary talents. and some of them will have talents in agricultural sector. others are trained as engineers. but there are a lot of people and the influx can often be an opportunity. the one statistic i would point to that is not directly related but gives a framework for how people think about this, if you look at the fortune 500 companies in the united states, 40% were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. the point is the core strength of our economy has been to absorb coming from other places.

people tend to stay 9 years, 12 years, 15 years, 20 years. we have seen this over the decades. you can't approach thinking we will solve the immediate challenges someone has and we're done because people tend to stay in these host communities for a long, long time. thinking longer term means what are the things institutions are good at, infrastructure, educational systems, thinking about any number of other things which really go to the long-term health and development of that country. that's the sort of thing that the world bank has expertise in, money willing to lend and invest for and we can come in and make a difference. and the final i will say is the other way the bank is thinking on this, how do we create the regulatory and legal environments in particular countries that are hosting refugees that will allow,

encourage, incentivize those to come in and invest in bigger ways. that unlocks economic growth over time. so we have expertise in thinking about judicial systems and rule of law and labor market reforms, any number of other things. part of our task is shifting those dynamics so so many private actors will come in or those there will hire more people and create more activity i think i will stop there. >> great. thank you. john, thanks for being here. what is the world food program doing to respond to this global refugee crisis. >> thanks, dan. >> we are supporting 6.6 million refugees in 32 countries. we are now and have been in supporting refugees. the interesting thing in this context or this discussion -- >> your microphone is actually

working. the interesting thing now is the global refugee context has changed. there is a different context than in the past. we remember refugees in africa and asia and they were always -- and i don't mean this crass, but they were over there. and we didn't -- >> out of sight out of mind. >> yes and the humanitarian community did its job and went in and did its best to help out. out of sight, out of mind is how host countries were supported as well. now we have a can context where we have millions of refugees right in the middle east, right across from europe. and they're not uneducated people. they're middleclass people in

many cases. they're educated. they have in many ways they have exactly the same aspirations that we have. we have large numbers of refugees in countries that don't have the capacity to accommodate the, which is consistent with in the past but again in a more middle income context. so as the president summit pointed out, the current response community structure has been overwhelmed. and it is not capable in its current structure in meeting the commands of this new refugee situation. so what are we doing? i say there are two levels to this. there is the humanitarian level that obviously has to continue and function but has to function better. one of your colleagues earlier mentioned the new refugee paradigm is where they aren't as often in camps. they are in urban settings. they are mixing in with the communities.

so that's where private sector partners come in just as an example, mastercard was the teacher and the guide for the u.n. community to learn how to the use the debit cards, the electronic cash cards, which we can give to refugees now and displace people and even beneficiaries as part of the local population as we are doing in lebanon. they can buy what they need. they have choice. this is the dignity aspect of this new construct. and we couldn't do the that just a few years ago. it is not only that that can-can only be used in middle income countries. some aspects are being moved into other refugee situations as well. and so that's a great efficiency for us. it is is not just an efficiency. it is a way of integrating humanitarian activities into a

broad developmental context. for example, these cards are used by the beneficiaries in 450 shops. commercial shops, commercial traders. and those are seen an infusion of $720 million the last three years. that's the type of economic stimulus these programs can put in because of mastercard and the skills mastercard has shared with the community. so that's very important. second though, countries that have taken in 20% of their population. imagine the take anything 60 million people and you get a general idea, they don't have the infrastructure to support this level of additional people.

you have schoolchildren that can't go to school. issues like jobs. we need the broader development community to bring the same response capacities i would say. not the same ones, but their response capacities to enable the host governments to create an environment for the refugees that is stable. because, again, just to put it in the context of the refugees in lebanon and jordan, if they are as educated as we are, more more in many case, and have the same aspirations, you can't tell them to sit for nine or ten years and expect them to stay there. they want their family to have opportunities just the way we want our families to have opportunities. it is incumbent on the global community as the president said in his stomach and the group of leaders, it is a global responsibility to address these issues.

i will just end on the final point. so much is created by conflict. the developmental community nor the humanitarian community will fix that. there has got to be political solution or we will continue to have these struggles. thanks. >> nina, thanks. why is mastercard involved in the refugee crisis, if i can put it that way? >> it often use the words dream well and doing good. we have a global infrastructure where we can get aid to people quickly, efficiently and surprise as well. it is not just financial products like debit cards we have made available. in the philippines we used it to get water out to people. commodities is close 20 our heart. we speak about sustainability. rebuilding communities for a

tomorrow irrespective if it's a refugee. to give them dignity. ultimately this comes down to choice and dignity the. people have lost so much. the one refugee that i spoke to said i don't have a choice about anything. i'm stuck in tkpraoes. i don't have a choice where i was sleep tonight. i've been told this is where my tent is. i don't have a choice on the clothes my children wear. they will wear what was given to them. this card gives me the ability to make the decision whether i'm buying baby formula for my child or medicine in case my child becomes ill. that's the dignity we can bring and is the benefit of the efficiency, the insights and the knowledge that we bring from the

private sector to help our stkpwhraurpbs you were recently in greece. can you talk about that and the inyou had while you were there? >> sure. it was probably one of the life changing events which i can speak about. there's the -- >> who brought you? >> sure. so we went with mercy core. some of them are in the audience today. thank you for that. i know i needed to prepare emotionally for what i was expected to hear. i was prepared for some of the heartache stories. you speak to a mom who tells how she left her 11-year-old son back in syria. as a mom myself, i couldn't imagine ever having to make that decision or going through that. so you absolutely hear that sort of expect to hear that. but there is the stuff you're

not prepared for that you hear. it has become the world's capital of organ smuggling. that never came to my mind. how in greece, since it started a year ago, they have lost 10,000 children. they no longer know where they are. those are the stories i wasn't prepared to hear. it is the stories of hearing when families tell you that at this point the family are sitting down in their tent and they had no idea i was working for mastercard airbnb was with us. we had our field vests on. our caps on. and they were telling us about their journey. they left syria. his wife was pregnant at the time.

they had been shot at. wife went into early labor. the baby was born. the cops moved them on. caught by the coast guard. the baby ended up in hospital for 17 days. and the baby came out of hospital and we're now in a refugee camp. and he says his wife was not able to stomach the food she was getting it. she was weak and frail. two small children. and he goes we have literally made peace with the fact that we were going to die. we have made the peace. we have had the discussions. and that's where we were. the mercy core person came the next day and gave me the mastercard prepaid card. he had when i got my card, it literally saved my life. whoa, explain more to me what did does this mean i said for the first time i was able to go

and had the ability to buy food that my wife and children could stomach. you realize how much dignity the option of choice can bring to people. we met with the mayor of athens and the brigadier general who runs and manages all the refugee camps. in both cases i was surprised of the personalities that came out to meet us. the brigadier general i was expecting a military oriented person. instead, a very compassionate man came out and said we need to understand these are people. we cannot expect them to live in tents in the middle of winter. we cannot expect them to live in boxes. about how do we do the that? when we spoke to the mayor of act he was going people think this is the crisis right now.

this is not the crisis. he said the crisis is to come. what about the generation of children who lost three or four years of education. how do we expect them to speak greek? how are they integrated into our communities without causing more disconnection. it was really, really insightful and gave a very different view what that experience was like on the ground. >> thank you. matt, i would love for you to respond to that. i would also like you to talk about exactly what the world bank is doing specifically to respond to this very dramatic picture that nina just painted. thank you. >> what i wanted to pick up on is the point that nina made about the mayor and about the people who are incorporating into the local economy to say

one of the things we're addressing is the fact that while a lot of discussions often go towards the people that have come across the border in the example of northern jordan where i have spent time, 80% of the refugees are not in camp at all. they are in a number of other place. if you're not thinking how you will support those host communities you will not have success in facilitating integration for the refugees. the other important piece there is often the notion people have is well, if we let people into our country they will stay here forever. the most leakly indicator of someone going back to their home country is how well they did economically in the place where they went. almost everyone wants to go back home unless they're truly a political refuse zee and it's

not safe. the only place to go back to a place that is war torn, so if you have money to rebuild your home. how do we integrate people here so that it supports local businesses where cash is being spent is core to being successful and supporting refugees when they move. in terms of the world bank we have done a couple things that are new and innovative to us. we are looking at partnership quite differently and how we can engage in this. when you have the humanitarian world, development world, they are two pieces of same spectrum. they are helping people at different ways and points in their lives or economic paths. the bank for the first time has created some facilities which allow middle income countries to borrow from the bank in order to help some of these refugees that are coming into their countries and to help those countries as well. for the first time we created a

facility global concessional finance facility that allows borrowing from us on on a no interest basis. why should we keep piling up debt. we have high debt-to-gdp we are doing whatever we want to or not. that makes a lot of sense. so we created a facility which will support them, will bring all of our expertise and help to absorb these many refugees. from there it was very good. many more refugees in africa than there are in the middle east. and a number of countries in that region are members of what's called ida, our operating unit that lends and gives grants

to the poorest countries in the world. so we are proposing is and hoping to get funded through a replenishment that happens with all the shareholders of the world bank in the next couple of months. 2 billion extra dollars which will go for ida countries, the poorest countries in the world, who are absorbing refugees as well. and the thing to keep in mind of course is the oldest and largest refugee camp in world is actually kenya. people don't talk about that so much. and the refugees throughout the great lakes region. africa has been dealing with a number of these issues a little more out of the spotlight. one of the important thing is we got to shine the spotlight as they absorb refugees. i would just say in closing this is part of an effort to think innovatively how our capital can be most impactful. we think of ourselves as having bold capital.

in conflict situations, investors don't want to go, people don't want to lend. we walk into those hopefully with an instrument that's helpful. and we have been trying to think about that more broadly. not just the refugee situation but pandemics. we created insurance projects, so if something breaks out like ebola, we will get money quickly. instead offed aing up on what all the costs are and then paying, after a size earthquake, a country gets the money right away. the point in a pandemic, that keeps the pandemic from taking off. these are all new ways -- i don't mean to take us too far afield, but we are thinking of new ways we can use our capital to address these broader transnational things that are

out there. >> so there is a hat passing exercise every three years. the shorthand in washington is ida 17 or ida 18. so you talked about this international development association. but in addition to the specific monies, isn't there also some additional agreement or focus that there will be a special low interest loans that the international community collects from countries very generous companies like the united states, japan or can tkarbgs they will be targeted to specific countries for some of the specific facilities or interventions that you talked about? >> we're going the make it available. we have in mind certain countries are more likely to come forward and ask for it. but the key with this $2 billion we are hoping to raise from all the shareholders, it is money they can access separate from what they were normally going to access separate and above.

so the idea is if you're a country that's very poor and you're weighing, do we borrow in order to absorb these hundreds of thousands of people who have come across our border, or borrow to build roads we have always wanted to build. we don't want people to the choose. we want people to do what they will ordinarily do plus to borrow to deal with the refugee situation. the thing i would say that is very important. you are all here washington the u.s. needs to come with a good contribution. people need to understand how important this is for our leadership in the worrell, for the bank, for its ability to go forward and do what it wants in conjunction with all the things we are doing bilaterally. i would say at the board we are pushing a lot of countries to come in for the first time. so pakistan, which is not an extraordinarily wealthy country, for the first time is pledging they will contribute to ida. that's really great. that's one of the things we hope

to foster and see. it's the kind of thing we need to keep in mind. as the largest donor to ida historically over the bank's 70 years, we need to keep pushing other countries and make sure we do the same and we maintain the leadership and continue to show significant support for these efforts. >> i want to come back to that. so, john, would you please explain a little bit what are the gaps that you see in terms of the response to the refugee crisis. that would be the first question i would ask you. the second is i think we can all agree in this room that the challenge that we're talk thing about here is going to be with us for the next 8 to 10 years. the next administration is going to be one of the things in the in box. if you were on the national security staff, john, or having been on the national security council staff, or if you were a senior adviser to the aid administrator or policy adviser to secretary on of state or you were an adviser to the new world

bank president and just got reupped, what would be some of the things you would want senior leadership to think about? >> it's always nice to be able to use the president's words rather than my own. when i said he said we need resources. his call was for the global community to step subpoena and realize in the most fundamental sense at the humanitarian level, we're not even meeting those needs. >> so let's double click on that. there are asks that say we need $100 worth of goods and money and cash. i don't think you're getting your 100% of your ask. is that correct? the pledges and you are actually getting in the door aren't the same number. is that correct? >> for the refugee programs that we are managing right now just to get us to the end of the year we're about $300 million short. >> are we in arrears?

>> the u.s. is never in arrears. it's just it could step forward more. we need more resources for more donors. this is a global issue. that is number one. but i think one of the things if i could just use your question. >> yes, sir. >> there's a tremendous amount of knowledge sharing going on. world food program works with the bank on social safety nets just as an example. if we were able to expand investments in social safety nets where we give the host governments the capacity to take care, first their own people with the basic needs, which we all take for granted, then by default those governments would have the ability and the systems in place to take care of refugees if they came in. so we wouldn't have to go in and build them. there are certain longer term things we can do as a global

community to encourage countries, to give them technical the capacity to the build their own social safety net situations in their own model. but would become a resource for all of us as we move forward. it is a very big thing. collaboration between private sector and the bank on nipre. >> what is that? stpwhrupb wft biggest think tanks on food security. in any event, these are the kind of gaps we need to fill globally. you were talk building pandemics. if we have basic health care systems in countries, then you have a much better sort of forecasting ability on when some disease might start popping up. the sooner you know the sooner you can act. so they can be put in place at some level in every country in the world. and if you build off that

foundation i think we will see improvement over time. >> good. i want to just come back to matt here i want you to -- if you were in front of a congressional committee, could you just make the argument for why should the united states participate in the world bank, a. and, b, what is the argument for supporting ida 18? i can give all the reasons why i think we should. but i think it would be important for you to share those given the conversation we're having. >> sure. fundamentally sit about global leadership i think historically we have been so central to the creation of post world war ii financial infrastructure. we are one of the core founders of the world bank and the imf. we have been central to thinking about any number of multilateral institutions and making sure they bring more and more countries into a global rules-based order that really is

the benefit not only of our country but of so many other citizens around the world. i would argue the world bank and many like-minded institutions have been core peace of helping those we have seen over time. so there is one issue which is just about who are we as a country, what seniority of values do we want to lead with. it is important to stand straight on that. the other thing is when we think about other regions of the world we have to think about the economic health of any number of countries around the world. the bank is full of economists and other experts across a wide range of fields which are working very closely with foreign governments who often call us, call the world bank when they need advice on how do we need climate change, how do we have a more stability economy because we are seeing all of these challenges. then the final thing i will say. this is creating a who is eu.

she brought an article that i enjoyed called troubled travels. and the other more self interested thing to keep in mind if we don't address trouble tra. we'll deal with it one way or another. in many instances, there is a political solution, and that's part of the overall thinking, but in other instances, other interventions we can make, and really important if we want the world to operate in a way that we think works most effectively that we're supportive of the institutions and that the u.s. continues to be strong and rest of the world can see it. that's what i would say. >> great. nina, could you talk a little bit about you have interesting corporate partnerships. you talked about doing good and well. just talk a little bit more about some of the organizations that you're working with, a, and then b, talk about what does master card, when you partner with it, with an organization like the world bank or some part of the un system what, are some

of the things you want that organization to understand about what mastercard's capabilities are. i'm sure they oftentimes say great, write us a check, that's great. but the conversation you were just describing, the picture you described, the technology is a lot more powerful than writing another check. i'm curious about that. >> i mean, most of the relationships are not about the check. >> yep. >> i think a lot of it goes about the education, because people go mastercard, that's a credit card. are you giving credit to people who don't have money. a lot of it goes educating people in the first thing from a financial institution perspective, but why are we doing this. we look at financial inclusion, which a lot is the broader perspective, 6 million people, not connected, what is the impact of it. we look deeper, when people are not connected, they may not be connected to keep their funds set, but are they connected to power, electricity, water.

what does that all look like and how can we help those eco systems. we're all about building a better tomorrow and with partnerships we can do that. in africa, there is an acronym, if you want to go first, go on your own. if you want to go far, go together. and go in a group. and that's what we're doing here. we get the right partners in a group and like minded people together and how do we do this, okay. whether it is the facebook, world bank, wfp, mercy core, we're trying to make the world a better place. we can do it a lot more efficiently when we're doing it together. mastercard has an astronomical footprint. how do we connect. what does the network look like. we've got it in a net already. we've got the connectivity point. we can reach people quickly. we can move quickly. whether it be financials, commodities, we've got a network to support that.

we are present in over 200 countries. all of that makes a huge impact on what do we bring to the party. while we have the footprint, we have the data to understand what is needed and we can help and we're prepared to bring that. we are doing it from a sustainability perspective. sure, we have the mastercard center, which looks at it from a different perspective, and then we've got the commercial side of the business where things into to be sustainable. if you do things for free, they are not sustainable, okay. however, you do not have to charge premium prices, and if everybody can still do things more efficiently, it becomes repetitive. >> jon, we are having a conversation at lunch about the merging of development and humanitarian response. can you talk about how that is happening and what does that mean for the world food program?

what do you think that means for other organizations? i would like matt to comment on that. >> i think the big change is that in the past, organizations were happy to whatever just do their job, if they delivered their food or delivered their supplies or whatever, that was job well done. now there is a recognition that life is much more dynamic than that. and we have power in the resources that we provide, and we need to use them fully. so as i use just as an example, with the right tool, the card instead of having out food and doing nothing to stimulate other than giving people a resource, the card gives a resource, it gives choice, it gives dignity. so it is already strtripled its value. i would argue when the market is happy, the community is there for happy, there is more stability. you don't have as much resentment of people taking over

thing, or us coming in and replacing systems. so the humanitarian community has to be much more focused on development. even in w pchl's fundamental work with food assistance, we have to really understand markets. not just who needs assistance, but how they need assistance, how that assistance can add value to the market structure, to transportation systems. to everything. so, and then can it contribute to technical assistance. if we're doing a school feeding program in a country, and we're not helping the government learn how to take that system over, then we're going to be there forever. if we teach them how to run their own program, they can take it over and more importantly, if we can integrate local agriculture into that program, then it becomes, again, something the examine unity values. the kids are going to school, the farmers are sell their goods, the government is getting recognition for providing a service to a community. so these are broader things.

way beyond just the humanitarian action. they have developmental impact. we need to continue to look at how we can use our resources in a much more dynamic way. >> how is this impacting at the world bank group. >> some of the things i mentioned earlier, the financial innovations moving us to think about how we deploy our capital more creatively. that's one piece. then the other thing i would say is deepening into different partnerships, like those that jon and nina have talked about, that's another piece. i think the third is just thinking about what are we learning, what are we seeing out there that out to shape the way we do things. i'll use two quick examples that perhaps people wouldn't think of. first, picking up on the issue of basic nutrition and feeding people. we have come to realize through tons of research, not just the banks, but james heckman at u chicago, the importance of

nutrition and how important it is that children get the right nutrients when they're very young. why does this matter, development perspective, a lot of country where is we work have 50% of the children who are stunted, meaning have low height and weight, which ties to cognitive development. it is hard to see an economy thrives if 45 to 50% of your children are stunted. what we've seen in some of the programs in latin american, reductions of stunting over ten years. so in peru over the last ten years, building on a program, which i believe you were part of getting together with the brazilians jon, we've been able to reduce stunting from 28% to 14%. we're trying dodo it more broadly and how that fits with strengthening institutions more broadly. that's the other piece i would touch on. that's what we know how to do well and we've done it for many years. how do we strengthen the

educational system, so it is more connected to where the world economy is going and on so. and other example i would use in the context, how do we utilize new technologies. mastercard is a great payment platform. a lot of people think of it as a credit card but they do payments as well as anybody. why does that matter? the reason is in some countries, india, as an example, there are a lot of benefits now going out in a dinl tal mode whigital mod leakage or the possibility that it ends up in someone else's hands. we can now use the billions of dollars to come back and say what's the next project that you think may have the biggest impact and get in that discussion and use the money more effectively somewhere else. all sorts of innovations taking place arcs we understand the li

linkages, the more effective we can be in advising countries and to get back to the point you asked about a minute ago, really promoting a lot of the values we think in u.s. can make a difference around the world. >> great, all right, this has been a very patient audience. thank you all for being here. i want to -- i see a lot of people in the room. i first want to call on my friend, andrew coppell from mercy core, who is here. please give her the microphone. >> thank you so much, dan. i guess my question is for matt, rather. also in ida 18, there is a 2.5 million carveout for the private sector. could you elaborate on how that is going to work? and how the bank is going to ensure that because the money will be going into these fragile countries where often there

aren't fupgin functioning insti. >> i want to take advantage of that, and i want to ask jon, i would like you to answer the question, how do you work with ngos like mercy core in responding to emergencies, and how do you partner with them, you talked about partnering at the lateral institutions. how do you partner with the ngos? >> thanks. couple of things, having to be clear, the u.s. congress has not appropriated for ida yet, so these are all proposals coming forward with. we're quite hopeful that all of these things will be realized. i would mention again that we're but one of the countries. while we're the largest contributor to ida over the years, any other countries are contributing as well. this is a long, involved process. he don't want people to think this is done. there is real work to come.

in terms of the private sector window, as it is called. about one-third of the banks lending and investment go to the private sector. the other two thirds go to governme government, whether middle income -- the finance corporation. that's business we've been doing and when you this i about -- and what it goes to are companies that are doing that increase economic development in any number of the countries where we work. we operate in about 120 companies. that's something we've already been doing. as you might expect and to your point, stronger institutions, more credit worthy banks and more reliable regulatory environments slightly wealthier countries, they have not done as much in poor ida countries over time. this is an effort to set aside money specifically to push harder on that front. one of the things i would cite, there a book about a woman named caroline freund, it talks about

how you grow the economy of poor countries. she has fascinating statistics showing about 30 to 50% of exports in many developing countries come from the five largest companies in those countries. the point of which is if you can identify the local entrepreneurs who are growing rapidly and support them, you're going to see huge hiring and job growth over time. so that's part of what ioc is hoping to do, how do we identify those companies, help them to expand and then importantly, how do we show, again, being the more bold capital, how do we show other investors that the ifc is in there, we've made good money and others may be enticed to come as well. in the course of that, and this goes to the final question you were asking, we don't just go in and lend money for project finance or invest in a health care company or that sort. it goes with advice. so we always say we have financial capital and intellectual capital and we bring them both together. for example, if it is very hard

to start a business, very hard to export, because of all sorts of customs regulations, those are the discussions we're having in parallel with the investment so we can improve the investment climate and business environment generally. we have a business report which gets a lot of attention, which ranks countries on any number of indicators, energy provision, how regular it is, how long it takes to start a business, whether or not you can declare bankruptcy, whether one has an easy time in resolving disputes. all these other things. that's the tool we have to point the light at different countries, and say here are things you ought to be working on to improve over time. it is part of a much more comprehensive record, but we are hopeful the shareholders come in and allow ifc to do even more in the poor countries, bass it is so important for our overall mission. >> can you talk about how do you work with network of partners like, there a whole universe of

nonprofit organizations. you must work with them to do your work at the world food program. is that correct? >> we do indeed. and i think it is -- you know, people would say oh, the n gchl o, the last mile implementers for for wfp. while that's true in one context, there is so much more. when we talk about innovation, a lot of times, the ngos are the incuba incubator, i think of the cash base transfer and debit card, the inngo community began testi it early on. what they can do with the community and other partners is take these things to scale. so i would say that we have the symbiotic relationship, one work well without the others. we're implementing partners, so we do need them for in many cases the last mile. but it is just one facet of the

need to partner in this new environment that we have the ngos we need to partner with, the private sector we need to partner with. our partnership with unhcr and refugee response is just almost we're practically married. because they set the standards for targeting, but we have a lot of the implementation tools, so we have to work back and forth with them all the time, and again, it wouldn't work without them. so don't ever think of it as a simple relationship. it is a very dynamic relationship and one we'll rely on for a long time. >> nina, talk about how you work with nonprofit organizations as part of -- as part of what you're doing in the context of refugees. >> sure, so i mean, every crisis is different. every country is different. every need is different. that's how we approach it. we vont gohaven't gone with onet one solution fits all. it requires that we understand

what they're trying to do. how quickly do they need to do it. and what is the point they're trying to solve. based on that, we go in and help solve that problem. whether it be something whether it is out in the middle of nowhere, no connectivity, specific products for that, how do they get stuff there, how do they get the ecosystem to work, build it up, whether the mainstream country where they're going, we want to give people money, but they need access to cash. how do we do that? and we literally go in and look at it, and i wouldn't say customize, but we understand the need and we build accordingly. and we assist them to get it out there. it is costing the ngos money at the moment to get it out there. the difference is whether it cost $5 or $1. two weeks to get something out or can we do it in 24 hours. 50 people or one person to get it out there. we look at the efficiencies. we look at the insides, if we can bring them through data.

through system, partnership, who else do we need to bring. we're seep as a market organizer, bringing the right people to together to make sure it works. >> great, thank you. other questions and comments from this thoughtful audience? >> thank you very much. i am with united nations development program here in washington. great pleasure. i wish we met before in person. i'm inspired by your experience of course. there is two questions i would like to raise. one is local authorities. a lot of our experience is that the burden and the onus of responding not only to the host community grievances, but also to the incoming community say in jordan or in turkey, and lebanon is sitting with local communities. how are we working together with

the local communities that is one area that i would like to ask. and the second is thank you so much for sharing the experience. we have read a lot about the partnership between mastercard and wfp. one of the most successful or all the successful social assistance programs in any developing country are the ones that empower the women with the card actually. so it is not only the incoming populations, but also, the jordanian women in northern jordan, if she has the cord, she is equally empowered. i would like to hear your thoughts about how the broader development work that we all partner together with already on the host communities and use the technologies. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i might start quickly on that. it is not just being a world bank, or i have to go back to the economic points here. i would say it is not just the economic -- empowerment we see when women get the money directly, but we see a huge increase and expenditures for their families.

it is also a matter of if you design a program effectively, and move money directly into women's hands, which you often get is ancillary benefits, and we think about design along those lines. you know, i would say in terms of working with local officials, you are exactly right. i'll give you my experience. when we were in northern jordan, i've been there twice, certainly we make sure to meet with the appropriate ministers in amman, by the other towns up there that i talked about, it is the mayors. we sit with the mayors and hear what they want, and we ask those questions war questions, what would be useful for you. obviously, they're worried about their core constituents, people who have lived in jordan for many years. they are also drawing on the decades of experience in that experience of jordan getting refugees for many years. so you draw on their experience. you hear exactly what is most

beneficial from them, and then that heps us to shape the overall design, even if we end up lending to the entity nationally. so this is core and part of the bank team, some of whom are here, have learned many years in how with he design. >> can we -- are we -- is the world bank able to lend to cities or governments? >> we do an awful lot of work with sub national entities. there is a gray area in some of the regulations, and so we're looking into that. there are cases where we have, absolutely, in the past. it is something we have to navigate a bit, but yes there are mechanisms through which we can do that. the question is where and how is that the best opportunity. one of the things i would say also to be frank is that in many cases, especially in poorer or more fragile countries, the municipalities aren't that strong. do they have the capacity to absorb this money, are there ways we can go in and build some of those municipal entities in

such a way over time, they will be stronger on the food side, but it is really a case by case, where we have to think carefully and see what makes the most sense. >> john, this issue of local authorities, how does wfp work with local governments, and i would be curious with the city government level or sub government national level. >> i think we have a very intense engagement at all levels. as i pointed out, we're working with the -- obviously the government of lebanon, but working with their banking sector. we're working with the local government employees, if you will, to teach them how to track the refugee, you know, data, if you will. so they are able to report what's going on in their own community and to understand it. and then in another way, we're asking the community to help identify lebanese vulnerable families, so it is not oh, we're providing assistance to the

syrian ref if yougierefugees. who the vulnerable are among the refugees, but who are the vulnerables in the local community, and then everybody has a better understanding of how it -- how the assistance helps the whole community. so there is a lot of work that's done, and hcr does a human amount as well. it isn't just wfp. we're also working with the universities in the area. they want them to help us understand what's happening in the community. there is all sorts of outreach going on, because we don't claim to know everything that's happening there. we need the locals to help us understand what's happening in the community and better guide us. >> jon, let me go a little further. i think there is a bias in diplomacy, a bias to do capital to capital engage many.

nina painted a stark picture with her meeting with the mayor of athens. do you have to get a permission slip, or do you go directly to the mayor. i they, i'm not sure that aids arrangement is, i think it is very difficult unless you have an agreement go directly. >> wfb has an agreement with the national government. i'm just saying, we have our blanket agreement, which basically lets us engage pretty much depending on the country, sometime it is more controlled than others. >> but let's say the national government has red sox, and the city government has yankees. just using deep sophisticated think talk, jon. it seems to me there are times in many developing countries i can name many examples where the opposition party or the city

government is controlled by one party and the national government is controlled by another, and that somehow colors the conversation, even in terrible emergencies. >> again -- >> so could you just, i would like to go further and push a little further. do you have -- does that do you have the ability to deal directly with mayors, if they say i don't want you to talking with that mayor. i don't want you dealing with this government, what -- do you have the ability to say no? >> well, it is complicated, dan. i wish i could -- i wish i could say there was a simple answer. >> my sense is that i don't think the world bank and others have enough capacity to work with city and sub national governments. this he have to work with -- >> can i just say -- >> there a sense whether it is aid or the unchs .n., there are government financing, but i'm of

the belief that we're going to need the ability to work with city governments, given the changes and emergencies, changes in urbanzation. but because of things, my red sox and yankees, this is a real issue. >> what they would say is we done need to speak with an official, but meet with the people to give us the information to help get the job done. which the national government would want to have addressed. we -- >> we all presume and hope. >> it depends on the context. for the most part, you say we need to get into this area. talk to these people, understand the situation. and it is assumed or presumed you'll talk to the local officials to get that information. but hey, the world is difficult. and sometimes it doesn't go the way you want. >> if i could just put a plug in for wfp and hopefully for the bank, but certainly for these

guys. part of that goes to reputation and if national governments have found them, which i think they have, fair and honest, they have more latitude than some countries would on a bilateral basis. this goes back to the importance of multilateral entities, because they do tend to have a din credibility. i would argue that an awful lot of places we can point to success and say we just did this, which has 200 million people, that's not a small country, that's a large country, and that's just one state in india. if we can take that and go to another country and say here is where we worked with the mayor or governor, here is how we did it. by the way, you didn't read any news stories putting our thumb on one political party, then people start to nod their head and go to the next one. i agree the world is hard, but we have to maintain the inning tegty and the brand or reputation if you will of these multilaterals. >> good. >> yes, please. these two folks up here on this side. start with this woman here and

then this woman over here. >> hi, my question is more about corruption. to what extent is that built into your framework of assistance? we deal -- >> how do you think about corrupti corruption? >> also in the context of finance, development, we see that day-to-day, and how the hill is consistently making us more accountable as we should, right, taxpayers money. so i was wondering in your different setting, how you build that into your assistance. >> great, he want to -- we'll do this world bank style and collect a couple of questions. i would like this woman here and i'll come back to the issue of corruption. this woman over here. >> hi, my question was what role do you see more traditional aid, i guess, traditional aid programs, like food air drops, what role do you see them playing?

do you plan on kind of integrating them into the more innovative things like when monetizing markets, do you want to integrate credit into it, credit cards, prepaid cards into it? what role do you see that playing? >> anyone else? okay, we'll take these two. okay, so corruption, great question. all three of these institutions, i think it is an interesting, it would be interesting to hear from each of you. so why don't we start with you, matt. when you this i about especially in emergency responses, the issue of corruption is certainly something one has to be careful of. i know the world bank has spent a lot of time both in its practices, but also the issue of trying to reduce corruption in the countries where it is working. >> so part of this goes to, a, you're absolutely right. certainly us aid is the challenge comes with corruption. something we've been grappling with for a long time. a couple of things. one, we have a series of a group

of safeguards, which are the conditions upon which we lend to countries. and that hopefully protect us by ensuring that certain studies are done, certainty valuation and monitoring that happens, by doing due diligence on who exactly ends up with the money. any number of other thing we try to institute right from the start to produce the likelihood of a world bank project getting tainted by corruption. it is not perfect but we think we have a good system in place and always try to improve that. we just passed safeguards this year and hopefully strengthen that and minimize the number of time was he get hit with corruption challenges. the other thing we do to approach this is really utilize our knowledge networks or the way we can explain to one country what a drag corruption is on their economy is by drawing on examples from other economies. we by showing when you eliminate this, you see more benefits, and the growth you're aiming for. part of it is going back to the

research, and trying to make the case. at the end of the day, it is hard. people sometimes act in real direct self-interest ways that are problematic and you have to also be attuned to it. so the final thing we have in place a unin of accountability mechanisms, where if someone sees corruption, they can come to an independent body within the bank and hopefully overtime, people realize if it is bank money, you have to play by a strong set of rules and stay away from there. i will not address the other question just yet, unless you want us to touch on both of them before we go down the -- >> no, why don't we deal with the corruption and then the issue of -- that's a good way to do that. so jon, you work in some really tough places with weak states or nonexistent states. who you do you make sure somebody isn't taking an extra bag of rice, somebody isn't taking all the food and giving it to their militia, instead of their peep. how do you make sure people

aren't taking commodities and turbing around and selling it on the markets, and taking the -- keeping the money for them self. i'm sure this is something you must think about everyday. >> we do think about it everyday, and it is as you say, some of the places we work, it is hard, and nop of the organizations can ever withstand sort of, you know, a report that they were involved or they had some corruption going on. but i think what we always do is we have the monitoring systems that we put in place for the traditional programs, but i'm going to segue over to the newer master card type activities. not only do we have biometrics to ensure we're giving cards to the right people, and that we're not giving cards to them twice. >> that was actually one of the questions i was asking. i had visions of going five or six times and getting five or six of those cards, and so i'm quite curious to know how you -- >> bio metrics has taken care of

that. in the case of one of the camps in kenya, we saw 15 or 20% cleansing, if you will. so it is a really -- >> if you -- >> eliminating duplication. people had multiple cards and stuff. >> really? >> oh, yeah. this new technology has given us the ability to reduce corruption if you will, or misuse of resources. it also adds to you are our ability to know what people are buying, to know how they're using their money, to help us better understand what their needs are. >> yeah. >> as nina says, if we see there is a spike in, i guess, payment to education or payment to medicine or something like that, or rent, we can see there are increase in demands in a sector we might not have been aware of. that's not a corruption issue, but it is a making sure we can fine tune our programming to make sure it has the greatest impact. so the new technologies are giving us the ability to do things and even in, again,

the -- we can use these cards, even when there is a food distribution. they can still allow you to make sure that's the right person. it still works in the old food distribution programs too. where they are appropriate. corruption is a huge issue that everybody has to watch for all the time. but i like to see that the new technologies are giving us the ability to tighten it up. of course, we don't do that much with host governments directly. so that's -- we don't -- that would be an issue. >> so nina, when wurp telling the example, i have the exact vision of someone going and getting five or six cards and it sounds as if there are ways you can safeguard against that. >> absolutely. so i'm going to go through the refugee topic and speak about a real example in south africa. we've got a government program by the name of fesa, it launched in 2012, we had a population of 58 million people. but of that, 16 million were

receiving social grants. and before that government predominantly distributing cash and checks, and costing them $3.66 per social grant. they then moved over to a product, and mastercard debit card, launching in partnership with the bank, and net 1. and what that basically did from a cost perspective, brought it down for $1.60. we managed to help governments say a total of $375 million over five years. we called that operational savings, because of the way the costing worked, and it allowed for multiple. i was the grandmother getting all the grants. government was no longer paying $3.66. that's the efficiency side. we speak about the corruption side okay. haven't found a country yet where there isn't a problem with ghost collectors, people have passed away, multiple grant

collectors, adults or children, and in south africa, because of this program, we managed to eradicate 850,000 illegal grant collectors. that's estimated over 350 million. so we're speaking about a specific country there. not necessarily refugee program, but that's a true example of how technology can come into partnership and really make things work and bring efficiency. >> great, thanks. let me move back to jon and the woman in the middle of the row had a question about the nexus of traditional assistance, humanitarian response. new technologies. start off in answering that question, jon, given that this is sort of your world, if you will. >> so a little bit of a mixed question. some of the more innovative delivery technologies, air drops and flutter drops and all these kinds of things, they're going to be in the repertoire forever.

we've used them recently in south sudan. we continue to innovative in those areas. but they are as we move to more local and regional procurements, as we move to cash based systems, there is less of a need for that except in those very violent emergencies. i think you've probably been tomorrow buhrm, but there a big crane that delivers assistance from the jordanian side to the syrian side of the border, kind of a sad situation, but you do what you do to get the resources there. so we'll keep innovativing, trying to figure out ways to make sure commodities get to where they're going, but the new technology is opening up a world that we couldn't imagine just a few years ago. >> do you want to comment on that? okay. >> i mean, i would like to comment on that. i think from with regards to your question and why are people

moving to new technologies, there is a new understanding that even when in kind is happening, there are times when it is more disruptive than with what is doing good. when you speak about in kind being dropped foo a community, a small community, then often the person who has had the small mop and pop shop or the sorry in the area, moves. there is no longer a need for him to be there. when the aid is no longer needed and moves away, there is nobody left for the local community to support and get what they need. first when you're building an economy from scratch and saying yes, you go and support and build a low global economy. the mop and pop shop will start thriving. they're able to support the community in a lot more meaningful way. you'll probably find new shops coming up as well. is there in kind need, and a time and place we're do more in going digital and giving people

the opportunity to build their own economy and getting sustainability for tomorrow. >> great, thank you very much. questions or kmeps frcomments f audience? >> well, this has really been great. i really appreciate you coming out for. this i really want to thank the panelists. this has been a really interesting conversation. please join me in thanking the p paneles paneles panelis panelists. [ applause ]

our road to the white house continues as campaigns wind down. later today, hillary clinton stumps in the battleground state of north carolina. we're live from rally at 7:45 eastern on c-span. a number of state race debates this evening. first, it is the candidates to represent new york's 22nd district in the house of representatives, republican claudia teny is up against kim meyers. live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. later, debates for the texas

23rd district and iowa's first, all of that on c-span 2. i think when we think of winston church hill, we think of sending men into war. no one new better and few new as well the reality of war, the tear and deaf sayingvastation. he said to his mother, you can't guild it. he actually knew the disaster that war was. >> sunday night, on q & ach. early career of winston churchhill. the bore war, a daring escape, the making of winston churchhill. >> he says give me a regiment. i want to go and fight. so ends up going with a renl meant on the day that it fell to the british, and he takes over

the prison and he frees the men who have been his fellow prisoners. he puts in the prison his former jailers, and watches as the bore flag is torn down and the union jack is hoisted in its place. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q & a. now, venture capitalist, peter thiel, why he is supporting donald trump. he has a bias for outsider contests and would have preferred a cop test with bernie sanders and donald trump. from the national press club, this is an hour. welcome to the national press club. my name is thomas burr, washington correspondent for the salt lake tribune and the 109th president. billionaire businessman and tech buy near, peter thiel. i would like to welcome our public radio and c-span audiences and remind you you can follow the action live on

twitter, @npc live. today's for matt follows the same tradition with some remarks by our guests and a question and answer session concluding in an hour many i'll ask as many questions submitted online and from reporters in the audience. peter thiel wears many hats. he helped found paypal. he is a venture capitalist, sued gawker and a supporter of donald trump in silicon valley. that's what he is here to talk about today. thiel, a billionaire, who has used his money recently to help trump. he used reserves to fund facebook, linkedin, other companies associated with the so-called paypal mafia and thiel foundation. he plans to donate $2.5 million and has raised eyebrows. "the new york times" called him

toxic. mark zuckerberg, a democratic donor, defended his choice, saying it would set a bad precedent to cut ties because of his political views. he had a primetime speech at the republican convention in july. he didn't donate to the campaign until earlier this month. shortly after revelations of recorded comments trump made about women. he said he would like to contribute through a combination of direct giving to the campaign and be the super pacs, including $1 million donation to the super pac, make america number one. in media circles, thiel is best known for representing hulk hogan against gawker, and they had to file for bankruptcy because of the ruling in the case. thiel is a stanford alum who builds himself as a contrarian. he is the author of books such as the diversity myth,

intolerance on campus and zero to one, notes on startups and how to build the future. please help me welcome mr. peter thiel. [ applause ] thank you very much for having me here. everybody knows we've been living through a crazy election year. real real real events seem like outtakes from saturday night live. a political outsider managed to win a major party nomination. to the people who are used to influencing our choice of leaders, to the wealthy people who give reasons why, it all seems like a bad dream. donors don't want to find out how and why we got here. they just want to move on. come november 9th, they hope

everyone else will go back to business as usual. but it is just this heedlessness, this temptation to ignore difficult realities, indulged that got us to where we are today. a lot of successful people are too proud to admit it. since it seems to put their success in question. but the truth is no matter how crazy this election seems, it is less crazy than the condition of our country. just look at the generation that supplies most of our leaders. the baby boomers, entering retirement in a state of a acturial bankruptcy. 65% have less than a year's worth of savings to their name. that's a problem. you have to pay up to ten times as much for simple medicines as

you would pay any where else. america's overpriced health care system might help subsidize the rest of the world, and that doesn't help americans and they've started to notice. the youngest citizens may not have medical bills, but adding more every year to the $1.3 trillion moup tain of student debt. america has become the only country where students take on lop loans they can never escape, no the even by declaring bankruptcy. stuck, millennials are the first generation to expect their own lives to be worst than the lives of their parents. while american families expenses have been increasing relentlessly, their incomes have been stagnant. the median household makes less money today than it made 17 years ago. nearly half of americans

wouldn't be able to come up with $400, if they needed it for an emergency. yet while households struggle to keep up with the challenges of everyday life, the government is wasting trillions of dollars of taxpayer money on far away wars. right now, we're fighting five of them. in iraq, syria, libya, yemen, and somalia. now, not everyone is hurting. in the wealthy suburbs that ring washington, d.c., people are doing just fine. where i work in silicon valley, people are doing just great. but most americans don't live by the belt way. or the san francisco bay. most americans have been been part of that prosperity. it shouldn't be surprising to see people vote for bernie sanders or for donald trump. who is the only outsider left in the race.

very few people who vote for president have ever thought of doing something so extreme as running for president much the people who run are often polarizing. this election year, both major candidates are imperfect people to say the least. i don't agree with everything donald trump has said and done. and i don't think the millions of other people voting for him do either. nobody thinks his comments about women were acceptable. i agree, they were clearly offensive and inappropriate. but i don't think the voters pull the lever in order to endorse a candidate's flaws. it is not a lack of judgment that leads americans to vote for trump. we're voting for trump because we judge the leadership of our country to have failed. this judgment has been hard to

accept for some of the countries most fortunate socially prominent people. it certainly has been hard to accept for silicon valley. where many people have learned to keep quiet, if they decent from the coastal bubble. louder voices have sent a message that they don't intend to tolerate the views of one-half of the country. this intolerance has taken on some bizarre forms. the advocate, a magazine which one praised me as a gay innovator, even published an article saying, and i quote, not a gay man, unquote. because i don't agree with their politics. the lie behind the buzzword of diversity could not be made more clear. if you don't conform, then you don't count as diverse. no matter what your personal

background. faced with such contempt, why do voters still support donald trump. even if they think the american situation is serious, why would they think that trump of all people could make it any better. i think it is because of the big things that trump gets right. for example, free trade has not worked out well for all of america. it helps that trump -- it helps trump that the other side just doesn't get it. all of our elites preach free trade, the highly educated people who make public policy, chief imports make everyone a winner, according to economic theory. in actual practice, we've lost tens of thousands of factories and millions of jobs to trade. the heartland has been devastated. maybe policymakers believe that nobody loses, or maybe they don't worry about it too much, because they think they are among the winners.

the sheer size of the u.s. trade deficit shows that something has gone badly wrong. the most developed country in the world should be exporting capital to less developed countries. instead, the united states is importing more than $500 billion every year. that money flows into financial assets, distorts our economy in favor of more banking and financialzati financialzation, and it gives them a reason to retain the status quo. not everyone benefits, and the trump voters know it. i think trump voters are also tired of war. we have been at war for 15 years. and we have spent more than $4.6 trillion. more than 2 million people have lost their lives. and more than 5,000 americans soldiers have been killed. but we haven't won. the bush administration promised

that $50 billion could bring democracy to iraq. instead, we've squandered 40 types as much to bring about chaos. yet even a after these by partisan failures, the democratic party is more hawkish today than they began the war in vietnam. harking back to the no-fly zone that bill clinton enforced over iraq before bush's failed war, now hillary clinton has called for a no-fly zone over syria. incredibly, that would be a mistake, even more reckless that invading iraq. since most of the planes flying over syria today are russian planes, clinton's proposed course of action would do worst than involve us in a messy civil war. it would risk a direct nuclear conflict. what explains this eagerness to escalate a dangerous situation.

how can hillary clinton be so wildly over optimistic about the outcome of war. i would suggest that it comes from a lot of practice. for a long time, our elites have been in the habit of denying difficult realities. that is how bubbles form. whenever there is a hard problem, people want to believe in an easy solution. they'll be tempted to deny reality, and inflate a bubble. something about the experience of the baby boomers, whose lives have been so much easier than their parents or their children, has led them to buy into bubbles again and again. the trade bubble says everyone is a winner, the war bubble says victory is just around the corner. but these over optimistic stories simply haven't been true. voters are tired of being lied to. it was both insane and somehow

inevitable that d.c. insiders expected this election to be a rerun between the two political dynasties who led us through the two most guy januaigantic bubblr time. president george w. bush, so big its collapse is still causing economic stagnation today. but what is strangely forgotten, is that last decade's housing bubble was just an attempt to make up for the gains that had been lost in the decade before that. in the 1990s, president bill clinton presided over an enormous stock market bubble and a devastating crash in 2000, just as his second term was coming to an end. that's how long the same people have been pursuing the same d

dis -- disastrous policies. larger than life persona attracts a lot of attention. nobody would suggest that donald trump is a humble man. but the big things he is right about, amount to a much needed dose of humility in our politics. very unusually for a presidential candidate, he has questioned the core concept of american exceptionalism. he doesn't think the force of optimism alone can change reality without hard work. just as much as it is about making america great, trump's agenda is about making america a normal country. a normal country doesn't have a half trillion dollar trade deficit. a normal country doesn't fight five simultaneous undeclared wars. in a normal country, the government actually does its job. and today, it is important to

recognize that the government has a job to do. voters are tired of hearing conservative politicians say that government never works. they know the government wasn't always this broken. the manhattan project, the interstate highway system, the apollo program. whatever you think of these ventures, you cannot doubt the competence of the government that got them done. but we have fallen very far from that standard. we cannot let free market ideology serve as an excuse for decline. no matter what happens in this election, what trump represents suspe isn't crazy and it isn't going away. he points to a new republican party, beyond the do gcgma of

reaganism, rejects bubble thinking and reckons with reality. when the distracting spectacles of this election season are forgotten and the history of our time is written, the only important question will be whether or not that new politics came too late. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, mr. thiel. appreciate you being here at the national press club. let's start off with as part of the conversation, i think want to get to a lot of topics. we have a few hundred questions. let's talk about the campaign here. your candidate has talked a lot about what is wrong with america. there are a lot of dissatisfied voters out there right now. do you see this election as anything more than a contest to see who will be the next captain of the titanic?

>> well, i hope not. i have always had a bias favoring outsider candidates. i supported rand paul in 2008, 2012, i supported carly fiorina in this race. i think the insiders are often much more polished, they're talented politicians, but a lot of what they do does feel to me like rearranging deck chairs. we need to think outside the conventional policy box. we need to have a broader public debate about the kinds of things we want to dome. i worry about the decline, and i take it seriously. i would have liked to see a race between trump sanders, because i think both of them vviscerally.

one that has everything is good, good as it can be and the other that says we're on the titanic and about to sink. >> you talk about backing an outsider. isn't there something to be said about understanding how washington works better to get things done? >> you know, that's -- we've been trying that for quite a long time. the -- on the kinds of issues i talked about today, the trade bubble, the war bubble, the globalization bubble, these various bubble policies, the insiders have been getting it wrong for a long time. they were asleep at the switch when wheat the dot com bubble, asleep when we had the housing

bubble in the last decade. the insiders have somehow have been doing very micro policy adjustments, and then letting the massive bubbles inflate on their watch. and so i think there is an ther. the trump point that he's made repeatedly that hillary has experience but it is bad experience resonates with me a lot. >> has your support of mr. trump affected any relationships or close business relationships in silicon valley? >> it certainly has generated a tremendous amount of discussion. gotten a lot of pushback from people to say the least. i think my friendships and close relationships are intact. >> do you have any other businessmen other are more privately support plg trump and don't want to say it publicly? >> it is one of the strange things of this, doing this has surfaced. not a large number but a small

number of those people. they feel they can't say in it public but they've been conjured out of the ether. >> what about the political differences? it's more polarized than i realized. i thought of silicon valley as a fairly liberal, overwhelmingly backed obama in 2008. but i didn't think it would be, that there would be this sort of a visceral reaction. most of the tech companies, many have not said you shouldn't be able to back trump but it is surprising that anybody would say that you're beyond the pale for taking a position that is

held by half the country. there are extreme fringe views. they are very much minority. this is first time i've done something that is conventional. it is the first time i've done something big in my life that was just what half the country believed in. and it has been the most controversial ever. >> have your companies suffered any blowback because of your position? >> i don't think so. that would be an even crazier thing. the founders, the companies i invest in are not me. their employees are not the founders. and you can play two or three or four groups of people like this. that is a crazy thing to do. perhaps we should occasionally be held response, partially

responsible for people with one degree of separation from us. if you hold people responsible who are or two o'three degrees of separation. that way lies insantd. >> but you don't believe they have faced any blowback from consumers because of your position? >> not in any meaningful way, no. >> and the rnc convention speech. you said where i work in silicon valley, it is hard to see where america has gone wrong. do you think silicon valley understands america? what is that sort of disconnect there? >> it is, silicon valley has been extremely successful over the last decade o it is, but it has been a success that is a success of specific companies. the stoish they want to tell is one where the specific success as individuals and as companies

gets conflated with general success or progress in the united states. so we're doing well. therefore, our whole civilization is doing well. serve doing well. the whole company takes it to the next level. that's the narrative they love to he is the. it has been one of more specific success but general failure. on twitter, for example, on our website it promises flying cars and all we got was 140 characters. it is not a critique of twitter as a company. the people who work there have well paying jobs. it is a perfectly great company. it is just not enough for 300 plus americans. >> how do you think that disconnect in some ways shakes the companies and the products

that are created there? one way i've described it is that silicon valley is in the world of bits ask most of the world is in the world of atoms. there has been a narrow cone of progress around those kinds of industries. but then you often have less good of an understanding for the sort of industries that involved atoms, building things. real estate. the stereotypical industry involving atoms. they are much more regulated than the world of bits. so if you're in the world of bits, which is much less regulated, you might be much less concerned. so there is this big separation

in terms of what they do. i wouldn't blame that on the blind spot. silicon valley. that's a little too easy. perhaps they have focused on the world of bits. it has gotten very hard to do things in the world of atoms. when i was an undermcgrattan graduate at stanford, there were a lot of engineering fields you could study in the 1980s. it was a bad idea to become an astro engineer, a mechanical engineer. these were industries that were in structural decline. related to nuclear engineering. your parents, it would have been irresponsible to let you study that as a field in the 1980s. even electrical engineering, which was semi conductors, that's on the boundary between atoms and bits. it was good for about a decade. not so much anymore. computer science. not even in the engineering field. that was the only scientific technical field had a future in the 1980s. >> let's go back to mr. trump.

we'll have more about silicon valley in a minute. was the timing of the donation, to the trump campaign, related to the "access hollywood" tape related to mr. trump? >> no. i think it was extremely poor taste. extremely inappropriate as i said. i didn't think as much even about the donations as i should have. my general perspective on this year was that money didn't matter that much. the candidates who raised the most money on the presidential level did incredibly badly. i didn't think trump needed my money. they hadn't raised that much money i hadn't donated. it is when they asked me. i wasn't sure they needed it. but i thought i would write them a check i didn't think that much of the connection. and of course, i didn't think anybody would think that you

would donate to a candidate is the worst thing they've done. you support candidates normally because of the things you like when them. not the things you dislike. and it is odd. i think almost all the people who are voting for trump are voting because of the sense the u.s. is very badly off track. to do some things to fix it. >> you mention in the your speech that mr. trump is not necessarily humble. are you concerned about the personality traits? about women? the more bombastic style? are you concerned what that says to younger americans and the political discourse today? >> i think we've been pretty clear. there are a lot of things that are beyond the pale and i think there are things that trump said a decade ago that even he would absolutely no longer say today. so i think that our, i think

that part of our discourse is getting policed adequately and will continue to be policed adequately. i think the temperament, the kind of place where i worry about that most on a policy level is, do we get sue more wars or not? and i'm not sure whether that's a matter of temperament or more of world view. but it is certainly, i would worry much more about that with hillary getting us into wars. the nuclear one is the most dangerous. probably involves still a confrontation with russia and i don't think hillary clinton has accused trump of being overly hostile to putin. >> are you concerned about mr. trump's temperament when it colonels to the nuclear codes? >> i think he wouldn't even get us into a situation where it would be close. so if you look at the specifics, might something happen? where might something go wrong? i would think that hillary is

much more dangerous than trump. i don't think she will get us into a nuclear war either but it is a much more confrontational foreign policy. >> what about other countries, china, north korea, that could pose some trouble because of how he responds? >> well, north korea has been a problem for a long time. i think at this point it is more a problem for china than the u.s. it is a pure client state of china. i don't like the way china is managing it. i would like them to do something to change things around rather than tolerate the horrible dictatorship that exists there. but i think china will keep it a very bad, very unhappy, but a very low volatility situation. >> let's go back to domestic politics. where do you place donald trump's economic man against hillary clinton's plan? what key factors in this plan do you think will nurture small