intern. today, the clinic treats thousands of homeless patients a year serving as a model clinic for poor and aspiring figses. dr. greer's tremendous contributions stand as a shining example of the difference one person can make in the lives of many. [applause] . .

[applause] to win camp, except in on behalf of her husband.

he acted with intellectual honesty and integrity. he earned the respect and admiration of his teammates for judgment and leadership. he places ideas before ideology. he saw bridges were others all division. his legacy serves as a shining example of people staying true to themselves and bettering our nation. kara kennedy, excepting on behalf of her father, edward kennedy.

for more than four decades, senator edward kennedy has boldly fought for equal opportunity, fairness, and justice for all americans in his quest for a more perfect union, he has reformed our schools, strengthens our civil rights, help seniors and working families, and work to ensure that every american has access to quality and affordable health care for them. the united states proudly recognizes this righteous system, the dow public servant, and giant among men. giant among men. billie jean moffitt king.

through her example and efficacy, she has advanced the struggle for greater gender equality around the world. in an age of male-dominated checker from long beach fame. her athleticism is matched only by her defense of equal rights. the road ahead will be smoother, the future will be brighter, and our nation's commitment for equality will be stronger for all.

rev. joseph e. lowery. rev. joseph e. lowery. he has marched through life with a and purpose, carrying with him the legacy of a movement that touch america's conscience and change its history. it at the forefront of the major civil rights events of our time, from the bus boycott, he has served as a tyrant is a beacon for nonviolent and social justice. as a poet -- he co-founded the southern christian leadership conference in championed peace and freedom around the world. the united states proudly honors this outstanding leader.

-- joseph medicine crow. history flows through him. born on a reservation and raised by traditional grandparents, he became the first member of this try to earn a master's degree. from his valiant service in world war ii, he was awarded the renowned toward cheap. -- renowned war cheif. he is a example of strength and

survival. >> [unintelligible] stuart mill, accepting on behalf of his uncle, harvey milk.

harvey milk dedicated his life to shattering boundaries and assumptions as one of the first openly gay elected officials in this country, he changed the landscape for opportunity for the nation's gay community. throughout his life he fought discrimination with courage and conviction. before his tragic death in 1970, he widely noted "hope will never be silent." harvey milk's voice will for ever echo and the hearts of all people that share his time as message. sandra day o'connor.

sandra day o'connor has paved the way for millions of women to achieve their dreams, completing law school in just two years. she graduated third in her class at a time when women rarely enter the legal profession. with great humor and intelligence, she rose to become the first woman on the united states supreme court. her historic 25 term tenure on the court was defined by her integrity and independence. she has earned the gratitude for-- invaluable contributions to history and the law.

sidney poitier. ambassador an actor, he has left an indelible mark on american culture. rising from it to manage farms of the bahamas, his talent led into broadway and global acclaim. in front of black and white audiences struggle to write the nation's moral compass, he brought us the common tragedy of racism, reconciliation, and the joys of everyday life. the man would near the character and would advance the nation's dialogue on race and respect.

chita rivera. from stage to screen, she has captured america's imagination with their magnetic presence and radiant voice. over a career that has spanned a half century, she has received numerous accolades for her performances including two tony awards, six nominations, and the kennedy center honors award. as perilous as any to an open would west side story" -- she is broken traditions and inspired women to follow in her

footsteps. we honor her for her lifetime of achievement as one of america's great artists. mary robinson. for mary robinson, the fight to end discrimination and suffering is an urgent moral imperative. she has been a trail blazing crusader for women's rights in ireland and an advocate for equality and human rights around the world. whether courageously visiting poverty stricken regions were working to put right into business, she continues this important work today, urging citizens and nations to have a common cause for justice.

janet rowley. she was the first scientists to identify the cause of leukemia and other cancers. is considered one of the most important medical breakthroughs of the past century. after enrolling at the university chicago at age 15, she challenged medical wisdom about the cause of cancer in the-- which placed little emphasis on chromosomal abnormalities.

she has revenues -- revolutionize cancer care. it united states honors this distinguished scientist. archbishop tutu. with unflagging devotion to justice and optimism and an unmistakable sense of humor, he has stirred the world's conscience for decades. as a man of the cloth, he

respected the first congregational. turning point in modern -- south africa at a turning point in modern history. he helped heal wounds and lay the foundation for a new nation. he continues to give voice to the voiceless and bring hope to those who search for freedom. mohammed yunus. with his belief in self- reliance of all people, professor mohammed yunus is altered the face of finance.

theories and their effect on the people out of poverty, he revolutionized banking to allow borrowers access to credit. he is unable thyssen's to create -- citizens of the world to create sustainable communities. he has unleashed new avenues of creativity and inspired millions worldwide to imagine their own potential. >> before we break up, why do not we all an extraordinary round of applause? [applause]

thank you very much. cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> mohammed yunus was also at the press club wednesday.

the target of efforts to fight poverty. this is an hour. >> i want to welcome each review to the press club. i in the chair and the news makers committee. -- i am the chair of the newsmaker committee. we are pleased today to welcome professor mohammed yunus. he is known as the father micro finance and won the 2006 nobel peace prize for his efforts to alleviate global property through collateral free loans directed that indigent women.

today he is in town to pick up another prestigious prize. he will receive the presidential medal of freedom this afternoon of the white house. first, he will talk to us about the growth of the u.s. organization which was established in 2008 the duke the battle against poverty is not limited to this part of the world. it is my honor and pleasure to welcome to the podium professor yunus,. [applause] >> thank you very much. good morning.

it is a very special day for me today. there is a big ceremony waking this afternoon. we are getting ready for that. it is also special because my daughter is here. --, monica and her husband. this is their first official meeting they are attending as a married couple. they just got married. this is also very special. i am lucky to be on this list. you need a lot of luck. i am very happy and honored to be given that slot. it is very special because he is the most admired person globally.

he has inspired the whole world. to be on his list, i share the admiration that he has created for himself ago. this is important because all the issues in the past about poverty and how it can be overcome, how we can say it is over and finished, sometimes people think this is not achievable. i feel very strong about it. it is achievable. i even talk of putting power teams together and saying it is over. we have real human life. it does not represent real human life.

there is no reason in this day and age we should be carrying on this past legacy. this is one issue of recognition i get to being on the list and makes a known to many people who think probably what it is i represent. i talk about issues along the way, poverty, it said the parties not creed by poor people. poverty is created by the system around this. the timing is very right for this award ceremony. the whole world is going through a financial crisis. inside, everybody feels the system is not right for do they do not know what would be an alternative.

i tried to give my views of what would be the right one. this is the one occasion wish to be paying a lot of attention to how to redesign and retool the system so that we do not follow the same old way of making our life proceed, but twe create a different structure. this is a call that i give. this is the deepest of the crisis and greed is of opportunities. opportunity is what i want to emphasize. we are so busy trying to fix things. it is redesigning the system so that we go to the new situation rather than the same normalcy.

we should not go back to the same normalcy again. we need to create new normalcy. on the financial side, i talk about how to make the financial world different, making financial service available to every single human being on this planet. the talk about credit been taken as a human right. it is so fundamental. it should not be left to the business people to decide. this is something we must address as a human right. this crisis should lead us to that same basic conclusion that and of having an exclusive institution, we should have inclusive financial systems so nobody is excluded from that. this is the version that we bring out and give shape to our

work. it is replicated all over the world. today problem not a single country would be available where you do not have this program running. it is showing all of the world that it is doable and it worked. it is workable in a sustainable way. it is not a charity. it can be done in a way that people benefit at the same time as the recycle the money. it is not charity money. this is one issue, fixing the financial system. the business world can be fixed. today the business world is devoted to making money. that is the only kind of business in the world. there is the business of making money. that is the single mission of the business. i am saying that is to narrow of an impression.

human beings are selfish. humans are also selfless. that part has been completely ignored. that is where we went wrong. we build a world where all trying to build money. -- we build a world where we are all trying to make money. that is only one basic part of us. we need to be able to touch other people's life. and using the self as part to build a new kind of business using that part of human being. it is a social business. business to change the world. without having any intention of getting any money for myself. it is all for others, and nothing for me. everything is for me and ned nothing is for other is a

composite that we have now. -- everything is for me and nothing is for others is the kind of policy that we have now. environment could be another social thing. [unintelligible] you name it, it can be done. today becomes important because healthcare is a big issue in the usa. we are trying to address health care in bangladesh in a social business way, creating social businesses. we've already created care hospitals in a social setting so that nobody is denied the service but hospitals run low and income. owners decided not to come to them. it should be available to the people.

this is the case of a social business. we are working cooperation with many of the universities and hospitals here. john hopkins, harvard university, mayo clinic, trying to put the pieces together. we are creating small health management centers. our focus is on keeping their house the people healthy. -- helpialthy people healthy. and then we can detect any deviation from that. early detection and early treatment. since it cannot keep the doctors

in the villages, everyone's to live on the metropolitan cities, we have to find a way to bring the health services. we can do that because of the availability of the internet and a huge platform. everybody carries a mobile phone. that is an internet vehicle. what we are trying to do is build diagnostics, tools, so that at the village level, the tools are used to make it very simple in the village girls can be trained to use the diagnostic tools and to plug it in, transmit the images and all the data and information from the

household to the specialist doctors. they can communicate to the mobile phones and get prescriptions. this is something that we are in the process of building. it is a social business. this is another area that you want to build up. along the way, we have come to america. in new york city, in manhattan and queens, we just crossed the 1000 mark. there are 1000 borrowers in the program. we follow the same principles. five women get together, taking individual loans and being responsible individuals, and

creating their own employment and make a living for themselves. the repayment has remained over the years from january 2008 until now. it is near 100%. we are invited to do it. we will open a branch in omaha. other cities are inviting us from san francisco. boston, baltimore. we are hoping that maybe we should be starting programs there also. this is the kind of thing that tried to focus with the intention that we can overcome all these problems. unemployment can be overcome today. as it continues to increase, we have created alternative formats of creation and employment and

creating employment for social businesses. that aspect has never been adjusted before. i will stop here. just a few more words. there are nearly 8 million borrowers in bangladesh. 97% are women. we lend out over $100 million a month. this all comes from deposits collected from each branch. they are lent to the local women. the bridge then makes profit -- the branch then make a profit. the bidding goes back to the bar were. -- the dividend then goes back to the bar will work. it is cyclical.

that idea can be completed anywhere in the world. this has been done in many countries. we will be launching a big way in china. this will be in the interests of the chinese government. we are very happy that we could start the program. thank you very much. [applause] >> if you please identify yourself and your organization when you ask questions. we would like to know who has joined us. q. has the first question? >> newspaper from new york. what is your reaction about you receiving an award from the u.s. government? >> that i am lucky.

it is very exciting moment for me. this is a big recognition. ideas that i have been promoting and try to let people pay attention to -- this recognition brings a lot of attention to that. i'm very happy about it. it is very important for me personally for being recognized by such an important person in the world. his problem my most important person in the world. -- he is probably my most important person in the world. he has inspired young people all over the world. this that the capacity to draw attention. to be on his list, some may rub on to my ideas. we can start believing that we can create the world where nothing single human being

suffers the misery and indignity of being a poor person. that is very exciting. it is exciting for my village being recognized out to many countries in the world, someone from my village. there is a lot of happiness and the people of bangladesh. i feel very confident for the future. we can contribute to the world and make a goal and our life to make changes. thank you. >> what is your message today for those all over the world? >> the message is that what we do in bangladesh is not as a local thing. it has a global indication,

including application and united states. it gives in bangladesh people a lot of confidence in their life that we can do things in the global stage. we are not just a poor nation as we get used to knowing we are a poor nation. we left out in ignored. we are a significant nation. we have the ability to not only make impact in our lives, but we can impact globally. this is a recognition of that. i'm not being recognized for doing something better. it is very contradictory. i stand in contrast with everything that is done in the usa. the usa, business solves

everything. if you can the money, it is good for the nation. that is it. i am saying that is not it. making money is not legal. -- not the goal. we are not mining making machines. we are humans. we solve problems. we can do social business. social business is a big contribution to the money-making business. in social business we are seeing everything for others and nothing for me. it is a big kind of contradiction-the general thinking process. at the same time, i am being recognized by the president of united states. that is a big recognition to be different and being paid attention to. i've always said welfare system is the wrong system. welfare cannot be permanent solution.

it should be very temporary. the aim of welfare should be help people -- should be to help people get out of the situation. while i am saying that, i'm being recognized the president of united states. it is not the man goes along with the united states. -- it is not something that goes along with the united states. it is a different kind of system. the usa is the world capital of the banking world. you are making money so you will keep on making money and the super greed takes over. i am saying no, we can build a new system.

that is something that we do everything in a contradictory way and at the same time it draws attention because people see sense and what i do. >> in the current recession, many of the biggest banks have had their own survival question dealing with the likes of citibank. how does your bank been affected by the recession or are you recession-proof? >> we are not recession-proof at all. not whatsoever. i'll give you the reasons why.

the banking but we do in bangladesh is a close. will we give a loan of $100, there are some chickens or some house -- cows. it is tied to the real economy. it is not separate from the economy where you create a fantasy world. that is what created the fantasy world. we belong right on the ground. the bank is grounded solidly. the second reason is the we are not exposed to the centers of financial houses like new york, where you can trends meant to all the people -- transmit to of the people. we are very much locally based. it is local money.

money should come from your local branch. your money should come from your neighborhood. that money should go to people at your neighborhood. the transmission mechanism did not work with us. we were very happy with that. that way we have isolated ourselves from this. it works pretty well. nobody is telling us, sorry, we are in a financial crisis and it cannot pay you back. even in queens, they are crisis proof. this is a very well grounded economy. this is how it works. >> do you foresee any role in

war-torn countries like pakistan over the region after the election? >> -- pakistan oveafter the election? >> micro finance has a role in all countries. we have done micro finance and other war-torn countries. when the guns were firing, we sent our staff an invitation for an organization. we went there and set up a small government in the country. there is no currency. there was no bank.

we started a program. there was no government. no rules. no financial system. no bank. it worked beautifully. it is still working. it is possible because people's lives go on. war goes on. life goes on. you the support live forever life is. in wartime, it becomes more and portents. -- more important. >> can you explain what you have targeted your approach to women? >> it is a key factor. we started out focusing on

women on a 50/50 basis. that change their reaction to the existing financial institutions. i was critical of that. a posting that was anti-woman. but even 1% of all of it happen to be women. they were trying to defend themselves and put the blame to the women, that they did not come to them. i should the house screwed up they are. -- i showed them how screwed up they are. did you never ask your wife to come along. when i began, i wanted to make sure i do not make that same mistake. it was a tough job. women did not want to comment.

they said they didn't know anything about money. it was frustrating. some of my colleagues suggest that we should move on with men. when a woman says that cannot handle money and i do not know about it, this is not her voice. is the voice of the husband. -- it is the voice of the year that has creature. -- fear that has created her. one to peel it off, the real person will come out. we waited for six years. then we saw money come to the family through women. the impact of the family was

with bigger when it goes through the woman. we said why are we going through the men? the impact is so much of a difference. that is how we did that. lots of things that happened were positive things because of the decision we made early on. when people learn from it, they do not go through this. the immediately concentrate on women. microthin and became the drew michaels -- michael finance became synonymous with -- micro finance became synonymous with loans to women. >> who inspires you personally to do what you do? >> the basic inspiration comes like any other program. the impact that you make on people's lives, when i'm depressed or criticized or

attacked and wonder whether i am doing the right thing and a good to villages and talk to the women, you get totally recharge. the matter what the world says. one small from a young woman or daughter in a family and what they have done, what is important in their lives, and you get to recharge. -- get recharged it. -- recharged. you see the young generation coming up. you see young girls and wives that came up with their family or their mothers work. now they are going to school and college s.

some of them are doctors. you see side-by-side the mother and the suon. suddenly you remember that it is not created by the person. [unintelligible] her word created an opportunity for her son or daughter to go to school. there is not an inherited deficiency in the person. it is the system that is created and the difference. that is the system but i am trying to adjust and highlighted the need to change.

the system does not work for some people. we blame them for being stupid for not being able to handle their own lives. we never let them open the. -- open up. >> [unintelligible]

[unintelligible] >> it to be an honor to carry out their responsibility. i keep saying and doing the same things. a wanted bigger platform to work through. -- i wanted a bigger platform to work through. i will say yes, of course, as long as i can do the things that i always said that should be done. poverty in bangladesh [unintelligible] the latest would be 40%. poverty is declining.

we are hoping to achieve the goal of 2015. that to be to cut poverty in half. we are on track, also. of course we can do much better. that is for sure. lots of things have to change to do better. one thing that will hold a speck -- hold us back would be affected by the global crisis. when you see 8 million people, it is 8 million borrowers, 8 million families. 8 million families, five in a family, the talk about four -- 40 million people.

the authorities are people under poverty. -- you have a 40% people under poverty. together i think we come to about 80% of the families covered. i will make sure we get to the 100%. it will probably take years. we lend money to one of the family, the women. each woman represents a family. one problem we have and bangladeshis the we have so many organizations and a lot of overlap. for one family, several organizations have lent money. if you take 25% out of

overlapping, you still have 80% of the poor people. we should be proud of this. we have done something and it worked. despite all the disasters and floods and cyclones. it works for the that is the most important thing. -- it worse. that is the most important thing. c-span.or [unintelligible] these family are not reached by healthcare. healthcare is very important. most of the time we make money

and paid for healers to overcoming what probably have. you are wasting your money. this is not a cure. this is getting your disease more worse. then you bring state-of-the-art health care. that is what we are paying attention to. we are trying to build up other qualities. bangladesh has seen a shortage. this is change that we do not have yet. we need to fill this gap and

change the family is. globally there is a big shortage. [unintelligible] they will be available for the whole world. that'll be made -- will bring a difference in their families and their personal lives. a village girl now works in a place for country and is getting used to health care. we should take pride in that. we are creating that. we are hoping it'll bring lots of changes in our health-care system. we want to use some of the village level. -- use them at the village level. >> as the world recovers from the financial crisis, there is

talk of reforming the worldwide financial system. if countries can get together and do that then bankers from wall street in the city in london are going to be highly influential. it seems to me if i were one of them and they needed a socialist organization, probably people on wall street -- how you overcome that attitude? i assume you did not have near the leverage of goldman sachs or citigroup. how do you fight that attitude? >> they did not get the mdeal. we will have a bigger -- they did not get the medal.

we will get the bigger boys. -- voice. that should be a strong voice. let them do what they have to do. wall street will be doing their job. i'm saying those that are not wall street or citigroup like us, we should be doing our thing. we should not be waiting for them to change and change as. we should be working for us. if you believe it is a good idea, we should be doing our work. we do not care. if they see that when the crisis comes it collapses, if they did not want to learn from us, it is their problem.

they have built some institutions which is the slightest deviation and it will stop collapsing. it is getting weakness in the system. it is a system that works globally in every single environment. we do not have any collateral. it keeps on running. that is the interesting part of the grameen america. other businesses are collapsing around them but they are not. if this had no impact on them. this is the right one that i'm talking about. we can build a system where we can adjust the poor people. we can adjust unemployment.

nobody can solve that. all but we have learned in our textbooks. all these years, we have given every month. it is simply giving taxpayers' money to take care of yourself. why? we can do self employment. we can build a credit system. not every single unemployed system will go into it. there were build their unemployment. -- they will build their unemployment. i'm a skilled person. why should i be sitting around? is a dignified way of taking care of yourself. i can do my own business. i am on my own. i know how to do this.

we can create social business to create unemployment. if i can invest, the reason i created it is not to make money for myself. and gave it to employ people.

scholar at the american enterprise institute, and i would like to welcome you to what is our second annual what the hell is august and we're going to hold a conference anyway. somebody reminded me of this this morning. it was just a year ago that w we -- two weeks after the collapse, the fifth or sixth collapse of the doha round talks. we decided, well, we should really take a look at what happened and maybe not wait until september. and the thinking was, well, what is hell, are we just going to have a couple of us sitting around a table because will anybody be here? well, my faith in the trade mafia was -- was sustained by the fact we had 150 people sign up, which is just about what we

had this morning. so we had a very successful morning a year ago and i'm sure we will this year. we have an excellent panel and i will introduce them in a minute. i'd just like to make a couple of preliminary remarks stepping back a little bit and seeing trade policy in a larger conte context. before i do that, i have to remind myself and we should remind our speakers this morning and you that with the obama administration coming in in the midst of a huge financial crisis, the deepest recession since 1930's, problems in afghanistan, problems in iran, hillary clinton going off -- up the wall yesterday in africa, or a couple days ago, it seems like these people have been in office for some time. but we have to remind ourselves, this is a six-month assessment. and, indeed, to be fair to the administration, ron kirk, the u.s. trade representative, still

doesn't have his full staff. i think the senate is holding up one of his key appointments. and so i think there are preliminary judgments to be made, we should be careful. that said, of course, this is washington and this is a think tank and we have speakers who write on these things. we will make some preliminary judgments. i'd just like to make three -- points in three areas. relating to the -- the limitation -- potential limitations, the barriers, the challenges and also the opportunities that president obama has moving forward in the trade area. the first relates i'd say to the political situation he faces and the political situation he faces within his own party. as i said in a couple of earlier remarks that others -- at other venues, it going back to the pogo cliche, "we have met the enemy and he is us." so mr. obama's first set of

challenges go right to the congress and specifically in the house of representatives where i think there is a substantial minority -- and i'll leave to the others here -- of democrats who are really -- have come to office and, indeed, been elected on platforms that are substantially antiglobal or globally -- or skeptical of global trends and events. we have to be very careful. i don't think this is necessarily protectionist. it's certainly not that they are protectionist in the sense that they are going to go out and push for smoot-hawley tariffs. but it certainly does say, at least in the house of representatives, there are a group of congressmen who really think that we ought to have a wholly new trade policy and think that the president was actually on their side when at least part of his campaigning, and certainly in the primaries, that he also espoused this cause. i would just point out to you the relatively new democratic working groups in the -- in the

house. the so-called trade working group, which has about 60-odd members, the populous caucus. a number of these members, by the way, were elected in 2006 and 2008. more than half, about 60%, 65% of the democrats who came in after the 2006 election had run explicitly on antiglobal platforms. when they turned -- when they talked to pelosi, they could say, you know, we didn't hide what we stood for. the other thing -- the other point politically i think that's important, they often were in districts that were -- that had been previously republican districts, remember that marginal districts that pelosi and the leadership really wants to hold onto. so they have some power. i don't want to go -- i don't want to push this too far. just signing up for a caucus or just putting in a bill as the -- the house trade working group did in june, which is the bill -- the so-called trade bill

t-r-a-d-e, the normal cute ack nymphs that congress is fond of, which really calls for big changes in u.s. trade policy. just signing that bill is not inevitable that people will work for it. but it is important that the trading group got over a hundred and now i think it's 125 democratic representatives to sign on to that bill. that leads me to a second point and to go back to 2006. the democratic era in trade did not begin in 2008 with the election of president obama. this may be true in other areas, but certainly in trade it began in 2006. and the house leadership as well as the senate leadership for the two years before obama came into office were used to making judgments on policy, and particularly in trade, on their own, without guidance or having to pay attention to a white house. in fact, they were at odds always with the bush white house. and so you have a situation

where the congress has already begun to take the lead, and without going into detail now, as you know, the house forced the bush administration to compromise on the trade promotion -- new trade promotion authority rules for free trade agreements. phil levy, my colleague and i, were called over to the ustr because we opposed that compromise and we were accused by sue schwabb -- not so much sue but her lieutenants of being ideologues and rigid. we thought, as it turned out, the administration was not going to get anything out of it -- they didn't -- but in any event, you had a major change in trade policy, at least in items of the t.p.a., even before obama got in office. and i would say that behind that -- and this is what's going to be interesting to see play out -- is an increasing restiveness in congress that is i think bipartisan to a degree with the grant of authority that the congress has given over the last 50 years to the executive. this transcends the partisan

differences. it was hidden under bush because it was the congress versus bush. now in some cases it may very well be the congress having a different view -- excuse me, a view of things than the executive. and we will see how this plays out. there are proposals kicking around for an independent chief enforcement officer. the key will be when the obama administration, if it ever does -- and i think it will -- goes back to congress for renewal of trade promotion authority. what will congress ask, how will it want to increase its own part of the process and what will be the reaction of the bush administration people? i remember, again, phil and i met as the loyal opposition to a number of the transition people of the bush -- of the obama administration in late 2008 and early 2009, and one of the points we made to them was hey, it's your government now. it's going to be your president the congress may come after in

terms of congressional authority, and that's going to be the challenge to you. it's not -- you no longer have bush to kick around, as it were, any longer. and that leads me to a final point in terms of the congress versus the president and that is president obama's own leadership style and what that portends or may not portend for trade. there's a very interesting article this morning i just noticed before coming up here in the "wall street journal," the point of which is that in terms of his own personal staff, particularly the economists on his staff, obama is a detail g guy. he wants to get in, he wants to know all kinds of things about the implications of economic policy that are -- that he and his administration will propose and what the -- what are the arguments against it. that struck me as an amazing contrast with the way that he has handled major issues since he's come in office and in dealing with congress, where his style of leadership has been not to get involved in details, to hang back, to let congress sweat the details.

now, just as a footnote, my colleague, norm ornstein, wrote a piece about a month ago challenging pieces of clive crook in the "financial times" and others in the "post" have written criticizing the style of leadership. norman argued that given what h called the dysfunctionality of congress, it was better for the president to hang back. i then wrote a piece that said, i won't challenge you -- though i don't agree with you, i won't challenge you really on the stimulus package or health care, but in trade, if the president hangs back, it's going to be a disaster, because particularly in the house, i think there's a lot of mischief that will come forward. and we've seen this -- i'm not going to go into details, some of my colleagues here may talk about this -- we have seen this with such things as "buy america," with the amendment that cut off the -- the small programs with the mexican trucks and coming down the road of equal and more important i think -- and we don't know how this will play out -- is a

direct challenge to presidential authority on the climate change bill, where the proposed tariffs down the road really are the -- the way they're implemented really greatly constrict the president's ability to intervene in the national interest. so that you have i think as a background these three points, at least in my view, to look at. the one, the political situation he faces. second, the institutional. and, third, his own style of leadership and what that means for trade. let me turn to our -- to our panelists and i will go down in the order that they're going to speak. we'll be led off with an overview actually by chris -- by bruce stokes, who is the international economics columnist for the "national journal." he is also a senior fellow at the council of foreign relations and i think currently also a transatlantic fellow for the german marshall fund. my colleague, phil leavey, who's a resident scholar here at the american enterprise institute

will follow. phil, before he came to a.e.i. in 2006, was a member of the policy planning staff for the secretary of state, and before that he had been a senior economist on the council of economic advisors, and before that he had taught economics at yale. third, ed gretzer, is a senior fellow at the democratic leadership council. he has also been -- i don't know whether this was a joint appointment earlier -- the democratic leadership council and the progressive policy institute. before that, the last two years of the clinton administration, he was an advisor to the u.s. trade representative, charlene barshefsky. and before that, he had been a trade advisor or staff person for senator max baucus. finally is don murphy, who is the vice president for international affairs at the u.s. chamber of commerce. he has been at the chamber for awhile. before he was vice chairma vicer international affairs, he headed

their division for latin america, and before that, he had been a staff member at the republican -- at the independent republican institute. so why don't we get started. we'll go with all four of our speakers and then we'll go for questions and comments. >> thanks, clyde. it's a really pleasure to be here. and i, too, am impressed with the turnout or the crowd. you should all be proud of yourselves for turning out on an august morning for a discussion about something as arcane as trade, something we all love and near and dear to our heart and obviously is near and dear to your heart. so it's great to see you all here. i see my task this morning is to lay out, if i can, a bit the political environment in which a trade policy debate will take place, assuming we actually get one eventually. as claude mentioned, we really haven't had one yet in this administration. and i think the -- the shorthand story there is that the

narrative that we have come to know and love about public attitudes towards trade is only half right. i do not think there is evidence of rising protectionism. in fact, among the body politic, it may be just the opposite. but certainly if it's not the opposite, at least there's some openings there for this administration to do some things. so i will i think confound some of your presuppositions about public attitudes. unfortunately, i will confirm some other of your presuppositions about public attitudes about trade. so it's a mixed message, at the very least. and then also i'd like to talk just briefly about what i think are some -- should be some of the framing concepts of new trade policy, if and when we ever get one. but let's start with the public attitudes first. this is the story we've all come to know and love about public attitudes towards trade using

data from last year. basically, the public thinks that trade leads to job losses. this is coming from the pugh research center surveys. nothing surprising me there except that it's disturbing that there's been such an increase in just two years in terms of concern about jobs. the public believes that the trade lowers wages. i would point out to you that their experience over the last generation is that their wages haven't increased and that in economic theory, if you dump several hundred million more people into the global labor pool, in fact, it should have a depressing effect on wages. so as much as we might lament this concern and quibble about the details, the public may actually have their -- have a sensibility about some of the impacts of trade on their

livelihoods that those of us who are more immune from this don't fully appreciate. this is probably the most disturbing statistic from 2008 and that is that the public basically -- a plurality of the public, not a majority, a plurality of the public basically rejects the economic argument that trade lowers consumer prices. one of the arguments that we've all come to know and love is that globalization helps consumers because it lowers prices. the public may be wrong about this but a plurality of them believe it doesn't, and i think this is something that shapes and frames the political debate going forward. this is an indication, though, that something's happening out there in the public opinion around trade issues. notice these are 2009 data.

it's a survey by cnn, and it shows a dramatic increase in the public's view that trade creates an opportunity for the economy. notice that it had been going down from 2007 and 2008 and then jumped back up in 2009 right at the time of the april primarie primaries -- no, i'm sorry, a year after the april primaries in 2008, when trade was taking a pretty bad rap. something has happened here. i think we can attribute it to a number of things. this is probably mostly the obama bounce. people trust obama. if oh bam man obama pursues tran maybe we can trust it again t. creates an opportunity for the economy. i'm surmising this -- we don't know this for a fact -- but to see that kind of increase in change, we have to think what else was happening in the economy at the time. the economy was getting worse, so what else was happening in the body politic. we had a new president that

people believed in overwhelmingly. but it may also reflect the fact that in bad times, as we knew in the recession in the early 1990's, in bad times, people actually became desperate and they were looking for anything that could help bowie the economy. an-- could help buoy the econom. we can't draw firm conclusions about this but i think this is a good sign for the administration and for the country. this is from a "new york times" poll, again, in april of 2009. trade good for the u.s. econom economy -- note there's been a jump from march of 2008. this is not what one would have expected given the trajectory of the overall economy during that period. it confounds the narrative we've all come to know and love. but i think we need to integrate this data. we have to understand that our simplistic assumptions about public attitudes are just that, they're simplistic.

there's more turmoil out there in public opinion than we'd like to accept. this is from pue data, the pue global attitude survey done this summer, so it's even more recent data. again, you can see that there's been a dramatic increase in the number of americans who say that trade is good or somewhat good for the country. you see a similar bounce in pue data when they ask a second question, which is "is it good for you and your family?" now, there's two ways to interpret this data. the u.s. in 2008 had the lowest percentage of its population -- barely half -- who said that trade was good for the country among 27 countries that were surveyed. in 2009, we were still the second lowest but it had jumped up to 65. it had gone from basically half to two-thirds. so we are still significantly below european populations in our appreciation for the value of trade.

but things have rebounded in a very significant way. and whether that's because people are desperate and they're looking for anything to buoy the economy and they're looking for trade, or whether it's because they have faith in obama and they didn't have faith in bush, is at some point probably i relevant from the viewpoint of the obama administration. there's an opportunity to do things here that didn't exist in bush's last year. a second opportunity. this again comes from pue and they ask the question: "are free trade agreements good for the united states?" and bear in mind, this is slightly different from "is trade good?" in other words, this is an act of the u.s. government. this is a policy that congress has to vote on. and, in fact, there's been a sharp increase in the percentage of people who believe it. a plurality now believe that free trade agreements are good for the country.

last year a plurality believed they were bad for the country. it's not overwhelming. it's not 70% or 80% think they're good. it's probably not what economists would like to see. but, in fact, there seems to have been a turnaround in public opinion, again an opportunity has been created here that the administration may want to try to take advantage of. one final myth i want to try to explode in this presentation and it's this one. let me find it. it's not moving. fine. the slide that's not up there that i would be happy to send to all of you, is again a slide again from the pue data of this summer. democrats now believe trade is good for the country more than republicans or independents. now, this doesn't speak to claude's point about the dim i e

democratic composition of congress, which, of course, is the initial issue. but again, this perception that democrats are somehow isolationists and have their head in the sand is not borne out by the data. and i can tell you from other data that has yet to be released, democrats are less likely to support "buy america" provisions than are republicans. so it does seem to me that there is an opportunity here for the administration to make progress. final point and that is what should be, it sometimes me, the lessons we learn from the great recession as we go forward to shape a policy in the new obama administration? after the great depression, after the mistakes of smoot-hawley, in the post-war era, we used those lessons to shape american trade policy that shaped american trade policy for half a century, for two generations.

it does seem to me there are lessons we may want to draw from the great recession to shape policy going forward. one is, we have to have a trade policy that supports a sustainable current account deficit. our current account deficit of 5% to 6% of g.d.p. was unsustainable and, as herb stein used to say, things that are unsustainable aren't sustained. we had a crisis. we're now moving towards a current trade deficit of 2% to 3% of g.d.p. most economists believe that's more sustainable, so we have to have a trade policy that supports that. i would be the first one to point out, trade policy is not the main way to support that. there are all sorts of other ways: currency policy, domestic policy. trade policy is not on one element. but that should be one of the framing policies. the goal should be to have a sustainable current account deficit. it doesn't have to be zero but it should not go back to 5% to 6% of g.d.p., and if it does, we're courting trouble again. to do that, i would suggest that we need to think more about reciprocity and balance of

benefits in trade agreements. these are both elements of the gap which have not been afloyd to past trade a-- applied to past trade agreements because we thought they were -- did not serve our interests. we may want to rethink that. and, second, we need a trade policy that convinces both industry and the people that this trade policy will benefit them. to that extent, it seems to me we need a trade policy that's based on standards, technological standards that ensure the competitiveness of american industry. the chinese are pursuing these kind of standard-based trade policies. we need to be in that game. i would argue we need to be in that game with the europeans. and we need a standards-based trade policy that convinces consumers that imports are good for them. and i think this raises the issue of health and safety issues primarily. we need to convince mothers out there who are feeding their children vitamins and imported

food that it won't make them sick. economists' argument that over time, labor rights will improve if you just give a couple -- give a country a couple generations, or environmental standards will improve if you just give a country a couple of generations doesn't help that mother who's worried about what she's feeding her baby today. and we need a trade policy that assures that mother that, as globalization proceeds and more and more of what she puts in her baby's body is imported, that it's safe, that it meets the highest possible standards. none of those pillars of a new trade policy are going to be easy and they're all fraught with potential abuse, but it does seem to me thathat's the lesson we need to learn from the great recession and from the public unease about trade that we see in the data. thank you. >> thank you, bruce. a great start. and some food for questions and back and forth in disagreement later. phil? >> all right. thank you. and good morning to everyone. in my remarks, i'm going to touch on some of the theme as

that claude and i put forward in our recent international economic outlook, "in search of an obama trade policy," which is available on the event web site. the four themes that i'm going to touch on are, first, the useful ambiguity of president obama's stance on trade, both as a senator and then a presidential candidate. second, the way trade policy in this administration has been shaped not by any grand strategy but in reaction to prompts from others, particularly the congress. third, and claude has mentioned this a little bit already, the constraints that the administration faces at home and abroad in dealing with trade policy. and then i'll close a bit with some upcoming events and decision points that may tell us more about the administration's plans on trade. okay. first, trying to discern where the president's true sympathies lie on trade. well, for the last several decades, you could figure out roughly where a president was going to stand on trade from the positions they held held in theiin theircareers and campaigp

to the elections there. would be the occasional surprise on the way they approached a particular issue, but from both parties, they were broadly committed to trade and globalization and they governed that way. president obama was somewhat different. one of his great political achievements actually was to persuade both protectionist interests and committed multilateralists in this country that his true sympathies were with them. he would rate eloquently of the benefits of trade and describe himself as a free trader. then he would stand before the assembled masses in ohio and argue that nafta had cost a million jobs. he'd argue for a friendlier, more multilateral approach to the world and assert that we should listen better to our allies and stop bullying them. and then he would oppose free trade agreements such as the one with colombia unless the colombians would do jus what we told them. from a political standpoint, that ambiguity was and remains exceedingly useful. there are strong risks within the democratic party on trade. some within the republican party as well. but in the democratic party in particular, it can be a touchy

topic. were president obama to take a clear stance, he would run a serious risk of offending a group that he needs for his other ambitious endeavors. of course, the president could attempt to heal that rift but that would take substantial effort on his part and he he prefers to devote his energies to other matters. the difficulty, of course, is that presidents are often compelled to make decisions and even inaction can sometimes have serious implications. so with that, let me turn to my second point and here i'll paraphrase the bard. some come to wofs a trade policy. some craft a trade policy when they get there. and some have trade policy thrust upon them. the obama administration falls into this latter category. i think the administration probably would have been quite happy had it been able to pass through all of 2009 with trade remaining quiescent. instead, within the first weeks of taking office, they had to deal with congress's push to limit stimulus found american producers. the notorious "buy america"

language. i won't say too much about this since i know that at least one of my colleagues is going to address -- on the panel is going to address this but let me just offer one corrective to a common interpretation of that episode. in the common telling, congress began foaming at the mouth and slabbering about protectionism. president obama then calmly and cooled reined congress back in by supporting an amendment requiring us to honor our international obligations. the problem with this version is that five days before the president made his position clear, his vice president had spoken on the issue on cnbc. and vice president biden said, i don't think there's anything that's anticompetitive or antitrade in saying when we're stimulating the u.s. economy, the purpose is to create u.s. jobs. i don't view that as some as the pure free traders view it, as protectionism. i think it's important to have buy america provisions. vice president omitted honoring w.t.o. or nafta. that came later. president obama's modest effort to rein the fervor applied not

only to congress but also through his administration. i bring this up on how the schizophrenia on trade policy has persisted as the administration has gone up. there are free traders in the administration and more who take a more skeptical view. the buy america episode was followed by others, as claude mentioned, notably the killing of the program to permit mexican trucks to operate across the border, a nafta obligation, and restrictions to imports of chinese chicken, which they've challenged at the w.t.o. in each case, congress took the lead. in some of the cases, the president expressed his discomfort with the protectionist act but signed them into law, nonetheless. this pattern seemed to repeat itself on a more threatening scale when the house passed its cap-and-trade bill a month or two ago. the administration was deeply involved in negotiations over what that bill would contain, presumably the administration has some clout with a congress completely controlled by the president's party, yet the legislation emerged from the house with strong trade protection requirements. the president quickly denounced those in "the new york times" but this apparently had not been

a red line for his team dealing with them on the hill. now, there had been some positive signs in the administration on trade despite explicit campaign pledges to the contrary, the administration chose not to label china a currency manipulator and the u.s. trade representative ron kirk came out in may with a very forward-leaning speech or series of speeches in which he advocated moving forward with stalled trade agreements. shortly after those speeches, however, the white house clarified that it was ready to do no such thing, drawing criticism from both senators baucus and grassley of the senate finance committee. so the ambiguity on trade persists. the third category, to be fair to the president, he is fairly hemmed in on trade. his party has spent a decade and a half espousing the view that trade agreements are only acceptable if they have strong labor and environmental measures. here, i would just note, by the way, as a card-carrying economist, that the reluctance to -- to go for trade environmental measures has nothing to do with whether one requires food safety.

>restoring that authority be a simple act of resuscitating what was allowed to lapse earlier. in the rush to kill the -- or to forestall at least the colombia free trade agreement, the house demonstrated the old approach to trade promotion authority was fundamentally inadequate. so that would be a difficult challenge even should the administration decide to move forward. let me move to my final set of points and that is what does all this mean going forward, what

can we predict about administration trade policy? well, i think it's clear that this little or near-term likelihood that anything will happen on panama, colombia or south korea. the administration has said as much. instead, i think we can focus on three potential battlefields where we could see some action: enforcement, administer protection and doha. first, enforcement. this summer, the administration announced that enforcement was going to be a central element of its trade policy. this plays to a belief that the bush administration had failed to enforce the u.s. rights under existing agreements. now, it's not yet clear whether this enforcement policy is going to rely mostly on more asituation or new dispute cases. either approach is going to face difficulties. more assuation presumes that the critic holds the moral high ground and that may not be how the u.s. is perceived following the first six months of trade policy. if it's new dispute cases, there are several hurdles. first, there's the gap between what existing agreements say and what we wish they said. we saw this in part -- or in the

parts of the case that the u.s. lost against china on intellectual property enforcement not long ago. second, one needs a complai comt to push a case and that was a long-standing problem in cases involving china in particular. and finally, a raft of new dispute cases likely to strain the w.t.o., particularly if this represents a policy of litigation in lieu of negotiation. so some difficulties on the enforcement front. on administer protection, of course the big case to watch is the section 421 case on chinese tires. this is a case filed not by domestic tire producers but by labor interests. now, if you were trying to discern a couple of rules to explain obama administration behavior, two that have ruled reasonably well in the past is one, don't annoy the chinese, after all, they're playing for the administration's grand plan. and two, don't annoy labor interests. after all, they're the political base. here those rules kind of come into conflict. both labor interests and the chinese have highlighted the upcoming decision on chinese tires one, as an opportunity to write past wrongs and pursue a more balanced trade policy. the other is a test of whether the administration is really

protectionist. and we'll know by mid-september when the president's tire decision is due which -- which constituency is going to win out. finally, on doha, the president has joined repeatedly his g-20 and g-8 colleagues in calling for a successful conclusion. but how do you get there? will the president take the lead in arguing for scaled-back agricultural subsidies? that would be a reversal from his campaign stance but he's shown his ability to do that before. and how would he deal with the diminished enthusiasm of key service and manufacturing industry groups for the deal that was on the table last summer? that would take a substantial investment of political capital. so far, the administration has not done a great deal beyond stating the goal of a successful conclusion. that neglect has actually been noted abroad. there was one story of how last month a leader in brazil suggested his country would focus more on regional agreements in the e.u. since the u.s. had turned away from doha. perhaps one might argue that the time is not right this year but maybe next year will be better t. may be, though i haven't heard an awful lot of people

argue that election years in the u.s. are the ideal time for passing broad trade agreements. i don't want to ends on such a down note. i'm sure ed will explain why things are really okay. but let me just offer my own feeble attempt at optimism. so i think the president was entirely sincere in his desire for warmer relations with the rest of the world. summitry of the g-20 or three amigos sort is likely to demonstrate the importance that the rest of the world places on trade relations. so my hope is that this may prompt the president to step up his game on trade policy. and with that, i'm concluded. >> thank you, phil. there's another event that may or may not be interestin be actg and that is the president is hosting the g-20 summit in pritsberg. the administration has promised at various times in the late snraing they had a trade policy review that was supposed to go through the spring. it's now finished but we never heard anything about it. in relation to that, they said, well, the president's going to

make a speech, a big trade speech sometime the end of the summer, early september, and they have pointed to the time before the pittsburgh meeting. so we'll see. that's certainly something that will be noted if he doesn't do it. our next speaker is ed gretzer. i should say before i turn to ed, phil mentioned we don't give out the paper of -- or papers these days b if you'll go to the web site, the event web site at a.e.i., each of us has papers on trade policy. and what i mentioned before i introduce ed, he's just done i think in the last month a paper for the democratic leadership council called "more growth, less gridlock toward a new trade agenda. : recommendations to the administration on trade policy." i'm sure he'll be talking about that now. ed? >> yeah, thank you very much. thank you so much for inviting me. and i echo my colleagues on the panel, thank you all for coming out this morning. i think i'll start where phil left off, with, as he said, a

couple of reasons to think things aren't so bleak, as dr. levy was portraying them, and also one reason to think things are much more bleak. the reason things are much more bleak is that we're living really through a once-in-a-century event in the world's trade. since, you know, this morning, u.s. census released its monthly trade data. this shows the first six months of trade in the united states. they showed that last year, the first six months of 2008, we imported $1.3 billion worth of goods and services. this year, $0.9 billion. the first six months of last year, we exported $0.92 trillion worth of goods and services. this year, $0.75 trillion. this is a decline in trade that has not happened since 1937, did not happen during the second world war, did not happen during the crisis -- economic crisis of the 1970's, did not happen in

the early 1990's. so u.s. trade has contracted in a way that none of us now living can remember. so the real world of trade for people who buy and sell things is pretty bad. . this has been the pattern in every administration. the last three republican

administrations have done it all safeguards. the things that the obama f@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ r that has been built up. i think it will serve the country pretty well over the next four years. then we move on to the policy agenda. i think when you look at the

administration, you see a group of people who have a real sense of mission. you feel that they were elated to do some things that are big and important. they need to oversee a recovery from the financial crisis. they need to improve the american standing in world in general and reshape our standing with the muslim world in particular. they feel that we need to give the american people some additional sense of security and stability in a time of economic crisis and some long-term changes in the economy that are troubling. when global economy policies fit into those priorities, i think the administration has been bold in facing down opponents within the public and within its own party. i would talk to the launch of the china and u.s. strategic dialogue, some substantial revision, and the revision of food safety programs.

that effort is in the face of pressure to keep world markets open. you'd think that this is globalization policy writ large, i think that they're doing pretty well. if you think of trade policy as narrowly and purely, it is an open question and a work in progress. the big problem that trade at its face and the problem the administration is trying to work through is that the agenda it has before it does not relate that the national priorities very well, is not all that ambitious, and it's not when you conducted the public with and say this will make your life better or serve national- security needs very well. let me run through it. three free trade initiative -- agreements inherited, with south korea, colombia, and panama.

i would also say that the centrality of fdta has not all - has not been net productive for us. the fta's -- there have been 14 relationships and eight agreements, something like that. they have covered about 8% of u.s. as -- exports. on the export side, you see some good growth but it is a marginal contribution to our overall portfolio. on the other side, there is a loss of share. they now have 3.7% of u.s. imports, those countries. they have not been all that effective. as a tool to help the u.s. economy in general, they have been marginal. as long as that the economy, the countries that we have most of

our trade with, china, japan, and india, and brazil, as long as they are there, been the fta problem is marginal. and then you have done doha round, it essential to poor countries and i think american farmers and ranchers have a bad case that their industry is more restricted and limited by foreign trade and any other. but agriculture is 8% of american exports. it is not going to grow even if there is a successful doha round. igiven that trade is a dissident and difficult issue within the democratic party, i think that if the administration is going to make a big push for trade and spend capital on it, it has to have a different agenda that will do more for america as an economy and do more for our

national security goals as a nation. let me give three points from my paper that i would like to say. one is, we need to look harder at ourselves and our own policies. they are not very good. if you look at the american system, we collect $25 million of tariffs every year. that comes from textiles and shoes and luggage. industries that employ very few people here by our of overwhelming importance to the exports of some very core countries in asia such as cambodia and bangladesh and so forth. and to some very security sensitive countries, pakistan in particular. pakistan has $3.5 billion of exports in the u.s.. reimpose a penalty on those products every year. meanwhile, the ministration is

trying to get congress to get at this time $1.5 billion each year to promote growth and job security and job employment there. but one industry that is absolutely producing jobs today. this is not a sensible or reasonable approach. we need to look at ourselves and fix our policies that are damaging to our foreign policy goals and our national security needs. second, i think as an economic modern trade policy needs to be oriented away from fta's and toward the large industries that have employers here and our main trading partners. i point in particular to information and media, to environment and energy technologies. that would create employment and growth. industries like health services and medical technologies. these are areas that americans look to as big employers and to

secure america's leadership in the future. i think that they need to replace the fta's. this should be through the doha round and if not, and then modeled on the information technology agreement of the 1990's. and it needs to do more to look to the future. we will have in the decade many new industries that we do not have now. they in there -- they emerged from the internet and nanotechnology and biotechnology. they will arouse new and difficult issues. we've seen a lot of the beat about technology and privacy. we should be working now, particularly with europe, japan, and australia, probably with korea, to define a set of standards and product approvals and so forth that will allow these industries to grow and contribute to much -- to us in

to the rest of the world as they should. and if we have that sort of set of issues to deal with in trade, things that will really help us deal with our great security problems and national press, will contribute to the hopes and growth in employment, then the administration can go to the public and congress and say that it is important that we do something difficult because the work -- the rewards will be very great. i think the burden is on trade advocates as well as the administration to develop the ideas and policies that will allow us to do that. this trade policy will be worthwhile. >> thank you. >> it is a pleasure to be here this morning with this distinguished panel to think about the obama administration's trade policy so far. as you have heard, the president

will outline his vision for a new framework for trade in a speech at some point in the weeks or months ahead. but while we have been waiting for the speech, trade policy has not been dormant. this is not been a good thing. there have been concerns about creeping protectionism and the cost of inaction on the pending trade agreements and negotiations. i will try to briefly assessed these issues from the perspective of the business community and offer some thoughts on a hopeful trade agenda that eight -- that perhaps the obama agenda can -- the obama administration can believe in. what protectionist measures have been undertaken by the obama administration and the 111th congress? what has captured the attention in an alarming way for the business community? this has been a terrible recession and pressures for protectionism have risen. a couple of months ago, the world bank reported that the

nations that had pledged not to engage in protectionism, they had none the less done so. to cut to the chase, it would be an exaggeration to say that the world has been descending into the maelstrom of protectionism. we should be vigilant as the cost of isolation can be high, but this is not 1930. we are in general seem the wto rules and the other trade agreements serving as an effective brake on protectionist impulses. so far those rules are being respected. there are a couple of dangerous exceptions and i would like to zero in on one of them, the buy american mandates and recovery act. as you dig into it, you see how serious it truly has been for many people in the business community. due in part to objections from the business community and major trading partners such as the european union and canada, the recovery act was indeed amended so that the buy american

mandates were limited. it had to conform to u.s. commitments under the wto agreements and others. that result in large part of the difficulty at the federal level. however $280 billion in the recovery act spending is being channeled to states and municipalities. many of these are not constrained by those international agreements. outside of road building, states and municipalities have never been forced to comply with buy american rules in the past. nonetheless, the office of management by judgment -- the office of management by asman at issue and guidance for them to comply fully with buy american mandates. this is unprecedented. at a time of economic crisis and a stimulus package intended to spend money and create jobs quickly, this is retarding economic recovery.

this is not been a huge shot to the system appeared similar roles have been around for 30 years. it is elsewhere that we see the problem. there is a $130 billion north american market for water and wastewater treatment and equipment in infrastructure, and there we have a real mess on our hands. canadian arms are being excluded for u.s. miscible contracts and retaliation could result in lost business for u.s. companies. also the buy american rules are being interpreted in a way that bar at manufacturers for bidding on projects. that is because many u.s. manufacturers regard -- rely on global production change that in a great components from all round the world. if american manufacturers are finding it difficult to comply with buy american rules because it is impossible to avoid

outsourcing at least a portion of their content from other countries. the recovery act included $7 billion in funding for municipal water and waste-water projects. the house transportation and infrastructure committee reports that each billion dollars in infrastructure development creates about 35,000 jobs and an additional $6 billion in economic activity. do the math. that means that more than 200,000 jobs that this portion of the recovery act funds could save or create, if they were not tied up online yet but you can be sure that when it comes along, we will be hearing more about the cost in the sectors as well. i wanted to take a moment and focus on buy american, because it shows that whether we like it or not, trade policy happens. or as bill says, it is thrust upon us. in this case is happening in a damaging way with the job losses in a growing threat of retaliation. on monday, president obama was

in mexico any comment on buy american. he said, "we have not seen some sweeping steps toward protectionism. this is no way endangered the billion dollars of trade taken place between the canada and united states." in general, that is true. but it is a very serious problem. we have profiles of some small and medium-size companies, aquarius technologies of wisconsin, that are definitely facing lost sales and potentially a large lay off due to buy american rules.a&@ @ @ @

crossed. i will turn briefly to what the new administration has not done in trade policy. namely, its failure to move forward with the pending fta's. i will spare you a survey of the benefits of these agreements. the chamber believes that they will boost sales and bolster important allies. from the business perspective, the foremost goal of trade policy should be to tear down or and barristers -- foreign barriers to u.s. exports as these three agreements propose to do. they are alive and well and may pose a major competitive challenge to american agriculture and industry. in july the world economic forum issued a report which ranks countries around the globe according to their competitiveness in the trade arena. once the reports rankings gauges how wide that terrorists are in that country's exports face. leading that pack is cle with

a massive number of trade agreements with more than 50 countries. i am reaching for my visual aid. while the united states found that it did well in a number of area, we rank up but that 114th out of 121 in terms of tariffs faced by our exports overseas. in other words, american exporters face higher tariffs of brought in nearly all of our competitors. it may be a truism that 95% of the world's consumers live outside of the united states, but what are we doing to lower the barriers that prevent americans from selling to them? the last time that congress voted to lower barriers was 2007 when congress approved a free- trade agreement with peru. since then, the house has voted six times to lowest u.s. tariffs

on imports. why is it that so many in congress are pleased offer foreign workers free access to our markets, with 300 or 400 house members voting in favor, but they oppose helping american workers by lowering tariffs on as reciprocal basis? i have been wondering what to call this philosophy. mercantilist policies encourage exports and discourage imports. but there reigning philosophy and congress seems to be roughly the opposite, to encourage imports and exports happen as they may. i went to google and tried to find the opposite of mercantilism. i found that the best label for this exotic philosophy may be laissez-faire capitalism. but i would not want to insult anyone. do not misunderstand me bring that chamber is not calling for the united states to raise barriers to imports.

many grassroot ideas about lowering high tariffs that the u.s. imposes on some developing countries are measures that our members would strongly support. but this is not sustainable. and that which is not sustainable will not be sustained. this contradictory position is a particular threat to the democratic party. on more consistent and logical position would be to embrace reciprocal trade agreements, adjusted democrats have already embraced one-way free trade coming in. it would be more consistent to oppose trade liberalization consistently. this is a threat as well as an opportunity. most democrats are already pro import. a great communicator like president obama could find his way to be pro export as well. i would like to differ a little bit with ed's restrained

performance -- assessments of the performance of fta's. at a of a report came out on monday which says that of four of their recent agreements, they have exceeded expectations. growth in two-way trade route fro -- group. they were all higher than pre- fta growth rates. several areas of the economy made substantial gains in market share versus suppliers from other countries. i can tell you firsthand that the business community has found it extremely helpful. to close, i would offer three brief recommendations for trade agenda that i think the obama administration can embrace. earlier this year, the chamber issued a report entitled

"international engagement." it will be on the web site in an extended version but i will stick to my three points. first, though on the offensive. the administration will be stuck playing defense against buy american measures until it devises a trade policy of its own. the best defense is a good of sent -- offense. yet the administration had already did that, would be absurd trade act put forward by congress have attracted more than 100 supporters in house? of course not. the internationalist to run the administration, larry summers, ron kirk, timothy geithner, they understand this. the silence from the white house has left a vacuum, and congress like nature of voids of -- of course of backing. -- abhors a vacuum.

the united states cannot stand still in the international economic sphere. we need to revitalize our exports and international trade leadership by moving forward on a multilateral, regional, and bilateral marketing opportunities. second, clear the decks and pass the fta's. if you want to build a growth oriented international economic policies, as the administration has said that it wants to do, korea and the ftawith korea is the place to start. if you want have any type of engagement with the moderate governments of south america, and a columbiombia and back ftas the place to start. finally, embrace multilateralism. ed is just one of the number of

trade experts who have suggested that the big new trade deals of the future should be the glory- lateral sector agreements. also the proposed environmental goods and services agreement which would do away with a surprisingly high tariffs and non-tariff barriers facing green goods and services. but you cannot get there without doha. abandoning doha would deal a severe blow an embittered major trading partners around the world. the only way out is through. in bracing multilateralism seems a natural path for democrats and it is not clear why this has not already happened. a couple of months ago, jim bacchus spoke on climate change. he is a former congressman and a former chairman of the wto body, a unique combination. i wrote down a " of his.

"it puzzles me that my party, the democrats, but inconsistently and in a principal fashion embrace multilateralism but rejected in the one area, trade, where it has been most successful." the obama administration has a sterling opportunity here to change that. ladies and gentlemen, our economic circumstances are making trade more important, not less, and the chamber looks bored to working with the administration, congress, and many of you here today to it bans the trade policy that avoid protectionism, that wellcome's imports, and advances the expor interest of american workers and companies. >> there are a lot that individual points and questions from the individual presentations. but i want to turn to the audience. one general questions, the worst-case scenario.

it is not where i started from in this. and i know that the answer to this will lead you to conjectures about the overall political situation around the united states. but it seems to me that there as a plausible case to be made that if you go right to 2011, and i am picking up on things that people say. ed has made the point and others had made it that the administration says that they need a much better base internally, and that means domestic reform. initially they have said, and a late bush years, if we can bet -- -- if we can just get a big trade adjustment program. and still the administration goes on that any health care reform and other -- boosting up the social base in the united states. they seem to have decided in may

or june, we have not talked about this, that everything else will stop until then. they have not made that announcement but they have basicall pulled everything back. i don't see when that starts again. the fta's are a big problem, much bigger than doha. doha itself presents a problem with the major interest bridge in the united states have been told what is not acceptable. some people argue that if you go to 2010, it is too late because of the midterm elections. the administration at the moment is making heavy water on things like health care, finally making it better, but i can see is going into 2011 without much happening. and then you face 2012. what is the likelihood of something like that happening? >> now plays my bed and your

projection. -- i would place my bets on your projection. as much as we need a social safety net in the united states, and certainly the public support for globalization and trade in europe may impart reflect the fact that the competition created by globalization is not as endangering to individuals in europe as it is to the united states and the livelihood of their families and so forth. the administration's argument is really a delaying tactic. people are not going to overnight lose work. let's assume that in fact the premise is right and you need a stronger social safety net to build support for globalization in the united states. it will take years for people for that to say again, to understand that if they lose their job because of trade they are not going to lose their health care, and they will in

fact it retrain when they used to not get retrained, that in fact and employment might not be as onerous in the future as it is now. and the obama administration has done nothing to improve the underlying basis of unemployment insurance in the united states. i agree that it as a delaying tactic. even if all of this stuff gets passed, which is highly dubious, it would still take time for public opinion to change on these issues. so much of this is out of their control. progress and doha depends on our trading powers, the chinese and others, being willing to move, too. we have no evidence of that as of yet. >> ed has written about this in an article that i've often quoted, the differences within the democratic party.

we have to stop trade until we get a better social safety net. i dunno which are turned you on that is. >> to answer your direct question, there will have to be some -- it is very likely to be some trade policy fairly soon, and that several of our trade preference programs are going to go -- to lapse, blank out of existence at the end of this year. congress will have to decide whether to continue them, particularly the anti trade preference act. they will probably continue them so that will be some continuity. there is probably a window for the fta's early in the next year. it goes much lighter than that, it will be difficult. i don't think the wto m members had been talking about doing this. they're talking about completing

agreement sometime in 2010, a vote in 2011, so i do not think that there will be no trade policy activity. but either it will be fairly small and limited to preference, or what the preference + fta, or some other sort of thing. i think a really big trade legislated event is probably like nine -- probably not likely until 2011. >> the kind of things that you recommend about the secular agreement are moving toward new advanced technologies, that is something that someone will think about as a second obama administration. is that fair or not? >> when i was writing the paper, i was thinking about a four-year term. what can be reasonably accomplished within a four-year term?

you can to the support for them -- you can do this support for muslim countries and poor people this year. fta's can be done as part of doha. the information technology was about six or eight months' work. it had a lot of background. it would take longer to do something that was in other industries and it would take longer to is something that was really serious and involves services and non-tariff barriers as well as tariffs. but this is a reasonable four- year program. i was not thinking about a decade or an eight-year program. >> you ask a question, does the obama administration had a plan to broaden its base? how important is that nice? i would argue that the base is probably as support for trade. and that is not that bad. the free-trade agreement passed

by at 2-1 vote, probably one of the most bipartisan buzz that we saw in the last congress. trade adjustment assistance is probably a problem, but it was the one item that was negotiated at a bipartisan and bicameral basis. how big can that base grow? you can do all kinds of things to try to entice a dialogue with the working group, but will you ever win them over? this administration, if they are going to make it contingent on moving forward, they need have support of that magnitude, up to 400 house members. that is a very high bar and it becomes very difficult to accomplish. >> please identify yourself.

i am perfectly happy to not only accept questions but deck relations. but as long as they are reasonably short period cannot write an article here in front of the audience. we have a microphone going around. let me start right here because the microphone is here. >> thank you. i am a chinese reporter. thank you for all of you coming here. my question will be addressing that china case. based on a panelist observation on the limited record on trade policy, what kind of decision you think the president is going to make on this case? >> we're away from the big principles right to the nitty

gritty. >> if i had to guess, i would guess that there is some remedy. but it is really hard, and here's why. i tell you a story that goes in either direction. i did say, it is a similar conflict when it came to the decision to name china a currency manipulator. it was repeated, and it was the same conflict between the -- what the chinese government clearly wanted, and he opted to net -- not name china of currency manipulator in april. on the one hand, if you could say that that is really telling us where they're true preferences log. again, they will face similar choices. or you could say that put them deeper and hot. they need to make sure that -- they need to do something to appease their political base.

ipod toward that ladder, but you could tell either store -- i oughpt for the latter, but you could tell either story plausibly. it was a low hurdle that the u.s. could put import restrictions on china with a minor injury occurring to domestic industry. there are a number of such cases under the bush administration. i could participate in a couple of these decisions. it is a bilateral problems -- of bilateral policy in a multilateral world. great public concern about trade with china. there was pressure to do something. the problem was that whenever we look at the situation, what became clear was that if president bush had chosen some of these earlier cases to that, it would meant that imports coming from china would have

come from other places, vietnam, india, or brazil. even if we had only been worried about u.s. workers and not u.s. consumers, this would not have done anything for u.s. workers. these are some of the same discussions that we're seeing now. the problem is that there were strong philosophical approaches which said that the reason the bush administration did not do this was this ideological commitment to free trade and they are willing to sellout u.s. workers and things would not be any different. that premise would make it very hard to say, we just checked and there are more countries out there than just china and this might not actually do much. >> of political comment, because none of us are confident the deal with the technicalities of this particular case. as phil mentioned, surge protection was part of a deal to get congress to deal -- to mix

at dublin's -- wto admission for china. whether or not any of these cases merited its use, a lesson that people in congress who made this deal will clean from what the bush administration did -- and let's assume that the obama administration rejects the case as well -- is that you cannot trust these kinds of deals with the american -- with the executive branch. that makes trade agreements harder in the future because this was a face-saving measure of how people concerned with china coming into the wto. there is a political consequence that has to be considered very strongly. secondly, somehow we have to have an adult conversation with beijing about the fact that we can all walk and chew gum at the same time. we can fight over things and still work together. the chinese want it to be all or nothing. we have cases with the europeans on very difficult issues all the time. it does not impair our

discussions with the europeans on a whole range of issues. we tend to, whenever we have a trade fight with the chinese, find out that the chinese will not show up for meetings or talk in the meetings when we have them. their noses are out of joint. the chinese have to learn that in the real world of global trade politics, you cannot -- you can fight and talk at the same time. and again, purely diplomatic reasons, we send another signal to beijing that we do not want to upset to hear you will retaliate. we enable that dysfunctional behavior by the chinese and we should avoid that. >> bruce is right. rightly or wrongly -- and this could be bipartisan here -- a decision that goes along bowlines of bush administration, which i would support for other reasons, would feed into the skepticism of the legislator about the executive branch. i have to can see that.

-- i have to concede that there the president wants all the details. congress is going to come after you more. that would try to cut your off party, you're leeway, your discretion. i also think in terms of china, i think the chinese are finally beginning to be more comfortable with wto cases. we had this situation with the democrats beat up on the republicans. they had not done enough cases -- initiated enough cases against china when they knew the dirty secret. everyone had agreed, wto members, in order not to swamp the wto with cases, he would ease off. only after 2006 with the china -- they're all obligations. the chinese reacted as if somehow this respite that they

had was the way things ought to go for a long time. now they have realized that they are better off if the united states and the europeans and japan or whoever goes to wto than the alternative, which is unilateral or some sort of combination. i'll come right here. if i miss the on and on the back -- if i miss any on the back, please raise your hand. >> i am with the department of commerce. i was very intrigued by several speakers' comments moving on the concept of the information technology agreement. the trade environment in the world is quite different than it was windy fta was imposed in implemented. what d.c. as some of the political challenges to sectorial agreements? at a think our major trading

partners and bric countries would react? >> i will take a shot at it. i am skeptical of the secular approach. i am not sure that the problem is domestic problems, because you can pick your sectors. if we are setting the agenda, we picked a sector where you do not have those domestic political problems. the difficulty is finding a sector where you have lots of countries around the world to all see themselves as gaining from an agreement. in particular circumstances, information technology, although i have heard from some participants that they think that they were an error, that they should have been holding out concessions to get something unrelated. i completely agree with the premise. i think that deal is stouck and we need to think about

different things. we often need that to try to find a balance deal where you have the right numr of participants. that would be the question i pose. i'm skeptical that you would find those types of alignments on the international scene. >> those are reasonable concerns. i would say that there has been no multilateral trade agreements in 1998. there is reason to be skeptical about almost any initiative. trade hot -- trade policy is hard. it's hard to get countries to agree to anything and there are always reasons to say doha and agriculture is too hard. they're not many countries that want agricultural reform. that could be the fate of an environment and energy agreement. the path that we have been on since that is one where we have not had many agreements. if someone has a better idea

that will create as much growth and employment here, i welcome it. the path that we have been on doing gold standard fta's, pushing at her watch what -- nicaragua on the issues has not been productive. he and thinking that the big countries in the big iustries will be productive. >> the dirty secret is that the only way that we will get many of these guns is if we abandon the multi nation principle. that is apostasy in the trade theology. what i am struck with in private discussions with trade people all over town, is how often they volunteer the fact that we need to rethink that. i think that that is one of the challenges we are going to face,

intellectually and politically, going forward to enable that strategy, which i think is the right way to go. that is one of the obstacles we will have to wrestle with. >> one observation. i am not so convinced of that. if you look at the world as the industries, we get -- reticulate technologically sophisticated ones, there are only 10 or 12 countries that are participating. the others are bystanders. having an mfn-based policy was fine because it include all of them. i am not so convinced that you would have to make that choice. beyond that, because of all our preference is, we had made it already. we do not have many mfn policies except for those that wear white ita. -- that were like ita.

>> i am a lawyer in town. i was struck by the fact that working for the aba and trying to open markets for american lawyers, it has proven to be quite difficult. in fact, to the extent that we're successful, it is because we ignore the rules in other countries that would otherwise keep us out. i was struck by the fact that also -- all those services are 75% of our economy, all of this discussion of trade rest on the exchange of goods and farm products, and very little attention is paid to the services sector, which is such a significant part of our economy

for the u.s., it is more like 40%. we have won a bid heaviest service-trade portfolios in the world. any trade policy that does not have services as part of the objective is not serving america very well. >> i agree with that. we had a big breakthrough in services and the real political muscle was from services companies. they did not get everything they wanted but it seemed to the world and it seemed to them that they had gotten a lot. as you got to the doha round, it

did not get a lot of interest. and this was did doha development around. people paid little attention to services. belatedly, the service industries in the united states and around the world have awakened to the fact that they have been ignored. as a matter of fact, i think the bush administration was guilty here until the last year or so, when it finally began to say in the wto negotiations, if you cannot ignore services. that put forth proposals about ending the round last year which put services off as a second- class citizen. it stirred the services and stirred the administration. i cannot believe the obama administration is attuned to looking for political support without getting some in the final package, some advance in some sectors. the bad news for that is that it's very tough. it is coming to light.

the bricks have reacted against the united states, saying that you do not have to tell us what you will do, but we want something on the table with services. that is another point that the obama administration faces as well as manufacturing. our major is industry groups are saying what is on the table is not adequate. i will not see how that plays out. i am one keep going. [inaudible] >> barbara whitman, a trade economist who serves as a policy corners and -- as a policy coordinator. the striking point that i welcome from ed this morning is action on both preferences. john murphy talked about our standing as 114 out of 121

countries. that's a fact that there have been six agreements to pass lower tariffs. the final point that we have been addressing for a good long time, is that if we were very nice and gave poor countries access to our markets, and what has been the goal of all that reciprocal agreement, a one-way street to a two-way street. it would demonstrate our excellence. the general comment about fta f --ta's -- f.fta's and partners, i have worked both sides of the partners in its brief you get there one by one. you have to do with fta's but for having a common basis of understanding of having worked together. what i am looking at now in the fall or early next year -- we

have to deal with those programs in the fall. the problem with the preference programs [inaudible] they go on and on what that pattern were washington gives away our markets without getting any exports. part of that reason is that -- >> please get to the question. >> part of the reason is that we have a lot of people saying that is the way to do business in the washington. [inaudible] nobody seems to be convinced that we want a permanent reciprocal agreement. they want to be able to punish countries and take away their programs said they don't want to give them a permanent agreement. yesterday canada signed an agreement, and we have one

pending with panama. it's very likely that canada will ratify there's before ours. t think that this can put some pressure on our agreement? when we look at our competitive ranking, we did very badly. canada has jumped the market on us with several countries where we could not get it free. does anybody think yesterday's action will help us? >> no. the constraints are big enough that weather is the eu would call real or canada with panama, i have a hard time seeing that as a factor that will make the administration realize that trade is important. >> i disagree a little bit. i don't disagree with the administration but -- the eu- korea agreement, yet because through will set off, i think,

at least some pressure. and if you go with other middle sized -- it continues and there are a number of middle sized countries that will get to the point -- from a mercantilist point of view, which drives politics in the united states, there will be a reaction. it will be just like 2001. they will come to the caterpillar company and led general motors -- general like trick, whatever -- and say that we have got all these greatc dealsthesehile has that 15% tariff on tractors and we're getting screwed that we have to get paid now. how will work out, it may not be enough pressure. but when it gets to the point said ed made, we're getting to the point that you were talking about economies that are fairly large. in the future, whether it is

bilateral or we go to regional, the dynamics will change and the numbers would change about the impact on the u.s. economy. >> i hope the clock is right. -- claude is right. the most important thing is that you described a process that has been going on for the last two generations. trade policy has been the handmaiden of foreign policy. we all know as denizens of washington that the foreign- policy establishment in this town is stronger than the trade policy establishment. that will be hard to overcome. but i do think that one of the lessons of the great recession and the need to have a more sustainable current account balance is that we can no longer afford to always deferred his foreign-policy needs rather and economic needs.

they always trump foreign-policy needs and should not. the strongest argument for the pre-fta is a farm policy argument. but at the margin, if we insure ourselves that we have a more current account balance of going forward, it seems to me that there have to be greater priority placed on the economic -- reciprocal economic benefits for the united states. >> i am with mother jones global strategy. hnobody mentioned he cannot out until the last person. canada being the biggest trading partner with the u.s., i feel like the administration had been ignoring the complaints of prime minister harper about buy american. since there are many of jobs, thousands that were a light on

the relationship that we have with canada, is buy american really affecting this relationship or is it a provision that was added to please the labor groups that support obama to be elected? and that it will not have a long-term effect on this relationship? or is the u.s. taking for granted this relationship and always paying attention debt -- to those who make more noise, like china and mexico? >> i think it is not over yet. there is a temptation in this city to think that a trade dispute comes along, there is a fight, and within a few weeks, you know the outcome. that is not the case in this instance. the funds being dispersed through the recovery act are coming out at a relatively slow pace. we will see them coming out over a year or two. we will hear more and more complaints from u.s. companies

and from canadian and european and other companies here, jobs being disrupted, lost. so this thing is not going to go away anytime soon. it is a real threat and canadians are not about to drop it. >> can i make a point on that? they don't protest too much. the real reason is this -- the real reason this is a battle is that there is money on the table. much of what we're doing is legal under any obligation that we have under the wto. not all that, but most of that. i was recently talking to folks at brussels, because they have begun a free-trade agreement negotiation with canada. i think that would be a real eye opener for us if they actually succeeded. i ask the folks in russell, what did they see as the largest obstacle to a free-trade agreement with canada? they said the by provincial

agreements in canadian law. they have a series of buy canadian problems that we have with buy american. but it is easy to pick on the united states. we are a big target. there is a residual anti- americanism that runs through this. it is nice to kick the americans in the shins a couple of times. it is beyond me why we do not kick back. but let's face it -- we are all sinners in this game. the europeans have some of the same by national provisions in some of their legislation. we should take at least some of this with grains of salt. >> i let the manufacturers alliance. the first comment would be it is it good starting point for assessing current u.s. trade policy. many of all stepped is taking -- many a false step is taken by

standing still. my second comment is to agree with you that the fta's with correa, you, with canada and others are going to make it much more urgent that we decide which way we are going to go, particularly on the grain agreement. even the panama agreement -- where is caterpillar here? several billion dollars of building the can now, and caterpillar's main competitor caterpillar's main competitor for the heavy earthmoving equipment is a canadian firm. that is why canada is there. my question is about the doha round. i don't see this moving so fast. in standstill lot longer. people talk about 2010. that is the modality, abstract formulas. in the past negotiations, the tokyo round and others come modalities were hit wonder two

years, and then the real negotiations began. exceptions and balancing, on a huge undertaking. my own feeling is that when you talk about the mentality in the late 2010, it is at least a couple of years before you can have a specific agreement with all who are listening, which you need before you can approach congress. i would seem doha round, 2012 or 2013 before congress would have to focus on saying yes or no. i ask your reaction -- am i being too relaxed about how long it is going to take? >> i think it is a very difficult juncture. the business community in general things that ambassador kirk has got it right. the modalities, such as they are, aren't unlikely -- if we signed the dotted line right now, they would be unlikely this

generate significant new market access in any sector. . we are backing him up. if he fails to get the clarity that he is looking for, and the vision is attained, we will see something reasonable. and then it will be hard to see with the next step will be. [inaudible] >> but so much is built into this, that is how this round is. >> and they are interpreting this initiative as an attempt to move to a request of for approach.

we see that the initial reaction has been negative, and this is a reminder that the progress is not just defending on us. we can move into a more clarifying approach, what is this on? is this on us or the people to demonstrate more clarity. >> i think the real concern is about how -- it is not set in stone that this is two years later. to prolong u.s. leadership. bruce is right. this is not entirely depend on us. you have an awful lot of will on the part of the administration. it was not the administration's fault that it did not work nor the democratic congress. the other players do matter. however, it is also true that i

think u.s. leadership is key if you are going to get something to move forward. the u.s. is sufficiently big and that has prolonged u.s. leadership. i have little doubt that if someone dropped a reasonable doha packet giant the administration's lack they would say that is great and they will work it. it will take a substantial amount of time and effort in working with various groups and that is why it does not work just to say i am passively disposed toward trade. if there is going to be progress on this front, you will have to have active engagement. the other problem is luring ambition does not work. we can wrap it up there. people who move at different speeds, you're going to push back. i agree that it looks like the

long haul. not the modalities that is an insurmountable obstacle. >> we have time for one question. >> thank everyone here for an outstanding presentation. we have to trust the administration to know politically when to make that move to seize the moment. and restore a pro-trade progressive consensus in the u.s. they are uniquely positioned to do that because they listen to and take input from everybody from traditional business community to the labor unions, which, by the way, are 50% of the democratic electric labor union household and -- and 20% of the electorate.

for better or for worse, this has come along and enforcement is critical to the building block of bringing middle class americans a lot like labor union members on a trade consensus. i wanted to ask a broad question to close here. i agree that the larger scale issues like conclusion of doha are easier to get political consensus for then smaller less consequential bilaterals. >> we have to move. >> the tpp, is that a good opportunity for the u.s. to assert its leadership on? the anti-counterfeiting agreement, critical with all the ip and for some consensus that exists that we need to build on, the u.s.-eu clearing out the

underbrush, that can lead to broader initiatives? >> those are great questions and we wl answer them in subsequent meetings. this is my libertarian antenna out about trusting any government. i do endorse very much your point that this has been a great panel and please join me in thanking them. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2009] >> next on c-span, envoy richard holbrooke talks about the political situation in afghanistan and pakistan. and then the white house will have a reception for the newest member of the supreme court, sonia sotomayor. that is followed by "washington journal." >> today, tony posawatz will talk about general motors and their new cars, and we will find out how the recession is affecting indianapolis with greg ballard and we will talk about health care withjackie calmes and david sloan from aarp.

washington journal is live at 7:00. and then at the brookings institution, a look at the economy, six months after the stimulus plan was passed. you can watch this at 10:00 on c-span. >> on sunday, ellis cose of newsweek on his public radio series, " against the odds." >> now, the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. he was at the center for american progress to discuss u.s. strategy in the region. this is an hour and half.

>> good morning. good morning, everybody. i am the president of the center for american progress. thank you for joining us this morning. we're happy to have richard holbrooke and is very spectacular -- and the very spectacular team that we have here today. this region of the world as part of the national security concern of the united states. smarter, commitment to the conflict there. the center has made this a primary focus to the ongoing work of human policy analysts, particularly one who is here today.

ambassador holbrooke has assembled an impressive team. there is the multidisciplinary interagency nature of secretary clinton and investor who were's approach to afghanistan and pakistan which tendons on the -- which hinges on military assets. to the best of my knowledge, this is a first. drawing all these resources under together under one roof and umbrella and insuring that it will be discussed, the why as well as the how. the need for a coordinated approach is the cornerstone of the center for american progress.

hall watching him intently as they take the case for a new approach to taking on the toughest security problems. they are facing a multitude of challenges, and in less than a week the people of afghanistan will vote for the second time since the fall of the taliban. the numbers are hopeful, and the concerns about the corruption and the disconnect between the needs of the people of the canister and and the inclination to provide for them threaten to overshadow the moment. we see an increase in the use of bombs -- roadside bombs or the

international coalition forces. and the concerns about the cost of winning in afghanistan into what goals we should aspire. the government continues to gain from the strengthening insurgency, with the persistent challenges of bringing the justice system there, and the transition to effective representatives. the situation is complex enough to deal with the people in the front row here today. perhaps given his multitude of experience as one of the most distinguished diplomats from vietnam to bosnia and coasts of both and the united nations, no

one is more capable than richard holbrooke. after he gives a few brief introductory remarks, he is going to introduce his team and the people on stage will have a few minutes with a comment. we will then shift to a discussion format we can discuss some of the larger question surrounding our policies. i hope to focus on the implications of the upcoming election in afghanistan for our efforts there, our objectives, and how we measure progress. most critically, the threat of both countries in the context of broader national security prior to. thank you all for coming today. as a foreword to protect a conversation. let me turn it over to ambassador dick holbrooke. >> thank you, john.

i think the center for this opportunity. when we first talked about an event, i suggested that rather than another speech by me that we bring the entire team. we actually did that have the entire team here. several people are men smissing. i've been privileged to work with a lot of terrific people in my career, including some people in this room who are recognized. i think this is the best team i have ever been able to work with. i am so pleased to be here today. we want to focus today on the civilian efforts. you can ask any questions you want. we are here as the civilian side of the integrated military operation. the background is simple.

they stated they wanted to have a counterpart to integrate the civilian efforts. hillary, who was been instrument in this process, legally we are attached to the office of state, she approves every member of this team. she knows everybody on this podium personally. it is not the great anonymous bureaucracy. she has approved everyone. she agreed immediately and encourages to reach out to other agencies. what you see here are some of the nine agencies represented on our team. the ones that were missing today, to clarify, are general

field is out on personal leave. our cia rivers is it told me that he cannot be surfaced. he he is not here. our department of homeland security river is is it is not here. they are not in place. we are looking closely, because homeland security has a vital role in all of this. the fbi representative is in town. he is on another urgent assignment. this is not our fault him. -- full team. the mandate is clear. now i want to introduce the team. for those of you who want to discuss the elections and did not stay up late enough to see the discussion on steven cole bear -- colbert, we will discuss the. if he did not see it, you can watch it on you too.

-- watch it on you to go. -- youtube. i'm going to introduce the people one by one. we will start off with barnett rubin which is an nyu professor. he is the leading american expert on afghanistan for the last three -- 30 years. i think all of you know who he is. he is a tremendous asset to have him on the inside telling us why everything we do is wrong is it on the outside telling us everything we do is wrong. he will give you a quick overview. each person will talk for two minutes.

but everyone knows we are we are in the middle of presidential and provincial council elections under difficult circumstances. you will hear more about this later on. what i'm going to do is talk very briefly about what we might call setting the conditions for success in afghanistan. i know that is something on the mind of the american people. there will be a point we will no longer be so engage in combat as we must be right now. there are too vested -- two six elements. one is enabling the afghan government to control its territory. the sec isn't is a portion and creating -- the second is reporting in creating an environment where people have a stake in the environment of afghanistan.

on the side of civilian governments, we are continuing efforts to build national governments. the election is part of that. we have an important focus on some national government in cooperation with the afghan government and other donors. rather than pouring money into building the government, we are focusing on rebuilding the relationship between the seven national authorities and local communities. our security strategy is aimed at creating an environment that the supportive of competent officials rebuilding relationships with those companies. in order to do this, we have to eliminate or diminish some of the obstacles at the local level, including the presence of armed groups that have grown up in the course of this war.

to make those efforts supportive, we have changed our counter narcotics policy so we are phasing out crop eradication and focusing on assisting rather than threatening the communities there. afghanistan cannot be stable of its members do not want it to be stable. we have a wide ranging diplomatic effort including a network of special riddances who are ambassador holbrooke's counterpart. their policy toward pockets son -- we have a policy toward pakistan and the relationship between those two countries. we are engaged in regular consultations to all the major powers.

>> thank you. he mentioned my counterpart. this is a good example of the way i think the united states should lead. when president obama and secretary clinton offered me this job, there were no counterparts. within four months, there were 25, some of which are countries would not expect of wanted to show their involvement but the gains in the swedes -- danes and the swede in the spanish. there are three want to draw your tension to, saudi arabia, egypt, and the arab emirates. we can get the full list to anyone who wanted. on march 27, the president announced -that-is the kind of thing we do. that is the kind of international coalition building. when i began i did not

properly acknowledge the center for american progress. i was honored to be part of your inaugural event in 2003. i was never invited back. [laughter] i think you are doing an extraordinary job of becoming a critical center for our effort. when we talk about where we should do our unveiling, we want to collething this of the . i know for a fact based on extensive discussions with people at the white house, that the role he played in the number three trip last week with president clinton was " indispensable and invaluable."

it was low-key until showed up wearing that shirt oliver las vegas. that troubled me a bit. other than that, i congratulate you. >> our next speaker is another enormous manager of see on television many times. we are so proud that he has also joined the government full time. contrary to much stuff reported, he does not work in iran even though he is probably nation's leading expert on she is somiii. he worked primarily on pakistan. he is helping shape our strategic attitude. he will give you an overview and then we will plunge right into

the operational experts. >> thank you. good morning. i think it goes without saying that the state of pakistan and afghanistan are linked together. we can see that the fight against the televisiotaliban now stretches across the board. the objective is to create a regional framework to bring into alignment american, afghan, and pakistani interest. equally important for our success is pakistan's stability. it is difficult to imagine a country of such vital importance and a vital key ally in that region that basis in more daunting set up.

pakistani is still struggling to consolidate its transition to democracy. it has been facing a major taliban extensive. it has set up a major refugee crisis and pakistan. equally as important, pakistan's economy in the past year has been tempered by the major financial crisis and a severe electricity shortage that impact of businesses, people, and people measures. we have been directly in continuously engaged with pakistan. my colleague has been working very closely with pakistani officials and all the relevant agencies in washington to put together energy package is.

we are also engaged in international diplomacy. you want to create a much more broad base international support for pakistan. going forward, we will continue to be very focused on pakistan poco stability. we will be working to bring pakistan into our framework for bringing peace. >> thank you, this illustrates what he called the best [unintelligible] when this hit in western pakistan, the different agencies were involved in the offices. immediately that day in and come

up with a plan. hillary clinton was in new york and giving a speech at nyu. she called and said water you doing about this. we said we were meeting right now. she said i want to meet with you as soon as i land. by the time she landed and finished a meeting, we have come up with the first hundred and $10 million. she then announced that at the white house. that probably accelerated the response by a week or 10 days. that is the value of this concept. each person here ties into their agency. mary beth good meman was in the front row as an economic expert. an example of that is auto gonzales. we try not to talk about which agency is their home agency, he

is from the department of agriculture. he served in afghanistan. he is part of a totally integrated team. it works for us in agriculture. >> thank you. as many of you know, afghanistan has eight out of some people involved in agriculture. it is a sector that was devastated by a quarter century of war. we cannot succeed in afghanistan if the afghani people are not successful and agriculture. we have to fight that as a government. we spend more on trying to eradicate poppy than we did try to promote agriculture.

agricultural -- revenue strategy that is new and that is in line with the programs of the afghan government and is truly with the u.s. government. all of the main actors from our government, the u.s. military on the reconstruction team, the army national guard, and the ministry of agriculture, were all involved in developing a strategy that aims to do two things. one is to increase in come. the other is to increase afghans confidence in their government. i mention this is something new. it is. incoherency to our program that we did not have before. -- it is bringing coherence to

our program that we did not have before. we aim to increase productivity. we aim to regenerate business. we want to rehabilitate watershed in improved irrigation and a structure. our fourth objective is to improve the ministry of our culture's capacity to deliver services and to promote the agricultural sector. we do this in line with the afghan government. we also do it with the support of our secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack, who has launched trilateral efforts. they are focusing on three main areas, strength, to come and security -- strain, security, and trade. what we have is a strategy that is integrated, restores --

resources, and agriculture in the forefront. >> we have found so far that of all the programs we have done, this program in conjunction with the phasing out of poppy eradication, afghans may continue to do some. we are out of the business. we are not at war with the poppy farmers. general petraeus and i -- the combination of phasing out poppy crop eradication@@@@@@@@@ @ @ á# but are taking down drug centers and paraphernalia, drug bazaars and this is the most successful thing that we have done so far.

we're getting more evidence that this is shutting down the taliban. we're very pleased that the direction that this is going. we have two people were just mentioned, and they will pick this up from the presentation. picking up on what otto has discussed, we are changing the way we do business in providing development in both countries. we are focusing on capacity building and moving toward increased country leasing. [unintelligible] we want to improve governance, and justice, and rule of law.

under the direction of the ambassadors in afghanistan, we are increasing the number of civilian staff. that is allowing us to move away from the large contracts and moving more toward local planters and improved accountability for the way we do our program. our increased capacity building efforts are allowing us to channel more of our plans directly to the government and allowing us to do our programs more efficiently. otto mentioned the programs that we do with the agriculture ministry. we have already channeled some of our funds directly. we are planning on doing more of that in the next several months as the ministries argo through

more capacity building. we are working increasingly through multi lottery trust funds -- multi logroll -- multilateral trust funds. we are increasing our efforts in that efforarea. all of this is trying to improve donor coronation. >> our next speaker is from the treasury department. you on of the subject is going to talk about. it is luces. it is complicated. and all of this -- a lot of the we cannot discuss in public. it is important. >> this war is being fought on two fronts. [unintelligible]

these and other terrorist raise funds externally and internally. and surely they come from kidnapping and drug trade. externally, but these groups receive funds from donors in the gulf. secretary geithner have raised these issues both domestically and abroad. we have formed the listed finance task force to coordinate u.s. government initiatives that threaten our efforts in the region. some of the key initiatives include counter threat finance acid building in coordination with the government's to further develop their ability to identify and deter other activities like al qaeda and the taliban.

[unintelligible] another is the joint u.s. and russian federation [unintelligible] we are working with the central bank to extend the reach of banking in afghanistan. we will use it to pay the afghan national army and increase salaries very moving cash and the battlefield. we are also exploring ways to do business with the u.s. government and other donor countries and organizations. thank you. >> the next two presentations where when to do together. i will introduce both people. my longtime assistant and chief of staff in your, ashlandey bl

balmer, and secretary gate. a preferred to call it what it really is, communications and counterpropaganda. >> information is as strong as a weapon as a gun they have emerged militants to gain power tears strategically timed radio broadcasts, videos, and cds. their public executions, throwing acid on girls in school, and publicizing the names of the people they want to kill every single night given the archaic values of al qaeda, we must abide policies that expose the true nature of the militants. we must ship the paradigms' of

the debate is not between the united states in the militants, both between the pple. we are going to use 21st century technology including mobil and radioed to empower the people. there are only for legal fm radio stations. -- four legal fm radio stations there. there are over 150 illegal fm low wattage stations. they are conducting a daily campaign of terror. cellphone is the fastest growing technology. the taliban are ordering cell phone companies to power down it every night. with the lack of the

information, the links between poverty in terror ring card entry. mobil banking, 97% of the country is unbanked. we are pursuing an expansion immobile banking, mobile payments, insurance companies to protect the power. initiatives like these and others are critical to supporting a communications and counterpropaganda strategy that protect and empowers the people. >> thank you. what ashley just discussed is central to the strategic thinking of our adversaries.

they fight information wars supported by military effort on both sides. we need to think more like our adversaries. we are extending the reach of communication and information to populations the religion not have other than what they have locally, which is often violent messages or intimidation from our adversaries. it is not developing content that is competitive beckham provide people a message that counters what they hear from insurgents.

it is about tying the population to the government in areas where they historically have not been tied. critically, a lot of this is on making sure our actions support our messages. none of this is new. getting our focus on it is going to require a number of significant changes. early on, most of it might be general mid crystal's rapid and tireless effort to reduce the number of civilian casualties in afghanistan. [unintelligible] our focus is on resources,

resources that have been stamped but are not flowing and insuring those resources can support this kind of strategic view of how the night states uses information. it is an entirely new level of effort to get this right. it is critical. >> thank you. he mentioned averell -- admiral smith. we are in the process of recruiting civilian counterparts for that job. we are going to change the structure to reflect this central priority. it all depends on communications. let's now turn to the elections. we have here two tremendous

resources in addition to the rest of the team. i will ask them to talk sequentially. rema is just back last night from afghanistan. she worked for the osi. she worked for the united nations during the last set of elections. she is well known in afghanistan. she recently joined the state department and her colleague in this will speak with a rather funny accent. that is because she is not an american engine is not an employee. jane mary it is on loan from the british government. -- marriott is on loan from the british government. we are proud to have her here. i had the experience of sitting in a meeting at the white house and we spend 30 minutes debating

a paper she had written. i said to my colleagues, i have to tell you, we are reading a paper written by british to lament. ira mention that because it underscores how we have other countries -- i mention that because it underscores how we have other countries such work with us. she is invaluable. we will turn it over to rema and jane and then i'll make closing remarks. >> thank you. president obama has to third to the elections -- has referred to the legend that the most important event of the year. i was born in afghanistan. i have been a part of every political process. i have seen it turned out over and over again. they believe this process -- in

this process. these events also historic in that there the first afghanistan lead direction in afghanistan. the elections are quite historical. the most candidates that have competed in an election anywhere in the world. i think they are going in the guinness book of world records. there are 41 candidates, including two women. they are being contested by 3324 people. 70 million people have registered to vote. it just came back from afghanistan. the campaign season is not very different from what we see in the united states. there are campaign paraphernalia all over the country, a checkered of people's houses, cars.

there are political rallies taking place all over the country. the candidates are being interviewed on radio and television stations. there are pungent -- pundits. the polls show that there are four serious contenders. the former minister of affairs, the former minister of finance, and the former minister of parliament terry. [unintelligible] the elections will go into a second round in early october. what is the u.s.'s position on these elections any candidates? i'm going to turn to my colleague for that. >> thank you. >> we want to see to things

coming out of these elections. we want to see them capitalize on the momentum of the policy debate that has been generated. both by the candidates and in the public is itself. we want to see that. it will be supported by an international community. the second thing we want to see is these elections continue to build up a tour of institutions and mechanisms with and afghanistan. -- within afghanistan. a statement earlier really set the stage. the u.s. actively impartial in these elections. we want elections that are credible, pure, and closer.

i want them to be seen legerdemain by the afghans and the rest of the world. -- legitimate b the afghans and the rest of the world. we will continue to reach out to the candidates to encourage them to debate the issues and what their policy platforms are. we will hold into account the key electoral institutions. thirdly, pressing the principles of access to the media on transportation for the candidates said they can get around on the commentary in campaign properly. the international community may have a very subtle role to play after polling day.

these elections are the first afghan held since 1970. they are being held in very difficult security conditions. they will not be perfect. we expect everything possible to be done to minimize fraud and insure the integrity of the ballots and the process to ensure these elections are seen as legitimate by the afghan people and the world. >> thank you. and sure most of you know dan feldman. -- i am sure most of you know dan feldman. he will be available for questions. that is our team. i'm sorry others are not able to be here.

on the elections, as rina, president obama has called this the most important event this year and afghanistan. why do we say that even though this election is undoubtedly a very difficult event? holding an election in a wartime situation is always difficult. holding one with the enemy has said they will try to disrupt it makes it even more difficult. holding it under historic conditions that have been alluded to, they can go on forever about how this relates to the history of the country. it is even more daunting. . . this election was called for under the constitution in 2009. when president obama took the

oath of office, this was apparent that this could not be done on schedule, because of the decisions made last year. the decision to ignore the constitution, and to delay the elections, has caused in. -- reorientation in this administration and many issues that we would like to focus on, the national reintegration and the amnesty program, is improving the governance of the central level, which the others alluded to. sepideh sepideh all of these issues are vitally important. but until an election legitimizes the government, whoever wins, we have had to focus on that.

as all of you recall if you have followed afghanistan when we came into office the country faced a constitutional crisis over how to deal with the fact that with the aiding and abetting of the international community the afghan constitution, the one rinna helped draft, was be going -- not going to be carried out. imagine what would happen in the united states if people announced that the election would be delayed indefinitely. well, that's what we inherited. the opposition says who is going to be legitimate? who's going to rule? we spent most of the spring helping the afghan government seeing -- it threw to the august 20 date coming up next week. so this election matters and we will see what happens. my -- i will be leaving the day after tomorrow for afghanistan and pakistan in reverse order. pakistan first, then afghanistan then i'll fly to istanbul where the turks are

hosting a friends of democratic pakistan meeting and the president's asked me to be on the scene during the elections. but i do want to emphasize that we have an extremely strock -- strong team in the american embassy and in the military command. ambassador eikenberry is superb and as the former commander of the forces in afghanistan has a unique ability to integrate civilian and military issues. his deputy was our gaffer -- ambassador in to -- two of the world's largest american embassies, egypt and the philippines. the number three person, who was already mentioned, tony wayne was a former assistant secretary of state and just came directly from buenos aires as ambassador. the number four person is a former ambassador as well as -- and we have an additional election unit out there headed by ambassador tim carney.

on the united nations side, kai runs you asuperb operation and his senior deputy is an american. peter gathbrathe served as our first american ambassador to croatia and was the deputy in east timor so he has long u.n. experience. and on the military side, admiral mullen and general petraeus pure and simple sent the first team in. stan and david are the two best people now available in the united states army and as vikram importantly said and i want to draw your attention to this, the best counterpropaganda is to reduce civilian casualties and the rules of engagement have changed in a way which has produced a visible as a result -- result on the ground. if there's been less news coverage of that issue lately it's because there's been less of that terrible problem to deal with. so in closing, in closing my

opening remarks, i want to be very clear. we know the difference of input and out putt and what you are seeing here is input. agriculture. pule of law. counternarcotics. the illicit financing. that's what we're doing. the payoff is still to come. we have to produce results and we understand that. and we're not here today to tell you we're winning or we're losing. we're not here today to say we're optimistic or pessimistic. we're here to tell you that we're in this fight in a different way with a determination to succeed under the direct personal supervision of the president as -- and secretary of state and the rest of the cabinet. and so i want to close with that and turn it back over to john and, john, thanks again for the center for american progress doing this today. >> thank you, richard. >> i want to come back to the

election but i am going to ask a few questions and then we're going to open things up againing with the press. i want to come back to the elections but i want to pick up perhaps where you left off and ask a larger strategic question which is that, and let me begin by noting that when the president announced the policy after the 60-day review he laid out what appeared to be i think in the minds of many people a very narrow objective. which was to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda in pakistan and afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future. but actually to execute against that very narrow definition of what the project was all about, you need a broad strengthening of the governmental capacity and security forces in afghanistan. you need a stronger, more committed partner in pakistan. i think this team reflects that. and reflects a much larger

strategy than what is embedded in that very narrow definition that the president"pñ used on march 27. i think probably ambassador eikenberry's budget request that was recently reported reflects that again. so in that context, for, from the perspective of the mediterranean -- american people, how do you define clear objectives of what you are trying to succeed with as out putts against the -- how do you measure success against that broader array of problems and inputs? >> a very key question which john, you are alluding to is of course if our objective is to defeat, destroy, dismantle al qaeda an they're primarily in pakistan why are we doing so much in afghanistan? it's a legitimate question. it was addressed directly by hillary clinton in her july 15

speech at the council on foreign relations here in washington. and it's a relatively simple connection but it needs to be very explicitly stated. al qaeda and the taliban, or to be more precise the talibans, because pakistan taliban and afghan taliban have some connections but they are also separate in many ways and it's very elusive to analyze the inner connections. and by the way in the aftermath of mehsud's apparent death there's all sorts of reports that you've all read in the papers of inphyting and there's going to be some major readjustment coming up. we don't know what it is. we have many theories, but the connections are clear. if afghanistan is first ill re

-- is fertile recruiting territory for the taliban it gives more terrain from which to operate. unless the taliban were to renounce explicitly al qaeda they are basically fighting in support of one another, so they are allidse. in secretary clinton's speech and i would draw your attention to this, she laid out the fact that if -- that we would support the reintegration into afghan society of any people fighting with the taliban who renounce al qaeda and lay down their weapons and reintegrate peacefully but on your key point, the question we're always asked, i think it needs to be stated very clearly that if you abandon the struggle in afghanistan, you will suffer against al qaeda as well. but we have to be clear on what our national interests are here. >> i guess what i'm asking is

can we settle for a reconciliation process, a weak state, and continued intervention, destruction of al qaeda forces in pakistan? as we've seen just this last week. >> i think that you say a weak state -- >> is that a, an acceptable end state? >> i think we have to be reasonable about afghanistan. as barney said at the outset, it's the poorest nation in the world outside of africa. it's been torn apart by 30 years of war. we're going to help rebuild it. the military part of this struggle with american troops is not an open-ended event. but our assistance, our civilian assistance is going to continue for a long time. i can't give you dates. and we will help strengthen the government. that has to be part of our mandate. the specific goal you asked, john, is really -- it's really hard for me to address in

specific terms but i would say this about defining success in afghanistan and pakistan. in the simplest sense the supreme court test for another issue, we'll know it when we see it. ok. >> let me -- rinna gave a, i think, very great backdrop to the election. the election. let me ask you a q i think that some observers believe that it is not the taliban or the