effort. if you take that away, you might not have motivation. you're not learning anything? what difference does a great make? i'm still teaching here. >> here. random answers are not learning anything. >> there is no incentive to study and learn. yes? we deserve.ng what >> not getting what you deserve. yes? >> [inaudible] >> and it worked for society as a whole. yes? >> [inaudible] >> that is what socialism is. your teachers know it. even though they may preach something different, they know it and reflect it in the grading system. i will give you one other set of arguments that you may not have thought about. one of the arguments against

free enterprise is you end up sometimes with a few companies that are enormously successful, like apple or microsoft, samsung, they control too much of the market. we need government to decide what is fair and what should be the market share. you also have these inequities that i just talked about. and then you have those people for one reason or another, they're good people and we need to help them out, not just abandon them. years of their life? so hot, the market has changed but they're good people? not have a problem, government may be as those decisions, our a elected officials can decide and if we do not like what is done in say

virginia we can go to senator warner for senator mccain and make our case because that is what democracy is all about. use every one of those arguments in your lives. some students -- let's ask, how many of you have over 100 tunes in your music system? how many of you have 500 or more? how many have 1000 or more tunes in your music system? have 7500 tunes or more? this is totally inequitable. some barely have 100, you have at least 7500. how many? by the way? >> [inaudible] >> you do not know? [laughter] how many do you have?

so, 5000. how many do not have 500? tot is the inequity we have straighten out. now, there is only a few major labels now, some called record companies, though they do not have records anymore. why should we only have a few? then there are bands like the ones i used to listen to, that you probably do not even think about. unfortunately they are not selling as much as they once did. i was going to use the rolling stones, but they're probably doing well on his current tour. you could take them on an off year. you did say that we have always put in a full effort, why should we with all of these new groups, none of whose names i know come up and take their place? you get my point. you do not want government

controlling music. you want freedom in your life. there are inequities. but at the end of the day your music, your choices are going to be much more meaningful to you than if you have to go to senators and lobby for the exact type of music you want to listen to. freedom works. inequities.e are even with someone who has 5000 tunes and someone has less than 500 and, i suspect that the person with 500 and with 5000 would not want to turn those decisions over to the government. i have given you a couple of arguments for your classmates, your teachers, to promote the idea of freedom, discourage the idea of redistributing wealth. many of you probably know a version of this story.

i am going to clean it up a bit, but there is a couple that is not married yet. the guy actually loves the woman but the woman is not sure about getting married and start living together. he is always worried, always concerned. even at a young age, he has a stroke. they go to the doctor and the doctor analyzes him and thinks it through. he calls the girlfriend into the office and says -- your boyfriend is not going to make that unless you give up your career to stay at home, do everything to make his life put any stressot on him, no work in the house -- whenever he wants to do, you should do. she listens to this, comes out of the room, they go home, and the guy says -- what did the

doctors say, you were in there a long time? she says -- you're going to die. of standing upe for freedom in our time and to make sacrifices, or freedom is going to die. your generation is the most affected by this. government today at all levels, moving very quickly to 50% in spending. they have the inevitability at this point for the moment of the government taking over the health-care industry. more than you realize for themselves. we have lost untold millions of lives, our freedoms are being encroached upon.

family value is under assault. beazer principles worth fighting for. you have to make a decision that you will be involved in doing so if we are going to succeed. i appreciate you being here and look forward to questions you may have. [applause] >> good morning. my name is john would. i am a junior from california. my question is -- if you had to choose one, difficult to, but what do you think is the biggest battleground issue coming up for conservatives and liberals? of today's society is that people are asking fundamental questions and i thing -- think that it's right to the heart of it.

conservatives think that government should protect the rights that they cannot do individual -- individually. i cannot have my own foreign- policy, protect us from the types of attacks we had in new york and washington, so government has to do that. you have to have a court system to adjudicate legal disputes. we have to do that. beyond those duties of government, those other choices should be left to us as individuals. liberals do not believe that whatsoever. liberal defend programs as solving things. as late as the lbj years they talked about the war on poverty and urban renewal revitalizing cities. they do not even talk about that today. they talk about fairness. they talk about redistributing income. they do not talk about solving underlying problems. the biggest difference in the days ahead as what you view as the role of government.

do you want to make those decisions for yourself in this life? even if there is a mistake? you do not have to do it just through government. or does government serve those decisions for you? those of the questions we face today. that is what we face in obama care right now. with the irs choosing winners and losers and the government acting arrogant. when government accumulates that much power and makes decisions for us, they quickly think they are better than us. why would we make those decisions better than we do? what is the proper role of government? the proper role of government officials? as servants of the taxpayers and citizens, people making better decisions than we are ourselves. that is a major challenge that we face in the days ahead. >> hello, i am from grosse

pointe, south high-school. what are the conservatives' long-term goals regarding ideas of right to life? >> first and foremost, we want saving in a fit -- innocent human life. you can do that on an individual basis. colleagues in high school, college, the consider taking the life of the baby. you can certainly be actively engaged in encouraging them to protect that life. i believe that we are to protect life, liberty, and the served -- and human happiness. ultimately, the government has to face up to the responsibility. it is a tough issue to face, if you are a young woman and you did get pregnant, you are going to have colleagues in your school system that face that. ones that have had abortions already and may be rethinking

that. the way in which to express those ideas, in a way that resonates with them, to think about the sanctity of life. one of the suggestions i give when i speak to high school students in programs around the nation is that to the left they pat themselves on the back at protecting whole life cycle of an endangered species. take the american bald eagle. they not only say that you cannot kill them, but you have to protect the eggs, nests, all of that is protected? why would you do any less for the human species than you would for an animal species? there are arguments like that that will sometimes get through to people that disagree with right to life but will bolster life in our setting. all of these issues, speaking out, being not afraid to express your ideas in a classroom, that

is going to have an impact. when you speak up for innocent human life -- it may not affect the decision of one person in the conversation, but it may protect someone else's life. it is extremely important. ultimately conservatives need to recognize that the fundamental werepts of roe v. wade flawed. when that decision was made, the supreme court thought they knew medical science more than they did and tried to impose it upon the constitution, saying that life was only sustainable in the last trimester. that is just not true anymore. there are babies in intensive care units around this town that were born as early as four and a half months. their underlying medical assumption in that decision was fundamentally flawed, not just

their constitutional thinking. we need to know more about the decision, get it overturned, we need to protect innocent human life. when we have the opportunity to do so. >> thank you, sir. >> hello, my name is ralph from arlington, virginia. early on in your speech you talked about be hitting civilly in the political world. one of the multiple false accusations from the left is the conservative organizations like the tea party do not behave civilly. unfortunately, many people buy into that. how do we effectively counter those lies? >> first thing, i do not think that they have proven their case, that the tea party movement has acted civilly or on civilly -- they are trying to defend their rights, but because they have rallies and speak up, i do not see that as lacking in civility. quite the contrary, attacking

them, calling them teabagsgers -- teabaggers even with the irs has done to them, they were legally entitled to get those taxes. keep in mind, it was not tax deductible. that is not the issue. the government find other ways of communicating. but then they arbitrarily partyd that any tea groups would not be approved in any short term. it was a slow walk, they called it. the lack of civility is the anti-ku party people. i will say some other aspect -- anti-tea party people. i will say some other aspect of that. when they threw the tea into boston harbor, where were the leftists talking about civility today?

they would say not to do that. they would say that the taxes being imposed upon us are just the price of being part of the british empire. fortunately, our founding fathers had more founding spirit than that. the share of arizona teenage republicans from phoenix, arizona. earlier on you were talking about how we need to get involved on a national basis. the past few days, not meaning to say for everyone, i am sure we have all equipped ourselves on how to get involved on campuses. how do we take that to the next step? to a national level? >> one of the things i would stress is to focus on your level. you are not going to decide whether chief justice roberts stands up for the constitution or not. and you will not decide on exactly what happens in washington, impeachment for

these questions. those will not be decided by myself. i am a relative participant. do what you can do with what you have got. what i can do as a member of the young america foundation as best i can, getting more students interested in our ideas, at the high school and college level, start at the college level, you can speak up for these ideas in the classroom, study these ideas more carefully, do exactly what you have done, come from arizona, network with other people similarly situated at the high-school level. my voice to you at every step in life is to do what is in front of you. do not look for things you have no control over. right now you have no control over supreme court decisions. you do have control over what happens in school, to some extent. when you are in college, stand up for free speech.

bring in a guest speaker. ask for balance within faculty members. we have fought for more than 30 years for the rights of students who wanted to burn this debate in rotc to do so. finally, that has come to pass. we have cases of a free-speech rights going to the supreme court, without offending the students' right to free speech, we won both of those cases. do what is in front of you. lombardi, in the beginning, he was an outstanding coach and he taught his players -- forgive me for saying this -- my first job as a lineman is to somehow be you. runaround you. hope i am not using in polite terms are being here. basically he would tell you that in front of you, the bigger

picture becomes clearer. that is my advice. start with your classroom, start with your classmates, billed out from there. >> thank you. >> i am from loudoun county, virginia. my name is glenn reichardt. what i have observed -- we all know, as conservatives, what the proper role of government is. we know our platform. we also know what is not the proper role of government. i have spoken to a lot of fellow young people who have not been thinking about these political ideas. though they are not able to articulate in a system -- sensing sentence like many of us can, the proper role of government, they do have this idea that they have gleaned from biased liberal media. etc., how do you combat that? they will come out with something like -- give us money

or protect us, whatever. depends on who you are asking. how do you approach that? it is so fundamentally different from what the founders intended. where do you start? the first extent, thing you should primarily start with is the undecided. the people around you who are beginning to of the or would you are saying. i would not start with someone on the far left. >> [inaudible] >> fair enough, but i want to underscore that point. seen years i have not david horowitz come over from the left to the right, but that was largely because of the situation where he assisted the black panthers in murder. , ifintellectual arguments you read radical son, those

weren't never the ones that won him over. it was the in-between ones. you talk about issues where they are. music. i bet you the undecided student in high school wants to make a decision for their own music. who is your congressman? they probably do not what frank wolf to lobby for the kind of music that they want. they want to make those decisions for themselves. internet,mes to the they probably want to make decisions for themselves. people are fundamentally in agreement with freedom and limited government. you will have to take those areas in this conclusion. >> how does that apply to government? theou need to be aware of

reality of government as opposed to the rhetoric of government. the government claims to solve a lot of problems, but they do not really solve any problems. government is not the solution, it is the problem. a couple of examples. the department of agriculture is one of the biggest in washington, in terms of size and space. if we started basically in a significant way in the 1930's to help small farmers, the argument was we needed the government to keep family farms in existence. in the meantime since that department formed, we have spent untold billions in doing that, losing 97% of family farms in this country today. the rate is even going higher. there are a lot of reasons for that. the government's was not going to change. but a big reason we lost those family farms was the estate tax.

the government taxing the value of that property as less with the family died. government created the problem that they claimed to be solving for the most part. now they have a program down there to discourage tobacco use but also tobacco allotment to subsidize it. they have a program to keep the but others indown the department trying to raise the price of food through the limitations of the farm subsidy. totally inconsistent policies. sections of those bureaus have defended those problems and those programs. government has not delivered on its promise. at some point it is going to have to acknowledge that.

when talking about solving problems and going to fairness, fairness to the farmer and the accomplishing nothing. fromple of questions ago, grosse pointe, michigan. detroit was one of the greatest cities in the world until we had urban renewal. detroit has been run by liberals my whole lifetime and i am an old man. complete wreck, due respect to anyone from detroit, it is a disgrace and the people there know that. they ruined it. they did not save detroit. that we canpects admire, but no one is going to say -- no liberal was going to say that detroit is a model of liberalism, even though that is where the instituted most of their policies.

those are some suggestions. >> thank you. >> my name is michaela robin that. i will be a freshman this year from north carolina. my question to you is -- what do you feel about small business in agriculture? how do you feel? do you feel they should be held at a higher standard than commercial businesses? do you think they should stay the same? how do you feel about that? >> one of the policies we have already alerted -- alluded to, family business in state taxes, if your family runs a business and paid taxes all through the lifetime, why does the government get to collect more and break up the family farm at the end of it? besides the family farm around land use and restrictions, i think that government has made a lot of really poor decisions.

you see it in california, north carolina, where they decided they needed to kill almost all forms there. to save what? the snail? some mythical animal? i do not even know. at some point you have to recognize that i believe that god gave you the earth for human beings. those who say we have lost 96% of animal species over time? if we lose one more, he will not lose a lot of sleep over it. butas said jokingly, conservatives first and foremost think about the individual human , but within the context of animals that to protect. you cannot just shut off water for a whole section of california because it will make one animal's life better.

you have to worry about human beings as well. i do not know if that answers your question. i grew up in the inner city, so i do not purport to be a great expert on farming. i do know that farming and agriculture has not done what they have said they would do. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is grant wilson. i think that one of the biggest dangers, in my opinion, to our system is moral relativism. it has been around for a long time. it came about in what i prefer to call the endarkenment. i believe in universal truth of the morality of jesus christ that has been under attack for so long. so many of our founders said that our system was made for moral religious people. what is the defense of our daily held principles of morality and religion?

the defense is understanding what has happened as we move away from some degree of traditional values. about the time i was your age, the country began to lose some divorce laws. the argument was why keep them together if they no longer agree? as the key enshrined principle of family values for the next 20 to 30 years, so much so that when dan quayle said it was the idea -- ideal to have single mothers raising children as an alternative, he became the subject of a lot of jokes and criticisms. that has lessened because i think there is a recognition that probably the traditional family in many respects is an ideal. it may not be achieved while families. there are circumstances where it definitely may not be. but one may definitely

recognize when it has worked in the context of the history of the united states, but there are fundamental truths. the law of gravity is really not there. it is only true in some cases. you could say -- look, there is a man floating from outer space. ofnot test it by jumping out the washington monument and saying -- i may or may not have floated down to land. there are some real underlying rules that she cannot just use moral relativism to say it does not exist. one thing that is said is every idea is of equal value, and you should respect people with other ideas, but every idea is not of equal value. saying that it is just as valuable to me and i have a different opinion of how i should respond to stop signs as

i drive through chevy chase, that would have different consequences to someone saying -- maybe i need to follow those ales or stop when there is stop sign. common sense would tell you that that kind of relativism is ludicrous. entire careers have been built on trying to confuse students. i think that is a poor use of your career. >> thank you. mr. robinson, my name is thomas and i am a senior from cincinnati, ohio. as someone who is politically involved and plays -- pays close attention to the political world, i view our country moving farther and farther to the left. my question to you is -- what do you think the current and next

generation of leaders need to do to make sure that conservative values stay prominent in america? >> i do not think that the country operates like a pendulum, swinging to the left and right. i think that in some respects it is more like a rubrics cuba. there are areas where we are advancing and areas where others with different views are advancing. the white house advancing on a number of fronts through the supreme court right now, often times by violating rules of government, changing rules, passing one is that no one has read through a traditional filibuster system. permanently.ington but they are not winning all the battles. at a state and local level there have been a lot of changes

their in the last two years to three years that are very healthy for country. you have a lot more leaders at the local level that believe in these principles over centralizing government and having to make all these decisions for us. there is a much higher level of support among students today than there have been in many times in recent years. sonograms alone, understanding and other human life being involved, that has dramatically changed the numbers on those questions. to rotc.ready alluded after vietnam we propose a host of reasons. students today have a right to choose on that. bill buckley and milton friedman fought for this, the military. still part of the country's fabric today. i do think we are making progress on a lot of areas, not

just losing ground everywhere. i do think that many of the fundamental freedoms, the country has become more divided. it does not necessarily mean that our side is weakening. we do not have the upper hand in , but it hasight now become clear in the days ahead. that used by the irs against the tea party movement and others are coming to light. do not let one election conclude that the majority of the american people do not care about making choices for themselves. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> hello, mr. robinson. my question for you is -- throughout american history a particular example in the constitution, a lot of value has been put on compromise, both sides making sacrifices to come together to get something done. i feel that that is what a lot of america wants to see right now. particularly that is why america -- congress has low approval ratings and such. these things on the war behind you, these values and principles, are they worth deviating from or sacrificing? to get something done with the opposition party and to continue this government?

is to protectent life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that is what americans purport to believe in. giving up on those principles, i do not think there is much room for compromise. i do not think our founding fathers had much room for compromise. they stood up to king george, they adhered to those positions. they compromised within their community. that is what we need to deal with in this community. if someone is for the right to life and thinks that at the immediate moment we have to stop obama care, government taking you health care completely, estimate some compromises like this. someone wants to do it through an organization other than americans foundation, you might be inclined to agree, but you are still working for a common goal. increasingly i am seeing the

advice from the united states being the lessons being pushed for are a zero sum game. either we have no free speech rights in a college campus administrators decide what you can say and where, or you can decide. now, having individual freedom does not give you the right to stop a liberal from saying what they want to say, but the left or progressives already know that they can say what they want to say, they control those organizations and are cavalier about the rights of others. you see it in the senate right now. that chuckrights schumer and harry reid and the rest of that crusade -- said were so sacrosanct in recent years, suddenly they are going to throw them out because this might be their last chance in the senate to get through some questionable nominees that they do not want to have to go through procedures that the senate has done in the past.

their very nature is to create divisions. you can see it often times from the president. take the president on health care. you know the president said that there are people without health care in this country? that government needs to step up and restrict the rights of all americans, including the 90% or so that were covered in order to protect the last 10%. how many of you ever recall president obama wants saying that you had a responsibility to say you're covered by the insurance? why could he not say that? yes? the responsibility of the individual to look out for themselves? >> he wanted government to take it over. he wanted government to make those decisions.

case, butot only his particularly for young people, the first responsibility to cover yourself with health insurance. senator obama never once said that. you can have more americans coming together by an agreement. at least when it came to right- to-life, he talked about making abortions few and rare in this country. as president of the united states and what he affected in court were very different, but i am saying that you have to have civility and that there are certain structures we have in our society that we are reporting more of in terms of civility,

but there are others that discourage it in every way possible. the founding fathers thought that government should be limited so that they could make those choices for themselves. they did not want to make those choices for washington. -- for the people. as smart as they were, they wanted you to make those decisions for yourself. therefore they could create a civil society. when someone else makes a choice different from you, it does not infringe upon you. when government makes a decision for all of us, either this side or that side is going to win. says that one half of this is giving 25% of their income to the other half of this room, there will be a lot more divisions about which have passed to cough it up? if i just say you can give money to the other person, if you want.

not the right of government to step in to say they will do it across the board. so, there are differences in what we mean by civility and different ways to achieve it. you can achieve it to the maximum stand -- maximum extent possible under freedom. what about the right to life and taking away the right of the woman to choose? i would say that there is another right involved, protecting your right to life. i think that is a proper role of government. that is the one area in all of these were the left would say -- say prayer in school violates the rights of others, but it does not. people from all over the world come to this country even though people were saying different prayers than they were saying. my ancestors came, my grandparents came from ireland, i do not think they felt that their rights were infringed

upon in the new york state public schools. it does not infringe upon my rights. >> thank you very much. i am from south carolina, moving into my sophomore year high school. pursuing the american dream, which is to build your own business. with hard work and sweat. my father owns his own business. i think the government is infringing on our right to have a free market. we can help to get our point across, letting them see that we

want free enterprise, we do not want them to control laws. >> if you enjoy and apple phone, it gives you freedom with apple. say that yount to cannot buy an apple because you do not want someone in china, because they're too much profits, you have to buy samsung or something else. we make these decisions, people talk about the iniquity of wealth. this is what the people are willing to give. bill gates created a lot of microsoft programs that i suspect everyone in this room has used at one time or another. no one was forced to buy microsoft.

you want to respect those areas of business decisions. one of the reasons we have so much high youth unemployment is government is telling business is exactly what to do, providing this level of health care, this and them. a lot of employers skip hiring new people. the machines will not be for the regulated. your generation is going to find asuch tougher time with jobs any previous generation of my lifetime. which wants to regulate it,

vilifying successful businesses. vilifying the businesses and companies that are successful, offering many more jobs. instead,ty organizer businesses are going to give you the jobs. a lot of the countries in eastern europe have already found that out. you already have to have the services. young conservatives need to understand, government treats us completely differently and makes decisions in ways we would never make them. i want to bring it down to an elementary example. they did not ask you how much

your family makes to decide how much this would cost. year,mily income last charged with the room, a big mac for $3. a person who makes $9 million each year will be able to purchase a big mac for $3. when it comes to government services, the left has a different scheme. mcdonald's and they say -- we will charge you $50 and we will charge ron $1.50, because that is fair. the tree relationships completely different than the mayor -- average american would.

businesses are much more in tune with the average person. there is no reason to say that he who has earned his money, having taken risks in life, that he does not have the right to spend that the way he wants. heard endlessly about the rich, high-income people being rich. it goes back to labelling. they are not the rich, they are high wage earners in some cases. you will see that in your life. alex is extraordinary and was the mvp in the national hockey league this year. the highest-bly be paid in hockey league. the average entry-level hockey

layer in the -- hockey player in the nhl has already accumulated $500,000 in debt. they may make $500,000 in their first year as an nhl player, but they're not rich. this idea that the government in recent times has declared high income earners ridge, high income earners is what they are. by the bolsheviks went against the poll locks. -- like the bolsheviks went against the pollocks. businesses cannot get away with that. just because the label someone rich coming through mcdonald's does not mean i can suddenly charge them a lot more.

their rolls-royce and send the driver out to lunch will be charged the same as the person, is that fundamentally unfair? owner knowsbusiness it is not. there is something fundamental about that, that is the american way. thank you. appreciate you all being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [applause] >> senators will be meeting this evening in the old senate chamber with no cameras allowed.

at 6:00 eastern they will talk about the proposed change. we will be positioned to take statements after the meeting. harry reid talk about the situation during a speech this morning. here is a brief look. >> the votes are set up to start a fourth rate. how ironclad as the vote tomorrow? >> talks about what? proposal, bring it to me. if they have a proposal, bring it to me. the easiest way to do this is get rid of these filibusters. logically, why would they hold up? this is one of the most interesting things.

what is barack obama supposed to do? it is gone, all of it. it has only happened because of them. now, with these courts what they have done, you cannot have a recess appointment. we do not have time to wait and see. maybe we should just call justice kennedy. >> that was majority leader harry reid earlier today at the center for american progress. he has called for a meeting of all senators, by the way. discussing the changing a , we will beules

able to catch their reaction, here's what they had to say after their meeting last -- last thursday. >> as you can see, this is a real mess. and it is not a good mess. the fact of the matter is that we protect the rights of the minority. just a few years ago the majority leader was arguing for

those rights themselves, saying the senate would be destroyed if we went to a nuclear option. it has never been done before. is that of the matter they are playing parliamentary tricks regarding this and are doing it to the detriment of the u.s. senate, to the detriment of the minority. i have been in the majority and minority a number of times. i have to tell you i would fight to my death for the rights of the minority. that is one way that the united states senate is the most important legislative body in the world. right now if we go the route of the minority leader and the democrats, it is going to be a very destructive thing. they will say that they are limiting it to a certain executive branch.

once you start down that road, opening what senator reid has characterized as pandora's box, there is no end to what one side or the other can do. they have to be very careful. a lot of the things they told der can go by the wayside. that is if the majority was to change. the protection of the rights of the minority, that is one of the things that has made the u.s. senate when of the greatest bodies in the world, despite what happens lately. the fact is that brought up a bill and filed cloture lately, even though they know that everyone is filibustering, they accuse us of filibustering, they all go through without any filibuster or any real problem. they count what are not really filibusters' as filibuster's.

to invoke cloture. the fact of the matter is that this is a perilous time for the senate, for our country. don any majority can just what they want to without the deliberation required by the protections to the minority that we currently have, they changed that rule. all i can say is, this is going to be to the great detriment of this country and this institution. and again i think a great detriment to the people on both sides. not just republicans, but democrats. this has driven the trade unions in this country who want to be able to get what they want when they want it, i do not know about you, but many of the things they wanted over the years have not been right and

would have destroyed the country. some things that they wanted, they have gotten because they have been right. many of the things that they won are not right and, frankly, i do not know what is the matter with my colleagues on the other side. pocketsm to be in the of the union of these matters. frankly, you what two people on the national labor relations board that were properly employed and those that should not be on the board -- i would suggest that all the president has to do is appoint two others with the same philosophy. they would get through. but because the procedural rules were broken, republicans have no choice but to stand up and say -- that is not right. there are ways to do this. if you look at the record, over the last couple of years of this administration and their employment process, they have

been treated much better than their predecessors, backing up on the budget -- on the judge's being treated fairly. so have most of the others. yet ever to filibuster and stop and executive nominee. an endnot have a at a -- until they filibustered the nominee. this is a serious issue. i hope that my colleagues wake up on the other side, this will not be fun for them in the future. regarding the filibuster, what is the big deal? we have approved 199 judges, disapproved two. what is the big deal? we have three judges on the that -- on the calendar, but not

much, they can be brought open anytime. what is the big deal on the filibuster? 53 nominees are here from the white house. the big deal about filling the vacancies, obviously there is something wrong at the white house. times,e heard this many but i think this is a good ", the nuclear option was the most important issue i had ever worked on in my entire career, because if that had gone forward, it would have destroyed the senate as we know it. the majority leader, march of 2009. that is a pretty big deal. it involves the checks and balances of the government. basically, you are destroying the constitution if we go ahead

with this. it destroys the checks and balances in the senate. the only institution in our political system where minority views are protected. i would like to say two things. one of them about what is really at stake, the other but to claim the republicans are somehow slowing things down. this is not about a change of rules, it is about changing the senate. changing its character. most of the founders of this country did not want the king, so they created the congress to check an imperial presidency. the best known power of the u.s. senate is probably the power of consent in article two. that the president has to be checked in his nomination of about 1000 major appointees in government. senator mcconnell said this morning that does not mean to shut up, it usually means to ask

a lot of questions. democrats ask so many questions , when president reagan nominated him it took one year for him to be confirmed. they asked some many of me when i was nominated for president bush, it took 87 days. i did not necessarily like it, but that was the right of the senate. what is at stake here is not just a change of rules. it is the way the rules are being changed. it means that with 51 votes, and the majority can do anything that it wants on any day of the u.s. senate. they can change abortion rights, civil rights, environmental laws, labor laws. today the house can do that. when it comes to the senate be stopped, we think and we consider. after this whoever has the majority can do anything they want on any day.

it is what they said was one of the two greatest dangers to our democracy. the tyranny of the majority. changing the character of the senate is encouraging the tyranny of the majority. if anyone has a deep understanding of american history, this claim that republicans are somehow the laying, the number of cabinet members whose seats have been denied filibuster is the zero. the number of district judges who have not gotten their seats by filibuster is zero. the number of sub-cabinet members is zero. the number of circuit judges is two. the democrats denied five of those judges under president bush. as far as the congressional research service says, those nominees have been considered more rapidly than president bush's and president clinton's.

this is called the executive calendar. there are only 24 names on it. theonly way they can get to floor is a senator reed brings them up. the one who has been here the longest, that was just four months ago. i challenge if there are zero seats lost by filibusters, if the president's nominees are moving through fast, what is behind the attempt to change the character of the senate wetjen mark -- the senate? >> the facts put out there made it clear this is nothing more than a power grab. nothing more, nothing less. that is precisely what it is. the democrats here want to run over the mine or did. we have seen that the president

doesn't like you with a minority in washington. whether it is the irs, the epa, or the cfp be -- he has a lot of agencies that are trying to usurp the powers. trying to legislate by executive order. we have seen it over and over again. but the majority of democrats are talking about doing here is essentially running over the rights of the minority. if you look at the -- there is no foundation in which to change the rules. when you look at the executive branch nominees, and he said there have not been any denied confirmation in the second term, the votes of been big. the department of energy was 97-

0. the low one, jack lew only got 71 votes. they are getting overwhelming votes in the senate. as has been stated, there have been 199 lower court confirmations. two were defeated. if you look at this year, the number that have been confirmed as 28 judges. at the same time, in president bush's second, the number was 10. in processing time, it has been a lot faster. they are getting 100 days faster in terms of the rate of which judges are getting to the process here. there is no foundation, no bases upon which the democrats should do what they are talking about doing. as somebody who came here back in 2005, and came into office on this argument, because the

democrats were holding up president bush's judicial nominees, and there was a debate about whether or not to exercise a nuclear option, many of us refresh rate is with the pace of the senate. we were some pathetic to that argument. fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. there were lots of things he wanted to do legislatively. we would love to have gotten malpractice reform passed read or expiration on the north coast of alaska for energy. big majorities. sure the necessary super majority that it takes to get things done in the senate. that is the beauty of the united states senate. it allows representation for minority rights. what they're talking about is undermining and wrecking that. senator reid said it would destroy the senate. make no mistake about it, their document executive nominations

today. if you do this, it blows the door wide open. they will establish a precedent and it will not -- it will only be a matter of time before it is used for legislation as well. there is going to, time where there are no longer any majority. it is going to be difficult to turn back the hands of time if him -- if they move forward with a are talking about doing. i hope cooler heads will prevail. >> you mentioned the panel nominees are being contested. the issue of her republicans say is they are unconstitutional. if you confirm them now, they would be constitutional. they did understand the argument there. when addressed your concerns? >> they disobey the rules and

went around the rules. it seems to meet up with the people that have gone around the rules into powerful positions. there are are people who will not abide by the rules. like i suggested, if they want to pick to others the same philosophy philosophy, they would probably get through. we do not count that kind of thinking. i do not know anybody who would. >> if i could, that is an excellent question. here is what happened. the president sent these two names to the senate in mid- december of 2011 in the regular order prayed before their names got to the appropriate committee, he used his recess appointment power to appoint them at a time when the senate was in session.

the court said that is unconstitutional. that is a gross affront to the checks and balances that are in the constitution to restrain the president greatly up to date about what we appropriately do about it. it he can do is to appeal the court, and the court agreed with us. the second thing we can do is to say that those individuals who continue to make decisions after the court said they were unconstitutionally there, that we are not going to confirm them. they should've stepped down, which is will be called on them to do. they participated in deciding decisions which are subject to be vacated. this is our appropriate response within a long, within the rules, and the precedents of the senate.

to an unconstitutional act by the president of the united states appointed two people to the united -- national labor's board. >> recording senator reid from 2009 saying that it would ruin the senate. he and his colleagues were saying that the senate is already ruined because there is all getting done. does he the point of that? to the again that cooler heads prevail, could that happen again? could you show him the goodwill? >> the main reason is and is not doing as well as it should is because of the way the majority is running it, which is an argument we will take across the country. we know how to make it work. i think it is dysfunctional leadership of the senate grade not a dysfunctional senate. the second thing is, we could be working on student loans this weekend.

that is what i have been working on. before that was a water resources bill. we are getting done when the majority leader will be the senate in a way that lets us do it. this place could function very well and very easily and has been accomplishing something's. their mission is they have failed. they cannot run the senate. we need any majority. as we is what we are going to be arguing for. >> that is an example of things that are being done here. if you look at the farm bill, the internet fairness act, there's a whole bunch of legislation that has moved. they are working on an agreement on the student loan bill right now. that will ultimately get moved with bipartisan support. i do not know how you, here with a straight face make an argument that things are not working on executive nominations. there's not been a single

cabinet level nominee in the second term that hasn't been confirmed. as i pointed out, confirm by overwhelming majorities. the same thing is true for judicial nominees. you can have an argument and opinions about whether or not they like the rules of the senate, whether or not the rule should be changed, but you cannot argue the facts. the facts are indisputable. they are all right here. the same thing is true with regards to legislative activity in this session of congress. there have been things that have been done with bipartisan support. whether cooler heads can prevail, i hope they do. we are not the ones who were rushing to the floor to try and change the rules. we are trying to say to put the brakes on here. if there are things that we can do together on with regard to

these nominees, republican's are willing to do that. at this point, clearly the democrats are moving in a direction that is detrimental to the country and jeopardizes the institution of the senate. >> immigrants say it is improper to hold of a nominee. >> he has two problems. he was appointed in a recess appointment by the president and the senate was not a recess. he has that problem. just like the labor relations board. think about this. senator reid himself invented something called the pro-farm three-day session. he did that. president george w. bush time. president bush and like it at all. he respected the separation of power. president obama made recess appointments when the president when the senate was not in

research -- when the senate was not in. as the unconstitutional imperial action of the president that demands a response from the senate if checks and balances mean anything. >> what are the immediate consequences? we support him legislation altogether? >> if he changes the character of the senate, then the senate ceases to function. it will take our case to the people. we will argue for any new majority. republicans will be in the position to do whatever republicans with 51 votes want. we can take a medical malpractice, we can take up obamacare.

the more attractive it becomes. that is what we will happen. instead of a on student loans and immigration, all the things mentioned, it will turn this into a national debate about who controls the new majority institution in our country. voters want to do whatever we haveo don't. been called to a filibuster meeting this evening. they will be meeting in the old senate chamber were no cameras will be allowed to. we will be waiting to see if

they have neat thing to say after. in the meantime, senators will be meeting at 2:00 a.m. eastern today. much will be taken up by speeches on any topic here and you can see live senate coverage on our companion network c-span2. you can follow it at twitter at twitter.com/cspan. #cspanchat. quite earlier someone touched upon the idea that women could in really reject their role entering into the white house. i did find one political observer that commented that mary started with mr. lincoln when he was a poor young man and with no idea being called to the presidency. that being a cannibal. it look like a human sacrifice between her and her goal.

she talked about his role at entering the white house. she was so one that was a true political partner quacks as we continue our conversation we will hear them historians and authors including patricia brady in the role of the first lady and how it has changed along with the nation nation tonight at 9:00 eastern spam. quacks we are very bullish on cable. the have a huge type into home. over time this has become broadband. it is rolling out other services on top of that. it is home security plus.

there are new services that are beginning to roll out on that platform. quacks we just issued in annual reports. what we found was consistent with what we found in recent years. the average price of the basic continues to go up. the price per channel has actually gone down in recent years. it is not the job we are reporting on. quacks more of what is happening on today's cable industry from the cable show. tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. quacks george h w bush is visiting the white house today. he is there for a with president obama, recognizing a milestone created by resident bush when he was in office. today marks 5000 awards given. we will hide love -- like

coverage. in the meantime, a look at wastd abuse in afghanistan construction. we talked to the special inspector general about what he found. we take a look at how your tax dollars are being spent. aday we want to look is on $34 million military headquarter. john sopko, the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. let's just begin with the command headquarters in afghanistan. how did it begin? guest: we opened up the investigation in february 2010. the army put the request in that to build a command structure in southern afghanistan. within months the decision was made the army would not be in

camp leatherneck, the marines would be there. the marine general took a look of the plans and said i do not want it, i do not need it, i will not use it, stop it. he said that in may of 2010. then the process just continues. that is what we find out. once you appropriate money, it gets spent. they let the contract in 2011 and started building it. what we essentially have now that was turned over to the military commander now, a building that is almost complete and no one wants it. host: we were just showing pictures of it.

64,000 square feet. accommodates 1200-1500 staff. a war room, briefing center and senior military offices. why can't the navy just use it? guest: the commander did not need it. the marines corps commander had his own headquarters. did not want it. it is a rather luxurious taj mahal and did not want it. before the first shovel went into the ground, the marine corps commander who was running the mission said i do not want it, do not build it. host: is there are ready a command headquarters nearby? guest: yes. it is not as well-made as this one. they're very happy with that. it serves the purpose. host: who said we will go ahead and build it? guest: we do not know. we will try to find the individual who ignored the

marine corps general and continued with construction. host: what is congress saying about this? guest: we have got a number of letters expressing our reach, but no direct communication. i am hoping staff is compact -- is contacted about this. host: what does the executive branch say about this? guest: they are looking into this. the white house and pentagon still investigating. and they are doing their own separate investigation. we will do ours and make certain we get to the bottom of the spirit and host: when will you put all your findings? guest: it will be a number of months. i just happened to see it back in june when i traveled last time to afghanistan. my staff was aware of it a few months before.

we just started the investigation. the original purpose was going to be a command headquarters for an army division. apparently it was going to be a joint command headquarters. if you actually go in to see the computer room -- they did a separate computer room. we think it may have been a joint operation. that quickly changed. it is just left there now to sit. host: which company built it? guest: we believed it was a british company, the best- constructed building i have seen in afghanistan. we find a lot of buildings that are falling down. buildings that will electrocute students.

buildings where the roofs fall down. we usually find a lot of shoddy construction, horrible construction. we're looking at other sites of poor construction right now. this one was perfect. almost perfect. the irony is just a few months ago. the military, even though this building will be torn down, spent taxpayer dollars to improve the fire suppression system on a building that will probably be destroyed. host: will the $34 million price tag go up? guest: absolutely. fire suppression couple hundred thousand. compared to 34 million or billions we have seen wasted, it is small, but one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. host: why do you think this building will be torn down?

guest: those are the options being considered. first of all, the military does not need it. with the drawdown in the base where it is located, this building will be on the other side of the fence. this will no longer be encamp whether neck. as we draw down, the base will get smaller. this building will be left on the other side. it is a security risk for the u.s. to use it. the three options, one is to tear it down because the military does not need it. it costs money to keep the military going. heating and air-conditioning is going constantly right now. the other option is to turn it over to the afghans. that may be good, but no one has talked to them. that is one of the problems we

of scenic route. we did not talk to them. >> we have heard for allegations. and the third option, they hire a contract -- the third option is they were drinking at turning a classified room in which they do planning for the war, there were going to turn the war room into a theater. host: for what? guest: for movies. that was the idea. we will turn it into our room -- for room and record down of the bottom. 64,000 rec room and theater. it turns out there are not enough u.s. personnel to move

into the base and use it for that. that probably is not the option. in all likelihood the building will be ripped down. host: this is one building we're talking about here. as you said, the camp there in helmand province gets smaller as we continue to draw down out of afghanistan. that this building will be on the other side. it poses a security risk. i am wondering about the president right now negotiating with the afghanistan president and considering as zero option here, that he just withdraws the troops from afghanistan and does not leave some behind. what impact does that have on the equipment, items we have built, the stuff you look into?

guest: again, determining option whether it is zero or 15,000 is about my pay grade. a decision to be made by the president, administration, in congress. it will have an impact on the buildings and what we constructed. we're having close consultation with the pentagon and the state department that you have to consider the drawdown as you build, as you maintain. if we cannot get access to website, why are we building a base? how will we oversee the construction on that base? we're having conversations all the time. we have grave concerns that our planning for the drawdown does not consider the ability for us to manage and oversee a lot of the facilities. host: what is the fallout taxpayer-wise?

guest: it could be billions of dollars. what we are hoping is we do it smartly, and that the afghans won the buildings, programs we're providing them and are able to manage and run them. host: what are the lessons learned from iraq? guest: some, they did. there have been a lot of reports written about lessons learned in iran. the problem is, no one applies the lessons learned. what we saw has just enough -- just been repeated in afghanistan. our concern is it will be repeated. host: john sopko, spencer and -- special inspector general for reconstruction and afghanistan, taking a look at the $34 million building headquarters in

afghanistan that is likely to be torn down. >> good morning, and think you for c-span. guest: i believe there was a report done for the special inspector general. i believe he did look at that. my jurisdiction is afghanistan. he was set up just to look at iraq. i did not know the conclusions from that investigation. host: democratic calller. go ahead. caller: this is one of the most outrageous issues i have heard discussed on c-span. that is number one. where does your responsibility like, and to do you answer to? who is paying your salary? and when did you initially start

your job responsibilities as being in some sort of an inspector role? i do not know where this is all coming from, but i can tell you any money is involved here is coming from directly involved here. bridges and roads are in dire need of repair. when will this all come to a screeching halt? guest: first of all, i am a

federal government employee. i was appointed by president obama last july. i just finished one year on the job. we have about 200 investigators, auditors and inspectors. our job is to look at fraud, waste, and abuse. our job is if we find people who steal money, we will investigate them and get them indicted. we have brought a lot of indictments. if there are problems with waste, which is the vast majority, we try to make recommendations to improve the products.

i am a taxpayer, too. i am outraged because the waste, fraud, and abuse that we have seen here was identified in iraq, identified time and again and does not seem like we are learning from what we have seen. what we're doing in the future, and we have done it in the past, but i personally think individuals are personally responsible. there is someone who made the decision to ignore the general recommendations. we will identify those people. we will identify those people that have made decisions that will cost the taxpayer money. i think people should get fired. when was the last time someone got fired for a couple million dollars grew up? if i screw up, you will get

fired. -- i will get fired. for some reason, this system just keeps pumping out of money. i would love to see someone in a government agency come back to 64,000 square foot building. a number of general came up to me the last time i was in afghanistan and said please, look at this. this is indicative of the problem of military construction. once it starts, it never stops. that is why we highlighted it. host: what about returning money to afghanistan? guest: trust me on that. i think congressman would love to see congressman return money.

that is what we're hoping to see here. host: we want to get callers' opinions here. here are the numbers. what are your thoughts and questions about afghanistan rink free construction? we have a special inspector general. but on the job for about a year looking into the cost. taxpayer dollars for reconstructing afghanistan. his tweet -- guest: you would have to go to war website. we list all of the reports and findings. a number of people have been indicted for stealing money,

bribery, kickbacks. and a number of recommendations have been included in the defense authorization. caller: i have a question about the military headquarters that was built. why did not get in order before it was built? why did they wait to have the hearings until after it is over with? does not anybody talk to anybody about this before it is built? now it has been wasted. host: i think she is talking about the congressional hill mentioned that might be talking about the headquarters. guest: i know they're having a congressional hearing looking at contractual issues. this might be one of them. i think the calller asked a good question. we do not know why no one has

stopped construction. how could this be going on? it is pretty big. the size of a football field. did not anyone wonder what is this thing being built at the corner of the base? that is what we're trying to find out. host: there is a hot line you can call if you have information about reconstruction efforts in afghanistan. do you get a lot of tips? guest: we really do. when i appear on shows like this or give testimony, we get more hot line complaints. if you see something, if you see fraud, something suspicious, someone coming back from afghanistan and aldus said it has extreme wealth, call us. that is how we get our tips. that is how we find soldiers coming back, contractors coming back bodying mercedes. they are buying a fancy cars and all of that and we get that

information and will run it down. there is war profiteering going on, and we would like to know about it and follow up. we give an amenity to people would give us information. some have been under investigation. host: wanting to know about the $34 million headquarters in afghanistan -- guest: that is an idea. i do not know anybody that wants it. it is pretty big, but that is an option. host: the key is next. democratic calller. -- vicky. caller: thank you for c-span.

you bring the most interesting and provocative speakers on. the reason i am calling is your guest said something about appropriations. it got me to think of the total mindset of businesses sometimes and even and the insurance agency. if you have to say -- have the money, you have to spend it otherwise you'll never get it for the following year. we also had a state capitol building called the taj mahal. they were upset about the cost of it after they were built. it is always we find out after the fact. the administration is supposed to be held for accountability. and this is what president obama is preaching. i was wondering how your speaker felt about accountability in the pre-planning, instead of after the fact. guest: the speaker raises a good point, and that is a problem,

does not seem like much planning. the suit -- through the money at the problem. i can understand during the war. you're talking about soldiers lives on the line, but there should have been more planning. particularly if there should be planning now, and that is what the concern is. as you have the drawdown concerning -- occurring, there should be a uniform plan by our government, all the agencies on the government, just like the calller raised, what will we do as the troops get drawn down? what programs do we do? what succeeded in what did not? which programs do they really need? i am sad to say we're not seeing

really good planning. we do not think our government knows what works. i sent a letter to every government agency and said tell me what programs worked. what are your top-10 that successes, and what were your biggest failures and explain why. you know what, they could not answer. they do not know what the top ted successes are. i just came back last week from a conversation with senior officials in the pentagon and said they had no idea what works. that is shocking. 10 years into the war our government cannot rack or stack, cannot prioritize what works and what does not. if you have an unlimited budget and you were throwing as much money at it, that is not as important, but our budget is

decreasing. our ability to work in afghanistan is decreasing. we really need to know what is working and what does not to we do not race -- waste money. that is the key issue we are focusing on, getting the administration and congress to do some hard thinking, hard planning on what to use, what programs to do going forward. host: what power will you have to make that happen? guest: the bully pulpit right here. every report we do, every audit, every inspection, every minute alert letter is made public. host: what is your tenure? guest: my tenure is this office goes out of existence when the amount of money for reconstruction not yet spent falls below $250 million per year.

right now the amount of money appropriated, authorized, but not yet spent is $20 billion. we expect to be around for the long-term. not yet spent on reconstruction. right now in the pipeline. host: martinsburg, west virginia. independent calller. caller: good morning. i would like to say, from the 1980's stars like michael jackson they would write songs about we have money for wars but do not have money to feed the poor. no one shines a light on it.

but when congress is passing bills at midnight and 2:00 we tell our children nothing good happens when you're out in the streets past midnight. if congress passes these bills they do not read, midnight and 2:00. then we have to wait and see what the bills are. the tea party had a point when they said just read the bill. if congress does not know what is in the bill, how can the people know what is in the bill? guest: i think that is a good point. i think we should all be accountable. congress, the executive branch, contractors, and the american people. i know it is difficult to read the bill, but followed the news and follow c-span.

we are all responsible for our future here. we cannot just complain, we have to do something about it. host: a question on twitter -- guest: i did not have an answer. i wish i knew. i am certain all whole lot. we have another building we will expose called -- called the melting building. it is literally belting because of the way the construction was done with the brick. there are lots that the afghanistans will never use. i attended a meeting of afghanistan officials last time and they are coming up with a list of buildings that we're turning over that they had never even heard of. now they have to maintain them

or use them. we do not have a number, but unfortunately we are afraid there are quite a few. caller: i watched c-span a lot. and i have watched the benghazi hearings, the gun runnings, and the thing is accountability, and i have not seen any from the administration. i have watched your colder multiple times like. why should we expect in afghanistan that people are not held responsible for. and i want to know how the public can have confidence that people will be held accountable? guest: the president appointed me. i think if you look at my track record for the past year that i have been on the job, we are

holding people accountable, whether they are in the embassy, contractors, civilians, military. i cannot speak for any other incident. i am not responsible for that. we have had the full support and backing of the white house and will hold people accountable. we will indict people who steal from us, no matter where you are hiding. this week i hope we will announce something that will be very significant about us having identified in sees millions of dollars in afghanistan that will be made public this week i hope. that will show that we take this seriously. host: can you tell us more about this? guest: not really because it is under seal and i do not want to go to jail but we have identified people who have stolen from the government and identified where their banks were.

we have seized it. we're the first u.s. government agency to do that in afghanistan. hopefully it will be unsealed this week. a fantastic effort by might investigators. they are thinking out of the box and they are taking names and doing it. i would say watch my website. if you do not think there is some of the government holding people accountable, go to my web site and follow us on the news and twitter. host: boring file clerk wants to know -- guest: to some extent, the calller is right. we were created too late. i have only been on the job a year. but the nice thing is, if we can

do it, the statute of limitations allows us to pursue it, so we are pursuing the money. that may be the biggest thing for us to do. we may not be able to invite everyone, but if we can track down the money, we're going to seize it back for the united states taxpayer. host: are you looking at the money that has been given to the afghanistan president? how much money has been given. accusations of corruption there. guest: i will not talk about an individual case for the president or anybody else in the administration. we will pursue the facts as we see them. host: john, democratic calller. caller: -- host: having a really hard time understanding you. but baker to karen. -- let me go to karen. caller: $34 million on military

installation in afghanistan. how much is that budgetary breakdown for transportation costs alone? that is the end of my question. thank you. transportation for what? the material? caller: what is the transportation? how much money was just to send material over there? guest: i do not have an exact number for this facility, but the calller has identified a serious problem. every weapon in, every issue, every bullet, almost every bit of construction material has to be brought into a afghanistan. likewise with the draw down a

lot of the equipment has to be brought back at great expense. that is the cost of fighting a war in afghanistan, just like a cost in iraq. probably more expensive because of being landlocked. you're going over the mountains and is very difficult. you have identified a great cost. host: a dependent calller. -- independent calller. caller: i have been with the department of defense for about 25 years. and i have known the spending structure has real problems. we have known about this issue since iraq and before that, and i do not like the idea that we will continue to investigate, continue to pay for investigators to find these people when we know the system is broken, the system needs to be fixed.

i see lots of talk, and talk is cheap. i just think the money should be spent on solutions, because it could be fixed. guest: i think you are right. there are fixes to be made, but people are personally responsible for their actions. we cannot forget that. just because the system is broke does not mean i will allow someone to steal money. i think people need to be identified. and i have worked in a lot of administrations and departments. i never seen a lot of agencies. the one thing that comes through is personal accountability. you are accountable. there is a g.s. 15 who sees the problem, ignores the problem, and allows the ways to occur. i can cite an example. we will be announcing something

today dealing with the culvert denial system. these are coleworts the troops trouble over it was supposed to put up bars and materials to stop the terrace from putting bombs underneath the culverts. what happened was a bunch of contracting officers were too lazy, and it never checked. they never did due diligence. they never went out to see if the afghanistan contractors actually put up the great spirit and now all of a sudden our rotation came in and there was a new contract things -- contracting officer, and he took his job seriously.

he was responsible. he checked. he found that none of the culverts were there. as a result of the incompetence and laziness and stupidity of those individuals, american soldiers died. afghan soldiers died. so i actually believe in accountability because a bunch of contacting officers did not do their job, americans died. one good american contracting officer did his job and saved countless other american soldiers lives. so yes, i believe in personal accountability. we will hold people accountability. we will make recommendations for fixing the system. if you have to do both. -- you have to do both. host: what is the cost? guest: when it comes to the cost

of american soldiers lives, the cost insignificant. we put up a post, fraud can kill. i hope people take that seriously. we will put the poster in every base in afghanistan and every place here in the united states, too. if you know about a place, call us because it could kill your son, daughter, or friend. host: republican calller of next. caller: i want to say good morning to john and you. how will you guys get all of these people who are i guess liable for killing troops and now live to the

white house. this is just getting underway. live coverage here on c-span. [applause]

lacks good afternoon, every body on behalf of michelle and myself, welcome to the white house. 23 years ago president george h w bush began a tradition. he knew that across the country every day americans were finding ways to serve each other and get that to their communities, often with few resources and very little recognition. knew the works were viable to the people they helped. he knew their spirit of service was vital to our national character. he created an award, the daily point of light award to recognize americans who served their neighbors and communities in innovative ways that inspire us all. ,or the rest of his presidency nearly every single day, president bush gave someone a daily point of light award. after he left the white house he kept going and going and going.

in between skydiving and other activities he kept going. come as no surprise since we are talking about somebody he last served his country in such extraordinary ways. when you do a parachute jump at the age of 85 another parachute jump, i believe is seven, this is somebody who is not going to slow down. today we are extraordinary honor to be joined by the family that helped build the points of light foundation. world's largest organization dedicated to volunteer service. president bush, mrs. bush, neil bush, we want to welcome you. we also want to welcome the ceo.

it is worth applause there. [applause] quacks this is not the first time president bush and i have come together for an event like this. four years ago i went to texas a&m where president bush has his library to celebrate the 20th anniversary of points of light. i was pleased with the howdy i received. i was deeply impressed by invested the students are with community service. most of all i was moved by how much they loved president bush. now we come together to mark another milestone. 4999 point ofute, light awards have been presented

to individuals across this country. now i have the honor of joining president bush and presenting number 5000. [applause] number 5000. about 10 years ago floyd hammer and cathy hamilton were getting ready to retire. they have been farming for years. they have earned a break. they planned to sail around the world. in their friend told them about a special place they should visit. ita village in tanzania, was helping to renovate and hiv/aids clinic during they thought it sounded like a worthwhile detour. when they arrived, the country was in the third year of a brutal drought. people were starving and dying. many of them were children.

having seen this, kathy and floyd had to do something about it. their vision of a regionally retirement -- leisurely retirement was replaced by fighting global hunger. has distributed free meals to hungry children here in the united states and in more than 15 countries worldwide. today more than 233 million meals. they have gotten to see many of the kids they met in tanzania grow up healthy and strong. this work they say is the most rewarding thing they have ever done. i have to say, having just been to tanzania, we can attest to how important this kind of work is, how it changes lives. it is also fitting that later this week people around the world will celebrate the legacy of the magnificent public servant nelson mandela by performing at the community service. as people look for examples, our

reach provides an extraordinary demonstration of how they can help people's lives. if the purpose of this reward is to celebrate americans who were to make our country and the theira better place, for own advantage or for any ulterior motives, i cannot think of anyone more deserving than cathy hamilton and floyd hammer. thise we actually present award, i would be remiss if i did not take a moment to honor the man he made this possible. he hates this but i'm going to do it anyway. much has been said about his own extraordinary life of service. i'm not sure everybody fully appreciates how much he is done to our country's tradition of service. in addition to this award, he created the first white house office dedicated to promoting volunteerism. he championed in signed the national community service act. law bya modest

washington standards. it involves little money. that itback, we see sparked a national movement. it laid the groundwork for the corporation for national and it gave tens of millions of americans meaningful opportunities to serve. today, thanks to those programs and others like them, and thanks to the passion of leaders like bush, a volunteerism has gone from something some people do some of the time to something lots of people do as a regular part of their lives. ofce 1989, the number americans who volunteer has grown by more than 25 million. across age groups and regions. it is now a graduation requirement in many and colleges. it is embedded in the culture large and small. speaking for my family, volunteering has brought joy and meaning to michelle and me and

our doctors over the years. i know that is the case for many of your families, too. this may seem ordinary too many americans, especially those who grew up during this. , -- during this period. we can say we are a stronger force for good because more and more of our people serve. for that, we have to think president bush and his better half, barbara, who is just as committed as her husband to service and dedicated her life to it as well. [applause] the presidents who followed

president bush had a good sense to continue this work and not just because one of them calls him dad. [laughter] leaving office, president clinton and both president bushes have come together to help people affected by national disasters here at home and around of the world. a reminder that services not a democratic or republican value, but a core part of being american. at the white house today, we are proud to carry forward of that legacy. i created the office of innovation and civic participation to find new ways to use innovation to strengthen service. we expanded the office of neighborhood partnerships originally created by george w bush which works closely with community organizations across the country to help americans in need. today i want to announce a new task force with representatives from cabinet agencies across the government to take a fresh look at how we can better support services, in particular on some of our most important national priorities.

in -- improving schools, recovering from disasters, remembering our kids. this'll be led by my team here at the white house along with wendy spencer who is here. she previously led the group in florida for jeb bush. we have the whole family working. [laughter] in times of tight budgets there are very tough problems. we know that the resource we have is limitless energy. when we harness that energy and create more opportunities for americans to serve, we pay tribute to the extraordinary examples set by bush. note, i on a personal am one of millions of people who have been inspired by your passion and commitment. you have helped so many americans discover they have something to contribute. that they, too, have the power to make a difference. you described those points of light. outpeople who are spread

across the country who are like stars brightening the lights around them. given the humility that has defined your life, i suspect it is harder for you to see something that is clear for everyone else around you and that is how bright a light you shine. how your vision and example have eliminated the path for so many others. how your love of service has kindled a love in the hearts of millions here at home and around the world. and, frankly, just the fact that you are such a gentleman, a good and kind person, helps to reinforce that spirit of service. us, let mef all of just say that we are surely a kinder and gentler nation because of you and we cannot thank you enough. [applause]

it is now my great pleasure to join president bush and all of you in presenting this extraordinary award to an extraordinary couple who have done so much for so many people. we are grateful to them. will you please step up and receive your award? [applause]

[applause] >> thank you for this incredible award. we are humbled and honored to be as the 5000-daily point of light. not in our wildest dreams did we ever plan to be here or even imagined receiving this award. in fact, after being in business relaxingars, he was and sailing around the world.

a 2003, he was asked to build hospital. that changed everything. when we got there, we saw children dying of starvation. there was no food and no money. three little boys who were scavenging for food aid something which was poisonous and that they died. home, overwhelmed by the need and by our need to do something about it. food towe had to send help the people of the village. we packed our first 2000 meals with volunteers. we discovered that people loved to help and to give and to pack

meals. we started an organization called out to reach. each day we took another step toward a bigger operation. -- one, we had no intention of doping, but which we were compelled to expand. we had to help and others were eager to help us. each labor day volunteers all over iowa helped pack 4 million meals. canada,nited states and tens of thousands of volunteers of all ages and nationalities have helped us to pack a total of 232 meals. -- 232 million meals so far. [applause]

as we have seen time and time again, when people give of themselves, when they share the burden and they share the task of solving it, like shines. love grows. all over the world and here at home. thank you so much. [applause] >> now i think we will have -- have neil come up.

are to sayks something nice about neil. [laughter] it is not hard to do. he has been very active helping others. it is my privilege to introduce neil. i think president and mrs. obama for this wonderful hospitality. it is like coming home for barbara and me. for the rest of you, it is like being greeted for this hospitality. it knows no bounds. thank you very much. [laughter]

>> as he is being moved to his seat, he may not be parachuting anymore but he has taken up a new hobby. -e is trying to be a style center. i do not know if you have noticed the sox, but gq men were calling him. [laughter] you have said if one wants to pursue a life of meaning and adventure, the weight to do so is to find the nt, the dignity and goodness in every person. to to help others in need and to become part of something bigger than ourselves. you and mom have lived an incredibly meaningful and

adventurous lives. many.you for inspiring so that is an applause line. [applause] on behalf of the entire bush family, a special inks to you. thank you for inviting us to this most special place. and for your outstanding work to promote movement as a national priority. you understand and you spoke of the fact that services is one of the things that truly brings our nation together. it transcends all it takes. it addresses problems that government alone cannot solve. we are so blessed to have two to view documents that have points in your own ways. we thank you for your leadership in this area. [applause]

today we are celebrating the thatdaily points of light represent the 65 million americans who engage their cells in the lives of others every year. these are what my dad calls the soul of america. years ago, dad asked us to imagine what would happen up all the points of light award winners decided to leave their hometowns and move together into one place in america. if she used imagine her retirement funds to start a brilliant bus and taught the children computer skills. and the pro football player got them all reading books. and kathy helped feed and nurture the young people. . andvene with trouble you teach for america arrives and seniortions faith, use,

groups, organize volunteers to work with charities to tutor, to clean, to mentor and serve as points of light. regardless of its problems, a community like this, one where gave even a small part of their time and service to others would be truly and utterly transformed. that is our mission. too deepen the culture of service that drives change. that is the power of the daily point of light program. house you left the white you spoke to all of the award winners and said, if i could leave but one legacy to this country, you brought up the l word which he never does in private. it would not be in treaties signed or wars one. won. wars

it could be a return to the moral compass that once drove the country. a respect for goodness that makes this country great. asekindling of that light lit from within. to remake america as it truly is, a country with millions of points of light. thank you to all of you in this room. i could go on, but dad told me to keep it short. i won't. [laughter] you who are all of points of light. those who we recognize with the daily point of light award and two of not found recognition but are solving the biggest challenges facing our nation. to all of them, we say thank you. [applause]

you are cutting into my time. mom is looking at me. to stop the applause. [laughter] and i'ms my pleasure truly honored to serve with such an astounding board, to introduce the ceo of points of light. -- a trueder through leader. >> thank you for your boundless optimism and you're incredibly gracious spirit and leadership. i think we share a number of things in common. one of them is that we have no- nonsense mothers. thank you for your lives of service. we are so proud to carry on your legacy and proud to continue to

give out this award that you created to showcase the power of people to create change. the daily points of light gathered here today, i think are a beautiful tribute to your lives and your work. and mrs. to president obama for sustaining and dramatically growing national and community service. you carry on a tradition of americans, calling on to use our compassion and ingenuity to put them to work and serve our nation. over the past three decades, our presidents have shown us how we can work together through service. they have literally rolled up their sleeves and called the nations volunteers. from building houses with habitat for humanity to rebuilding after disasters to joining hands to support our veterans. these humbleis in acts of serving others that are president, the most powerful individuals on earth, have

demonstrated america's true strengths. they have made it clear that when there are people in need, americans come together across all that divides us to help. when there is a job to do, to clean up the mississippi river or rebuild after a super storm, we do not ask about political parties or fate or income. when it comes to ensuring that people get food and shelter and a helping hand, we get together and we get busy. points of light award calls the nation back to an essential understanding of who we are as americans. towas resident bush's genius put a daily spotlight on these individuals and actions that embody the very best of our nation. the award is the antidote to the cynicism that often pervades our news and our discourse. careminds us that people

and that hope is the true story of america. years, 5000 points of light have shown us that we can a better future together. i want to introduce you to two points of light. can you stand? [applause] a few years ago, he broke his glasses and while he was waiting for a new care, he realized how hard it was to learn anything without being able to see. how many kids cannot afford glasses at all. so he started a project called which hasing collected and distributed more than 300 $50,000 worth of used eyeglasses to students in half a dozen countries around the world. thank you. [applause]

darius, can you stand? [applause] light, heny points of has transformed personal tragedy into a platform for serving others. he was four years old when his father was murdered. he spent 11 years in foster care without encouragement. and then in high school a biology teacher told him that he had great potential and that he believed in him. one caring adult who believed sparked him to pursue scholarships and grants. not satisfied with his own personal success, darius wrote a book and found it when million- dollar scholar. in just one year, he helped thousands of students get the scholarship that they need. congratulations.

[applause] i would like to invite all of the points of light award winners who are with us today to stand so we can recognize you and celebrate your contributions. [applause] thank you, all. you and so many others across the nation are examples of america plus greatness. you show us that we can create an impact at a scale and speed that was formerly unimaginable. the future of service is brighter than it has ever been. individuals have more power to create change than they ever have.

and each new points of light will make that future brighter still. it is for that reason that i am thrilled to announce today that disney is making a significant investment to help ensure that we are able to lift up the next 1000 points of light. [applause] so, president and mrs. bush, we can hardly imagine the transforming changes in these next points of light will bring. but i know they will illuminate our task, they will carry or word your spirit and they will reflect on your legacy of service. they will show and live out your example and your words, president bush. they will show us not only what is best in your heritage but what all of us are called to become. q i very much. -- thank youuch very much. [applause]

you very much, michelle, for your outstanding work to all the points of light recipients. we are proud of you. congratulations. keep up the great work. you inspire us and make us want to do that much more, especially when you see young people who are already making such a difference. it gives you enormous confidence that america, for all of its challenges will always me to them because we have this incredible character. with that, i want to once again thank president and mrs. bush for their outstanding leadership. we are so grateful to both of you. i want to thank neil for his leadership and i want to make sure that everybody enjoys a reception. i suspect the food may be pretty good. [laughter] q i very much -- thank you very

much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated until the official parties have departed. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> if you missed any of this event, as is available in the c- span video library. www.c-span.org. the senate gaveled in about an hour ago. there is likely proposed changes to the filibuster rules. senators will be meeting but note cameras will be allowed. they'll be talking about proposed changes to filibuster rules. to catch a position some of the comments. we have a camera outside of the area. we have more about the filibuster rules from a capitol hill reporter covering the issue. >> i want to give you some other news. we told you at the top he senate is going to be meeting this evening. all 100 senators invited to a

closed-door meeting to talk about changing senate rules, possibly invoking the nuclear option. the senate majority leader has said he is headed back. burgess ever with politico. , they will meet behind closed doors. whose idea was this and what is on the agenda? guest: i think it originated from the minority leader. we have not gotten any sort of written agenda yet. i do not think we will see one. i think it'll be an opportunity for everyone to clear their mind and may be some sort of gang if they go that route to try to stop the senate are from pursuing that. we'll be looking to see if there is a group that is trying to pursue some sort of compromise. >> the last time it was talked about in 2005 was when the

republicans controlled the senate. there was a compromise proposal. is there a gang and works right now? guest: not that i am aware of. remembero important to this came up recently in 2005. it came up six months ago. there was a compromise negotiated that people were referring to as a gentleman's agreement because they do not think it has really helped at all. what was that agreement? guest: minor roles changes. an agreement that they would not go forward with the nuclear option to change the rules. work with the majority to process nominations and they're all saying that you have gone back on your word and we don't know we can trust you anymore. host: what does harry reid want

to do? how does he want to change senate rules? guest: he wants to make it easier to confirm president barack executive nominees. there is a specific arsenal of that are controversial, especially those at the national relations board and the consumer financial protection bureau which will be a recess apartment. republicans do not want to touch them right now. democrats say we need to get these guys through or we're going to invoke the nuclear nuclear option. there is also the department of labor. some reports say that republicans have artie said let's move forward. is the issue not resolved? no.t: they have set it on most of them , but not all.

macconnell made a counter offer all the not include nominees. that is really the crux. if the republicans allow up or down votes than that could actually diffuse this entire drama. how does this work then? they meet tonight. if there is not, there is cloture votes. the senate majority leader put this on the books? the so-called nuclear option? guest: the exact machinery for it, he was asked directly about this on thursday. he just kind of pointed to his head and said this is all up there. basically what would happen is

they would use a majority vote you havele -- usually to use 67 senators. they would use the so-called constitutional option to override that and to lower the filibuster threshold on executive nominations from 60 to 51. i guess that would happen as soon as these cloture votes were about to occur because we do not believe they would get enough support to move forward. they reid might go to nuclear option as soon as tomorrow morning. burgess everett with politico, thank you for your time. >> at the beginning of today's session in the senate, he said he is looking forward to that meeting tonight at 6:00 eastern. it'll take days in the old senate chamber. again, we will have a camera standing by just in case any

senators wish to speak. you can see the senate live this afternoon on our companion network, c-span 2. touched uponomeone the idea that women could not predict their role in entering into the white house. i did find one political observer who commented that the election that said mary started with mr. lincoln when he was a poor young man and with no more idea to being called to the presidency than of being a cannibal. however, i lay out in my book an educated guess that he would not have let she would not that she would not have let a thing like human sacrifice between her and her goal. she was a determined woman. she did talk about mr. lincoln's role perhaps of entering the white house. she was a true political partner. >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, we will hear from historians and authors about the role of the

first lady and how how it has changed along with the nation tonight at 9:00 eastern on c- span. >> we are very bullish on cable. they have multiple services. additionally it was video and over time that has become most -- rolling out other services on top of that like home monitoring. anxiety managing or turning on your pull heater or a nanny cam. there are new services that are beginning to roll out on that platform. >> we just issued an annual report and what we found was consistent with what we have found in recent years which is the average price that most people subscribe to continues to go up.

the price per channel has actually gone down in recent years. consumers are getting more channels. whether that is good or bad is not what we are reporting on at the moment. >> more of what is happening in today's cable industry from this year's annual cable show. the communicators. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span 2. official in charge .f organizing the g 20 summit he was joined by the international monetary fund's david lipton hosted by the center for strategic international studies here in washington. this is about one hour. >> welcome back. thank you, again, for participating on a wet friday morning.

it is great to see a good group here. i know there are a lot of people watching online. i welcome you as well. i am happy to have two people who would individually be a headline maker here. certainly about the g-20. i am delighted to have both of them at the same time for a conversation about the g-20 and what to look forward to in the next couple months up to the summit in st. petersburg. on my left is the second of the two former bosses i alluded to when i introduced caroline. david lipton is first deputy managing director of the imf. he has been in that role from us two years, i think. david and i work together at white house and treasury. he has a long, distinguished career in international finance in the private sector and at the imf, the u.s. treasury, and in academia.

i think he is pretty well known here in washington. so welcome to him. i should have said, he got his phd from an obscure institution in cambridge, massachusetts. that is the lead-in to our other speaker, ksenia yudaeva, the russian g-20 g-20 sherpa. she is also head of the directorate of the executive office of the russian president. she has had that office for over year and has taken on recently the role of organizing be st. petersburg summit and the many related aspects of a hosting year in the g-20. she was, prior to her government service, had a long and distinguished career in international economics.

she also works at the carnegie endowment. in addition to degrees from moscow state university and the economic school, she has a phd from another obscure institution in cambridge, mass which you can read about in the biography. we will start with the macro, global growth story. i wanted to ask david. you just, the imf just issued an update of its regular annual world economic outlook this week. you downgraded slightly the outlook for the global economy. when i look back at the april release, i noticed one thing that really stood out. back in april, you were pretty positive about conditions in emerging markets.

you even had a headline, re- accelerating activity in emerging markets. what happened? >> let me start with a couple words about the g-20. i think the g-20 as a group has been a very important one. it started with washington in the 2008. through the london summit, the pittsburgh summit in 2009, it really address the question, how do we stop this crisis? in the midst of the financial crisis, how do we make sure it never happens again? the work the g-20 has done over the years, we have seen very good cooperation among the g-20 two deal with the most acute phases of the crisis. but we are now faced with the fact that recovery is disappointing.

it has never taken hold as strongly as we had liked. yet we had our most recent outlook downgraded growth a little bit. we have been saying for some time we see three-the growth, with the most rapid growth in emerging markets. with some recovery, but not strong enough recovery, in the u.s. and a few other countries. and still quite disappointing situation in europe, where the eurozone remains in recession. i think you are absolutely right. one of the more substantial revisions this time has been that the emerging markets have slowed somewhat. keeping in perspective, they are still the fastest-growing part of the world. it is always hard to gauge exactly how high growth can be for how long in the emerging market world. i think we are seeing a slowdown, and we are looking at

the reasons for that. we also downgraded growth in other parts of the world. keeping this on perspective perspective, i think the main point is that growth has slowed somewhat in the latter part of last year in the first part of this year. we see it accelerating this year and into next year. but we see growth as remaining insufficiently strong to deal with the challenge of creating jobs at a pace that will allow countries to reduce unemployment rates satisfactorily. coming back to her subject of the day, what that means is there is an important role for the g-20, which has countries from each of the country

categories, advanced to emerging, different regional distribution. each of the countries in the g- 20 can play a part to work together to try to find ways through collective action to contribute to a stronger recovery. we have been speaking about that for some time. we will continue to take it up. >> on the outlook itself, you mentioned europe. i see a sort of schizophrenia about europe. in april, you seemed palpably relieved that the euro area was not about to break up. this time, there is the concern that europe is not performing well enough. you show accelerating, returning from recession, to positive growth fairly substantially in the next 18 months. how do you think about europe? a major subject of the g-20 in

the last 18 months. >> europe has been afflicted by crisis. it has taken a number of important decisions. europe-wide decisions, individual country decisions that have greatly reduced the risk, the tail risks. but we still see recession. we still see very significant problems in peripheral countries. and a weakening of growth in the core countries. we do not see, unfortunately, we do not see a single silver bullet. not as though there is one policy pedal you push. our recommendation is seeking policy action on every space where there is some room. we believe stronger monetary policy accommodation is

necessary, that we have seen kind of banking fragmentation across europe, and the failure of banks to provide credit that is supportive of recovery. we think there is work for the ecb and others in europe to try to work on, including transmission so that monetary policy is felt more broadly. we see a job for continued fiscal adjustment, but adjustment at a pace determined country by country, where countries that really need to adjust quickly do so. but countries that have some elbow room to provide support to their economies do that. a range of structural reforms that can be supportive of growth and potential growth over time.

lastly, we see an important role for improving some of the architecture of europe itself. it has been, in a sense, an imperfect currency and economic union. it is a single market for goods, but in the european union it is 27 markets with banks, with individual supervisors. we have been pushing banking union with a whole set of steps that we think will help improve the functioning of the banks and capital markets in europe and provide some impetus for growth. it seems that agenda has certainly been taken up. that agenda is progressing. on the presumption that monetary policy will provide some more accommodation and that the plans for banking union and some of the fixes to the architecture go forward. on that basis, we see some recovery in europe in the coming years. >> let me bring ksenia into the conversation. as a russian economist, russia

is doing reasonably well. you are debt-free, you have not many of the problems many other countries we are talking about here today have. first of all, what is the outlook for russia? or broadly, when you look out of the world, what do you see and what you worry about? >> russia is doing reasonably well. i agree. russia is generally concerned with the global economy because russia has had the slowdown after 2008, and this year in particular. we believe this is largely a result of several global tendencies, including the recession in europe and slowdown in european economies, including a slowdown in russia. the global growth slowdown, we

predicted as a challenge for russia as well as all the g-20 economies. this is why it is important for our economies to discuss this issue and maybe come up with some idea of how we are going to address, how we are going to move forward. let me say a couple words personally as an economist, rather than as a government official. i think europe went through several stages of crisis. a huge decline in 2008. also a financial meltdown. then there was some recovery. in some countries, fueled by monetary and fiscal policy. now it looks like the world is going through structural

adjustments which we all knew were supposed to happen before we moved to the balanced growth stage. i'm speaking mainly about china. china and the u.s. need to go through some structural adjustments in order to get out of the deficit between the two countries. i think china is starting to go through this adjustment. right now, they are not using the tools which they used to use in 2009 to support growth. these structural adjustments in china, they will probably require structural adjustments in other countries.

one more issue on the agenda for the last month is exit strategies and monetary exit policies. russia, as well as most of the 20 countries, experienced significant financial market volatility after some rumors the federal reserve was going to scale down government bonds. i think the impression was, central banks will be able to scale down their nontraditional

policy. the market will be less volatile. the last month proved volatility will be a part for a number of years to come. central banks still have to get out of the nontraditional policies. it is also something which needs to be -- by many central banks and financial ministers, whether they would like to approach the volatility. it is a big new issue which is on the agenda right now. >> i want to ask david about exit strategies. if i do not, i am sure someone in the audience will. let me take this to the g-20 level. it is interesting, you talk about rebalancing. it feels as though the

pittsburgh framework, which has the three big adjectives -- strong, sustained, and balanced growth, the talk about the framework itself, about the mutual effects under the framework, you do not hear as much discussion of that. is that because we have solved the problem? or am i mischaracterizing where we are? what role does the g-20 and the framework play in addressing this? >> as i said before, i think our premise is that there is a need for more growth virtually everywhere. there is no single silver bullet. you have to look at every margin. global rebalancing is one of those margins. there has been, i think, some complacency that has said in because the global imbalances have gone down somewhat.

the chinese surplus was 10% and out is 3%. other imbalances around the world have gone down somewhat. the question is whether those imbalances have gone down because of rebalancing, or because the economy slowed and exporters are not exporting, importers are not importing. i think we will find that imbalances are diminished, but not in a permanent way. there really is still work to be done to promote rebalancing. that can be a significant contributor to strengthening global growth. what i think we need is the g-20 process of peer review. something the g 20 has talked about from its inception. and i hope that as -- the leader summit coming up in september --

they can have a process where the g-20 sat down together. not a general one, but one is more specific, where countries can talk quite earnestly about what they feel others could do to contribute to make a contribution and perhaps, through that dialogue, reach agreement on collective action that would be useful for everybody. >> sounds like a good idea. this is a group of the main economies in the world. they are peers and have an opportunity to review. will this be part of the russian agenda in st. petersburg? how are you framing the macro discussion? as a follow-up, i want to ask you about your financing for investment category that is

under your theme of growth. >> actually, right now we started to discuss. we had a meeting today. we started with how we will structure the discussion of macro issues. clearly, leaders will discuss many of the topics we are discussing now. the process which david is speaking about, the process which -- i am not sure everybody here in the audience is familiar with how different it is. how big the g-20 is, how many different processes are involved, how it works. everybody knows about leaders summits. they happen throughout the year.

there is the sherpa process, preparation for the summit, and the ministers of finance process, preparing a meeting for the ministers of finance and central banks themselves. apart from that, there are many issues which are on the agenda. there are working groups or task forces with experts from different countries which discuss the specific issues in more detail. there is expert-level discussion, which reports either to the sherpas or financial ministers, and they report to the presidents. it is a multi-layer process. the framework, when david says

that countries need to discuss as peers what is going on, it is, i do not think leaders have enough time for the discussion. also on the working level, it happens to some extent. in the framework meetings. maybe not as deep as it was perceived from the beginning. from the very beginning, there was a controversy about the role of the imf and the role of the framework itself.

they're still doing it. the framework is doing it. the imf and the framework is interesting to discuss as well. the discussion of the sherpas and financial ministers, for me one of the things i learned about what g-20, is doing, it is a forum where you have the different countries sitting around the table, discussing the issues in a different level. we have a lot of distrust,

different views on different levels. g-20 provides a forum for dialogue, building trust. in my role as a sherpa i am permanently asked the question, is the g-20 efficient or not efficient? right now -- i think that what is really the issue involved is trust between countries with each other. some countries may still believe that others benefit more from

measures than them. it is an important task for the g-20. that is one of the issues. >> i personally agree very much. the habits of cooperation in the g-20 is one of its real assets and something people underestimate the importance of. it is quite important to get this group of countries that have not had these conversations before and maybe do not have that -- i want to come back to the institutional questions, but we have a lot more to cover. one more question about the macro side of things. david, there has been a lot of angst in the world recently about competitive exchange rate appreciation. the imf seems to take a relatively benign view of this. and you have been criticized for being not vigilant enough, not outspoken enough about these issues. the whole reason for the establishment of the imf was to establish these issues. how do you respond to that

criticism? is it fair? >> we have been asked by the g- 20 to look at how policies in any one country spill over and affect other countries. we are doing that. i think when we look at that in the recent period, we identified the spillovers. we are on the lookout for policies that are misguided and causing problems. most of the focus in the early part of this year was on the unconventional monetary policies a number of central banks in different ways and different times, u.s., uk, european central bank, and bank of japan, when ween carrying out. look at those policies, we see the clear rationale that the central bank has for these

policies and a setting where economies are sluggish, inflation is falling below targeted levels, interest rates have already been reduced to zero, so central banks do not have very much conventional monetary policy at a time when fiscal policy maneuvering is limited by high deficits and debt, unconventional monetary policies have made important contributions either in stabilizing markets that have become nonfunctional or in supporting a modicum of economic recovery. thatart by recognizing when countries are pursuing important domestic objectives with important benefits, and we see benefits coming from unconventional monetary policy, that has to be their core

consideration. there can be negative spillovers from policy pursuits, and we have looked around at that, but we have not seen that in general. we have not seen -- the two things you would look for our whether currencies would be getting out of alignment, whether they were getting away from what can be justified by fundamentals, and in a sense creating imbalances. or spillovers where liquidity creation and asset or justice are being undertaken under this rubric of unconventional monetary policy where raising asset prices in a way that causes asset bubbles or threatens to cause asset bubbles. when we look around, we do not see that. i think it was overblown earlier in the year. , wee were currency worries

were asked to follow-up on those worries, and our results are pretty much as i just said. what countries were concerned about was that this liquidity was leading to capital flows into emerging market countries, causing their exchange rate to strengthen and threatening their gross. of course with the discussion and attention now around whether or not the fed is going to start to taper, in essence diminish the amount unconventional monetary policy, what we have seen is quite the opposite. we have seen capital flowing out of emerging market countries, the countries weakening, and the concern has really changed around. have been asked to look at

this process to assess the ways markets are reacting to what the fed is doing. that is something we take into account in emerging market countries to how to respond. we will be involved in that process as well. >> i want to move on and talk about financial regulation. of thea good overview expensive array of what has gone through in the basel three capital requirements and systemically important institutions, shadow banking and a range of institutions. what do you see are the main gaps and what is russia concerned about? what do they want to do this to advance the regulatory

agenda? what we have seen is from the very beginning, they don't there arenancial -- about thatcussions in g 20. some other areas and this has been a concern before. many countries to some extent that much,sive, not the issue which everyone is discussing.

need to have a solution for what to do with the rating agencies. but the agenda, most people [indiscernible] one word about the basel three and whether it should be introduced. discussion same that was supposed to introduce andl three in october right now what we hear from the central bank is it is up to

conversations with the banking communities. i think it will introduce it, [indiscernible] -- i'mconscious of conscious of time and i want to get to the audience. i'm going to ask a question about the third big area, which is reforming the international architecture. initially, that was focused on reallocating shares in the international financial institutions and the shift in the world economy and i noticed you have characterize this as

trust and transparency. what does that mean and what do you hope to get done? our priority here was not to reintroduce a new topic but not to introduce any new topic to .he discussion we have introduced several principles where we work on all the existing areas already. transparency is one of them. as an example, i can mention what we do in the energy area. , the dirty oil and dirty gas commission, we need the collection on data and

production on oil and gas. we will organize a seminar with howet participants and ask they are using data, whether how the them at all, data sets can be improved in order to be more useful for market participants. actually, we learned quite a lot after the seminar because we were told information about financial transactions right now is as important as information on final users and producers. commodity markets and players became so big that they can

dramatically change the situation on the market. the existence needs to be taken to be resourced in order to understand how the markets are going to move. i think that is just one of the areas that we are looking for practical solutions which were offered at this seminar, to torove the transparency change the situation. in order to come up with practical solutions. on the purposes of this topic topic infts the

another way. when it comes to quota reform? >> i think it is important if the world is going call on the , the imf hascrisis to have legitimacy. the pawn ofewed as any one country or group of countries. the world is changing with the rapid growth of emerging -- rapid growth of emerging market companies -- emerging market countries and that has to be reflected in our structure across dimensions in which you might want to deal with that. there've been changes in our government structure and changes in our quota system and the way our executive word governs its work.

it may be approved by many countries and maybe not yet by the united states of america, but it is quite clear that the in serves an important role promoting global stability and global growth. that is something good for all of our members and good for the united states. it would make sense for the united states to stand behind the imf as an institution. i know there is legislation and a quotaered increase in government reform that have been proposed and adopted by many countries and i hope that will go through. hard to see how our role can continue as it

needs to. asess our governance is modern as the global economy. >> i want to give you an trade,nity to talk about anticorruption, and development. toe are trying take a protectionist stance and establishing some with the wto process.

she had this rentable of the original treaty. this wasvernment area, and most of year , it was supposed to be completed by the end of this year. one of them is accountability analyzingnd we are the open area to fulfill these. is some kind of

elting block. the new plan on development. theone last thing accountability exercise is becoming more and more important. we are doing accountability and development in the framework , forome other groups example the labor group is doing collection of best practices in different

countries. it will probably become more and more important in the years to come. >> one final question, i can't resist. having a little experience, you have had a tough year and i the g if your review of 20 should have a secretariat to what do you do, with the us trillions going forward? such a good team. i'm very proud of my team. organized it and we are clear as well.

to work on that and try to get and they areple actually preparing very well. everything they are doing from almost the very beginning. practicallitical and issues. russia will do a great job in this process is very important and a useful part of the institution. i'm going to open it up to questions. i think we have 15 or 20 minutes. if you have a question, wait for the microphone and please ask a question. is can you talk

a little bit more about whether you view monetary easing as an effective solution, particularly for russia and other countries in the g 20. >> as a member of the administration, i'm trying to minimize my comments. too many dependent on the government. it's actually way more independent when -- [indiscernible] declined toall comment. very smart. >> i do want to say a general point. first, to say you can't answer

your questions as a general matter, monetary policy and macro policy as a whole, there are some that have economic slack and there are countries with 29% unemployment, that's a very different situation than in russia. unemployment is at an all-time low in russia. russia faces the question is because of demand of the rest of the world or is growth low because it's not profitable enough to invest? just had our annual policy dialogue. not speaking about demand management. fullnk russia is that

employment. it has a low unemployment rate andlow slack in industries it's going to be hard to boost things very much by stimulating demand. it might be a little for a while but it would be at the cost of probably pushing down the currency. that would actually go in the wrong direction of creating an .nvironment and aspiresgrowing to grow in the neighborhood of five are sent. it needs to have investment to gdp. 25%, needs to put its focus on creating an environment in which there can be more business and more investment and a more rapid

growth rate. you should listen carefully to what he says about that subject. , so i askrade lawyer this question with great humility. the idea of peer review is very attractive. thisunderstood correctly, sort of happened at the expert level. even if that is true, perhaps we all agree instinctively that behind david's suggestion, the -- there needs to be at least some component that a peer

review might reduce. you'd seen a lot of peer review imf.the i wonder what you would add to your suggestion that is politically realistic and the elements of review that might post move in a common direction. me note first that there was in some sense. view and collective action in washington at the first g 20 and then in 2009 at the london summit and pittsburgh summit, the leaders had good discussions and made important commitments. those commitments were strong enough that they influenced market thinking about the theectory of the global -- leaders are not going to sit around and talk about the details of this. it needs to start at the expert

level and be discussed by finance ministers and then when there is really a plan, the -- and parttical political impotence by doing what they're finance managers have suggested that making a commitment. i see it as a three-tiered process. we have here review. that's what we are all about. so it is natural we would propose that this take place. what we do with our members at our executive board, i think the g 20 is special because it's the only forum where leaders from this wide a group of countries representing about 85% of the gdp of the globe fit together. the way iuld operate describe and leaders take

limits, those could be meaningful commitments vis-à-vis the markets would be quite convinced. >> somebody over there? >> i want to ask a general question on not russia specifically but mort generally about emerging-market slowdown and the bricks generally suffering gdp downward revisions, financial market corrections. let's say at effect bricks development bank or across development through the respected sovereign wealth fund. how do you reconcile that with the g 20 process in this upcoming summit in the future? there is a lot of

invitations going on. on the table, another one is the reserve pool. to the world bank and to the imf, they have their share of responsibility. , buthere is a discussion now they discuss how to two institutions in more detail. i thought i saw somebody in the back quadrant there. any other questions? ." i'm with the "l.a. times

i know there's a lot on the agenda for the g 20, but could you say with the top two or three outcomes or agreements the russian presidency would like to see? i think what we would like to see is a discussion on the global economy. there are tactical things we by countries in different area commitments on weails and strategies, but are going to have ministers of labour and ministers of finance meetings next week. we hope they will be able to come up with these statements

which would reconcile the ngo on one hand and budget on the other. , [indiscernible] we are launching the global marine protection website. the regulation of energy exploration and transportation in a marine environment.

we have some other small initiatives in this area. we are coming up with a new plan. one idea i would like to offer this audience is this idea for the g 20 -- the sea 20 -- the civil 20. on sustainable theth into the framework of exclusive group and is a question for the audience. lex and they mean to take on issues of inequality? >> yes. >> there is something i meant to ask you before. you are present at the creation of the g 20s work and now the imf is taking a stand on that as well.

>> we did a paper in march of this year. we've done a study on the impact of fossil fuel subsidies, showing they were very large, large enough to be debilitating of the fiscal sustainability countries, especially in the thele east and africa and lack of taking action on the pricing that doesn't take into account pollution, congestion, and the effects on climate change. substantial.ry addressing that

energy subsidies would bring very substantial benefits across are workingd we with our member countries to take action on energy subsidies. it is often a very politically sensitive subject, whether you are talking about subsidies in developing countries were the lack of treating externalities and advanced economies. we understand that but we think it is important enough that this ought to move from discussion to action. the g 20 took a commitment in pittsburgh in 2009 to eliminate subsidies over the medium-term and i think the medium has arrived and it's time to get off this. i predict they won't and we will see more action in illuminating fossil fuel subsidies in developing

countries where they need to do in order to have enough resources to take care of their people. i think we will see more action there, but we have as an institution encourage all countries to plan and take action on reducing energy subsidies. >> just to link the last two responses, it is important in talking about these issues and if we talk about inclusive growth and inequality, and the fossil fuels case, we mention of the political sensitivity, but in reality, a lot of the subsidies are going to middle there people, so i think are some real issues there. any other questions from the audience? i would welcome one or two final ones if they are burning questions.

we ended up right on time, so that is perfect. let me think both panelists for joining us up here. [applause] csise say on behalf of of and our audience, it's helpful to have people like you join us. i work on international issues but most of the tuple i know are working on international policy issues and sometimes i think people see the global governance story but even the hard economic issues are so intertwined importantly with foreign-policy questions that it is very important to have this conversation, so i appreciate you taking your time. -- good luck. >> a look at the senate side of

the u.s. capitol in washington dc. the senate is in session this afternoon. you can watch live coverage on c-span2. this evening at 6:00, senators will be behind closed wars in the historic old senate chamber to discuss whether to change senate filibuster rules. in ac -- in a speech this morning, senate majority leader harry reid said republicans must vote on at least seven presidential appointees they have been blocking if they want to avoid a change in senate rules as early as this week. the nominees include richard cordray to have the consumer financial protection bureau, thomas perez as labor secretary, virginia mccarthy as epa administrator and fred hoch berg import bank.export- three nominees for the national relations board. currently the nlrb chairman. his term runs out on august 27

at that time, the board will lack a quorum needed to conduct business. senator reid gave aid and example of the problem the cc it. here is a look. as we know, frank lautenberg passed away very recently. , after her 1100 questions were answered, republicans refused to have a single republican attend. the only way to go ahead with all the senators had to be there. frank lautenberg was dying. i called barney and said we have to have them here. he literally, on his deathbed, came down here, unhooked the stuff keeping him alive, came down here from new jersey and walked in to make a caucus. for the was there

democrats on the committee. we should not be doing stuff like that. that's not what it's all about. you cannot reward that behavior over and over and over again. harry reid is calling all senators to the floor at 5:30 eastern. you can see that live coverage here on c-span2, our companion network. then senate will go to the old senate chamber for an old -- for a meeting where they will discuss the plan to change senate filibuster rules. if after the meeting, the democratic leader decide to go forward with the plan, a vote could take place as early as this week. let us know what you think about all of this. read what people are saying on our twitter page. >> earlier, someone touched upon the idea that women could not really predict their role in

entering into the white house, politicalfind one observer who commented that the 1860 election that mary started with mr. lincoln when he was a poor young man and with no more idea of being called to the presidency than being a cannibal. [laughter] however, i try to lay out in my book an educated guess that mary lincoln would not let a little thing like human sacrifice between her and her gold because she was a very determined woman and she did talk about mr. lincoln postural perhaps of entering the white house. -- mr. lincoln's role reps of entering the white house. >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, we will hear from historians and authors about the role of the first lady and how it has changed along with the nation, tonight at 9:00 eastern on c- span. >> we are very bullish on cable. insight intouge

the home, so with video over time, that has become broadband but voice and it is rolling out other services on top of that like home monitoring. it is home security plus. it could be things like managing a nanny cam oror pet cam. there are new services beginning to roll out on that platform. >> we just issued an annual report and what we found was consistent with what we found in recent years. subscribe to continues to go up, it went up about six percent in the last year. the price or channel has actually gone down in recent years, so consumers are getting more channels but paying more for the package. >> more of what is happening in today's cable industry from this

year's annual cable show. it's tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> a discussion now on the power africa initiative. during his recent weeklong trip to africa, president obama announced a $7 billion effort that aims to double access to power in the sub-saharan region of the continent. you will hear and overview from a representative of usaid. two hours.rly >> a good afternoon, everyone. our turnout was than we expected. our apologies to folks in the back you may not have a seat but we hope you will hang out with us. i direct the africa program here at the center for

strategic and international studies. i want to welcome you all to csis and it's nice to have all of you here to talk about the outcomes of president obama' to africa and the power africa initiative. this is part of a series of speaker event in part of a larger initiative here under the leadership of our leadership and development program which -- which looks at the role of the private sector and development, how u.s. development can harness the energy of the private sector and maximize development impacts. we are very grateful to the chevron corporation for their support. i would also like to thank christia perkins who has done a great job and has worked very hard to bring this big event together today. as most of you know, president

obama traveled to africa from june 25 to june 3, the is adding senegal, tanzania and south africa. this was his first trip to the region since a brief visit to ghana in 2009. the initiative he announced and the warm reception he received in africa presents a real opportunity to re-energize u.s. partnerships on the continent and to engage african governments and entrepreneurs and citizens in a new and different way. the president spoke of this era nine shift in u.s. relations with africa that moves the u.s. away from thinking about the top -- thethe confident continent as a place in need. thatentailed a major shift is beginning not entirely their and in a mindset where perceptions of the pursuit of

commercial interests and profitable has been seen as slightly unseemly. but now we are moving to the idea that commercial ties could help drive growth and employment development during ties of mutual interest. this is welcome in the u.s. but particularly among an up-and- coming generation of africans. , and tanzania, the president announced the power africa initiative, a signature element of this paradigm shift that aims to tackle one of the major drags on the well-being, or to italy in rural areas. perhaps the greatest obstacle to africa's continuing economic growth and huge barrier for potential investors looking to engage in africa. the focus on energy is extremely important and the hope is this

initiative gains in momentum and gets the holding power needed to be truly transformative. i think the turnout today attests to the excitement that the initiative has generated. there is bipartisan support in congress to tackle this issue with chairman royce, congressman smith. the legislation electrify africa act of 2013. so this is really an important opportunity and important we make the most of it. we're very happy to have with us today andrew herscowitz who is with the power africa and trade africa initiative. he served in ecuardor. deputy director in peru and previously with the office of development credit.

andrew has a major task ahead of him. he's going to have to coordinate the many agencies involved in this initiative and we want to see him succeed and the initiative succeed. we're going to hear about the initiative and what should we look for to gauge progress. we're going to take a few questions and at 2:00 he has an important commitment. andrew, welcome and thanks again for joining us. \[applause] >> this is quite a crowd for 1030 on a friday afternoon in

the summer in washington, d.c. i'm guessing there is a strong appetite for information about power africa and you guys have the right person to be able to speak to you about something like this. i've been dying to speak about power africa for several months now. i'm at your dispose toll answer the questions you have. let me give you a general overview of how we got to where we are today. for me this is probably the most exciting thing that i've seen in development in a long time in the united states. and the reason is this approach we're taking this whole of government approach and putting this initiative in the field and having it driven by the private sector and multiple u.s. government agencies, that presents a huge challenge but it's a level of communication we're having which is already making this a success. when i first joined usaid 15 years ago i'm a lawyer by training i was in the general

counsel's office. i was in the office for development credit and i felt during my first few months i was spending half my time arguing with pec, arguing what our mandate was. i found it extremely frustrating. but then what i saw these turf battles were forcing us to better define our missions and forcing people to defend their budgets, forcing people to be more creative and producing great results. so i think i've learned a lot from that and structure we have is outstanding and will lead to great results. my only hope is one year from now if there is another event like this we have the same kind of crowd we have now that is interested in power africa. >> it emerged from a trip that was taken from folks from the

white house a little over a year ago to africa and they were looking at what are the key constraints to growth in africa in these particular countries. and what they saw around them and this was confirmed with staff members who i met with who had a similar trip is they were looking at companies who were working in countries enjoying a high rate of growth and weren't able to keep up with power for production. they were burning diesel generators and polluting. so they need a solution for this. that is what power africa is about, how we can keep these companies on a sustainable path to rapid development. increasing connectivity and access for people and trying to promote clean energy solutions. because in africa we're in the inheriting the old grid we have in the united states. we have opportunities not presented to us in the united states.

it's similar to the cell phone analogy where they have jumped over land lines and now trying to do the same thing for power. traditionally development approach was spending years, maybe a decade or more trying to create the proper regulatory environment sew that the are the private sector would come in and make its investments. we're flipping that model and looking at tractions that are already in the pipeline or might come on to the pipeline, large energy traction that is have the potential to be transformation al. figuring out what the government can do from its existing tool box or developing new tools. whether that's technical assistance or loan guarantees, technical assistance from the department of energy, perhaps a policy push from the state

department through the ambassador. what can we do to remove the obstacles to these tractions or use our tools to expedite these tractions? basically we're putting a large carrot on the table for these host governments and saying if you want to increase the amount of electricity by one gig watt, 400 megawatts you need to make the following reforms. we're here to help you. we're not going to pay for them. we'll help you get the private sector investors. but you need to make the commitments. what does that look like? i take a country where there is a large gee thermal transaction, it may be the host government has never negotiated a purchase agreement before. we can help find lawyers or actually i can tell you more about how we would do that but basically provide the government the legal assistance that it needs to negotiate that

agreement. at the same time, it may be that the developer or financeser needs a guarantee so opec could do that. and maybe that someone needs a feasibility study. so it's taking all of our tools and sitting around a table and figuring out how can we push forward. the participating agencies are opem, axim, department of treasury, usaid. usda. department of transportation. uzz african development foundation and if there is anyone i left off let me know. it's a big number. the country we're focusing in now or kenya, answer the knee i

can't, ghana, liberia, nigeria and either open i can't. now the amount of buzz that power africa has generated. >> ghana, tanzania. either open i can't. any jeer i can't -- nigeria, liberia and kenya. there are six of them. >> i was proud of myself for remembering them all. what we've seen already is we're seeing multiple not just other embassies and other u.s. aid missions who want to be part of power africa but other countries that want to be part of it. what does it mean to be part of power africa? it's meant to compliment a lot of activities that are already

doing great things from the u.s. government and other agencies. you have the department of state had is managing the u.n. initiative in ghana. the millennium cooperation is in the ghana sector. have you the partnership for growth in ghana and answer the knee i can't. you have u.s. aids for africa. you have epec and tda which recently launched their clean energy facility. you have the egci initiative out of the state department. we have all those initiatives and programs and activities. what power africa does is brand the activities by using existing tools and making sure they are talking to one another, complimenting one another and that we're basically trying to

increase the impact their having. but most importantly what power africa is doing is we have additional financing to provide the tools for things like partnership for growth. along those lines one of the things that we're doing to ensure this collaboration is in washington we have an interagency tractions group. and weekly it gets together and look at different tractions in the pipeline and it's for information sharing. this is the best part of what is going on now. we had a meeting yesterday. someone from an agency mentioned a company that approached them. people from other agencies said maybe we can do a feasibility study for them. there might be an issue with them on this. another person raised a technical point. this is the type of collaboration. it was almost like a development cabinet meeting on a weekly basis. it's limited to this sector but it's the model for how development government can work in the future.

why don't i leave it at that and take some questions. my time is limited because i'm picking up my son from summer camp after he's been gone for a month. >> \[inaudible] >> we hope so. >> so the question is are we competing with china or working with china? we're going to work with china because our goal is to increase power available on the african continent. why don't i take a group of questions and then i can try to address them. >> \[inaudible] >> as of a month ago opec was talking about a carbon cap.

is something going to be done about that? >> i just want to know what were the criteria of selecting these six countries of so many countries and challenges and problems all across africa? thank you. >> thank you so much for the power africa. my question is i come from kenya. how is the power africa going to involve the african society. we need to you involve the civil society to know what you are doing, who are being helped and will help you make it better

than relying on just government and companies. >> let me answer this first round of questions quickly. your point is a great one. that's why i'm moving there in three weeks. this is the first initiative based outside of the united states. although i'm counting on somebody to tell me 150 years ago something like this happened. we're going to be based out of the african continue nt. we have $14 billion. you have banks providing financing to developers. in over 30 days we got over $14 billion in private sector commitments. the majority of the private sector commitments come from african or it's a good share of it. we have several billion dollars in commitments from african companies and banks and organizations.

when i mentioned this idea of providing legal service to host governments. we're looking at trying to fund african legal support facility so that they would be charged with not just providing legal services to host governments but also doing capacity building and training for government lawyers so that this will be a sustainable endeavor. on the issue of what does it take to be a power africa country, this has evolved. a lot was determined based on the current traction, the deal flow. this six countries is somewhat fluid. but what we're really looking for is there a strong host government commitment to make the tough reforms. that may be cost reflective tariffs which is very politically unpopular or breaking up a utility. but we want to make sure there is a strong host government commitment to make the tough reforms. otherwise even if we invested

billions of dollars in a country it's not going to make a difference unless they make those reforms. this initiative is about leveraging and coordination and making difficult reforms so that we create a better enabling environment for the private sector to come in. if we can have success with one or two large tractions in a country and it required to government to make those tough reforms then more private sector competition will come in. on the carbon cap, i'm not the person to address that. that would be more an issue in congress. we're aware of that issue though. >> another round of questions? >> there has been various publicity figures that have come out since the trip doubling the amount of energy in africa, 20 million people have access. could you give me the bottom line figures.

what i've read is 8,000 mega watts. what is the current access in africa l it really double? it seems much smaller scale than being advertised but i would appreciate the baseline figures. >> any other questions? >> this is a time where republicans and democrats fight each other morning, noon and night including in this room. this seems to be packaged for both republicans and democrats. am i correct? you have all this dealing with the government in a initiative by president obama who occasionally gets criticized in this town but you are opening the door and leveraging for the private sector. that's something my friends talk about morning noon and night and in their sleep.

>> you've hit the nail on the head. we have bipartisan support so far. the press has been almost 99% positive on this. i've seen very little criticism of it. we're doing things the right way. u.s. aid mission is not to create jobs for americans but the department of commerce is heavily involved in this. if g.e. is able to sell a turbine in one of the countries and that creates jobs that's what we want to do. it's about creating jobs and new opportunities. this is an economic growth initiative. this is about creating opportunities for u.s. companies and african companies which creates jobs for people and improves their lives. all the other benefits is going to come out of this. an issue of 10,000 mega watts and 20 million.

that was based on we're confident that we will hit those numbers. now by what year i think it's by 2020 we're confident we'll hit those numbers. that's based on the deal flow we are supporting right now. we expect additional tractions to come online. doubling the number of people is aspirational and if we continue this, i have absolute confidence we will be able to do that over time. went up when is said that. how are we going to do it? my fingers can only point so far right now. >> i have developed power projects in africa. remarks andr your this initiative. most financing organizations you

have talked about are concerned with debt and taking risks on the debt. but i have not seen any that take risks on the equity. thecally that comes from counterparty that is not able to provide the security everybody looks for. is any part of your initiative geared towards protecting equity? >> i will go to the back. stand-up. >> walker williams. i am concerned. do we have to go to nairobi to get involved? will you have a website? have anll continue to office. this group by am talking about, u.s. aid is leading the initiative. we have a strong washington presence. one- looking at having two

stop shops. to of the african continent have a place with people familiar of the transactions of all of the agencies. people can come to the office to learn about that and accommodate businesses there. the same type of thing in washington to create opportunities. we have been talking to the department of commerce about having our great that focuses on opportunities for u.s. companies. >> how is power africa protecting workers to have decent wages and safety on the job? financingaddress the and equity question. we're not looking at taking equity in the projects.

i will not rule that out in the future if the right opportunities present themselves, especially for the smaller activities. we are learning one of the biggest risks for these deals is the up-front development financing. we're trying to listen to the private sector finding out the constraints. we are using the existing tools and perhaps developing new tools. i cannot tell you what tools we may have a year or two from now. we would have to consult with congress and find out if there is support for it to see if congress agrees and gives us the authority to do that. in terms of protecting african workers, we're doing extensive due diligence on every partner we work with. we are developing due diligence protocols on how to select companies. these are still in development. we are still sorting out who

makes decisions. right now each agency is following its existing protocols related to how workers are treated or environmental implications. it is still an ongoing discussion we are having. in the back over there. this will probably be my last round of questions. am a national of the condo. ngo.o i want to know why the potential has been neglected. it has the potential of lighting the entire continent. why is it six countries that can barely provided for their country and neglecting the congo that has the potential to

live up the whole continent? >> this side, in the back. >> i am wondering how you think power africa will affect 2015. >> right here. is resilience being incorporated into the power africa initiative? faces of these familiar asking questions. my question is about the tool box. to have largey subsidies? exactly the changing

paradigms if you continue subsidies. there are other ways to support the initiative. thank you. >> right here. go ahead. >> i am originally from africa. a find it interesting and all the suddenness private african money has come out to support this effort. when we try to raise money in africa, they give us ridiculous interest rates of 20% of the bank for projects. there was a project we were involved with a couple of years ago. raised thepreneurs money through crowds sourcing. there was no private venture money or those kinds of things. maybe when you talk to these private african finance years they may want to put up money to .oung people on the continent

thing, they can be associated with a large u.s. venture. address some of these. dam has the potential for about 40 gigawatts of power and could potentially provide power .o 500 million africans we are not ruling anything out. goill not say we will building. there is no intent to exclude some countries. i was responding to e-mails from senagal,, wanda --

rwanda and other countries. we have to figure out the .riteria it will be important to have government commitment to reform. government commitment is key to success. we have to demonstrate success. if we spread ourselves too thin, we will not have success. $7 billion sounds like a lot of money. a lot of that is financing. even $7 billion was hard appropriated dollars. it is just a drop in the bucket for the amount of money to have a huge impact on the entire .frican continent on the question on why africans are not investing already in need this, i can speak to that .ased on my past experience

there is tons of liquidity available to those countries. the reasons you are mentioning are the reason these deals do not happen. there might be a lack of familiarity with the sector. if you are dealing with a person on the other side who has never negotiated a power purchasing agreement or managed before, you are not going to invest your money that is the idea behind the power of africa. our tools are not meant to the government subsidies. they are meant to help the market to adjust to the conditions so we can create an impact so that we do not need to provide assistance in the future. when the government has negotiated, they will not need the $1 million from a law firm to train them. seeidea is as other people what the private sector is doing and as they are engaging in these transactions, they will

not need this type of assistance and we can focus in other areas and countries. one last question. i hope it is a good one. i have to go get my son. consultant. to what extent are you using the internet to coordinate among the donors and agencies and people doing the projects? >> we are doing better than the internet. we're calling and meeting with them. i was at the world bank today. we talked to the african development bank. it is our lead partner. they are investing heavily. anything we can do to work with them is how we are managing this. please promise me if i am back in the year you will show up and still be interested in this initiative. [applause] >> thank you so much.

that was terrific and full of information. don't we bring the panel, and it started. -- and get started. great. once again, thank you to our panel for waiting. i think that gave us a lot of great information, the transactional approach rather than trying to build the perfect regulatory structure and waiting for people to come. i wonder if there are some drawbacks.

we're going to turn to our panel today, which is a mix of private sector, advocacy, and independent analysis. we will hear from them how important this initiative is in terms of what they do, what might be some of the missing elements we could build out. what are some of the things we need to be looking for in terms of success and how this will help with what they're trying to do. go through extensive biographees. we have the vice president for programs at the corporate counsel in africa. the corporate council hosted a major discussion in tanzania that hosted the president with business leaders. perry has a good on the broader

community. their mission is to reach out and pull new players into that. we also have the director for business development at symbian power. it has had a strong presence in tanzania. the announcement of power africa was made at their plant. they've had an interesting partnership with the u.s. government in various ways. i think chris will say little bit about what this means and how those partnerships have been working. where some of the opportunities for expansion are. director of ben, global policy at the one campaign. it has been playing an important role in raising the issue of energy access and the development burden it places on africa.

ben has been working with the u.s. congress on electrify africa actions. he can say more about how this initiative and that mesh and what might be missing and the critical next steps for congress, the administration, and all of us to make it happen. codirector of the energy program. she has done great work on climate change. the timing of this initiative coming after president obama's bringson climate change up some of the dynamics with the aps are africa initiative. each of our spiegel's --

speakers will talk about 10 minutes. we want to leave time for questions and conversation with the audience. ambassador, thank you again for joining us. thank you. it is a pleasure to be here with you this afternoon to watch this important event. important, i consider it transformative. we all know about the projected population growth in africa. in terms of production, that is one key element african countries will have in their advantage moving forward over the next decades. what has been missing in terms of competitiveness is adequately priced and available electric power. this initiative is a step in changing that. projections that china's population will level off over the next three decades

while africa's increases. see is africa being a competitive producer for global supplies. this initiative brings together private sector interests and u.s. government support in terms of risk mitigation for that investment. make no mistake. investment in africa is risky. companies are in business to make money. they do it by assessing an offsetting risks. themole here is to help manage that process. there have been a number of agencies working in this area individually over the past decade. ustda has helped with the studies. this coordination will be a game changer. reaching out to focus on the

policy commitment of african governments is essential. if you ask yourself why this did not happen 10 years ago, i think that is the answer. the policy commitment was not there. if it does not come in the next three years, companies will not put their money in. certainly not a second time. they might make the first investment. if they lose on that, they will not follow up with more. to get where we want to be in 20 years, we're looking for companies to go in with initial deals. they work for everyone's benefit and then they go a second and third time and then three or four more join them, just like what has happened in china over the last 30 years in terms of u.s. engagement. i think the same thing can happen in africa. you have a much freer market in many of the countries. i think that dynamic will change and expand over coming years also. the good thing about this

initiative is it has the capacity of incorporating multiple sources of fuel. many countries depend on expensive diesel fuel. that will transition. companies and countries discovering natural gas will draw on that. there are also sources of renewable power. i want to share information from the international energy agency. it surprised me when i read in. that is why i want to share it. as global renewables electricity generation expands in absolute terms, it is expected to surpass that of natural gas and by 2016uclear power becoming the second most important global electricity source after coal.

globally, renewable generation is estimated to rise to 25% of gross power generation in 2018, up from 20% in 2011 and 19% in 2006. driven by fast-growing generation from wind and solar, the share of non-hydro renewable to 8% ofseen doubling gross generation in 2018, up from 4% in 2011 and just 2% in 2006. there is tremendous potential. i mention that on the renewable side because most of the deals we see in the early stage are focused on thermal power. it is not limited to that. when you are dealing with large population centers, cities of 1 million or more, thermal power solutions are the most economic.

but you have populations spread around in smaller towns and villages where off. grid solutionsf are probably the most rational tower to providing power 1000 people in a village so they can work as long as they want and are not limited in terms of the sun. this has the possibility of opening up a lot. i expect many american companies will jump in. many are already there. we started in tanzania with the compact ford transmission lines. from that, they invested in a power generation plant. you will see much more than that. on monday, i had a call from two onerian companies

privatization of plants in the delta. they were looking for american partners. i reached out to put them in contact. some of them will follow up on that. i expect an explosion of interest. usg is steppinge in to help companies mitigate that risk. thank you. >> thank you. chris. .> thank you thank you for hosting this event. it is timely. we are extremely happy to be here and who have been a central part of the president rolling out the initiative. to give you background on our company, i think it is helpful to put it in context. we started out as an engineering and construction firm in iraq

in 2005 implementing army contracts and transmission lines. we went to afghanistan where we worked on a diesel fired power plant in kabul. put out the tender for work in tanzania, we said this is great. let's go somewhere where we will not be shot at. some of the key management in our company had been working in tanzania since the early 1980's. it was the perfect opportunity. we have relationships that went back 20 or 30 years. we knew the country and context. successful we were and secured two major contracts with mcc, one for construction for the and another

construction of 26 substations across tanzania and zanzibar. we took advantage of the opportunity to purchase the power plant where president obama spoke last week. we then developed additional plants in tanzania which were emergency power plants. 217 megawattsout of capacity in tanzania. in the grand scheme of things, it sounds small. but in the tanzanian context it is significant, particularly when they have suffered load shedding which has left a huge

part of the country without power. primarily because the water in the dams has not been there. whatever the reason, whether it be climate change, whether patterns, there just has not been enough rain. when the water goes down, they cannot run the hydros and suddenly there is not enough capacity on the road. . -- on the grid. is what happens across africa. we see governments paying ridiculous amounts of money on emergency power projects which are polluting and expensive. but they need the power to keep the economy moving and keep people happy. it is an economic and political issue. that is why it happens. we stepped in to try to fill the gap in capacity. in tanzania, we also have two

projectsng biomass we're implementing with our partner. isolated small projects. they reflect an east coast of ethos of our- company to create jobs and develop local economies. we expect to employ hundreds of people on bamboo plantations. the community is part of the process of generating electricity. about halfoing is it of the price of what they are paid to power plants with diesel. we are also looking at projects and are far along in

the development process. we're in nigeria big time. we're part of the consortium in the first round for the power plant. now looking at the second round to see if there are assets which interested in acquiring. we are developing projects in ghana. we are in most of the power africa countries or have plans to be in them. that is the background behind the company. i will make one additional point about how we do business. the said before, part of ethos and business plan for us is to do development as much as we run businesses. of that, we build a training center in tanzania

between have trained 204 hundred tanzanians to build power lines to an international standard. we did in alliance with the college in idaho. we did that out of our own money. tender. not part of the we decided that is the way we should do business. we employ most of the people. we would like to build more and have plans to do more. we have left a work force there that is 100% qualified to continue the work into the future. theo that because it is right thing to do. it helps our core business. we are respected because we do that. that helps us on a number of fronts. we are giving something back in a significant way.

now a few comments on the power africa initiative. obviously we are thrilled by this. we are a contractor and also a developer. you are looking at developing a number of projects in various countries. we seet enormous benefit is getting a coordinated usg approach to all manner of the elements of making a deal and doing a transaction. we've been working with usaid and others as this has developed. we have seen it work. we have a deal, i was talking about the biomass projects we're financing with others. we have seen the process and been involved in the process. there are results on the

washington end. there is urgency. here is the deal. we have a u.s. investor. they have a pipeline. andcan we make this happen have that happen faster? we're seeing that happen already. the in country peace will be extremely important. depend on thel country. usaiddea behind the element of power after the is to put people in ministries assuming they are invited and requested. that person becomes the belly button. pushing deals through and pushing transactions. trying to do deals in africa, it is hard to get the attention of the guy you need to move something board. there may be only one that can do that. if you have somebody who becomes

not only the local government focused person but also the private sector and u.s. government focus as to how to get that done, that person will be able to move transactions for word. there's also the important piece .f capacity building that person will be vital. will be working with them and the folks in washington as well. this is key. it came up in the president's remarks of our plant. -- at our plant. the message he delivered to tanzania and other african governments involved in power africa is you have got to move fast. this is an urgent issue. it is a key constraint to .evelopment

across the board, is about power. the more bureaucracy and there is, the more red tape, the slower things move, the harder it is to attract investment to africa. everybody knows the potential. -- we all look at these reports talking about the potential. our we are continually butt heads against bureaucratic inertia. you are just trying to plow through and move things forward. to the extent the u.s. government can have somebody on the ground in the ministries trying to move these things forward and leverages the political influence of the embassy, white house, whoever it is an push things forward, i

think you will see progress in all of these countries. there were a couple of points raised earlier. on on a few ofe these things. someone mentioned equities in the difficulties in managing equity risk and finding equity. is to the comment about the diaspora. those things go together. there is an enormous amount of equity in the diaspora. nigeria that nigerians are coming back to invest. there are nigerian firms coming to him, as ambassador perry said, they want to be part of the next round. they are coming to us and saying we have the cash. we just do not have a technical

partner. capital is outhe there. people want to invest. irr is high enough people are willing to assume a level of risk they would not other places. there is management with regard to counterpart guarantees. we hope we will be able to work through that. that will be the focus of the folks involved in the power africa initiative. gone over my 10 minutes. the final point is not necessarily the most important, but plays in. high because be there is risk. there is a lot of risk in terms of owning and operating and securing revenue, but there is

just as much in the development process. i have a number of projects in not willnt that i do go anywhere. on tuesday, we know this is going to happen. but the next day, i am 180 degrees. i do not know where we will go. that is the nature of developing power projects, particularly in africa. to the extent the u.s. government is able to do two things, it would be enormously helpful to investors. -- first is to meditate mitigate some of the development risks through providing capital. there is thing to say money in opic and we want to do that.

tda will tell you if it is hard work. there are a lot of restrictions on tda money. can be challenging to get the money to do development. it can take over a year. if you are trying to develop a power project, you cannot necessarily wait a year. you can find development money elsewhere or you fund it off of your balance sheet. we need to find a way to streamline the processes to get the projects moving. the second issue on development risk, the standard rule has always been about 10%, you get a development fee of 10% that covers your risks. that is not always guarantee. changes. has to findernment a way to price the risk better. everybody knows the projects are higher.

it is a key element this initiative has to work through. in the end, we are thrilled to have been a part of this. we have got an incredible exposure. we're getting calls from people who want to work with us. i have been on the phone since i got back. i think there are enormous opportunities. it is not just for symbion, it is for any number of u.s. companies willing to take the advantage of the enormous opportunities in africa that the president is accurately focused on. with that, i will set up and handed over to -- shut up and hand it over to ben. >> thank you. it is great to be here. if you went over, you can have a couple of minutes. everyone wants to hear from people doing the tough work on the ground.

by thetremely encouraged turnout today and the wide spectrum of people brought to this issue, including on this table up front. think the reason is because this issue is at the heart of everything, whether it is the private sector or the broader process. the one campaign is grass-roots organization of just under 3.5 million. people worldwide with a healthy contingent on the continent itself. this is something that has members overh our the last year or so. why is that? andry to focus the policies work we engaged in on what

people andrican businesses are saying. we try to focus on those issues and see what we can do dell. if you particular issue, look at surveys, one in five african say their most pressing concern is infrastructure with a healthy contingent on power. if you look at african thisesses, around 50% say is a major constraint for their operations. if you look at african governments, the energy sector is in almost every single poverty reduction strategy or blueprint for moving into middle income countries status. -- you seeeral

multilateral bodies heavily engaged in this issue. in january 2012, they came up with the program for infrastructure development for africa with a heavy focus on energy. this is at the center of the discourse. the u.s.rilled government is engaging on this issue. largely it is because it touches all of the issues we focus on. africansr 40% of surveyed say their most pressing concerns our job or income- related issues. this touches that in a major way. it touches health, education, agriculture. what we hear regularly is there is no path out of poverty or to

prosperity without power. you have got to engage on this issue. coming toovernment is the party a little late. other actors like the african development bank have been over this space -- all over the years along with others like china. government and have thejor impact supporting countries and businesses. figure out a way to plug into those participating private entities. of plants thater have come forward. power africa is in our view is a fantastic start. , but alsoouncement

what can only be a start. its scaleambitious in and scope. -- it is very ambitious in its scale and scope. compared to the need and demand, it remains a small piece of what has to happen. there are many players in this space so everyone has a role to play. actors and participants focused on execution over the next 18 andy say u heard making sure they have some wins is essential. of course. while the u.s. government and others move to execution mode to make sure this announcement has andct on the ground commercial viability, we need to

be thinking about how to go to scale even more. this announcement is quite interesting compared to previous government announcements. i spent a number of years in the government and have been part of these announcements. the transaction focus is refreshing. it is going to be challenging over the medium term to help it continues to harness and focus of different vehicles and resources within the government to support this effort. it cuts both ways in some context. there are explicit metrics that flow throughout the u.s. government. everyone knows what their targets are. some of it is there. some is not. it is going to need to be addressed as you go to scale and try to cut -- grachev up.

that is where the electrified act introduced in congress because of weeks ago comes in. for us, the one campaign is critical. .verything we do is bipartisan it has got to have support from the right and left. we know that is the only way policies, programs, or action will have staying power. in this case, i think all adications point towards bipartisan model on this issue. act is onefy africa political vehicle to drive that forward. it will help to make sure there so that whoever

follows will have the support to continue these efforts and scale up. thingsthat, one of the inare focused on now delivering what african people and businesses are asking for is the impediments to fully harnessing the assets of the u.s. government. a number have been mentioned. i will not touch on those. one was equities. some of the things chris mentioned in terms of project preparation, a high-risk part of the deal cycle. there are a number of those things. additional pieces relate to the overseas private investment corporation which was a modest part of the

announcement from president obama in cape town and subsequent remarks in tanzania. ofyou look across a number -- for a number of different , opic needs to play a significant part in the effort. there are a couple of things opic does that are unique. enor in terms t of financing. it is a match for the sector in terms of financing needs. insurance products are important as well. austereion, in an budgetary environment, there is no way usaid will be able to get

billions of dollars of congress in the foreseeable future to support this. andide of capacity building credit guarantees, i do not bigk you want usaid to go because it has to have commercial viability. the private sector is going to have to be central if there is sustainability. fromul lessons have come that. dhere may be cases for off gri where subsidies may be required. if you are talking about big scale, usaid will not be the leading tip of the spear. opic is.zation like upside have to rest heavily on opic.

are the constraints? it is a small agency. it does not have enough teams to drive transactions. that has to be addressed. the second thing was brought up before. magnitude of this issue is such that it is going to take a mix to hit the demand on the continent. it will take a mix of renewables and nonrenewable. when there is an environment where renewables are the best solution and the resources are there, i think everyone would wish that is the preferred model of generation and then feeding into transmission. there are going to be cases where that may not be the case. natural gas will need to be part

of the mix. other operas have a kind on actors have opined on this. everyone supports a mix. there needs to be a strong emphasis on the renewable aspect of well -- as well. whatever the approach to address the constraint, at the end of today, there are many ways to do it. many ways that can be win-win and bring all parties to the table. i think there is a way to skin that cat and we hope that will

come to fruition at some point. we look forward to engage in with parties on that front. >> sarah? >> i want to say thank you to jennifer and the group for allowing me to be on a panel with amazing people doing interesting work that is totally different from what i do. one thing i wanted to do in answering the question on why i am up here and what this has to do with energy and climate change, it is interesting for me. most of what we have heard about the power africa initiative has to do with being transactional. everyone likes the word. it is sexy and sounds like you are going to do stuff. we see it being politically palatable for most of the big initiatives. i think what people wonder about the initiative is it is strategic and has staying power. is it something we're going to do for a while and will it work?

we were talking about this internally. i looked at a number of ways in which power africa makes a lot of sense with what we see in terms of the energy and climate change goals of the administration but in terms of how they have adjusted to the changing energy landscape. i thought i would add some food for thought to the conversation. i cannot do what they did. it is amazing. i do not operate in that business. all of this has been tremendously in cycle. 30,000 put youe and say, why does this match with what the obama administration is trying to do? i have watched this administration for a long time. you are looking at places where the transformer to change can happen. ativell be transforme changes can happen.

you see a world where the obama administration believes in driving energy sources. they are really aware of the fact there are a lot of new oil and gas resources and hydrocarbon resources they need to be able to compete with. beingn we look at this as withategy that makes sense underpinnings that give people largeence to spend a amount of government money at a time when a lot of that is not around to be spent and how it may leverage additional funds? i want to touch on a few key issues. why power africa? money is.ere the when you look at the big global issues to be tackled, power generation in africa, this may be the time when things are different.

there is an exuberance in terms of economic growth in africa. i do not fundamentally think a transaction based approach versus regulatory -- i think we oscillate between those. that does not mean one is right and one is wrong. we have never tried it this way 2013 during this time in their development cycle. there is a lot of hope that can be predicated there. of the 1.3 billion people who do not have access to electricity, 47% are in africa. if you look at most of the literature, it is in a small number of countries in africa. if you go out to 2030, you are seeing a good deal of progress in terms of connecting people to modern electricity resources. there is progress being made in africa. a lot of that is not happening

in africa to the same extent it is happening in other places. if you are going to pick a problem, this is not a bad one. some criticism of the strategy that may be brilliant if we can do it correctly is $7 billion is not a lot of money. a lot of money is dollars and 16.6 trillion. that is the amount of money that will go into energy between now and 2030. the one thing that is not determined inside those dollar figures is how much that comes from different companies and governments, how the money gets spent and is divided among fuels. the point is there is a lot of money in the energy sector. when you look at the competition for who will be spending the money, a lot of the money to get emerging and developing

economies. the question is how to spend --ll amounts of money comparing the $7 billion on the table compared to what maimay be needed to achieve universal access, have to use the combination of the private sector and public sector to try to create investment frameworks where u.s. companies have a competitive advantage? for people talking about partner ing with other places or businesses interested in getting a foothold in that market, instead of thinking about it as a small amount of money that does not match the need, think about it in terms of what companies would do to get a foothold in those emerging

markets and how you make it possible. i think that is the exciting part of the initiative. it is not necessarily bad for climate change. aboutis a lot of subtext the power africa coming from the obama administration means it can only be clean energy based. in their climate change strategy they have said they do not want infinance coal power countries other than the least development and only when there is non an economic disadvantage to doing an alternative. the intellectual underpinning behind power africa looks at the vast majorities of the places where you might spend the money as being in remote rural applications where maybe alternative technologies are more competitive. i think that is a case that has

to be proven on the ground. a lot of people can say that. but it needs to be proven in practice. you cannot prove the counter fact either. you have to go out and do that. if you look at the basic assumptions behind what it would take to achieve universal electrification around the world, not only africa, someone said the greenhouse gas emissions are no less than 1% increase of where we would be in 2013. -- in 2013. coming from energy non-fossil sources proves to be true. important part of that giving this initiative staying power is if you are going to do something about climate change, you have to prove those cases. the best places are where the economy's growing quickly. that is not here.

that is in other places around the world. rather than looking at that as in the ideologically driven looked atit could be as a way of catalyzing new innovation. last point i was going to make was taking advantage of energy resources in the shifting energy landscape. one thing that gives a lot of attention in my world are places in africa with significant energy resources and whether those are being used appropriately to develop the infrastructure in those countries. -- findsere new fines have been discovered, the jury out a way to use that as a catalytic -- figuring out a way to use a as a catalyst for development. there is a lot of gas out there.

one of the important things to do is to make sure you keep the development projects in context. changingandscape is dramatically. the competitive landscape is changing dramatically. to get the mix right of what is not the require same conversation it has always been. it is a competitive landscape. we can talk more about that. that is what i wanted to say. >> thank you. a lot of food for thought and different perspectives. we have about 35 minutes for questions and answers. we will take questions once again. we will begin with the gentleman here. wait for the microphone and please identify yourself. -- iteach the government

teach government at georgetown. let me ask the question of is going to ask earlier. where is the $7 billion coming from? is it likely to detract from other programs such as humanitarian programs in africa? answer that or perhaps ben. let me ask sarah. compared to china, the u.s. comes to africa late. can you tell me from the business perspective if you see

competition from china? .hank you i am with national electric manufacturers association. i wonder if you could let us know if there is already an existing portfolio of prioritized projects these six countries have identified where work has been done so they know what they need in their countries. thank you. with a couple of exceptions, what i hear from the panel is unbridled optimism about this initiative. do any of you have doubts or fears of unintended consequences or failure?

[laughter] >> not yet. >> why don't we go there is a tender out for 10 .ower lands these are existing. seven of them has been updated. nigerian companies are looking for the u.s. partners. it is the only situation where i know something mentioning something innately coming up. i imagine there are other opportunities in other countries also. thank you. >> tackle the ones you see most it. >> just to respond to your question, my understanding is