he says we have been very clear to the assad regime and other players on the ground that a redline for us, we start seeing a whole bunch of emma: moving or been utilize, that has crossed it. then we go through the same time he is talking about a game beener, we think he has using chemical weapons on small scales. it took the united states three months to confirm he has been using them on a small scare and , a third-tier white june official announces in we are going to take some action. we will increase our assistance. we are going to meaningfully engage on this. but does not say anything about punishing syria for its use of chemical weapons.

21, much larger chemical attack that kills 1400 people. swivel, where obama is about to use force and launch a retaliatory attack, and then he says it is up to congress. when it is clear congress will hand his head to him coming he reaches out to his former good buddy vladimir putin who comes up with this issue of removing chemical weapons as a way of taking a place of the automated the united states had sent down with its red on the use of ravens. one of the things that i find the service -- i find disturbing is what this has been all about. people notice when obama at his press conference, a very

attitude, prickly in this, 969 words particular spots, and obama says those who would criticize our syrian foreign policy say we do not mean sending in troops. what do you mean? you should mean assisting the opposition. what else do you mean? strike you should take a at syria. what else are you talking about? at this point the criticism trails off. thatis ridiculous because previous weekend samantha powers is asked on tv, the person who wrote the problem from hell about rwanda, what about these reports they are using gas?

we will get to the bottom of that and see what is his going on. within a day it is confirmed, they are using chlorine gas. a u.s. official said -- i do make i have the -- we reallyn do not want to draw much havetion because we do not much to do about it, because we cannot ask them to get rid of all the chlorine. can, but they agreed not to use chemical weapons as part of embracing the chemical weapons treaty. and they used them. when you are trying to deter the use of chemical weapons, what you are about is deterring they use of chemical weapons, not using force to impose an elimination of all chemical weapons, particularly when you

are doing in a context that in ddafi gave up his chemical weapons, we thought it was only eight months ago that they announced the last mogul weapons were gone. he hdid a bunch of chemical weapons in that time, and to think that assad will give them all up, out the way it works. it strikes me when you start looking at the track record of how this administration used force at the tactical level to try as an element of coercive has failed at that. our adversaries do not fear us. they do not think we will hold them accountable. our allies are worried about what we will do under similar circumstances when we make those kind of commitments. what sam was talking about and i apologize for getting personal,

but when it comes to using force it is personal, because it was not just those three lines of thinking to consequences, being prepared to do it. a person has to have the right stuff when it comes to using force, the right stuff. president has asked about red lines on this most recent trip, we do not like red lines anymore. he was asked, what about you japan's territorial interests? >> i didot my redline not create that redline. treaty before he went over for this trip, he sends a written message saying we support japan's right to administer these territories and -- not my redays line.

what do you think if you are an ally concerned about your territorial integrity? you have had it. latviase minister from points out we used some real red lines, once that matter because we are in nato, or you have nato'sry kerry saying territorial territory -- integrity is inviolable. we will defend every piece of it. how credible do you think that is? how credible do you think that is? it is personal. consequence of not understanding when the united states draws a line in the sand it is the president's job to make sure that the line has

consequences. we can call it a line in the sand. red lines have metaphors, pink lines, reince written in pencil pencil, written in creeping red lines, but when it comes to saying do not do this or we will do that, when you make empty threats, how do you have an architecturally of security guarantees? over to you, michael. >> ok. thehat optimistic note, floor is yours. >> thank you for having this event. ssue we an i will be talking about for a long time because it is not a small tactical action. it is a major choice by a large power, and it is a choice to do something that perhaps we in the the -- in the past,

annexation of territory come so a lot ofeurope, and commentators are trying to say that there might be easy ways to deal with them there are not ways to deal with this from russia or any other problem. it is a tough problem. new, and something america sees russian leaders take actions that we vigorously object to but do not have a path solution or an easy way to quickly address. president eisenhower had to see the soviets go into hungary. crossd to see the soviets checks and nokia. president carter shawl soviets go into afghanistan. jr. saw george

invaded by russia, and others in the neighborhood had faced aggression in recent years. in none of those cases was there an american response that would somehow magically roll back what had happened. in none of those cases was there something that would not be subject to a law that put advocating about what we could or could not do. it is important to say what are interests here, what are the things that we need to be willing to do in response to this kind of action, and to find a way to build consensus because one of the things that serves us best as a country in issues like this is when we are able to find consensus over what we could do, isuld do, even if there debate about tactics. for all the critics we're hearing now about what policy choices have been made, they are

primarily waiting about tactics. there are not a lot of able advocating for military action to roll back a russian annexation of a piece of ukraine. that said, this is a pretty only ofs violation, not international law, but of the agreement that russia inked with the united states, united kingdom, and ukraine, budapest agreement that said we will not use force to violate ukraine's territorial integrity or sovereignty. russia has both file later the u.n. charter and the agreement they inked with us. not to mention that, defragmenting of -- the fragmenting of a sovereign nation by force is something that merits a response. of that response comes

in the kinds of costs we are willing to impose them not just today, but over time. critiquesat best right now other spot is it has not been clear enough what this costs are going to be in the near-term and clear enough how long and enduring the cost position of the united states will be. my concern about whether the immediate response reflects on u.s.'s stature in the world comes from the fact that it has confused, and we have had that problem in several cases. it looks fairly confused because these things are hard to do with. how far do you go? do you unilaterally move forward on sanctions? do you get together with allies and come up with response? these are difficult things to do in my view, fairly clear steps to target at least one section

of the russian economy that would cost us something as well as cost them something, and a demonstration that we are willing to keep that up for a served uswould have better in incremental steps on sections that looked like they are reactive. the bottom line here is that the annexation of crimea, that in itself requires a fairly clear response from the united states, and that is probably a response that will have to stay in place for some time, so we need to figure out what kind of sex we do willing to take to say we not accept this action and we are going to imposing costs on you, that we are going to keep in place for 1, 5, 10 years? in my view that should be probably targeted at the banking sector where a long time european and western willingness to look the other way in terms of money laundering and other financial crimes could very easily be ended and to allow us

to enforce actions and target sanctions to constrain russia's financial sector. those are things we need to do. a that --k the i t the idea that somehow the recent development cast into doubt the framework of american alliances, that is overstated. we have treatyt commitments to our allies, to our allies. they are not the rest of the universe, the rest of those world. those are with those countries with whom we have entered those agreements. the president has been clear on the nato front and on japan was extraordinarily clear despite was point that clark pointing out, that the article

five treaty applies to the islands. the value of ambiguity and the dow you of strategic -- and the value of strategic implications has been muddied by both sides, on the red lines and what would you do talking about in a given circumstance. being declared of an clear about what you are going to do when your interests are challenged is not the rest way to practice international policy. when you face challenges unique to be willing to make responses. when you are willing to take a crete action, you need to sustain your action when you take it, but you need to leave room for a variety of actions and lead uncertainty in the minds of potential opponents. there is a lot of discussion right now about how we could have -- how we could be handling

fees situations in a fundamentally different way. i do not think that is true. i think the quibbling should be limited to what technically should we be doing and what we should be doing -- where we could take stronger action, where we could potentially have a better approach. even john mccain's proposed legislation does not actually a view out of the realm of this administration's response to this challenge. at the end of the day, vladimir take on a hosen to el.mant back at --, he did not analyze the soviet union just in terms of a bolshevik ideology and a socialist system. he put it in the scope of

russian history and talked about euroseas of russian leadership going back centuries, and he said that russian leaders have learned to seek security only inpatient, a deadly struggle for total destruction of rival compacts andin compromises with it. i think that might be one of the most informative places for us to go. ideological struggle, but a russian leader behaving in a way that russian leaders have long behaved, a way that has never gets managed quickly easily by a turn of a phrase or a particular action, but a way of behaving that requires a clear response. the united states needs to lead the international community in rejecting the annexation of crimea and in resisting further dismemberment of the ukrainian body politic. i do not believe that any kind

of sanctions i had hoped for early were the kind of sanctions implemented. changet think those will the calculus of vladimir putin, and we get into very fuzzy territory when we talk about changing the strategic cap kilis of another country, if you add pakistan or a russia. do is manage this situation you find yourself in, protector interests as best you can, and be clear about what costs you are willing to impose violateavior by states the norms by which you stand. that means focusing on ace that he -- focusing on a steady stead of things you can do, to impose costs on russia, but critically to support ukraine and other states in the periphery of russia and potentially into putin's sights.

the most disappointing thing in our response so far is that congress authorized a fairly small package of assistance for ukraine. i think that if we look at two spots today is actually objectively better than the response that we made in 2008 when russia invaded georgia. of theen the scale activity in ukraine and the direction it seems that russia is going, i think we actually ind to find the resolve ourselves and with our european partners and with other countries around the world to have a much more robust response. so there are things out there that we did in the wake of a staidar that we have left in prominence and importance, like the partnership for peace, that helps a dozen nations and helps bring them up to military standards in education and

support. those are the programs we need to look at ways to reinvested. i fear that the mastic gridlock -- that ms to gridlock and the atmosphere of fiscal constraint is getting to the point that it is making us actually really overly narrow what we can do as a country. when you ask about can we do asia policy and handle ukraine? of course, we can. we are still the largest economy on earth. we are still spending over $600 billion a year on defense. we have plenty of resources. we have to have the willingness to apply those resources where they need to be applied. we seem to be in a political environment where gridlock is the watchword and tough political decisions do not come no matter how severe the provocation or how important the need. and that is what challenges american leadership in the world. the gridlock is the issue, much more than the specifics of any

given response, because the world understand how complicated these sorts of issues and responses are. i will wrap up with that. >> thank you. let me ask questions for the panel to pick up on the themes i heard throughout the comments. the first one is a question, a difference reference, the utility of the ambiguity in terms of options and leaving space for yourself as you manage a problem. one of the first things the president did and has repeatedly done was take military force off the table as an option. andy, you had said before that the use of economic tensions -- sanctions may be asked to look for in a way we do not anticipate. i assume taking military force off the table was done anyway to try to defuse the crisis a bit. what is your view of how putin may perceive those statements by the president, and does that need any policy correction going forward? >> thanks.

both clark andby vikram. --main problem against february 28 in the initial response, to me was clear that actually crimea was gone and what we were playing for at that point was for the rest of ukraine, and it was clear that for mr. putin, winning crimea and losing the rest of ukraine would never be satisfactory. and that is why the response right from the get go had to be much stronger and firmer. granted, that is a very hard such ao do when you see stealthy and frankly surprising action that was taken. t a couple days after that and the week after that and the week ther that, in the public,

sense of a very permissive and ferment for mr. putin, -- environment for mr. putin, that was in his head. we know what he would have done with a different response. this gets to taking use of military force off the table. believer in the currents -- deterrence. the counter argument made by the administration that any kind of military action or certainly military support for ukraine, the concern about it being perceived as provocative to moscow, to me it does not make sense. what i saw as more provocative was creating the impression mind of a more permissive environment.

if you're thinking to yourself that you're taking military action off the table, fine, do not say it. what is the point in saying anything about it? why not create ambiguity in your adversary's mind? more importantly, on this point, the administration would critique people like me and accuse us of being warmongers for -- i would never's suggest providing an article five guarantee for ukraine or anything like that -- that is not -- but there is a whole range of options in between that and sending 300,000 meals ready to eat. there are far more options. thee is a problem that security forces in ukraine are penetrated by russia's

influence, that is an issue for sure. there could have been more done their in a new wants to weigh -- way thate in a nuanced could have changed the calculus. >> you want to jump in on that? >> i go to exactly what it was president obama is saying. he said many things, but on 26 march, he said ukraine is not a member of nader in part because of its close history with russia. nor will russia beat this lodged from crimea -- be dislodged from crimea or be deterred by military force. there is this you to give us official saying the american people are not going to war with russia over ukraine,. i am not a warmonger. maybe i am a little bit.

there are lots of things you can do short of launching a desert storm -- like -- desert storm-like invasion of kuwait. you might actually move forces into what they are now calling the front-line states, nato allies on russia's borders during that time. not.has what has happened is the united states sent to each of the three question, 150 paratroopers, and those paratroopers were delivered by commercial transportation because we were worried having them much less jumped out of the sky or beating delivered by military or being delivered by military transport would be true provocative -- too provocative. ,ending 150 paratroopers in

when you have 100,000 troops on the borders. there are lots of things we should have done. i think obama has done a little bit better on the economic side that he has not done on the military side. you should be doing things to , theate to our nato allies new europe, as don rumsfeld used to refer to, that we are really there for them, and we have not during that time. for me, strategic ambiguity about when you are going to use force, that is a concept that was developed in terms of the use of nuclear weapons. concept used for 150 pair troopers to signal intent. there are lots of things that could have been done on the military side that would demonstrate a much firmer intent than we had heretofore shown.

>> the only thing i will throw into this mix is i think a lot a made -- as if there is notion of high-speed tactical deterrence in itself. there's the idea that had we asked, he would've said i will leave crimea or i will not meddle in the rest of ukraine. that is not accurate, and the reason he was not that heard -- terred finds its roots in how we respond to the georgia incursions into thousand eight, which remain in place. that russian invasion, which was much more sloppy, loud, noisy, messy, and it claimed like 500 georgian lives, that was met with no response by previous administration. vladimir putin has tested the waters and determine that in his

immediate neighborhood he is not going to face a military response from the united states. so i agree with what my college lleague saying -- my co is saying here. he can't debate about the tactics. the failure to deter in this particular set of circumstances, putin steadily encroaching on and grabbing a russian enclave of neighboring states like moldova, georgia, ukraine, and potentially others like ice or by john down the erbaijan, that is a position he has tested over the years, and i would say more of what we have done in this crisis, what we did not do in 2008, has affected the world we are looking at today. >> one last question.

there has not yet been a release of an obama administration second-term national security strategy, so there is opportunity to put something in there about this issue to signal very publicly on this issue said that we brought up here. what would you recommend be in the national security strategy? i am not saying that putin will read it, but it is a chance to have a discussion internally in the and frustration like we're having here. what are some of the issues they need to take a hard look at? the second part of the question, we just had the release of a new defense strategy in the form of a 2014 quadrennial defense review. did that strategy adequately after the space we are in now with russia? is russia properly accounted for and our defense strategy if it is going to be the kind of long-term challenge that you all believe it is going to be?

whoever feels most comfortable going first. >> i will go first on that. i will start with the ease your question first, the 2014 qdr. like the one that came out six weeks after 9/11. legislated to come have a certain time, so it came out. at the time it was legislated to come out. it was adjusted at the very last minute to talk a little bit about 9/11, but the whole thing had been written before 9/11 had occurred. same thing is true right now. is slated mandate to put out a 2014 qdr. dr're still talking that qcd that we want to shape china as a responsible stakeholder and russia as a responsible partner as well. at was the language that was in there. cannot rewrite those. they probably would have gone to the printers before it was

clear what was going on right now with russia and ukraine. as far as the national security is concerned, do not put another one out. time you want to put something out was right after you are sitting there with egg all over your face, and people wondering about your resolve, and i would argue you have to rebuild your credibility for action, your reputation to action, to use a term that thomas schelling used, you have to rebuild that were one redline at a time. articles a recent that said we need to reset our foreign policy, have a full architecture. we know well if we try to put up five redlines, we are going to get a number of them wrong no matter how stronger president is because we do not know what our toleration for pain is and we do not know what people we are trying to effect. he followed those kinds of things over time. that is a longer-term thing.

i would argue right now if you have to put out a national saturday strategy, you probably should've done two years ago. if you did not, do not do enough. -- do not do it now. >> i think that is great part. qdr did not account for this turn of events. the fact is the international community has rejected what russia has previously done in terms of these kinds of actions, and nobody recognizes other places as russian territory. but has attempted to move on and figure that there is going to have to be a resolution at some point, and we have continued to try to encourage russia to be a part of a responsible mobile order. and any logical -- if you take a longer term, not written's political -- not putin's

political calculus, but the longer welfare of the russian society, that is a better course of action. do wellm, russia would to make those reforms that and he was talking about, to open up its society can have a free media, to make to be attracted to capital again, to establish the rule of law him and got a russian that has a decent future in the 21st century. this is taking russia down a path that will not have a decent future in the 21st century, and that is something that does need to be factored in to national security thinking. nationalmagine security strategy is not that about anybody's list of the white house now given the number of challenges they are facing. obviously, the shifting dynamics from power and how sovereignty disputes have been muffled or very rarely acted on in recent years and how those might play theo challenging

international order and undermining security in large important regions of the world, that has to be something we look to address. >> andy? >> thanks. qdr could not account for this. there are two sides of it. one is capabilities. the other our intentions. -- are intentions. we know the russians have been working the last five or six years to improve their military sector, and i think this deserves a lot more attention, looking at the kinds of capabilities that they have. there has been a lot of focus, not surprisingly, on access then ons, topes of weap raise the cost of military interventions that the united

states and its allies has led. noxious to their anxious. i would look very closely at the and look at what the russians are doing their with their modernization program and what we are or are not doing with our program. i will leave it to clark to make a comment on that. vikram's comments on the long term, vladimir putin is six he won years old -- 61 years old. he takes good care of himself. he plans on being in power for a long time. sure, we would like to ash for the return back to reforming russia, but i just do

not see that happening any time soon. the logic of what he has done and where he has moved has constrained him and has encouraged him to go further. so i am afraid unless something , i dos to him personally not see any way that we are going to be doing with him for a long time. that has to be accounted for, i think, in the strategy, because that is where the intention has way -- any fundamental in a fundamental way, from being nemy,quasi-partner, a fre to clearly an adversary. and an adversary which i am worried is ready to inflict and across major losses all the board.

i know this is a kind of a crazy thought, but i have these crazy thoughts in the last few months. i do not even think about it, and they hit me. i was reading a piece last friday, and the thought hit me, the greatest achievement of the soviet union, besides winning world war ii, was achieving nuclear parity with the united states. what would really rock vladimir's world would be if to acquire a first-strike capability. i have not even thought about that for decades. >> you have not even thought reform. this cannot be underestimated in any way, shape, or form. you know what? since we have little capacity to influence russia, i think we have to think about much more strategically, is how we support the sovereignty and independence

of the state on russia's borders from east central europe to the caucasus,. central asia i just came from central asia, spent a couple weeks there, and for example, some very thoughtful kazakh another 9/11 and how they think about their security and their position. -- we need a new eurasia policy, not just a russia policy and the core weakness was ukraine's own sovereignty itself. over toe turn it audience questions. please identify yourself and if you could keep it to a question so we can hear more from these gentlemen. with ay will come microphone, sir, in the back. >> thank you.

retired diplomats. over the years, the u.s. -- ukraine military to military relationship has and one of the best aspects of our bilateral relations. the police have performed pretty poorly out there, but now that the military are engaged, is it likely that the bilateral military to military relationship is going to bear quality aread the -- in equalitarian the performance of the military? and there have been suggestions from some observers that the west should provide some anti-armor, defense of weapons to the ukrainian military to help them to turkey and defend, and that kind of is available on the market so it would not the something like writing them weaponry that they would not

know how to use. >> want to jump in on that? >> more than one or just ---- >> why don't we start with -- >> i think the provision of defensive weapons would not be -- i do not think it would be decisive. i do not think that in the power dynamic there is a step that would be decisive in the immediate term. i do think ukraine needs a heck of a lot of help. to military relationship with ukraine has been good. i understand that from knowing that if has been one of these countries that we partnered with over the years, but it was nowhere nearly as good as the relations with georgia. i think you could see a situation in which perhaps it is not just an american issue, but the united states could be provided and a lot of higher end

military support in terms of how they do things and how they manage their military and how the they can run things. european countries can't provide conditionals government -- european countries can provide additional equipment. ukrainian army has stocks. they have a military. the real question is do they have the command and control and integration they need to deal with this kind of complex threat? tested if we see action.military i do not think you will see a crimea situation where nothing happens. we are seeing the violence and things being contested now, and i imagine there's a point at which the creamy and will stand up and they need to be backed up by countries around the world that do not think they should be have their country

dismembered just because there was a popular uprising and one corrupt leader ended up fleeing from office. unfortunately for the ukrainian ledle, they have been their country for decades by corrupt leaders who have left the country. >> in the front here. i would like to see one of you all comment on arming ukrainians with stinger missiles so that the air force cannot operate anywhere near territory. .hey pulled out of afghanistan yherefore, it was totall inured. the russian air force has a low tolerance for casualties.

when the russians from across the borders with their tanks in their armored vehicles, that they can take them out. both cases would such a high price on the russian game that the russians have no chance of getting your people to put up with the casualty rate that they are going to incur. i would like to comment on that. >> let me take one more. sir, right here. thank you. am representing the mccain institute from georgia. my question is on the nato contingency in the baltic direction. officially notified lithuania that they are suspending weaponry information exchanges. this was the formal notification

they receive. i presume there will be some particularly in tactical nukes. my question is, if if in the future we see -- appearing in one of the baltic countries, thecle five considers support of the ally when there is an armed attack on a member country. would it be considered an armed attack, or would nato continue their actions in this potential scenario? >> i do not think you will see in ukraine -- i will leave it to andy to make a more authoritative statement on that -- i do not think you are going to see a russian invasion of

ukraine with lots of helicopters and with lots of aircraft. they are susceptible to being shot down with stingers. member, russia invaded afghanistan in support of a public -- puppet government, so they occupied a country, and it took white a while for the united states to develop the supply lines and stuff to provide them the word withal all to start shooting down aircraft in afghanistan territory. putin isknow how for going. united institute of security for london that hat said nobody knows what to do will do next. do you sort of agree with that? do you think he knows how far he will go during that time? i do not think it is going to be an invasion. there will be lots more green men, lots more violence in city,

there will be a creeping. stabilizehink it will until a larger chunk of ukrainian territory has been lost to russia during that time. i think it will go that far. putin has had more appetite for this than i thought he had. he has not been confronted with the kind of opposition that is going to lead him to back off for a while. hehink he looks at this -- is playing a great game in his mind and playing it better than his opponents, and he sees a feasible game. be forced ethnic cleansing, to use that kind of term, which is much more out of yugoslavia and so on, but i think you are going to find that they are not going to be -- there are not going to be ukrainian freedom fighters in that strip of southeastern

ukraine that will go russian. i think the military aspect of it is not going to be part of it. question, i think it depends a lot on how the world reacts to what is going to happen to ukraine. isolate a tv show, where the the three baltic countries talking to each other, saying, of course, ukraine is a part of nato. it was clear they were happy to be a part of nato at that time and to be having those defenses. i do not think putin is ready to take on that challenge yet i must we have a lot more dithering and ineptitude and capacity from the rest of the world in response to ukraine. i do not see that replay happening right away, but could months fromsix now in ukraine?

i think so. but i do not think it will, but it could. >> you want to pick up? >> i completely agree with what clark just said. level term we used during the cold war. a criticalng up to moment with the presidential election. it has been an essential part of the strategy to be able to claim that the ukrainian government in gf is elizabeth. -- in kiev is illegitimate. i think what we see the efforts to control if not to control, at the stabilize areas of eastern and southern ukraine are going to intensify up and to the election, and of course may 9, the great victory in europe day thatriday, a nasty

friday willt last look like a picnic. it will look like a typical day. when the elections are held, the goal is to have as few people where theose regions opposition's control or destabilize. then with the election results, claimmplainant -- the can be made legitimate, that their rights are being violated, and in the russians will declare the right to protect. they have already been talking about the right to protect. toy likely will still want avoid a full-scale military invasion to protect, but i would not exclude that as a possibility. i think that is what we are going to likely see up to the point where on april 17 in his phone in program, mr. putin

.aised the term new russia to me, this is clearly what he wants. this is the most industrialized part of ukraine. it is the most wealthy part of ukraine. it is where the heart of ukrainian military industrial complex is, and if you want to have a creative -- a greater russia project, a greater russian military-industrial complex, you do not want the ukrainian industrial military comics competing with sales to china as they have the last couple years. in the some way, the endgame will be for a truncated ukraine and it will be an annexation of that territory to russia. i do not think that a frozen conflict zone will be satisfactory. you will be left with a -- which economically weaker, much more focused economically to the west, but much weaker.

military supplies to the i do not like to say this, but i feel in some ways that the train might have left the station. we had been thinking about this two months ago in a more strategic way. nevertheless, we need to do what we can do. let me emphasize again. military to military relations, this is the distribution former ambassador of george or, who was so modest not to inform the audience that he was the ambassador of georgia. good to see you again. wherever countries have an appetite for a stronger relationship with the united states, do it. secretary hagel, get to the

airplane, good to central asia, and see what people are looking for. there is an interest for more cooperation with kazakhstan, and definitely with use o uzbekista. turkmenistan, but more cautious. >> let me take a question from this side of the room. the conference is coming. ukrainiansouch with currently that say give us tactical intelligence. flat muslim with a population, putin just got himself a million russians. he got a couple million more by taking the southeast. that is a big driver here. pundits have failed to note it. "not stop until he umstead to some form of military assistance. is it possible to establish a

training trigger force, southeast of tf to serve that purpose? he is out of office in 4 1/2 ye 2 years to has 4 1/ establish this. maybe he puts a puppet in. >> there are elections in 2018, and he can't run again. he would be president until 2024. >> tell us about that training trigger force. >> take another one in the back. national security -- mention was made of intelligence failures in this crisis. we know that snowden is entirely and it is of fsb,

reported we have had significant losses of intelligence assets with regard to russia. i'm wondering what the panel factor it is big a in the administration's decision calculus. >> who wants to start on this one? you want to take this one? >> sure. i will take the first one. you point out, with crimea, russia has also inherited more tartars,000 crimean who have a difficult history with russia and the soviet union. over the weekend i saw that a major political leader there was stopped at the border from reentering crimea. haver the crimean tartars been very quiet since in all of this. quiescent in all of this.

i think that will be a problem for putin at it might actually increase the larger problem that increasinglyn ifcation of the russian federation. there is no question that with the rapid environment of russian nationalism in russia today, beyond anything i have ever seen that is almost certainly going to increase the problem of the insurgency that mr. putin faces in the north caucasus and in other areas in the -- region where there is a significant muslim population. >> snowden?

>> above my pay grade. intelligence failure is not the way i would characterize in the inability of our intelligence agencies to predict that putin was going to do what he was going to do. there was a comment made by a spokesman talking about 25,000 russian troops mobilizing and active on the borders of south east asia, where he said, we do not have an idea what their intentions are. ok. you cannot see those out front. you can see the forces. you do not see what they are going to do with them. a lot of us were surprised him including andy was apprise him that putin did as much as he did and could go on to do as much as what he is doing now. we're talking about people who have been nothing but spinal russian leaders for a long

time. snowden -- it has weakened the ofted states a bit in terms its allies. certainly with merkel. that is not explaining why the european reaction to what russia is doing has been so weak. that ist snowden and responsible for a former chancellor of germany sitting on the board of the russian oil company. it is not snowden that is responsible for the effective united states has bilateral, economic relationship with russia, $27 billion a year, and europe has owned $370 billion a year. you talk about let sanctioned the russian thinking sector. down the tubes.

there has been a case of interdependency or dependency, depending on how you look etween, created b russia and europe now where europe is not an independent agent. where we said with nato, where we will move with nato as a n alliance, we are asking malta, the united kingdom, countries that benefit from the russian empire to take strong action that will hurt their economies. it is not going to happen. for a trigger force them there's no trigger force we can do in the near term that could stop the russians. what will stop the russians from going further is the reading of their own interests that they have gone as far as they need to. why, if your putin, thinking about the kind of stability?

he is in a place where 45% of the population is russian and the rest is ukrainian. you push ukrainians further away and you make sure you just left the russians. what you do not do is you take over an area that is 100% ukrainian and have to deal with them. as we know too well, occupations are tough, and i think putin is a little smarter about that. >> i agree i do not think putin is looking to occupy ukrainian arts of ukraine. i do not think we are looking at the reabsorption of ukraine into russian. -- into russia. we are looking at what will and he was talking about. we can easily move into the realm of talking about the terror options that may or may not be there. there are tactical decisions that could be made in terms of what kind of supports to provide, what kind of -- how you reassure and reinforce and make clear that the nato alliance is

going to stand firm on protecting alliance members from aggression. but we should remember in dealing with russia as a civilization that we have at challenges with for a long time, and that is the situation we are in now. . .

>> taking action inñiçyóñi the i to see credibleñiçóçóñrñiçó rest owned bwóçóiçó lotsñiçó ñiçóñiñó

cash. ñiñiñiñiñi t clearly something we'reçóñiwv/ >> let meñr get the final word d then we'll thankçó the panel.ñri >> twoñr things. one, another collateral damage of economic causeñi forçó russis ecoño cause forçó those states that have very strongñi economic

relations withñi russia. that's something that needs to be thoughtñi about. whenñi we think a!out what was e c)kq weakness of ukraine, it rm5mlw÷rñiñi sortñiñi of theóñ sovereign+1é=m=@p hbyuvñiñi

u.n.ñi securityñr council.v5> s 7jñ thinkñrñi it's worth tryingi work together in thisñrçó contes

>> thank you very much.ñrzhk÷áñ the work to pullm#

>> that will be live on c-span 3. >> you can now take c-span with you wherever you go. with our free c-span radio app for your smartphone or cab let. will be to all three c-span tv

channels. or c-span radio any time. there's a schedule of into our networks so you can tune in when you want. download your free app online for your iphone, android or blackberry. >> now remarks by attorney general eric holder on combating crime. as he spoke this morning to meeting of the national association of attorney generals . the attorney general remarks are about 15 minutes. >> good morning. i want to thank attorney general

van hollen for that kind introduction. also for your leadership as president of the national association of attorney generals. like to recognize district attorney henry garza for his service as president of the national district attorneys association. i want to thank the leadership team, the professional staff and the dedicated members of both organizations for the really outstanding work that you perform everyday and for all that you done to bring us together for this really important symposium on the reduction of crime. as staunch volunteerings -- advocates for the rule of law, state authorities across america, you are two really remarkable organizations have for decades provided leadership and guidance in advancing our dialogue about criminal justice issue. through the work of the national

attorneys general training and through gathers like nad. you routinely bring innovators, public servants leaders together to address what are the most pressing public safety challenges of our time. it's a privilege for me to help open this critical forum and to stand with all all yet again as we share knowledge and expertise to speak frankly about the threats facing our respective jurisdictions and to discuss cutting end strategies for reducing crime and victimization throughout the nation. i know that you and your colleagues serve on the front lines of this fight everyday. you're working closely with u.s. attorneys, fbi acts and other justice departments to protect the citizens that we are all sworn to serve. together we are reminding policy makers here in washington. something that's very important that dialogue on the most difficult and divisive issues

need not break down along partisan lines. disagreements are inevitable whenever passionate people confront questions of real magnitude. we are showing that vigorous debate is not only healthy, it stands to make our work stronger and more effective. we're all responding to the same reality. we've come together in the pursuit of the same goals. these common names have led us to find common grounds and a take meaningful steps to recalibrate policies. new actions and initiatives have risen from innovative federal, state and local partnerships.

these -- they are driven by the recognition and the broad based consensus that we have both responsibility and the opportunity to make our criminal justice system more fair, more efficient and more effective. the importance of these efforts and the urgent need for action on the historic changes that we're working to bring about was really brought into sharp focus by a landmark study that was released just last week by the national academy of science national research council. this new report was funded by the national institute of justice as well as by the mcarthur foundation. its findings were based upon a comprehensive, nonpartisan an independence examination of incarceration rates in the united states over the past four decades. as this study makes clear, the rise in incarceration that we witnessed over that period was,

historically unprecedented. these conditions have been shown to contribute to family instabilities, to high unemployment as well as to low wage. they often corollate with high rate of profit and serious public health concerns. they not only feed, they exacerbate, the poverty of criminality of incarceration that traps too many individuals and devastates the entire community. the n.a.s. principle conclusion,

u.s. policy makers must take steps by making targeted reforms to criminal justice policies. in addition to broader social policy changes. these recommendations are entirely consistent with the work that's under way through the justice department's smart on crime initiative. which i launched last summer to improve the federal system. the study findings also catalog the realities that so many of us see everyday as we strive to reduce crime in the jurisdictions that we serve. to illustrate the cost our nation's over reliance on incarceration are far too high to bare. increase in incarceration rates, impose those cause without materially improving public safety, without significantly reducing crime and without

concretely benefiting our nation in a meaningful way. fortunately, leaders in this room are not only uniquely qualified to guide our national conversation on these issues, you're also empowered to make a lasting powerful difference by advocating for the proposals that you believe in. by calling for reforms to improve the lives of our fellow citizens. by implementing strong and tested policies that can move our country forward. with new reentry and diversion programs like drug, mental health and veterans court, we can keep people out of prison and help them successfully rejoin their communities. with new sentencing measures and careful and appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. we can ensure punishments are fair and proportional to the conducts in every case. with the support of broad new coalition of experts, and other stakeholders, we can conserve

resources, we can improve public safety and bring our system in line with our society of interest and our nation's highest ideals. many of you all already showing, i think, tremendous leadership in this regard. in recent years, a total of 17 states supported by the justice department's reinvestment initiative and led by state officials from both parties have directed significant funding away from prison construction and towards evidence based programs and services like supervision and drug treatment are proven to reduce -- one report by the bureau of justice projects at least 17 state will save $4.6 billion over a event year period. although the full impact of these policies remains to be seen, it's evidence that they already show significant

promise. they should be studied, they should be emulated. we must continue to support this kind of notification on -- innovation to expand on proven strategies. at the federal level, our smart on crime initiative that is bringing about major shifts in charging, expensing and incarceration and executive clemency policies. last year, under this initiative i took steps to ensure minimum sentences for certain federal drug related crimes will now be reserved for the most serious criminals. defendants accused of low level, nonviolent drug offenses will face sentences fitting their individual conduct rather than penalties that are more appropriate for violent traffickers on drug kingpins. i also ordered a renewed focus of reentry of our 94 u.s. attorney's offices.

i have been encouraged to see more and more leaders from both parties step forward to take up this cause to help ensure our criminal justice system is used to pitch, deter and rehabilitate and not to warehouse and to forget. earlier this year i was proud to be joined by senator rand paul to restore voting rights to those who have served their prison term, completed their probation and have paid their fines. i urge each of you to take up this fight when you return home. because the free exercise of our most fundamental right should never be subject to politics or geography or the lingering effects of fraud policy. i also ask you to join me in working with congress to advance common sense legislation. the bipartisan smarter sentencing acts which would give judges additional discretion in determining sentences for people

convicted of certain central drug -- federal drug crimes. as a nation, we pay far too high a price in terms of human, economic and moral. whenever our system fails to deliver the just outcomes that are necessary to deter and punishment crimes t keep -- to keep us safe. the justice department is doing important work to restore, justice and fairness and proportionatety with those involved with the criminal justice system. to expanded approach to the executive clemency process. two weeks ago the deputy attorney general announced new criteria. that will allow the department and the white house to consider additional applications from deserving individual who not pose threat to public safety.

we anticipate receiving an influx of really thousands of clemency applications as a result of these changes. we are committed to devoting the time, the resources and the personnel necessary to ensure that each one receives the full attention and the rigorous scrutiny that it deserves. at the same time, as the national academy of science report makes crystal-clear, we must increase our efforts to identify and to confront despairty at every stage of the criminal justice process. with this goal in mind at my direction, a team of more than a dozen u.s. attorneys known as the racial disparities working group, is currently examining sentencing disparities and developing recommendations on how we can address them. the department also launching a new national center for building community trust. going forward, this center will enable us to explore, advance

and assess and disseminate information about strategies for procedural justice. my colleagues and i will never stand oddly by as isolated acts of discrimination tarnish the outstanding work that is performed by the overwhelming majority of american law enforcement officers everyday in this country. i have have been registered to -- encouraged to see organizations take step to make good on this commitment by strengthening community outreach. by broadening engagement and bringing citizens and law enforcement officials together to end the era of suspicion and distrust. going forward this work must continue to grow. we need to keep extending the reach and impact of these other efforts across the board. finding new savings and efficiency the will allow us to

invest in crime reduction strategies. it will forge stronger families and communities. including sentencing policies, expanding justice reinvestment and confronting racial disparities. it will save taxpayer money and it will build trust in law enforcement and taking a comprehensive view of crime challenge. rather than just responding to individual symptoms. now, we convene this morning in a unique unprecedented moment of promise. at a time of innovation and potentially broad consensus when our national debate, our professional experiences and the latest in cutting edge research have cast the challenges we face in various relief.

this is a time for thoughtful discussion, to give way to principle action. this the time for 21st century problems to be met with 21st century solutions. this is a time when policy makers from opposite ends of the political spectrum have laid aside their differences and resolve to stand together in the recognition that crime reduction is a goal that knows no ideology. countless lives, in promising futures hang in the balance. the need for robust collaboration and series of reform is as urgent as ever. as we seize this important moment, as we accept the opportunities before us as we renew our determination to move aggressively in combating violence and reducing crime, i'm proud to count you as allies and friends. i'm confident in the hyperbole

of -- i want to thank you once again for the chance to take part in this important symposium. thank you very much. >> center joe manchin a west virginia democrat might lead the senate. senator manchin said i'm going to wait until the end of 2014. see where we are what we can do to move this country forward. but if the leaders never going to work together and try to make something happen, it's just going to be a stalemate as it has been. senator manchin is up for reelection in 2018. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events

from washington, directly to you. putting you in the room of congressional hearings, briefings and conferences and oftenning them complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, "like" us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> now u.s. trade representative michael froman. the negotiations are between the u.s. and 11 other latin american and asian countries. senator ron wyden chairs the senator ron wyden chairs the

>> finance committee will come to order. for decks american trade policy has been a story of adaptation and change. in particular, the extraordinary economic changes of the last

generation demonstrate how important it is that future trade policies are reformed to reflect the time. for example, consider how technology is transformed the american and global economic landscape. in the 1990's and entire month's worth of internet traffic data will sit on a single hard drive that you can buy today for 50 bucks at any electronic story. vietnam has a law on its books that call into question the ability of u.s. businesses to move data in and out of that country. governments of china and brazil and europe are considering developing system that build digital barriers that nobody could have seen few decades ago. when it comes to enforcing our trade law, a key priority,

enforcement officials -- chinese are able entire segments of the american economy out at the knees. they can do so because they sit unseemingly bottom wells of cash, hide their paper trail with opaque accounting and dodge the risks and borrowing costs that american companies face. a third transformational change

was the advent of unfair policies like indigenous innovation. that target our american innovators. in 1990's india and china had limited technical capacity. now they can use highly technical standards to advantage their domestic firms and extract american companies intellectual property for their own use. it's a shake down plain and simple. fourth, over the previous decade, currency manipulation as remerged a major concern for our economy. when it comes to currency as in so many other areas, china is keeping a finger firmly planted on the scale and undermining those commitments. pick any product and currency

manipulation makes it artificially cheaper. that is hurting our workers ability to compete. finally, unlike 20 years ago, the american people expect to easily find online the information they want on key policy issues like trade. yet, too often, there is trade secrecy, instead of trade transparency. it's time to inform american about trade negotiations and provide our people more opportunity to express their views on trade policy. bringing the american people into full and open debate on trade agreements that have the effect of loss is not too much to ask. at presence many americans are questioning if trade developments contributed to persistent long term unemployment. stagnant wages for far too many and students with good degrees

unable to find hi -- high quality jobs. last week's report showing that america's middle class is no longer the best off in the world produced additional questions. responding effectively to the trade changes of the last generation is absolutely essential to instilling more confidence that trade policy will be good for america's working families and bring more of those middle class americans into the winner circle. i'm going to wrap up by saying that fortunately, america has big advantages to work with in the trade area. we have the most skilled productive workforce in the world. one that foreign students want to join. the dollar remains the come innocent currency -- dominant currency. the u.s. exports $350 billion worth of digital goods and

services each year on what amounts to a new virtual shipping lane. the internet also makes it easier for craftsman to reach their customers around the world. so policy makers have a lot to work with. we do have classic issues that remain. there are overseas barriers. we've an open market so clearly, if you do this right, when america negotiates, we can get more of an advantage out of it than other trading partners. that is particularly good for american products like wheat and dairy and footwear that need to be able to compete on a level playing field. so colleagues, here's my bottom line. the new breed of trade challengers over the last generation has to be addressed

with imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious job generating trade agreements. they have to reflect the need for a free and open internet and strong labor rights and environmental protection. nations don't dismantle protection as barriers or adopt these rules on their own. they do so with agreements hammered out through negotiation. america has to establish new rule to reflect today's trade form and enforcement. we're looking forward to hearing from ambassador froman. i want to thank congressman hatch. senator hatch, we welcome your open statement and we'll have introduction from ambassador froman. >> thank you chair. i feel the same about you. we have a real opportunity to have this committee do its work

in the way most people on the committee would appreciate under your leadership. appreciate you're holding this hearing i want to thank you ambassador froman from appearing here today. i'll i'm still disappointed that you declined my invitation to participate in that hearing, i'm glad your able to be here with us today. if it fails it will result in billions of dollars of missed economic opportunities for american workers and for american job creators. the president's term is not over yet. the jury is still very up out. even so, i am concerned. it creates a serious and fatal

flaw in the president's trade agenda. i do not believe you can conclude high standard agreements that will meet congress's approval without t.p.a. i'm not the only one who holds this view. the administration officials like agriculture secretary tom vilsack and jason froman has been quoted saying t.p.a. is a necessary component history tells us clearly without t.p.a. your trade agenda will almost certainly fail. that is why i'm very disappointed in the president's passive approach on this particular issue. i'm sure you can remember the enormous political effort president clinton put into successful implementation of the

northern american free trade agreement. in those cases, war rooms were established and each cabinet secretary made congressional approval of those initiatives a public priority. we are not seeing that level commitment from president obama which is disappointing to me and a lot of others as well. without more effort on the part of the administration, i just don't think we can succeed. in addition, i am concerned about the president's enforcement record. despite a myriad of violations, we have yet to see a single case brought against russia and the world trade organization. this is the case the administration told congress, one of the major benefits of having russia in the w .t.o. will be our ability to bring them to settlement. i'm disappointed that the

president refuses to bring a w.t.o. case against india. india knows better. we know better and we ought to be forceful about this. with regard to india, exemplifies a pattern of closive neglect within this administration. when it -- countries around the world are taking note of the president's failure to act in this area and this is feeding the perception. they can refuse to protect and even actively violate u.s. intellectual property rights with impunity. finally i'm deeply concerned about the office of the u.s. trade representative and institution. ambassador froman i appreciate the hard work and dedication of you and your staff. i have a high opinion of you as you know. i'm deeply impressed by the caliber of your career staff.

yet despite your best efforts, the agency still ranked dead last in employee job satisfaction amongst all agencies. part of the problem is -- it's a bullwork against other federal agencies. too often during the interagency process, regulatory agencies are saying no to cooperative participation and international trade negotiation. for example with the department of health and human services the alleged need for so called, quote, policy space, result inning in usgr proposals to carve out tobacco products out of the of the negotiations. it was department of treasury for regulating financial discussions to preexisting forms that resulted in usgr's insistence -- despite the strong

support of u.s. agricultural and food were fully enforcement sanitary chapter in t.p.p., it was the food and drug administration fear in settlement in result of weaker proposal. there's a clear pattern here if this does not change, i'm worried that any agreement this administration negotiates will never match the president's rhetoric of concluding high standard 21st century agreements. of course the history of this administration's trade agenda has yet to be written and there's still time to correct the course. make no mistake, the time is limited. i want to help. that is why i work with my house and senate colleagues to negotiate the bipartisan congressional trade priorities. balanced bipartisan compromise which will empower our country to negotiate high standard agreements that will get the

approval of congress. over 160 leading business and agricultural associations and companies have come out in strong support of this legislation. like them i strongly believe that approval of our t.p.a. legislation will help our nation succeed in its ambitious trade negotiations. that being the case, i'm asking once again that the president redouble his efforts to help get this legislation signed into law as soon as poll. the political clock is ticking. it won't be long until remove the small window that we have to pass significant trade legislation this career. ambassador froman i have high regard for you. i look forward it your testimony today. i have to leave shortly after we begin but i appreciate your testimony today and we'll be working with you to achieve a successful conclusion of a strong trade agenda. i want to thank you again for mr. chairman. i'm sorry i took longer than

usual. >> thank you senator hatch. ambassador froman thank you for your patience. i understand you have your family. why don't you introduce them to all of us. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have my parents are in town. suzanne froman, wife nancy goodman and long time friend brenda schaefer here. >> welcome, we're glad you're here. public service is not for the fainthearted and we really appreciate having family hear. ambassador froman we've been working closely with you. i know you've been out talking to senators. why don't you make your opening remarks. >> thank you chairman wyden and thank you member hatch. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the presidents 2014 trade policy agenda. the core of the obama administration's economic strategy is to create jobs, promote growth and strengthen the middle class.

through our trade policy, we're contributing to that strategy by opening markets for made in america exports, leveling the playing field for american workers and businesses and fully enforcing our trade laws and our trade rights. we're unlocking turns for american workers, farmers and ranchers for entrepreneurs an innovatetors. we're doing so in a way that promote our interests and values. the obama administration made great strides in promoting u.s. exports and creating jobs here at home. we increased exports to a record high $2.3 trillion in 2013 contributing to a third of our economic growth. 11.3million americans owe their jobs to exports. those jobs may 13 to 18% more on arch than nonexport related jobs. building o. the -- building on the success, the administration

pursued, ambitious trade agreement. together, these negotiations would allow us to access economies representing nearly two-thirds of global gdp. last week, during the president's vet to japan, the united states and japan crossed an important threshold in our bilateral market access discussions. we've identified a path forward on agriculture and autos, two of the most challenging areas of our negotiations with japan. this milestone achievement spur on by the president's engagement will provide significant momentum to the over all t.p.p. negotiations. through these negotiations, we're working to ensure the t.p.p. will open market for services, include strong and enforceable commitments, promote strong property rites and include ground breaking rules on issues like enterprises.

looking across the atlantic, we're continue to make significant steady progress with the european union. later this month will host the fifth round of negotiations. building on our success the w.t.o., in march we notified con of our intent to enter negotiations on a environmental goods agreement with currents representing nearly 90% of this $1.4 trillion market. we'll move to conclude possessions on -- negotiations on the trade and services agreement. we're also working to conclude a comprehensive review of the african growth and opportunity act which expires next year. look forward to working closely with you to review and revitalize that program. through our trade policy, we seek to promote sectors that are vital to the u.s. economy. in 2013, our farmers and ranchers exported a record $148 billion in food and agricultural goods. in 2013, we exported nearly

$1.4 trillion in manufacturered goods and nearly 7er hundred billion dollars in services. this year, the administration aims to help farmers and ranchers, manufacturing workers build on this record. as the chairman has said, we want to make it here, flow it -- grow it here and sell it around the world. the united states is an innovation economy and the obama administration is committed to protecting property rights. just yesterday we released our 25th annual special 301 report. a tool which we identify and resolved property right concerns around the world. 30million americans jobs rely on neglect chul property. we'll -- intellectual property. the obama administration also placed an unprecedented

emphasis. through our ongoing enforcement effort, we're leveling the playing field and keeping markets for agricultural producers, manufacturers and service providers. as we pursue this agenda, we're committed to consulting with congress and seeking input from stakeholders, advisors and the public. we've held over 1250 meetings with congress about t.p.p. alone. that does not include consultation on the rest of our trade agenda. any member of congress can review the negotiating text and receive detailed briefings by our negotiators and in have. we're taking steps to further

the diversify our advisory committee including opening up our advisory committees for broader representation and launching a new public interest advisory committee which provide stakeholders focused on consumers and public health. finally, let me say a word about trade promotion authority. the last t.p.a. legislation was passed over a decade ago. much has changed since then. from the may 10th, 2007 bipartisan agreement, labor and environment, governance and access to medicine, through the rise of the digital economy and the increase role of enterprise and the global economy. we believe these issues should be reflected in a new t.h. -- t.p.a. bill. we also look forward to renewing trade adjustment assistance which help provide american workers with the skills to compete in the 21st century. we urge congress to

expeditiously renew authorization of the g.s.p. program. in conclusion our trade agenda will create growth and protect and strengthen the middle class. at their core, our trade agreements include strong enforceable rules that promote u.s. value and u.s. interests. we look forward to continuing our close bipartisan cooperation with congress to accomplish our shared goals and ensure our trade policies present opportunities for all americans. >> thank you very much mr. ambassador. we will be working very closely with you. i want to say to all our guests that there are strong views with respect to trade, certainly everyone has a right to exercise their first amendment right. i like to ask our guests in the back and in the green shirt to sit down now so they can respect the rights of others. i think it's also worth noting, i intend to ask now about some of these transparency issues

that i know people feel strongly about. mr.ambassador, first of all, i touched on this, this is going to generate a lot of heated opinion. we all understand that with respect to trade. the reason i described the changes that we've seen over the last generation, is that i think it's going to be important on a bipartisan basis to find fixes to deal with those challenges. right at the heart of it, what i believe is a need of unprecedented of transparency on the trade issue. let me ask you about a couple of specifics. i want to make sure that there is enough time for the public to review a transpacific partnership agreement before the president sign it is. can you commit this morning to making of the a transpacific partnership agreement available to the public in advance of the president signing it? >> mr. chairman, we completely agree that there needs to be a

robust engagement strategy to involve the public in trade policy. that's why we work so closely with congress, why everyone one of our proposals is previewed by this committee among others. why we work with the congressionally mandated advisory committee system and broadening the membership of that committee to be more representative. why we created a public interest advisory committee why we've engaged stakeholders broadly. putting more information out to the public about our negotiating position. we certainly agree on the importance of robust engagement there. particular suggestion you mentioned, those sorts of time lines have been part of t.p.a. processes in the past. we look forward to driving the discussion of this beginning. on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, work with you and the rest of this committee to determine what the right time are. >> so the public can walk out of

this knowing that the text of the t.p.p. agreement will be available to the public in advance of the president's signing it? i believe is yes. >> well, those sorts timetable have been part of the t.p.a. discussion in the past. a range of practices the past. we like to work where you on a bipartisan basis to figure out what the right timetables are. >> the public also ought to be able to go to the trade representative website to find out what's going on and not to hear about it through leaks and what amounts to rumor mill. can you pledge to provide a clear and comprehensive description in plain english of the transpacific partnership so the public can be informed about these negotiations? this needs to be posted again online promptly and i believe within 30 days. can you commit to that? >> yes, we believe it's important to have public information out there. we've been experimenting with

different approaches. we put out blog posts on investment issues. we published a description of all the negotiating objectives. recently we tweet from the negotiation rounds. we try and find lots of ways to ensure that the public has information about that. we are happy to provide a summary of the t.p.p. negotiations. >> one other issue on transparency, i'm going to leave this with you, i want to ask t.p.a. question. your department, there's a point person for intellectual property. it seems to me to give transparency more prominence, there ought to be a specific person within your agency accountable. you can call them whatever you want. i just don't want transparency to get shorted ever again. can you commit to that this morning? >> we have a variety of ways we try to create transparency at the agency.

our office of legislative affairs does so with the congress. we have an office of public engagement that is actively involved reaching out to stakeholders and office of public affairs that is putting out information. each one of our negotiators, when they're negotiating, they're up here consulting with you and your offices or engaging with stakeholder and the public. your suggestion is one of many ideas we should talk about within the context of t.p.a. >> let me ask a question about t.p.a. and particularly the relationship between t.p.p. and t .p.a. it seems to me an upgrade in our trade professional is going to require upgrade to trade promotion authority. you and i talked in a bit in the past what i call smart track that would allow us to have that upgrade in the trade promotion area. greater transparency, more strategic enforcement, variety of other steps. it seems to me when the substance is right, the time

will be right for t.p.a. we want to do is make clear to our trading partners that this committee is taking on t.p. pennsylvania we -- t.p.a. my question is, will you commit this morning to work with me and the committee on a bipartisan basis to make sure that a strong, 21st century transpacific partnership agreement will be met equal strong 21st century t.p.a. agreement so we can lay out how these two critical trade policies fit together? >> yes, i'm happy to work with you and this committee, bipartisan basis and bicameral basis. >> very good. senator hatch. >> thank you mr. chairman. you're negotiating ambitious trade agenda.

yet the administration does not have t.p.a. or trade promotional authority. in my opinion, this is hurting our ability to conclude high standard agreements which will gain the approval of congress. we introduced bipartisan bicameral bill in january which is supported by over 160 leading businesses and agricultural associations and companies. a bill which secretary of commerce said will quote, help expand market access for american business, ensure level playing field for companies selling their goods abroad and support the creation of american jobs. if we're going to succeed in renewing trade promotion authority this year, i believe we need to act by june of this june. for that to happen, we need to see a greater sense of unction from -- urgency from the president and the

administration. >> senator, we welcome the introduction of that bill in january. we look forward to working with you, with chairman wyden and with the house ways and means committee. as you pursue your legislative process, to develop trade promotion authority. >> in his january state of union speech, next day, democratic side said we're not going to do that. >> we are prepared to work with this committee as and when it's ready to have a legislative process around trade promotion authority to move that forward. >> i'm concerned u.s. intellectual property rights are under attack around the globe and your office is not doing

enough to fight back. india has been pursuing trade policy in order to promote its own domestic industries. what they're doing seems to be a clear violation of their world trade organization violation. closer to home, canada has embraced policies and rules that undermine research and development investment. of course, that i believe violates canada's violation under nafta and w.t.o. your testimony, you spoke about the importance of enforcement. you said if this administration's view it is not enough to negotiation an

agreement and to implement it, you need to make sure that it is being fully enforced as well. you said that the administration has brought an aggressive agenda to the w.t.o. i don't understand how you can say this when this administration has not brought a single w.t.o. case involving intellectual property right. my question, why hasn't this administration brought a single case on the w.t.o. why hasn't the administration brought a w.t.o. case against indian? what is this administration doing to ensure that canada, a potential t.p.p. partner, complies with its current international trade commitment? >> senator, thank you for your leadership on issues and encouragement on the enforcement

front. with regards to those issues, we remain extremely concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in india. we've been encouraging them to enter dialogue about other mechanisms about addressing about healthcare in india and about access to medicine that do not violate our intellectual property right. india as you know is in the midst of an election. in canada, this is an issue we've raced raced with -- raised with canadians. we are continuing to engage them bilaterally and in context of other property rights we have with them.

>> thank you my time is up mr. chairman. >> senator. >> thank you for your service here. i want to talk about currency manipulation. a bipartisan majority, both the senate and house made very clear we want strong and enforcement currency manipulation language included in any t.p.p. language. strong language on currency manipulation is a vital step to earning democratic support. we have to take look at the deal. nothing can give t.p.p. chance of being passed. japan and other countries regularly distort their currency exchange rates. in the last year alone, the yen has fallen about 25% against the

dollar. china is not part of t.p.p., if we did this it would send a warning shot, if they want t.p.p. they have to inform their currency as well and get them to move on their own. it has real consequences for jobs here at home. a study by the peterson institute of international economics found that foreign currency manipulations already cost americans between one in and five million dollar jobs. ending the manipulation would reduce the trade deficit by as much as $500 million in three years. and create 2.3 to 2.5 million new jobs. so it matters a lot. i've long been an advocate in this fight against the type of activity that china, japan and others do when they manipulate their currency. i'm not alone. senators