we also review data as it becomes available, so every time there's a new piece of information, the companies will submit to it the f.d.a. and we time, again real process because that is how is depicted in textbooks that many aspects of development can be done in parallel and that's where the fda plays a big role. we can guide the developers to do things in parallel and where can i expedite studies again with the idea of moving things quickly, as quickly as we can. also collaborate nationally international nder counterparts health canada ema, the german and bigotry agencies as well as the u.k. and all of the west african regulatory counterparts. this is really crucial because fda is seen as a leader in product development and regulatory developments others

-- so there is a lot of need to exchange information. and the announcement that my colleague is going to talk about not only for the ability to improve patient care but also to begin to study the effect of the countries. so, we do hope it would be possible to conduct the trial in the coming months. we have already begun discussions with all of the developers about how hey could do that. they are at the earliest stages of development. there is no impetus to manufacture it in that large scale. this constrains options for doing large scale products right now and to widebly distribute a product that is investigational. and also to be able to establish the needs of safety. to do that, we need to do a clinical trial.

it seem like a daunting, daunting endeavor. the announcement by the president is really very critical. not only to taking care of, for the ability to improve patient care but also to be able to begin to study these products in the affected countries. we do hope that it will be possible to conduct some trials for patience in countries in the coming months. we have begun discussions with all the developers about how they can do that. we have talked to them about simple trial designs that can be implemented and informative to establishing safety and eck cassy -- efficacy for their products. we go to geneva to meet with

representatives from the affected countries. working with them to modify our plans and to have a shared, you ow, plan as we go forward is essential. ultimately it will be dependent on mull approximately parties -- multiple parties working together. the regulatory authorities and the u.s. government's ability to establish this kind of infrastructure. this is all extremely challenging but i think failure is just not an option here. we do have to find ways to overcome the challenges. again, failure is not an option. i thank you again and you know, the f.d.a. is highly committed. we have more than 200 scientific staff involved in this response and we are committed to doing ll we can to respond to this epidemic of ebola.

i'll answer your questions at the end. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, doctor. thank you colleagues at the food and drug administration. our next speaker teaches here at georgetown's department of international health. he has a masters of public health and global health from harvard. he helped health systems design and delivery and sorpe science here the. please join me in welcoming the doctor. [applause]

>> thank you very much for coming and for inviting me. we have about ten minutes, and in ten minutes i'm going to tell you something about the historical and political dimensions of the crisis. so it's about how did we get here and where are we going to go, does anybody know what this is? isn't a trick question. you don't get to answer. this is the ebola virus and what do we do about it is the question, just hold onto it for a second. here is another pretty picture. this is the measles virus. some people talk about measles as a problem of low vaccine coverage and i'm going to give you a

couple of pathogens more as a way of talking about the way that people think about health roblems around the world these are t.b. bacilli. these are the bacteria. this is a quote from the who stop tuberculosis programming bible highlights highlight of this part. it's conceptualized as an access db2 access problem to high-quality diagnosis and patient centered treatment. hese are malaria plasmodium. and i roll back malaria partnership, one thread to malaria is the drug resistance and the solution is to change the policy. here is another malaria aspect. in the global malaria action plan there are two approaches, long-lasting insecticides and ndoor residual spraying. ok so these are three diseases and there are four approaches.

measles and to promote universal access and malaria drug treatments cut in this case a switch or to kill mosquitoes either with the mets were indoor residual spraying. so here, in ebola, what are the obstacles? here is a quote from one of the chiefs identifying the very weak health systems. here is charles writing in business week and identifying the criminal health -- crumbling health systems. here is the voice of america doing a story on the 20th of august noting the three most effective west african countries share we can help your systems. the world bank in a press release last week identified weaknesses in the health sector and suggested that limiting ebola and its economic impact

ould be done by investing in the health sector. so, why health systems? and why don't we talk about it with other diseases? it's not that we don't talk about the other disease but we don't focus on it and one reason for that is that we are at the limit of what we can do with ebola. there is no specific treatment or cure or preventative technologies and there are no vertical solutions. the things that we are good at and global health tend to be things like disaster relief. they tend to be specific interventions. but in ebola we don't have those options so we are left with this remainder of what we say or the dual health systems. that is necessary for all kind of things that engages the social, behavioral and cultural patterns of usual interventions in health don't go near. these include death rituals.

much has been made about that in the west african context where ebola can and has been spread by the handling of the disease patients and includes burial practices, risk factors and also includes the consumption of bush meat. general health and sanitary practices also bear on the transmission. preventing and controlling ebola largely relies on the state authority and citizen trust. in addition to these other factors. ebola and this is not exceptional. health systems have wide enefits. so, here is the mortality roughly 300,000 women per year die if maternal causes. many of those can be prevented with a functioning health system. diseases cost us 800,000 children per year. most of that can be prevented with a functioning health ystem. childhood pneumonia claims 1.2

million lives a year and most of that again be saved with a functioning health system. malaria 600,000 a year. hiv-aids 1.6 million per year. we've done lots of things. we've made tremendous progress and narrowed interventions for specific diseases. however you've always reach a point you need to have a health system in hiv-aids for instance it is in the continuing care issues where the patients needed decades of treatments now that we are good at it. it's no longer just one thing that we are worried about even in the programs because the health systems are such a large limiting factor in our ability to promote health. so, why are the west african health systems so weak if they are so useful and one of the fundamental building blocks of the productive and safe society?

why don't we have shinning health systems? this is a historical view. west africa the rural health services all day to be control programs that were composed of mobile teams that went from village to village where they found a sign of disease and they did force to spinal taps and lumbar punctures and then mandatory treatment. they had a single disease focus which was sleeping sickness. they didn't build any capacities. i would love to tell you that i was the colonial pattern and that we left it in the past, but actually a form of a template for much of what we've done, for better and often for worse. after 1960, the countries themselves try to do better. in the 1960's and 1970's, the world health organization tried to improve systems among many other progress of pursuit but in the 1970s got the commodity price collapses into the legal crisis hurt both countries and onors.

in the 1980's to try to rebalance the economy's that were totally out of whack. structural adjustment was obligated by the washington institutions. one of the artifacts is that when the country stopped investing in the health systems. since the 1980's, donors have been very little in health systems development, too. the ebola outbreak is one way of talking about the consequences of three days of neglect and health systems. donors pay for things that easily defined goals and have the links between input and some that can be somewhat easier to implement. they are weary of ongoing commitments and urgent tasks usually take precedence over others. o, here is a calculus for you. think of how you would conceptualized malaria versus the health systems investments, the annual death toll into the specific needs are clear.

it can be measured and estimated. it is diffuse. what intervention. nets, drugs, spraying. in health system, the system is diffuse. there are many possible courses of action. infrastructure, workforce, logistics, funding, popular education. think of the credit claiming opportunities. with a specific disease there is a number of people treated or burden averted but it's harder to measure the functioning of a health system. in the cost that is easy to specify. but for health systems, it's not. in duration a particular program might end, but health systems never do. donors are worried about these things. when it comes to advocacy committee look around the room and say who else is engaged, who is leaving? hat happens is that many

nations pay some kind of lip service or make some investments in health systems, but if the answer is to do much more of that. ebola is a warning to us. it is a warning for the disease that is often fatal, that is religiously hard to transmit. ut as you can see in the crumbled states, and nonfunctioning health systems it's gone viral and they mean it in the literal sense. things used to just burn out little epidemics would pop up here and there and it's so deadly and it killed so fast that it wouldn't spread. now it's added into the general population in urban areas. so this is a call for us to take care of some long-lost business to invest in health system in the health workforce and infrastructure and in the system capacity and to embrace the political economy for managing implementation. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much for that presentation. >> our next and final speaker in the remaining ten, 11 minutes that we have now is doctor lizabeth cameron, the director for counting biological threats with the national security council staff at the white house. part of this assignment she served in the office of the secretary of defense and the senior adviser and chief of staff for the honorable andy weber. earlier in her career she worked from 2003 to 2010 at the department of state where she did again extensive work in the national scale related to

biological, chemical and nuclear weapons production. -- reduction. prior to working in the executive, she was a fellow with the american association for the advancement of science, and at that time she worked for senator edward kennedy. doctor cameron holds a bachelor's degree in biology from the university of virginia and also a phd in genetics and molecular biology from johns hopkins. please join me in welcoming. -- dr. beth cameron. [applause] >> thanks to everyone for inviting us here today and for putting together this whole symposium and also for your personal heroism for going to the affected countries and for helping. and i think that is a -- is

definitely an untapped resource. people like you that want to help and one of the things we are trying very hard to do is to put in place the mechanisms that people will be able to do that more because there will be the training in place needed to get more people there. so, we have a pretty somber occasion today with the ebola epidemic. we have heard people talk about the possibility that it could become an endemic and we certainly see the numbers continue to rise in the news reports. today in the modeling coming out rom the who and the cdc, certainly it shows what could happen if we do not inject a arge pool of international assistance which is something that as many of you probably saw last week president obama is very dedicated to doing. and so i have the pleasure today of talking actually not as much about the immediate response,

but the building on what doctor bob talked about and what we need to focus on at the same time which is very difficult in the middle of a crisis. but also how do we get ahead of it not only in west africa but all over the world. on the last slide i think was a reminder that our -- health systems are at the root of the situation, and they are often one of the most difficult things to measure and find and that is actually one of the reasons why we launched the global health security agenda as not only a substantive agenda about a political one as well. so, i'm going to focus most of my remarks on that, starting in 2011 president obama said we must come together. by this he meant not just other nations but also across the government so bringing together colleagues like my great colleague from across the u.s. government and now colleagues

from all over the world from the department of defense, from the foreign affairs, from usaid and other agencies to the public health ministries. this is a mission that cannot be done by one country or one agency alone. it really has to be a group and it has to be synergistic and it has to be organized and all of those things make health systems strengthening of the global health security incredibly difficult but incredibly important. so, we launched the agenda with 29 other countries and i will talk a little bit more about that in a minute. but we launched in february of this year before the first cases that were reported and we have been speaking about this not just within the u.s. government but with who and colleagues around the world for quite some time. how do you make this issue something that is palatable and as president obama has now said recently about the epidemic this is a national security priority. it's a public health priority but it's a security.

is it, what is the proper ision? our vision is pretty ambitious, but i think it's the right vision and that is to obtain the world that is safe and secure from the global health posed by the infectious diseases. so you're not going to end outbreaks but what we would like to do is prevent them from becoming epidemics. so, we need to put in place the mechanisms that are needed to do that around the world. when we launched the agenda in february on but then secretary sebelius of the health and human services, secretary kerry and the president for homeland security and counterterrorism they also put out the administration's vision for this agenda. and i'm going to read it because it is operational and i will tell you that when we released t and when i was talking about

this with people in the february there was a lot of that aspirational. if you look at what is happening now i think it actually reads a little bit differently then it did then. new diseases are inevitable but in the 21st century, we have the tools to greatly reduce the threat posed by the global epidemics. we can put in place a safe, secure, interoperable system to prevent the disease threats, detect outbreaks in real-time and share information and expertise to respond effectively. this is the vision. if we could do this we wouldn't see what is happening right now in west africa. and this is the vision that we need to get to. so, i don't actually have to answer this question anymore and that's and the slide reflects that it was made many months ago. so why the global health security is no longer a question that needs to be answered as many and that is unfortunate because it can epidemic of this

magnitude to get to that point. obviously, we are interconnected, and obviously his is no one nation's responsibility, but the international health regulations harken back to the sars epidemic that we talked about earlier today on the panel briefly. i think it's important that the devastation in life but also the economic consequences of sars in four months. if you look at the investment flowing into ebola and the need for significantly more investments because the gap is enormous and what we need to do, you look again at what the value of the response on the front end is versus what we will be paying for on the back end in lives and peace he economic and security

consequences as well. the ihr i'm preaching to the choir for this but they were put in place after the epidemic and in 2005 to really put together the core capacity to the countries would need to be able to effectively prevent, detect and respond to outbreaks before they become epidemics, and the ihr is wonderful because every country that is on the planet that is a member has the responsibility of implementing them, that it's very difficult to have resources for all of the capacities across the board. and as the doctor mentioned actually synergize them across the pillars in the non- diseased manner and to seek funding to do that is also a difficult challenge. so, they've been successful but in 2012 only 20% of the countries, less than 20% of the countries where able to report that they had met them, which means 80% of countries were not

prepared which was a huge wake-up call for us and many other countries around the world and it was directly linked to the global health security agenda. so, before i show a slide of what the agenda actually is i will say what it is meant to do. it is meant to basically discuss and identify three basic risks. risks posed by the emerging threats, drug resistance and the intentional creation into the intentional creation of the organisms and the bioterrorism. it's supposed to address the opportunities. right now we have enormous societal commitment. i think that has grown tremendously since this site was onceived back in february. this is slide from him and it is the best one in the back. we have a lot of models out there for how to build good global health security capacity. one of the challenges of supporting those models and replicating the models in an organized way that is not piecemeal so the countries actually end up with a capability at the end of it that is the sustainable and exercisable.

and that's been difficult. measurable has been very ifficult for the his -- ihr. preventing where possible, detecting rapidly and responding effectively. so the agenda itself is much nicer looking online and very difficult to fit into the slide and be able to read so i made a rather ugly slides that you could actually read the words. but in a sense, it capitalizes on everything that is part of what relates to the infectious disease. so recognizing that it does look at the chemical and radiological threats into the agenda does not. that's related to the infectious disease threats the agenda doesn't include all of the elements in support of implementing but also importantly the performance of the veterinary services pathway of the world organization for animal health. it also includes areas that have been a huge priority but are not included in the speedy 11 prominently such as countering the antibiotic resistant bacteria and another issue that is of huge importance

to the administration in which we also announced a large effort on earlier this month. so, also when we announced the agenda in february, we put forward this plan as a way to not only say exactly what we want to achieve in layman's terms but to elevate this issue with other countries and so if ou look at the foreign ministers or national security advisers, this threat is currently at the top of the list because there is an epidemic going on but that is sually not the case and if you look past over the last decade, it is very hard to keep this on the front burner. it's hard to feel the economic consequences unless you are actually in the middle of it. we are currently in the middle of that and everyone is feeling the consequences, not the least of which every affected country who is dealing with this untold lives and economic consequences.

ut keeping this as a national security priority since sars has been very difficult so how can we capitalize on that by using language it by using language that the leaders understand and target and effective measures that can actually be devised by the countries to show that they are achieving success and measured externally by others hich is another thing that the ihr has not included over time. so we launched a target for ourselves and published, and these are available online, the 12 targets for our own efforts to improve the capacity in at least 30 countries over the next five years and the targets are not going to go through because they are incredibly long lists but they were put in place with a lot of consultations from experts across the u.s. government into taking this into account scientific literature and implementation studies that have been done over time and we

also wanted to choose things that were measurable so i would encourage those of you interested in this to take a look. next step so as mentioned earlier, friday we are bringing together countries at the white house. we have had seven months of work that has gone on since february with an incredible amount of work and leadership around the world. we've had to development meetings one who stood in finland and one in indonesia that has more than 200 participants and we are bringing the countries to the white house on friday with international organizations, the director generals. we have the united nations and the goal is to highlight the progress that's been made. we have a tremendous number of new commitments and every country invited was asked to bring one for the event. president obama will participate

in that event and the goal is to spur action to prevent this from happening again we will be looking forward in the sustainable mechanism to keep this going over the next several years and without taking away from the leaders who will most certainly be making statements about these in the coming days i would watch this because we are very much interested in how we will take this model forward and most important for this group how the non- governmental and academic sector and the young leaders of the united states and the planet can take part. the epidemic has garnered a tremendous amount of interest in the academic leaders community. and i think that is another thing that georgetown has taken a leadership role and we are looking forward to how that can be capitalized on to build this agenda and also provide great assets to the immediate response.

just in closing i would say that the last thing it is difficult to focus both on the short-term immediate response which is overwhelming at paramount while also looking at what we need to do for the future. i think it is critically important and i would like to close by using a quote from our president from last week where he talked about the immediate response but if you read what he said which was on the slide and if you read a little bit further in that speech, the president himself is focused on the future and i think that we have to be because the message here is that we can do this. we have the tools for the national security threat and many other threats are less tractable than this one that we have to be able to mobilize together and organize in a systematic way to do it. [applause] hanks.

>> thank you very much doctor cameron. we have just about four minutes left for questions, some of which you have submitted it to me now. i think doctor cameron is going to have to return to her place of work, however i was wondering if you wouldn't mind just joining me out here for a few minutes and one or two questions after this, we'll go ahead and transition to the first panel. again, in the interest of time i was wondering if you'd be willing to expand a little bit on what you have already mentioned but in more detail

with regard to the f.d.a. being a catalyst for helping to bring new vaccines, medications, devices that are safe and effective to the market particularly now in this context of ebola in west africa and the international community esponds. -- response. if you are going to geneva perhaps you have been there not that long ago. in terms of clinical trials for the vaccines or treatments where the drugs were antibodies can you just in general terms without referring to anything proprietary of course talk about is there a precedent for this type of international response during the public health emergency and if not how do you ee working with international partners, regulatory and otherwise for a response to ebola in west africa.

>> there is precedence for this scale that would have to respond has been somewhat different of course because of the unique characteristics of this outbreak and also because of where we are today at the fda. five years ago, the president launched the initiative that provided additional resources to e able to more effectively engage other resources and ded staff to the sign tisk program, specifically to address these types of issues. so come as a result for example in the area of diagnostics we have a long-standing

collaboration in the department of defense, and we have been engaged with them and getting eady the diagnostics for passages such as ebola that are very difficult to validate in the absence of disease because usually these are the foundations of the requirement of the actual disease. because we had readied all of this work we were able to in a atter of days authorized the use of the test for emergency use and this diagnostic test correctly used not only overseas but also in the response network to end a patient's come back from affected countries and there would be a suspicion that has been authorized for use of the emergency that is being used. that is just one example. it is not just the emergency and then a response. there is a lot of activity that happens even before the emergency. and the same thing with the developers for the products. in addition to the regulatory review, an expert in the review

and helping them to ready the applications we have incentives that we can make use out of to speed the development as well as some financial incentive. so we have designated one of the companies, one of the products for the drug designation that provides economic incentives for them and the additional resources for clinical testing as well as if they get the credit approved or have it extended over the perco of exclusivity for the companies to ngage in the therapeutics. so come it is a multifaceted response. and again, we will look at every possible way to engage with the developers to speed up development and to the development and to facilitate access to the products for the emergency. >> we have about two more minutes. one question that we have for doctor bump to expand on what you already talked about.

you mentioned in the past and there is a there is a focus on this sleeping sickness and now there is a focus on one disease, ebola. but can you comment on how the response to the ebola epidemic s going on now in terms of health care systems and how it might be approached in a more optimal manner in terms of not only responding to the ebola crisis that we have right now, but england forward in terms of trying to strengthen the health care system across the countries impacted by ebola and i hope that this will lead into the next two panels in the morning as well. > that is a great question and it's one that is hard to operationalize. it's easy to imagine what a single intervention should look like and it is easy to feel the heat and a crisis. so, in this case to make a

clinical example, this is like someone in the midst of a heart attack thinking about how they should really exercise. stop smoking. well, those things are going to kill you even if you get over this, so even though it is challenging to conceptualize what it is going to look like the obstacles here certainly begin with trying to put out this fire. the ebola is deadly. in this case a 50% mortality. so, we really need to step up as we are stepping up, we also need to think about what are the underlining systems. so where is the health workforce? are or the supplied come they supplied, or the numerous enough? then we have to ask where do they get health information. what is their interface with the government? do they actually trust the government 12347 the underpinning includes the technical and the moral as well as the political. so, we have the most promising and most attractive approaches

in the first world usually just think only about the technical. so we certainly need to do that and that is the basis of our response but then many to think about what are the political systems into the decision-making process that we can use to set the priorities to manage implementation, and then what are the moral things like what are the that are the choices, what are the trade-offs of one disease versus another those are not things that should be done in washington. they should be done by the people in those systems. >> more than 40 states have adopted the common core standards which aim to improve u.s. education. the center for american progress will host a discussion on common core live this morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span and the congressional black caucus a meeting this week. they will hold a forum on policing practices and minorities. we'll hear from the attorney for evon martin and michael brown.

next treasury secretary jack lew talking about the economy and climate change. johns hopkins university and the hosted institution this event. >> good afternoon. thank you for joining us for a public discussion on the economic costs of climate change. it is our privilege to host jacob j. lew who will give remarks on chimet change. it will be followed by a round table discussion. before i turn the podium over to secretary ruben, i would like to

give a very brief introduction to the hamilton project and our interest in this issue. the project, housed at the brookings institution is named after alexander hamilton. the first treasury secretary. it is fitting today that we welcome two u.s. treasury secretaries. the projects vision and intent o to promote policies that work to ensure economic growth, shared pros parity and economic security. our goal is to foster innovative nonpartisan ideas and ultimately to introduce new and effective policy options into the national conversation. we at the project ack nooij a defining feature of our nation's history is succeeding generations of americans have enjoyed standards of living higher than generations that came before. but looking around us today, we see that america is failing to make critical investments in

areas that would contribute to our nation's economic growth and security. twhn vision, we recognize climate change as posing real and present challenges to our nation's and indeed our globe's economic future. climate change is fundamentally about risk to our safety and our economy. we need serious policy conversations about what actions to take to address those risks. that is what we are focuseded on here this afternoon. again, thank you for joining us. i now invite secretary rube on the introduce our featured guests. -- ruben introduce our featured guests. >> thank you. let me apologize for starting a little bit late. i had to fly in from la guardia and if there is ever any doubt in your mind for our need for infrastructure, take that flight. now as for the question of how we pay for it, i'm going to

leave it aside. i'm going to make two comments and then ask jack and michael to join me. one is i have gotten pretty nvolved in this. you also have the possibility that what ultimately happens are consequences that are multiples to have base case and that the effects instead of just being severe, in addition to being severe, in the long run become catastrophic. we can expand on that a little bit in our conversation. secondly, i said to a friend of mine the other day who is a very well known new york businessman. i developed an intense concern

about this. there are a lot of pressing issues and he said we can deal with this somewhere down the road. i said no. the reason no, is that many of you may know this. the decay rate is hundreds of years and what we do today is going to affect us for hundreds of years. greenhouse gases are accumulative. as hank pahlsson said to me the other day, if you look back over the last 10 years and see the projections climate scientists have made, they are bringing forward the times when they think more severe and i think at least quite possibly catastrophic effects occur. this is an issue of urgency that we have to deal with now. in that context, let me invite to the podium, secretary of the treasury, jack lew and michael greenstone. that is you, michael.

and michael greenstone. no, i guess not. [applause] ok. here. i'm going to unincite michael nd i will invite jack. practices will not go into his resume. i will say just one thing. when jack was with the clinton administration, he was a pleasure to deal with. he is very sensitive to the politics to issues that he deals with. we knows washington and knew how the work with all of us cabinet members as we dealt with our issues. it is very seldom that a fellow cabinet member will say something nice about someone from o.m.b. i introduce the distinguished secretary of the treasury, jack lew. [applause]

>> thanks bob for that introduction and for your strong leadership. thank you to the hamilton project and brookings for hosting this event. this is of great significance to our nation's economy and future. i want to talk about the economic implication s of the changing climate. before i begin i want to say a few words about the u.s. economy. the u.s. emerged from a financial crisis. through effective policy resilience of he the american people, the economy is 62% larger. g.d.p. increased and our private sector has created 10 million new jobs over the past 54 months. the longest stretch of job growth in our nation's history. while more work remains, confidence in meerks history is strong at home and internationally.

something i saw in australia at he g-20 finance minute fer's meeting. later today, i will have more to say about our ongoing efforts to address a demraring loop noel the u.s. tax code and unfair practices in which corporations acquire farm businesses and switch their citizenship to outside the united states to avoid paying u.s. taxes. in addition to a host of global economic issues, the united states used g-20 as a forum to drive climate change policy. the need for actions is clear. the world can choose to ignore the challenge today and take more drastic action farther down the road at greater cost or we can make sensible, modest and gradual changes now and in the process, create jobs, produce

businesses. this choice should also be clear. as an economic matter, the cost of inaction or delay is far greater than cost of action. costs associated with extreme weather events like rising sea levels, drought, floods, severe storms demonstrate the scope of economic exposure. if warming above preindustrial levels increases to 3 degrees celsius instead of two, there ould be a 1% decrease in jobal output annually. ours not just one sector of economy. it drives up costly healthcare problems. we're facing historic levels of extreme weather from a range of conditions. some parts of the country face extreme flooding. others face severe droughts.

our agricultural regions are threatened with some states facing a loss of 50% to 70% of average annual crop yields and livestock productivity is threatened as well. nowhere is it more clear than the area of infrastructure which is fundamental to our economy's productivity and competitiveness. fact is our water and sewer systems and power prints and grids and roads and airports were not designed or built for the extreme climate conditions that we're facing now and expect to face in coming decades. super storm sandy in 2012 closed every tunnel and most brings leading into new york city while a large part of the subway system bleel 34th street and all seven tunnels under the east river were floodeded by storm surges. very high temperatures threaten the health and safety of construction workers, farmers d others who work outdoors

while putting entire industries like farming and agriculture at risk. dangerous air pollution drinks risk of similar negative consequences for the health and safety of americans across the country. on the other hand much less than busy said about our nation's fiscal situation. when the federal government has to step in and provide disaster relief and crop insurance, protection from wild fires, healthcare, taxpayers pay the cost. already the national flood insurance program has had to borrow $24 billion from the treasury department because of payouts from hurricane ca careena, rita, wilma and sandy, all of which aperiod over the past nine years. -- appeared over the past nine years. it e tradeoffs would make more challenging to invest in

growth. as former secretary ruben said, whatever your public policy views, whether you care about our national debt and deficit, tax rates, national security, job creation, you should care about the cost of coping with climate related damage. we must do all we can to limit this burden and manage the fiscal risk. president obama understands what s at stabling. >> it will position to united states to lead the world in technologies and the industries of the future. e have already seen this work.

the fact of the matter is over the past few years, solar installation has increased. at the same time, with the president's better buildings initiative, the energy of commercial buildings is improving. making buildings more energy first quarter chris jobs and lowers costs and reduces pollution. so far it has led to $300 illion in savings.

are you newables produce as much electricity worldwide as gas and more than twice that for nuclear. in the coming years, the world it. depend more and more on the more we do at home to encourage low carbon energy, the better positioned our companies will be to take advantage of these new business opportunities. to build on what we have accomplished, the president announced new rules this summer for existing power plants. they represent the most significant policy to arrest climate change that the united states has taken to date. they will help us cut carbon pollution and increase clean energy production. these policies represent the ommitment to meeting the challenge of climate change. the this is a global problem

that requires collective action. global action is imperative. it is a good investment in global economic growth. first, making these changes is cost effective. look at the new power plant rule that i just mentioned. it will reduce greenhouse gas issions by 30% relative to 2035 levels. a greater use of renewables and natural gas. the benefits from producing more clean energy is expected to be worth between $55 billion and $ 3 billion in 2030. second, if we fail to make changes now, it will be much more costly to deal with the problem later. some options may be forclosed entirely. the right approach going forward is to use market forces to balance the costs of reduced emissions.

what we need to do to keep temperatures below dangerous levels. the alternative to allowing greenhouse emissions reach dangerous levels will require for action later. the council of economic advisors found that for each decade of delay the cost of hitting an economic target goes up on average by approximately 40%. we must adopt a risk management approach to climate change. we must do what we can to substantially lower the risk of the most catastrophic climate impactened that means reducing emissions. as former secretary of the treasury wrote recently, there is a time for weighing evidence and there is a time for acting and if there is one thing i have learned, it is to act before problems become too big to manage. the fact that secretary ruben and secretary pahlsson have taken leadership positions in making the case to address climate change underscores the economic urgency of action. let me close with two points.

the first is that we cannot do this alone. we must work with the rest of the world to address this challenge. we must work with other industrialized economies so that everyone is cutting carbon pollution in a sustainable way. the g-20 last week discussed the importance of this issue and agreed to continue its work the study twice effectively mobilize resources for finance. as carbon emitters grow, they move to cleaner energy production. that is why the treasury mass made the case to finance cleaner energy programs and reduce support for new coal projects. this is helping to level the playing field for clean energy alternatives and supporting power generation worldwide. we are actively working to secure the agreement of other countries to adopt similar policies as soon as possible. we're also strong supporters of

the green climate fund. a multilateral fund to help limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change. second we must continue the seek the most efficient market oriented ways to reduce carbon pollution. congressional action based on market based approachs is the reduce cient way to emissions. with that, let me say that climate change is one of the most important changes of our time. what we do to address this challenge will determine our nation's future and if we take the right steps, we will leave the nextgen wration a -- a stronger country and a better economy and a brighter future. thank you. i look forward to the discussion. [applause] >> jack, thank you very much. let me introduce michael

greenstone. he was the director to have hamilton project and a professor at m.i.t. also head of some institute. what is that? [laughter] >> thank you, bob. >> i have spent a couple of years talking to you about climate change. do you get any greater sense of urgency? people acknowledge it. they will make all kinds of speeches that go on all week. i reallye myself which like. do you think people got to point where they recognize it as real?

>> i would say there is two pieces of evidence that it is being taken seriously. someone the action take beenity administration. >> president obama has been terrific. >> it is a very substantial policy that we put into effect. it is i think going to have a very serious impact on power plants and motor vehicles and it is real policy. frankly i think the work that you and hank pahlsson and michael bloomberg and vorse done on risky business brought together the business community and people who are looking at it from a public/private perspective in a way that puts it higher on the radar for ongoing policy debate. the question of whether or not legislation can be enacted is separate from whether the public is focused on it and whether or not we can take action to deal with its. meet education like the meet

information new york this week are very important. because of the commitments that we make internationally matter. the commitments that leaders make they take home, that is true in the united states and around the world. >> what do you think, i know the arguments that the indians and i guess the chinese and many others make. you created this problem. we're growing. we're adding more than you are, but you have to compensate us in some way or somehow make us good for doing what you want us to do given that you really created the problem? what is our answer to that? maybe i misstated it slightly. >> i think that one of the reasons that we are so much supportive of international climate fund instruments and direct bilateral support is that there are a lot of countries that will need help to take the measures that are both in their interest and in global interests. i think for the largest economies in the developing world for an economy like india and china, there is more that

they can do. they don't fit into one easy ingle pattern. china is embracing it more than it a few years ago. there is a domestic demand because of the problems of smog and asthma and other health issues. it is an issue of internal debate. not just international debate. we have to lead by taking action where we take burdens on ourself. certainly our power plant rules reflect an important step in that direction. i think there is not going to be a one size fits all answer to how we deal with other countries internationally. no doubt, the fastest growing compless going to be a very significant factor in addressing global emissions because that is where the emissions of the future will be coming from. >> don't they say to us, you want us to do something, but we

expect to have you fund it to some extent since you're the ones who created the problem and now we're trying to get what you have already gotten, a more developed state. >> they are correct that they stage of ifferent development than we are at. that creates an opportunity for them. we didn't have the renewable options when the united states was building its first generation of power plants. we have to go back and deal with a lot of existing fa -- existing facility -- facilities. we're going back on existing power plants and saying we have to make sure our existing power plants do better. we are entering the international discussion but it is going to be that hard discussion. it is going to be more natural gas resources than a lot of other countries do. it is not a completely equal

situation even in term of going forward. i know that if countries like china don't address this issue, in a few years, it won't matter what we say. they will have to midwestic problems that are just beyond -- setting ambitious goals is only the way we're going to complete this challenge. >> let me complete the introduction of michael.

there is a lot of uncertainty about the extent of the changes being released by the greenhouse gas emissions. one key is to get very, very wonkey. in my view it all turns on one what they like to call parameter. which is how much temperature will change in exchange for doubling the co 2 in the atmosphere. it is a really wide range, they put 2/3 of the probability somewhere between 3 and 8 being thes. it was just 3 degrees ahrenheit, that would be ok. it originates the way they live, with the hardships. you can see huge parts of the united states the roughly uninhabitable outside during the summer. you can see huge parts of the united states being roughly uninhabitable outside during the summer. you can see large crop declines,

tremendous demand for new energy. that is to say nothing of the very painful discussion that we did have, which words of the - parts of the united states are going build dams to protect. which ones are we going to let go? i think it is that risk of the really bad stuff that drives a lot of the concern. >> do you want to add to that? >> i tried to cover it in my ntroduction when i said if the debate is how bad it is going to be and we know it is going to be bad, that is important to know. the debate on exactly how bad it is -- >> i think there is not enough ppreciation of -- payback -- one thing is that is a line that people have. that there is near consensus

among scientists. there is consensus among the economist about at to do about it. that ranges all the way to milton friedman to fill in your favorite left-wing economist that writes for the new york times. [laughter] there is a clear consensus about hat to do. that is when you're engaged in activity that is harming other people, that activity should be pricey. we should not have a society where it is ok for me to dump garbage in the former secretary's front yard. >> as you look beyond that, what are the -- i heard somebody the other day. a very well known figure in american technology. he said he thinks there is a high probability that technology will be developed at some point double pull the emissions out of the atmosphere that we can bridge our way to that.

and i talk to other people and they say that is a reck of a risk to take. >> i think the private sector will play an analyst role in driving that point. without it, i'm not a businessman, but without it, you just don't see companies engaging in extensive investments. >> with it, you're taking a risk on something nobody has yet figured out how to do it. when you speak to the indians, i do not know this is right or not, they're less receptive to moving forward than the chinese. what is a possible response to the kind of scenarios that we have been discussing? i do not understand how anybody can look at this and say we're not going to be engulfed by this. >> it is not so much a domestic issue in india as it is in china, but i think it is only a atter of time.

o wait until you can't breathe in indian cities is probably waiting too long. isn't a question of rules that do not interfere with the ability of a country like india to grow. it will come down to how do you finance the investments of the future, to the extent that wes ave technology that is available to meet the electricity needs of a growing economy in the affordable cost, it will help a lot. they are not going to not be able to have more electricity. -- avoid growth in electricity. the challenge is going to be to meet the load with new technologies. that is why think we can work together. but i think it helps when there is a domestic pressure for it. i see more of that in china than i do in here right now. i think that explains some of the difference. on a question that michael is raising on market forces, we

earlier in the administration made a proposal on a cap and trade kind of approach. it got through part of congress, not all of congress. it would be a very good discussion to get back into with congress on how to have market forces work to help shape this to a better solution. i think what we cannot do is wait until congress acts to take the steps that we can because what we are doing while it is incremental is very significant in terms of changing what usa missions will be over the next decade. >> given that our political system seems to be somewhat less than perfectly functional to say the least. [laughter] if you take a look at what you have done, which i think as i have said before -- president obama is heroic ongoing forward with these actions. if you take that list in totality, what percentage of the total response is not going to

-- does that constitute? >> i'm better at the economics than i am at the science. i know on the auto side, on doubling the fuel economy it speaks for itself in gasoline tax, we see it already. we are using less gasoline which is good in terms of emission. the power plant rules will dramatically reduce emissions. i'm not sure what percent. michael may have an answer. >> if you take the standard changes, is that close to sufficient to address the u.s. piece of this problem? >> it is sufficient to keep the commitment we have made in the international negotiations on climate policy.

we'll have to do more to get to the next level. it certainly accomplishes a great deal. i do not think we can stop where we are. we're going to have to keep putting more policies into place. but it builds a foundation where there was a lot of skepticism that we could meet the commitment that we made in the last round of climate negotiations and because of the actions we've taken we are on track. this is not a problem we are going to solve and one action, and i think what we have to do is take the steps that we can that are clear and concrete and if we were able to have a debate on the broader policy that would require legislation, i think we could do more. using the ministry of authority we have, meeting the international commitments we have made i think it is a substantial accomplishment.

we are not resting on our laurels. and it's sufficient for the president to go to the international community and say we are doing our part. there were a lot of skeptics a few years ago that we would be in the position to do that. step nder if we could back in time. if we go back to previous iterations of greenhouse gas treaty efforts, every single time we have had to show up and basically say, you should do something, and if you do it we will go back and confer for a while and get back to you. the commitment that was made in 2009, that these rules will be met, 17% reduction in 2020, relative to 2005, the longer-term commitment of 83% reduction by 2050 will require a lot more effort.

but i think for the first time the united states can go to these international negotiations and say we have done something. i think the noises one hears out of china about a potential nationwide cap and trade for carbon in a communist country, not here but communist country is ok, starting in 2016, that -- i think that's partially a reflection of the efforts the obama administration has made. >> but if you take just -- dwell on this but i'm curious, if you look out over the decades as to what we have to do, what percentage we have to do when we accomplish it. is it more like 20% or 50% or 80%? >> the way i think about it is the problem has been for decades that the effective price on carbon, penalty for emitting co2 was zero basically around the world. you now have all of these bright spots. power plant rules, state of california, northeast states in the united states.

you have china doing things. it's a huge step. to get the price above zero. now we have to get the effective price at a higher level to achieve levels of reductions that are necessary but it's an enormous step. and if i can add one thing, this is happening at the exact same time that -- it's the golden age of fossil fuels with respect to racking. it's really an enormous accomplishment to make progress on co2 emissions at the same time that's happening. >> what will happen in paris next year, jay? >> there's going to be a lot of bilateral discussions between now and paris. we're going to work very hard to get an agreement with both the developed and developing countries to set ambitious standards. i don't think going to paris would have progress and some of bilateral discussions will be as useful. even in november when the

president is in china, this will be one of the topics he and the president discuss. it will be on the agenda when we meet with india. i can't put a number out there. we want the goal to be as ambitious and realistic and probably push a little beyond realistic. and the challenge will be substantial because they want growth in their own company. we have to be in a position we can demonstrate dealing with climate change is compatible with economic growth. if it becomes a choice between economic growth and climate policy, it will be a much more difficult hurdle in paris. >> when you frame the question, not exactly right, but when you frame the question do people look at you or other countries look at the question as a tradeoff between growth now and climate change now or look at longer-term perspective?

if you look longer-term perspective, it seems if we don't deal with this, we will create havoc for our economy. >> i think that's exactly the challenge. i think we're experiencing now it doesn't have to be a choice. that i think is perfectly apparent in our cafe rules, in our fuel economy rules. by taking a lot of the weight out of u.s. pickup trucks, we're going to sell more u.s. pickup trucks. it's creating more jobs in the united states. it's completely consistent with growing jobs right now. at some level that can't be true in every product everywhere but overall being more efficient should lead to more growth and jobs even in the short term. it's -- the fact that we are recovering and growing at different rates makes the challenge also more complicated. the need for short-term growth is an independent challenge of

dealing with climate change in a lot of parts of the world. >> that's what i was driving at, is it a little bit of short term versus long term? it's always difficult to get political systems to focus on the long term. >> it is, especially when there are short-term challenges where it seems the long-term goal is inconsistent with the short-term objective. we have been very much -- i just spent the weekend in australia making the case again, making argument we need to worry about increasing demand in a good number of parts of the global economy. i actually think that's consistent with trying to make progress on climate change. doing a little bit better on short-term growth will expand the likelihood of an openness to dealing with the long-term issues. i don't think we can wait until everyone is feeling well in the short term all over the world to deal with climate change. otherwise, we will have waited too long. this will be a case of making

the argument to do as much as we can, as fast as we can. in different countries that will play out in a different way. i think for a country that is looking at being an exporter of technology in the future, they should want to be at the cutting edge of this, not the last adopters. they should want to be competing with us in solar and wind and they should want to be able to reduce their demand for fuel, which is both a strategic risk for a lot of countries and economic risk. i think we can make the case to overcome short-term issues but i think realistically, the fact there are a lot of parts of the world that are not experiencing the robust growth that they would like makes it more challenging. >> i should know the answer to this jack, but i don't. in the administration's program under the budget, are there resources being devoted to

ncentivizing research? >> we have increased research both in the department of energy and we have used tax credits to create incentives for enewables. we have more proposed that have been enacted but seen a lot of them already put into ffect. you know, an interesting conversation at the g-20 over the weekend was what kind of expenditures should country's prioritize if they're interesting in long-term growth. and everyone agreed research, development and education. there wasn't a voice at the table that didn't say this is not how we create the greatest economic potential for our future. this is a double win if countries put it into an area where they reduce their need for both dirty and expensive fuel. >> describe a little if you would dynamics with the ice

sheet, with methane gas, with various specifics of what could become catastrophic impacts. >> yes. i think my high school science teacher will be slightly appalled to hear asking me to xplain that. but as i understand it, a lot of what will happen turns on this thing they call climate sensitivity parameter. and the temperature increases we get depending on what that proves to be, if it's higher than we expect, it could lead the ice sheets to melt more rapidly than we would xpect. that would cause increases in sea level. it could also cause the arctic perma frost to melt, which would have massive releases of methane and speed up this and kind of have reinforcing effect on the rate at which the climate is changing. those are really i think the draw we end up getting for the climate sensitivity parameter, a lot is at stake with that.

>> in the months after super storm sandy, there was a kind of heightened awareness of how impossible may not be so mpossible. the amount of new york city under water if you made it out before super storm sandy, people would have said you were exaggerating. but we experienced it. and it's not that any of us are hoping for another natural disaster. but the pace of major storms, major floods, major droughts in the last decade has increased in an undeniable way. so it doesn't even have to get to these next level of extreme developments which are highly credible, if not certain, to note we have to deal with hem. >> let me ask you, i think we have time for another question. let me ask you this, i had the notion -- don't know if the notion is right or not -- as i said before, you have done a terrific job and present

certainly has but there isn't an urgency that permeates or political system and our usiness. now, if we had a parallel g.d.p. that took into account extras and in the fiscal direction that o.m.b. had to make you had a separate set of objection that's took into up account potential climate effects and with regard the effects to business climate change could have on them, would all of that increase awareness and perhaps motivate action? >> well, each of them in a different way would play a ole. let me start with the piece i have had the most experience with, budget piece. by its nature, budget projections are backwards looking so as we go through a decade of dramatic weather xperiences, there's more and

more being built into the projections and you see it in the size of the disaster relief fund, which has grown dramatically over the last ecade. i'm not sure it encompasses every risk out there but it is catching up. g.d.p., as you know better than i, is a complicated model that is imperfect but does bring in both direct and indirect effects with very high degree of utility. the projection that i referred to, council of economic advisers did that looks at the impact of three versus two degree celsius increase in temperature on global g.d.p. reflects the indirect impact of climate hrough the g.d.p. model. not enough of any -- any kind of mew trigs could figure out how to do it more directly but it's already being reflected in the way that makes the case and to some extent the question of recognizing that and dealing with it as opposed to the lack of transparency.

on the disclosure side, the standard of disclosure is materiality. and i think that the more investors make clear that they consider climate risks material, the more firms will have to nder current rules and current law make these disclosures. and our experience with special subjects specific requirement that the s.e.c. has not been as successful as general materiality standards. so why i will actually discuss the chairman of the s.e.c. this idea and get the sense of their reaction to a separate standard, i think that challenge first and foremost is for investors to say that they need to know more about the risks and then firms will have to make disclosures under current law. >> i agree, that is absolutely right. i just -- maybe i'm being unduly

concerned but it just doesn't seem a sense of urgency in the world i live in. >> i don't disagree about the sense of urgency. i do think that the work that you and others did on risky business raised it for a period of time for a level that was on the top of people's minds. i think we have to keep making -- it's not a lack of analysis or information. >> no. >> so it's a question of repetition, at the risk of sounding like a pessimist, one has to say this is serious and we have to deal with it until it's dealt with. politically, i'm not sure you want to wait until the public stands up and demands action because it will be too late when people are feeling it that personally. it will be a measure of leadership to get to the solution before it's out of control. >> which you and the president have done. yes, michael.

>> i just want to join in this conversation about how do you get people engaged on this question? the g.d.p. i think is excellent idea and corporate disclosure is also excellent idea. the challenge in all of that is, what is -- how do you monetize it? how do you come up with a value for that? and actually there's a solution which the u.s. has social cost of carbon, dollar value of the estimates damages from each extra ton of emissions in the atmosphere. in principal, that number could be applied widely. g.d.p. number, corporate disclosure. it could be used by state public utility commissions who are trying to figure out what kind of plants to cite. it could be used in the treatment of our natural resources and how we sell hem. in principle that exercise you're suggesting is not difficult to do. >> jack, i'm being threatened being fired. you apparently have to go back to the white house. thank you. you have been terrific.

thank you for joining us. [applause] >> you're very good. you do this well. [applause] >> on the next "washington journal" we'll get an update on the u.s.-led military campaign

against isis in syria. then a look at a census report on poverty which found that 45 million americans live below the poverty line. robert doar and olivia golden will join us. we'll also be taking your phone calls on the resignation of attorney generic holder. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> this weekend on the c-span networks. tonight in primetime on c-span, the values voter summit. featured speakers include texas senator ted cruz and kentucky senator rand paul. sunday evening at 8:00 on q average, "washington post" columnist sally quinn.

9:30, n 2, just before two operation freedom veterans. saturday night at 10:00 on book tv's afterwards, matt richtel. and sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern, the ninth annual brooklyn books festival. tonight at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. former chiefs of staff and advisors to recent presidents talk about their relationship to the commander in chief and how he makes important decisions and author jonathan white on the role of the union army. saturday afternoon at 8:00 p.m. eastern, author annette dunlap explores the evolution of first think t us no what you about the programs you're

atching -- join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> next a conversation on some of the challenges in managing information transmitted over the internet. we'll hear from google's law enforcement and security director. it is 90 minutes. information at the brookings institution, and i would like to welcome you today to our forum on the future of >> good morning.

i am director for the center of technology and information at we do have a twitter feed set up , so if you wish to post any comments or questions during the forum, feel free to do so. we are also broadcasting this event overseas band, so we would like to welcome our audience from around the country as well as since its inception, the internet has thrived as a platform that facilitates open data flows across national boundaries. commerce and communications has grown due to the ability of people in diverse areas to connect with one another, but in recent years, there have been a number of challenges that have run the risk of balkanized and undermining and trade and border control. the result has been a crisis of

confidence in the digital economy as a whole. to help us understand these issues, we brought together a panel of distinguished experts. deputy assistant secretary of the bureau of economic and business affairs in the u.s. state department. in that position, he coordinates international communications and information policy, and prior to that, he served as senior in massachusetts and to senator john kerry. the ambassador was telling me just last week he has a new son who was born. so if he yawns from time to time, please understand. family considerations. christine bliss is the assistant u.s. trade representative if for services and investment in the office of the u.s. trade representative. she oversees multilateral and bilateral services and negotiate services. she's the lead negotiate in the wto service negotiations and

worked as chief council and acting trade representative for monitoring and enforcement. our next guest is senior vice president of zte corporation and chairman and chief executive officer of zte usa. he's been with the firm two years and was previously on the board of directors of san diego world trade center. richard salgato is director of law enforcement and information security at google. in that position he oversees the company's worldwide law enforcement and security efforts. prior to that he worked in security for yahoo. he also has been in the u.s. department of justice and also served as a federal prosecutor. mulvane and -- james is vice president of the intelligence division of the defense group. he also serves as the director of center for intelligence research and analysis is. he's an expert on various

aspects of cyber issues and intelligence gathering. i'd like to start with daniel. just ask him what do you see as the biggest current challenges to international trade and cross border data flows? >> thank you very much. thank you for having us. it's an honor to be here. thank you for my fellow panelists assisting. bliss and i worked together a couple years ago. i think in terms of the challenges to to international trade relative to digital data and flows, the biggest challenge is cross jurisdictional issues and concerns people have about implementing particular laws on behavior that takes place and information housed other markets. what we do to try to effectuate that, solution is lateral and multilateral. we make sure we have relationships with u.s. department of security, and

others. and they are working with their appropriate counterparts on whatever issue is of particular concern to that particular market. i hold bilaterals with multiple markets on a regular basis. the way we organize them, on the first day we'll have industry and my counter parts from the other country and industry from their country and myself and colleagues from the agency sort of challenging each other and conducting business on a fair basis across borders with that particular market. seeing if there are ways to resolve particularly outstanding issues. the other issue that we have is is the vision of the internet by some countries as something that disproportionately benefits the united states or west in which there are consumers and not participants in a market.

in that case, the situation there is that you get tradition protection. -- traditional protectionist tendencies. they'll try to force production or investment in a market in order to create a digital market or internet economy in that country. the problem with that, that seize of internet technology and communications in general not as a platform but a source of development. that's to say it's a piggy bank rather than a bank in the since the information technology is a global market is essential to the growth of sectors across an economy. so keeping it as open as possible has benefits that spread widely across health care, agriculture, all sectors of the economy to insure you get greater efficiency, productivity of people working in those sectors. we make two points in that scenario. one is recognize and see the

value of the platform as a source for development for your entire economy. secondly, work on capacity building efforts so you can use the open and global infrastructure of the internet and communication technologies to build legitimately competitive producers within your markets. that's actually happening. you see that occurring around the world with innovative products and services coming out of different par of the world and serving local and regional markets in a way products and services we develop from here can't do or don't know how to do. they don't know the market as well. all in all, i think that the biggest challenges here are insuring that we preserve what works about the internet. voluntary nature of it, economies of scale of a global network. insure we're including and becoming increasingly inclusive both in the decision making about how information works and

in our deliberations and respect of what others expect from the network. >> okay. thank you. so christine, you focus on trade issues. what are the challenges you're seeing? >> again, thank you very much for the invitation to be part of this distinguished panel. appreciate the opportunity to be here. certainly this is a very essential important part of the trade agenda. we start from the premise that digital trade and information flows are becoming a more and more important source of our gdp, employment, and just overall business productivity and opportunity for innovation. from that point of view, in terms of challenges, specifically, i think i would say the number one challenge that we see and it very much overlaps with comments danny has made is localization requirements in various forms.

i think most specifically tied to internet. it's either in the form of local server requirements, requirements you have a server in the country to provide your service. and the down side of the that i think are extremely obvious. the cost is tremendous. it can in fact deter companies from even going to a specific market if they know they have to set up a new local server in that country. secondly, having to store data locally within a country is also a tremendous costly barrier. again, we understand some of the motivations which may be security, privacy. we believe there should be and can be ways around that. so that again the tremendous costs involved in setting up separate data storage centers

can be avoided. i think those are two of perhaps the most practices we see. often tied to the comment danny made, companies see this as an opportunity to encourage the growth of their own internet industry. but we absolutely agree that in fact, that often turns out to be counter productive because of high costs, because it ends up undermining often the quality of the services that can be provided. level of competition. really the transfer and dissemination of technology that comes through open investment and encouraging greater use of internet. it's particularly true for small and medium enterprises which again is an areab!xck of particular interest to us in terms of encouraging trade opportunities.

ebay did a study and showed that those sellers that sold through ebay participated in exporting basically at a 90% level as compared to those small and medium size sellers that did not participate in online sale who exported at a rate of 25%. we think there are real gains that can be made, not just in the united states but across the globe. again, those kinds of localization requirements are self-defeating. another aspect of this and china in particular is engaged in this practice particularly. that is favoring indigenous technologies and standards. that can also be a very serious barrier, a deterrent to investment and one in which we have long sought to try and discourage.

in addition, i think there are a couple of things i'll mention briefly a side from the localization issue which we spend a great deal of time trying to dismantle. secondly, i think lack of interoperability of privacy regimes. in that regard there's been a lot of highlight and attention on differences between the u.s. and the eu regimes and a lot of very good work going on in that sphere between the united states and eu. censorship is another issue we've had to confront. again, there can be legitimate basis, certain instances for censorship. at the same time, particularly in countries like china and some instances, vietnam, it can be barrier to increased trade and investment.

and finally, trade and access barriers. first of all restrictions on investment. in some instances there's no investment at all in internet and related sectors. secondly, restrictions on related services like distribution is critical to carrying out the service in the particular sector. there are traditional kinds of trade and investment barriers that we seek to attach as well. and again, i won't spend time on them, and they're not within my particular province of trade negotiation. certainly ipr infringement is another very significant barrier that continues. i would add to the list finally to some degree i think customs barriers are lack of clarity or customs requirements is something else that has created a barrier for companies.

that's a long laundry list. i think it gives an idea of the real scope and spectrum of the kinds of trade barriers we're seeking to deal with through trade rules in internet and internet related services. >> thank you. >> so what are the current challenges in trade and cross border data controls you're focused on? >> thank you for putting this panel together. i'm honored to be part of this. the challenges i think the data flow cross border and also trade cross border really reduced the opportunity for the international and -- we reduced the economy of skills and also for bidden us to further innovate and market affordable technology to everyone.

as probably you know, zte was founded in 1985 to provide affordable communication. zte actually benefit from free information flow and free trade. now we are 160 countries and we are working with almost every single one in the world. we are also starting investing in the u.s. now we have extra smart phone provider in the united states. zte success is coming really from couple of things. number one, partnership. because of this flow of information, we're able to extend partnership with american companies for example intel, com.comm, broad,

we're able to integrate the innovation and products into our product with engineering in china and supply to sale worldwide. that's acw basis model for us. another important thing is really the trust. so it's very important for technology companies when we deliver products, we should have high integrity and also inner security. we need to earn trust between us and partners, customers and worldwide. we have to do whatever we can to make sure that those trust are not jeopardized. another thing that's very important for success being a global company, you have to global strategy but also very important that you act locally. it's our goal we always cocomply with local regulations and local laws. with internet and challenge of flow, it put a challenge to us as i mentioned early, how we going to further grow with that.

one step forward is for government to jointly agree on certain things. first of all, should not judge a company of product or services for origin. because today is a global economy. we produced in china but running google operating system with cpu brand. i think then we sell globally. we need to overcome that. rather we charge the company of products based on its own mirror. also the comment globally, they have to come together to agree on standardization and code of conduct.

then we can make sure the internet, this kind of prosperity bring to the world and productivity improvement further prosperity the economy and also help us to manage the overall challenge in front of us even for the environment issue and those kind of issues. so then we can move forward. the next generation of internet, potential of fully utilized, then we can enjoy more growth for the world economy, prosperity, and also creating more jobs. >> thank you. so richard, what are the challenges you're focused on? >> thank you. good morning. thanks for having me. i'm honored to be sitting here among such experts. i think it's somewhat telling that somebody who has a job that i have is speaking on a panel about trade issues. my job is really around come

-- compelled data from google, and dealing with the issues of countries around the world seeking information about google users. i work on information security issues protecting data. it's all one big umbrella. what's interesting about this is the world of surveillance and world of trade has now collided or combined in absolutely undeniable way now. for my purposes and i think this is probably been the truth for some time now, my observation was of course after we saw some revelations about some of the nsa programs, we saw other jurisdictions concerned about what they perceived as expansive surveillance authority by the u.s. government to hunker down and try to figure out how with can we protect ourselves and our users from nsa, u.s. government surveillance.

one of the natural reactions to that i think, even if very misguided is consider data localization laws. under the misimpression that's a good step and reasonable step to take. so from a cross border trade issue, that presents very significant problems for a company like google and for users. we heard the other panelists talk a i little about this. a country says you've got to have a data in our jurisdiction and got to put some class of user data in that data center. it presents as others have noted here tremendous inefficiencies. the value of a cloud as we think about it is lost when you break it up into little pieces. you have lots of sub clouds. the official sayefficiencies are

-- the efficiencies are gone. you have to re-replicate a debt everywhere. -- data everywhere. it's very expensive. you have security issues presented when data can't be dispersed in a secure way among data centers that wouldn't share the same catastrophic fate as one might if there was a tremendous storm or other accident. you have network outages, data loss as a result of this. the natural ecosystem that would develop if you didn't have to put data in jurisdiction because of legal requirements, all that is lost with data localization. there's an irony as well. there's a presumption that data localization laws would be good for the local country that's imposing them. partially perhaps it would give incumbent countries an ability to take advantage, be able to compete.

of course what it overlooks is the fact that local businesses of all types actually take advantage of services offered by cloud providers. an awful lot of companies use google, amazon and sales force, lots of other countries to run their businesses. they take advantage of the efficiencies offered by the cloud. really what happens if a country imposes data implications, it harms countries that would otherwise take advantage. there's also i think security issues that are presented when you do this. i kind of mentioned the idea that a good, secure data a storage scheme is going to have data not just in one place where it's susceptible to a attack or susceptible to some outage or act of god that knocks a data center out.

a smart distribution will allow you to stay up, keep uptime at a maximum, allow traffic to route around damage areas of the network. if you impose artificial rules on what the architecture is supposed to look like, you start losing benefits and start exposing data to security threats that otherwise we would easily be able to engineer. in the long run, data localization requirements i think are really very bad. not just for the companies that are taking advantage of the cloud network. i think another aspect of this with the snowden revelations about nsa surveillance come in the form of countries that may be tempted to be build their own surveillance infrastructure to match what they view as being what the capabilities of the nsa.

so what we're starting to see now are jurisdictions considering aggressive surveillance laws that would have extraterritorial reach. they would report to require companies that aren't in their jurisdiction to engage in surveillance for them. maybe an entirely legitimate investigation. may be the need for investigation is undisputed and entirely appropriate by most of our standards that an investigation could continue. these laws are being imposed upon the providers to comply with them. yet they are extraterritorial. in fact, maybe imposing on those providers obligations to do things that are in violation of other laws that are applicable to those companies. the result is a rather chaotic situation of conflicting

surveillance laws and privacy laws which are really meant to protect sovereign interests of the different countries but aimed at an entity that has no way to resolve all of that. that is the private sector companies. the real answer to this is not layer upon layer of conflicting national laws aimed at providers but i think as the ambassador and christine mentioned, bilateral, multilateral diplomatic arrangements between governments to be able to sort out come peting equities in privacy and surveillance. in short term and long term few churks that's one of the larger threats we're seeing. >> thank you. so james, i know you have a lot of expertise on security issues. what are the problems you see? >> you're right darrel. i'm not a trade person. i'll go at this from a different angle. for me the greatest current challenge is shaping the structural evolution of the internet particularly the

regime that sets on top of that. there's obviously structural causes of the fracturing we're talking about. we sort of jumped in to how to to fix it without really beginning by saying why is the internet fracturing in significant ways? i think it's both the economic stakes which are so great and the enormous percentage of the global economy that relies on these networks as well as the decline and security we feel on those networks and the real concerns that we have. given those two trends, it's natural that people look to the governance model and ways legal structures are set up as a way of ameliorating those concerns. it's led to interesting false means that this idea i can as a cat's paw as the u.s. commerce department. if anyone who's ever knownester dyson or backstrom or tang ent, it's ridiculous i am is at the commerce department's bidding.

that's led to the opposite pendulum, which is that somehow the intelligence union under the u.n. that doesn't have the expertise to deal with this and really the wrong venue that we should move to a state centered monthed el. it's because the idea between two competing camps, somehow on the one happened internet is global common. that has cyber punk libertarian origins of the network versus those that now say because of the economic stakes on the internet, we need to impose sovereignty model on the internet. now i'm here to say my personal opinion is there's no global comments in cyber space even though my name is on the report called global commons in cyber. i was in respectful decent. -- dissent. the reason is the actual structural internet, every node of the network resides within

the sovereign boundaries of a nation state governed by laws. data travel over submarines -- there's no parts that don't fall into the west sovereignty order. so yet people say even all that is true, i still want to live in virtual space as an avatar and enjoy the freedom, benefit even though this absolutely falls in sovereignty and legal structure. this is a big philosophical battle we're fighting now. china, russia and code of conduct mentioned in others, look at the structural aspects of architecture and it relates to sovereignty.

they say naturally we have a right to not only protect the network but police the network. this is a huge philosophical battle when mixed also with the battle over whether internet standards and other i.t. standards can be used as trade weapons that we're fighting now that will really determine five, ten, 15, 20 years out what the nature of the network looks like. i wanted to step back for a minute and look from 30,000 feet and talk about cause and effects. i think we can then go back down and talk about specific remedies and ways we can understand where all of this problem actually comes from. >> my next question, the entire several mentioned the questions we can see the tensions that

developed across countries as across sectors. so the question is, how can we rebuild trust in international trade and the digital economy? are there particular steps you think we should take that would improve trade and cross border data flows? any of you that would like to jump in. don't be shy. >> certainly i think from my little world of this surveillance world where so much trust has been lost, especially for users outside the united states, i think the simple but very meaningful steps would include updating u.s. surveillance law. we've got some good vehicles for that. we've got great vehicles right now for reforming the electronic communications privacy act which is one of our domestic surveillance statutes. get it to be consistent with the standards that most companies

are complying with any way in the united states. statutes are way out of date. the second is addressing the national security authorities in the united states, u.s. freedom act is one vehicle that does a nice job of addressing concerns. particularly issues of bulk surveillance by u.s. natural security. those are two very important vehicles that are there ready to be passed and can help reduce the concerns about aggressive u.s. surveillance. i think there's also a great need for the united nations to be better at being able to process requests from other jurisdictions for user data from u.s. companies that hold it. if we can provide a good working avenue for foreign jurisdictions, non-u.s. jurisdictions to get data through a good processh