and two, whether a state that small could withstand the debilitating consequences of the corruption which was an endemic to most of the rising asian countries, lee had a strategy. his vision was to have a prosperous, unified, secure nation. he knew that singapore had the most important thing of all at the time he came of age -- location. it was located at a critical juncture for all the major sea lanes. he wanted to be there. his strategy was to govern singapore on terms of equal treatment for all its citizens without regard to their ethnic

background. there were 10 speakers at his funeral. his son spoke first about his leadership. his second son spoke last about what a good father he was. in the middle, there were representatives of every ethnic group in singapore who talk about how he had made a home for them -- inclusion. he was rigorous in the pursuit of corruption from cabinet ministers to overcharging people for fines. yellow people who are part of his political movement to go to prison. they got rid of corruption. a place where people wanted to be. where everything was on the up and up. things were on the level. it made a huge difference.

the third thing you want to do was to have an alliance with the united states for security purposes. finally, he launched a constant organized effort to modernize the country educationally technologically, and to maintain social cohesion. with methods we thought were pretty severe, including caning mel doers -- maldoers, but it worked. singapore banning chewing gum. they were leaving to a gum -- chewing gum under desk and seats. but they got rid of the problem.

they built one of the five best education systems in the world. spend money to sequence a human genome. did it succeed? when he took office, it was under $1000. the cabinet was $55,000. one of the most were not -- remarkable economic success stories ever. ernesto became sort of an accidental president of mexico

appeared the person his party favorite for the presidency was killed early in the campaign since -- season. he was a well-trained economists. you wanted to build a modern economy for mexico and a modern political nation. he set about building a modern economy by opening the sukkot to investment and promoting responsible and honest behavior. early in this effort through no fault of his own, he had a horrible economic crisis. they were about to go broke. the united states stepped in. they thought about mexico's yesterdays instead of

tomorrow. what are the best investments we ever made. we still have disagreements with mexico but think about your own life. it is one thing to have a disagreement with a friend, and another with an adversary. the consequences are dramatically different. he opened the field of competition. had an honest election. he handed over peacefully to a member of the opposite party. did it work? one of his successors built 142 tuition free university and

graduated engineers. the economic growth was sufficient to keep mexicans home between 2010 and 2014 for the first time in my lifetime. there is no net immigration from mexico. nelson mandela's vision was to have a democratic state that would survive and thrive after apartheid at the end of his term . his strategy included were people who have committed crimes, even murderous crimes during apartheid era good, testify and make their actions -- could testify and make their actions heard and be reconciled so they could be participating in the future.

we don't have time to build more jails and worry. we have got to move forward. the capacity is beyond the culture of many other countries. interestingly enough, we are now seeing the ongoing efforts to resolve the last remaining conflicts there. this is all something we had to deal with in our lives and in other cultures. accountability is important. so is going beyond.

different people in different cultures go about it in different ways. mandela did the right thing for south africa. it was arguably just as important a radical decision. that to most of us was symbolized when he invited jailers to his inauguration. far more important with you put the leaders of the party supported apartheid in his cabinet. you think, that happens all the time. mandela ran for president with 60% of the vote. his whole term occurred when i was president.

we did a lot of business together. he liked to go to bed early. he knew i would stay up late. he called me late at night. he said, they are giving me hell. i said, hello? -- who? my own people. what are they saying? how can you put these people in government? they kept you in prison. they were shooting and killing a bunch of us. now you're going to get them government ministries? what did you tell them? he said -- i said, you just voted for the first time in 300 years. can we run the financial system

all by ourselves? can we run the military by ourselves. is there one thing in this whole country we can run all by ourselves? the answer is no. maybe someday. this is not that day. we will do this together. you would be surprised if stone gave a speech like that in washington, wouldn't you? [laughter] it is important to recognize not to be too sanctimonious here. he learned astonishing lessons. you have the stature to do that and not fall. there's a third often overlooked part of his strategy, which is why it hasn't worked out yet. he named a step at a president a

much younger man was the most gifted economists in south africa. he knew it would take his entire term and he was determined to only serve one term. he paid a stiff and physical price for the first years of imprisonment. the other part of his strategy was to build a modern and economic state. increase trade and investment across africa in a way that would stabilize south africa. that part of the plan didn't work for reasons beyond his control. south africa became the epicenter of the world and is made worse either troubles in zimbabwe and other places that lead to more people coming into south africa who are hiv-positive.

still somewhat mystifying is they denied the cause of the crisis. the foundation helped them to come up with a plan. they were doing fine in the cities. but they really had to get out into the countryside. when we celebrate amend dennis, maybe his 80th birthday or 85th birthday. i was down there. we had 50 people dressed up and ready to go to south africa to implement a land that cabinet had adopted. it was all caps old -- canceled. it was a bizarre story of local

politics gone awry. a political hierarchy -- after the deputy president is a treasurer of the african national congress -- he funds all of the political observations. it was a one-party dominance state. his wife had been trained to position the old soviet union. she thought aids was a western plot to make pharmaceuticals more money. all this could be cured by eating native roots and yams. sounds crazy now, but they believed that. they felt her hops that -- felt perhaps even though he had a wonderful office and wanted to do something about it, they didn't. the point is -- he took office

intending to build a modern economic state. he was gifted enough to do it. he knew enough to do it. but he didn't deal well with incoming fire. when something happens you didn't intend to happen, things explode. you cannot play like it didn't happen. when president bush and al gore ran for president in 2000, nobody asked, what are you going to do when the twin towers are going to be blown up and the pentagon attacked? he could've said, i'm sorry. that is not what iran to do -- i ran to do. [laughter] you are laughing, but that is basically what happened in

africa. it is important to remember. there will always be something happening that you didn't plan for. he have to learn to deal with that and pursue your original vision at the same time. mandela still deserves histor y's applause. africa is still operating and doing a lot of good. mandela proved that inclusion is better than conflict. that includes nonstate actors.

she was a good friend of hillary's and mine. she was an amazing woman. it was going to cause endless political conflicts in the country. fewer corruptions. so they could take its considerable other strength and grow in a way that pursues broad-based prosperity. i need to figure out something everybody can do. i need to do something that will involve everyone. she got thousands and thousands of people to plant trees.

tens of millions of trees single-handedly from grassroots up. so her vision as a citizen organizing an ngo -- he didn't have to do it all herself. allowing us to map the country and plan in a strategic way to do things. asked my foundation to go there because of our long-term friendship. that is a way to look at her life and say, she made a real difference. she did it by empowering individual people to do something they found simple. doing it on a scale that would catch the attention of the world

. i'll give you another example. a republican american businessman sadly passed away a few years ago. in the early 1960's, he founded a company called nucor. it was a steel come any trade his vision was to make steel -- it was a steel company. his vision was to make steel. melting down existing steel and reforming it. the technology was developed so this deal could be rolled into one inch thick rolls and making it much more malleable and suitable for converging into a variety of purposes. that is not the important thing. he decided that if he wanted his

company to last through the long run and to be able to adapt, 40% of its success would be routed in his technology. 60% in the people. he adopted the most radical in gala terry and culture of any company of which i'm aware in america. the reason i know this is i recruited the company to arkansas. i'm pretty sure he never voted for me. he was a very conservative republican. he don't want the government to time to do this. first of all, when he had 11 dt steel mills they rented office space. a grand total of 22 people in the central office. 11 steel mills.

the workers were paid a salary that average 65-75% of the industry average, but get a weekly bonus based on production totals. production workers got a bonus based on another formula. in addition to that, there was a plan of 2% of the profits. unavailable to top management. everyone else participated. in addition to that, if you had a child who wanted to go to college, they would pay the equivalent of the year's tuition in community college for the child to go. educated 8 children working for nucor. it had no adverse effect on your page or on your bonus.

in addition to that, they had a no layoff policy. i've still got a letter that was written to the employees in the 1980's. they never lost money until the financial crisis. the profit margin went down. he sent a letter that said something like this -- as you know, the world is in a terrible slum. this is not our fault. it is my fault. i should have been smart enough to figure it out. we couldn't figure it out not to have -- as you know, i have a new layoff policy. since it is my fault not yours,

i will cut my income 60%. there is a big article. it was kind of mixed tones. he wore it like a badge of honor. when i was president, he wrote a managing book. i can watch people go to work and look at them and tell you where the company is succeeding or not. i don't want short-term investors in nucor. somebody committed. we are in it for the long run. it is interesting to see a very inclusive process. there only three management layers below him.

every employee have the president's phone number and his . you could call him on the phone but only if you would talk to your supervisor first. the point is, he created a culture a radical inclusion. it is working today. if you have got a spouse who wants to go to college, your spouse is available. none of it takes a penny away from either your wages or your bonus. i would say that guy was a success. he did it with a vision, a plan, with execution and radical

inclusion. i'll give you another example. bill and melinda gates, they have a simple vision. their vision is that every life has equal value, and therefore we should create a world where people have equal chances. that is their vision. simple. they have a strategy. we have got a lot of money. we are going to invested to achieve that vision. we're going to invested through people who can do things we cannot do. for example, melinda gates and hillary recently announced before she left the foundation that all the data researchers they have done and the

disparities in the conditions of women and men in the u.s. and around the world, bill gates and the gates foundation invests a lot of money every year through our health axis initiative to solve problems. totally iconoclastic. he wants to do what works. the world health organization on to be able to do this, but it cannot. so, we do it. it is very interesting to watch. we find it hard to give the money away than it was to make it. our goal is simple and clear. we want to create a world of equal chances.

most successful and their investments around the world. i'll give you one other example. a recently went to haiti where i've been working for many years to visit a project i supported. the first aids clinic in the world was established in haiti by a doctor named bill. he was a native. it was a city built for about 200,000 people and now 3 million lived there. 100,000 people just live and what should be out on the water.

this makes waterborne diseases much more likely. that is what cholera turned out to be. the country doesn't have good sewer or water systems. they built a treatment center. this guy spent his whole life treating aids. when the earth quake occurred he gave over to attend city -- tent city. he realized cholera could be just as debilitating to his country. he designed a hospital to design maximum treatment and maximum

treatment. no infections. he treated the water and sanitation above the ground. he developed an absolutely beautiful treatment system covered in plants and greenery. the got up to 99% before it could be released into the ground. this one man in one place doing something at an affordable price that couldn't be scaled i could save countless lives around the world. now the head of the world bank.

he figured out how to serve an area of 200,000 with a hell for that would normally serve 20,000 -- health staff that would normally serve 20,000. and then he went to rwanda at our request and worked with our foundation and built the hospital in every region of the country. they are all the same thing. it is affordable and repeated. the have a vision, strategy, and

yet the support of people at the grassroots level, these kinds of things can be done by ordinary citizens. these are things we need to be thinking about as a work on broad-based prosperity. find the future. arguably, the most interesting nongovernmental organization today. proves the importance of conclusion by its shortcomings. what is formidable is isis. isis is as a terrorist organization trying to become a

state. and so, when they capture a place, a set up their own judicial system. their own rulemaking. whatever their social services are going to be computed on thing is you cannot disagree with them or they will kill you as we have seen. sometimes they will allow just as the ottoman state -- did they will not a christian or a jew to live if they agree to pay a fine or tax every year to live within their kingdom. they decide to -- they could

kill you. they authorized the killing of other muslims. they went after that tiny sect who are totally powerless because they view them as inherently -- fascinating book written on the minority religions of the middle east by a retired british civil surgeon. "heirs to forgotten kingdoms." there are still 200,000 samaritans there. surely there is a good samaritan. it is fascinating. the point is, isis is the opposite. they have a vision. they have a strategy. they think they are right.

but they are anti-inclusion in the extreme. people are voting with their feet, as you can see. it will not build a future, but it cannot be ignored. it has to be countered. as america charts its course in the world and tries to get back more in the future business and accelerate all of these great developments that are going on it is well to remember that we need to make our purposes clear with a vision that is inclusion -- inclusive of our own people and give other people a chance to be part of constructive rather than deconstructive partnerships. for me personally, i have always

had pretty simple purpose. iowa's wanted at the end of my life to be able to answer with a resounding yes three questions -- or people better off? are things coming together instead of being torn apart? all the rest is background music. i tried to develop the political skills and ability to constantly develop policy that would enable me personally to say that. i've given times, i met have a different vision. all of you have to do that.

when i was a student here in 1992 and get my lectures before i started my campaign, i was deeply moved by carroll's statement in the history of civilization. the defining characteristic of hours organization was a believed that the future could be better than the past and that every person had a personal, moral responsibility to contribute to making it better. no one had the truth. the great joy in life was a constant search for the truth. it was a journey that give life dignity and meaning. i cannot tell you what your purpose should be. i can tell you that have a lot more fun in your life if it is bigger than you.

a couple of years ago, right as annual meeting of our global initiative was beginning, i was notified that a young woman who worked for our health axis initiative and her e.on say -- and her fiance, has been among those murdered in the attack on the mall in nairobi. she was a dutch nurse. and all of these years, i have lost two people to violence. they were both dutch nurses. this one was a dutch nurse who is so good at what you did she took time off from work and went

back to harvard and got a phd in public health and came back to take a management position in our efforts in africa. her name was ellis. she was a .5 months pregnant. she went to nairobi because it is the best part in that place of africa to have a baby. he -- she and her husband were just rolling -- strolling along and were killed. the people that killed her think that they are righteous people but if you believe in in inclusive future, it doesn't belong in their. nigeria has a new president because the majority of people in nigeria do not like oklahoma rock -- do not like boko haram. they do not believe you should have a right to kill people.

when i was at the global initiative, i was very moved by this. i had been with that woman six weeks before she was murdered visiting our projects. she was beautiful and very pregnant. if you have emergency, you just call me. we were joking and having fun. six weeks later, she was gone. none of us know how long we are going to be here are what we are going to do, but her life had purpose. she had a vision. she developed a personal strategy to make a difference, which she did. i told a story what i just told you. when i told the story, another woman came up to me.

more than 20 years ago, i was that young nurse. i was in kenya. i was working in africa, and ngo. i was pregnant. i went to nairobi to have my baby. my baby was born healthy. i was blessed. a few years ago, it was shot several times in the virginia tech shooting. she said, it changed his whole life. all he wants to do now is work to give children a safer future. we all find our purpose in our own way. if you work at it, it will come. i wish you well. thank you very much.

[applause] >> mr. president, the students have submitted some really excellent questions that are stimulating. the first one is a softball. i cannot let you take too long on that.

it will be great fun, i think. it is the teacher in me. [laughter] what does going to georgetown mean to you? how does it influence your purpose? >> i will try to give a short answer. i think i told you this before. when i wrote my other biography i took out 20 pages i wrote about georgetown. [laughter] they say, you cannot possibly remember all these people and teachers. it had a profound impact on me because i met people from all over the world, both my teachers and my fellow students that i never would have met otherwise.

it was only graduating class i think in american history that produced three presidents in three countries. when i became president, my classmate was the president of el salvador. when he left office, i classmate was the president of the philippines. the whole time i was there, our classmate was ambassador of the united kingdom. i was here at a fascinating time . it affected me mostly because of the teachers i had. and the people i would to school with and the conversations we had about what was going on in our classes. it was very different than that. we do not have an elective

course until the second semester of our junior year. big controversy. but i loved it. i doubt if i ever would have become president had it not come to georgetown. i'm certain i would not have done whatever good i did done. i would have done it less well if i had not been here. >> thank you. this is from a sophomore in the college. where do you see this generation of young adults going? in what way is our path going to be different than before? >> what has happened in technology yesterday will look like child's play over the next 20-30 years. i think most of you will live to

be 90 years old or more unless some accident before all's you are you -- befalls you or cancer that we don't know how to treat get. i think you will live in a time where the technological revolution will extend to artificial intelligence and we can do the rings we have not been able to do before. i think the combination and the continuing plumbing of the mysteries of the genome will lead us to have affordable, four times a year health exam that would involve going into a canister and being scanned. one of the biggest inventions in medicine would be if we all have cancerous cells in our body and most of is destroyed by our

body, one of the great questions would be to see the microscopic tumor, get it now or wait until later? i believe he will be given one final chance to figure out how to avoid the consequences of climate change. i think there'll be more economically beneficial ways to do it than there are now. i think you have to worry about water. i think water is a canary in the coal mine. i think you have to worry about how to feed billions of people. if we modernize enough -- one thing that slows the birthright

is that education of women and economic development of the poor . i think we live in an exciting time. i think it is unlikely that these ideologically driven conflicts were having now with nonstate actors will be fully resolved. i hope and pray that we will leave behind a system where we can save us some confidence he could keep bad things from happening. maybe for reasons not in the press, but for example if they get bombed and there are four or five countries that could afford one, we've got six more people would nuclear capacity. they are expensive to build and maintain and very expensive to

secure. you have got to have access to material. that is what you will have to watch. what about the access -- what about the excess? it is considered a modern miracle of the world. even though mr. khan gave all of the nuclear technology to north korea and as far as we know the materials haven't been stolen sold, or given away, i don't think you to worry about that. i believe that you will live longer in have more options and we probably will not have fully resolved the problem between grown productivity and adequate employment. i do think that we will do a better job.

you raising your own kids and living your own life. i think we will do a better job and figuring out how to more proportion the wealth we are creating. i think there will be more shared prosperity. get entered a period -- we have entered a period where the changes are so rapid. let's think about radical changes and the arrangement of labor and capital. he is pretty smart. we would maybe be down to a three day work week because of the breathtaking increases in productivity.

so, have a lot of fun with your leisure time. [laughter] >> this may be the easiest crease -- question or that toughness. we can pass on that if you want. >> interestingly enough, they were not the ones that were the most politically unpopular. 80% of the people -- easy decision. 74% of the people were against my first act in the international arena, which was to put together a big package for russia. they were then so poor and the couldn't even afford to bring their soldiers home from the baltic state. a majority was against what i did in bosnia when we started.

the most difficult decision -- first, i ran for president because i thought trickle down economics was wrong. we had a robust economic climate for most of the 1980's. ordinary people -- poverty had gone up. wages were stagnant. i wanted to get the middle class a tax cut. right before i was elected, the government said, by the way, it will be twice as big as we told you it was. i could play like it didn't happen and is present my original plan, go back to the

core strategy, which was to get america growing again. we had to bring infrastructure down. we had a normal economy. interest rates were getting high. it was going to drive it higher than inflation. if i could get interest rates down, they would be a huge amount of private investment, that would overcome the contractionary impact of the economic plan the comfortable spending cuts and tax increases. but i hated to give up something that i really wanted to survive. added to the chain that -- i had to choose between that -- lower income workers with children -- i do not think it societies which is our should allow anyone to have kids in the house and work full-time and still be in poverty. i think that is wrong.

the interest rates declines -- it would lower mortgage rates and credit card rates. that was a hard decision. it was hard not to act alone in bosnia. we all knew what serbia was doing in bosnia. i asked them to help. they didn't want to do it. it wouldn't be sustainable. the europeans had to buy in.

they had to on the fact that if they wanted a europe that was united and free for the first time in history, the belkin's would be a part of it. i waited until we could get a unified response, but it was a painful wait. a lot of people died. some of the decisions i regret most -- we didn't even talk seriously about whether we should send troops to rwanda because the public was exhausted with what happened with black hawk down and somalia and because we were involved in bosnia and that was much more in the news. frankly, we didn't have any idea

they could kill people in 90 days with machetes essentially. sometimes the things you regret the most were not hard at the time. i'll always regret we didn't have a long, drawn out debate on it. we didn't even really discuss it. i spent my life tried to make it up. i'm working on it. >> a question i wanted to ask earlier committed yourself to public service. a commitment like that, you can go through a time where you really question it. what am i doing here? >> i was governor for a long time.

at least you know i could hold down a job. [laughter] people of my native state were good enough to elect me five times. based on recent events. i don't know if i could win again. [laughter] there are times when i got burnt out. but i never would wanted -- i do is find something new to do. one of the reasons i loved being a public life, it was like peeling an onion that had no end. there's always another layer. always something new. something to engage in imagination and stretch your capacity. when congress and the president

were all hot on the high water business, there was nothing to it. the guy -- it was the biggest failure and i never part of money from him. it was a made up deal. it was heartbreaking to me to see people treated like it was something, but it never made me want to quit. i was raised to not quit. we're not big on quitting in my family. you might have noticed that. [laughter] so it was awful. i learned to wall it off.

i also felt maybe it was air again, but i spent a lot of time when i was president reading the histories of other presidents come including not well known presidents. i realized that the success of a given president is first determined by the time of which you live. he made the right decision. even the government had no were near the range of things to do that it does now, he was a great president. he made good decisions on the big things. a lot of people thought it

wouldn't survive. a lot of people thought they had more time to play general and that we wouldn't hang around. that the union wouldn't hang around long enough to do it. roosevelt had the depression in world war ii but it also depends on whether the skills and the psychology of a person -- it's not just politics's. if it fits well with the challenges of that particular moment. when i read that all of the histories -- i realize some of them were really well-suited to govern. others would have been quite successful the govern at another time, not then.

because he was elected right before the civil war and he couldn't figure it out to -- that is absolutely true. but he was immensely successful soldier in the next war. he was a successful member of congress and went home to become governor of new hampshire. became elected president. he was on his way to be inaugurated. he took a train from the hampshire down to washington and on the way, there was a train wreck. nobody was hurt very bad. nobody else got more than a broken bone. that is how he be again in his presidency. a cat it -- catatonic state of

grief. he might have been quite a successful president. ruled at a calmer time. anybody could succeed before the country split apart. that is what i think about. i think that when you get tired unless you are old and you think, will push you out one way or the other. you should not open the door if your visit has not been fulfilled. i am not take it on quitting. if you need to go, somebody will kick you out. >> we will allow one more

question. you have read widely over a long time. if you had to recommend a book, what would it eat? one book, that is all you get. you mentioned one earlier. bill clinton: the meditations of marcus a really us -- of marcus aurelius. [applause]

>> next, a portion from the briefing. josh earnest takes questions. this is 30 minutes josh earnest: i want to call to your attention climate announcements today. there is a flood risk mapping tool that visualizes the different impacts of floods. it was developed for new york,

new jersey, and the coastal areas. this is, again, an example of the is from the department of the interior. they are collaborating on landscape partnerships in areas of southwest florida and the great lakes region. there is a wide range of impacts and the federal agencies will work closely to prevent the threats and ensure that long-term efforts to take climate change into account.

it is something the world considers a top priority. we want to deal with climate change. we can take steps that can contribute to public safety. this is evidence of how the administration can make progress in the face of opposition from the republicans in congress. so, the president will have more to say at the event that he will host in the ever great -- in the everglades. >> is the president satisfied with the outcome? >> at this point, we have not seen the final language of the compromise. republicans and democrats have agreed on the language and

support appears to come from patty murray, a long-standing champion for women's access to health care. we are hopeful, though i do not know that we have seen tangible agreement, that, after the passage of the human trafficking bill, the senate will promptly turn to the nomination of the red a lynch. -- of loretta lynch. >> at risk of getting into another back-and-forth about the iran deal, can you say whether the president would sign a bill that has the agreement seen on the hill? josh earnest: again if we see strong democratic support from champions of health care, that

seems like the kind of thing the president would be able to support. we'll make a final determination about that when we see the language. >> you were not able to com mment on the ship sent to y emen. can you give us any more context on what the orders are? josh earnest: the principal goal of this operation is to maintain freedom of navigation and free flow of commerce in the gulf and the red sea. this is obviously a region of the world where significant commerce takes place. it includes energy shipments and other goods that move through this area of the world, both as

they transit the red sea into the mediterranean and the suez canal. this military presence -- let me say it this way, the movement of the aircraft carrier would augment the american military presence in the gulf and it would send a clear signal about continued insistence of the free flow in the region. >> you said you would block any shipments of arms. >>josh earnest: we have concerns about irans support for the houthis. we have made it clear, publicly and privately about our

concerns for their continued support. the concern that we have is because the conflict has led to significant violence and an urgent humanitarian situation. also, the stability of the country is only going to falter. we are encouraging all parties to put down weapons and engage in the process to resolve the differences. >> is there any heads up that the aircraft carrier would be positioned there? josh earnest: i do not have any to convey to you. i think this is a clear statement about our commitment to ensure the free flow of commerce in this important region of the world. again, this is not -- this is not the first sign of a u.s.

presence in the region. the aircraft carrier is just the latest in the deployment of personnel and assets in this region of the world again in pursuit of the goal of commerce in this important region of the world. >> the administrator is expected to resign. can you confirm? >> i do not have any announcements and i refer you to the department of justice. they may be able to provide more information. >> does the president have confidence in the dea chief? josh earnest: we have concerns about the material presented in the report that raised legitimate and serious questions about the conduct of some of the dea officers. the president maintains a high

standard for anybody who served in his administration, particularly when it comes to law enforcement officials and the report raised consistent -- concerns about the conduct. frankly, that is all i have to say. >> back to yemen the saudi national guard is taking part in a campaign and i wonder if the white house has a reaction to this? will forces get involved? is that something you would support? >> i had not seen that comment. i can tell you that the united states is supportive of the ongoing efforts by the saudi'ss to resolve concerns along their border. they are engaged in operations

in the region and the united states, at the request of the saudis has provided support. -- saudis, has provided support. we remain in contact and the coordination will continue. >> can we get your reaction to morsi being sentenced to 20 years in prison without parole in egypt? josh earnest: i'm aware of the reports. the united states is concerned by these sentences. all in egyptian's, regardless of political affiliation, are entitled to equal treatment under the law. i will not have an extensive comment until we review the verdict. we understand the judicial authorities will make it public soon. that being said, mr. morsi must

be afforded due process. the united states continues to be strongly opposed to politicized arrests and detentions. the united states will continue to engage the egyptian government on the political trajectory and raise human rights and political reform issues. these issues remain significant priorities for the united states. all right? >> back on the arabian situation. are the ships there to >> muscle a little bit -- to flex muscle a little bit? will that be left up to other nations? josh earnest: the principal purpose of military deployment

is to protect the freedom of commerce and the red sea. the international community came together in the united nations and imposed an arms embargo on key houthi leaders. any effort by iran or anyone else to provide weapons to the houthis would be a clear violation of resolutions relating to weapons shipments. so we, obviously, are concerned about the situation. it stems from a couple of things. iran's long history of destabilizing activities.

the second is the impact of the environment on the humanitarian situation. the third is, we continue to be concerned about political instability in this country. this will not be addressed and resolved militarily. all sides will have to sit down at the negotiation table. remember not allowing extremists to capitalize on chaos in a region and establish a safe haven and plot attacks against the united states and allies around the world is a priority and interest. we are working closely with our partners to address them through the u.n. and the security

council resolution. also, our partners in saudi arabia. >> is that a "yes" to the question of whether the united states would feel free to board vessels? josh earnest: i would not sp that. there is a military presence in the gulf to ensure freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce in the red sea and the gulf. that is the principal goal of the mission. it is not a new mission. there has been a u.s. naval contingent in that region of the world for some time. it is being augmented by the aircraft carrier. i'm try to be as explicit as i can about what the chief goal of

the deployment is. >> what is it that threatens the freedom of commerce in the gulf city? josh earnest: we continue to be concerned about the broader political instability in the region and that is the first thing. you have a central government that is rendered ineffective in terms of providing for security out the waters of their coast. they are having troubles with the security situation in their country. we continue to be concerned about the destabilizing activities of the iranians. we are mindful of that as we carry out this deployment. >> i'm sorry. i'm not up on my yemen navy statistics.

it doesn't seem that you would need to send an aircraft carrier and another warship to augment. josh earnest: the goal here is to -- let me start by saying, i don't think, even prior to the instability that there was a lot of bullish confidence in the strength of the yemeni navy. we are eyes-wide-open when it comes to people trying to capture instability in yemen. people are trying to get commerce through the navigation channel. we are mindful in the way -- of the way it could have an impact on all of that. again, this is not a new military presence.

this is a presence that is teeing augmented by the roosevelt. >> those the united states consider an iranian ship heading into yet many waters is -- into yemieni waters is causing harm? josh earnest: i don't want to speculate on other activities. >> these are the parameters. you must have existing rules on the boats of how you are going to treat those. josh earnest: i'm sure there are. i would refer you to the department of defense. we have been concerned about iranian support and weapons shipments to the houthis.

and, when i say "we," i mean the international community. we are serious about an embargo of weapons shipments to those who are taking directions. >> when the president ordered the roosevelt there did he give it a mandate to assist in the security council resolution? josh earnest: this is -- the specific mission of the roosevelt is to ensure the free flow of commerce and navigation in that region of the world. that is there a mandate. there are activities they are engaged in and, in some cases supplying them weapons. the united states is serious in

standing shoulder to shoulder with the international community , when it comes to a specific arms embargo. let's put these two things together. would an arms shipment interfere with free flow of commerce or navigation in the area? josh earnest: the arms heading to the houthis would be a violation of the embargo. ask -- >> it would complicate the free flow of navigation and commerce. josh earnest: hypothetically, i would not go beyond what we have said, about the need to protect the freedom of navigation and to make sure that the international community takes seriously the security council resolution that was just passed last week. >> it would be hard to imagine a

scenario where you would allow the shipment to land in yemen. josh earnest: there is an embargo. the international community and the united nations would be serious about making sure the embargo is upheld. the particular mission for the roosevelt is to guarantee the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce. >> so, they are not linked. it is not there to discourage or intercept? josh earnest: is there to protect the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce. that is the mission. >> there could be others? josh earnest: the results are in

the gulf. i will not speculate about future events that may or may not occur. it is possible with unite states to be justifiably concerned about protecting the freedom of navigation and free flow of commerce in the volatile region of the world, while, at the same time ensuring the arms embargo that the united nations has put in place is one that people take seriously. >> what about the increased power? josh earnest: the united states remains concerned about rejecting the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce. they should also understand that the united states is serious about the iranians h not providing weapons to theouthi -- to the houthis.

the united states remains concerned because of the way that extremist organizations have tried to establish a safe haven to attack the united states, our interest and allies. we have a serious list of concerns. what we also, however, believe is that there is value in pursuing a u.n.-led process to resolve legitimate concerns of all of the parties involved and that there is an opportunity for us to affect a legitimate political transition in yemen. that is our chief goal. that would address all of our concerns. we are engaging in an effort to affect legitimate political transition. it would allow international agencies to address the

humanitarian situation and it would bolster the capacity of the central government in yemen. that would prevent or make it harder for extremist groups to capitalize on instability. >> that suggests a certain amount of flexibility and some would suggest manipulation from the administration on communicating what it believes that the intelligence committee action thought about the time ron does the timeline for a breakout -- thought about the timeline for a breakout by iran. the creation of the political framework talks about a 2-3-month breakout time span. when the president was saying one year, it was closer to 2-3 months. there was quite concerned about the breakout.

josh earnest: i did not see the bloomberg report you are talking about. we will take a look at the story to help you. i would say the 2-3-month estimate is one we have heard from outside experts and others who draw on the intelligence assessment to reach that conclusion. the goal of the diplomatic efforts is to extend the breakout to one year or quadruple it. and, to put in measures to verify. so, if they attempt a breakout, they would have one year or so, to a determine the response. >> often times, administrations are held accountable about

intelligence assessments. the suggestion was that the president said that it was one year to quiet concerns about how close iran was. now, it is being more candid. because of the context of the political framework, he wants to intensifiy concern. you deny any attempt to mislead or manipulate the capability? josh earnest: i feel confident in conveying to you, without having seen the story, that the president, throughout the process, engaging in the diplomatic effort, and has sought to use intelligence assessments to give people an

understanding of the threat iran poses. there are, obviously, limitations, in terms of how detailed the president, or anyone, can be. we are interested in protecting sources and methods that allow us to have continued insight into these kinds of sensitive matters. the president, all along, has worked to help the united states people, and our allies understand exactly what the threat is. so, we can design the best mechanism for addressing that threat. the president is confident that the current diplomacy underway is, by far, best way to succeed in obtaining a nuclear weapon. >> getting back to yemen and the

iranians, do you feel they are trying to test you? the have the united states at the negotiating table and, maybe, they feel emboldened to send warships and ships with weapons to yemen and come up with trumped up charges for the washington posts reporter. do you think they are using leverage? josh earnest: iran has been engaged in destabilizing activities throughout the region in a variety of ways. they were engaged in this activity before the united states entered into the diplomatic effort. the same is true of the unjust detention of americans inside of iran. these are things we have confronted on a number of

occasions, particularly the last 30 years. we continue to be concerned about all of those things and we are candid about the fact that, as important as the nuclear negotiations are to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, they will not succeed in preventing iran from engaging in a wide range of behavior that we continue to be concerned about. iran continues to menace our closest ally in the region and we continue to be concerned about the threats. we are concerned about the anti-somatic language and rhetoric. we are concerned about the support for terror around the globe and iran continues to be on the state-sponsored terrorists list. we are concerned about the destabilizing activities throughout the middle east. the most recent example of that

is the support for the houthis. we do not anticipate the nuclear negotiations resolving all of that. we do think the talks will allow us to verifiably prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and a nuclear-armed iran would be more dangerous and more dangerous when they menace israel. that is why you see the united states continued to focus on try to capitalize on the best opportunity we have to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while continuing to be candid about the concerns that we have with their behavior. >> can the assortment of activities get to a point where the united states has to say you know what, we are not

engaging in the negotiations anymore? and they become such a bad actor between now and june 30? >> look, i don't want to -- is quite hypothetical. i cannot want to inadvertently give someone the incentive to try to do something that we would not agree with. let me just state, as a general matter, the united states and the president are very focused on trying to complete the diplomatic negotiations, because he believes it is the best way to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. the fact that iran engages in other behaviors is not a reason to breakup the negotiations. it is a strong incentive for the

negotiations to succeed because a nuclear-armed iran would be more dangerous and would menace israel. it would be more concerning when it comes to the support of terrorist organizations. frankly, it would be keenly in the united states' interest for these negotiations to go ahead. >> i have to assume there is something in your arsenal of options you would exercise. josh earnest: i am saying that the behavior that we have seen from iran, when it comes to supporting terrorist organizations, anti-somaticemetic

rhetoric that is why they are already on the terrorists list. it is related to their support of terror. that is why we have seen a new embargo against the houthis and others who have taken direction from them. we know that iran seeks to support them through other ways. we continue to be concerned by their behavior and it only makes the successful completion of diplomacy, which would prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, more important. >> a hearing on trade policy. expanding trade with cuba. later, washington journal is live.

>> tomorrow, the house debates and votes on hills. the first would allow companies to share information with each other and the government and provide liability protection. it other would designate how the homeland security and -- homeland security should handle information. see it live at 10:00. >> in 2000 three, judith miller wrote several stories on the lead up to the invasion of iraq. her source, scooter libb be -- she talks about her time in jail and her new book. >> i was in jail because i

refused to reveal the identity of a source who i did not think statue i did not think -- i refuse to reveal the identity of a source who i did not think wanted his identity revealed. the people are routinely spoke to had access to classified information. they could trust me to protect them. if i did not have them, i would just the writing with the government wanted me to write. i thought this was a question of principle and i did not have much choice. >> tune in for more about first ladies with carl anthony, karo

cannon medford, and thompson. live coverage is on c-span. >> differing views on a pill and trade agreements from thomas donohue and richard trumka. bipartisan legislation was introduced last week by leaders that would give obama the ability to fast track and bypass congressional amendments and filibusters. the finance hearing leads up to committee action. it is two hours. s.

senator hatch: i'd like to thank you. today we have a panel of very distinguished witnesses that will help us discuss the ongoing trade agenda. as everyone know last week senator wyden and i and house ways and means chairman ryan introduced trade promotion authority or t.p.a. our intention is to mark up the t.p.a. and related bills later this week. this legislation is a long time coming. t.p.a. expired in 2007. while talks with various trade agreements have gone on since that time without t.p.a. in effect, our neighbors and negotiators have been effectively negotiating with one hand tied behind their backs because they have not been able to assure that the deal they signed is the one congress will vote on in the end. our legislation will fix that. i want to thank ranking member wyden for his senator and -- support and assistance thus far and also congressman ryan. we got a long way to go but working together i'm confident we can get there. now, some expressed concerns about the process by which we're moving this bill forward. for example, i've heard arguments that we're moving too quickly without adequate

discussion or examination. those concerns are, in my view very unfounded. first of all, the bill on which our current t.p.a. legislation was based was first introduced in january of 2014. almost a year and a half ago. and since that time it's been available for examination, dissection, discussion and comment. thousands of organizations have weighed in on the merits of that bill, including business organizations, organized labor think tanks and advocacy groups. many members of congress are on record either praising or criticizing that bill. officials in the obama administration expressed their support for it. true enough in our discussions senator wyden, chairman ryan and i made some improvements of that original bill but the fundamentals remain the same and we've been very transparent as to what the changes really have been. second, in the 113th congress, the finance committee held nine

hearings on trade and t.p.a. was wrote up in virtually every one of them. i know this because more often than not i was the one bringing it up. one of those hearings was devoted specifically and entirely to t.p.a. and included the testimony of witnesses across the spectrum, including one representing organized labor as well. finally, since the 114th congress convened just about four months ago, this committee has had three hearings in which trade and t.p.a. was a major topic of discussion. today's hearing is the fourth. in other words, this is a well-covered territory for this committee. so while i understand and respect there are sincerely held views on this topic, some of which are different than mine, any arguments that we have been less than forthcoming and transparent with this t.p.a. legislation are to put -- to fine point on it nonsense. i've been in the senate a long time and i think i'm generally considered to be pretty reasonable. i'm certainly willing to listen

to and consider any genuine concerns that some may have about process. i want all sides to be heard. i want to have a fair and open debate. that's why we're having this additional hearing. by all means, we should have a frank enough discussion about these issues and i hope we will continue to do so today. but let's not dress opposition to t.p.a. is concern about -- as concerns about process. during the hearing last week i made two assertions about trade. i stated plainly that u.s. trade with foreign countries is a good thing. and i said that t.p.a. is the best tool congress has in its arsenal to help influence and facilitate trade. those are pretty fundamental assertions and at the end of the day, people are either going to agree with them or they won't. now, more hearings and weeks of additional delays won't change many minds one way or the other on these essential issues. with that in mind i welcome today's hearings. like i said, we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses. it doesn't get more distinguished than these two

gentlemen who are before us today. and i think they will speak to the heart of these matters. i look forward to a spirited discussion. for my part i want to make clear if it's not clear enough already that i believe congress should be working hand in hand with the administration to break down barriers to foreign markets in order to give our businesses and job creators a chance to compete in the global marketplace. the united states should be a leader in international trade. we should be setting the standards and making the rules. we simply cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and let other countries dictate where the world goes on trade. trade is an essential element of the healthy economy. we should be doing all we can to advance the trade agenda that works for america and advances our interest on the world stage. i might add this trade agreement will cover 11 nations in the trans-pacific partnership plus ours and 28 different nations in the ttip european partnership

plus ours. so it involves high percentage of trade throughout the world and it puts us in a position to be able to do a good job with regard to trade and to advance our country in many ways we will not be able to do without this agreement. now, that's where we are. i'll stop right there. senator wyden. senator wyden: mr. chairman, colleagues, normally i'd make an opening statement the focus of which would be to lay out the significant differences between this bill and the trade bills of the 1990's. and under normal circumstances i would detail that before the committee at this time. given the interest, however, with colleagues on the committee and engaging with our two witnesses -- and we thank them both, mr. trumka and mr. donohue. i visited with a number of the

members of the chamber and the interest of my colleagues who are here to ask questions, i will fore bear any further statement at this time, mr. chairman. senator hatch: thank you, senator wyden. our first witness is thomas j. donohue, the president and c.e.o. of the u.s. chamber of commerce, the largest business organization in the world. representing the interest of more than three million businesses across various sectors and industries. he's held this position at the u.s. chamber since 1997. we've had a lot of experience working together. prior that i served as president and c.e.o. of the american trucking association for 13 years. earlier in his career he served as a deputy assistant postmaster general of the united states and vice president of development at fairfield university. mr. donohue seached a bachelor's degree from st. john's bifert

-- university and an mba from a delphi university. so we welcome you, mr. donohue to the finance committee. we're honored to have you here. we appreciate your willingness to be here today. our second witness today on this panel is richard l. trumka. he's president of the 12.5 million member american federation of labor and congress of industrial nations or the afl-cio. the largest organization of labor unions in the country. he's held this position since 2009. i might add that this organization is -- has an effect for the american citizens all over the world. one of my closest friends is the international vice president of the afl-cio. he's since passed away. what a great leader he was in this world. prior to 2009, mr. trumka served for 15 years as the afl-cio secretary treasurer.

from 1982 to 1995, he was president of the united mine workers. mr. trumka has a bachelor's degree from penn state university and a degree from villanova. he's a tough guy and somebody i have a lot of respect for. these are two -- these are the two top people in this country as far as i'm concerned to appear at this hearing. they're widely divergent views, perhaps, but we need to listen to both of them. i want to thank you, mr. trumka and mr. donohue. welcome to the senate finance committee and hopefully it won't be the last time you come before this committee. so with that we'll turn to you mr. donohue. you'll be the first witness. mr. donohue: thank you very much, chairman hatch, ranking member wyden and distinguished members of the committee. as you now know, i'm tom donohue and i'm president and c.e.o. of the chamber of commerce of the united states. i'm really pleased to testify

today on behalf of our three million small and medium-sized businesses, state and local chambers of commerce as well as large companies that are members of the chamber and national federation. i'm also pleased to be here with my friend, rich trumka. we appear quite often together on matters of immigration, infrastructure and a whole lot of things we agree on. when we retire we'll get a mike and ike show and go on the road. we think we can make a good deal out of it. the chamber strongly supports the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act of 2015 which will renew trade promotion authority. t.p.a. is critical because economic growth and job creation at home depend on our ability to sell american goods and services abroad.

after all, 95% of the world's consumers live outside the borders of the united states. why does trade matter to our country? in a word, it comes down to american jobs. already one in four manufacturing jobs depends on exports and one in three acres of american farms is planted for consumers overseas. all told, nearly 40 million american jobs depend on trade. nearly 400,000 jobs in utah and a half a million jobs in oregon depend on trade, just to pick two states at random. \[laughter] these numbers could even be higher but unfortunately the playing field for trade isn't always level. while our market is generally open, u.s. exports face foreign tariffs and often soaring into double digits as well as a atlantic of nontariff thicket of

-- as well as a thicket of nontariff barriers. no one wants to go into a game many points behind before the tip-off but that's exactly what american exporters are doing every day. these barriers are particularly burdensome for america's small and medium-sized companies about 300,000 of which are exporters from the united states. the good news is that america's trade agreements do a great job leveling the playing field and the results include significantly higher exports and new and better jobs. the chamber analyzed these benefits in a recent report entitled "the open door of trade," which we'd like, mr. chairman, to enter into the record today. senator hatch: without objection, it will be entered. mr. donohue: here's some of the highlights of that study.

america's 20 trade agreement partners represent just 6% of the world's population. let me say that again. the 20 trade agreements we have around the world represent just 6% of the world's population. but buy nearly half of america's exports. by tearing down foreign barriers to u.s. exports, these agreements have proven an ability to make big markets even out of small economies. u.s. exports to new trade agreement partners have grown by an annual average of 18% in the five-year period following an agreement coming into force. that's much faster than we typically see in u.s. export growth to other countries. the increased trade brought about by these agreements supports more than five million american jobs, according to a study commissioned by the chamber.

trade-related jobs also pay well. for instance, manufacturing jobs tied to exports pay wages that average 18% higher than those that are not. the trade balance is a poor measure of whether or not your trade policy is successful, but we often hear the opponents of frayed arguments say they cause deficits. that couldn't be more incorrect. the united states -- i'm going to say this -- please listen. the united states has a trade surplus with the 20 trade agreement partners as a group. u.s. exports of manufactured goods to our trade agreement partners generate revenue of about $55,000 for each american factory worker. many manufacturers just couldn't make payroll without these export revenues.

for american farmers and ranchers, the stakes are especially high. that's because foreign markets often slap the highest tariffs on their products, and that's why our agricultural exports soared under our new trade agreements. u.s. service exports are also growing rapidly and supporting of high-wage jobs even though -- millions of high-wage jobs even though the potential for service industries to export is nearly untapped. but to get more of these benefits, congress must approve t.p.a. the united states is never entered into a major trade agreement without it. a simple foreign of t.p.a. was -- form of t.p.a. was first enacted in 1934, but the latest version expired in 2007. t.p.a. is based on the commonsense notion that congress and the white house must work together on trade agreements.

t.p.a. is how congress sets priorities and holds the administration accountable in trade negotiations. a few people have claimed this is a presidential power grab. i may be uniquely qualified to comment on this. after all, the chamber has not been shy about criticizing some actions of the administration when we see overreach. but t.p.a. isn't about congress ceding power to the president. on the contrary, t.p.a. strengthens the voice of the congress on trade. without t.p.a., the administration can pursue its own priorities at the negotiating table and consult with congress only when and if it chooses. t.p.a. lets congress set negotiation goals and sets forth detailed requirements for consultation between the trade

negotiators and the congress. and what should we do with t.p.a.? we should start by bringing several trade negotiations to a successful conclusion. the trans-pacific partnership agreement would open the asia pacific dynamic markets to american goods and services. it is critical that we do so because nations across the pacific are clinching their own trade agreements that exclude the united states, denying american exporters access to these very important markets. t.p.a. gives the united states a strong hand in writing the rules for trade for this important region. it makes us an active player not a bystander, stuck on the outside looking in. t.p.p. would affirm and deepen america's ties to asia at a time when there is a perception that we're pulling back.

then there's the trans-atlantic trade and investment partnership which would further remove barriers between the united states and europe. this agreement could not come at a better time. both america and europe are dealing with struggling economies, aging populations and new competition from emerging nations. the united states and the e.u. represents nearly half of the global economy. a relationship that huge eliminating the trade barriers could bring extraordinarily large benefits to both countries. according to a study by the atlantic council and the british embassy, the agreement would create 740,000 new jobs in america. the trade and services, which we haven't talked about enough, is another big opportunity. a free trade zone for services

with 50 countries around the globe, this agreement plays to one of america's strengths. u.s. service companies are among the most competitive in the globe. from the u.s. business community's perspective, the negotiating objectives laid out in the t.p.a. bill are balanced and ambitious. they reflect the evolution in u.s. trade agreements in recent years and include the best new ideas in trade policy. and the bill strikes just the right balance on intellectual property, which is the lifeblood of the u.s. economy. negotiating objectives had been modernized to reflect our changing economy with new provisions on digital trade and state-owned enterprises, for examples. importantly, the bill directs the u.s. trade negotiators to seek comprehensive agreements,

avoiding exceptions or carveouts from those agreements, rules for any industry. the chamber supports the t.p.a. bills' negotiating objectives on currency practices. it says that parties to a trade agreement should avoid manipulating exchange rates to gain an unfair advantage. i believe the u.s. should continue to press economies to press economies to adapt market-determined exchange rate systems that reflect economic fundamentals. in recent years, the g-7 and g-20 economies have affirmed that they will not target exchange rates or engage in competitive devaluations, but the notion that you can use trade policy tools to address monetary policy challenges causes concerns in many quarters.

here's one, for example. it's not in the u.s. interest to enter into an international agreement that would handcuff u.s. monetary policy and limit the flexibility of the federal reserve to respond to an economic crisis. the t.p.a.'s bills negotiating provision related to currency reflects a reasonable balance. senator hatch: mr. donohue, your time is up. can you wrap up real quickly? mr. donohue: oh, sure. i was going to go as long as i could. [laughter] because when i'm finished -- no thank you. in sum, this is a strong bipartisan bill. there's nothing fast about the matter in which it was done, as the chairman indicated. and given the careful balance in many areas, we urge all of the members to vote for this and get it through.

to conclude, the united states cannot afford to sit on the sideline while others set the rules of trade, to create jobs growth and prosperity, our children need us to set the agenda. two quick points. to open foreign markets to american-made goods and services, we need to renew t.p.a. then we got to use the legislation to get these trade agreements. those agreements now being negotiated are going to make a fundamental difference for this country. and with all our frayed agreements, old and new, we need -- trade agreements old and new, , we need to ensure they're enforced. mr. chairman, senator wyden, let me thank you for having us here. we'll now hear from the other side of the argument and then we can get down to a good discussion. senator hatch: thank you. we sure appreciate your testimony and we appreciate very much your being here. we'll allow you a little extra time if you need it too so we'll turn to you and hear your testimony. mr. trumka: thank you, mr.

chairman. before i start my oral testimony, i'd like to submit for the record my full testimony. senator hatch: without objection. richard trumka: tumtum and bipartisan letters signed by the house and the senate urging the administration to do something on currency manipulation. a g.a.o. report that says that the current labor standards need -- are weak and need to have more done with monitoring and enforcement of labor provisions. and an analysis of the hatch-wyden-ryan t.p.a. bill by ranking member sander levin. i'd like to have those submitted in the record. senator hatch: without objection, it will be -- plate in the record at this point. immediately following your remarks. mr. donohue: mr. chairman, there are few materials like my formal testimony. senator hatch: we'll put them all in the record. mr. trumka: i'd like to state, -- start mr. chairman, by

, stipulating that tom donohue is an expert of presidents. he goes back to abe lincoln's days. [laughter] i think he is ably qualified to be an expert on those presidents. i want to thank you, chairman hatch -- senator hatch: you're goings to have that white hair before it's all said and done. mr. trumka: i want to thank you, members of the committee, and tom donohue. for strengthening labor and environmental provisions, for reforming investment rules, for finding the appropriate balance and regulatory measures and intellectual property protections, for fair rules of origin and finally including meaningful currency provisions among many other issues. far from being opposed to trade on principle, we have supported trade deals when warranted. some examples would be the jordan trade agreement, the african growth and opportunity act, the generalized system of