r anxieties regarding income inequality. they become the magnets of concern for a much broader and largely unrelated set of facts. but trade agreement are not the cause of thebut trade agreemen'e cause of the problems. they can be the solution to them , along with policies such as investment in infrastructure, education, and training. trade agreement of alastair shape globalization to our advantage. they help write the rules of the global trading system. we start from the fact that the u.s. has one of the most open economies in the world, in large part because of decisions made decades ago and supported by 12 presidents since. applied tariff is less than 1.5% and we don't use regulations as a disguised barrier for trade.

abroad, we see market with higher tariffs and opaque regulatory systems. we can remove barriers to those markets, raise standards, and increase our export-related jobs, which more than nonexpert jobs. right now, we compete with low-wage countries all over the world. what are we going to do about it? tpp will open some of the largest and fastest-growing economies. it will for the first time take a comprehensive approach to imposing disciplines on state owned enterprises, so that when they compete, they will have to do so on a fair playing field. it will take on the issues of the digital economy, the free flow of data, pushing back against digital protectionism, maintaining an internet that is open and free. it has the strongest ever labor and environmental provisions,

and does so in a manner that is fully enforceable. but all these provisions underscore something broader at issue. it is the rules-based system itself. no group understands the importance of the system better than this one. the principles of open markets, shared responsibility, shared benefits, animated the brentton woods conference, and the system put in place then allowed japan and countries throughout europe to rebuild themselves. it allowed developing countries to become emerging economies. it helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. we can't take that system for granted. we can't be complacent or expect it to endure. there are alternatives being promoted that are more statist, more mercantilist in nature.

it is very important that we strengthen the system, where every country has certain rights, where all countries are expected to play by the same rules, and if they don't, there's fair and equitable resolution to disputes. key tostem is maintaining a stable and prosperous asia-pacific region. it is also key to ensuring the global economy is working for our workers. and it is critically important that we are not just sitting on the sidelines, but proactively shaping the economy in a way that reflects our interest and values. history has proven beyond a doubt that protectionism doesn't work. raising tariffs on trading partners would leave those countries to respond inclined and block our exports. no one wins a trade war. turning to protectionism would

not increase employment. it would reduce it. it wouldn't boost economic growth. it would retired it up best and drive the economy into recession at worst. signednt herbert hoover the tax with walled off the united states from imports. the thinking was that would lead to a resurgence of manufacturing and employment in the united states. we had a spectacular trade surplus. then the great depression. the high tariffs worsened the depression and contributed to the decline of the global economy, which led to the rise of nationalism in europe. underminetpp would u.s. leadership not only in the asia-pacific but around the world. our allies couldn't help but question whether we had the wherewithal to make good on our commitments. as the singapore prime minister put it, if you are not prepared

to deal, can we depend on you when it comes to security and military arrangements? the good news is, as i meet with congress, they are appreciating the benefits of the agreements to their constituents as well as the cost of not gratifying it. we already see our market share and priority products eroded by other countries that have preferential access. the peterson institute has estimated that a one-year delay in putting tpp in place would imposing $94 billion cost on the u.s. economy. don't get itwe done soon, the other asia-pacific countries aren't going to wait for us. as new zealand's prime minister put us, these economies aren't going to stand still. of china's tpps

equivalent are well underway. doesn'trisingly, it raise labor and environmental standards, doesn't impose disciplines, doesn't require the free flow of data, and doesn't strengthen intellectual property rights protections. i asked opponents of tpp a simple question. do they think we are better off in a world where those are the rules of the world? the choice isn't between tpp and the status quo. it is between tpp and what is likely to involve in the absence. that cannot be in the interest of american workers. pierre, the minister who represented france at brentton woods, said to govern is to choose. today our government has a choice. we can write the rules of the road or leave that job to others.

tpp ormove forward with walk away and be remembered as the generation that inflicted a crippling wound on america's leadership. china is executing on its strategy. the asia infrastructure investment bank and other regional initiatives. we are one vote away from cementing our leadership in the asia-pacific region. we are seating that role to others. that doesn't strike me as a difficult choice. i would like to say a few words about ttip and the vote in the u.k. the people in the united kingdom have made their choice. our relationship with the u.k. will remain special and our relationship with the eu will remain strong. we are evaluating the effect of brexit. a lot of progress on

the agreement during the last eight months. our goal is to continue working with the eu. creative,need a pragmatic approach to resolving the outstanding issues. the europeans have a lot on their plate. the brexit vote, the migrant crisis, the rise of skepticism about brussels and other issues. we sympathize with them and hope they can get this done. there's more at stake now than ever before. given the questions that are being raised about the nature and future of the european union, can the eu deliver for its people? can it take the actions necessary to promote the kinds of growth and jobs being demanded across europe and create the opportunities its young people need to thrive? will the eu the able to play a leadership role in raising the

standards for the global economy? it is very much in the interest of the united states that we have the strongest possible europe as a partner, capable of working with us to pursue our shared interest and values. that is true in the economic arena. it is equally true across transnational and strategic matters. turbulence is often unavoidable. how do we manage it? there's a great deal at stake. over the years, there's been no more important voice for the responsible management of turbulence than the brentton woods committee. i look forward to working with you. thanks very much. [applause] >> thank you, mike, for making a

very positive case for the transpacific partnership as well as ttip in europe. i have two questions before i turn it over to the audience. there's somewhat of a confusion with some of the statements that president obama made when he was trying to help prime minister cameron to get the remain option adopted by the british people. beingked about the u.k. at the end of the line with its discussions with the eu. he was positive on the special relationship with the eu. do you see it as a possibility that you could be negotiating with the eu and the u.k. at the same time or does one need to come before the other or is this something that has to be worked out based on the coming weeks and months? mr. froman: i think you answered

the question yourself. our focus is on negotiating these platform agreements. ttp and ttip, both of which are intended to be open to other parties, who are able and willing to meet the standards. that is where our focus is. there's a lot to be worked out between the u.k. and the eu in the coming weeks and months to determine how they are going to indirect with their respective trading partners. asia, theng on to transpacific partnership, so much progress has been made by you and your equivalents in asia over the last few years, months, one of the problems a lot of people see, and i was in a meeting with some of the trade people under president clinton and president bush -- when they see the statements of the major candidates, hillary clinton, who at one point i sat next to her

when she made a comment that ,his was sort of the golden let's say, possibility for a trade agreement, tpp. she has come out against it. bernie sanders very much and obviously donald trump. affecting see that the congressional vote. it is one thing for candidates to say something when they are running for office. it is another, the impact they will have on congress, going forward, when this vote takes place. i've been spending a lot of time on capitol hill, meeting with members of congress , and i think the good news is that fundamentally, members of congress are focused on the impact of the agreement on their stakeholders,on

what is the impact of not improving -- not approving the agreement? there is a very good reception on their behalf for what they see their. it goes to the issue of timing as well. australia has a free trade agreement already with japan. japanlia beef exports to face a lower tariff than we do. as a result, our market share is declining in japan. the longer we wait, the wider the differential will be, the more we will lose market share. $125dy we are losing million of exports each year. when members of congress from rural areas who have beef producers in their district here that, it tendsd to focus their attention on how we're going to get this done and

when. if you could multiply that by dozens of sectors and countries -- we are building support, answering questions, working with congressional leadership. i think the votes will be there, but we've got to get it done this year. bill: final question that i have, then we will turn it over to the audience. there's a lot of support for an investment treaty with china. how do you see that fitting in? you were just in china. we were talking with the chinese about this, with the tpp effort. mr. froman: it is on a parallel track. we've had negotiations for a number of years, for the last three years in earnest as they begun to negotiate on what we ,all negatively spaces protecting investments at all stages in the process.

those negotiations are continuing. i was in china recently and had conversations with the leadership. the chinese have been here since and have given us a new version of their negative list, which we are evaluating. it has got to be a high standard agreement. it has to effectively open up china's economy and move it from a world in which everything is prohibited or regulated to running which everything is approved and less explicitly regulated. that world needs to be quite narrow and short. we also have to deal with issues that have come up in the environment that china presents for investment, issues that our investors have had their over the years. bill: do you think they are going to wait around to see what happens with tpp before they get serious? mr. froman: i think all

onications from president xi down is they are taking this process very seriously and they would like to get it done. bill: what i would like to do is, right there, to go to the audience. i think i'd like to get a lot of participation here before mike has to leave. can we have a microphone over there? right up front here first. right there. >> robert with international investor. i like the questions. line is, if the purpose of these agreements is to stimulate exports more than imports, will you expect to see the ratio of our exports rise versus the imports that come to our nation if these are passed? mr. froman: since i'm in the halls of the imf, filled with much better economist than i

could aspire to be, most economists will tell you there are a lot of factors that go into trade balances and current account balances, including relative growth rates. it is hard to pinpoint in particular the impact of a trade agreement on a particular balance. 1.4% our applied tariff is and we faced 70% tariffs on autos in some tpp countries, 55% on machinery, 40% on poultry, sometimes several hundred percent on agricultural products, all of which need to be eliminated or greatly reduced, we would expect to see more exports. we're going to be lowering our barriers very little. right there, the lady in the back. >> thank you so much.

quick questions. one, in light of the brentton woods conversation, these agreements seem to be in contradiction to the whole philosophy of the wto organization, whereas by avoiding or not using the wto forum. the second question is concern about the state dispute resolution mechanism in which a corporation can sue a state if eir expected profits are not gained. mr. froman: first on multilateralism, we continue to believe that multilateral trade is the highest form, but the wto, when it comes to the do

ha round, has reached a deadlock. wtoali and nairobi, the moved forward with, in the first case a multilateral trade facilitation agreement, a nairobi an agreement on agriculture and export subsidies, but also a recognition that there was no longer a consensus that the doha round should continue as is, and we should be focusing on creative ways of dealing with outstanding issues, but also new issues facing the multilateral trade system. onever, our view unilateralism is that tpp and ttip will have trade with two thirds of the global economy. when you've got two thirds of the global economy beginning to get their head around a certain

set of rules, work the difficult issues that allow them to open their markets, it helps give momentum to the multilateral process. ultimately, we would like to see those rules multilateral lysed. right now what is probably the most open, frank discussion going on at the wto in 15 years, both ministers and ambassadors in geneva are really talking about what is it that we can get done multilaterally, with the other countries join over time. when circumstances are right, you can multilateralize it. on dispute settlements, tpp, over the years -- i'll give a one minute background. there are 3200 agreements in the world that have some sort of

investor-state dispute settlement. since 2000, we have been working raisingm the process by standards, tightening them, adding procedural and substantive safeguards, and closing loopholes where we found them. one of those issues is it makes clear the fact that you cannot sue on the basis of disappointed expectations with regard to profits. that is not a basis for a suit. that is one of two dozen reforms in the agreement that help make sure that this is being used for what it was intended to be used for, when government comes in and expropriate property, but not in ways it was not intended for. bill: back there. yes. >> thank you.

ambassador, in the run-up to the recent u.s.-china strategic and economic dialogue, there were press reports of several issues that would be on the table. one of those included the ongoing solar panel dispute and resulting tariffs from china. in the fact sheets that came out, there was emphasis on steel and other issues. i saw no mention of the solar issue. i was wondering if you could give us a status report on where that stands. mr. froman: we didn't discuss it while i was there. the ministers and i, our teens continue to discuss that issue. it is a long-standing dispute. it is something we would like to find a way of settling. our discussions will continue. we had a question over here. yes, in the back.

then we will take the one in the front. >> hi. week, president obama and president nieto are going to ottawa for the three amigos summit. canada has not taken a position on the tpp. helpfulhink it would be for canada to join with mexico and the united states to make a strong statement about the tpp? secondly, do you think that is likely? mr. froman: tpp was negotiated under the previous administration in canada. when the trudeau administration came in, they made clear they wanted to go through a robust consultation process around the country of different sectors and parts of the country to make sure they had the input of a

wide range of stakeholders before moving forward with tpp. respect that we decision, that process, and i don't think it has a significant impact in the united states on congress' consideration of tpp. bill: right here. >> i'm looking at this from a different perspective. i'm representing a very large number of scientists. when we look at these things, we would say at some point, if you have a whole bunch of people who and one something doesn't, and you were to make a decision that the people who agree could go do something and the one who doesn't would have a choice of either joining or pulling out to negotiate a better deal by themselves, wouldn't that be a feasible option? mr. froman: are you referring to the wto? >> tpp.

mr. froman: in canada? >> know, hours. the agriculture. mr. froman: tpp, the intent is all countries to join together. countries are in the process of going through their respective domestic approval processes. some are further along in terms of ratifying it. if all 12 countries are not ready to approve it and bring it into force together, there are provisions for six countries representing 85% of the gdp represented by the tpp countries to bring it into force. that effectively means that the u.s. and japan need to be part of the group that brings it into force, but we don't have to wait for all the countries if some of them are going more slowly.

>> good morning. come back to china. in your opening remarks the challenges it faces in free balancing. i think you are the first speaker that didn't accept those changes as inevitable. when i look at the tightening of domestic dissent and the south china sea, those look like changes in tone and they don't look like positive changes in tone. have you seen the same things happening in your negotiations or do those continue pretty much the way they were the last couple years? mr. froman: i think we see mixed data points. bille positive side, as i'm quite serious about the bilateral investment

treaty process. there's a lot of attention paid to it to bring different parts of the government and economy in to chart a path forward. they seem to genuinely want to use it as a way of helping to drive reform in parts of their economy. whether we get to that standard to be seen. at the same time, you look at the statements out of the third plenum a few years ago which were very ordaining -- forward leaning about reform. you look at statements about reforms from a few years ago and it has been less certain the degree to which those have been followed up on and implemented. i think the record is rather mixed. and that affects the trade negotiations as well. >> hello, ambassador.

continuing on the subject of china, i was out there the same time as you were. i was involved in some of the discussions. i once conducted the political part of the political and economic dialogue. to me, in the security sphere, and probably in the economic, it seems axiomatic that going forward -- in the next decade, not just tomorrow -- that the more we can work with china to accomplish global objectives, the more likely we are to be successful. if we are in serious disagreement, then it is going to be hard to get things done on a global scale. i'm thinking of the climate agreement we reached bilaterally and accomplished in paris. in adopting an

inclusive approach to china in thinking about the future of the global economic system, and how do the things you've been working on in the past few years , if you agree with that, advance us toward that goal? mr. froman: great question. the answer is yes. i think it is the second largest economy in the world and by some measure the first largest trading economy in the world. china has a significant national interest in the health and strength of the global trading system. we need them to take on responsibilities comments are it with their role in the global economy. that was one of the driving forces behind the g20. it is one of our efforts, one of the driving forces of our efforts in the wto and other

trade negotiations, to work with china and urge them to play a leadership role in these areas. take the information technology agreement negotiation. it was stuck for a long time. we reached a bilateral deal with china. it took perhaps longer than it should have. together we were able to work to bring the other parties along. we are starting to do the same thing now in terms of engagement with the chinese. we have countries representing 90% of the market ready to move ahead with an agreement to eliminate tariffs, which is good for the economy, good for the environment. no country would benefit more than china as a producer of goods and a country that desperate silly needs -- that desperately needs disbursement of environmental technologies. we are urging china to come to the table to lead those negotiations. always, we are

encouraging them, and they played an important role in nairobi along with a handful of other countries, to help guide that process. fundamentally, we think the rules-based system has been very good for china. now for it is necessary china to step up and play a role with greater responsibility for that system and commence or it with the size of its economy. >> one more question. i promised to get mike out of here by 11:15. >> very quick question. given the political realities in the election, his the tpp going to be all or nothing in the lame-duck session? rather going to wait than try to get politicians to

commit before the election? mr. froman: we are working with the leadership committees and members to lay the foundation. it is a challenging political environment. trade votes are always hard. they are always close. -- presentsment is its own unique challenges. but we are working on the hill with individual members and feel good about those conversations. let's give mike a big hand for the work he's doing. [applause] >> thank you, ambassador.

thank you, bill. happy now that we are moving into our final segment on global development challenges and solutions, which features real movers and shakers in the world of sustainable development. we're happy to have the ceo of mckinsey social initiatives, eric from usaid, and craig from the asian development bank. the segment is going to be moderated by scott morris, who has been a committee member since he left the treasury and is now a senior hello at the center for global development. he's also director of their rethinking u.s. development policy initiative to broaden the approach to development. relationshiphe s and the united states. with that, scott, i will leave

it to you. scott: thank you, randy. let me start with format. we are going to have a conversation here, not formal remarks from the podium. i want to briefly introduce the excellent panel. i'm really pleased and looking forward to hearing their insights on the broad topic of global development. i'm going to try my best to do a few minutes of framing of the issues before i turned to them for some questions and then turn to you all for some questions.

let me start to my left. administratore for the united states agency for international development, confirmed by the u.s. senate in to his service as a senior official in this administration, really a distinguished career in the private sector and doing development finance from the private side in a way that .i.d.y speaks to how a today is evolving. helene gail, new ceo of the mckinsey initiative, looking forward to hearing more about that and the model that , and comes to

mckinsey following a successful tenure as ceo of care. before that, leadership positions at the cdc, the bill and melinda gates foundation, and service on a broad array of boards and commissions. finally, craig stefansson, who has the challenging task of representing the bank in washington. of the united states and canada, but from where i sit, with a lot on his plate in the engagement with the u.s. government. , and wearly at a time will talk more about this, a change, of a shifting landscape, of new actors. and craig is really central in

the u.s. engagement on all that. prior to that position, really an impressive career at the bank, including leading engagements in areas as challenging as afghanistan and recently, myanmar. really an interesting case. those are our impressive speakers, not only in their own backgrounds, but in the diversity they represent in this development enterprise. i hope we can explore more of that. let me just try to lay out what i see as big issues in the development landscape and hope to get your reactions as a first question on this set of issues. because this is brentton woods, it is important, and perhaps this sounds a little defensive,

but we're sitting in the imf, not the world bank, but it is important to remember and recognize that development was a mandate at brentton woods. been a consistent element over seven decades now. so, entirely fitting that we are about theing development agenda among other issues today. but let me start by trying to create a little bit of a laundry list. i've been organizing these issues in three areas. from a policy perspective, we've had a landmark set of new commitments in the last few years. specifically last year, about te development agenda among other issues today. but let me with the sustainable development goals and the major commitments reflected there. in the same year, you had major commitments around climate.

very much an understanding that these issues are linked and have to be approached jointly. you had a commitment to launch a new multilateral development bank in the form of the asian infrastructure investment bank. it has a global membership and that is very meaningful. members from latin america, europe, africa, notably not a member, the united states. we see new risks and challenges in the development landscape. very visibly, the refugee crisis associated with syria. we've had pandemic threats in the last few years that have caused us to think hard about policy response with an impact on development. we see economic headwinds. we've heard that conversation this morning.

even what it means for developing countries, low income countries are emerging markets. and associated with that, whether you want to interpret brexit from that side of things, what it will do for the flow of goods and services, things like remittances that are a hugely important part of development finance for many of these countries, but also reflected in brexit a real question of political retreat from globalization at a time when developing countries are perhaps benefiting more than ever from integration. finally, not to be entirely negative, looking at new opportunities represented in the global landscape today when it comes to development progress.

here, i think well known to the development community, the nature of finance today, where you have tremendous sources of private finance flowing to the developing world, including on , the size ofde domestic resource mobilization today compared to what it has been historically, all of these progress,nt to real but also raise questions about the role of traditional foreign assistance going forward. remarkable success in poverty reduction. what we've heard is an anchor for institutions like the world bank, also the reality that we have made tremendous progress, and what does that look like going forward? thinking about the role of development institutions, both

the question of how they are adapting, but also to recognize that they are adapting. i think we will hear more about this from eric. our own development agency, which happens to be the largest bilateral development actor, has been very actively reforming itself in recent years. we are seeing it in the community, both at the world bank across the street, and institutions like the asian development bank. and finally, outside of this official sector, really seeing very interesting new models that seek to exploit the capital, the expertise, resources of the private sector, but to do so under a not for profit model. i think we will hear about that as well. minutes or so on

the global landscape for development. let me turn with the basic question for our panelists. you can approach it as an optimist, pessimist, or problems over. the do you see as either issue that is too much overlooked or most consequential going forward when it comes to global development today? what should we be thinking about as major opportunities, major challenges? let me start with you, eric. eric: thanks, scott. good morning, everyone. as you said, there's a lot of change going on around the world and a lot of opportunity. about thee think follow-on. i don't think it is business as usual. as you said yourself, there are

new things, new challenges, and obviously climate change, but one of the ones that is really a challenge involves what we call drg, democracy rights and governance. closing spaces in countries where they are shutting down ngos from operating. you are seeing restrictions of freedoms and openness. that sounds sort of in the weeds, but we've seen where these things can lead to conflict. the conflict then leads to big problems that even hit the macro as one ofmigration the most dramatic examples. don't need to spell out all the implications of that given the last few days. as one of the drivers of these problems and an area that is very difficult to

challenge and resolve, but nonetheless extremely important to work on together. thanks for that kind of framing of all the issues. i think first and foremost what the scg's have done for the global economy is tremendous. i think it does give us a framework. as you said, it is more than just an add-on to the developing goals. even the way they were created created a different dialogue. first and foremost, continuing to say that is our framework and guiding, overarching blueprint for what we think about as we tackle the challenges of the world going forward. i guess to your point of being optimist, pessimist, i kind of go back-and-forth.

i think there's an incredible amount to be optimistic about. i think the fact that we have thatased poverty, education rich are going up, is incredibly helpful. i think there are some things, some embedded within the scg's, and some not as clear. the issue of income inequality, yes, poverty has been reduced and more poor people now live in middle income countries, but the inequality within and among nations continues to increase. i think that is going to continue to define our world for the foreseeable future and if we don't think about that, we're going to have the consequences we are already feeling in terms of the conflict. the other one is this whole issue of migration and migratory population. this is only going to get bigger

, more complicated, and i think we haven't thought enough about the solutions. , refugeesh migration crises, etc., would go away. the reality is we're going to have a larger portion of our population who will not be in their home country and we have to think about jobs and education and what does that mean to really think about adapting the way we do business for people who are displaced from their home countries? the only other one i would say that i think is both a reason for optimist him but also one for caution, that is the issue of gender equity. i think it is one of the most hopeful opportunities that we have for making a difference in the world. if we just do the things it takes to make sure we have gender equity in our world,

workplace, policies, leadership positions, we could dramatically change the outcomes, economic outcomes, peace, stability. i think that is incredibly optimistic. impact. have a huge the difficult part is that we have been talking about how to change the status and value of girls and women around our world and we are still having a difficult time doing that. a lot of optimism around it. on the other hand, we have a ways to go. craig: thanks, scott. the list of development priorities, multilateral development banks included, is long. the way we see the world today, there's a need to create jobs

for the increasing number of young people. the development community, the banks included, have to really focus on helping with job creation and improved workplace conditions by supporting education and skills development for youth, particularly young women, and promote labor standards. on top of this, there is a need to enhance gender equity. arearivate sector is an that requires strengthening on everyone's part, especially to develop new and innovative up withg and to come new technologies. adb.limit my remarks to we need to come up with ways to improve our project implementation and disbursement

so we can deliver faster. particularly with the rise of the asian infrastructure investment bank and the new development bank, it is a more competitive market than it used to be. president,much adb's my former boss, just how much emphasis he puts on project thatery in time frames are, one, responsible, but two, respond to the political imperatives of doing things quickly. along the same line, i think the banks need to come up with an improved pipeline of projects. there is in asia a shortage of bankable projects for development which affect the ability to deliver on sustainable development goals. bankableed flow of projects represents a major

obstacle to public-private partnerships, which everyone is promoting nowadays, particularly in infrastructure development. this is a really urgent need. i could go on. there's a whole issue of aging populations and demographic change, the needs for improved pension and poverty, the whole inequality and inclusiveness agenda, refugees, zika virus, global pandemics, trying to deal with all of them at the same time. it is not easy. but i think we are doing the best we can and i think we've history ofy good responding to these challenges in a way that makes sense. scott: i want to stick with the sdg's for a minute. eric, a question to you.

a bunch the center of of development experts, more expert than i see myself on a lot of these issues, but they bring a critical eye to this exercise. one thing that is striking about it, as i listen to them and read myself, is, this is a complex agenda. if you compare it to the millennium development goals, which in a way more reflected a traditional approach and thinking about development, and particularly the role of foreign thistance actors, much of was about, how do we allocate our funds directly to support maternal health, etc. the fdg's are casting a wider and more complicated net. i wonder if you could tell us usaidr you want -- how is

as an institution thinking these days that is different from a traditional role of foreign assistance provider, and from your leadership perspective, for five years now, how do you think about helping to meet a set of goals that isn't primarily about how you spend your own money directly? eric: could you elaborate on that a little bit? i'll say it couple different things. fdg's arey that the not an action forcing event for us. predated them.e but they reflect several and the mostngs

sustained way i can describe it is, basically, we are the minority partner in the development exercise and i would thee that it actually, all official development agencies are the minority to partner. you can see this in the numbers. providingthers are just as much money or more. greater thanion is the french official development, if i remember the ranking. you have private sector investment in countries that 30 years ago they never would have dreamed of thinking about. you have remittances and other things. the fundamental driver for a lot of things is the fact that we are the minority partner, which leads you to a different mindset

, partly about partnerships. it is partly about innovation. formed,n usaid was there were very few courses on development around this country. now the course at berkeley that has the highest single attendance is the development course. 900 kids a semester taking the course. you have kids in high school and college setting up their own ngos and traveling around the world. in tops, everyone business schools all spend time in developing countries. you have huge amounts of innovation. the development breakthroughs are not necessarily coming out of development agencies or their partners. when we did our grand challenge on ebola, to deal with the fact that the suit that everyone uses was so hot in west africa, the

resulting design that will enable people to work longer in the suit included a baltimore seamstress, a new york city fashion designer, and dupont. that is an amazing collection of people. that is now going into production for use in these hot climates. start looking through the implications, our relationship with the private sector is hugely transformed when you think of yourself more as the minority partner in the exercise. that is part of all the changes. side, there isdg a lot of traditional development. health,s on energy or all of those things are in sectors where all the bilateral's have been working for decades, but there's a wider

number obviously, and the final heavily on the idea of partnership and good governance and things like that. you have that expansion. , in some ways it will be business as usual, and in other ways, it will profoundly not be business as usual. lene, you emphasize the issue of migration. in the category of not business as usual, let me ask you a little more about that. you had this very visible, tragic situation playing out in our news papers. there's always a silver lining of something like that as it brings more attention to an issue that didn't occur overnight. displacement has been with us in

many parts of the world for a long time. with more attention being paid now, we are starting to understand better the nature of displacement, that it is not strictly or simply a short-term crisis, that it actually is long-term in nature for many of these populations and for the countries hosting them. you've been a leader in the humanitarian sector. you have a new venture that has more of a development focus. of you speak to that nexus thinking about issues that on the one hand are humanitarian crises, but really have longer-term development implications, and how we should be thinking differently about our approach, whether it is specifically displaced relations, or other types of disruption from conflicts, crisis -- helene: thanks.

it inind of touched on his earlier comments, but i think those of us who are working in this space between humanitarian and development realized that more and more, that needs to be thought of as a continuum. it used to be an organization like care is to be primarily humanitarian, is now focused on its development mandate. i think that grew out of the fact that it is hard when you're thinking about the populations that we work with, whether it is care or some of the work we're doing now, those same populations are very likely to also have crisis situations from time to time. the development, if you are committed to a coming in a -- a community, you need to be committed to them, whether in the crisis stage or long-term

stage. if we can put more into preparedness and prevention, a lot of those crises will have a lesser impact. example, when i was at care, we were working on a lot of the issues related to food insecurity during crises. we were able to show demonstratively that countries we worked with on food security from a development standpoint were the same countries who rebounded more rapidly when there was an immediate food crisis from drought, famine, or even human conflict. so we know that if we look at the work in climate change, and looking at helping populations adapt to the impact of climate change, if you can shift people's livelihood so they are intermittento

climate occurrences like drought thoseoding, you can make regulations more sustainable. we were working in bangladesh. cyclones had become more frequent as a result of climate change. we worked with populations to be able to shift their income -- income generating work. one was taking people who use chickens as their economic generation and shifting to ducks because chickens will drown, but ducks float.

that is where that continuum between development and humanitarian response is so important to keep in mind. sometimes innovation is just recognizing what mother nature has done for us. could you tell us more about this new venture and what it represents to thinking about the nonprofit role? mckinsey, the global consulting firm, decided about a year or so ago that they really wanted to look at -- they do a lot of social impact work for clients.

looking at a philanthropic way, how could they use their assets to make broader contributions to society and have greater focused impact? public sector. perhaps already different than solutions where we have stovepipe solutions. the social issue about how do you bring these kind of

partnerships, collaboratives together to be able to develop solutions you mentioned the issue of unemployment. programs weirst want is the program on youth employment. in five different countries, u.s., mexico, spain, kenya and looking at the reality of young people who want to be employed. say theyemployers cannot find enough skilled entry-level workers. butng people the skills also working on the employer to the privatet sector so they have employers. organizations that have training for young people and working with young people. around the policies

where the areas that are most important for their locality for young people and jobs. now have trained employees. we now have trained young people hope to be at 100,000 over .he next couple years employers are now willing to pay for those programs at least putting a dent in these big global problems. get a continue to increase. you know you have stan and eric. helene: they are pleased to have the partnership. theseically, they used gill side of mckinsey and those relationships to understand what is the situation.

where this model could work in a cost-effective way. is an historical -- a historical approach to doing this. in my experience, it was not replicable. hugel like this is a effort of scale that if it succeeds, we will want to take all those learnings and to imbue that into everything we are doing. itt is why we are supporting and following it closely. helene: one other thing, i think the role of technology has been huge in the ability to replicate and scale. we still have to talk about the role technology can play in development at being optimistic,

it is one of the things that make me optimistic when we see advances thatc are helping. it has helped us to scale this program rapidly. >> right. go ahead. >> i want to say one thing the sdg has made clear is the financing requirements are huge and no one organization is going to meet them and it is imperative that we cooperate with one another. thatnk the initiatives helene and air are cap just described are exciting and i have gotten to know them it just in the past few years since returning to washington. i hate to use the surfing and allergy but we have seen a lot of ways of development, and go. this is a good wave coming up.

to ride it. hard it we are still looking at it and asking ourselves what we are getting into, because it is a change we're talking about in terms of the way we could work in the partners with whom we , theird in the and ideas, when it comes to meeting some of the development challenges we are up against our as important, more important, the in the financing where making available. >> let's talk about your institution and more broadly the development. it is hard, particularly in the , it is hard to remember back and think about how much of the sort of existential handwringing was unilateralround the

bank a year ago and particularly the reaction to investment banks. but there was a sense of almost particularly in the united states in its approach to the mbb. a lot of that has come down and we are moving forward with the more prosaic issues of standing up in new institutions in , but nonetheless i think it is useful to think about the aiv through a development lens because at that very last time discussionplenty of about what it made to the united what it meant to the united states strategically. looking back at what these organizations do, that add, the for the the bancaire,

development. can you talk a little bit more, particularly in the asian context about why the aiv matters? what it was responding to? and for the next 5-10 years, there will be an infrastructure development bank. about?t is it all how does it matter? how does it adapt to try to respond more effectively to what we would call the infrastructure imperative. >> sure. our 2009 report, it was estimated the infrastructure needs of asia totaled about 8.3 trillion dollars. for regional infrastructure.

ofsustain the current levels broken development. it worked out to about 750 billion dollars per year. if you look what they have provided to the region, it is a drop in the bucket to what is required. to what is provided to development international. multilateral's, bilateral's, civil society. privatenments, by investors globally it is still addressing only about 16% of asia's infrastructure needs just to give you some idea of the amount of resources required that addresses what we see across the region today. pollution, water pollution, air pollution, traffic, mass transit needs.

hospitals, schools, i can run on down the list. the world bank and not id and others, we are providing the resources and orther are our governments private infrastructures to what is needed. it is been called and infrastructure crisis. a welcomeefore is addition. they are capitalized, their subscribed capital is $100 billion paid in capital will be about $20 million a year. last 50 years it is $7 billion. used to borrow international markets. we leverage that jews provide's

-- we leverage that to provide support. i think the hope is we will be able to work closely in the formative stages. mo you for a road development project and pakistan last week. we will cosponsor it. more are possibilities for projects this year. and, at least initially i think ofwill be co-funding a lot projects using their safeguards and what have you and adb will assume major responsibility for implementation and at the same develop thell capacity to identify and implement projects on their own stage, the tables may turn. an increase, i

think aib will exceed that early on. of last year at about aib and what it meant for the region. provides $17 billion in borrowing funds and $10 billion more per year and financial assistance to their region. $27 billion total. there was -- 80% of that amount was for infrastructure and by that i mean transport , those it irrigation sorts of investments. -- so the agent -- agent asian infrastructure bank looks very much like what adb was doing. but i can see in these meetings, president and my former

boss, he was vice president of adb for five years and i think the aim of both institutions is to work closely together in parallel on things if not actual co-mingling of finances and i think aib has every intention of living up to the safeguards that we think are so important and i think they will be a good partner in development assistance moving forward. >> i want to pause. i wanted to do this earlier. to do a little bit about to my organization. to use the opportunity of the attention at the time to stand up in the future. been lookings actively at the past year and report in the

months ahead. i encourage you to look for that. think we brought together a good group of act there's too brought their thinking to this. so that is that. but back to this question. you boil it down, the aib is about bringing more capital. and, to the degree that we worry or hope for a different kind of model from the chinese, maybe we will not see it here. not matterce just is with basic capacity. they committed themselves to a set of roles and it is going to

look a lot. this is a question for all three of you. sovereigns,nk about the chinese in particular, is it a different model for development? into this new institution and as time goes on, it kind of looks like the adb is not much different here but beyond that, how should we think about whether it is the chinese approach to development? cause as sitting here in washington to have to think differently about our approaches ?s different actors, etc. or can we simply welcomed the

additional amount of capital that is flowing because of the markets becoming wealthier? any one of you. >> i won't start each one. i would say. i think, overall it is a good thing. more money for development is a good thing. the more we think are able to strengthen a country's capacity to really be at the core of making sure they are the leader in how development funding is spent, i think it is less of a matter of what is china doing to change united states official development funding or not, but more are we all strengthening the country's ability to

influence how resources are used ? i think until that happens there will still be, you know, the kind of chaos that exists. i also think as you said throughout, more and more different kinds of act or's are in there. the role of private sector, the role of things like remittances. there are so many different flows now that i do not think we can think of it as simplistically as we did before. but the more countries are strengthened to be able to really be in the lead, the better all of this will be. >> i would be remiss not to say influenceses and matter. one only has to look at the experience of japan, taiwan, hong kong, singapore, to see

they had their policies and institutions right and frankly, they did not require a whole lot of support from us to achieve a law in of the success they have today. countries across the region were to work on their foreign investment codes, there forcial systems, accountability, transparency, transparency to what is going on, they would not have some of the problems they're having today with foreign investors coming in and the fact that some public and private partnerships are not getting off the ground as quickly as they might. so that is how i would answer that question. that we areay constantly looking at a model,

always on the lookout for good ideas and it does not matter where it is coming from. it can come from some startup in silicon valley or some local community in remote uganda or anywhere else. lookingonstantly because the situation keeps changing and, you know, we have big, big goals to reach so we need every good idea from wherever it comes. and i would say that is true for everyone. developmentrategic by law. the head of the organization was in beijing in the last month talking about concrete projects and talking about general development architect issues. they made clear and describe the

areas and ways we were developing. evolving. they do not have 50 years worth of experience. they do not have the number of staff. constantng to be a evolution with regards to the intersection. also, our work with everybody else's. >> let me ask one last question before i turn to the audience. more political in nature. particularave a responsibility here and frankly i think all of us on the stage are taxpayers. we do have to think about this isue of how the electorate dealing with issues of

globalization and particularly the role of our enterprise of development. receptivity in this area. nobody is going to campaign on this issue, of course. but elections will have consequences when it comes to pursuing the kind of a agenda we want to pursue. specifically, the question is when it comes to political support and on a bipartisan talked aboute foreign systems historically, to the degree it would be characterized as a charitable disease helping with eradication, there is almost a core support their in our electorate. it is more of a challenge as we broaden the the scope. it is a universal exercise.

taxpayer would say, i would like some of that for myself. do you see a challenge there? how are we with making that for the particularnd responsibility. i wonder if any of you have thoughts on, are we seeing a rising tension? is this something that remains under the radar or something we have to confront? >> it is a constant discussion that has gone on for decades. as you suggest, one pillar of the work of our agency has incredible support from the united states because americans

are very generous and there is widespread support. help solve theo humanitarian crisis. i think increasingly there is, one thing has made it easier in terms of the discussion about the development parts. i think in my personal opinion, you could go back to the cold war days and even though people might justifiably say we don't x, it care about country is not geopolitically important. they are trapped in a terrible cycle and it terrible development indicators and everything. middle of nowhere, it

does not matter to us, we do want to do things to mastech late, basically, we ignored. soviet union, united states. i do not think as many americans have that. because they have seen what happens if you do not have a house andl architecture. if someone comes down with ebola and remote west africa and 20 hours later they are in dallas. right? so i think, more and more the globalization discussion which many aspects, as i go around the united states more and more isple, they realize there basically no spot left on the planet where you can just let it fester.

you are having a conversation about national security and terrorism, we cannot have these places where you are letting it fester. new dialogs are possible and new understandings. bipartisanot of cooperation. on,st everything else going it would be completely understandable if it was not on the radar screen. but congress passed a bill of about africa. there is one getting very close to passage. othersre at least two with people working across the aisle. that people do see that we need to have the development as one of those three d's that this

administration describes. working150 generals that feel that way. so i think the conversation is never simple. with is miss information the annual kaiser poll where they went around and asked americans how much do you think they are spending from your tax dollar and the result is everything, including everything 1% so we keepnder having the dialogue but there are different ways of having the dialogue. >> that is great. helene and craig? helene: again, this is where i am bipolar. sometimes i'm optimistic and sometimes very sensitive. to your kaiser poll data not only do people think we are

spending 20-25% on foreign aid whatever foreign aid is which i don't think people really understands what that means, if you ask them what we should be spending they will say it should be 10%. i would love to have 10% to spend on development aid. seeingmism is not in some of the things you talked about. have done inwork i global health, as you said, people will give to global health. to think it is wrong for people to die of malaria, million nutrition. -- malnutrition. if you ask people about funding governmental initiatives you get into a different sort of dialogue. there, we used to

lobby day year our when we had volunteers and there would be people from across the 45-50 states, usually states represented anywhere from some paidar to can come ando they be able to be a voice for these issues on capitol hill. to see this crowd of people who represent a broad swath of america learning about these issues and feeling like they make a difference in helping our elected officials understand why these issues matter to everyday people. so we can come out of that hugely optimistic. on the other hand, you know there is a large swath of public who really feel very, very differently and that has come out in this election.

out and disturbing ways that everybody does not understand our obligation, our commitment to the rest of the world and why it matters for their lives. we have got to do better jobs of being able to paint the connections and help people understand why it really does matter and why it is not just charity. once you get behind some of these very tangible things, there is a much harder job. andtalk about government people think you are out coups in other countries or something. they don't understand the underlying things we deal with in development. pause thereg to because i have neglected the audience for too long. with time for a handful of questions. this woman here, let's start

with her. >> hello. i am a student. my question goes to mr. severance and. and we areout aib [indiscernible] -- export and import bank of china. funding infrastructure projects all over the world. i do not know about the numbers but many of the multi lateral banks, how do you see this part ,his is affecting the ecosystem what kind of impact does it have? take two more questions and maybe we'll have time for another round in the front.

just wait a second for the microphone. for craig. question you mentioned the shortage of bankable projects. aat is the adb's concept of bankable project as compared to the a i be. aib. is there a difference in how they view risk? and if you cannot directly address that, can you be more explicit about what the criteria is of the adb for determining whether a project is bankable? >> credit what are you answer those questions and then we will go to another round? greg: sure. i think -- ig: sure. i think you are referring to a

recent article that said that they provided more than the multilateral banks as we know them combined. in, i guess you want to know how they are -- what i think of their role and whether or not it is a good thing. ] ndiscernible >> these developing countries, when they pursue infrastructure, how did they approach these different entities? reading am sort of between the lines. this is nothing my management or aeb has said. i think my former boss has experience in world bank and a dba and i think he was doing in

the name of development given what we were reading in the papers a few years ago and he was concerned about a because he thought china could do a better job. aib is in part funding these resources that would be available for china. to ensure that these same investments are guided by the same safeguards related to the and firemen to and procurement and resettlement and gender. and, community participation, that is the aspect of project development that the multilateral development banks are important and sacrosanct. for china to develop the capacity to develop projects the same way. i think that is his hope.

and, i think he also wanted to get things done faster. i know he wanted to get things we arester than what currently doing. we take two or three years to board foroject to the consideration. and it is another six or seven years to implement it. there are concerns around the world that that is not fast enough. so he will be for the foreseeable future working in tandem with the bank using our procurement rules and regulations and our implementation of requirements andmonitoring arrangements aii be will develop capacity, i believe in a short time, to do things the same way we do. and then it is anyone's guess. they are free to do things their

own way to improve on what we are doing. marketplace, our resources are needed but i think bar wars have the ability tog to our get things done in a way that is responsible and efficient. so the role of the aib has been positive to the environment and infrastructure in a part of the world because it has introduced a new dynamic to what is being provided. in kabulestions about projects? >> bankable projects, i thought i addressed that. doing things by the book, i think bankable refers to investment codes that to our bankable.

to bankruptcy and other forms of investor projections. people can rely upon and access to arbitration and the courts in ways that to risk inagement committees corporations and others thinking about it and others are ok with. everyone remembers the experience of 1997 and most recently in 2008 1 a lot of investors got hurt and it is hard for them to carry the same projects to their boards without lots of insurances. and everyone has to up their games when it comes to the software-related issues to these projects before they are going to get approved. get time forto another round.

let's y to get three or four then we will and move over here. so, right up front. >> thank you for your presentation. is in the context of indiscernible] that are probably vulnerable, especially when one looks at infrastructure which normally countries like the united states does not let the united states invested in. that is one question. the inond question is on kabul u.s. businessman. economiesf investment

looked at the number of products that come out of africa and other countries. transaction in the advisors, right, too trite to help? it seems to me there needs to be some education on the u.s. side as to what the u.s. private sector investors looks like. what incentivize them. that sort of thing. it in the united states, there are certain incentives up the government would provide to investors. right? would consider cross border. others are typical, etc.. i think there is a lot because education is what investors are looking for. it affects investors in

the united states. panelists to the make their responses and concluding remarks. so go ahead. that wey be the case have in interesting moment to reflect on setting up multilateral institutions. because we have these different funds. the initial concern was not enough focus on safeguards. the preemployment fund seems to take the view that they have their own safeguards but they only works through implementing agencies. and the other banks are not good enough. which will lead to inefficiencies. again, that is a u.n. organization. sot of a realized board and

forth. but what lessons can we learn from these startup institutions as we think about the development process. >> and very quickly the others. how lame, i am going to put you on the spot. i apologize. you are doing great work through mckenzie but i understand they have been facilitating illicit or shall we say, great money outside from developing countries. conversation with in mckenzie on consistency across its work? >> last question right here. not to ask a zynga are like that. about is concerned our field of international

development has as its fundamental rationale the elimination of the worst forms of poverty and now the bank says under the poverty line is under 10% and declining. whether you see the need to bolster the rationale for development of mutual interest in creating growth for our own markets and whether there is more to what is in then as you mentioned employment creation that could >> ok, one minute each. we will go down the row. >> quickly on two of them.

africa, it is something togetherced and put based on my bank experience where i felt like there are people who get up every morning and go to sleep every night just thinking about how did they get the deals done. concept that applies when you are the minority partner. and of course in some cases these countries do not have the standards or the processes or laws or whatever it might need to facilitate the flow of private capital. another is part of what the private sector was telling us they needed, right? investment but they also want the engagement of u.s. ambassadors and senior people as well as the people on the ground to be working with

the government to make the changes necessary so that somebody with this huge wall of capital that is sitting out there in some cases with negative interest rates looking for return. so that is part of what the transaction advisors and all the different agencies involved from the u.s. government side are about. on that question, i don't think the u.s. government has a policy per se about the point in raised. my personal opinion is all of them aside from the humanitarian side can be worked out. we all make progress on the things.poverty and the and that that point, let the country do it for themselves. let us go out of business as we have done in dozens of countries already.

>> on the question you raised about mckenzie. mckenzie's social issues is in ngo that is not part of mckenzie. so i do not have all of the information but i think you're talking about this investment group that is also somewhat a part from mckenzie itself. you know, i think the article that came out in the financial times did not have all of the fat's hand i think made it more of a link that you actually there. of thatannot answer all information. i will be happy to provide you with names. i think they feel comfortable with the names and that the business is being transacted in a fair and transparent way and is not using development money

in anyway. also on your question, i agree i think we should be thinking about putting ourselves out of business. when i was a kid, there were thatal countries graduated, if you will, the became self sufficient. more and more companies that we work with, particular global companies we are saying, that they, their future revenues that would come from in emerging markets started thinking and different ways about the responsibilities in which they were hoping to have future markets. towas a way of being able talk about how american jobs were being created because as they were actually doing things that made a difference in those communities, i think we can make the case of how we can continue to invest and how it will enable

american businesses to grow as they move more and more into emerging markets. in waynot going to get of lunch year. i spent only three years in development and i know how much our assistance is appreciated. and it still is. for my part, i can't wait to get out of bed in the morning every working in this area. since coming back to washington -- years ago, i am amazed at the debate. seminars ande roundtables and things like this providing constant feedback as to what is needed and i think we

are pretty good at making corrections and in justman's so we remain relevant. acknowledge the efforts of sky in the center for development in supporting a proposal to merge our concessional and ordinary capital resources which allows us to boost our support for development by 50% beginning share. 50% more loans and 70% more grants. a fair amount of engineering involved that was cost free for donors. with things like that still possible to be done, i think we ourmaking it easy for donors to support us and i do much questione is anywhere that we are doing what

is necessary to help out. host: on that note, please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] host: thank you all very much and thank you, panel, for a wonderful discussion. lot of optimism. three quick points before we leave. thank you all for staying and for offering your respect and being conscientious with your good questions. you are wonderfully patient and i want to thank our sponsors again. our secretary of stuff out there who really put this program together, and we have a reception outside if you are willing to stay for a little discussion and talk a little bit more. thank you very much. [applause]

announcer: c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, with the release of the benghazi report, we want to open up to you through your phone calls, e-mails, in tweets. then we will discuss the recent supreme court decision on president obama's immigration issue. then we talked to custom border officials about immigration. we will also look at the

immigration debate surrounding the brexit campaign in the united kingdom. be sure to watch washington's -- c-span's washington journal beginning at 7:00 this morning. join the discussion. >> president obama travels to canada for a state visit and meets with justin trudeau and and recap. recap.president and later, our live coverage continues as president obama addresses the canadian parliament at 5:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. senate pleased that the as a body has come to this conclusion. in the senate will undoubtedly provide citizens with greater access and exposure to the actions of this body. this access will help all of americans to be better informed

of the problems and issues which phase this nation on a day-by-date raises. >> during the election i had the occasion of meeting a woman who had supported me in my campaign and she decided to come and shake my hand and take a photograph. a wonderful woman. she was not asking for anything. i was very grateful she took the time to come by. it was another exceptional moment except for the faction is born in 1894 and her name was marguerite lewis. in the american womanhood been born in louisiana. ,orn in the shadow of slavery born at a time when lynching's work commonplace, born at a time when african-americans and women could not vote. from theur country time of its founding until the

mid-1980's to build up a national debt of a tengion $50 billion, which was the size of the so-called stimulus package when it came over here. so we are talking about real, borrowed money. years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. >> this weekend, on c-span cities tour, along with our comcast cable partners, we will explore the history and literary life of provoke, utah. we will visit a book proprietor who has been collecting books for a long time. he has berg them young's book of mormon as well as thomas payne's "common sense." >> he wanted to have this printed and he wanted to have the proceeds to buy the soldiers mittens.

well, after it went through three printings they had a falling out and so thomas payne allowed anybody to printed and lowered the price and send anybody could printed. and that is why the book is so well-known and printed. >> and the author of "a peculiar the mormonk about troubles as a religion minority problems. >> not only are they a religious minority but they are a religious minority who over time has figured in disproportionally weighs in debates about religion. >> and take a look at the brigham young university of paleontology and cd dinosaur fossils created by the curator and see the dinosaur fossils. talk about thel way the bones are displayed.

>> when you can hide the are mature and steel supports, the animal looks more alive in the sense that you get the feeling that these are bones, but it brings life to these bones. fleming,d j spencer professor of history at brigham young university talks about how they the city was founded, put up satellite communities and 33 mormon families settled the city of provo. saturday at noon eastern on c-span twos book tv and sunday afternoon at two p.m. on c-span3. the c-span cities tour, working with cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. next, house benghazi republicans speak to reporters on their investigation into the september 11, 2012, attack in libya that killed four americans

including ambassador christopher stevens. report of thenal committee which was created in 2014 and headed by representative trey gowdy. this is about one hour. mr. gowdy: >> i want to begin by expressing our collective gratitude to those whose loved ones families who laid down the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country and i also want to express our collective appreciation of the americans

that fought so valiantly that night and in controverted way saved other lives. this is service and sacrifice and desire to protect him defend fellow americans and our interests abroad truly represents the best of what our country has to offer. after more than 100 witness interviews, including 80 with witnesses no other members talk to and tens of thousands of ages -- pages of documents, that is the single greatest impression we are left with. that there are men and women who love this country enough and what it stands for and how it can inspire others, to serve in dangerous places under dangerous circumstances. so i will respectfully ask my citizens to do this. read the report. report: and if you do read it, i think what has become manifest the us will become manifest to you.

different images. the image of what was happening in benghazi during the relevant time into the image on the other hand of the decisions made and not made in washington during that same time. you will see the urgency shown by the grs agents at the annex as they went to the mission compound to try to save american diplomatic lives. you will see the frantic this through which they entered and reentered burning holdings in in attempt to locate and save sean smith and ambassador stevens. you will see the ingenuity of the team who got their own aircraft and deployed themselves from tripoli to benghazi because fellow americans needed their help. you will see the firefights at the compound. learn about the ambush from the compound to the annex. you will learn about the firefights before the final lethal border attacks.

there are only three assets that only ever made it to benghazi. to unarmed drones and the team from tripoli who deployed themselves. they were not ordered to go. they they were not order to go. deployed themselves. they deployed themselves. glenn doherty was on that plane from tripoli to benghazi. and, glenn doherty not only flew from tripoli to benghazi but he negotiated at the airport with libyans that were supposed to be our friends to get to the annex so he could help defend that facility. and, he got there just in time to join his fellow navy seal tyrone woods minutes before they both died. it has been said that nothing could have reached benghazi before the lethal border attacks and i suppose what is meant by that is nothing other than the two unarmed drones and the team from tripoli that deployed in -- itself.