development in many ways. it is something that has really helped us to scale this program very rapidly. >> go-ahead, gregg. >> as wednesday, simply that one thing that the company has made clear is that the financial requirements are huge and no one organization is going to meet them and it is imperative that we cooperate with one another. i think that the initiatives and eric have just described are exciting. i hate to use a surfing analogy, but we have seen a lot of waves of development, at least in my lifetime, come and go, but i think this is a good wave coming up, and i am pushing it hard to write it. i think we are still looking at it and asking ourselves what we are getting into because it is

really a change that we are talking about engines of the way we could work and the partners with whom we work. mr. steffensen: in the end, whether ideas when it comes to meeting some of the development challenges that we are up against are as important, more important than the financing then we are making available. you andet me stick with with your institution. so, i think it is hard, particularly in the midst of , it isit discussions hard to remember back and think about how much of the existential handwringing was occurring around the creation of this new multilateral development bank well over a year ago and the event that played out in washington and the u.s., reaction to the bank. mr. morris: there was a sense of

almost crisis occurring particularly for the united states and its imperfect --and its approach. havenk a lot of that called down and we are moving forward with the more prosaic issues of standing up a new butitution in beijing, nonetheless, i think it is ua id to think about the from a development men's. there is plenty of discussion about what it meant for the u.s. strategically, diplomatically, those kinds of issues. if we bring it back to what these institutions actually d o, they have development actors. more,u talk a little bit particularly in the asian context, about why the aib

matters, what it was responding to? name,tructure is in the by all accounts, for the next five to 10 years, there will be an infrastructure development inc.. development bank. why does aib matter? how is it adapting to try to to whatmore effectively we would call the infrastructure imperative for development? >> sure. aibte 2009 report, estimated that the needs of asia and pacific told about a $.2 trillion, 8 trillion for domestic, and the rest for regional infrastructure to sustain the current levels of growth and development that we are seeing. mr. steffensen: that works out to about $750 billion per year

if you look at what abb is providing to the region, it is a drop in the bucket. if you look at what is provided for development internationally, byionally, locally, multilateral, bilateral, the civil society, by government, private investors, globally, it is still addressing only about 16% of asia's infrastructure needs. that is to give you the idea of resources that are required to address what we see across the region today. pollution, water pollution, air pollution, traffic, mass transit needs. schools, i could just run on down the list. so, adb and the world bank and

usaid and others, we are simply not providing the resources that neither our governments or private investors to what is needed to make a dent in the infrastructure challenge. adb has gone to far to call it an infrastructure crisis. capitalized, they're subscribed capital is $100 billion. it will be about $20 billion. thehas paid in capital of last 50 years, $7 billion. that is what is used to bar an international market. we provide support for our member countries. adb is what you make a real dent as to what is going on out there. their hope is that we will be able to work closely with them in these relative stages.

for a roadwayou project in pakistan last week. we will be cofinancing it with diffid. there are possibilities for more projects coming up this year. at least, initially, i think the a lot of projects. adb will assume major responsibility for implementing these projects. time, aib will be developing the capacity to identify and implement these projects on their own. at that stage, i think tables may well turn. unless adb gets a capital increase, i think it is likely that aib's financial wherewithal will exceed that of adb early on.

the concern for the last year about aib and what it meant for region, i mean, adb provides $17 billion of funds and $10 billion more per year in financial assistance to the region. $27 billion total. , 80% of that was amount was for the infrastructure. by that, i mean transport, energy, irrigation, those sorts of investments. and so, the asian infrastructure investment bank looks in many ways like something that adb is , havingut i can say been in these meetings, aib'sally since president, my former boss, he was vice president of adb for five years, i think the aim of both institutions is to work closely together in parallel on things, if not actual

commingling of finances, and i think aib has every intention of living up to the safeguards that we all think are so important and i think they are going to be a good partner in development assistance, moving forward. >> so, everything you say, actually, i want to pause. i wanted to do this earlier, but i forgot to do a little bit of advertising for my organization because the center for global development actually used the opportunity of all of the 'stention at the time of aib creation to set up its own panel . that group has been working very actively over the course of the past year and will be issuing a report with recommendations very ahead. the months i encourage you all to look for that. i am excited about it. we have brought together a very good group of actors who

have brought their thinking and voices to this sort of big adb.re question of back to this question. everything you have described suggest that really, when you boil it down, aib is really about bringing more capital to what everyone agrees is a pressing development need. mr. morris: you know, and it was agreed that we either worry or would hope for a different kind of model from the chinese. maybe, we are not going to see it here. they have a particular need in the near term to go finance with ofinance with adb. they have committed themselves to a set of rules and standards that look a lot like amd these adb's.

if we talk about merging country powers, the chinese in particular, are they representing the different models for development? we have put a lot into this new institution. i think as time goes on, we look more closely and say, actually, it looks a lot like the adb. there is not that much different here. but beyond that, one institution, how should we think about whether it is the chinese approach to development in the developing world outside of its own borders? cause us sitting here in washington to have to think differently about our own approaches institutionally at development actors, etc.? thean we simply welcome additional amount of capital that is flowing as a result of emerging market themselves becoming wealthier? anyone of you? i won't start each one.

say,ayle: i guess i would i think, overall, it is a good thing. more money for development is a good thing. said, the more we are able to strengthen countries' capacity to really be at the the of making sure they are leaders in how development funds are spent, i think it is less a matter of whether or not what china is doing is changing u.s. wereial development funds not, but more, are we all strengthening the country's ability to influence how resources are used? until that happens, there will still be the kind of chaos that exist. i also think, as we have said

moreghout, more and different kinds of actors are in there. of the privatees sector, of written mittens is -- of remittances. i do think we can think of it as simplistically as we did before. i think the more countries are strengthened to be able to really be in the lead, the better all of this will be. it is the bretton woods annual meeting. policies and institutions matter. tohink, when it comes infrastructure needs and areas, but oneis one thing, only has to look at the experiences of japan and korea and taiwan and hong kong, report singapore to see that they had their policies and institutions right, and ankly don't require a

lot of support from us to achieve the level of support they have realized today. mr. steffensen: it more countries across the region were to work on their legal and regulatory environments, foreign investment codes, their judicial system so that there is accountability and transparency and predictability to what is they probably would not be having some of the problems they are having today with foreign investors coming in and the fact that some public, private partnerships are not getting off the ground as quickly as they might. that is the way i answer the question. finance is one thing. thinkable projects is a whole different story. >> i think that we are constantly looking at our model to figure out, we are always going to look out for good ideas. it does not matter where they come from. it is not restricted to china.

it can come from some startup in silicon valley or some local community in remote uganda or anywhere else. we are constantly looking because the situation keeps changing. we have big, big goals to try to reach so we need every good idea from wherever comes. i would just simply say also that that is true for everyone including the chinese. ,e have a strategic dialogue development dialogue with the chinese. my boss, gayle smith, was in beijing in the last month meeting with senior officials there, talking about concrete projects and talking about also general development architecture type issues. , described some of the ways in which they are evolving. it is very early days for them. they do not have 15 years worth of experience. they do not have staff who have

worked in it for that long or the numbers of staff. and so, it is going to be a constant evolution, with regards to the intersection of our work with china, but also our work with everybody else. >> let me ask one last question before i turned to the audience. frankly, more political in nature. i want to note that eric, you have a particular responsibility an administration official here. frankly, i think all of us on the stage are probably u.s. voters and taxpayers, so we do have to think about this issue of how the electorate is feeling these days. it comes towhen questions of globalization, but particularly the role that our enterprise plays of development. what is the receptive 80 in this receptivity in this

area? elections will have consequences when it comes to pursuing the kind of agendas that we want to pursue. specifically, the question is this. i would argue that when it comes to political support, on a bipartisan basis, when we talked about foreign assistance historically, it could be as a charitable function that we are doing direct poverty alleviation and diseasewith eradication. there has always been a core of support there in our electorate. it is becoming more of a challenge as we have brought in the scope of activities. , it is a universal exercise, there is a lot on the list that i think your average taxpayer with a that they want them of that for themselves. do you see a challenge here?

how are we adopting in making , andase to our taxpayers again, this is a particular responsibility for you, eric, in your current role. are we seeing a rising tension, is this something that actually may be development remained under the radar or do is something we have to confront? so, you know, it is the constant discussion that has gone on for decades with american taxpayers. there are some ads and close to flows to it.d americans are very generous at times of humanitarian crisis. there is widespread support, if kate you goiticism,

faster to help solve this humanitarian crisis or that? , think, increasingly, there is one thing has made it easier in terms of the discussion about the developing parts of the enterprise, because i think, in my personal opinion, you could , andck to cold war days reasonable people might "we don'ty say, really care about country x. they are trapped in a terrible cycle of bad governments and terrible development indicators and everything. it is in the middle of nowhere. it does not model to us. it is not a priority because we don't want to do the things domestically. basically, let us ignore it as long as they vote with us maybe

in the u.n. states."ion, united i don't think as many americans have that view today because they see what happens when you do not have a good global health system architecture and someone comes them with ebola in remote west africa and 24 hours later, they are in the dallas hospital. right? , think more and more people the globalization discussion which has many, many facets. in the area of development, as i go around the united states, more and more people, when you get into a discussion about it, they be allies and that there is basically no spot left on the planet where you can just let it -- they realize that there is basically no spot left on the planet where you can let it fester. you cannot have these places where things fester. i think, from that point of

view, new dialogs are possible, and new understandings. you see a lot of bipartisan collaboration. i mean, amidst everything else going on, it would be completely understandable if the following radart on people's screens. on a bipartisan basis, congress africa. bill about there are at least two others with people working across the aisle on bills which the president has or probably will sign. see shows that people do that we need to have development thee of those three "d's" bush administration described, development, defense, diplomacy. we have got 150 generals working with your coc who feel that way.

goc who feel that way. they ask americans how much do you think you are spending on foreign assistance? and the average response is 20%, when the reality is that everything from affairs is under 1%. we have to keep having the dialogue. there are new ways to have that i love these days than in the past. -- to have the dialogue these days than in the past. mr. morris: that's great. helene, craig? bipolar.: i am kind of i am sometimes pessimistic about it. ,dding to your kaiser poll data not only do people think we are spending 20%, 25% on foreign aid, and to put really

understand what that means, and we are spending less than 1%. if you ask them what we should be spending, they say 10%. i would love to have 10%. [laughter] ms. gayle: to spend on development aid. my optimism is not in seeing some of the things that you talked about, a lot of the work that i have been over the years in global health, for in and, as you said, people will give to global health. people believe it is wrong for people to die from malaria, from malnutrition, etc.. that it's very tangible, it is very concrete. if you ask people about funding governance initiatives, you get into a different dialogue. again, we used to have every day, our lobby day, where we had volunteers, and there would be people from across the united usually 45 to 50 states

represented, anywhere from 500 to, one year, 2000 people who came to pay their own way just so they could come and be a voice on these issues at capitol hill. ,o see this crowd of people who you know, represent a blood flock of america, learning about broad flock -- of america, learning about these issues. they matter to everyday people. it comes across as hugely optimistic. on the other hand, there is a large swath of the public who differently.very i think that has come out in this election period in a very strong and disturbing way, that in fact, everybody does not understand our obligation, our commitment to the rest of the

world, and why it matters even for their own individual lives. i think we have got to do a better job of trying to paint the connections and help people to understand why it really does matter and why it is not just charity. i think, as you said, once you get beyond the some of these very tangible things like etc., in and health do think you have a much harder job. you talk about governance and people think you are out coups in other countries, they don't understand the underlying issues and development. mr. morris: i am going to paul is there because i have neglected the audience too long. let me go. we have time for a handful of questions, i think. this young woman here, we will start with her. i'm a phd student.

my question goes to mr. stefansson. aib beingalked about close to addition development. we are seeing some practice in parallel to these multilateral chineseves which is the policy banks, especially export and import bank of china. it is funding infrastructure projects all over the world. i do not know about the numbers, but it might have surpassed many of the multilateral banks. how do you see this practice is affecting the ecosystem of global development? what kind of impact does it have? thank you. mr. morris: what i can pick up two more questions and then we will have time for another round right here in front. just wait a second for the mic. >> formerly of adb. i have a question for craig.

you mentioned a short of of bankable projects. what is the adb's concept of a bankable project as compared to the aib's? is very different than how they view risk? you cannot directly address that, i'm just wondering if you can be more explicit about what the criteria is of the adb for isermining whether projects bankable? mr. morris: point you answer those questions together and then we go to another round of questions. mr. steffensen: sure. i think you are referring to a recent article in the financial china and maid that antenna development bank combined provide more resources fordevelopment and trade the multilateral development banks as we know them combined.

i guess, you want to know what i think of their role and whether or not it is a good thing. >> [indiscernible] >> how these developing countries, when they pursue infrastructure, how do they approached these different entities? i am readingn: between the lions, this is nothing that my management or aib has ever said, but i think , he hasformer boss pretty broad experience in world bank and adb. i think he was concerned about what china was doing in the name of development, given what we were all reading in the papers a few years ago. he was concerned about it has he thought that china could do a

better job. i think aib is sort of finally resources that would otherwise be made available for development by china through a multilateral development bank to ensure that these same thestments are guided by same safeguards related to the andronment and procurement resettlement and gender and community participation. those are the aspects of project development that the multilateral development banks believe are important. sacrosanct. for china to develop the capacity to process projects the same way, even to exceed what we are doing, i think that is as -- i think of that as hope. think he also wanted to get things done faster. [laughter] mr. steffensen: i know he wanted to get things done faster than what we are currently doing.

we take about two to three years -- and another six to seven years to implement i t. for seeable the future, working in tandem with the world bank, using our procurement rules and regulations and our implementation of requirements and monitoring arrangements and aib will develop the capacity in a short time to do things the same way we do. what it is anyone's guess happened. they are free at that point to do things their own way, to improve upon what we have set in place. to get into the marketplace, some level of competition, if you will.

our resources are needed, sure. i think the countries are the borrowers, they are going to start judging us according to our ability to get things done in ways that are responsible and efficient. aib in the role of response to your question has been positive to the environment and the infrastructure realm of that part of the world because it has introduced a new dynamic to what is being provided. it goes beyond doing things by the. refers toca ball investment codes that are bankable. laws that people can rely upon,

access to arbitration and the courts in ways that risk companies and corporations in the others that are thinking about investing in a place are ok with. everyone remembers the experience of 2007 and more recently and 2008 when a lot of investors got earned and it is hard for them to carry the same projects to the boards without lots of reassurances. everyone has to up their game when it comes to the software related issues to these projects before they will get approved. >> we have time for another round so let's try to get three or four and we will move over here, right up front.

>> thank you for your presence here. i am courtney thorne. my question on the context. is there anything for the types of infrastructure investment the chinese is making. when one looks at critical infrastructure which normally does not allow for government investment for the chinese private sector. the second question is on the bankable business. some investment in economies on wall street. looking at the number that comes out of africa and other countries.

and the transaction advisors in recent years. their names tome be some kind of education about the u.s. private sector and what investors look for. what incentivize them. the greenpeace project, oftentimes in the united states there are certain incentives the government would to investors here, right? at one time considered cross-border. that has to look at a month other things, i assume there is a lot of education as to what u.s. investors are looking for and how taxation drives investors in the u.s. >> we will try to go to whitney and then two more here and i will ask the panelists to make concluding remarks.

it may be the case we have in interesting moment to reflect on setting up multilateral institutions. a iab, the initial concern was not enough focus on safeguards the green employment fund seems to take the view that they have their own safeguards but then they only work through implementing agencies and the other banks are good enough. or they have to be in twice or something that is going to lead that again,ncies that is a u.n. organization and so forth. what lessons can we learn from these three start of institutions as we think about process?opment

>> very quickly, very short questions here. helping, i am going to put you on the spot, i apologize. you are doing great work for mckenzie but i am reading reports that mckinsey has been facilitating illicit or shall we college, gray money, from outside from developing country into tax havens. is there conversation with an mckenzie about consistency in its work across development? >> another question right here. >> i won't try not to ask azinger like that. i am with the world academy of art and science. our am i concerned about is field of international development has as its fundamental rationale the elimination of the worst forms of poverty and now the bank says

that those under the poverty line are less thing and 10% and declining. i am wondering whether you see the need to bolster the rationale for develop more towards, in the spirit of the the neutral interest of creating growth for our own markets and whether there is more to what is going on in your work that is of domestic benefit as you mentioned in the employment creation. that could lead to a broader justification. >> ok one minute each. answer what you like. >> quickly on two of them. whole concept of the transaction advisor, which is something that i introduced when

we put this together was based on my citibank experiments where he felt like there were people who get up every morning and go to sleep every night thinking about how they get the deals done. that is a concept that applies when you are the minority partner and countries in some cases do not have these standards or the processes or the laws or whatever it might he in some cases to facilitate the capital and that is part of what the five and sector was telling us they needed, right? yes, they want some capital to but they want also the engagement of u.s. u.s.sadors and senior people as well as people on the ground to be working with people in the government to make changes necessary to get some modest portion of that huge wall

of capital and in some cases negative interest rates looking for interns -- returns. so agreeing that that is what the different agencies are about. to bob's question, i do not think the u.s. government has a policy per se about the point that you raised. my personal opinion is that all of the development agencies and banks as side from the humanitarian question ought to be working themselves out of a job. we should be working on these poverty problems and then let countries do it for themselves and let us go out of business as we have done in dozens of countries already. .raduations helene: on the questions you raised about mckenzie. first, mckenzie's social issue

is in ngo that is not directly part of mckenzie's i may not have all of the information. i think you are talking about this investment group that is also somewhat a separate part of mckenzie itself. you know, i think the article that came out in the financial times did not have all of the facts, you know, and it made more of a link then is actually there but i honestly cannot answer all of the information. i would be happy to provide you with names if you want more information. but i think they feel very comfortable that the this and being transacted in a fair, transparent way and is not abusing developing country money and anyway. also, on your question, i agree i think that we should be thinking about putting ourselves out of business and when i was we had the opportunity

to see several countries who , if you will, and became self-sufficient and that should be our job. more and more countries we worked with, particularly multinational companies, global companies that we are saying, their future revenues were going to come from emerging markets really started thinking and very different ways about their responsibilities to the countries in which they were hoping to have future markets. a way of being able to talk about how american jobs were being created because as they were actually doing things that made a difference to communities, they were building new is this is. making thecan be case for how we can continue to invest in development goals and it will continue to enable american businesses to grow as thatmove more and more

way. >> i spent 33 years in i know how much of our assistance is appreciated in the field. have i can't wait to get out of bed in the morning every day to keep working on this area. washingtong back to i am amazed with that debate that takes place in this town on a daily basis. there are more seminars and roundtables and things like this providing constant feedback to policy makers and planners as to what is needed. and i think we are pretty good at providing that so we remain. and on a related point, i would

like to add knowledge the efforts of scar to end center for development in supporting the proposal by adb last year to and capitaldinary resources which allows us to boost our support for development by 50% beginning next year. 50% moreloans and grants. there was a lot of financial engineering involved but it was cost-free two hour owners. stillth things like that to be done, i think we are making it easy for donors to there iss and i hope not a lot of questioning anywhere of our ability to do what is necessary to help out. thanks. >> on that note, please join me and thanking our panel.

] pplause >> thank you for a wonderful discussion. on a topic that left us with a lot of optimism. three quick points before we leave, thank you for staying and being conscientious with your good questions. i want to say thank you again to our sponsors. imf partners and secretary of state out there who put this program together, and finally, we have a reception outside if you want to stay. we hope to hear from you 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 monday morning, we will discuss the issue of the liberty today. this year'suss presidential campaign, the brexit vote and the possible effect on the u.s. economy and what is ahead for converts -- congress on gun violence. we will discuss the retaking of iraqi forces, u.s. air

strikes, and what is next in the war with isis. be sure to watch beginning at 7:00 eastern on monday morning. join the discussion. month, watch c-span coverage of the 2016 republican nationalratic conventions. every saturday night at 8:00 eastern we will look back at past conventions and the candidates who went on to win the party nomination. we will focus on the income of to run for reelection, dwight eisenhower at the 1970 six republican convention in san francisco. the democratic convention in atlantic city with lyndon johnson. richard nixon at the 19th of need two republican convention in miami beach. convention with jimmy carter in new york city. george h.w. bush at the 1992 republican convention in houston. forgh clinton in chicago the 1996 democratic convention

and the 2004 republican convention in new york city with george w. bush. republican and democratic national conventions, saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> of on c-span, a look at what to help victims of human trafficking. secretary of state john kerry speaking on the issue while releasing the state department human trafficking report. later, a discussion on how past presidents have addressed poverty in the u.s. representatives from the justice department and government accountability office testified this past week on what is being done to help victims of human trafficking. hearing held by the senate judiciary committee is one hour. >> thanks everybody for being

patient. thanks for being patient and thank you for such a large importantr this very subject. i imagine a lot of people in the audience are part of organizations that have been very helpful one year ago in getting this important piece of legislation passed so i want to thank you. the ferrari give my opening statement, because we have a vote at a lemon :00, i hope we are able to keep the meeting going well we have that vote. another couple things for me either before i ask my questions --after ask my questions well, if it's afterwards, i'll have senator cornyn take over the committee meeting. if it's before, i may go down to finance down the hall here to ask some questions on a very important medicare issue before congress.

we welcome everybody. today we will examine whether the justice department is doing all it can to meet the important milestones established by congress under the new anti-trafficking statute -- . this statute, known as the justice for victims of trafficking act, was introduced by senator cornyn, and i co-sponsored it. and it was among the first pieces of legislation that our committee reported out during my initial months as chairman. today's hearing provides us in opportunity to ask the department about this administration's efforts to implement the law since its enactment just over a year ago. at it's core, human trafficking involves the exportation of another human being, typically for purposes of forced labor or commercial sex. victims can include both men and women, adults and children, foreigners and u.s. citizens. in most if not all such cases, the trafficker exploits the

victim's vulnerabilities. for example, sex traffickers typically use some combinations of force, deceit, or/and flattery to exploit their victims. they may ply the victim with drugs or alcohol to make them more compliant and then often combine violence with manipulation to exert control. horrific only begins to describe the effects of sex trafficking in its victims. the mental and physical scars run deep. in fact, they never heal for some survivors. if that's were not bad enough, this form of trafficking is a growing domestic threat. for example, violent gangs find it highly profitable to sell young girls and women for sex in this country. and human beings, unlike illicit sex, can be sold again and again . why sex trafficking has

spread to every state in the nation with victims turning up evenban, rural, and suburban areas of the united states. domestic labor trafficking, which primarily affects non-citizens of the united states, has received less media attention but its victims also suffered terribly. much like sex traffickers, labor traffickers exploit the victim's vulnerability which might include limited english skills, isolation, or poverty. some labor traffickers may induce their victims to travel here under false pretenses and then confiscate their identification and travel documents.