tv U.S. Senate CSPAN May 6, 2015 6:00pm-10:01pm EDT
our state resources figuring out how to plan for them before becoming eligible for disaster relief. that's impossible. people can't believe that that's true when i tell them that they're doing this through the administration and this is adopted by the these agencies. fema is supposed to be there to assist states in areas of the country for disaster relief. but they can't get it. they're held hostage until they say something that they know is a lie and are held to that and spend state money. it's just -- again, that is not really believable what i just stated. because it's so inconceivable that that could happen. now, the reality of this debate, however, is that the climate has been hanging since the earth was formed. i said the other day a good friend of mine had an amendment on the floor and the amendment made comment to the fact that the climate is changing. and,
yes, it is changing. i think what the proponents of this idea are trying to do is to try to change it over to say that those people who are not blaming human emissions as the cause of all these problems are -- are denying that climate changes. and i said on the floor at that time you know, all evidence, archaeological evidence, scrip agricultural evidence, is that climate has changed. we all accept that. the big issue is because of human emissions. and that's where the science now shows clearly that it's not. you will keep hearing it, though but it's not. the scientific debate around the role of the climate change, its causes and projected impact is ongoing. there's no consensus and "the wall street journal" recently produced a great opinion piece and highlights a multitude of discrepancies in the assertion that 90% of the scientists believe this to be true.
this kind -- this is kind of interesting because any time you don't have science behind you what you say is science is settled, science is settled science is settled and sooner or later people believe it, and they have not offered any evidence that would support that and that's what has happened. so this -- i really suggest that the "wall street journal" opinion piece that highlights the discrepancies in the 97% -- when they say 97% of the scientists believe that manmade gas is causing global warming the article points out that the myth of a scientific consensus is predicated on -- and i'm quoting now -- a handful of surveys and abstract county exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research." and, you know, we -- over the years, i've quoted a number of scientists. in fact, my web site way back in the -- probably ten years ago i
started accumulating the number of scientists and their credibility and their qualifications and statements that they have made. one that i remember just from my head now is richard linson. richard linson is a professor from m.i.t. he is one that is recognized as one of the top climatologists in the country. he says -- we asked him the question he says of course it's not true, but the reason people are, the bureaucracy is so concerned about it is that regulating carbon is a bureaucracy's dream. if you regulate carbon, you regulate life, and that's what the motivation is around this. so i think that's a good article to read so that people will realize that there is no consensus, scientific consensus. sure some of them believe it, some of them do not. now, as climate research continues to develop limitations on an overall understanding of our climate and limitations of scientific research have become increasingly evident this could not be more evident than by the
growing discrepancy between climate model predictions and actual observations. for example alarmists failed to foresee the ongoing warming hiatus. now, what is a warming hiatus? that is that there has not been a change in that temperature in the last 15 years. this is something that is incontrovertible. everybody understands that. and they admit that they -- they didn't foresee this happening but that hiatus is actually going on today. it's still continuing. it further explained that the source of such a discrepancy could be caused by -- and i'm quoting now -- the combinations of internal climate variability missing or incorrect radiative forcing or model response error unquote. in other words climate modeling can't accurately project much less predict the climate of the future as climatologists and the
broader scientific community have yet to fully understand how our climate system actually works today. there is also a growing body of scientific study suggesting the variations in solar radiation and natural climate variability have a leading role in climate change. now, surprise, everybody, the sun warms us. that's a shocker to a lot of people. it's not man made gas it's not co2 emissions. it's the sun. a number of independent studies assessing the impact of clouds have even suggested that water vapor feedback is entirely canceled out by cloud processes. yet when the facts of reality do not appropriately align with the religion of climate change, the alarmists will simply try to explain these things away or conveniently exclude any science that shows that they're wrong. a favorite talking point of the climate change religion that is often used by senior officials
within the obama administration is that hurricanes, tornadoes droughts floods, you name it are proof of harm being caused by global warming. now, they all say that. i have yet to hear a speech by any of the alarmists where they don't talk about the fact that all the hurricanes, the tornadoes, the -- the nature of them, the severity of them, the occurrences are proof of harm being caused by global warming. but the global data shows no increase in the number or intensity of such events, and even the ipcc itself acknowledges the lack of any evident relationship between extreme weather and climate. now, this is -- this is interesting because the ipcc -- i know most people are aware of this who are into this issue but the ipcc is the intergovernmental panel on climate change. this is the united nations. i even wrote a book about it and the longest chapter is talking
about the united nations how they put this thing together. but they're the ones, they're the ones who have supposedly the science behind this whole thing and they're the ones who are now admitting that there is no increase in intensity or occurrences of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or floods. in fact, roger pelke gave a -- he was before our committee in july of 2013. he said, and i'm quoting him now -- the oft-asserted linkage between global warming hurricanes and drought are unsupportable based on research and evidence. it is -- i'm still quoting now -- it is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes tornadoes floods or droughts have increased on climate time scales either in the united states or globally. hurricane landfalls have not increased in the united states in frequency intensity or normalized data since at least
the year 1900. so we have this by everyone that is now an accepted fact, but in spite of that, every speech you hear they talk about all the hurricanes and all the disasters that are taking place and the intensity saying that came to us because of global warming. the ipcc -- again, this is the united nations 2013 fifth assessment report. now, the assessment report that they come out with is they'll come out with a long, complicated report every so often, but then they'll have kind of abbreviated ones for people like us to use to spread their propaganda. and their fifth assessment report concluded that -- quote -- current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century no robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricane counts have been identified over the last 100 years in the north
atlantic basin. but let's just keep in mind, everyone is now in agreement on that. and yet you still hear in the speeches that the world is coming to an end we're getting all the tornadoes all this intensity are going to be disastrous to -- to america. now, counter to the doomsday predictions of climate alarmists' increasing observations suggested much reduced and practically harmless climate response to increased amounts of atmosphere -- atmospheric carbon dioxide also missing from the climate alarmists' doomsday scenario and well-scripted talking points are the benefits, the benefits from increasing -- increased carbon that has led to greening of the planet and contributed to increasing agricultural productivity. people don't realize you can't grow things without co2. co2 is a fertilizer, it's something you can't do without. no one ever talks about the benefits that people are inducing that as a fertilizer on
a daily basis. and despite the admitted gaffes to scientific understanding of climate change and a track record of climate modeling failures, president obama and his environmental allies are holding fast to their bedrock beliefs. they are intent on selling the president's so-called climate action plan to the american people that is less about protecting the environment and more about expanding the role of government while enriching i should say some campaigns of some of our friendly democrats. there is a man named tom steyer. tom steyer lives out in california. he is very, very wealthy. he is all wrapped up in this thing. and so he claims that he spent in the last election to elect people who go along with the global warming thing $75 million of his money. originally, he was going to spend $100 million, $50 million of his money and $50 million that he was going to raise and then he found out he couldn't
raise any so that didn't work. i'd say that his effort was not all that successful, judging from the results of the last election but he's still out there and he's still got a lot of money. he won't even miss the $75 million. for the president's core domestic plan policy, the clean power plan. now, look at what this is. starting back in 2002, when it was perceived to be a very popular issue, members of this senate started introducing bills that would be cap-and-trade bills, that would address this thing, and it's very similar to the plan that the president is putting out now. well, at that time i was the chairman of the committee. i think it was the subcommittee on clean air in the senate, and i was a believer because everybody said that was true, until they came out -- and there was a study that was made by the charles river associates and m.i.t. that said if we comply with the cap-and-trade the cost to the american people would be in the range of $300 billion to
$400 billion every year. now, that, again, would be the largest tax increase in history and i thought well, you know if the world is coming to an end maybe we need to do that, and so i started questioning the science behind it. i started getting responses from scientists all over america. first of all ten of them came in. then it went up to 400 then a thousand. so i started publishing these on my web site so people would know that there is another side to what they were calling this determined science by ipcc. well that -- and so they tried from that time -- this is 2002 -- until last year to pass legislation that would legislatively give us a cap-and-trade system. but it got defeated more and more each year because the people have actually caught on. they've caught on that it's -- it's not a real thing that science is not settled and so that has led the president to
say all right you guys are not going to pass legislation i'm going to do it through regulation. now, where have we heard that before? it's everything the president has been doing that he can't get through his policy that is through the legislature and right now you could probably not get 20 votes in this whole senate on this issue. so he's trying to do it through regulation. we have the clean power plant -- we had a hearing on this just last week. the president is no longer satisfied with the fact that he can now tell you what doctor you can use under obamacare what type of investments you can use under that regulation or how fast your internet will be. i understand that's coming up next. he would like to dictate what type and how much energy you can use. now, with such high costs on the line, one would think that there must be an equal amount if not greater number of benefits. so what are the benefits? in reality according to various impact assessments the environmental benefits of the
clean power plant -- again admittedly it's going to be $479 billion initially the cost of this thing and the core domestic policy of the president's climate action plan that is supposed to protect this country from the impending impacts that we face from climate change, all of these costs will reduce co2 concentrations by less than 0.5%. the global average temperatures rise will be reduced by only 0.01-degree fahrenheit. and sea level rise will be reduced to -- by 0.3 millimeters. that's the thickness of three sheets of paper. further, these minuscule benefits will be rendered pointless by the continued emissions growth in india china and -- in india and china. the chart is now up now. this is very significant mr. president, because if you look at this, you look at what
china and india are contribute ing in terms of to the atmosphere by their emissions. now, there is the united states. in fact, the figure is that china alone produces more co2 in one month -- that's 800 million tons -- in one month than the clean power plan will reduce in one year. that's 500 million tons. and perhaps what's most telling is that president obama's e.p.a. didn't even bother to measure what impacts the proposed clean power plan would have on the environment. and that's what it would have on the environment. and this is something that's very well documented. i guess what we're saying here, it doesn't really matter what we're doing here in the united states of the -- united states. this isn't where the problem is. but that is to be expected under want religion of climate change. when the science doesn't add up and the projections don't pan out and the weather won't cooperate, alarmists will refer to their commitment to a higher
moral authority or obligation, as evidenced by the clean power plant. it doesn't matter if these policies provide any benefit in climate change crusaders -- and climate change crusaders certainly will not be dissuaded by the exorbitant cost. it's ironic, however that while touting the commitment to a moral obligation, which we have heard time and time again from this administration, the resulting policies will cause real economic hardship to this country and to the most vulnerable populations. this is something that people need to pay attention to. the increase of the cost of -- of fuel for americans would be -- and it's already documented -- the electricity costs will go up by double digits in 43 states. and where does it hurt the most? it hurts the poor people, those individuals who spend the highest amount of their expendable income on heating their homes. they're the ones who are going to be -- going to be hit the worst. and this high pock increase is, it's kind -- hypocrisy is kind.
abegin to jetting around the country in a 323-foot private plane on earth day to warn global citizens of the harm caused by increased co2 emissions in the atmosphere. well the president's international discussions around climate change stand to be equally harmful to the american people. the president likes to point to his recent agreement with china as evidence of international cooperation on climate change. but this agreement is nothing more than an exercise in theatrics. you know china is sitting back right now licking their chops hoping that america will start reducing their emissions and drive their manufacturing base overseas to where they don't have these emission restrictions. the farce of an agreement lets china continue business as usual and that's 800 -- see it's still up here -- 800 million tons of co2 a month until 2030 boy, that's until 2030. while hardworking american taxpayers are going to foot the
costs of the president's economically disastrous climate agenda. despite what the president may say to the international community without the backing of u.s. congress which the president does not have he has no authority to reach binding or legally enforceable agreements with other countries. i'll remind him of this again in december. you know, i remember -- some people don't know the united nations has a big party every year. it's in december. and it's been going on now for 15 years. and every year they -- they invite all the countries who are willing -- this is all through the united nations -- from all around the world some 192 countries, they're invited to this big party. i'm talking about caviar, all you can drink and all that. but all they have to do is say that they will agree to try to lower their emissions of co2. and i remember when in copenhagen, the party was going to be in copenhagen two years ago and as i recall, obama was there and kerry was there
pelosi was there boxer was there, all the far left liberals were there to try to convince the people of these other countries that we were going to pass a cap-and-trade bill so they better do it too. well i waited until they were all through with their things and i went over to copenhagen. i was -- i'll tell you chair, i was the one-man truth squad and i went over to explain the truth to the other 191 countries that under no circumstances that these people would come over and they're lying to them by saying we're going to pass legislation. i said, we're not going to pass legislation. and, of course, we didn't pass legislation. and i have to say this, the 191 countries over there they all had one thing in common -- they all hated me. but they all understood that i was right that they didn't have the votes in this country to pass that type of thing. the american people are starting to catch on and that's why i'm not surprised that, as i mentioned, the gallup poll that was released just last march concluded -- quote -- "the current level of worry on environmental issues remains at or near record lose.
and among those concerns on the environment issue, global warming is second to last. what americans do care about is is," according to the same poll, "is the economy federal spending and the size and power of the federal government." the disintegrating case for climate alarm coupled with the american public that is quickly losing interest does not pan well for the president's climate agenda or his self-acclaimed environmental legacy. climate alarmists have spent just as much energy, if not more convincing the world that it is bad to be a skeptic of what was once referred to as global cooling then became global warming. it is now global climate change. the tenets of the global climate change religion, can't withstand the scrutiny of the merits primarily because it is the result of political design and not scientific revolution. and that's why anyone willing to
point out discrepancies within the climate change debate or raise legitimate concerns will be subjected to a barrage of arrogant sarcasm and personal attacks. whether the alarmists call it global warming or climate change, the american people understand that the president's climate agenda is no way -- it's not about protecting the public but it is about a power grab. you know, i'll just make three final points. first of all, i think we all know that the climate is always changing. and i remember -- and i'll go from memory on this -- we have cycles and the cycles have been taking place for all throughout history. in 1895, we went into a period of cooling and that was when they first started saying another ice age is coming. and that lasted about 30 years until about 1918. in 1918, a change came about and it started getting warmer and it
went into a 30-year warming period. and at that time, that's the first time they used the phrase "global warming." then in 19 what -- 1945, that changed and it went into a cooling spell. and the same thing has happened since then and right now, of course, we're kind of in a remission area. but this is what's interesting. no one can deny that 1945 was the year when we had the largest surge in the emissions of co2 in the history of this country. and that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period. that's first. the second thing is in australia -- i wasn't going to mention this until i talked yesterday to one of the members of the parliament in australia. australia several years ago bought into this argument and they said, we're going to lead the way and start restricting our emissions. and they imposed a carbon tax -- this is australia -- on their economy a few years ago and it caused $9 billion in lost economic activity each year and destroyed tens of thousands of jobs. it was so bad that the
government recently voted to repeal the carbon tax and the their economy is now better for it. in fact, it was announced just following the repeal that australia experienced record job growth of 121,000 jobs, far more than the 10,000 to 15,000 jobs that the economists had expected. so there's a country, they tried it and they found out what it cost. and certainly you'd think we could learn from their mistakes. the third thing is, you know, ask the question -- what if i'm wrong and they're right? and there's an answer to that, because i remember when president obama's first elected. he appointed lisa jackson. she became the director of the environmental protection agency. and during the time that she was there, they were building this thing up and we were holding hearings in the committee that i chaired at that time. and i asked her the question -- this is obama's director of the e.p.a. i said, you know, in the event that one of these bills passes on cap-and-trade or the
president comes up with some kind of a -- a -- some kind of a proposal, a regulation that does the same thing will that have the effect of lowering co2 emissions worldwide? her answer -- no, it wouldn't. and the reason it wouldn't is because this isn't where the problem is. this is where the problem is, in china, in mexico, in india. and so the mere fact that we do something just in our country has a reverse effect, because as we chase away our manufacturing base and it goes to countries as china is hoping to be one of those countries where they have no emissions requirements, it would have the effect of not decreasing but increasing. so if you have bought into this thing and you agree that the you think that i'm wrong and they're right, just keep in mind, by their own admission this would not reduce co2 and that's what you're supposed to be concerned with. so the people of america have awakened. the economy and the obama
foreign appeasement have captured their interest and these are concerns, real concerns, of things we ought to do today. with that, mr. president i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call now in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of -- stand by. let me -- i think i've got the wrong information here.
mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 61 s. 1124. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 61, s. 1124, a bill to amend the work force innovation and opportunity act to improve the act. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i now ask -- the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president i ask that the alexander-murray substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, i further ask that the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and that the motion to recan -- reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s.r. 173.
the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 173 -- mr. inhofe: i ask the clerk dispense with the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today. that's s.r. 170 s.r. 171 s.r. 172. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceed? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to and the preamble bees -- preambles be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc. the presiding officer: without
objection. mr. inhofe: and mr. president finally, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. thursday, may 7. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate then resume consideration of h.r. 1191, with the time until the cloture vote equally divided in its usual form. finally, that the filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to substitute amendment number 1140 and h.r. 1191 be at 10:00 a.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and lastly, senators should be -- should expect a cloture vote on the pending substitute amendment at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. if there's no further business to come before the senate i ask
and all too many have scoped in underwater on their mortgages and burdened with debt. some individuals and families and unwisely but too often financial institutions incurs behavior that resulted in such excessive debt. in my remarks today i will discuss some important reasons why the incentives facing financial restitution as were distorted and the steps that regulators were taking to realign those incentives.
before discussing the incentives that contributed to the buildup of risk and financial institutions my would like to highlight the important contributions of the financial sector makes to the economy and society. first and foremost, financial institutions channel societies scarce savings directive investments thereby promoting business formation and job creation. access to capitol is important for all firms but it is particularly vital for startups of young firms which often lack a sufficient string of earnings to increase employment and internally finance capital spending. research shows that more highly developed financial systems disproportionately benefit entrepreneurship. the financial sector also helps households save for retirement, purchase homes and cars and whether unexpected developments.
many financial many financial innovations such as the increased availability of low-cost mutual funds have improved opportunities for households to participate in asset markets and diversify there holdings. expanded credit access has helped households maintain living standards when suffering job loss, illness or other unexpected contingencies. in technological innovations have increased louisiana convenience with which individuals make and receive payments. the contribution of the financial sector to household risk management and business investment as well as the significant contribution of financial sector development to economic growth has been documented in many studies. financial development up to a.has disproportionately
benefit the poor and served to alleviate economic inequality. despite these benefits come as we have seen actions by financial institutions have the potential to inflict harm on society. instead of promoting financial security through prudent mortgage underwriting the financial sector priority and the -- pirated the prices facilitated a bubble in the housing market and too often encouraged households to take on mortgages they neither understood nor could afford. recent research has raised important questions about the benefits and costs of the rapid growth of the financial services industry in the united states over the past 40 years. a combination of responses to distorted incentives by players throughout the financial system created an environment conducive to a crisis.
excessive leveraged placed institutions a great risk of insolvency in the event that severe albeit low probability problems materialized. overreliance on fragile short-term funding by many institutions left the system vulnerable to runs command excessive risk-taking increase the probability that severe problems would materialize. the structure of the regulatory system itself. it did not keep up with changes in the financial sector and insufficiently attuned to systemic risks. once risk. once concerns began to develop about escalating losses at large firms insufficient liquidity and capital interacted in an adverse feedback loop. funding pressures contributed to fire sales of financial assets and losses reducing capitol levels and tighten liquidity pressures.
certain factors encouraged excessive including market perception is that some institutions were too big to fail. finance us the twos and's to engage in regulatory arbitrage moving assets undercapitalized off-balance-sheet vehicles. the the complexity of the largest banking organizations also may have been. market discipline. in addition to financial mediation outside the traditional banking sector grew rapidly in the years up to 2007 leaving gaps in the regulatory umbrella. conflicts and the incentives facing managers, shareholders and creditors may have induced banks to increase leverage. the federal reserve and other banking agencies substantially increased capitol requirements. regulatory minimums took to
risk-weighted assets and are significantly higher. capital requirements capitol requirements now focused on the highest quality capital such as common equity. in addition to risk-based standards bank holding companies and depository's face the leverage ratio requirement. also, significantly higher capitol standards both risk-weighted and leverage ratios of being applied to the most systemically important banking organizations. such surcharges are appropriate because of the substantial harm that the failure of a systemic institution would inflict on the financial system and economy. higher capitol standards provide large complex institutions with an incentive to reduce their systemic for print. we were we were also employing annual stress tests to gaze large
institutions abilities to whether a very severe downturn and distress of counterparties and importantly continue lending to households and businesses firms that do not meet these standards face restrictions on dividends and share buyback. as a result of these changes to your one common at queen, the highest quality form of capitol has more than doubled since the financial crisis ._qwerty regulations will also improve incentives in the financial system. prior to the crisis institutions incentives to rely on short-term borrowing to fund investments and rescue or less liquid instruments were distorted in two important ways. first, many investors were willing to accept a very low interest rate on short-term liabilities or financial us tuitions while on
securitizations without demanding adequate compensation for severe but unlikely risks such as a temporary loss of market liquidity. perhaps these firms expected government support or simply considered illiquidity a very remote possibility. second, institutions attempts to shift their holdings lifted concerns. the market value. they aim to strengthen liquidity. for example, the liquidity coverage ratio requires internationally active organizations to hold sufficient assets to meet their projective cash outflows.
the new process, the comprehensive liquidity the expectations for liquidity risk management and evaluate institutions practices against these benchmarks. the proposal for the next funding ratio would require better liquidity management on horizons beyond that. a proposed capitol surcharge for the largest firms would discourage overreliance on short-term wholesale funding also, the ntc has adopted changes in regulations that may help avoid future runs on prime money market funds and reforms the associated intraday exposures. the congress tasks the banking regulators with
challenging and changing the perception that any financial institution is too big to fail by ensuring that even very large banking organizations can be resolved without harming financial stability. steps are under way to achieve this objective in particular banking organizations are required to prepare living wills plans for the rapid and orderly resolution in the event of insolvency. regulators are regulators are considering requiring the bank holding companies have sufficient total loss absorbing capacity including debt to enable them to be wound down without government support. in addition, the fdic is designed a strategy that could deploy to resolve a systemically important
institution in an orderly manner. the crisis also revealed that risk management at large complex financial institutions was insufficient to handle the risks that some firms a taken. compensation systems all too frequently failed to appropriately account for longer-term risks undertaken by employees. lax controls in some cases contributed to unethical and illegal behavior by banking organizations and their employees. the federal reserve the federal reserve has made improving risk management and internal controls a top priority. for example, the comprehensive capitol analysis and review includes the stress test and mentioned also involves an evaluation to ensure that firms have the sound process in place for measuring and monitoring the risks they are taking.
also supervisors from the fed and other agencies have pressed firms to improve internal controls and to make their boards of directors more directly responsible for compensation decisions and employee conduct. as i noted, the financial crisis revealed weaknesses in our nation system for supervising and regulating the financial industry. prior to the crisis regulatory agencies focused on the safety and soundness of individual firms. as required by the legislative mandate at the time rather than the stability of the financial system as a whole. our regulatory system did not provide any supervisory watchdog with the responsibility for identifying and addressing risks associated with activities and institutions that were outside the
regulatory perimeter. the rapid growth of the shadow non-bank financial sector that significant gaps in regulation. in response .-dot frank expanded the mandated authority of the federal reserve to allow it to consider risk to financial stability in supervising financial firms under his charge. within the federal reserve we have reorganized or supervision of the most systemically important institutions to emphasize what we called a horizontal perspective which examines institutions in a group and in comparative terms of focusing on there interaction with the board of financial system. we also created a new office within the fed to identify emerging risks to financial stability in the broader financial system. both the bank and non-bank financial sector's and to
develop policies to mitigate systemic risk. dodd frank created the inter- agency financial stability oversight council chaired by the treasury secretary and the federal reserve is a member. it is charged with identifying systemically important financial institutions and systemically risky activities that are not subject to consolidated supervision and designating those institutions and activities for appropriate supervision. and it is charged with encouraging greater information sharing and policy coordination across financial regulatory agencies. well, my topic is broad and my time is short, so let me end with three thoughts. first,. first, i believe that we and other supervisory agencies have made significant progress in addressing incentive problems within the financial sector
especially within the banking sector. second, policymakers including those of us at the federal reserve cannot remain watchful for areas in need of further action or in which the steps taken to date need to be adjusted. third, engagement with the broader public is crucial to ensuring that any future steps to move our financial system closer to where it should be. active debate and discussion of these issues at this conference and in other forms is important to improving our understanding of the challenges that remain. thank you. [applause]
>> thank you very much. thank you very much for being here with us. i would like to say thank you. thank you very much for organizing this convincing us that this was a worthy project and for setting the bar pretty high. janet you took us through a vivid walked down memory lane explaining again what the financial crisis had been and how it was addressed partly. i would like i would like to go just a little step further back, not to the roman days but back in the 18th century. a keen observer of the reality of society and is known to have said about bankers if you see a banker
jump out the window follow him because there is certainly money to be made. the window could be the subprime or something else. i will come back to voltaire in a 2nd. i fully agree with you that important progress on the regulatory reform agenda has improved the resilience of financial systems command i also welcome the continued vigilance of the fed and other institutions. yet, as we all know into many places financial stability is still not well entrenched. our recent global financial stability report issued under the leadership of the head of our ncn department finds that financial stability risks are rising rotating from banks to nonbanks from sovereign to
non- sovereign from bank solvency to market liquidity and from advanced countries to emerging countries. you know, back to voltaire i wonder whether he would have said, make sure you follow the banker. he might have said having read the financial times this morning, follow the financier. migration from the banking sector to the financial nonbanking sector. so there is so there is still work to be done to address distorted incentives in the financial system. indeed, action that precipitated the crisis were mostly not so much fraudulent as driven by short-term profit motivation this suggests that we need to build a financial system that is both more ethical
and more oriented to the needs of the real economy. a financial system that serve society and not the other way around. today when i would like to do is focus on how to induce a change in the culture of the financial sector, how to better align financial incentives with societal objectives and in doing so i think we need to look at both the regulatory environment and also the individual accountability. let me start with the laws of regulations. today more than six years on regulatory framework still faces several challenges that precipitated the crisis what have we done? a lot as janet has just explained but the job is not completed. a migration phenomenon will continue to be a work in
progress. but think of the rules that are not tight enough and oversight not strong enough which is why we need further progress on the too big to fail institutions. think of the culture of compensation based on short-term gains rather than sustainable profits which induces greater risk-taking and short-term is an. i remember back in 2010 when the fsb with good leadership in a task force tried to identify what the session system should be to avoid that short-term is a. boy that was a a heated debate, and i'm not sure we concluded an effective way. how can we address these problems? we have done at the imf in-depth work in the october 2014 gfs are. the global financial sector report on how compensation
and government structures can help reduce risk-taking behavior and realign incentives in the financial system. let me highlight just two key takeaways. first on compensation. incentives related to compensation practices need to change so that we are no longer so much tied to myopic actions and excessive risk-taking. our work showed our work showed that compensation packages can be structured to favor the long-term performance and soundness of the firm those who work for the. for example, remuneration should and has become subject to possible cancellation and clawback provisions in cases of either misconduct performance downturn and certainly in cases where the institution will require the direct support of taxpayers. another way is to give the
shareholders and bondholders a stronger voice in compensation structures of top executives. and there have been clearly positive steps in that regard. our analysis covering a sample of more than 800 banks from 72 different countries suggests that shareholders say on pay is becoming much more widespread. for example, in 2005 only 10 percent of the banks allowed shareholders to cast a nonbinding vote on management compensation. today 80 percent of banks have instituted this policy. we we have also seen some encouraging steps more recently by the acc. the proposed changes should make it easier for shareholders to determine whether executive compensation is aligned with the firm's financial performance or not.
as a reformed lawyer i have to say that those principles have to be constantly revisited because experts like me welcome the rules and make sure there is a nice way around. again, it is and will continue to be a work in a work in progress, and that should be the case. second, changes in government structures also matter. the key during the crisis was going internal control and risk management of institutions. think institutions. think of the recent example of the london whale, for instance. in many cases financial risks were either ignored or underestimated and in the particular case of systemic risks they were not well understood all. failure happened at both the management and the board level. one way to address this failure is to establish a
clear distinction a clear distinction between the management on the one hand and the board on the other hand. we have seen the banks with more dependent board members take fewer risks and other ways to ensure qualification and skills of board members and key technical professionals through rigorous fit and proper criteria. and so make and so make sure that is also a work in progress i sat on the board of ing back many years ago. the business of the bank was changing so quickly that constant training programs were actually necessary for us to understand what was going on to the beginning of the banking in those days. i could come to the rescue of voltaire, which is a bit unusual. training, training, and education. but regulation alone cannot solve the problem.
whether something is right or wrong cannot be simply reduced to whether or not it is permissible under law. what what is needed is a culture that induces bankers to do the right thing even when nobody is watching. ultimately we need more individual accountability good corporate governance is forged by the ethics of its individuals involving moving beyond corporate rule-based behavior to value -based behavior. we need a greater focus on promoting individual integrity. virtues are molded from abbott developing and nurturing good behavior over time. again education training. one clear solution is to set a strong tone at the top of the institution. as the chinese say the fish rots from the head. establishing a culture where ethical behavior is rewarded
and another goal integrity is not tolerated the sanctioned you will forgive me but i believe very strongly that more women leaders would also help. [applause] there have been many studies now many studies have shown that female leadership is more inclusive. only a little bit more risk-averse but there might not be something that ron and being occasionally risk-averse. i don't mean to be excluding anybody. but you might member a question that i too asked, what would have happened if it had not been lehman brothers but lehman sisters? [laughter] now, against this now, against this background i hope to see more worked on
governance, change in risk culture. always been a strong supporter of regulators and supervisors independent supervisors as well and we will continue to do some. but i would like to see institutions themselves take up this matter shareholders, bondholders as well. they should be a drive in the private sector for better alignment of risk incentive. this applies both to advanced and emerging economies. indeed, emerging economies can learn a lot from the valuable lessons, the pitfalls of there advanced counterparts. on this issue we released a study a few days ago the re-examines financial deepening from the viewpoint of emerging markets. a key finding is that the gains from growth and stability from financial deepening remain large for most emerging markets but there are limits on size and speed.
when when financial sector development outpaces the strength of the super mature framework there is excessive risk-taking and instability. the experience in many countries including the united states has exposed the dangers of financial systems that have grown too big too fast. our analysis on emerging markets shows that regulatory reforms can actually increase the benefits from financial development while reducing the risk. i am sure many of you have heard and some may have said excessive regulatory is going to refrain from good financial innovation as a finance minister i have heard that many times. based on the study, that fear, that change the regulatory framework or curtail credit, hamper financial development and stifle growth may very well be misplaced.
on the whole the same set of principles that increases financial debt also contributes to greater stability. better regulation leads to greater possibilities for development. here, let me step back and highlight the important distinction between financial depth and financial inclusion especially as we strive this year to deliver on important milestone, 2015 the year development. when nasa systems around the world exclude many individuals. many individuals, many firms from financial services resist the temptation of asking you to guess how many people are actually excluded 2 billion. 2 billion people worldwide
remain 2 billion people do not have a bank account. there have been improvement because it is 20 percent less over the last three years. still, 2 billion is a massive number. moreover, financial exclusion is far from being solely emerging markets. here in here in the united states surveys find that some 8 percent of us households are un- banked and some 20 percent are under banked. studies show that broader can help people manage risk and absorb financial shocks better. our own analysis finds financial inclusion is
particularly important. powered and economically allowing them to invest in education which they do more than their male counterparts so there is scope for improvement, market penetration, globally a staggering 42 percent of women lack access to basic financial services compared to 35 percent. this is even bigger if we consider the role of women in the provision of financial services. yet desirable adjectives as an objective, financial inclusion is not without risk particularly if it leads to excessive financial risk-taking. our forthcoming analysis shows that is reported by good regulation, good supervision, and independent supervision financial
inclusion can actually go hand-in-hand with financial stability. so in conclusion the financial crisis has exposed several fault line and provided many lessons. an overarching an overarching lesson is that building sustainable and inclusive growth hinges on collaborative efforts. it requires supervisors and regulators to work on managing risk and to work together. it requires building resilience in all countries realignment between corporate culture and societal objective. one final. i here and have heard many times over that it will be so much better bankers were boring again. you know what, i fundamentally disagree with that because it takes the view that for bankers to finance the real economy is boring.
it is not my definition of boredom, and i don't think it should be ours. financing companies, providing credit, assessing risk properly, transforming maturity between savings and investment is not a boring activity and it should be regarded as a high-value activity. and if the definition of boredom is working for the real economy in the definition of excitement is just making a lot of money i think we have to change a few things around. thank you very much. [applause] >> i wonder if you would tell us a little bit more about what the fund is doing all around the world to improve regulation and supervision. i no you have active programs and it will be good to hear what your involvement is. >> we operate at different
levels. the global level and see each other regularly. hosea is the representative is one of those meetings. we participate in the financial stability board. we sit on various committees that often meet in switzerland and we try to bring a perspective that is not so much the central bankers perspective or not so much the supervisors of the particular countries perspective but to move global perspective. we are also trying to bring to those meetings the views and voices of those that are not necessarily represented. emerging markets economies, low economies, low income economies. that is a critical role that we have to continue playing. then at the local level there is a lot of activity going on either when we do the annual sort of audit of
the economy of our 188 members is very often expert in banking and monetary policies and finance joined the teams. that is taking place annually but we do what we call the article for review we also do something that is highly valued by the membership, the financial sector assessment work done by a specialized team. they will come quite a while to actually go under the skin of the banking and financial sector and give a candid sort of third-party assessment of what -- where the risks are what the policy should be and it is a really good health check that is valued by the membership.
feels a bit weird doesn't. some really helpful and needed development but to fashion they go beyond the banking sector, particularly if some of those players will to call the taxpayers? >> that's a great question. the financial crisis just very clearly reveals that even outside the regular banking sector the shadow banking sector, non- finance, nine party financial sector we have risks that were very similar to the risks we have traditionally had in making. an example is that lehman and bear stearns the two
firms in aig that got into the gravest trouble during the crisis or not regulated banking organizations at all and yet the risks that they were taking were very similar to the kinds of risks that led to runs on banks in the past. the money market all of these markets developed important sources of credit for the economy but also had run like characteristics. so when troubles of their were essentially runs in these markets. in some cases, as you mentioned, the government and the money market fund case did come in and step in so it is important that we keep an eye on and appropriately regulate the shadow banking sector. i think we're making progress.
the financial stability oversight council is charged with designating some non-bank institutions as systemic and then putting them under federal reserve supervision and so far they had designated for nonfinancial companies and then also ate of what they call financial market utilities entities that are either do central clearing or play a key role in the payment and settlement system these have been designated and/or supervised and recognized to have systemic risk. we have adopted new regulations. we saw problems and securitization on the fact that in the run-up to the crisis so many securitize is to not really keep risk on their own balance sheet, did not have skin in the game. we have put we have put in
place knew regulations that ought to make a significant difference. money market funds the sec has put in place knew rules for prime institutional funds that get rid of the fixed dollar value. they will have net asset values that will reduce run risk. that aside to allow firms to impose fees something that could create financial stability risk that we need to watch. the so called tri-party repo market which is a major source of short-term wholesale funding, that contained great risks. we have taken steps important steps to mitigate. central counterparties a thrust of reform has been to
try to move as many derivative contracts as possible into central counterparties to have them. by central counterparties something that serves to reduce risk and complexity and enhance financial stability but when these entities themselves become systemic and clearly need supervision something that you have mentioned in imf work is that we have a major growth of open ended mutual funds where you have funds that are investing in highly illiquid assets. the industries are promised immediate liquidity. if there are runs on those firms you have a kind of liquidity to maturity transformation there that can give rise to a fairly substantial moves.
you have highlighted that we are focus on as well. >> liquidity illusion. >> yes. >> let me come back to you if i could. the regulatory reforms that are taking place i wondered if the fund is doing some work in trying to assess what the impact of these reforms might be on other countries. >> sure. yes, and we do that thanks to the global role that we play and the left -- and the national level involvement. at the global level what has been striking for me is that we have been able to bring together regulators and supervisors to did not have
a chance or did not pay attention to what could have been or what were loopholes no space arbitrage and there have been quite a few of those. we play the role of bringing together all those that are changing the rules. i remember vividly a meeting that we had with figures canada and vulture all present in the room together with other central bankers and supervisors and discussing where one set of tools was going to actually be an issue for another region where different regulations would apply. we play that particular role in terms of spillover we have observed lately is because of the different business model that was induced by the knew regulation as all we have observed a change in the banks themselves. there size has reduced, the footprint has changed and a
lot of those subsidiaries or branches that were in the entire world remember those days when banks were saying we are global. lots of points on the map to say we are all there. it would look a lot different today. cause them to sell the operation to generally regional banks to national banks out there that are prepared to grow and take over what the large players were downloading essentially in order to subsidize the requirements. so there has been that particular spillover aspect. the 3rd role is to actually help emerging market economies low income countries in developing countries actually adjust to the change of regulation and import in their own regulatory system the proper
set of rules that will help them deepened their financial market and make it more inclusive as well as safer. the study the study i just referred to which shows that deepening and more inclusive financial sectors are actually not mutually exclusive from stability and growth provided that there is the right set of rules and supervision in place. we work very hard on those principles. back to me to ask you a question. and in no way i'm going back to my.about the alignment of incentives and with the societal and good finance. you. you talk to yourself but the danger of distorted incentives in the financial sector. there are critics out there who will argue that with very low interest rates this
is actually distorting incentives and leading to a buildup of risk to financial stability. what can you tell them? >> i think this is very important question and i think what i 1st have to say is interest rates low interest rates in the united states. target has been a zero for an unthinkable six plus years, and we are now seeing interest rates at zero and other advanced countries. there is a reason for this. the reason is that we really think this policy is necessary to help our economies moved back to full employment and to achieve price stability. in terms of financial stability for meeting those
objectives actually has a favorable financial stability effect. low interest rates have supported job creation and economic growth help households certainly in the united states engaged in balance sheet repair to be able to pay down debt and they are in a much more sound position them as our banks, but it is true that in a low interest environment we need to be sensitive and watch for risk to financial stability. low interest rates can certainly incense some investors to reach revealed. it can send them to take a leveraged positions they can create financial stability risks. and i guess we're doing two things. we are monitoring very carefully to look to see if
those risks are developing and to the extent we do see some risks developing of course we are trying to take action where we can can but we are speaking out more generally about the risks that we see developing and i'll give you a couple of examples. in the market for leverage loans we have certainly seen a reach revealed and are seeing a deterioration in underwriting standards something we have been highlighting for a number of years. and in our role as supervisor of financial institutions that are underwriting these loans we are trying to ensure that underwriting standards move up in our higher to diminish risks. we have also seen a compulsion and spread around high-yield debt which certainly looks like a reach for yield.
i guess i would highlight that equity market valuations generally are quite high. not so high when you compare them to returns on equities the equities, the returns on safe assets like bonds which are also very low but there are potential dangers there. and and in interest rates obviously not only short the long-term interest rates said at low the embodying low term premiums which can move and can move very rapidly. we saw this in the case of the taper tantrum in 2013 four their was a very sharp upward move and rates. you do have divergent monetary policy potentially around the world. we need to be attentive to the possibility that it is
time to begin raising rates. premiums can premiums can move up and we could see a sharp jump and long-term rates. we are trying to come as i have repeatedly said to my communicate as clearly about monetary policy so that we don't take markets by surprise. in addition, i would say low interest rates can create interest rate risk of financial institutions. many banks are finding their net interest margins are depressed, they have an incentive to take an addition on duration a credit risk and if interest rates move up that can create risks in our supervision and stress tests we are looking for that and analyzing their ability. insurance companies, pension funds are subject to the same kind of pressures in
the low interest rate environment. they find it hard to make their targets. and so regulatory agencies am wondering insurance companies and pension funds. the overall the risk to financial stability is moderated not elevated. i say that because we are not seeing any broad-based pickup and leverage. we're not seeing rapid credit growth. we are not seeing an increase in maturity transformation command i would call those things kind of the hallmark of financial bubble or the precursors of the financial crisis. >> if i may follow-up, i
remember those days with your credit sister and how important it was telling us is pretty much under control they found out that they did not have the legal grounds with the potential to address them in due course. or are you better equipped today? >> i think we are better equipped today simply because in some of these markets we have improved regulation. those things i think function better than they did. i think we're willing.
not banking with organizations. much higher capitol and liquidity standards that applies to all of the nature of broker-dealers and investment banks. i i think there was a great deal of we missed before the crisis. >> i think we have -- i see them all saying time. thank you very much for your patience and for listening. thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause]
>> so the senate is out for the night. members return tomorrow to continue work on an iranian nuclear agreement that requires the obama administration to submit a nuclear agreement to congress for review. several amendments are pending. a procedural vote is expected at 10:30 a.m. eastern. earlier today texas sen. ted cruz came to the floor to discuss the bill. he was joined by marilyn senator ben cardin who serves as ranking member on the senate foreign relations committee. >> i rise i rise today to sound a note of warning about the nation of iran. consider the following facts : the supreme leader ayatollah khomeini has
accused america outline. we learn that the iranian regime has been actively arming and supporting the anti- american hootie revels in yemen since 2009. the iranian regime held a parade of military equipment that featured chance of death to america. the iranian regime charged and understood detained american citizen jason resign with espionage and other crimes including propaganda against the establishment. the defense minister karen declared that iaea inspectors would be barred from all military sites. the iranian navy threatened a
cargo ship in the straits of hormuz sailing under the flag of the united states. the iranian navy seized another cargo ship in the straits of hormuz sailing under the flag of our ally, the marshal islands. the forei foreign minister of iran accused the united states and our allies of being the biggest danger to the international community. great britain informed a u.n. sanctions panel that iran has an active nuclear procurement network linked to two black-listed firms. and the iranian navy harassed a u.s. war ship and military planes off the coast of yemen. mr. president, these are not events from 1979 or 1983 or
1996. these are in chronological order the aggressive anti-american actions of the islamic republic of iran in the last month. every one of those occurred in the last month. and at least these are the ones we know of that have been covered in the media. this relentless drumbeat of hostility has gone on unabated for 36 years and it makes the legislation before this body, the iran nuclear agreement review act all the more critical. the bill's supporters insist it is the only way to ensure that congress has its due say over president obama's proposed iran deal. i agree that it is of paramount importance to give congress its proper role in an international agreement of this magnitude and to make clear that president obama must persuade
congress and the american people to support his deal if he wants it to be binding. which is why i had been supportive of this process so far. which is why i have been supportive of this process so far. i am here to tell you that as the legislation stands this legislation is unlikely to stop a bad iran deal. the problem is an all too familiar one here in washington dc which is that the iran nuclear agreement act contains a provision and started at the insistence of senate democrats which will allow congress to appear to vote against the deal while tacitly allowing it to go into effect. the bill allows congress to adopt a resolution of disapproval of president obama's iran deal. on the surface that sounds reasonable. from what we no publicly of
the deal i certainly disapprove of the strongly. but a resolution of disapproval under this legislation even if it passed a 60 vote threshold with grand claims of bipartisanship it would not be the end of the matter. the president would certainly veto it and once he did it would require 67 votes of the senate and 290 votes in the house to override it. it is a wonder the white house has lifted its objection to this legislation. all the pres. all the president would have to do to force a bad iran deal on american is hold 34 senators in the democratic party or 145 members of congress. if he could do that a bad deal that undermines the national security of this country, endangers our
friend and ally would go into effect command he could claim he was simply following the process the congress required. that is not an oversight. that is not an accident. this bill is drafted and will provide some political cover for senate democrats to say they have voted to provide strict scrutiny and congressional approval. yet as currently drafted it is a virtual certainty that no matter how terrible this deal is it will go into effect and this legislation is unlikely to stop. our 1st priority should be stopping a bad iran deal that jeopardizes the lives of millions of americans and millions of our allies.
there is there is nothing more important this body can consider, not trade not the budget. there is nothing more important. the 1st responsibility of this body is to protect the national security of this country, to protect the lives and safety of men women, and children across this country. and the president's iran deal deeply jeopardizes the safety of americans. from what we no publicly command the details are still shrouded in considerable secrecy come but from what we no publicly under this deal iran will be allowed to keep its enriched uranium, allowed to keep its centrifuges and reactors continue its icbm program the only purpose of which is to deliver a nuclear weapon to the united states of america. tehran will receive even more economic relief reportedly including a $50 billion signing bonus.
mr. pres., who in their right mind would give a $50 billion signing bonus to a rent? it is worth noting that even under one of the strictest regimes of international sanctions iran was still able to marshal resources to become one of the world leading state sponsors of terrorism. we can only imagine what it will do with this new source of funding which will certainly flow to hamas hezbollah, and the hootie as well as to their proxies in latin america. i would note if this deal goes into effect and tens or hundreds of billions of dollars flow into the rent including a $50 billion signing bonus and that money is given directly to radical islamic terrorists the blood of the men and women and children who will be martyred by the stairs will
be directly on the hands of this administration. if we allow tens and hundreds of billions of dollars to flow into the hands of terrorists it places complicity for that terrorism on this administration. there there is no topic more serious that this body can consider that preventing the murder of americans. the iranians behavior speaks for itself. they are right now today unlawfully imprisoning multiple american citizens. patrick sayyid abu dini and ameritech money as well as jason rosanne under brutal conditions and they are withholding information on the whereabouts of robert leavitt. they have killed americans across the globe and plotted to kill us here at home.
they are explicitly threatening to wipe our ally off the map. indeed in the midst of these negotiations the annihilation of israel is nonnegotiable. given that, there is no way on earth we should be allowing billions of dollars to flow into a radical terrorist organization that has declared its object destroying israel which they call the little thing and ultimately destroying america. because the great thing. they are telling us they want to kill us not ten years ago were 20 years ago. they are telling us this right now. if history teaches any principle with abundant 30 it is that if somebody tells you they want to kill you believe.
they are not being subtle. these are the people the obama administration are putting on the path to having nuclear weaponry the most fearsome weaponry known to man. make no mistake that is what this deal would do the last congress steps and to stop it not to have a show vote, not to pretend to disapprove but to actually stop the bad deal that jeopardizes our safety. mr. pres., to see how this scenario is likely to play out we don't have to speculate. speculate. we need look no further than the recent history of north korea. in october 1994 the clinton administration reached another agreed framework with north korea over that nation's nuclear program. secretary of state madeleine albright insisted she had
gotten a deal that would freeze the military components of the program and through economic incentives and diplomatic outreach entice the hermit kingdom to join the international community. at 1st it all seemed to go well as north korea eagerly accepted the influx of our currency as well as the promised civilian nuclear reactors. secretary albright accompanied by then policy coordinator for north korea wendy sherman's even visited north korea to celebrate the progress. despite all the diplomatic initiatives, all of the champagne toasts the north koreans were cheating we now know on the framework from the get-go. when a george w. bush administration figured out economic sanctions were reimposed but had no effect.
neither did neither did yet more additional rounds of negotiations while they continued and continued and continue to enrich. kim jong-il had gotten the resources he needed because the clinton administration relaxed sanctions and allow billions of dollars to flow into his hands. in 2006 north korea tested its 1st nuclear weapon. two more tests follow. in 2012 when kim jong-il and came to power in secretary of state hillary clinton suggested kim jong-il and might be a transformative leader. the state department reportedly assured the president that he would be more concerned with economic improvements in with his imperative nuclear program. this too was proven wrong. he has resolutely pursue his
father's policy. just last week we learned from the chinese that north korea is well on its way to having some 40 nuclear weapons. their ability to enrich uranium is significantly more sophisticated than had been believed. believed. in addition they are hard at work after icbm program and may soon be able going to threaten our regional ally but also to strike the west coast of the united states. with so many weapons in their arsenal it seems only logical that this rogue regime may in turn offer some of those weapons for sale to the highest bidder. all of this proves that the fallacy of the clinton administration's repeated basic assumption that the north koreans would act in
the best interest economically for which fulbright and sherman met richie and diplomatic agreement to achieve economic relief. unfortunately they were dead wrong. the result is the united states faces and escalating strategic threat. we are now in grave danger of history repeating itself. the very same person who negotiated the failed north korea deal the obama administration brought her back to be our lead negotiator with iran. think about that. the person who led the failed north korea talks the talks that led to north korea getting nuclear weapons is president obama's lead negotiator with iran and her negotiation will
certainly lead to the same outcome. probably file the exact same playbook for negotiation the shia followed albert einstein famously so the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. and iran has already enjoyed significant economic relief than legitimization on the international stage while america's demands of dwindled from dismantling iran's nuclear program to now merely curbing it it may only be a matter of time
before secretary john kerry no doubt accompanied by undersecretary sherman pays a courtesy call to echo history and to show the world how civilized all arrangements their way to a bomb and if the grim reality is as bad as the situation is with iran is qualitatively worse. brutal, mega to her megalomaniacal deep to jack dictators but they do seem to be motivated by self-preservation. and so to some form there is at least a possibility of rational deterrence. therein lies the fundamental difference with iran. the mullahs in tehran a radical islamic zealots for whom the eradication of the little satan is real and
they great satan america is a solemn religious duty. radical religious zealots ordinary cost benefit analysis it must apply the same way. deterrence does not work the way that it works elsewhere. death to america is not just a slogan. it is a religious promise. the risk that the ayatollah will use the economic windfall of billions of dollars courtesy of the us of a to pursue nuclear weapons that he would either use them sell or give to terrorists are used to use his intolerably high. the consequences of this deal could very well be an iranian nuclear weapon used in the skies of tel aviv or
new york or los angeles. the consequence of this deal could very well be millions of americans murdered. there is no serious topic we could be addressing. pres. president obama and his two secretaries of state have had their chance to negotiate and have squandered it on the same approach that was so spectacularly unsuccessful with north korea. they changed very little. they just replayed the same failed plan. once again assuming that they can reason with a rogue regime. they are on the verge of sealing a deal that could result in the most significant threat to our nation's. the administration's claims that iran will not use their economic windfall to pursue the nuclear program and that if they do snapback sanctions will fix the problems.
hardly reassuring. the opposite result is far more likely. having done what they wanted when they are ready that will test a nuclear bomb. the iranians no perfectly well what a good deal this is in or doing what they can to prevent congress from disrupting it. i was proud to join with 46 colleagues signing a letter that explains the constitutional all the senate and approving a treaty or both houses of congress passing legislation into law. judging from the reaction tehran does not appreciate the free system of government.
foreign minister responded that the offers of the authors of the letter may not understand that in international law governments represent the entirety of the states and are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations. speaking last week to an audience at nyu's opinion was reiterated that as a matter of international law pres. obama would have to abide by the dictates of whatever deal struck and the congress is powerless to stop it. he also said that he does not deal with congress. as a matter of united states law is wrong. it is true when you have a
supreme leader with the ability to string you upper shoe you the word of the supreme leader is binding, but we have no supreme leader. we are bound by the constitution and rule of law that keeps sovereignty in we the people. if you want sanctions agreements the only way to make that binding is to deal with congress pursuant to the constitution of the united states. but if we pass the iran nuclear agreement review act he will have to. it's time to tell the american people the truth. this legislation is not a victory for congress. this legislation at best we will slow down a terrible deal from being put in place
that is the best outcome, a slight delay in the presence putting into effect the terrible deal that jeopardizes american security. it is not a guarantee. in fact it provides a backdoor path for minority of congress one 3rd of congress to ensure that the deal goes into effect over the bipartisan will of the majority. even worse the president we will be able to claim that he satisfy the terms that congress itself set. that is hardly a message we want to send. and this issue is far too important to pass a bad bill we are endangering the safety and lives of americans across this country.
i will note that there is a silver lining. in 20 months mr. obama will no longer occupy the oval office. she in january 17 he or she will have full authority to resend any international agreement. mr. president, any man or woman fit to be commander-in-chief of the united states of america should be prepared to resend a bad deal with iran on day one no president should jeopardize the lives of millions of americans were millions of our lives. congress can act right now to stop bad deal.
we could come together and assert our constitutional role and can do so through a simple mechanism. by now the current bill provides that if congress does not override president obama's veto a terrible grandeur goes into effect. that simply says the president cannot lift sanctions on iran unless the deal is affirmatively approved by congress. out to be a provision supported not by 51 senators were 6560 senators are 67 senators. what a strange development in our modern polity that the congress of the united states is content to effectively neuter itself.
i feel quite confident that if a republican president were in office we would not be content to give up the constitutional authority and responsibility that has been given to this body to ratify treaties or pass laws. yet i am sorry to say on the democratic side of the aisle our friends are perfectly content to forfeit their constitutional authority to the present. if this deal is a good deal it most assuredly is not, but if it is the president should be able to get congressional approval. and yet the reason that senate democrats are terrified of requiring congressional approval is, they know full well you cannot defend a deal that allows iran to keep tens of thousands of centrifuges, to
keep enriched uranium, to keep developing icbm program to keep remaining the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism to keep working to annihilate the nation of israel. that is not the sensible on merit. one simple change would turn this legislation into something meaningful. one one simple change that would say the president is free to negotiate a deal he likes the bring it to congress and get the affirmative the grill -- agreement of congress. don't have a fig leaf vote and let the president's bad deal going to affect. have. have a meaningful about the requires the from of approval of congress. i urge my colleagues to adopt the cruise to me amendment which is a common sense fix that will give this bill real teeth for moving the resolution of disapproval and instead
would allow an iran deal to go into effect only if congress approves it. senate democrats have blocked a vote on refused even to vote on this amendment. all this amendment does is ensure that the burden is on president obama this should be something we come together not as republicans or democrats but as senators who have a responsibility to protect our constituents the american people, and defend the constitution.
we should come together with one voice and say we will not allow a bad iran deal that ensures a ramble acquire nuclear weapons that could be used to murder millions of americans were millions of our allies. this should be unanimous. and so mr. president i ask unanimous consent that when the senate resumed consideration of hr 1191 that i be allowed to offer my amendment, number 1152. >> objection. >> reserving the right to object. >> mr. president, 1st i think my friend from texas. he and i share a single to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state. we -- there are three basic problems with my friends amendment if it were to be
adopted. it would either defeat the bill, which is possible, because it changes the fundamentals. we are looking at reviewing an agreement that does not require consent be because congress may in fact decided does not want to take the issue of. secondly, if. secondly, if it were adopted it could very well affect our ability to negotiate with iran. iran. they may say, we have to negotiate with the president and then a congress and our negotiating partners who don't have you don't have those circumstances my very well say that the end of negotiations. then then we are isolated as the country that prevented a diplomatic solution. they don't have a united position and therefore we we will negotiate will have the strength to negotiate the strongest possible deal. my friend says this is simple for congress to pass a bill in order to implement this we have been on this
bill for two weeks, came out in committee 190. i don't cnn yet insight. at the same time this bill prevents the president from exercising his waiver authority under the sanction regime while congress is reviewing it. in effect delay tactics could be used to buy minority to prevent the agreement from being considered before the senate. .. effect. but from a procedural point of view as i've explained earlier we have been working to try to get amendments up. and for all those reasons mr. president, i do object. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president we've gotten a little confused here on our scheduling. i know i was supposed to be speaking at 5:05. we do want to get back to where we're going back and forth. so i would -- i know my good friend from ohio wants to be recognized next for a short period of time. so i would ask unanimous consent that he be recognized now and
the that be followed by my good friend from delaware to be recognized for his time, and then i be recognized at the end of -- of his remarks for such time as i would consume under morning business. for a time as i can soon enter the morning business. the senator from texas still has the floor. is there an objection? >> mr. president i will wrap up momentarily. and yield to a friend from oklahoma for his reasonable time allegation suggestion. i would note that the senator from maryland suggested that the problem with congress affirmatively approving this is that it may be a subject to delay. and congress may not take it up. i would note that i would be a meanable. to a friendly amendment to my amendment that required expedited sit age with the iran deal without the ability to filibuster.
with the requirement it received the affirmative approval of both houses of congress. the specific problems my friend from maryland suggested would be avoided. we can put the short and expedited time period as necessary. but what is critical would i suggest is that congress has to ultimately approve this. we will take responsibility if the deal is a good one and a majority of congress should support it. and if not a good one. it will not receive the approval of congress and so i would ask my friend from maryland if that would be a friendly a menment that he would be open to reaching a compromise on? mr. president? i appreciate the friendliness of my friend from technology text. and i will tell that you we have a fiscal balance. an expedited process of rarz
of congress taking action if there is a vie lafgs the agreement there. is a process in the bill that is currently before us. so that we can snap back the sanctions quickly. and congress is received not only certifications but notices from the administration as to whether there are material breaches. so we have that process in the bill to deal with any violation of any agreement. the balance here is that congress does not note process it uses we imposed sanctions to take up and modificationes to the sanctions and will take up at professional the resolution. and disapproval resolution. we may want to take up something totally different that is our on sons so with the impossible to predict. an expedited process when we do not know what the action of the congress is going to be in regards to the agreement being submitted by the president of the united states. so even though it is a friendly suggestion.
i cannot take you up on it. i would result that this is not being taken up. that congress is aggregating the authority and the responsibility to approve this deal. because of the results of this bill are drafted. we can look in the crystal ball and know what will happen. the administration will come forward with the details of the terrible deal with iran. this summer we will have debates in the body and the resolution of disapproval will be introduced. and it will not get 67 votes in this body. there will be enough members of the president's own party to stand with him no matter how teshlt deal is for national security. right now under this legislation a bad deal would not go into effect.
there are few topics that we a congress that would come anywhere close to this topic. it is disappointing. to see the democratic senators. putting partisan politics above our national security. we should stand together protecting america. the next 20 months are going to be very very dangerous in this nation and yet i amen couraged in 20 months america is going to embark on a different pachlth america is going to return to defending our nation and our constitution and defending the men and women across this country. i yield the floor.
all right. there you go. the subcommittee will come to order. a hearing today is on global health programs and we have a panel of incredibly brilliant people who i am honored to welcome you to the united states senate so that you can form the senate and american people in the world about the good cause that's you represent. deborah brooks. thank you very much for coming. she is part of the united states government activities to combat hiv/aids and representative for global health diplomacy. u.s. department of state. dr. mark dabel global fund be to fight aids. tuberculosis and malaria. sir elton john founder of the elton john aids foundation and dr. rick warren pastor of saddle back
churchch. to each you. thank you for coming. you have busy schedules. you made time to talk about causes near and dear to your heart. i will make a brief opening statement to the subcommittee members. thank you for showing up. to senator leahy. it has been a pleasure working with you and tim. as in the minority and the majority. as politics will change in the country. senator leahy and i will make sure that the commitment of this account will not change. at the end of the day. i have tried along with senator leahy to shed a light on what the count does for the united states and the world this. is 1% of the budget. this is what i would suggest to the other members body. find an account anywhere throughout the budget that will get a better rate of return than the 1 50 account. 1% of the budge set 50 something billion dollars when you add it up. that is funding for the state department.
embassies and consulate and other nations and the small portion of that will go to fighting aids and malaria. and tuberculosis and other disease. what i want the american taxpayer to know is that from my point of view being a conservative republican from south carolina i have never seen a better return on investments. the private sector and the federal government and other international organizations and other governments have been collaborating for well over a decade to take the fight of aids. we are winning and aids is losing. at the end of the day. the scourge is being put into a box but growing in some areas of africa for reasons we have to address. in temps of future commitment of money. now is not the time to back off. we are inside of the ten-yard line whether it comes to the diseases like aids and malarab malaria. and thousands finance
millions of young people alive today. because of the america's intervention and the taxpayer generosity. in my view to stabilize those parts of the world. so disease like aids malaria and tuberculosis will be contained and will not create instandy and regions that are already unstable. from the economic point of view. a customer base. where american companies one day will do business with millions of people on the continent that have i come to love that have an a fint for the american people and our way of life. and america at her best when doing things that are right. and though we have the economic challenges here at home, compared to most we are incredibly rich. the richness is not in our bank account.
i think that it is in our attitude. and the way that american people engage the world. if i had to give an example to someone from far away to explain to america. i would use this account. this account represents the best of the american people. it is transparent. it is well managed. it is saving lives and changing the world. this count is at risk and second west relation and budget cuts will be enacted and will devastate the ability of the account and others to fulfill its promise. we are literally inside of the ten-yard line and the budget cuts that are coming in under second west relation. will destroy our ability to make the progress and will lose many of the gains that we have achieved over time. when you are $18 trillion in debt you have to evaluate
your spending. and this is what i can say. this account is not long or in debt. this account makes us richer. this account i believe is the smartest use of federal dollars of anyplace within the federal government. it is my commitment and working with the dm and republican colleagues that would not when it comes an a choofg the purchase positive of at count to change the world in a positive fashion. tufrment you and i have worked together on the committee for so many years. and we will go back and forth some times. you are a chairman. i am a chairman. and the thing is that we come up. with a bill.
that is why it pass and this issue should not quote involved in partisan politics and stronger support in global help we will support investments and combat diseases. and i know that last night our discussions and pastor warren that they would be treat and occurred for a few dollars. with he would come out and what ever amount of money that it was. talking about countries where the money is not there. americans. very few americans have fever and blindness. imagine if they d they would say why you spending. let's do something about it when you are in the wealthiest country on earth,
we have moral responsibilities. this goes beyond political and economic. if have you this great wealth you do have a moral responsibility. and especially when the diseases affect millions of people, often children and countries that have inadded kuwait services and had hiv/aids identified 33 years ago. aids and tuberculosis will continue to be a serious problem. we can do better. but the rates of infection here, in this country will pale compared to other countries. africa, europe. southeast asia. now the chairman points out the budget restrapts that we have. it doesn't mean that we have
no money. we have a lot of money to spend as a country. let's pick where we go. we want to make sure that we will use the best resources and ebola catastrophe. it shows how vulnerable we are. and this committee ebola was an easy disease to detect and contain compared to one that is infectious before for personal experience symptoms. it is not a question that the virus will occur. when and where? we do not invest the relatively modest necessary training with public health workers and countries and we will pay more in the hundreds and thousands and millions of lives lost and dollars spent. these are things that dr. dr. burke chairmen would be in defense prop relations
and judiciary. to be here. and have you all worked. every one of you worked so hard of this on these issues and every one of you could find easier things to tackle. i applaud you all. sir elton we have known each other a number of years. you could sit back and just relax instead you are out pushing us all of the time. and i don't want to say anything about pastor warren on the moral issue but the good pastor has talk about the where our conscious should be on more than one occasion. and that is important. but doctors the expertise you bring, we need it. i will hush up over here. and these people. i am glad you are doing it. thank you. thank you for being a good part near here. madam. lead us off.
thank you chairman graham and ranking member leahy and distinguished members of the subcommittee. i am honor today be appearing before you. this committee today has provided visionary leadership of the united states president's emergency plan for aids relief since 2003. millions of american men women and children are alive today buzz of the compassion and the bipartisan commit ment congress. leadership of president george bush and president barack obama. and the true generosity of the american people. as you have seen first hand and as the chairman mentioned. this is not only a global health program but an outstanding american diplomacy. i am privileged to be join today by the great leaders in the global hiv/aids response. and ambassador whose stewardship and global fund
was extraordinary. and a voice of compassion of those affected by the epidemic and sir elton john. the powerful advocate for the people living with hiv/aids for decades. it has changed the trage he can treef the hiv/aids pandemic. in the core. they have offered the hope and heal and the possibility of health and prosperity in the place of sickness. suffering and death. today 7.7 men, with him and children are receiving life saving treatment and more than a million babies have been born hiv free. and 6.7 million voluntary medical male circumsignificances have been performed and success as mentioned by the chairman are in collective grasp if we focus and accelerate and sustain our efforts. pepfar has strengthened all aspects of the systems and not only supporting those
with hiv/aids but programs along maternal and child health and global health security. and work as mention is the far from done. every week nearly 40,000 people are infect with the hiv. 7,000 of them young women. with africa millions of young women are entering the window of the most suspect accept ability of hiv/aids infection. very to work diligently right now to get and to stay ahead of this epidemic. according to the u.n. aids if we do not act now there will be an estimated 28 million new hiv infections by 2030 and moirn nexts than any global resources can support. actions taken over the next five years will be critical. coordinated efforts will reduce the number of the hiv infection today's under 200,000 per year by 203 0 and as compared to the current trage he cannery unthinkable of 2.5 million
anyone fections per year. so pepfar is pivoting and we are usage granular and transparent approach to target the evidence based intervention to the highest agree graphic areas for the maximum impact of every u.s. dollar. and making this pivot is not an easy thing. it is the right thing. and it will prevent the new infections and it will lead to the control of the epidemic. earlier this year. we launched the sustainable kind desk to provide a snapshot of the element central to sustaining and controlling this epidemic. including the critical contributions and partner countries making to the national response. pepfar leverages expertise of the united states government. civil society and faith-based organization and other partners including the private sector to address the most glaring gaps of treatment and prevention. the accelerating treatment initiative and act is a 200
million partnership with the children's investment fun foundation to reach and to treat 300,000 additional children living with hiv/aids by the end of 2016. dreams standing for the determined resilient empowered aids free mentored and safe young women is the 210 million partnership with the bill and melinda gatsz foundation and the nike foundation to prevent hiv infection in adolescent girls and young women. we cannot control thech democratic without putting an end to the discrimination to those living with and at risk for those to very margins. all will need access to key services and key populations. in a critical time in the aids response. we know what will need to be done. and tools to do it. and the continued leadership of the united states is vital to ensuring that we will achieve an aids free
generation. the alternative is unthinkable. chairman graham ranking member leahy and members of the subcommity. the uncharted terrain that we are entering will test our resolve. i am confident that we will reach the destination and the ways of which we are focusing and strengthening and accelerating the pepfar efforts and partnership left side havent our arrival. thank you again for the opportunity to here for you today. i am profoundly grateful for the ongoing and continuous and unwaivering support of this subcommittee for pepfar. i look forward to your questions. thank you very much. i would like to mention that he could not be here today. he wanted to be. he was with adult an ex-and doing better. but want to recognize his contribution to this cause. is he communicate with the me several times regretting not being able to be here. but one foundation is one of the anchor tenants of the whole effort worldwide. so i want to recognize the fact that is with us in
spirit. could i just interject here. he has kept a good sense of humor whether i have called after the accident back in dublin. he said well, the fellow members of the band said that it is a good thing that he was wearing his helmet so he would not damage the sidewalks of new york. [laughter] okay. all right. mark? thank you very much mr. chairman. chairman graham. and ranking members of the distinguished committee and expert staff. thank you for your leadership. this committee. and this chamber this. congress and two administrations have reached across party lines to reach those in need. and your compassion and insight reflects the best of 9 american people. have you changed the landscape from working to end death and to being on the brink of ending three plagues to that have been around since recorded medical history. and on the path to
ex-tivenlths while building resilient systems and economies. including me into the panel el. humbling to be here with the world famous preacher and performer and expert scientist. and all friends for many years. i will try to do my best to make three points. with your continued leadership. we will make history. and strengthen partnership through shared responsibility. and to drive innovation. advances in science that i know have you heard about before and also the experience of the investment that have you made in the last 15 years have put us on the brink of ending malaryan and tuberculosis and again they have been around since the recorded medical history and hiv/aids in the path to not be epidemics anymore. end them as public health threats. with leadership with the anyone fections have dropped dramatically. 55 countries. 55 countries are on the path
by the end of the year to reduce malaria by 7 5% and 26 of them are on the path to elimination. there has been a remarkable progress in reducing death. we have the clear choice as ambassador bishgz pointed out and accelerated that role to ending epidemics and rick the resurgence much the diseases and undermining your investments of the last 15 years. the global fund contribute today the progress we have raised about $4 billion a year. and in part through generosity and large part through generosity and have contribute today putting millions into theant viral treatments. 12 million were tested and treated for tuberculosis and they have not been distributed. the global fund is the largest of tb. and malaria. and finance so efforts are incredibly important. as chairman graham pointed out, beyond theed health individuals, the diseases
have enormous impact on economic loss in the developing world. for example it is estimate that had nigeria alone will lose 3. 5 billion per year in the gdp because of malarab malair yeah. and the healthy productive people. make healthy productive nation nations and good trading partners and not just there for an issue of public health but economic interests to accelerate progress to ending the diseases. and as we have pointed out. have you all pointed out by working together we will bring out the best in humanity. and collective commitments will change the course of had history by ending the epidemics lifting up the human beings. and lifting up those often left behind and marginalized and they mentioned young women. they are often 5 to 10 times more likely to be infected than the young boys. and 5 to 10 times more likely. driving the epidemic. with the youth the increase of young people there is a risk of an explosion. and undermining the progress
that has been made. new data suggests that if we can work just to support and to keep the girls in school hiv rates will drop by 60%. and if the girls will stay in school they will not get married early or have economic tune its. they will reinvest in health education. nutrition. and bringing in the opportunity to their children. we are working closely with the initiative. pep far id. and gates foundation and otheres to intervene here to, fundamentally change the course of the girls history. initialling vestments in the hiv over the past decade are bringing up a positive affect on the overall health system as well. including a response to ebola. i was talking with women that were train today go door-to-door with malaria and going door to do to prevent and fight ebola. how do we achieve the goals of ending up digits and building health systems in societies? we do it through partnership and the global fund is the
largest public-private people we are the public-private people of the response of diseases and health. we work so closely with the ambassador's pepfar and others. for every dollar to the global fund we leveraged the european commission and corporations and faith community. and to finance here reinquiring the countries to match what we invest in. what you invest in to unlock the resources and so far we have leveraged $3.9 billion in the last two years in order to increase countries contribution to fighting epidemics. as we know. based on the u.n. aide reports. they are investing more on the hiv and external financing that is remarkable and happening since 2012. and they have long provided 80% of the financing for tuberculosis and more for
malaria. the increase has been critical and the private sector is as well. global fund has had 1.7 billion dollars contributed to it from the private sector. as bill and melinda gates have been the largest contributors and bono through project red and corporate partnerships have contributed $$3,000,000 and from the countries and indonesia and vietnam. commitments from individuals and working to get more:.
now that is value for money. mr. chairman ranking member leahy and distinguished members you are the leaders that will make this happen. thank you for your support. we look forward to serve with you as public/private partnership arm to fight these diseases. >> dr. warren. >> chairman graham and ranking member leahy members subcommittee. thank you for inviting me here today. i have so much respect and admiration for all of you. i agree that the 150 account is
probably the most effective account in the united states budget. what you're doing matters to our nation, it matters to the world. actually it is a matter of life and death to millions of people around the world. i'm not just pastor of saddleback church. i'm founder of a global peace plan that sent teams to 197 countries. i sent in my own church, 24,869 of my members served in 197 quint at thises, which is 57 more countries than the peace corps served. by the way before i address the matter of global health, i want to thank you about previous hearing protecting religious liberty abroad. that is a big issue and spoke about that in my printed remarks. as you know from your hearings previously we're making a lot of progress on pandemics like hiv, malaria and tb while the momentum is he had haded in the
right direction now is the time to move for eradication. a lot of times in the third quarter of a game people say, well we know how the outcome is going to happen. let's let off, let off the pedal and they will leave the game. we can't do that now. the super bowl is a good example what happens in the last second of a game. and i believe it will take three catalytic factors in order to eradicate hiv malaria and tv. dtb. we must form a new perspective on foreign assistance. second, we must forge a new perspective, a new partnership in distribution. and third we must fund a new priority in the budget which would include ending sequestration. now i have covered this in detail in my written testimony. i want to spend most of time on partnerships and new distribution with you let me
make forming a new perspective on assistance. there are voices today who sincerely believe cut back or eliminate all foreign assistance. this idea resonates with a lot of voters for a couple of reasons. first, they have no idea that this amount is actually less than 1% of the budget. they think it is a big amount. it's not. and second, they don't realize the strategic value of foreign assistance. they have never considered that the right kind of foreign assistance especially for health education, development may be our most effective cost efficient strategy for security against the next generation of terrorism. this is what i mean by new perspective. now proverbs 3:27 in the bible tells morally wrong to withhold assistance from those who need it with we have in our power to help them. but there are also strategic reasons why it would be shortsighted and unwise to cut back our assistance in global health. first, when america saves lives of dying people from preventable diseases we make friends.
that's obvious. around the world i've often been told please thank americans for pepfar. it saved my husband's life my wife's life, my children's life, kept our family from economic disaster. we will always be grateful to america and we will pray for you. when we make friends like that save save lives potential enemies are turned into allies. when you save somebody's life they have zero desire to terrorize them. when poor countries are overwhelmed by pandemics stuck in poverty, no capital creative opportunities they get resentful of nations that ignore the plight. that resentment makes them right for angry ideologies. so it is far more effective far more cost effective far cheaper for americans to send medicine to make friends now than to send troops to fight enemies later. medicines cost less than tanks. the resource west budget for humanitarian relief help
programs, economic development, education, training can really save us from spending far far more to send soldiers when resentment boils over. that is the new perspective i'm talking about. we need to frame this, not as just some charity that we do. it is strategically smart for america's security and safety to help people who are in pain. the second catalyst in eradicating preventable diseases we have to forge new partnerships in distribution. sometimes you have to team tackle a player on a football field. he is so big one person can't take him down. and this is where i call in to reference what i call the three legs of the stool. a one-legged stool will fall over and a two legged stool will fall over but a three-legged stool will stand. i've been invited to speak at davos world economic forum numerous times. they said i we need public/private partnerships. when i hear that you're right. you're only 2/3 of the way.
you're leaving out the biggest sector the faith sector t dwarfs the other two sectors. put this in perking speculative. there are 600 million buddhists in the world. 800 million hindus in the world. 1 1/2 billion muslims in the world. 2.3 billion christians in the world. the actual number of people without faith is quite small outside of manhattan and parts of europe. most people have a faith. and if you want to talk about distribution, you have to use faith communities. i could take you to 10 million villages around the world. only thing in it is a church. in much of the world the church is the only social sector outside of the capitol. and even if we have all the meds for tb, a.i.d.s., hiv malaria and all other diseases issue of distribution will not be solved unless we mobilize local churches let me give you one
illustration. at the end of president bush's term of office, he invited me to be the closing speaker of the global summit on malaria. i said i will come if i can bring some pastors from africa. so i did. at the end of the talk i stood up and i said i'm going to show you three slides that show you why you can't solve any global problem without the faith community. so i put up, let me show you one example. i've been in 164 countries but this is just one. rwanda, i said, we went there and we said, what would you like? the western province of rwanda needs health care. so we went there. i put up a sign, a map of rwanda, western rue wand today. i said here are the three hospitals for about a million people. it is a two days walk to any of these hospitals. that is not good enough health care to have to walk two days to get your health care. by the way two of these three hospitals, they're faith based. you wouldn't even have them if
it weren't for the church. i put up the next slide. here are 18 clinics. i said, three 18 clinics only a day's walk. if you've been to developing clinic is often a bottle of aspirin on the shelf or even less than that. i said, that is better than three hospitals but i said, by the way, only 16 of those are faith based. you wouldn't have those without the church. i put up third map. it was covered with dots. here are over 600 churches in this division. now where would you like to get your health care? two days walk, five minutes -- one day's walk or five minutes away? linda gates sitting on the front row. i get it, work the church could be distribution center for health care. i said, melinda it had been for 2000 years. put it in perspective the church invented hospital. if we're going to absolutely eradicate disease we have to do combination of public sector,
private sector and the faith sector, the three legs of the stool. again, i would encourage, if there is anyway we could end sequestration, i'm in favor of that. there are a lot of areas i think we could cut the budget. this is one area of budget should be increased for strategic reasons. thank you. >> thank you very much, rick. sir elton john. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, senator leahy, around members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to let me testify this morning. it's a very daunting task sitting at a table with three amazing people who are in the trenches every day fighting this disease who are doing incredible work. so i'm very humbled by being here and humbled amongst the company i'm keeping. in 2003 at the invitation of senator ted kennedy i had the honor of speaking before the senate health committee in my
capacity as the founder of the elton john a.i.d.s. foundation. i created the foundation in 1992 to address the dire need to provide basic services and support to those dying from a.i.d.s. over the past 23 years we have raised over $321 million to fund organizations that provide direct treatment and prevention efforts in dozens of countries around the globe. the first time i testified before congress 12 years ago almost no one had access to antiretroviral medicine in sub-saharan africa where the epidemic was most acute. people were being infected and dying by the millions even though we very literally had the drugs that could save their life in our hands. at that point 12 million children in sub-saharan africa had been orphaned by a.i.d.s. african leaders had declared a.i.d.s. to be a state of emergency worldwide more than
30 million people were hiv-postive. the disease left nothing but despair. ruin, and fear in its wake. i saw it with my own eyes as i traveled to hardest hit regions on behalf of my foundation and our grantees. without the funds needed to make life saving drugs available in africa, my foundation invested in dramatically expanding palliative care and a hospice networks. across south africa, uganda and contend i can't we help give a dignified death to more than 800,000 men women children. we provided food, shelter and basic education to over three million orphans left in their wake. it was a compassionate response but it didn't solve the problem. in those years the epidemic was only escalating until in a time of great need and urgency republican president and bipartisan majority in the united states congress created
pepfar. the president emergency plan for a.i.d.s. relief. compassionate leaders from both sides of the aisle said to the international community america can and american will lead the world in the global fight against a.i.d.s. today, thanks to the unprecedented actions of congress and hiv-postive mother in south africa can give birth to a healthy hiv-free baby who can live, she can live to raise. today thanks to the generosity of the american people, 9.4 million men, women, children have access to life saving anti-retroviral treatments. where there was once despair, ruin and fear, there is now hope life, laughter and love. pepfar has done more than just save lives, it has provided
basic infrastructure and trained more than 100,000 health care workers to prevent future outbreaks in countries like botswana tanzania, kenya and uganda. congress support for global fund for a.i.d.s., tb, malaria enabled investments from governments and corporations worldwide and leveraged $2 for everyone dollar invested by the united states. thereby expanding its reach and impact. i'm grateful this included up to one billion pounds from the united kingdom over the past three years. from my foundation too congress's leadership has been transformational. what we once invested in hospice to care for the dying has been repurposed to treat the living. my foundation treated over three million people for hiv in africa and linked more than 400,000 patients to life-saving treatment on the continent since 2012. combined with efforts funded by
united states we've contributed to the 48% global reduction in mother to child transmission of hiv. in short we are no longer bailing out a sinking ship. we are helping steer it into a safe harbor. mr. chairman, because of the actions of this congress, the cause of the -- course of the a.i.d.s. epidemic was altered for all humanity. because the american people had the optimism, the ingenuity and the will to make a difference, the lives of millions of people halfway around the world have been saved. but i'm here today with a simple message. the a.i.d.s. epidemic is not over. and america's continued leadership is critical. there is a window of opportunity before us, a window through which we can very clearly see the end of a.i.d.s. within my lifetime. we can not afford to let the window close. >> amen. >> if our efforts flag, drug
resistance will surface transmission rates will rise, and this disease which knows no boundaries will once again become a ruthless pandemic with disasterous and far-reaching consequences. i have stood in too many, at too many bedsides in america and england and across africa, helplessly watching peach die in pain to bear the thought that we might go back to those dark days. it is unthinkable. on the other hand, if we continue the historic work of pepfar and the global fund, if we honor the 40 million lives lost over the past three decades we can and will see the day when no longer a horrifying global killer but a contained and controlled cron tick illness. mr. chairman, this is the most powerful legislative body in the world and this congress indeed has the power to end a.i.d.s. you have the power toe maintain america's historic commitment to
leading the global campaign against this disease. i'm here today to ask you to use that power. to seize this window of opportunity, to change the course of history. and one day soon i hope to extend my thanks to you to this congress, to the united states of america, not only for fighting this disease but for ending it once and for you will all. thank you. >> and end it right on time. it you is amazing. after this, how would you like to vote against this account? [laughter] what would you say? the terrorists want you to vote no. i guess that is only thing i can think about. so anyway, mark. name countries that could do more that are not. >> thank you mr. chairman. it's a long list. i just came from one china actually arriving last night.
they once actually received resources from the global fund but now are giving. they have transited out. >> so can they do more? >> they can and we're working to invest with them more? >> what about the gulf countries. >> the gulf countries could definitely do considerably more in the fight against three diseases. parts of southeast asia. they are transitioning from recipient. >> we've not asking people to give who have their own problems. we're talking about people with economic ability to give that are not. >> these countries do have considerable economic ability and they are stepping up. >> what about europe, how would you rate europe's response? >> europe is doing quite well in a number of places. the u.k., sir elton john mentioned. france is the second largest contributor. >> where is germany. >> germany is increasing its commitment as currently number five six. japan is number five. >> in terms of economic power in europe how does germany rank? >> they're certainly number one. >> so they're number five on
giving number one in -- >> to the global fund. they just increased commitment to gavi and increased commitment to us and increased commitment to do even more. >> thank you very much. rick, these churches that are new distribution, network will you take anybody that comes? >> absolutely. in fact after i made that presentation at president bush's malaria conference i said i'm going to prove that can do it faster than any ngo or any government. so i went to that area of rwanda and i asked pastors, i said would you be interested in us training your people in basic health care because you're never going to have a doctor in your village. there will never be enough doctors for every village in the world? 18 pastors said yes. i said grab two people from your congregation. we'll start training them. started training them in basic health care. muslims came to us, said would you train us? we said sure. this is human issue.
not a religious issue. so you picked two out of your mosques. there were two mosques that coast people to be trained. that group grew to 60. we trained them to 100 -- 120. then 340. on and on. we kept multiplying. this last august i went to that area of rwanda and did a rally fo? over 3,000 trained health care workers who each visited seven families a week. they make hospital calls. they make house visits. and, we did it with little, very little money. and these people are saying, we started off with simple stuff like, wash our hands, hang out sheets to dry. how to do sanitation. and dressing wounds, stitching a wound. but they can learn things how to administer arvs. how to do peer, what do i want -- peer coaching to make sure that they do their
compliance with the drugs. it can be done. and, now we have many other countries asking for the same model. >> madam ambassador, what will sequestration do to our ability to get this thing put away in terms of a.i.d.s. and how would it affect the pepfar program if we fully implement sequestration? >> you heard from our testimony we're doing everything we can to focus every dollar we have because there's always more need than there are dollars. and so we take a very strong responsibility and insuring that we focus the dollars we have optimally. but any cut in those dollars would lead to unmet -- >> what the cut would be to 2021? >> you have mentioned it would be quite extraordinary. >> go find a number. go find a number and tell me. if you don't know the number you need to find night we'll find the number and get it for you. >> i want everybody the global fund, tell me what the number
is. i want to tell my colleagues, i have x dollars today and you will have y dollars tomorrow and this is what it means. so you should know these numbers because they're dramatic. sir elton john, you've been following the battle for a long time. you say we're close what is the biggest, your worth fear? >> worst fear is stigma, to be honest with you. we're seeing especially in african countries lgbt community suffering under draconian laws. when people, like that who are suffering from hiv are penalized, they go underground and the disease is spread even further. stigmatizing people pause they have hiv is the worst thing one can do. that's the for me, the biggest problem that we face. once we get people on drugs it is fantastic. but getting people to feel
unashamed, to feel that they're okay with this virus not to feel they're being threatened by their own government because they maybe have a sexual orientation a leader of the government doesn't approve of is incredibly important. not only is it a humane crime it is a medical crime as well. as, those two sides to that coin. one, you're telling people that they're worthless. and two people that are worthless who are sick, you're telling them they're not treatable. you're driving them underground. you're making them feel worthless, you're making, my whole thing with my organization, my foundation, nobody should be left behind. listen we live in a world so materialistic, so narcissistic the world needs compassion. the world needs leaders to show compassion. the current pope is someone i revere very much because he is beginning to show so much more compassion in humane way than his two predecessors did. this is vital to the recovery of
self-belief and self-worth in this world. if people are told they're worthless and unloved then where are we as human beings? if christ was alive today, i believe in christ he would be al paul at the way people are being stigmatized. we need people to be included to feel love and to feel compassion. without that infreed end in this whole mixture of medicine and everything else, then we face an ongoing battle. i really encourage governments are throughout the world saying that homosexuality is a sin and everything like that, they are making their disease worse. in the long consequences for their country their economy is going to suffer and the disease will spread even further. it is inhumane and inhumane from people suffering from this disease. >> from private sector point of view have you been able to raise adequate amount of funds even
though the economy is crippled around the world? or are they still giving? >> they are. there. >> they are. there is a lot of people suffering from diseases. as pepfar has done, they treated malaria and tb. the more you train people as rick said to train companies where they haven't enough medical staff train people to look after people, if africa, when we started people are not using taking tablet or pill. they're not used to that. they're used to have local traditional healer give them something. it is a mater of education. once you tell people, if i have an event, if i tell people, look here is what we're doing. we'll build somewhere, to educate people or mothers to mothers transmission. you can see this is improving knowledge of the disease and the treatment you're going to give people, people will dip into their pockets. i think when we started off in, with this disease there were so many different foundations. there is not many standing but
we all work together. i think we're a very strong force. i think we're a force for good and i think we're very, we had a meeting last night and the comradery and feeling i get from the american people is so touching. you have to remember i'm british. i have come over here in 1970. this country gave everything to me as a professional musician. it has given everything to me as a human being. and, the strength, and the willingness to help people in the rest of the world has touched me so much. it was ryan white who pointed out to me that my life was completely disordered. i was a drug addict. i was self-obsessed ass hole, excuse me. and ryan white and his wonderful family turned my life around. he was a young boy, who had a.i.d.s. he was hemophiliac. he was treated very badly by people who were ignorant and
knew better. he never got angry and forgave. we have to have compassion. we have to have forgiveness. have to have inclusion of everybody, whether intravenous drug users. whether prisoners. whether it is people who are gay, whether transgender people, we're all human beings. we're all children of god. and if we throw that away then we're throwing everything down the drain. so my, when i explain this to people and people are good people. i believe in the goodness of the human spirit. look at this room here, for example. we don't have any problems raising money. very long-winded answer to your question. but, no, people are very generous. if you explain to them where their money is going, you show them what it is doing they will dip into their pockets. >> thank you. senator leahy. >> thank you mr. chairman. i, i didn't think it was long-winded at all. something that should be heard over and over and over again. there is one thing ambassador
birx and dr. dybul question has been asked on dollars be honest and direct what the see questions operation. -sequestration. janet and alex, far more knowledgeable on the nitty-gritty than i am. the numbers i'm seeing, are devastating. they're devastating. and, they're not, anywhere near the numbers that senator graham and i in bipartisan way have supported in the past. so don't sugarcoat it. make it very clear. and, sir elton you talked about how much less expensive it is for prevention than care after the fact.
and 'm aware ofokym that. iw3 know pastor warren and i have talked about this before. and you were mentioning about holding the quilt. when you were speaking last night. and, i think my dear friend, i grew up with from vermont, and when he was diagnosed and he was actually a public figure in vermont, rest his soul, he when he was first diagnosed i remember okays stray sized. my wife and i came to a large gathering. people were trying to avoid him. this was some years back. my wife is a registered nurse. she walked up and gave him a great big hug and a kiss. he said right up to the time he died that changed his life. after that people wouldn't avoid him because they knew my wife. she is actually more, a lot more popular in vermont than i am.
they saw marcel do that, and they they -- so keep on, keep on pointing that out. it's not long-winded. it is important. even today people need to hear that. we've known about hiv and a.i.d.s. for more than 30 years but it is still a huge health -- even here in the united states, we have pockets in the united states where it's growing. you would think that with all the education, it would be cutting back. what the things we should be doing differently in combating this? are we focusing on the right countries? i mean we've, we know we're going to have a finite amount of money. how do we spend it best? sorry to put you on the spot.
we're struggling for that here. >> how do you spend it best? well you, you still continue what you're doing. the pepfar is doing giving the antiretroviral drugs to people that can't have access to them. getting the infrastructure in countries where there is no infrastructure so that people actually can receive drugs and get them on daily basis because a lot of these people live in rural areas, they don't know how to do it. you have to educate people. you have -- education is very important. prevention is very important and you heard earlier that young juvenile women in africa are accounting for juvenile women now, the second cause of death largest cause of death in the world is young juvenile women through a.i.d.s. this is catastrophic. and you have to educate them. and you have to spend the money very very wisely. that is all i can say.
mark, have you got anything you could add on that or not? >> up -- >> we all have the thing that, dr. dybul, we're seeing increases in parts of this country. i mean -- you would think that it would be decreasing everywhere in the world. what sir elton talked about the young women in africa. we're seeing it, men and women in this country. in what, where where are we missing the point? >> i think in the rural south it is very big problem. amongst young gay men having sex with men, it is a big problem. i think maybe because they feel that they are not going to die. that this disease has you know, we've mentioned it, someone mentioned that, you know, this disease can be a manageable disease. you can live with this disease. and i think in this country,
which is has all the sophisticated medicine available that people are having unsafe sex. they're thinking if i have unsafe sex i'm going to be okay because there is a pill i can take, not really knowing or understanding the consequences of what that pill might do to their body in the long run. in africa they don't have the option. they just want to live. over here they're able to live because they have the medicine available and in africa and asia, they don't have that option some of the people because they don't have the medicine. and i think you've seen a rise, a, it is cyclical. seems to happen every 10 years that this disease starts to rise again amongst the young. and, i'm at a loss to explain it because, you know, everyone knows the consequences of being hiv-postive. now as i say you can live a safe healthy life like a diabetic,
probably easier to treat someone with hiv than a diabetic. that would be my explanation why you're seeing a rise. in the rural south it is also a huge problem as well. and i think again a lot of it is stigma. a lot of people not wanting to admit they have the disease. not a lot of people are getting tested. a lot of people are not getting tested and walking around not knowing they have the disease. there is still a lot of fear in a country so sophisticated a america. in my country great britain, the same thing is occurring. >> thank you. dr. birx, my last question, i can ask questions all day long but, the president's fiscal year 2016 request for pepfar is at 300 million-dollar impact fund. this rewards governments to take steps to, as i understand, to realign the national programs to
combat hiv a.i.d.s. in the most areas, most severely affected. and i understand you're implementing similar realignment of pepfar. funds. now, some who challenged that say that there are areas that are going to receive less funding and that is going to be severe impact on them. would you like to explain what's happening? >> thank you senator. so there is two things that we're doing. we are fortunate because of the way congress set up pepfar that we have very granular data down to the site level. we know precisely now where there is hiv and where there isn't hiv. what we have found over the last 10 years, is a real evolution that in areas where there is very little hiv we have excellent coverage of all services. sometimes over 100%. because people have come over the border to access services.
and in areas where hiv is the most prevalent where the incidents is the highest say in kenya, around kasumu and humo bay, the delivery is 30 to 45%. we've created inequity where areas we've been oversurveying and areas where we're substantially undersurveying population. working with the governments to go through the information in very careful way what you described at the end of the question doesn't happen. we're committed obviously to maintaining all of the services in the areas that are very low burden and are working with governments and global fund to insure that there is a safety net. we're also working and geographically mapping the sites down to the absolute precise gps coordinates so we can tell you there are 10 sites here all within half a kilometer and we only need two. so it would be much more effective to have two sites all
within walking distance. all within less than half an hour of walking distance. increase the number of sites in the very high burden areas. so because what is happening if you're a pregnant woman in kasumo, you have a much lower chance of being diagnosed to and linked to services if you're a pregnant in krecho, kenya only 50 kilometers away. this is the type of work we've been doing. >> thank you. senator. >> thank you chairman gram. i want to thank the passion and compassion of panel today. i appreciate it. in a city not characterized by compassion you bring that here today. we thank you for that. i was struck sir elton john, but a statement you made in your testimony. there is a window of opportunity before us, a window which we can very clearly see the end of a.i.d.s. within my lifetime. what is the greatest barrier that you see to accomplishing that goal?
>> a reduction in funds of pepfar. a reduction, would be a huge blow. the world has to step up. and keep the funding going. the more funds we get the more medicine we can get to people, the more we can educate them. let me put this bluntly. we talked about sub-saharan africa, we talked about asia. we haven't talked about russia, we haven't talked about the middle east. countries that don't even talk about it. we have no idea what the epidemic is like there but i have a suspicion that it is not great. but they don't talk about because it is, not part of their thing to admit that he have this a huge problem. so the more money that's given the more, once those figures are released and we don't know anything about china either. we have to maintain the funding. that is the biggest biggest thing we have to do. and we have to educate people and we have the stigma again. we have to make people feel that
they're loved and not shamed. and that is a big issue. i think rick would agree with me that, what he does with his church is, the church preaches love. and that is what we must also do. but along with the funding which is so essential that is why i'm here today we're all hear today saying we hope that the united states government and congress and senate will not cut the funding of pepfar because if they do, it will be a complete disaster again. we'll go back to square one. it is only going to get worse. so it is a mixture of coming together everybody everybody some other countries have to step up to the plate here. america can't do this all on its own. i don't think the e.u. is doing enough. obviously china is not doing enough. japan is not doing enough. these are countries that can afford to do it. as a panel of people we have to go in to say with can we do here to have those people step up to the plate. to make sure america not only country in the world is doing it. it can't.
it can only provide 33% of the global fund. as a panel here we have to go away, say, listen, these other countries need to step up to the plate. but the funding is so important. the more money we can the more we can stablize the world, the suffering from a.i.d.s. and more compassion we can show to people with a.i.d.s., then, i think that's the way to go it is not an easy solution. >> thank you for that very thoughtful response on it. i. i want to pivot over here for a moment and ask dr. warren a question. in your testimony you call religious liberty america's first freedom. i think you made opening remarks thanking the, for thanking panel for those protections fighting for that. it is the first phrase of the first sentence in the first amendment of the bill of rights. our founding fathers obviously cared a great deal about this issue as i know you do as well and the fight for religious freedom was essential in the country's fight for independence. in your view what is the state
of relidge just liberty in this country today and are we doing enough to protect it? >> as i pointed as i pointed out in my written testimony religious liberty is what america was founded on. it is the first freedom. it is not accident we call it the first freedom. it is the first phrase of the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first amendment. it comes before freedom of speech, before freedom of the press, before freedom to assemble, before the right to bear arms, before every other freedom because if i do not have the freedom of conscience to believe what i want to believe i don't need freedom of speech. if i don't have freedom to believe what i want to believe i don't need the freedom to assemble. if i don't have the freedom to believe and practice my beliefs i don't need freedom of the press. so that is very extremely important and it's all part of what i call holistic assistance. that the kind of assistance that is needed around the world is it
is not just, meds aren't enough. we have to do all the whole reason we started the peace plan because when we started dealing with people with a.i.d.s., we realized oh, they need education. oh they need job training. oh, there is poverty issues here. all of these things are holistic. as a church, all of the things that elton was just talking about, we have a little church. there are six things a church can do. care for and support the sick. that is c. we handle testing and counseling. u, unleash army of volunteers. r, we remove the stigma. which we were just talking about. c, champion healthy behavior. we h, help with nutrition and medicine. it is a holistic approach. you can't just do one thing. and, even think religious liberty falls into that. just one of the other factors i
actually had debates on this in china with with the chinese politburo. so. >> so, back to a comment that elton john made as well about the need for funding. in the tax code you believe tax code should incentivize funding. >> i believe that. >> what about charitable importance to fight a.i.d.s. and global health issues in the u.s. and overseas? >> pastor i'm interested in people's personal growth and character. if you tax me, and then use that money to help the poor, i don't get any credit for it. if you incentivise my generosity, and then i am generous, i actually grow in character by being generous. now, i'm obviously in favor of the government funding and increasing funding for these kind of things. i think there are a lot of things we could cut this should
be expanded. i believe that the 150 line item really does need to be expanded. it is so miniscule. we get more bang for the buck. but i also believe at the same time, this is probably not the committee for it. we ought to incentivize generosity. the tax code should reward generosity, rather than tap it. and, of course americans are the most generous nation there is but we could be even more generous if we create a system that encourages it. people, whatever is rewarded is repeated. >> great, thank you. thanks mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman graham. i just want to start by thanking you, ranking member leahy for your bipartisanship, for your passion, for your commitment to insuring that we have thorough and productive hearings, that we look hard at the human suffering and at the opportunities we have to do good in the world but to do good well and to do it in a way that is sustainable and
bipartisan and effective. i really appreciate your leadership on these important and valuable issues. i want to thank the panel today, for reminding us of what it means to be american and what we can do when we do the best in our national spirit and we bring our best capabilities to the fore. reverend warren, i appreciate you reminding us we have scriptural injunction not to withhold food from those that deserve it when within our power to help them. sir elton john i appreciate your compelling and personal testimony how a change in your own life was brought forward by ryan white and dramatic impact you made across the world. how the two of you in partnership are really helping demonstrate what it means to accept welcome, to love and celebrate a wide range of people who are otherwise suffering. i agree with you, that fighting stigma against lgbtq community in africa is one of the most important things we can do to avoid marginalization. to avoid the spread of the disease and to frankly show our
humanity. and so in my limited opportunities as the africa subcommittee chair the last four years, visiting 15 countries i tried very hard to press that point because the human consequences of ongoing oppression based on orientation are very real. this is very real threat we all face across the world. if i could mr. dybul dr. dybul, thank you for your leadership on the global fund. as you know in the last congress i introduced a maternal and child health bill which i hope we will renew in this congress and give access to innovative financing techniques to strengthen the amount of resources available for maternal and child health. that is really core issue we're talking about here today is how to sustain in a difficult budget environment these vital investments. tell me, if you would what are the opportunities here for innovative financing? what if anything do we need to be doing legislatively to help facilitate that. >> thank you, senator coons.
innovative finance is a big field. one of the most important things to do is get other countries to contribute as the chairman was mentioning and we're actively pushing on that all around the world. i would amend that. germany is number four. i got that wrong. innovate of it financing field has extraordinary opportunities. social impact bonds are working in nigeria. we're forcing matching as i mentioned. they have 100 million-dollar gap to meet the bed net need. we'll give you 50 if and only if you cover the other 50. looks like they will float a bond, looks like they will float a bond in order to cover that $50 million. that is one opportune. the other is around high net worth individuals. as i mentioned we're actively pursuing high net worth individuals. we understand all accounts are constrained not just in the u.s. but all around the world we need private sector to do more.
high net individuals with enormous wealth. we raised $100 million. that was working with bill gates and others but we see huge opportunity. not just the money. it is how we're going to use it. we're trying to build trust funds, public sector private sector trust funds that match public sector invests. this does three things. one, it puts more money in. secondly often high net individuals in a country like korea or china or vietnam are among the most influential people in the countries and they're worth billions of dollars. they are putting pressure on the government to increase their contribution because they're putting in money too. and the third is around innovative implementation. they're saying if i put money in i want an efficient system. so get your efficiency up. work together on supply chain. work together on procurement. work together to bring the private sector practices. those types of innovative trust funds are huge opportunities for us as we are moving so countries are funding more and more of their own programs.
there are many other opportunities around innovative finance we're exploring. countries are doing extraordinary things. senegal and kenya have some of the most, and tanzania, have some of the most innovative programs where they do special tax screams and bonds and funds internally to raise money within their own countries. that is a huge opportunity. thank you for raising it. >> i just visited senegal and kenya last month. as both sir elton john and reverend warren have shown the capacity of the private sector of charitable individuals to make a significant impact here is impressive and we need to deploy further. dr. birx ambassador birx, as we saw in the response to ebola there were americans and folks around the world who stepped forward to make individual contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars that also helped accelerate eu engagement, multilateral engagement but one of the other lessons of the ebola experience was pepfar resources and training were credited with nigeria being able to rapidly identify and contain
the oneout break into nigeria of ebola. what are you doing what is the path forward for integrating pepfar investments into a investments into building broader health care systems to prepare for the next pandemic? and tell us a little more about the two programs, act program, accelerating children hiv a.i.d.s. treatment initiative. which you mentioned in passing but i would love to hear more about in the minute 1/2 we've got? >> great, thank you. so we have intentionally strengthened health systems because without a health system that can provide commodities without a health system that can dying nose disease at laboratory level, without a health system without providers at the health center it wasn't going to be a functional system. it has been very deliberative and very much matched service we're providing a nurse at a health center all they providing hiv tests and referring patients she is treating all patients in
the community. although they may be trained and provided by pepfar they're there for the community. we've seen in every other ebola outbreak that occurred in the drc, uganda, a rapid community response and a rapid medical and scientific response because of the infrastructure that has been built in the pepfar countries. indeed within nigeria the field epidemiologic trained individuals there for polio trained by pepfar but also utilized in yo became the absolute core but underneath all of that you have a global health core that has been funded and built by pepfar around the world. thousands of individuals and countries who are part of the u.s. embassy, who are also deployed to these countries and were immediate rapid responders. on the continent you have highly trained health individuals and host country nationals and direct hire staff.
act and dreams are have very exciting pieces. it illustrates when you effectively seek private sector engagement around a core program that private sector will stand forward. children's investment fund foundation coming forth with $50 million made it possible actually to achieve the goal of doubling the number of children reached by pepfar. only 24% of the individuals children under 15 in need of treatment are receiving treatment. this is really a key initiative. the dreams initiative which mark and i are working very closely on really to empower young women to remain hiv-free, the statistics are overwhelming. 5% 10% 15%, 30% prevalence by 20 in areas of south africa. same thing repeated over and over again. this is a program that i have to tell you, when i said that this was high-risk and we were entering into unknown territory this is a program that we're relying on completely different
approach, ground up planning, bringing everything to the table. from the social structure to the community structure to the family structure to the school structure. to really figure out what the most dissed a advantaged young women need in order to remain hiv-free. we have a lot of, what we call monitoring evaluation around it so we immediately tell what is working and transform it into other countries. thank you for those questions. >> thank you. i appreciate the very hard work you're doing with pepfar and you're doing with the global fund to make sure we have data, we're doing analysis and delivering services more effectively i'm sure sir elton john's foundation better testing and integration at community level is vital. reverend warren community health training in rwanda has demonstrated we can do it effectively but we have to do it in more different ways, and sustainable ways if end of a.i.d.s. in our lifetime is to
be achieved. thank you for your work. >> senator kirk. >> i prefer to call you colonel birx so everybody knows about your service to the united states medical corpse. when we first -- corps. i first met i will tell other members of the subcommittee we took the initiative in 1986 to start off starting of this program. i will say unfortunately senator leahy is not here. i think he was in leadership on senate foreign ops. story i will tell you as a staffer, i went to congressman bob morazic of new york. we start ad 25 million-dollar earmark to start the global program in a.i.d.s. as it as called. the reason why we were leading to do that, is the the first diagnostic kit was produced by abbott labtoresries which i remind everybody is from illinois. and we got the results from abbott that they had they said in the central hospital they had zero positive rate that was very
high according to the models. the epidemic had been going on for about 50 years. we got very brave bob to go into see dave obe chair of house foreign ops. he said something like those who worked with dave obe i will god, if i start foreign aid disease account with earmark. luckily dave changed his mind to his eternal credit. for a doctor dybul i see you success to my great partner this work dr. jonathan mann who unfortunately we loss in the swissair crash with his wife. he told us the need to have the a multilateral and bilateral program. i want to just put before you guys pepfar started with bilateral roots and because of those old bilateral roots it doesn't really work massively enough in mexico.
a country we should be concerned about. with its disease state i think that shows the advantage of the global fund to make sure that they're working in all countries of great concern. we see, i went to school in mexico. remember mexico -- [speaking spanish] so far from god and so near to the united states. that, we have a we have a long time historic problem of mexico taking direct foreign aid from united states and i would say for mark, it is very important we have the flexibility the thing that, dr. mann said, he said, you got to start a bilateral program. don't work with w.h.o. africa. because nakijima's team is too corrupt. debra, you represent u.s. government accountable to congress and gao effective
delivery. i would say to the committee never know what you're working on. this thing started as $25 million earmark. now it is 4 billion. i saw from the chairman's notes. we spent total of 57 billion on pepfar. now i sit back after this work 30 years ago thinking you guys are talking about how we have to remind the public the a.i.d.s. epidemic is still very much with us. that warms my heart to think of all the positive work, never in the history of mankind has one country given such an investment to health care. internationally. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. that was a wonderful question. that was great. to the ten nothing grapher you will have your work cut out for you. very earth think committee we have here. well-done, mark, thank you for your years of involvement. senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all very much for being here this morning and for
the wonderful work that wonderful work you're doing around the world. ambassador birx, dr. dybul, i want to start with you all. i find statistic over80% of new hiv infections of adolescent in hardest hit countries by a.i.d.s. are young woman. talk about why that is. i think the dreams partnership is very exciting with nike and with the gates foundation. but can you speak to what the solutions are as we think about how we prevent young woman from being affected? infected i guess i should say. ambassador birx, you want to go first. >> thank you. i think this level of statistics which nih really helped with because it was their clinical trials that were done for microbesides pointed out
unrelenting incidence highest rate of new infections we've seen just about anywhere on the planet. 4% a year, 10% a year. and i think all of us together then, it started looking at this in a very detailed way. mark will also talk about how we've been working collectively because it will take a community and it will take a village. what puts young women at risk is a whole series of factors and one, if there was a silver bullet we would have already achieved it. so there are probably 10 15, things that have to be done together. what we're hoping is, a lot of studies have done one thing. they have either done education. they have done cash transfer. they have done family strengthening. what we believe is that if you put it together as a combination prevention activity, like we're doing for many other parts of the hiv program, that it will become synergistic one plus one is now 10. that is what we need with the number of young women. south africa alone, three million more young women in that
vulnerable age group than there was at the beginning of the epidemic. three million. so what you're saying is, that like some issues that affect women in developing countries that, the status of women in those societies is, contributes to the tremendous effect from a.i.d.s.? >> that is food way to put it. it. . .
similar to the chairman's about the impact of strategic impacts on investing in these efforts they are not just important to the health and welfare of people in these countries but they help us in america. and i certainly agree with you about the influence of the specter. i wonder if you could talk about how we get the faith sector more involved in helping to educate and encourage americans to support foreign aid. you mentioned that many american people do not understand or support foreign aid because they think it is much greater in
terms of the dollar amount than it is. how can we get the faith sector more involved? what do you see that is working in that way? >> well, i go back to this idea of assistance and aid being holistic. a lot of people don't really no what we do for me give money to other countries. they countries. they don't know what it is going for. in fact, usually about all we know is what we're we are funded so many jets for country or so many you know, arms. that is what is in the paper you you don't here about what america does for other countries outside arming them. that is a big issue. one of the things that ambassador burke mentioned was having the right information. i have noticed that countries are hungry
themselves for data collection. my travel to other countries i would advise us to fund data collection in other countries. that would be a wide use -- a wise use of american assistance dollars. without data collection you can have a national plan for aids reduction, malaria reduction, tb reduction, things like that. i would say that what we need is smart aid. smart aid gives true accountability on both sides that the donors are accountable to do what we say we're going to do and the receivers are accountable on what they receive. smart aid has an alignment with national plan good accountability these data collection systems in place that the poor countries are not going to be able to
afford. >> i am out of time, can i ask a follow-up? i think you are absolutely right about that. i guess can you talk a a little bit more about how we can give the faith sector more involved in helping americans understand why these efforts are so important? >> sen., it has been my experience that the faith community has been more willing to partner than the government. the government is more afraid of the faith sector than the faith sector is afraid of government. and i think if somebody raised up the flag and said we are truly talking about partnerships, i have been been on the hell now often on for 20 years and i heard so much about partnerships with starting ever happens to somebody on my side takes initiative. if there were others who
took initiative on the other two legs of the stool and even called some symposiums together how do we actually do this. business of healthcare what is church good at? distribution. in africa they say the pastor sleeps in the same blankets as a committee. i keep going back to rwanda. when the genocide hit and 94 every single ngo of the country's. who stayed? the for the church because the church is the country. it is the country. most of most of the world you can't talk about community development without talking about the church. it is there. it is there. i think that they would step up to the plate instantly if there was a little love on the side. >> mr. chairman, i suggest that we try and work with reverend warren as we are thinking about how we make sure that we continue to fund our program.
>> absolutely. how do you brand this program in a positive way? i have been thinking about that a lot. senator lankford. >> thank you, and thank all of you for being here for your words. let me finish out that conversation. have you seen effective outreach from government reaching out to the faith sector in particular countries that you have been around since that you have seen that connection with, the united states government or others. >> i have i have found it quite easy to work with other governments. [laughter] they are not nearly as afraid of the church as the american government is. we work with governments literally all around the world command they are very friendly because they realize ran out trying to do there work. everyone has a different role to play. the church's role is not government.
the government's role is not church. on health issues and on education issues and on development issues you can team tackle. tackle. i just found it easy to work with governments overseas. >> it is ironic that we have distributed around the world this concept of freedom of religion and disconnect between government faith and to say that government does not oppose faith afraid of faith and to be able to partner, that is an obvious area of partnering when you talk about a number of hospitals churches, and i hear experts on the medical side say one of the key things we have to have is a distribution center in that location. how do we get that? we cannot be afraid to hear that there is an obvious connection. where we can and cannot connect let's do. it seems to be one of our greatest challenges of getting to these areas with
a trusted relationship a trusted relationship to say this is a way to be able to deal with this disease or deal with this cultural issue and let us engage. i appreciate all that you are doing. let me shift a little bit. i am a little concerned the funding side hiv-aids 128 million for hhs aids and hiv is at 451 billion for nih. how are we doing and coordination? talking to each other to make sure that everyone doesn't raise your hand and say there is a problem. is everyone doing their job?
anyone who wants to jump in. >> interesting how you put together. you talked about our boss because we both were in tony's letter one-time. the way we the way we work with both the nih and the global fund and how we leverage. we work closely obviously. they both support scientific development and capacity development with us as well as key research. they are working on an hiv vaccine and we are very excited about the progress. i think what was missing is the level of absolute working together at the global fund. over the last 18 months that has really transformed into an almost daily testing. we are testing.
we are in constant communication, but we are in constant communication at every level. >> how did that happen? >> we committed to it. >> in part perhaps because i was out in the beginning. i was there soon after. part of the relationship. an evolution globally and in country. we have no and country presence. we are financing mechanism to my leverage mechanism to make sure people will come together to finance. we raise money. you put and call we put in 4 billion a year and raise it from all sectors. and i have to say, you know, that the chairman's comments chairman's comments, without that leadership from the us it will unravel. it is the us that does it. at a country level we work as a partnership to bring the multilateral partners, the un institutions, other dollars with an country expertise to work collectively.
so we have so we have to force ourselves together for impact and to get you value for money because we cannot achieve it any other way. >> there are obvious issues. we deal so much of the finance side. emergency funding for a bola , 2.7 billion. we send 3000 folks in that area to build 11 different a bola centers, and if i remember my numbers correctly we had 28 28 people we ended up treating with $2.7 billion. uncoordinated, too late, massive response, delayed. we cannot have that in a disease like aids. we cannot not have coordination interaction, and make sure every dollar has been wisely did we did we do it in the most efficient way? time will tell us no. so i want to come back on that again. is there a structure and place? i am proud of his review
they you are working on making sure there is communication. is there a structure in place? i hope you stay added. that would be terrific. building a structure to make sure is maintained. >> a structure at every level. part of part of it has to do with leadership and sending a signal clearly down that we will work together and we will work together not only in concert at the headquarters level and that the implementation level but at the principal recipient level's. it makes the principal recipient sometimes nervous how close our dialogue is about what precisely is the global fund doing and what precisely they are doing. we can doing. we can line that up and marry that information absolute clear and transparent way. that is what is new. what the reverend talked
about, data and data collection and transparency. that is what will ensure that there is no duplication because we now know down to the site level where his dollars are going and where our dollars are going. >> thank you. keep going. you are doing great work. we appreciate it. >> thank you. an excellent line of inquiry that we will follow up on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership on this issue this challenge, this world challenge. there is a modest group of leaders who have had an impact on millions of lives. mr. chairman, you are one of those leaders. all of you on the panel are part of that group. a huge thanks to you. i think i think of others who have been part of this conversation who definitely laid out three pandemics in the world command we must take them on.
the biggest leverage that we can have. to connect on economic development and on the need to address aids. you all absolutely are marvelous. sir elton john, as you spoke in poetic terms compassion and love and connection that was striking thing to think about the parable the good samaritan story in which the individual goes on the road from jerusalem to jericho which was known as the blood road because it was so common for people to be robbed and beaten's. the priest comes by and sees the individual who has been robbed and keep going.
the levites and in the samaritan. it was a samaritan is stopped and helped out. questioning jesus then proceeds to say who is your neighbor. this is what he told the story and then recognizes the one who reached out and had compassion and got involved when others did not thank you so much. the piece of this puzzle that i would i would like to ask you to add some additional comments on his this challenge of stigma. back in the 70s first lady ford proceeded to after a mastectomy to talk about breast cancer in a way that open the conversation in america to something that was said no not talked about
are explored. and in your work i am sure that you have connected with certain leaders who have changed the dynamic of stigma's in different countries are among different groups. can you give us some examples that we should try to find ways to encourage others to follow. if anyone comes up transgender and, if people who are out there feeling alone and feeling that they
are suffering because they have hiv gay or any other disease that they have someone else who they identify with comes out and says listen i have this and it's okay. it is an incredibly strong thing to do a necessity. not enough people who have hiv's a well-known have come out and said i'm hiv-positive. it would help so much more role models and famous people in africa they love sports. there are many people in this world who are hiv in the famous and too scared to come out and say it. that's stigma will be lifted if only more people come out and say, say, listen i'm living with this disease, not dying with it. i'm fine. in any circumstance you
know, you can say with angelina jolie, delmas ectomy. i don't want to. all helps people who look up to people. and especially with aids it is important for our people to say, listen i am hiv-positive. you don't have to be ashamed because it is a sexually oriented disease on the most part it is not something that people -- you don't come back and say i have a terrible cough and stomachache. i have just come. i have aids. there is nothing no reason why you should not. because it is you know talked about a sexually transmitted disease if more people came out and said listen, hiv, it's okay. it would help so many.
it will make a situation so much easier. >> if we extend that conversation to nations where the conversation is far more oppressed or underground and is your and dr. warren, you indicated you might have something to add to this and i would love to hear your thoughts. are there some spiritual leaders, some governmental leaders, some medical leaders who have taken stances to help change the course of policy and dialogue in countries? >> whenever i find a pastor who has aids at the teller buddy zero, well maybe god can work in my life. most people know that 18
months ago by youngest son who struggle with mental illness take his life. open the floodgates because you don't help people with your strength. i think mental illness is a bigger stigma. more people are afraid. it is not ascend to be sick. your illness is not your identity and your chemistry is not a character. so when leader stand up and say i'm struggling to major anything else, it allows other people to make progress. we help people more through our weaknesses that are strengths'.
>> one of the great things in africa when i went about 12 years ago and i saw so many women had been widowed because their husbands had died sitting in the hospital at a roundtable with about 15 people the women were wearing t-shirts saying i have aids and been proud. that was the start of a movement where the women in south africa in that area relisted it is okay. our weaknesses are our strengths. from a personal.of view i am terrible at asking for help. i would rather suffer in silence. it is okay to have a weakness. he hit the nail on the head. listen to my another strong as you think i am.
it helps a lot. it really does does. >> thank you. that example shows the power of grassroots action. >> what an impressive panel or fantastic testimony. let me just just thank you for raising the issue of mental illness. this is not something we tend to talk about a global terms. we tend to talk about communicable diseases primarily, but the reality is that the stigma is not domestic. it is international. the good news is that on this issue hopefully there is more bipartisan agreement working on a major rewrite. we we need to think about this globally and hopefully it becomes part of the conversation. senator lankford had an interesting line of testimony and inquiry.
one of the things he talked about was the response to a bola. as the rest of us that there would be a million cases. so we had to be ready but we put a lot of work into our local partners everything from the right ways to quarantine to the safe practices for those that perished from the disease, and it was a lot of that work that made an enormous amount of progress. i want to ask about this question of how we work with local governments to improve governance, improve their local public health systems so that ultimately we're not reliant on the generosity of the united states and the church community and the international philanthropic community. the reality is the reality is global surveys suggest one out of every five people in this world have actively paid a bribe to get a health
service and 40 percent of people view there health care system as utterly corrupt. we know where those survey results are even higher. so how do our public health officials -- and i will ask how do we make sure that our public health dollars are intersecting with the other parts of money that we used to improve governance command are we doing out in the right way and with the right level of coordination? >> i think the most important work is the last one, today. i 1, today. i don't think we were there five or seven years ago command we have always to go to the progress has been extraordinary. we find many governments directly. that has brought an enormous amount of accountability. i will never forget president gma.
now it's results. you have to report the results down to the site level. investing heavily in data and data management systems. it is hard to steal money if you have to show results. much easier if you can just say i did some things. drilling down that accountability and data reporting down to the site level. layers and layers of investigative approaches' i find a collectively and then we bring people to justice. and people are actually going to jail now for the 1st time for corruption in the health system. there is actually really exciting progress. these health programs, without talk that much to it has driven accountability in a way that never existed before.
>> let me ask you a different version. we should care about corruption when our dollars on the ground but frankly just as much we should care what our dollars or not because we will need to use as much money if our systems are efficiently run. in those cases who is the right government entity to try to build the capacity. make it more accountable and efficient. >> the great thing about what he just talked about is how that is integrated at the site of the state department and ambassador. the us government has ambassadors. being able to get him data's that takes the quality of the work at the site, site, the cost of delivering of services and integrates them
into three ways and then compares all the other sites and all the other partners. you can clearly see what sites are out of range. it is costing more for low-quality product. to find those issues and an ambassador takes a forward that same system can be taken in the countries where the us government is providing a 3rd a 3rd of the dollars through the global fund where there may not be a program. >> you were a little optimistic. how much does it matter local structure that is efficient relatively low on
the corruption scale. i scale. i imagine you look very carefully at those factors when you are thinking about where to put your dollars. >> a a back to this holistic approach to aid and assistance in the peace plan promote reconciliation. servant leaders are ethical leaders because we believe corruption is one of the big five problems in the world. so you have to deal with all of them at the same time. you can't just do a poverty. i found in working with local governments around the world the most important thing is to listen to not assume that i no what i know about the country. when i go in the country the
1st thing i do is take a yellow clipboard and sit there and listen to their culture, their values what they are saying. i'm not coming in imposing something. there is a verse in the bible this is when you go find the manatees find a man of peace. one any questions yet. he just said be a fundamental piece. i found i found men of peace were muslims atheists, straight, gay's. those kind of people and start with a man of peace and you can begin to expand.
i think it started listening >> i think that is a wonderful way to think about this. one of the points of trying to make when we look at the money that we spend in the benefits that accrue we should not just look at the accounts label global health when you are running programs that build in a peace the promote there ability to have influence, whether or not that is a health line item are not pay bills better local health systems. as we are reviewing the budget is important to pay attention to the fact that sometimes the titles on the line items don't necessarily translate. >> thank you. thank you for participating. i think each of you in your own way. completely dedicated because i can see how close we are