tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 25, 2016 12:33pm-3:01pm EDT
lot of these companies do not want to give up. there was a bill passed last fall in the senate after years of wrangling that now has private industry willing to pass on information to the government , but only after they have sanitized it. >> president obama held a youth town hall meeting at the horticultural halls of london. many in the crowd by members of the u.s. embassies young leaders u.k. initiative discussing the relationship between the u.s. and the united kingdom. this is an hour and 20 minute. [applause]
>> good morning. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i am a representative of big leaders u.k. initiative spearheaded and i am so excited, honored and privileged to welcome and introduce president barack obama. an organization filled the next obama's, the next david cameron spending the next steve jobs. this initiative reiterates our admiration as future entrepreneurs in the technology generation for leaders of the world to recognize the power of our voices. they are engendering anew about the relation within the u.s. u.k. relationship. admittedly, one was laugh. we have set the stage for her the ocean, for sharing our ways that can pull agile american
leaders and most importantly, given our voices a channel to be heard. the special relationship between the u.s.a. and the u.k. is one separated by an increasingly invisible ocean, the shared with a teardrop, a teardrop that symbolizes the global devastating threats we face cannot be being many potential young leaders dissolution, feeling that was personal exposed to in visiting the refugee camps. however, with organization and recognition from the most inspiring people of the world, we have the next global leaders are respected and creative, powerful and exceptionally articulate individuals. in memory of print, we had the new power generation. we have been given the power --
[applause] we have been given the power to eliminate the discourse surrounding the voice abuse involving global agendas. our channels are becoming with her. ultimately, the ideas and voices deserve to be heard. i'll for ideas leading future agendas. a united body of young leaders and for another lasting u.s. u.k. special relationship. and finally the power of knowledge, knowledge passed down to us from the current spearheads of the world. on that note, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome president barack obama. [cheers and applause] ♪
[cheers and applause] >> hello, everybody. hello. thank you so much. thank you, everybody. have a seat. hello, london. it is good to be back in the u.k. thank you, khadijah for that wonderful introduction. i was saying backstage i would vote for her for some rain. [laughter] i want to thank our u.s. ambassador for all the great work that he's done. [cheers and applause] and it is wonderful to see all of you. i guess you all know why i came this week. it is no secret.
nothing was going to stop me from wishing happy birthday to her majesty. and meeting george. who is adorable. michelle and i have the privilege to visit with her majesty and the duke of eden borough yesterday. i can't tell you what we talked about. i can tell you that i hope i am such an engaging lunch partner when i am 90 and i would like to thank her majesty for letting us use one of her horticultural halls for this townhall. i also just came from touring shakespeare's globe, which is a good way to start your saturday morning. today is the 400th anniversary of shakespeare's death. and as he once wrote, remedy is the soul of wit, so i'll try to be brief on the front end so we have time for a conversation.
these are some of the favorite things that i do when i travel around the world and just have a chance to meet with young people and hear from them directly. it is inspiring to me. it gives me new ideas than i think underscores the degree to which young people are rising up to seize the possibilities of tomorrow. now whenever i get together with leaders that the united states in the u.k. company you hear a lot about the special relationship and the shared value the relationships that bind us together in the way the cooperation makes the world safer, more secure in a more just and prosperous place and that is true. we go back a pretty long way in the u.k. and the u.s. we have taught our quarrels. there is that whole tea incident the british burn my house down.
blast mac but we made out. ultimately, we made up and ended up spilling blood on the battlefield together side by side against fascism and against tierney, for freedom and for democracy and from the ashes of war, we lead the charge to create the institutions initiatives that sustained a prosperous peace. nato, bretton woods, the marshall plan, the e.u. the joint efforts and sacrifices of previous generations of americans and bread sorry a part of why we've known decades of relative peace and prosperity in europe and that in turn has helped to spread peace and prosperity around the world. think about how extraordinary that is. for more than 1000 years, this
was darkened by war and violence. was taken for granted. it was assumed that was the fate of man. now that is not to say that your generation has had it easy both here in the united states coming your generation has grown up in a time of breathtaking change. you have come of age through 9/11. you've had friends go off to war. you've seen families in poor recession. the challenges of our time, economic inequality, climate change, terrorism, migration, all of these things are real in an age of information where tv and twitter can feed us a steady stream of bad news, i know that it can sometimes seem like the order that we've created is
fragile, maybe even crumbling. maybe the center cannot hold. we see new calls for isolationists or xenophobia. we see those who would call for rolling back the rights of people. people hunkering down in their own point of view and i'm willing to engage his democratic states. and those impulses i think we can understand. they are reactions to changing times and uncertainty. but when i speak to young people, i implore them and i implore you to reject those calls to pull back. i am here to ask you to reject the notion that we are gripped by forces we can't control. i want you to take a longer and more optimistic view of history and the part that you can play
in it. i ask you to embrace the view of one of my predecessors, president john f. kennedy who once that our problems are man-made, therefore they can be solved by man and man can be as big as the one. that is how since 1950 the global average life expectancy has grown by 25 years. in 1990 with cut extreme poverty around the world in half. over the past hundred years we've come from the world world a small fraction of women could vote to where almost every woman can. since just the year 2000 we have come from a world without marriage equality to one but the reality of nearly two dozen countries including here in the united states. every few months i equip a new group of white house were roughly your rage. they come in for six months. they are assigned to various
aspects of the white house. and i often talk to them about the fact that if you could choose one moment in history in which to be born and you didn't know ahead of time what you were to be. you didn't know whether you were a man and a woman, what ethnicity, what religion, who your parents were, what class status he might have. if you could choose one time in history where the chances that you lead a fulfilling life were most promising coverage you would choose right now. this moment. there's a world for all of its travails, for all of its challenges has never been held dear, better educated, wealthier, more tolerant, less violent, more attentive to the
rights of all people. and it is today. that doesn't mean we don't have big problems. that's not a cause for complacency, but it is a cause for optimism. you are standing in a moment where your capacity to shape this world is unmatched. what an incredible privilege that is. and you've never had better tools to make a difference, to forge a better u.k. and a better europe and a better world. so my primary message today is going to be with to reject pessimism and cynicism, know that progress is possible but our problems can be solved. progress requires the harder path of breaking down barriers
and building bridges and stand up for the values of tolerance and diversity that our nations have worked and sacrificed to secure and defend. progress is not inevitable and it requires struggle and perseverance and discipline in faith, but that is the story of how we won voting rights than women right and workers rights and civil rights and immigration rights and because of those who came before us often risked their lives to give us the chance to know something better. that's what gives me so much hope about your generation. so many of you are driven by that same impulse. you are a generation that has seen integration and globalization not as drug, but as opportunities for education and exploration in employment in exchange. your generation who sees differences of wireless and diversity, not as a curse but as
a great gift. that is one of the reasons why the united states has invested in young leader initiatives around the globe in africa, latin america, southeast asia and right here in the u.k. so last summer we launched young leaders u.k. and has grown from four students to more than 1000 nationwide. a diverse group aged 18 to 30 from government and ngos of the private or including many of you here today. i know the ambassador is help town hall workshops more than 100 high schools with more than 14,006 performers. he has worked to create more of the u.s. embassy exchange programs that have graduated alumni like margaret hatcher and gordon brown and tony blair because we want you to have the tools, connections and is that you need to make yourselves change agents. the change that you are looking for in the world. so you are young leaders like
michael sahni who's here today. there he is. michael was inspired by america's rock the vote voter registration initiative. he started his own pipe the ballot -- excuse me, initiative here in the u.k. he spent time or he learned about a civil rights movement and he said i have a new understanding of the meaning of perseverance, resilient and delayed gratification, about fighting for change he may not live to see, but your children will live to see. fighting for change that you may not live to see, that your children will live to see. that is what this is all about. that is what we are all about, whether cold war or world war, movement for economic or social justice, efforts to combat climate change. our best impulses have always been to have a better world for
the next generation. mario moment is here today. miriam, where are you? are you also behind me? it's that simple is that compels a young leader to say i may have grown up one grown up one at eight and a small west london house, but i'm going to use the education i got at oxford to help any child with the same opportunities i have. ali is here. right there. it is the same impulse that is glad ali to say i may have fled syria as a child, but now that i am an elected office, i'm going to use my power to help other refugees like me. becca bynes is here today. where's becca? if that impulse that compels a young leader to say that if a woman with a disability i may have fallen down at times, but people who believed in me picked me up.
i am going to pay it forward by fighting against violence, against women because i believe the world can be a better place. you can't help but be inspired by the stories of young people both in the united states in the kingdom. about the good that we can do together. think of all the good that we have yet to accomplish. there is not a challenge on this planet that our two countries don't take on together. as long as your generation nurtures that special relationship and learns from one another and stand together, i am confident the future is brighter and that our best days are still ahead of us. so with that, let's have a conversation. you guys were ready here. here is what we are going to do. i am going to go boy girl, boy
girl to make sure that it is fair. i will try to get as many questions as they can. introduce yourself. we have microphones right there. tell me who you are and where you are from and then try to keep your comment relatively brief so i can get as many as possible. we will start right here. >> mr. president, my name is kayla mccarney from northern ireland and the special relations are nowhere stronger where america has played a really important role in our peace process. how will your predecessor and most come after you helped to foster that? >> well, in northern ireland, and is a story of perseverance and the fact your generation -- how old are you now? 21. your experience has been entirely different than your
parents. they're still huge problems they are, some of them political, some of them economic. every year we have on st. patrick's day, folks from ireland, and we had both your first prime minister and deputy prime minister con. folks are working these issues through. what is interesting is the degree to which the example of peacemaking in northern ireland is now inspiring others. so in columbia, not america right now they are trying to undergo a peace process and they have actually brought people from northern ireland to comment described how do you overcome years of enmity and hatred and intolerance and try to shape a country that is unified.
you know this better than i do, but one of the things that you see in northern ireland that is most important is the very simple act of recognizing the humanity of those on the other side of the argument, having empathy and a sense of connection to people who are not like you. and that has taken time, but you are now seeing that. among young people who are interacting more, you are seeing not. it requires all so forging a new identity that is about being from northern ireland as opposed to being unionist were beaten, you know, just deciding the country as a whole is more important than any particular
faction. but this is -- this is a challenging time to do that because there's so much insurgent t. and the world right now, because things are changing so fast. there is a temptation to forge identities, tribal identities to give you a sense of certainty, a buffer against change. and that is something that our young people, we have to fight against, whether you are talking about africa or the middle east or northern ireland or burma, the forces that lead to the most violence and the most of injustice typically spring out of people saying i want to feel important by dividing the world
into a sandman and then threatened me and i've got to make sure that my tribe strikes out first. fighting that mentality and that impulse requires us to begin very young with our kids. one of the most encouraging things i've seen his children starting to go to school together and having a sense that we are all in this together as opposed to what it is that's against them. but it's going to take some time. it will depend on leaders like you to make it happen. no pressure. you are going to be fine. you are going to the gentleman's turn. the gentleman right there. yes, you.
there's is that america go ahead. or even london. hi, peter. >> if your successor comes to you and she says, so -- [laughter] [cheers and applause] and she says he is prioritized education, health care and defense. these are three issues. they've got a limited budget. what is your priority and how do you think about drinking those and what would you like to see is your priority there? >> for the next president >> and yourself as well. >> well, you know, one of the things that i've learned this
president is i don't always have the luxury of just choosing one or two things. it turns out that how well we do in the united states and how well the globe does depends on a lot of things. my first priority is to keep the american people safe just like i'm sure prime minister cameron if you asked him what is your first priority, keeping the united kingdom save. security is always going to be a top of the list item and the threat from isil and transnational terrorism are absolutely critical to address. but how we address them is important and recognizing that security is not just a matter of military action, that as a matter of the messages we send
in the institutions that we build and the diplomacy that we engage in and the opportunity that we present to people. that is going to be important for the next president of the united states and in a global leader to recognize. i am in of our respective military, the men and women in uniform who serve their country and make such extraordinary sacrifices. but we do them a disservice if we think that the entire burden of keeping the world safe is just placed on those who are in uniform. that is where diplomacy comes from. look at something like iran were obviously the united states and iran has had a terrible relationship since 1979. the bureaucracy there has
engaged in all kinds of very dangerous and provocative ea beers a day were on the path to obtain a nuclear weapon. the hard diplomatic work that we did along with the u.k. and the e.u. members that the security council to forge an agreement where they are no longer on the path to get a nuclear weapon, we never engaged in a military strike to do it, but it resulted in a much safer world. ..
but if there are communities where children can't read, themselves, they are much more vulnerable to fostering these kind of demented ideologies. so i think it's not an either/or question. and it's important for young people, very money thoughtful young people, i think are suspicious of military action because too often it's been used as a knee-jerk response to problems as opposed to part of a broader set of solutions . but we have to do both. and we can do both. in terms of the united states right now, i would love to see a focus on early childhood education as the next step in filling out our social safety net.
we don't yet have institutions that are fully adapted to the fact that guess what? women work and support families and they need things like paid family leave and high quality childcare and we know that when we invest in children between the ages of zero and three that the outcomes in terms of them getting effective educations and having thriving lives are enormous. we end up saving huge amounts of money from reduced crime and poverty. if we just make that early investment. that's something some countries do better than others and we can learn from other countries along those lines.
across the board, across the developing world right now i think we have to attend to issues of inequality and one of the places to start addressing these issues of inequality is making sure that every child is getting a decent education and a lot of our countries are not doing as well as they should on that front. who's next? right. young lady right there. right, you. yes, you. >> hi, my name is fatima and my question is, do you think fighting the td ip agreement will have a negative impact on the eu standing or regulation enforced? >> for those of you who are not
aware, people as we call it is the trade deal that is being negotiated between the united states and the european union. we haven't gotten it done yet. the truth is that theunited states and europe already have enormous amounts of trade . but there are still barriers that exist that prevent businesses and individuals that are providing services to each other to be able to do so seamlessly and if we are able to get this deal done, it's estimated that it will create millions of jobs and billions of dollars of benefits on both sides of the atlantic but getting trade deals done is tough. because each country has its own parochial interests and factions and in order to get a tradedeal done , each country has to give something up so
it's a time-consuming process and people right now are especially suspicious of trade deals because trade deals feel as if they are accelerating some of these globalizing trends that have weakened labor unions and allow the four jobs to be shipped to low-wage countries and some of the criticism in the past of trade deals are legitimate. sometimes they have served the interests of large corporations and not necessarily of workers in the countries that participate in them. but we just gone through this exercise between the united states and asia where we organize a large regional trade deal with 11 countries and part of the argument i am making in the united states is that the answer to globalization and income inequality and lack of
wage growth is not to pull up the drawbridge and shut off trade. the idea is to make sure these trade deals we are embedding standards and values that help lift workers rights and lift environmental standards and help fight against things like human trafficking and child labor and our values should be embedded in how countries trade with each other so for example, vietnam was one of the countries that is part of this transpacific partnership and we said to vietnam, if you want accessto our markets , we understand you have a different political system than us but if workers have no rights and there's no possibility of organizing labor unions, were not going to let you sell a bunch of sneakers and t-shirts
into our country because by definition, you are going to be undercutting the standards of folks in our country and so for the first time, the government of vietnam has started to change his laws to recognize labor unions. now, there's still suppressed. those standards are not where they are in the united states or the uk but it gives us a lever by which to begin to raise standards all around the world. now,that's less of an issue between the united states and europe . the main thing between the united states and europe is trying to just break down some of the regulatory differences that make it difficult to do business back in the states plus making sure those light sockets are matched up. i mean, those light socketsare really irritating .
let's see. i promised i was going to call on this gentleman back here. yes sir. right here. you keep passing by this poor guy. >> my name is elijah and i'm from london . after eight years what would you say you want your legacy to be? >> well, i mean i still have a few more months so b&. [applause] no, no, no. actually, eight months and 52 days. not that i'm counting. i just made that up, i actually don't know. it's something like that. you know what, it'sinteresting. when you are in the job , you're not thinking on a day-to-day basis about your
legacy. your thinking about how do i get done what i'm trying to get done right now and i don't think i will have a good sense of my legacy until 10 years from now and i can look back with some perspective and get a sense of what worked and what didn't. there are things i'm proud of you the basic principle that in a country as wealthy as the united states, every person should have access to high-quality health care that they can afford. [applause] that's something i'm proud of. i believe in. saving the world economy from the great depression, that was pretty good. you know, the first time i came to london was april 2009 and the world economy was in a freefall.
in part because of the reckless behavior of folks on wall street and, but in part because of reckless behavior from a lot of financial institutions around theglobe. for us to be able to mobilize the world community, to take rapid action , to stabilize the financial markets and then, in the united states to pass wall street reforms that make it much less likely that a crisis like that can happen again, i'm proud of that. i think on the international stage, the work that we did to get the possible nuclear weapons that iran was developing out of iran and doing so without going to war is something i'm very proud of. there are things that people don't pay a lot of attention to now but the response to the evil crisis, for about three
weeks everybody was sure that everybody was going to die. we're all going to get evil look, we're all going to die. and there was sort of hysteria about it. and then everybody forgot about it. and the reason everybody forgot about it was because we know what wasprobably one of the most effective if not the most effective international public health responses in the history of the world and saved hundreds of thousands of lives . so i don't know. i will look at thescorecard at the end . and i'm proud about the fact that, i think that i have been true to myself during this process.
sometimes i look back at what i said when i was running for office and what i'm saying today and they match up. so there's a, i think a certain core integrity to what i've beentrying to do . we hadfailures . and we occasionally, we've been blocked but this goes back to one of the themes of my opening statement and it's important for all the young people here to remember area change takes time. and oftentimes what you start has to then be picked up by your successors or the next generation. you think about the gap between well, something i'm most familiar with. the american civil rights
movement. you had abolitionists in the 1700s who were fighting against slavery and for 100 years, built a movement that eventually led to a civil war and the amendments to our constitution that ended slavery and call for equal protection under the law. it then took another hundred years for those rights that had been tried in the constitution to actually be affirmed through the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965. and then it's taken another 50 years to try and make sure that those rights are realized. and they are still not fully realized. there's still discrimination and aspects of american life.
even with a black president. and in fact, one of the dangers has been by electing a black president people have said well, there must be no problems at all and of course we see ferguson, some of the issues we seen in the criminal justice system indicating there's a degree to which that was always false so does that mean that all the work that was done along the way was worthless? no, of course not. but it does mean that if any of you begin to work on an issue that you care deeply about, don't be disappointed if a year out things haven't been completely solved. don't give up and succumb to cynicism if after five years poverty has not been eradicated and prejudice is still out there somewhere and we haven't resolved the steps we need to
take to reverse climate change. it's okay. doctor king said the mark of our universe is long but it bends toward justice. and it doesn't bend on its own, it bends because we pull it in that direction but it requires a series of generations. working, building off of what the previous one has done. so as president i think about it in those ways. i consider myself a runner and i run my leg of the race but then i got to pass it on to the next person and hopefully we are running in the right direction. as opposed to the wrong direction and hopefully they don't drop the baton and then they go and pass it on to somebody else. and that's how i think you've got to think about change generally.
okay. all right. there's a young woman's turn. yes, right there. in the red. yes, you. no, that's you. you are wearing red. yes. hi, i'm luisa, a climate change campaigner and i want to thank you sir for the smart and creative way you work on the problem and giving you the talk about the value of social movements. i was wondering which campaigns have made you change your mind while you've been in office and where you think we need more pressure from campaigns to create meaningful change that's an interesting question and you're talking about climate change in particular or generally on the whole spectrum of issues? that's interesting. it's interesting because i started as a community organizer trying to pressure
politicians into getting things done and then now i'm on the other side and so what's worked and what hasn't? well, in the united states what's been remarkable is the rapidity which with the marriage equality movement changed the political landscape and hearts and minds and resulted in actual changes . [applause] it's probably been the fastest ãit's probably been the fastest set of changes that in terms of a social movement that i've seen. on issues of lgbt rights generally, i didn't meet a lot of pressure. i came in working on ending a
policy called don't ask, don't tell that was preventing lgbt citizens from serving in our military openly . we did that verysystematically . policies in terms of those who have hiv-aids being able to emigrate to our country, hospital visitations a hostof things we were already doing . but on marriage equality, i was in favor of what's called civil unions. my notion was initially that labeling those partnerships as marriage wasn't necessary as long aspeople were getting the same rights . and it would disentangle them from some of the religious connotations that marriage had
in the minds of a lot of american. and that's where i think now, i have to confess my children generally had an impact on me. people i loved who were in monogamous same sex relationships explained to me what i should have understood earlier which is, it was not simply about legal rights but about the sense of stigma that if you are calling something different, it means that somehow it means less in the eyes of society. i believe that the manner in which the lgbt community described marriage equality as not some radical thing but actually reach out to people who said they care about family
valuesand said , if you care about everything that families provide. stability and commitment and partnership and, then this is actually a pretty conservative position to take and you should be in favor of this. i thought there was a lot of smarts in reaching out and building and framing the issue in a way that could bring people who initially didn't feel that as a general rule, i think that what for example black lives matters is doing now to bring attention to the problem of our criminal justice system which sometimes is not treating people fairly based on race or reacting to shootings
of individuals by police officers has been really effective in bringing attention to problems. one of the things i caution young people about though, that i don't think is effective is once you highlighted an issue, got people's attention. you shine a spotlight and an elected officials or people who are in a position tostart bringing about change , are ready to sit down with you then you can't just keep onyelling at them . and you can't refuse to meet because that might compromise the purity of your position. the value of social movements and activism is to get you at the table. to get you in the room. and then to start trying to figure out how is this problem
going to be salt. you then have a responsibility to prepare an agenda that is achievable. that can institutionalize the changes you seek and can engage the other side and occasionally to take half a loaf that will advance the gains that you see . understanding that there's going to be more work to do but that is what is achievable at this moment and to often when i see is wonderful activism that highlights the problem but then people feel so passionately and are so invested in the purity of their position that they never take that next step and say okay, now i've got to sit down and actually get something done. so the paris agreement we just negotiated a number of
countrysideyesterday , the agreement we shape is not going to buy itself solve all problems. the science argues that the world is going to be, going to need to do a lot more in order for us to prevent catastrophic climate change. but the strategy from the start has been all right, if i can get the chinese to agree with us, the two largest emitters that we have to do something and locking china with us for the first time to take some serious steps around reducing carbon emissions and if by getting the two largest emitters to leverage all the smaller countries but also put in their own targets for at least, if we can set up a
marketplace that recognizes the need for carbon reduction and has and can allow people, allow countries to hold each other accountable, then that's a start and we can now start turning up the dial as science and understanding improves, as technology improves so that poor countries don't feel they have to choose between development and carbon reductions. and there are all kinds of compromises. but it's a start. now, there are some activists who after the agreement was signed said, this is not enough. they're not in the conversation. india for example who said 100 million people will have electricity and now they have
some obligation to try to relieve them of their poverty and suffering. so i've got to balance those equities with the imperatives of the planet as a whole and so the good news is is with most of the groups that have been involved in this process, but that's a general principle i think all of you should consider. make noise and occasionally you can act a little crazy to get attention to shine a spotlight on an issue, to highlight it but once people are in are in power are prepared to meet and listen to you, doyour homework. be prepared , present a plausible set of actions and negotiate and be prepared to move the ball down the field even if it's doesn't get all the way there.
you do but it wouldn't be fair if you just start yelling out the question because it's the guys turn also. go ahead. >> thank you president. firstly, for all you did for mankind i think you made a good contribution and really for a lot of young people around the world but my question is slightly on south africa. just last week 400 young boys have died in the mediterranean sea and china is trying to figure like most of us in small you and those young boys have lost their life and since that is an international coming to territorial water and those t7
linked to national chiefs from thailand but at the same time they have been done systematically and in different cases they have been weighed down with somali seat and there is a cases within the coast cities that children are dying with strange diseases that are coming to the close from the south china sea. so i had the opportunity to ask, while you are here for the next eight or nine months that you have, can you find a solution to this within the international arena to look at this issue and can you share some steps you can take. >> i'll be honest with you. i'm not fully familiar with some of the issues you referred to. i'm certainly familiar with the challenges that somalia has been going through. and we've been working
aggressively to try to help mogadishu develop a functioning state that can protect its people and that can get an economy moving that gives young people opportunity. i'm certainly familiar with the issues of piracy and the international concerns that led to many of these ships patrolling these areas. i'm less familiar with some of the issues you discussed so what i'll do is after this meeting, when we are shaking hands i'll try to get some additional information from you. one of the things i've learned as president is although you can always take your way through an answer sometimes it's really good just to say you know what? i don't know all the answers on this one so i will find out about the specifics you are talking about. and see, now you can raise your
hand and you didn't continue. all right. >> my apologies. my name is malena and you've been speaking a lot about we have to become the change we want to see. and you are speaking about progress, human rights and how we in the us and uk need to lead in terms of civil rights movements and lgbt queue issues. i'm about to do something terrifying which is i'm coming out to new us and non-binary person which means, i'm getting emotional i'm so sorry. [applause] because i come from a former textile background has cultural implications. i know about north carolina basically and people are being
frustrated and disallowed to go to the toilet. in the uk we don't recognize binary people so we could literally talk about discrimination is not going to be complete. i've been working for the last nine months with the civil service virginia smith in order to do what i can even though i'm still at university. i'm running for local electoratesat the same time in watford .i managed to get them torespect pronouns , i managed to get them to commit to dual use of toilets and those are things i've done as a student and i really wish the staff would take us seriously as people. i wonder if you can at least today say what you can do to go beyond what has been accepted as the lgbt queue rights movement including people who step outside the social norms. >> look, i think that. [applause] first of all, i
thought you were going to ask to come up here and dance with me or something. but about that, i'm incredibly proud of the to a lot of other leaders around the world. >> i can say from my perspective that we're taking a lot of serious steps to address these issues within the federal government. the challenge is that north carolina is the law that comes
up, for example, it's a state law, and because of our system of government, i can't overturn on my own state laws unless a federal law is passed that prohibits states from doing these things, and with the congress i currently have that's not likely to happen. but we're doing a lot of work administratively, and as i said, you should feel encouraged just by virtue of the fact that i think social attitudes on this issue have changed faster than i've seen on any other issue. i doesn't feel fast enough for you or for those who are impacted and that's good. you shouldn't feel satisfied. you should keep pushing. but i think the trend lines are good on this. we're moving in the right direction in part because of the courageous act of young people like yourself. so stick with it.
all right. let's see. gentleman in at the green here. >> thank you very much. alex from manchester, do have a new sense of compromise but in an age of polarized politics how do you inspire people to connect to compromise and fighting for similar ground. >> it's a great question. something i wrestle with. i would distinguish between compromising on principles and compromising in getting things done in here and now. what i mean by that is, i am uncompromising on the notion that every person, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, has a
dignity and worth and has to be treated equally. so i'm uncompromising in that basic principle. and i'm also of the belief that in order to realize that principle, every child has to have true opportunity, that every child is deserving of a decent education and decent health care and the ability to go to college and so that they can make of themselves what they will. so that's a powerful principle in me. that drives my politics. but if i'm sitting with congress and i have the opportunity to get half a million more kids
intoan early childhood education program, even though i know that will leave two million who need it out of the program, but the alternative is none, i'll take half a million, and i can look at myself in the mirror and feel good about the 500,000 that i'm helping, knowing that the next round of budget negotiations that we have i'm going to go for another half a million. and i'm going to go for a another half a million after that. so, i think it's important for everyone to understand that you'd have to be principled. you have to have a north star, a moral compass there should be a rope for you getting involved -- a reason for you getting involved in social issues other than vanity or just trying to mick and ming -- mix and mingle
and meet, you know, cute people that you're interested in. that's not a bad reason for -- but you have to recognize that particularly in pluralistic societies and democratic governments like we have in the united states and the u.k., there are people who disagree with us. they have different perspectives. they come from different points of view, and they're not bad people. just because they disagree with us. they may in fact assert they've got similar principles but just disagree with us on the means to vindicate those principles. and you are absolutely right that we are in this age now,
partly because of what happened with our media, in which people from different political parties, different political orientations, can spend the bulk of their day only talking to and listening to and hearing the perspectives of people who already agree with them. i know lots about the u.k. -- less about the u.k. media, but in the united states, it used to be we had three television stations, and people might complain about the dominance of the three television stations but there was one virtue which was everybody was kind of watching the same thing and had the same understanding of what the facts were on any given
issue. today you have 500 television stations, and the internet will give you a thousand different sources of information, and so what is increasingly happening in the united states is if you're a conservative, you're watching fox news or you're reading conservative blog posts. if you're a liberal, you're reading "huffington post" or reading the "new york times," and there's this massive divergence that is taking place in terms of just what they agreed upon the facts and assumptions are that wear talking about and that does make it harder to compromise. interesting study have been done showing if you spend time with people who just agree with you, on any particular issue, that you become even more extreme in
your convictions because you're never contradicted, and everybody just mutually reinforces their perspective. that's why i think it is so important for all the young people here to seek out people who don't agree with you. that will teach you to compromise. also help you, by the way, if you to get married. [laughter] [applause] -- but the moe important thing is understanding that compromise does not century renterring what you believe. it just means you're recognizing the truth, the fact that these other people who disagree with you or this other political party or -- that they have
dignity and worth at well and you have to hear them and see them. and sometimes we don't. we just -- all right. how much time die have, by the way, people? one more question. i'll make it two. all right. let's see. let's see. all right. young lady right there. go ahead. >> good morning, mr. president. i am losing my voice. apologize. my question for you is, what leadership skills have you found yourself relying on most during your time in office and why? >> a thick skin.
it's very helpful. i was just talking about this with the ambassador last night. where is matthew. i think i was just talking about this. we were just talking about this. two things i'm pretty good at. -- well, let me say this. one thing that happens as you get older is you are hopefully more aware of and honest with yourself about your strengths and weaknesses. i could list my weaknesses but you asked me about what things i found useful so i'll skip over that. two things i'm pretty good at. one is attracting talent.
and anybody who wants to be a leader, i would advise you to spend a lot of time thinking about how am i helping other people do great things, because as president of the united states i'm dealing with so many issues, and i can't be expert on everything, and i can't be everywhere, and the one thing i can do is assemble a team of people who are really good and really smart and really committed and care about their mission and have integrity, and then give them the tools or get rid of the barriers or help coach them so they can do a great job. and i think leaders who think that their primary job is to make everybody do exactly what
they want, as opposed to helping to organize really talented people, to collectively go to where we need to go, typically stumble. you should be predisposed to other people's power. how can i make the people around me do great things? if they do, then by definition i'll succeed because that my job, is to get this team moving in the right direction. that's one. second thing, i'm pretty good at setting a course, a general direction, and being able to hopefully unify that team around that general direction. often times i have to rely on
other people to implement and execute to get there, but setting a direction requires also listening to what is it that is important to people? and the third thing is synthesizing -- i think it's very useful as a leader to be able to -- particularly on complex issues, to sit around a table and hear a lot of different points of view and be able to get to what is the nub of the issue, the heart of the problem, what the central conflict that we're trying to resolve. and get everybody to see the problem the same -- see what the problem is because i feel a lot of organizations spend a lot of time doing a lot of work, but
they're working on the wrong thing. or they're distracted from the essential issue. somebody opposite said that it's more important to do the right thing than to do things right. and what they meant was you can hack away and build this amazing path through the jungle, but if you're headed in the wrong direction, it's a waste of time. so you've got to make sure that people understand what it is we're trying to solve. that enough. i've got time for one more. all right. the sikh gentleman. yes.
>> first, i am so -- my question is relate toen issue which minorities face in the u.s.a. we see many times sikhs being discriminated against as muslims, and even if we were muslims, that still doesn't give the right for anyone to be islamophobeic to us. my question is why isn't a firm stand being taken on issues such as airport security, where there's a lot of issues with the tsa. since your neighbors in canada recently said that he's going to apologize for an issue that happened 102 years ago and has become prime minister. so why its that he is taking a firm stand on an issue which happened so long ago, whereas a country such as the u.s.a. en't taking a stand against discrimination when it is 2016. >> well, the -- hold on.
before everybody starts applauding that question, let's make sure we're on the same wave lengths in terms of fact. if have taken an adamant stance making sure we're not racially profiling in airports and it's. explicit tsa policy not to racially profile. dot that mean out of the hundreds of airports and thousands of tsa officials that there has not been times where a sikh is going through the airport and somebody targets them for secondary screening because of what they look like? of course that's happened. but that's not my administration's policy, and i'm happy to provide you with chapter and verse as to why we have taken explicit stand against this. it does raise a broader issue
that you're mentioning, which is that in pluralistic societies like the united states, like the u.k., in diverse societies, one of our biggest challenges is going to be how do we approach keeping people safe and preventing terrorist acts. if there was a time when terrorism was here in the u.k. was largely emanating from the i.r.a. so this is not a uniquely muslim problem. what is also true is today there are tiny subset of groups that have perverted islam and justify killing innocent people, and how we do that in a way that is consistent with our values and
consistent with pluralism and respect for religion, is vitally important, and i -- four months ago, visited a mosque in the united states precisely to send a message that our greatest allies in this process are the incredible muslim-americans who are historically fully integrated into our society, but economically are actually doing better than the average american in many measures, that are fighting in our armed forces, that are defending our people in all sorts of ways, and that if we engage in islamophobia we're not only betraying what is essential us but just as a
practical matter, engaging in self-defeating behavior for fears about terrorism. and so the language that we use, the tactics and approaches we take, the respect we show all people, those are security matters. it's not just feel good, liberal, political correctness. it's a matter of what is it that we're fighting for and how are we going to win this fight against people who are so blocked off from the reality of others who they don't agree is, they'd be willing to blow themselves up and kill hundreds of people. it's the extreme of what i was just talking to this gentleman about. about the inability to compromise and recognize
difference and feel comfortable with that. so, this is going to be a challenging issue for some time to come, but i'm confident it is an issue we can succeed at. as long as young people like you are committed to not just believing the right thing and feeling the right ways, but fighting for it, and so long as you're engaged and active, and speaking up, and listening, if you do that, i feel pretty good about our futures. feel good about our chances. you guys inspire me. thank you very much. i appreciate it. [applause] ♪ ♪
[inaudible conversations] [cheering] [inaudible conversations] >> the senate gavels in today at 3:00 eastern, continued debate on federal spending for energy and water projects in 2017. senators are work only amendments and will vote at 3:30 eastern on an amendment deal with the army corps of he can
americans' purchases. and texas senator ted cruz will not be voting today. he is campaigning in indiana ahead of the primary next tuesday. we'll have live coverage of his campaign stop tonight at 6:30 eastern. >> next, a transpacific partnership agreement and its possible impact on the u.s. economy. the pact was signed this year by 12 pacific rim nations, including the u.s. it awaits congressional approval. the discussion took half hour and took place during a meeting of u.s. lieutenant governors. >> the next panel is going to talk about the tpp, the transpacific partnership, which is -- i don't want to say hired in controversy but both parties have had a lot of discussion about it so we thought we'd get the pros and cons on the issue, and to toe the speakers since
we're behind on time, i ask you to follow the lights. i'm going sit down there and i can go like that. so, with that, sandra overby, with our largest business association, the u.s. chamber of commerce, will be first, and then our second speaker. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for inviting me. as he said my name is -- are you awake now? my name is tammy overby, the chamber senior vice president for asia and i'm pleased to be here today to share a few observations about what we think about the transpacific partnership. i'm here today on behalf of three million small and medium-sized companies, also our state and local chambers of commerce as well as large companies that are members of the chamber and our national federation. the u.s. chamber of commerce is a strong supporter of the
transpacific partnership. we believe it's vital to america's commercial and economic interests, as well as our geostrategic interests. tpp is critical because economic growth and job creation at home depend upon our ability to be able to sell american goods and services abroad. after all, 95% of the world's consumers live outside the borders of america. the 12tpp countries created a high standard, comprehensive, economic trading zone that makes up about 800 million consumers and represents nearly 40% of global gdp. so, why does trade matter to our country? we believe it's something because -- it comes down to jobs, american jobs. already one in four manufacturing jobs depends on exports. one in three acres of american
farms are planted for consumers overseas. all told, nearly 40 million american jobs depend on exports. now, these numbers could be even higher, but unfortunately the playing field for trade is not always level. and as somebody who spent 20 years of my career working in asia, it's really not level in asia. while our market, the u.s. market, is generally open, our exports face high tariffs and often a thicket of nontariff barriers in other markets. nobody wants to go into a basketball game during march madness down by a dozen points starting at tip you but at that time what are farmers and manufacturers face every. they these barriers are burdensome for she small and medium sized members, 300,000 of which actually export. the good news is that america's trade agreements do a great job
leveling the playing field, and the results include significantly higher exports and new -- for new and better jobs. the chamber analyzed these benefits in a recent report entitle "the open door for trade" some high lights of the study said for america's 20 trade agreement partners right now, this only makes up six percent of the world's population, but those 20 trade agreement partners buy nearly half of our exports. by tearing down foreign barriers to u.s. exports, these agreements have a proven ability to make big markets even out of small economies. so, u.s. experts to new trade agreement partners have grown by an average annual 18% in the first five-year period the agreement is entered into force. that much faster than we see typically from u.s. export growth.
the increased trade brought about these agreements supports more than five million american jobs, jobs in your state, according to our study. trade relate jobs also pay well. for instance, manufacturing jobs tied to exports pay wages that average 18% higher than those that are not. now, the trade balance is a poor measure of whether or not a trade agreement is working, but we often hear opponents say that trade agreements cause deficits. i could -- i don't -- from my perspective, nothing could be further from the truth. the transpacific partnership will open asia pacific's dynamic markets to american goods and services in particular, five of the 11tpp partners we negotiated with, we don't already have ftas with. this will be a bilateral tread agreement with japan, one of the -- the third largest economy
in the world and one we have not had an agreement withful also vietnam, ma lay sharks new zealand, and -- we don't have agreements with these countries. it's critical we open these markets because nations around the asia pacific have not been standing still while we've been negotiating. they've been making their own free-tread agreements and trade agreements by their definition are preferential, which means only the parties in the agreement benefit, and i just want to give you one example. on january 15, 2015, the australia-japan fta went into force and the australians are taking full advantage of it. in the single year that agreement has been in force, australian exports of table grapes has increased tenfold. shelled almond sales have increased ninefold. frozen shrimp exports up 90%.
rolls oats up 40%. these are just a few examples. this is because australian products and services now have a competitive advantage in japan. for example, today, the japan beef tariff is 38.5%. that what our cattlemen face every day. but as part of the australia-japan fta agreement they agreed a 19.5 tariff. so suddenly australian beef looks a lot more competitive, and i can tell you they are in that market every day, signing multiyear contracts. our caughtlemen are losing every day. tpp also addresses some 21st 21st century generation issues. for the first time in any trade agreement, the sanitary and chapter includes enforceable obligations which go beyond the wto spf chapter. for the first time there's a
chapter dedicated to small and medium size companies. for the first anytime any agreement there are binding provisions in the electronic commerce chapter which happen ensure the free flow of trade and also for the first time in a u.s. agreement there's a chapter specifically designed for state-owned enterprises. also for the first time in any agreement, a provision that requires the countries to criminalize trade secret theft. so, we see that tpp also provides manufacturers with new opportunities to increase sales and exports in the growing asia-pacific area. there they're eliminating or reducing nontariff barriers across the tpp countries with strong oklahomas on disciplines prohibiting local content barriers, export tasks, nontransparent and discriminatory regulatory barriers. something that i hear about every day from american companies. tpp sets the strongest rules to
date on prohibiting government restrictions on movement of data and on localization of i.t. infrastructure. and an important issue for large companies, but hormone for the sm es. many of those companies who are using the cloud to sell globally through internet storefronts. tpp also setting strong i.p. rules, particularly when compared to the status quo. with the first ever provision, again, which requires countries to criminalize trade secret theft. that's important to our members to help against foreign theft and count -- counterfeiting. tpp sets stronger than the current status quo rules on custom operations, transparency and anticorruption. one of the things i learned living and working in asia for 20 plus years is that america tend to have free trade and fair trade in our dna. the rest of the world does not.
our companies are playing by rules that other countries don't follow, unless we sign agreements with them and then critically important, we must enforce them. tpp provides new transparency and fairness and nondiscriminatory rules for government procurement, competition policy, and state-owned enter prize which levels the playing field and expands opportunities. it provides binding time limited transparent state-to-state dispute settlement for most of our key obligations in the tpp. to ensure that the commitments can be enforced. with the growing middle class and an increased spending power in asia, there clearly expert opportunities for our -- export opportunities for our farmeres, ranchers and businesses, small, medium and large. according to the east-west center, 28% of u.s. goods and 25% of u.s. services already go to asia today.
there is so much more opportunity. the pie in asia has been exponentially growing but america's slice of the pie has been shrinking. tp will address that, from our perspective. across america, 68% of congressal districts' exports goods valued at $500 million or more go to asia. 39 american states send at least a quarter of their exports to asia. put another way, 32 of u.s. expert-dependent job owe their living to asia. tpp will reduce 18,000 tariffs in a dynamic part of the world where things are moving quickly. tpp gives the u.s. a strong hand in helping to write the rules for trade in this important area of the world. it makes us an active player, not a bystander. tpp will affirm and deepen america's ties in asia at a time
when many our our trade partners perceive is as pulling back. many of our asia friends have made very clear they will judge america's commitment to asia by whether or not we ratify tpp. so, in conclusion, from our perspective, the u.s. cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while others set the rules for trade. to create jobs, growth, and prosperity that our children need, we must set the agenda. to open foreign markets to american made goods and services we urgently need to ratify tpp, and with with all trade agreements ol' and any we must make sure they're fully enforced. the chamber looks forward to work with your association and i'll be passing out a book later and there will be a test. thank you for your patience. >> man, she is a yellow light lady. we have a lot that we have to be concerned about.
now i have a new issue. australia is beating us in table grapes. >> i lose sleep over it every day. >> roger johnson is the profit the national farmers union. can farmers pay you in crops or always have to be money or booze? you're going to have a different view or maybe another view of the tpp. so issue it's all yours. she was yellow. >> very good. thank you. so, i'm assuming i point it this way. look at that. it works. okay. we do have a different view. i spent most of my life as a farmer in north dakota. i was an elected official in north dakota for a dozen years as the state's agriculture commissioner, so my focus is more agriculture.
and while i'm also now the president of the national farmers union and we have a long-standing view about supporting trade, but being smart about it, and so i'm going to give you a few pieces of data that might be something to think about. so, this is just a map of the countries that are in tpp. you have undoubtedly seen that before. tammy didn't talk specifically about exports to korea, it is instructive for us to look at korea because korea was the last major trade agreement the u.s. entered into, about four years ago. so i've got some data about korea. if you listen to those who support trade agreements, they always talk about exports. you rarely hear the word imports. i'll talk about both because the difference between exports and
imports is like the difference between money going into your bank account or writing a check out of your bank account. it's a big deal. okay? so, exports to corearch yes, they went up. that's passenger vehicles on the left, pharmaceuticals, machinery on the right. from 2011 to '15. >> disports to korea. beef this big one. lemons, a few other things. doesn't really matter. they're randomly chosen items that are chosen by folks who promote free trade, and in fact, that's where these two charts came from. but they don't often talk about is the deficit. the deficit is the difference between exports and imports. so if in fact -- as i've showed
you, all of our exports to korea going up, up, up, up. but if the imports from korea are going up faster, you got a problem and that's exactly what has happened with korea. the defit has doubled in the last four years. if you look very specifically at about 10 or 11 years, i think, we have in this timeline, the export is sort of that ugly dark green color. the tall bar is imports. and what you want to focus on is the red bar on the bottom because that is the difference between the two. the deficit. the dashed line is when the korean agreement was implemented, and what you can take from this chart very clearly is that our exports -- our deficit in fact with korea had been declining.
you see sort of an upslope until it hit that line and now a pretty steep downslope following implement addition of the agreement. is it a cause of the agreement? who knows. fact of the matter is this is what the data shows has happened. what we were promised in advance of the korean grandma is -- korean agreement was that the deficit would shrink and create 72,000 jobs. what we got was 75,000 jobs roes 0 because of the increasing deficit. i don't want to talk about this one because it's just designed to show how small agriculture is of the total -- die that on the next -- i do that on the next slide as well -- because i mostly talk to agricultural audiences, mostly focus on the good things from trade agreements relative to agriculture. ingagriculture is really good
thing. we as, as a rule, year after year, have surpluses we produce relative to trade. we sell more stuff to the rest of the world than we buy from the rest of the world relative to agriculture. that a good thing, but it's a very small thing, because agriculture is a relatively small part of the overall economy. the rest of the economy is just hemorrhaging in trade deficits and that's whatting this chart shows. this goes back about 30 years or thereabouts, maybe not quite 30 years. and you can see where some of the trade agreements were entered that sort of spike up is the great recession. all the things hat happens in recessions is you trade let, and when with trade less the deficit improved because -- this is the fundamental point that i want to make. we believe in trade. we think we ought to be a whole
lot smarter about how we do trade. as a country, the goal that the congress gives to our trade negotiators is pretty simple. it's pretty straightforward. it just says, we want more trade. okay? that our goal. that's our official goal that we tell usgr to negotiate, give us more trade. we don't specify net trade, which we ought to. we don't differentiate between exports and imports, which we ought to. and the fact of the matter is that as you look at our performance in recent times, it's actually about 40 years of consistent persistent trade deficits and we have a real problem, and we haven't really taken any action to deal with this. now, the difference between the red line and the dark line -- it looks black there -- is the red line is the trade balance without agriculture.
so that's the total economy, and if you add agriculture in, you'll see the deficit nudges up just a little bit. that's the surplus that i was talking about that agriculture contributes overall to our economic performance relative to trade. we got about a 500 plus billion dollar deficit. half a trillion dollars every year that we import more stuff relative to exports. and so we believe that we ought to have a different charge given to usdr, and the charge ought to be, we want you to bring back agreements that are going result in us approaching balanced trade. where imports and exports are relatively balancedful why is that important? that 500 plus billion dollar deficit converts to a 3% drag on gdp. you all know what has happened
to gdp since the great recession. we're at a hair over 2% growth over the least ten years. fairly long expansionary period. most economic metrics pretty poor. in fact, that growth is the lowest since before world war 2 republic, and a significant reason for the growth being so low is 3% net drag on gdp, a direct consequence of having a trade deficit. so what would happen -- what should we do to try and deal with this issue? most economists will argue that the single biggest reason for the deficit is currency manipulation. the predominant currency manipulators in the world are in asia.
china, by far, the biggest. studies have suggested that the chinese are responsible for 350 to 370 billion of those 500 plus billion dollars in deficit, and the single largest reason for currency manipulation -- for the trade deficit is currency manipulation. currency manipulation, very simply defined, is when countries intervene in other country's currency markets for the specific purpose of cheapening their currency and increasing the value of ours to gain a competitive advantage. it has happened repeatedly, frequently as part of -- immediately following the conclusion of trade agreements. we saw it with nafta. in fact when not only did -- as soon as the nafta agreement was negotiated, the following year
the peso dropped by 50%, and suddenly some of you guys remember this -- ross perot guy with the big ears, talking about the giant sucking sound that was going to be created from nafta. it happened because -- and -- now whether he was -- whether he knew why it would happen, who knows but the fact of the matter is it did happen. their currency devalued significantly, and instead of us buying all these thing -- us selling things to mexico, we in fact purchase a bunch of them. there is a direct relationship that is worth you do doing a little math over. our trade negotiators tell us, and most economists will come up with a number around this, a number that every billion dollars in exports is worth 5800 to 6,000 jobs.
so, the corollary of that is if instead of a billion in experts you increase imports by a billion dollars, you lose that many jobs and that is why this country and the sort of the politics of this country are kind of mixed up in my view, right now. a lot of folkers -- folks are seeing exactly this impact on lost jobs. i already talked about the korean trade agreement. this is the final slide i want to show because my light just turned yellow. this is the different source of data but what we're looking at here is -- this is a measure of wages. so, what has happened in real terms is americans, especially the lower economic levels, wage
values are in fact in real terms declining. that's a problem, and that's when you guys all start hearing about the impacts of trade agreements. and that is my concluding slide, and i am prepared to take questions. [applause] >> yellow is the new red. obviously has seen this presentation from you before. it's been interesting. couldn't resist. i'm sorry. do we have -- this is really a very serious issue and this is why there's so much controversy over it. it's a major issue. questions? >>nks. so, you messenger you would like to be smart about trade agreements. can you tell me what that looks like and then i'd like to hear the counterpoint in terms of whether that's a feeling that is
supported or not supported. >> sure. the number one thing we ought to be smart about is being really serious about currency manipulation. everyone -- every economist in the country talks be the fact that china has been a huge currency manipulator and yet we do nothing about it. nothing. the tpp, for all of its 6,000 plus pages, has zero enforcement authority relative to currency manipulation. we know this is the biggest single cause of the trade deficit, and yet all that really happened was sort of a little side piece that was negotiated at the last minute that said, all the participating countries' finance folks are going to sit down and talk about the currency manipulation, but no ability to do anything affirmatively to top
-- stop a country for sanction a country for using currency manipulation. this is no small deal because history historically, japan has been a major currency manipulator. vietnam just last summer, after china again reduced the value of its currency, vietnam followed in pursuit. malaysia did as well. and these are members of tpp. so, we -- if there's one message you ought to get from this, we need to do something about that. >> quickly follow up before the response. so, what is the sanction look like? i'm still kind of confused. so, let's say there's manipulation and there seems to be a buy-in on that what das your satisfaction look like that would make you feel more comfort able with a trade agreement? >> put some sort of import tariff against that cup country's goos. that's what the wto provides are
sanction when countries lose a case in front of the wto. they say here's the amount of the loss caused by the errant behavior. it's however much money, and whatever that value is, they then are given the authority, the winning country, to extract those kinds of tariffs against of what part of the offending country's economy they choose. that is what we ought to have. >> i'm very curious about this issue. when our dollar devalues would the reciprocal be true? when i traveled to ireland a number of years ago, my dollar -- our dollar is weaker than -- and have to spained lot more money. >> absolutely. don't mistake changing values of currencies for currency manipulation. currencies -- in a free-trade environment, currency ought to
move just like commodities or other imports and exports, any kind of things that move in trade, currency ought to do the same thing. ought to be free-floating. what happens when countries choose to manipulate currency is they deliberately go into our financial markets and buy up dollars to drive the value higher, relative to their currency, which drops down, and then you get the artificial imbalance. that's what economists around the world have been arguing relative to chinese behavior, is what needs to be disciplined. >> thank you. no surprise we have at bit of a difference of opinion here. we do agree that currency is a real issue. the chamber does believe a trade agreement is the right vehicle to address it -- doesn't believe -- >> the a trade negotiation you have ministers trade you. don't have the finance people. this is the first time to my
knowledge that in a multilateral trade deal they did tabling the treasury secretary and the finance folks to come up with a currency commission, but my colleague is absolutely right, it is not legally binding or enforceable. all 12 countries agreed that it would not manipulate their currency for competitive advantage, but it is not covered under dispute resolution. one point i should make, though, is that right now the u.s. treasury department can determine and can call out a country for manipulating currency, but they haven't. and there are reasons for that. one other issue we should note is that in tpp, this is a -- this is a reciprocal agreement so whatever we ask of them to do, we are agreeing to do the same. and when we have very long
discussions about how to make currency -- put currency in there and make it binding, our treasury guys were quite frustrated because from their view, they did not want to give up that policy space. can you imagine congress allowing foreign countries to sanction our fiscal policy? that's what putting binding currency provisions in a trade agreement would do, and while, again, we agreed currency is a real issue, we would like too see, whether g-20, g-7, imf, a financial body, not a trade body. >> i have a question. just a comment, ever eliminate foreign governments from lobbying our common if it's a good thing to do for a foreign country, we should do it if it's the right reason -- [inaudible] -- get rid of the lobbyists. >> as an american who lived abroad two decades of my career
i can tell you we play by rules nobody necessary the world does. and our companies are, our farmers your con state tunes are disadvantaged. it's our belief that tpp is not a perfect agreement but be think it moves to -- makes is closer to a more level playing field. >> if i could just make a brief comment about currency. this is -- we have now put a real sharp point on the problem. it is this. currency manipulation doesn't belong in trade agreements. it belongs with the finance ministers or with the imf or some have said with the world bank of the u.n. the problem is every one of those guys says, not our problem. and what vehicle do we have in this space to deal with this? a majority for the first time ever, a majority of both houses
of congress, relative to tpp, said they want currency dealt with in a trade agreement. is it perfect that it belong -- who knows where the perfect place is. the fact of the matter is if you don't have it display and -- someplace and you don't have binding protocols in place, you're just -- we're going to talk about this for another 40 years, but we can continue to see deficits getting ever deeper and that is a real problem in this country. >> another question. >> panel, fascinating. thank you very much. applause [applause] >> we'll have live coverage here on c-span2. and texas senator ted cruz will not be voting today. he is campaigning in indiana.
ahead of the primary there next tuesday. may 3rd. c-span will have live coverage of his campaign stop the johnson county fairground tonight. ... up into canada from the eastern grid, down into mexico i guess from the texas grid but by and large you're talking about three grids already assembled? >> guest: well,they are assembled , there are 3200 parts to it in the sense that there are 3200 electric companies.
in this country. and whereas in the old days we use to have vertically integrated companies that produced power, are communicated across large vast spaces of the countryand then downloaded into the various customers , these days you're going to have 3200 companies, some of which produce power. some of which convey power. others of which deliver power. and from the commercial point of view, that works out very well. it means the consumer gets a better deal because power can be purchased from wherever in the country it is not needed for example. wintertime, florida doesn't need as much electricity as it does in the summer. chicago needs more electricity than it does at other times of the year so you can take power
from florida and you can transfer it to chicago. the big problem is, the power use and consumption and the production of power has to remain in perfect balance. the only thing that is capable of maintaining a perfect balance between the production and consumption of power among the 200 companies is the internet. and the internet was never designed to be protected. the internet was never designed to be defended. and so the internet is vulnerable to a hacking attack . and hence, the theme of this book, lights out which is there are people out there who are already inside our grid. the chinese are, the russians are. the iranians probably are if they are not yet, they soon will be. the north koreans, maybe not quite but they probably can get in at some point.
it's a very, very complex thing. it takes years of mapping before a power or an entity can get in but the potential damage to the united states of americ , to our economy, to our survival is almost existential. an attack on the power grid recently put would be an act of war. >> host: where are the susceptible points in the grid for these attacks? >> guest: we are going to keep getting one here as this gets along but there is something called a seta system. and it stands, it's an acronym that stands for supervisory control and data acquisition. it's a way of saying we got the balance of power going in and power going out. i technology it to a huge blue that has 3200 valves and if
half of them are letting air and half of them are taking air out, as long as you have perfect balance the balloon is perfectly inflated. too much air in, the balloon verse. too much air out, the balloon collapses. so too with our electric power system. if you can get into that scida system and they can and they have, it's problematic. >> host: how are they getting in? is it now where, in the emp? >> guest: and emp first of all, let's be clear. and emp is an electromagnetic pulse. an electromagnetic pulse would be generated by someone exploding a nuclear device for example. at high altitude above the united states. and the polls that comes down would knock out all of the electrical systems. i'm not really talking about, i touch on very briefly in the
book but only briefly. one of the reasons that there is so much concern about the north koreans pay, having nuclear weapons and be, having the intercontinental ballistic missiles that could deliver one of those nuclear weapons is because that's the kind of attack that they could launch. likely, unlikely , i talked to janet napolitano who was the former secretary of homeland security. she said not in her top 10 list. when i asked her about the likelihood of a cyber attack on the grid, she put it at about 80 percent that it would happe . >> host: and that's more of a malware thing, correct? before that's more of a malware thing. but somebody getting in there and playing.there are all kinds of things that you can fiddle with inside our power grid.
the scida system would be perhaps the most damaging. >> host: ted, will come in your book lights out you visited with all four of the department of homeland security secretaries. what do you hear fromthem, from tom ridge, michael chertoff, janet napolitano ? >> guest: actually, michael chertoff and our current secretary, jay johnson had sort of the same suggestion to the public at large because i was asking, let's say for the sake of argument that this can happen and the president has warned that it could in two of his state of the union addresses. leon panetta, the former secretary of defense warned there could be a cyber pearl harbor. janet napolitano warned this could happen . these are not third and fourth ranking bureaucrats. these are the very top people
in our government warning that it could happen.so what's the plan i asked michael michael chertoff and jay johnson essentially had the same plan . which was, get yourself a battery-powered radio. to which i then replied, okay. and precisely what is it that you're going to be telling me on my battery-powered radio that you can't share with me now? neither one of them had a particularly good sign. tom ridge had a more nuanced approach. he made the observation with which i agree totally that we in the united states are a reactive society. we're not very good at preemptive action. look at everything that we did in the wake of 9/11. and you can see that once we aroused to action, there is almost no limit to what we do. i mean, quite literally
thousands of young american men and women are dead, hundreds of thousands of iraqis and afghans are dead. we have spent somewhere between two and half and 3 and a half trillion dollars. i'd like to cite the example of a business that began in the year that christ was born and that business proceeds to lose $1 million a day every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. it would be another thousand years from today before that business had lost $1 trillion. we have extended way in excess of $2 trillion in 15 years. that's a lot of money. >> host: tom ridge after 9/11, we were talking about batteries and death date.
how nacve wasthat or was it nacve? >> guest: you know something, i was one of those who made fun of those actions at the time . i've become a little more accepting and understanding of what he was trying to do at the time. sometimes simply motivating people to any kind of action at all is a step in the right direction. even if it turns out later on that the action you'll motivated was totally unsuited. an example, i was born and grew up in england. prior to world war ii, the british government prepared the british people for gas attacks. hundreds of thousands if not millions of gas masks were produced and pass out. nurses were trained in dealing with the aftermath of poison gas.
for reasons no one has ever totally understood. hitler never attacked great britain with gas. a massive bombardment of great britain but the gas attacks didn't happen. even so, the mobilization of british society in 1939 and 1940 was enormously helpful when those bombing attacks began. it was an attack totally dissimilar from what had been expected but the fact that society had been mobilized, that people were ready for action, even if the action they were anticipating was not going to happen was helpful. the point i'm making is, tom ridge may have been totally off the mark with what he recommended in the wake of 9/11 but the fact is these days, most americans are prepared for any kind of disaster. some are as you know from the
book, i spent a lot of time with the mormons and the mormons are prepared for almost any kind of disaster as individual families and as a church culture. and it's worth studying their example to see what can be done. what can we learn exactly what would you recommend . >> guest: the first thing is going to be, we are going to run out of food very quickly. we had no electricity. a city like new york city. the state of new york has or at least had when i was researching the book, 23 million meals ready toeat . that sounds like an enormous amount of food . with 8 million people in new york city alone, that food would be gone in three or four days.
but what are you going to do on day five? i would first of all recommend that the government invests a significant sum of money, maybe 50 or $100 billion in freeze-dried food. the government doesn't start huge qualities of mras because they have a shelf life of only five years. freeze-dried food has a shelf life of 25 to 30 years. if we invested in a huge quantity of freeze-dried food, it would be available for any disaster. an earthquake, hurricane, blizzard, no matter what. or a cyber attack on the power grid. and i would recommend also that we have a plan forevacuation . right now any talk of evacuating a city like new york or philadelphia or chicago is totally ludicrous.
where would you go with these people? where would you take them? we have only to look at western europe today and the somewhat hapless fashion in which is dealing with 2 million refugees from syria, from libya. there is no plan for the mass evacuation of people in this country and while we assume that states that still have power would happily welcome hundreds of thousands of their fellow americans, i don't happen to believe that's true. i know of at least one state where the governor has a plan in the event that large numbers of people from neighboring cities, swarming into his rural state. he has a plan to have the police and the state police and the sheriff's office and national guard waiting with a bottle of water and a sandwich for each car and a map showing them where the nearest gas
station is and telling them i'm sorry, we do not have the infrastructure to support you folks here. unless you have a local resident who is willing to take you win, you've got to keep moving. i fear that would happen on a grand scale because remember, the people most likely to flee, most likely to sort of run for their life are going to be people who have nothing. they will be the poorest among us. and let's be frank, this is still in many respects a society in which race plays an important part.so if you had tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of african-americans, hispanics, people of color heading to the rural states that are almost uniquely white, it could be problematic.
. i'm saying could be, i think we need to make a plan.if we make a plan, i don't pick it will be a problem but the time to make a plan is close i would ask you. >> host: who's responsible for the protection of the grid? >> guest: well, the power companies have been insisting that they are. in the last couple of years, i believe more and more power companies are coming to the conclusion that they can't do it on their own but when you ask who is going to help defend them, it's going to have to be organizations like the national security agency . look only at the current kerfuffle between apple with its iphones and the fbi.the notion that you are going to give over control of the defense of your industry requires that you give up an awful lot of information that a
lot of these companies do not want to give up. there was a bill passed last fall in the senate after years of wrangling that now has private industry willing to pass on information to the government. but only after they have sanitized it which takes some time. in the agency to which they are going to get it is the department of homeland security which has no ability to defend them in any fashion. the department of homeland security then will further sanitize this information and then presumably pass it on to the nsa. we are dealing with a form of attack which happens in milliseconds and yet, the manner of responding is one that will take days if not weeks. it's not a very good plan.
>> host: cyber security has been kind of a big business had that? tom ridge is in it, keith alexander is now in it. >> guest: say the nasty thing that is roiling around in your brain.>> host: that's what i've got before you're going to leave it to me aren't you? it is clearly one of the questions we have to consider. to what degree is all this conversation about cyber security and the dangers of cyber attack, to what degree is that the function of people who have been in the business of dealing with cyber warfare? getting rich now that they have left government by coming up with defensive mechanisms that your silence implies would not even be needed.
all i can say is i had to look at the issue very carefully and i talked to a lot of experts who have absolutely no financial interest in protecting against a cyber attack and i'm convinced that the danger is real. are there people who are going to get rich absolutely. just as there have always been people in this country who have gotten rich on the defense industry . the difference between getting rich by creating munitions or helicopters or bombers or warships and people who created it by trying to find solutions for cyber warfare and hacking, keith alexander to whom you referred a moment ago likes to say and he's the former head of the nsa, he likes to say there are only two kinds of companies in the united states today. those that have been hacked and those that don't yet knowit .
in other words, everybody. he's probably right. maybe aslight exaggeration but he's probably right . >> host: ted koppel, you mentioned at the top of this discussion that both russia and china are already in our grid. how do we know that? how did they get in? >> guest: the only reason i know it isbecause people who , high-ranking people who were in the nsa told me so. and i think they're in a positionto know and the flipside of that course is , we are in the chinese grid and we are in the russian grid and anything they can do to us, we can do to them in spades. however, the difference between the danger of a nuclear attack and the danger of a cyber attack is in the case of a nuclear attack, when those
missiles are headed toward the united states, the question of attributiondoesn't even our eyes. we know exactly where they came from . we know it the moment they leavetheir silos. in the case of a cyber attack, we may not know for months . so it becomes virtually impossible. the president of the united states to order a counterattack at least in the early days and weeks. and once you are a few months down the road, what's the situation on the ground here at home? the great fear that i have is those that are most capable of launching a cyber attack against our infrastructure are probably the least likely to do it. china, russia. as you go down the scale of capability though, you get to the iranians. you get to the north koreans, you get to the syrians.
you get to isis. once you get down to transport, their capability today may be marginal but a year from now, two years from now? they have a lot of money. they can buy a lot of expertise and the equipment you need to do this is not that hard to get. i'm told you can get it on the open market. if isis ever has the capability to launch a cyber attack against this country, and inflict great pain and suffering, they will do it. there's no doubt about it. and even with some of the others like the koreans, like the iranians, they are more likely to do that then they are to launch a nuclear attack against the united states. in the case of a nuclear attack, we would know exactly
who did it and the response would bedevastating . in the case of a cyber attack, only remember the north korean attack from sony pictures. everybody in the country it was the north koreans who had done it. it made sense. it took the fbi months before they could establish it with any degree of certainty. >> host: in the acknowledgments, i take issue with that word to begin with but in theacknowledgment of your book, you write i read a great deal and can't recall what precisely planted the idea of a cyber attack on the grid but it seemed plausible . >> guest: as i mentioned to you earlier in this conversation, the president had twice mentioned it in the state of the union speeches. the secretary of homeland security, the secretary of defense had mentioned and i do remember sort of being vaguely
interested but i mean, my primary interest was well, if they are right and if it's true, what would the consequences be? and if the consequences are as devastating as i think they're going to be, what's the plan? and my suspicious reporters nose told me there was no plan. and i am even more convinced of that today. >> host: have you done anything in your personal life to prepare for such an attack? before yes. we have freeze-dried food. i made sure all of my children and grandchildren have freeze-dried food that would last them for a while and beyond that, i've acquired a few things that operate on solar power. i sort of taken my wife for example has copd, there are times when she needs oxygen. and i need something to run
that little piece of equipment so i have a small solar powered generator thatwould do the job . i haven't done much. she was talking about getting a gun and i'm a little reluctant to do that. >> host: tissue the wilddeer and the turkeys on your property? >> guest: to shoot the people coming from the solar equipment and the freeze-dried food. at this stage in my life i'm not going to do that . >> host: ted koppel you paint a doomsday type picture. is that fair? >> guest: no more fair than it was less say in the 1950s to paint a similar doomsday type picture. what i'm saying is thatwhen a new weapons system exists , and countries have not evolved in terms of developing a means of creating a balance of terror as we did with our mutually assured destruction program,
between us and the soviets, when we don't think about it, when we don't talk aboutit , when we don't plan for it we are simply sitting back and saying well, if it happens it happens and maybe it won't happen. too many people whom i respect have told me that the chances of it happening are considerable. i'm trying to get a conversation started. i'm trying to get a dialogue started. i only wish i could somehow inject this subject into what has been a pretty silly political campaign season so far. but that's going to be up to the candidates. they will have to decide. at some point or another, one of those candidates, he or she will have to deal with the decision as president obama is having to deal with it now. it's not something we are going to be able to ignore. we live in an age of the internet. the internet was never designed
to be defended. we have to keep thinking about that. so the fact that it has now evolved into essentially a weapon of mass destruction means that we are living in a time and space in which we have made very few preparations to deal with this wonderful instrument that gives us so, so many benefits. we tend to think about the dangers only years later. i often wonder what would happen if someone had been able to show our forefathers and mothers. if you keep going with this new invention you've got, this automobile you call it? the day will come when you have 50,000 fatalities a year on your highways just in the united states of america.
are you willing to give up 50,000 lives a year for this convenience? maybe in the year 1900, our parents and grandparents and great grandparents would have said, maybe not. but once theyhad enjoyed the benefits of the automobile for a generation or two , come to the american publicnow and say give up your cars and i'll say are you out of your mind? we , too late to the conclusion that things that are of great value to us can also be a great danger. >> host: who is george r cutter? >> guest: george carter is the former chief scientist for the nsa. he was chief of staff of the nsa. he is now a man i believe in his early 80s, still has all his marbles. very very sharp. and his outrage by the failure of the power industry and congress to do very much to
prepare for the danger of a cyber attack. george cutter and i am pleased to say was enormously helpful to me in understanding some of the issues and the dangers and i think a lifetime of working in us intelligence with particular emphasis for the last years that he was at the nsa and cyber security, i thin he is well-placed to be someone we need to pay attention to . >> host: ted koppel, a lot of people know you from your iran hostage report. a lot of people got to know you that way. nightline came about that way. the us is stuck on iran. that set a bad precedent in your view? >> guest: no more than the bombing of nagasaki and hiroshima set a bad precedent. it clearly, from the japanese viewpoint, those were the most
horrific weapons ever used in the history of mankind. there are many people, president truman among them who believe that it brought the world to a speedyconclusion and save the great many american lives . you are absolutely correct. we and the israelis were the first to use cyber warfare in a significant fashion. against another country, against iran, against their nuclear program. you have to understand whenyou let the genie out of the bottle , what you have done is made cyber warfare and acceptable form of dealing with your adversaries. it's not going to be very impressive for the us government to take the position that you can't do that to thus. we did it to someone else firs . now, it was effective in
delaying the iranian nuclear program or a year and a half, two years but it did open that particularpandora's box . >> host: here's the book, lights out: cyber attack. a nation unprepared. surviving the aftermath. the author, ted koppel. >> and the senate just gambling back in a couple of seconds ago, ready to work on the date for federal energy and water project. that bill that sets ending on this project for 2017. a number of amendments pending. others will vote on one of those this afternoon at 5:30 eastern.