tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN June 12, 2015 9:00am-11:01am EDT
i would say, though, when you're trying to match student educational degree experiences at the four-year level, it does get a little bit different in a sense that, you know, you're a liberal arts major, perhaps, you may major in english which could take you into a number of professions weather it's teaching or journalism or working for a corporate company. i think some of our four-year degrees that are focused around the liberal arts or are focused around some of the sciences, there may not be a quick track. for example, as an undergraduate i was a sociology major. you know, i clearly understood that i needed to go on to
graduate school as a sociology major if i really wanted to hone in on a specific professional degree area. we do offer a lot of professional degrees, of course. whereas cheryl's analogy lines right up. you know, nursing profession, for example. some of our s.t.e.m. degree professions whether it's engineering or whatever. i think we have to be a little bit open because at the four-year level you're moving into a lot of breadth and depth. you have to allow for the very important majors and the arts and the sciences. my college was huge in the arts and those students do everything from designing your wedding ring to fixing your picasso. >> yeah. i want to move forward because we don't have a ton of time and i have a lot of questions, but i think you touched on two points that i want to circle back to later in the conversation. one, the value of, you know, collecting data on outcomes and
publicizing it. and two, the fact that there is incredible diversity in the college system in the u.s. i do have a couple of sort of wonky questions about some of the strategies for using federal aid or sort of federal investment in higher education as we discussed earlier today. one of them we talked about on the phone the other day, this idea of risk sharing. and i think, you know, when i first hear that, that sounds very vague to me. but there are some very concrete strategies that the federal government could use to push institutions to really take on some of the risk of student loans. could you walk us through a couple of the ways that the federal government could structure some kind of risk sharing program? >> sure. so i think it's important to start by acknowledging the status quo and the incentives that sets up. i think cheryl's discussion with what's going on in her campus is inspiring. it's wonderful.
we hear this from campuses around the country. there tend to be islands of excellence and innovation. part of the reason that's the case is the incentives are not there for the average typical college necessarily to focus on student success. the current way we hold colleges accountable at the federal level is the cohort default rate. a measure of what percentage of your students default in a three-year window after their finish school or leave school. easily gained as long as you push people over the three-year window, you're held harmless for that. and, you know, it's also an increasingly less meaningful measure because students are able to sign up for payments and other protections. one of the ideas that i've been writing about, other people have been discussing, including chairman alexander, is the notion you would put colleges on the hook financially for some amount of that, the risk of
default or lack of loan repayment. for lack of a better term. and the beauty of this is it sets an outcomes based sort of framework and says to colleges, you get there however you'd like to. it's not sort of a top-down here are the innovations you have to implement via federal directive. but it says, here's what we're going to hold you accountable for. you do your best to meet those. and it presents two opportunities. one is to improve the incentives for colleges. the other is to learn a lot more from successful colleges about how to organize for student success. so, i mean, on the most basic level, it is literally holding colleges financially responsible for a percentage of the loans that go unpaid by their graduates. >> yeah. >> and dropouts. >> erin, and do you have any thoughts on that? i know young invincibles have been involved because it's a major issue to face. are there any that seem promising to you or does it seem to not be the way we should be going? >> i think we should start by acknowledging some of the big news in the last couple days
around corinthians. >> right. >> when we talk about risk sharing or accountability more broadly, i think here is an interesting example where students really led the charge for accountability here. and, you know, we were very happy to see the department of education step in and provide some relief. obviously, you know, we should preserve those protections around gainful employment. but as we think more broadly around risk sharing, i think we very much agree that that's an important part of the -- any kind of higher education reform is thinking about how schools sort of have some skin in the game. and so one of the things we've looked at is not just basing on cohort default rates but also on repayment rates. because sometimes default rates can be gained. we think, you know, students should be able to repay their loans at least if not better than if they had just graduated from high school.
we should be able to show some advantage from that. and keep in mind the, you know, the risk is already being born by taxpayers and by our country when we have schools that fail to do their job as far as giving kids a decent education. so we think, a, we're interested in looking broadly at repayment. b, we think any risk sharing should take into account not just tuition but the broader costs of going to school. which we know are very dramatic. and finally, you know, any proposal to do risk sharing which would in part depend on data being able to better understand sort of what -- and we'll talk more about it -- but, you know, eliminating the ban on student record is important. but also we shouldn't undermine the protections we already have. things like gainful employment, the 90/10 rule are important protections that are already -- we can see they're already starting to work.
>> but we need some things that sort of goes beyond that, yeah. >> exactly. but we need something that will apply to all schools. >> yeah. i want to get back to that thought, but first i have a question for you sarita. i know that we -- in the conversations i've had it's been very clear that your organization has been very interested in making sure that students have good information. sort of information in general both in terms of what institutions are doing well to serve the new more diverse student body that's heading to higher ed. i mean, when we're talking about these questions of accountability, students making -- you know, colleges making sure that students are getting a degree that's going to help them in the workforce, what kind of information do students really need to make smart decisions about where they're going to go to college, how much money they're going to be taking out? what kind of information do they need and what aren't they currently getting by all the different both private and, you know, federal vehicles for rating colleges and getting
students information on that? >> it needs to be very practical. it needs to be very real. not to come out swinging with senator -- the senator's comments, but i think that a student, regardless of where they live, should have the means to not only believe but act on that college is affordable. and unfortunately too many students -- and the term we like to use a post-traditional students -- are still left navigating a catalog or materials from an institution where loans and grants and scholarships -- so i think the kind of information that needs to be available universally is something that is very plain spoken about the difference between a loan and grant aid. >> right. it's not just an award. >> it really is quite different. and i've been doing this long enough that i do remember when we used to talk about financial aid and it was aid.
and for the population that we focus on, latinos are -- over the course of the years we've been setting it, it looks like good reason. when you graduate from college with that kind of loan debt, life is very challenging. and we're now talking about it universally. i think at the very least, the information that the federal government and any large entity provides needs to look at what does this mean when the student graduates? and one of the practical ways i used to do when i was a recruiter at ut austin for graduate education, i used to look at the entry salary of an assistant professor. because i was looking at doctoral education. i used to say, okay, what is the potential first-year salary as an assistant professor? that's the most that your loan debt should be when you graduate. because if it's anything greater than that, you're talking about buying a car, having a mortgage, having a family, and all of those things become difficult. i'm not clairvoyant, but 20 years later as a country, that's
what we're talking about. >> yeah. that's an interesting point. i mean, one of the things that i found very interesting about senator alexander's remarks is he's passionate about the idea that college is actually affordable and we're sort of misleading students on that. but on the other hand i think that the burden of student debt is very real. this is sort of a question for the whole panel, but do you think that -- i mean, do you think college is affordable? do you think student debt is a bigger problem than car loan debt are or are we blowing this all out of proportion? cheryl, you're nodding a lot. >> i do think college is very affordable. i think it's very affordable. i think community college is in particular are extremely affordable. that's where i got my start. i actually graduated from one of the community colleges of which i am now responsible for. however, i think any investment
in time and money, students should know what their return on that investment will be. so i have a degree from the community college, but i have two advanced degrees from two very expensive -- where the tuition was very expensive. but i do believe that it paid off. so i think transparency and to keep an education affordable but also having transparency so students can understand exactly the investment that they're making. will that degree from that institution pay off for me? >> and are you able to figure that out with the information currently available to you? or do we need something like a student record system where the federal government is tracking students over time? >> exactly. i think that will help. however, i don't let city colleges, my institution, off the hook because that doesn't exist. i did an 18-month -- i have a team of researchers who do nothing but study data. there's enough data in the
world. the problem is it's so spread out that it's so confusing for students to put it all together. so institutions have to take the responsibility to put that information together, show exactly -- if you go on city college's website, you can see the seven industries that will dominate our region over the next decade. the credentials that's needed, the places that are hiring, your starting salaries, and how our classes and credentials align with that. and we've created structure by structure pathways to make that easy. so they need to understand what their opportunities are and have institutions like ours to act on them. so that they can understand where they should make that investment. and how that investment will pay off. >> yeah. i mean, this sort of gets at a big picture question we were touching on back in the greenroom earlier. the higher education act, it's an important piece of legislation. but there is so much that can be
done at the local level, state level, particularly the state level to make sure that colleges are serving this population that we're concerned about well. do you have a thought on that? >> i just want to add that, you know, this isn't an academic debate. you can just go talk to american people, go talk to students, go talk to borrowers. i think there's a recent gallup poll that showed the cost of college was the number one worry for parents. so no, obviously college is not affordable. and you can look at the ways in which debt has spiraled. there's a reason why nearly 15% of the graduates are defaulting on their student loans because they're not able to come out with a degree that can help them succeed in this economy. >> like a two-sided issue. it's a college expense and it's going to cleanly a less well off than they were a year or so ago. >> should take responsibility and i think data will be helpful in that.
but when we look at the ways that states have consistently cut funding and since the recession, about 47 of 50 states have still not returned to their prerecession levels. basically, states are effectively privatizing our system of higher education. and it could do a lot to incentivize states to continue to make the investment. >> we need to go to questions, but i think the site funding is sort of being the elephant in the room. so if anybody else wants to comment on that -- >> i want to echo what he said and also the secretary. that we really do need to get the states back to the table to support higher education. and an incentive program, we've proposed a matching incentive program to help address that. states do need help. i mean states aren't just being mean saying we don't want to help in higher education and support our citizens. they really do need help. so i think the feds do need to help us out here. quickly on the student loan repayment issues and whatnot, i also think as we think about the rules, we have to make sure that everything is included. for example, we don't know about
private loans that students take. we don't have access to that information. >> we meaning the colleges themselves? >> colleges and universities. students can go out and take a private loan, a family can. we don't have that information in our databases, so we don't know if they've done that. and that does happen quite a bit, you know, at the four-year level. so i do think we need to take into account the rules. also keeping in touch with students when they sign up for their loans. i mean, we don't have any way to kind of hold that student. they may or may not give us their forwarding address and we're chasing them around and our default rates are going up, we're not able to inform them. because when students get into a challenge, often the best thing or the only thing they know how to do is just walk away. and so they respond with their feet. and so when we think about putting these guidelines into place, we need to look at it
from everybody's perspective including the institutions perspective as well. >> did you want to add something? >> just i think the question is, is college affordable for you? we're having this conversation, who is making that determination? and i think the students are the ones who ultimately -- their families are the ones who are going to make the decision if it's affordable for them. and in this conversation about both the federal role and the societal influences, i definitely think that as we are moving towards a more vocational way of framing the impact of higher education, the business sector has to weigh in. because they're the beneficiaries of the success of cheryl's work and others who are doing that. and i think as that becomes operational, not just aspirational, but really, the paradigm that we use, i think the business sector has to take
up its leadership role of investment, because they are not only acceptable of the graduates, their prospects, their work is determined by the quality of our graduates. the business sector has been critical and investing in isolated institutions, which is a good thing. but in terms of a leadership role, we need to all in higher education be talking about the business roles involvement in terms of investors. >> right, right. in i may, if we can just go to questions. i think there are some folks lining up. but if anyone has some questions they would like to ask. if not, we can keep talking about this pretty much all day. what were you going to say? >> what matters is whether the thing you're paying for actually pays off. and so even if tuition is zero,
if the credential you're studying for is not worth anything, then you've lost the opportunity. i think the emphasis on free, in my opinion, is a mistake. i think we need to be on -- we need to be looking at value. and this is partly a data question, but partly just changing people's mind-set, right? there's this odd conversation we're having, right, where we're talking about how great higher ed is for the economy, right? more people should go, more people should go. and at the same time, we're having a conversation about how bad student debt is for the economy, right? and the two seem to be very much intention for me. right? the fact that we have a lot more student debt means a lot more people have gone to college, right? so the notion that that is somehow bad for the economy, it just strikes me as being intention. >> i don't think there's the notion that there's more student debt so there's more people going to college. i agree.
that's true. but i think what you said is what i try to emphasize. if more people go to college and the credentials are relevant, we have more employers at the table and we can guarantee them some sort of success for this investment, then i'm not sure the student debt should be going up as much as it is. i question whether we have more people going to college and graduating with credentials that are not relevant, meaning that, you know, are they finding jobs, are they transferring to four-year institutions where they're continuing on to that advanced degree that they need? how well is that college paying off for them? that is my big concern and that's what i push at city colleges and that's what i think we should be holding institutions accountable to. how do you quantify that? how do you guarantee that for a student. so i get a little concern that we have a lot more people going to college.
but the projection of the skills gap is continuing to widen. that concerns me. >> because people are not studying the things that would close the skills gap? >> they can't study what we don't offer. is it being offered? and is it being offered in a way that is structured enough so that they can go on and get that education and still juggle family, work and everything else. the structure of the institution matters as well. all of that matters. >> yeah. yeah. that's sort of a perennial tension that was touched on in the earlier panels about making sure there's access to college and making sure colleges are serving students well. and that shows up when we're talking about performance-based funding at the state level. basically if you were saying to colleges you need to reach they would say we are going to become more selective in our admission in order to meet that. do you see that as a big concern?
are there anyways that you know federal dollars can be used as a lever to make sure that access is maintained even as we go forward and states go forward thinking more about accountability? >> well, i think pell has to stay and play, to continue to make sure that's still there as an important tool. i'd love to see year-round pell come back because that was so important. we only had one year with that and we saw a great return from that one year. so that would be wonderful if we could get that wrap around pell back. so i think other than that, a lot of the responsibility to release that part of the tension really lies with the institutions, as cheryl is intimating. but i think the federal government could help us be consistent, stay with it, don't be afraid to raise it and make
it available year-round. >> it's certainly intention. and i think part of the issue here is that we've provided a lot of college access in name only for a lot of people. we provided access to a few credits and some debt and inability to pay it back. and i think we need to ask questions about whether that's what we meant by access when we first passed the higher ed act. we've spent a couple of years now bemoaning the fact that for-profit colleges were enrolling people that were unlikely to be successful. that, to me, strikes me as a problem across the board. if we are knowingly leading people into debt that are unlikely to be successful, that is a problem. if the system is hurting a nontrivial portion of people then we should rethink the way we do it. >> we have a question from the audience. i'm sorry i didn't see you stand tlg. >> thank you for being here. my question i thought it was interesting earlier how linden b. johnson signed the act on the
desk that he worked at to help put himself through school. since then we know that the tuition costs have been rising and we know that college is more expensive for students. my question is -- i mean, luckily, i go to a private university with an organization that sponsors it. my question is, are we going to be able to put ourselves through college by working, is that over or is that a possibility in the future? there seems to be an implicit assumption that loans are necessary. >> i do think that there's -- it's funny. sometimes there's a disconnect with elected officials who believe you can just work a summer and pay for your college tuition. i don't think that the days of working while in college are over. we have a work study program that we've proposed expanding it dramatically and improving how
it's targeted so it's targeting the right students. we've supported expanding sort of career pathways to connect the students between colleges and education afterwards. i think work plays a huge role because it's one of the things that's going to help you have a successful career after, after you leave. but i think that the way the costs are going, it's increasingly becoming unrealistic to think that you could just pay for it over the summer like maybe my dad did. >> i think some people might say we have an opposite problem where an increases number of students are only attending part time because they have to work in order to pay for the tuition. >> that would be my population. i think the days of working and going to school are very much here, but i don't think that many of my students are working to pay for school. they are working to feed their families. and many of them, because of that, have to go to school part time which takes them way too long to complete a two-year degree.
so that is another reason why we've taken a very structured approach at city colleges. with our structured pathways predict enrollment and scheduling so that now students can know exactly what time they're going, their classes are picked for them and they can work now and go to school. but i think you touched on a very important point. is providing financial aid year-round making it more simpler and will help pay for some of this? but also there's a lot more skin in the game institutions can have. i'm always putting accountability on the institution to help students. so, you know, we've paid for free summer classes if students enroll in 15 credit hours because that helps them get to a to-year degree quicker. we pay for dual credit, dual enrollment and we have over 3,000 students doing that right
now. and we are one of the states that do offer the free two years, which we'll be starting in june. so programs like that, to me, pay for themselves. and i think there's just more skin we can have in the game as institutions. i think students are working. i just don't think they can afford to work and take their check and feed their family and pay for college. >> the majority of students in america work while going to school. that's a fact. so to ask the question if it's possible, students are doing it every day. you're talking about the tension. the tension i find in these discussions as we are talking about the anomaly. that is what is happening. and the question with any leadership moment is how are we going to recognize that reality i'm not the data person on this panel, but i know that's part of this data. how we respond to that
opportunity, what we do to say these stunts are pursuing higher education and they're pursuing their lives. how are we enabling that. that is the opportunity in a discussion like this and in the discussions we have before us. and in that respect, i mean, i find that students are navigating very -- in a very entrepreneurial way. oftentimes we talk about them not doing it right. i mean, if i have a bone to pick with the obama administration, it's this discussion about undermatching. i think, yes, it's very important that students go to the best institution they can be admitted to. but honestly, students are pursuing higher education in every way that's presented to them. >> uh-huh. yeah. >> quickly, the root of your question i think was are loans now necessary? just an assumption. and that's a really good question. and i think part of what we've -- we've limited ourselves in thinking about how would we get to a place where loans are no longer necessary, right? there are lots of different ways
to think about bringing the cost of college down and they are not just sort of declaring it free and moving on. there is -- what we would ideally have is a system where colleges would compete with one another on what really matters, which is the value of the credentials that they're producing. so you would have places that are inexpensive where you can work your way through that deliver a huge return. those would be popular for that reason, right? they wouldn't be this place of last resort like they so often are now. >> i think we are operating on a deficit model when we think about this experience in the colleges or universities, and i think that we've got to take all of these issues and try to figure out what is going to be in a model of prosperity. how do we take all the shortcomings, how do we take off the attributes, how do we bring innovation to the table so that we can begin to say the americans to go to college, it
is possible and here are the ways that it can happen to you. i really think we've got to stop thinking -- and i'm saying this from a public institution point of view where we've just been cut cut cut which is making it difficult for us to keep our tuitions at a level that your dad bade, for example. i think we still have to work our way through that and figure out and bring the foundations to the table like everyone said we have to bring all of those assets and bring in the right policies to help us think about the prosperity mark. this country needs people to get a college education and we've got to figure out how do we help them move to that model and understand that it is possible and it is doable? >> we are running out of time, but i wanted to ask one last question. sort of gets to what the root of what's next america is all about. we hear a lot about the
nontraditional students, post traditional students, and more diverse student body are heading to college than ever before. i was wondering particular the folks that work at colleges or work closely with students today, what are some of the things about the students that are going to college now and the struggles they face the people in washington just don't get? because i think the conversations operate on a level of assumption about what college should be, which is based often on, you know, four years at prestigious school and then you go on. but that's not the reality for most students. >> just going back to the issue of cost, they think it's tuition you pay to participate in that collegiate experience. and it's not. you've got transportation, you've got to be able to purchase your books and supplies that support the experience. depending on what the profession requires, whether you have to be out in the field for internships or externships, you have to have a way to get there and to get
back. you do have to be able to in many cases support your family. so it's not this narrow focus that it's just the cost of tuition and everything is all set is a myth. students know that and that's what they run into. we also have to understand when students say they don't have $200 and that's the one thing that's keeping them out, it's really real to them. and if you don't have that $200, you're not going. so i think trying to understand the realities that students are certainly facing. so this whole idea of going to college is hard work. i mean, it's a job and it's not just something you go in and, you know, we pour the information in your head and you walk out. we are not doing brain surgery yet. i still think when we think about innovations, we need to make sure that we are designing experiences that lead students along a clear pathway. and i'm really happy to see
colleges and universities coming back and laying out clear pathways to the degree. i think that is going to make a huge huge difference whether you are an adult learner or a 17 or 18-year-old. knowing where you are going and how to get there and how long it's going to take you and what it's going to cost. >> so cost questions. anything else? >> i would totally agree with certainly the point about it's hard for policymakers to understand the range of economic challenges facing students, in part because they don't understand how diverse the student body population is. we just did some research on the number of young parents. about 25% of students are actually parents. so thinking about things like child care becomes a huge concern. we have a proposal to expand child care in schools which could alleviate some of the challenges. and finally, students are going to college for complicated
reasons. partially it's to get a job and to get ahead, but it's also to become more knowledgeable and become a responsible citizen. so i think sort of how we balance those two concerns is something students are going to focus on a lot as we think about higher education. >> well, thank you so much. i think we are out of time. we went a little bit over but that is because we had such a great panel and a lot of folks and not a lot of time to talk about everything we wanted to talk about. so thank you all so much for coming. [ applause ] thank you so much to sophie and ore panelists. special thank you to the bill and gates foundation and lumina foundation and all of you. we will be sending a survey in the next couple of days and we would love your feedback as we continuously like to improve national journal events. thanks so much and have a great
on energy and power we're set to hear from the acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, janet mccabe. se was scheduled to testify for a look at the epa's new role revising air quality standards for ground level ozone. a final decision on that by the way is expected in the fall. this was set to start at 9:30 eastern. a little bit of a delay in the start of this hearing as members are over on the house floor continuing debate on trade legislation this morning. we are expecting a 10:30 start now in this hearing. we'll have it for you when it gets underway live here on c-span 3. the house is debating trade legislation today. president obama was set to meet with the democratic caucus this morning. if there are any comments after the caucus meeting, we hope to have those here for you on the c-span networks. here's a little bit about what's happening in the house this morning.
>> what's going to happen today? what's the plan? >> well, it looks like they're going to vote on three bills today but two really huge votes we're looking at. the first on trade adjustment assistance which is a democratic priority but dems started to revolt on that yesterday. they just weren't happy with what was going on and they're seeing it as a way to potentially stop the trade promotion authority bill cho would be probably the second vote of the day. if they pass taa they can move on to tpa. but if either one of those bills fails, it would pretty much, for right now, stop all of the trade bills. >> now in the hill this morning you have a whip count and you go through all of the members of congress and list how they're voting. what currently, what's your count? >> well, i think we're still at about three dozen or so
democrats who are undecided. and right now we're really looking at the democrats. we're expecting everybody kind of i think -- we've been sort of calling it a niagara falls of votes. we're seeing everyone come out in either support or opposition. there is going to be a group of democrats who will probably wait until they're on the floor and watching the vote counts to actually cast their vote and there may be a handful of who wait and decide on the floor. we're seeing these pile up. how they're going to vote. so it's absolutely going to be close. i have heard some reports that there could be up to 30 democrats who actually support trade promotion authority. but with any of these votes, the tight ones especially on trade it's almost an anything goes kind of day depending on what happens. >> what is the reason that members -- that the public hasn't been able to see the
transpacific partnership agreement as written and that members have to go into a secret room and take no notes or cell phones and that's the only place they can read it? >> sure. trade deals, i mean there's 12 nations obviously including the united states, involved in this agreement. so the kind of understanding or explanation out of the white house and even from the other trading partners which include japan, australia, new zealand, is that they prefer a certain level of con dentfidentiality so they can put forward their offers on what they want to see on the document. it's a living agreement that's always changing and they're trying to nail down chapter by chapter. but they think if congress does pass trade promaegs authority, the expectation has been said that nations especially nations
like canada would actually put down their best deals. so basically they just want some sort of accountability that they can negotiate and kind of continually changing their offers. and that's just what they've asked for. it would be available to the public if this trade promotion authority bill pass are for 60 days before the president signs it. but most democrats who oppose argue that would be too late that they couldn't make any changes to it. but that's what the explanation of the white house and the trading partners said. they expect a level of confidentiality in the negotiations that have been going on for years. >> what a has been the role of nancy pelosi? >> the minority leader in the house has basically made sure that the white house and her members have an open channel
with each other. and as most of i believe most of the house leadership. but they've talked to the white house. a lot of officials have come up to capitol hill. yesterday there was a big flurry of activity with jack lieu on the hill and chief of staff of the president. so he basically said you guys can come up sell the trade deal and let democrats decide based on merits, you know, how they'll vote down the road. she's left the door open and said, you know you guys can come up here and talk to everyone and i'm going to let the members decide. and she has not taken any position yet and neither has clyburn. they've let the members go through the process and make up their own minds. >> but john boehner has been whipping his -- the republicans have been whipping their member
to vote for this? >> yes. in fact ways and means chairman paul ryan who was one of the coauthors on the tpa bill with or ren hatch who is the finance chairman in the senate and the top democrat on that committee, ron widen wrote this bill. ryan has taken an aggressive bill, along with several of his ways and means committee, most of his ways and means committee has really helped. they've held lots of trade meetings lately with republican to answer questions. a very good number of republicans have shown up for those meetings with including the ones who are skeptical, who weren't sure who haven't voted for trade in the past. they've taken an aggressive stance in trying to make sure that the members are educated they understand what's in tpa, what's in the transpacific partnership and sort of answer any overall overarcing trade questions.
and members have been complimentary of those efforts saying it's helped them review what's in all of these bills. trade is very complex. so it's been a very open process on that side as well. >> finally, vickie needham of the hill. first vote this morning, what should we watch for? >> that's a great question. it has to be trade adjustment assistance. thabl's the bill they're going to do first. that bill needs to pass in order for trade promotion authority to come up. there are a lot of democrats, including sandy eleven who is the top democrat on ways and means who said he's going to oppose it. a lot of liberal democrats who have come out against the trade promotion authority see that as stopping taa which is a top priority for them. it helps folks who have lost their jobs because of trade and has been included in the package, you know, to not --
it's not working as well as getting dem votes this time but it has been used in the pass for that. but to move this along. and it has to move along with tpa. we're really going to be watching how many democrats vote for it and vote against it. we've been hearing just different -- some folks are going to vote for taa, not vote for tpa. it's going to be an interesting mix. likely to be a slow vote like we saw on the rule yesterday potentially with certain dems coming in and helping it out. but there was a little more optimism on the side of folks who wanted to see taa pass. republicans don't like it. but they may need to stir up a few more votes that way in order to ensure that tpa gets a vote today. >> vickie needhamm with the hill newspaper. and you can see live coverage of the house debate on trade underway right now on
c-span and right after that discussion this morning on trade during washington journal we understand that president obama set up a meeting to whip up support for the trade bills. scott wong from the hill tweets out, the president heading to capitol hill to meet with democrats on tpa. general george bush made a similar visit a decade code. big risk for the president to go to the hill to lobby on taa vote but he's totally changed the dynamic. it was headed to defeat. outcome is unclear right now. see live coverage of that trade debate on our companion network c-span. we will have live coverage of the house subcommittee meetings that was set to start at 9:30 and. it's now been set to begin at 10:30. we'll have it here live for you on c-span3. while we wait for the hearing to get under way, remarks now from british prime minister david cameron as he spoke before the
british house of commons early this week on his atan tans at the g-7. >> statement the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with permission i'd like to make a statement on the g-7 in germany earlier this week. i went to the summit with two clear aims to advance our economic security and to protect our national security. the two of course are interlinked because you cannot have bun without the other. and at this summit i believe we mad progress on both. first on economic security we reached important agreements on trade, global poverty green growth and corruption. on trade i was determined to process the eu's trade deal with other g-7 countries which together could be worth around 20 bil pound to our economy every year. the g-7 agreed to step up efforts on the eu japan deal and to accelerate immediately all of the work on the eu-u.s. trade
deal. every day without a deal is costing the global economy 630 million pounds. so the agreement talks about finalizing the outline of an agreement by the end of this year. mr. speaker, we want all countries to grow including the poorest. not just for their benefit but also because we all benefit from the wide increase in global growth. we should never forget what has been called the bottom billion. we set ambitious goal at the u.n. in september that can eradicate extreme poverty by 2030. britain is keeping its promises to the poorest in the world and e encourage directly other to do the same. turning to green growth there are important agreements in the global deal we hope to reach in paris at the end of the year. it needs emission targets to limit global warming to two degrees within reach.
it needs binding rules with real transparency. and it needs a long term goal for emissions cuts at the upper end of the ipcc recommendations. so the businesses have the confidence to invest in low carbon technology. we also reaffirm our strong commitment to mobilize the climate finance that would will essential for developing nations and making sure they sign up to an agreement. mr. speaker, there was a new element i added to this g-7. that was fighting corruption. we met just after the fifa scandal. corruption is not just wrecking an institution that's vital for football, it's sitting at the heart of so many problems we face today. it could benefit the global economy by $380 billion every year. and corruption just doesn't threaten our prosperity. it undermines our security too. at the summit i was determined that we should do more to con is front the issue. in britain we passed the bribery
act. we've enshurd that all of our 28 country aid programs include corruption measures. we made some progress in germany. we reaffirmed our commitment to issues around tax and tans transparency. we'll work to finalize an international plan to stop companies from artificially shifting their profits across borders to avoid taxes. and the g-7 will push for targeting process to ensure its implementation. 90 countries have agreed to share share tax information automatically by the end of 2018 and the g-7 urged other to follow suit so more people pay the tax that is true. britain is the first major country in the world to establish a public central registry of who really owns companies. and now other countries have to follow with the implementation of their own action plans a key step in countering money
laundering and corruption. we also agreed that leaders would give special connection to culminate with a um mitt in london next year. turning to national squurt there are a number of issues cussed beginning with isil in iraq and syria. first we're helping to train iraqi security force to defeat isil on the ground. we've trained over 1200 kurdish troops and now we're going to deploy 125 military personnel to expand the training effort. second i met prime minister abadi and reiterated our support for his efforts to build an inclusive government that brings the country together. third we need to do more to tack tl l the causes. defeating the poisonous ideology of extremism at home and abroad. in syria there is no greater
recruiting sar gent for isil that president obama assad. in libya there's a real danger of isil ungoverned spaces to establish a new base from which to plot attacks against european countries, while criminal gangs are exploiting an open corridor to make libya the new gateway for people smuggling. we agreed to give our full backing to the u.n.-led effort to put in place a national unity government in libya and agreed a comprehensive approach going after the gangs trafficking people stabilizing the countries from which these people are coming and continuing to play our full part in the humanitarian rescue mission. britain is playing its part in all of these things. mr. speaker, we're also stepping up our efforts to support nigeria nigeria. i met the president during the summit and also discussed with president obama how we could best help nigeria to tackle
corruption and to win the fight against boko haram. the national security council has agreed this will be a specific priority. we're setting up a new cross-government unit dedicated to this task and we'll be offering significant help including training the nigerian army to help in its work to defeat beau cohar ram. turning to global health, playing our part in fighting disease overseas is not just a moral obligation. it's the single most effective way of preventing diseases infecting people here in the u.k. so following the ebola outbreak it was right that the g-7 devoted significant time to how best to try and prevent a future global pandemic. at the summit i announced we'd create a new 20 million pound u.k. research and development fund focused on breakthrough medicines. we're also leading by example in promoting greater transparency over clinical trials and forming our own crack team of medics that can deploy rapidly to tackle infection outbreaks anywhere in the world, learning the lesson of the slow response to ebola chiefly by the w.h.o.
finally, mr. speaker, this was of course the second year running we've met as a g-7 rather than a g-8. president obama summed up the choice facing president putin. he can either continue to wreck his country's economy and continue russia's isolation, or he can recognize that russia's greatness does not depend on violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other countries. the g-7 was clear and unambiguous about its position. diplomatic efforts must succeed in restoring sovereignty and territorial integrity and existing sanctions must remain in place until the minsk agreements are fully implemented. we expect russia to stop transborder support of separatist forces and use its influence on them to bring violence to an end. we were clear that we stand ready to take further restrictive measures in order to increase cost on russia should its actions so require. fully implementing minsk also means action from ukraine. so it's vital president poroshenko's government has the
support needed to deliver the necessary political and economic reforms. the u.k. is=jalready helping through our good governance fund and we'll continue to look at what more we can do. but we should never forget that ukrainians are the victims and not the aggressors. following the general election with our economy growing, deficit falling and unemployment tumbling people can see britain is back. we're working for trade deals fighting corruption, leading the battle against poverty disease, and climate change. we're fighting isil over the skies of iraq. we're saving lives in the mediterranean. and we're standing firm with sanctions against russia's actions in ukraine. on every front, we're playing a leading role in advancing prosperity and security around the world. and in doing so delivering both the economic security and the national security on which our own future depends. and i commend this statement to the house. >> i thank the prime minister for his statement. i welcome the conclusions of the summit including the reaffirmation of the g-7's commitment to fighting
corruption and to fighting disease overseas and i particularly welcome the support for nigeria. mr. speaker, as he says, this is the second g-7 summit where russia has been excluded. it's right there should be consequences for what they're doing in the ukraine and russia should continue to be excluded until president putin changes course. and sanctions against russia should remain until the minsk agreements are fully implemented. eu sanctions will expire at the end of july, and he said they should be roll over. he said in his statement that the g-7 stands ready to take further restrictive measures. so as to the level of sanctions, will he be arguing at the next eu council for them to be strengthened? at the summit, the prime minister acknowledged that sanctions are also having an impact on those who are imposing them. so it's right the g-7 leaders agreed that more must be done to support those eu member states who are being particularly affected. can he tell the house what this could mean in practice?
he referred in his statement to the fight against isil. we've seen the horrors of what they're doing in mosul. and it's extremely worrying to see their advances in recent weeks, particularly into ramadi. a strong and united approach to tackling isil continues to be vital. we back the u.k.'s contribution towards that effort and welcome the extra 125 military trainers being sent to iraq at the request of the iraqi prime minister. as he said in his statement the iraqi government must be supported in their efforts to push back isil's advance and restore stability and security across the country. so is there a need for further accelerating the recruitment, training, and equipping of iraqi forces? an inclusive and enduring political settlement is vital so can i ask the prime minister if britain is continuing to press the iraqi government to do more to reach out to sunni tribes who are key to this. the summit also reached important conclusions on the
global economy and climate change. in discussion on ttip, can the prime minister confirm whether he sought specific assurances from president obama that our nhs will be protected. on climate change, can the prime minister clarify whether the g-7's commitment to a global goal of greenhouse gas emissions reductions will, like our climate change act be legally binding? but mr. spookeaker, most of the press coverage around the summit was not about that. it was once again about europe. and this was entirely of the prime minister's own doing. on sunday he spent the flight to germany boasting to journalists that he would sack any cabinet minister who didn't tow the line on the referendum. on monday, a loyal minister was dispatched to the "today" program to drive home the prime
minister's tough line. but later that very day, the prime minister sounded the retreat. the traveling press had apparently misheard. not so much collective responsibility for the cabinet but collective mishearing by the traveling press pack sometimes happens on a flight. your ears get blocked. but the prime minister graciously and kindly said to them, if you're not certain about something i said, then ask. can i say how grateful i am for that new approach. there are things that people are still uncertain about. so can i ask him, what are his reform proposals and his red lines? and can he say clearly now whether, when he's finished negotiating and he comes back arguing for a yes vote, will he sack ministers who don't agree with him? or does he agree with the mayor of london who says ministers can
vote how they want? what about the working pension secretary? will the quiet man be here to stay, or will he be allowed to turn up the volume? mr. speaker, yet again another international summit vital to our national interests has ended in the usual way. a prime minister fighting with his own party on europe. >> i enjoyed the last bit. that was back to the old punch and judy she rather restrained from. if there's any one problem which is the premise that all this happened with journalists on the plane and not being able to hear, i can -- there were no journalists on the plane. so next time she might want to get the details straight. but let me go back to the beginning of her statement. on russia i'm very grateful for her backing for the sanctions. she asked about the eu council in june. there will be a full rollover of the sanctions. more sanctions would be
produced, i believe if russia took further aggressive action. we hope that doesn't happen but russia needs to know there would be costs were that to happen. in terms of helping other eu states, i think we need to be cautious here. the fact is putting in place sanctions damages all european countries in different ways. britain itself faces some damage from that. but our argument should be not that we can individually compensate individual eu states but more that it's in all our collective interests that the rules-based system of our world continues to work and that russia doesn't violate that. so i think we should make that argument first before looking at whether there are separate measures we can take. i thank her for her support of our campaign against isil in iraq. she's absolutely right. this is being driven by the iraqi government, and the long-term answer to the problems in iraq and syria are by inclusive governments that can represent all of their people. i'm grateful for the support of
the extra 125 personnel we've sent. she asked whether in our view iraq needs to do more to reach out to the sunni tribes and indeed to train more of their security forces. she's right on both of those grounds. that needs to happen. on the issue of ttip the argument i would make is the nhs is protected. there is no way that a ttip agreement can lead to changes in our nhs. i would make this suggestion to the labor party. instead of raising the profile of a threat that doesn't exist, it would be better if the whole of the u.k. political system could come together and push the americans instead of trying to seek false reassurances, push the americans to go further on putting more on the table so this trade deal really benefits working people here in britain. that, i think, is the argument that we need to make. she asked the question about the climate change agreement. our view is it should be legally binding. that's what we're pressing for. the language in the communique
is progress. i think america is pitching into these arguments but of course we would like them to go further. i think we've dealt with all the european stuff. but i'd make this point. we should lift our eyes to the horizon and recognize frankly she says it's back to the usual service of the 1990s. there's something very different in this government compared with the governments of the 1990s, either of a labor persuasion or a conservative persuasion, that we have made the historic decision to let the people decide when it comes to europe. >> mr. speaker, i'm pleased to hear from the prime minister there was time at g-7 to consider the humanitarian tragedy in the mediterranean where huge numbers of people are drowning trying to flee conditions in their own countries. i agree with him that the long-term solution is development aid in the countries in which they come. but was there discussion of an
international diplomatic effort and the giving of administrative and technical support to the government of the failed state in libya which remains a lawless space through which huge numbers of people will continue to come unless and until some sort of stability is restored to the country. >> my friend has absolutely identified the core part of the problem that needs to be solved and solved quite urgently. and that is to have a government of national unity in libya. because of course we can offer and do offer technical assistance border security training of libyans. we can offer those things now. but until there's a government in place, they don't really join up and make a comprehensive strategy. so what we talked about at the g-7 was making sure our foreign ministers and others were doing everything they can to support special representative leon and his work to form that government. once that's done then we can pour in the assistance to help them to deal with the criminal
gangs and to secure their borders. >> mr. speaker, may i begin by thanking the prime minister. there's much in the communique to be commended. the first paragraph states, for example, that we're committed to the values of freedom and democracy, to the rule of law, and respect of human rights and to fostering peace and security. we on these benches will be supporting human rights by seeking to protect the human rights act in the weeks and months ahead. also in the communique, there are paragraphs on the global economy and the need for growth and on women's entrepreneur ship two areas that are vital throughout the world. on specifics, on tax evasion and anti-corruption measures i'm sure the prime minister would like to confirm that every cooperation is being given to swiss and u.s. legal authorities in relation to fifa. on the issue of trade the communique welcomes progress on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership ttip but the prime minister will also be
aware of concerns about the potential adverse impact on public service provision at such as the national health service. what safeguards did the prime minister highlight as u.k. government requirements to protect the nhs? we've heard him say from the dispatch box that there's no reason for concern. if there's no reason for concern, i see a good prospect for those safeguards being included in any ttip final deal. why does he not secure that on the face of the treaty? on foreign policy areas i agree with the g-7 conclusions in relation to territorial integrity in ukraine and the rule of russia and the need to maintain sanctions against the russian state. however, i would wish to warn of the risks of the situation in eastern ukraine becoming a frozen conflict. anybody who's witnessed what has happened in eastern europe since the fall of the iran curtain will be aware of what's
happened. whilst the immediacy of the situation needs action there also needs to be a medium and long-term prospective for normalization. may i welcome the provisions regarding maritime order and maritime security. this is relevant in the pacific of course. it's also relevant in our northern european neighborhood. and can i encourage the u.k. government to actually take this seriously for a change. the high north and arctic didn't even rate a single mention in the last strategic defense and security review. hopefully it will be included in the forthcoming. and of course the u.k. has not a single maritime patrol aircraft. and finally, may i welcome the inclusion of migration and refugees in g-7 conclusions. i asked the prime minister about this last week. has he had any time to reflect on the appalling u.k. record in giving refuge to those fleeing the war in syria and elsewhere? does he now not agree that he should be working with his
international colleagues foremost amongst them within the european union for all us to take a fair share of those requiring refuge. >> i thank the gentleman for his response and take all of his points in turn. on maritime security and the sdsr, i think he's right to raise the issue that the high north and the arctic should be carefully looked at. i'll make sure that happens. i don't agree with him with our record on refugees. i think we have an excellent record. we're the second largest bilateral donor to make sure those people fleeing conflict in syria and iraq are properly looked after. we do have a program for resettling particularly vulnerable families. if he thinks that the answer to a refugee crisis of tens of millions of people is a resettlement program, i think he's completely wrong. the answer has got to be stabilizing those countries and allowing those people to return. i think he's right about frozen conflicts. one of the reasons we should take the problems of russian aggression into ukraine so
seriously is to be clear we're not going to tolerate the situations that happened in georgia and elsewhere where frozen conflicts have been created. i think it's important we make such a strong stand over sanctions rather than what happened with georgia where the international community moved on. on ttip, what i'd say is again as i said to labor i think there's a real wasted opportunity in raising these false fears about potential privatization of the nhs coming out of ttip. in the english nhs, it is the commissioners of services who will make decisions and they invest over and over again in a national health service. in scotland, as he knows, the only person who can privatize the nhs is the scottish government. instead of raising false fears, we should be putting on the table bold proposals for opening up american markets. for instance, the scottish knit ware manufacturer i visited recently, that suffers from massive tariffs and wants to
sell into the u.s. he should spend his time looking after those businesses and those jobs and fighting for them. on the issue of tax evasion and tax avoidance and collaborating with the fifa investigation i'm sure we can give that reassurance, but i will check carefully. and finally, i'll just say to him, look, i believe in human rights. i think the best way to safeguard human rights is to have a british bill of rights. why not have these decisions made in british courts rather than in strasburg courts? that's the position of the government. >> further to discussions about russia and isil, the prime minister will be aware that during russia's annexation of crimea, the fco did not have one in-house crimea expert and that at the height of the arab spring the fco was so thin on the ground that retired arabists had to be recalled. has the time not come for
greater investment in the fco in order to ensure and help us navigate this increasingly uncertain world? >> i can reassure the fco is hiring more russian speakers, but i would say the advice i get from our excellent ambassador in russia is a very, very high standard. i think his team work extremely hard. i want to take this opportunity to thank them publicly. >> thank you mr. speaker. will the prime minister accept that if we stop training our forces in kenya and plan to do the same in canada and therefore take a training holiday, we seriously undermine our own force readiness and also undermine our credibility. >> i think the honorable lady makes an important point. they benefit hugely from training in different countries and training in different conditions. training in kenya and training in canada, as i understand it is going to continue. >> thank you mr. speaker.
one thing is for certain. we don't want to sign up to anything that damages our economy detrimentally. can my friend assure me that he will not settle to anything that does that? >> i can certainly give my honorable friend that assurance. look the argument i would make to skeptics about this issue is that britain has already taken some very significant steps to improve renewable energy, to improve the situation with regards to carbon emissions in transport and housing and elsewhere. actually, it's now in our interest that other countries sign up to those things. that's why the discussions at the g-7, where you can see now that countries that previously have been at the back of the queue, countries like china and america, are now coming forward with plans to make sure they put in place these changes. so i think even if you're a skeptic about these measures,
it's time to get enthusiastic about the deal. >> thank you mr. speaker. many of my constituents were pleased the prime minister took the lead on the issue of tax dodging by major countries which robs countries of major tax revenue. two years on companies are still snubbing their noses at national governments on the issue of tax. when does he expect to see tangible results from the measures that were introduced and the promises made at the g-7 summits? >> well, i thank the gentleman for his question. i would be a bit more positive in that i think two things have happened. one is that countries have signed up to the automatic exchange of tax information, which is vital. the second thing is that the culture in business is actually changing. businesses now know that the old discussions of how do we absolutely minimize our tax bill is not going to stand up to public scrutiny. you see company after company now -- we've seen it recently with some of those in the world
of hot drinks, recognizing that they need actually to engage in this debate and start paying taxes in the country where they make their money. >> i thank you, mr. speaker. can i particularly commend the prime minister on the announcement that there is a commitment to mobilizing climate finance for developing nations. this is hugely significant. and could you tell the house or please update the house on when you may expect to see that mobilization come forward. >> i think my honorable friend is absolutely right. if we look at the components of a deal you clearly need europe to come forward with its offer which we've done. you need america and china, the big countries, to be engaged in this debate, making offers about carbon emissions. but to me one of the things that will bring it all together is to make sure that the advanced world is bringing forward climate finance funds so that we can reassure poorer countries, island states, and others that there will be assistance to them as they mitigate against climate change and also make the changes in their own economies that are necessary. britain has put a lot of money on the table.
we now need others to do the same. i think we'll make progress in the coming months. >> thank you mr. speaker. further to the contributions of the honorable member from the scottish nationalist party, the prime minister told the summit that 100,000 people have now crossed the mediterranean since the 1st of january. they're crossing at the rate of 600 day. i agree with the prime minister. this is a frustrating process. but the cartoon process does not seem to be working. do we need another mechanism to try and deal with this problem? >> first of all, i thank the honorable gentleman for his question. i think the mechanism we need is to have a partner with whom we can work, because frankly until there is a libyan government, until there's an ability to go after the criminal gangs, until there's an ability to turn people back as they get into boats, all the other steps we take, whether picking people up and all the rest of it, they
won't add up to a policy that will reduce this migration flow. so i think we have to recognize that the one place this has worked in the past, the spanish efforts to stop people going to the canary islands, was where they were able to work with government, invest in those governments, invest in that security. that's the model we need to follow. >> prime minister, you spoke about the conversations you're having around stopping particularly large companies, artificially shifting profits abroad. this is something that made the british people very very angry recently. could you give us a little bit more detail want a the content of the discussions? >> well, there are really two things we're doing. one is working internationally to get this done. the oecd has been leading a piece of work about what's called base erosion and profit shifting trying to stop companies shifting their profits artificially around the world. the 90 countries that have signed up to automatic tax information exchange will make their work have real teeth. but we haven't waited for that in this country.
in the last budget the chance to introduce what was called the diverted profits tax so that if we see a company that is making lots of money in the u.k. but not paying taxes in the u.k., we can present it with a tax bill. so we're doing the international action, but we're not waiting for it here domestically. i think this is changing the culture of the companies concerned. >> mr. speaker i welcome the prime minister's conversations with president bahari and the commitment to tackle boko haram in nigeria. he also mentioned discussions around tackling corruption. could he give us more detail about those discussions and actions? >> first of all i hope the honorable lady would agree with me that the president's election is actually a very important moment for nigeria because he won this election even though he was facing some pretty overwhelming odds in terms of what were his opposeing candidate's party was doing, if i can put it that way. and he has a track record of
fighting corruption and has put it at the top of his agenda. what he needs to do is obviously sought out corruption in the army sought out corruption in the oil department and industry. what britain is trying to say is we are there as your partner and want to help you. so the more we can do to help clean up this, the better for people throughout the region. >> can i commend the prime minister on his statement on isil. it is a national security threat. president obama spoke about a developing plan for isil. prime minister abadi is clearly trying to cope with bringing the shia militias under the iraqi army command. the sunni speaker of parliament is talking about a sunni national guard. of course, the kurds are struggling to cope with 1.6 million idps. did he discuss with president obama that plan for redoubling
the efforts, both in iraq and syria, on isil? >> we had a pretty lengthy discussion about isil because in my view islamist extremist violence and terrorism is the greatest threat that we face on the national security front. and it's a threat very directly affecting us here. frankly, it's very worrying how many people from britain have gone to fight for isil. so we've got to cope with this right across the peace. in terms of the points he makes he's absolutely right. we need to invest in the iraqi government and its capacity to bring the country together by being a government for all sunni, shia and kurd and having security forces that represent all sunni, shia and kurd. and we need to encourage president abadi to take bold steps in that direction while helping him to train his forces as well which is what our effort, but above all the american effort, is all about. >> as members present in the last parliament will know and the prime minister himself can certainly testify i'm not averse to running exchanges on statements very fully because i think that's what democratic
scrutiny requires. i simply point out there are two heavily subscribed opposition debates today. therefore, there is a premium upon brevity. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the g-7 leaders' declaration makes reference to the appalling suffering of the rohingya people in the bay of benngal. this is a humanitarian cry circumstances and there's rising concern about it. does he agree with me it's time for the u.n. secretary general to take personal charge of dealing with this crisis? >> i think the gentleman is absolutely right to raise this. again, we need to trace it back to the country from which the problem is coming and we need greater action by the burmese government to represent all the people in burma. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i welcome the consideration being placed on tackling pandemics. can my right honorable friend set up more details on how the u.k. research and development fund will help prevent pandemics and prevent infection of people here in the united kingdom.
>> well really the discussion was around a couple of things. one is when a pandemic breaks out, we need faster action. that's why you need a crack team of epidemiologists medics to get out there and measure the situation, which is what britain stands ready to do. but the second thing is to put money into medicine, development of medicines and vaccines so that we have better ways of coping with these things when they happen. >> what assurance can the prime minister give us following the g-7 discussions that any transatlantic trade deal is going to be based on genuine free trade and not on regulatory standardization drafted in the interest of big vested kompt interests? >> what i'd say to the honorable gentleman is i suspect it will be a combination of both those things. i don't think we should shy away from that because the opportunity for the two largest
economies in the world, the eu and america, writing some of these rules together will make sure we have good and decent standards rather than a race to the bottom. so i think it's important to see that as a potential advantage of the ttip deal. >> mr. speaker, did the g-7 agree that the situation in the eastern ukraine has gone from bad to worse? and if so why hasn't more been done to say that there should be increased sanctions against the russian federation rather than just a rolling over of existing sanctions? >> well, i think my honorable friend makes an important point. and there's been a mixed picture since the minsk agreements were signed that overall, i would say, has been some sign of lower levels of violence and aggression. so we should recognize that. i think the decision to roll over the sanctions automatically in june is right with a very
clear warning that if things were to get much worse and if there was to be, for instance a russia-backed push for more territory, that could lead to higher sanctions. >> mr. speaker can i point out to the prime minister that the part of his speech on economic security was quite short. and what did he say to those who criticized the g-7 that we have never actually learned the lessons of the world economic meltdown in 2008 and put together a policy and a set of regulations and a set of organizations that could prevent it happening again. >> what i'd say to the honorable gentleman is that, actually the g-20 has been in many ways the key organizing body for driving, for instance changes on rules on bank regulation and capital requirements and also reform of global institutions. i think that helps because of course, banking problems and meltdowns can happen in developing countries as well as
advanced countries. the strength of the g-7 is yes, of course, we discuss economic and trade issues, but we have a like-minded conversation about the big security challenges, like isil and russia. frankly, it was helpful that it was the g-7 because the conversation was that much more candid and frank. >> thank you, sir. the hard work of the british people including my constituents in charmwood, combined with our long-term economic plan, have ensured our economy in the u.k. is growing but external economic risks remain. can my right honorable friend enlarge on what discussions he had on those wider external risks and how to mitigate them? >> well, i think there are a number of risks, including the potential slow down of the chinese economy. that was obviously discussed. i think in the margins of the g-7, there are a number of discussions and some ran the table as well about the threat to the stability of the eurozone
of the very unstable situation in greece. that's of interest of all the members of the g-7. we're approaching some pretty crucial days where agreement needs to be reached in order to maintain the stability of a burch of economies that are very big trading partners for britain. >> mr. speaker, with further deployment of u.k. and u.s. troops in iraq, what measures has he put in place to guard against mission creep? >> i think one of the most important things is to come back regularly to this house and discuss and debate what we are doing. what i would say about this latest deployment is that it's in response to a request from the iraqi government. these individuals mostly involved in training the iraqi troops on how to counter ied threats, will save lives. and i think it's a sensible approach for britain to take. in terms of what we're doing more broadly, we have the second largest contributor in terms of the air strikes over iraq. and that has been essential in shrinking the amount of territory that isil controls and
also making sure that the kurds have been able to maintain their situation in the kurdish regional authority. so regular reports back, but a clear statement from this dispatch box, this is not about trying to reinvade a country. this is about helping the legitimate government of that country that's recognized by the u.n. to do the work that it knows is vital. >> mr. speaker i worked with john major when he was prime minister to meet with boris yelt sin. i'm not sure it's in our interest that we'red a lagger heads with russia now with all this trouble in isil. and has he seen the recent remarks that ukraine was always part of russia, that the u.s. was crazy to suggest ukraine could join nato one day, and that henry kissinger agrees with him. >> well, what i'd say to my honorable friend is that we have not picked the fight with russia. russia has brought this upon herself by destabilizing and
encouraging separatists to take ukrainian territory. as for whether ukraine is a country, i think we should recognize ukraine and the people themselves have decided it is a country. the whole point we have to learn is redrawing the lines and maps of europe by force can end in disaster for everyone, including people here in this country. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the g-7 pledge on climate action is very welcome, but a new report warns that coal plants in g-7 countries are on track to cost the world 450 billion pounds a year by the end of the century. given the committee on climate change recommended we should end unabated coal generation by the early 2020s, will he put in place a policy framework to try and achieve that? >> we all want to see an end to unabated coal, but the key there is in the first bit, the unabated. we need to make sure we invest in carbon capturing storage so
we can accelerate the decarbonization of electricity but in a way that doesn't damage our economic interests as well. >> i welcome the new focus on corruption and the plan for an anti-corruption summit in london. on syria and the call for a u.n.-led political transition, could the prime minister share with us a little bit more about what this would look like? is, for example, bosnia a useful precedent, and how we would arrive at it. >> i'm not sure it's easy to identify an exact precedent. i think the point is simply this. that president assad himself, as i said in my statement, has become a recruiting sergeant for isil because of the way he's treated his people. but everybody knows that what syria needs long term is a government that can represent everyone in syria including the al lo whites. clearly it would be acceptable to have a government that was able to represent those people as well as the sunni majority. it's that sort of transition we
should be aiming for. >> thank you mr. speaker. it was clear that one of the biggest obstacles to defeating isil was the lack of involvement of the sunni tribes and sunni people. i support giving to the iraqi government, but what's the strategy of the prime minister and the leaders of the g-7 to bring on board the sunnis and get the iraqi government to change its position. >> well, the honorable gentleman's analysis of the situation is absolutely spot on. we won't succeed in iraq unless the iraqi government and the iraqi security forces have representation from both sunni and shia. our strategy is not to try to do this for the iraqi government. it's to encourage the iraqi government to do it and work and say we'll work alongside you. but in everything we do, we should be encouraging them to reach out to the sunni tribes because in the end, their government will only succeed if they represent all the people.
>> how could i have forgotten the pearls of wisdom with which he just favored the house? i apologize. >> thank you, mr. speaker. islamic state is an enemy of civilization, which is why it finds a coigs will of 60 countries ranged against it. it requires military defeat and the sooner that task is undertaken the easier it will be. however, it is not going to happen if the regional powers are not coordinating their policies. what discussion was there at the g-7 about getting turkey, iran, and saudi arabia at the very least to be coordinating their policies towards islamic state? >> well my honorable friend is absolutely right. that sort of coordination is required. some important steps have been taken, not least president obama's meeting at camp david with all the gulf countries. i've had conversations with recent days with the turkish president and have visited
turkey to discuss this. i'm not sure we'll be able to achieve the perfection he requires of getting everyone around the table at the same time in the same way. but certainly working with regional partners to make sure everyone has a coordinated approach is the right thing to do. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the prime minister for his statement and would raise two points that he raises on corruption and fifa that have become synonymous with each other. i would ask him whether he thinks it would be appropriate that sepp blatter attends the women's world cup, which is taking place at the moment, given his promise to resign and given his sadly inappropriate comments about women's football in the past that we should wear tighter shorts to make it more popular. >> i think the honorable lady raises a very important point. sepp blatter's track record on these things is very, very disappointing. look, sepp blatter said he's going to resign, and in my view he should get on and resign.
you know this organization needs new leadership. it needs to be cleaned up. the sooner that starts the better. >> mr. speaker did my right honorable friend have any indication from the other leaders as to when they were going to meet their clear mitt commitments to overseas development assistance of 0.7% of gni? >> what i'd say to my honorable friend is for the first time i think in a number of g-7s and g-8s, we got the 0.7% commitment back into the text. it's clear and there for all to see. i would argue it's not just right for britain from a moral standpoint, but it actually increases our standing in the world that we are able to point out that we kept our promises and were able to use that money to enhance not only the economic standing of those countries but also our own security as well. >> i'm pleased that the g-7
discussed global poverty to address it. given the imf and oecd and noble economists have all agreed that inequalities exacerbates growth it also has a negative influence on societies why is he and his government exacerbating inequalities across the u.k., including having a negative impact around addressing health inequalities? >> first of all, i say to the honorable lady, the figures show during the last parliament inequality fell. i would take issue with her about the priorities for development in terms of the u.n. goals that we're going to be agreeing in september. of course we all want to see reductions in inequality, but when we have to determine what the absolute priority is for the world in terms of attacking poverty and how we should try and inspire a new generation of people to take action, i would argue that eradicateing extreme
poverty, those people, you know, living on almost nothing every day, that is where we should really putt the emphasis. >> thank you very much mr. speaker. i welcome the extremism bill that the government will be introducing. but can my right honorable friend say what discussions with other g-7 leaders he had about the sharing of intelligence to help prevent people traveling to support isil? >> we did have discussions about this. there's obviously very good information sharing between britain and america. there's increasingly better sharing of information amongst european countries with the progress on the passenger name record issue. where we need even more cooperation is clearly between countries like britain and countries like turkey that can sometimes act as a gateway for people joining isil. it's there we need to focus our efforts. >> kate green. >> i welcome the prime minister's announcement on
investment to tackle pandemics, but would he agree with me that vaccines on drugs will only be effective if they're distributed through populations. was that discussed and what conclusions were drawn? >> the honorable lady is right that making sure that teams visit countries where pandemics start and making vaccines available is only a sticking plaster on top of a very large problem. what you need is stronger health systems in those country. s ss. that's one of the things our aid program is designed to deliver. >> mr. speaker, this country has invested a great deal of blood and treasure in afghanistan. could my right honorable friend reassure the house that plans for the future of that country remain a concern of the g-7? >> yes, i can. but i think my honorable friend is absolutely right to raise this. there is a danger sometimes in these gatherings that everyone looks at the next problem rather than trying to examine how well the work that's been done is securing the future of the last problem.
i think it's very important we keep our eyes on supporting the afghan government the afghan security forces, because they are now carrying out the role that our soldiers were heaping to carry out which is to stop this country being a haven for terror. >> you referred to nigeria. can you inform this house or ensure this house when the school children who were kidnapped some two years ago by boko haram, when can we expect them to be reunited with their families again? >> the honorable gentleman makes an important point. out of those abducted a number of have returned, but there's a very large number that have still, you know, been taken by boko haram. i would say it brings together the thing i've been talking about. one of the reasons that these things happen is the endemic corruption in these countries that mean the military and the security services aren't effective and that people sometimes turn to extremist organizations because their governments aren't working. second of all, how we should not
try to take over the organization of these things but should be there to assist and help and to help train their military and help deal with that corruption so that these countries are better able to protect their people. >> staying with nigeria, can i welcome the national security council prioritizing help for the nigerian government in their fight against boko haram. does the prime minister agree with me that the security forces of chad mali, niger, and nigeria need to work out a regional solution as well and work more closely together? >> my honorable friend is absolutely right. one of the first things president buhari has done, and he was telling me this in our bilateral, is he's visited all of the neighboring countries to work closely with them. >> was there any discussion in the g-7 on the importance of freedom of expression as a human right? particularly in view of the very
severe clamp down in saudi arabia on freedom of expression and the blogger who is due to be flogged again brutally on friday. foreign secretary yesterday gave -- made very encouraging sums. can the prime minister take this up personally or does he have further news? >> well, there wasn't a specific discussion on this but the great thing about the g-7 is that all the countries there sign up to certain norms about human rights and freedom of expression and the rule of law and democracy which is why the conversation is like-minded conversation that can deal with issues frankly. we set out clearly our views on this situation and will continue to do so. >> mr. speaker, "the new york times" reported recently that iran is increasing its nuclear stockpiles stockpiles, and this is
notwithstanding the fact this is an issue due to be discussed at the g-7 summit. could the prime minister reassure the house there remains a determination amongst g-7 countries to ensure that iran is never able to actually obtain a nuclear weapon of his own? >> i can certainly give my honorable friend that assurance. there was a good conversation about iran where president obama reported back on his view about the state of the negotiations that are taking place. the aim is very clear which is to make sure iran is a good distance away from every attaining a nuclear weapon and crucially the agreement has to include a lot of inspection and verification so we know this to be true. on that basis, i think it's a deal absolutely worth pursuing. >> the prime minister and my right honorable friend before have probably done more than any of their predecessors to tackle poverty in the developing world in africa through the 0.7%.
but perhaps the biggest bar to economic development in africa and the developing world is this issue of corruption. will my right honorable friend consider discussion with the foreign secretary whether we could open an international convention for signature at the summit which easthe's announced so we can have common standards in place across the entire world? >> i think my honorable friend makes a very good suggestion. we've already set up the open government partnership, which is an international organization encouraging transparency from its members. we're going to hold this anti-corruption summit. i think because we've met our 0.7% pledge, we're actually able to make the running and make the arguments on this issue because people know we've kept our pledges about the money so we can now talk about the corruption. i think your suggestion is a very good one. >> thank you, mr. speaker. during the long discussions that the prime minister was able to have with other leaders of the g-7 and apparently you're walking around a very nice park while you were doing it did they manage to discuss seriously two things.
one is why is isil so powerful, so successful so well funded and crucially so well armed with very efficient modern high-caliber weapons sm? secondly, was there an opportunity for a longer discussion about the last 15 years of western foreign policy in afghanistan, iraq libya, and other places which appears to have created the circumstances under which an organization like isil will grow and indeed is still growing? is there any reflection on this? >> well, first of all, i can reassure the gentleman it wasn't a park. this was the beautiful bavarian alps alps. look, of course there was a long discussion about isil. the answer to his question let me take it in two parts. first of all, the reason isil is so well armed and well funded is this is a death cult that has effectively taken over, you know, a country and taken over oil fields and taken over money
and taken over weaponry. where i part company with him completely is this idea that isil has been caused by the iraq war or by western aggression or whatever. i think it is nonsense. you can see the growth in extremist islamism dating back, you know, from well before the attack on the twin towers, which of course itself happened before the iraq war. we've got to confront the real problem here which is the rise of this poisonous extremist narrative and death cult which long predated the iraq war. if we try and get that the wrong way around we'll get ourselves in a total mess. >> mr. speaker, i saw a press report that wasn't well covered that said in the private meetings that the world leaders wanted to know from the prime minister given that he inherited an economic mess that he had to cut public expenditure. how on earth he got re-elected
with a huge majority and the three main opposition leaders resigned and he had a united party. was that press report right? >> well, first of all, i'm delighted that my honorable friend refers to my majority as huge. i take that as an indication that he will throughout this parliament always be part of it at all times. i'm pleased to report that i did have a number of pleasant discussions of prime ministers and presidents inquiring after the general election and seeking some of them coming up for election themselves, seeking tips and ideas. >> we'll leave this session with the prime minister to go live with capitol hill now for a house energy and commerce subcommittee hearing on the epa's proposal for national air quality standards. this is just getting under way. >> because we expect some votes on the house floor around 12:15 or 12:30. i know the members have a lot of
parts per billion down to 65 or 70 but the agency is also taking comments on 60 parts per billion. these proposed levels are so low that in some parts of the country, they are at or near background levels. the proposed levels are so low that even epa admits that it is not fully known in some areas how to achieve full compliance. in other words, they'd have to use unknown controls to do it, to meet those standards. the marginal cost of ratcheting down the existing standard go through the roof, and epa estimates that a 65 to 70 parts per billion standard would cost $3.9 billion to $15 billion annually and that a 60 parts would cost $39 billion annually. independent estimates are much higher including a national association of manufacturers study that puts the cost of a 65
parts per billion standard at $140 billion a year, which would make this the agency's most expensive regulation ever. this study also estimates 1.4 million fewer jobs and household costs, averaging $830 per year. these costs come on top of all of the other rules we've seen from this administration many of which also impact the energy and manufacturing sectors. moreover, this rule is yet another chapter in the administration's effort to force more extreme climate policies on the american people. i might also -- i'd like to just name a few of them. we've doneáq
now, these counties not meeting the new standard would be designated as nonattainment. as i said, there are 230 counties today in nonattainment around the country. epa estimates that fully 358 counties that currently have monitors would be a nonattainment if they go to 70 parts per billion and 558 counties would be in noncompliance at 65 parts per billion based on recent data. now, this does not include
counties nearby or without ozone monitors that may also be designated by epa to be in nonattainment. now, a non-attainment designation is like a self-imposed recession for some areas. in such counties it becomes extremely difficult to obtain a new permit to build a factory to expand a factory or power plant, and even permits for existing facilities would be impacted. just last week in a survey of manufacturers, over half of them in fact 53% said they were not likely to continue with a new plant or expansion if it's located in a non-attainment area. the same permitting challenges apply for roads and other large infrastructure projects and in effect almost all new major job creating economic activity is
jeopardized until the nonattainment area meets the standard which could take years if not decades and even the mere possibility that a location could later be designated to be a non-attainment is enough to scare off prospective employers so the proposed rule may already be doing damage. there is something wrong with our system when you have los angeles, san joaquin valley, and major parts of california that have the most stringent environmental standards in the country and on top of that epa, and those areas, san joaquin valley and los angeles may never be in compliance and they are certainly not in compliance today and have been out of compliance since the beginning of the clean air act. we have a system that's not working very well. at this time i would like to
recognize the gentleman from new jersey for his five-minute opening statement. >> thank you, chairman whitfield for holding this hearing on the epa arrow zone and i want to welcome janet mccabe and. it helped to insure that all americans can breath healthy air. epa must set each air quality standard on medical science and evidence alone and the structure has been extraordinary effective in cleaning the air and protecting public health including the health of children and seniors, but the current 75 parts per billion ozone standard as fallen short. since 2008, the ozone has been weaker than should be hroued and
in order to protect the public health the epa must strengthen the standard and these recommendations were ignored by the bush administration and epa has now proposed based on yet another exhaustive review of the scientific evidence, to resize the standard to 65 to 75 parts per billion and epa's decision is fully consistent with the law and the scientific evidence and there are a writlitany of adverse impacts impacts, meaningful real-world benefits but i have little doubt that today we will hear much about cause, and the court opinion written by justice
scalia made it clear that epa's approach for determining a safe level of air pollution is correct and costs may not be considered and that's why congress designed the clean air act. the costs were considered later when determining how to implement the standard in other words, the states developed the lowest cost way to meet it. although epa may not consider costs in setting the standard and epa has nevertheless worked with the office of management and budget to prepare a careful analysis of the projected costs and benefits associated with reducing ozone. epa estimates the benefits associated with the new standards would be 13 to 38 billion annually outweighing the cost 3 to 1. and they failed to consider any of the benefits, and that paints a completely one-sided picture
one of ignores the real cost by those that breathe especially by children. we will hear that epa's proposed ozone standard will have dark economic growth, and the history of the clean air act is the exaggerated claims that have never come true, and it has produced tremendous public health benefits while helping growth. we need to let epa do it's job and i look forward to mrs. mccabe's testimony. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, for five minutes. >> i thank the chair and i will be very brief. i sent long hours going over
comments that epa received about this new ozone rule, and there was a common theme will i lose my job? questions game from big cities. members of the atlanta chamber or the greater houston partnership, and they came from family farms and ranches and members of the iowa farm bureau or nebraska home builders. a mom and pop store in pennsylvania wrote epa and this is a quote parents tell their children eat your peas, then you can have dessert and epa says eat your peas, then you can have more peas. end quote.
the worse came from epa's work workhorses workhorses, the state agencies that make this rule work. they have no clue about the science used for the health impacts. they worry if they can build new roads. these voices come from all of america and i hope epa starts listening. and one of the colleagues on my side, i will yield, and if not, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back and at this time we will recognize the gentleman from illinois mr. rush, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman for this hearing today on the epa's proposed ozone rule. i want to also welcome, mrs.
mccabe, the acting assistant administrator for air and radiation at epa, and she is always giving us her best and it's always a pleasure to hear her insightful and forthright testimony before this sub committee. mr. chairman, today it's duly noted we are here to discuss the national air quality standards for ozone, in which the epa is legally mandated to put forth the clean air act. the clean air act requires the epa to set primary national quality standards, and cob concentration levels sufficient to protect the public health
with an adequate margin of safety for certain pollutants that endanger public health and the environment. we know the epa establishes new standards based on medical and scientific evidence, as well as the recommendations provided by the clean air act, the as advisory committee, which you know, mr. chairman is a independent scientific committee, and the epa has to review these standards ever five years solely on the consideration of public health and they must accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge, mr. chairman. we know that in 2008, the bush
administration failed to heed the unanimous recommendations of the committee the clean air scientific advisory committee, allowing this ozone air quality air standards to between 60 and 70 points per million, instead the epa and president bush set the standard of 75 ppbs, and then the 60 to 70 standard would be more protective of the public health. the obama administration also initially failed to reconsider the ozone standard in 2009 until being ordered to do so by the