tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 10, 2015 4:00am-6:01am EDT
particularly the member states of the united nations. >> thank you, secretary-general. you just said that the only solution is dialogue. can you tell me if it is possible -- are you willing to -- is the united nations security council willing to have a direct or indirect talks in order to stop the killing? in syria, iraq, yemen, and the middle east. secretary-general ban ki-moon: they have committed unspeakable crimes against humanity. including beheadings. the level of brutality is just unspeakable. i cannot just described it
enough. my anger. they must stop. whatever grievances they may have, all of this should be resolved through dialogue. not through killing people in such a horrific, brutal way. i strongly condemn again, that they must give up their arms and discuss all of this through peaceful means. this is not what human beings are to do. it is not acceptable for us to do. >> on yarmouk, who is talking so that you would have the safe passage that you have been calling for? who do you have in mind when you say there is a massive assault
that you are already calling a war crime? on yemen, there are iranian warships -- are you worried this is going to ignite a larger conflict? what do you want to say to iran at this point and other players around yemen? thank you. secretary-general ban ki-moon: as you may remember, the last month, when there was a white house summit on countering violent extremism, i expressed my position that this terrorism and extremism should be addressed at the roots. why this extremism and terrorism has happened and is happening this way. one easy answer would be that failed leadership -- just the
continuing crisis in syria for five years and other areas have provided a perfect breeding ground for all this extremism in our society. we have to address all these issues. sometimes it is necessary to take physical action through a coalition of forces. that is what we are now seeing. but this can be effective and helpful, but that is not all the answers. what is more important is how we address all of these issues in a harmonious way, addressing all the concerns and grievances of the people all around. then, i think unfortunately
the international community has sort of let these things fester. now on yemen -- court on the syria, can you -- >> on the syria, can you tell me if you have been contact isis? ban ki-moon: have been contacting leaders to see if they can exercise influence. i have only begun to speaking yesterday and even today. i am trying to find out the leaders people that can exercise influence over these people.
and i am not talking directly with them, it is not possible. tournament, that on yemen -- on the yemen, we had of the meeting upstairs. what i am concerned with as secretary-general is that my special advisor has been tirelessly working to facilitate this political dialogue through a national dialogue, a national unity government. she was able to address many issues. but this military takeover presents left the situation like this were at this time, i still believe this political negotiation is the answer. we hope that parties concerned
will return to the negotiating table as soon as possible. >> the question was about the naval movement by iran. ban ki-moon: all of the countries in the region should overcome beyond their national positions and help the yemeni people so that they are able to enjoy and live in peace and security. >> mr. secretary-general, you say that political dialogue is what is necessary and direct military means are not what will accomplish with isis. but we have seen it with the situation that military force stopped isis and assumed numerous people in so doing. why border do call for some kind of strategic -- wouldn't you
call for some kind of strategic military exercise by a coalition of member states or participants as you are talking to participants working out a surgical way to address the crisis at hand and then deal with things in a peaceful way? and the moon: i am not -- ban ki-moon: i am not here to discuss military strategy, the idea of surgical or whatever. sometimes it may be necessary when it is absolutely necessary. that is why i have been asking the countries that have the capacities and means, the influence, to defeat isis and extremism and terrorism full-time at the same time we should look at addressing the
issue at the roots. and establish a society and engage in a dialogue with the people. that is the way all of these issues will be addressed. that is why the general assembly and myself, in cooperation with the land is civilization, are going to hold the high level debates from september 21 and 22nd, inviting leaders and religious leaders from the world. i believe that when we take all possible means to keep the terrorism and extremism, there is clearly a role for religious leaders and the educators of the world to teach followers to teach young people the correct
and some people in our hallway. let me particularly welcome our atlantic council board members. atlantic council members, members of the diplomatic corps and public officials, as well as our online and television audience. if i had known how popular your appearance would be, i might have tried to scalp the tickets. it's an even greater pleasure to introduce our speaker, a remarkable leader navigating difficult times and wrestling with a vast array of challenges every day with grace clarity, and courage from the european survive to broader issues regarding where the global economy will draw its future strength and sustainability. after the opening comments, a curtain raiser, as we used to call it at the "wall street journal," ahead of next week's
i.m.f. meetings i will engage in a conversation also drawing upon audience questions here and on line. so i encourage you to continue to submit your comments and questions using the hashtag ac global econ so ac global econ. it's no secret that i and the atlantic council more generally are fans of the managing director of the international monetary fund. i first ran across madam lagarde chris tin when the "wall street journal" europe was putting together its 2002 top european women in business rankings. to celebrate women who were pushing through the mostly male ranks of corporate europe. the jury of experts ranked her among our top ten finalists. but then they had a dilemma. as a french lawyer at a partnership organization was she really a business leader?
and as she chaired a chicago-based company though it was global did she coupt as a european executive? but the editor intervened and the judges were taken by her accomplishments and the certainty that she would only achieve more. it was revolutionary at then the world's largest law firm had elected her as the second non-american to ever run the firm. our "wall street journal" jury marveled at her remarkable consensus-building skills. such and under ees plated and historicically crucial talent that she demonstrates at the i.m.f. our jury placed her then at number five at the list which i referred to as a result of the chicago penalty. but if i name the other four for you today you wouldn't know them. nine years later in 2011 another jury got it more right. when we gave her our highest recognition in new york
alongside the u.n. general assembly the atlantic council's global citizen award. by then she had been finance minister in france atop the baker mckensy experience of steering lawyer egos, good preparation for running the i.m.f. and its impressive staff of more than 160 nationalities in 182 countries, often in unstable and corrupt settings. in presenting the award to you, world economic founder clause shaub said i would define a leader with four cark tryst ticks, soul, heart brains, and good nerves. leaders by and large don't get to choose the challenges they face. they only get to choose how they address those challenges. and how you've done so at your time at the i.m.f. has been
remarkable. we look forward to hearing your opening comments today on the state of the global economy and how we might best address its most pressing challenges. we often speak of how we together as the atlantic community, alongside our like-minded global friends, confront a defining moment in history perhaps as pivotal as 1919 1945, or 1989 when the decisions of leaders like yourself and that of the member countries have represented have outsized importance. so as i turn the podium to you let me paraphrase in thanking you for making the sacrifices that public service requires at challenges times and in his words salute your soul brain, heart and nerves. [applause] >> well, thank you so much fred.
i know you are a true friend because you're one of the very few who introduces me without referring to my muscles. because people typically refer to my belonging to the synchronized swimming national team in france. so thank you for that. and don't believe that fred and i always coordinate our colors. but it so happens that we are black and white together. the council, fred board members, and members of the audience is renowned for its chass capacity to actually bring together top international policy members from both sides of the atlantic and from further afar. and this is clearly something that is in common between our two organizations, the atlantic and the international monetary fund. next week we will be hosting the spring meetings of the
world bank and the i.m.f. and we will be welcoming to washington, d.c. representatives of our 188 member countries. finance ministers, governors of central fwanchingse. and they will focus their discussion on the state of the global economy. since our last annual meeting in october, there have been a lot of developments on the global scene. i would say that it has first of all inherited from a big shot in the arm as a result of the decline of oil prices. in addition to that it has had the benefit of a strong economic performance by the largest economy in the world, the united states of america. and overall, we would say that macro economic risks have decreased. so the global recovery continues but it is moderate
and uneven. global recovery continues but it is moderate and uneven. in too many parts of the world it is not strong enough and in too many parts of the world people don't just feel it. in addition to that, in macro economic risks have declined, financial and geopolitical risks have increased. it is not that overall growth is bad -- 3.4 in 2014. it is not bad. it is actually in line with the average growth that we have had in the last three decades. so what's not so good about it? what makes it moderate and uneven? well it is rather that given the lingering impact of the great recession on people, it is actually generating hardship
for many people around the world. including those countries where more than 50% of the youth population goes unemployed. so growth is not good enough. six moths ago, i warned about the risk of a new mediocre -- low mediocre, low growth, for a long time. now, today what we must do is avoid that new mediocre becomes the new reality. we can do better and we must do better. that great john fitzgerald kennedy once said -- there are risks and costs to action. but they are far less than the
long-range risks of can you believe inaction. -- cubble inaction. so cubble -- comfortable inaction must be avoided. and that's what i would like to focus on. how to lift growth today by using all available tools and policy space available. how to lift tomorrow's growth and prevent that new mediocre from becoming the new reality. and how do we work together to strengthen the international financial system first for development and make growth more inclusive and actually sustainable? let me begin by a quick health check of the global economy. now, those who follow the i.m.f. know that the world economic outlook will be published next week so i am not going to focus on numbers. i am going to talk about the broader trends and policy
recommendations. as i indicated earlier growth remains and we focused it to remain moderate. -- forecast it to remain moderate. roughly, roughly the same as last year. advanced economies are doing slightly better than last year and as you all know the recovery is firming up in the united states and in the united kingdom. and the euro zone is doing slightly better as well and is promising. but if we look at the emerging and developing economies, they're doing slightly worse than last year. with lower commodities being the driver. and while they still represent, and probably will continue to represent about 70% of global grotes this year, -- growth this year, there is tremendous diversity within that group.
do you remember the talk about the bricks? well the picture has changed. and if india is a growth bright spot in that group china is slowing, although its growth is certainly more sustainable. subis a harne africa continues to perform strongly but russia is experiencing economic difficulties, brazil is stagnating at best, and many parts of the middle east are beset by political and economic turmoil. so we should not think of emerging economies as just one single group. each country faces very specific circumstances some of them easier, some of them more difficult. so what does it imply in terms of policies? with overall growth moderate, the global economy continues to face a number of significant
challenges. there is for instance, what i have called last year the low-low, high-high risk. that is low inflation, low growth, high unemployment, high debt. and that risk persists for a number of advanced economies. clearly as a result all policies space and levers must be utilized and it begins with demand support. how is that implemented? first of all, continued monetary policy, accommodation, is needed especially in the euro area and in japan. fiscal policy needs to be calibrated to the strength of the recovery without ever losing sight of debt sustainability. but the effectiveness of those demand support measures can be
significantly improved because they've been at work for some of them for a little while. they can be improved. for example, unclogging the channels through which monetary easing and fiscal policy work in the euro area. how? well effective insolvency frameworks are crucial to tackle the private debt overhang and deal with the total stock of no less than 900 billion euros of nonperforming loan that is is blocking credit channels. in japan, the authorities need to sustain the momentum of the second and the third arrows, one is fiscal consolidation, the other is structural reform. if that country is going to take the full benefit of the first arrow, which was indeed monetary easing in order to lift both growth and inflation. third the third way of being
more efficient. by leveraging lower oil prices to reduce energy subsidies emerging and developing oil importers could save on average a full 1% of g.d.p. in 2015 alone. and those resources could be put to better use in order to invest in infrastructure, in education, in health. so those are some of the macro economic dimensions. as i said, macro economic risks have decreased. what has increased, on the other hand is the risks posed by the financial dimension. financial stability is more at risk now than it was six months ago. the new mediocre that i talked about, that new mediocre growth is not a comfortable place with respect to financial stability.
financial risks have migrated. for example, they have migrated from banks which are far more regulated, better supervised and heavily tested to nonbanks. they have migrated from advanced economies towards emerging markets. let's go through a few of those risks. for one, there are adverse side effects of the very low or even negatives, as we clearly saw including on the primary markets today very low if not negative interest rates caused by otherwise necessary accommedtive monetary policies. these foster a higher risk tolerance on the part of investors which can lead to overpricing. and if the low interest environment persists, it can create solvency challenges for
life insurers and defined benefit pension fund. so the purpose of these policies is to actually kickstart the growth. but if it were to last longer, then it puts some of those business models at risk. think of another one. the wide movement of exchange rates that we have observed recently. over the past six months the u.s. dollar has appreciated against the basket of major currencies by 12% in real terms. now, some countries with more difficult macro economic conditions and less policy space have of course benefited from the relative depreciation of their currencies. in others, large amounts of dollar denominated of foreign -- or foreign currency denominated debt, these dramatic swings can be destabilizing.
and this is particularly the case for corporate. india emerging market economies that are wedged between a strong u.s. dollar on the one hand, lower commodity prices on the on the other hand hand, and with my third hand higher borrowing rates. on the top of which they might not have hedged. and that is a bit of an uncertainty where we have little information. now, these risk risks taken individually can be manageable. but we also have to contend with a structural decline in market liquidity u it is a risk we had flagged about six months ago, due primarily to recent changes in the structure of asset industry which have created a mismatch between the maturity of assets and of liabilities. which means that liquidity to e
vap rate quite quickly if everyone rushes to the exit at the same time which could make for a bumpy road when the federal reserve begins to raise short-term rates. so this new configuration of financial risks underscore the importance of strengthening financial policies. at the global level, it means ensuring market liquidity during times of stress improving macro and microprodential policies for nonbanks in particular, and following through on the regulatory reform agenda, particularly the too big to fail institutions. at the country level it means curtailing excessive risk-taking and managing existing vulnerabilities. and again, while the appropriate menu of measures must be country-specific, the overall set of policies can help us to lift growth today.
so much so for growth today. as i said, moderate and even but recovery on the way. but what about growth tomorrow? and that's a big issue. because growth tomorrow as we analyze the potential for growth is also moderate. in both advanced and emerging economies, potential growth is being paired down. and this largely reflect several factors. one is lasting scars from the financial crisis that the world experienced a few years back now, and probably scars that we had underestimated. but also the undercurrents of changing demographics and lower productivity. so to prevent the new mediocre from becoming that new reality
structural reforms need to go hand in hand with macro economic and financial policies to raise confidence and general rate investment. and frankly, when you look around there are too many countries that talk about structural reforms but don't actually do structural reforms at the debt, at the speed where they should be done. and structural reforms really span a wide range of policies. some reforms have immediate effect. most reforms have more medium-termed effect and take a bit longer to bear fruit. i will give you an example of one -- i wouldn't call it a reform but it's a set of me shfers which requires often reforms and a bit of creativity around p.p.t.s, for instance. but some are root at the intersection of what can have an effect in the short term and will improve productivity in
the medium and long term. and this is infrastructure investment. our research shows that boosting efficient -- efficient -- infrastructure investment can ima powerful impetus for growth boats in the short run -- you still late activity, construction sites start employing people -- and in the long run. you improve productivity, infrastructure, make sure that good people can actually travel properly. other reforms, such as those that affect the labor, the product, and the services market, are likely to unfold positive results over a longer term horizon yet they are essential to enhanced protuct divot and innovation which in turn can be powerful antidote to the impact of something we cannot do anything about, and that is affecting all of us -- aging.
we have done a bit of research not so much on aging. other people can do that a little better than us. but we've done research on structural reforms and we've tried to flesh out priorities and payoffs in the area of productivity growth. labor force participation. and trade. so let me take them very quickly one after the other. let's look at productivity growth. reversing that decline in advanced economies requires lowering barriers to eebtering -- entry. our research shows for instance, that improving the allocation of labor and capital across sectors can significantly increase total factor product tift. t.f.p. as it's called. another example is the potential benefit from improving access to finance for smaller businesses. everybody talks about f.m.e.s.
of course because they generally in most countries, certainly the advanced economies but also now to a much larger extent in emerging market economies represent most of the employment and they represent the largest number of companies. well, unfortunately if we look at europe, for instance, they also hold a share of nonperforming loans that is 50% higher on average than larger corporations. so clearly putting the small business sector on a firmer footing would yield a big payoff. this is the same story in china. where small businesses play a critical role in the economy in terms of output employment, tax revenue and innovations, and where access to financing is extremely difficult. i discussed that matter with the prime minister of china and it is one of the angles that they want to use in order to stimulate activity by the corporate world.
if we look at emerging market economies such as indonesia and russia, they can reap productivity by easing restrictions. and brazil, india south africa, should certainly focus on reforming the education labor and product markets. in low income countries as well as in the middle east and central asia, improving zpwo nance, eradicating corruption, or trying to, as well as financial inclusion will help lay the foundation of a thriving private sector. so that's for the productivity improvement as far as capital and investment is concerned. if we look at labor now there's an important set of measures that is needed to remove barriers to labor force participation, and that is key to tackle inequality. and ensuring a broad-based
world. i'll give you a few for instances. in japan and in the euro area there are too many tax disincentives that exist. and where a change of tax policies that would be more growth friendly, more labor supportive, would be very welcomed. and they could be budget neutral. in too many countries, legal inequities still exist. and what do they do? they create barriers to greater participation by women in the economy. we've done a very interesting study. and from all the countries that we've studied 90% -- 90% still had legal inequities in the books that prevent access of women to the labor market. and as we know, closing the gender gap -- is one of the
goals by 25% in the next decade could result in the creation of 100 million jobs. that means something. finally on trade. there are potentially huge global gains to be had from further trade reform and integration. as we know, trade has been a major driver of economic progress over the past three decades and yet again in 2015 and for the fourth year now trade will be below average trade in terms of growth. recent efforts have been welcomed. the balli agreement which was a subset of the doha long expected long agreement could actually generate a lot by way of trade if a silltation estimated to deliver economic
boost of 1 trillion u.s. dollars annually. not only should this agreement be implemented but we need to be more ambitious because trade remains a very major engine of the global economy. to lift growth, create jobs, and dispell this new mediocre that is lurking on the horizon. of course it's difficult. those are political reforms. and anything that is structural reform or that requires international consensus is difficult. they involve tough choices tradeoffs, and there are winners and losers in the short run. but in the long run everybody can win. so how do we win? well our view, my view is that we can only win by working together. and i am struck by how action
to lift growth is becoming increasingly country specific. gone are the days when you could say the advanced economies, the emerging markets, the low income countries. no. it's a matter that is far more complicated. which probably includes something like 128 boxes depending on what criterias you use. yet all those issues that i have referred to -- mack row economic, financial risks, productivity increases, all of that is also very strongly interconnected and multilayered. so the challenge for policy makers around the world is to combine the policies needed to boost today's growth with those that will fortify tomorrow's prospects. how can you actually use your short game to make sure that the long game is going to work? and to leverage those national initiatives that are needed to the benefit of the global
community. and if you look at it think of it what is good for a country is going to end up being good for the whole community. if countries strengthen their banks, domestic banks, it will not only serve them well and their clients, but it will reinforce the global financial system. if countries anticipate and hedge against volatility it will not only serve them and their own financial sector but it will support global financial stability. and if countries implement climate-friendly policies, it will benefit their population and also contribute to reducing global emissions. so to all those who will say, oh we have to wait until the others come on board and reach an international treaty or agreement or something that is intergovernmental -- no. national policies will actually
take the global issue further. but we also need a multilateral system that can actually leverage these national benefits and help avoid inconsistencies, risk of arbitrage that could actually generate negative spillovers. in a highly interconnected world with new and dynamic centers of political and economic gravity, generally east, there is simply no alternative to what i have called new multilateralism. so what is that? and what needs to be done to reach that new multilateralism platform? well first of all everybody must find its suitable seat. emerging market and developing countries must have greater weight and voice in global economic institutions to
reflect the actual new reality and that of the contribution and responsibilities in the global economy. i have a clear example in mind. the i.m.f., 2010, quota on governance reform. which is intended to precisely meet such objective. listen to that. virtually our entire membership agrees and we now only will wait one ratification by the u.s. congress. it is overdue. if you meet any of them, tell them. and we're not going to give up. i'm going to continue to ask them to please do it. if only to assert u.s. leadership in a key institution
for global financial stability. but, you know, we can't wait forever, either. so our membership is currently considering interim steps -- i'm not saying substitute -- interim steps that can take us a bit closer to the ultimate objective. now, there are further measures as well to strengthen the resilience of the international financial system. and that would include enhancing cooperation with regional facilities and institutions including the new asian infrastructure investment bank as i have said three weeks ago, in china. there are many institutions that have burgend over the last few years in europe, in asia, in various places. and we need to work together. we need to cooperate to coordinate. the second option, increasing the role of these special drawing rights. as a global reserve assets and
facilitating the integration of emerging markets into the global economy. and of course firming up the i.m. if resources, which again relate to the quota reform. that was intended in 2010. as a result of that, the international monetary system would be reinforced and become more stable. so that's for the international monetary system. what about the international development system? well, 2015 is really a very special moment for development and an opportunity to make a tangible difference in the lives of a very large number of people, particularly the poorest. there are three critical issues on the 2015 agenda. one is financing for development which will be discussed in july. the second is the development goals which will be discussed in the united nations in
september. and the third is climate change which will be discussed in paris in december. and they all interlink in many ways. now, the i.m.f. will be a committed partner in this effort and i intend to discuss with our partnership next week how we can contribute through -- not nice words, not good intentions but actually deliverables in the three core areas of our business. we cannot suddenly invens ourselves as the new development experts or the climate gurus. but we have areas of business which are our core businesses which we can certainly contribute. let's look at financing first. actually, we've already made a down payment by recently contributing $390 million to the ebola affected countries, including -- which is very unusual for the i.m.f., $100
million in debt relief. the i.m.f. doesn't do that. but on that particular occasion the board very strongly endorsed that proposal. what we have done as well is that we have set up a catastrophe and containment relief trust. because we realized on the occasion of this drama that affected liberia and guinea that we had to repurpose resources. we will in addition to that explore the potential to increase access to i.m.f. resources for our poorest members. the second core area, policy advise and analysis. we will continue to help our members with a essential support for what very often the low income countries need badly -- domestic resource mobilization.
capital market development and where it exists deepening. in addition we will push further on macro economic issues, some who consider a little on the side of our core business which are core business and matter. p and i'm thinking about the role of inequality and excessive inequality. the role of women's india economy and their contribution to the labor market. the energy subsidy reforms where we have extensively now published and given some very practical set of recommendations using a range of countries that have actually either succeeded or failed. and carbon taxation which is a very interesting proposition. and we all know that time is right to price it right. and if we do that, it can help us get it right on climate change. our third and last core business area is capacity building and technical
assistance. and here we are expanding services including through nine regional technical assistance center and seven regional training centers in africa, asia and the midde east. and we have involved on moocs. massive on line open courses. in courses as complicated as, for instance, debt sustainability analysis. or removing energy subsidies. as i said, we can only get it right if we work together. this applies to all the areas that i have touched on, from stronger growth today to better growth tomorrow. from a more resilient international monetary system to a more robust international development system. from the world we live in today to maybe a better world that we
will help build. success will require a recommitment to the principles of international cooperation that have served us well for the last 70 years, and particularly in moments of crisis. but this new multilateralism is urgently needed to boost growth and generate confidence in our common future. wouldn't it be nice if a year from now i might come back if a year from now, instead of rejoicing in the a.i.i.b. and the silk road and this new belt out there, we could also celebrate the tpp, the ttip, the imf reform, a strong green fund with good governance. paris 2012 with actual -- 21 with actual deliverables.
these are the challenges we have ahead of us. so i began this morning with a great atlanticist president kennedy. i'm going to use another from the other side of the pond. winston church hill who once said i never worry about action, only inaction. well, we can and we must lift better growth today and tomorrow. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much for that very important speech. and also that not entirely convincing british accent at the end. and you're right that i failed to mention the synchronized swimming because one sees it too often. but i also read as i was doing my research that you were a
french tour guide at alcatraz prison. >> correct. >> but there is so much meat in that to follow up ond an we have a brief 15 minutes here to follow up. so let me try to go through some of it where i think we really need to drill down just lail bit further. first of all did the greeks repay their loan? >> yes. i got my money back. >> good. so we can get that out of the way for all the press that is now confirmed from the i.m.f. you met with the greek finance minister last weekend. this week he was in moscow. i would like to ask you two questions. what do the next steps look like? and perhaps you can put that in the overall context of how resilient you believe the euro zone is both economically and structurally. you see the low oil prices, the quantitative easing, the
reduction in the euro's value all helping. but on the other hand you also point to reforms that haven't been done et cetera. so is there a light at the end of the tunnel or is it a oncoming train, to quote a country western? >> let me take the second part of your question and i will touch on the first part as well. you're right. i think that the euro zone has the benefit of three shots in the arm, actually. the ones that you've just mentioned. and that moment which is actually rare in economic history for a particular economic zones especially one as large as the euro zone, is really a moment, a window of opportunities when countries that have not yet conducted the reforms, that have started conducting the reforms have to actually get on with it. because they have the benefit of low oil prices. very low cost of financing. i mean, we see on the second markets negative rates even for
reasonably medium-term bonds. and the quantitative easing that is intended to really support and kickstart the economy. so with these three factors, if they don't do economic reforms now, it's to despair. so i very much hope that they're going to really continue the process. some of them have started and others i hope will continue. now, one thing that i would like to add as well is that since some three years ago when we were both talking about those issues and the risks on the horizon, the euro area as a monetary zone has strengthened. built the european systemic fund to protect itself which is endowed with over 500 billion euros. it has reinforced its fiscal union. it has certainly built a banking union. and of course it can do more and better, but it is a lot stronger than it was three years ago. which takes me to the first
part of your question. what is now badly needed is not to talk but is to actually get on with the work. and greece authorities together with the representatives of the three institutions as we call them now have to really sit down, go through the work, focus on the objectives of what is intended for the better for greece, which is restoring the economy, stabilizing it, and by so doing reestablishing and reinforcing the sovereignty of the country. so we are for our power completely committed including on weekend wherever, in bruss els and washington to actually help the authorities navigate through the measures that will
actually deliver object objectives of the program while respecting some of the commitments that have been made in the course of the political cycle. it's a difficult path but it is one that has to be walked and which will just improve the situation. >> thank you for that. let's talk a little bit about your new mediocre. you've coined this term and it's a great term. we must prevent the new mediocre from being the new reality, you said. you then talked about the bottom line as a risk to financial stability arising. and again it's not a comfortable place with respect to financial stability. is the new mediocre another term for secular stagnation? is this what you're worried
about? and is that what we're facing, where the world economy faces a prolong period of low growth? and what impact might that have on security and stability? how great is your worry? >> i think it is distinct from the secular stagnation which has been borrowed by larry so maniers to explain. my concept of the low -- the new mediocre is that we can get out of it. it's not something that is intended or that we risk seeing for a long period of time. if the measures that i have identified earlier are taken all tools used on the macro economic front, all space made available utilized. and if financial stability is strengthened and if structural reforms can be implemented each very specific based on countries characteristics, and needs, then we will not be in
that new mediocre. but it's a risk that is there which is i believe accent waited now by the fact that potential for growth has been affected by the three factors that i've mentioned. the scars of the crisis, the aging of population, and particularly in the advanced economies but also some emerging market economies, and the fact that productivity is not where it should be. >> so i think that's a very good differentiation where secular stagnation may be a description of a case that's unchangeable, a new mediocre is a warning that you're trying to avoid. >> yes. >> let me get to the issues and let me put together the issues of the asian infrastructure investment bank and the 2010 quota and governance reform. you described the establishment of china's infrastructure
investment bank as a massive opportunity. that said, larry so maniers this week in an op ed called the u.s. approach to the a.i.i.b. a failure of strategy and tactics and said, this past month may be remembered as the moment the united states lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system. number one -- >> fetches right, i think the best re-- if he was right the best response is to ratify the reform of the i.m.f. >> you finished my sns. usually i just steal your ideas. this time you finished my sns. so that is really what i was getting at. number one, does the formation of the aiib in some way signal a new reality? and in that context, do talk a little bit even more in-depth of this reform. is the jumplet undermining its role as the leading country to
contribute? >> i think that the asian infrastructure investment bank was part of a broader project by the chinese authorities to actually develop growth, build infrastructure projects, and stimulate growth and economic activities not only within china but also with many neighbors along that old silk road and down along the maritime road. so it wasn't a huge structure, if i may say, but it was part of a thinking along the lines of we need to develop broader and -- and there are countries along the way pointing towards europe that will actually benefit from that. and so will our internal manufacturing infrastructure. i think it has been elevated a
bit because of the general context in which that bank has been thou set up as of march 31st. but it's a great initiative in the sense that it's broad-spectrum it reflects the transformation of the global economy with new key players, and it embraces a regional approach which could actually be extremely stimulative for economies that matter more and more today than they did a few years back. so it's both -- i think it is part of something which is broader, and it really reflects a new landscape for the global economy. now, what can the united states do to reinforce its natural leadership role in the global economy as well as in the international monetary scene is
guest: it's a no brainer. >> let me ask one more question that you touched on. john kerry secretary of state john kerry is here next week at the atlantic council -- >> here with you. oh, great. >> with us really launching a campaign around these trade issues. and we are particularly highlighting the geostrategic and geopolitical importance of trade issues. instead of focusing on the gains that would be had from the tpp and ttip, look at the other side.
if we get to the end of this administration there's no trade promotion authority, no ttp and no i.m.f. reform ratification, what -- instead of saying everything we would gain what happens if none of that goes through? which could be an outcome. it is a possible outcome. >> well, i'll put my sort of corporate hat for a second. and i'm a big u.s. corporate -- and i want to invest -- i know there is a massive growing market out there in the east. and if there is no if a silltation of trade, if there is no better tariff arrangements and no more alignment of standards around the world, instead of necessarily investing in the united states of america i'm going to look at other investment opportunities and probably invest where there are very serious growing markets either in terms of purchasing
powers or in terms of population. i always think of mr. heinekin when he was investing around the world. he was generally looking at where there was a lot of light because he knew that that's where people would actually buy and drink beer. well big corporate -- that's what they do. and if there is no if a silltation, no -- fasilltation, no lowering of the barriers, then you have to be everywhere to expand and you have to invest outside. so to those who say it's going to reduce employment it's going to be bad for labor, i don't think so. >> i'm sorry that we really have run out of time. >> it's my fault. i spoke too long. >> it was a brilliant speech. let me against the wall please. you had your hand up first. >> the u.s. dollar is at an all-time high along with the growth of the world we've seen the growth of indebtedness much
of it held in u.s. dollars. repayment schedules in u.s. dollars. if interest rates rise here, that problem could be exacerbated. are you concerned that it could create a crisis with any of the world's currencies? >> i'm sure you listened very carefully to the risks that i've tried to identify. and that's the one that i have flagged, together with the persistently low interest rates which causes another type of risk but clearly the exchange rate and the currency risks and the volatility that it creates is one of those rising risks. also migrating risk as we call it. because it is probably going to affect more some of the emerging market economies and particularly the corporates and those economies that have actually borrowed in u.s.
dollars or pegged currencies. because it is not just u.s. dollars. that's where we see the potential origin of risk that could be significant. >> thank you for that >> and as you rightly said, exacerbated by the potential rise of interest rates likely at the end of the year. >> so thank you. let me close and thank you on behalf of the audience. and also ask people just stay in their seats for a couple of minutes because i know you have to get to another meeting right outside here. this was a great terrific conversation. wonderful speech. i am going to hold you to what was on the podium. we'll get you back a year from now. we'll see how we've done. and i really look forward to having you back. >> i'm absolutely coming back if we can celebrate the tpp
continuing to be a focus point. if you go to press.org, you can get all the details about our national press club. if you're not a member consider becoming a member because we have more than 3000 members all over the world. with that, let me introduce our panel. mr. jason baron. he is a friend of our press club. we have missed patrice. -- ms. patrice, miss liz and mr. tom. he has written the book and has brought it with him.
let me start with mr. baron with his opening remarks. jason: privileged to be here. on march 3, the new york times published a story about ms. clinton and i was quoted as saying "it is difficult to perceive a scenario short of nuclear winter where agency would be justified to allow this officer to solely use private e-mail communications channels for the conduct of government business." when i was first informed by mr. schmid of the new york times of the allegations regarding clinton's use of a private e-mail server, i was incredulous. whatever the original motive may have been that led former
secretary of state clinton to adopt the use of a private server for government business it was -- presumes that agencies set up record-keeping controls -- adequate record-keeping controls to ensure that will be documentation of the activity of the agency. the average employee and average high-level official implicitly understands that these rules exist and do not need too much in the way of instruction. their daily communications on matters of official business are conducted using approved government networks. the 2009 narrow regulations that were in effect during worst of test during most of ms. clinton's 10 year allowed for cases. agencies that allow employees to send him receive official electronic mail messages using
a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system. up until march 3, 2015, i would've imagined that two aspects of this regulation were understood -- that few aspects of this regular sugar understood by officers and government. first -- that steps agencies must take to ensure that e-mail records sent or received on a private system are making sure that all records are forwarded and preserved into an appropriate record-keeping system. no later than the date on which the employee or the official exits government.
the fact that the 2014 amendment to the federal records act set an outside time of 20 days to forward e-mail help to clarify government policies and put an express date into fashion. it would be wrong to think that the policies in place during the first obama administration allow for any cabinet official to privately maintain tens of thousands of government records in his or her possession for months or years after exiting government. i am glad that a substantial number of e-mails, 30,000 or so, have now been returned into government custody. i remain mystified by the fact that the use of a private e-mail account apparently went unnoticed or unremarked upon during a four-year tenure in office of the former secretary. where was everyone? is there any record indicating that any lawyer, any records person, any high-level official
ever respectfully confronted the former secretary with reasonable questions about the practice of sending e-mails from a private account? it is unfathomable to me that this would not have been noticed and reported up the chain or reported to the state inspector general during all of this time. in my view, there has been an institutional failure to challenge what amounted to -- what became a strained and unreasonable reading of existing policies. we will get into the important directive and other measures that are outstanding to try to improve government during the remainder of this hour but that is my opening statement. host: let's go to the ladies. patrice: i'm patrice mcdermott.
tom is one of the founding directors of our coalition. it works to make government more open, get better access to government information and push back on secrecy. when i first came to washington, i worked at the national archive. when i left the archives to go to omb watch which has now changed names, one of the first people i got to know was tom blanton. you are at carnegie building at that point. this was right around the time of the armstrong case, which was about how electronic records, how e-mail records were supposed to be handled in the government. i think a lot of our problems date back to that case. we can go into that in more detail. i think the key, because the government was told how to handle e-mail but it was not
told how to handle it same way as correspondence or memos or other files that were created by the government. not by the office of the person that created them. i think this case has highlighted and really broken loose the problem that exists across big government. that problem is that very few agencies, if any, are managing their e-mail in any sort of record-keeping s years. i can talk about reports that were done and works that the archives did in the late to thousands -- the late
2000's. it is stunning but it is not isolated. it did not begin in this administration. it goes back through all of the administrations that have been on e-mail. it goes back to the managing of our electronic records, not just e-mail correspondence. we were all as shocked as jason and as disturbed but it has served as a salutary moment to force government to actually look at what they are doing. i think the pressure is going to be on all of us to keep that attention focused. it is going to drift away all too soon. host: thank you. liz: i'm with arma international, a professional
membership association that serves those in the records and information management and governments community. we are a membership of 27,000 individuals. a large portion of those are in the united states. i'm their director for government affairs insomuch that arma believes good information policy ought to be throughout all organizations. we also follow issues within the federal government. we believe the federal government has the ability to be a catalyst for good information governance practices throughout our nation. when we look at federal practices as they currently stand, we see there are holes. as far as it relates to the issue of secretary clinton's e-mails, it is not that surprising. it is not surprising because the government has used
insufficient approaches to information government. an example would be e-mail records are records. if they have the information that ought to be kept. until the government looks systematically at the way they preserve their information and look at information holistically, these issues will continue to pop up. it is our hope that this example -- secretary clinton is not the first secretary of state who has managed their e-mail in a way that we would look at as insufficient, meaning that those should all be within an e-mail capture system and looked at holistically. what that tells us is, the government of to this point, has holes in how they manage information.
it is our hope that we can help from the private sector help the government as they bring best practices up to speed. there is work on information governance initiatives. we have announced that we have come together as a coalition with six other -- five other organizations -- our hope in the coalition is that we can support the government's efforts to bring their records management practices up to speed and bring our private sector know-how into the government and not just the government but for federal practitioners who are doing this work that are challenged
every day with insufficient funding and support. it is our hope that we could make a small dent as our government looks at governance practices. host: thank you. tom: i'm tom blanton, the director of the national security archives and the author of that book. it is, i should remind you, 20 years old. it has a little floppy disk in the back of everything that was cut from my book by my editors which i insisted had to be published so we put it on a disk. you now cannot buy a computer that can read that little disk which is a part of the challenge of preserving e-mail. i want to disagree with jason as i've been doing so for 25 years, ever since we appeared
in court against jason who was representing the government in our lawsuit to save white house e-mails. i would say that the scandal is not a private server. the scandal is the state of government e-mail record-keeping. the silver lining of the entire issue is missing. without mrs. clinton's private server, state.gov likely not have saved any or a mere fraction of the 30,000 e-mails she has turned over. that is how bad the e-mail record-keeping system is. from my point of view, that is the headline of this issue. when you ask, using a private server, that is terrible practice, i agree. the problem is, everybody does it. 88 staff members president george w. bush used private national committee servers to run their accounts. colin powell used aol.com for
his e-mail, not state governor jeb bush of florida who has posted online over 100,000 of his e-mails as governor, it turns out those were all hosted on a private server in the governor's office that mr. bush took with him when he left office. private servers are what everyone has done. it is actually against the law. you should not do it. it is bad practice, but everybody does it. my bet is that mrs. clinton asked, what did everybody do and said, we will do that. why did she get away with that? that is the tougher question. where were the watchers? it is the lesson of our original lawsuit. our first director, scott armstrong, armstrong versus
clinton, that is more we wanted in 1993. over 30 million e-mails. present george w. bush, -- we brought a new lawsuit. against another president, a guy named obama. the obama white house put in an archiving system so the white house is practically the only agency in the entire federal government that say's it e-mail it electronically even though the courts ruled against jason's best efforts that e-mail not only were records but if you did not save it electronically, if you saved it printing and filing which is what the national archive's policy was for 25 years, it degraded the record.
now, we're in a situation where all those printed and filed e-mails, of which no one knows how many exist. we have had some produced in free information requests and so forth. as files are now going to have to be -- the taxpayer is going to pay for them to be re-digitized and uploaded into electronic systems. what you had is a dereliction of duty by the national archives of the united states by every agency had, including mrs. clinton when she was secretary of state. it was her responsibility to see that records were saved. that is the scandal. host: thank you. we can see that we have some great journalists here.
before i open the floor to q and a, i would like you to mention your name, your organization and be loud and clear. please no opinion pieces here. just stay with the questions. >> i'm charlie clark with government executives media group. could you talk about mrs. clinton's attorney. he has asserted that no laws were violated. could you analyze his arguments? jason: it is clear there has been inconsistent action with the underlying expectations of the federal records act and the narrow regulations in several respects.
good lawyers can attempt to parse language well. the 2009 regs say that e-mails have to be kept in an appropriate record-keeping system. everyone understood that to mean by the time that an individual -- either contemporaneously sends the messages or by the last day in office of that individual. there is an inconsistency with the regs. the fact that 30,000 or so e-mails have been sent back cures the defect in substantial part but there are questions about whether we have gotten all of them and whether the
actions were appropriate at the time. the larger point -- i agree with much of what time says -- i think all of us in government have treated the e-mail with -- effectively that it is like groundhog day, the movie with bill murray. every day waking up, the government has adjusted. we hoped that individuals throughout government would comply with what are in the code offender regulations. what we all came to believe is that we have a large compliance problem, much in agreement with tom. we needed to move forward. i'm happy that we have this forum here. what i did not get to but want to emphasize to everyone here is that the obama
administration has done something significant. in 2011, president obama issued a managing government records memorandum to all executive agencies saying that we live in a technological era. we have to get smarter about federal record-keeping. he threw down the gauntlet and it issued the managing governments directive. by december 31, 2016, all federal agencies must manage their e-mail in an accessible electronic format. no more print to paper as the default policy that tom and i, patrice and liz, we all get it. it is difficult for people to comply with and do it on more than an occasional basis. the managing of electronic e-mail will be the first priority in that directive. the second, by december 31st
2019, all federal agencies need to begin ensuring that permanent records of the u.s. government are in a digital or electronic format so they can be added to the national archives. no more paper on a day forward basis going into the national archives after 2019. on records created after the end of this decade, they are expected, if they are appraised as permanent under records schedules, they will be in digital or electronic format. that is an inflection point in the history of archives. a very big deal for this administration to put forward. there are hundreds of thousands of people that will be affected by these policies who create permanent records in
government. the last point i want to make is that the capstone policy at the national archives has put forth is a step forward beyond print to paper or the failed methods of the past. what the capstone policy, if implemented by agencies by december 31 2016 will say, the top level of e-mail communications from senior government officials will be presumptively decreed to be permanent with everyone else's e-mails saved or captured for some period of time. recently, a drafted general records schedule into terms. you will have a permanent set of e-mails that would include mrs. clinton's e-mails if she had used inappropriate system and every cabinet official would be captured under a
capstone policy. these are good developments. i would like to think that the obama administration should be applauded for their steps forward in recognizing something beyond the veil policies of the past. patrice: i think one of the major problems since 1995 has been the adoption of the trust but do not verify. the projection -- resumption has been that agencies will do what the regs said and would do it appropriately. that has not happened. there were studies done that the current archivist asked for from the agencies in the late 2000 costs. these agencies assessed that 90% of the records were at risk of loss.
they stopped doing that after a few years. i absolutely agree that the steps that this white house took with the archives are significant. it took a lot of struggle to get them there. we have been told with regard to for you and other things by this administration that when we complain to them about what is happening with foya, they say these directives are not self implementing. that is the problem. the statute that was passed in november, the directives, the capstone's are not going to be self implementing. it is going to take oversight to make sure that agencies actually address these problems. they are significant
problems. jason is right that the capstone proposal, i urge all of you to take a look at it, would allow agencies to designate top officials whose e-mail would be presumptively saved. in my community it was huge, the proposal that the cia put forward. out of 22,000 officials, they need 20 whose e-mail would be saved permanently. that not only got our community
up in arms, it got members of the intelligence committee up in arms because the senate torture report, the executive summary, was heavily reliant on those e-mails. the ones they were able to get access to. the director of modern records went through the executive summary. he may have had access to the full report. line by line and made note of what was important. they asked cia to withdraw -- that is the risk. that somebody has to be paying attention. the openness community tries. it is something the white house, nora, the ig's and the press need to be paying attention to. this is in the weeds. it is generally not something that gets people's attention. this is history. at risk of going away.
liz: from the perspective of those in the information governance community, what i think is important is to drill down into -- it is not just agencies that -- it is not an issue that nara ought to have done something differently. there continues to be a barrier to focusing on information governance holistically. what nara has been doing his groundbreaking for the government. imagine a private organization saying everyone's e-mail has to be retained by printing it and then we're going to file it. anyone in the private sector would say that is not a good use of our resources. it technically eliminates a lot
of the information through metadata in terms of best practices. it is hard to get the ship righted. we are getting there. i can speak for a number of records and information practitioners i have spoken with, it is hard for them to get attention. it is hard for them to talk to their superiors, let alone their ig's or the heads of those agencies and impress on them the importance of their work. it is largely gone unnoticed. it is a battle for people within the agencies to do the job they are hired to do because it is not something that has been looked at as important until secretary clinton's e-mails come to issue or the issues we saw -- the interests with the irs or the epa. pemex a good news headline and that brings to light -- that
makes a good headline and it brings to light issues we have faced for a long time. until we pay more attention to this issue, we will see secretary clinton's coming up again. we will see these headlines. why haven't things changed? the directive goes a long way in doing that. one of the items that jason had not mentioned was the office of personal management was asked to put out a job classification series for those doing federal work. this is way in the weeds but it represents an important mile marker in that the federal government is recognizing that their federal employees are doing a specific job that requires specific skill sets and a specific knowledge base. can you imagine being qualified as administrative and other duties when you are actually
trying to put together an e-mail retention schedule or policies? you're not even recognized in terms of an hr perspective as having specific skill sets. that is what up to this point has happened. they are small strides but good strides. representatives cummings' bill that changed fra took us leaps and bounds. they allowed us to look at -- electronic records as physical records. we were looking at definitions of records from the 1950's. the way our industry has worked in the private sector has changed in the last month, the last year, the last five years. the federal government had not kept up as they were barriers because it is not something you look at. is not that sexy. it is in the weeds. everyone here is now wondering
what other private practices for their organizations and that their inboxes probably too full. it is a challenge that will keep coming up until our government has the resources and empowers those who are doing it not only with changes to regulations but also funding. the state department does not have, to my knowledge, and electronic e-mail capture system. most agencies do not. it is very expensive to put that in. it takes a lot of work to do that. if you're going to implement capstone, it is taking them seven to eight years to graduate into making sure that is an entire policy throughout their agency. it is a lot of work and it is a skill set. it is money.
until we look at those and have our agency inspector generals and heads of agency focus on it, we will keep talking on it. i welcome the opportunity to keep talking about it, but i hope not. host: there was one interesting word that got mentioned. as a journalist, that is one thing we are looking forward to. foia. we need information. i would ask tom and jason, what do they think is the present condition about these requests at the state department and other government agencies? if there are some specific people whose e-mails are permanently kept and the rest destroyed, how do we get an honest answer to and foia
request? tom: president nixon's secretary fell on her sword and took responsibility for an 18.5 minute gap in one of the key watergate tapes. she said she accidentally had her foot on the pedal of the transcription machine while she reached over her left shoulder to pick up the phone for a phone call and that produced the gap. for government e-mail, we will have a 30 year gap in the historical record. the white house, national security council used e-mail systematically starting in 1985. the total numbers and volume are getting enormous. only a few hundred thousand
individual messages saved from the reagan years. the white house has become the gold standard for saving because of a series of lawsuits. at every other agency, and let's just look at the state department. i have so much sympathy for the project director who tried to get it going. an e-mail archiving system. the acronym is smart. the smart system. he probably worked years to get this thing into place and come up to a standard that instead by state department's regulations in 1995 in reaction to my book, i'm sure.
the reality when the state department went into look at that smart system to see how much is being saved, he concluded practically nothing. this contradicted mrs. clinton's statements that she sent most of her state.gov e-mails so they would be saved. the system was not working. the inspector general tried to figure out, why weren't people using the smart system. it might've been because mrs. clinton was not using the smart system. that comes back to charlie's first question, did mrs. clinton break the law? the hard answer to the question is, yes and no. it is a hard answer. it is no because there was no prohibition on use of a private
server. as jason recognizes, moving those 30,000 e-mail messages to state addresses -- begins to cure this deficit. the answer is, yes broke the law because the federal records act has been around for decades and it puts the responsibility on the head of every agency to have a record system that saves its historically valuable records. ms. clinton did not do that. there is going to be a 30 year gap in the record. jason: let me address the foia aspect of this. the fact that e-mails were sent to a.gov address begs the question of, which.gov address. if there is a.gov address at state, we did talk about it before you officer would be asking enough questions to make
sure state response by searching the e-mail addresses of users in state. if the.gov address that was used went to a different agency, a foia respect to the state department would not capture that.gov. it would be a.gov someplace else. one would need to file a foia request with that other agency. there is a four yeah -- a four ia dimension of this controversy which is important. the foia offices are not leaders in technology. what we need is to have a high-level conversation, what we in the private sector call information governance. to have a conversation with government senior executives
officials, people who are like a cio, a cfo of agencies, to empower foia offices with the tools to do adequate searches across all of the e-mail that exists on networks. the capstone policy factors into a better foia world in the future. if agencies were capturing all of the high level e-mails of individual officers in government as permanent records, that would be a repository that a foia requester would expect the officer to go to. the officer would know, we have a capstone repository for e-mail. we should start there with respect to government records. if agencies are saving everyone's e-mail for some period of time, whatever the bottom line is, and then temporary e-mails are disposed
of for all of the non-capstone accounts, at least one could file a request and have confidence that for some period of time, all e-mail could be searched. we need to have repositories in place. we need to have better search tools. i've been on the soapbox in the legal space for the last 15 years to make sure that lawyers understand that there are smarter tools to do searching across digital objects. we should have that conversation in government as it goes forward to improve foia. if you improve record-keeping actresses, you get a leg up -- practices, you get a leg up to respond to legitimate foia requests. host: next question.
>> mining is bill earle. a former federal cfo. the buzz it -- the budget is not there to do what you are talking about. when we would go to congress and asked for money to fund the four oia office, we were regularly shut down. the question for you and the panel is, we're talking about e-mails, which in some ways is an archaic form of communicating these days. people are communicating by text messages now. they're talking to syria and having that transcribed into messages of various types. -- they are talking to siri and having that transcribed into messages of various types. i think the other parallel is the body cameras on police officers.
now police officers respond -- a body camera on the police officer, will we have a microphone on people to record conversations as well? i think the body camera records conversations, not just video. does that get extended to every federal employee to capture that interaction? host: thank you for that question. i will let tom or jason say a few words. jason: you are right that we are in a world of social media beyond e-mail. there are billions of e-mails sent in the government. it is still an important means of communication although there are others. the federal records act applies no matter what the application is, whether it is social media, tweeting, messages, video.
if it is appropriate for preservation as government business, it is a temporary record or federal record. the government needs to figure out ways of preserving not e-mail digital communications. as for the cost point, this is a conversation we could have off-line. there is a tremendous push in this administration for cloud computing. my challenge to every federal agency is, if you are getting on the train to do cloud computing, putting e-mail of
the mccloud and lots of data in the cloud, you could build in record management considerations on the front end of those procurements. it can be done at minimal cost in the delta. the extra cost to a cloud computing environment is relatively modest. i agree that there are costs involved but it is not as much as you think. tom: to further that point, we give and award every year made after rosemary woods. we give it to agencies for the worst open government performance. this year, the repeat winners were the chief information councils of the government. $81 billion a year of our money on information services hardware systems and the like. if they do not bake in, as jason says, their legal requirements of preserving and accessing freedom of information requests, we are wasting money. they are wasting our money. we have to do that. there is plenty of money to do this. if you do it on the front end,
you can maintain for long-term. of the same thing will have to be done with social media and tweets. i would add one piece of the puzzle. it is a huge universe but the reality today with the cost of computer storage declining and the power of search engines increasing, we are in a place -- i used to make a joke, there was an old magazine called soldiers of fortune. it had a bumper sticker, kill them all, let god sort them out. fascinating idea for records management, save them all and let the algorithms figure it out. it is not hard to manage it electronically and use tools to separate it out by the kind of line that the capstone proposes.
i think there are opportunities for partnerships. the reason we know that a separatist leader bragged about shooting down of lane in ukraine that turned up to be the malaysian jetliner is because the internet archive's in san francisco saved that social media tweet and it was taken down off the facebook or the equivalent of facebook page almost immediately but it has been saved and you can find it. i think that kind of approach to federal records management is the way out. it is not a cost matter. host: thank you. liz wants to say something. liz: from an information management and governance perspective, a record is a record regardless of if it is a tweet, paper. we're glad the federal records
act now shows you can capture anything electronically. we are not talking about just e-mail but electronic communications of any sort. this highlights the fact that, when you go to congress and you are an agency and they say there is not the funding for the technology to support you, it highlights what i was mentioning earlier. there has been a fundamental gap in the way that our government approaches information governance practices. if it is possible to bake in this technology upfront, why is it not happening? the answer is, those at the top level are not paying attention. they are not incentivized to pay attention according to regulations.
you have the national archives which is trying their darndest to bring to light that these issues need to be paid attention to. it is still not happening. i was listening to one federal practitioner from an agency that will go unnamed talk about their efforts to meet the 2016 deadline in managing e-mail electronically. to still think that blows my mind. she had to go to their technology office and say, we need some sort of system that will capture this. they had no money for her, even though they are trying to reach a deadline that is essentially put forth by the memorandum and the white house. she got really creative and found a piece of technology that their office had acquired and was not using. the technology office did not know existed until they went
through some version of the rolodex of what do we own. she said, that will work. they made it work. i do not know if those opportunities exist in every organization but you have good federal practitioners who are trying, in spite of challenges put forth, to bring their agency up to speed.challenges put forth to bring their agency up to speed. and you still have a lack of support or attention to -- they do not support it, they just have a lot on their plate and they are not paying attention to it. >> thank you. some journalists are e-mailing me and they could not make it here. they are watching it, it looks like, on c-span. so our panel suggested this happened over and over before