other countries are very successful in using profiling. there is a fair amount of debate on that question. would we be better if we profiled? i do not think so. one of the things i saw when i first came over, a terrorist has no face. the idea it may be someone from 9/11, it could also be a 24- year-old son of a prominent banker and a foreign country who is african who may not meet somebody is profile. what profile do we use? is it the israeli model? if the fit this category, the better plan on the three hours. -- if you fit this category, you better plan on three hours. that works under israel's laws.

11 million passengers a year. we have 12 million zero week in the u.s. the scale of it, the professionalism, the work force, having already served in army for two years. the bottom line is, we do everything we can to differentiate, not profile, based on intelligence. >> when you think about the risk-based security you are trying to install, looking forward, when you think of the data capabilities that are coming on line, how did those two meld together? hug you apply the risk-based model? -- how do you apply the risk- based model? >> it is all voluntary. when i talk about the strategy, it is based on a voluntary system other than the watch

list. if you make a reservation for an airline ticket, you are agreeing to have your name put against the terrorist watch list. that means what the focus is on trying to identify, not only what the airline has in terms of frequent fliers or what we have because somebody has signed up for a global entry program. it is one way you sign up. even if you are not a frequent flier, if you want to sign up you do that through the global entry program. you just need to have a passport. given those structure is, what we are looking to do is expand the tsa's pre-check concept more broadly. i mentioned the 2 million passengers as of yesterday. longer term, i would like to see more people going through more

pre-check deciated lanes so we can focus on higher risk. recognizing there is no guarantee. >> you want to get people into the pre-check line, because you know who they are. >> the more we can do that -- two years ago, i looked at, i did not see the current contract as sustainable long term. either from a resource perspective or an engagement with the traveling public. those who control our budget. that is what this is all designed to provide more effective sharing. >> let's talk about the insider threat. in this country and in britain, we have had examples of people who are employees of the airlines or airports who have been involved in plots. given the sheer scale, the

number of employees involved in civil aviation, what is the nature of the insider threat? how much cooperation the you get from airlines and airport authorities in addressing what seems to be a pretty big vulnerability? >> it is a concern for everybody in the industry. it is something we focus on to try to identify somebody who may pose a threat. that is where we are largely dependent upon the entire community, the law-enforcement community, which has come in the past, identified insiders before the airlines. i can think of several examples. those who may have connections

with others who are a concern. that is based on someone who has said, you'd better take a look at this person at this airline or airport. that is something that happens on a not-infrequent basis. when we are talking about a global supply chain, a global passenger chain, the one weak link can be a challenge for all of us. >> how you address that? in the united states, you have better partnerships with the airlines. how do you address the potential we clink? a baggage handler in pakistan or russia or wherever? >> that is the challenge. we do it through the partnership with the aviation security counterpart. also, being informed by security

intel services. the example, going back to the cargo plot, being shipped out of yemen. whether there was an insider, that is still debatable. it was outstanding intelligence, in this case, by another service, that gave the tracking numbers for those two packages. but for that intelligence, those packages were on route to chicago. it is that type of information ionalziing operat that is critical for us. the same thing goes for the insider threat. the belief is that the host a service would identify and take appropriate action. if not, it becomes a challenge.

>> it raises the question of cargo. you touched on it earlier. this is another area where it seems there is a significant vulnerability. you cannot examine every piece of cargo going on an airplane. how'd you address the cargo vector? >> it is a vulnerability in a different way. there is a whole different screening protocol. in the u.s., all cargo and all checked bags are checked through explosive detection equipment. that is the confidence we have in the u.s. if that equipment only identifies a couple of explosive chemicals -- depending on what type of equipment you are talking about. hundreds overseas. here in the u.s., it is

calibrated to detect the most common types. what we found with the underwear plot part two, a different type of explosive had been used in the previous one. we have gone back and read calibrated all of the equipment. even working with our canines to have them trained to detect this different type of explosive. when we look at the international -- the global supply chain, the issue is, what is the capability of the coast airport in terms of detecting explosives? we just signed an agreement with the eu where we recognize the eu national security program. instead of the tsa going to

inspect and validate the cargo program, it was a huge of the taking. the eu took on the responsibility of establishing a national program. we recognize that. that is a way we move forward in partnership to say, how can we love all our resources and not try to be the one agency or department that does all things at all places at all times with all people. >> a couple more and then we will open up the questions. the tsa is still a very young organization. it came from a career in the fbi. compare and contrast. i wonder if you have a moral problem sometimes.

everytime you turn on your computer, it is a do not touch my junk stored. -- story. the poster kids for everything that everyone resents. had the force this organization going forward? >> -- how do you forge this organization going forward? >> the tsa is just 10 years. there are a lot of challenges. that is through training, for example, all officers are going through tactical communications training. they had not had. it is customer service. we were talking in terms of what targets. how can you be escalated -- you

de-escalate the situation. the human response is to get agitated right back and say, i am in charge. the offices are just about done with that training. we have also started tsa academy at the federal law enforcement training center. we started the first class is for supervisors. we have over four thousand supervisors, some of whom had not received any leadership training. they had not received any mentoring, training. immature organizations -- we also do not have an office of professional responsibility, opr. deconstruct after 9/11 -- the

construct after 9/11 was a director heading each airport. they would give out discipline based on what they thought was appropriate. there was no standard system. i brought over an opr trainer. we set that up. use the reports about someone being fired, that is under this construct. all of these things are designed to encourage better customer engagement, passenger engagement. >> last question before we open it up, this is one front in the struggle between nation states. the united states and multinational killers. who is winning? >> clearly, we have had success, the u.s. government, in terms

of not a repeat of 9/11. since 9/11, imagine the shoe bomber. -- you mentioned the issue bomber. two russian airliners were brought tdown. 90 people killed. we look at the liquids plot from the u.k. in 2006. the cargo plot. the most recent underwear plot. the detection capabilities depend on where the person would have gotten through the global airline system. we have these threats. the question is, how can we keep it situated to mitigate or manage risk without trying to

eliminate risk. everyone assumes risk. they are assuming some risk. the idea is, how can we mitigate or manage the risk. >> just to follow up, we have foiled plots. there are other consequences. the money, you mentioned. tens of billions of dollars. the sense that america has lost some kind of pride or some kind of personal autonomy. the fear that the shadow that we live under. are they accomplishing the goals they have of disrupting our society? >> it is a debatable point depending on what perspective you want to take. clearly, there have been significant changes since 9/11 as to how we go about preventing another catastrophe.

there is a huge interest in doing that. i think where people disagree, people can always disagree, on how do we best do that. i think the answer is not going back to pre-9/11 days. it is working smarter, more efficiently. what we're doing with the security initiative, those of you with children 12 and under, those of you who know people 75 and older, for those people 75 and older, we did a fair analysis with great help from the bureau. to say, where are terrorists? based on age, we made the decision to do expedited things for children 12 and under. members of the military, they are part of the pre-check program.

we will be expanding that. the great facilitator of that. we have all of these initiatives to try to move away from the one-size fits all. to give the public greater confidence. >> ok. let's open it up to questions. there are microphones at each side and in the back. let's start right here. if you could identify yourself. fire away. >> good morning. i am with ibm. when we think of tsa, we think of the airports. i heard a story that someone had been stopped on the road. is that someone you are planning to do more of? is it connected to airport

security? are there any of the things you anticipate doing? >> something is not right with that. we do have a visible protection response. they partner with state and local law enforcement. some 97% of our budget is focused on aviation security. a small amount is focused on surface transportation. buses, trains, passenger trains, trucks, things like that. what we do is partner with the local agencies and state agencies to do the teams which are designed to be random, and predictable -- unpredictable shows of law enforcement. we know from the fbi, the briefings, in the u.s. and the

u.k., terrorists are deterred by three things, a visible police presence, canines, and cctv. we know from the london bombers, cctv, they did not care about. one of them looked at that camera. he said, it did not matter. he was going to be dead. it was like, so what. we will do surveillance. in washington, d.c., if they see no police presence -- next tuesday, there may be a team that has 10 to 20 people. >> airport security, do you need to redefine that out where?

i was in libya, saudi armory's looted. -- i saw the armories looted. >> it is not an issue in the u.s. that we have seen. we do not know of any in the u.s. it is a concern. perimeter security, from time to time in the u.s. -- in utah, we had a pilot who was wanted for murder. he was able to get into a small regional jet. he was not able to take off. he caused some damage. >> you need to beef up the perimeter security. >> the airport have the responsibility for it. we help them with it. we set the standard. they do it. >> next question.

>> my daughter lives in london. she tells made the bricks use irish of identification. -- brits use iris identifi cation. >> in certain airports they do. any metric is good. proving that the person who has access is that person. it is not a help for what that person is thinking. i use the example of an investigation i worked on in the fbi. the flight took off from jfk. it crashed on the coast of rhode island. i helped lead the recovery effort. the bottom line was, we found the forensics that showed why -- the explosion. the co-pilot took the flight

down. there were 30 egyptian officers on board. the belief was he wanted to kill those officers. iris scans would have proven he was the co-pilot. it is why we have moved to known crewmembers. the most known and trusted people on the flight. if we cannot trust them, we are in trouble. over 27 dozen times a day we do trust our lives to the flight crew. we want to expand the use of biometrics. it can be very costly. the question is, who pays for it? is it on the u.s. tax payers? the employees pay for it? >> you like it. >> i love it.

it is a question of the cost. >> how about over here. way in the back. what's good morning. i am with boeing. we are in support of risk-based screening. you like to have something that is more like global entry and less like frequent-flier. people can get into frequent- flier programs without a background check. what are you doing about trying to look at a hybrid of global entry. i know you do not want to make it $100. a lot of business travelers are willing to pay money. if they are traveling within the u.s., to get into a system and do the background checks and be able to do that.

what a year looking at with respect to some type of hybrid system? with background checks, fingerprints, things that are not in a frequent-flier program. >> we're working on that. the expansion of the security provision, particularly as it relates to pre-checks. we have been in discussion with several companies including one airline that are proposing something where they would bear the cost. the question is, is it a fee that the u.s. would be charging? all kinds of things, it takes years. what we're interested in is private-sector proposals. that looking at some melnow, would do that. the passenger would bear the

cost. we see that as a key enablers for the expansion, the broad expansion. >> it does raise the question, the two-tiered system where you can buy your way into better treatment. you can buy your own government. >> $100, that is for five years. $20 a year. if the fly once a year, even if you never fly. at $20 a year, it is hard to argue that is an onerous cost. that is our position. >> fair enough. this gentleman right here. >> good morning. good to talk with you again. a question for you on funding. it is a challenging environment.

two things. one being the explosive detection systems that were deployed after 9/11. they are 10 plus years. there should be recapitalization effort. if you can give us color on the funding issue. the air cargo screening. funding for deployment of systems. you have to forfeit 50 airports. -- have 450 airports where they might be deployed. if he could give us some information on that. >> the recapitalization is a key issue with the life cycle coming to what was originally proposed as the useful life cycle. what we are finding is some of the equipment is doing well beyond the life cycle. we did a budget presentation on

monday. the budget year goes into effect october 1 a year from now. there will be continued funding. it is a question of what level. same thing with what we are doing in terms of the air cargo. the funding is there, it has been. it is at reduced levels. as is the government budget in terms of being reduced. i do not know for 13 or 14 yet. the belief is that those key technology enablers will be maintained. they have to be, otherwise we grateful abilities which is not good for anybody. >> -- we create vulnerabilites which is not good for anybody. >> did you get support for your budget request? >> yes.

it is interesting. there is a lot of focus. on how we can do a better job. when it comes to a budget, there is support for those things we described. when it is all said and done, there is a realization, these are key issues we need to make sure we did not greet vulnerabilities on -- create vulnerabilities on. >> fallen upon the budget question, it seems the other side of the coin is taking an internal look at the 21 levels of security. which ones are the most effective. can you speak to that? >> for those who have followed, we talk about 20 different levels of security we have. 17 of which are primarily tsa

responsibilities. the intel is one of the key ones. for the last year, there has been an efficiency review at tsa. all the things we had been doing. one example is our behavioral detection officers. they engage or observe passages. a classic example, a bdo would have been useful, on christmas day, 2009. he was walking to his date with his bomb. what i would have loved it is to have an officer in plain clothes off to the side. a uniformed officer walking towards him. he sees the canine, bought officer, what i would have loved

is to see, how does this person respond to that? does he continue walking, knowing that there is probably vapor coming off? the officer might observe something? that is the whole premise. in two airports, we have taken that to the next level based on some best practices to do what we call a program. some of you have been through boston logan. you have had a brief conversation with an officer about your travel and plans. the whole idea is, how can we learn more about people. it is not so much about what your answer is, it may be intrusive to some people. you can decline. it is more how the person responds.

critics say, you have not cut any terrorist. that is true. we are not aware of any terrorists trying to get on flights. there was a report a couple years ago that said, the program does not work because there have been 19 or 20 terrorists, 24. these terrorists, almost all, we're not bomb throwers. the finance there is going to raise money to send back to whoever. that person is just a businessman or woman who is going to do their work. it is different from a terrorist who is going to blow up a plan. there are different manifestations. that is one example. we do a number of different things we are looking at to try to provide the most effective

security. the review is still ongoing. along with the review of our headquarters structure. we have done some real reorganizing to create better efficiencies. a realization that our budget is less than it was last year and will probably be less next year. >> this gentleman right here. >> another budget question, what do you see happening to the level of the 60,000 strong labor force? >> 60,000 is not only the front line for us, the management for that, it also includes federal air marshals. they are a part of tsa. and all of the different components. we have 47,000 security officers. about 14,000 of those are part-

time. if you travel a lot, when it is really busy, monday and friday, we have a part-time workforce to cover those times. noon on a wednesday, it may not be so busy. we do not have as many people's back at that time. that is one of the responsibilities we have. one of the challenges is to try to professionalize the work force, more part time, people may say, that makes more challenges. it is not that simple. some of our offices are part- time, some are full time. right now, the budget is focused on becoming leaner, more efficient, how we deploy that workforce. there is no discussion about reducing the size.

there have been questions about -- i had a hearing six or seven weeks ago where the chairman of the committee of oversight ask what we would do with a smaller workforce. my response was that would be a challenge. >> you feel you are immune from work-force cuts? >> i would not say immune. our current budget envisions full staffing. 14 looks, that is all -- yeah. what's next, right there. -- >> next, right there. >> i am very concerned about the protocol. i assume it is a lot different than a regular airport. as the former owner of a plane,

it seems like you got in and just took off. >> the general aviation area is under review. we are not talking about the 1%, we are talking about the 1% of the 1%. when you fly on your own, whatever it is, the fact is there are different levels of security. we have tried to address that through rulemaking. we work closely with industries. there is a rule in process that will address a sign, which come of vulnerability, perimeter security, locks on the plainnes. when that is published, we will get comments and move forward. in it is in and nobody's best interest to have an airport --

it is not good for the industry, the airport, anybody. the industry has been very responsive in terms of voluntary issues. we identify it vulnerabilities. here is what you should do, generally. it is not in the form of a regulatory action. . time,see from time to that can be an issue. the access to the large, wide bodied planes with extra fuel, that is our highest concern. the fact that somebody might get into a small cessna, that is not a good thing. from an over all u.s. government and industry perspective, what is a return on investment from time to lock down every airport as we do for commercial

aviation? that is part of the dialogue. >> you are willing to tolerate a greater risk due to potential consequence? >> it is a recognition that we cannot guard against all things, all places, all times. we can do more to try to do that. the cost to the taxpayers and the industry would be high. there is the question of, what is our return on investment. >> the people affected have a lot of clout. >> they may. everybody in this mill you has a lawyer. i hear a lot of lawyers. [laughter] then i wake up and start the day. [laughter] that is my opinion. some are very vocal.

>> be right back here. this lady here. >> i am the spouse of an active- duty marines. my question is, i have had the opportunity to fly from japan here, i have noticed that they did not require us to take out shoes off -- our shoes off because they have a device we can go through. if we have bottled water, they are able to put it in a device that can detect what they are looking for. why do not have this? is this in the works? >> let me start with the liquids. the issue with the liquids came in after the 2005 plot. we have bottled liquid scanners in the u.s.

we have nearly 1000 of those. it does cause additional time and processing. it slows down the checkpoint for passenger and causes additional work. we can do that. we do that for medically necessary liquids. those that can exceed the 100 milliliters, 3.4 ounces. we are working with the industry and technology to improve that so it can be a more expedited fashion of doing that. we are working with the eu in terms of trying to facilitate the flow of those liquids and particularly perfumes and liquors. tamper evident bags. i have a meeting on monday with the eu and canadians and

australians. that is one of the issues we will be discussing. on the issue is, there is different technology. there is not technology that allows for the full range of security screening other than for metals -- metal objects. in terms of explosives, whether it is c4 or tatp, there is no good technology that allows for the efficient detection. it is a policy matter. in the eu, s theyhoes to stay on -- they allow shoes to stay on. with our high confidence passengers, you are allowed to keep your shoes on. we are working on expanding

that. right now, we are in the process. it is not there. >> why do we have to take our shoes of domestically? what is the risk? >> it depends on whether there is another richard reed who has decided, let's exploit something that was tried previously. probably, it would probably be on a regional jet. the question is, what risks are we willing to take? if it is that flight that is blown up because of somebody with a shoe bomb, and you are on it, that is not a good thing for you. as we saw with the liquid plot, oftentimes, it is not just looking at onetime. we're looking at multiple

flights and multiple venues for the maximum effect. if you have wanted, that is a terrible thing. if you have won two -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, that is a problem. we get to where we have high possible conferencing technology or we get to the person and the technology then we make different policy decisions. >> ok. a few more here. the gentleman here. >> i know this is a topic on aviation security, but i would like to address the issue of real security. i am always pleasantly surprised how relaxed and easy it is to get onto a train at union station. it is so easy for summit to put a bag on a train, get off the train and have -- for somebody to put a bag on a train coming

get off the train and have the train blowup. what would do differently if there is an explosion on a seller gone to new york? >> that is a good question. it gets to the heart of where the risks. from what we have seen overseas, from the madrid bombing, what we have seen in india and pakistan in terms of rail -- there have been more people killed and injured in rail attacks than in aviation over the last 10 years. so the focus is what could we do differently? there is a lot we could do. there has been a fair amount of discussion. we could do similar screening at the railways as we do checkpoints. there is not a lot of appetite for doing that.

what makes real trouble so efficient and easy and positive is the idea of published schedules that are predictable. but then you have the open architecture. the ability to get on and travel basically unhindered. you will probably see viper teams working with amtrak. but those qualities are what make a day attractive target to terrorists. getting back to the other part of your question. i think it is because 9/11 involved aviation in the u.s., that is our major sector. as we look at rail safety, there are a lot of things that are done, could be done more, but at significant cost and that is a public policy debate that

congress and two administrations have decided not to invest heavily in that area. >> this gentleman right here. if seems like the benefits of pre-check have an artificial joint. is there any thought about changing that? >> we have addressed several folks. if your pre-chat then you walk through a metal detector as opposed to the head -- the body scanner. to exploreg different where is that may include the body scanner as part of a pre-chuckling. it is more difficult to do that. -- pre-check lane. it is more difficult to do that.

it is not resolved yet. >> i want to follow-up on the body scanning, particularly the back scanner device. we are a country that is over- tested medically. there is concern about radiation exposure that we have in all kinds of places. how do respond to critics who say, in particular the back scanner device, is expensive -- is excessive to exposure of radiation to the public? >> before deployment been continuing, done by whether it is john hopkins, fda, some other studies that have been done saying that the exposure is so minimal but it is the equivalent of flying a 30,000 feet. on a cross-country flight, how much radiation you get, the three-minute exposures would you

get when you go through ait. you'd have to go through 5000 times in a year just to make that minimum safety standard. you have to go 15,000 times in one year. they are receiving much more naturally occurring radiation. the whole idea between having two types of technology is trying to get beyond the current technology to get to a breakthrough technology to detect a small thread with the dust alarm revolution possibility and not be dependent upon one technology and one manufacturer exclusively. out of the 750 or so we have around the u.s., all have been

or will be converted to automatic target recognitions. >> to cloud the private area. >> manner woman, midgetman or woman, it will be the same. >> do you -- man or woman, it will be the same. >> do you store these images? >> no. >> promise? >> yes. [laughter] >> on the question about by country, you answered about individuals. does that mean that mogadishu vs. barrett vs london, there is no change in white -- vs beirut vs london, there is no change in what you pay attention to? >> in terms of travel patterns and histories and things like that for non-u.s. citizens we may look at it.

it is not profiling, but if you have been to yemen six times -- the times were bomber is a good example. he had been from where he lived in connecticut and new york five times over the past several years -- he is from pakistan. is that an issue? not necessarily. but they would be added to the watch lists as a selectee or derogatory intel and they will be made no fly. in terms of generics, it is more -- it is not profiling based on ethnicity or race, but based on behavior patterns. >> so the trip wire would be repeated trips to pakistan, for

example. >would it be repeated trips to ireland? quite possibly. we know there have been. -- >> possibly. we know there have been. the whole risk-based german intelligence is just like that -- risk-based driven intelligence is just like that. is this summit we should be focused on based on travel patterns or history or something like that? -- is this someone we should be focused on based on travel patterns or history or something like that? we are clearly a beneficiary of the law-enforcement community and the homeland security infrastructure. we are a hybrid agency. we have some law enforcement and federal air marshalls. we are a hybrid because we are

also a regulatory agency. >> right back there. >> i would like to revisit the congressional help you are getting. the stories are somewhere between 88 and 108 subcommittees and committees in congress and that oversee this. knowing that you're not going to criticize the congress having an oversight role, being an tsa andrator anin the being a regulator, having to report to so many and how you resolve it? >> well -- [laughter] obviously, congress has a key role in providing oversight. all of those things the art are important as their

representatives of the american people. we have to respect it. we spend a lot of time ipreparig for briefings that are really important for us. we had the chairman of one of our appropriations committee come to one of our facilities where we test all new technologies prior to it being deployed. in the post-9/11 narrett, getting something in pushing it out, that is not -- post-9/11 and, getting something i pushing it out, that is not the way. some jurisdictions have tried to bring us in.

but the deputy secretary is here and speaking later. i think she can probably speak far more comprehensively for the department than tsa. we appreciate trying to engage -- some of you have called witnesses on panels alongside tsa or a second panel and that provides some of that perspective and concept that they might not have otherwise. >> we will take a couple more questions. i want to follow-up on one thing in particular. that is a surgically implanted explosives, how do you detect and stop it? >> that came from yemen last summer, the summer 2011, where they were looking at ways to defeat our current regimen, including the body scanners,

which would depict or pick up anomalies. the intel was that they would in plant explosives in people so they could get through any type of security. fortunately, we have not seen that. there has been some follow-up reporting on that from the summer of 2011. we have worked with our international partners. ithere are some things you have to be doing, some of it within guidance and some of it with regulatory action. that includes making an assessment and resolution of any concerns for somebody who may have had recent surgery. it becomes a very challenging proposition.

>> it would defeat her current machinery. so you have to look at the intelligence to defeat it. >> the two things that we would have on a surgical implant, there would possibly be some type of a port that the initiator could be injected through with a syringe and do it that way. but the other possibility is to avoid detection, somebody behaving strangely and have a typical tap down. >> we have time for a couple more. >> yesterday, there was a number given saying that there were over 800,000 people in the united states with top-secret or elevated clearance or more. by definition, they have had pretty good background checks.

given that you now have the pre- check population that you don't have to worry about making counterintelligence targets and treat people differently and in the interest of trying to maximize the energies of the staff you have, has there been any consideration using all of that background on those people, many of which are in this room and have frequent-flier status, to reduce the time you spend on that particular population? >> yes. in fact, we have taken that up and we are in agreement with general clapper to have current members in u.s. government employees, something that is on an agency-based decision. we have two or three agencies that are included. other agencies are joining.

is all voluntary. -- it is all voluntary. it is optional. the beauty of it from my perspective is that the information that that person is a traveler is imbedded in the bar code. the member of the intel community -- the security officer at the checkpoint knows whoever you are. there are no interested groups of people and individuals that we want to continue to expand to. that is where the private industry input will be critical. >> ok, the last question. >> i wanted to find out what you

learn specifically from the british case, the ba worker getting specific e-mails that were admitted in british courts asking detailed questions about where does he work, what kind of access did he have to cabin crews and made a big point of discouraging him from meeting to join him in yemen. but there was a very interesting amount of court records on that. i was curious if you had any comment. >> yes, the situation is that he was looking for a trusted insiders. and through a couple of cutout, he found it in british airways and they had an exchange of information. to your point exactly, he did not want kareem to be an

operative himself, but to be recruiting others. that all was identified. with some help of the u.s. community, the recruitment effort was identified and the appropriate steps were taken. and the two people that he contacted were handled within the system. to me, that is another example where intelligence is a key to enable us on the front before anyone is able to get to a checkpoint or have an insider opportunity to do something bad. >> do you have the sense that they are very hungry to get inside? >> absolutely. yes. that is the challenge. not so much in the u.s., but overseas. >> thank you very much. thank you once again for your service. best of luck to you and your team. [applause]

ed convention gets underway in tampa one week from today. the democratic national convention begins the following week in charlotte, north carolina. live gavel to gavel coverage of both conventions on c-span radio and streamed lived on c-span.org. coming up on c-span2 a panel discussion on the u.s. relationship with japan. at 7:20 eastern economist on the role in online news. and ""the communicators" is tonight at 8 eastern. maryland attorney general is the president of the national association of attorney general we talk to him about the government role about privacy on the internet. ahead at the rpg rng the platform committee is working on the priority's for the next four years. the meeting now you can watch them live on c-span. the coverage continues here tomorrow on c-span2 starting at

8 p.m. eastern. president obama back on the campaign trail in reno nevada at the community college there. as part of two-day stwing through nevada and ohio. you can watch live coverage at 8 eastern on c-span. former deputy secretary of start u.s.-japan relations have drifted but remained stable. it came at the center for strategic studies panel discussion on the new report spited the u.s.-japan alliance. the discussion about an hour and twenty minutes. [inaudible conversations]. >> okay, everybody. let me ask you find seats. okay.

we're going to get started. hello, everybody. welcome i'm john hamery. i want to say greetings to all of you. when rich armitage said he was going issue his report, he is the latest armitage-nye report on the 15th of august, i said you're crazy. nobody is in washington. look at this, this is absolutely fabulous. i'm delighted to have everyone here. i guess it's because it's it does speak to the very important assistance the topic of the day. welcome to all of you. we are delighted to have you here. of course, we're very, very pleased that secretary armitage and secretary nye who cannot be here today. the two of them have been partners in a series of important studies throughout the years. i think fundamentally have shaped the direction for the

policy trajectory in the united states. i think it's at the significant impact as well in japan with our friends in japan. they see the significance of the day, the significance of the events of these days, and said there needs to be some additional detects now devoted to the topic. what you have before you is a fine study with true things that you can do. i think that's going to be the thrust of the day. what you have here, i rather jokingly said it looks like an doubling master print except for the two at the ended. thank floodness we have some diversity in the room. we're grateful for that. i would say thank you to all of you very been participants in the important effort. secretary armitage. let me turn it to you. thanks if corming. we look forward to hearing your questions. >> thank you, john. as always, we are gratified to be with the landlord, and we're

grateful to scsis in the assistance in helping out with the rollout. i want to say thank for joe and me for my colleagues who assisted all who were assembled before you two others, three, dr. john who is traveling, and frank who is an absurder to the process. and you are as you know, looking at bipartisanship group. all three of our reports had bipartisan parings. and we think that's one of the important signals. second if you look at the this group, with we're not all old. some of us have a little more moss on our -- than others inspect a way, you're seeing a new generation of folks who are interested in asia and certainly interested in japan. that was another message we want to send. we're hopefully this will encourage folks in japan,

younger folks in japan to step up a little more in issue security studies and japan's placed in the world, et. cetera. i'm going to -- if i may tell you what we're going to do today and make a short introduction. after the introduction i'm going to read a short paragraph from joe new york ask me to expose it to you. we'll mike greene to talk about where we are in the alliance. these are only going to be five minute segments at most. leave plenty of time for question and answers. it will be followed by bob mcally something they had a interest in. kevin kneeler is going to talk about the mac macroissue trade. he is going to speak about an issue we are calling see is we are going to talk briefly about relations with neighbors. particularly in the last couple

of days. in the region. randy sliver talk about the rerise of china. this a is the background. everything that is going on. we'll talk about security issues and real meat in the recommendations. isabella mroczkowski is going to speak about the pko. a discussion in tokyo about pakistan o. we have views on it and isabel will will let you know those. mike and i will wrap it up. we'll turn it over to you and there three microphones and interns running around with microphones. you can stand up and please identify yourself and ask your questions. i will ask mike to mc that particular aspect of the presentation. so if i might, let me start the introduction as follows. for our point of view, this report comes at the time of soft drift in our relationship. we're not assigning blame to

that, in fact we note that kurt campbell is the excellent assistant secretary for east issa and the colleague department of state have done their best to keep this relationship stable in a very difficult time. but because of rerise of china, because of the difficulties imnating from north korea because of the dynamism of asia. and the broader security issues yes, i mean, iran and others. staying in the same place is not sufficient anymore. we have to move forward. from our point 6 view, for an alliance such as ourses to exist and thrive, we have to sproach it from the perspective of a tier one nation. what do i mean by this? a tier one nation is a nation as economic weight, capable military forces, global vision, and is willing to take leadership on international concerns. now it's clear, as you read our

report, that we think the u.s. can better support this alliance and should do so. we this is not a question in a minds of most of you and certainly none of us about the fact that the united states is going a tier one nation. and we'll continue to be a tier one nation. but you can, however, it's time for a decision. japan has a decision to make. and that is to japan continue the tier one nation, or are they content to drift into tier two status? if the tier two is okay with the people of japan and the government of jan, i recommend you close the report, don't read any further. there's no need. from our point of view, we say that japan is capable of remaining a tier one nation. but we have questions about

japan's dispositions as they can go this. the u.s. needs a strong japan. we believe japan needs a strong u.s. for japan to remain standing shoulder to shoulder with the united states. she's going to have to move forward with us. you will see it in the end of roar report we have recommendations for the united states, recommends for japan. and recommendations for our alliance. let me read from joe new york nye. he asked me to say the following. for nearly two decades, i had the pleasure of working with promote our shared view that the united states alliance with japan is the essential bedrock of a stable and prosperous east asia. this is the third and series of bipartisanship reports that are designed to develop better understanding of the importance of that relationship to the united states, to japan, and to

the world. we are appealing to americans to rise above any partnership in reaffirming importance of our relationship with japan. and to our japanese friends to elevate their sights and thinking about strengthening japan's positive role over the long-term. some of our recommendations will be welcome. others not. but all are offered in the spirit of friendship and concern for our future together. thank you. mike? >> thank you all for coming. let me say two things before we turn to the sphesk assessments and recommendations. first, what distinguishes this report and got reports this group produced previously in 2000 and 2007 is the premise that the united states as an asia-pacific power is right to an corp. and strategy in an alliance with the major maritime power in the western side of the

pacific, japan. and this is not a question of choosing defeat japan and china between southeast and northeast asia. it's about how you approach the whole reason. the tight of the 2007 was u.s. alliance getting asia right. we had to get the alliance right to get asia right. it has a long pedigree in strategic thought toward asia. 200 years ago in the midst of the war 1812. cap tab david was cut off from the eastern sea board. he called the offices together announced the plan to round the cape and attack british shipping in the pacific. it was the first u.s. warship ever to enter the pacific. and merchants from new york and boston knew about trade with china but he came back and said as a maritime power, we have to anchor our presence in a relationship with the other maritime nation japan nope influenced commodore perry the

great naval strategy in the midst of world war ii we didn't need a punitive piece. we needed a piece where japan would be an and corp. of stability. and the cold war alliances were premise niced on that. and when armitage was secretary of defense the maritime strategy for dealing with the expansion of the soviets was dealing with the maritime approach. when nye took over the assistant secretary job it became a -- clinton, bush and obama administration. it's a recognition of our role as a asia-pacific power but importantly as a maritime power. that's the premise from which we started these reports. the second point is that the united states has an interest in friendship with japan. alignment with japan. we have national interest in japan being as secretary arm tinge said a first tier power.

one of the assumptions we brought into the report is japan can achieve that objective. there are untapped sources of power in japan. that would unleash sources of influence on the international scene. japan, for example, in the area of what joe would call soft power is a first tier superpour. i finished a poll with the chicago -- japan and the united states is the most trusted country in the world after u.k. and canada. in that poll in and many others. in bcb polling they are consistently ranked one, two, or three in the world in terms of respect. they do a global survey on national brands around the world. japan was number two and after march 11th, 2012 and the response moved up to number one. in soft power, japan has enormous potential. how you tap that is a hard

operational and policy problem. it's there. the self-deference forces are of resource that have not been sufficiently yiewt losed today in japanese polling they are usually listed as the most trusted. the resources in capabilities are there as we suggest in our report, losenning some of the constraints would give an asset to japan in the world. the role of women goldman sachs ask studies that suggest in the modeling if japan had a participation in the work force at the oecd level by women gdp growth would increase on an annual basis by something like.073% which is considerable and trade. korea, for example, has 36% of the trade covered under free trade agreements. real dynamism in the economy. it for japan the number is roughly 16%. joining into free trade agreements. not just the ttp or the scheme

that david described. but free trade agreements would unleash competitive forces and give japan real influence in shaping regional trade and financial architecture. it's not just about the economic roip with the u.s. it's about japan empowering itself be in being a leader. these are some of the areas and there are others where despite the well known challenges you can have demographics with energy, and so forth, there's real potential and part of our purpose is try to explain why it is in u.s. interest that potential be tapped. thank you. >> thank you. secretary armitage. good morning. it the importance of energy in our economies, each of our economies, and our national security is often overlooked but cannot be overstated. it is something we took on board

when we ask the project inspect context of the u.s.-japan alliance we identified several challenges and that are emerge. first, nuclear power. we are very mindful of the tragedy of march 11, 2011 and extend the deepest con condolences those harmed by the disasters. the fukushima disaster set back japan and elsewhere. we applaud the prime minister wise decision to initiate a cautious restart with two reactors restarted so far. before fukushima japan was the world's third largest consumer of nuclear energy for a good reason. nuclear power remains the only substantial force. it's resumption is critical for japan to sustain economic growth and meet the emissions goals. the nuclear shut down started to

reverse japan's great progress. over time reducing the oil use. 80 percent 69 oil -- last month fuel oil consumption in japan ten largest regional utilities is up 64% over a year ago. burning more oil to replace the that nuclear no longer does. a permanent shut down would sometime my international development of nuclear power. as china plans to join, russia south france. japan can't afford to fall behind. these plants will be built all over the world and the world will benefit from japan's efficient, reliable, and safe reactors and nuclear services. for our part we need to remove unserveties surrounding the disposal of nuclear waste, and together tokyo and washington must take on the lessons of fukushima and presume world

practice. second issue natural gas one thing i have enjoyed in the my career is enter in how it can surprise you. woe what about the united states of as major export per of natural gas. large increases mainly due to hydraulic turned the united states into the world's fastest growing producer of natural gas in make substantial exportings possible. in fact, a lower [inaudible] and the iea when we widen the panama canal it will allow 0eur% of the tanker fleet to pass through and supply competitive price gas to asia. the opportunity here is obvious japan needs football the natural gas. we have it . we started our country started natural gas trade in 1969 and going forward the nation can and do should increase the exports to japan. these things are necessary.

the united states must eject calls to limit exports. this not a time for resource nationalism. time for a resource alliance. we should not be -- [inaudible] private sector plans to build the projects. next the united states should put japan on a level playing field with international customers for the lng. finally in a time of crisis the united states should guarantee no interruption in lng supplies. at previously negotiated commercial terms. third area we discussed was protecting international energy security and the global commence. like it or not the vitality of modern civilization and future global growth will depend on increases access to flow to fossil fuel. event as the u.s. and north america the world -- [inaudible] from the persian gulf which hold nearly half the world's reserves. they are crucial supplier of

lng. they supply one-third of global lng supplies. as china and other strielized nation follow in our footsteps, from the middle east, global peace and prosperity will depend on the -- between and the respective markets. japan join antipiracy missions in somalia in stwien. they cut imports from iran in the first couple months. going forward tokyo's increased participation to combat piracy to protect persian gulf shipping when and secure the sea lines will be needed and welcome. forth and final area, methane hydrates. it's longer term and aspirational. they are a natural gas crystals trap. depos silts are estimated the worth at 10 years of japanese

domestic consumption. globally the resource has been estimated to be as high as 700,000 trillion cubic feet well over 100 times the current proven natural gas reserves. like shale gas, we know it's there. we haven't figured how to get it out safely and cost effectively. how these technical problems that country with a skill and the motivation can eventually solve. japan and the united states cooperate closefully research and large scam. in may u.s. japan fuel -- successfully extracted it by pumping by co2. in light of the transformational potential they should accelerate process progress on research and developing cost effective and environmentally responsible ways. in sum, a cautious restart of

nuclear power, a new chapter in the bilateral natural gas trade and methane hydrates appear to our group as worthy and promise area for our alliance to deepen and succeed. thank you. >> thank you, bob. can i ask, kevin. >> thank you. my gratitude both for kansas si and you for organizing this effort again. it in trying to say where we are now in global economy and comparing it to to the moment we were last together in 2008 what a difference four years make. we were in the trough of a u.s. financial crisis that morphed into a global economic crisis with the unthinkable happening. an actual contraction in world trade. you look where we are now and while it's certainly not the optimism moment to in the u.s. and global economy, i know that

we have the lowest consumer debt in decades. the u.s. exports have increased some 43% and on target, perhaps to be hit president obama's 50 rnt growth in u.s. exports. american companies today as opposed to four years ago are sitting on top of more crash than any time in history since 1963 position to take advantage of the economic growth. bob has described a very dynamic energy situation, i would cement there is at least much dynamism in the manufacturing sector with 3 3d 3d printing and other technologies that are offering significant promise to countries in the world that a absolute leaders in innovation and productivity the u.s. and japan. the question is what do we do with it now? how do we step out of the shadow in dwaight and where do we take

our our shared future? as we -- the trade and investment picture. i would say on the investment side we have seen largely unchronical investment. it's important from '98 to 2010. the last year which the refresh your numbers are available. we see the doubles in u.s. and japan. that's good news. we haven't seen responding movements in this direction, but what's clear is underneath the surface for companies what we bring our hands about some feature of the relationship, that anxiety we're not shared bay lot of corporations. they see the promise and want to act on it. and as we started to assess this and try to come up with recommendations, david asher challenges us not to think about just used old metaphor in the trade how to keep the bicycle

upright and moving forward. but to how to create a new paradigm that not only operated the u.s. and japanese advantage but significantly improved the outlook for trade and liberalization. for the region. and i'm going ask david to talk about where the thought came from. >> thank you very much. in japan is a nation in the period of great challenge, >> but is a tremendous perspective for opportunity and economic development and advancement. japan is a country that never tapped into the service sector liberalization prospects. so as a country that faces the most rapidly declineing of working population, society and deficit we've frequently look at the dark, you know, prospects

japan may face. we don't pay attention to the opportunities for japan to advance. as a state society and economy. and we forget that japan is still the second largest economic partner for the united states. especially if you accounted for japan's production in china. the arm tinge new -- between the u.s. and japan that would cement the relationship not just between the u.s.-japan, the economy but between canada, mexico, and north american free trade zone. it the context for this is that japan already has a free trade agreement with mexico, japan announced in march a agreement that it will negotiate for free traded with canada, and there is no reason why the united states

should be left out in the process. at the least see is a the opportunity for japan to address the long-term investment and economic prosperity needs by printing a much deeper stronger relationship with the u.s. and taking advantage also the huge economic opportunities for investment here. returns on capital and the u.s. are strong. returns in japan are low, unfortunately. we see a free strayed agreement as the way of increasing the sense of confidence between our countries. that will allow japanese investment to flow into the u.s. and north america at large and much more unfattered fashions. we also particularly see an opportunity for japan to investment in the energy sector. bob mcnamly talked about natural gas and hydrates.

the u.s. is a wash in natural gas. prices are washed out. there is relatively little investment going on right now because of asin try. japanese countries have an opportunity they are already takes of advantage in the canada but to increase their investment. the u.s. has to change the politician. we need make sure that japan can invest in the security and safety in the north of the american natural gas energy opportunities. the only way to do that is a free trade agreement. the bottom line is that free trade is not complicated equation for japan to solve as people think. the working population among farmers in japan is alarmingly in decline. the agricultural issues which people said have been blocking free trade for years are not that substantial.

japan is negotiated free trade agreements with many countries, the united states the people, you know, thought they couldn't. including mexico, i think that we need to finally break the barrier of sound barrier of japan and move forward in a way that will -- our alliance to the next fifty to 100 years. >> would you make a few comments about relations with neighbors. >> i would to say i like the sound byte about what david gave. the section i'm speaking about is robust u.s. and japan and rok relations. the main point of the section is u.s., japan, and korea share extremely important trilateral national interests. it's hard to place from the u.s. agenda two issues that are as

important although there are several, but two issues that are as important as how do we together approach the rerise of china, and how do we deal with the issues of north korea? these are very difficult issues that our key to the civility of asia and peace in the region, and the growing friendship between the united states and china and japan and korea and china. and we really have to focus on the issues together and we can't achieve our common interest and goals unless we work together. there are lots of areas to build trilateral cooperation. we have talked about energy cooperation, japan in the midst of its nuclear incident and the issues resulted from that and the cutback from the nuclear power position. maybe temped to not recognize

its very important worldwide role in the promotion of nonproliferation in the safety of nuclear power. japan's role it in that is real well niced and respected around the world and for japan to retreat from that position and not move forward there would be a big mistake. like wise south korea has important nuclear safety track records in a role of transparency and together the three countries, the united states, korea, and japan can make significant progress in promoting and continuing to promote and ensure the safety of nuclear power and also our continued commitment to nonproliferation. the second area is overseas development of assistance where the united states, japan, and korea are world leaders where we share common interest and japan and korea have been supportive in instrument tal in promoting

objectives common to us including in iraq and afghanistan and this area of cooperation can continue to be modeled. third area and we'll get into more detail on that is u.s.-japan security cooperation with korea. there's been a lot of bilateral activity going on between korea and japan below the radar screen that can be built, promoted and encouraged and together we can move forward. having cross servicing agreements between the two countries japan and korea and having a sharing of information assurance between the two countries will go along way toward promoting the interoperability and spirits we share. as in my myself in my loan life, i'm a product of the korean war. literally and figuratively. my parents met in japan because of the korean wear. i was made in korea. i was conceived there i wasn't

born there. born in america. but this -- i think i can really empathize with japan and korea with the emotion that goes on between the two countries over their national interest. and i think from both sides both countries have from legitimate stakes and questions involving historical claims and but it's more than that. it's really motion and feeling. it's really gets at the depth of what it means to be japanese and what it means to be korean. these are difficult issues which the united states cannot get in the middle of and resolve. these are issues that need to be looked at and addressed by the people themselves. for us to expect the japanese government or the korean government are going go against their public opinion and take some of kind of enlightened position on this -- [inaudible]

rise from china. thank you. just a few comments on china secretary armitage noted upfront

its the backdrop to everything we're talking about. certainly in forms of the administration's policies we wouldn't probably be talk about it or a rebalance if china wasn't on the current trajectory we believe she's on and certainly the report would look different. this is a central theme that's sort of read throughout the report. we note that the history of the alliance has been very favorable for china. in fact, in part china's meteoric rise was made possible by the peace and stability and the regional presence that our alliance provided. we believe that will continue to be the case in the future. of course, this is an implicit rejection what we hear from some chinese friends that the alliance is no longer appropriate for regional security going toward. we think china can continue to benefit from the alliance as long as we continue to have the right mix of both edging and

engagement. that's what our policy has been historically. both as respect to the countries having this blend of hedging and engagement. but also an alliance. going forward it will be continue to be the case. that means that certain capabilities will have to be both maintained and acquired. our policies will have to be closely monitored. to keep it appropriately right means that we need to dynamic process in our alliance to talk about the capabilities to talk about policy coordination. i think recently there has been a lot of focus on the henling part of this. i think it's largely driven by china's behavior. and but respective of whether or

not it's officially a new core interest. we essential can observe the behavior itself the more assertive and at times aggressive approaches to some of the southeasternty disputes. on top of that is the lack of transparency in the china military modernization and some of the strategic intentions. so for as far as the eye can see, this hedging portion of our alliance approach will need to be sustained. certainly we also note in the report that china's trajectory upward is not 100 percent assured. china faces extraordinary challenges, and we list several in the report, these would not be unknown to you, but the energy situation and the increasing demand that china faces, the environmental degradation, the widening income gap, the demographic challenges,

and of course, the cost cutting issue that challenges china corporation corruption all will make china's rise all the more difficult to sustain going forward. the other big question for us is about the economy of china. questions about whether china can achieve the own stated goals of transitions from an export-driven growth model to one that is more driven by internal consumption. the jury is definitely still out on that. in fact, more repeat -- recents signs have shown that china is stick together playbook the recent moves on the currency are designed to increase exports. that's the modeled that they succeeded on so far. transitions away from that could create winners and losers. could create political tension that china doesn't need right now with the leadership

transition coming up. but at any point going forward, it's a difficult transition for china to make. so, again, just to close, the alliance we believe will continue to be of benefit to china and china's own stated goals. as long as the mix of hedging and engagement is done correctly and appropriatedly and that requires the accusation of certain capabilities which i think zach will talk about. which involves a dynamic of process of consultation and coordination consulteddation. >> thank you. the security report addresses six sections.

interoperability, cybersecurity, extended deterrence, prohibition of self-defense, and finally peace keeping of which is -- people will address following me. i think as my colleagues have made clear, the security environment that japan and the alliance in which deal with is significantly changed. and at one time, the alliance focused on the defense of japan. there was a role missions review in the '80s the early '0eus that changed thattics up and down the thinking for the area of interest for japan and the alliance. and expanded it north, south, and strength end the added roles and missions to what operationally the alliance could do. that was followed up by review roles and missions specifically the guidelines review in the late '90s which added the

roles and mission for sees sees becially regional security. the trend is clear. also that the distinction between the defense of japan and regional security is very thin. i think now look and you can center what japan's national interests and the scope of regional interests are. it goes further south and much further to the west and we would argue that it goes as far west as the middle east. and if you can imagine, that the straight of hormuz were closed or if there was a military scon ting sei in the south china sea that would have significant affect on the security and stability of japan.

and so that thinking needs to become more and more part of the context of the alliance. in that regard, i won't go through all of the recommendations let me highlight some specific ones as we go through the security section. at the first sign -- right now the u.s. and japan osd and japan's mod wells modify modify -- dialogue. that dialogue should include extending and strengthening intel surveillance reconnaissance or isr capabilities further to the extent of going down to and including the south china seas.

speak a little bit more on that when we goat the last section of prohibition to collect the self-defense. but in that regard, should be given more specific responsibilities. operational mission responsibility for the defense of japan. and at the base or at the foundation of the dialogue that osd -- let me say both governments are about to have on roles, missions and capabilities should be addressing more intimate service to service cooperation as we move forward.

now effective the navy relationship was in japan. as an army officer. it bugged me. he was right. the navy to navy relationship in our alliance is the model and it's been that way for decades. the air-to-air and u.s. army marine corps. and japan ground sense forces relationship needs to be much closer. they need to catch up to that. it should be much more intimated and japan and especially the u.s. have a lot to share when it comes to things like amphibious operations and capabilities. let me switch now to research and development. regard to the sword and shield analogy that is an overly

simplistic way of outlining what the alliance should be doing. it fails to address the offensive responsibility that japan should have when it comes to the defense of japan. that relates to the amphibious capabilities. the but others area as well. let me transition to the r&d. especially in the environment the shrinking resources when we need to become more effective as alliance partners and this is one way to do that. japan has recently adjusted the arm export principle and that's a welcome change. the thing is the alliance is yet able to figure how to implement that or move forward with the change that opens up new opportunities. one way is pretty obviously we should open up the pipe of japan exporting technologies and

military arms and we should welcome that on the u.s. side. the days of u.s. concern of japan threatening military and defense industries, excuse me, are really passed we need to open up that pipe. the different area is one that missile defense is great in my mind. where both sides took it a very complicated, expensive program and found a way to have codevelopment coproduction, and coemployment of the system. we need to find more areas for those kinds of opportunities. with regarded to cybersecurity, the u.s. side has established cybersecurity demand that is not yet something that japan has we should find a way to establish a

joint cybersecurity center where we focus on research and also in exchange of information to stay up to date with the challenges. regard to extended deterrence, let me make a couple of remarks. dpe tenderness, it includes or requires two obviously factors. one is capability, and the other one is credibility. that's kind of the standard concept of deterrence. but with extended deterrence and with an ally we need to continue to work on-air shiewrns that the u.s. provides japan. it requires a dialogue of what direction that think sk going in on the u.s. side and we need continue to do that. now with regard to the prohibition on self-defense. let me raise the backdrop 3/11 and operation. how the u.s. and japan deployed forces. both sides we believe rightfully

recognize that prices as one of humanitarian citizens and disaster relief and specifically did not have a component of an external adversary we had to deal with with regard to defense. so swept away the prohibitions on collective self-defensive and work much more intimately on how to get the job done. a couple of examples are u.s. warships went there and moved japan ground self-defense forces from there to northeast japan to a lot area. another area example is how both forces worked to make operational the airfield which became the center of how to provide relief and response in the crisis in that area. and those are great examples, but it also shows -- it also

brings out an irony. and the irony is we did well in a hadr scenario. hadr crisis by sweeping away the prohibitions on collective self-defense. but in the scenario where it's much more severe where there's adversary we have to deal with, we are prohibited from that kind of intimate cooperation, and the roamings is we should find authorities. japan should find authorities to allow both forces to deal more intimately without the constraint that prohibition of collective self-defense brings to the operational forces. and that should apply to the full strength and the full security spectrum forces must deal with.

peacetime crises and war. again, that's another strong recommendation that we raise. and with that, let me pass to isabella mroczkowski to address peace keeping operations. >> thank you. thank you for hosting us and thank you to the secretary armitage for hosting this report. dr. greene mentioned that the self-defense forces are one of the most trusted constitutions in all of japan. however, japan is the only country in the world that regards weapons use during a peace keeping operation as an exercised military force. currently there is a bill to possibly revise this the peace keeping operation law. the current law doesn't allow sef to use weapons or -- doesn't allow weapons use only for the case of self-defense or when danger is imminent. the new bill would revise this

to include to allow the self-defense forces during the peace keeping operation to defend civilians outside of the peace keeping operation of peace keeping area. this essentially would supplement the security of the host nation, and it's likely that the bill might not make it to the current session and it's likely it might get watered down. our study groups in the participates and the report recommend that a more forward-leading provision to the law. we recommend that japan not only defend civilians in danger, but also protect and defend if necessary other international peace keepers from other nationallalties. we believe that -- diswrap is currently on self-defense on peace keeping operation missions in haiti working on disaster reconstruction and humanitarian

assistance specifically right now containing infection diseases. they are in got lane heights. the youngest nation in south suzanne. we believe that japan's self-defense on the peace keeping operations from making tremendous international contributions. and the law should reflect that. so with that, we hope that the bill does go through. and it is a little bit more forward. thank you. >> thank you isabella mroczkowski. and turn it over to you in a moment. i want to make a very brief concluding remarking. it should be obviously to all of you at least this panel does not believe that decline in japan is a foregone conclusion. mike already mentioned several of the hidden strengths japan has if they will employ them.

still a large economy. the economy that can be made even more robust if it was reformed particularly regulatory reform in competition. if it was more openness, free trade as we suggested in the report. immigration change, greater participation by women in the work force, and also add a lot. national -- as mike discussed of japan is fantastic. if used. if gets some oxygen from it. let's have pride it in. your allies take pride in the fact that japan has robust and well developed national brand. as was eluded the self-defense force is the most trusted organization in japan. operation bought us some time. we did our duty. we supported our allies through the terrible tragedy. it but operation it will not

carry us through the challenges of the future. it ought to be clear to all of you we hold a strong view that the world is made safer and more humane by united states and japan by robust, strong, democracies. and further, if we have the greatest possibility of a peace rerise of china if the rerise takes part place in an area of strong, vibrant democracies. in that regard, we also include the republican of korea and indonesia and australia and india. we want japan and the united states come to the conclusion we can share some not only the burden but we can share some of the decision making. we want the japanese hand on the tiller. along with us we know who we are what we are. but we can be very much assisted by a strong and vibrant japan.

japan which is a place in which young japanese can dream and not just exist. so we have got of -- we have thrown a lot at you. i'm going hush up and try to respond to the question. somebody will be sable to responded to the questions. turn over to mike green he will be identifying people and pass you the microphones. >> do we have microphones around the room. let me thank knick and the japan staff and ellen kim and the korean staff for getting us organized. until the middle of the summer. put your hand up. i'll call you. identify yourself. you can direct it to the panel in general or someone. microphone troops right here. [inaudible conversations]. >> [inaudible] my question is if the tension over the island arises, and to defend japan at the obligated by the alliance treaty, will u.s.

risk confronting or conflicting with china and if it will, is it prepared or the consequences? thank you. >> let me put this in context. we are under the treaty obligations required to defend the administrative territories of japan. that included that area it's impossible to answer a question like that. the reason is because what is the issue what is happening. something happened because japan is acting in a provocative way? the changed the status koa in a way? if might prompt a response. in some way the -- under the jurisdiction of japan were attacked. it might have another response. it's impossible to answer that hypothetically. however, it is very much u.s.

interest to make sure that we exert every ounce of our influenced keep that event from occurring. and i think that is where the diplomatic energy of the united states is going to be applied. >> okay. thank you. yes, sir? right here. >> hi. my name is [inaudible] i'm in the u.s. navy. we have talked a little bit and some legal changes for a more expensive definition of what the self-defense force can do, but what i haven't heard so much is well, ibdz for a historical reasons it is a self-defense force, but why not a unified command? why not take the brakes off of the force completely and let them really be a full on military? what are the concerns that we

might have in doing that given our current considerations? >> we make it quite clear in our report as we have in the past that first of all, the decision to remove is a japan decision. most a u.s. decision. but we further describe this as an impediment. the article nine prohibition as an impediment to the alliance. i don't think one can argue that fact. we have an interesting footnote in the report. it refers to the 2006 commission, which was put together to study the article nine in collective self-defense. they came to the conclusion that the prime minister could by fiaa do away with the prohibition of collective self-defense. the united states would be fine with that. it's not us holding it together or holding it down. okay. >> let me add a little bit, that is the goal is to have more

intimate cooperations so we can work together better than zealing with the con trains now. that's the goal, we are not seeking changes of the constitution. we're not seeking unified command, for example, we're not seeking for japan to be become a more militaristic character. and so the aim is we need to get rid of the impediment so the forces can work together more effectively. that's the goal. [inaudible] >> hello. i'm [inaudible] from the state department public. phil -- [inaudible] state department clemency bureau. if japan does not choose to step up the plate and let the alliance wither, what are the most plausible consequences that you're concerned about?

.. >> it won't be what we need it to be or have the vie bran sigh, and it's not something, i think, my colleagues can answer for themselves, but it's not something that, if japan doesn't move along, that is not a situation, but it's actually supportive of the people of japan. i use the term deliberately

wanting a japan in which young japanese can dream, not just exist. we want a japan that's not so inward looking. that's the japan we need, and i think the american -- i don't think that's the japan should need and want as well. >> i would just add i do not personally think that we're at a fork in the road where the alternatives are a robust strong alliance or a divorce and collapse of the alliance. in some ways, we're talking about an alliance that muddles and drifts because there is broad consensus in both countries that we need each other so it's either that path or the robust alliance, and i think if we end up on the path of continued muddle and drift, several things could happen. one is that i think the u.s. and other powers that are aligned closely with japan start

hedging, and that is weakens japan's influence, and frankly, takes the energy out of the jointness and cooperation we need for both of our countries to be influential. it's an unfortunate outcome not in the u.s. interests or japan's interests. that's one danger. another danger is creating a shifting time of power in asia, the impression there's cracks and vacuum, and at a time you want to discourage countries from changing the order we benefit from and discourage them to force coercion, america tilism, that's the worst time to create the impression that one of the most important bull works of stability, support for democracy, and open trading system in the region is wobbly. it's not a binary love or divorce choice, but how much we're able to continue

maximizing the benefits to national interests and regional stability. >> kevin? >> just to say i think i don't believe there was sub text in this report or its two predecessors of alliance for some essential risk. i think in this third exercise, one thing that became clear in our conversations, at least to me, was that the among the greatest threats is a failure of imagination on the economic side. to be blueprint, you know, we look at -- to be blunt, you know, we look at the energy that's been spent on free trade agreements, and even on the tp pre-process, which is terrific, great authenticity and could be the next thing that keeps the open trade regime in the pacific on track, but i note with interest, and frankly, i'm simply puzzled by the idea of a japan-korea-china fta.

really, really? i saw that announcemented two months ago, -- announcement two months ago, and i was trying to figure out how does that work as my 19-year-old daughter would say. it's frankly puzzling. at a time when i see irish and meredith broadband, i shriver because they are experts in the global trade regime, and when there's no next obvious thing for us to spend time and energy, i think diverted from the largest free trade agreement in the world, nafta, and adding and enriching confidence and habits of cooperation with japan, terms of what's next, what's achievable, and what bolsters the alliance, that's an obvious and important bit of signaling that for the rest of the region, currently in doubt because of the background noise from europe, about the future of

export growth, well, that could be, we think, vitally important signaling. >> tom? >> on energy, where our alliance to wither. i can think of one opportunity japan would forfeit and an additional risk to take on. what we're suggesting is we leverage the alliance to remove japan's second class status when it comes to being a customer for the exports, and where alliance i think that opportunity goes away, and also with regard to, again, japan's growing dependence on the stability of the middle east and secure flow of hydrocarbons from the middle east to asia, where our alliance to wither, we lose the opportunity to fully utilize japan's assets there, and it would frankly exacerbate this tension you start to see in the united states, this pernicious potential for resource nationalism. as our imports go down and

america realizes we have oil and gas under our feet, we could be, some people believe self-sufficient, our hems hems fer in ten years, and we don't need to spend troops, blood, and treasure and prestige abrowed. a weakening alliance with japan enforces even isolationism which could come as a result of the abundance here of energy. >> yes. >> i'm with washington research and analysis. my question is about nuclear energy. i'm a little surprised that you can lively recommend restart of nuclear plants in japan when we still don't know what's happened and what's happening in fukushima. after all, i think u.s. should

be more engaged because these are u.s. designed and some of them are built. general electric plants which in retrospect have flawed designs, and i say "flawed design" because it self-destructs when theplumbing fails. nothing else, just the circulation of water for whatever reason fails and melts down within 24 hours, and then it contaminates the environment for the remaining 30 years, and this could happen in the u.s. too. i think united states should pay more attention. japan should have a scenario of not that the plants are safe, but what to do should the plants melt down the way fukushima did, and this, again, i think is something that u.s. should also

be concerned as much as the japanese except that japan can want afford the loss of 900,000 square miles of real estate the way u.s. might be able to afford. thank you. >> your point is well taken, sir, and i did not mean -- i hope remarks did not sound blithe. if you read the report and certainly what i hope to convey is that we applauded the cautious restart that the prime minister begun. two reactors down. we understand japan is setting up a new regulatory agency that will take on board the lessons of fukushima and ensure that when other restarts happen, it's done safely. we very much are just applauding what the prime minister has done, a cautious restart is entirely appropriate, and again, we go back to the fact that nuclear energy is the only emissions freebase load source

or base load source of electricity generation. we don't see and i don't think the government most thoughtful observers on japan's economic future agree without a restart of safe nuclear power, it's hard to see japan reviving its national economy, sustains economic growth, much less that tier one part near that the secretary is -- partner that the secretary is talking about. >> my understanding is that none of the reports commissioned by the government or independently in japan concluded that the ge design was the cause of the problem. however, i do agree with the general point that the u.s. and japan should be doing more in the space to think about the future of nuclear safety. japan played a big role after three mile island sending engineers and experts to help us, engineers from ge and department of energy have been in japan. we didn't go into detail in the report, but it's one area where we really could step up is in learning from the experience and

then together with other like-minded states, korea, for example, pushing for higher levels of nuclear safety globally at a time when we're, you know, looking at a future where most reactors in the world are built by russia, china, and other countries that don't have our same standards. you're right. there's an opportunity there as we go forward. >> yes, secretary? >> good morning. this question is for david asher, but anyone else who wants to respond. it seems to me that the alliance's in pretty good shape, but obviously, can't afford to stand still, particularly in e context of so many game changers, the militarized rise of china first and foremost. with the relaxation of the armed export control forces, david, how do you see that changing as a game changer, potentially, how can you see that changing not only the security relationship

but the economic relationship? >> well, there's no doubt that both the united states and the japanese industrial sectors involved in national security, it's not just self-defense, but at large, need to intreg grate themselves -- integrate themselves more substantially. our budgets can't afford to be indpe. and independent minded for the long term. we are allowed to be comprehensively involved with each other, and we should be, but we're not. we license a lot of technology. we do some limited co-production. we've never really embraced the opportunity of an economy of scale and force between us. it will lower the cost of our defensive systems procurements which are ridiculously high, frankly, and it's going to increase effectiveness and show to our add adversaries and our potential threatening nations

that surround us that we are integrated for the long term. if we're intreg grated in terms of our military production and our national security production, that goes well beyond just the military, but involves economic security which is absolutely critical. people won't be thinking they can take advantage of us, frankly. i think that economic security is something we need to pay much more attention to in the context of the alliance. >> yes? >> hi, i'm a reporter with a japanese newspaper. thank you for doing this today. regarding the u.s.-japan relationship, this reporter recommends the united states should not reppedder judgment on the sensitive issues. that's quite understandable, but

at the same time, it says other recommendation for japan, japan should confront the historical issues. i felt there's a judgment there meaning japan's officials stand point on this issues. they have some programs, if i understand this correctly, could you elaborate what japan should confront historical issues? thank you. >> what is today? >> august 15th. >> what is august 15th? >> the emperor made a speech. >> yes, he did. this is j-day. we didn't have this proposal unvailedded today by accident. we dealt painfully with our historical issues. that's why our comments and my

colleagues' comments about the difficulty of the historic issues were heart felt, and we know how potent they with and how powerful they are. the united states is not going to make a judgment on these issues, but the united states should be using all of our diplomatic energy to try to help the two sides resolve these issues. how they are resolved and what is acceptable to the people is on both sides. right now, in both, are okay, and in japan, there's a great matter of popularrism involved on the issues, and that further, sort of muddies the waters, but we had suggested in the report, perhaps continued or stepped up track two discussions to try to bring the united states, as i say, not being judgmental as we've come to a conclusion through our own painful

experience. >> if i could briefly add to that. i think it would be useful if political figures in japan an in other countries in the region stop and ask themselves before they speak, before they take trips, to certain places whether what they're doing is in the national interest or whether it is designed to gain domestic-political popularity. is it in the national interest to antagonize a fellow democracy in a time of shifting power balances in the region, for example? that is probably too tall an order to expect politicians in any country, including our own, to think about the national interest before they speak or act -- [laughter] but those aspiring to higher office and be statesmen and women in the future, it's a good test and a test for the media to

think about as well. >> i think we can take one more quick one. let me look over here. [laughter] yeah, since you came all the way from tokyo. >> we'll do two. >> we'll do two, okay. >> i think the report pointed out rightly the problem that the alliance faces which is dominance of a third older issue. it talks about it, and the both government decided to delete the issue from the rest of the world map agreement, you know, other important issues, but the reality is now we have another third order issue dominoes which is osprey deployment in japan. seems we never overcome this issue of third order issued dominance in alliance management. my question is why do you think we continue to have this problem of third order issue dominance?

is that a japan problem -- >> [inaudible] >> what? [laughter] weak japanese leadership or a problem that comes with the nature, structure, deployment, and how can we overcome this? thank you. >> yes. we did describe it, and i guess by extension osprey is a third order issue. the poifnt -- the point being that we hope our colleagues start in the position of what is in the long term national interest. we're not virgins up here and we understand the u.s. military in many cases occupation of the bases in japan is a burden,. we understand that. the burden's on us to be extra thoughtful about our approach and be very careful and cautious in our consolations with the

government of japan, but for too long these third order issues have taken all the oxygen out of the room, and whenever the secretary of state or secretary of defense of the united states and colleagues in japan start to talk about the interests of the united states or the interests of japan and the rerise of china, it would devolve to what i call the "f word," and as soon as the f word came out -- [laughter] that's all anybody wanted to talk about. what we're trying to do here is to say let's not let the tail wag the dog. don't let futenma and osprey take the place of our larger interests and larger relationship and larger alliance. in my view, there's always ways to work these out, but it's going to take some real thousandsfulness from both -- and probably a little -- what would you say? compromise. on both side given where we are

now. >> good morning. thank you for having me, mark, u.s. house. thank you for having me, good morning. let me start off by saying a spent a great deal of form tie years in japan, and i have a defense related question. how do you think they will do, obviously, noto felt he had to rearrange the cabinet and 18 ministers. how do you think he'll pap -- pan out as a defense minister known as an academic rather than a politician. to the gentleman in the red tie in regards to the statement on the iran and japan being on the sanctions list. recently, japan wanted off the sanctions list importing ironnian oil. do you think that affects of the u.s.-japan alliance?

if so -- what am i saying -- how is japan planning on joining a unified sanctions front? thank you. >> i can take that first part of your question. i think he'll do fine. the tough part for the u.s. side is how these positions continue to change. you know, with prim ministers or within an administration, and, you know, i think the current defense minister will be fine. it's just that we need to have some stability with that regard, but, again, the report is looking at a longer term, and it's not focused on individuals and players in the alliance for today, but a longer term, and that's what's the key part and what's important here. >> with regard to iran and sanctions, the u.s. sanctions policy requires that importers of ironnian crude make -- iranian crude make substantial

reductions. that substantial reduction is not defined precisely so the state department decides what's substantial and what's not. as we know, europe completely stopped importing iranian oil, but japan, not only made substantial reductions in state department's view in the first half of this year, but also early on in the process, showed respect for our sanctions policy itself involved in active discussions with the state department to ensure their planned reductions, coming down year after year, satisfy the u.s. requirement which is it did, and i think, again, in an environment where iran's oil use is rising overall because of the shut down of the electric plants, it's remarkable and a sign of the strong nature of our alliance, and in this environment japan implemented difficult reductions in iranian imports. now, going forward, there is the issue of how to ensure the tankers that are bringing iranian crude back to japan and other countries, and japan put

in place an ability to ensure those tankers because that insurance was withdrawn due to european sanctions. the u.s., again, is not asking japan to completely halt its importings of iranian crude, just to substantially reduce them. it has been doing so. i expect japan will continue to remain in close contact with the united states, continue to reduce imports in japan and contribute to the economic pressure put on the regime. >> thank you, all. we did the first of these bipartisan reports 12 years ago. a lot of us had more -- well, some had more hair then -- we took that report in 2001, and it was thee document that was used in the situation room for the deputies' committee meeting to decide on policy towards japan and asia and one of the earlier meetings historical that rich and others recall in the bush administration.

we're not certain whether this particular document will have a similar role in the situation room in the future, but part of the purpose here is not just to give our ideas on what we need to do to revitalize the alliance, but to stimulate debate and discussion. we didn't answer any question by any means, and hopefully this sparks that, and we'll get feedback, some negative, others positive, but generate attention to add vitality to the alliance again as we have in the past, and all of you attending today is real encouragement that there's interest in that so thank you very much for joining us. [applause]

>> this morning, "washington journal" talked with sofia

nelson who writes for the grio and what it's like to work in online news. the conversation is about 40 minutes. >> host: beginning today, "the washington journal" kicks off a five day series with online media sources. tomorrow, we're learn more about town hall joined by guy benson, and then thursday, online media at the huffington post. friday, we'll be joined by a congressional reporter at talking points memo. beginning the series today with nbc's future columnist sofia nelson. thank you for being here. >> guest: great to be here. >> host: who are you writing for? >> guest: well, it is a west african term, griat, meaning oral tradition and oral historical history, and so david wilson, our founder and two other gentlemen with

him, wanted to do something with an african-american flair to it, but that also would tell the story in a newsworthy video digital, very 21st century way so our mission is to tell the story, i would say, and that's what we try to do with african-american breaking news and opinion. >> host: how is it different in doing videos and tweets for an african-american audience? >> guest: well, if you think of it, the african-american audience is the american audience. it's -- how do i want to say this? it's different, but it's also the same. i mean, the grio covers everything. we have a dc bureau chief, perry bacon who does a great job, and we cover politics. we cover social. we cover health. we cover entertainment. it's not different, but there's a flair for the focus on the audience we are targeting which is the african-american community. >> host: awhile ago in the green room preparing for air, you were tweeting. >> guest: i was. >> host: you were explaning what it is, derived from a west

african tradition, oral tradition of sharing a story. how much do you use social media, facebook, twitter to interact with the audience >> guest:ic i'm obsessed with twitter. i love it so much. facebook, i'm more tame, but i think we all in this new age, those of us who cover stories, columnists, ect., social media is the lifeline. i was off of social media a sunday for six hours, church, whatever, and i missed the shooting at in a community, and it went to show me how i missed it, but on twitter, i would have got it instantaneous, same with bin laden being killed. it was instantaneous on twitter. we all use social media to act all day every day. >> host: you can join the conversation, republican call 202-737-o 0002. democrats, 737-2 o 2-881. you contribute to usa today and

essence magazine. when you write, are you writing opinion pieces? are you putting yourself in the story? are you doing more of a reports' job? >> i think i do both although i moved away when i first started a few years ago, i was doing political pieces, but i evolved into a style writer doing everything from sitting down with the first lady in the backyard of the white house having tea and apples talking about the book "american grown" to doing stories about, you know, the republican party and how they do with african-americans or interviews with someone like franklin of sony who has the new film "sparkle" b and his book, and i talked to bishop jake's wife. there's an interview with cautious restart teases alice neil, and there's an interesting piece on paul ryan coming out shortly. i've known paul since we were in our 20s. >> host: no kidding?

from college? washington? >> guest: washington. i met him working at power america, and i was on the hill, i believe, at the time. that was long ago. i can't really remember. >> host: our guest is a columnist for the grio and author of "black woman redefined," and she's a former u.s. house of representatives committee council, and also has worked in the defense industry as a lobbyist. she has a degree from american university here in washington, a doctor degree, and attended the university of law at san diego state university. the recent column, "why romney should pursue black voters," and if history is indication of the future, the g.o.p.'s presumetive nominee focuses on so lid fie -- solidifying the base, but can he mount on the discontent and black voters? of the 95% of black voters

voting in the first african-american president, romney should not write them off. how do you think the republican ticket should appeal to african-american voters? >> guest: i wrote it before he spoke at the naacp convention for "usa today," and it was a todayer, tongue and cheek, and i think he went to the naacp, he gets credit for showing up, but i'm not sure the message accountanted like it could have focusing on lack of jobs in the black community that i think are issues of concern with this administration. look, the white house is not tone deaf on this. they know, although i think they are clear they will do well with the african-american base, i think that they are probably concerned that they'll get the same fervor and passionate turnout in 2008 with the base which is critical, and i think that while mitt romney has no delusions, i think, about winning the african-american vote, if he's up to 10%, where bush was, and in the first go around, that would be, i think,

a good showing for a republican. look, this is a republic, it's a democratic republic, and our candidates should appeal to all sector of voters, not just white or black. >> host: a caller, herbert, independent caller in massachusetts. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have a very interesting proposal for politics. truth in politics i call it. number one, no one quarter truths. bad enough to have a half truth, but they give literally decimal point truth. the case in point is the fiasco in california. what happened? the government invested about one-third of the invested money. the republicans up vesters, for the most part, invested

two-thirds of the a monday lost, and they only tell that little one-third of the truth that the government lost money, and they don't say although the number of equally still good investors that did the same thing but lost even more money, and -- >> host: are you saying the government covers up how much money is lost and not being honest about it? >> caller: well, the point is that politicians must tell the whole truth about an issue, not just the part they don't like. >> host: truth in politics. >> guest: that's certainly a novel con cement, but telling the whole truth for politicians is a subjective thing; right? what one politician sees as the whole truth is different from

his opponent. while i agree with the caller, we, as americans, would be thrilled to have transparency in the politics, i think we're a long ways from there. >> host: south carolina, rachel on our democratic's line. good morning. >> caller: good morning, honey, how are you? >> host: good, thanks, go ahead, you're on with sofia. >> caller: refreshing to see a fresh face on television getting ready to do something. you know, 12 years ago, i had 17 million people on the brink. now it's 32 million people, white, black, in between, mexican, puerto rican. you know, now i'm looking at 200 million people roaming in africa. i'm so grateful that somebody is stepping to the challenge. i don't care about those people, and i'm working for oxygen.

i'm so grateful for somebody like you, sweet heart. >> host: what is it you hear her talking about that you like? >> guest: i like the idea sthees presenting everybody -- she's presenting everybody, the after ri cans, everybody. we got a problem in this place. >> glses do you feel a responsibility to identify with your community? >> guest: of course i do. that's why i work for the grio. i like that it's african-american centric, but it crosses the broad span. many of us are on air all the time, talking about different political issues, ect., and i appreciate the caller's sentiment. i think what she's trying to say that america veered off course in a way in terms of division and it's better to be united and to share stories and to realize we're more connected than i think we have any idea about. we have much more in common than

we have not in common, i think. >> host: let's hear from calvin, independent caller in north carolina. good morning. >> caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call, and thank you for the great job you and c-span does or do. my question has to do with when president obama ran the first time, there were different cultures and agendas. there was innative american agenda, a hispanic agenda. what does sofia think in terms of there not being an african-american agenda presented? again, my thought is it's not presented in the context of division as much as the quilt that we like to talk about in america where we're different, but we are united, and that unity, i think, comes from a real knowledge and appreciation of the diversity of each of us.

it's wonderful that president obama gets the support he does, but it shouldn't be because he's african-american. addressing those issues, dr. west or smiley or reverend al sharpton asked him to address, i think it's fair game. what are your thoughts on an african-american agenda as we recognize the beauty in all cultures. thank you. >> guest: great question. as you know, i've written about this in "washington post" dating back years, ect., and i can tell you it's a hot button issues with those of us who are reporters because you say there is a gay, lesbian, transgender agenda clearly, for latinos in the immigration, an agenda for women's rights and reproductive rights, and planned parenthood ect., but with the african-american agenda, for some reason, that's shut down

and it's met with, and i don't want to use the word "resistance," but reluctance. being the first black president, you're the first. president obama stepped out on race with the gates issue, the cop, you remember in massachusetts, he was hammered on that. the step he took that day and said what he was thinking about being a black male in america having driven while black and dealing with the issues, he was hammered for that. he's been the turtle sticking the head in the shell since then on issues of race as per taping to the african-american community, but i do think that the administration addresses african-american issues to your question, and has had an african-american agenda, but i think they are less vocal about it because of the fear. these are my words, the fear of the blow back that's possible, and for whatever reason, the black-white issue in america is

still that demarcation, the great birth defect that we were brn with in the country, and until it's right, we are met with resistance whenever african-american issues are raised opposed to other groups' issues, fair or not fair. >> host: sofia nelson, in the column you wrote prior to mitt romney's visit with the naacp, you talk about african-american centric issues like high unemployment rates, business, african-americans having self-started businesses, and you talk about religious values. will you talk about an african-american agenda, give us a sense of what that em come passes and how a politician hits points that you see as important? >> guest: well, as i said earlier, this is an american problem. unemployment is an american problem. poverty, one in six americans now are in poverty. 40 million americans on food

stamps. those issues affect all americans. however, they disproportionally impact african-americans. when the unemployment rate is 7%, for example, blacks' is usually 14% or 15%. if you break down demographics. the foreclosure crisis hit all americans, but the african-american community in atlanta, newark, chicago, los angeles, or here in prince george's county maryland was hit hard, devastated loss of wealth. the wealth gap in america for blacks in the country is something like 5,000 aggregate welfare blacks and 135,000 for whites and la tee knows are ding better. there's a problem in the african-american community, although we made enormous progress, evident by the residents at 1600 pennsylvania avenue, we have a long way to go when it comes to the middle and working class in this country, and that disproportionally impacts black people. >> host: a dallas caller, up

dependent caller, welcome to the show, go ahead. >> caller: i'd like to ask what do you suggest for the youth of america, particularly people who are transitioning from families who are not interested in politics. how do we research and know the candidates before they get to the presidential race and become more involved and just pretty much know policy's more than what opponents say about them? >> caller: check out their -- >> guest: check out their websites. listen to them on c-span and other networks when they give speeches and make appearances. the best advocate is themselves. read "newsweek," "washington post," "new york times," liberal and conservative magazines,

ect., with takes on policies. educate yourself, particularly your generation. you sound young. download apps on your ipad, iphone, pc, or mac, whatever it is. be ease constitute. be acertive. did interested in your democracy because this generation, will be impacted by the outcome of this election and what happens to social security, medicare, taxes, ect.. that is something your generation needs to care a great deal about. >> host: feature columnist at nbc, online media this week here on c-span. nbc's grio focuses on stories and perspectives affecting the african-american community. baltimore, maryland, michael, democrats' line. >> caller: good morning. how are you guys? sounds like sofia has a storm glass of all the issues. the caller from north carolina,

and with keeping in mind west, the whole thing, as a black male, i'm not really, really totally thrilled with our president; however, when kind of tied it into romney and the black vote, i think that and the republicans, the republican position of what they were trying to accomplish now made them us against them mentality, and although i'm not totally happy with president obama, i'm because of the republicans' approach, i can't support that. how do you feel about that? >> guest: that's your per speckive. i want that. i've seen that on twitter, facebook, and social media that the african-american community feels romney is not presenting -- i won't speak for everybody, but a viable alternative, and i don't think people like yourself disgruntled

for the president will not vote at all, just stay home. >> host: what's that say to you? >> guest: goes back to what we talked about earlier. black unemployment is still high. black home foreclosures, loss of wealth, things that hit people in the in the pocketbook are what people are feeling. people won't vote for romney unless he presses for african-american, which i think.net -- which i don't think he'll do because he's not advised in that direction. >> host: as you approach the white house, as you talk to the campaigns, how much access do you feel the grio is getting? how much access are you getting? you did this piece, a peek inside the white house kitchen garden where you and other women reporters sat down with the first lady and talked bow issues that she's working on, health, gardening, things like that. how much access are you getting? >> guest: we have great access. as i said, our dc bureau chief

handles politics here. i'm like the bit of a stealth strategic, utilizing me when necessary to bring me in, but i'm blessed to have had the opportunity to cover the first lady on a number of things. i do a lot, also, for essence with respect to her, but the president as well when i was the white house correspondent for "jet" magazine, and coverage on him, and 10 the grio has great access as do most of the african-american publications. >> host: how about when you cover other politicians in washington and other campaigns? >> guest: unknown to the republican side, but i'm trying to introduce, you know, doing pieces on the republican politics, whatever, and perry does a great job, and when they need me, they call me. >> host: hearing from a republican in bridgeport, connecticut. good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. how are you doing this morning? i commend you for being on the air, the online program, and i

hope to god that people like myself are reached by being able to come to your online program to be able to highlight issues we're dealing with in our cities. for example, i live in the city of bridgeport, a 62-year-old just now a senior citizen, and i'm in a community activist for over 40 #-something years, and i've been persecuted on speaking out on behalf of the people of color, and my website, www.cecilyoung,.com, all the issues raised over the past 40 years, three cases i have pending in court for me being terminated from my job speaking out on behalf of the people of our cities, and i'm concerned about the fact we have elected a lot of black people in positions of authority, and ashamed of the fact they don't want to speak on behalf of people like myself had no problem in the past, to come out and speak up for people who can't speak up for themselves. troubles me we elect people looking like you and me, but dealing with the issues that got them in position of authority,

they forget where they come from. i'm sick and tired about being told we should not denownsz black leadership when they are not on behalf of our people. we should. that's the reason why we got so many gun violence acts taking place all over the country in every one of the neighborhoods because of people like ourselves who rose up to a level where they have the power and forget where they came from. as a result, it is on the increase, those in the city can't get out, and we're told if obama doesn't get in, we're in trouble. the question is this. if we feel this could be the case what we're suffering more so than now than in the past, why come we not been motivating people to get registered to vote? teach people the value of the vote and make the vote work for them like white folks. why can't we do that >> host: going to sofia. >> guest: a mouthful to say. i'll take the part back to the earlier conversation about how

african-americans feel about black politicians whether it be the white house and in congress, there's no black senators at the moment, but the representation and the fact that, yes, it is absolutely true. i will agree with you. again, as journalist, we wrestle with this and talk about this amongst ours whether or not we criticize the president and how critical we become? it's not because we don't want to hold them accountable because we have to hold every president accountable, but there is a bit of a dance that you have to do as an african-american journalist in balancing the fact that you need to report the news, but be mindful of the historical context, the context that african-americans are not covered as fairly. look, there's a big debate about how there's no african-american journalists for the presidential debates. candy will be the first woman in 22 years, and candy's great, and good for her, but glenn was

passed over who did the vp debates for years, and it was logical to move her up to the presidential debates, but african-american journalists feel and are in many cases left out, and it's a delicate balance when reporting and covering the news about black politians. to the second point, and many about black leadership not accountable and stepping up, i mean, i think that is something heard for years, and all i can say to you, caller, is your peers and community have to hold leaders accountable by your vote. if you are note pleased, vote them out. >> host: democratic caller in jacksonville, florida. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: i have a question that i'd like answered, and about the mitt romney putting people back to -- putting welfare recipients to work. first off, we have a high

unemployment rate. there are no jobs. people would have them. how are you going to put the welfare people to work except for government jobs, causing others to lose jobs causing unemployment rate to go up. i don't understand why is he advocating that when there's no jobs available. thank you. >> guest: great question. look, i think that if mitt romney were here, and i don't want to speak for him, but i would suspect he'll put welfare recipients back to work, talking about tieing them into the 21st century economy which is frankly what african-americans in the communitied blighted by the things talkedded about, you know, high unemployment, foreclosures, ect., and those communities need to be tied into hbcu, and places in atlanta, next generation technologies, green jobs, and the black

community's not tied into that, and what happened is there is a dependence on government for better or worse. if my parents were here, as baby boomers, dad in the military, mom's a nurse, the government gave african-americans in their country the first equal opportunity with truman integrating the military back in the 1940s, and it kind of went forward from that. the government has really be the best affirmative action employer around in my opinion; however, we shifted now. a lot of the government jobs, i mean, as governments are leaner and meaner because the tax base is smaller, it's problematic, and so african-american communities and communities of color have to begin to look at how we participate in this new 2 # 1st # century economy while jobs are shipped overseas losing manufacturing, lost those jobs that used to be staples in places like new jersey when campbell soup was there where i grew up. it's very important that governor romney raises the issue as well as president obama on how they put people back to

work. i want 20 hear from both candidates as you do. i want to know what the plan is to put people back top work. >> host: a recent opinion piece from the grio, why presidential debate moderators should reflect the history. the vice presidential candidate there, joe biden, back running for vp, and we see a piece looking at the fact there's no people of color moderating the debates. how much do you interact with your audience? your relationship? your viewership, as you see what your colleagues are writing, as opinion pieces are generated, and as you report on things, how much are you listening to people to get a sense of what to write? >> guest: oh, it's critical. we engage on twitter and facebook 24/7 and retweet each other. i just ran a piece this morning, and i'll tweet it later. they tweet my stuff. we listen, hold chats. i hold chats every sat,

sometimes on more inspirational topics, the author side, but e engage in politics, culture, and i want to hear from people, even things that are not nice, i retweet and want to know what people have to say. >> host: independent caller in illinois. good morning. >> caller: good morning. yeah, i think the problem is that mainstream media doesn't appointment out unfairness, but the democratic party in chicago, president obama's election headquarters. years not employed black people, giving black people the fair share in the city that's 48% black when they only give out 3% of the contracts to black entrepreneurs, and also, another example, local city police and fire department is -- say maybe only 4% black, and you see, like

i said, almost half black so that's one issue, the democratic control place, contributed to the problem in the black community or helps. then i have another question. i have a question. do you think it's fair, shouldn't the field be a level playing field if blacks are labeled as african-americans? why whites not labeled as european americans? >> guest: we have irish-americans, italian-americans, african-americans, native americans, we have ought to drop that and be americans, but for whatever reason, we are still, as i said earlier, divided on color lines. look, you mentioned a number of things that are troubling. you're right, and in largely black cities like washington, chicago, and other places around

the country, african-americans are not represented in the numbers we would like to see them with the population, and that, again, goes back to historical, what i call discrimination, and that's the reality of who america was with segregation for almost 100 years after slavery ended in the 1860s. you know, the plessi decision in 1896, equal by doctrine, that was the legal side, sorry, but there was segregation in the 1960s. a mentor told me, an older white mail, he said it made progress since i was a boy, and now he's in his 70s, but you see numbers in the progress you like, but it takes time. when there was 100 years of legalized slavery, and then another 100 years of jim crow to expect that everything would turn around in 40 years is not

realistic. the fact there's an african-american president, i pinch myself still when he's on tv. i'm not being follow-upny here. in just 40 years since martin luther king were shot in 18968, 40 years to the letter, that's amazing progress. think of john lewis were here, my favorite people in the world, he said this, he would have never believed that if you told him that dm 1968. we made progress, but there's more to go. it's simple. >> host: writing for the grio, part of nbc news focusing on stories and perspectives affecting the african-american community. she's a futured columnist there and also writes for usa today and essence magazine. looking at on line media and its role this week on washington journal. independent, webster, massachusetts, hi, there. >> caller: how are you doing? >> host: good. >> caller: i agree with the last three callers you had. i believe there's an unfair position for the black folks.

we're the only ones hyphenated americans. we are still hyphenated americans. i agree on that point. however, the question to you, ma'am, is this. what is the outlook -- what does the outlook out of your eyes, poor black america because i disagree with you. i don't think we made strides because the black president, but what cultivated by white america, and he was so much of a black president for the black people, then how come we're still -- not to make light of it, but last on the totem pole? looked out for the gay and lesbian community, illegal immigrants, and yet, we have the highest unemployment rate, all kinds of crimes committed towards us. look at the trayvon martin case, d.j. henry case, and other cases that young black men are killed like it's hunting season. we are -- anybody with half a brain cell can understand that mitt romney and paul ryan are

not lookingous. >> host: did you vote for president obama in the last election? >> caller: no, i didn't vote for president obama because when i did my research about him, he has no idea what people like us are about. he basically has been, like i said earlier, cultivated by white america. >> host: are you voting this year in the presidential election? >> caller: not going to waste my time. both are debt detrimental to me. >> host: not connecting with o either candidates. >> guest: you raised a number of important points. i'll take a couple. in terms of african-american progress in the country, it's irresponsible of anyone to say we have not made economic, social, educational progress as black people in the country since the civil rights movement. that just wouldn't be true. it does matter. it is significant that we have an african-american president; however, i would agree with my friend who says this is not a post-racial america, and that that doesn't exist. it does not and probably never

will, not in my lifetime. with that said, i say to you, however, get involved, don't not vote. you got to pick one of these guys. has to be close enough to something you care about. like i said, dig in. find out. you know, go to a campaign rally, send questions to the white house. send questions to the campaign. let your voice be heard. that's how a democracy functions. don't get frustrated about a lack of where we are. focus on where we still need to go and what you can do to be part of the solution and not the problem. >> host: looking at the website, thegrio.com, a number of stories looking at politics, culture issues, music, entertainment, international affairs as well. sofia, where do you see news outlets like yours going? how do you hope they evolve? where do you hope to see them in a few years time? >> guest: we are partnered with nbc universal who opens us.

that's big. i'll write a story, and i get it go on air and talk about it. when you have the piece of the writing online which, you know, the news one, you got black web, you know, all of these other african-american sites, ect., they don't have the media outlet that we do which gives us the big push because we're digital and on television. i think the griat -- grio is just beginning. our managing editor, shout out to joy, she does a fabulous job, and we talked about many ideas. dave wilson is great, the founder, young people who get it, who get technology, and are very in touch with the community, and 10 it's supported by a great number of people at nbc at the highest places, and so i think the grio is unlimited in potential, and i think that this is the future of news. i think newspapers and things like that, like we have spread out here, if you are like me,

you read newspapers. if you are like my nieces coming up, when they are 20, they won't even look at a newspaper. they just won't. >> host: sofia nelson, future columnist for nbc's the grio. thank you for kicking this off. >> guest: my pleasure. thank you for having me. ..