well, our system really requires presidential. for example, the president had the simpson bowles committee, a presidential committee that met for a couple of years. they reported to the president with much fanfare. report that was signed by even tea party members. and republicans and democrats. the president did not put those numbers into his own budget that he sent over to congress two weeks later, and deny release in the budget. the president must lead. whoever our new president is, i would like and to start bit -- sending bills to congress. when i first came to the house jerry ford was president, and he had a bill that he would send up there for every subject.

it that changed a lot sometimes, and he would veto it sometimes, with the point is there would be someone in the hearing room, and he would give the administration's position on this amendment. that was very helpful in working with the two branches of government because if you just say, you pass something. i'm going out of town. and so, the old fashioned working together, is not that they're going out to dinner together, not people putting their arms around each other. it is people working on a bipartisan basis with the bill submitted by the white house and take responsibility for it and being willing to admit defeat and taken up or down. that we stopped doing both on the presidential side and in congress. that has been an historic change . a very dangerous one. >> another question from the audience. >> good evening. i am a citizen, luckily,

employed. my question actually ties into your lasted meant. what has happened to the political career? guess this is not a statistical question, but it is a basic, i think a lot of citizens are wondering what happened to that political courage. is it tied in? the comments to the media and other media has changed over the past few years. the different channels definitely have a very different spin. they're not really giving them permission that they need. they seem to be going hand-in-hand. >> the congressman. >> well, these polls have gone rather sophisticated. as you know, there are very few states and play. as a matter of fact, both candid it's don't even have to go because they know what the outcome will be. so -- the raise money and all that, but it is commentary. the way that we have it

structured now and the amount of money, and i wish we could take money out of politics. i am one of those. i just think that it is outrageous bill we have done to ourselves and with the u.s. supreme court ruled not too long ago about no limits. it is just not healthy for america because most people in american never run for public office. they don't want the public scrutiny for themselves and their family. and therefore, there is no political courage to as i said earlier. people are not stepping up to . don't worry about the next election. worry about the next generation. >> just said to that. ticking off the economist at and citizens had. there is a saying they should

never make a permanent decision from a temporary place. at think the most selfless thing a person can do, a decision making to the decision maker can do is think long-term. >> i am pleased to have the graduate school of political management at jo's loss to university. we are dedicated to the purpose of helping democracy. how do we get that acquisition jack because advance legislation , how can you do both? this is a very, very important issue with many factors that impacted. at think the fact that there are very few districts where their word about a general election makes it harder for them to be coming to the table and figuring out. but there is a myriad of other things that result from that. the fact that it is still

bifurcated and everyone listens to what they wanted, the facts, ms nbc people, their point of view, one of the best things citizens can do because congress is a reflection, to listen to both. the editorial pages and the "wall street journal" and the new york times in evaluating critically. because until citizens start looking at both sides of the issue, were not going to make it. another one of the things we have had with this primary election is there is not much middle left. one of our historians from the archives is saying his favorite aunt figure was henry clay who ran for president and lost because we don't want a compromise of president. if you don't have a deal maker in the house and senate, ted

kennedy and president bush that could come together, polar opposites. you need deal makers. many things that we need to work on to get to the point of getting past and maureen about the common good. >> senator, did you ever face a primary? >> no, i didn't. fortunately, i never did. i don't know if i could win one today. >> do we have any other questions? we were coming to the clothes. like to sort of finish up or just ask one final thought to be due to speed around. to ideas for a job creation, and we will start with congressman demand. >> job creation has to happen. we all know that. we know that unemployment is too high. naturally government can do certain things when it comes so the tax code and tax incentives.

a lot of legislation still stalemated, not going anywhere. you're not practicing much between now and election time. so i want all of you to watch the lame-duck session. i think that is critically important for all of you because there is going to be a lot of so-called tennant demand between november 7th and january 2nd so beyond watch there. also, the private sector, you know, still business. they have so many opportunities. i hope they will capitalize on those of virginities. what i am worried about, just like some speakers have already stated, if so many of these particularly large corporations, big business, sitting on

unbelievable amounts of cash and not releasing it. a lot of people are suffering. a lot of people are unemployed and underemployed today because of it. >> i know that the message that obama sent abroad is don't count on the u.s. consumer debt lead you out of this, but i would like also the message internally to be, don't count out the u.s. consumer. and i think that is the best thing that we can do to create jobs in this country. start thinking of job creation as resources to invest in the american people, to invest in education, to invest in the skill set needed to drive the innovation that is necessary for us going forward. forget the past and go forward, invest in people. the thing that is the best thing you can do. >> one of the most damaging things to america's

competitiveness is the fact that we are the only industrialized country that taxes earnings. so the caterpillar worker, having to compete with the japanese worker for who will take the dirt to build the big skyscrapers and tax, that caterpillar worker is disadvantaged because caterpillar has to pay tax. with the president talks about when he says that cell and so is for a subsidy for exporting jobs , it is trying to make that even worse. you have to quit demonizing this and eliminate tax on foreign earnings. we have to do the exact opposite of what the current running start. a level playing field with caterpillar, rather than giving them a head start. the best thing that we can do because right now americans are

the worst placed in the world for corporate headquarters. if you're a quarter here you are taxed to death. we could be the central hub of the global supply chain. the best thing that we could do to create jobs in the middle class. >> i remember people saying things like we need an new equivalent to the space program. i think we kind of do. my vote would be for the energy sector. the private sector is extraordinarily innovative. at the same time, and remember, i was someone who started off by saying that the federal government really does not have that much influence over employment. i still stand by that. however, there are just certain things that the private sector is not going to do. i mean, to use a historical example, the vote -- federal government started using

standards for automobile mileage , you know, the big three automakers said oh, god, this is the end of the world. you're going to kill us. you know what they did, the invented one of the greatest inventions of the 20th-century, the catalytic converter. they had to in order to meet the standard. it has been wonderful. so i think that the government could play a role in helping to stimulate innovation. i think the big thing going toward is energy and the environment. there are all sorts of the opportunities there. >> welcome i think that is a very good example, the catalytic converter. we can do a lot of things if we have to, and we have done a lot in the environment, for example. we have developed fracking which is an knew was that of getting oral and gas out that is much less and are mentally damaging. we have also developed new ideas on pipelines which we are apparently not willing to use

it, but this is a very good example. a very innovative society. i have great hope for the future the american people will figure it out. i just think we need to have some very candid discussions about worry are in our rear going. >> thank you all very much. thank you for joining us. thank you for introducing. [applause] [background noises] >> on tomorrow's washington journal, a look at house and senate contests around the country. our guest is endo keys. in a look at the growing number of jobs that require post secondary education. the center on education and the

workforce. then, as part of our week-long series on on-line campaign coverage political editor guy benson. washington journal, with the day's headlines and your phone calls live every day on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. live tuesday, a forum on how government regulations affect u.s. manufacturing. the manufacturers' alliance posts the discussion here in washington. you can watch it live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on our companion network. >> now, i know that there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities, and i do because some issues just aren't all that simple. saying there are weapons of mass destruction does not make it so. saying we could fight a war on the jeep does not make it so, and proclaiming mission accomplished certainly does not

make it so. >> three days after september the 11th i stood where americans died in the ruins of the twin towers. workers in hard hats were shocking to me, whatever it takes. it fellow grabbed me by the arm and said, do not let me down. since that day i wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. i will never relent in defending america, whatever it takes. [applause] >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party conventions as 1984, and our countdown continues with a week to go until are live gavel-to-gavel coverage of the republican and democratic national conventions live on c-span, c-span radio, and strained online at c-span.org, also in next monday with the gop convention with new jersey governor chris christie in the keynote address, also

2008 presidential nominee senator john mccain and former governor of florida jet the bush to the democratic convention speakers include san antonio mayor delivering the keynote address was first lady michele obama and former president bill clinton. >> a new initiative by president obama allows undocumented immigrants to apply for work permits and protections from the partition. if they served in the military, are under the age of 30 come and enter the country under the age of 16. next, an administration official from the health and human services department on an investigative reporter talk about the cases of children being separated from their morgan parents. this is an hour. >> i am an immigration tax analyst. we have a panel to talk about immigration and its effects on children, families, the community that the 11.

watch our new report, how today's immigration enforcement impact children, families demand communities. that report can be found on our website as well as to my belief, we have some copies on the back table. this report is the third in our series documented the undocumented which looks at all aspects of life for authorized immigrants trying to turn a spotlight on an issue of the immigration debate that gets overlooked in conversations about other members deported or arriving or larger policy discussions a leave of the human element. i think it is timely that we are having this conversation a few days after the government began accepting applications for deferred action tigre reprieve from the partition and work authorization to those will young people. today's event really tells us that deferred action will go a long way to helping a large number of people, it is by no

means a complete solution to the issue. at most a temporary fix and leaves out far more people than actually helps, and we will be talking and a number of those people that are left out of this program today. so, in terms of immigration enforcement, over the last few years the u.s. has supported an ever increasing number of people, averaging roughly 400,000 removals' each year for the past four years, more than double the number that reported. and one of the staff that i think is most shocking is that in the first half but it does the level of the u.s. supported over 46,000 parents of u.s. citizen seven. the truth is that most undocumented arrogance stay here for more than a decade, live in families, and some with children

. eleven and a half million today, more than 16 in half million people and what we call next status families with at least one unauthorized immigrant and one citizens child words to the supply should say. in most cases undocumented parents and citizens seven. even being the sole provider for a u.s. citizen is very little help when it comes to immigration enforcement. recent reports of for example, by law school found that they are city which had 2005 and 2010, 87 percent of cases where there was apparent, undocumented parents are citizens of ended up in the deportation of the parent. that is almost nine of every ten cases in the nep and family separation. that is a major number. so, while we would like to think that we can really separate out the authorized from unauthorized and simply focus our efforts on the latter, the truth is that

immigration enforcement really affects a wide number of people and a wide swath of statices. and the levels of family and community that our enforcement decisions really hit home, so this level is so we will be talking about today. so let me introduce our panel. first on my right we have assistant professor of sociology at the university of albany. executive director of the national agent @booktv asian pacific american women's forum. investigative reporter at the research center. and finally, deputy assistant secretary for human services policy in the office of the assistant secretary for planning and evaluation. >> let me start with you.

your research and what you thought happens to families experienced a partition. >> sure. want to start by telling you that i did not anticipate writing about enforcement activities. i was interested in integration and how children in mexican families integrate in the very different environments, there is a very small and invisible maximum population and the other in central new jersey where they're is a very visible concentrated mexican community. so, i went in an interview 110 children. their parents, the mothers. i also spent time in children's schools of visiting with families. the story that silva had to tell me in their parents as well, under this environment the you describe, it increased deportations was one of the enforcement having both indirect and direct impact on family life so this is really the story of the children, not what i anticipated writing about.

>> they're both indirect and direct impacts. i want to start with the direct impact, what happens to children when a parent is detained were deported. and actually, this was sort of a small group of families that experience this in my sample. what happens to families to well, mostly men are detained or deported. and so it is really a story of single motherhood and women having to do with the effects of suddenly being the sole provider for their children, having no preparation to be the sole provider for their children. so you see changes and things like child care routine, housing insecurity, and, of course, the economic difficulties of keeping everything together. one mother i interviewed, for example, in the three years after her husband was deported moved eight times with her two children. eight moves. that's pretty significant. i just recently moved one year

ago and am still recovering so the long-term consequences of the separation, and i found that in many cases families are not able to reunite by especially of the father as up in mexico, many cannot support their children from afar. they cannot find work in mexico and are not able to maintain their relationship. some men suffered not being allowed to have relationships with their children. women suffer as single mothers of a long-term, and children suffer, being raised in a foster family. >> really terrible. and, as you to pick up on this. your work at the research center , approximately 5100 citizen seven of undocumented parents living in foster care after their parents were detained or deported. tell us about how this happens and how we get such high numbers in the first place. >> for the better part of the last decade we have heard

stories of families where parents are contained or -- detained or deported. children are in the welfare system for one reason or another . they face significant barriers to reunifying with parents. we hear these stories over and over again. they got to the point where we were quite sure that there were not al lyres and decided to the spend time digging to the extent to which this is happening. we found was that there are -- we felt really conservative estimate of the total, there are about 5,000, more than five dozen children who are in the child welfare system around the country and to face barriers to reunifying with their parents. now, you know, we are reporting, as you mentioned, 400,000 people per year, and based upon data that was first released to us, we found that 22 percent of

those people are parents of united states citizens. we don't know how many those are, but the collateral effect of that kind of massive to my you know, the partition will continue to grow. one of the most troubling is that children are stuck in the welfare system. these cases and the family's lives are complicated, like most families lives are complicated. kids are in the welfare system for a number of reasons, some in foster care because their parents were detained and there was nobody else to care for the children. in other cases families had interactions with the child welfare system previously and were on their way to reunify, which is sort of the goal of most child welfare cases. was the kid is an assistant calabasas some switches into gear and starts trying to bring this family back together. we found was that when parents

are detained, they are generally severed from the final lines of communication between families and children and families in the child welfare system necessary to bring families back together. so i edge of the dozens of parents in side of the immigration detention centers around the country, and all of them said to me that they missed at least one of the hearings when there are -- or decisions are made about what happens to the family. others never had contact with their children when there were detained. and will be found was that once these parents are deported, was there sort of removed from detention and deported, they are often treated by child welfare department says f. -- and i heard this repeated. falling of the face of the earth. and so reunification efforts to often cease for these families. in some instances child welfare departments really refused to

even consider reunifying these children with their parents in other countries. and so these families are at a significant risk of being separated for extended amount of time, sometimes permanently separated, sometimes the children are adopted and you never see the valleys again. >> to me it strikes me. [inaudible] why he think there is that? >> well, i think that in many ways neither system is functioning with the necessary degree of accountability to the needs of these families. parents are detained and lose access to their children. sometimes they're able to get on the telephone to be present at hearings, but they are being separated from their children. very difficult to be involved with the case plan. so when a kid is in the child welfare system the child welfare department assigns apparent to a

ticket back, parenting glasses or drug and alcohol issues, a drug and alcohol treatment, things like that. none of that exists for people in detention. people in the race to detention centers have no access to those kinds of services that the necessary to move forward with the reunification plan. and so while parents are detained they are completely severed from this process. and once they are deported child welfare systems are not treating these families and i suppose in an equitable way, the same way that there would others, though there is this commitment to reunification. it sometimes too often goes out the door when parents are outside the country. >> let me turn to you. you coordinate but the we belong together and the national coalition. so you have been at the forefront of advocacy in this arena. to tell us a bit about the campaign that some of the families if you have worked with that have been going through the

separations? >> yes. i want to, you know, back above little bit. there has been a lot of work really trying to link the women's movement. the national coalition for immigrant women's rights, the national let's institute. operating system does a seven because we really saw a lack of analysis that included. you really hit it on the nail when you did the injured talking about our image of immigrants. we don't think about women. we don't think about families. as a result, our policies are completely incapable, and our systems are completely incapable of handling the real-life situations. detention of parenting and a pregnant woman. what to do with women who are breast feeding. some of those stories from detention centers have been terrific. children have been ripped from their mothers breast. there is no access to the post

part of health care that women need. so they have been doing this incredible work of trying to lift a policy analysis along with the public partners. i will also say there has been incredible organizing around women who are survivors of domestic battery. the inclusion in violence. the national network. violence against women. so one of the latest efforts we are working on is the we belong together campaign which we call lead with a national domestic workers alliance. to borrow a phrase from the national domestic workers alliance, they always say that when you see the world through a woman's eyes you see the world more clearly if. partly the main goal of our work is really to get the world to see through the eyes of everyone in more and more. and one of our core strategies of doing that is building a stronger linkage and alliance between the women's rights movement in the niagara movement

by inviting prominent women to what we call human rights delegations to states like georgia, alabama, arizona, some of the harshest of fourth loss. so really organizing meetings and conversations with an iran women who are living through this harsh conditions.

had in days and policy research on this topic. so that families.

so i had much more experienced tight from that side which i try to bring. that into the work we are doing. but i do want to say come engaging in terms of the research, we looked at about 200 children and 100 families across seven states. the impact of immigration enforcement. very encouraged. we never had a chance to talk to the children. subject to review. would never have permitted that a man so i am glad you're able to, but we did it to the families in the short and long term as follows stories, all directly impacted by enforcement in seven states across the country. we also interviewed service providers. police officers, the entire sort of range of this sort of enforcement spectrum and found many of the same things that other people here have sort of raised. the largest impact on families

immediately or parental separation and the effects that that had on tab relationships among family security, child well-being and development. we also saw intensive almost immediate effects on economic well-being. again, the most part a typical effect was a father being detained, arrested him detained, deported, and perhaps a two-parent family becoming a one parent family. especially in many of these communities among his men that have been working before. there are required to go to work almost immediately. and often are also themselves may be authorized or have limited economic a virginities.

very severe forms of depression, anxiety, ptsd digses among the kids. so when we went become a year later, on the behavioral checklist, on the food insecurity, many of these things >> so coming into -- coming in with that background into hhs, while my portfolio is on human

services broadly and not on this particular issue but the well-being of children and family is so when i joined the administration earlier this year there's already some sort of nascent interest among folks at hhs, apart because the relatively new acting assistant secretary, george shelldon, came in as the sect for children and family services in florida, and had seen some of these situations and was very concernedded and other people recently joined as well. and so we came at this issue saying, our mission at hhs is focusing on the health, development, well-being of children and families, and this is a relatively large group as the numbers indicated, that are being affected. do we know if hhs programs can identify or touch families and

what is going on? from the standpoint of what, as the department, do we know. so the things we have been ingaged in -- we are vary early in our stage. we have begun conversations with the department of homeland security to understand the context of enforcement, how it varies by different type of enforcement operations around the country and that's been helpful. we engaged internally with all the different programs that intersect with children and families. that includes head start, child cair, child support, antipoverty organizations and others, and we have again to make site visits to states across. we've been to four things so far. we just return a couple weeks ago from texas. but we have been to texas, north carolina, and california. four very different states and

different immigration con tense e text and health and human services context, and where we have talked with a wide range of providers in the community, and what we're -- still very early and we haven't -- we're planning to do more visits, but what we are sort of seeing, it does vary a lot across the country based on the type of enforcement, based on the set of human service providers and where families tend to go. two things we probably are seeing is that there's just a great deal of fear in the community. so people may not come forward to health and human services programs. we don't think there's any one magic program like head start or anything else that sort of reaches a great many of families the set of organizations that -- this confirmed what we found in

our research before that has the greatest contact with these families are ngos, nongovernmental organizations, sometimes they may provide other services but they're the trusted community and they're locally based. the aren't sort of -- locally based organizations, and churches and faith-based communities. if family are going to reach out for assistance, that's the there's reach out to. we do find that to some degree marx human services programs do have contact with families but it varies by place. so when we were in texas we found that actually local community health clinics, because they're often the safety net and provider of last resort -- will know and it's usually not because the family comes in and says this is what happened. our family has been divided because of impore -- import -- usually the physician will

diagnosis a medical condition and say why is this going on? usually because the family is dealing with that. so, like i said, we're in the early stages, and in terms of what doing because it came up in our conversation -- we are encouraged by the fact this conversation is happening and also by the degree of research. this is still a relatively unexamined area in large extent. so we have sponsored research. the first time that as a department we're putting out rpf for research so we rear hoping we can learn more. >> that's great. gives us a number of things to go off of. i want to come up with the solutions conversation. let's talk more about the consequences you brought up. the behavioral issues, the economic issues. let's talk more about this. what are the long-term consequences from family

separations in the immigration context? >> okay. well, i think there are severe long-term consequences but have yet to be explored from a research perspective and we need more information documenting it. but i don't think it's difficult to project a little bit based on some of what we do know about family separation. prior to doing this work i did work on family separation and families in which a parent migrated voluntarily to the united states, and chirp remained in mexico, and there's actually quite a large body of research on family separation, from voluntary migration that shows extreme negative impact for children over the long run, and this is a family decision to do this, but parent separation is still very difficult for children due to the insecurities of immigration. so, a lot of the research documents, lower academic

achievement, dropping out, and this occurs even post reunification so often times chirp are left and then reunited but you see this long-term consequence that lingers on, and i saw that in my interviews, because i interviewed families in which a child had been in mexico and then reunited with the parents and they still talk about the long-term impact of the separation on the family. so i think we can extrapolate a little bit and place it in a different context. instead of it being a voluntary separation, this is enforced by the state. so, imagine how children will feel about that in ten years when they know that their family was broken up, not because their parents were trying to get them a better life, but because the state intervened. >> i was really struck in read your report, joanna -- if you don't mind me jumping in -- the people where you can people saw

the word immigrant as a dirty word, and real suspicion and fear of authority, of police not making distinction -- not making distinctions between police, and i think about the long-term effect on our country as we knit a more diverse tapestry in the country, what kind of message do we want to send to people about which families belong and which families don't and whether they're going to fully trust our system of government. i think that's a really big question that we'll have to keep asking ourselves. >> we aren't able to follow what happened in any of the families, the parents i met in these detention centers, but everybody who i talked to who works in child welfare systems, in child welfare departments around the country, it's clear that outcomes are better for kids when they're with their own

families. whenever possible, kids should be with their parents, and so when we're erecting these barriers, it sometimes makes that totally -- destroys that possibility for some families-permanently separating families, or where children are separated from their parents for two months, a year, two years, before they're reunified. we know from research that that has detrimental impact on kids across the board and i think more investigation is needed into what those impacts are going to be. but i actually think the kids that we're talking about, it's in some ways predictable. kids do better when they're with their families, and so detaining massive numbers of parents and deporting them makes that really

difficult. makes that an impossibility for some families. >> i think just to kind of draw this out a little bit more, certainly a lot of the restrictionist groups, people in favor of less immigration, would say the answer is just to send them all back to mexico, send the parents back and the children back. is this about family reunification or about keeping families together here? >> i would certainly say that the earlier you can stop this kind of thing from happening, the better. which means it's about keeping families together. all of the families i talked to said they wanted to be here with their kids. all the parents i talked to said that. and so that -- for the mothers and fathers in detention centers who are facing deportation, it's absolutely their first desire. they want to stay here with their families, in he homes they've built.

if that's not going to happen, if parents, mothers and fathers, are going to be deported, then what seems clear from the work, the investigation i did, is that lots of these mothers and fathers aren't being given the choice. included in the decisionmaking process about what happens to their kids. so decisions are being made about the future of their children without them, and many parents decide that their kids will stay here if they're deported. but that's a choice some parents have. some parents don't have that choice. >> so again, speaking probably solely from the vantage point of the research conducted, because we did follow families for at least a year out to see what they would -- what they -- and in only 20 of the 100 cases was

there actually a resolution -- in many cases these cases go on for a long time where a parent had been deported and do kids go back or not? in the end, this is a family's decision. we can't design policy to encourage or discourage. these are u.s. -- for the most part, the vast magic over 80% of u.s. citizen kids so have every right to remain in the country, and in fact the country needs them down the line. now and down the line. so, what the impacts are, in some cases there was eight of those 20 families, where the families returned en masse, death. in other cases the child may be left behind while the parent left in some cases we saw some kids went and some kids stayed, depending on the situation, the ages of the children, the situation where the mother could handle both adolescents or children, depending on the

status of the parent. so these become complicated and, again, the main thing is that the parents are separated. so these are not -- we actually have 100 families we followed, and the seven sites we never came across a family that was enter acting. these are just families that faced the broader set of implications we saw occurring, and these are sort of very difficult. but from a policy standpoint, we heard about self-deporting policy once. that's not something you can suggest as a nature of policy. these are mixed status families and it's complicated. this is a very -- we interviewed families in the progression of making a decision. not a decision i would ever want to have to make myself. >> 110 children i interviewed, over 70 were u.s. citizen children. so i think it's very important not to lose focus on the fact we

are a talking about u.s. citizen children who if they return to mexico are not being integrated into mexican society because they've been born and raised here. so this is a very difficult problem, and the other issue is that the most important finding from my research was the indirect consequences. not necessarily children, u.s. citizen children, aren't only impacted when a parent is detained or deported, but it's the message these enforcements are senng to this generation of u.s. citizen children that is really the most devastating, i think, for the families i met and interviewed. the children who equate immigration with police. i had one girl, ten-year-old in new jersey, she talked to me about the police, police i.c.e., that was her term. i'm afraid the police i.c.e. will get my parents. it's a powerful term. another girl in ohio referred to the police as the police who are

going to come and take my parents away. so, there's an equation between police and immigration that does not bear out at the local level, depending on where you are, whether or not police are acting as immigration officials. so you see great fear of the police among u.s. citizen children and that's devastating over the long run. children are also misunderstanding who is an immigrant so i interviewed children, and children aren't the easiest to interview. one of the things i asked them, do you know what an immigrant is? and i was shocked because children would say yes, and i i would who is it. >> somebody who crossed the border and came to work here so there's an equation of illegality with immigration, which is also extremely devastating over the long run. we're a country of immigrants but suddenly for this generation of u.s. citizen, which i immigrant becomes a dirty word, something that's stigmatizing,

and very devastating. >> the fight over rhetoric is going to be incredibly important in whether or not immigrant is a dirty word. i think we are not just fighting for reunification, this is a broader conversation we need to have in the country about who is an american family. who do we consider american is the real issue at hand. even media portrayal of mixed families. those are the stories we need to tell more. this is the family living in queens. that could be your neighbor, not some image. >> let me pick up on that as well, miriam. a lot of the conversation and discussion on enforcement focuses on latinos and mexican

issue but there are lots of other groups involved. talk to us about how this impacts asian american communities and lgtb communities and other groups we don't think of. >> well, great, thank you for asking. asia americans are affected by these immigration issues. in fact the asian-american community is the largest foreign borne in this country and 27% are undocumented. so it affects our community in the same way. there's a natural interesting link between this conversation about immigrants, lgbt and asian pacific islanders. the numbers are kind of similar. 16.1 million asian pacific americans in the country. there are 15 million mixed status families and half that lgbt americans in the country.

so there's a way in which in our country, if you're under that 20 million mark, there gets a -- there's a lot of mythology that can be written about your community, and is why this research work is so important. painting the actual picture. like from a portrait, not made up stereo type stories based on the worth of our fears but really taking a look who we are. that's why the work we're doing is important, and serious change is about, here are the stories of real life women and their children. they're not the scary image you have or that you're going off of. so that's an interesting link, and talks about need wes have for more accurate data and portrayal. >> i also think certainly lgbt communities have been faced with family separation for a long

time. couples struggle with enforcement issues for biracial and the lgbt movement is making the country grapple with what is a family, and some ways revolutionizing how we think about families. it is breaking down barriers of gender, sexual orientation, and also, at least i know, someone who cut my teeth work during the aids crisis, when people were dying, we took care of one another as a community, and we're talking about folk whose have been disowned by their biological families for the most part so we formed our own chosen families that were there for you in the toughest moments, and if we think about building strong american families, those are the ones who, regardless of biology or status or paperwork, those are the people you know who are going to be with you in your toughest times, and i think that's the kind of family we

ought to be lifting up and supporting. >> gees. i do want to come back to the enforcement issue and ask a little bit about one of the major movements over the last few years which i the rise of state-level immigration bills, like arizona, and georgia, and alabama. that are sort of remaking the landscape of enforcement in terms of adding the actor of the state and not just the federal. so, how does this change how children and families interexact how we think about reunification. >> certainly in a conversation i was having with the child welfare department caseworkers all over the country and with parents, these state level

antiimmigrant laws, like in arizona, alabama, georgia, and elsewhere, create a lot of fear, both for families in terms of what kinds of services they think they can access, but also for service providers who don't know what they can do for families, don't know whether state agents -- whether their own agencies may be in the business of engaging with i.c.e., and i think that create as great deal of confusion and a great deal of fear. i want to say that i think these state bills are absolutely changing the terrain, and -- but i think the thing that is fundamentally changing the terrain all over the country in terms of immigration enforcement, is really the rapid expansion of locally based immigration enforcement mechanisms, mainly secure communities, which use local

jails as their springboard for immigration enforcement, for deportation, and so when every county jail in the country soon -- most county jails in the country rupp run immigration checks on anyone booked in jail. that's going to start having -- already has started to have a significant impact on -- collateral effect on the people -- the families of the people who are picked up. we found that in places where 287g programs, which is an older program which dep e dep pew tieses local cops to act as i.c.e. agents -- in those counties the chance of kid being in foster families increased significantly and all reasoning suggests similar things will pan out to be true about secure communities. often families who have shield welfare system involvement also have some kind of involvement with the criminal justice system.

and in our ideal scenario that shouldn't -- involvement -- a patients involvement with the criminal justice system shouldn't end that family, but when these parents are moved into detention rapidly, the possibilities for reunification go out the door so i think we're see this intensification of local enforcement that starts in washington, changing the landscape. really as much as these local immigration -- state immigration bills. >> i picked the two community is wanted to do research in purposely because neither one of them had kind of this -- i think these state laws and local environments have a national impact because the children that i interviewed were aware of what's going on in other places at very young ages. i had a nine-year-old who i

interviewed who i asked, what do you think it's like too be an immigrant, after asking what an immigrant was she said, think it's sad. i said why? because i saw on tv that somebody was arrested and taken away and they left their daughter in the car. so i think that these local state and -- policies are having a huge immigrant pact on children in other locales where there isn't such a local issue going on because children feel the trickle-down effects and are very aware of them. >> i think there's a -- racial justice and racial equity that gets maybe not talked directly about but when we look at the states with the harshest enforcement laws they have the most complicated racial histories and that's an important piece for us to think about, and to kind of predict in this country, as we grow more

racially diverse and are trying to mix, where is there still work to do in our country? who are the latest targets, i think, is the question. >> i think the only thing i would add -- i think the panelist covered a lot of the impacts, but i think that these sort of sweepingly harsh legislation in states does create both climate of fear among families, immigrant and nonimmigrant -- because obviously you can't just tell by appearance whether someone is immigrant or nonimmigrant -- but also creates difficulties for the health and human services programs that are trying to serve these families because people are much less willing to sort of come forward and apply for programs, and sometimes legislation does implicate processes, so i think the

program providers are also sort of not sure what to do. i just wanted to echo that sentiment. >> i think this is a good way to segway into -- sounds harsh -- to solutions. we heard at the beginning you talked about the ways after studying the problem but what should we be doing to try to solve this problem and what are the barriers to happening families reunify after immigration enforcement. anybody? >> well, certainly in cases where children in the child welfare system -- that isn't a piece of what we're talking about here, obviously. the impact of immigration enforcement are much broader than that. but in those cases, by and large, county -- state and county child welfare departments

generally lack clear policies and guidelines about what to do when parents are in immigration detension and are deported. what happens in this vacuum of policy, i found that without any sort of clear structure, a whole set of biases start to come into play to essentially create their own policy. so, child welfare departments arguing in family courts that children will be better off in the u.s. with foster parents that reunified with their parents in another country. there needs to be clear policy that makes clear that these families, like all families, deserve a chance, real chance, to be reunified, to come back together, and as is often the case, when agencies, when government is not pro-active about ensuring more equitable outcomes in the case, across borders, other sets of biases

and practices get to fill in those holes, and so it's really important that localities begin to take on this issue explicitly. try to make sure that these families can be brought back together as well. >> i think it's clear that coordination of different systems -- the child welfare, the criminal system, the immigration system is necessary but from the perspective of chirp and -- children and families i interviewed, two things must have. deportation of parents must be stopped. chirp are afraid of parents being taken away because they are being taken away and that needs to cease and we have to check the priority of having parents of us citizens not deported. the second problem is we are in a situation where there are a lot of mixed status families and that us because there's no

legalization programs available to families. the families would become legal immigrants if they could they described trying to come on series saturday -- visas from mexico multiple times. the problem is there's no legalization program and that's a problem. >> if we are going to continue to do harsh detention and detainment, some common sense legislative efforts would make sense to help the separated children. and i see my colleagues who have been working hard on the bill in the audience who can speak much more expertly on it. i think secretary clinton talked about -- this bill being driven by stories stories of a seven-yd wandering in a park aimlessly when her parents were both picked up in a detention raid. that is inexcusable, and not just to think about the terror in the young person's heart.

what kind of community and society would let that happen? so legislation would put in safety measures that allow parents to be able to make determinations, make phone call and child care arrangements for their children if they happen to be detained or arrested. i think that's a good common-sense-humane, stop-gap measure, not a solution. >> i think the only thing i would add -- i can only comment on what we can do on the health and human services side of it. we have seen some things that will eventually want to figure out how to share because the potential practices other communities should be aware of. so, in california, we were in san diego and los angeles, and both counties and other counties in california, have developed memorandums of understanding between mexican consulate and

either local or state child welfare system. child welfare policy is a state domain so not something hhs can say this is what you should or shouldn't do but we can at least provide information that, this is what this county does or this is a model around mous, to help facilitate either the reunification if parents are living in different countries, or other things. similarly, we were in the southeast, we heard about some head start programs where families were -- because of they're scared to even bring their children into head start any longer, they expand their transportation mechanisms to pick up kids and bring them to the head start program because they were finding that attendance in head start was going down. not by people directly affected but the spillover effect in the community. these are relatively small in the scale of the issue, but they

can at least -- we can either provide some guidance or technical assistance or just broadcasting these practices to the degree we can. >> so, now, nobody wants to have children suffer, but how do we deal with reality that u.s. population growth is all about immigration these days, and if you recommend we stop deportations and legalization programs, how are we going to deal with just the basic overload of population numbers on limited resources? >> there's a lot of ways to respond to that, and there's some that are, i think, purely ethical and principled and those may be obvious. there's also, just to be

clear -- mass deportation of 12 million people isn't going to happen. it's not something anybody wants -- it's not something that many support, and the impact -- just in terms of resources, deporting people and leaving families to struggle in need of services and -- is significant. if we're talking about resources, that's what we're talking about, think that families supporting families is probably a good way to save resources. >> a paper that draws out the linkages between the so-called environmental rights movements that have gone -- what i would say rolled because i consider myself part of the movement, and has been making this overpopulation, linking it to immigration, and it has extreme

effects to women, particularly women of reproductive age because when you talk about population, who does the focus come on? so this may be a policy but the fact is the target is put on women's wombs, and even if we - there is a -- there are environmental justice strains but we have do more careful analysis that doesn't point fingers. we're not looking at the hundreds of millions of americans who consume resources the same way. some argue those with more resources consume more and that's part of the -- we eat more meat, drive gas guzzling cars and all of that. it seems like sensible reproductive health and rights and policy and justice policies would be a better way to address and really helping women and their families control their situations seems like the better way. >> a surprising number of

families that i interviewed come from rural areas in southern mexico, but were mainly agricultural but could no longer sustain their way of life. starting really in the 1990s. before that there wasn't as much migration from those areas. so if we're talking about the environment, we can't think of just the united states' environment. we have to think of the environment and resources in mexico that are being strain in promoting immigration to the united states as well. >> great. i think we have time for one more question. >> the obama administration made -- can you speak louder? >> the obama administration made a proposed rulemaking change for hardship labor, to make it possible for family members who are in the united states, instead of having to leave the

united states to be able to apply without leaving to have the three and ten-year ban waived. this seems like a small change but can you speak to what the impact this might have on the population of -- undocumented parents of children here in the united states. >> i think it would have a huge impact on the mexican community i've worked with for now 15 years. the implementation of the three and ten year ban has been devastating to families and family unity. lawyers i work with are not able to work on behalf of their clients because the hardship -- the bar for hardship is so high so all of the children we're talking about would not meet that bar of hardship. so i think it would go a long way if it would filter down into local communities and what is happening. >> well, why don't you join me in thanking our panel. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

>> i know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities, and i do, because some issues just aren't all that simple. saying there are weapons of mass destruction in iraq doesn't make it so. saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. and pro-proclaiming mission accomplished, certainly doesn't make it so. [cheers and applause] >> three days after september 11th, i stood where americans died. in the ruins of the twin towers. workers in hard hats were shouting to me, whatever it takes. a fellow grabbed me by the arm

and said, do not let me down. since that day, i wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. i will never relent in defending america, whatever it takes. [applause]

former deputy secretary of state richard armitage says u.s.-japan relations have drift but remain stable. there is a new report title "the u.s. japan alliance, anchoring stability in asia." this 'is an hour and 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, everybody, why don't -- let me ask you find seats. okay. we're going to get started.

hello, everybody. welcome. my name is john hamre. i want to say greetings to all of you. when rich armitage said he was going to issue his report, the latest armitage report on the 15th of august, i said, you're crazy. nobody is in washington on the 15th of august. look at this. this is absolutely fabulous, and i'm delighted to have everyone here. i think it's because it does speak to the very importance of the topic and the day. welcome to all of you. we're delighted to have you here, and of course we're very, very pleased that secretary armitage and secretary ny, who cannot be here today but the two of them have been partners in a series of very important studies through the years, and i think fundamentally have shaped the direction for the policy trajectory in the united states,

and i think it has had an a significant impact with our friends in japan. so they see the significance of the day. the significance of the event office these days, and said there needs to be some additional attention now devote ode to this topic, and what you have before you is a fine study with true actionable things you can do, and i think that's really going to be the thrust of the day. what you have here -- i rather jokingly said this looked like an old dutch master's print except for the two at the end and thank goodness we have some diversity in this group and we're grateful for that. so thank you to all of you for having been par tis pants in this important effort, and secretary armitage, let me turn it to you to get into the content of the day. thank you all for coming. >> thank you very much, john, and as always, we're gratified to be with our landlord.

and greetful to csis in helping with the rollout, and i want to say thanks for both joe and me, for our colleagues who assisted mightily, those before you and another, victor which, who is traveling, and frank, who is an observatory the process. and you are, as you know, looking at a bipartisan group, all three of our reports have had bipartisan participation. and we think that's one of the important signals. second, if you look at this group, we're not all old. some of us have a little more moss on us than others, but in 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, and we're hopeful this will encourage folks in japan, younger folks in japan, to step up a little more on the whole

issue of security studies and japan's place in the world, et cetera. now, i'm going to, if i may, tell you what we're going to do and then make a short introduction. after my introduction i'm going to read a short paragraph from joe ny, who asked me to expose it to you. we'll ask mike greene to talk about where we are in the alliance. these are only five-minute segments at most. there will be plenty of time for questions and answer. that will be followed by bob mcnally, who will talk about energy security, something i think both of us have a huge interest in. kevin nealer is going to speak about macroeconomics and followed by david asher who is going speak about an idea he came up with, and he can explain that to you. torkel paterson is going to talk about real estates with neighbors, quite topical particularly in the last couple of days in the region.

randy schriver will talk about the rerise of china. sak sakoda will speak, and isabella is going to talk about the pko. we have some views on it and isabella will let you know those, and then mike and i will wrap it up and then we'll turn it over to you and there will be three microphones spread around or interns running around with microphones and you can stand up, please identify yourself, and ask your questions i'll asked mike gray, who knows most of you, to sort of emcee 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 a time with some drift in our relationship. we're not assigning blame to that. in fact we do note that curt campbell, our excellent

assistant secretary for east asian pacific and his colleagues at the department of state have done their best to keep this relationship stable in a very difficult time. but because of this rerise of children's because of the difficulties emfating from north korea, because of the dynamism of asia and because of broader security concerns -- yes, mean iran and others -- staying in the same miss is not sufficient. being stable is not sufficient. we've got to move forward. from our point of view, for an alliance such as ours to exist and thrive, we have to approach it from the perspective of a tier-one nation. what do i mean? a tier one nation is a nation with economic weight, capable military forces, global vision, and is moving to take leadership on international concerns. at it clear as you read our report that we think the u.s.

can better support this alliance, and we should do so. but there is not a question, i think in the minds of most of you, certainly none of us, about the fact that united states is going to be a tier one nation and will continue to be a tier one nation. but japan, however, it's time for a decision. japan has a decision to make, and that is, does japan continue as a 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 japan, i recommend you close the report, don't read any further. there's no need. my point of view, we say that japan is capable of remaining a tier one nation, but we have questions about japan's disposition. does she care to do 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. and you'll see at the very end of our report we have recommendations for the united states, recommendations for japan. and recommendations for our alliance. let me read from joe nigh the following and then turn things over to mike green. he asked me to say the following: for nearly two decades i had the pleasure of working with rich armitage to promote our shared view that the alliance of the united states and japan is the bedrock of a stable and prosperous east asia. this is the third in a series of bipartisan 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 partisanship in re-affirming the importance of our relationship to japan and to our japan friends to strengthen 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 specific assessments and recommendations. first, what distinguishes this report and the two reports that this group produced previously in 2000 and 2007 is the premise that united states, as an asia-pacific power, is right to anchor its strategy in an alliance with the major maritime power on the western side of the pacific, japan. and that this is not a question

of choosing between japan and china, between northeast asia and southeast asia but how you approach the whole region, which is i would in 2007 the tight ol' the report was "u.s. japan alliance, getting asia right." get asia right we had to get the alliance right and this has long pedigree in american strategic thought towards asia. in the middle of the war of 1812, captain david porter on the uss essex was cut off by the royal navy request announced a plan to round the cape and attack british shipping in the pacific. the first u.s. warship ever to enter the pacific, and merchants from new york and boston knew about trade with china but porter came back and said, as a maritime power we have to anchor our presence in a relationship with the other maritime nation, japan. that influenced come door perry, which -- in the midst of world

war ii, others argued we did not need a punitive peace. we needed peace where japan would be an anchor of stability, and a colored war alliances were premised on that, and when rich armitage wag department assistant secretary of defense during the reagan administration, the maritime strategy for deal the expansion of the soviets was premised on the maritime approach the region, when joe nigh took over the assistant secretary job in the 1990s it became administration policy and has been a bipartisan approach ever since in the clinton, bush, and obama administration, and it's a recognition of our role of as asia pacific power and as a maritime power. so, 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 asian linement with japan, but we have a national interest in japan being, as secretary armitage said, first-tier power. and one of the assumptions we

brought into this report was that 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've what joe and i would call soft power, is a first tier superpower. i just finished a poll with the chicago council on global affairs. japan the united states is the most trusted country in the world after uk and north dakota that pole and many others. in bbc polling, japan is consistently ranked number one, two or three in the world in terms of respect. samsung economic research institute does a global survey on national brand around the world. japan was number two, and after march 11, 2011, and the response, moved up to number 1. so in soft power, japan has enormous potential. how you tap that is a hard operational policy problem but it's there the self-defense

force are a resource that have not been sufficiently utilized. today in japanese polling, the self-defense forces are usually listed as the most trusted institution in japan. the resources and capabilities are there and as we suggest in the report, loosening some constraintses would give real access of japan the world. the role of women. gold main sack has done studies that suggest in their middling if japan has occupation in the work force by women that gdp growth would increase annually by something like 0.3%, which i quite considerable. in trade. korea has 37% of its trade covered under free trade agreement reel dynamism in the korean economy in japan the number is 16%. so joining into free trade agreement, not just the nafta or the tpp or the scheme that david

described but the variety of free trait groomeds would give japan real influences in shaping regional trade and financial architecture. not just about tpp and the bilateral economic relationship with the u.s. it's about japan empowering itself economically and international my by being a leader in forming trade agreements. so these are some of the areas and there are others where despite the well-known challenges japan has with demographics, energy and so forth, there's some real potential and part of our purpose here is to try to explain why it is in u.s. interests -- japan will make the choice -- why it's in the u.s. interest that potential be tapped. >> thank you. ...

>> japan was the third largest consumer of nuclear energy for good reason as it's the only substantial source of a missions free, base load electricity generation. it's resumption is critical for growth and meet goals. the nuclear shut down is reversing the extraordinary progress, and over time, the oil

use from the 1970s, 80% was oil, driven down to 42% in 2010. last month, fuel oil consumption in japan's ten largest utilities up 64% since a year ago burning oil to replace electricity nuclear no longer does. this shut down would stifle economic development of nuclear power. as china plans to join russia, south korea as generateses. the plants will be built all over the world and benefit. for our part, the united states, we have to remove the disposal of the nuclear waste, approval permitting processes, and tokyo and washington take on lessons of fukushima and promote world leadership with safe reactor, design, and regulatory practices.

natural gas, one thing enjoyed in my career in energy is how it surprises you. who would have thought a few years ago the united states would be an exporter of natural gas? large increases in u.s. natural gas reserves due to fracturing deployed has turned the united states into the world's fastest growing producer of natural gas and make substantial exports possible. in fact, a lower 48 begin exporting lng in 20 # 14, and the iea says when we widen the pannal canal in 20 # 17, the tankers pass through there to price competitively priced gas to asia. the opportunity here is obvious. japan needs the natural gas, and we have it. our two countries started lng trade in 1969, and going forward, the united states can and should increase exports to japan. first, the united states must reject calls to limit exports of lng.

this is not a time for resource nationalism. this is time for a resource alliance. we should not be inhibiting private sector plans to build lng export projects. next, the united states should put japan on a level playing field with other potential customers for lng. in a time of crisis for japan, the united states has to guarantee no interruption in supplies barring a national emergency. at previously negotiated commercial terms. third area we discussed was protecting international energy security and the global comrnlg comments. like it or not, the vitality of modern civilization and future global growth depends on increasing access to flows of fossil fuels like oil for 5 long time. even as the u.s. and north america become less dependent, we rely on supplies from the persian gulf holding nearly half the world's proven oil reserves. the persian gulf is a crucial supplier of lng. qatar's faction facilities

supplies one-third of the global lng supplies. as other industrialized nation follow our lead, global peace and prosperity depends on the stability of the region and security of the sea lanes between it and respective markets. japan joined antipiracy missions off somalia in twine and cut imports from iran over one-third in the first five months in compliance with u.s. sanctions. tokyo's increase participation in multity national efforts in combating piracy, protect shipping, confront threats to peace proposed by iran's nuclear program, and securing sea lanes is needed and welcomed. fourth and time area, ma thane hydrates. this is longer term and aspirational. natural gas crystals buried in formations, and deposits from south central japan estimated at ten years of japanese domestic consumption. globally, the resource has been

estimated to be as high as 700,000 trillion cubic feet well over the current proven natural gas reserves. like shale several years ago, we know it's there, but we have not figured out how to get it out of the crust safely and cost effectively; however, they are technical problems that countries with the skill and motivation can eventually solve. japan and the united states cooperate closely in research and development of potential large shale met thane production. in may, alaska's north slope successfully extracted the hydrates by pumping in and sequestering co2 demonstrating environmental benefits and security. in light of the potential, the united states and japan should accelerate progress on researching and developing cost effective and environmental responsible production of me thane hydrates. in sum, a cautious start of nuclear power, natural gas

trade, enhancement of hydrates appear to our group as worthy and promising area for our alliance to deepen and succeed. thank you. >> thank you, bob. can i ask kevin -- >> thank you, and my gratitude both for -- to csis for hosting us and for you organizing this effort again. in trying to say where we are now in the global economy and comparing it to the moment when we were were last together in 2008, what a difference four years makes. 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. look at where we are now and while it's certainly not the optimum moment in the u.s. and the global economy, i note we have the lowest u.s. consumer debt in decades.

the u.s. exports increased some 43% and are on target perhaps to hit president obama's aspirational 50% growth in u.s. exports. american companies today opposed to four years ago sit on top of more cash than in any time in history since 1963 positioned to take advantage of economic growth. bob described a very dynamic energy sittion. i submit it was at least as much dinism in the manufacturing sector with 3-d printing and other technologies are offering significant promise to the two countries in the world that are the absolute leaders in innovation and productivity, the u.s. and japan. the question is what do we do with this now? how do we step out of the shadow of 2008, and where do we take our shared future? well, as we sat to say both the

trade and investment picture, and on the investment side, we've seen some largely unchronicled movement in investment, and in my mind, that's very important, from 1998 to 2010, the last year for which numbers are available. we've seen a doubling of u.s. investment in japan. that's really good news. we have not seen corresponding movement back this direction, but the -- what's clear is underneath the surface for companies when we ring our hands about features of the relationship, that anxiety are not shared by a lot of corporations. they see the promise, and they want to act on it. as we start to assess this and try to come up with recommendations, david asher challenged us not to think about just, to use the oldest metaphor in trade, how to keep the bicycle upright in moving forward, but how to create a new

paradigm that not only operated the u.s. and japanese advantage, but significantly improved the outlook for trade liberalization for the region, and i'll ask david to talk about where that thought experiment took it. >> yeah, well, thank you very much. you know, japan is a nation in a period of great challenge, but there is tremendous prospect for opportunity, economic development, advancement. japan is a country that really never tapped into service sector liberalization prospects, and so as a country that faces the most rapidly declining working population, society, debt and deficit, we've frequently look at the dark, you know, the prospects that japan faces, but

we don't pay attention to the opportunity for japan to advance its state citing the economy, and we forget that japan is still the second largest economic partner for the united states. especially if you account for japan's production in china. the report recommends a comprehensive economic energy and security agreement between the u.s. and japan that really cements the relationship, not just between the u.s.-japan economies, but between canada, mexico, and the north american free trade zone. the context of this is that japan already has a free trade agreement with mexico and announced in march, an agreement that it negotiates for free trade with canada, and there's no reason why the united states should be left out of the process, and so we see it as an

opportunity for japan to address its long term investments and economic prosperity, needs by creating a much deeper and stronger relationship with the u.s., and taking advantage, also, of the huge economic opportunities for investment here. returns on capital in the u.s. is strong. returns in japan are unfortunately rather low. we see a free trade agreement of increasing the sense of confidence between our countries. it allows japanese investment to flow into the u.s. and north america at large in a much more unfettered fashion. we also particularly see an opportunity for japan to up -- invest in the energy sector. bob talked about natural gas and methane hydrates. prices are washed out in natural

gas. there is relatively little investment going on right now because of the this asymmetry. japanese companies have an opportunity that they are already taken advantage of in canada, but i think they are also taking advantage of it in the united states itself to increase their investment. the u.s. has to change its policy. we need to make sure that japan can invest with security and safety in the north american natural gas energy opportunities, and the only way to do that is through a free trade agreement. the bottom line is that free trade is not as exomp -- complicated equation for japan to solve as people think. the working population among farmers in japan is alarmingly in decline. the agriculture issues which people have said have been blocking free trade for years are really not that substantial. japan negotiated free trade

agreements with countries, the united states that people thought they couldn't including moment koa. i think that we need to finally break the barrier, the sound barrier of free trade, with japan and move forward in a way that be under gird our alliance for the next 50 to 100 years. >> thank you. david, do you have comments about relations with neighbors, please? >> thank you, i will. i really like that sound bite david gave about breaking the sound barrier in u.s. and japan free trade relations. the section i'm speaking about is robust u.s. and japan rok relations. the main appointment of the section is that the u.s., japan, and carerra share extremely important trilateral national interests. it's hard to place on 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 are key to the stability 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 these issues together, and we can't achieve our common interests and goals unless we all work together. there are a lot of areas to build trilateral cooperation. we've talked about energy cooperation. japan, in the midst of its nuclear incident and the issues resulting from that and the cutback from its nuclear power position may be tempted to not recognize its very important worldwide role in the promotion

of non-proliferation and the safety of nuclear power. japan's role in that is well recognized and respected around the world, and for japan to retreat from that position and not move forward there would be a big mistake. likewise, south korea has important nuclear safety track record and role of transparency and together the three countries, united states, korea, and japan, can make significant progress in promoting, continuing to promote and assure the safety of nuclear power and also our continued commitment to nonproliferation. a second area is overseas development assistance where the united states, japan, and carerra are world leaders and where we share common interests, and japan and korea are instrumental in projecting comments essential to us

including iraq and afghanistan, and this area of cooperation can continue to be a model. the third area, and we'll get into detail on that is u.s.-japan security cooperation. there's -- and with korea -- and there's been a lot of bilateral activity going on below the radar screen that can be built, promoted, and encouraged, and together, we are move forward. having cross servicing agreements between the two countries, japan and korea and having a sharing of information, assurance between the two countries, and it will go along way in promoting the interoperatability and the cooperative spirit that we share. in myself, in my own life, i'm really a product of the korean war, literally and figuratively. my parents met in japan because of the korea war, married in japan, and i was made in korea. [laughter] i was conceived there, not born

there, born in america, but this -- i can empathize with japan and korea and all emotion that goes on between the two countries over national interests, and i think from both sides, both countries have legitimate stakes and legitimate questions evolving historical claims, but it's more than that. it's really emotion and feeling. it's really getting at the depth of what it means to be japanese and what it means to be korean, and these are very difficult issues which the united states cannot get in the middle of and resolve. these are issues that need to be really looked at and addressed by the people themselves, and for us to expect that the japanese government or korean government are going to go against their public opinion and take some kind of an enlightened position on this i think is a little bit farfetched begin the media encouragement of these entrenched and very heart felt and strong positions, but what

we're asking for in this report is that maybe we look at encouraging the track two dialogues that exist between the countries to talk and resolve and get a point of consensus to talk openly and directly to each other and broaden this in a public understanding. why are we interested in this? we're interested in this as people are facing a very difficult future in northeast asia, and we have to go forward together, the united states, japan, and korea, move guard together to address -- forward together to address these issues. thank you. >> thank you. randy, could you enlighten us on the rerise of china, please? >> thank you. just a few comments on china. as the secretary noted up front, it really is the backdrop to everything we're talking about. certainly, in forms of the

administration's policy. we would not talk about a rebalance if china was not on the current trajectory we believe she's on, and the report would look a lot different. this is really a central theme that is thread throughout the report. we note that the history of the alliance has been very favorable for china. in fact, in part, china's rise was made possible by the peace and stability and the regional presence our alliance provided. we believe that will continue to be the case in the future. of course, this is an implicit rejection of what we hear from some chinese friend that the alliance is no longer appropriate for regional security going forward. we think china can continue to benefit from the alliance as long as we comet to have the right mix of both hedging and engagement. that's what the policy has been historically both as respect for countries having a blend of

hedging and engagement, and also as an alliance. going forward, this will continue to be the case, but that means that certain capabilities will have to be both maintained and acquired, and our policies will have to be closely coordinated. the notion of keeping the blend appropriate and right of hedging and engaging means that we need a dynamic process in the alliance to talk about necessary capabilities to talk about policy coordination. i think recently there's been a lot of focus on the hedging part of this, and i think that's largely driven by china's behavior, and some of china's policies. we note in the report concern about china's statements about possibly expanding the core interests to include not justty bet and taiwan, but now possibly the south china sea. irrespective whether it's officially a new core interest, we can ob receiver the behavior

itself, the more assertive and at times aggressive approaches to the sovereignty disputes in the region. of course, on top of that is the lack of transparency in china's military modernization and strategic intentions so for as far as the eye can see, this hedging alliance approach needs to be sustained. certainly, we also note in the report that china's trajectory upward is not 100% assured #. china faces extraordinary challenges, and we list several in the report. these would not be unknown to you, but the energy situation and increasing demand that china faces, the environmental degradation, the widening income gap, the demographic challenges, and, of course, the cross cutting issue that challenges china -- corruption -- all make

china's rise all the more difficult to sustain going forward. the other big question, of course, is about the economy of china, questions about whether china can achieve its own stated goals of transitioning from an export driven growth model to one that's more drip by internal consumption. the jury is definitely still out on that, and, in fact, more recent signs have shown that china is sticking to the old play book, the recent moves on the currency, of course, are designed to increase exports. that's the model that they've succeeded on so far. transitioning away from that could create winners and losers, could create political tension that china doesn't certainly need right now with its 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 this mix of hedging and engagement is done correctly and appropriately, and that requires the acquisition of certain capabilities which i think zach talking about, but it also involves a very dynamic process of consolation and policy coordination. >> thank you, randy. zach, the security issues, if you please. >> thank you. good morning, and i want to add my thanks to csis for being a big part of this and also to the secretary and joe for having me be a part of this panel. the security section of the report addresses six sections. inoperatability, research and development, technology, cybersecurity, extended deterrence, prohibition of collective self-defense, and

finally, peace keeping, of which we'll address following me. i think as my colleagues made clear, the security environment that japan and the alliance just deal with has significantly changed. you know, at one time, the alliance focused on the defense of japan. there was a roles and missions review in the early 1980s that changed that, that expanded the thinking or the area of interest for japan and the alliance, and it expanded it north, south, and strengthened or added roles and missions to what operationally the alliance could do. that was followed up by a review of roles and missions, specifically, the guide lines in the late 1990s that added the other roles and missions for, especially regional security. the trend is pretty clear, and

the trend is also that the distinction between the defense of japan and regional security is very thin. i think now that -- when you look and you consider what japan's national interests and the scope of regional interests are, it goes north, further south, and much further to the west, and we would argue it goes as far west as the middle east. if you could imagine that the strait of hormuz were closed or if there were a military contingency in the south china sea, that would have a pretty significant effect on the security state in japan, and so that thinking needs to become more and more a part of the

context of the alliance. in that regard, i won't go through all recommendations, but i want to highlight specific ones going through the security section. at the first sign of any closure of the strait of hormuz, japan should unilaterally dispatch mine sweepers to the region. right nor, the u.s. and japan through the mod as well as mofa and state department consider proceeding with the roles, missions, and capabilities dialogue. that dialogue should include extending and strengthening intell, surveillance, and reconnaissance, or isr, capabilities further to the extent of going down to and including the south china seas. we also recommend that usfj

should be more an operational headquarters, and i'll speak more about that when we get to the last section of prohibition of collective self-defense, but in that regard, should be given more specific responsibilities for the defense of japan. at the base or foundation and osd, but both governments are about to have on rolls, missions, and capabilities should be addressing more i i wt -- intimate service-to-service cooperation moving forward. i used to be at the policy desk with paul, and paul was a navy officer, and i, an army officer. he lorded over me how close and

effective the navy-to-navy relationship was in japan, and as an army officer, that bugged me, but he was right. the navy-to-navy relationship is the model, and it's been that way for decades. the air-to-air and u.s. army, marine corp. and japan self-defense floor forces relationship needs to be much closer. they need to catch up to that. it should be much more intimate, and japan, and especially the usmc have things to share like amphibious operations and capabilities. let me switch to research and development -- sorry, before i depart that with regard to the sword and the shield analogy for roles and missions, that is an overly simplistic way of outlining what the alliance should be doing. it fails to address the

offensive responsibilities that japan should have when it comes to the defense of japan and that relates to the capabilities, but other areas as well when it comes to the defense of japan. now, let me transition to the research and development, especially in this environment of shrinking resources. we need to become more effective as alliance partners. this is one way to do that. japan has recently adjusted its arms export principles, and that's a welcomed change, but the thing is the alliance has yet been able to figure out how to implement that, how do we move forward with the change that opens up new opportunities? one way is pretty obvious and that is 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, our military industries and defense industries, excuse me, are really past, and we need to open up that pipe, but the different area is one that missile defense is emblematic in my mind where both sides took a very complicated, very expensive program and found a way to have co-development, co-production, and coemployment of the system. we need more areas for those kinds of opportunities. with regard to cybersecurity, the u.s. side established a cybersecurity command that is not yet something that japan has, and 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 those challenges. with regard to extended deturpts, let me make a couple remarks. deterrents include or requires two obvious factors. one is capability, and the other one is credibility. that's kind of the standard in the concept of deterrence, but with extended deturps and with an ally, we need to continue to work on the assurance that the u.s. provides japan, and that requires a dialogue of what direction that thinking is going in on the u.s. side, and we need to continue to do that. now, with regard to the prohibition on collective self-defense, let me raise this backdrop 311, and operations and how u.s. and japan deployed forces. both sides, we believe, rightfully, recognized that crisis as one of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and specifically did not have a

component of an external adversary to sweep up with self-defense and work much more intimately on how to get the job done. a couple examples are u.s. warships went and moved japan ground self-defense forces to northeast japan, and another example is how both forces worked to make operational, the airfield which was the center of how to provide relief and response in the crisis to that area. those are great examples, but it also shows and brings out and irony which is we did well in an

hadr scenario, an hadr crisis, by sweeping away on prohibitions on collective self-defense, but in a scenario where it's much more severe, where there's an adversary to deal with, we're prohibited from that kind of intimate cooperation. the recommendation is we should find authorities, japan should find authorities to allow both forces to deal more i want matily to deal without the constraints that collective self-defense brings to the operational forces, and that should apply to the full security spectrum that forces must deal with, which means peace, time, tension, crisis, and war, and so that's, again, that's another strong recommendation that we raise.

with that, let me pass to isabella to address peace keeping operations. >> thank you, zach. thank you for hosting this report. dr. green mentioned that the self-defense forces are one of the most trusted institutions in all of japan; however, japan is the only country in the world that regards weapons use during a peace keeping operation as an exercise of military force. currently, there's a bill to possibly revise this, the peace keeping operation law. the current law doesn't allow stf to use weapons for weapons use, only for the case of self-defense or when danger is inmat. the new bill revises this to include and allow the self-defense forces during a peace keeping operation to

defend civilians outside the peace keeping operation area. this essentially would supplement the security of the host nation, and it's likely that this bill might not make it to the current session, and it's likely it would be watered down. our study group, and the participants of the report, recommend that a more forward leaning provision to the law. we recommend that japan not only defend civilians in danger, but also protect and defend with force, if necessary, other international peacekeepers from other nationalities. japan is currently on peacekeeping operation missions in haiti working on disaster reconstruction and humanitarian assistance, specifically right now they are containing up feck, diseases, and this --

infectious diseases. they are in south sudan, the world's youngest nation, and they are on an anti-piracy mission. we believe these operations make tremendous, international contributions. the law should reflect that so with that, we hope that the bill does go through, and that is it little bit more forward leaning so thank you. >> thank you, isabella. turning over to you in a moment, but i have a brief concluding remark. it should be obvious to all of you that 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 deploy them, still a large economy. an economy that could be made more robust if it was reformed,

particularly regulatory reform, and competition, if there was more openness and free trade as suggested in the report, immigration change, greater participation by women in the work force. that also adds a lot. the national brand that mike discussed of japan is fantastic. let's use it. let's get some oxygen from it. let's have some pride in it. you're allies take pride in the fact that japan has such a robust and well-developed national brand. as was eluded, the self-defense force is now the most trusted organization in japan. operations bought us some time. we did our duty. we supported our allies through that terrible tragedy, but the operation will not carry us through the challenges of the future. it ought to be clear to all of you that we hold a very strong

view that the world is made safer and humane by the united states and japan, robust, strong democracies. further, that we have the greatest possibility of a peaceful rerise of china if the rerise takes part in an area of strong, vibrant democracy, and with regard, we include the republic of korea, indonesia, australia, and india. we what a japan and united states who have come to the conclusion that we can share some of not only the burden, but the decision making. we want a japanese hand on the tiller along with us. we know woo we are and what we are, you we can be very much assisted by a strong and vibrant japan, a japan, which is a place in which young japanese can dream and not just eykst.

we've got a lot of stuff in the report, threw a lot at you. i'll hush up other than to respond to questions or someone responds to question. mike green will identify people and we'll pass you the microphones, and we'll get on with this. >> we have microphones around the room. let me thank the staff and the staff for getting us organized in the middle of the summer. put your hand up, i'll call on you, identify yourself, direct it to the panel in general or someone. microphone traps right here. >> my question is if the tension over this island arises and to defend japan as is obligated by the alliance treaty, will u.s. risk confronting or conflicting with china, and if it will, is

it prepared for the consequences? thank you. >> let me put this in cop -- context. we are under our treaty obligations, required to defend the administrative territories in the jury diction of -- jurisdiction of japan, but impossible to answer a question like that. the reason is what is the issue? what's happening. does something happen because japan acts in a provocative way? japan change the status quo in a large way? that prompts one response from the united states. if in a wanton way japan, areas under the jurisdiction of japan were to act, that might have another response. impossible to answer that hypothetically. however, it is very much in the u.s. interest to make sure that we exert every ounce of influence to keep the event from

occurring, and i think that's where the diplomatic energy of the united states is going to be applied. >> okay. thank you. yes, sir, right here. >> hi, i'm in the u.s. knave vie. we've talked a little bit about some legal changes for a more extensive definition of what the self-defense force can do, but what i have not heard so much is, well, i understand for historical regions it is a self-defense force, but why not a unified command? why not take the breaks 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 a quite clear in the

report as we have in the past that first of all, the decision to remove was the japanese decision, not os decision, but we further describe this as an impediment, the prohibition as impediment to alliance cooperation. i don't think one can argue that fact. we have an interesting footnote in our report. the footnote refers to the 2006 commission which was put together to study the whole question of article nine o'clock collective self-defense, and they came to the cop collusion that a prime -- conclusion that a prime minister could, buy fiat, do away with the prohibition collective self-defense. the united states would be fine with that. it's not us holding it down. >> let me add a little bit, and that is the goal is to have more intimate cooperation so that we can work together, together better than dealing with the con statements now. we are not -- that's the goal.

we are not seeking changes to the constitution. we are not seeking unified command, for example. we're not seeking for japan to be a more mill tar -- mill -- militaristic. we have to work together efficiently and effectively and that's the goal. >> in the back there. >> i'm from the state department diplomacy bureau. if japan doesn't accept up to the plateletting the alliance wither, what's the plausible consequences you are concerned about? thank you. >> let me make sure i understand the question. if japan and the united states are not moving forward together, what are the consequences?

>> if the alliance withers, what do you think? >> we're going to have an alliance because one of the most important features of our alliance is the fact that the government of japan, the people of japan allow us the use of military bases in japan. without which the tyranny of time and distance for our navy would be such that it would really make it difficult for us to have meaningful security cooperations. i think as long as the government of japan were willing to allow the use of u.s. bases than our alliance continues. 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 that's actually supportive of the people of japan. i use the term deliberately, and want a japan in which young people can dream, not just exist. we want a japan that's not so --

what do you say -- inward looking. that's the japan we need, and i don't think that's the japan that japan should need and want as well. >> i would just add that i do not permly think we're -- personally think we're at a fork in the road is an alliance or 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. if we end up on the path of continued muddle and some drift, several things could happen. one is, i think that the u.s. and other powers that are aligned with japan start hedging, and that will weaken japan's influence and take energy out of the jointness and

cooperation we need. it would not be in u.s. interests or japan's interest. that's one danger. the other danger seems to me is you could create in a time of shifting power in asia, the impression there's miss sures, cracks, vacuums, and at a time when you want to discourage countries from trying to unilaterally change the order we now benefit from, when you discourage countries from resorting to forced coercion, and at just that time, that's the worst possible time to create the impression that one of the most important bull works of stability, support for democracy, and open and inclusive trading system in the region is going wobbly. it's not so much a binary, you know, love or divorce choice. it's how much we're able to continue to max -- maximize benefits and stability.

>> i don't believe there was subtext in the report or its two predecessors of alliance. there was some risk. in the third exercise, one thing clear in the conversations, at least to me, was that the among the greatest threats is failure of imagination on the economics side. to be blunt, you know, we look at the energy that's spent on free trade agreements, and even on the tp free project is clear, but it may well 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 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. we, at a time when we are here, and i shiver because they are authentic experts in the global trade regime, and when there's no next obvious thing for us to be -- to spend time and energy, i think, difficult diverted froe largest free trade agreement in the world, nafta, and adding and enriching confidence and habiting of cooperation with japan, in terms of what's next or achievement and what bolsters the alliance. that's obvious, and an important bit of signaling that for the rest of the region in doubt because of the background noise from europe for the future of export growth, well, that could be, we think, vitally important signaling.

>> were our alliae to wither, there's one opportunity japan would forfeit and one additional risk it would take on. what we're suggesting is that we leverage the alliance to remove japan's second class status when it comes to being a customer for lng experts, and alliance to wither, i think that opportunity goes away, and also with regard to, again, japan's growing dependence on the state of the middle east and the secure flow of hydrocarbons from the middle east to asia, were our alliance to wither, we lose the opportunity to fully utilize all of japan's assets there, and it frankly exacerbates this tension you start to see in the united states, the pernicious potential for resource nationalism. as our imports go down and america starts to realize we have oil and gas under our feet, we could be, some people believe, self-sufficient, hemisphere any way in ten years,

revives a sense that we don't neat the middle east. we don't need to send troops and spend blood and treasure and prestige abroad, and a weakening alliance with japan reenforces that sense of resource nationalism and isolationism which could come as a result of the abundance we are discovering here in the hemisphere of energy. >> good question. yes? >> i'm with washington research and animal sis. my -- question is about nuclear energy. i'm a little surprised you 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. designs and some are

built. general electric plants which in retrospect have flawed designs. and i say "flawed design" because it self-destructs when the plumbing fails, nothing else, just the circulation of water for whatever reason fails, it melts down within 24 hours, and then it contaminates the environment for the remaining 30 years. 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 plants melt down the way fukushima did. this, again, i think is something that u.s. should also be concerned as much as the japanese except japan can want

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

thoughtful observers on the economic future agree without a restart of safe nuclear power, it's hard to see japan reviving the national economy, sustaining economic growth, much less becoming the tier one partner the secretary talked about. >> let me just add 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 your 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 germings and experts to help us in a critical time. u.s. engineers, from ge, the department of energy and nrc have been in japan. one area where we could really 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 going to be built by russia, china, and other countries that may not have our same standards. there is, you're right, there is an opportunity there as we go forward. >> yes. >> good morning, this is a question for david asher, but anyone else who wants to respond. seems to me that the alliance's is in pretty good shape, but can't afford to stand still, particularly in the context of so many game changers, the militarized rise of china first and foremost. with the relaxation of the three arms export control principles, david, how can you see that changing as a game changer, at least 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 defense. we, at large, need to integrate themselves more substantially. our budgets just can't afford to be independent and up dependently minded for the long term. our alliance allows for us to be basically comprehensively involvedded with each other, and we should be, but we're not. we license a lot of technology. we do some limited co-production, but we've never really embraced the opportunity of what we call an economy of scale and of force between us. it will lower the costs of our defensive system procurements, which are ridiculously high, frankly, and decrease effectiveness, and that shows to our adversaries and potential threatening nations that surround us, that we are intreg grated for the -- integrated for the long term.

if we're integrated in terms of our military production and national security production, that's well beyond just the military, but involves economic security, which is absolutely critical. people won't be thinking that 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 u.s.-japan alliance. >> yes? >> hi, reporter for a january these newspaper. thank you for doing this today. regarding the u.s.-japan trilateral relationships, this reporter recommends the united states should not render judgment on the sensitive historical issues. that's quite understandable, but at the same time, it says that as a recommendation for -japan pap, japan should confront

historical issues. i felt there's a judgment there meaning japan's officials stand point on this issues. do you have programs, if i understand this correctly, could you elaborate what this sentence means, "japan should confront historical issues"? thank you. >> what is today? >> august 15th. >> what is august 15th? >> emperor made the speech. >> yes, he did. this would be j-day. we didn't have this proposal unvailed today by accident. we dealt painfully with our historical issues. that's why my comments and my colleagues' comments about the difficulty of these historic issues were heart felt, and we know how potent they are and how

powerful they are, and the united states is not going to make a judgment on these issues. the united states should be using all of our diplomatic energy to try to help the two sides resolve these issues. how they resolve and what is acceptable to the people on both sides. right now, there's -- in both rok and in in japan, there's a great matter of popularrism involved on the issues, and that further muddies the waters, but we had suggested in the report, perhaps continued or stepped up track two discussions to try to bring -- and the united states, 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 and in other countries in the region stop and ask themselveses before they speak or before they take trips to certain places whether what they are doing is in the national interest or 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 stop and think about the national interests before they speak or act. [laughter] for those aspiring to higher office or to be statesmen or women in the future, that would be a good test, and it would be a good test for the media to think about as well. >> i think we can take one more quick one.

let me look over here then. [laughter] yeah, because you came all the way from tokyo. >> do two. >> we'll do two, okay. you, and then this gentleman here. >> i think the reporter pointed out rightly the problems that the alliance faces which is dominance of a third, older issue. ..

>> the burden is on us to be extra awful of our approach and to read awful with our consultations with the government of japan.

for two long they have taken the oxygen out of the room. when the secretary of the state talks about japan or china it was devolve to what i called the f. word. [laughter] that is all what and anybody wants to talk about. let's not let the tail wag the dog to compromise the larger alliance. there are ways to work this out but it will take thought list this and compromise and given where we are now.

>> good morning. , thank you for having me. i spent my formative years in japan. how do you think he would do? he had to replace his ministers. how will he pan out? he is known more in academia. but in regard to your statement. importing iranian oil does that affect the alliance? how does it planned to have

the unified sanctions front? >> i think he will do fine. but how do the issues continued to change? the current defense minister will be fine. but they look at the longer-term not focused on individuals but long-term and that is what is important. with regard to iran sanctions policy, it requires importers make substantial reductions. with is not defined

precisely but your past completely stopped the budget the natalee made substantial reductions but the first half of the year showed respect for the sanctions policy is hellhound to make sure the planned reductions would satisfy the west's requirement which it did. and where the iran will use is rising it is remarkable with the strong nature of our alliance japan implemented these difficult reductions. going forward how to ensure this tinkers. japan can ensure that

tinkers because insurance was withdrawn due to european sanctions. there just asking them to substantially reduce them. vice suspect they will remain in close contact thereby contributing to the pressure put on the regime. >> thank you. we did these reports starting 12 years ago. was the document used in the situation in room with the policy towards japan and asia with the bush should minister asian. we aeronaut said -- certain

if this has a similar role but it is not just to give idea is to revitalize the alliance but hopefully this will spark that and will generate attention that is encouragement. thank you for joining us. [applause]

>> those criticize me for seeing complexities and i do.

some are not that simple. it does not make it so. and proclaiming mission accomplished does not make it so. [cheers and applause] >> three days after september 11th i stood where americans died in the ruins of the twin towers. workers in hard hats were shouting whatever it takes. one man said do not let me down. since that day i wake up every morning thinking how to defend our country. doing whatever it takes. [cheers and applause]

legislative some of the national conference of state legislators held in chicago. it is just over an hour. >> the party will hear fromill r some important leaders toos

the more the most psychotic and successful corporations in america.a the third used to be one ofthird us. their business of creating jobs is the most important busif topic today. as a house member, as senatena majority leader and governor of michigan.factur one of ry industrial sector and a the most industrial resident of d table. please join me in welcoming the governor to the states.

>> well, thank you very much, senator. great introduction. i loved the introduction that the focus on the legislative years because that -- i look back 20 years of service in the michigan legislature. a while ago now, in fact, i realized, but i used to do when i was a member and a minority in the house and the senate and then as a senate leader, i have not actually been in the legislature longer than i was and. i am certainly aging, i guess, but those days in many ways were the highlight of the public service that i have been able to enjoy. one of the things i also thought about was that, the carrier i had actually would be impossible to replicate today the term limits. and so i watch this a fact of term limits across the country and certainly it has done nothing the strength and resolve

for the legislative body, experience and expertise in the incredibly difficult, complex issues that you are confronted today. now, a pretty difficult issue that we will talk about, a pretty important one, our panel discussion is going to address one of those that is to my belief, number one issue facing our nation, number one issue that is in the election that will be captured ---sharing everyone's attention. and it is going to be the number one issue, i think, for the foreseeable future for our country. it has been, perhaps, the most important obligation of the nation, how people find employment in jobs and we are here to talk today about the business of creating jobs. that has to be a priority for anybody who is elected, and i would suggest that any level, there is of pulled that captured all of this just a week ago, "usa today" gallop had a poll.

this is an amazing number. you don't see these kind of numbers. 92 percent of americans regard creating good jobs as an extremely are very important party for the next president. well, say that their jobs are actually going to get treated in the private sector. we have some people here today, because of their responsibilities and their personal life stories, that they provide, the enterprise for our leaders. they know all about this. i expect, though, that you, as legislators, men and women with a lot of experience. in this competition for jobs because there is the creation of a job. there is also the location of a job. and you battle each other for investment and jobs with it is manufacturing plants, r&d facility, there is a pretty

significant competition for jobs arrest the country. and i think that probably has not changed. it intensifies. part of my message in washington is that members of congress, come from the state's demand least most of them come on the states. i'm not sure a lot of them, but as they think about this competition, they understand this state that they came from probably would agree with other states. what has happened today in the world, today our states are competing not just with each other, but with many, many other nations. and so that competition has stepped up. and so, sort of like the olympics, if you're going to win and jobs competition you often have to have years of preparation and dedication. it does not happen by accident periodontist it like. energy, regulatory education work force, y'all are sort of

required to be part of that plan and strategy. then you have to have the tenacity and the toughness to see it through. when these strategies come together it is a wonderful thing. ec countries are states becoming successful. they are more competitive, and as a result, they are having success in terms of job attraction and private-sector job creation. they become -- places that we all want to emulate. they win these contests as the best states in which to do business are increasingly coming best places in the world to do business. now, our to eleanor base ceos, today, both are at the helm of companies with global reach. they understand what it takes to compete successfully. they have done it leading those companies. their companies have done in overtime. they are in the business and not only making a return for their investors and shareholders, but

they're also in the business of strategically growing and hiring people. and they have got opinions. we have to the chairman and ceo of caterpillar. caterpillar is the epitome, really give us a u.s.-based manufacturing company with global aspirations got 50,000 employees in the united states. 127,000 worldwide. the business roundtable, our international engagement. he has been on the fsoront of te part in. he is also the current vice chairman and in january will become the chairman of the national association of manufacturing. so doug has become our most powerful advocate for the right investment strategies, the right business plan and the right way to create jobs and certainly jobs through trade.

so, and then we have the chairman and ceo of state farm mutual and its affiliate. countries, more than 68,000 employees, 18,000 offices in the united states and canada. so another global business. in the insurance business, by the amazing service sector that supports this country, you get to know all the factors of the economy from the smallest mom-and-pop store to the largest companies in america. and, and his for many years led. he has been the kind of leader who has been willing to give back to his country. so he is currently the chairman of the u.s. chamber of commerce board of directors. he has been one of our leaders at the business roundtable for a number of years. he is one of the most important business education leaders that we have america.

his passion is probably well known to many of you in this room. so at this point would like to bring doug port. we will get started on the topic of business and creating jobs. ♪ >> we will do this. debt will make comments. come up. we will touch answer some questions and have a little bit of a dialogue. citizens chairman to touch on the, the chairman and ceo of caterpillar. >> well, thank you, governor. on behalf of caterpillar and possibly, those of us in illinois, welcome to chicago. we are in a very large employer

in illinois. in fact, almost 20,000 people in the state. very proud to be here for this interesting conference this year. it is always fun to be in the states where they are having the governor. we should have some fun on the subject of his book about this morning. i hope you all know caterpillar. i will be brief in my comments about us, but when you see construction zones and those little yellow slowdown signs, think of us because that is our business, and we love it. i think and the only one that slows down lower than the posted speed limit in a construction zone to watch what is going on. unfortunately there has not been a lot of that in this country over the last few years, and we need more. we are proud to do that for our country and around the world. we have in office and at least in an employee in every state in this country. we do quite a bit of manufacturing in the united states as well as around the world. we make industrial turbines in california.

giant 400-ton skid steelers in the state of north carolina. we just announced and then open a manufacturing and design center in south dakota. teammate escalators in texas. i could go on and on, but i think you get the point. we are a big and proud and great american manufacturer that is able to take care of lots of opportunities around the world. spending a lot of money in capital. this year, the last two years we spent almost $10 billion around the world. over half of that right here in the united states for expansion. fact, we've went on to announced 35 new factory somewhere in the world and last two years. about half of those are right here in the united states, and we have added, says the end of the great recession, i guess, two years ago, almost got 15,000 american jobs, most of those being manufacturing jobs right here in this country. so, we are quite proud of that.

we also do a lot of investing in research and development. some statistics you did not know, research and development is critical for manufacturing. it represents u.s. manufacturers performing two-thirds of all r&d in the nation, a lot of innovation. 90 percent of all patents in this country come from manufacturing. about two-thirds of all u.s. engineering jobs are created by manufacturing. and in our case this year we will invest about $2 billion in r&d, and the vast majority of that over three-quarters of that will be right here in the united states. so, we are pretty proud of these investments. we are proud of our american heritage and where we are going, we are also very proud of our opportunities around the world. i had a great time a few months ago announcing the new factory in georgia. in about two weeks and will be

going to texas to announce a new assembly plant for escalators that we built in japan for decades. we have moved that manufacturing facility to texas. he will cut the ribbon on that and a couple of weeks. so, while we are investing here we are also investing around the world, and i think it is great news for all of us that we have these opportunities. it is no secret that as we choose investments and where to go and what is involved, and i just want to spend a couple of minutes and that because i know that is important for this audience. what do we think about when we choose a location for a manufacturing site, an office building, or to the site a facility for what in our case is likely to be decades. we look at age a lot of things. first and foremost, our customers need and want in allocation. certainly, a plan in texas is a good one. most of that market is right here in the united states. we wanted to avoid the fray in supply chain timing for our

customers in this country which is important. what did they need and value? secondly, i infrastructure. now, being the chairman and ceo of the largest infrastructure, one of the largest ever for structure providers in the world, this is somewhat of a self-serving comment. we need infrastructure in this country, and that tell you, we needed not just for american jobs and hopefully the benefit of my company, but all of our competitors around the world, every country is investing more in infrastructure as a percentage gdp and we are. and our children and grandchildren will have to compete with that more and more, and it worries me as we invest less and less infrastructure. it is important, texas among georgia, or wherever it may become important facilities. can we get supplies in and out? how reliable is the power grid, amazingly enough is becoming more of an issue in this country and is really an issue outside

this country. but by far and away, the biggest piece of our site selection process is our work force is. is there a local work force that we can use that is killed in what we need? either universities and community colleges that will work with us to help train our people? manufacturing jobs in this country, far different than a manufacturing job, is 40 years ago. high-tech, highly trained, for the most part of the tests are performed. everything is computerized. we need people that can run those. in fact some of the statistics for you, in this country, we reject six of ten, six out of every ten applicants that apply for our production jobs in this country. basic education or drug-testing. imagine the cost and waste to society for some the average is 25 years old and 60 percent of

them don't qualify for a basic manufacturing jobs? what a waste our society. the really big in terms of educating our were forced to compete. now, i am sure there will be more to talk about on that later. high-school dropout rate is 30% which implies our educational system is not working. i don't have to tell all of you that. i suspect you know more than i do, but we are the customers of that education system that uc failing in this country, and other competitors around the world are exceeding in their education system, cycle used to have a competitive event its. it is a big problem. supply is another interesting one. a local group of suppliers or can we develop suppliers in manufacturing locations that can support our facility? and that goes into our -- in terms of where we decide to set its facility, the united states.

and finally, kind of a big one, and it is sort of taken for granted, but today it is really applying. the general business climate. is this state fiscally stable? the pension and medical costs under control or will we look at a spiraling amount of tax increases down the road or benefit cuts for people that retire from plants eventually. well, we don't need advanced today, we sure need a plan for every state to become fiscally solvents in an amount of time as soon as we can get there, and that really weighs on us when we cite factories in this country. that has a lot to do with where we site because our employees have to be happy. they have to be ready and available to come to work every day. if they're worried about their pensions and other medical care down the road, it is an issue, so that is a big one that all of you have a greater say in. to all of you coming to play

when we talk about this country and elsewhere, but remember, 95 percent of our customers in this country don't live here. we are only 5 percent of the world's population. my generation, my parents' generation, many others live in a world where the united states was the king. our economy was the biggest. still yesterday. most of the purchasing power resided in this country. that has changed dramatically. today 95 percent of that is outside this country. we have got to learn to deal with that and compete on an international stage more than we have ever done. some of the things i talk about our indication of that. so when you're looking at where we want to invest in manufacturing, all these things come into play. and then finally, as the statement here at the end of these comments, we need an economy that is growing. we really have to all work together today to make sure that

happens. some comments on that. but growth cures a lot of hills. we have not seen growth in this country and disposable income in a decade. we need to turn that around. lots of other things that are being worked on but need more emphasis. so, with that, i conclude. i look forward to your comments. thank you very much. good morning. [applause] >> thanks you. i've. >> i remember growing a busy restaurant travelling across the country. i realize this is three interstate highway system. as a little kid i would be sound asleep in the backseat of a car. if you wanted to get my two sisters, my parents would yell waterfall. it would perk up, looked up. well, the way you got me out, it was construct