use only might accumulated leave time for this birth, and i made arrangements to have the child adopted at birth. pregnancy was immoral and administrative grounds for discharge, and that was that. so susan was sent back to the west coast where she was represented by the aclu of the state of washington. they managed to stay or discard -- to stay for discharge month by month. she lost in district court. she lost in the ninth circuit, but with an excellent defense. [laughter] the supreme court took her case, and they then -- and then the

solicitor general been the dean of the first law school i attended, he saw a real damage potential for the government in susan's case. so he convened the military brass and he said, that rule about pregnancy being an automatic grounds for discharge, that's not right for our time. you should immediately wave the captain's discharge and then change the regulation. for the future. and that's what happened. now, the law students know what that meant for our case. the government had given susan everything she was asking for, so the government then immediately moved to have the case dismissed as mute -- moot. i called captain struck and messages or anything you're missin she said i am notallow -- i'm not out of any pay or less. she said i am not -- they would

punish me for that. and then she said yes, there is one thing. all my life i have dreamed of becoming a pilot. but the air force does not give flight training to women. well, this was in 1972, had this conversation, and we laugh because we knew then it was an impossible dream. that the air force would give flight training to women. now it would be unthinkable for them to reserve flight training for men only. so you see, we have come a long, long way. >> regarding the court's deliberation process, has the presence of three women on the supreme court now altered the way that members of the court

think about and discuss the cases that come before them, and perhaps in how they decide in? >> -- decide then? >> i should start with a quote from a minnesota supreme court, justice dean going that justice o'connor and i have often retold, and that is at the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same judgment. now, i have to follow that up by saying that we each bring to the table our own life experience, including the three of us having grown up female. and we can help our colleagues understand something they might not understand so well were we not there. there is one case in particular,

this was a few years ago about a girl, a 13 year-old girl who was suspected of having, what turned out to be an ad bill -- nfl, ibuprofen. so she was suspected of having feels. they took her to the girls bathroom. they strip-searched or, and her mother was incensed to find out what happened to her daughter. so she brought a case in 1983 against a school officials. and when i was argued before the court, some of my colleagues made light of it. one of them said, i remember being in the locker room when i was a 13 year-old boy, we were,

didn't think anything of it, of changing our close. and i said in the courtroom, there's a difference between a 13 year-old girl and 13 year-old boy, and the embarrassment that batgirl felt -- that girl felt. and suddenly the jokes stopped and everyone took it seriously and realized yes, there is that difference and this was a terrible thing to do to a young girl. and, of course, she won the case. [laughter] >> last year, the nation was riveted by the courts argument and decision in the national federation in the business case, the case that upheld the

individual mandate provision of president obama's health care reform legislation, and i'm wondering, for those of us who are observers of the court, apart from the holding in the case, what lessons might we learn from the experience of that case? >> i hope it's a case that will be taught in law schools. i fully expect that my defense saying that this legislation fit within the commerce clause easily, that that will someday become the law of the land. i was astonished, frankly, at the majority view about that case. but i think it's a wonderful teaching tool. and as you know, the law and the

meaning was a failed. achieve -- was upheld. the chief justice decided it didn't fit within the commerce power but the tax power is very broad, so what the law calls a penalty was, in fact, a tax and so it was upheld on that basis. so i do think the commerce clause ruling will turn out to be an aberration. and you can compare it to the way it was before 1937. when the court, now referred to as nine old men, and they were striking down economic and social legislation from the states, from the administration, but then the social security act was passed, and in 1937 the

court upheld it. and i thought that social security 1937, health care in 2012, they surely should go the same way. so i said i fully expect that my view, which was shared by three of my colleagues on the commerce clause, would be the one that has staying power. so -- [laughter] >> on that note, do you have any unfinished business in your career both on and off the court? >> well, i'm going to do this job as long as i'm able to do it

the way it needs to be done. [applause] >> but i'm not going to write any book. [laughter] there will be books written about me, like it or not. mostly i would prefer not. [laughter] so i already mentioned that i would like to see in my lifetime, i'd like to see the women get fired up about the equal rights amendment so we will have that in our constitution. i'd like to see an end to this, what i call unconscious discrimination. but being a judge, and it's a

pretty good job to have, think of my colleague, justice john paul stevens who remain on the court until he was 90, and is still an avid golfer and tennis player, has recently written a book, not about himself, but about the five chiefs that he had known from the time he was a law clerk until the time he retired from the court. so, next question. [laughter] >> justice ginsburg, you've had an amazing career and are leaving your legacy in the law. looking back on your life, although there's still more to do, but looking back on what you have done so far, is there anything you would do differently? >> it's a question, and i don't ask myself, and i'll give you

two pieces of advice i was given in that regard. when i was a brand-new judge on the d.c. circuit, one of my senior colleagues said ruth, i've been at this business a long time, and one thing i'd like to embark to you, do your best job in each case, but when it's over, when the opinion is out, don't look back. don't worry about things that have passed. go on to the next case, and give it your all. that corresponds to advise my mother gave me which she summed up in the phrase, be a lady. and by that she meant don't allow distracting emotions to

overwhelm you. anger will get you nowhere. jealousy is even worse. and remorse, these are all emotions that sap your energy and do nothing productive. so i don't look back. i do look forward to what is on my plate each day. >> justice ginsburg, you have dissented in some of the court's most controversial and far-reaching decisions the past couple of decades. i have in mind for example, bush v. gore, the case that halted the balloting in the 2000 presidential election and citizens united, the case that invalidated the corporate campaign expenditures. in cases such as these cases

which the law takes a sudden turn in a different direction, and a high pressure and high profile area, do you ever fear for the courts reputation as a result of these kind of decisions? and then as a sort of follow-up, i'm wondering a difficult is it to participate in the deliberations and to be one vote away from a very different result? >> first let me comment on bush v. gore. it was one-of-a-kind. the court has never cited that, that opinion in any other case, and i trust it will forever remain that way. it happened, it was over, and that's it for bush v. gore. [laughter] and citizens united -- [inaudible] that was a very wrong decision, but as a great

man once said, it ain't over till it's over. and the court will have a chance in the years ahead to correct its error. think of the free speech dissent of holmes and brandeis in the '20s that spoke for two justices, and today those views are the law of the land. so, when one is on the dissent aside, if it's something congress can fix, then you hope that your dissent will lead to legislature to if it's a matter of constitutional interpretation, the only thing that can change it is if the court will overrule its decision. you write the dissent looking toward a future court and a

correction of the error into which our colleagues have fallen. [laughter] >> just the other part of the question, i'm wondering do these cases ever cause worry about the courts reputation? or do you feel reason you might describe that the courts reputation will remain intact? >> we all care very much about the institution. and we want to leave it in a good shape as we found it. the supreme court i think is unique in the world. when i met with high court judges of other places, i will sometimes ask, well, how is it -- sometimes we have a judgment and we say and the government doesn't follow it. but think of some of the key

decisions in the supreme court. think of the seizure case. when the course of president truman, you can't take over the steel mills, give them back. and immediately the president ordered the mills returned to their owners, or even more recent example, very dramatic example, president nixon is told, not by the supreme court, but by federal district court judge, i need those case as evidence in a criminal proceeding. turned them over. the president did, and he resigned from office the next day. and we know that's a very precious thing that we have, that even, even bush v. gore. so however long i thought -- however wrong i thought the decision was, there was no rioting in the street. people accepted that bush would

be a president and -- [laughter] and life went on. one thing that, yes, we divide on some very important cases but we are unanimous more often than we are fight for. thank goodness for the ordinary cases that we see, the ordinary statutory interpretation cases that don't divide along party lines. so yes, we are very much concerned with the reputation of the court. all of us are. >> how difficult was it for you to make the transition of that from being an advocate to that of a jurist? >> i don't think i've made the transition. [laughter] [applause]

>> you are always hoping to persuade your colleagues. and sometimes you are successful. some years ago, my senior colleague assigned a dissent to be. it was a dissent of just 2. in the fullness of time, the decision came out 6-3, and my decision was the decision for six. so if you don't prevail at the conference, then the vote goes the other way. you are hoping that your dissent is going to be so powerfully persuasive that maybe you will pick up another vote. it doesn't happen very often. it is rare, but hope springs eternal. [laughter] >> you mentioned something you would like to see change, improve in the future, for example, resurrecting the equal

rights amendment. in thinking about the way the supreme court carries out its work in particular, is there anything you'd like to see changed during your time or beyond? >> there's one thing that i would not like to see changed. the supreme court is a rather old-fashioned institution. when we sit down at our conference tables, nothing like glasgow, there's not a laptop in the place. there's only a pad of paper and a pencil to take, to take notes with. it's about the last place in town, the town of washington, d.c., where the officeholder actually do their own work. [laughter] [applause] >> we don't, we don't have -- i have four large -- for law clerks, a chamber eight and two secretaries that hold me up and

i'm totally dependent on. but that's what we are. it's that small, that's eight of us. going to do any congress, congressional office and you will find huge staff. so that way of operating, i hope, will never change. now, some things, people complained that we allow only half-hour a side for arguments. now, i do not think we would benefit from more time. after all, it is the written part, it's the record, it's what the judges in the courts that previously heard the case have said.

it's their writing that we start with and that stays with us when we go back to chambers. so oral argument, while it is important, it's seldom determines the outcome. of a case. so i wouldn't like to change that. now, one question, you didn't put this in your question but i'm often asked, well, what about cameras in the courtroom. some federal courts do allow cameras. i think it would be as wrong as can be for a trial court to allow a proceeding to be televised, unless the defendant wants the cameras. the concern in our court is, if the arguments are televised and people will get a wrong

impression of the appellate process which as i said, is mostly the writings. they will think that it's a contest between two lawyers and most able advocate will win. but that's not, not the way it works. so that's one concern your now, i do know that many courts, including now the supreme court of united kingdom, formally -- do televise their proceedings. perhaps it's inevitable that that will be part of the way this supreme court operates. but that will come later rather than sooner. >> i'm very sorry to say that i've reached my last question, but you won't be surprised it's a multipart question las.

[laughter] thinking over the past two decades you've been on the court, what do you think have been the courts most important decisions during that time? and secondly, what do you think has been the impact of those decisions on the country and on the court? >> citizens united is probably the most important in that the court had an opportunity to stop making elections turn on who can raise the most money. that opportunity was passed, and as i said, i hope someday that decision will be overturned. rather than talk about the past, but because you about some of

the cases that are on our docket this year. it's going to be a very important year for the court. we heard in october a case involving the affirmative action plan of the university of texas. you will remember that, you will remember a family, i think was 1948 case that went against painter, when the university of texas had no legal education for african-americans, and rather than accept one, they created is separate and highly unequal loss coal. that's the way the university of texas once was. now they are enthusiastically pursuing a diverse student body. that was the case we heard anna tober. this very month we will hear a

case involving the voting rights act originally passed in 1965, and now recently renewed for 25 years by overwhelming majority, both parties in congress. it's being challenged in our court. i shall tell you what the voting rights act does for those who don't know, end states and in the bad old days did not permit african-americans to vote, that use various devices to keep them from the polls, those states can't change the election laws without getting preclearance from the attorney general, or from a three-judge federal court in the district of columbia. now, shelby county alabama just bought a case to us that says

it's a long time since 1965, there's no reason why we should be treated any differently than, say, a county in maine. we don't have -- keep people from the polls anymore. so courts, please declare the extension of the voting rights act unconstitutional. there's a that case. another one involves taking dna samples from everyone who was arrested. many people who are arrested are not ultimately convicted, but that's another case. and then in march we will hear two cases, one involves prop eight from california. the california supreme court

having the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. people in california and ended the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. is that constitutional amendment to the state constitution, is that compatible with the equal protection clause? and then we have the defense of marriage act case the next day, passed by congress saying, for federal purposes same-sex marriage is not recognized. and that means that all the federal benefits, like being able to file a joint return, getting a marital deduction, by getting social security benefits on your spouse's account, those you do not get if your partner is of the same sex.

and also coming in, we have a full faith and credit clause that says every state has to respect the judgment of every other state. but full faith and credit clause does not oblige states, say north dakota does not have to recognize a marriage from massachusetts, from new york, from the other states. so those are two tremendously important cases. it's going to be -- people thought lash was a blockbuster turn. this year i think will be. [laughter] will exceed last term. >> can i ask a question? [laughter] spink yes, susan, you may ask. >> i have two questions. [laughter] the first is this, we have many law professors in law school who

write long review articles. what would you recommend to law professors and students who write long review articles to put in the articles that would be more helpful to supreme court justices? >> there are two kinds of articles. ..

the best thing i can have, if there's a hard issue, is a law professors's analysis of that field. so i try to find out what we have a case in a new area, is this something written about this that pulls together the various strand? often i can't find that, but when i do, it is a foal of mine. >> thank you. that was very helpful the i think, the second question is, the hard question. if you were a constitutional law professor, what would be the five most important cases that you would discuss

in the short period of time? what would you put a finger on five cases. >> i will ask the audience, particularly the students, i have a number one candidate and see if you all agree with me. not bmi. way, way back. >> marbury. you got it. until then, the supreme court was not very highly thought of. in fact the first chief justice, john jay, was, went off to england to negotiate a treaty and while he was away, he was elected governor of the state of new york. he said all things considered, this court is not going any place. i would rather be the governor of the state of new york. [laughter] then along time came the great chief justice marshall and he, he said that the courts have the power to

review ordinary legislation for compatibility with the nation's highest law, the constitution. now that was something that judges weren't doing around the world. in fact until after world war ii when new constitutions installed some form of judicial review for constitutionality. we were the only court doing that. so the great marshall, a country thats consisted of seven jealous states and helped wield them into one, one nation and he made the court the important institution that it has remained. my second, well, not necessarily second but certainly you said five,

loving against virginia. now people think that brown against board was the big case in 1954 but it wasn't until 1967 that the court said a ban on interracial marriage violates the equal protection clause. it is not all that long ago, at least by my standards and i think mildred loving died just a couple years ago. so that was a case of major, major importance. so there, people expressed views about other cases. i heard -- >> miranda? >> miranda i think is, is a great case.

it made it easy for the police. all they had to do was give the four warnings, and then they knew that if they got a confession, it would be okay. one of the things about miranda and its staying power is that my old chief, chief justice rehnquist, was a great critic of miranda but when it came to the question, should it be overruled, he wrote the decision that said, no. miranda has become part of our culture, part of the way police must behave. and this court is going to adhere to miranda. so i think, that was a decision of major importance. so you want two more. so let's hear from --

[inaudible] >> griswold? which was, griswold was the case that said a connecticut law banning the use of contraceptives is unconstitutional. so griswold started the line that ended up with roe v. wade, with eisenstat v. baird in the middle. and i would rank that a case of major importance. [inaudible] >> well --. [shouting] >> yes, that was, it wasn't that long ago, the first time that that question came to the court it was a case called doe v. commonwealth

of virginia and it was a frontal attack on a law that made consensual sodomy a crime. lord v. texas was not that kind of a grandstand play. it involved flesh and blood real people. a story that could be told. and the court in lawrence v. texas held that the texas law making consensual sodomy criminal was unconstitutional. one of the reasons i'm particularly fond of that decision which was written by justice kennedy was that he referred to a leading decision of the european court of human rights in that decision. i think that the, the

european court of human rights decision was in the early '80s. but he, he was saying, this is recognized as a human right by the european court and how, out of it could the united states be? [laughter] not to recognize that. justice kennedy has been criticizing for referring to foreign law in that, by i, i think he did just the right thing in act many noing that there are other places in the world interested in the promotion of human rights and that we should listen and learn from them. [inaudible] so i think we have five. [applause]

>> we have about six minutes left and i would like to ask more questions from the audience? >> i just wanted to say that jennifer didn't -- [inaudible] >> oh, i'm sorry. >> so jennifer, what --. >> if you want to ask it, jennifer. please go ahead. >> yes, ma'am. okay. justice ginsburg, what advice would you give a young many young woman in the law profession as attorney or law clerk in two part form as professor vanderbilt, what can we learn from your personal experience from the bar and from the bench? >> i tell you the major thing is something i try to impart last night. i have had endless satisfaction from everything i've done in the law, from being a law student to a law

clerk, to a lawyer, to a law teacher. but always, i did something other than what i was paid to do. that if you will have a skill that will enable you to make things a little better, for your community, your state, even your world, and so, with the skill that you will achieve, attending law school, i hope that all of you will spend part of your time thinking about people who need your help and offering it to them. so jennifer has had her last question. and now we can -- [laughter]

>> okay. professor, would you like to use the mic here? sure. >> if everybody would like to make justice ginsburg's wish to come true from now, i have a petition to sign to get the equal rights amendment -- sending something around. by february 9th we get enough signatures to go to the white house, to ask them. here is what is intriguing. if you like to opine on this they want to revitalize the 1972 equal rights amendment asking congress to extend that deadline to get the last three states to sign it. which i don't think that was ever going to happen. but there is -- of the equal rights amendment in an early form. >> it is too late and it should have a new start and, should draw the overwhelming support of the public.

>> okay. anymore questions? yes, back there. >> [inaudible]. not talking about a lawsuit or anything but i have a question on free speech. i was at the inauguration a few weeks ago and there was a person in a tree, i sure you heard of him. we couldn't get out. we couldn't hear anything. he was screaming -- abortion, and a lot of other things. we thought it was really, that his speech should be limited. other than screaming fire in a theelter, maybe there are other exceptions? how do you feel about that or something you can't comment on? >> i was not sitting where you were. i was up -- [laughter] and i must say looking around the world and at countries that punish speech, that is out of accord with

the thinking of the powers that be, that i'm grad we, we prize speech, we protect even the speech we hate. i think one concern of the police was, to get him down from the tree without, without being injured. so when we have protests at the court all the time. i don't get to see them because my chambers are in the back but justice kagan, she has a front row seat at, for every demonstration. and as long as they're not endangering anyone's safety i hope that we will continue to preserve their right to speak the speech that we don't, we don't like. [applause]

i will tell you, i want to tell you one, one incident. justice brennan, a truly great justice, died and he was a good catholic and there was a funeral mass for him and there were demonstrators, protesting that he was getting a catholic burial when he had voted foth hateful decision roe v. wade. and i was thinking to myself, what would justice brennan have said were he there? he would say, let them demonstrate. they are just exercising their first amendment rights.

>> that might be me. [laughing] it is 6:00 alarm. i'm telling you -- [laughter] anyway, continue on. i'm so sorry. thought i shut my phone off. >> are you calling people? >> i've been told by the powers that be that the session is over, but there's good news. there will be a reception from 6:00 to 7:00 outside this classroom, this auditorium and if you have any specific questions i'm sure justice ginsburg will be happy to answer them. but thank you all for such great questions. [applause]

>> the defense department is holding a briefing today on civilian furloughs ahead of the sequester cuts that are set to go into effect march 1st. we will have live coverage of that news conference when it gets underway at 1:00, about 15 minutes from now. until then a look at comments by u.s. army chief of staff general ray odierno. he said friday the greatest threat facing our nation is fiscal uncertainty and potential budget shortfalls.

>> good morning, everyone. i'm mike owe hand lan and on behalf of peter singer and everyone else here at bookings, for the 21st century hearing on intelligence. we're welcome to have general ray odierno to speak in what could not be a more important week for american defense policy making. you're aware of budget challenges of the process and how these can affect our men and women in uniform and future military planning and current operations. no one could be a more distinguished and thoughtful person who discuss these matters than general odierno who i have great honor to know a dozen years now. he has been a friend of brookings and the a friend of the broader defense community and he has been a distinguished servant in our nation's military and our nation's defense throughout that period. he took the fourth infantry division to iraq and presided over its operations, directed its operations in the first year of the iraq war.

then as we all know he returned as the multinational force corps commander and was along with david petraeus and ryan crocker one of the three three american architects of the surge. so from december 2006, just before the surge began, through the early period of 2008 he was the person making the decisions on where the forces should go, how they should base themselves, how they should operate within the population, how they should interact with iraqi force, all the real detail behind the surge that if you speak to general petraeus, general mcchrystal, other people will say, that is the crucial part of what made this whole thing work, not just the increase in numbers but the changed way they operated. general odierno was the primary architect of all of that. he got a few months off and went back to iraq to replace dave petroleum commanding the entire operation and did the job for two full years. hardly got any reprieve, spending a year and joint forces command, he has been

chief the staff u.s. army since september 2011 and engaged in the very intensive budget process now. we look forward to hearing what he will say. he will speak for a few minutes. i will ask him a few questions up here then we'll go to you. without further adieu, join me in kel coming the general odierno. [applause] >> well, thank you, thank you very much. michael, you're right, it has been a pretty exciting week but there's many more exciting weeks ahead of us i believe and i look forward to those. i appreciate everyone coming out today. i look forward to the discussion. many thanks to michael o'hanlon and everyone here at brookings. it is always a pleasure to come here. it allows me the opportunity to think through many very difficult issues we have and get a chance to listen and hear other people's opinions. i look forward today specifically to answering your questions. i want to leave a lot of time for questions.

so i can, discuss the issues that you think are important. and that you want to hear about. but there are a few things i want to say first. so i will take about ten minutes here to talk about that. as i said, i think your invitation to speak here today is a timely one as we testified twice this week. we had the state of the union address as well this week. as well as for me the presentation of the medal of honor for staff sergeant clint romanshe. all those things come together when you think about the president talking about how he sees the future. we have us talking about the future of our budgets and what it means to our defense and then we have the opportunity to see a great american hero, a young soldier, who does what we ask them to do every day. and so it's really been a very emotional and important week for me personally. as evidenced by the

congressional testimony this week our nation's leaders continue to grapple with decisions that will shape the trajectory of our national security for the years ahead. the near-term budget decisions ahead of us today will deeply affect the direction which we're trying to take the joint force but my case the army, as we complete combat operations in afghanistan. then reset our equipment, reorient our force, and be prepared to deal with a broader way of challenges that a defined in the defense strategy that we rolled out last year where we put a lot of thought and process into thinking about where we want to go as a defense department in the future. we need to approach these props as tough as they are, with an understanding of the fundamental roll the army plays in providing our nation's security. this morning i would like to describe the strategic and fiscal challenges that the

army faces, the joint force faces, and really the impact it will have on the future to include its readiness, its size and other things as we move forward. but before i do i would like to take a moment to reflect on the base being building block of every army and that's the american soldier. on monday the salve staff sergeant was presented fourth brick guide, 4th infantry division was presented the medal of honor by president obama. his heroism exemplifies the caliber of the men and women serving in our army today. it exemplifies the gravity of the task we ask them to perform on our behalf. it is sometimes hard to describe to the american people just how talented and dedicated these young men and women are. they possess a humility and selflessness that we all respect. they embrace espirit de corps and dedication to their profession with moral and physical courage that

epitomizes the ethos of the american soldier. since 9/11 we have grown a generation of experienced combat-tested leaders and soldiers from the young men and women who have volunteered to serve our country. 1.5 million soldiers have deployed during the past 12 years. more than half a million have deployed two, three, four, or five times. more than 4700 have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend this great nation. our soldiers today operate in a most uncertainty, unpredictable and dynamic security environment. it is really the most dynamic and unpredictable i've seen in my over 36 years of service. unlike post-conflict drawdowns of the past in this drawdown we don't have determination of conflict due to an armistice, a peace treaty or the political

decline of a superpower. instead today we still have 81,000 soldiers deployed, including 58,000 fighting in afghanistan and thousands of others in kuwait, qatar, the horn of africa, kosovo, the sinai, korea. over 91,000 soldiers are forward stationed in nearly 161 countries. the army has been in a state of continuous war for nearly 12 years. the longest in our nation's history. but today in my opinion the greatest threat to our national security is the fiscal uncertainty resulting from the lack of predictability in the budget cycle, a series of continuing resolutions, a threat of sequestration hanging over our heads. our country's inability to put its fiscal house in order compromise the future readiness of the joint force, the army, and ultimately, it will impact our ability to

provide our security to our nation. we have two specific problems as i stand here today. we have an immediate problem in fiscal year 13, which has about eight months left. we have a longer term problem due to potential full ski kest operation -- sequestration. in fiscal year 13 the combination of a continuing resolution, a short fall in overseas contingency operation fund for afghanistan, and the sequester has resulted in a 17 to $18 billion short fall to the army's operation and maintenance accounts. as well as an additional $6 billion cut to all other programs. and all these cuts will have to be taken over the last seven months of this year. so what does that mean? well that means we're going to have to take some immediate actions. as we prioritize, we will

always ensure that our soldiers in afghanistan are next to deploy and our forces in korea are properly equipped and trained. then we will see if we can continue to insure the readiness of the global response force at fort bragg. but we'll have to take some immediate steps to reduce expenditures and plan for budgetary shortfalls. we'll cure tail training for 80% of all of our ground force. we have canceled all but one of our brigade level training sessions for nondeployed forces. there will induce shortfalls across other critical specialties including aviation, intelligence, engineering, and our ability to recruit new soldiers into the army. we will reduce work at our depots which will delay the reset of our equipment coming out of iraq and afghanistan. we will furlough up to

251,000 of our hard-working civilians for up to 22 days. terminate nearly 31 temporary and term employees and 5000 workers at our deep poets. and the list goes on and on. i'm just toughing on just a few of the impacts that will cause us to make some of these difficult decisions over the next seven months because of this bermuda triangle of uncertainty that we've had in the budget specifically in the fiscal year 13. but in the longer term we have a bigger issue. i want the first to remind everybody that sequestration is not the first set of cuts that we have taken in the military. in 2010 we took about $300 million of cuts under the secretary gates initiatives. that was followed up by now the budget control act which directed another $487 billion worth of cuts in our

defense spending. and we are now just beginning to implement that almost $800 billion worth of cuts now. so we haven't quite seen those yet. we have just begun to see the impacts. now on top of that, with sequestration we'll take an additional $500 billion worth of cuts in the department of defense. so we're now up to $1.2 trillion worth of cuts since 2010. and this doesn't include the reduction in our spending of overseas contingency accounts, which also now has to be, some of it will have to be woven into our base budget. such as ied detection equipment. some of our ew detection equipment. which will cause another $100 billion of shortfall in the department of defense as we migrate these programs which we know we need for the future. so we're now up to $1.3 trillion worth of cuts which we will have to find in the

department of defense. we have already started to find. this is significant. people often say, well, after a war we have a reduction. that's normal. in the army. since 2008, if we implement the 2014 without sequestration, it will be a 45% reduction in the army budget. if we implement sequestration, it will be over 50%. that is a significant cut. these are not insignificant numbers that we're talking about. and it will have an impact on our capabilities as we move forward. so for fiscal year 14 and beyond, sequestration will result in a loss of a minimum of additional 100,000 soldiers in our active, national guard and u.s. army reserve. this is already on top of an 88,000 cut we're taking right now. my guess is, so that totals about 190,000. my guess in the end it will

be over 200,000 soldiers that we will have to take out of the active component, the u.s., the national guard and the u.s. army reserve. we'll take almost a 40% reduction in our cape --, brigade combat teams once we're finished. sequestration will result in delays to everyone of our ten major modernization programs, stretch them out longer and longer and longer. it will have an inability to reset our equipment in a timely fashion if we're asked to deploy. and it will impact our ability to train individually and in units. these reductions will impact every army base and installation across the encoy -- entire country. such a rapid decline ability to maintain the force will result in extremely low levels of readiness inside the next six months which will cascade into fiscal year 14 and 15.

now no matter how this all turns out which is still somewhat of an unknown, fiscal constraints are here to stay . . as a joint four force in the army we must base this on the context of the security environment and historical

experience what false assumptions about the future. last year the department of defense deliver a collaborative process to publish the 2012 defense strategy. the strategy calls on the department to invest in the capabilities critical to future success resist the temptation to sacrifice readiness in order to maintain force structure. rebuild readiness that would be emphasized over the past decade. with a fundamental role in the identified issues in the defense strategy the army designate its force structure and capability requirements in support of the guidance. my priorities for building the army in the future have not changed the have been developed consistent with the new defense strategy and how we see the future. of course the sequestration occurs we will have to do a complete review of our defense

strategy and develop a new strategy based on the fiscal realities. as we move forward in the army for the future, we still must have the foundational to the devotees to win the nation's war. but more importantly, we must provide capabilities to the geographical combatant commanders that assist in their efforts to shape their environment through joint interagency and multinational activities. what we call the phase zero operations. we have to harness the strengths and capabilities of the army both active reserve across a variety of capabilities to ensure the combatant commanders get what they need to shape their environment. we will deliver scalable package as for a variety of missions such as building partner capacity. humanitarian disaster relief, multilateral exercises and rotational forces for operational contingency

missions. we are implementing a process of what we call regionally allied forces will be allowing the army to each combatant commanders to meet their needs to estimate will leave the speech. you can see the rest of the c-span video library at c-span.org. live now to the pentagon for a briefing on civilian layoffs related to the pending sequester cuts happening next week. >> we have notified congress today about potential furlough. today with us we have our undersecretary, mr. robert hale and acting undersecretary jessica wright. here to address questions they do have some comments they would like to start with with respect to sequestration and the actual action that we took today with congress on furlough. then they will be available to take your questions.

i will help them in getting your questions address. >> okay. well, good afternoon. today the department faces some the enormous budgetary uncertainty really imperiled in my experience. possibility of sequestration starting on march 1st. by the end of march could mean a 46 billion-dollar reduction in our total topline 9% in all of our accounts except military personnel including wartime accounts. we will protect the wartime operating accounts, but that means larger, disproportionate cuts in the base budget operation and maintenance accounts. this is exacerbated by the continuing resolution, which if it stays in effect in its current form, has the money in the wrong places. it's the money in the wrong places with too many dollars in the investment accounts and too view in operation and maintenance and there is a pattern here, i already told you, it's been to put pressure on the base budget operations

and so too will affect the continuing resolution has not enough money. and finally we are spending at a higher than expected rate in our oko budget and we didn't anticipate years ago as cost for transporting goods in and out of afghanistan and we have seen some higher operating. again, we need to meet those costs which means still, further cuts in the base budget side of operation and maintenance. the sum of all of those effects means we are seriously short of operation and maintenance funds if sequestration goes into effect and stays in effect, and this will have some serious adverse effects on the readiness so we have taken short term actions i think you are generally familiar with to slow the spending and avoid draconian cuts leader, hi hearing freezes for civilians and affecting many of our organizations already. layoffs are temporary, sharp cutbacks and to sublease, maintenance, but cutbacks in the

base operations. but the sequestration lasts all year. they will have to be much more far reaching changes. we will have to do cutbacks and delays in virtually every investment in the program and the department, more than 2,500 of them. it will mean cutbacks in the unit, it will mean increases in our delays and increases in unit costs. we will have to cut back training, particularly for non-deployed units, and that will lead to actions such as about two-thirds of the army combat and brigade teams being at unacceptable levels by the end of the year excluding those actually deployed in afghanistan. most air force units that aren't deployed would be at the below level acceptance levels. cutbacks in the marine corps and deployments. you've already seen we decided to take a few were carrier in the gulf. unfortunately, how long would this long list of items have to do if sequestration and the cr

last all year are furloughs for the civilian personnel. we feel we don't have any choice but to impose furloughs although we would much prefer not to do it. for more than 20 percent short on onm with seven months ago, much higher in some of the service is particularly the army come civilian personnel to make up a substantial part of the dod stifel funding. we can't do reductions at this point in the year they cost us money in this year because of the one used severance pay. furloughs are really the only way we have to quickly cut civilian personnel funding. we have established in general approach to furloughs that we will follow. one is to make them one of our approach as of last resort. we will also insist on consistency across the department. essentially all of our organizations if we have to furlough, we will do so for about the same number of days. there will be some very limited exceptions to these furloughs. for example, we will accept civilians deployed, we will of

furlough civilians deployed in combat zones. we will not furlough civilians required to maintain safety of life or property. but only to the extent that they have to do that to maintain safety of life and property. by that, and if there are 20 policemen on the base, they don't automatically -- they are not all it exempted from furloughs. to the extent managers determined to have to exempt some or all of them in order to maintain a safety of life and property really. exempt employees paid with mom appropriated funds come slightly embarrassing but true by law, senate confirmed political appointees are by law and we will look some of our foreign national employees. so, how do furloughs work in general? first, there is a whole series of modifications. we started the first one today. the notification to congress along with a message by the secretary defense to our civilian employees. that starts a 45 day clock ticking and until the clock has run out, we cannot proceed with furloughs.

we will ask the components now to identify specific exceptions and we will review those for consistency. the components will begin required engagements with local unions and what also, the right organization would justify the unions with national bargaining rights. at some point in mid march, we will send notification to each employee who may be furloughed. that starts a 30 day waiting period until we can take any action, and then later on in april we will send a decision to employees and they have a one week period once we have made it is a decision on the protection board. the bottom line is furloughs wouldn't actually start for the dot employees until late april, and we certainly hope even of the sequestration is triggered on march, we hope that in the interim the congress will act to be triggered the sequestration. or if they can't accomplish that by march 1st, as the president suggested to take some short-term action while they are

dealing with the broader issue. meanwhile, unfortunately we will have to continue our planning for furloughs. frankly this is one of the lease for the most distasteful tasks i've faced in my four years of the job. but we will work it out and with that, i would like to turn it over to jessica wright to talk more about some of the furlough planning actions. >> thanks, bob. good afternoon. let me first say my focus is on people. civilians around the world provide invaluable support to national security. our nation's war fighters and our families, and every day to make countless contributions to the sacrifice -- and a sacrifice to support of national defence. the effects of sequestration and the continuing resolution on our military personnel will be devastating. but on our civilians it will be catastrophic to read these critical members of our work force that worked in the depot and maintain and repair the tanks, aircraft, our ships, a

teacher or kids, they care for our children, they provide medical treatment to all of our beneficiaries, they take care of our wounded warriors, they provide services and programs such as sexual assault prevention and suicide prevention, just to name a few. so let me be clear the first, the second and the third order of effect on sequestration will be felt in the local command and will be felt in the local communities all over the united states and clearly all over the globe. this is not a beltway phenomenon. more than 80% of our civilians work outside of the d.c. metro area. they live and work in every state of the union. if furloughs are enacted, civilians will experience a 20% decrease in their pay between late april and september. as a result, many families will

be forced to make difficult decisions on where their financial obligations lie. key benefits, such as life-insurance benefits, health care and retirement will generally continue. those programs and policies -- these important benefit for mandated by the office of personnel management and are applied consistently to all government employees. loss of tabled only be felt by each employee, but there will be felt in the business communities where they served, where their kids go to school and the neighborhoods they live. furloughs will impact the majority of our civilian work force, as the secretary hale said. and the department will apply those furloughs if necessary in a consistent and and equitable fashion with only a few exceptions as the secretary hale said, relatively few exceptions.

while civilians will experience the impact directly to their wallets, our service members, retirees and family is well clearly feel the effect of these actions. the sequestration is not averted, the associated furloughs will impact our fighters, veterans and family members in untold ways. so let me talk about a couple of those ways. with respect to the schools, our goal is to preserve the accreditation of our schools and ensure quality education for all of your kids. as we continue to work with the department of defense education activity on how they will implement the furloughs, we are committed in mitigating the impact of sequestration on the school year for our kids. regarding health care, about 40% of our medical providers are civilians.

this furlough if affected will impact them greatly. the department's intent and the goal is to mitigate the impact and provide quality care and access of care. and we are thoughtfully working through that process now. and certainly family members will feel the impact of the sequestration. while that is our intent to ease the impact of sequestration on family programs, it is clearly possible that operating hours of commissaries will be curtailed. and while that is our intent to preserve family members to the family programs to the greatest extent possible, some family programs may be affected if the land of the sequestration those long and hard. we understand here in the department of the sequestration will be significant not only to our civilian employees, but to the service men and women and

their families. it will affect the local communities, it will affect local businesses, it will affect our dedicated men and women that live in the local communities throughout the nation, and clearly overseas. we know this. and that's why our guiding principle throughout the process will be to lessen the impact wherever we can. we are clearly grateful for the war fighter and we are clearly grateful for the support of the men and women of our civilian force that works to help the war fighter protect the mission. thank you. >> any other questions? >> you mentioned that with regard to the furlough can you say which states are affected the most? >> we have not done that research to find where the states will be affected the most. but clearly, where we have our large bases, where we have our

large depo it will be affected. >> we have some state-by-state and if it is virginia, california, you may not be surprised. >> the sequestration in general. >> the furloughs, probably both, but i was talking about furloughs specifically. >> we can get you that. i don't see why not. >> for the strategic and budgetary assessments have set a 45 billion-dollar cut would basically take the defense department back to 2007, 2006 levels. when you're fighting each war in iraq and afghanistan. why can't the department of this or that kind of cut, rather than lay it on these draconian consequences? what's wrong with that picture? using to have a lot of money if you look back at 07, 06.

>> a 46 billion-dollar cut will occur five months into the year when we have expended a lot on the side we will have expanded 512th of the money so we have to take it in a seven month period. and without frankly the time to get ready. but more generally, i would say i've always troubled if we are trying to determine the adequacy of the defense budgets based on the real dollar levels in a particular year. and i think that you need to look at the threats that we face. they remain quite substantial and a complex set of security challenges is the word. therefore i don't think we are turning to some arbitrary past number for the defense makes sense. we need to -- we owe it to the public to figure out the amount that we think needs to be spent to carry out and national defense strategy and then ask for it, and we believe we've done that. >> on the weapons programs, wondering the link to determinations of the existing

contracts or is it more slowing down the dollars for the new contracts? >> i don't anticipate that we will cancel many if any contracts because we'd incur a substantial cost, so it's more the latter that we will not pick up options. we may not start or delay starting new contracts, but i wouldn't expect that we will terminate existing contracts. and i would like to say to assure them that if you have a contract with us, we are going to pay you. and i believe under the sequestration and furloughs, we will find a time to keep the employers in the vendors on time to this. [inaudible] >> helene d. you expect to be furloughed and have you said what to expect the estimated savings would be? >> we don't know the exact number yet because it depends on

those exceptions. first more like 750,000 because 50,000 our foreign nationals and decided not to attempt to furlough them, but there will be some exceptions the will make it smaller. our estimate is four to $5 billion of savings in fiscal year 14, and again it's going to depend on how many exceptions there are, and that's a process we've just started to ask our command to identify. >> the percentage that are likely to be furloughed, i realize you just started, but is it going to be more than 50%? >> i don't think so. ischemic the temporary employees that are already being terminated, can you say how far that process is a long and how many people -- >> the latest data that i saw -- this is an ongoing issue, six or 7,000 that are either laid off or are in the process of being

laid off, but i don't think that is probably the end. i think that you will see more. i honestly don't know, again for the near term actions in particular the layoffs we did allow the critical exceptions, and we don't know exactly what our commands will do. >> the emission as critical. >> i would think by the end of this month you have a pretty good idea because we would be heading into the more detailed planning at that point, and assuming this goes forward, which sure hope it doesn't, that we will be going forward. >> i have a question on the exemption can you tell us more about who is going to decide -- which employees to exempt for the furlough and do you have any answer on how much, how many people might be exempted? >> please power down to the system to have them review their

civilian employees with the exception process and criteria that we have given them. i want to bring it back to the civilian workforce. it's hugely valuable and they contribute to what we do here in the department and a worldwide. if we have to do this furlough, like the secretary said, the exemptions would be relatively small. we have asked the services to come back with a plan to give us the plan on the first of march. we will review that plan with the criteria that is outlined for exemption and going forward from there. so we don't have the correct -- we don't have a number yet that i can give you on the percentage the would be exempt to be a >> what would life on the military base look like as far as the disclosures and talking

about the shortened hours, what do you expect us to see? >> in the opening comments i truly believe that our civilians are at such a value to the war fighting effort and to life on the military base. and so, if furloughed, we would see a reduction in some of either the services or, for example, the commissary hours. so life on the military base, if that base has a commissary, that will impact of those individuals that use the commissary. and frankly, until we find out what the exemptions are and until we find out how this is going to be applied, i can't give you a daily routine with a generic day on the military base should we face such a catastrophic event as furlough

to our civilian employees. >> can now add in a broad context we are committed to carrying out the mission to defend the united states and i think one thing you are going to see is a great deal of frustration because they can't train as much as we need to and the readiness and the units if they are dealing with investments they will see description and all of the programs they are managing to this man to be adversely affected and that is important to these people for the civilians and the military. >> the funded by the national alliance programs of the furlough shouldn't apply to

them. >> i don't know the final decision to be made. as i mentioned for the dot employees they will assure consistency but that is a decision i don't know that they've made it. >> the office of management and budget that will oversee this as a whole. >> with a ballpark figure how many people are we talking about? >> i want to say 25,000. >> is their right? >> i think i'd better get back to you. is there any type of incentive that will impact the sequestration that it's had on recruiting gore will have on the recruitment efforts and also

just the ability to recruit for the future? >> it could potentially affect the military entrance processing stations because some of those individuals are civilian employees. so it could potentially affect the slowdown of that processing, the physicals that are performed, the testing that is given. the recruiters are all military. and they are xm xm -- exempt from furlough. getting somebody in can slow the process. >> by the end of this process you thought that you had two-thirds of -- it would be an unacceptable level. will that affect the future

deployment? that slowdown. ischemic the army active combat brigade teams, other than those that are currently deployed would be below the acceptable levels. it could affect the ability to deploy to the new contingency if one occurred or if this goes on long enough even to afghanistan and there is a concern. >> [inaudible] >> no, there's a variety of reasons. that's part of it, but you are estimating two years ago when we put together the budget for this year and the estimated that particularly in the army and the air force. >> how much of this -- we have seen what appears to be a kind of scare tactic from the services that really seem to be

pushing the message of cutting security issues like readiness. what is the reality of the readiness really being thrown back here still at war and with the message is that this has a long term effect and might have to keep troops on the ground longer. i mean, is this something that is kind of allowed to be happening, that will allow to be pushed down the road or -- >> we have seven months to go. we are short in the base budget of about $35 million compared to the president's budget request about 33%, it's probably close to twice of that in the army. we don't have a lot of choices. and i can hope several things happened. that's the result of sequestration, but also the current continuing resolution. that fix would help and we might

see some action on either one. both think that would help a lot. if we see it through the year in the form and the sequestration in the rest of the year i think that we would have serious readiness affects. these are legally binding limits. we will have to cut back on the training significantly. >> we have heard when some of the service chiefs are pushed we could use money around for other options. is there an option for their readiness as well? >> we could try that the only means of doing that is reprogramming. and it is a very limited technique in that you have to find, for every dollar that you had you have to cut somewhere else. especially in the environment like this where we see the sequestration i don't think that there have been a lot of good sources, and we have to get

essentially the congress to agree to this. at least all of the committee's, and therefore it can't be anything contentious. for years of experience in the new programming, and i think that it is not -- it isn't realistic that we could move multiple billions. there are limits on the transfer authority. could some of this change? yes. congress can change law in ways that make this easier. we are doing worse case planning right now. that is a fair statement. but again, if it stays in effect in the sequestration and goes into effect for the whole year i think we will see serious effects. i am worried. a stack may i add? if i can follow up if we do furlough the civilian employees, the civilian employees are the ones that maintain our equipment in a lot of our depots. they run the post.

so de on furlough wouldn't be there for that training environment. so it's the second or third order of a fact. it's just not the training dollars that can potentially be reprogrammed. but it's the people that are there to utilize and or perform the jobs that they are required to perform. >> so, the measures that you are talking about are drastic. why wait until today, february 20 of come to make these announcements? do you accept the criticisms of the pentagon should have been warning about these furloughs souter so that they give the time or the urgency to the congress to do something about it? >> well, first, we started some slowdown in spending in general were a tenth and the number of the measures i mentioned went into effect shortly after that hiring freeze was cut back on the facilities maintenance. and we took a significant effort to try to slow down our spending to avoid more draconian actions

later. i know that people feel we should have said more earlier. i will say 16 months ago the secretary send a letter to the united states congress saying defective sequestration would be devastating. the was october of 2011. after that we did a series of assessments and we testified in august and i personally testified in september. we listed every major item we are talking about. we said we would have to do furloughs. we said that the adviser would go down and unit costs would go up to it i mean, all the same things. what we didn't do is the tel budget planning. and i don't regret that because if we had done at six or eight months ago we wouldn't have known the effect of the continuing resolution. we wouldn't have known the congress is going to change both of the size and the date of the sequestration. and moreover we would have incurred the degradation of the activities going on right now and would have done it six months ago. i don't regret not doing that to be dicey we did sound the alarm in every way we could.

>> i'm wondering what kind of contact you are having with the white house and congress. are you trying to offer any solutions like don't do sequestration, we will find some savings for you here come here and here? and also, i am wondering what other things would you be doing right now if you were not spending all of your time celebrating sequestration? >> [inaudible] [laughter] let me answer the first question which i think i'm not the right person to answer. we are responsible for providing the nation's security as best we can within the resources provided us. we are very interested in monitoring close event but i would refer you to the white house here. to give you a more serious answer, when i first took this job it was the last job i took because my deputy said you have an operating problem you're

being consumed by the operating side you have to set aside some of things that will last beyond you. i tried to do that in a couple of ways to improve the financial department, the chief statements and another one is to bring about a course based certification from for the defense and national managers and others that are getting short right now because it is consumed to help the department get through this. so some longer-term issues that would be good for the department of defense, and i think the nation isn't getting the attention they would otherwise get. >> this is going to happen, it's going to hurt, let me give you other options so we can get to this goal of the deficit reduction that everyone seeks. i'm just wondering, is that the strategy for you to say look we are staring down the barrel here. let's do this instead, so let's do this. >> i think the president has made proposals. the republicans have made proposals. i think that the bargaining

probably isn't the right to be speaking to that even though i am intensely interested in the outcome. >> can you explain a little bit of the rationale? >> the government status forces agreement probably would require some negotiation, and in some cases particularly in japan they are paid by the foreign government from and so that probably wouldn't help us very much. >> [inaudible] >> i think they are all based overseas. these are japanese employees in japan on our bases. >> one of the more important benefits of the service members is the medical care. you mentioned 40% of the folks providing care -- that's going to cut into the services they provide like elective surgeries.

is that going to happen? and other times you can actually throw that on to the care, but tricare is going to be effective also, correct? >> everything is going to be affected should the sequestration going to affect. that is a guarantee. i think that everybody will be impacted by this action and it's incumbent upon us to try to ease that where we can. so yes, 40% of our medical providers are civilian employees. a couple of things because the war has changed, there are less of our uniform providers that are in the war zone and more uniform providers that are within the confines of our medical treatment facilities. so, that is one benefit. it is incumbent upon us to

review the plan of the surgeons and the services as they come in in march to decide how we are going to best provide care and access to care. and so we will do that. i would like to be able to give you more specifics. but until i see those plans, i would be speculating and that would be unfair. after march 1st, i will have a better understanding of how exactly we will provide the access and the care to our beneficiaries. >> this gets us in the sequestration. we are all talking about just through september, 2013. what happens next year? does it suddenly get better in 2014 or could we -- you mentioned risks before but said there wasn't enough time left this year. could they be facing the rest next year?

>> i can't rule it out. the budget control act requires the caps on discretionary funding beyond fiscal year below word by 50 to 55 million a year in other agencies as well. if those come to pass. at that point we would be talking about size of the military work force as well as the civilian work force and many others. the difference there is we would have some time and the ability to do it in a manner that reflects the new strategy across-the-board and the cuts that we face right now. >> we can't hope for a big budget deal that arrives at some accommodation, and i devoutly wish for some budget stability right now. and i think it would benefit the

department and the nation. but absent a deal of that sort i think we will continue to face some uncertainty into the future. >> we have time for a couple of more [inaudible] >> what kind of impact will that be on the contractor working for us and what kind of jobs? >> a lot of private sector agencies have made the job loss numbers i will let them speak for themselves. i can tell you that for the sequestration, when you take 45, $46 billion, four to 5 billion of that will come from furloughs if we end up doing them for the maximum period of time would be some additional savings from fleeing of the employees and i don't know for sure what would be. but it leaves 40 billion or so that is going to be accommodated by the cutbacks and purchases on the private sector, weapons purchases, service contracts, a lot of different kinds.

so very substantial effect on the private sector as well. but i can't give you a job loss numbers and a number of private organizations that have made estimates. >> what specific changes would you like to see the congress make to give you more flexibility to manage this challenge, and also in 14 what kutz are you having to make and what is the top line do you expect? >> the change i want the congress to make is to pass the balanced budget deficit reduction package the president can sign and the past appropriations bills. that is what i would like for christmas. i know it's late but i would like to read that is what would solve our problems. in terms of the flexibility, we are five months into the fiscal year facing a 46 billion-dollar cut even if you said you can do whatever you want, we would have to go after just about every dollar that isn't obligated in order to get those cuts that

quickly. and i know that there have been suggestions that while we can solve this problem by giving flexibility i don't think it would help this much and if it makes the sequestration more likely to either occur or persisted think it is a bad deal the flexibility. as far as the future of the moment the guidance that we have is not to count on these and not to plan for these large cuts that could occur under the budget control act of the congress doesn't make some change in the law the president can accept and they go into effect and yes we would have to as i said the other question we would have to look at a new defense strategy, smaller military and that would include a smaller civilian work force and a variety of other changes to a stack what were you planning and fy 14? >> i can't give you that number until they release the budget but it isn't far off from the numbers we were planning a year ago for fiscal 14. does that help? >> i wish i knew.

they said in march they will make this decision but i don't have a specific date. islamic let me try one more specifically on the service contractor work force. the department described them as a part of the total force. it seems like a pretty solid plan on the civilian work force and how you can handle that and how they can contribute. is there a similar detailed plan on the contract work force? >> it's managed differently in the sense that we go after the private sector in order services and the of course manage the workforce and we wouldn't be involved in that. we are developing plans with increasing levels of detail what we would buy from the private sector in the process of looking at all of them are investment programs to thousand 500 of them takes a lot of work to figure out what we want to to

accommodate sequestration cuts in the service contract area. i won't tell you all of that is done but we are moving along well and i think we will be ready for sequestration if we have to buy march 1st. then under vlore beau with a detailed plan by april 1st and the would give more fidelity on the changes that in terms of managing the work force, that is something that would be done by the private companies. >> did you rolled out the base budget and other parts separately? >> i think that's possible. for the budget we are getting those now after the state of the union message, but we still have to put that a budget together so they may not come out together. since i don't know the exact timing i cannot be sure but they

may come out separately. >> given that your legs ending the military personnel what percentage could be cut? it's not just a 20% of the last half a year so it wasn't -- >> i see what you mean. well, i would say that wouldn't be right because the investment account tends to obligate slowly. i don't know that i have that number in my head. i'm going to get the quarter is obligated now. as we have three quarters left and take 46 billion but don't

hold me to that closely, please but it's probably in that ballpark because they tend to obligate more towards the end of the year. 63 again >> wrapping up this briefing and house armed services committee buck mckeon had this to say about the defense furlough. this is a sad but not unexpected news. the house armed services committee predicted over a year ago the sequester would result

the communism of china is coming to name these days and it preserves the power of the members of the communist party but they basically through most ideology aside whether he opened the country up and is now become a capitalist haven, the communism now in china they talked at great length that the congress is about marxist lennon etc. but it's all about preserving the party's power economically as the country continues to grow because they threw aside most vestiges of communism a long time ago. and north korea, it's all about preserving the power of the military and the kim dynasty and it has nothing to do with what karl marx vision of communism way back. it's a fascinating book somehow on how communism when it moved into asia it diverged into something different in vietnam, cambodia, north korea, and the communism that appeared in

europe and eastern european countries that is an absolutely fascinating split that occurred now the public affairs channel and the magazine hosted a discussion on u.s.-canadian relations. speakers include the canadian ambassador to the u.s. and former canadian deputy press minister john manley. this conversation explores energy, the environment and trade issues focusing mostly on the keystone exfil pipeline debate. >> hello and welcome to washington, the capitol of the

most powerful country on the planet. the capitol can of's closest neighbor and ally and the capitol of khanna's biggest trading partner. devolving canada u.s. relationship is why we are here. we are light of this evening at the newseum, one of washington's attractions that displays and explains 500 years of news history along with the latest technology in the interactive exhibits. the newseum is lowercase in on what's called america's main street, pennsylvania avenue, between the white house and the u.s. capitol building. the same stretch of privileged real-estate where you will find the canadian embassy, a testament to the closeness of the relationship between the two countries. welcome to those of you watching on cpac in canada or c-span and the united states. welcome to the audience here the nm bird feeder. i am peter van dusen from cpac

and it's great to have to this evening. we've come to washington for the second time in many years as we did a little deeper into the relationship between the united states and canada and what has changed in two years. a lot has changed in two months and maybe the last two weeks what is the energy environment and trade. i think we can expect a lively conversation this evening. this is the latest in the continuing collaboration between cpac and canada's weekly news magazine. with us this evening we brought together guests canadian and american, all smart people, willing to speak their minds and plugging into the issues we are dealing with this evening. let me tell you who they are. daniel droitsch of the canada program for the institute, sorry, the natural resources defense council. she has worked in both canada and the united states for

various environmental organizations including the institute. she's a former reporter and lawyer, switched careers to stand up for environmental protection. gary doer as canada's's ambassador to the united states, former premier and he's been recognized by business week magazine as one of the world's top 20 international leaders on climate change. his job in washington of course is to represent canada's interest. he's certainly had his plate full. maryscott greenwood is a senior managing director in the washington office of the law firm. she's also the senior adviser to the canadian american business council and served as a u.s. diplomat in the canadian capital during the clinton administration. john manly is the chief exhibit of the council's chief executives. you can't get much more execs than that. he's a former prime minister of finance, foreign affairs and trade and industry. he led the response to the 9/11

attacks and chaired the independent task force on the future of north america david is with the national security program at the center for strategic international studies here in washington and a former senior official of the u.s. energy department and was involved in negotiations for the u.s.-canada free trade agreement and the north american free trade agreement. and rita savage is the bureau chief. in a moment our conversation begins we will hear from all of our guests on the stage and also from our studio audience a little bit later. first let's take the next five minutes and bring some context to the conversation. >> of almost every level, the u.s.-canada relationship though occasionally up by the storm is the envy of the world. integrated industries and economies, the world's largest trade mostly predictable ally and always dependable friend.

but some major changes on the horizon could present new challenges for the relationship. let's begin with energy. right now nearly all of canada's oil and gas exports are to the united states. that represents about 10% of u.s. energy needs. but that's about to change. neutrally technologies have unlocked new supplies of crude oil and natural gas from previously unreachable reservoirs across the u.s.. >> after years of talking about, we are finally poised to control our own energy future to disconnect some experts predict the united states will be energy independent by the year 2035. how will that affect canada's 40 billion-dollar oil bench and what will energy independence and for u.s. foreign policy? and what does it mean for pipelines? the canadian government is anxiously awaiting a decision from the white house on the

proposed keystone xl pipeline. it would carry out the oil sands nearly 2,000 miles to refineries on the u.s. gulf coast. the secretary of state john kerry who has long campaigned to cut the greenhouse emissions will ultimately recommend the approval or rejection of the pipeline to the president. but he isn't tipping his hand about where he stands on a project to deliver more of what opponents call canada's dirty oil to the u.s. refineries. >> we have a legitimate process that is under way and i intend to honor that. >> and those pipeline opponents just gathered in washington by the thousands telling the president to reject keystone xl. >> did you let this pipeline goes through, mr. president, the first thing that runs over is the credibility of the president of the united states of america. that's the first thing.

[cheering] and what about the president himself? did his recent comments on climate change suggest he is losing enthusiasm for the pipeline project? >> for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change triet [applause] the u.s. ambassador to canada has implied in recent comments that stronger action by canada on the greenhouse gas emissions might soften the opposition to the keystone xl project putative >> the fact is the more that all of us do to strike that right balance between energy and the environment, energy and climate change, the better off we can be. >> we are doing our part, and i think the u.s. -- my counterparts in the united states are fully aware of just how committed canada is to play its part to address climate change. stomach's the president looking for cover from canada to approve the pipeline? canada and the united states

have a history of harmonizing environmental policies. but will canada follow suit if this president leads a new campaign against climate change that could hurt the canadian economy? >> of the congress won't act soon to protect future generations, i will. [applause] i will direct my cabinet to come up with an executive actions we can take now and in the future to reduce pollution, prepare the communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy. >> and what about trade? to years ago the president and prime minister concluded that the beyond the border initiative shared a new vision to speed up treated the border while enhancing security. but the new edition according to many has been mostly sidelined because the white house has had its sights set on america's budget woes instead. the prime minister last fall lamented the fact that canada is often in the u.s. blind spot.

>> might only complaint about the united states, and every canadian will say this, that's just the way it is. we like to have more attention in the united states. we certainly paid a lot of attention to you and you certainly sometimes don't pay enough attention to us. >> canada and the united states shared $2 billion in 2011. the united states is still the largest market for canadian exporters. most predict by 2020 the united states will account for two-thirds of canadian exports down from 85% just a decade ago. there are atenolol is in big letters to the canada's future prosperity will be driven by trade with countries other than the united states. and the u.s. is certainly looking beyond canada. >> i am announcing we will launch a comprehensive trans-atlantic investment partnership in the european union because trade that is fair

and free across the land supports millions of good paying jobs. >> khanna that is already close to the deal with the european union, but what they really want is a deal with the united states and the president's launch of the trade talks puts a deal fast and hope the u.s. doesn't negotiate a better one. so on energy, on the environment, on trade are the decades of the mostly harmonious relationship between the u.s. and canada giving way to something closer to rivalry? >> so a number of different questions raised to get the conversation started we regret to hear from the guests in just a moment but we will kick the discussion off with paul. >> you both know that these little field trips down to washington to planning. we have to planned for the

defense has been planned to make us look inspired. there was the keystone xl pipeline on the hill, the morning papers are full of the debate about whether or not the keystone xl should go to. it comes down to the president is a decision to make american hopes may not be aware this decision about keystone has been the last year and a half. when mr. obama became the president after mr. harper became the prime minister the politics are not that similar but they're from a generation that both are outsiders that came to form the capitol. unfortunately, over the first two years of the obama presidency it became clear they don't agree on anything so that was a problem and the event of that relationship was president

obama's decision to delay the keystone xl, the final decision on the pipeline until last fall's election. we tend to forget about that and after several weeks he implemented a major push it in the canadian trade policy away from the united states and towards china. he essentially dropped keystone xl and picked up another pipeline, the number eight way that seeks the pacific coast so that we can ship it on to china. and there has been a frosty tone for the relations ever since then. there is some possibility that president obama can fix that relationship by deciding to proceed with the pipeline but there's also a possibility that it's too late and that our government has moved on to read and from what i read in the paper this morning the decision that the president has to make is a little tricky and it isn't clear how that is going to go.

>> when you look at the future of the question to the future of canada i see it as two separate claims and the each go in opposite directions. the best analogy i can think of is sort of a race he won and we are headed towards a sort of opening marriage. ..

>> what's happening is as the two countries have been working together in recent years, they come up with the bottom-line limits. the united states says to canada for security we have

to go to direct a. canada said no. united states said for our security we need a passport requirement and canada said that will ruin trade and tourism. we draw the line also with border issues to say that is why draw the line. internally they have a domestic debate the role carbon and energy in their future with traditional sources of energy. that is being worked out society, politics and president. i don't think it is just the relationship but in the broader context of what

limits we cannot talk each other out of. >> gary doer, how do see the future? >> i don't believe in an open relationship. [laughter] i cannot keep up with the comments of my colleague but in terms of our relationship on trade, you have to take care of biggest and most important customer first. you should not go to one dealership in not go to another for a better price. softwood lumber we get different unilateral decisions from the united states but by increasing trade to asia 20 percent then 20 percent then 20% the

year after that we are stronger as the housing market rises, we have decent trade agreements and orders at -- diversified but with trade i see it multidimensional but you start with the largest customer base as a company would. we have worked together over generations, a cleaner air air, cleaner water, and now at 165 countries with the kyoto protocol, copenhagen both prime minister and president 2009 same on to the same 70% reduction by 2020 which i think was a positive development. we worked on my vehicle

emission standards in california, we work together on black carbon in the arctic and came to an agreement with secretary of state clinton and canada moves ahead with cold but the president of listening to the "state of the union" will get an agreement on the hill or will proceed with executive action which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. the president also promised since the election and in speeches, he would make united states energy independent from venezuela and the middle east in 2008. he can achieve the climate change reduction with those

in place similar to canada, and energy independeindepende nce looking in venezuela, mexico, and canada which at georgetown we see keystone as the national interest because it displaces oil from venezuela >> i appreciate having the opportunity to talk about canada and the united states. it is a long relationship. there is a conversation with in the united states, we are focused right now with the conversation around climate. 2012 was the hottest year on record. we have extreme weather, a

50% of corn crop was lost, a 60% of pasture land lost. some of the most extreme hurricanes we have never seen and one was hurricane sandy with 130 lives and $80 billion. that is of extreme weather. this promise something internally in the united states and the president to look at the importance of looking at climate climate, confronting climate change. as a result that is dealing with canada. they share the largest importer in the world, a $600 billion of trade trade, 300,000 crossing the border every day and

linked, connected to my friends, neighbors, allies. that will change but sometimes they need to have tough conversations. this conversation is the energy to future around the keystone pipeline and the alberta tar sands it is a hundred thousand barrels per day the equivalent of 6 million new cars of the road which is significant. so for that reason it signals the direction for the united states. it is the export pipeline so does his support u.s. energy security? but right now before the president where this country will had with climate change and is this either/or

situation or there's an opportunity to take leadership and tackle climate change. there's a real opportunity how you can meet the 17% target and canada is not a climate leader but there are opportunities for both countries to tackle climate change and send a signal north america will look at the issues. it if the keystone pipeline is that issue to signal which direction. >> john manley? >> i will start in a different place. where i would start is with the depth and complexity of

the relationship that exists between canada and the u.s.. the nobel prize committee awarded the peace prize awarding 70 years of peace, we have 200 years of peace with a long and porous border. we built a relationship, i dunno if i buy into the analogy open marriage, more like twins were separated at birth. [laughter] we did not start a fight. [laughter] but the economy, energy economy, energy, resources, a social interaction interaction, promotional values of democracy and respect for rule of law and

human rights around the world, we're in the endeavor together. we share a point* on almost every issue. the difference is nuanced rather than profound. there is a couple of rules, one of the two most important responsibilities is to manage the relationship with united states the other is national unity. look at managing the relationship to rules. number one, don't get too close to the united states. number two, don't get too far from the united states and. [laughter] prime ministers have difficulty managing the balance. i worked with the prime minister when he made a

decision not to go to iraq. you cannot convince us but rather get united nations to agree and we will support it. a lot of people said all my gosh he preaches the terms of the friendship. today people are not so sure he was wrong. other prime ministers are criticized for being too close to the united states. the prime minister successfully campaigned saying it was not his ambition to go fishing with the president's that is what his predecessor did. he preferred to go golfing. [laughter] but maybe there is a vague discussion about a pipeline

i will argue i think it tactically is an air to be focused on the pipeline, if refused gives the notion reid have done what we need to do. it reduces demand for climate change causing substances which it is easier to plug a pipeline and to talk about measures with the price that is paid for energy resources. we can work around a pipeline issue recognizing

it puts us together more than a car in the rise of energy we need to look at the north american base to succeed in the asian market as exporters and customers. >> looking at the conundrum john manley talked-about gordon give then talked about the goldilocks syndrome not too hot or too cold but i think they have gotten it about right i disagree that has gone off the rails but beyond the border initiative coming has a report card, several things have been checked, mutual recognition of our -- air cargo done.

signed canada u.s. agreement sharing agreement. pilot project radio opera ability, done. joint statements of privacy principles, done. that is on my little pad. that is not as much as regulatory cooperation in meaningful work is done on the front. they made progress not because they're politically connected the face a traumatic event of our economy with the realization we're interlinked and we need to climb out of the economic call if we can. the one word about the keystone project it poses an urgent challenge, one of the

most important things we can deal with but unfortunately focusing on the keys to a pipeline does not help decrease demand and you could argue the oil will be developed anyway. if the u.s. will import between three and 7 million barrels per day there will be in need for fossil fuels including those coming from canada. we want to switch unfortunately focusing on keystone is a misplaced focus. >> it is a pleasure to be here. to pick up on the energy dimension, to look at what

is going on throughout america. we're going through a transformation finding we can access oil and gas that is unthinkable and has changed to the point* the atf who work for energy policy and that it might happen is a dream. an analyst says sure. now it may have been in the u.s. more likely central north america. what's going to happen in the north american context? we have a real opportunity to have an advantage globally with relatively cheap natural gas, a cheaper

than competitors globally, and to export oil to allow us to reduce what is being made to foreign countries. will subordinate to me, how do you do that a fish and they? the negotiations for the u.s. canada pre-trade agreement and the nafta agreement for those working on the energy sections how to make the border does appear so they can optimize themselves? that is important going forward in the market of fossil fuel abundance we have refineries in the gulf coast that are very good refining the oil so the value created is very high that is the whole commercial logic behind keystone

pipeline. with a more integrated system it might be exported as crude from the gulf coast, we are exporting products but they come from venezuela. so how do we improve the efficiency to stimulate the economy? it takes a long time to change infrastructure to have a low carbon energy future if we can make that deregulations may be putting prices on carbon is a good idea. with the keystone pipeline it is of battle in the u.s..

they didn't think about canada i'm sorry it came in the defeat of any comprehensive legislation. this gave the opportunity to rally around a specific project from the president and secretary of state. the statement doesn't really matter is a good one it will be developed so look at greenhouse gas emissions that build up whether developed now or in 10 years still concentrates gases so on the environmental side it was held up too much but on energy security the idea we are creating millions of jobs is an overage. transcanada only knows how much and the rest is an

effort at creating numbers to please everyone. it is important to keep in mind both sides try to keep the project to settle both of the views when in reality it is just another pipeline. >> to bring structure to the conversation in terms of dealing with of topics before us back to the marriage analogy, maybe we will pick up on trade but the big issue before us is the pipeline the canadian prime minister said approving the pipeline is a no-brainer -- no-brainer.

how is that? >> the senator from louisiana senator landers said it is a no-brainer displacing oil from venezuela that is a fundamental issue from the united states two years ago the state department said canadian oil was 2 percent higher of ght than venezuela crude with his reports have at or below so two years later it is even better as a product for displacement. an item that is missed in the debate includes 150,000 barrels per day from the balkan oilfield in north dakota and montana.

i drive to north dakota and i have been down highway 22 whistle without seeing trucks it is loaded today the unintended consequences of blocking the pipeline would be continued sales from venezuela and i believe the number of trucks and trains volume has gone 12% two years ago to 60%. emissions are going up with trucks and trains i don't suspect anybody who owns shares in real ways thought of that going up as the unintended consequence for i agree with the prime minister. he appointed me. [laughter] and the senator from louisiana there a great -- louisiana agrees. less dependency and matter

-- middle eastern oil, trucks and pipeline seems to be safer in the united states and the state department for what they issued. >> danielle droitsch you want to jump in? >> why is keystone a priority? some of it is misunderstanding why is that focused on the pipeline? but first i want to talk about climate emissions in general it is not one pipeline or one source, we have 400 staff across the nation many people working on different facets fuel efficiency, local communities, many people in canada have no idea about

the other work we have an entire campaign cleaning up coal-fired power plants the biggest focus is to get obama to adopt new regulations for coal-fired power plant. it does not get hurt about but it is a big priority that climate issues are bigger than the tar sands going after all emission starting with the mission we are the largest curving bitter battle so we bring in more oil from canada than any of their foreign country and that is growing in the type is more carbon intensive so we have to look at that source as well. so this pipeline 800,000 barrels per day is a major source of carbon emissions.

the conventional wisdom it would be developed anyway is we reject we believe right now canada does not have that opportunity to get the oil out any industry analyst for bank analyst say in the canadian press keystone is significant and important to enable the oil industry to expand production the concern is with expansion with rapid growth. 1995 say we will grow to one point* 5 million per day now is 9 million barrels per day that is the concern in reasons not to expand that base. >> canada is the largest

foreign source of oil which foreign sorry -- source would you prefer? >> we are talking about all together. should be getting it from saudi arabia verses' canada, we need to drive down oil consumption altogether. >> how was that going? >> well. we could drive it down by 10 percent. there is a fuel efficiency regulation. >> we negotiate that fuel the efficiency standard together. instead of one regulation in california, manitoba, new york, the most radical reduction of gigi for both countries in the last 30 years for the prime minister gets very little press from your membership to take that

action that is too bad. >> what would it take for china to refine the soil? i am not sure the pipeline would be built if so is china in a position to refine it? >> there has been significant investment in their refineries it would not take long for the upgrading equipment. right now it is not clear how much they could take but they would picture they could take it as available. with the pipeline, what we see that is shocking for analyst is oil being moved to market by methods never

imagined right now we take it by rail to the delaware river, transferring to a vote then to the refinery there is a space to do that you will see similar things happen in alberta, the advent of railing to the west or the east coast, a proposal also to alaska i would agree stopping at keystone stops the develop process but look at totality of what is developed curve is emitted over time and i don't see it is the amount developed over time there are many other ways to be

moved to market but dealing with climate change with fuel efficiency is important work not getting the same attention like the keystone issue it is hard to rally with a coal-fired power plants that is what you see a focus. the viable work is to efficiency standards and these are within the united states. >> let's talk about recent comments with the u.s. ambassador implying more action with unchanged and canada might make it easier

if it comes to that. how did you interpret those comments? >> another opportunity what we're doing together. for the president, and canada you can improve energy security and vehicle emissions standards, call standards, eventually you see that in the united states because nobody is replacing a coal plant, they replace it with natural gas. but it does reduce emissions by 50 percent. i did not see it as a quid pro quo as our affairs met

and to talk about old climate change and energy security. vehicle emission standards, actions taken ahead of the united states i think it is multidimensional we had other resources but the bottom line is it was good for our jurisdiction but energy efficiency is crucial energy-efficient homes, of buildings, cars, trucks, iss ues of aerospace and had remakes steps in that direction i feel confident canada in united states will change the copenhagen target at the same time achieve energy independence in north america by 2020 that is

great. >> what is the effect on the canada u.s. relationship if the project is turned down? >> i don't think canadians would be impressed if it was turned down for the reasons discussed. if there reduce greenhouse gas emissions maybe you could make the argument but the fact matters in terms of job estimates we knew 4,000 people today are working on the project that is how many workers are employed i will say more than 4,000 will work on the upper portion also alberta has reduced

corvine intensity not as quickly or as much but industry is being driven to make improvements the way they use water and get the oil out of the sand is not all about mining it is not enough progress am not apologizing for intensity but look out of -- look at crude coming out of california. canadians would not be happy just as if with renewable portfolio standards that don't recognize calling canadian hydro. keystone is the first option in a free-market society to get crude but that is not

the only option. there are at least two pipelines to the west, one in west and east so the market will determine how this goes. if we make a mistake in my judgment, not doing this judgment in a global market the oil will get to other places. where it will be refined in the environmental situation has no where near the rigor of those of don't have anything close to the standards we have to keep the facts in front of us. >> listening to the president's state of the union he talks proudly about unilateral change everybody heard that as keystone

keystone what do you think he meant? >> a lot of folks are watching how congress cannot come to agreement but it has been a real frustration. as a result we're not expecting congress, what can obama do? i don't think people should have heard keystone coming-of-age talk about a lot of issues and opportunities for post -- proposed and with pressure from groups to push that to

apply to existing power plants. that is where an executive order can have been. also of the opportunity extends to keystone. so we have existing carbon pollution from the united states have to tackle that. by keystone is a future expansion and emissions it is not either/or but tackle both of those. i have to reemphasize the opportunity is for both countries to work on climate targets together. not a finger-pointing exercise but the line in the sand can they meet it? i think canada has further

to go. >> the canadian government has been talking saying we will come out with regulations. and the u.s. ambassador mentioned them it looks like they would meet the targets would group say that's great now would make any difference at all or not really? >> we are interested in climate policy because the issue is cold but it is the tar sands emissions, so we're very interested what those will look like and look closely because with all the respect, with those coal regulations they're not very strong.

so we would like to see stringent regulations that would be very useful to look at the u.s. not just the canadian focus. >> is the inflection of canadian policy with the prime minister says they know how serious we are about climate change. the americans have noticed last fall the canadian government brought in cold power plants that are less stringent than ask for up in the house of commons they said in the event the americans have a carbon tax, we won't their idea is to take whatever policy obamacare and get through congress. is smart because it turns

out he could not get much through. but the last several months the eight canadian administration said they will no longer take american policy on change of two serious and signaled we are willing to grab the competitive a vantage from having a good ternate -- sturdier energy sector it is a fascinating development. >> there are characterization's easily disputed but to go back what the oil sands is about when they started to develop them in the late '60s you could not do it in a way that was economic this is from the very beginning very expensive capital expenditure project around research and innovation to get to the point* to extract

the substance to refine and sell at a competitive price. at the same time the emissions caused are going down sharply. so now you're most recent projects, you have a product that is on par with that being produced with conventional sources. so to pretend it is a static element where it is really dirty compared to this stuff coming out of california california, did you have to put it in the broad context. there is no country i hate to disappoint you, no country on earth having to

resource would fail to develop it. we need the revenue, we need the jobs, we will develop it and it will go somewhere. either we can look at this rationally, how to recreate and an environment where we're energy independent and where we drive production not because it is possible for one preferred source not to produce but finding ways through technology as through clear price signals by the way alberta already has a carbon tax which is the current market rate twice what it is in europe. rather how'd we do this together? the real challenge is not

competing among ourselves but looking around the world, how to rebuild a competitive base? >> i totally agree that as a resource no government can walk away from. so with the price differentials forcing alberta into a situation that is almost unthinkable and that means the government house to return to a major resource are -- resource to make up the difference. of pressure will keep growing to push the efficiency standards and not just north america. reword card at this to turn over the stock but look

globally wear the u.s. and canada cannot get the demand in asia if we become energy independent because we are consuming less. know what that means for applications i just know that must be really important because my bosses have told me that we need to be but it is the global drive. it is a global problem we need to focus on the greatest impact. >> what is the timeline in the context of commentary from the united states that would help the keystone situation moving forward on regulation with the oil sands? is it likely to happen before we get said keystone

decision before june? >> you hear a lot of different reports when the u.s. will make the decision it will be between 90 and 100 days after the draft is issued by the state department. it was not issued today so far and i dunno about tomorrows you can make calculations i have heard first come second, third quarter there is some precision about when that will have been. they work very, very hard on getting cold regulations but it will close almost every coal plant down in canada. but most coal plants will be gone and i think they're

working very hard. having said that 2011 the state department reports ghg relative to america ghg with 17 percent issued by hillary clinton, whom i respect than the latest numbers per between nine and 11% on average, lower than california thermal but john manley already made that point* and comparable to venezuela crude so it is heading in the right direction with the industry listening to water it was tense leash -- 10 / one know is have a barrel / one because west in the oil

sands to give you a comparison ethanol is 3 barrels / one and that is an important distinction between the oil sands which is half a barrel of water to one with the technology they're using. >> peter, putting it is in discussion we've user in maryland's. there is so much muscle memory going beyond this one project coming in the days of the lumber wars we would be assessed and not do well because of the one dispute but the relationship is good and their opportunities to

look at where canada and united states looked at the nation. if it was the wedding and honeymoon we could have a second and immune to upgrade naphtha is old but dpp might be the way to do that and get national governments in the procurement deals i think there is more to the relationship including the way we deal with the trading relationship with the rest of the world and not talk about what we do around the world together in trouble spots and the values we share whether haiti, libya or wherever. >> in that context we in

canada certainly, then need to be a close relationship with the prime minister and the president with this pipeline decision lies with the president so there will be someone the canadians can look to that he said no. in your time in government house significant of a dent that could put in the relationship of president obama says no to keystone. >> it depends on how it is managed between the two leaders. this is the case with the prime minister believes this is an important issue for canada. while it was understandable

with the run-up to the presidential election and campaign the last time that you say no and local issues it could be expected more in the nature of a delay rather than refusal it will be meaningful it would be very important how it is explained, the justification and what the reality is that is perceived to come out of it. if the reasons are as you describe them it is quite unacceptable by the canadian government and will be a problem. >> didn't context again

again, there are some noses out of joint with the recent comments with the suggestion of canada would do more this might help us because canadian politicians look at the oil sands producing the wally missions and coal-fired plants produce more than 40 million tons so know who is the real climate problem? but that is the point* languages important so it does become a real problem. given the breadth of things we need to do together the issues to tackle together was a common view from

foreign affairs to the economic future. it would be unhelpful if this just pushed us off the road. >> can i get a sense of the boom might have questions? four or five people. i will ask again. >> the decision around keystone is not unilateral hoodoo a point* our fingers at of the president makes a decision we don't like. canada has played a role in the whole debate is a conversation between the two in canada says we have to do a better job to profile our

environmental progress there is questions of environmental management in alberta is that strong climate policy issue is perceived canada having the weakest climate policies of many industrialized nations so they have role to play to step up and it could play a role in the decision but to simply turn around to say of president abominates the decision we will be unhappy is too narrow of the view. >> when the prime minister and of president get together or with secretary of state john kerry as previously with secretary of state clinton, 90 percent of the discussion is how to keep the world safer car

ran, development of nuclear capacity syria, what will have been with potentially chemical weapons if there and we talk about libya before the mission and after the mission. afghanistan, how can we move afghanistan to a place where soldiers are there, that to training to government issues of north korea. 10% of the agenda is getting of britain agreed to. how do we improve beyond the border or regulatory reform?

but what the leaders do, life-and-death situations in the neighborhood in the world. the media doesn't ask that the most immediate story the keystone bridge regulatory reform that is not what it takes up most of their time with the bilaterals uphill.

[laughter] there was a moment in the

presidential race during the republican primaries, one candidate talking about keystone said it said president obama to drive canada into the arms of china. people here are skeptical saying they will sell it to china but will they get it built? what are the politics and how likely is it? >> number gave way. >> that is from the west coast. >> china option. there are so many. it is the open marriage. are you sick of that yet? this is substantial opposition to number gave

way but there british columbia it needs to be looked at but the rhetoric around the post keystone period january 2011 through 2012 was overheated. they pushed a little hard to demonize environmental groups and hasn't been a fundamental calling in to a question but they end up with egg on t3 question but they end up with egg on their face. watching from afar with the president's state of the union he said if we can get congressional action we will take executive action. but it so happens when of the executive actions he can take to adjust the pipeline to buy some time

environmentally. >> we heard that right here with the power plants. >> i was sitting in the room and my reid was we interpret that to be keystone but really it was on the broader climate change agenda, a very different bills in the house, five in the senate, one from john kerry, they do know the actual challenge of the united states to reach the climate change targets. they also know they have shale gas an abundance. and they know my interpretation is able use executive power or what he has and argue congress does

not have the power semite interpretation was different. . .

you certainly don't want to have to go from the east coast to the panama canal all the way to china you are losing even more money. so we need to keep that in perspective. keystone who doesn't mean a whole bunch of oil to china it just means getting it out to water. >> why don't we did it here and leave some of that in the conversation. let's talk about trade and there may or may not be on the energy and climate change as well. maybe we can start with what is the space of the relationship on trade between canada and the u.s. in terms of both countries looking for different partners trying to expand.

what are the long-term challenges and ramifications on seeking new partners. let's start with the future prosperity and in terms of how that changes the relationship with the u.s.. >> we had a meeting with a number of people on the transpacific partnership. i won't say tpp because of a devotee knows what that means, transpacific partnership includes the three nafta countries and other countries in the americas and asia. the japanese prime minister is in washington this week. i think that discussion has gone very well. we expect it will go very well in singapore, and i think on most issues i would say 90% of the items on the table are fairly well aligned in the united states and our interest and mexico in terms of our views here in north america. so what we want here is

reciprocity and hopefully sub national governments could be a part of that, so we don't have by america all the time, which is one of the things left out of nafta. not predicting that what happened but there is a table now to discuss it. on the a european union discussions i am pleased canada is in negotiations that is a subtle difference in words and the negotiations mean we are soon to be at the agreement and europe. it will not be easy going from the negotiations share in the united states that are going to be complicated, but i see that as positive and it strengthens our neighborhoods having relationships that provide the rule of law and reciprocity and other markets and i see that helping the united states and

canada and mexico in those relationships. >> i think the future of trade between the two countries and the world depends on a couple of things. one is the list ike ticked off on the beginning of the progress we were making and sharing information to create more of a parameter so that we can have a parallel. that matters and the more we can cooperate on security issues, the more we can free up resources to allow commerce that's important that the other thing we haven't talked about and it doesn't get talked about a lot in the trading world, we talk about things that go by boat and pipeline and trust. we don't talk about the data to and ideas and commerce. so the cross border data flow is a gigantic issue in the future. it implicates savers security and amount of money. i think those are the areas that are under in terms of canada and the u.s. and how we approach the

world together but that is where the future is. >> the point is we are here to talk about the significance of a border at time when borders are becoming less and less significant, and not just that can't and u.s. border but the border is generally in part because of the freedom by which data flows and that is the currency of commerce, information, knowledge and experience that is a matter of where you are on the planet that you are engaged in that global commerce. so, for the two countries it isn't so much a matter of how do we diversified our trade away from the u.s.. i don't think any business people get up in the morning thinking that way. it's more of a question on how we take advantage of the fact that there is explosive economic

growth occurring particularly in asia and how does some of that benefit us here in terms of talent and in terms of potential markets. something that we do better collaborative lee and together as independent and separate entities. >> it's also having a gigantic conversation and the united states right now about immigration and comprehensive immigration reform, and i hope that we can finally get to a reasonable consensus there's a lot of bipartisan support on how we should handle but we lead into the space and how we get people to we send people back after we've educated them because of the visa policy being outdated? do we allow our workers to go across the border? after her retain sandy the governor of new jersey, the president of the united states stood together and said we need to cut the red tape and do

everything the government can do in the recovery in the there were canadian gas lines ready to come and assist in new jersey. there was bureaucratic red tape that the ambassador was able to -- on issues like that how do we respond and let the workers cross and also the larger issue of migration and immigration that rollin pact our ability to do business and just live as a civil society going forward? >> de want to weigh in on that? >> i guess one of the things i would ask you is what do you see in terms of what changes now that the united states says it wants to deal with the european union? how much effect and consequence does that have on the canadian process? >> welcome a let me stick to my area which is the energy part of this. we have this surplus of natural

gas appearing throughout the african continent and one of the things we are going to have to look for is a way that will get used to a productive end and that is and be for the industrial process used to open up markets for the industrial process these that i think will be very important. chemicals, you see the steelmaker's return because they have access to lower prices that even the paper and the pulp industry starting to see that maybe we will build in north america because the cheaper energy. so, there are opportunities for these markets that are being fed by the lower energy costs that are important for the whole north american system. in addition, national gas basis, we are limited in terms of the countries that we can export. this is a very funny position that we are in now that we are talking about national guess it to gas exports. we've always had some going into canada and mexico.

but it has to be -- it is automatically approved on a country that we have a free trade agreement, which it is thought that a dozen european model also do that. but right now there is a lot of debate as to whether or not we keep the gas year at home to keep the price down so that we stimulate industry would be allow it to the exchange earnings? complete these earnings and you are going to widely open up the market for which the government really can't say no and it is going to have to allow that to flow. so i think these are important pieces to building the architecture for economic growth in the u.s. and canada. >> i would ask you what do you watch for as the two countries look at a broad trade initiative? >> after we were talking here it made me really think about the fact that these speeches from obama are actually being herger out of the world. and i think that this is something nrdc is wanting to

happen but it's more significant than we are seeing and that is the transition to the low carbon economy and there is going to be some major opportunities. they're already are. they're going in the direction of flow carvin. we are certainly pushing the u.s. to go in that direction. canada -- there is a lot of opportunities for canada to look at diversifying its economy, to a low carbon economy. and in europe right now they're looking at the fuel quality directive and that is actually looking at the entire issue as a sort of negative. and so, there is an opportunity i think to actually view the developments in the past couple of weeks in the u.s. it isn't just a hell is this going to affect canada and u.s. relations but this is a change we're looking at to actually start driving down the carbon emissions, and what does that mean for our relationship, and i hope that it means, you know, not just the negatives but

really the opportunities that come with it because i think the economic growth and the job opportunities are much bigger and much greater than what we are finding in the sector. >> a few days ago rupert murdoch who owns fox news and "the wall street journal" tweeted against keystone and said we don't need it because we have all this other natural gas from fracking. i wanted to ask david, what is the implication of the domestic boom? is it going to crowd out of the need for energy from canada and the medium-term? what does it mean that the u.s. is talking about being energy independent? what does that mean from canada? >> natural gas, which is largely fuel for the electric power sector and industrial sectors and obviously homes we are running into a place we are looking at a surplus.

to say whether or not it would crowd of the canadian gas out of the market would really say that somehow we can reestablish the border that the treated trade agreement took away. you will see u.s. gas finding its way into eastern canada and canadian gas finding its way into then midwest. we are arranging the street patterns but we will be trading gas. all the producers are going to have more gas than they can produce. so, i think we will have that surplus to deal with overtime. or else we are going to have unsustainably low gas prices. if you look at the oil side, natural gas has a long way to go to be able to penetrate the transportation sector and that is where the oil is flowing. until we can get that transformation in the transportation sector, either through very efficient vehicles, which will likely still be on the oil fire or electrification our natural gas, you can still see the need for the oil that will be flowing out canada to come to the u.s. for quite some

time because i think that despite many economic forecasts it is going to take a long time for the u.s. to develop its resources to the point where it is energy independent and i think it is much more important in these terms to think of it as american energy independence concept even though it is hard for me to use those words, but self-sufficiency i think is probably the right way to think about it. >> of the trade east and west it's become clear the europeans and americans are very serious about the talks. there's been some people in canada that said canada should be party to the european and u.s. stocks. i want to edit the ambassador to you think that sort of continent to continent transatlantic partnership is feasible and desirable or are we so close to concluding that? >> we are so close we have been at it for over two years.

we are very close. there is no such thing. close is a tough word in the negotiations. you either have an agreement or you don't. but i think it is good deal slower process in the united states than a will be in canada. and if i look at the latest trade agreements in the united states agreed to in the americas, for example canada had a trade agreement first week of official and rights issues in the minority parliament that became something that the colombians used with the american congress and the american senate. so, my view is we should try to conclude our negotiations with europe and it's not going to be overnight in the united states there's a lot of issues. it's 27 countries. >> used to cover politics, 27 countries. >> the double the number.

>> of a deal with it easier themselves and the provinces. >> well, that's not entirely true because there are some different rules. you go to part of germany with a different standard on agricultural protection with a culture of the farmers and that becomes the geographic issue so it's not that simple either. >> if we have questions from the audience, now would be the time to come down to the microphones because we will get to those in the next few minutes. >> i think ideally it becomes a template for the u.s. and europe agreement. many of the issues are almost the same and a lot of it can be managed. it makes a lot of sense that we would be looking out of europe to the north american agreement. but the mechanics just are not there. the very fact especially in the

majority government to read you get the equivalent of the fast track to the have a possible discussion with the europeans, so that always makes the negotiating partner with the u.s. a little bit anxious. the agreement will be hard fought and negotiated and picked apart at the last minute. so any question that we go first and perhaps that would form the basis for something that is more comprehensive with north america. >> now that the president put it in the state of the union. >> i think it is a fantastic question. we talked about it during korea, too. in an ideal world would be to to get canada and the united states and mexico could use the model and approach the rest of the

world that was unable to do that for political, domestic political reality reasons but it's a great idea. >> what are those domestic political reality reasons, not trying to push that way. everybody in canada in favor of that approach to go in with the americans on a broad trade? >> i wouldn't recommend to canada that we spot the agreement. the prime minister wouldn't recommend canada. we wait for the united states and we may never get as close as we are now. >> many years now building institutions that are capable of being the interface with of their negotiating partners we don't have that in north america. we haven't even thought about how we would want to do that or how those pieces fit together. so, it is a great idea. we are just not there yet and will take us a similar number of

years to try to build that. >> we have a lot of positions -- >> i think that we approached the rest of the world it's fair statement. >> go ahead to the microphone. if we run short on question time let's go here. >> i am a student at queens university teammate my understanding would be that even if we are moving towards using less carbon its kind to be in advance and we still need to use oil to the point as we bring our way down and with the importing and exporting to china from venezuela and the middle east

there is a significant amount that is used in that transportation so as a layperson, it would seem the keystone pipeline makes the most sense. so my question is is the opposition towards the keystone pipeline the pipeline itself the method of the oil production or something else that i may have missed? >> there's a couple different issues around the pipeline but starting with of the climate issue, i would say that is the concern and a lot of concern is there is not an argument of we are not going to be using oil to marone this is about the future direction of the energy policy. it is if we are to begin major decisions about the pipeline that is going to last for 50 years that is going to bring 800,000 barrels a day, should we be going in that direction? that is a decision about the future. and so that is one of the reasons why we are talking about

this pipeline because it opens up a new stick of oil to the united states. that said, the concern here, we are taking the wheel from canada and we don't think that is just going to start flowing. it is really about the expansion. it's about the fact that the industry wants to grow by a significant margin. i used to live in alberta. i know there's a debate about the expansion, about the growth and whether the industry needs to grow that fast so it is a debate that we are having in the states that is happening in canada. there are also issues are not the safety but we don't have a lot of time to get into that. that certainly -- >> we have time to get into it to this gimmick but there is also concerned about the transportation that is basically the tar sands mixed with other compounds and there is some indication that basically the incident, there is a higher

incidence of this bill from those types of pipelines in the united states and i think that there's a debate and disagreement over that which is fine and it's a good opportunity that right now we would say that the indications of that are the pipelines that are piping have a higher incidence of spell that even if that issue is resolved, which doesn't come this bill is far more devastating than a conventional oil spills we also have major concerns about the fact we don't have any regulation to deal with the fact they're very different and unconventional. >> not everybody has read the state department.

>> oneness pipeline safety, number two, the compared to the trucks and trains and basically said it's by far the most secure and safest way what less emissions than on the pipelines and trucks and trains and it also said there is no truth to the myth about all going from canada to houston and then the point david made it's right in the document in the draft submitted by hillary clinton and the third issue is dealing with the tide of oil, the department of transportation and the u.s. is studying that and studied it and the scientists in canada have also studied it so there is science based on those factors. >> the other thing i would say that's important to bear in mind is the particular pipeline

that's being proposed by trans canada has to be the safest pipeline ever proposed. i don't know if there is a valve every inch but there's extra measures they took on board largely because of the concerns, legitimate concerns raised in nebraska and other places said the company and the state department has gone out of their way to ensure a modern high-tech pipeline with lots of extra features would be the safest possible to get the oil to its destination. >> i don't want to prolong the argument about the pipeline a self, but the point on the demand for the oil perhaps they wouldn't have 800,000 barrels a day flowing through the keystone pipeline and let's say successful not being exported to

morals this could be 800,000 coming from someplace else. so i think it's important to realize that amount would get consumed in the u.s. market would be the same and it has its own risks associated. we have talked a little bit about the political risks the tankers are notoriously risky and we have much more oil spills out of the tankers and pipelines so we have to look at this on balance but it really what mean just taking back oil that would be produced in canada and providing it to someone else who would produce it over time. >> i think that sizes it up and the worrisome thing is the notion that this particular pipeline is a pond in the war but which is about the use of fossil fuels altogether. we might agree it's better to

reduce the use of fossil fuels and everybody agrees we need to work towards getting to the point that that isn't the result of stopping one particular source from one particular country. that is the broad issue that requires a lot more effort in the whole lot including how you signal full price is and what you what the demand to be to reduce the analogy again, let me know when someone changes themselves over demanding higher prices for gasoline. let them know they're serious about managing demand. >> that on the pipeline safety issues think it's important to remember the whole reason the keystone pipeline got too late -- to delete in the first place is it because barack obama was elected but the state of nebraska that had a republican governor -- >> and republican congress. >> they had a lot of safety questions particularly about

their route that was disputed but they took their time and they have an alternative route and so there is still some debate in alaska whether that is good or not but now they've signed off on it. i don't want to take these questions slightly. >> this microphone here. >> time with cpac and also with shaw communications, you can match and we have a particular interest in this development. i do find the environmental arguments of the united states confusing. at first it was about the pipeline, and now that the consortium has made all of the accommodations to even now get the approval of the state of nebraska, by making the adjustments, the environmental concerns i think it's ironic that the american environmentalists talk about possible disasters and oil spills when the greatest disasters have been if ilves and the gulf of mexico. so, we are not run in the alberto that we need to be

preached to about how we deal with safety issues with respect to that. there are debates about the tar sands in canada, but i do think there's a bit of resentment at having other countries tell us how we should develop our resources. so, and it comes down to that i guess i have a very simple question which is to the americans think they can dictate their resources? and the second question i would have is if this were developed in montana would be the same issue? >> what don't we start dictating what the rest of the world should be. >> i will start with -- americans may think they can sort of pushing their will and to many parts of the world. that is part of the psyche of the american public about on the specific question about montana we wouldn't have this because there is no permit involved so this wouldn't get to the president. there would be resistance i am sure to building the pipeline. but the question of whether or

not it would go to the president to be decided it wouldn't a rise and i don't think we would be able to have this kind of national debate. >> a lot of what they see and read about is what interests in canada so there is a lot of environmental d date and things going on in the united states that are not being reported on, so i think it is a mistake to sort of assume that keystone is the environmental issue in the united states. it's a big one. the reason for that though is it is a u.s. decision about whether to bring a pipeline through the united states. it's not the united states imposing any well. if canada wants to develop its resource, then why are the majority of british columbia is so opposed to the pipeline going out of the west coast? this isn't just american concerns about the development

of a very high carbon - packed resort. canadians all across america i talk to people on a regular basis that are very concerned about the expansion plan. >> one thing that gets lost is the to give three-person a leap. but in the early days of the protest and organizing against keystone why are you so focused on this one pipeline and not on something else why is this bringing you altogether and they would say because it is up to the president. you cannot blame this on the converse or say i tried but the republicans misted up and there is a feeling that he had a 100% control over the business review process and the state department but they're making the recommendation and calling the shot seven or show biz and the president because there were few

decisions where he does have the ultimate say and it doesn't have to go through the power structure of washington and i think that point gets lost little bit. it's not like they said canada, we are going to pick on them. here's a big project, he has control, we brought leverage, let's push him on this. we think we can win. coming out of this conversation for people like us who are here in washington all the time it's a personal this was taken in canada. >> talking about public opinion, every public opinion has to three colin 433, one proceeding with the keystone pipeline and most americans have a common sense view they would rather get it from canada than from venezuela or the middle east to read every governor now that it's been recommended every governor where the plight goes through, democrats and republicans support.

the majority of the house of representatives including 40 democrats even though the president has the ultimate authority. 13 senators either signed from the democratic party either signed a letter or voted for the pipeline so in terms of the united states, the public would prefer to get the oil from canada as opposed to venezuela and as opposed to the middle east. it's not that complicated in terms of what is in the national interest of the united states but it is complicated in the debate going on in washington. >> did you want to bring in on that question? >> i think that is exactly right turning to the point of what is happening with respect to transportation in canada, misinformation has no nationality and there is a lot of it being spun but at the same time incumbent, i would reiterate the problem is going

to move to the it may move to to prince rupert and get into the tankers and the question has to be asked if that is preferable to that post going into the u.s.. >> a question of reimputed thanks for your patience of a live here on capitol hill. my mother is canadian and half of my family as canadian. the thing now that i think is this whole tar sands, we never think about a renewable example of soybeans, the wind, the son -- sun. we just keep doing what oil, oil. we need of our energy to be renewable, which isn't going to

crack up under the earth and make it really bad and then have oil sands that are going to distraite part in use tons and tons of water. can we have all of the renewable energy in there? >> i think that we all -- canada's electricity is about 70% renewable and even getting renewable energy from one country to another just to be blunt about it isn't that easy to be there was a proposal to have montana go on a transmission line. to come back for the united states it is being blocked. when we get wind and solar and

hydro i will give a transmission similar to what is going on with pipelines. it's being produced sometimes to where it is being consumed. >> is it because we are reduced to getting all oil everywhere all the time? is it because it is a new idea and nobody likes change? most people say we are used to that so we don't want to change. i think if we get people used to using wind energy and the water into the soybeans and the bamboo that can do so many things and make the earth more friendly and no danger we're leaving nuclear all the countries that are far behind us are still dealing with nuclear energy.

>> we will get to more questions after that and i will probably take us to the end of the evening. >> i appreciate your sentiment and activism and a understand how important the renewable analogy i like to jews is it's expensive and it's the luxury and it shouldn't be that way and the world today it's a little bit like healthy eating. you try to eat healthy it's expensive and to put that in your lunch box than it is to grab a fast-food than in the low-income communities the obesity epidemic has a lot to do with how affordable is. so i think you raise an important question and it's incredibly complicated. they are really, really thinking about the energy and how to drive the technology to the breakthroughs where it's affordable and something that can be implemented.

estimate there are transitions that we want to make from the economy to a more renewable energy efficiency economy and clean energy economy and to see that it takes making major decisions. some of that is going to be the billion dollars president obama made in the recovery act. what can these two countries, what can canada and the u.s. and the climate leaders and due to drive that innovation, drive that transition. amine is not necessarily the full resources that are available.

business as usual is not the future. if we are going to tackle the climate change issue that won't be necessarily the future that we have all been sold kind and that means the tough decisions, and those are not often economic and they are often job-creating. >> i am a student at the university and i've noticed a lot of people back home are standing in solidarity with people of the united states who are against the pipeline. so my question to you is do you think that that opinion is coming from the canadian media that it's coming from the canadian activists who have legitimate concerns on safety or other issues or do you think that that is a result of the information coming from the united states and from the environmental movement and the protests out here? if you think it does come from the united states is that a problem that canadians are

getting their opinions on the foreign policy issues from other countries media sources? >> i would say these are complex societies. i'm often invited onto the radio in tibet and the question is what the english candidates think about such and such to the have you been to western canada? they disagree on stuffed. the danger coming down with our cameras and asking how are they getting along is extraordinary complex societies. the relationship is personified in a single combat symbolism. it's vastly more complex than that and the game, the winning game is to play american domestic interest of each other

and hope for the advantage and vice versa. as for getting your news from the american sources all i can say. question here. >> thank you very much for your time. i am a canadian but go to school here in washington. i was wondering if you could spend a few moments giving your opinion on what the stakes are fort obama in this decision to be a i wonder if this is a high-stakes issue and can you risk alienating the key environmental support or is it a concern for him where she's not really at risk of losing the key constituencies here? >> it's a good question. and i will tell you the easy questions never come to the president's desk. that's part of the job.

he's got an of difficult decisions to make. and i think the stakes are high. i think the stakes are high because the environmental community until recently and is pretty unified on this issue. canada is very forceful on the issue and as i said earlier, the facts matter and as they've now gotten into the act and a number of governors have as well, he has got to balance all sorts of different political constituencies along with the reality that, you know, every dollar that you invest, 90 cents gets reinvested back to the economy, he's worried about the economic recovery, so he's not just looking at this and a vacuum and it is personally his decision to make. he managed to thread the needle pretty well politically he said he was going to fast forward this of our profession and that was a political move and the stakes are pretty high. >> there's also that labor.

a lot of labor really, really worked hard for the president's reelection to read a lot of them in very, very tough swing states, the so-called swing states. a lot of them are also working on proposals to take veterans that are coming back from afghanistan and having helmets to hard hats because there's going to be a lot more people coming back from these conflicts in the united states. you look at all the security people in the united states they are also saying this is good for u.s. security to not be so dependent on the turmoil. there's employment for workers being employed in the supply chain and returning veterans that need jobs but he's also

looking at a number of things he's going to do on the environment. this isn't the only decision he's going to make on the environment and he has the ability as we say to do both. energy independence from the middle east and fulfill his copenhagen commitment. so he has the ability to do both >> he has to balance it with something else. if he approves the pipeline, he has to do something significant on his existing authority. he has to give something or it's going to be held. islamic if you listen to the speech carefully he said we are going to increase and speed up the permitting of the oil and gas development domestically which is a message he isn't against the economy per say that he has to deliver something. >> we are down to the closing statements. we apologize there's a gentleman waiting at the microphone and we didn't get to you. a couple of minutes to sum up

you're point. >> the decision on any large issue will be made on the technical grounds and we have seen the symbols on tonight. daniel droitsch is saying it's the equivalent of 6 million new cars on american highways and an army of cars invading america and the ambassador was very good and the diligent saying this is a chance to reach the 6 million cars and take the venezuelan oil out and put a good deutsch will in so that as the symbolic background against which president obama has a decision to make. coming from ottawa as i do i often say canada's bridge should be the chicken is coming home to roost. steven harper spent his career as to minister beating environmentalists. he ran against an environmentalist in 2008 opposing a carbon tax treaty that the carbon tax in 2011 so

he could run against that and beat another liberal and he's fixing to do it a third time against another group of fundamentalists. he spent his entire career defeating caricaturing environmentalists. and now he needs a fever from one and that is 1600 pennsylvania avenue. >> they are making it easier for the president. he has to deliver something on the planet. david jacobsen and the u.s. ambassador said they would like to see more concrete steps being taken so they can at least say we have concerns, here's how they are being addressed. it looks like they are taking it seriously, they do take it seriously but the unilateral action may ultimately mean taking harsh regulations on the emissions from coal-fired power

plant. the cost a lot politically and it's very controversial to do that because some of the regions depend on coal-fired. but that is an alternative steps that he could take. >> while we sort of start on keystone, we ended on keystone so maybe that's right. it sounds to me now thank you all for being here and to the panelists for being here. it's great to have you all here. wonderful conversation. thanks to all of you watching at home and our friends at c-span for carrying this program to our friends in the united states this evening psp three all and maybe we will see you back in washington a couple years again to get a good night. [applause]

from the very start we told the board that the approach we were going to take which was pretty straightforward. and remember, we were sent there

to sort of fix gm. that was the mission is to go make this thing a viable company again. so, we were all focused and that brought the message we are going to design, build and sell the world's best vehicles and move quickly. we need your support and we need your input so we changed a few things about the board meeting. we shorten the them considerably. we stayed away from the details or didn't get in the weeds on how you build a car that the bigger questions of financing, positioning, marketing, that sort of thing. the board was very supportive of that and we kept them informed and we just took off.

now a former senior immigration official with the mexican government discusses the latest migration trends between the united states and mexico. gustavo mohar is joined by the migration policy director lindsay. this hour-and-a-half long event is hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. >> we've got all of this technology here. >> you should see the wires that are behind this podium. well good morning and welcome to everyone. so glad that you were able to make it here today. i know the conditions outside are not exactly the most favorable. but we have a terrific topic this morning and a terrific guest who is going to give a presentation that i know you are

going to enjoy. i am steve johnson, the director of america's program here coming and before we get started, i just want to take a moment to thank csis for the years of residence i had here, two years of which i deutsch to rub shoulders with giants including the progress joliet's and coordinator, michael graybill standing in the quarter and the back. he's the person that makes this whole thing run. i would like to also introduce the gentleman that is going to take my place and who happens to be a close friend and colleague going back many years. many of you know him. his name is carl. are you here? >> is a former senior professional staff member of the senate foreign relations committee that worked for senator richard lugar. he has extensive experience in the u.s. foreign policy arena and hemispheric relations and is

highly regarded within the region. and i know he's going to bring tons of new ideas to the program. so if you would, please join me in welcoming carl mecham to the program. [applause] >> now on to this morning's topic. from the 1980's and forward, immigration and particularly illegal immigration has become the third real in american politics. the increasing number of migrants mostly from mexico have come to the united states in search of employment. in terms of academic pressures and lack of opportunity have helped push them out of mexico as much as economic growth and the availability of jobs and also they've pulled them into the u.s. economy to a stronger lolls on immigrants and the lack of a flexible temporary workers

have led to many of them staying such that the population of mexican born persons now in the united states equals about 10% of the mexican population. roughly half are undocumented. now is a new round of debate on the reforms in the congress of the inflow has come to a halt and in fact as many as 600,000 have gone home in the last two years even though the u.s. economy is recovering from the 2009 recession. now in the background our neighbor to the south is undergoing a transformation in an effort to capture economically, politically and socially. it is no secret that after nafta, mexico agreed to nearly a dozen more free trade agreements with about 40 different countries. its economy has stabilized. instead of having periodic crises like in the past, it has

minder dips and peaks and is growing at an average of 3%. before they picked up over the last decade like the start up system and within the past six months they've taken off with an overhaul of the labour code and changes curbing the power of the teachers' union. to help us make sense of the changes in mexico and the changing migration pattern we have invited gustavo mohar, who led the migration discussions in the united states for the fox administration and served the president felipe kelliher known as the sub secretary for population migration and religious affairs in mexico's. to put gustavo's context and what reforms are possible on this side of the border, we've also asked lindsay lowell, director of georgetown university policy studies institute for the study of international migration to comment. now, mr. lowell is not joined us

just yet and we understand he's stuck in traffic on his way in from virginia, and we hope that the traffic jam eases up soon so he can join us and he will get here when he gets here. after our guests have spoken we will have time for your questions and answers. for now, please join me in welcoming gustavo mohar. [applause] >> good morning. let me thank you for your kind invitation to be here today. when i was invited to talk about a new landscape on the mexican migration because of my story in

starting as a percentage of the minister in the u.s. mexican embassy in washington i came here just before the last reform of 1996. so i had a chance to begin to realize how complicated this is how to washington. and i had people follow-up in the dialogue and the participants in the mexican officials will say u.s. ngo and church and with the media about how much do we really understand each other, and then in mexico a top of course with my colleagues that the government and academia and the media and the ngos with the migrants themselves, yet i feel i'm wondering how was it possible that the being neighbors for so long, we know so little about each other.

how much misperception by aids our relations, and that's why i try to say these things, and my presentations on my comments like a brief overview and it's not sex, videotapes and why is, but changing paradigms'. so i think that's the phrase i would like to elaborate a little bit more as long as i talked to you. about what is at stake on the immigration reform in the u.s. and how did we get here? thank you very much once again for the invitation. i will elaborate quickly on this because i would like to have more time to change questions and try to get answers. as you see, i think that to understand this would be just a snapshot of the long-term history in mexico and the u.s.

on migration particularly. of course i should have left out, certainly i left out a lot of things, but this is basically what i thought to give you a perspective of time of what are we talking about here. first of all, the vicinity. geographically speaking and historically speaking, all over the world determines a lot of how countries relate to each other. therefore, the u.s. has only one neighbor in the south. we will continue to be neighbors for a long time. so that in itself creates a synergy of interconnections that have been moving very rapidly in the last decades as globalization develops in the world. therefore if we go back to the 19th century and remember the

phrase is i just quoted there's something i read that reflects what happens to some where mexicans living in mexico. then there's the issue of migration and the connection between mexico and people began to integrate. then the u.s. begins to pick up bits to the bense and mexican workers began to come to help build the united states. with the chinese that's why for the simple there's a huge mexican community in chicago because the workers are following the rules and the construction and therefore they settled and today we have a long-term standing mexican-american community in chicago and california and texas and california particularly the famous agricultural workers picking up the crops that have

created the literature and movies and personal histories. and of course these networks and chains of social connections that are not unique to us, it's all over the world and you have a settlement of mexicans that are still connected with friends and relatives and the short term began to develop and root themselves and we have now a huge interconnection of the daily communications and interchanges and now from kansas or even alaska with mexican towns in the southeast said the change of information of how were they doing. and of course of the paradigm or one of the big things that created the turning point during

the world war ii i was fascinated to see when both governments get together to discuss how they can provide temporary workers for picking that the crops because with a lack of the work force in the u.s. it took just a few weeks to design, not years, just a few weeks and was established and had a lot of repercussions in the u.s. and in the mexican community. but nevertheless it is very relevant on the background of what happened in the 40's, 50's, 60's and of course one concept that is now in the debate is the migration. some of you have been visiting for no the border and have been in the valleys or that area and you talked to the people there,

they do is to cross and come back without any problem and there is a very connected bilateral border community in which mexicans and americans share their daily life and now we have to have a visa fast-track which they came to work and then call back and that stopped several years ago and had good things and bad things. but things because the temporary and they fully understand what it means but many people think there is anything more permanent than a temporary worker and part of it is true. but at the same time, the experience and the empirical evidence shows people when they

leave the country and go to work to have a better chance to leave or to have an income or better salary they don't list ties with their community and they would like to go back. ..

>> they go back. they establish long term you relationships with the employer and worker. they say it is a cycle because they complement the canadian labor force and know they can go but they need to come back. and they do. men now the temporary visa for the agricultural or service workers have grown exponentially. the last six or seven years or more employers began to use more hb-1 visas to have

the paper to work and come back is beginning to work and employers in the u.s. relies it is better to have someone with a paper and send him back because of the difficulties going through mexico or staying here without a local permit to work. the second half of the 20th-century, as you see i could point* so of the elements we need to understand the context of the last four years. the u.s. economic demand for labor increased and the mexican demographic so to control family planning that was successful in terms to lower gradually but it

nevertheless we have the massive number of men and women who could not join the labor market they were not offered unemployment. said you have the huge demand of workers many people find a job into breaking the law but that the demand to get there but then the border became an issue of concern washington, mexico, now both of us it is a critical place to manage better. perception drives reality sometimes that escalates

those letters so bad or so harsh there are several positive things. some of you don't know mexico is the second research and trading partner in the west. with china we are competing but with mexico it is more than latin america together. $5 billion trade between mexico and u.s. and it is to the borders we have thousands of containers transferring daily at the border. i have a dear friend and colleague of mine, we have ways how to manage with the illegal border, a safe order , the updated border

and the huge challenge with the massive growth of people. also to participate in 1996, how can we work together to have an orderly flow of people? legal, safe, orderly? those three words have become a mantra and difficult to conceptualize. and then 2001 comes with the international relations, it is the power coming with elections in 2000 becomes

president there was the demographic flow so folks decided with immigration and starting discussions with the state department to see how can you frame a better flow of people? but we point* the phrase bush irresponsibility because since then we'll understand something comes between the two parts we have the shared responsibility and a way to accommodate interest and letting came and everything changed. therefore the border was an issue of security in the change from immigration to security after 11 years the

u.s. is back again for immigration reform so whole enchilada was an expression used by my boss which was a joke did mexico we did not get the whole enchilada. [laughter] but that whole enchilada concept was the integrated view but those people that were already here so how we do a better border to have a more stronger and economic and social development to find a job in mexico. it is terribly complicated. it was a view of things a structural relations between mexico and the u.s..

9/11 came to change everything then it was a national security issue, so national security issue, so and washington and mexico city the president corporation and building trust, institutional trust mexico understands the views to disagree on something we agree it is such of complicated situation but fighting drugs and trafficking, smugglers, a long way to go but we are much better when fingerpointing would have

been with those differences are channels and many times to move on the agenda. but one clarification i am here is a private citizen not public official. when i talk about we it is because it is not we is them. i am hoping you take that into account. what is obvious is the geography with mexico and the destiny of loss. including rocks from columbia, arms not just central america but all over the world salute that is a huge issue.

so with needs of social development the flows of people crossing territories as out papers to get to the u.s.. at the same time the source of millions of americans went out of 10 are there and now we received that now is that the core of our own perception of what are mexicans. this graph i did not have time to update but the trend downward continues shows the impact not only 2007, but before that. the west can dramatically slow down that.

when i started in 19951 point* seven n million arrests are apprehensions apprehensions, now we even talk the hundred thousand. it is a germanic change. one of those is the recession. mexicans and in mexico know they have a chance to work in the u.s.. they know exactly what they face on the border which is difficult now. the trafficker is a bad guy now could be a criminal and charging them much more than before but as an inexpensive

neighbor to travel illegally. believes there is a better and economic and social environment for those you think i am not doing so bad. of course, there is extreme inequality but nevertheless people think it is here tuesday. when dramatic element travel to mask -- mexico is a risky experience with gangs, organized crime, extorting, kidnapping said dramatic experiences several years ago where central americans were killed by a criminal, so now all of these things combined some are probably temporary

some are structural one element was demographics. that is a critical thing to understand. mexico has reached the peak and it is beginning to go down. said mexico soon will be a country for the people so that demographic bond of 9 million people between 16 and 24 year old is diminishing. so the plushes not that strong as it used to be. so that explains why apprehensions and returns have or and the trend seems

to be with the central american case, i'd like to raise a point* because it is an issue that needs to be thought about. also essential americans going to mexico for the same reasons they will understand there is no job, a crime, risk coming, etc., etc. so they decide to stay in central america. in 2011 and 2012 the numbers begin to pick up again. said great and challenging new experience and paradigm

is suffering a better condition so now they start to experience central americans crossing the border without papers trying to get in the u.s. but many staying in mexico. so when i watched the secretary left i cited directory the drama of a young boy is traveling alone. it is a very complicated human issue also. just to show you the

complexity, half of the officials and academia no it is very complicated because there is controls so moving through the sea or into the gulf of mexico in the border region with the southern border is probably one of the most challenging efforts mexico had. it is a border extremely porous with a lot of violence and human rights violations but with the initial sources and strategy and developing central america.

>> this is not new you have seen pictures but it is not this only because many people die because it is a very difficult thing to do. but in those conditions those unexpected stops because people died, injured, amputated and of course, they themselves are subjects of victims themselves that would kill them so this is one example of the huge challenges of thing is going through your country.

i have been fortunate to have the view in all regions of the world and this is one of the most complicated issues. how you control that? particularly in mexico you have so many other needs for the basic needs of mexico. that is why i quoted a central american challenge. says lee what to do immediately. traffickers of course, the use have increased dramatically with other nationalities because they know it helps them do get through. trafficking is a huge time

so this is a special law against traffickers to be more effected trafficking and women and children to and from mexico and other countries. so easy is a pattern of using the smugglers to cross into the u.s. but they hide initially around the border region now they try to take them through the journey so it has in effect when you don't have a way to challenge those. this is an example of what mexico and u.s. space working together in terms of what do we do as they try to get into the u.s. and this

ad shows briefly for example, the way chinese travel fascinating and away and dramatic at the same time the experience we have to get control of these people it was long and difficult journey is to pay incredible amounts of money but for

colombia, panama, costa rica , they know they will not make it. the indians are also a huge influence traveling through mexico going up south america and central america. so lew to simplify the complexity is not the way to go. social political economic and human. what we have learned is that only the u.s. and mexico this speaking dealing with international migration

migration, driven by perceptions and political calculations. triggering what to do with immigrants a recession in mexico and in the far east for the way people perceive and it has to do with domestic concentration one of the things we have learned that immigration reform in the u.s. is a domestic effort and the domestic way congress deals with this issue and the local impact of kansas and texas and california is on the mexicans. it is very relevant so that

is why they have developed in a positive way with the needs to be respectful, building up trust and of course, not on the international relations comment trust is difficult to win and difficult to lose. things have to be managed constantly with the shared responsibility. i am convinced there is no issue that affects more mexicans than this one. because sharing before coming working with the issues in mexico talking to the people in the streets, asking if they have any experience it is amazing how many of them say yes yes

i was there i have a friend i was there. it is amazing it impacts talk to hundreds of thousands of american workers the family values and a loyal and decent hard-working people, they need experiences of context the mexican culture gradually with the mexican culture and we also developed a sense of what america means to mexico. it is not over many decades decades, but we begin to

really understand each other human rights and security which is one of the priorities of our agenda. being fortunate to work in 2011 then the specific initiative is driven through some basic principles. one is human rights respect in mexico, from the constitution that was changed article one in the constitution to make human rights the principal guidance. so now it is embedded of the core elements of policies.

of course, we have enforcement's explains with the authority needs to do now has hundreds of thousands of central america's last year we stopped in mexico. from all over the world. has a difficult impact in terms of money, corruption, human rights, but we need between the u.s. and mexico, and better coordination, better sharing of information and enjoy the diagnosis because sometimes we don't know about each other's views.

so to continue the dialogue that is why thank you for the opportunity so now i can listen to your views and how that impacts immigration reform. finally with the perspective in the near future they will work together with the long-term comprehensive view because that is becoming a feeling region in this is the vicinity of mexico but it affects the u.s. also. first as an already mentioned demographics is in

mexico is a critical structural issue the latino demographics which i don't want to elaborate in the u.s. then the mexican economy, which is good news for everybody for is "the financial times" that it was very good. looking at the european crisis say mexico is doing very well. it could forecast the group's -- grows better than argentina or india so we're

doing quite well. and then to create job employment you can see with a good path in the next year's so what happens with migration with the bilateral labor market we need to think of competition in the world for the labor force is beyond that. it is social and economic forces had three complement the labor force.

it has been $500 billion for years. the board had -- border has changed radically. with the border of today but today it is a very challenging way to close the border, extremely dangerous. initially difficult. people know that they're rational but some of that tried to do it but they understand irrationality. with my grand social networks with how much is

taking place we have to adopt these momentum of a bitter good environment beyond migration but today with investment and social development are the key elements of course, migration still would be there but to move forward in u.s.-mexico relations not only focusing that but what is well founded between the two countries. finally, when i think is coming next thing debates we had in washington it is the

major political and social challenge. i and stand the complications and have talked to friends here and in mexico but nevertheless with the implications have interest so for any country or government to take the another country to see how it will benefit with the temporary flow of people to do it together or unilaterally but can they make a mix -- mexicans with established roots and to

have an orderly and safe that is the challenge we face in the next few years. so they need it needs to be more decisive the. social and economic policies to integrate mexican nationals it is a structural paradigm in the relations. we have zero negroes and massive numbers of people who will turn -- return to mexico. would get the numbers the last five years if it is amazing the people who have returned and we don't know exactly where they're going

so it needs to use think it is a positive cycle new abilities in a place of origin and finally central america to think of immigration to sustain a view of economic development and also to sink the economic development continues to be the case in central america is not developing itself it could for the first time in history. it is also a huge challenge in its own right. so i have this photograph with an image you can keep this is of my grand -- migrants to the back this is

how they get them to hope for a miracle. [laughter] and as i say here, i hope we can work together to end this image for the next year's. thank you very much. [applause] >> gustvo mohar thank-you very much that was the complete picture with comments its history. i am pleased to welcome to our podium dr. lal and i'm glad traffic was kind to use you could join us. it would be disingenuous or cruel to ask you to discuss his comments from the beginning but one of the things that he is an expert

on is the complexity and history of immigration reform. i would ask lynn see if you would talk about what the prospects are of the current system, discuss circularity from this end and the current dialogue that we have in the national political scene about citizenship. >>. >> my apologies to all of you. can you hear me? with the usual round of traffic this morning.

of course, gustvo mohar is well placed to have these issues and the issues have changed in some ways the basic dynamics have not. it is now what we call amnesty but the roots of mexican in migration go back a long way dynamic labor migration from mexico with the collaboration of the mexican government. or even in the return to disarrays but with a new vision how they not only worked together, it is a new dynamic. talked-about legalization, a different base of rationale, highly secular

with the mails to working there was a dignity in the air and certain equity to work with a wink and nod. that was a novel thing to do with the historic changeover the '50s. what did we get? we got a border in a surprisingly volume of deportations, and not by the work site and we talk to an amnesty because in a way the metric has changed it is far too casual to say they're migrants there is breaking the law on both sides but yet the weekend the nod continues. and what that has done surprisingly is so to

address the issues so full of the once, a full me twice the argument the original area of compromise was to have enforcement so therefore why legalization this time around? because we have to and aggressive enforcement along the border, a huge impact on ability, it changed circularity although bigger changes that caused by enforcement that maturation of the migrant stream. what does that mean? we legalize close to 3 million people in the '90s they came with their families and started selling. overtime it dies and we get 15 through 20 percent of

mexico's working age population. in many states it is zero point* 8%. so that has cha changed so along with it a lot of the discussion we have urged amnesty so they have to work their way better like the idea to talk about it as a citizen that name too much of an insider then you have a five-year run and some of the proposals making the migrants earn there right to stay like making citizenship

unattainable with the dramatic rethinking in the united states is hugely different and a change in the discussion is use of gustvo mohar had new dynamics. 400,000 mexicans per year is a huge process leading to family separation or shady practices in the united states so this is a major issue with mexico. so that is also part of the fact the nature has changed we have families settled in

the united states a large portion with children with u.s.-born native children. the fundamentals have changed for. we talk removals of parents of u.s. citizens. so the return migration has changed. this has caused new problems for mexico. all these things make solving a problem much more difficult it is no longer legalization but addressing all whole range of the migrations dream developed over 20 years, but a long time. to mention briefly, if i have been involved with the

project, this is the third one, the government sponsored one in the 1990's with scholars come with a projected rightly, maybe for the wrong reasons, a mexican migration would start to slack off with this period of time. there are a lot of structural reasons that might lead us to think the pressures would not be as great so that's allows us to manage the situation interactively. this study group just completed covers a range. we talked about population slackening, the first time migration is down and return migration is up. you have to talk about

employment, but also talking about education. not just because of issues of equity but 20 years ago we did not have college age individuals raised in the united states. that is the face of a complex migration stream. health is it reveals the funny things that happen, with immigration and in this case it seems do degrade with habits and eating behaviors which is a concern was different policy considerations come issues that would be involved if

you have the amnesty. and in no small way way, personal security issues. scheerer not just the difficulty of crossing the border cover the whole climate of risk but the difficulties they face that everybody knows tens of says -- tens of thousands we don't have good numbers but we have reasons to think of migrants to a lot the rest to cross the border any more susceptible to being activity and informal belief it has driven mexicans north as well at the same time. it needs to be addressed.

one thing that gustvo mohar is set coordination by national but it probably will and has been to step up increasingly to the plate to be actively involved with the migratory phenomenon but also to make the entire process more transparent and safe. know where will this be more problematic than granting access to social programs returning mexican migrants with a challenge for mexico because control opens up the possibility that migrants will return and had to facilitate that it is a

positive outcome? these are some of the complexities. what happens in the united states is anybody's guess. there is not pressure to move over the next year or two but they might. the double is in the details how you frame the enforcement or the limit -- amnesty? until they do have agreement it will be difficult. >> thank you very much for that. we have come to the point* we open the forum for questions to the audience. please structure so phones or put them on fire break. i heard some already.

we have internes with microphones today if you have a question please raise your hand the state your name and affiliation and please keep your questions short so we have time to have a good discussion to give everybody a chance to participate. >> and whitman. great presentation. a with the washington internship is to to. naphtha was meant to rectify some of these issues, the freedom of movement, a dispersal of incentives for investors to sell fructify between four and rich in north america.

was a naive to have nafta and if we could do it again how might we do it again how have they not met the needs the you have defined? >>. >> it should be considered a success with the amazing explosion of trade with both sides of the border. lejeune know there is a huge concern with the labor market of mexico and that hasn't happened investment of american companies has grown and basically today

one of the best exporters in the world the number one exporter in the world of computer screens screens, refrigerators, so when you talk about 500 million of trade you have to realize the promoters in those days are a magic bullet to single out in mexico but it is the turning point* to have agreements signed already with 40 countries in the world and has proven to make the industry more competitive. the labor force it was not

included because it continues to be extremely speaking for political of the u.s. but that labor agreement with the preconditions established to sign nafta but we only know a little bit what happened but it between mexico and the u.s. it is what few people know about. i think it was a success now have to work out ways to enhance economic integration and to have a long interview not competing with each

other but competing with china, india, brazil china, india, brazil, russia , europe, and therefore the north american countries including canada. we could develop the view to make sure the productivity is up of the labor force is used. when those is integrating the labor markets. >> i would point* out relative to the question there is no freedom of movement inherent in naphtha but the visas sort i'd like hb-1 visas very easy movement with canadians the east of constant movement many if not more mexicans come through with their hb-1

visas how do evaluate that? is airways nafta was a success first or a short period of time to displaced by china in that regard but did it create pressures to keep mexicans home? no. not really. to some extent we will never know but certainly it did not but in 1988 agriculture wooded trigger those such shortages of agriculture consider we have 150,000 temporary migrants coming every year that is half of the net flow from the 1990's

on the authorized basis of that is why people argue these large programs have substituted out what we have seen from prior decades at least 120 of these with the visas also the complexity my research in agriculture suggest a huge increase we have seen from 15,000 it is not a capped visas a pass to put demand for high technology farms to have a dependable source of contract of labor. this is precisely the bilateral thing that mexico and the united states could manage.

we will talk about it. >> [inaudible] gustavo i have a question question, the statistics on the demographics are these young people look, uneducated, a range with the impact of mexico with the caribbean countries to complain a lot about and the second question is mexico's spending enough to

do the enforcement and management of the migration? that you described? >>. >> thank you for your question for those demographics there is the ongoing poll to look at it more closely because this is an issue if you think about the numbers of people of hamas and security, and you looked at the results, you cannot have more than 1 million people. what we know what is made at

the northern border and of mexico that. [speaking spanish] those returned in the late 90's said 50 percent said they would try to move back. the last time i saw it was only 30%. 70 percent that is it to. i am going home but the profile is viable some of them have commerce into the u.s. but many are long-term residents committee with 10 or 15 years. those are the ones that have a crucial dilemma because they have roots any more in mexico.

they have family connections and social networks because they don't have papers. there is no way to argue anything except there is an issue to create a challenge how for each one of them what to do. so carefully integrated, even culturally. then there is one which many come not from jails in the u.s.. at least 20%. . .