and i was flying at 2500 feet. if this can happen with recreational auto craft i have real concerns about uavs out there flying around. ..

as far as the use of transponders, the, these devices of course come in all sizes. when you get to the small uas, we're not sure there will be a technology that will allow that kind of equipment. if you're flying in airspace requires a transponder, the uas would have to require a transponders. same for the new uas rules. when you're looking to smaller vehicles looking for systems that talk to each other and people around them to achieve that sense of a void. >> if i'm out there in my single-engine 1959 come manche not with the -- comanche, i will have the correct transponders on it even a small uas hitting a propeller will take me out. >> right. >> hitting a small bird will take me out. are you saying that then we're not looking to require -- it is

just, explain what you mean by is it a transponder? it is ininterrogating my aircraft? what is it doing? here is what i want. i as a pilot i want to know if there is uas flying in my vicinity, so i see it shows up and two, if i get hit by one of these aircraft, i want a to know who is flying it, serial number and faa to know that you flew into general aviation or commercial airspace. is there any attempt to go after those safety concerns? >> right now we're looking at rule separation and procedure separation. so under the small uas rule the proposal would be below 500 feet. so you will always be above 500 feet unless you're around the airport. the rule would require the uas to be five miles away from an airport. as long as they're following rules and you're following rules you have separation. you also have vision all line of

site vfr basic operations. that is all the rules contemplates. the other issues you're raising are some issues we talking about, need additional research, need standardization and separate set of rules around those expanded operations. >> thank you. with 30 seconds left that i have, want to put this out there, put in a question for the record. we're going to talk about external load operations. i used to fly sling loads in helicopters. there are significant restrictions. i would want to know what amazon and mr. wynne, what your positions are what is jettison ing procedures for those loads? all those issues a helicopter with sling load operations would have to follow, thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. hice. >> thank you mr. claim. point of clarification for me i

think the answer is yes. does the faa or the administration actually have a plan for directing the traffic concerns? or is this something being developed and still in process? is there an actual plan? >> there are two things i can put in that bucket. there is a comprehensive plan that was developed in 2013. there is five-year road map that gets updated periodically. provides a sort of a master planning document. >> so there is a plan? >> yes. >> i thought that was going to be the answer, it was a little confusing. let me go mr. could have lossky to you. -- cough lossky ski. which know about the gyrocopter went down here in d.c. the technology being developed. would it have detected that gyrocopter? >> so the regarding this uas

traffic management system is to enable the user of the system to be able to track and manage and plan flight routes within a very confined airspace. others working operating within that airspace could be also detected. if they choose not to follow flight plan they would not be managed by the utm. opportunity for the system to identify there is an operator who is not filing plans and not flying within the system can be alerted to the authorities or through the system, such that actions could be taken in order to address that. >> that is no different than ba we already have. it was detected with the technology we currently have. they thought it was anomaly this kind of thing. you're saying with your technology it would be detected but still nothing necessarily would have prevented what happened? >> with the technology we were putting in place, that is

correct. what our technology does is allow for the safe use of aircraft that are participating in the system to manage their trajectories, to be aware of other aircraft, general aviation aircraft, traffic helicopters and like flying there. to be safely avoided and missions and business objectives can be met. >> does your technology differentiate between drones and say movement of birds or weather patterns or what have you? >> there are radar systems that are being developed as part of this that would be able to detect other flying things of particular size. at this point i'm not sure exactly how small that detection goes but it would allow for identification certainly of small drones. >> all right. mr. whitaker, back to you again. just, if i may ask a different

ones this question but at the end of the day who should control, own, manage the traffic management of uas? does this come down to nasa? does it come down to the government? does it come down to private enterprise or non-profits? where does this belong? >> well, we would envision as nasa develops this utm we would go through a normal handover process and it would become part of our airspace we would manage. >> all right. so you say faa? >> yes. if i may, sir. that is exactly correct. we have a very formal process. we have he will haved with the faa. we refer to them as research transition teams. we work closely with nasa researchers and faa researchers. at earliest stages of our development of concepts and technology to be able to hand to them at determined times that we works by plan for that technology, and technology

readiness levels such that they have the opportunity to fit it into overall planning. it is very rigorous activity. we have great success with another nextgen deliverables last dozen years. >> nasa is developing technology and faa is using it and ultimately the buck would stop there? >> yes. >> mr. geiger, let me go back to you quickly, i think issues are brought up great concern constitutionally and to many others. and i have just got 20 seconds but, preemptively, what actions do you believe congress needs to take in order to assure the first and forth amendment are not violated to u.s. citizens? >> for government uas we recommend legislation that establishes a due process standard for law enforcement use. and we think that generally speaking, with some exceptions that that standard should be a warrant. when the uas is used to surveil

individuals in personally identifiable way or private property. when it comes to commercial uas we think that the first amendment is going to constrain the scope of any sort of privacy regulation. you could start with common law privacy torts which have a highly offensive to reasonable person or reasonable expectation of privacy standard but beyond that, it should be an industry code of conduct which will, because it is voluntary avoid the first amendment issues. and i think that the goal ought to be to provide a reasonable privacy assurance to the public to that applications that have low impact on civil liberties such as commerce or scientific research can grow. and the industry itself will take off so to speak. >> thank you, sir. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. miss lawrence. >> thank you. do we have, mr. whitaker, do we

have a proposed timeline for the officially accepting these rules or the process to go through to modify them, make any corrections? do we a timeline? >> there is statutory 16-month time frame from the close of comments. >> okay. >> which was in april. we plan to move more quickly than that we've got 4500 comments that were ajudicating now. and our internal working target is to have the faa portion of this finished by the end of the year coordination with the administration and be out early next year. >> so, many of you are aware that there is an app, i can call siri and say what is flying above me? it will tell me what flights are above me in the sky and where they're going, what airline it is. do you anticipate any such app?

because my, my concern right now is, as a citizen, in this with drones flying above me, how do i identify what they are and why they're there and who they belong to? and that piece, it was interesting to me, when this application was introduced to me. and i'm wondering if something similar to that will be required of, of this type of flying vehicle? >> well in today's world if there is a drone flying above you it is probably an amateur operator and there is no system to track who that is and where they're going. it is an unregulated, by statute, an unregulated sector of the market. as you move forward with more fully intigrated operations in the controlled airspace you would expect have some ability to know who is out there. >> well, you said you would

expect. i want, i want us to move towards the point of, if there is a drone flying in my personal property space, that i as a citizen have the right to know who owns it, what's their purpose, and there will be a way for me to if i have any issues to have a way as a citizen to process that concern. and, that to me is a very high concern of mine. and people that talk to. so getting back to the public, what will be the process of educating the public. i would like to ask mr. geiger. >> geiger. >> what is the proposed process to that -- so that when we i anticipate an increase in the number of drones that we'll see, where is the education process

when we adopt the rules and we get them accepted? where is the education of the public? >> i think you will see education of the from both government and private entities. certainly there has been a lot of media attention about it. the question is how will the public know when there is a drone in their -- >> or what are my rights? >> well, your rights are evolving and i as i said in my testimony, i think that your rights ought to be strengthened by congress. >> yes. >> when it comes to being able to tell whether or not what identifying a drone in your vicinity and where it is going and so forth we think that the industry and government ought to work on technology that will enable that sort of transparency for citizens. there are transponders would be one option but i understand there are technical limitations due to their weight. i understand also that nasa is

working with verizon delivered cell towers. that may hold some promise. that would depend on the network. in addition we think there are other technical measures individuals could use to signal their privacy preferences. one is geofencing. for example no-fly zones.org is sort of a nation effort in that regard where you candle lynn eight property we would prefer if you did not fly here. so that, i think there is a variety of technologies that could get you there. i think that they're not quite yet ready for prime time. but what i think is important that industry and government continue to work on them. >> the other question i have in the last few minutes to mr. whitaker. in the rules it talked about reporting an accident or damage in certain amount of time. will it be required if you're licensed as a drone operator that you have insurance? pause if you if your drone

disables and it crashes on my property or there is a package being delivered and it destroys my prized rose garden or something, what, what would be the requirements for insurance? >> typically we do not regulate insurance requirements in aviation. we leave it up to individual operators for insurance. >> i want to just say for the record if we're going to allow -- you don't require airlines to have insurance? >> airlines have insurance for their own reasons. most general aviation pilots have insurance for their own reasons. we're prohibited from regulating model aircraft operations. we would not be allowed by statute to have that provision but as a rule we don't get into that area of requirement. >> so if there was an accident it was reported in 10 days what

happens? >> what happens with respect to? >> faa would just have a record of it? it would not be any, any requirement for drone operators to be insured? >> there typically will be a reporting requirement for accidents. we investigate the cause of accidents. but don't get involved in a screwed a jude dating liability. >> my time is up but that is for the record a concern of mine. >> we'll recognize long suffering waiting senior member and also former chairman of the aviation subcommittee. the gentleman from tennessee mr. duncan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't have any questions but i want to express concerns. to do that i want to read a couple articles that came out last few days. i have read several articles

about drones over last year, year-and-a-half but barry wine merger, who is a lawyer who specializes in this area wrote a few days ago for, example will a drone scheduled to deliver your overnight package be allowed to collect information about you during drop-off, if so what kind of data? with drone technology advancing a the a fast furious pace there are uav's with the ability to record video and audio use facial recognition technology and collect electronic data, including signals from cell phones, garage door openers and radio frequency identification data rfi did the, a technology used in consumer credit cards. he mentions a case in, some cases in which they are now using drones in divorce cases. and then jeremy scott, who is the head of an organization called the the electronic privacy information center, wrote a few days ago, the faa

also failed to consider data collection implications in age of commercial drones and big data companies flying commercial drones will likely look to surreptitiously collect data as fly around performing other tasks such as delivering packages. we saw similar experience when google cars were taking images for google maps. one company tested using drones to pinpoint cell phone and wi-fi signals to identify customers for location-based advertising. he goes on to say, there exist as lot of potential for the commercial use of drones but there needs to be rules in place to protect against broad surveillance and data checkion. that's why more than 100 experts and civil liberties organizations petitioned the faa to develop privacy rules for drones. faa denied the paste and they have subsequently filed suit against the agency to force it to consider privacy. currently voluntary best

practices are being developed but best practices will not establish meaningful privacy safeguards. there is a lot of concern out there, most people feel that we really don't have much anymore any way due to the internet and all the modern technology and not just drones but to show you how much concern there is i understand that 10 states have now passed laws and my own home state of tennessee which is a very pro-law enforcement state very pro-law enforcement, legislature passed a law banning law enforcement agencies from using drones to collect evidence, to do surveillance except in extremely limited circumstances. and so what i'm hopeful is, is that to maybe the faa and some of your organizations will take a look at all of these state laws because the states seem to be sort of taking the lead in this so far.

see if you can't take out some good things out of those state laws. and i think that mr. misener even companies that want to use this technology extensively, because there is so much concern about privacy that you would be, your company would be well-advised to try to come up with every possible way that you can to protect what limited, what little privacy or what very limited privacy people still have. and, that's all i have got to say, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you for making those points. did you want to respond to any of that, mr. misener? or mr.-- >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. duncan i agree a company like ours has to take privacy extremely responsibly. we've done it for 20 years now. we'll certainly extend those kinds of privacy protections with amazon prime air which is of course a delivery service, not a surveillance operation.

>> mr. geiger? >> if people don't think they have much privacy now they should wait for new class of technologies that will enable very intrusive physical surveillance. that is just coming. i, theñi examples that you read are indeed troubling. i'm glad that you mentioned in those passages there are other types of surveillance enabled by drones besides just video observation. they could be outfitted array of sensors including cell phone tower emulatetores. federal government used these on tens of thousand of individuals in the past year. in terms of how to provide individuals with that kind of privacy, you know, privacy towards get you some but again limited because it is limited to a reasonable, what is highly offensive to reasonable person standard. and it is unclear the degree which congress can directly regulate those kinds of uses without violating the first amendment right to collect data in public places. however, we think that the

industry should take the lead in strong enforceable code of conduct. and unfortunately the existing codes of conduct are not sufficient for that purpose. you mentioned your state laws. states are indeed taking the lead on privacy laws but the, part of that is because of federal inertia in response to the concerns of their citizens. but the patchwork of state privacy laws is also going to be difficult for the industry to navigate particularly for a technology like uas which could fly between the borders of individual states. so i think that, providing some sort of regulatory certainty with regard to privacy will benefit both individuals as well as commerce. >> well, thank you. thank you, mr. conley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. raises some pretty fundamental questions about the future of and values and parts of our

philosophy we thought were settled. i think mr. geiger, you're quite right to raise the flag and what does privacy mean as we move toward the future? even a commercial drone whose mission is purely delivery of a good could be equipped with surveillance equipment and, actually penetrate the walls of a house and look into what's going on. technology isn't far away from being able to do that. i'm not arguing anyone would do that but we're going to, the proliferation of drones will make it very difficult to enforce even those regulations we ultimately adopt. so, it is a fascinating frontier kind of issue for us. i don't think we have easy answers yet. i think so much for helping highlight them. mr. whitaker, i was listening to miss lawrence. before i ask mr. misener some questions about amazon, and their operation i'm what is, if i'm a homeowner, how high up

do i go in my property control? can someone fly 500 feet from my roof? >> so i think as, mr. geiger has -- >> i will ask all of you to please speak into the mic to move it closer. >> yeah. so i think, mr. geiger articulated earlier it is a bit unsettled. clearly if it is 500 feet above your house, it is federally regulated airspace. when federally regulated airspace was defined decades and decades ago there was no thought of a gray area but i think now we're probably facing a gray area. but by statute all airspace is federal airspace and regulate federally. >> so commercial drone is flying within three feet of my roof is that federally regulated airspace? >> you're pushing at those gray areas, yeah. >> i think we'll have to revisit that too. i mean presumably someone is

flying into deliver fine chocolates and french bubbly to my neighbor, did i mention fine chocolates and french bubbly, you know, they may need to get close to land, if that is what they're doing. and, they may be violating, from my point of view my, they're trespassing. they're trespassing on my property including above my roof. >> i think these are real issues and legal structure hasn't had to address them. >> okay. so we got legal issues and we got privacy issues and we got constitutional issues and we got commercial issues. all kinds of issues. mr. misener, amazon has been vocal about his concerns regarding faa proposed rule. and amazon argues and i quote overly prescriptive restrictions will have unintended effect stifling innovation and over time corresponding safety

benefits as small uas technology evolves. how do you believe the proposed rule stifles innovation? i will ask you particularly to speak into the mic. thank you. >> mr. connolly, i will speak directly in in thank you. we believe it is overly prescriptive it draws distinctions between within visual line of sight and beyond visual line of sight kinds of operations in a way that is just artificial. both should be subjected to a risk and performance-based analysis. certainly the risks involved in beyond vision all line of sight operations are greater than those within vision all line of sight. highly-automated operations require higher performance than less automated operations. there are very clear but the method of analyzing the different kinds of operations should be identical. so we were concerned that the nprm senses to cut those ones off and just prescribe them. basically say we'll not deal

with them. mr. whitaker said the faa will get to them. we're suggesting they get to them now and consider all these types of operations simultaneously acknowledging that there are different risks involved in different performance requirements necessary to mitigate those risks. >> i understand, that amazon offered to actually show on a pilot basis that, some of the concerns being discussed in the rule making can be managed without overly prescriptive regulation. including a line of sight, including multiple drone operations and other such issues. is that the case that you opted to do that kind of pilot program? >> yes, sir. in variety of ways. we're working closely with nasa. we'll be a keynote presenter at your conference at the end of july. and you know, the pathfinder project being undertaken by bnsf, that is something that looks interesting to us. we'll figure out a way -- >> have you made that proposal

to mr. whitaker and his colleagues? let us show you how it can be done safely before you adopt a final rule? >> i think these are, these are parallel paths. >> okay. >> to show technology. the other is to work on the rules. >> mr. whitaker, are you and your agency open to that kind of demonstration to at least evaluate parameters and scope of what is doable and what is problematic? >> i think pathfinder program which did that with bnsf is kind of program we need to have to prove those technologies. we're certainly open to that. >> and if the chair will allow one final question. another provision you expressed concern about, mr. misener amazon that is to say, is the requirement that one operator control no more than one drone system at a time. why do you believe that's too restrictive? >> thank you mr. connolly. because the technology exists so that a single operator could allow, could oversee the operation of multiple uavs.

just to restrict one drone to one operator is just overly restricted and certainly unnecessary from tech log call -- >> mr. whitaker that sounds reasonable on amazon's part. i look at faa controllers. we don't say that with faa controller you follow one plane coming in or going out, that's it. because otherwise we don't believe you have got control and it taxes the civil. maybe that is not a perfect analogy but technology kind of does allow to us do more than one thing at a time. what is wrong with amazon's point of view? >> i think we will get there in certain circumstances. right now you have two pilots and in each airplane and you have controllers and in a new system if it's a large aircraft, certainly there will be one per aircraft but if it is quite small, there could be scenarios where it's multiple units. but, the technology has to be proven. standards have to be developed and then it comes into play. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you so much for having this hearing. i hope we have more of them frankly because i think we've

just begun to look at new territory. >> thank you. mr. hurt. >> thank you mr. chairman. in the 2001 when i was under tutelage of the ambassador prosecuting the war in afghanistan under ca -- cia they were innovator in use of drones in operations. we had air force bird, army ordnances and under control of cia. nothing like that had happened. 15 years ago when we were doing that i never thought i would be sitting somewhere tnlking about using uavs to monitor herds of cattle in west texas or having fine chocolate or bubbly delivered to mr. connolly's neighbor. so, this is, this is an exciting time. but one of my concerns is, one.

things that made this country great we're always on edge of innovation. we have the greatest entrepreneurs in the world. my question is to mr. wynne. in the development of technology is the u.s. leading on this? do we have other competitors or other countries that are beating us? >> well it is a great question sir, and thank you for your service. i would say simply that this is a global phenomenon. uas are really being taken up at around the world for variety of different reasons. ultimately we want global harmonization of regulation so there is safe and responsible flight everywhere. i would say that we are, we have the potential to continue to lead in aviation innovation in this country. think we're on the right path getting back to that. i think there has been a little bit of a culture clash from the

technology world into the aviation world. i'm an aviator myself as are some of the other panelists. and we appreciate the fact that this is a different a different type of approach for aviation. a lot of sky is up there that can be used efficiently for a lot of things and a lot of lives that could be saved today that are dangerous today that don't need to be done by humans. we call that enhancing human potential. >> right. my next question is to mr. misener. you know the possibility when i came up to d.c. from texas this week i forgot my running shoes. and you know the idea of possibly having those delivered by amazon uav within a couple hours is pretty interesting. and but, you know, you've heard a lot of these privacy concerns that we've talked about here and they're valid, you know, this is going to continue to be an

issue. how are y'all, i think one of the things y'all leading in this area, in commercial development, how are you planning to gain trust of the american people? >> thank you, mr. hurd. it's a core question about the service for anyone who is responsibly pursuing a commercial activity here. we have to engender trust and the trust on privacy matters that we have garnered over the past 20 year is because has been a result of our focus on consumer information privacy. we will continue that when it comes to amazon prime. we're strongly supportive of the ntia practice or process and we'll be participating in that and hopefully developing, solid, serious best practices for an entire industry. >> i appreciate that and

mr. cavolowsky. the question to you, the traffic management system you're working on what are the main challenges you have left, that are barriers to deployment of the system? >> so many of the same concerns that have been brought up by other panelists things we need to address in a technological tags. so the very complex software systems where you have coordinated interaction among the aircraft, being able to verify and validate that they are safelily providing that safe separation is critical challenge. insuring safe operations for all ua -- all uas but other general aviation aircraft in that airspace is, also technical challenge we need to step up certainly beyond line of sight. another key element brought up by the panel is the is first and last 50 feet of flight.

last feet feet if you will, with potential interaction between property and people. elements of control and management of that safely in a environment that can be unpredictable is a major element of work we're trying to develop technology solutions around and procedural solutions around. >> thank you. >> thank you. ands for waiting patiently, i want to recognize the lady from new mexico miss grisham. thank you for your patience. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for the hearing and i agree we ought to potentially have more of the hearings because there is a broad base of set of issues that do need to be addressed and there needs to be a regulatory environment to do that. i certainly agrew that we want to deal with the public safety issues. we want to deal with the privacy issues but there is a real opportunity to enhance the economic benefits and making

sure that that's addressed in a meaningful and balanced way. i represent a state that has been very slow to recover from the 2008 recession. i think slowest recovery rate in the country. and we've got a company, polo, i need to look at that -- just gotten faa approval. our office worked with you all to do that to do the kind of mapping and the kind of work we're hearing a lot about in today's hearing. and not only are they talking about the vast economic opportunity in our state and whenever i have the opportunity to talk about jobs, that is the number one priority. but they talk about nationally that the billions of dollars that could be generated so i appreciate having google here at the table by these invests. there also a public safety factor that i don't want to

ignore not just in the regulatory environment we need to proceed with for unmanned aircraft, but if we're using them to assess problems on the golden gate bridge, we're using them to inspect power lines we're creating a public safety benefit by not having to use work is to do that work directly and physically which is high-risk and continues to be problematic. i think about liability for companies. and governments. local governments, and utility companies. it is significant. so i'm seeing great opportunities and with that, there is risks. i really have two questions. you've been working to address that you recognize that there has got to be a thoughtful but balanced approach. and as a former long-time, and i would like to think effective bureaucrat for 17 years, bureaucracies don't always find themselves in the most flexible environment and the problem here is that this technology is

changing every minute. probably every second as all technology does. and in the thoughtful process that you will have to address privacy and public safety and managing that airspace productively and encouraging companies to come forward to give you ideas so that we're not thwarting those economic valuable economic investments by the time you make those rules, arguably they could be outdated. well, what is your process for thinking about making sure this is fluid, ongoing environment so that we avail ourselves of every opportunity without mitigating our responsibility to manage productively my constituents and for the country real risks associated with any aircraft? mr. whitaker, maybe that is something for you. >> i think several times this morning it has been mentioned we need risk-based and

performance-based regulatory system. that is very much we're all very much aligned on that point. we don't want to necessarily tell you how you will achieve certain levels of safety but we want to define what those are and necessary standards to get there. when we for example, get to a final rule, it will provide parameters in the operations within those parameters, we don't have to guess what they might be. they will be allowed as long as they continue to be safe. as we continue to expand the acceptable range of operations, that same principle will apply. >> mr. wynn, what can congress do that is more productive in this environment, provides productive resources an investments in exactly this, sort of risk assessment and performance model? what is congresses role here? what can we do to enhance these efforts? >> i appreciate the question. i think the point that i have been, i've been laboring to articulate here, that the economic opportunity is not just

immediate. it needs to be sustainable. and so all of the questions that we're discussing, in technology we call it binary conversation. can do a lot of good stuff. we have safety. we have security. and we have privacy questions. we go through this with every technology pretty much. the same kind of questions mr. geiger is bringing up can also be applied on a technology-specific basis to license plate readers. they can be applied to body cameras. they can be applied in a whole bunch of different technology contexts. the industry needs to do this in a way that is sustainable. otherwise, it won't work. and i agree with mr. misener, when he said it is in our customer, it is in our interest to make certain that our customer's privacy is protected and it is in our interests also as an industry to make certain that we can do this on sustained basis. incidents, mishaps et cetera, while they are common in

aviation and we learn from them, we don't want them. we're doing our best to make certain we maintain the extremely high level of safety going forward. to your question, ma'am, i think all of this comes back to faa reauthorization which is extremely important matter before congress immediately. we have submitted for the record, of the transportation committee, what we think is important in that regard. so i won't enumerate that here. i think it is also really important for the safety of entire system that we do that on time. >> fair enough. thank you very much. and, mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you to the panel. >> thank you. and thank you for your patience. i want to thank our panel too. i have a couple of quick points. one, okay, mr. whitaker, you testified today that it would, in one year you would have the rule out. is that going to be september 30th of 2016 or is that going to be

june 17th of 2016? >> hopefully before june 17th of 2016. >> so that is one year from today. we'll note that in the record. and i will ask the staff to schedule a hearing in june of next year and we'll see how we're going there. i think you have to have milestones to get things done. i put a milestone in the bill, which was september of this year. it is not going to be met. and we're operating on sort of a helter-skelter basis with these waivers and exempt suns shuns. you told me -- exemptions. you've told me you're doing about a 50 a week, is it? >> that's correct. >> 50 a week. that is 500, by the time of next year we should be doing how many? several thousand at that rate. so we'll have a patchwork of exemptions and waivers until we

get to the final rule. i mean if you keep it up at that rate. >> yeah. >> just an assumption. >> we're working -- >> see that is not totally acceptable. i know you have to have something in the interim. the other thing too the office of inspector general published this report june 26, 2014 with a list of recommendations. i've got one, two three, four five six seven, eight nine tin, 11, major recommendation by oi if. -- oig. i have a report of june, this month, 2015. all of these are unmet. some were supposed to be achieved accomplished by, here is one october 30th, 2014. i'm growing to submit to you and faa this list and within the time we're keeping record open for 10 days, i want a response that will be in the record of, make certain that this is your

response to oig. but i want to make certain that is in the record and confirm when you will achieve the recommendations that oig put in their audit from 2014 that they're giving me this report this month 2015. do you see what i want? any questions? >> no. >> in the record, by the time. so again, i have a we're going to do another hearing a year out. you said you're going to do that. these are important milestones. oig identified a year ago to be completed. i want that report in the record so that we, we have these milestones met. all right so, then, final thing. you talked about mr. misener that since, sensor and avoidance technologies.

now they're important because you can put these things up you testified and you have technologies either being developed or on the shelf that can avoid collisions or incidents that's. is that correct? >> yes mr. chairman. >> but those systems have to be developed, have to be approved by faa for use, wouldn't think mr. whitaker? >> yes. we'll have to, we'll have to verify. >> this goes back to my point at the beginning. i think the last member too raised the way this technology is changing dramatically. we have failure of the law to keep up with rules and regulation to keep up. so we're going to have to have some mechanism to make certain in fact the equipment that can avoid risk, avoid disaster avoid collision is certified in a manner. do you have a separate office to

certify this type of equipment? >> which certify aircraft on a number of fronts and ultimately -- >> i know, that is also, i hear lots of complaints, how long it takes for certification. how further behind we're falling. but we're doing an faa bill. we're doing an faa appropriation. we need to make certain that you have the resources that you set in place a mechanism to quickly certify the technologies or do it in some reasonable fashion. the problem you've got now, is by the time they get the damn technology done and you get it approved, there will be another technology right behind it that is, even faster. so we're falling further behind in our certification of equipment that will, that will avoid disaster. you see what i'm saying? faa doesn't look very prospectively or how they're going to sometimes handle these things. if this is all rolled into faa

normal certification i don't think it is going to succeed. so if you have a recommendation or something, you want to come back at, what you need to beef up, if you need to separate out. if you need someone in faa, a focused on this for the future, at stake is one, safety and two is our entering of the commercial age which this is all about. but you can't do that unless you have the rules, the certification, and keeping up with the technology. they will find a way to get that, i thought it was, you said chopped, he heard it was chopped liver but it was fine chocolates to mr. connolly. had a little fun with that. in any event, whatever we're delivering, this is a commercial opportunity and a great economic boost. okay so those are my quick

questions. and, it is amazing what we've done. they have already flown unmanned vehicles or an aerial vehicle from australia to los angeles, a car go plane, without a pilot. another thing is certifies the pilots because there are different category what is is going up there. different categories who should be qualified. if they're not in the drone but they're piloting the drone, we've got to make certain we've got the rules in place so. so those people also have the qualifications. i'm afraid we're not keeping up with it and which have to be able to set in law and faa reauthorization or wherever. then we haven't even talked about the privacy issue here again, i go back to the problem we had when we developed this.

we were told no to privacy. it was a different domain and jurisdiction. but that is very important. i will look at the post-legislation and other things that you mentioned. but again for our the transportation committee was not allowed to go down that path but it is a serious one we need to address. i think that those are some of the major issues. we'll look forward to your response. we'll make certain the staff gives you a copy of this list and we want that in the record. again, i thank each of you for participating, our members for their patience. productive hearing and hopefully move this all forward together. there being no further business before the full committee of government reform, oversight this hearing is adjourned. >> former u.s. representative lewis stokes has passed away.

he was the first black member of congress from ohio and he served there 30 years. he chaired the house intelligence committee. was a long-time member of the appropriations committee which sets federal spending. congressman stokes retired in nate -- 1998. he died yesterday at age of 90. house democratic leader nancy pelosi had this to say about the former congressman. lewis stokes was patriot and committed to this country and make it better. his integrity and commitment to the less advantaged were unsurpassed. coming up tonight on booktv prime time authors and books on technology and the internet. we begin at 8:00 eastern with john pelfrey. the author of biblotech. why library matter more than ever in the age of google. booktv starts at 8:00 eastern here on c-span2. the road to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continues live from the iowa state fair. on c-span, c-span radio and

c-span.org as the candidates walk the fairground and speak at the today mine register's candidate soapbox. on friday morning 11:00 a.m. eastern it is senator ted cruz. on saturday, republican governors chris christie at noon and bobby jindal at 1:00. join the twitter conversation at #dmr spoken box. c-span's campaign 2016, taking you on the road to the white house. >> last week japanese prime minister shinzo abe, delivered remarks on the 70th anniversary on end of world war ii. he answered questions from reporters after his speech. this is about 40 minutes. >> translator: august is the month that compels us japanese to pause and to contemplate on the past that has gone by.

no matter how distant the past has become. politics must draw its wisdom from history for the sake of the future. at this important juncture marking the 70th anniversary of the end of the war, i believe that we must reflect upon the pact that led to war and the subsequent course we have taken since then. you must also look back on the 20th century and based on the lessons learned we need to deeply scrutinize the course japan should take in the future and the role we will assume in the world. at the same time, politics must

remain humble, vis-a-vis history. political or diplomatic intent must never be allowed to distort history. this too is my firm belief. this is why in preparation for this statement i assembled the advisory panel and urged its members to engage in frank and thorough discussions on this subject. obviously the views and perceptions over history vary from one member to another among the experts. however, their ernest concerns over a number of meetings led them to reach a certain shared

understanding culminating in their report. i would like to accept their proposal as the voice of history. and based on that report, i would like to draw lessons from history, lay out the course we should pursue going forward. more than 100 years ago vast colonies, mainly of the western powers stretched across the world with their overwhelming supremacy and technology, the ways of colonial rule surged toward asia in the 19th century.

there is no doubt that the resulting since of crisis drove japan forward to achieve mod inization. japan established a constitutional government earlier than any other nation in asia. the country preserved its independence throughout. the war between japan and russia imparted encouragement to many people who were under colonial rule in asia as well as in africa. following world war i which engulfed the entire world the movement for self-determination gained momentum and served to restrain the drive toward colonization that had been underway. the first world war was a horrifying affair that claimed as many as 10 million lives. with a fervent desire for peace

the league of nations was founded and gave birth to the general treaty for renunciation of war. the new trend in the international community of outlawing war itself emerged. in the beginning japan too failing to step with the rest of the world, however, with a great depression setting in in the western nations launching economic blocs by involving colonial economies, japan's economy suffered a major blow. under such circumstances japan's sense of isolation deep penned penned -- deepened, japan tried to stop the economic deadlock

bit use of force. the domestic political system could not serve as a restraint against such attempts. in like manner japan began to lose sight of the general trend in the world. with the manchurian incident, followed by the withdrawal, withdrawal from the league of nations, japan gradually began to defy the new international order that the international community had thought to create after enormous sacrifices. japan took the wrong course and advanced along the path to war. and 70 years ago japan met her defeat. on the 70th anniversary of

the end of the war i bow my head deeply before the souls of all those who perished both at home and abroad. i expressed my profound regret, and offer my everlasting and sincere condolences. more than three million japanese lost their lives during the war. anxious about the future of their homeland as they fought on the battlefields and wishing for the happiness of their families some lost their lives in remote foreign countries after the war.

and during extreme cold or heat suffering from starvation and disease. the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, the air raids on tokyo and other cities and the ground battles in okinawa among others mercilessly took a heavy toll among the ordinary citizens. moreover, in countries that fought against japan countless lives were lost among young people with promising futures. in china, southeast asia, the pacific islands and elsewhere that became the battlefields, numerous innocent citizens

suffered and fell victim to not only the battles but to such hardship as severe food shortage. we must never forget that there were women behind the battlefield whose honor and dignity were profoundly disgraced. . .

when a deeply rabbinate over this obvious fact, even now i find myself speechless in my heart filled with utmost grief. the peace we enjoy today exists because of such invaluable sacrifice is and does his prime point of postwar japan. we must never again repeat the heroes of war. be it incident aggression or war, we must never again resort

to any form of threat or use of force as a means to settle international disputes. we will renounce colonial rule forever and respect the right of self-determination of all people throughout the world. with deep repentance over the last war and japan made that pledge. we have created a free and democratic country abided by the rule of law and consistently upheld with a pledge to never wage the war again in the past we have walked as a peaceloving

nation for as long as 70 years. we remain determined to never deviate from this steadfast course. japan has repeatedly expressed their feelings in deeper mourners and heartfelt apology for actions during the war. in order to demonstrate such sentiments through concrete actions we have engraved in our hard for histories of suffering by the people in asia, our neighbors in south east asia such as indonesia and the philippines and taiwan the republic of korea and china

among others. and we have consistently devoted ourselves to the peace and prosperity of the region since the end of the war. such stances articulated by the previous cabinet will remain unshakable into the future. having said that though, no matter what kind of efforts we made, the sorrows of those who lost family members and the painful memories of those who suffered immense agony from the turmoil of four will never be healed. gus we must take the following

to halt. the fact that more than 6 million japanese repatriated manage to come home safely after the war from various parts of asia pacific and became the driving force behind japan's postwar reconstruction. the fact that nearly 3000 japanese children left behind in china were able to grow up there and set fruit on the soil of their homeland again. the fact that former pows of the united states and the united kingdom, netherlands australia and other nations have visited japan over many years to continue offering prayers for the souls of those who died from

the sore on both sides. the chinese people have gone through unfathomable suffering from the war in the former pows have also experienced unbearable agonies by the japanese military. we must extend our thoughts and reflect on the emotional struggle in the interim efforts necessary for them to have such a sense of tolerance despite the facts. thanks to the spirit of tolerance, japan was able to rejoin the international community in the postwar era. on this occasion of the 70th anniversary of the end of the war we would like to express

our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to all the nations and all the people who have exerted every means towards reconciliation. in japan, the postwar generation now exceed 80% of the population we must not let our children our grandchildren and generations to calm who have not been involved in that war to shoulder the destiny of continuing to apologize eternally for that war. yet having said so, we the

japanese transcending generation by squarely face the fact of past history. we have the responsibility to succeed the past and all humbleness and pass it on to the future. our parents and grandparents were able to endure and survive the rock bottom poverty among the postwar ruins. it is thanks to them that the current generation will be able to pass on the future to the next generation and beyond. together with the tireless efforts of our predecessors this has only been possible to the goodwill and assistance

transcending the feelings of hatred but a large number of countries including the united states australia and the european nations among others that have fought fiercely against japan as enemies have extended to us. we must continue to inform the future generations about this fact. by deeply instilling the lessons of history into our life, we also had the immense responsibility to trail blaze a better future and make every possible effort to contribute to the peace and prosperity of asia in the world. we will continue to engraved in our heart to pass where japan attempted to break its deadlock with the use of force.

consequently japan will continue to finally uphold the principle that all disputes must be resolved peacefully through diplomacy based on the respect for the rule of law and not the use of force and to reach out to other countries in the world to do the same. as the only country to have suffered the devastation of atomic armies during the war japan will fulfill its responsibilities in the international community, aiming for non-proliferation and the ultimate abolition of nuclear weapons. we will continue to engraved in our hearts the past for the

dignity and honor of many women were severely traumatized during the wars of the 20th century. based on this reflection, japan would like to be a country which will always stand by and walk alongside such women. japan will be the world and make in the 21st century an era in which women's human rights are not fringed upon. we will continue to remind ourselves that the past were forming economic blocs made the seeds of conflict to thrive. based on this lesson japan will continue to develop a free fair and a international economic system that will not be

influenced by the arbitrary detention of any nation. will strengthen assistance for developing countries and lead the world towards further press parity. prosperity is the very foundation for peace. japan will make even greater effort to fight against poverty, which also serves as a hot head of violent and to provide opportunity for medical services education and self-reliance to all the people in the world. we will continue to engraved in our heart that path when japan ended up defying the international order. and based on this lesson, japan will firmly uphold basic values

such as freedom, democracy and human rights. as unyielding values and by working hand-in-hand with countries that share such values hoist the flag of their contribution to peace and contribute to the peace and prosperity of the world more than ever before heading towards the adf 90th and centennial anniversary of the end of the war we are determined to create such a japan together with the japanese people. these are the lessons that constitute the wisdom for our future, the wisdom we must learn

from history. at the outset, i stated that i would like to see the report of the advisory panel as the voice of history. at the same time, we must remain humble toward the lessons of history. our humbleness demands and i believe that we always continue to look into history to ponder whether there is other voices we have failed to listen to. hence and all humbleness i will continue to lend my years to the voice of history and gain with them for her future. this will be my enduring belief. with this i would like to

conclude my remarks. let's start with questions from the media belonging to the secretariat. your position in the statement is a message to be transmitted to the world. what is it that you wish to communicate most of the japanese people and the people of the world that also you've expressed your sense of a policy differently from the path statement by prime minister what pleased me. can you tell us the reason. >> on this important juncture which is the seventh anniversary of the end of four i wanted to reflect on the course japan pursued that led to entering the war. japan took off after the war by looking broadly of the 20th century. the state japan should be at the time of the adf 90th and centennial area from the war.

in drafting the statement. i attempted to create a statement that can be shared by as many japanese people as possible. and the vision of the country that japan should pursue. so in order to share this statement with as many people as possible rather than cleaning out one section of the statement, i would like everyone to read the whole statement and understand it in its entirety.

with regard to the expression of a policy for the past were i believe the sentiment remains unchanged palestinian cabinet since the end of the war. this was expressed by prime minister ray alma and his statement on occasion of the 50th anniversary after the war in the sense of apology has been succeeded at the time of the 60th anniversary. my cabinet will firmly succeed the sentiment and this will continue on into future cabinets. i wanted to make this point clear in my statement. next, on the term aggression my

statement was drafted as an expert advisory panel deliberations which was compiled in a form of a report to me. as is indicated in the panel's report, there were certainly actions which were defined as aggression in the past. this is why i use the term incident, aggression and war to express our pledge. i used the term incident, aggression and morris to express her pledge that we must never resort to the threat or use of force to resolve international disputes.

and express that in addition to the deep remorse and regret towards the past were. it is not about feeding japan's past actions into the definition of aggression and stating that if it is we are in the wrong but if it doesn't fit, we are already. in the past, japan lost sight of the general trend of the world and attempted to break the diplomatic and economic deadlocks by resorting to the use of force and expand and augment the force. i believe the most important message in my statement is to humbly reflect on the fact to respect the rule of law and uphold our pledge to renounce war. i would like to leave the

judgment as to which act or deed constitutes aggression to the discussions by the historians. the important point is we must never again resort to the threat or use of force to resolve international disputes. this is the lesson we must learn from the past and reflect on. >> by nimitz took a shaky. you mention in the monthly magazine 2009 that it's like a test of allegiance. japan does not need to be bound by personal views on history.

can you please explain to us how consistent your statement this time is with what you stated in the interview in 2009? >> have repeatedly stated that will succeed the overall statement. at the same time i have been saying politics need to be humble in the face of history. based on this belief, i asked the advisory panel to convene their meetings in preparation to drafting the statement. i invited academics, historians and experts to discuss the course taken by the world in japan in the 20th century and to engage in these talks with

the microscopic view transcending geography and time. in the end these experts with varying views and perceptions reach a common understanding. i wish to heed this report by the advisory panel is the voice of history. based on that premise and five reflecting on the course japan followed leading to the war in engraving lessons from the 20th century described a vision for japan going forward at this important juncture of the 70th anniversary from the end of the war. i also wish to humbly lend my ears to the voices that may have failed to listen to and to lend

my ears to the lessons from past history with humility and learned the wisdom to shape the future. i wish to continue upholding this belief. >> you stated the children of the future should not be burdened with continuing to assume the destiny of apologizing for the past war. on the other hand you also save transcending generations must squarely faced past history. this seems to resonate with the famous speech by germany's former president restated while in past history young generations of germans cannot profess a killed for crimes they did not commit. can you elaborate on your thoughts? >> it is 70 years from the end of the war. i don't leave our children

their children and grandchildren and future generations, the children of the future who had nothing to do with war should be burdened with the responsibility of continuing to apologize. i believe that this act of apologizing is a responsibility of our generation and this is the view i incorporate it into my statement. but having said that we japanese transcending generations must squarely faced past history. more than anything else we must express gratitude to the spirit of tolerance and generosity to those countries the fight against japan during the war for

extending their goodwill and support after the war and guiding us to rejoin the international community. this sense of gratitude must not be forgotten by the future generation. at the same time, we must reflect on the past. we must deeply engraved in our hearts the lessons learned from history and cut open a better future. we must devote ourselves to peace and prosperity in asia and the world. i believe we have a huge responsibility here. this is what i incorporate it into my statement. >> i want to ask what kind of impact you anticipate from this statement. for example, do you think the possibility of visiting china within this year and engaging in

your third talk with president chee jin ping will increase? also, great concern about the economic recession about moment. do you think there's a possibility at the impact of your statement as a result of the situation? >> i am hoping the people of china will accept japan's frank views on the occasion of the 70th anniversary. through my two meetings with president xi xinping we are in an agreement to improve revelations on the ground of the mutually beneficial relationship based on common strategic

interest. japan and china share a huge responsibility towards peace and prosperity of the region. our bilateral economic relations are quite intimate. we hope to continue engaging in dialogue on many levels to develop a stable friendly relation and respond to the exit patience of international community. regarding our talks, if there is such an opportunity, i would certainly welcome that. japan's tour the dialogue is always open. thank you. i would like to ask about the security bill based on the statement just delivered. it seems experts opinions as to whether they are for or against the bill seemed to depend on whether they view china's military tendency as causing a

threat or not. >> i believe the general public is also aware of the gap in the expert views. what is your opinion on this point vis-à-vis japan security? >> 70 years ago japan pledged to renown and never repeat the horrors of war. this pleasure pronunciation of border will remain unchanged as the future. japan's peace and security policy is to prevent war. we will protect japan's peace by putting diplomacy first. the importance will continue to

engage in proactive diplomacy. having said that we must not be negligent to get the state of teeth. the purpose is to ensure japanese people in their livelihoods. it is not targeted at a specific nation. through this legislation japan u.s. alliance will function in its entirety if japan is exposed to an emergency or crisis by communicating this message to the world, apart to prevent disputes will be strengthened and heighten. i believe the possibility of japan being attacked will be lessened as a result. and money may or sincerely to the criticism of the japanese

people. i will exert my utmost to deepen their understanding towards this important and necessary legislation. >> i believe japanese people understand that history is not uniform. given the backdrop how do the backdrop had he wanted people people to understand your statement and which message you want to communicate most of the people? first of all, i drafted the statement with the hope of having as many people as possible approve and support it. and based on this premise, i also want this to be the basis with the dream towards the future together with the nations of asia and many others.

in drafting the statement i did not want to adhere to such vague to such a vague expression does japan have been made a mistake in its national policy but to delve deeper into how japan at dance on the wrong course by driving lessons from history. so i assembled the advisory panel and asked the experts to undertake that were. when we turn our eyes to the world, unfortunately, conflicts and is viewed have not seized. ukraine south china sea or east china sea cannot allow attempts to unilaterally change status quo by force anywhere in the world.

furthermore the poverty and terrorism are becoming even more serious. i believe to stand up this message at this particular time in history am learning from the lessons of 70 years ago but have a huge contemporary significant not only to the country of japan alone but to the rest of the world. this concludes the press conference since we have gone beyond their scheduled time. thank you very much. >> last saturday marked the 70th anniversary of the end of world war ii when japan surrendered to the allies on

august 15 1945. coming up next on the discussion on the history and current head of japan is a career positions on the 70th anniversary. this heritage foundation event is 90 minutes. >> to folks who don't follow asia they were a bit perplexed and i told them i was having an event on the anniversary statement of the 70th anniversary of the end of world war ii and they're a bit puzzled anyone would be interested in anniversary statement. clearly to people who follow asia, they know right now it is the for asia. certainly has a lot of ramifications including national security interests in northeast asia. the event of a follow-on to a number of things the foundation has done. july we have the three ambassador dialogue with

ambassadors from the republic of korea, japan as well as deputy assistant secretary sans kid and we thought that was a great success. following that, jim demint the heritage foundation president and i had an op-ed on south korean japanese relations so i see this at the end of the dot on an important issue. so we are very pleased we have a team of panelists today to discuss this important issue and will be focusing on prime minister abe statement as follows. reaction and to see if there is a strong possibility moving forward. i think a sign of the high caliber of our panelists as all of them could do this entire event in japanese. but because i am the weak link on the team they are kind to me and do this in english.

so if you've ever had a panel that needs no introduction, this is it. we have sheila smitherman senior fellow for japan's service at the council of foreign relations, also authored the recent the recent book into that rivals japanese domestic politics and a rising china as well as previously japan's new politics of u.s.-japan alliance. michael green, senior vice president c. sis and professor at georgetown and senior director for asia at the old and the non-resident fellow at brookings and the former principal deputy secretary for east asia. i've given them the same guidance but i'm not worried about overlap because they will all be looking at the issue with different takes on a different analysis. we will just get into the discussion here. one less housekeeping if everyone could make sure their phones on silent or off with

really appreciate that. we'll get started with sheila. >> thank you, bruce. thank you for your great series of discussions and was timely at that. the multiple generations in the audience is an important statement of the importance of this relationship. i've been asked to assess the state a little bit and then going first and it's probably useful to start with the word. words matter as i said in my blog. i did read a blog piece on fridays you the chance to look at that. the words were expressions used in previous statements by prime minister ludhiana. for the record they are colonial domination. they are deep remorse and their

apology. if all of us were sitting at a panel here week or so ago before the prime minister made that statement we would debate about whether it would be included or not. just to remind you where we were before the statement. some in his own party days before his statement publicly made the case you should not use that word so that is semantics. i thought it was a signal of intent particularly that he included all four. i will let others speak to the question of his sincerity or whether he should have used his own subject rather than speak on behalf of japanese people. i think what was interesting to me looking at the statement as he took a lessons learned approach. he said explicitly what has not been said before is the japanese sense of remorse and regret with embedded in the postwar diplomacy and the priorities japan had in principles that

have held were a reflection of postwar sentiment on part of the japanese people. obviously that is his prescription on the use of force by japan implicit in the article ix japan's constitution in the investment of peace and prosperity in asia. he spoke to the commitment of japan. that was pretty straightforward. i thought some of the messages he had direct that the japanese people are worth noting. the domestic political side. i don't think he held back much on technology and with deep grief the damage japan had imposed on the people of asia. i don't think it costs that too much but he included specific names of countries and battlefields in places. he also included twice and inclusion of the particular impact the battlefield situations had on women. in other words he referred

indirectly to the question of the trafficking of women and aggression against women and more. spoke to the quiet pride of the postwar japanese which was an interesting statement. one piece i wrote about that i don't think people spent much time talking about is his vocal but the gratitude to those who have suffered at the hands of the japanese imperial army for their forbearance their tolerance is the word he used in helping japan began its international standing. to my knowledge, no japanese leader had ever said thank you to the japanese people for about a japanese to be returned for taking care of children left behind or the pows who he said reached out. those are things i thought were different. the last piece has gotten some attention and that is when he said he did think the younger japanese children of this so is

talking about his own generation should be predestined to apologize. there is a piece of the puzzle in terms of how he would treat the future what he thought needed to happen. again, we should talk about that. there's a little bit of data not a lot but public opinion polling inside japan. we put up all out a day or two ago. a poll this morning has a little more texture so let me just give you a little sent there. overall 48% of japanese approved the statement. 34% did not. that is a 14% margin. non-overwhelming endorsement but a majority in favor. 72% of japanese supported the word. when he talked about younger japanese not been predestined to apologize, again he got a fairly significant dixie 3% of japanese

thought that was the right thing for him to say. on the diplomacy for a focus today 50% said they thought it would have no impact on japan's diplomacy. that's an interesting estimation to talk about what it means later on. let me with the words aside a part of our task is the interaction between japan and south korea and we were asked to evaluate the statement. i thought it was measured and thoughtful and a broader vision for these people in other words tonight is the commemoration simply to talk about japan. she talked about in terms of the future of the korean themselves which i thought was also very positive. the left room to welcome a trade work the aid cabinet much like that abe statement left room to work. neither were proactive and spelling on the agenda but i don't think the subject of commemorating the end of world

war ii is the place to do that. they both laughed enough diplomatic wiggle room i think. she had a much more positive tone although that is toned down somewhat and then revise. a good basis for forward movement. the expectation of this statement on saturday would be a formula for the future diplomatic relations. i didn't have that expectation myself that they did not present an additional hurdle and none of the evaluation i'd give those statements. i don't think statement alone will drive improvement for both pay particular attention to not making this a moment of setback for the two countries. how should tokyo proceed? i let my comments then we can continue later in u.s. policy. there's some specific moments to keep our eyes on in the days and

weeks ahead. the most obvious is the september 3rd commemoration of xi xinping by china. there's a newspaper report that still say mr. abe maybe cohen and others say it's not necessarily true so i'll do that journalists in the room to have might miss later on. there is also the question of whether president pac will go. the best of both worlds with the both leaders participated in the commemoration that belongs to a serious conversation with beijing about what ceremony is held. i think there's an opportunity for leadership on the part of both president pac in prime minister abe. if i had my dreams i would say they should meet together on the sidelines but that may be too ambitious. obviously we are looking for a bilateral meeting at some point between two leaders. we shouldn't make this dependent

upon china but clearly the two leaders estimate that the function of their own interest and therefore should be ready to call the timing and context of the meeting. i think it will be interesting to talk about whether or not there is a trilateral summit this fall. as you know, the foreign minister of japan, south korea did it this spring which i thought was a positive. trilateral meetings have been postponed because of the chinese. i hope this law will be an occasion for the leaders to meet and i hope the sole and tokyo will find a way to make the meeting a positive opportunity for the relationship. finally there's meetings and i think the visit in september followed by president pac will be very critical to setting the stage for the japan south korean diplomacy. when they stop there and hopefully continue the conversation during q&a. >> thanks very much, sheila.

>> good morning everyone. thank you for coming here and a special thanks to bruce and heritage for putting together the panel and audience. it's an honor to join with friends and colleagues on this occasion. i am not going to deliver my remarks in japanese or korean or chinese but rather a new york city english if you'll forgive me. let me begin with a quick personal take on prime minister abe statement which i found as the latest somewhat halting, very complex and occasionally problematic staff in japan's ongoing attempt to try to deal with its troubled history and with its resentful neighbors. despite this statement is false which i'll talk about in just a moment i have an inkling that

the statement may contribute in some way to an easing of tensions between japan and korea if both sides handle it well and if the opportunity and there are some opportunities presented by this statement are widely exploited. importantly and despite criticisms leveled against the statement the statement will not make things worse between japan and korea. and might in fact just make them better. all-caps about that all-caps about that some oranges to second. the statement for those who haven't read it is three times longer than the 1995 statement on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. that statement of course with a high watermark of postwar japanese apologies.

the length of the train for statement plus the fact it was cabinet indoors suggested to me this is prime minister abe's effort to make this the definitive japanese word on the war on the legacy that conflicts the issue. only time will tell whether that will become the case since the feature japanese government at some point may have more or might have left to say. the content of the statement also made very clear as sheila has pointed out that the prime minister was trying to laminate the need for future generations of innocent japanese to apologize for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers. unfortunately for the prime minister's shortcomings that tokyo has not heard the last of

calls from the region, particularly from korea for further apologies. having said that, i don't think that means relations between tokyo and seoul are destined to remain in the depressing phone in which they've been mired during the 10 years of the prime minister and his counterpart. but i will have more to say on that. for all of its faults, the prime minister statement is better than we had reason to respect. it's also not as overtly not some issues for some of us have wished. abe's well-known reluctance to apologize to japan's neighbors and support from those holding rather nationalistic views is passed quickly over whether

japan committed aggression during world war ii and his denial of official japanese involvement in the enslavement of the so-called comfort women. all of those gave us ample reason to fear this year's anniversary statement might be quite deficient and even traveling in a number of respects. but the prime minister surprised us, including by using the word aggression and making clear it was japanese aggression he was talking about in his statement and also threw in for good measure or good measure or the other was sheila mentioned colonial domination from a deep remorse and apology for good measure. in doing so he passed an important test since very few critics thought these words would ever pass this prime minister's lips. nonetheless, the extensive use of the voice of statement and if you haven't read it you really

should. it's artfully done. the device that he used a site in the of previous governments rather than delivering his own direct and personal apology gave the impression the prime minister was trying to stay up this half his staff, maybe a false type removed from a level of contrition and responsibility that had been conveyed in earlier japanese government and cabinet statement. we can take some comfort in the fact the prime minister highlighted the very contrite statement of his predecessors and also reminded us that japan has in fact repeatedly stated its deep remorse and heartfelt apologies over the years. perhaps most importantly, abe indoors all of the previous cabinet statement including those that he had been explicitly or implicitly

critical of in the past. that is important. and i think in doing so he obviously associated with those statements and by describing the statement that unshakable very interesting choice of words there, the air has made those words above the previous statements including his own free morris apology contrition, it better. he has made all of those words the new foundation for future japanese government pronouncements on the issue of wartime responsibility. another significant development. my take is all of this is something the republic of korea can and the republic of korea should interpret positively as evidence that the prime minister is willing to accept the verdict of his prime ministerial and

cabinet predecessors. if you look back over the ups and downs over the tenure it is fair to say the prime minister has come a long way toward meeting the concerns of korean but has he met all of their concerns. in a word no. and it's a statement of basis for a fundamental turnabout in japan korea relations. this i would say the jury is still out. several things in the statement have justifiably disappointed the koreans. they hope to see a specific reference to an apology for japan's colonization of korea and i suspect that is probably a bridge too far to many in japan believe the colonial annexation of korea for korea in a different category than china, for example, requiring a different treatment and of

course prime minister trained or went out of his way to make a specific and positive gesture towards china but there is no such gesture forthcoming from korea. the abe statement also provided some describe as a cringe worthy moment even from an american perspective as the prime minister tried to explain japan's drift to expansionism colonialism and war in the 1930s and little of the content has been very pleasant to the ears of korea and remember only too well the harshness of their colonial experience. the fact that abe's historical analysis was tempered by his wish and that japan and his words took a long course along the road to war was helpful in coming from this particular prime minister was it in cement

an admission that should be woven. abe could and should have made a standalone reference to the suffering of the korean people instead of merely including them in a list of many in the region has suffered. i thought that was a lost opportunity. koreans had some reason to think abe might be right at them in advance of the statement only days before the statement korean people witnessed what i thought was a profoundly moving in a former japanese prime minister falling on their knees in front of a japanese prison in seoul where koreans been incarcerated and tortured and so on his knees as a gesture of apology to the koreans to it suffered there. again, the prime minister state and they heard the former senior japanese diplomat and friend of

ours described japan's annexation of korea as a quote historical sin, unquote. either of those gestures could stage for a magnanimous, word by abe, but the prime minister stopped somewhat short of a korea specific apology or atonement and also lost was an opportunity to make reference to the comfort women from arguably the most emotional issue that is complicating ties between korea and japan. a positive word in this regard would've gone a long way but nevertheless the dignity and honor of women had been damaged by japan should not be taken lightly. nor should the statement that japan and his words wishes to be a country always sat beside of such women injured heart. such phrases like that cannot and should not be dismissed.

each of these statements potentially opens the door to a more forthcoming approach by japan on an issue of central importance to korea and koreans in korea will have a chance to hold the prime minister to word in the months to come. of all of the shortcomings the prime minister seems to offer a korea something that can actually work with. to recognize how far the prime minister has gone since early in his tenure particularly his endorsement of the previous japanese official pronouncements of regret, remorse and apology. however abe's attempt to release future generations of japanese of the burden of apology misses an important point from the korean for japan to be relieved of the need for future apologies it is important

that today's expressions of remorse and regret are seen as genuine and sincere. to do so, tokyo has to make her their efforts to reconcile with his korea neighbor. that is the core point of the official rok reaction is conveyed on saturday in the liberation day remarks. president p. he was careful not to dismiss the prime minister abe had to do in a statement. it said the statement did not quite live up to our dictation, unquote. that is a very mild criticism of korean standards. reacting to the prime minister's positive statements of remorse president pac challenges government to match is consistent and fair actions.

its declaration that the view of history taken it up as previous cabinets will be upheld. in the korean new indeed they're going to have be matched with word. president p. he also took note of prime minister's endorsement of previous official japanese david in doing so highlighted one of the groups harmed by japan's past action caught on japan to resolve the issue quickly. she also restated their commitment to move towards a future of renewed cooperation and shared across dirty. -- prosperity. the friendship between the two countries and cooperation shoe seems to be leaving the door open to further improvement in ties with tokyo and that is a very positive sign. indeed if you look back over the recent months the overall

talent and direction of japan korea relations seems to have shifted somewhat away from the comments that we've all grown used to over the last year or two and in favor of emphasizing the possibility of them are positive and future oriented relationship. import my prime minister abe's bateman appears to have given korea just enough to work with as the two sides explore ways to improve ties in title the various issues between them. without question in my view but may wrap up here abe statement could have been better and certainly more could have been sent to assuage korean sensitivities. but the good news here is the korean president seems to agree prime minister abe's in a much better place on matters of mutual concern than he had been and also seems to agree the abe

statement will open doors, not slam shut. i think it is too early to tell whether it all in tokyo will make progress on the issues that divide them but what seems clear at this point is in the aftermath of the abe statement thanks to what i believe is president pac is wise prudent statement like reaction to it the two sides prepared to try. ..