world, is once again to take control of our destiny. the global sanctions that kept iran at bay and brought them to the table was working. so let's do what works, because the president chose to submit this agreement not as a treaty. the next president is not bound by it. the next president can instead take a whole new approach. one based on a position of strength, not of concession. sanction relief should only be granted when nations abandon the coordinated campaign of violence and terrorism. you don't induce your enemies into good behavior. you make it painful to continue the bad behavior. you know, iran is not the only challenge we face in the middle east. iraq is a country where americans have fought and died to bring stability and protect its security.

i would venture to guess that all 15 candidates for president have been asked that same question. would you have gone to war if you enough what you knew now? but you know what question i have not heard the democrats ask? if you knew our total unconditional withdrawal from iraq would lead to the creation and expansion of isis, the mass execution of moderate muslims, to the slaughter of coptic christians, to syrian children washing ashore as they fled the butcher, assad. would you still support the president's complete withdrawal from iraq? would you still defend drawing red lines that get crossed without consequences. would you support a policy that has given isis a caliphate about the size of the uk. would you give up cities like

ramadi, where marines gave the last measure of devotion so the president could keep a campaign promise? i look forward to that question being asked. we need an interly new policy in iraq and syria. the iraqi army is no longer up to the task, and the co-coalition air war against isis, both in iraq and syria, have failed to reverse isis' gains. the u.s. needs to lead again, and re-engage. our goal in iraq should be defeat isis, marginalize iranian influence and rain iranian militarys' help to foster the system of political inclusiveness rather than sectarian division. the u.s. and our allies should also consider putting limited number of u.s. special forces personnel on the ground, and outside the wire, to help' provide more effective support to the iraqi army, the sunni and

the kurdish units directly engaged in the fight. many combat missions flown over iraq come back without ever dropping a bomb. this is because we have limited intelligence. we have tied the hands of our commanders and micromanaged from the white house. when we ask our brave men and women to risk their lives every day, we must fight to win and empower them to fight and win. in addition, to real hard power, we could do more on the soft power as well. unlike during the surge in iraq, when petraeus and crocker had an effective politically strategy to match the military strategy. no such effort exists today. working with iraqi leaders on an inclusive nonsecond tear governans plan is essential to move forward. in nearby syria, the situation

is even worse than bleak. the decision to back down to assad caused insurmountable harm to america's credible. but it didn't end there. this administration engaged with russia, one of assads top supporters to broker an agreement to the destruction of assad's chemical weapons. predictably, assad continues to use chemical weapons against his own people to the very day. and russia? well, the rapid increasing support for assad, we have watched tanks, personnel, and fighter jets. when obama backed down, russia and iran doubled down. the growing nexus in syria among russia, iran, and assad, has all but ensured the failure of this

administration's plan to coax assad from power. already the conflict has created the worst refugee crisis since world war ii. roughly half of syria's population has been displaced, over four million who have fled to jordan, lebanon and turkey. and europe. how heartbreaking when we watched a young three-year-old face down on the beaches of turkey. it brought reality home. the situation only appears to be getting worse. finally. i, i think we should work with aye allies to establish a know fly zone ore syrian this safe zone would create a stem of flow of refugees and allow sanctuary for the rebooted syrian rebels to take on isis and al qaeda affiliate groups and prevent

assad's future attacks on his own people. now, whether in the form of isis or al qaeda, or other radical islamic movement, one thing is clear. politically correct speech will not defeat the enemy. we must engage this war of radical islam if our life depend on it, because it does. we want -- they want to kill western value biz bringing bloodshed western cities. we watched london, paris, new york, and washington, all seen the face of terror. let me be clear, this is not the view of the great majority of muslims here and abroad. american muslims make this country better. and the same is true of the millions of muslims across the globe. they reject the extremism as much as we do. but a small percentage of a well-funded islamic fanatics hate those moderate muslims as

much as they hate christians and jews, and they will stop at nothing to rid the world of all three. you know, history repeats itself. if i look in history, of where we are, seems a lot like 1979. a lot of things falling in familiar categories. the soviets invading afghanistan. today russia in crimea and ukraine. this islam county fanatics over take an embassy of ours in iran, holding us hostage, and then there are four hostages there today, not count for the numbers who are murdered by isis around the world. the last time a u.s. ambassador was killed on foreign soil? that's a direct reflection of the respect and the fear that other countries have of us.

and in 1979, in afghanistan, and stevens and the three brave americans in libya. then and now, the chaos on conflict was a direct result of a weak america leadership. but you know what? it only took ten years to go from a world in chaos to the freeing off our hostages, to the trembling and the tumbling of the berlin wall. to the liberate offering eastern bloc, to two years later to the communist soviet union collapse, and it all happened because america's leadership and america resolve. so guided by three fundamental principles that must see us forward. the world is safer when america leads. that strength and resolve are the best recipe for peace and security. and that america stands with its

allies and challenges ited odd r vary. they're no sub for -- substitute for american leadership. the fate of the world is in our hands. so let us do what must be done. so that some day, we can tell our children that we protected freedom when it was challenged the most. that we stood up to tire rants and terrorists -- tyrants and terrorists. we stood with those who are oppressed and freedom lovingful we became the america that the world has counted on so many times once again. you and your children deserve that america. thank you and god bless. [applause]

>> thank you, leader mccarthy, for being with us today and for delivering a very thoughtful address on america's role in the world. choosing to lead has been the work of many hands, and before we turn to our panel i would like to highlight or gratitude to the bradley foundation for making this book possible. we had over 30 authors for the book, most of whom are here today. we had more authors than time to showcase them all. what we wanted to at least two two panels and have a wide ranging discussion. so our good friend, pete winner, agreed to moderate both panels and i would like to invite him and the first panel to the stage. bios for each panelist can be found on our web site. but let me quickly introduce them and their area of expertise and we can get right to the discussion. maybe have our panelists come up.

eric adeleman will be talking about defense. mike singh on iran. paula on russia, and dan on western hemisphere. >> thank you very much. and thank you -- >> if you milled any of this conversation we'll have it up online -- c-span.org and donald trump is calling for -- his plan calls for eliminating federal income taxes on lower incomeern and lowering it on corporations and highest income tax pairs. we'll have it right here on c-span 2.

>> governments today have an advisory role in icam. that do not directly make policy. they cannot have a seat on our board of directors. this is very much in fact a triumph of showing how a private sector-led institution that has the government as an important advisory body, but that has a broad are base of decisionmaking that is private sector-led, including input from the technical community and civil society and the academics, et cetera, but that is advice that informs the policy and the board activities are anchored in the fact that governments are continuing to play an advisory

role to what we do. >> tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> earlier this month the commissioner of the big~12 conference, talked about issues facing college athletics at a national press club luncheon, including the money involved and performance enhancing drugs. [inaudible conversations] >> welcome to the national press club. my name is john hughes. i'm an editor for bloomberg first word, the breaking news desk here in washington, and i am also the president of the national press club. our guests today is bob -- the fourth full-time commissioner on the big~12 conference is going to talk about college athletics. first, i want to introduce our

distinguished head table. this table includes guests of the speaker, as well as national press club members, from the audience's right, kevin wednesdaying, retired navy captain and a member of the press club speaker's committee. michael phelps, former publisher of the "washington examiner. "lauren lewis, former fox news channel producer. colleen nelson, white house correspondent for "the wall street journal." carl, washington columnist for "the dallas morning news." kevin blackstone, "washington post" columnist and espn panelist, jerry, washington bureau chief of "the buffalo news," also a past float national press club and the chairman of the club's speakers

committee. skipping over our speaker for a moment, pat host, reporter for defense daily and rotor wing international and the speaker's committee member who organized today's event. thank you, pat. kenny, a former missouri congressman who is now with kit strategies. bill miller, retired washington editor for industry week magazine. anna miller, health and wellness reporter for "u.s. news and world report." jack williams, retired "usa today" weather editor and a free lance writer. [applause] i also want to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences, and i want to remind you that if you are following the action on twitter, please use the hash tag "npclive" on

twitter. if you love college athletics, you know something about the big~12 conference or at least the schools that are part of it. there's baylor, iowa state, kansas, kansas state, oklahoma, oklahoma state, tcu, texas, texas tech, and west virginia. note to all college math majors, there are ten teams in the big~12. and by the way, there are 14 teams in the big ten. there will be a test after class. the big~12 faces more than a math issue, of course in today's era of league re-alignment and playoffs and what has become

big-time college football. last year, the big~12's two best teams missed the playoffs largely because they both finished with one loss and thus tied for their league title. our guest today, mr. goldsby, is working hard to make sure that doesn't happen again. he is established a new football tiebreaker for the league after the playoff miss last year, and despite the math issue i mentioned, he has ruled out conference expansion in the near future. meanwhile, he has become a leader in off-field issues. he has advocated for regulations that prohibit schools from accepting transfer athletes with past disciplinary issues, including sexual violence. he has spoken out against co-opting the use of players' names in daily fantasy sports, calling it gambling. he has denounced cable networks'

use of what he calls betting friendly coverage. as native of waterloo, iowa, mr. goldby has been leading the big~12 or two a little more than three years. conference teams achieved seven national championships in his first three years, and the big~12 set a record for revenue in 2014-2015, reaching $253 million. given that goldby has been outspoken on so many college supports matters we invited him to national press club to share his thoughts. so, please join me in giving a warm national press club welcome to big~12 commissioner, bob goldby. [applause]

>> yes, i'm outspoken. sometimes to my own detriment. my president's which chancellors told me i should give. the a little bit of warning when i'm going to say anything that's provocative. i didn't call any of them today but -- so my noldnotes are not overly provocative. your questions may get me into a situation where i get in trouble with my bosses, and so please spare me. i come with apologies for missing last year. i was just about ready to come to washington, dc and my friend and washington, dc mentor, kenny, has been -- had been getting me in to see senators and representatives in anticipation of what might happen with the national labor

relations board or with some of the 13 class action lawsuits were we part of and we were planning another round of visit inside washington, dc when, on the this before the ow-under-texas football game, which you may know in dallas is a pretty big deal, the red river rivalry was just about to happen when i learned that i had a torn retina in my left eye, and i said, well, maybe we can get it fixed over thanksgiving, and they said, we're going to do surgery this afternoon or tomorrow morning. and so i started canceling things and unfortunately my visit to the press club, which i was very much looking forward to, was among those. so, my apologies for delaying this by a year. it's the fourth week of the football season. it's also the fourth year of my tenure at the big~12. i came up as a wrestler in college, and i had aspirations

to being a coach and teacher. i still consider myself an educator, and i really think that's why i've stayed at this for about 35 years. but as i've been away from campus, i was director of athletics at northern image, the university of illinois, and stanford university, and this roles i got to be around a lot of great kids, a lot another great coaches, wonderful people. out get all the high eyes and low lows working in a kind of volatile environment but yet a very supportive and team oriented environment as well. so this last four years is the first time i've been away from that. i've really missed the energy that comes with a campus at the end of august and beginning of september, this time of year. you can't replicate the energy that is there, and i honestly

even miss some of the knucklehead stuff that 18, 19, 20-year-olds do, and lord knows there's plenty of those kinds of things. but being away from the good stuff that goes long on campus has really reminded me and kind of led me to look at the enterprise of athletics just a little differently, and as john mentioned, i have been critical of some of the things that we have been doing and not doing in intercollegiate athletics, and the preponderance of opportunities and experiences, the vast majority of the people, are unbelievably positive. it's a great thing. one of the thing that kind of goes without being noticees to much is one out of every fire division 1 college athletes is a

first-generation college student. one out of five. that's pretty remarkable. it's the athletic scholarship program at america's universities is the second largest scholarship program in the history of the united states. second only to the g.i. bill. it is a remarkable success story, and yet when you begin the process of looking at how the sausage is made, there's plenty of stuff in there that i'm not proud of, and i don't think others should be proud of either. now, you know, you can stay at it -- i am 63 years old. i told the people at the big~12 i wanted to work another ten years when i took the job, and i guess i'll probably do that but i don't really expect to move anyplace else and it would probably be fairly easy just to say, this is what it is, and i'll live with it and collect my check and on the 20th of the

month, and we'll go on our merry way. anybody that knows me very well will tell you i'm not wired that way, and part of the reason why i took the job is because i felt like i could have more of an opportunity to affect change at the national level, as a conference commissioner, than i could as the director of athletics at stanford university. and so i have begun the process of digging into how the sass sandaling is made, and whether you want to go down the path and chew on your salami or summer sausage and not really look into how it's made, or the other alternative is to dig deep and look the things with eyes wide open that ought to change, things we don't like, things that might not be right for young people, things that might not be right within the context of higher education. i prefer to do the latter.

i have spent time trying to get involved in the things that will make a difference, and we have 350 division 1 athletic programs, division 1 universities and these universities range in budgets from $3 million on one end to almost $200 million on the other end. and yet we all try and play in the men's basketball tournament, the women's basketball tournament. we try and make rules that paint all those organizations with a single brush. what is a great decision at the university of oklahoma may be an awful decision another northern iowa where i spent some time, and maybe even worse decision at siena if you think about what their needs might be. and so increasingly i wonder about whether or not we can continue to manage this enterprise with 1200 schools and the ncaa, 350 in division 1, and

trying to make rules that essentially create a level playing field. and we have said that for derek okayeds. we want a level playing field elm want us all to be equal. what that means is we dumb down a lot of our processes in deference to the people who can't afford a faster set of priorities, and so i think there's a real question as we re-organize the ncaa yet again, as to whether or not we can meet the varied needs of that wide and diverse population. this is an infinitely more complex environment than the nfl or the nba or major league baseball. when you -- think about having 32 entitieses managed by people who actually own the businesses, and the decision processes that go into it, it's not even close.

mark emert has an extraordinarily difficult job because the president, although he is call the president of the ncaa, really has no power except that which is given to him by his board of directors. and so it's very difficult to affect meaningful change. we have a new governance structure. we're being helped by the courts. i have gotten some favorable outcomes. we have got summon disfavorrable outcomes, but we are in a period of significant evolution. we are -- there are things going on right now in college athletics we never thought would happen. think about friday night used to be completely sack crow sanction. never put college games on friday night now. we play friday night, thursday night, wednesday night, tuesday

night in search of the holy grail, which is tv money. we are routinely selling alcohol at college games despite the fact that three-quarters of the college undergreat whats are underage. they don't constitute the majority of most crowds but it's still highly symbolic in some obvious ways. and the other thing is, we're starting to see a proliferation around gambling that is really quite remarkable, and at a time when we're trying to delineate the difference between the collegiate experience and professional experience, itself looks like a duck and walks like a duck and talks like a duck, pretty soon it's hard to determine that it's not a duck. and that is really where we are. we have cover alerts on our television coverage now, point

spreads are routinely promoted. some of the fantasy games that are weekly and daily games, you're never going to convince me it's not gambling. is there skill involved? yes, there's skill involved in blackjack, too, but this is gambling. you're wagering money and taking your chance on winning, and oh, by the way, just look they didn't build all the big buildings in las vegas on the backs of winners, they're not giving away million dollar checks on the backs of winners, either. a lot of people losing significant amounts of money in these games. and fan dual and draft kings, three weekends in a row were the largest purchasers of advertising on espn and fox. without any real comparison. at the same time we see all these troubling trends.

there's -- there arlet of interesting fundamental questions we can ask ourselves. is there an appetite or even a need to create policies and procedures that differentiate college sports from the professional sports? is it even feasible? if class action lawsuits don't change the way you operate, then what is it that is going to accomplish any sort of meaningful change. we think about the most lawsuits that we're involved in are a result of the difference between room, board, books, tuition, fees and what it really costs to go to school, which is called the full cost of attendance, and it's that delta between basic educational expenses and the full cost that is really the substance of these lawsuits.

... by the way there are some fairly significant lifetime implications to getting a college education. i do believe in them all and i really believe that it's important for that 20% of our student population who's never had a relative go to college that that happens.

these are important societal things for us. we have to do what's right for young people, and the fact is we finally with the help of the courts have gotten to the point where we could legitimately provide something more than room, board, books, tuition and fees. i was on the committee in 1987 when we came up with a revolutionary new idea. we're going to provide room for books tuition and fees and $2000 a year. it got shot down by people who couldn't afford them. it's gotten shut down about four or five times since then. and i would submit to you we could avoided all of these lawsuits have been able to get that past. and finally we have been able to do it with the help of the ninth circuit in california. other questions, can there be a legitimate and viable development of opportunity for young people who are unprepared to go to college and really

uninterested in a college education? and right now the only pathway for football and basketball players is to go to college. there is no other alternative. the major league baseball model is really the one that i can take some pride in. drafted out of high school or leave me alone until after my junior year. and if you want to go and play minor league baseball, develop my skills, follow my dream of playing in the big leagues, i can do that. there's no comparable opportunity in football or men's basketball, other than going to college. should college athletes and higher education be expected to set example for society? we are really high visibility, but is it unrealistic to expect that our campuses our college athletic programs would be a reflection of society instead of something that is setting examples? i think the gambling example is

a really a good one. we all remember the day when we could have been state lotteries or if they were really limited. people played numbers games can organize god made a lot of money at it. the public really wanted lotteries and now i think every state has its own lottery. we have a national lottery. it's something the public wanted. we legitimized it and a lot of illegal opportunities went away but right now gambling, i believe i'm correct when they say, it's illegal in 49 states. and yet espn and fox insists upon carrying betting lines on college football games. and pro football games, for that matter. our student athletes are spent an enormous amount of time in pursuit of excellence. some of it they do on their own. some of the pushed into by coaches at every institution

keeps track of what's called countable athletic related activities. and this rule has been we evaluated for probably since 1991 when it was put in place. prior to text messages, prior to digitize the video, prior to a lot of the things that we now have in place, and so i think it's a fair question to ask how we reinvent ourselves because what happens when the ncaa tries to reinvent something is restored out to design a thoroughbred racehorse to perform a very particular function. and by the time it gets done going through the process, it's mostly looks like a three-legged camel that doesn't run very fast and doesn't really meet anybody's needs. and so how do '80s and president affect genuine change where change is necessary, retaining all the good things that are right about

intercollegiate athletics, and do it in an environment where by virtual universal acknowledgment their coaches, sometimes exercise influence over regions and trustees, and athletic directors and presidents find themselves in very compromising positions went to advocate for real change. how do we seek to manage transfers from one university to another? we have coaches that jump all over every place, leave their contracts before their completion. we have institutions that either coaches years short of a commitment that they said they would give them, and yet we have, we find that in men's basketball, almost 50% of division i men's basketball players transfer at least once in their career. almost 50%. that's an embarrassment to

higher education. it makes a mockery of it. as i said we had a few positive outcomes, the national labor relations board deciding not to deal with the northwestern unionization issue. i do think that there will be a time, and i'm glad they unionization process has cooled for right now. but the fact is, and it will probably be in the sport of men's basketball, there will be a day in the future when the popcorn is popped, the tv cameras are there, the fans are in the stands and the team decides they are not going to play. mark my words, we will see that in the years ahead. and we saw some of it for other reasons in the '70s, but i really good that we are not

finished with the compensation issue or with the employee versus student issue. i would be out of this, as my career, in a hurry if i didn't believe that this was a co-curricular activity, that it was worth the time and effort to go through having kids, you know, our goal is to help 18 year old adolescents become 22 euros adults, and in the process get a good education and have a great collegiate experience, collegiate athletics experience. if they go on to other professional career, if they can go on and compete in the olympics, those are highly desirable byproducts of quality collegiate athletics experience but they are not why we are there. and i recognize that there are some real contradictions in the system, but we have to get our

arms around the fact that this is about a college experience. this is about students who are here to get an education. knows that ultimately end up going to the olympics or going into the professional ranks, it's an infinitesimal number. about 1.5% of the fbs division i football players are drafted, less than half that actually make a roster. it's a very small number, and the percentages are even smaller in men's basketball. so there are unrealistic expectations in the system. as we think about other changes, perhaps it's a kind of one semester sports so that we could have students that are legitimate students or in part of a year and have a bigger commitment to their athletics in the rest of the part of the

year. maybe it's time to federate our rules by sport. so that we don't have to worry any longer about trying to make rules that equally impact football and golf and field hockey and track and field. maybe the days of having conferences are coming to an end. perhaps would end up with confederation of one sort or another that are horizontally arranged by sport rather than having multi-sport organizations that operate as we do today. it's easy to post all these questions, and i think there are lots of legitimate answers and lots of differences of opinion. with my hat on as a member of the u.s. olympic committee the last eight years, i really worry about what happens when a lot of money goes into football and men's basketball, and people are on campus are wondering how to

fund it, and all of us it, and all of us in wrestling and swimming and golf and tennis and lacrosse at a lot of these other sports begin to go away. i think it changes the culture of the campus, and i think it eliminates an enormous number of opportunities for young people. even with all that i've described i'm very committed to it because i believe in it. editing for the vast majority of kids, they are doing it the right way. they are there for the right reasons, but we've got some things that i think we have to deal with. i'm committed to the task. i believe in the mission. i think it's a terrific, terrific leadership laboratory. but it we are not forthright in at least advocating for the things that would be appropriate changes, i just think that we're going to be constantly facing what we've been facing the last three years, and that is what we say we're going to do, but we

articulate as our philosophy and our principles is inconsistent with our actions. and i don't think you can play football games on tuesday night and say you care about the education of the campus and the kids. i just think there are lots of examples. some of them very glaring where we don't walk the talk. and until we start reconciling some of those, i just think we are going to be in for a long slog. with that backdrop that i look at it and say, you know, if we want to extricate ourselves in the courts and some some of the challenges, then we need to, we need to define ourselves differently than sometimes others define us. and so i'm excited about the challenge. i'm a little bit tired from the

challenge. i really didn't, all of the lawsuit came after i signed a contract to come to the big 12. and i've now learned more about article one of sherman antitrust that i never thought i needed to know, but having said that, it's been a very interesting intellectual journey. and because i believe in the enterprise and because i remember how transformational and experience in intercollegiate athletics can be, i'm very committed to fighting the fight of these next few years. and hopefully helping to either incrementally or perhaps even more radically change the enterprise. so thank you very much, and i'll be happy to address your questions. [applause]

>> thank you so much, bob. college sports has become such a big money enterprise in every respect. some of the reforms that you talk about, whether it's transfers, alcohol in stadiums, batting, is it really that big money maker that is preventing these reforms, or is that oversimplify it that it is about the money because i don't think there's any question about it. all of the things that i talked about, gambling and alcohol and playing all over the calendar. they are all driven by money. they are driven by a need to try and chase that holy grail. and i think that, you know, one of the things we did with regard to economy is we sought to not draw any bright line. the five conferences, the big 12, the sec, the pac-12, the big

ten and acc believe that the student athletes and our programs were highly recruited. they had some challenges with agents. they had experiential things that were different than the vast majority of the other student athletes. and that's the reason we went down the path of trying to have some control over our own fate. but when we did that we did want to draw any bright lines and so you can participate with us, and you can't participate with us. anybody who wants to play by the same rules that we want to play by can do so. we just don't want to be told by a majority, a minority of 300 we can't operate our own programs. and i think many thought that it would be a runaway train when the five of us had the opportunity to set some of our own rules. and, in fact, most of our rules

changes have been around restrictions rather than expansions. and so, but you're right, it is all about money. and it's about people without money trying to keep up with those that have money, and that makes for strange bedfellows, obviously. >> if we pay college athletes salaries, in other words, more than just an allowance, will we get athletes whose lives are ruined by too much too soon? would to be a downside to being athletes salaries? >> that's a great question. the one thing i was is college athletes are not any better at handling the resources in any other college student. having educated for them myself, i've had them squander amounts of money that i thought were really quite astonishing. [laughter] but i do think that over very

long period of time we have invited students to campus, fully with acknowledgment that some of them have no opportunity for resource support from home. and we second were going to give you room, board, books, tuition and fees and you should be happy with it, even though we know they don't have pocket money, don't have any discretionary money. they have money to go home. and so can we, could we provide them with more than they can handle? i think most institutions are, they have the prerogative to provide that check for the entire year if they wanted to. but most of them are putting it out on a two week basis or a four week basis for the exact reason that they don't want people to have large amounts of money that is discretionary for all of, in a short period of time. i think resource management really is important. i think it's important that we

be thoughtful about it, because it's easy to squander the money. and i think there is a good and appropriate reason to pay every nickel of what it costs to go to college. there is not a compelling case, in my estimation, debate about the. i think once we get above that we are on a very slippery slope. and it just becomes a matter of how much. had with the full cost of attendance in place 15 years ago, i think we would've avoided the lawsuits that we now find ourselves in. can we give them too much too soon? sure, we can, but i think one thing that has kind of called and is starting to go, and that is that the difference, the delta at texas maybe $3000 the delta at oklahoma maybe $4000. and coaches say, well, how can we compete against one another

when they can give 4000 we can only give 3000? i think the editors at the end of your college days at both schools you graduate with no debt and aren't very many college students who can say that these days. >> this questioner notes that most of the discussion about compensating athletes in some ways is rooted in football and basketball, because team members in those sports are responsible for bringing in the revenue. if football and basketball players eventually get compensated in some way, how do you feel about members of tennis or gymnastics, swimming, nonrevenue sports teams, should also get some kind of compensation? >> well, as a former college wrestler, i would suggest that none of the football and basketball players worked any harder than i did. and i think that if you apply any form of the labor theory of value, i think you would say that i'll work hard and they all deserve some incidental expense

money, which they are, in fact, now getting. the rules surrounding cost of attendance doesn't just apply to football and basketball but yes, they are the ones that are generating it. now, having said that, would you think about the football and basketball environment, it's easy to say look at the full stadium and look at the coach's salary. why shouldn't the players get some of it? well first of all almost all of the money that's raised through those processes goes to support other things within the athletics department. the other thing is the football and vasco players don't work any harder. they don't work any longer. they just happen to the blessing of an adoring public that is willing to pay to get into their events. i just am not convinced that it's their own hard work that they are entitled to more than other student athletes. i know there's a case to be made on the other side of it. we did a forum here is me, what

was it? in april, where jay bellis and i sat next to each other and debated that very topic, but i just, this is a very unique model. it is socialistic in his heritage, and i just am not compelled by the argument that it should be just football and basketball. and by the way, i don't think our federal laws allow us to do that. if we're going to have 85 football scholarship kids getting full cost of attendance, and 13 men's basketball, we are both legally and duty-bound to do similarly for women student-athletes in the same numbers. >> this questioner says that baylor versus tcu big 12 football championship game wasn't obvious unfortunate tragedy, because one of those

games should have been into college football playoffs. is there any interest in creating a big 12 conference tournament for football? and if not, why not? >> well, our athletic directors, i was actually proud of them after coming we're all in new york together, and we were bitterly disappointed not to either team in. they would those among the fan bases that thought we ought to be, that i can't do anything and say, since we have a rule that says we have cochampions in virtually every sport, and so obviously you can't change that will in the middle of the year but there were a few big offensive thought i should be able to do that, that i should just go ahead and avoid them as chip and thereby put in a better position to get into the playoff. but we have proposed along with the acc a rule that would deregulate the rules around the championship game.

right now you have the police of 12 members. you have to play two, 16 divisions and play a round-robin in your own division. we've asked to have those rules deregulated and if that happens we will be able to have a championship game with a 10 members. i can't honestly tell you it will do it or not. i actually think that our path to the playoffs in many years maybe preferable to those that put their two best teams against each other and again late in season, because your best team doesn't always win. in fact, our history with the big 12 championships game is that our better team got beat about 50% of the time. so our pathway might end up being favorable to the conference playoff. >> this questioner says most division i athletic department run a deficit. why is that? >> they spend too much. [laughter]

>> would like to think they can get their budget and live with all that money coming in, so what's wrong speak with you would like to think that, yeah. i told our president not long ago that it didn't matter how much money we created, and that's one of the things the conference offices expected do is be a rainmaker for our members. it's been an interesting transition for me because our budget, while, as john said, we distribute $250 million to our member, our annual operating budget is only about $15 million. we have 30 full-time equivalent is, a small operation to my budget at stanford was $100 a year and we at 425 full-time equivalencies so it's a very different management environment that i was accustomed to before. but institutions have taken on very large amounts of debt, mostly for facilities. they have paid coaches that,

more than they could afford to pay, especially in the case of not wanting to lose the coach. as a general statement they are not particularly well-run enterprises, a lot of times. there are about 25 schools out of top 125 athletic department that play fb is football, play football at the highest level. about 25 of those actually break even or make money, and the rest lose money. many of those 125 are highly subsidized by their institution. in fact, some of them are putting up something approaching $25 million a year into the athletics program and not surprisingly there are robust debates on campus where those kinds of subsidies are taking place. because, you know, that faculty salaries are frozen and state support is diminishing or at best staying the same. and all of a sudden you are

putting $25 million toward the intercollegiate athletics program that many on campus don't think is doing much for the institution. and so i think that, you know, there are bad decisions being made in terms of not only how much is being spent but what it is being spent on. and then some of it is structural, to get we require that either going to put in division i you have at least 16 sports programs. if that will ever change you can bet that there would be a bunch of nonrevenue sports that would go away. as i've mentioned before i think that really changes the character of the athletics program and, indeed, your university as well because it's a place where opportunities to be diverse and robust. and an era where it gets, the less that's going to be true. >> this questioner in the room

want to follow up on something that you said earlier in your remarks. are things really so bad that college basketball players will some day boycott again, and how close are we to that point? >> well, i don't think close. it's a great question. but i just think that the tensions in the system are not going to go away anytime soon. it depends on who you ask. i was speaking to a .. week it was a basketball player in the class. he's a nice young guy, had a number of different good question, thoughtful. and i said, do you think of yourself as an employee? anti-sago yes, i do. and i said, well, tell me why. and he says, well, because my time is not my own. i'm told where to go and when i can come and when i can't, when i can't come. and i travel. i don't play very much so this is a good way for me to get my school paid for, but i feel very

much like an employee because i don't have any control over where i go, what i do, how i work out, how long i work outcome what i eat, where he. he said, that sounds like an employee to me. and i said, well, you have a choice as to whether you participate. he says, well, i don't feel like have a choice because my family can't afford to send me to college, and this is the way i get there. and i said, well, would you feel different about it if you're playing a lot? and he said, well, right now i like the passion because i'm not really one of the people that impactful on the team, and i'm grateful for what i'm getting, but you asked me if i feel like and employee come and i do. i have thought about it a lot since then, and am going to ask the question of others as i go

around. one of the things i do during the course of the year is i try and meet with one of the student athlete advisory committees. each campus has a student athlete advisory committee that an elected body with representatives from each sport. so one of the things i'm going to probe within all of it, because i guess in the individual about what the courts say about employee status or not. if the student athletes feel like they are involved in a situation where they lack control over what is a could do or can't do, and lord knows we've got lots of rules that govern them from a great point standpoint, from a named image and likeness standpoint. it's just, i probably would've felt different if i still on campus, but in listening to student athletes, in some ways we are putting them in untenable

situations. >> to ongoing health issues certainly have been a concern in professional sports in particular but, of course, it's also an issue of the collegiate level, particularly in football. one being concussion. there was another major study out this week about effects of concussions and ongoing brain injuries in later years. and also performance-enhancing drugs. on the college level are we on top of those to the degree that we need to be, or is there more that needs to be done speak with let me ask, answer the second one first. my opinion is we need to do more with regard to performance-enhancing drugs. attesting has been almost completely left to institutional prerogative. there is wide variance as about the policies work and often they are tested and what they are tested for, and the like. there is also a fair amount of

variance and the ncaa testing program goes. i just think it's an area that we probably need to spend some more time on. i don't think we do as much as the national governing bodies in our olympic programs, and we, i think we can probably do better. i don't know if it's a conference initiated program. we have a random drug testing program in the big 12, and i think most conferences do. but we are really testing a very, very small number of the total athletes on each campus. i think we conduct testing between 40 and 60 on each campus. so it really does not all that impactful. i think we probably have more that we can do. indicates that the concussions, we have really tried to lead him that.

the big 12 has just put in place a rule that cut our full contact practices by 50%, going into this year. we went from three days a week to two days a week. we are still higher than what the nfl allows. the nfl only allows 11 days of full contact after the first game. and so we are come in my estimation, a little bit of a compromising position but we are better than a national role. the issue of concussions is obviously acute in college football, and we changed the rules to make helmet, contact and targeting illegal, including projections. and it really has changed the way people play the game. we still call it once in a while, but it isn't like it was two or three years ago. the interesting thing about that is, one of two things happens if you target somebody can

practice. you do it to one of your teammates, and by targeting it, talking about how much, contact where you are launching against another person centered one of two things happen. either the coach take you out and take you out and sit you down and gives you a real understanding of his displeasure, or the teammates take care of it. and so why would we allow him again teams to target other players, especially defenseless players, and high five each other when it comes to the sidelines on the same thing that we would punish him for if they did it in practice? and so we've come a long ways with the targeting, and i think we will continue to come a long ways. there is virtually no longitudinal study in place right now. they are in the early stages of it. the ncaa and the department of defense are collaborative on a $30 million research project on concussions and sub contested

events. there's some evidence that repetitive use issues might come into play as well and there's not much in the way of evidence of there. but i would also mention that it's not just in football where we see this. women's soccer has hired incidents of had made contact. wrestling and soccer the highest one among all the sports i didn't know that until later. it probably explains so much disabilities to this day. [laughter] but it's a hot topic. there's pending litigation. we are working our way through it and i have to say we're making progress. i think kids in football are safer today than they were a few years ago. >> this is a question followed up on your comments about the northwestern case. since the nlrb ruled against college athletes unionizing, a

coach was fired for making injured players play, a coach was disciplined for fining players come and school was revealed to buy a music curriculum for athletes to maintain their eligibility or against that backdrop why shouldn't athletes have representation like other workers? >> well, i don't consider them to be workers. i consider them to be students, but the point of representation is a really good one year and i think it's really the achilles' heel for a lot of our campuses. it is a very fine line between motivating someone to go where they may not be able to take themselves, and being abusive. is a very fine line. we want to push young people, and it's true in high school,

it's cool -- to in college, it's true in the professional ranks. that's what coaches do. they push people to places they can't go themselves or couldn't readily get there themselves. but it isn't very far past the line and becomes abusive. i think it's altogether legitimate, and we rely on people of goodwill to manage the programs and make sure that coaches are not doing the things that you noted. and there are like any other profession, there are failures. we are not infallible, that's for sure. the conference does he get too much involved in that, but having spent 32 years on campus i've done a lot, i've had to do a lot of interventions when coaches have behaved badly. and with student athletes have

been served well by having an advocate? typically it was the apparent that did that, but not all our kids come from the kind of an environment where they can count on rental assistance. you know, i don't know how you allow advocates and also not have those advocates get involved in such things as playing time and who gets featured and have the program gets run. it's a little bit of a slippery slope i recognize that 18-year-olds need advice. >> we are almost out of time, but before ask the last question, i have some housekeeping. and national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists, and we fight for a free press worldwide. to learn more about the national press club go to our website, rest.org. aand to donate to our nonprofit

journalism institute, visit press.org/institute. i would also like to remind you about some upcoming speakers. national endowment for the arts chair will address the national press club abraxas next monday september 28. on september 30, education secretary arne duncan will speak at a press club luncheon. and on october 1, the national press club welcomes latvia president for a luncheon address. i would now like to present our guest was really a good reason why it was worth coming here after postponing for a year, because this is the greatest of all trophies really. it would be right at home in a big 12 trophy case, i want to present you with the national press club mug. >> thank you very much. >> congratulations. [applause]

>> so our final question, i mentioned that the big 12 doesn't have 12 teams in it. thought want to combine a couple questions. are you recruiting central florida and south florida to join the big 12? and when can we expect to see the big 12 return to its true name and get 12 teams? is that can at any point in the future, or so just forget about it, it's not going to happen? >> agitate i'm going to answer that? [laughter] spent if you don't i have to find a different last question. i will work on that while you ponder. >> we have no active plans to add members, although when i was in the big ten, we have 11 members and we always said that if we thought about adding an additional member, we would, even though we attend, we would change our name to the big 11 just to keep people off balance.

i can't comment on specific institutions, but we have a competition committee that is comprised of three of our presidents and we constantly monitor the environment and look at the landscape. there are some good reasons to get bigger there are some really good reasons to stay small. but i contend it's a lot easier to grow than it is to get smaller if you want to figure to be. some of the larger conferences are having some real challenges with scheduling. one of the real victims in all of this is traditional rivals. there are lots of schools that have border arrangements with rivals for generations. that now no longer play each other on a regular basis. you know, those things i think i've a lot to do with whether or not you stay home and watch tv or whether you want to go to the stadium. i think about the ou-texas week. families for decades have done

something specific on tuesday and to do another thing on wednesday, ended and another thing on thursday. if that game doesn't get played some years, all of those traditions fall by the wayside. and so i think the jury is still out as to whether these larger alignments will he deliver anything other than television viewers and money. i think in the end, we have created a television product that is very difficult to compete against. but if the quality of the tv product results in people staying home because they are less interested, we will have lost significantly even though the money has flowed in. >> ladies and gentlemen, could you please give a nice round of applause to our guest today. [applause]

i would also like to thank the national press club staff, including is a journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing and supporting today's event. if you would like a copy of today's program, or to learn more about the national press club, remember you can go to that website, that's press.org. think you very much. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> antinuke city to a presidential candidate donald trump called for an overhaul of the tax code and then his plan at a press conference calls for limiting federal income taxes on low-income earners and lowering it for corporations and the highest income taxpayers. politico reports grover norquist group got an early look at the plan and put out a news release during the news conference riding trump has said he opposes

net tax hikes and his mates are that the real problem is spending. this plan is a reform and not a tax hike. we will show the announcement and responses to report questions tonight at 8:30 p.m. eastern time right after "the communicators" right here on c-span2. >> tonight on "the communicators" we'll talk with the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers present and sql oh fadi chehade about internet is covered. >> governments today have been advisable in icann. they do not directly make policy. they cannot have a seat on our board of directors. this is very much, in fact a triumph of showing how a private sector lead institution, that has the government as an important advisory body but that has a broader base of decision-making that is private

sector lead, including input from the technical community and civil society and academics, et cetera. but that's advice that informs the policy, and the board activities are anchored in the fact that governments are continuing to play an advisory role to what we do. >> tonight at eight eastern and pacific on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> taiwan elects new president and members of this legislative body in january. earlier this month to grips hosted a discussion about u.s.-taiwan relations and the possible impact of elections. this is about one hour 15 minutes. >> [inaudible conversations] okay, all right, let's get it down to a low roar, and when. let's get started. thank you.

thank you, thank you. appreciated. we're going to dive right in to the final panel today which on u.s.-taiwan policy. we're very honored to have some very distinguished guests on the panel. giving us the insights today. i'm going to keep introduction to a minimum because these people are familiar to most of you in the august. doctor mike green, my college at csis, our senior vice president for asia and also our japan chair here at csis, also a professor at georgetown. and a former staffer during the george w. bush administration acting as the senior director for east asia many other previous roles both in academia and in government. rotenberg experience for officer, 30 years, something like that, give or take. certainly one of the most renowned experts on u.s.-taiwan

policy, a triangular relationship between china, taiwan and the united states and many other issues. and then robert wang, currently in residence at georgetown university where he is doing some teaching and whether it honored as well to have him with us here at csis as a senior fellow helping us sort of thing through a lot of these interesting issues that are happening in east asia right now. so without further ado i'm going to turn over to dr. green to kick us off. >> thank you, chris, thank you, everyone for staying after lunch. we appreciate it. it's great to be up here with three guys covered an awful lot about this issue from. when i took over as the senior asia person in the nsc, the first they did was read alan romberg's, read and memorize especially good alan romberg's book, which i'm about to say for all they had a bit of dollars of taxpayer money does not actually exist within the u.s.

government. so i've would help me read his account. and bob long service greatest inch i and beijing and taipei wn i was there. so let me make a few comments on how i think we the u.s. and friends and taipei should approach our dialogue and our relationship and our cooperation as we enter not one but dual political cycles at the same time. i look forward to seeing how i miss quarter tomorrow, and your questions. so it's always useful i think to start with interests, objectiv objectives, and for the u.s. in particular i think it's worth thinking about the importance of taiwan and u.s. foreign policy strategy and u.s. national security interests. obviously, taiwan is a variable,

often at a variable in the u.s.-china relationship and one of the largest many in this room would argue the largest foreign policy challenge that united states face in the decades ahead. so in the context of them will recognize the importance of getting taiwan policy right. i would argue to get taiwan pulls right that's the wrong starting place. as critical as of that dimension is. and that it's important, on its own merits in u.s. foreign policy interests in asia i would mention three things that i think in all three categories arguably this next president, taipei washington, will find its relationship and the dialogue which they can't have of course directly is going to be more important, not less important. so the first court interest i think the u.s. has in taiwan's future, and i use the core interest term with a little bit

of envision this, but some contention as well. the first court interest is in taiwan's success of democracy and that doesn't just mean success of the process but the ability of the people of taiwan to advance their democratic process without coercion or intimidation from beijing. that is a very, very important u.s. interest. because the chinese power rises, there will be a contest between beijing's betrayal power and the normative or values that have underpinned peace and stability in the pacific. taiwan will be right at the forefront of that question. the second which i also would argue is a court interest is one that is coming back, and that is the fact that taiwan sits right in the middle of the first island chain. one of the most problematic manifestations of beijing's new

power but more poorly beijing's new assertiveness is what's happening to the maritime security domain, and the degree to which beijing has demonstrated a readiness and capacity to use military and economic, diplomatic informational tools to intimidate claimants to territories in waters in first and second island chain, and we used to think for a long time, certainly when i was in government, that taiwan problem is a security problem and cross state security. over the last decade, maybe it was enlisted under think of is but a think rather it's the nature of the pop has change. increasing went to think about the security of the whole first island chain which stretches from japan through taiwan

strait, philippines, and the second island chain which does sort of straight down through guam. in the years before the nixon law doctrine in 1969 almost every u.s. national city council document, mostly these classified now, start with some reference in the importance of the first island chain. it's coming back. taiwan is right in the of it and it was for canned demo scratches and come the import of that offshore giant -- island chain. and we don't want i wanted and vulnerable flank or a vacuum in terms of maintaining stability the entire first island chain. and, therefore, taiwan's defense capabilities matter to us and i think should have been destroyed context. the third interest is the economic integrity and growth of taiwan. you know, there's a tough balancing act because growth depends on a robust cross straits economic relationship which is india's interest, but

also the integration of taiwan's economy into the expanding transpacific economic framework, tpp of course, but there are going to be stepping stones of tpp. so in that context we are to be thinking very hard about this election and what it means for the u.s. not in terms of the outcome as much of what the next presidency should focus on our we hope they will focus on to help us support a future for taiwan that is in our interest. and i should say it goes without saying that i don't think the next president, one or two candidates who will go nameless one really can't predict, but i don't think the next president is going to change the core economical position of u.s. interests on china policy, no unilateral change to the status quo. i don't think it's changed very much, and i don't think it will change that much. i think i should go without

saying. so in terms of process and then, how should we here in washington and taipei talk to each other over the coming year and a half, two years as we have our presidential election cycle? i would say our taipei based on my experience in the nsc during the reelection campaign, i would say for taipei there are three notes. these would be my favorite the first is no surprises. advanced constant dialogue but it doesn't mean colleague the night before some announcement tuesday by the we're going to do x. do more. image constant dialogue. no surprises from taipei. should go without saying but second, no unilateral changes to the status quo. what is the status quote oxygen to was asked this once in terms would administer answer without answering it. it's, like the famous supreme court decision on pornography. if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. you don't know having a long

dock but what the status quo is. biz flow semiconscious and honest dialogue. kudos to ray and others who made that robust in the past years. and third, this is about the future of the next government in taipei. no free writing. i think of a more robust trust and understanding, it's worth all the candidates in this election for taipei thinking about the defense budget which has never come close to the 3% promised. to think about the beef market and other nontariff barriers that ari shah of iran taiwan's ankles as we should be thinking together how to use, move toward the eventual and robust integration of taipei into taiwan's economy into a text come especially tpp and what

some say will flow from that as ttip ethical trade arrangement among advanced economies. okay, three knows for the u.s. administration. i think the message has learned his lesson about first note taking sides in the election. know a parent to take sides in the election. no say in anything to the financial times which looks like you're taking sides in the election. second, no pressuring candidate takes positions that are not politically realistic. i in particular, i to others on the panel agreed, i don't think the u.s. government should be pressuring them to accept the 92 consensus, for example. look, if one of my poor interest matters compared to what has a democracy to set its future, we shouldn't be dictating that. we should be setting up clear parameters of what would harm our interest. we shouldn't be setting outcomes

necessary to be. we can do some typical intellectual facilitation, lots of questions. my eight year old does that to me now. wycliff where did all the dinosaurs go? why? and the third one, no violation of the six assurances in talk about taiwan's elections with beijing. no promises to beijing about ways we will handle this election that are not entirely consistent with our policy and with the six assurances. if you need to know what the six assurances or, alan can give them to you. chapter and verse. finally, i think both sides, will have to expand dialogue. the are some examples of how not to do this. when i was in the white house before i took over, we had two parallel and inconsistent

dialogues between taipei and washington. this is no big secret for people in this room. we had one dialogue with certain officials in the bush administration that the deep green with a light, and went another dialogue with certain officials and the u.s. administration that the blue camp like. one of the things randy schreiber and i and others had to do in 2004 with consolidate our message on taiwan and the white house and sort of discipline and whether it's important for the u.s. side to have considered this and not have the message be to personalized. there needs to be administrative understanding of what our positions, dialogue. but also it would be a big mistake from either candidate for either party to cherry pick what they're doing and washington if they are serious about governing. they have to understand, you can't just pick people are going to say good things are a

candidate. that will come back and backfire. there needs to be a consideration of the administration's view. and some about not saying candidate a or b. in our election will be radically different from taiwan. that's on us and, frankly, i don't have a fix for that. here i'm described other disciplines taiwan should have come and you know, -- [laughter] we are going to problems because there's a very robust and surprisingly unpredictable political debate in both parties, especially the republican party. i do think it's highly, highly likely that whatever you're out of the campaign, u.s. policy is not going to change that much when the dust settles. and very, very last, i think, i hope the administration takes the case of ron reagan would

talk about these kind of issues. i interviewed george shultz resort for a book and told me the story of the first high level visit by we had in the white house after -- and is a senior chinese official came in and said, we don't like the taiwan relations act. it needs to change. ronald reagan said director we need to toughen it up, which is a classic george shultz moment. but it was reagan speaking. there's lots to be said for the. wished in this electoral process make it appear that in any way our commitment to the taiwan relations act and the success of taiwan's economy has diminished. >> you can do an interpretive dance if you would like. >> i am going to speak from some notes because that's the only

way i can discipline myself to speak within the time limit i have. i'm going to approach this issue a little bit differently but i think quite consistently with what mike has said. .. >>

>> policy toward taiwan is not only based on which it is but also more gore in a shaped by a the treaty of the joint communique that the core is the fact that while the united states does not accept the view of their cross trade relationship but the policy at odds with the china approach. to some extent we can see the art of the communique in parallel statements but that is hard to see not only in the individual points of each side but the carefully negotiated linkage between the positions of one side and the other. some people see inconsistencies in those crucial documents and of course, they do exist. but i tend to focus on their

ability to bridge the important differences to create what i would call constructive the ambiguities at the same time to leave the initiative from our perspective from our own hands. of course, other policy statements have been made over time to explain or stand on the language of those documents is sometimes those colleagues from the prc want us statement from the american president especially in private that goes beyond the communique that seems to lean in the direction of beijing but i would argue there reason they remain though holy scripture is that every president has reaffirmed them is that while they generally are not legally seen as treaty commitments commitments, they are formal

negotiated statements carefully crafted - - crafted from every president from they have been issued. it is critical that people don't forget those formal words are important and in many respects can create commitments. for example, when warren christopher and the clinton administration and the georgia the bush administration insisted either side should unilaterally seek to change the status quo, that was an important collaboration but based on the fundamentals of for those documents. when there were stresses of the cross trade relations of u.s. policy, that was meant to underscore the united states would not simply stand by if efforts were made to push things in the direction inconsistent with

china policy. but it wouldn't stand by if efforts were made it to use coercion to change the status quo. i just went through some of that. the point is that the u.s. doesn't seek to push towards reunification or block such movements but the national interest to me and that all concerns seriously take the american in commitments with regard to peaceful, non courses banon provocative management whenever direction in the two sides ultimately decide to take them. individual americans may favor movement in one direction or another. we have seen the public debate with some people wanting to shape the

situation so there's some sort of reunification is inevitable while others believe it is harmful for u.s. interest to happen to either bring them more closely involved u.s. national security. but to underscore a point i have made u.s. policy is not and should not be designed to tell people on either side what they're altered relationship should be. what it should do is the profound u.s. national interest to without provocation or coercion so to looked at the upcoming presidential election all these considerations are in play for the united states. strong support for democracy is anti-one and the emphasis on smooth relations to avoid

provocation over career should. -- or coercion. people see that as undue interference but it is a reality that while the u.s. has no desire or intention intention, it does have vital interests at stake and in my view there is no doubt the u.s. is prepared to act of those interests. it would be reckless and irresponsible that was in the foreign policy process with that depth of commitment about their own interests and principles. if this process plays out it is arrogant and reckless for

the estates to share those realities they believe putting security and democracy the u.s. will back them but as long as they take positions in some of them believe to not have separate status for taiwan but it has a stake in productive relations to accept those prc demands. it with those failure to understand that to avoid a misperception out of favor idea of points reference has been made for example, to

the importance to maintain a firm basis for stability going forward. ended has been grounded among other things that management. it is also clear that prc uses coercion to seriously affect american attitudes to generate response. i pointed this out with recent actions and it is no less true with regard to taiwan or elsewhere. once the election in is over applying the lessons to take from the china administration i am confident the u.s. will remain attentive to any indications on either side that peace and stability is in danger. it is a matter of policy and action but let's not kid

ourselves of a new administration takes office it does not embrace one china if there is certainly going to be consequences of cross trade relations. but of those principles not react too strongly rising administration has put it with flexibility in and restraint otherwise there could be serious unforeseen consequences. similarly there could be pressures in taiwan's but especially if the ddt birches pretorius that too could have unforeseen negative consequences. and here again it is the dutch decision that we could make.

but americans but they are not just sensitive from thai bay but also washington as they need to take account of the reaction one side of the street or the other from anything washington may do that those born in taiwan that was the diffidently stage direction of cross trade relations need to take account not overt -- only of the likely reaction but also the united states. cabellas into the words and actions during the ascension of the new administration in

the u.s. will also be doing that and it will be determined actions and reactions in with the basic tenets of the policy toward taiwan that have been in effect 35 years. thanks very much. [applause] >> with the relationship between taiwan and unit states clinton major ready knows they're not speaking in an official role and i am glad to see their relationship that the relationship is noncontroversial. of course, i will make my comments relatively short. but frankly speaking the relationship is quite good

on the economic side for the last 60 years our economic policy is to help sustain to tie one and the estates into a large extent is quite successful with the statistic and for example, today the tie one usa relationship our tenth largest partner in the world that has 1 billion people with thai won 23 million. iran also bring someone talked about the value chain

but if you put them into a the consideration people estimate over $100 billion more in terms of trade. and the bilateral relationship between taiwan and the united states is very strong. we now have $67 billion of taiwan investment with u.s. investment between 16 and $17 billion so talk about a substantial number of trades and investment relationships so looking at those figures there are statistics that

are day corps beyond that. i know we work very closely with taiwan on the trade issue and other kinds of issues. the wto, very close relationship with that of tie one -- with that information technology because for us it is a high priority to reduce tariffs of the products that the united states and american companies are very much involved in. and at the same time i know we work very closely with thai one today with the open internet system meaning essentially that the open internet across borders the same from our point of view but to facilitate will be

both indoors which is open society so our trade policy actually with taiwan is what we have talked about is the substance of what we're doing but it is a political and diplomatic security relation from today. obviously we do have problems i was their 2006 through 2009 we did not have a talk or a treaty paul those years. so we did have some issues but most parts are able to handle it and i know from brickbat to the gay

delegation he went to a taiwan an august to get ready for the talks coming up this fall so now they have resumed and i understand from the supports of the talks that we are making some progress on these key issues. with the it our issues, and medical device device, pharmaceutical, inve stment, but from my point of view given the fact the agricultural market access issue symbolic a real irritant in the relationship with congress and others, it is important for the two sides to come to agreement

for taiwan's to take some action to help us both resolve this issue. not on a monetarily but it has been an issue in 2009 apparently it has not been implemented so for our point of view it is as soon as possible to resolve this issue because it reflects in particular taiwan willingness and the stability to meet its commitment to the united states so i think that is extremely important from that perspective and it also underscores the question if

taiwan would be willing and able to have policy on sound science and as a responsible member of the world economy it is important to try to resolve this issue as soon as we can. most of you know, that taiwan is very interested to join in tepee. ♪ suites complete the agreement and from our point of view would make it very clear we support the interest of the taiwan to join tpp once we complete the agreement. so in his presentation economic issues were there with taiwan and trade competitiveness these are key issues so far as taiwan

has been prospering with a strong economy but looking into the future that challenge is how we did not get marginalized. there is over 80 in the region of asia alone not to mention later with tpp, they cannot afford to have singapore and new zealand. it really has to make a push for go even before tpp actions have concluded with the reform and liberalization to make it more prepared to meet the requirements and the standards of tpp via and what doesn't -- whatever other agreements. even though it is down the line, whether it is the administration coming up is the key priority for

economic growth which is important to the political stability and growth. so these are important challenges that we need to step up as well. >> before i turn it over i am struck by what we have heard running through all of presentations today and the key ways to look at various relations and cross trade relations we have that very interesting demographic polling graphics that show compelling observations with regard to reunification. mike, you raise the issue of

taiwan's not even in that context but in the broader trade and a burgeoning military maritime strategy and how you respond to that. i would ask in your respective areas, how much should we pay attention to this change? does you think about this with regard to taiwan with a focus to the notion of a broader maritime strategy. a head in your piece you talk about the status of the various agreements and how that is. to what degree with regard to some of these changes that we are seeing and should u.s. policy think work creatively how to adapt those arguments?

and bob stole my vendor but a lot of people comment how the best way tie one can make as independent position is to position itself to participate in tpp and the other agreements to the sounds of the mainland economy. so now we will turn over to the audience. >> with defense diplomacy economics and rightly so but of the u.s. foreign policy strategy perspective, each prospective questions cannot be answered without all three being addressed. you cannot just do one. with the defense or security peace, the trend over the last few years has been for japan and a strike, india and - -

india, philippians, it to cooperate on intelligence sharing. that is the bridge too far right now for taiwan in many respects. i don't think the collective security, certainly not an organization but even those dimensions are shared, will not be accepted and it seeks to secure what we care about. but that said i can think of to specific areas. with respect with a growing importance of taiwan's and the first is taiwan's own

defense planning has to take this into account if there is a fight or crisis we are stressed all up and down the island chain. with the new airfield going up in the south china sea. we will face a much more complicated environment at peacetime. taiwan has to take care of itself with the defense capabilities necessary. and it means certain types of capabilities that has been the plan but second to this strategic assessments of the type of problem. but i think other countries

with taipei with those intelligence assessments what capabilities or strategy is that we see? some college counter coercion but all of us need to have a common picture of what is happening and they go of what it means. those are areas where immediately there is a lot of room for dialogue. >> on the first point, this is a longstanding problem. with the china administration, it cannot be that they care more about the defense in the cares about its own. there isn't much of a play on this and my sense is that both parties are committed whether that translates into action.

with the communique i am in the position to say in terms of the documents, they served us very well. this situation has evolved significantly that is the biggest change on that side as the prc has prestige we need to take that into account but the basics of u.s. policy, are well laid out in those documents. i will play around with them and one reason why it is impossible to have a communique that doesn't touch on taiwan's and i don't see how you benefit. >> from my own perspective the point that we try to make at that time is with

economic development sustainability through growth should not be a political issue and we do know both sides quite well. i may sound a little naive but when you go touche day tpp everybody seems to show with those results will be. [laughter] but it is so important we maintain a policy regardless of the party in office is similarly it is important for them to work together to make sure going forward does keep taiwan from being marginalized. it does become less

competitive it is bad for both parties and four taiwan. and they do see that. but i do think this is the point to underscore both sides in u.s. and taiwan to make this transition work. >> we will open end to the audience. please identify yourself and confine yourself to a question. >>. >> thinks so much. great discussion we have a summit coming up assuming it isn't locked in some way taiwan is something you talk about you have heard how the

two leaders talked to each other. does obama say something like i have an election coming up in january how do see that? he says that she is sorry they may think time is running out. is taiwan a summit topic had their approach these concerns with this upcoming summit an opportunity for that and if so how did we talk about that? >> it is us summit topic in the years i was then the nsc was the topic at every single meeting but they sure

think it will go up again. in the white house said mattel the president you can be sure that she will raise its at that point the president to make two things very clear and with respect to that text to changes underside that would revise the president to make a second point that we the american people are doing a wonderful thing