i still dont know what they mean. it's a term that they keep explaining to me every time i hear it and it needs to be interpreted because it's not in english to me. what we will be moving forward is with -- i mentioned earlier, my trip time. we want to create an app that allows you similar ways or to google, for instance, where you know what your trip is and what's the real time it's taking to do that trip. or you can let people know what's going on. we are reaching out. today i'm asking, we have a lot of develop -- technology people in this region. we're asking for their assistance to partner with us. we have a program up in place. a lot of smart people here that have gotten very engaged with the system. i want to tap into their talent and hope they'll come forward and help us with that as we do that. i can tell you or score for that if you go and look at your score in efoects, we're hitting 2 about 68% of the time. the trip should take you five

minutes. we're only doing that 68% of the time. that is not good. we want that as the metric we can judge ourselves and the customer can judge how well we're performing. we're also launching a new customer experience raining metric. we do quarterly surveys for our employees. a real survey that gives a good sense of what's going on. we have 34 factors. we've reduced those to three and combined a number of these things. they'll be around service reliability. service reliablity, customer service and personal safety and security service liability, was the train there in a reasonable amount of time or not? was the bus there? how do the bus operators, how do they interactwith our customers. and personal safety both police and in terms of just the feeling that they are -- they feel comfortable in our system. so we'll be doing that. we have been doing that. so we've created the first mock-up of that based on the data we have.

the scores are not anywhere near we need to be. they report it at 68%. our customer service at 79%. thank you for employees that do that. and our personal safety and security at 70%. so we're going to combine that into one number, which basically gets us at 70% and that's going to be the mess rick that we use and that the customers are giving us to judge ourselves rather than us coming up with some technical thing that is internal to our mind-set. you will see that coming in '17. and all of this is, again, sort of this back to getting good concept that i talked about. let me wrap up because i see lots of questions coming in with a few final points. before i open it up for questions. first, the safety improvements, the customer experience you can

find more detail on that on our website with the back to good tag line so you can see that in more detail. second, i am confident of the next year that we'll improve the experience for our customers and know it because they're going to tell us what their experience is. it's not going to be us telling them. we'll have data that shows that and we'll hold our people accountable for moving those numbers. and third, from the writers, business community and all the jurisdictions, i just have profound appreciation for this report you've given me over the last year through some difficult times and difficult choices and news i've had to bring to you. but i give you my full commitment, i'll work as hard as i can to bring this system both back to good and to greatness as soon as i condition can. with that, i'll be glad to take any questions. [ applause ]

>> as you can guess, we do have a lot of questions. i wanted to start by asking you to briefly talk to us about some of the tough decisions you've had to make this year, specifically shutting down the entire system in march. >> sure. that decision was -- watch yourself there. sorry. that decision is thought of two ways. in some ways, it was clearly the most difficult decision that i've ever had to make in my career. spanning some 35 years. but it was also one of the easiest decisions. the difficult part of the decision was understanding the impact i was going to have on people that rely on us to get arou around, that literally have no other options. clearly the impact on the economy and the region and even our reputation in the nation and in the world crossed my mind. all those were factors.

and i took a little break, to be frank, before i made that final decision. spent some time with my wife. spoke to some other colleagues of mine that i had confidence in. and then it became the easiest decision i've ever made because it got down to, who is the most vulnerable person in your life? it got down to that. i could not get beyond that in terms of, i couldn't get data -- not that people couldn't -- were hiding data. we just didn't know what we had. so then we came up with a very easy decision from that perspective. a decision that had to be made very quickly, and in heiindsigh i wish i had time to warn people but when you have manage like that staring in front of you, it's much easier to go that way. >> why did metro underestimate the severity of the original safe track feats? >> it's a combination of issues there. i think one is, over time, there has been competing needs for

eventually our business comes down to time and money. so you need time to do work and, as some of that time has slipped away, that's impacted us. so in 1998, we had 25% more time than pre-safe track to do maintenance. over time that is done. that's a good reason. i'm not saying bad reasons, it's just a fact. and the other is dollars. it takes dollars to do this work. so i think the combination of those, over time, which then fed a culture of accepting what was out there. which then permeated throughout the entire organization, and that's exactly what we're wrestling to turn around. >> briefly if you could talk about, how are you managing the prioritization of selecting the capital projects for strategic initiatives. >> the first call is safety related. and very close to that is what can we do for the customers. the 7000 does both. basically does away with the 1000 series which the ntsb has

said you need to get those off the property as quickly as you can, which we're doing, but also provides a much better product. that's generally how we'll continue to do this. the needs, like any major organization, whether it's roads or education, the needs are always much larger than you ever have the dollars with. you have to prioritize around some of your core values of both the agency and more importantly, the region and the customers. to me it's safety and the customer experience. >> you've talked about 2017 a lot here. but metro riders hear these numbers and it's three years down the road they see it. how many years to get through a lot of these goals you have? >> i think we all have to realize, you know, we have a 40-year-old system. it's aging by the minute. so those -- there will be other issues that come along. there's just no doubt about that. but i think we can get to a state where basically we basically create where we were

very close to it and maintain it but it will take time n money. at the end of the day, that's a regional decision to make but i'm not going to be shy about bringing it up. >> previous mess row management failed to keep metro in good condition. has anyone been held accountable for that work or nonwork? >> i think, without being too flippant, but there have been a lot of very smart people that come and run this agency. people that run major properties around the country, major organizations. they didn't all of a sudden get stupid here. there are some unique challenges here. i don't think you can point to any particular manager and say had that manager done something different. they dealt with what they had in front of them, just as i am. but we are holding people responsible, and we are -- part of it is, to be frank, it's been

management and not only the high management, executive management but middle management. we've lost touch with our front line employees. basically getting them to buy into what we're doing. listening to them. it's a combination of that so there are times when, unfortunately, i've had to let people go, and there will be times in the future we'll do that. but that's not the goal. the goal is to get them to perform, all of us to perform at a higher level. that will be our focus. >> i'm cur yurks if you knew then what you know now, would you have taken this job? >> -- look at my wife. close your ears. no, this has been the greatest job that i've ever had the opportunity to be, both in terms of the people i'm interacting with, the challenges we're up against, in terms of what it means. to basically be able to touch in effect, almost a million people,

or a million passengers a day. that's pretty unique opportunity. you don't get many of those in your lifetime. >> let's talk about some of the plans you've made. in your worst case scenario, you laid out previously, why were a majority of the proposed station closings east of the anacosta river? >> we did not propose that. what we did as any business if you had a franchise, a dry cleaners, and you are looking at your numbers at the end of the year, you'd look at the numbers and lowest performing numbers. that's what we did. we looked at it across the system, whether bus routes, whether stations. so we looked at, are some of these stations, how often are they used and are there times that maybe we could shut some of those down for a portion of the time? so we didn't apply that layer of analysis because it wasn't done that way. it was just to illustrate as you work through some of these things, that's one way to cut it. it was not what we recommended. but i think it was important for

people to understand, these are tough decisions that were starting to wrestle with. so one example, i won't get into some of the ones in some of the communities you mentioned. judicial square on saturday or sunday. a block and a half away from gallery place. does it make sense to staff that for all the hours they are policed at? or could we live with someone walking a block? those are things we have to wrestle with as we go forward given the financial realities. >> business has to provide something different than what a government has to provide, right? a website makes decisions on where profit is, but government has to serve the neediest of citizens. >> no, that is -- that's what we do. that's the business we're in. and the reality is that our financial structure reflects that. we only cover about 50% of our operating costs on the rail side and cover none of our capital because that's what we're in. we're in the business of providing a public service.

we get all that. but i think also public service, public servants need to come at it with a bit of a business sense because at the end of the day, we are using other people's dollars, to the tune of almost $3 billion. so it's my responsibility to make sure that's i'm providing the best choices to the board and a basis for them to consider. it's a policy decision they have to weigh lots of things. but i think it's a disservice if i don't bring to them some of that to the table as well. >> there's a comment made by a councilman in the district, not the gentleman next to me but somebody else, about the silver line. would you support cancelling the silverline in virginia and its suburbs if they don't contribute more money to metro? >> i think really -- i'm not going to get into the specific comment comments. this is a $40 billion capital investment that we have. it is key to the social fabric

of this community. it is our alternative to traffic conjunction at the population gro grows. so i think we as a region need to come to grips with the funding issues and it's been kicked around for years. it reinforces that. i do not think we should stop the silver line. i think it's a great project. you can go out there and see what's happening. it's a great adition to the system. it is a regional project. and that's what the system does. so i'm very supportive of it. but i think it does speak to larger issue that both the chairman and a number of people in the region have been wrestling with for a number of years and particularly now. >> do you believe that the compact can be rewritten? >> again, i think that's a large policy issue that involves both

the congressional portion of our region, as well as locals. and the local jurisdictions. and that's a tough one for them to work through. but, again, there's been study upon study that's talked about the need to revisit that. >> since we're on the revenue side. new sources of revenue are needed. ticket fares, taxes, lump sum payments from jurisdictions nearby are not enough. what alternatives are you looking at? and is there a possibility you could persuade some jurisdictions to charge developers and commercial businesses the profit off being directly located near metro stations? >> sure. we -- you know, to be frank, we don't need to look at them. the washington council government has a number of studies that go through saelss tax or property tax or added value. the numbers part is the easy. we can do that in half a day. we can generate the dollars on paper. the real lift there, obviously, is getting the region to come to grips with it and make the hard decisions that you have to make.

and that's complex, obviously, when you have four major players and some different agendas there. it was sort of, you know, rooted in the original compact. clearly that's something that you would want to consider as you go forward. >> the incoming administration. now that elaine chao is going to be the transportation secretary, do you foresee better chances for increased funding for the system? >> i don't know. unfortunately, i do not know her directly. so i'm looking forward to meeting her. the larger issue there is both candidates ran on the need for major infrastructure investment. and, you know, if any analysis would show we'd come pretty high up in that priority list. so i'll be very vocal in making that's case. that, look, we have disinvested -- like lots of other infrastructure in this country, you can think of airports and different things like that. we're in the nation's capital with all the visitors from around the world and we have a system that we're not very proud

of. and i think that's a disgrace. >> so you'll not mandate that members of congress have to take metro or something to help -- he's not answering that one. a couple union members in the audience want to know, will there be an effort to survey union members in a way that would be nonpunitive to get their take on management? >> definitely. in fact, i know that our chief operating officer has met with union people -- with the union organization. we have to break down that barrier. there's no doubt about it. i've been dealing with transit agencies for decades. there is this kurculture of us/m between union members and management. it makes no sense. the reality is we're all together in this. we're not a private business. we don't make money off of the workers. i don't get more money because of something. that's not the way it works. that's not the model we have here. the model is we are here together to deliver a product to our customers that's basically need something from a social

service perspective in a lot of ways and for development perspectives. we've got to look for opportunities to do that. it will take effort on both of our parts. we have to step back from some of the approaches we've been taking but i expect also the union to step back for the approach they've been taking. >> are you going to be able to forecast metro ridership or talk about ridership for the next 12 to 15 months and how to safe track impact that level? >> i can't predict numbers. i mean, what i can do is focus on what we control. when i was running bwi for a decade, we were going through things, sars, if you remember, and the price of set fuel and all these things driving the market crazy. and so, i said, look. let's stop focusing on those issues. folk ous what we do. and what we did there was focus on being the best easy come, easy go airport we can be. and that's what we'll do. the same thing we have to do here. let's focus on what we can do. i can't control the price of fuel, a gallon of gas.

if it stays at $2 down to $1.50 or up to $5. as those thachange, the market changes. what we can control are the delays from not fixing or preventing maintenance on the tracks and we can fix the vehicles. that's what we'll focus on and focus on our employees being more customer centric. >> i'm interested, what is the history of the fare for buses and subway in d.c., and how does that compare to other jurisdictions like new york, l.a.? >> i don't know the history. i'm sure there's quite a bit of history any time you talk fares, there is. but i think generally, we are in the ballpark of the range because you have to look at -- we've created a system that both charges for peak service and distance. and that's fairly unique in a lot of systems. but that was a policy decision made years ago. i know that the chairman is

asking we look at a flat rate. there's a lot of -- the dollars that move around on that. that's a tough decision for the region to deal with if they have to deal with that. it's not been a big focus of mine right now given the other things on my plate. >> there's not a -- is there any legitimate talk of changing that from a distance-base ed fare to flat fare? >> it rises on an annual basis. >> the question from the audience. they heard salaries are among the highest in the country for metro. how does the compensation for metro workers compare to other systems? >> it's definitely you can pull out numbers and show cases where people are making very high money. no doubt about that. when you think of our business, the transit industry, the way that the salaries -- this is i'm talking about the labor side of the house, the way those salaries are negotiated in effect, you are negotiating across the country. when we negotiate, we're being compared to san francisco, l.a., chicago, new york.

that's the way it works. and that's because when we get to binding arbitration, that's what comes to the table. so they can say, well, look. here's where the other properties are. so we're in that framework. now individually, through overtime, those numbers can go up quite a bit. that's a different issue. and that, to me, is more of a management issue in terms of both the number of oomemployees have how we're allocating the overtime and service that's drives overtime. there are things there we can do to tamp that down as best we can to spread it out more. which would bring down some of the individual salaries. >> shift gears here. there were a lot of police got their new high visibility jackets. there seems to be more police patrolling in the stations. how about the crime reports, how have they changed since that change? >> the crime in the system is extremely low. but, you know, god forbid,

you're the victim of a crime, and they get a lot of visibility. it's just natural. you are in a closed system, whether it's a car or one of the stations, and sometimes you're there with a few people. so i get it. i feel that as well. anyone would. but i do know it's a very safe system, and our police have done a fantastic job. one of the first things i did raise with our chief was -- i had a moment of -- not despair, but frustration, i guess. i said to him, chief, we try to camouflage our police officers better. we have to do something about that. key he came out with that program. he's also moved a lot of people out from behind desks. so there's a much larger presence and we'll continue that. but there will be spikes. there's no doubt about it. and there will be incidents like there are on the street of any community. but it plays out sometimes in our system. >> do you believe it helps with -- >> oh, definitely. >> crime is going down? >> well, the numbers are

basically -- yes, we have a goal. we're below that goal right now. but that will go up and down. we -- some communities, we go through turf issues. all kinds of things play out on our system. some run our system for safety. that's telling as well. >> what is metro doing to reduce the bus bunching and improve the speed of bus boarding? >> a number of things. the bus bunching, it's, as we all know, you get on some of these congested roadways and that's what happens. and it's not unique to here. it's in every transit system. so we're trying to do that in terms of allocating resources differently. we monitor on the street to try to break that up. in terms of boarding, we've attempted several attempts to move to a smart card entrance. but there's certain members, certain parts that just can't get there. they can't afford to put a large amount of money on their smart

cards or can't get to them conveniently because of where their neighborhood is. it takes time for people to put change in and stuff like that or load up their card. so that's just a reality that we have right now. >> are ride sharing companies like uber or lyft having any impact? >> i don't have any data on that, but, yes, i'm sure they do. just as bike share has, just as some of the development has driven to better walking options. and those aren't things that i control and/or i think it's a plus. because at the end of the day people make their trip however they do it. we'll be part of that trip. sdrnt need to be -- we don't need to be the only trip they make all day. we can be part of that. and that makes for a very healthy community. so we support that. >> speaking of changes. there's been a lot of discussion around the future of mobility and how transportation will change. the idea of driverless cars is out there, for example.

do you have any thoughts on how these consepcepts might impact metro in the future? >> right now i'm not focussing on that's. i think it will be beyond my time. >> when can we expect weeknight service past midnight before the hours were curtailed. >> we've proposed several optsions. one is until 1:00 a.m. on friday and saturday vngs. we'll see what the board does with those recommendations. >> would you spur and support an effort to have a rider representative on the board? >> i think that's where the board members are. they do reflect that. a number of them are riders. i'm a riders. i think we get that. we have a riders advisory committee for general riders. one for the accessibility community. they answer directly to the board as well. so we have that. again, that's the board decision to do. >> speaking of the board, would you support a requirement that

board members ride the system on a weekly basis at a minimum? >> i think that's a decision for the board to make. they use the system. i talk to the members of the board. they do use the system. i don't see where someone is not saying, i've never used the system. tell me what it's about. in fact, i find the opposite. they come to me with the issues they experience. >> what is the status of labor negotiations with the local 689, and what are some of the sticking points with those negotiations. >> sure. labor -- any labor negotiation gets down to three things. gets down to the salary issues, hourly rate issues against benefits, pension, health benefits and work roles. every union i've ever dealt with, that's where it generally gets to. we're at the same place. contract was up in june. they can linger for two and three years before they're settled. so we'll go -- we will continue to meet with them. we reach an impasse, we'll go to

binding arbitration. we're being positive and we'll continue to work that. >> audience member wants to know what they -- why the 7000 series trains, the new trains, seem to be breaking down at a higher rate than the older cars? >> that's not technically -- or factually correct. there are some issues. you have a new fleet. you're going to go through issues, but the performance of those are basically on a contract. there's one element that's not that we're working wuths them. by and large, they are. we had some software issues with air conditioning, which we figured out. some issues where they are -- think of that car versus 1000. think how loose a 1000 series is. these are very tight and very sophisticated cars. we were having issues with the power shoe hitting the third rail because it's not flopping around. it's new. so we'll work through all of those. but that is a very good product. >> why do the yellow trains

continue to stop at u-street during rush hour and not continue through? >> it's because -- dan will have to help me out. it's basically to make sure we can get them back and forth to keep that system, or to keep that level of service for the rest of it, if we keep taking them further it reduces the overall availability of the service. >> and another question from the audience. why do the info boards at every metro station often display incomplete or inaccurate information? >> not sure what you are referring to there. >> i think they are talking about green light train in seven minutes when it's actually 9 minutes or 12 minutes. >> because i think people -- we now are so used to gps and just telling us everything almost instantaneous. that's not what we have here. it's a model that's modeled what the -- predicts what it will be. it does not monitor the actual movement of the train. so that's the issue there. so we're moving towards that. so we're looking at whether we can get the 7000 on those.

when we get the cell phone coverage, or that ability in the tunnels, that will give us an opportunity to get real data information. right now it's literally a thing -- i can't remember the mathematical term but it's a mathematical equation predicting it. >> i didn't actually know that. you taught me something. what aspect of metro's operations are you open to privatize, in addition to metro access? >> i think privatization isn't a bad word. it's not a good word. it's just another tool in the toolbox. so if there's opportunities where we can produce a better product cheaper, then we should look into it. so i will do that, regardless of where that leads. it's not to do at the expense of labor. in fact, i can't do that under federal law. but i think as, again, a $3 billion business uwe have to constantly think of ways to do things. >> would you support encouraging murals or other art projects on subway walls or in subway

station. the moscow subway is often looked at as very beautiful with chandeliers and paintings, murals. >> i have a bias there. i think we have iconic stations. i think now they're not clean. it's one of the things we want to do this upcoming year. but that -- you can show that photo anywhere in the world, and you know it's d.c. it's the d.c. metro. and i think, you know, it's a jewel for us. i was recently in barcelona. they've got signs and flashing lights and boards everywhere selling me everything. and just different product. and i think the concept, i think, was good, and now we've obviously have tweaked that a little bit. put in some electronic signage down there, and advertising. but i think it's a delicate balance because i think we really do have quite a system there. >> another question from the audience. what are the chief obstacles to making the operating rail's schedule consistent? >> it's the two things we'll be focusod. getting the track to perform so

we don't have to get out there n disrupt the service while something is going on and the other is to make sure once -- that we put a car out and it doesn't break >> or the trolly down king street in alexandria will come to d.c. >> whereon. >> we do have the trolly of course but that's not part of it. >> that's right. >> i got my own issues thank you. >> getting down toward the end of the questions but i want to ask this one too. why do they continue to focus in the suburbs when it's in the downtown core. >> great question. what we have been doing is dealing with basically ties. wooden ties that are 20 and 30 years old in some cases that when i went out there and seen some of the ties i could pull it

out of the rail so that's why we have been focussing on that. it's much different system under the tunnels, in the tunnels and it's either on a slab or it's on concrete so that the wear and tear is totally different there. there are issues there as i mentioned. there are floating slabs that we have that will need work for instance but primarily we have been focussing on those ties because they were the most dangerous going forward. >> great. before i ask the last question a quick reminder the national press club is the leading professional organization for journalists and we fight for free press worldwide. please visit our website at press.org. tomorrow the press club will host a forum in what the press got right and wrong in this year's election coverage with the washington post media columnist and abby phillips of the washington post. the chief strategist and nbc

national correspondent peter alexander and press secretary and commission on the co-chair mike mechanic murray. on friday we'll have the ceo and chairman of mgm. i'd also like to present our guest for the national press club. i believe you have a side of these now. >> one last question. this is a tough one. in 2008 metro came out highlighting the inauguration of the nation's 44th president barrack obama. will it do the same for our 45th president donald trump. >> we'll work with the transition team and see what we come up with. >> there you go. thank you, sir. >> we are adjourned.

>> talks about the november elections or the house republican legislative agenda. he'll also discuss the leadership picks and on world aids day dr. deborah burks looks at policy and funding for hiv

and aids and where the mission of ending the epidemic is today. be sure to watch the washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. >> the cspan city tour along with our cable partner will explore the literary life and history of tempe, arizona. learn about man's relationship with wildfires and efforts to change the narrative of fire and it's role in the environment and the problem was good fires as well as bad fires out and it's rather a long time. we tried to put it back in and that has been very difficult.

>> and hear from brook simpson about the challenges of writing history. >> i'm the person that tells that story and i'm going to try to do it as best i can. as honestly as i can. as balanced as i can but i get to do something fundamentally creative and say this is what i think happened. >> then on american history tv on cspan 3 hear about the lives of u. s. senator barry goldwater and their collections of personal and political paper and he was really responsible for co-sponsoring and writing a huge amount of legislation that will benefitted the citizens of arizona and the citizens of the united states. his legacy was a legislative legacy. he was really a person who is an icon for the western united

states. he was a person that represented the interests of the west. >> and jared smith, curator of history at the tempe history museum shows us the contributions made by charles hayden credited with founding tempe. >> charles is originally born in connecticut and he comes out west during the course of his life. travels over the santa fe trail. he runs freight and eventually makes it to arizona in the 1850s. >> the cspan cities tour saturday at noon eastern on cspan 2 book tv and on american history tv on cspan 3. working with cities across the country. >> in this week's session the prime minister's questions prime minister teresa may addressed the topics of brexit and humanitarian efforts in syria.

this is 35 minutes. >> order. questions to the prime minister. caroline lucas. >> thank you. i'm sure the whole house would like to join me in wishing people across the world a very happy st. andrews day. this morning i have meetings with colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in this house i should have further such meetings later today. >> thank you mr. speaker. can i suggest that having your cake and eating it isn't a series strategy for brexit. britain deserves better than having to rely on leaked documents to know the governments plans. how on earth can she expect to vote to trigger article 50 when she refuses to give any clarity as to what kind of brexit she is

pursuing. is it arrogance or incompetence? >> prime minister, i have answered this question many times in this house like a surely honorable lady she asking specifically about the issue of the single market and trading with the european union and i have been very clear we're ambitious in getting the best possible deal in trading with and operating within the single european market. >> we have 556 million homes for infrastructure in the north of england but despite this, the m-55 is still not that. and can she do everything she can to ensure this vital of a project for jobs and it's delivered without further delay. >> prime minister.

>> i commend my friend for the hard work he has put in. there is to be a significant sum of funding from a developer and my friend has been working with the developer and the counsel on this particular issue will be meeting this afternoon to discuss this in more detail. >> thank you mr. speaker. can i join the prime minister in wishing everyone a very happy st. andrews day wherefore they're celebrating it all around the world. last week mr. speaker the statement revealed the abject failure of this governments economic strategy. economic growth was revised down. wage growth was revised down. borrowing and debt revised up.

and it was actually a fail where you are. prime minister -- i'll give the right honorable gentleman some facts. it says this will be the fastest growing advanced economy in the world. unemployment is down. we have record numbers of people in employment and we have companies like nissan and jaguar, landrover, honda, google, book, apple, investing in the u.k. securing jobs here in the united kingdom. that's what a good economic plan does. >> they did tell us that the deficit would be eradicated by 2015. this is in advance to 2020 and now it's been advanced to whenever in the future but since she quotes the institute of fiscal studies i think she is being a little bit selective because they also went on to say

that the prospect for workers over the next six years was and i quote dreadful and went on to say creating and i quote the worst decade for living standards since the last war and probably since the 1920s. isn't it fair to say that those just getting by are suffering all the pain for no gain? >> prime minister. >> i have to say given that he can't differentiate between the imf and the iff is probably a good job he's sitting there and i'm standing here. >> let's think about the people that are finding life difficult and are struggling to get by and job security and have a home but

are worried about paying and mortgage and their children's education and whether their children will be able to buy a home. we have increased the national living wage and introduced the national living wage and we're increasing the number of affordable homes being built but we can only do this if we have a strong economy and our plan delivers that economy. >> home leslie has doubled and if the prime minister believes the economy is doing well. why is she forcing through 2 billion pounds of cuts.

>> what is important is that we remember those that are benefitted from it and we remember those that are paying for it. the universal credit system is there to ensure that people that work will always pay for people. >> he believes in a welfare system where people are able to live on benefits.

>> child poverty is rising and now covers 4 million children across this country our people are suffering because of the policies of our government. people are paying the price for her failed economic experiment. they even abandoned the previous pledge for the so-called national living wage paying at least 9 pounds per hour by 2020. what is the new pledge on living wage. and fewer families in relative poverty and i come back to the point i have been making in answer to his previous questions. it's only possible to do these things by having a strong

economy. the one thing we know -- the one thing we know is that the policy would not deliver a strong economy is the policy to increase borrowing by $500 billion pounds. and the former shadow treasury minister said to double the income tax and double counsel tax and double vat and double national insurance. and that would tell anybody in the work place. >> lies on borrowing and the

deficit is decreasing and they're suffering. when she talks about people in poverty i remind her. children going hungry to school in this country because their parents don't have enough money to feed them properly. it is a disfwras and should be addre addressed the chancellor spoke for over 50 minutes. he didn't once mention the national health service or social care. 1.2 million people are lacking the care they need. why was there not would be single penny more for social care in the autumn statement? >> priel minister. >> there is no doubt the social care system is underpressure. we recognize that. there are -- if you just look -- just look at the fact that there are 1 million more people aged over 65 today than there were in -- not 2010.

we see the sort of pressures on the social care system but that's why the government is already active to put more money into the social care system. more money through the better care fund. 3.5 billion extra through the bitter care fund and more money through the social care precept but it's also important that local authorities and the nhs work together to ensure for example that people have the social care they need so they're not ending up in hospital and there's some very good practice up and down the country and sadly not so good practice and giving the best possible service to people that need it. >> there's a tragic parallel because an underfunded social care system all over the country and she knows it and indeed she might care to listen to the council who says it's been cut to the bone and saves on social care. we have a 1.3 billion gap not

being funded. it is a real crisis in every social services department all over the country and in almost every nhs hospital. next year mr. speaker this government is handing back 605 million pounds in corporation tax cuts rising to 1.6 billion the year after that and 7.5 billion over the next five years. so could the prime minister explain to the elderly people not getting the care they need to the 4 million on the waiting list to the mills worried about losing the protection, why there is not one penny extra for the nhs or social care. just what is this government's real sense of priorities? >> he talks about funding social care and funding the national health service. 3.8 billion pounds extra is going into the national health

service. this year we would have seen 1.3 billion less going into the national health service. >> they said local authorities would get not a penny more. conservatives putting money in and labor would deny it. >> thank you mr. speaker. on a cross party basis we were establishing the national commission on loneliness when she was brutally measure murdered. this is now being continued by the honorable lady. does my right and honorable friend agree that loneliness is an issue for all our communities

and will she urge her ministers to engage with the commission as it reports next year and for the very dig any identified way in which they have matters that must have been very arrowing with them and i'm very pleased that they're taking forward the work of loneliness. and it's encouraging individuals to give their spare time to be with somebody who is there. and people's psychological

health. >> very happy st. an due's day to everybody celebrating in scotland and around the world. mr. speaker. >> there's nothing to celebrate about the humanitarian catastrophe befalling the people of syria at this time. the situation in the city of aleppo is described as being so bad that it could be one of the biggest mass kearse of civilian population since world war ii. what can the u.k. and the international community do to end the suffering of the people of syria?

we want to see an opportunity for aid, humanitarian aid to have access to aleppo and we will be pressing for that at the security council. >> it's extremely welcome that discussions are taking place in the united nations and we wish success to all of those supporting a humanitarian solution to the crisis there. however things are so bad that the agencies are saying that in aleppo they're so bad that it is descending into hell. time is absolutely of the essence. i know the prime minister sees this matter. we're in agreement. please can i appeal to her? can everything be done now to aleve the situation? >> the right and honorable general is right about the situation and it and we have

consistently looked at what might be a possible solution and other avenues that we can press for. the security council debate is very important. >> not to be worried about talking to christmas at work is important because many christians are now worried an even fearful about mentioning their faith in public. so would the priel minister join me in welcoming the recent public speak up which confers that the legal rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech to think about one's faith responsibly respectfully and without fear are as strong today as ever.

and that's something that we can all be proud of i'm sure we want to ensure that people do feel able to speak about their faith and also quite freely about christmas. >> 30 years ago icon ducted my first funeral and it was for a young teenage boy that was an enormous fan of paul simon so as the curtains closed we listened to the sound of silence and many peel cried. the average cost of a child's funeral today is 3,675 pounds.

some don't charge anything and some do charge a lot and the social fund is means tested so will the prime minister i ask again please listen to the words of my honorable friend and sign up to her campaign and put an end to the means testing and so no parents when they lose a child have to have the fear of hardship as well as the grief. >> raises a very important point and spoke very movingly in the debate that she called on this issue and spoke from personal experience and i'm sure that i don't think anybody who hasn't been through the death of a child can possibly understand the pain it brings not just immediately but as they see others growing up and their child not growing up. i recognize the issue there are

measures in place for those families that have hardship cases where money can be given and some local authorities do this. we have left to to put a decision for local authorities and some do wave those fees. >> particularly in rochester. does my right and honorable friend agree that our current school's contribution to education ought to be valued and given every support as part of the educational mix to help children achieve their

potential. >> i believe there's now 11,000 more children that go to outstanding schools than in 2010. we want to provide a good school place for every child. she references the good work being done to ill prove the quality of education in primary schools. it's exactly what she is looking for we want to remove the legal band on expanding or opening new grammer schools. >> thank you. >> this is a model from america where they're used to deliver pry mat insurance based health care. can the prime minister assure me that they won't be used as a means to introduce private health care into the nhs. >> what they're about is about

people in a local area determining the shape of health services in that local area in terms of delivering the best service for local people. that's what those are about. obviously every area will be looking very closely at the plans that are being brought forward. what is important is that we do see in those increasingly health services working with local authorities to ensure that they are providing the right level of care in their area. >> this leads us toward a smart and smooth brexit as i like to call it. i am sure that she shares my views and and could be eroded and indeed it's to operate in my

constituent sy and ensure it in the future. and the government is working to make sure improvement rights and employment regulations will keep pace with this sort of innovati innovation. >> we have seen a significant rise in the number of people in ploilt in this country and that's because we have the economy we have. but i realize the technology is the driver in many of those places. that's why i asked the chief executive to do a report, a review of modern employment practices so we can ensure that the frame work is absolutely the right one as we go ahead for the economy of the future and the jobs of the future and this shows that it is now the conservative party that is the party of working people.

>> thank you. ministers justify their plan to cut the benefit by promising to recycle some of the savings to improve employment support for benefit clamaints. it's now apparent that funding is not being increased. it's being cut. the target date for that gap is completely abandoned. surely the only honorable course is for the government to abandon it as well. >> i'm pleased to say that over the last three years nearly 600,000 more disabled people have got into the work place. that's very important. of course we want to ensure that all the disabled people able to get into work are given the support needed to do that. that's why we have been about

the support package in total that people are given. they have individual support through their personal independence payment through the particular long-term costs incurred but also the support package provided to people on the work group that enables them to get into work. >> i welcome my honorable friend and will be able to remain here after brexit and attain similar reassurances for british citizens living and working in the eu. does she share in my disappointment to resolve this issue has put eu processes ahead

of common humanity. >> as i said earlier i would hope that this is an issue that we can knockout at an early stage of negotiations i think it is right that we want to give reassurance to british citizens living in the eu and to eu citizens living here in the u.k. but i think the reaction that we have seen shows why it was absolutely right for us not to do what the labor party wanted us to do which was simply to give away the guarentee for citizens here in the u. k. that would have left the u.k. citizens high and dry. >> she has been wrong for weeks

now and she would see stop and when is she going to get a grip and criminal damage and her name. and the right honorable gentleman's area is going to be 2.7 billion pounds and increasing by 2021. it's this government putting more money in the service and the labor party and labor party that says more money is

irresponsible. >> it contains many a successful industry strategy. great schools. skilled work force. strong infrastructure being surrounded. >> my honorable friend is absolutely right in relation to the development of jobs and the strong economy of the future. we will be developing the industrial strategy. that's an important part of the governments plan for the future. that is looking to issues like infrastructure and skills and ensuring that we can build on the best and encourage the growth we need for the economy of the future and the part of the country that my honorable

friend represents will be an important part of that growth for the future. >> with the suggestion the visit was not genuine and the church with costs. when i raised this with the leader of the house he spoke about a need for people to return home after visits and then the immigration minister told me in a patronizing letter how to apply for a visa. can the prime minister tell the church why their visitors are not welcome and what message this sends to our faith communities? >> well have a clear visa system. decisions are taken according to the rule in that visa system. the hole secretary has heard the comments that she makes and if she sends the details into the home secretary the home secretary will look at that

case. >> once will of the british people is delivered to break free from the shackles of the european union, does my right and honorable friend agree that britain stands to benefit from the fantastic opportunity to forge new trade deal with countries like india and the usa and will she meet with members of the institute special trade commission who projected a 50% increase in 15 years as a result of brexit enabling trade to really boost jobs, growth and hope. >> well i'm interested in the results of the commission on this particular issue. i believe absolutely that free trade is the right way to go and we increase growth and prosperity. that's why i want this country to be a global leader on free trade and why we will be looking to forge those new trade deals with other countries around the world as we leave the european union but not just that.

we will be looking to see how we can improve trade with other countries before we leave the european union. continuing to strengthen our economy and i'm sure the secretary of state will be happy to meet with her and discuss the results of the commissions report. >> i call mr. ronny campbell. >> what plans she has to make super economic zones and i say that in the knowledge of knowing that it was given an economic zone by the last chancellor as we have acres of land on that river. >> prime minister. >> can i join in welcome the honorable gentleman to his

place. >> we're looking around to see if our opportunities for economic growth and how we can encourage those opportunities to be taken up and what is important is that i want to see economic growth and prosperity being spread across the whole country so we do see an economy that works for everyone. >> stewart andrew. >> it's an important part of the u.k. economy and leads as an important hub in this sector. in welcome the billion pound investment can i urge my friends to ensure that yorkshire gets it's fair share so we can build on the suck setsz and make leave the capitol of this industry. >> prime minister. >> i recognize the role that is played by the creative and digital industries in our economy and also recognize the example of the vie brans of

those and i am pleased we are able to invest in broadband and that will bring better connections to 2 million more homes and businesses and i'm sure they'll have a central roll to play in this. >> prime minister government published a green paper on corporate governments emphasizing the importance of gender and race diversity and icon garage late her for that but why then has her secretary of state blocked the appointment of a black woman to the channel 4 board. does she think there isn't a woman or black person in the country worthy of being on the board at channel 4. >> prime minister. >> well i thank him for the welcome he has given to the

paper. i'm not aware of the particular case he has referred. all i would do is say this to him. in look at public appointments a very careful process is undertaken to ensure that people that are pointed have the skill set and requirements needed to play the role that is being required. i will look into the issue he has raised and issues around the sort of questions he has raised don't come into it. it is about who is right for the job. >> thank you mr. speaker. response to has already been mentioned. can icon garage late the prime minister with her work on individual member states in this important matter but does she share our disappointment and will she join me in calling for this important matter to be raised in two weeks time at the

next european council meeting. >> prime minister. >> i recognize the concern that he has and that other members of the house have on this particular issue of the rights of eu citizens and u. k. citizens. it's here in the u.s. and other member states of the european union. >> but of course the negotiations will have up to two years to run as the treaty sets out and as i said i hope they'll be able to address this at an early stage to give people the reassurance that they need. >> will she meet with me and my

constituent to understand what further pressure can be put on so that the family can get answers and understand who brought this terrible crime against their family member? >> well i understand the concern and obviously the deep concern she has to find out what happened in this terrible tragedy. i understand that the minister of the foreign office is actively working on this question and i'll ask him to discuss and see what else can be done to see exactly what the foreign office is doing on this issue. >> december 7th marks the 75th anniversary of the japanese attack on pearl harbor and this weekend on american history tv we're remembering that day.

the u.s. army film know your enemy japan portrays japan as a nation did he recalled to rule the world through military contest and they would have them. >> survivors where 1,177 crew men were killed on december 7th, 1941 recall what had they witnessed on that day and at 6:00 eastern on american artifacts. >> it was commissioned in 1944 and saw action in the pacific. she is often remembered for one event and that is the surrender of japan at tokyo bay. >> part of the world war ii national monument home of the uss arizona memorial for the

complete schedule go to cspan.org. the attack that prompted the u.s. industry into world war ii. you'll hear president roosevelt's declaration of war addressed to congress. >> a date which will live in infamy. >> the british and american people will for their own safety and the good of all walk together. >> and veterans at pearl harbor on the day of the attack. featured on cspan radio saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. listen at cspan.org or the free cspan radio app.

>> they talked about the importance of nato and other u.s. alliances at an event hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. it's part of the new alliances and american literature project. this is an hour and a half. >> i hope everyone had a good thanksgiving break and appreciate you getting back to work and joining us for this discussion today. it's a real delight today to hold this for a new project being lead by the former national security advisor to prime minister tony abbott.

and distinguished service in the australian government and previous prime ministers. andrew joined us at csis and to get together and others conceived of and designed this project which is to look at american leadership and alliances and the two go together and are at a point of some trabs situation and questioning given events around the world and the pressures of globalization and other things on the domestic supporters of alliances abroad. and the fundamentals of why we built this alliance system. what's in it for us and what's in it for our allies what do we have to do to make it for effective for all of us. looking at the fundamentals and the mechanics and the strategy

beginning with this event today with our distinguished panel i'm going to turn it over for the director for this project and let him tell us about the rest of today. thank you. >> well, thank you, mike and thank you everyone for coming. and in particular i'd like to thank you for your support for this project which i think is important and comes at an period important time. and a good mate and i'm grateful for that and i'd also like to acknowledge this afternoon the support for the president of the csi and the excellent advisory board. we have been able to pull together to support this project

and they build and maintain a global network of regional and bilateral alliances unsurpassed in human history. and 70 years these alliances made possible an unprecedented period of stability and prosperity and contributes it to american security. >> over time the united states alliances have been augmented by a webb of informal security partnerships. none of this, however was preordained. isolationism and the urge to

with draw from conflict and commitments abroad have been a strand in american politics and foreign policy since the earliest days of the public. coming to the 1930s and early 1950s and mid 1970s after the war in vietnam and of course at different times over the same period it was domestic politics in allied countries rather than america that ruled alliances across europe asia and the middle east. despite these periods of contention and the significant cost alliances entail they have enjoyed bipartisan political support in the united states and solid public backing for decades. notwithstanding a contested election campaign in which president elect trump openly questioned the value of nato and the united states most important

alliances in asia and sitting president barrack obama publicly criticized some allies. a recent survey by the chicago council on global affairs shows that the american public overwhelmingly support alliances and american leadership in the world. 90% of americans consider maintaining existing alliances an effective way of achieving america's foreign policy goals and support building new alliances with other countries. nurturing and renewing this support is vital because today the united states and it's allies face an unprecedented range of threats. these inclusion rush yab aggression and adventurism in the middle east. the ballistic missile programs. china's assertiveness in the western pacific around missile

development and continuing support for terrorism and spreading influence and the threat posed by isil and other terror networks around the world. yet the united states and it's allies are neither psychologically nor materially prepared for these threats. there is an element of complacency and the loss of perspective about our freedom of choice and about prosperity. and give and take on both sides. and keeping pace and inertia and resource constraints such as the sequester here in the united states and internal challenges.

and in many other nato countries. in asia the u. s. alliance with thailand remains in a freeze following that country's most recent military takeover while the president declared the philippines separation from the united states and the implication of the political crisis engulfing the administration in south korea is unclear. the partner between europe and the middle east and asia is also unclear. while israel and traditional allies in the middle east are alienated by the nuclear deal with iran. america's credibility so security gaurentor has been damaged by the failure of the red line and by the threat not to protect allies in europe and asia unless they pay more for

their defense. there's a sense that the west is in retreat and the liberal international order is framed. this is the jumping off point to go back to the first principles and examine the relevance of alliances that date back to the earliest days of the cold war. whether the costs still offset the benefits today and how they can adapt to meet the very different challenges we face. the key to alliances is that the sum is more than the parts. alliances enhance security by combining military power and increasing their cooperation and also support the international order and restraining allies. a relationship that works in both directions. alliances building relationships and mutual trust over time that ad hoc coalitions cannot

replicate. >> the trump administration foreign policy team and policy direction are a work in progress but allies should welcome some of the early signs. the president elect has spoken with many allied leaders. his administration is likely to work with congress to restore the defense spending and build a larger navy and modern size the u. s. nuclear arsenal. all that should reaffirm the allies. they're an issue for decades the united states is so dominant globally that allies and american policy makers tended to see the alliance system as some sort of free international public good and i guess particularly for allies to an extent.

today though things are very different. the united states have still the world's dominant military power but rivals are closing the economic gap and pose profound regional military challenges. in this environment the united states will be instinctively tempted to flirt with unilateralism and deals of convenience with regional great powers and perhaps a more transactional approach to alliances but for all of the costs and challenges america needs to think hard today about how attractive a world without allies would really be. after all there's nothing russia, china and iran would like more than to see dismantling of the alliances. that should give pause for

thought. it's difficult and exceedingly so to understand precisely what the united states thinking is. i have no doubt that many diplomatic representatives here will agree that this is certainly one of those times. so the purpose of this project is to provide access to some questions based around three research themes. the first theme is alliance institutions and leadership. what role do alliances play today? deterring threats, supporting the international and restraining allies. is there still a viability concept of the west and if so what part do alliances play in upholding it. how do alliances advance u. s. national interests today? it needs to be overhauled.

what is the role at home and abroad in building support for allianc alliances. >> the second is about the day-to-day management of alliances. perhaps burden sharing today. which are are pulling their weight and to which areas do allies need to leave their game. how can they boost them in a world where nuclear weapons are making an unfortunate come back. what approach should alliances take to combat and coercion, threats and cyberattacks and to exchanging intelligence and increasing defense industrial collaboration? what major alliance management challenges are we likely to confront and how can we overcome them? the third and most important research theme is about

understa understanding. and we cannot take continuing public support for alliances for granted in the united states and in countries. in a recent interview with the atlantic he pointed to a gap in foreign policy perceptions between the american public and polls in a number of countries including my own country australia suggest a degree of anxiety about the future direction of american policy and alliances and not just here in washington d.c. it's time we rediscovered and used to call our duty to explain which of course brings us full circle. back to the crucial importance of leadership. it's the first in a program of events and publications that

will examine and the international environment that confronts us. we hope you'll stay involved in this project and in particular the input and engagement of allied governments will be essential. he's the distinguished military fellow at the hoover institution from one of the most distinguished officers and lead important organizational reforms. and numerous innovations and

operated closely with american allies in the pacific and europe and the middle east. he's one of the only two to command the atlantic and pacific fleets which makes him the [ applause ] >> thank you andrew. and thanks to csis for the opportunity to share some thoughts on alliances and american leadership. and i, particularly, look forward to the panelists that are going to be up here later, because i think it's going to be a great discussion. my interest in this topic is not

simply because of recent campaign rhetoric that's raised questions regarding irrelevance and efficacy of alliance relationship, nor is it all of the circulation as new administration begins to take form. like so many others here, i served in our military that was shaped by alliance relationships and objectives by the entire time i spent in uniform. i cut my teeth on very large operations and i continue throughout my career to operate in our alliances both to the east and to the west. i also had the privilege of manning large ally commands. but those consequential alliances were forged decades ago andrew mentioned and time has moved on. the geo political and geo economical landscapes are

changing rapidly, particularly in europe, the middle east and in asia. the order in those regions that was grounded in our alliances is slipping away. and our decade plus war in the middle east has generated an intervention weeryness and worriness in much of our population in a move towards isolationism by some. in a way, it's ironic that america's most glow billionball connected generations in history appear to want to step away from the hard work and cost that global influence and responsibilities man. that's across the political spectrum. i find this as an uncomfortable and regrettable and even a pair liss trend. whether in uniform or civilian policy positions those of us that have been there, have seen the strength and mutual benefit

that have come from alliance relationships. we experience the necessary attention that is needed and at times the frustration that's experienced in nurturing those relationships along. as we ponder the state of our alliances and their future, those of white house have been in the arena and in the policy community, bear responsibility for the alliance questioning that's taking place today. most here value our alliances, whether nato or those with our asian allies, yet we have not caused an informed national conversation, a broader security interest that can be handful of tweets and mosts that provide a

different point of view to thousands and even millions. publics feel the view in the u.s. regarding national security has narrowed. it's about isis. its's about violence in the middle east and avoiding another 9/11. that's understandable. the view of security is also formed by events and not trends. we think about the ukraine, maybe some rattling, the east china sea, the south china sea, north korea. or it's often about people, leaders, it's about putin or assad. it's not about the values that bind alliances together. and we've also been cavalier. we've blurred the distinction of the word "ally" and what it

means. we've allowed it to be applied to others who, perhaps, are aligned with us, who fortunately fight with us. and they're all seemingly equal in our security. we've not made clear that there are allies with the associated commitments, obligations. and there are others valued to be sure but without the status of ally. we have not articulated the common cause based on interest and values and qualities that benefit. the coverage in discussion is too often about what allies are not doing, rather than what they are doing. and what we do to help allies as opposed to how our relationships with them enable and facilitate shaping the environment consistent with our interest and to our advantage. wider context with failed to address the broad dimension of national security and fixate on the military, neglecting

economics, important trade relationships and arrangements and the technological industrial benefits that can accrue to those that are in the special alliance relationship, even the terms we use, in my opinion, squu the discussion. we talk of burden sharing, rather than the beneficial contributions that are fundamental to collective capability, capacity and credibility. and a pure military sense, we're simple in our math highlighting how much or how little the host nation is spending. we neglect the cost avoided infrastructure by being able to maintain american forces forward. in the case of the navy, just calculate the capitol and personnel cost of rotational force to replace or forward the forces in japan. by rule of thumb is four or five to one to make one. so if you consider that cost as

something that needs to be factored in, it changes the entire equation. it is staggering. we prefer to focus and grade on the aggregate budget numbers and percentages and are not exact and critical in not defining the real contribution to military capability and capacity. we have not thoughtfully adjusted command and control structures for increased integration in this fast paced world in which we live and operate. the operational command and control model is essentially the same as it was when i was in the navy. related to that, we've been neglectful in emphasizing deeper personnel integration. it, too, is largely the exchange system that i experienced when i was a young officer. we have not optimized foreign area officer programs to our alliance interest, how many

chinese foreign area officers are produced, compared to foreign area officers focused on japan, korea, thailand, philippines and turkey. could they have made a difference in the case of the countries. while recognizing respective national interest, we have not made our alliance structure around which others can operate easily. such integration is challenging because of the information space in which we live and operate. there are rational concerns in protecting sensitive national information. there are complexities regarding the security of integrated networks. all this becomes more complex as other nations join in, but we must be able to do this to reshape our alliances for a new time. there are personnel factors, the cost of posting more servicemen and women and their families in other countries.

the cultural adjustments that made the initially awkward in those assignments but overwhelmingly lead to greater respect, affinity and, indeed, ae fex. the realities in the numbers, where do you get people if you want to have a more robust interaction and where are they to be drawn from although i think this is a good opportunity to bleed some of the excess people out of our over inflated headquarters organizations and that would be a good place to start. those are some details, but it's in the details that the gardens of alliances are tended and reshaped. we must not forget that alliances are really about the fundamental values and issued like they hold collectively and the shared obligations and commitments that those particular nations undertake together to ensure those values define our future. and i applaud csis and mike

green for enabling the needed and broad discussions of alliances for the future. as andrew mentioned, above all, we have to keep in mind that we in the policy world are not really the audience. it is for more broad, more diverse and it's a conversation that has to be continuance. thank you very much.

thank you admiral for a terrific presentation to get things off and invaluable perspective to this very important issue to kick off that project. now, allotted to introduce sort of all star csis panel and what we're going to do now is really

drill down into alliance dynamics in different regions and also some of the defense dimensions of alliances. i'm going to very briefly introduce each of our panelists and then i'm going to ask them to speak and then we'll liken our questions towards the end. the first panelist is senior vice president for asia and the japan here at csis and before his time at csis, he's staff of the national security council from 2001 through to 2005. first is the direct when i met him for the first time and then as special assistant to the president of the national security and senior director for asia. connolly, also on my right, is senior vice president to europe, yo europe asia and director of project from 2001-2005 she was

deputy assistant secretary of state in the bureau for european and -- john, on my left, senior vice president, another senior vice president holds the chair labeled security and his director of the middle east program here at csis. before joining csis, he was member of policy planning star at the u.s. department of states. and final senior vice president is hicks, henry kiss sinjer, hee previously, principle deputy under secretary policy, the department of defense and also served as deputy and secretary of defense, the strategy plans to enforce it. we've got a terrific line up and look forward to hearing it. >> okay. we're still using the hand mike.

thank you, congratulations on launching this project. we'll do it in extremely timely, given events around the world and transition we have here at home, i -- as you mentioned, john henry is not here, with all the senior vice presidents here we had to hide him in undisclosed location. let me talk about our allies in the asia pacific region, generally, because of the rise of china, north korean nuclear threat, the return of 19th, 20th century gee wroe politics, there's a clarity of thoughts about alliances in asia and about alliances from asia that has generally made the alliances stronger over the past few years. but still there are big questions. over the last few months, some of the developments in the region, as andrew mentioned,

have made these seem even more acute. first the good news, though. japan are, our largest ally and the region, measured by defense budget were hosting of u.s. forces or gdp, this year is introducing the highest defense budget in post war history, pays over $4 billion in host nation support, the japan american defense forces, measured by budget -- sorry? >> did a policy shift at the end, acre man predecessors, japan is expanded larger, fire

power, of course, larger than the royal navy or french navy and prime minister has now introduced changes to the definition of what the forces can do that are historic, that increase not only japan's rule, but quite frankly japan's risk. when we shouldn't be measuring dollars and cents, we have to also consider, as he said, the enormous savings to us that also the risks that our allies incur by doing more and doing more with us, which is how i think one could accurately define what they're doing, which is why somewhat controversial. korea has introduced the largest defense budget since the history

of rok. pays 40% of u.s., and korea is tightening our alliance, more joint planning for contingencies, more and more jointness in an alliance unlike japan, is joint and combined. all stray ya, showed that 90% australians support strongly somewhat and of course our partnership with india, which will rough and spearhead it, our strategic framework in singapore, reconnecting with new zealand and throughout southeast asia, all demonstrate that security relationships are strengthening over the past decade or so, public opinion is quite high and polling in the u.s. of alliances is high. we've done elite of csis that shows significant majorities of all these countries much prefer

u.s. led system in asia than a chinese led system or some other version of events. so all -- a lot of support for an alliance structure that as we heard is essentially designed during the korean war. there are also some -- whether these are systemic, one offs, politics can be debated. one factors that all our allies everywhere, trying to -- am i success. one source of uncertainty constantly in our alliance is everywhere, and i think particularly in asia where there are by level, is the delima that allies have with larger partners. they don't want to get so close to the ally, the big ally, they get entrapped. but they don't want to be so

independent that they risk being abandoned by the larger partner, by the u.s. in the face of a dangerous power. and all of our allies, japan, australia are constantly negotiating the delima on how tight to be, while still maintaining some atonmy, but not so independent that they risk being left alone and a threat. and that is complicated in asia by the fact that none of our allies want to choose between u.s. and china as kiss sin jer has pointed out. so you see constant hedging. constant positioning. and the question is how much that we make of that.

>> now, fundamental the alliance, but reap political coordinating strategies and. thailand, the philippines, again, support for the alliances, very high in the philippines, clearly has a different on which she's singing, malaysia and vietnam are taking significant steps to invite back in is that hedging because they think they've done too much with the u.s., are they certain about the u.s. commitment, something that became for an election. we have questions about our commitment on south china sea or the election or difficulty of tpp triggered this. i think there's no single answer. i think it's a combination of internal politics.

what our allies get what we get and how to make them more effective. repeating the answer to all of these challenges we face is not distancing from our lives. it's not controlling our allies, it's not any of those things. if we want to deter aggressive action, reassure our allies and ensure that we have some say

significant say over what they take. is more jointness and inoperability. he gets a multiplier effect. and it gives you more tightness of allies work together and same goes -- we should go together. which in 1953 and '54 when that came up, meant we go together. we do this together. second principle, and gary roughly touched on this, the measure of alliance contribution should be the effectiveness of the alliance. the carter administration tried under congressional pressure to emphasize with japan, the pacific and maybe europe as well, burden sharing matrix. in the 70s and into the 80s, legislation required on how much allies were paying. it's very counter productive, because to our allies it looked like we were seeking economic gains. looks like we were seeking

advantage for ourselves by measuring things purely in terms of dollars. what the reagan administration found jointness, sharing rolls, measuring the effect we want, the alliance effect we want and building alliance where both sides contribute significantly, which will in many cases mean, they do more. korea has to do more. there are a lot of things we have to do, some of it will cost money, not all of it. third principle is, as we approach because there was such

diversity of political systems, level of contribution, particularly since all of these countries trade and invest in china, we're not going to get collected security system. we need to embrace certain amount of diversity in our lives. some will be highly valued. some are important, but, perhaps, getting the right answers out of our allies is not as important as keeping general aligned in the larger goal of stabilizing the system and showing up the existing rules. fourth, we don't turn up, and we don't do enough to connect our key alliances in europe and asia. there is for the kind of -- in any debate about which values we're trying to protect.

we can't call it the west any more, there's too much of the east in this mix. there's something we stand for and i think that's the first principle and it's global. fifth, as was often said, the history of alliance, successes is a history of economic policy, too. and, you know, tpp and trance atlantic, negotiations have been blown off the rails by this election. but i don't think there's a single governor in this country who doesn't want trade agreements and i think this is going to be part of the strategy in time. finally, as the education process, which goes beyond think tanks and congress. it goes to governors and stake holders across the country. it will have to be a great mark. >> thanks, andrew. and congratulations on this

great initiative. i love the dean atchison quote. i think that needs to be a mission statement think tank mission as well. i know during the campaign native is not often crop up as a top issue for discussion. we talk about the hot spots in the world, but not necessarily alliances. and i have to say it was with great shock, i was sitting at my desk and my phone rang and it was a reporter. and the question was, so how would the united states withdraw from nato. and i beg your pardon. i got out the washington treaty and i looked at it and i went well, it was never -- i thought we would ever have. so president elect trump introduced us a conversation about nato. it would not be the one i would choose, but i'm going to take the opportunity. i think in some ways, we have, for a long time, been confusing

price with value. and that's what, i think, mike, what you were talking about and the burden sharing. it's always about how much have you paid. what's your fair share. you're a free rider. it comes down to the price. and for far too long we have not talked about the value of our alliances, what united states gets out of it, how it serves our u.s. interest. and i like the fact, and andrew, in your remark, instead of burden sharing, we talk about our obligation. we talk about our duty to alliance, and that's what sharing that duty is all about. i think we've also confused transactionalism with the value of a long-standing relationship and partnership. and for this, there's bipartisan guilt. we've always been going to our alliances, we need this for afghanistan, we need this for iraq. we need this for libya.

what we haven't done very much into the secretary schultz, we have tended the garden. we haven't talked about the long term relationship, the values that we share, what's important to us? why are you participating in operations in afghanistan if you don't have national interest in afghanistan? why, because you're supporting the values of this alliance. and when we speak only on the transactional, we erode credibility. we erode trust. and we erode the foundations of the relationship. so what's so important about our duty to explain is why we created nato in the first place. in some ways this is world history and sics rolled into one. why did 12 countries gathers to sign the washington treaty. well, very much as it is today, they came together for a gee woe

strategic imperative and unifying ideal of collective defense, and that's what they're doing today. instead of at 12, they're at 28, almost 29 members of nato. and so exactly, we have to put this context, these same principles that in a 21st century context. it's so important to under score, nato was designed for and by u.s. leadership, that's why it was signed here. that's why we're the repository. it was designed for u.s. national interest and u.s. engagement. now many says after the cold war, why did nato exist, it's -- vicariously it has always found so many more operations and missions to do, immediately after welcoming new members into nato in 1999 that went to war in cosovo. it has served in afghanistan, continues to serve after 15

years, no one in nato, you would ask any expert the first time in article five, which is an attack against one is an attack against all, obligation was in support of the united states. that was unthought of, unheard of. and, yet, it was invoked and today nato forces, of which over a thousand nato forces have lost their lives in afghanistan, again, supporting u.s. activities and interests. then came 2014. and russian annexation of crimea and its incursion into eastern ukraine. this is where nato's founding principles, in 1949, became very clear in 2014 and continued to today. but this is not your grandfather's nato, this is a nato that's focusing on cyber security, on missile defense. on looking at hybrid activities, operat a