comprehensive immigration reform? and how should candidates view that when they're looking at your results? >> actually, we're going to take two or three questions, so if we can hold that question for a minute. >> can ask juan -- chelan >> let's keep it to one question because we have a bunch of questions. >> just piggybacking on dr. west's first question to mr. oceana about the justification for the lawsuit against these -- mr. osuna about the justification for the lawsuit against arizona, when the federal government's use the state of arizona for this reason law, -- when the federal government sues the state of arizona for this recent law, how do they justify a 18th century cities across the

country better in direct conflict with the federal -- 18 sanctuary cities across the country that are in direct conflict with the federal law? . . >> the black vote is almost 12%. almost double. i would say the black vote is important, if not more so -- is

as important, if not more so, then the latino vote. have you adjusted your polls according to the black vote as well as whites versus latinos? >> the question is parsing and all blacks versus latinos. >> i asked the over-sampled question. they were the highest proportion. we have been weighted down. of all of those total numbers that we saw, the over-sample was weighted down. i am sorry. i need to clarify that. thank you for your question. the latino vote has been increasing. yes, we have worked with the leadership conference, out with african american voters --

worked with african american voters, and their attitudes. i did not bring this out in the sample because we did not treat this population overall. we have repeatedly sampled african americans. i think one of the reasons that we talk about the latino vote in arizona, the latino vote is significantly greater than the african-american vote. in michigan, it is the reverse. it depends very much on what state you are looking at. the numbers were not that distinct in the data, so i did not break it out. >> sanctuary cities? >> i think it is a good point. there are a lot of differences. i would just say very generally, i can see a difference between

localities, saying they are not going to use these resources, these resources to help enforce federal immigration policy in the entire state and enforcing policy by mandating law enforcement officers carry out their duties in a way that prioritizes federal priorities in immigration. i think is important say that we are not going to commit to doing this, which is again a federal priority. i would like to also notes that many, if not most, a sanctuary ordinances i am familiar with have some exceptions said in there for people -- violent criminals, but violence -- violent criminals, violent dangerous aliens.

so, again, without looking at particular ordinances, i think there is a difference between the two situations. those are significant. >> ok. there is a question over there. >> this question is for mr. osua. might the arizona lawsuit be fought in the courts? what might the next steps be? >> there is a question behind her. >> tiffany murphy with the institute for the study of diplomacy. with the law, the briefs were excellent. if you had anything to do with them, kudos. it mentions foriegn policy, but

it does not describe that a lot. is says foriegn policy, but it does not expand on that. i was wondering if you could? >> yes. >> ok. in terms of the next steps, i wish i knew what the reaction will be. the law takes effect july 29, as you know. there will be a hearing sometime before then, likely, or arguments before the federal district court. they will be hearing this challenge. the department has asked for an injunction, meaning stop the law before it takes effect. the emphasis has shifted to the federal judge here. as to what happens after that, it will be riding on what the judge decides on the injunction. apart from, again, some of the other civil-rights implications

with the law, which will continue to be monitored, and the foreign policy front, the complaint does make the foriegn policy argument because, as you have seen, from the reaction to the law, there are foreign policy implications year. that is not the main focus of the argument. the main focus is on the pre- emption issue, because we believe this is a state statute that crosses the line, hinging on a federal priority. it is certainly an important part of the argument, but it is not the main part of this. of course, that is also a federal priority. >> there's a question here? right here. >> i am with trinity university. my question is for mr. osuna. there's a lot of argument in the

national security circles regarding the voters. do you think that argument at the end of the day will win? for people who think you have to secure the borders, what ever it is. >> ok. there is a question behind him. actually, over here. >> i am from colorado. >> you came along with for this forum. >> the first question is for mr. osuna. you mention the criteria for the new immigration reform. is it an extension of the 1996

reform in many ways? you mentioned border control, job identification, and you know. one of the features of that immigration reform in 1996 was it open the door to what we are seeing -- it opened the door to what we are seeing today in arizona. it allowed the state governments, it was an option for the state's to enter into immigration policies. so now the government responds to arizona with the supremacy clause. do you think -- one of the criteria you use has to do with allowing for more internal control. is that not a way of extending this power on states, going from policy power to emigration

power, and how will you control that? >> actually, let's stick to one question right now. let me answer your border question and you can answer the internal control aspect of that. your question on the border security and why that has emerged is so important as part of this debate. the simple answer from my standpoint is, this is what people are worried about. when you look at the history of american immigration policy, the fear and emotional component is so strong. when you compare this to other policies like education and health care and energy -- sometimes there are emotional aspects to those policies, but immigration reform has such a high component. so border security has become important because it taps that dimension of fear about borders. crossing the border, terrorism, crime. people who do not look like

americans, that kind of thing. it wraps around that symbol. i do not see that issue going away. when you look at what the president has talked about, and celinda's polling supports this, and democrats have to be tough on that issue, otherwise it will be massacred by republicans. juan, do you want to discuss this? >> just quickly, on the border -- there are two things at work here. that is absolutely right, it is a great counterpoint to amnesty if you say tighten up the border. also, dhs and the justice department cracking down on employers is a very popular with the public. the public believes if there were not jobs, there would not be this pressure. they feel it is unfair to

employers who are not hiring illegal workers. having said that, the public is also clear they do not want to stop that border security. you can go to the american voices website and see a lot of the polling on the national immigration forum. other pollsters have done work on this as well. people say border security is not enough. that does not deal with the problem. it is an important component, but it is not true that it is the only component or if it is the first thing people will give. people will do this in combination with other measures. >> let me take a few points on border security and the question on states. i think it is in -- an important. i agree with the statement celinda and darrell made about the importance of the border security. not only is it important, but it

is important for the other reforms that are necessary to get done. there is no way it will get traction if congress and the public get the message we are not serious about controlling the border. that is absolutely approves the requisite -- that is absolutely a prerequisite for this happening. let me take a little bit of a different spin on this. a lot of people assume that the people that are here illegally all came across the border. up to 40% of the population is estimated to have, legally, with a visa, and overstayed their visas. all the security in the world we put in place is not going to limit the population. that is 40%. our focus is what can we put in place, what is doable, to try to reach the population? to put mechanisms in place that

are not border security necessarily, because that would not do any good for people who came here legally with a visa, but to make it easier to track and actually require those people when their visa is up to leave the country. that is a significant challenge, but it is necessary to making the comprehensive reform we all want. the second thing -- the point of the arizona law and the arizona challenge, the justice department's a challenger to arizona is not that the states do not have a role in civil immigration enforcement. and you are right. the 1996 law -- maybe i should look back at the 1990 act. that opened the door for state's involvement in several immigration enforcement. and the federal government welcomes the state involvement,

as long as it is consistent with federal priorities and driven by the federal government. the difference with the arizona law is it puts arizona in the driver's seat. that is the distinction. it is not that there should not be any state involvement in helping enforce immigration laws. it is a force multiplier issue. it is a force multiplier that can be helpful. instead of the federal government being the quarterback, it is the state of arizona driving the priorities year. that is the distinction. >> ok. in the very corner. question? >> thank you up for coming today. it is good to see you. my name is cheryl. soy an immigration lawyer. i have been practicing since 1919 eighth -- 1998.

-- i am an immigration lawyer. >> you're on the front lines. >> i am on the front lines. i see it litigation against employers. if the jobs exist here, then people, i believe, based on my experience, will find a way to get here and do those jobs. so i am wondering if there is going to be a focus on employers, especially in consideration of the new employment verification system you are talking about? >> there's a question right next to you. right there. >> i am with the american political science association. some of the congressional critics of comprehensive reform said, fine, let's secure the border first -- basically the u.s.-mexican border, and then we will get to the other issues. what does it mean to secure the border and how will they recognize when that time

arrives? >> ok. good question. one you want to tackle? [laughter] >> we may not have emphasized it as much because we were going to quickly. comprehensive reform we tested exclusively, cracking down on employers. it is very popular. as popular as border security. real people have that line in their heads. they like it for two reasons. they believe if the jobs are not the lawyer, -- lure, people will not be coming. they also believe these people are not just recruiting immigrants workers because they work hard or have skills they need, but because they can pay lower wages and a whole bunch of other goals that people think do not observe wage standards, etc. the public has a very strong narrative. they also believe that you put

lawful employers at a disadvantage and that is not right. that is in their very, very strongly. we may have read over that too quickly. in terms of the congress, i think you would have to ask them. probably in their mind, they do not want to separate it out. they do not bother to do the border first. politically, that is absolutely on non-starter. to separate it out. >> on the employment issue -- yes, i think that comprehensive immigration reform in terms of what is being discussed is likely to include additional mechanisms to crack down on employers that actually, after putting in place a very robust employment verification system that is transparent, acceptable, and effective, if

you still have employers that go forward and hire someone not eligible to work, then absolutely there should be additional ways, up mechanisms to go after the employers. i think it is likely to be in any legislation. but the real key, the starting point on the employment side is what senator schumer and senator gramm have proposed, and that will be the starting point. the enforcement mechanisms will flow from that, but that will be the key to drawing thi i agree with you, as i said earlier, all the border and enforcement you put in place is only going to be partially effective if you do not control the workplace, the employment of people who should not be employed. the border security is an

excellent question. there is no answer to that, really. people have different answers. some believe the online for were the border is secure is here. other people believe right here. there is no way of managing that. there is no system of actually assessing that. the border patrol uses the term "operational control of the border." and they feel that they have control of certain parts of the border right now. which means basically they are very confident that particular section of the border, they know who is trying to come forward across the border and they can get to it very quickly. i think the short answer to your question is as long as we can get operational control of the entire border, that is when some people can maybe say the border is secure.

that is a shifting standard. you can line up 10 members of congress and ask them what you need to secure the border, he will get 10 different answers. >> you will get 20 different answers. i just want to go to the employment verification question. there is no question we are moving towards greater enhancement of employment verification. i think it is also important to have an appeals process attached to that. any of the processes we use today, there will be a certain number of mistakes made. i think one of the reasons why people are opposed to employment verification is the recognition there are going to be mistakes made. there has to be an appeals process by which someone who gets spat out by not meeting that verification test should have the ability to bring other

evidence to bear. >> i am from a japanese company. i have a question about enforcement. president obama signs the tourism promotion act, to promote more incoming visitors, tourist, to the states. that is generating jobs. then you definitely need to invite the customers from foreign countries. speaking of enforcement, on the immigration side, how do you coordinate between dhs, doj, and congress to promote tourism? >> we definitely want to risk. behind you, another question. >> my name is joseph.

in a private citizen from chicago. regarding the issue of -- correct me if my and then it is wrong. under the 14th amendment, that is probably unique in the world. most countries do not have that law. is there any polling on that issue? there are tremendous costs associated. any more information -- any polling information on that? >> if you can pass the microphone. then we will give our panel a chance to respond. >> thank you. i wanted to pick on a phrase which celinda lake used several times, but the phrase that people are not here legally going back to the back of the line for immigration. i want to explore that a bit. i think one of the worries people have is precisely the

fear that people who are here illegally will go to the front of the line, compared to someone who stays home in guatemala. what do we actually mean, in practical terms, by saying people "go back -- "go to the back of the line?" and how does that relate to the blueprint or any other proposals out there? >> ok. we have questions on tourism and going to the back of the line. [laughter] >> let me start with that. this is not dealt with within the blueprint other than saying, you know, people need to go to the back of the line. there are different mechanisms put in place. the concept is really simple, which is, someone who is here illegally should not, as you said, go ahead of someone who went through the legal process

in their home country. all you do that is the difficult part. -- how you do that is the difficult part. there have been examples that require them to go back to their home country. there are proposals that require some kind of temporary status, whether they should actually get a visa, require visas from people who are here legally. that still has to be -- it is one of those issues that has to be worked out moving forward. the concept itself, meaning that there should not be an unfair advantage for people who are living here, i think that is likely to be enshrines in some way in this bill, if it ever starts moving forward. that is something the president touched on in his speech last week, when he said he rejected

the concept of no deportation for people who are here unlawfully. that sends the message there are no rep precautions to illegal behavior, and there should be. -- that since the message there are no repercussions to a legal behavior, and there should be. that will be a significant bone of contention moving forward. on the tourism issue, the legal immigration system is designed not just for enforcement. it is designed to welcome people we actually want here, for economic reasons and other reasons. and the promotion of tourism is one of those anchors of about -- that. was this enforcement against tourists or -- >> [unintelligible] >> coordination?

the department of homeland security has the bulk of the enforcement mechanism on that. they are the ones responsible for tracking somebody down if they overstay their visas, as i mentioned earlier. doj comes in if someone is put in deportation proceedings. in terms of promoting tourism, i think dhs does coronation with the department of commerce to make sure consistent messages are being sent out. we do have some discussions. >> there is some research that has been done on a. there are mixed views. it depends on how you word the question. if you say to people, if anyone is born in this country, you will have less support.

uofd founding fathers wanted this, and i wanted, -- the founding fathers wanted this, and i wanted it, too. many of the attitudes we are talking about have remarkably little geographic variation, contrary to conventional wisdom. you do see more knowledge about the issue and the problems on the borders. the further away you are from the border, the further you are from the mexican border, the more support you have for people being born in this country being automatically a citizen. it varies a lot. in terms of one other thing i would say about getting to the back of the line, we have a couple of the dilemmas here. one dilemma is people are unaware of the backlog, and they tend to think why is this taking so long?

is it because of volume? or is it because of the bureaucracy? if it is the bureaucracy, let's get going. if it is millions and millions want to come, then maybe we do need to spread it out. that is very confusing to people, about why the backlog. how long is this line? this is a culture actually that really believes in a line. there are all sorts of sociological studies on how people get in line. we are notorious in a culture that people will get in one line and when you see openings you will get in all line. -- a line. this is a culture that really believes in the fairness of the line. whether you're in line for a coke or baseball tickets or immigration. i think the administration

stands up for that value. >> i the question about technology. based on my wife's experience, i have spent an inordinate amount of time at a photocopying machine. you always have to mail everything. this is the 21st century. are we thinking about e-mail documents? >> i am glad i do not have your job. >> are you saving that for another time because of who she was married to? sure, the answer, one answer to a lot of these issues is better technology and trying to make adequate use of technology. i know i keep going back to dhs, but they are the ones who actually handled the green cards. they are looking at a number of technological advancements that possible.

the federal government, it is going to take a long time. given where technology is now, i think that we are certainly much better off and i expect continued advance is going forward. >> ok. ok, we have a microphone coming over to you. >> good afternoon. my name is michael. i am a reporter with the hispanic weekly news service. my question and it's about immigration -- my question is about immigration reform. the dream act. what you think of the chances of something like that getting passed this year? do you think the federal government will support it, or will they say they are fighting for comprehensive immigration reform? >> we have a question over here. we have time for two or three more questions. >> thank you.

i am at the center for international studies. if there should be comprehensive immigration reform in the u.s., to you think the reform should take in consideration for and development, in order to treat the problem, not the symptom? >> pass the microphone to that gentleman. and we are almost out of time. we will make this the last set of responses from our panel. >> what is known statistically about the success of this immigrant workers that congregates at select known locations, to take what ever jobs are available at any rate offered to them? what do you know about the market rate for immigrant workers? >> bouquet. that is a very broad range of questions. -- ok.

>> let me take the question on the piecemeal approach, which is -- and it is somewhat of a subject for discussion. if comprehensive immigration reform continues to prove difficult, is there room for a smaller piece of legislation like the dream act? there is the legislation sponsored by senator feinstein and others. the administration supports them, supports the concept of the dream i, supports the concept of allowing, making it easier for courts to bring in workers that they need. i do think if the debate keeps going on the way it is and there is little action this year or next year on comprehensive immigration reform, we will have increasing pressure to look at smaller pieces, smaller measures of reform.

certainly they will not have the impact of the larger form. they do affect significant portions of the economy and people who are here. the administration does not have a position on that approach yet. we do expect there will be part of the continuing and probably expanding discussion on immigration reform in general as the year goes on. the development systems -- i think it is possible to have additional mechanisms in the immigration reform bill. i would not expected to be of major part of it. -- i would not expect it to be a major part of it. that is because it takes a long time to fully impact conditions -- that is because it takes a long time. to fully impact conditions in mexico, it could play a role.

it may be some kind of provision in the cir bill. >> i have of thoughts. the one thing about development assistance -- that is the one part of the debate that is not very popular. people want to bring the money home. the american public is notorious for having very interesting critiques on that, overestimating our generosity. they think we are the biggest foreign aid country in the world, and of course, we are not. hey, from a political standpoint, the american public is not so keen on that. you are adding controversy to it. i would imagine -- i cannot imagine that would be a huge piece of reform.

>> the problem with foreign aid is americans think we devote 10% of our federal budget to foreign aid, and of course, is a tiny fraction of that. it makes it a hard sell. >> i am sure there are numbers on the impact. i am sure the labor department has them. i have not seen them. i am sure someone has done those. i cannot help you. >> we had a question on the dream i am public opinion on that. have you looked at that? >> we have. it used to be a very popular. it has diminished in support, but it depends on how you explain it. it used to be popular when people thought -- there is a very firm belief. people have talked about the sense of the father should not be inherited. stops do not ask anybody what their parents did.

-- do not ask anybody what their parents did. that is really rude. as student aid was diminished and people were wondering, then you started to see attention. when you tell an individual story, and there are very moving stories, people who were quite young, they move, they excel, whatever, you are able to shift it again. it depends on what values are driven by this conversation. >> you can tell times are tough when -- >> right. that is right. times are tough. >> we are out of time. i want to thank juan and celinda for sharing your thoughts with us. and thank you to the audience. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> live coverage from the brookings institution. we will have more live coverage from brookings this afternoon. the japanese ambassador will be speaking on the japanese response to global challenges. live coverage of that starts at 3:30 eastern here on c-span. coming up at the top of the hour, we will have live coverage of defense secretary robert gates and admiral mike mullen. they will be briefing reporters. you can watch that here on c- span. until then, your phone calls and comments from this morning's "washington journal."

host: i want to show you that spot the two groups are releasing today and talk about your thoughts on public campaign financing. that is what they are arguing with. has 157 co-sponsors they are proposing. -- the law has 157 co-sponsors they are proposing. there is a tally of how the cost of a lectionary in the united states has changed of the past decade. what i have highlighted on this page are presidential election cycles. let's look at the ones not highlighted. back in 1998, total spent was $1.6 billion. in 2006 $2.8 billion.

if you use a widget, there is a tally of the cost o the 2010 election so far and it keeps changing. you can see that on the bottom left of the screen. it is in the neighborhood of $2.4 billion so far, the cost of a campaign 2010. let's show you this advertisement that they are releasing today in washington, d.c., to argue for public financing of campaigns. >> pp destroys the gulf, we pay the price. -- bp destroys the gulf, we pay the price. congress is putting special interest first. why? isn't it obvious? make congress accountable to us and bring back elections of, like, and for the people. " congress to allow -- hleelp

congress to allow the change we keep asking for. john lawson is a democrat and walter jones is a republican of south carolina. all of them have been co- sponsors. the bills differ slightly in their spending mechanism. the house bill would devastate funds through a fee on auctions. the senate bill would rely on a fee paid by large federal contractors. supporters said they hoped to get a vote this summer with timing less certain in the senate. ed decker says --edgar says there's changes are approved by sepate legislation by separate

legislation now under consideration in the senate aimed at countering the supreme court decision. our phone lines are open. what do you then about the concept of public financing for campaigns? there are groups of the other side of this. the supreme court with the citizens united have offered its voice on past attempts to reform, and we would like to appear what to you, the person out there voting and looking at the rle of your legislator in washington and your money, has to say about all of this. the numbers are on the bottom of yo screens. you could also send us a message by twitter and an e-mail on this topic. let's begin with a call from minneapolis. brent on the independent line. caller: and you for taking my call. i have so much to say on this that i could not possibly condense it to a few moments but

the citizens united case exemplifies the problem. the notion that we get personal status to corporations with all of the benefits, but not the rich -- responsibilities that we as individual persons would have to sustain it is just emblematic of the whole problem. exacy how we go aut getting ourselves into public financing is the statistics that you put up earlier indicated it you look at the difference between 2000 i am in my early 40's. it is fundamentally different now than 20 years ago when i was a young adults. we absolutely do need radical finance reform.

exactly how we achieve it, i am not sure. the broadband spectrum, i cannot understand what the problem is it with either political party in opposition to free airtime. if the air waves are ours, we can donate them, etc. we can donate them to whoever is using the spectrum. thank you for taking my call. i wish you the best. host: the next call is from miami. he wore on . democrat's line. caller: yesterday, i tried to call somebody in washington,

just to tell them. i am a scientist and an engineer. i am probably one of the best people in the world to talk about the gas leak. i think that if we use the same number over and again in the same size, we can public -- we can cut public spending. money we have to spend because right now, the fact is, we have no budget. host: ok. iyou would like to see the spending at capitol hill relieved. we have a website that tracks money in politics. looking at the most expensive

races in 2010. the florida senate is at $24 million. california $23 million. arizona is 17, massachusetts 15, new york 14. the ohio senate 12, and louisiana senate 29. the most expensive races in the house -- south carolina district two. minnesota. virginia district 7. in washington area, $4.1 million. just a look at how much money is being raised for this year's 2010 congressional election. next call from pittsburg. this is steve on our republican's line. good morning. caller: this is something i have been preaching for years.

i wish everyone would disconnect from citizens united. i have acquaintances who have been in public office and i am told all they do it the second they get there is spend their time raising money. i think it has to be linked to -- if we are going to finance it -- they have to have term limits. host: you think term limits is the answer? caller: the combination of public financing and term limits. host: generally, republicans are against either of your two proposals. you are calling in on the republican line. how'd you square that with the majority of your party? caller: i think it is common sense. i see these people going out to campaign every night, looking

for money. they need to spend their time doing something else. host: let me get a response from the other side. there is an organization to oppose it campaign finance restrictions. it was just reported in the "washington post." the attached limits -- that organization is also easily found on the internet. eds the person who runs it is of former head of the sec.

-- the person who runs it is a former head of the sec. this is john on our independence's line -- independent's line. caller: good morning. the way to deal with campaign finance is the way the greeks did it. the greeks are originated democracy. -- originated democracy. they did not have won election. what they did was very much the way we pick jurors in this country. there is just our random group of people who say, ok, you are now our representatives. get joe the plumber in there.

get an assortment of business people, big business people, small business people, the plumber, electrician, the office worker in an actual representation of the american people. what we have now is a bunch of millionaires in their. -- there. as long as you have campaign contributions, you have people that you of. whereas if you are appointed -- as long as you have campaign contributions, you have people that you owe, whereas if you are appointed, you do not owe anybody anything. and we have a democracy. host: we have but tweets. -- a tweet. here is a photograph from a the washington post this morning.

he says -- the general public ie of the fact that money influences public policy and wants something to be done about it. if we miss this moment, it will be awhile before something can be done about it. they are talking about tv ads targeting wavering lawmakers. next, a call from spring, texas on the democrat's line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. whenever the supreme court decision came down that corporations are individuals and have constitutional rights to

donate money, therefore to campaigns in different politicians, i noticed in the paper there was an article about justice clarence thomas's wife setting up a firm of her own. to me, that sounds a little bit like a conflict of interest. with her husband on the supreme court and everything. that money can be funneled to who knows where. is that a conflict of interest? host: thank you so much. this is an organization she has been involved in. this is a think tank. it has been widely reported in the newspaper this week, for people who have not yet seen it. it is time for public financing.

next, a call from the republican line. this is robin from west plains, nebraska. you were on the air. welcome. caller: overturn the 17th amendment. [unintelligible] host: ok. suggesting again the state legislature have the opportunity to appoint senators, as when the constitution was first written. on the independent mind, carolyn. good morning. caller: good morning. i think this must be viewed in the context of how all the money is spent. stuff like that.

that is basically what i wanted to said. host: do you want to tell us more? caller: it seems like the tv ads are very expensive. especially some sections of the united states. it the people who are promoting certain candidates are the same people -- caller: -- host: thank you very much. caller: good morning. first, as far as the remarks concerning the recent supreme court decision, definitely now is the time to look at reform. host: how would reform be structured? would you think would be most effective?

caller: i think it should be done in a comprehensive manner. including a reform of the communications act, which was changed in the early bush administration. if you follow the money, it is really all about communications. the worst possible scenario would be term limits because that would be creating a situation where candidates have to get their name out, and you also take choices away from voters. the airwaves belong to the people. since the new communications act passed -- i do not know exactly what year it was -- it has created a situation where, you know, there is the spiralling of, you know, money that it costs to do an election.

it really takes away from the ability of legislators to do anything because they have to go to their constituents constantly, asking for money. first, we have to change the communications act. more exposure. giving free air time to third- party candidates. definitely, definitely no term limits. and thank you to c-span. host: we have a note from twitter. "the only truth about campaign finance reform is that it is always aimed at keeping the incumbents in power." next, jim. caller: thank you to c-span for showing what everybody else is not.

campaign finance reform -- especially if you look at the pictures you just showed about the cost -- it seems to me, it is cost prohibitive for anybody who actually can do something and is representing the people. if you want to get elected, i you have to have powerful people behind you. i think it is cost prohibitive for somebody who is in there for the people and wants to get in there and do things for the mass of the people and not the special interests. this also goes for the lobbyists to get in there, and they are always big and powerful corporations. and now the corporations have in tool power. they not only finance the

campaign, but on top of that, they send the lobbyists in. it is a two-prong attack. whereas a person like you or myself do not have a chance, getting our views and our agenda is addressed. this is a major problem. >> thank you. -- host: thank you. if you are joining us in progress, we're talking about the fair elections act. there are two groups in favor of it. here is what it would do. it would establish a voluntary system in which candidates agreed to accept only donations of $100 or less from contributors in their districts or states. after meeting a minimum amount, they would get $400 in matching funds for every $100 raised.

there are house and senate versions of the bill. john message to us via twitter. -- john messaged us via twitter. . . facts. caller: incumbents are in office. they have a job to do. iave nothing against people running fo office, but incumbent should run on the record and should not spend time and expenses fund raising. that is one thing that keeps the problems stalled. host: next is a call from cedar grove, north carolina. this is dan on the democrats' line. caller: i am just a dumb, old country editor with 50 ars of

experience. the honest reality is there will never be kidded treform. to me, basically thedea is to get this thing down where there is a limit on how much can be spent by all parties for everything, soft money, tax, everybody. there is a limit to the congressional district on how much can be spent. a limit that cacan be spent for the presidential elections. and the same thing for all of the state elections. as long as money is a factor, you will never havhonest politics. i came out of a state where all but one of the supreme court justices went to prison for corruption. as long as you have money

involved and moy is a factor, you will have corruption. >> i have personnel announcements to make. first is to make a happy birthday. today i am pleased to announce that i recommended to the president. that he'd nominate general james madison \ e. he is an outstanding combat leader and strategic thinker. bringing a central mix of experience, judgment, and perspective to this important post. he has served in commanded at all levels, and has held a number of key leadership positions. including italian command in the

first gulf war, leading the first conventional ground forces inserted into afghanistan, commanding the first marine, in command of all marine corps forces in central command. whether commanding troops in battle, leading marine which development, or new operating concepts, he has proven to be one of the military's most innovative and a comic figures. his insight into the nature of warfare in the 21st century have to influence my own views about how the armed forces must be shaped and postured for the future. his strategic inside an independent kingdom were among the reasons that i selected him to lead the red team on the department's 2010 the center you. the post he is taking is a critical one at a critical time. the united states has vital,

longstanding interest in commitments in central asia and the gulf region going back decades. interests and commitments that transcend multiple presidencies of both political parties. i consider it essential to have a confirmed, full-time commander in place at suncentcom as quicky as possible. on a personal note, i want to king general madis who would otherwise be looking forward to a well-deserved respite for taking on this tough assignment at this time. i would add that if he is confirmed, we would have two marines leaving in central command. general allan as the deputy commander. the chairman and i are comfortable with this

arrangement for an amount of time. the key is having the best people in the right places. i would also like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the guidance i issued last week dealing with this department's engagement with the news media. for starters, when i took this job more than 3.5 years ago, i spent my first few months on the jobs telling military audiences that the press was not the enemy and to treat it as such was counterproductive and self- defeating. accordingly, in my approach to media relations i have attempted to be as straightforward as possible and the anchorage this department's leaders to do the same. none of that has changed. in short, last week's memo was not about how the media does its job, but about how this department's leadership as ours. it is not a change in policy, a reaffirmation of an existing policy that was being followed selectively at best. it reflected the fact that for

some time now long before the recent rolling stone article, i have grown increasingly concerned that we have become too lax, disorganized, and in some cases flat out sloppy in the way we engaged with the press. as a result, personal views have been published as officials of government positions and information has gone out that was inaccurate, incomplete, or lacking in proper context. even more worrisome, highly classified and sensitive information has been divulged without accountability. i hope and expectation is that this new guidance will improve the quality of press engagement by assuring that the people of the media talk to can speak with accuracy and authority. this should not infringe or impede the flow of accurate and timely information to you or to

the public. that is not my intent, nor will i tolerate it. an additional personal observation. over the last two years, i have lost a first-rate central command commander and an outstanding commander in afghanistan do to their own missteps in dealing with the media. i have had to recall a combat commander to washington for verbal reprimand for speaking out in appropriately on a sensitive foreign-policy issue. i have had two very different presidents each on several occasions expressed concerns to me about senior defense officials, civilian and military. these instances together with my own frustration was premature disclosures of personal, budget and other options under consideration led me to conclude several weeks ago that we need greater coordination and discipline. effectively communicating what

we do and how we do it remains a top priority for me. in fact, i consider it my duty. it is a responsibility i have not only to the media but to the american people. i take it very seriously, and i expect everyone else in this department to do the same period on that note, we will take your questions. >> bi and many of my colleagues have basic questions about how the media policy is going to work on the grounds, and i hope you have buries ivery specific e on what is covered in the pre- screening policy. i wanted to ask you something more brought on that point. since your predecessor was widely criticized for reining in the depressthe press, does thisn

you are also developing late in your tenure a worried that the press has in fact become the enemy. >> no, not at all. this is not about you, this is about us. this is about us doing things in an uncoordinated way. it is about people in this department speaking out on issues where they do not have all of the facts, with a may not have that perspective. it is about somebody in one part of the world in the military or speaking out on one issue without realize threalizit someone else is speaking about it. a lot of the interviews you ask for are already that it through public affairs or orchestrated through public affairs. so this is as much about our

being better coordinated and our making sure what the parameters of an interview are so that people that are being interviewed, if you will, stay within their lane. and are not speaking out about issues that they do not know everything about or way they may not be informed at all. this is about our being more intelligent and thoughtful about how we respond to requests for interviews and to try and make sure that the information it you are getting is accurate, as well as a means of people are not speaking out about issues where they may be treading on such a bsensitive ground and not even know it. >> i want to talk about the nomination of general madis. back in 2005, in front of

televisions, he said it actually a lot of fun to fight. i like brawling. given the fact that you said you are nominating him due to his judgment and influence of, and this was said in 2005, and he was reprimanded in writing. nonetheless he is going to in extraordinarily sensitive part of the world for the military is trying to demonstrate it is about something more than killing. do you have concerns about his remarks? >> first of all, as you point out, that was five years ago.

of reaction was taken at the time. -- the appropriate action was taken at the time. the lesson was learned. and obviously in the wake of the interview, we discussed this kind of thing. i have every confidence that general maddeis will respond to questions and speak publicly about the matters for which he is responsible in an entirely appropriate way. >> let me follow-up on the media memo. any means of media and public engagements, any means, with possible national or international publications. that is perhaps the broadest, by any measure, founding or

restriction. any means of public engagement. could you explain to the troops and commanders in people in the united states military -- their right of free speech, to any public engagement they have, which is what your word say now have to be screened. what rights of free speech does a person in the military have? >> it is very much about what the secretary laid out in terms of coronation and sigrid's is natisynchronization. it is not in any way to preclude the proper engagement with the press. all of us in the military understands being in the military. we follow certain guidelines. this is to actually come in great part, emphasized guidance

that has been out there, but we have walked away from. in light of what has happened recently, but not just that peace, we just reaffirmed what the secretary have said -- we have been talking about this for longer than that, and the need to ensure we are coordinated, synchronized and that we do tell our story. it is important that we do not see the enemy and we do tell our story. it is a challenge today because of the 24 hour news cycle, because of the pace in engaging the press and the media. we have to do it from that position in which we are qualified to do that. very specifically.

>> eni engagement? are you in fact saying that before he pose something on his page, has any public engagement with the media it must be cleared by this building. -- any engagement. >> with rublles they should be understood going in and follow the rules specifically. one account i would like to make, i have known general madis for a number of years and have watched him very closely in the past couple of years. one of the hats he has had is one of the allied commanders and nato. i watched him interact at the highest levels diplomatically, politically, on very sensitive

subjects. i have every confidence that -- i watched that skill. i watched him do exceptionally well. i have great confidence that he will be able to carry out the duties of this command without presuming his confirmation. >> the remarks do not trouble you? to get the secretary address that. >> are you concerned that your memo could have a further chilling affect under willingness to talk, not only to the media but to the american people. just out of curiosity, what was your reaction when your memo was leaked? >> that it was highly predictable.

[laughter] >> let me address this more broadly. and we need more internal discipline about how we coronate the substance when people are going to be interviewed or going on one of the television talk shows or sitting down with you. this is to make sure they are not talking about issues that are outside their area of knowledge, their area of expertise. and to make sure they know that if there are some areas even within their areas of expertise that may be sensitive because it is in the middle of the decision making progress. the idea is not to turn off the interview, the idea is to try and help the person who was giving the interview understand what the sensitivities are. and every time before the chairman and i come down here, we sit down with people from

our public affairs office and hear the issues. here is what the press has in mind. that is the kind of thing we're talking about. so that when people do have interviews they have greater situational awareness. we will have to use judgment in this. the reality is stories in the press, whether it was on the stories of the treatment of outpatient wounded four years at walter reed or stories about terrorists have been a spur to action for me. so the kind of reporting you do, as far as i'm concerned, is one of the tools that i have in trying to lead this department and correct problems. if you are not -- we understand that as the chairman suggested, speed and responding to you often will be of the essence.

this burden will fall on the public affairs office. i fully expect that if they are not being prompt enough, that we will hear about that from you all. and we will take corrective action, because the purpose is to be as responsive to you as we have always been, but for us to do a better job of preparing people before they have introduced. i -- before they have interviews. if you are capt. in the units and have an embedded reporter, as long as you are in the guidelines and rules, we expect you to be open with the reporter. on the other hand, if you are on the other hand, if you are capt. in this building working on budget options, i expected to keep your mouth shut. >> to pursue the comments

today, which is the unauthorized release of classify information. how significant a breach the view that? given that a young soldier is a legend to have relatively free access to information and downloaded it and taken it out of his headquarters -- are you ordering any kind of review of security clearance processes, computer security, or any other steps that are necessary? >> i do not know the seriousness of the breach. i am not familiar with the investigation that took place. so i would basically have to say i defer to the army in terms of the specific case. in some respects, what this illustrates is the incredible amount of trust we place and

even our most generajunior men d women in the uniform. i would be loath to change that. we have over 2 million men and women in uniform. i believe we should always err on the side of trusting them, because virtually all of them, not 100%, but nearly 100% give us reasons every single day to continue testing them. no, i have not ordered a review. if the results of the investigation suggest that might be necessary, we will take a look at it at the time. my instinct is to take these on a case by case basis. >> the only thing i would add to that is that i think it is being

appropriately handled in the chain of command. i think any commander when they look at a case looks at the facts as he or she understands them and the mitigating factors as well, the specifics of which i am not familiar with. then obviously it that looks like it is going to be something that is bigger than it is locally, then it comes up and we would look at making adjustments. there is no indication of that right now. right now. >> if everybody is following the spirits and a letter of the memo, are you confident that stories like walter reed problems would emerge the way they did? i am wondering if you are confident that that would still happen? >> yes, i am, and it is largely

in my confidence in the persistence of the skills of the people sitting in front of me. >> can you give us a sense of how much that will inform this review that they are doing. tell us how much we should expect. >> i simply see this as i have said all along, it is very important for us to understand from our men and women in uniform the challenges that they see. to get their views on this issue and the challenges they see in implementing change in the law. that will help us prepare better to implement those changes when and if the law is

changed. i would say that' this survey is a very important element of this effort, in part because while general ham and general counsel j. johnson have talked to thousands of troops and dozens of military facilities, and we have gone several tens of thousands of comments and views by email in response to the request for people spots on this, this size sampling is obviously the most significant element of getting the views of the troops, and to be honest -- we had designed its or it has been designed in partnership with a professional services

company and according to the best practices they have for that industry. i would tell you that i put my or in in only one respect, and or in in only one respect, and that is the original proposal was to sample 100,000 active duty and 100,000 in the reserve components, and i suggested that the double the size of the sample. that i wanted a significant percentage of the force to have an opportunity to offer their views on this. i am aware there is at least one group that has suggested that gays and lesbians in the service not fill in the report. the good news is a number of other advocacy groups have urged gays and lesbians in the force to fill it in.

i strongly encourage gays and lesbians who are in the military to fill all the forms. we have organized this in a way to protect their privacy and confidentiality of their responses through a third-party, and it is important that we hear from them as well as everyone else. i think we're satisfied that this is an important elements of this effort, and that it is being done on a very professional way. >> let me ask you about the tanker program that tomorrow you will begin an effort to replace the eisenhower era tanker. what steps have you taken to minimize the chances that a protest will be sustained by the general accounting office? and also to ensure this process will be transparent and the bidders will not underbid their weight in? >> you are asking about the

whole process that the air force and at and l are going to run. my view is the way it has been designed is as transparent as possible. i think that i have assured congress that this will be a fair and transparent process. i think the various criteria that the air force has come up with make it as an objective process as possible. i think that i am very optimistic that this time we will be able to get on with it. >> of all of your frustrations about having to call that an officer of this bespoke overseas, you did not mention --

of all of the frustrations you have talked about, about officer that misspoke overseas, you did not speak about bob woodward. that was typical of what you want to avoid. the silence is deafening. >> i was never convinced that it leaked out of this building. >> what steps did you take to track that down? >> i have a lot of experience with leak investigations for a lot of years. [laughter] i am very cautious and calling for leak investigations. especially when lots of people have access to documents. to what exte>> to what extent dw the controversial comments in that article. the idea is not to shut off the interview, would you have tried

to shut off that interview? >> i think there is a question of i think you do have to address questions of appropriateness. those are areas where i certainly depend on the advice of the people that have been in the public affairs business, and frankly i think this is a world that has gone a lot more complicated with a lot more free-lance journalist, a lot more blogs, a lot more of everything. so people who have full-time day jobs doing something else are not going to be familiar with a lot of these entities. i think one of the issues that would be reviewed by public affairs is this an appropriate

publication or television interview opportunity for this particular officer? these are judgment calls. we make them every day. we already make them. so i do not see much change in that respect. >> would you have tried to shut that one donwn? >> i think that is pretty easy in hindsight. there was no advance knowledge of that interview at all. >> to the respect that he was disrespecting his civilian leadership, should the public have known about that? >> i do not know the exact circumstances. i do not know what was going on in his headquarters. i do not know what was going on in paris. frankly, as far as i am concerned at this point, --

first of all, let me be clear about one thing. general mcchrystal never said one thing or anything way shape or form conveyed to meet any disrespect for civilian authority over the military. never. i have never had an officer do that since i have been in this building and 3.5 years. so i think this business of questioning of civilian authority, as far as i am concerned, has been taken out of context. i believe, ellis' in my interaction with military -- at least in my interaction with

military, i have never encountered at any level of the military any disrespect for civilian authority. i think this was a rare circumstance and an unfortunate one, but i think we can move on. >> is there any information that you could clean up from that survey that would make either of you think twice about supporting repeal of do not ask, do not tell? >> if i were going to add about what the secretary said about the survey. what it does is it is going to be able to give us objected information with respect to the responses from the people that we care about the most and the people that this change in policy would affect the most to

reach out at this point and try to predict what they might say, i think it is too early with respect to that. i really would not do that at this time. i have been pretty clear. it is not my decision. it is to remind it is a law and it needs to be changed. it really needs to be changed from that perspective. >> israel has released new photographs showing the flow of iranian weapons. do you consider our wroniran's w activities a serious threat and aren't you concerned that a war will explode in the region? >> first of all, i have said

publicly before that hezbollah now has more rockets and missiles than many governments around the world. and i am absolutely confident they did not manufacture them all themselves. i think that's iran has been supplying these kinds of weapons to hezbollah. i think it is a concern. and we're working very hard to ensure is that there is not another conflict in the middle east. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> defense secretary robert gates wrapping up a briefing. he named general madis as the

top military officer. ap reports that he is a season or veteran best known for leading troops into fallujah in iraq in 2004. he was later chastised for his remarks but not formally reprimanded. shortly we will return to the brookings institution for remarks from the japanese ambassador on his country's response to global challenges. that is live at 3:30 eastern. tomorrow it is the national governors' association from boston. they will gather for three talks -- three days of talks in presentations. check coverage plans on our website, c-span.org. >> prime time "washington journbook tv" continues tonight.

newt >> bridgingrich. also, attend a book party for bill press. michael graham defends the tea party movement. all this week on c-span2. >> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, according to a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and non-fiction books all as a public service created by american cable companies. >> c-span our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. you could connect with us on twitter, facebook, youtube. sign up for a scheduled alert e- mails @ c-span.org.

>> remarks from an author discussing his book about american foreign policy. "road to the white house" continues-- "washington journal" continues. host: in this new book it says "we remain in thrall to a series of assumptions about american omnipotence that are not true and never were. what arthose assumptions? guest: for america to be secure and prosperous in the world, we have to extend our dominance further and further. in the post cold war time, america's military footprints increase dramatically around the world. dick about where america was at the end of the cold war. we did not have military presence in eastern europe, very

minute -- very little military ground presence in europe or central asia. american power spread much more widely. we need to remember that we were a relatively safe and prosperous country even before the spread of american military power. we don't believe any retrenchment would necessarily believe the imperiling of american security. for me the fundamental challenge of obama's foreign-policy is coming to terms with the fact america does not have as much power as we thought we did during the bushra. america was a little like a man who thought his house was worth a million and was only worth five a hundred million and he was borrowing against the value of the house. america is still an immensely powerful and dynamic country but we overestimated our ability to remake the wld in our image and we overestimated the

limitless nests of america's economic resources. the trauma of obama foreign policy will be trying to find a way of bringing the american power back into balance, to bring our enormous series of commitments overseas back into balance with a more realistic assessment of how much power we have. i wanted to write about other is trying to respond to the dilemma in the past. host: you look at three stages in the 20th century. i pulled a clip because you reference one of those, the decision about going into vietnam. this is john kennedy at his inaugural, sort of setting the stage for the american view of weekend export our views of democracy to the world. -- we can export our views. >> let every nation know that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,

support any friend,ppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of the nation. host: h is not saying the success of american liberty but the success of liberty as a concept. how old original was this i did to john kennedy? guest: it was not original to john kennedy. you see echoes of this in early american presidents, in particular woodrow wilson and his vision of america exporting democracy to the ". kennedy's inaugural statement was one of the classic statements of the beautiful lie. it is a very powerful, inspiring vision, the idea that americans will pay any price, bear any burden for the survival and success of liberty. that idea that americans will stand for people struggling for freedom around the world, that

america envisions a radically better world is an important visit to uphold. franklin roosevelt of hilda that in the atlantic charter during the second world war, the universal declaration of human rights at the beginning of the cold war. if it is critically important that in some ways it is a fantasy. america is not going to pay any price or beaany burd, as we found in vietnam. oftentimes -- sometimes when we think we are fighting for liberty as in vietnam, we were not really fighting for liberty. we delude ourselves into believing it was a great moral mission. in fact we were fighting for a corrupt and authoritarian government in south vietnam, an articial country. the american people were not willing to pay any price to bear any burden to maintain south vietnam as an independent country. i am not saying that america should abandon our dam that america can help make the rohde

better place. i am saying while you have that faith in the long term, you have to balance it with a realistic assessment that we are not a country that will pay any price for their any burden. we would perhaps for our own security, but not for conflicts in distant parts of the world and that sometimes even when we think those conflicts are fought for the most idealistic motives, if you looked at them closely, they are a lot more morally messy. host: u mcnelis the political pitfalls for presidents or presidential candidates trying to offer a vision other than that. guest: that is right. there is a duality. american s know we're not going to pay any price. average americans sending their kids off to fight wars and pay taxes are very aware of the fact that there are limits to the price we will pegg and

burtonsville will there except in circumstances where we el our own homeland security is directly threatens. on the other hand, americans want their president to be optimistic, to te them all is possible and there are n limits to what we can do. so i think the challenge for a president or president obama is to reflect that sense of optimism, that belief in what america can do and be and to respond to the realities that there are limits to what america can do, limits that americans understand even if they don't want their president to sound depressed or defeated. host: you frequently make positive references to ronald reagan in your ridings. how did he do in a good shading -- in negotiating the duality? guest: ronald reagan came to office six years after vietnam and right after the humiliation of the iran hostage crisis.

he recognized americans wanted to feel proud and strong again. he was a master of creating the sense that america was back and we did not need to apologize for america anymore. on the other hand, ronald reagan deeply understood that americans did not want to pay any ice or their any burden in the fight against the soviet union. they did not want to go and fight another vietnam. he was extremely cautious about using direct american military force. he would not invade panama in his final year in office because he feared it would be another vietnam. george h. w. bush did that in 1989. what ronald reagan shows is the abilityf a very politically skilled president toake americans feel strong and proud again but actually to respond to the real limits on the direct use of american military force imposed by the calamity of vietnam. host: we are talking about your

book and pieces about american hubris in foreign-policy, the role of americans in the world today, how much responsibility to be there as a superpower to help export our views of democratic society to other places and how much you are willing to pay for that in blood and treasury. let's begin with a call from colorado. this is on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a first-time caller. my question is after the last eight years of the bush administration, have we gained any ground back as far as world wide status? guest: i would say, for me, one of the tragedies of the obama administration is although president obama is much more liked around the world than george w. bush, so in that way he has improved america's image. the financial crisis has prbably undermined the

attractiveness of the american model much more than obama's election has increased its. people call this soft power, the country's power to attract or persuade rather than coerce has never been based primarily on the person in oval office. it was based on the degree to which people thought our economy in particular was something they wanted to emulate. unless we rebuild the foundation of american economic power and rebuild the american economic model in a way that people believe it is more stable and humane rather than prone to the cycles of boom and bust, barack obama will have a great deal of difficulty restoring america's reputation in the world. host: we go to fill on the republican line from kansas. caller: good morning. i accept the idea that it is becoming more and more difficult for america to exert its influence on the world, but i

want to bring that to a piece you wrote about the jewish sense of --and america's role in the middle east. that we are trying to exert a lot of influence and pressure on israel to make concessions and seems to be more concessions israel is willing to make. and bring that to i am having a difficult time with the thesis that you have that to the jewish community, particularly the american jewish community, is using a sense of victimhood to further its ends. want a solution to the middle east and i want america involved although i'm not sure how much influence we can exert. how do we reconle that when all amount is will there is

hezbollah, their charter is dedicated to the destruction of israel. iran is. hamas and others. i am irish. in conversations that i have had in our family, particularly the neration preceding me, was that the potato famine and british social policy and other things are part of our history, same thing with african- americans. i think it would be offensive to tell an african american that you have to get over the sense of victimhood from the slavery herage. host: thanks for your call. guest: it is a very thoughtful question, something i have wrestled with a lot. i was taught about the holocaust as a child. i and will teach my own children about it. we have an imperative to get

thousands of years of jewish exiles and anti-semitism sought. one needs to understand the past but also recognize that there can be changes. while i think it would be a terrible thing for jews or anybody to forget the history of oppressn of jews throughout the world, which has deeply influenced my own family. i also think it is dangerous to be stuck in the past and not to see how europe has changed radically. i was just insrael. one of the extraordinary things is that one of the most popular destinations for young israeli children to go and spend a year or two is berlin. many are spending their entire lives there. a testament to the extraordinary change in german society. there's been a radicadecline in antisemitism in that state.

what worrs me about the holocaust is no remembering. it is trying to suggest that we still live in 1938. israel has very real enemies, but its situation as a country with nuclear weapons and the stroest military in the middle east is not the same as the jews in warsaw get thos. host: what do you think of the administration's path forward with regard to middle east peace? guest: president obama is in a difficult situation. the palestinian leadership is weak and divided. the israeli leadership is led by a man who has spent his entire career opposing the palestinian state and today is not interested in bringing that about. obama understands that at least if there is no effort at movi

forward, then what you tend to find and the least is you move backward and you could have a situation where hamas takes power in the west bank or you for the possibility of ever having a palestinian state. it is right that he is very involved. but his chances of full success are slim. host: speaking of america's role in the world, our discussion is based on your new book. our next phone call is from san diego, kevin on the independent line. caller: hello. i want to say i agree with what you are saying about america having to reckon with the consequences of the unfounded over confidence in what america can do. it is a lot broader than the international issue. david brooks has talked a little about this like the failure of

social institutions. we see all of these giant domestic problems -- or agendas with the u.s. government, failing, basically. they were all pretty stated on big confidence in what the government can do and what the u.s. can do. it is a very broad issue in that sense. i also wanted to get you to say on the israel issue, how does this problem with over confidence in the u.s. government's ability, how does that play into our relations with israel and how we dictate our policy with them? guest: two questions there. on the question of government failing, i would say the critical question is do you believe governments inevibly fail? i think the tea party would say the governme will always fail,

the bureaucracy is stupid and they can never respond to the complexity of the world. or do you believe our regulatory institutions worked pretty well for a large part of the middle of the 20th century until they were dismantled by a series of republican administrations that were hostile to government's role and the fox in the hen house in terms of putting people from industry into a regulatory body after regulatory body whether it was all street or the oil industry in the case of offshore drilling? i think that government always makes mistakes, but the government has done a reasonable job of preventing some of the terrible disasters that we have seen today, whether they be on wa street or in the oilfield. only if you have people believing in independent oversight, which is not something we have had nearly enough of particularly in the

bush era. on the israeli question, i would simply say i think one of the challenges for israel and the u.s. is how to maintain america's commitment to israeli security in a circumstance in which america's footprint in the middle east is likely to recede. america is withdrawing its troops from iraq. america and israel are making an fort to try to prevent iran from getting a luger weapon. i hope that succeeds. -- a nuclear weapon. it may fail. amera and israel would be forced to reckon with how do we have to change our commitment and may increase our military commitment to israeli security and order to create a sense of coidence in an environment where to some degree there has been a shift in power if in the middle east against us. host: tina is calling us from florida on the republican line. caller: good morning.

since we are giving credit to ronald reaga for not wanting to start a war, let's give credit to president clinton also with the yemen thing. i also have a comment, we are wasting time in afghanistan. i grew up reblican, believing that we protect israel at all cost. i still believe that. if that is true, why aren't we in israel or closer to israel really doing something other than wasting time protecting poppies in afghanistan? guest: i have grown more skeptical of the afghanistan mission. i do think that there was a commitment we made to the people of afghanistan. several years ago when this

government of hamid karzai had more popular support and was left overwhelmingly corrupt. the american presence in afghanistan was more popular. it might have been that the united states could've played a more constructive role there. i fear now we are in the situation in which we have committed to a counterinsurgency campaign. in that it has to be owned by the local government. unless there is commitment to the people from that country, it is unlikely to work. the recent rolling stone article about stanley mcchrystal, doubt the afghan president does not know all the provinces where the u.s.ilitary is fighting. that is very disturbing to me. we also have the strange situation in which most of the al qaeda presents we are were about is across the border in no-man's land. in land -pakistan.

there's counterinsurgency fighting against the taliban. most people acknowledged the al qaeda presence today in afghanistan is very limited. you have to ask in a country that is now deeply in debt, where our economic that is potentially really eroding our power in the world, is this a good use of american resources and expenditure of american lives? host: in 2003 he supported the iraq war, a position you later moved away from. your evolution on that position, was that what led to your thinking about this book? guest: yes, i write about that in the introduction. it was my own efforts to try to understand why i had believed and many people i respected believed the things we believe on the eve of the iraq war that led me to become interested in the question of hubris.

my argument is that kuba arrest comes fr success. peopleike myself who supported the iraq war or the products of the extraordinary successes we have seen inform stages of our lives, the gulf war in 91, bosnia in 95, kosovo in1999, the big economic boom of the 1990's which led to democratization across the world. i think that led to an over- estimation of american power. in some parallel ways to the ways in which the extraordinary success of the first couple decades of the cold war in the late 1940's through early 1950's led to the over-confidence that led america to vietnam. host: i have pulled a couple of reviews of your book. thiss one paragraph from the new york times. generally favorable review. in his dvotion to the

inflammatory magic of hubris, the writer touches on the dual nature of the american character, society, and politics. guest: i did not really understand that criticism. the whole point of the book is that america's can-do spirit is pressurprecious, but sometimes s out of control. so the icrarus ms. is not something where you said you should have no ambition. the guy believes he can apply, but what he says is the wings are callable.

they are for real creations. if you fly them too high, the sun will melt the wax. i am not against american optimism and spirit, and needs to be tempered by a certain humility, i recognition that week, even though we live in the most powerful country on earth, that we're still frail creatures. i do not think we really disagree here. . . telephone call from rockville, md.. jonathon on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. a lot of members of my family fought and died to defend the constitution of the united states. i have an issue with what is going on in the middle east. israel and the greater muslim world. the muslim world is not able to control their extremists. israeli's caught in the middle of it. even israel has had its own

issues internally. i have a problem with american citizens having to fight in the israeli army under another country's flag. if israel decides to attack iran, should americans blood be shed? i truly believe that our uncondition support of israel, it is our doomsday. a lot of people in the world's think, how is america suppos to be an unbiased source of mediator of peace? host: iran is a topic we have not yet discussed. this administration has carried on a picy of the last in trying to fd a solution to their nuclear ambitions. how are we and our allies doing? guest: barack obama is doing a

lot of things. frankly any president would try to do these things. he tried to have an effort at diploma initially, but that effort was pretty much destroyed by what happened by the iranian elections and the iraqi government movingnto a hard line and radical position. now he has no choice but to move down the sanctions route. -- iranian government moving into a hard line and radical position. there are now sanctions from the united nations, allowing america to have tougher bilatel sanctions. the rest of the sanctions historically are pretty spotty. it may be beyond america's capacity to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon unless we use military force. even then we would not know how successful that military campaign would be. it is unlikely america will take military action if, given the impact that would have on our military efforts in iraq and afghanistan.

i desperately hope the sanions work. i hope even more that for the green revolution over the iranian government tomorrow. that would be the best thing to happen for the middle east and the region. i think we have to be realistic enough to also think about what we do on that very dark day after iran gets a nuclear weapon and how we deal with a framework of containment to keep an iranian nuclear weapons from producing an arms race on the least. host: peter is a senior fellow at the new american foundation. he teaches journalism and political science at the university of new york. he is a contributor to "time." guest: it is a lot of fun and i just finished my first year. taxes you're writing skills. i've had a group of talented journalists. >i will return to teach again next year.

host: richard is on the independent line. caller: good morning. one thing that comes to mind in this discussion is the americans -- or the military has always been confident from its inception of being able to expand and to be able to mobilize itself. manifest destiny is what came to mind, the notion of confidence in its vision of being able to move west. it is that confidence and that duality. hasn't it always been a part of the american values? and the conflict between the populists, whether the department can pay for it and be willing to fight for its and the confidence of being able to say we can do it and move forward with our military might?

kennedy said these values we can pand anywhere. guest: that is exactly right. it is a very intelligent statement. on the one hand there is this urge for america to grow more powerful and prosperous, to have a world where we are free to have american trade and commerce so we can grow ecomically if and also to spread american values around the world. initially that was more of a christian mission. it has become secularized in t 20th century. there have always been those in the united states -- mark twain, when he opposed the spanish-american war, abraham lincoln when he opposedo the mexican-american war, who said it will become an empire, then our democratic nature at home may suffer. there's a contradiction between a military that keeps growing

bigger and the company then as more and more commitments around road, and the effort to preserve this part of liberty inside united states. if that leads to higher taxation or constriction of people or violations of our civil liberties. that is always a tension. the american urge to become more powerful of all the world, of an imperial power and our desire to remain a democratic republic with liberty and home. host: now to tennessee. this is bill on the air. caller: good morning. thanks, c-span. i want to point out wh you ask him to evaluate president obama's position on the palestinian-israeli conflict, he said that palestinian leadership was weak and divided, with the

characterization. also, that the israeli leadership was led by a man whose entire career has been spent opposing the palestinian state. i want to point out that that is historically inaccurate. i have hours of benjamin netanyahu speeches within the last two or three years where he has advocated in his official position of prime minister as well as prior to his assuming that position, where he not only entertained that but supported that idea. your guest ignored the elephant in this theater of debate being that the palestinians oppose israel's right to exist. again, it sounds like you have on your hands yet again another

apologist for palestinian militants and general hatredf jews. it is tiresome. guest: i would certainly resent the suggestion that i am an apologist for hatred of jews. i am. jew -- i am a committed jew myself. it does have a case fu hateful d against antisemitism and violence against israel. in palestine they have been far more explicit than any other previous palestinian leadership in rejecting hamas and accepting israel oppose the right to exist and being supportive of

the kind of peace offers that were made in 2000 and 2001. in fact, prime minister s ayaad has moved toward non- violence. they've rejected partitions in 1940 and 1948. when it comes to benjamin netanyahu,he opposed the palestinian state not just in the 1990's but as recently as when he ran for prime minister in 2009. he still opposed it when he created his coalition government. that is one of the reasonshy does the livni would not go into collision wh him. in a speech at the university said he would support a

palestinian state while adding a caveat that had not been included by former prime ministers of israel. i thought it was striking that in his press conference with the president on tuesday while the president spoke about a palestinian state, benjamin netanyahu repeatedly refused to use the word "palestinian state. look at the transcript. that suggests that he and some in his government coalion are still basically quite hostile to that idea. i wish that were not the case, but i am afraid i think host: it: weatherford, texas, re on the independent line. -- ray. caller: the influence of the unted states has diminished over the years by said leaders in somalia and vietnam and soon also iraq. and afghanistan it is soon to.

be another to it does not take 10 years to train an army and police. we train our people in eight weeks for combat. we are going to lose it and i'm so sorry, because most people of the world only see us as a big atm machine of which we have deep pockets and our pockets are empty. thanks for letting me speak. have a great day. host: thank you. guest: we are nolonger seen so much as they atm machine. we are now the people going to the atm machine. the problem is american private individuals don't save much money. we live on credit card debt and our government lives on the equivalent. that is because people in asia and governments in the gulf save a lot of money. they have a pool of money that we can then go to the atm and think we can keep drawing on that for every to live beyond our means.

one of the greatest d sincerest issues facing us in the coming years and decades will have profound influence on our foreign policy. one of the reasons america got out of vietnam was because of the financial crisis vietnam produced by thearly 1970's, increasing american debt and inflation that led to a run on american dollars. one of the things that will be an influence on american from politics in the coming years impossibility the world mei lan dir -- make no longer keep stocking the atm for us to withdraw as much as we want to pay full wars that have no end and a series of things at home as well. i think we will have to reckon with that. host: wilmington,w north,. ill on the democrats' line-- will on the democrats' line. caller: the state of north carolina --[unintelligible]

the person sitting as the secretary of veterans affairs was on the general staff early in the iraq war. early in the endeavor he was suggesting that iraq would need a very large investment to succeed. the administration under bush disagreed. hw was -- he was essentially washed out. host: general's shinseki. caller: i believe that is his name. for a while the iraq war was not going very well. then the bush administration put

out this idea for troop surge and then things started going well again. host: what is the question? caller: what i would say is that success is not only possible, but part of the humility they're talking about is acknowledging that they have to put in the time. guest: the story in iraq is not over. we don't know how able iraq will be to sustain itself as a stable, functioning, democratic system bringing together the religious groups and ethnic groups as america withdraws its troops. there has been a decrease in violence in iraq that is owed partly to the fact americans sent more troops and under the leadership of people like david

petraeus we changed the way the troops were being used. credit should go to those military leaders and to the bush administration for coming up with that. it is still important to remember the very large part of that story was also the fact that sunni's even before the rge started to shift in a radical direction because they felt they would need the united states or they would be wiped out by a powerful shiia community. they lost the battle for baghdad, which allowed the sunni awakening that essentially led to the drop in violence against american troops. a seri of different things happened in iraq. often people say because we sent more troops to iraq, that diminish the violence. so then the same thing would happen in afghanistan. they don't realize a series of other things happened in iraq that are not necessarily replicable in afghanistan host:.

host: 43 people killed, others wounde in attacks across the capital city, hundreds of thousands of shiite muslims lost at a shrine. opposed by militants to destabilize the nation at a time of political uncertainty. we have a little time left. from silver spring, maryland's next with bob on the republican line. caller: i look forward to reading your book. can you tell us how many foreign countries the u.s. has troops in? and how much this is costing every year? guest: good question. i don't have the numbers off the top of my head. i actually think trying to get a firm number is very difficult. some people have tried. the number of countries where the u.s. has military presence is large. the cost of that is quite

remarkably high. i am not suggesting the u.s. should withdraw from all those commitments. there are lots of places in the world where the expense is relatively low given the degree of stability that we maintain. it might not be a good idea for the u.s. to withdraw troops from japan and have japan go nuclear and then have a more destabilizing arms race in asia. but i think there are -- i don't think -- we should be willing to have a hard look at alof these commitments and not simply allow the inner chef of past commitments to basically continue on forever, because i think we are going to have to grapple with the fact we are facing economic pressures at a time we have not seen in a long time. host: independent line from lahoma. caller caller: i used to follow you until you came out in support of the iraq war. you are too intelligent to

support that. anyone could see those people were liars from the beginning. i saw them. second, this ronald reagan thing. the man sold weapons to trorists behind the backs of the american people. did you emphasize that in? your in there were 138 reagan officials indicted or forced to resign. the man was a complete fraud. but americans did? he make did -- what americans did he make feel good? white americans? guest: i salute you for being more pressed about iraq. i was leaving iraq had a nuclear program.

i was inclined to believe saddam hussein had a nuclear program because he had one for the gulf war. we had not inspected there since 1998. given that there was not much of a mechanism on the ground to inspect what he was doing, i figured that he would go back to his old ways. he had a long history of wanting to be the greatest power in the middle east. on ronald reagan, i tried to make it clear, this book is not a defense of ronald reagan pose foreign-policy in general or particularly hisomestic policy, about which i would have enormous criticism. even on the foreign-policy front, i spoke about how many people died in the wars in central america, part of the results of america's actions. the reason it is important to write about reagan is the myth of the idea that he won the cold war through military force, that he was someone click on the trigger when it came to deploy

u.s. troops and that he bludgeons the soviet union into submission basically through military force is a myth that has cost america's enormous harm in the post cold war era. . reagan of's a final words in the oval office where "i never should have sent those troops to beirut." i think that side of reagan would be really useful, particularly in the republican party today, that thinks it is following in his footsteps when they support virtually every military action. ed -- host: --

montgomery, alabama. caller: my question is, what are they going to do about extending job benefits? why do democrats and republicans both agree -- you know, the job benefit thing is down. i think both sides lie to get in office, and when they get in office, they do not do what they are supposed to do. people count on them to do right, and they do not do right. i just want to know what they are going to do about it. host: thank you. guest: it is crazy the republicans are opposing this. first, on simply on moral, a human issue -- when unemployment is up at 17%, if you are going

to allow people to go without employment -- what do republicans think is going to happen in these families? this is the party of strong family values, right? what are they going to do? do they think this will be a great thing for family values in the united states? secondly, if people do not have money in their pocket, they cannot buy anything. if they cannot buy anything, factories are not producing anything. this is the whole point of what you need government to inject money into the economic system in order to try to produce some stimulus for you can get the private economy working again. republicans are right to be worried about debt in the long term, absolutely. health care costs, the cost of the war. but to use that to oppose the

extension of unemployment benefits is, i think, economically and morally indefensible. host: our last call. good morning to you, sir. caller: has there ever been a palestinian state? were they not just the plo back in the north in the 50's and 60's? guest: no, there has not been a palestinian state. but that is not to say there has not been a palestinian nation. there are a lot of countries in the developing world that were not a state that's developed a national consciousness. that is what is happening with palestinians. there is certainly the belief among palestinians that they are their own nation.

it becomes clear that they do speak arabic, they are a distinct group from many otrs in the arab world. that is one of the reasons why palestinians have not been easily assimilated into lebanon. i think that the goal of u.s. policy should be to facilitate that as lolong as >> shortly we will return to the brookings institution for marks from the japanese ambassador on global challenges to his country. we understand the ambassador is running a little late. we will join the event when he arrives. until then, calls and comments

from today's "washington journal." the spots that the groups are releasing today and talk with you about your thoughts on public campaign financing. that is really what they are arguing. the loss has 157 co-sponsors they are proposing. -- the law has 157 co-sponsors they are proposing. there is a tally of how the cost of a lectionary in the united states has changed of the past decade. what i have highlighted on this page are presidential election cycles. let's look at the ones not highlighted. back in 1998, total spent was $1.6 billion. in 2006 $2.8 billion.

if you use a widget, there is a tally of the cost of the 2010 election so far and it keeps changing. you can see that on the bottom left of the screen. it is in the neighborhood of $2.4 billion so far, the cost of a campaign 2010. let's show you this advertisement that they are releasing today in washington, d.c., to argue for public financing of campaigns. >> pp destroys the gulf, we pay the price. -- bp destroys the gulf, we pay the price. congress is putting special interest first. why? isn't it obvious? make congress accountable to us and bring back elections of, like, and for the people. " congress to allow -- hleelp

congress to allow the change we keep asking for. john lawson is a democrat and walter jones is a republican of south carolina. all of them have been co- sponsors. the bills differ slightly in their spending mechanism. the house bill would devastate funds through a fee on auctions. the senate bill would rely on a fee paid by large federal contractors. supporters said they hoped to get a vote this summer with timing less certain in the senate. ed decker says --edgar says there's changes are approved by separate legislation by separate

legislation now under consideration in the senate aimed at countering the supreme court decision. our phone lines are open. what do you then about the concept of public financing for campaigns? there are groups of the other side of this. the supreme court with the citizens united have offered its voice on past attempts to reform, and we would like to appear what to you, the person out there voting and looking at the role of your legislator in washington and your money, has to say about all of this. the numbers are on the bottom of your screens. you could also send us a message by twitter and an e-mail on this topic. let's begin with a call from minneapolis. brent on the independent line. caller: and you for taking my call. i have so much to say on this that i could not possibly condense it to a few moments but

the citizens united case exemplifies the problem. the notion that we get personal status to corporations with all of the benefits, but not the rich -- responsibilities that we as individual persons would have to sustain it is just emblematic of the whole problem. exactly how we go about getting ourselves into public financing is the statistics that you put up earlier indicated it you look at the difference between 2000 and 2008 it was nearly doubling. i am in my early 40's. we have known this since the early 1960's. it is fundamentally different now that it was 20 years ago when i was a young adults. we absolutely do need radical

finance reform. exactly how we achieve it i am not sure. i do not understand what the problem is for either political party. if we have the airwaves and auction them off ourselves, why can we not donate time to whoever it is that is using the spectrum, whether it is the table spectrum or the public on air spectrum. did you for taking my call, and i wish you a very next day -- thank you for taking my call, and i wish you a very nice day. caller: i am from jamaica. yesterday i tried to call someone in washington to

[inaudible] ici think if you use the same number over again, with the spending and gliders in support for the campaign. money should be spent. host: thank you. ander would like to see the cost of the spending in capitol hill reduced. we showed you the charter the last call. it is a website that tracks money and politics. looking at the most expensive races so far in 2010.

the florida senate at 24 million. california senate 23 million. can netiquette senate no. 3 at 23 million. now that at 19. arizona at no. 5 with 17. in the house the most expensive races today, south carolina district to, $6.2 million. new york district 4.5. a minnesota district 4.2. just look at how much money is being raised for this year's 20 tend congressional alexian's. next as a call from pittsburgh. -- just a look at how much money is being raised for this year's 2010 congressional election.

caller: i would say that i have a queensacquaintances that haven in public office is all they do is spend their time raising money. but at the gas to be linked to term limits. host: you think term limits is that answer? caller: i think it an answer of public financing and term limits. host: you are calling in of the republican line. how you square that with the majority view of your party? caller: i'd think it is common sense. i see these people going out to

campaign every night looking for money. they need to spend their time doing something else. host: let me get a response to this idea from the other side. there is a group that organizes themselves to a post campaign restrictions. it is called the center for competitive politics. the proposal has serious flaws, according to a article. he also highlighted a recent report from the government accountability office that said it was not clear whether public financing programs already implemented in arizona and maine had much benefit. his " is we take a system where people support people they believe it rather than using taxpayer funds as the way to go. that organization is easily found on the internet. brad smith and runs it. -- brad smith runs it.

the next call is from long branch, new jersey. john on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. the way to deal with, in my opinion, campaign financing is the way that the greeks did it. the greeks originated democracy. and they did not ever have won election. hiss--- did not ever have one election. it was just a >> be are going live to the

brookings institution. -- we are going live to the brookings institution. japan's ambassador to the u.s. is speaking there today. he will also talk about the global economic situation in japanese relations with united states. live coverage here on c-span. >> he is included in the small circle of the very best. it is a pleasure to have him with us today. without further ado, i will invite professor fujisaki to the podium. we will have questions and answers after his address. thank you very much. professor fujisaki. [applause] >> thank you for being here. i thought he would introduce me for 20 minutes and i would have 20 minutes rest. he did not give me that at all.

i am glad you're here to hear my predictions on the house election. i am not going to do anything like that. i am here to listen to your predictions. i want to talk about changes. there is a saying, as saying a stage in the orient once said -- "the world is changing a little bit more quickly than young people would wish, but it is moving a lot more quickly than old people wished." following that example, some people might say the world is not moving as quickly as washington think tanks say, that it is moving a lot more quick

then a lot of people would really believe. by the way, please do not google this old sage saying in the orient. it is my creation. [laughter] but it sounds very authentic, does it not? the premise is it is not changing. but often, the basic circumstances change, so the change that was predicted did not happen. some time ago, we heard that japan would be the number one country in the world. i wish that were true. it did not really happen that way because all the circumstances change. maybe the crystal ball is

somewhere, but not here. i am talking about the octopus. so, japan is facing many challenges as well. there are changes. there are some things that look like change, but really are not change as well. in coping with the present situation, what we have to be doing is really identify -- what is the real change? we also have to decide how we should cope with it. shall we cope with policy changes? shall we not? that is what governments around the world are doing. our government in tokyo as well. i would like to talk about three issues.

security, the economic area, and social issues, very quickly. let's start with the security area. people say even after the cold war, instability persists in the asia-pacific region. maybe this is an understatement. unpredictability has increased. look at what has happened only two months ago. north korea has sunk a south korean ship. and also, we do not forget that only last year, the country -- that country sent a long-range missile over our country, and

there was nuclear testing as well. so, the situation as far from stable. -- is far from stable. china is our important part of a rigid partner. i have to say a lot of us in japan do not know why. -- china is our important partner. as analysis has increased, a 15% for the last 20 years -- whereas in japan it is a 0.9% annually. that is a huge difference. against such background, some academics would say japan has three choices. one, to increase defense spending and increase military

capability itself. second, try to depend on the good will -- good will of the neighbors. third, to continue on with the alliance with the united states. in any poll -- there are a lot of newspaper reporters here, television people -- in any poll in japan, the major part of people choose the third option, to continue the alliance with the united states. first, because a lot of japanese still remember the world war ii experience and think they would not want to have the defense capability. and they do not think that

increased capability would bring peace and stability to the region. second, people think that in view of the situation, we cannot just leave it and have no alliance. third, if we have alliance, the united states is seen as a most credible partner with principals and capability -- principles and capability. so, japan has continued to depend on the alliance with united states. but japanese think that the u.s. presence in the asia- pacific region and japan is --

we are grateful to the service men and women in uniform in this country. i have to make the hot preconditions for premises -- two preconditions for premises. one, both governments would continue to lessen the burden of peace. this is an obligation. we have to be always mindful about people surrounding the base. bass is not oxygen. it makes the surrounding people tense, and we have to lessen the up. third, the most important issue here is open now.

75% of the u.s. bases are concentrated there. we have to continue to alleviate, lessen the burden on the canal when people -- okina wan people. there is a base, and we will move its and leave it there, as well. in tact, you may call, as well. remember -- prime minister hitoyama said he would try to come up with a conclusion by may 31. a lot of people said this was

difficult. he made an agreement with united states on may 28. the japanese cabinet endorsed it. so, there is an agreement. and prime minister kan said he would work on the basis of the agreement made on may 28, and he would continue to ask the united states to cooperate, to lessen the burden on the people of okinawa. the u.s. base issue -- i would like to just make one point regarding this. since the beginning of this year, there were some people saying -- and this is one based

issue. it is not of primary importance. -- this is one base issue. there are more important issues between the two countries. i do not agree with that. first, this involves basic elements of security arrangements. second, it already has a vault -- involved top leaders, presidents, prime ministers. this was a very important issue. the government treated its accordingly. -- the government treated it accordingly. in dealing with these delicate

issues, what is important is that we will try to negotiate, discussed very candidly -- discuss very candidly between ministers, officials of the two countries. and until they reach agreement, they may not be able to come out publicly, but once they agree, i think they will come out, and i think that attitude has been there. and that is important to honor as well. the relations with these people is the first premise i wanted to make. the second premise is the

credibility of u.s. deterrence. it is important that leaders give assurance of deterrence. but it is most important that in case of some incidents happening, what attitude, position will be taken? from that point? the u.s. position toward the cheonan issue is very clear, very strong. stand by the republic of korea. that is exactly the same position we are taking as well.

i think it would not be an overstatement if i say the whole world is holding their breath and watching how the leader country will leave -- will be conducting itself. i think both the united states and japan will continue to take the course they are taking. regarding iran, that is a different story. we have been cooperating with the united states on this issue as well. we cannot accept iran to possess nuclear weapons. that is not only the government's view. that is the people's view. we will continue to cooperate

with united states in this regard. in security areas, there are changes, as i said, in circumstance. but all in all, this alliance will be honored and we will continue to put the importance on this alliance. it was very assuring that less than two weeks ago i was in toronto at a meeting between prime minister kan and president obama. they discussed iran. they discussed north korea. they agreed that our alliance, japan-u.s. alliance, will continue cb the cornerstone of -- will continue to be the cornerstone of peace and stability in the region. it was a very good meeting.

so much about security issues. i would like to touch upon the economy. the economy -- there is a clear change. in 1990, the abrogation -- the abrogation of china's and india 's gdp share was 3%. now it has tripled. co2 emission is worth 13%. now it has doubled. clearly, emerging countries are emerging. there are three conditions. there are three conditions,

often we think must be fulfilled for this to continue. one, countries will have free access to the world market. dodd, -- two, they will continue to have access to resources of the world. third, they will continue to have a society that they are now having with stability in their country. i will not go into that issue. today, i am only talking about japan. i feel our resource issue -- i wonder why there is no more globalization when we discussed

the resource issue? we only discussed the tariff issue or the currency issue, or the resource -- not the resource issue. that is my personal feeling, not a government review. talking about the economy, i said japan -- i will talk about japan and i will talk about the japanese experience. when japan came into the world economy, that was in the 1970's. japan was the only country which you would call saw nouveau riche. i do not mean to show off my

french. how do you say, new-rich country in the world? -- newly rich country in the world? so, japan had to deal with its status in the world. that was the first issue. of course, we had to adjust our policies in order to meet with the international situation. one example is currency. the japanese yen was 360 yen. we had a trade surplus accumulating. we were not able to hold on to that for too long.

in 1971, in one province, we agreed to change it to 308 yen. in 1985, in court in new york, it came down from 248 to 140 yen. we have seen a drastic appreciation of yen in that time. japanese companies, however, adapted to that situation. they thought rather than just exporting, they would import to this country. japan is one of the major

countries investing in this country. the japanese are creating 600,000 jobs in this country. so, you can say we are not exporting only goods, but jobs now. this was one of the adjustments that was very successfully made as well. now, the second issue is that japanese companies were caught up by a newly-emerging countries. the republic of korea, china, but these countries came up, and in order to cope with that situation, the lower wage was

not possible. japanese companies invested in those companies as well. and those relations have gone well as well. talking about that, i sometimes talk about a japanese novel, a short story, written and called "a spider's thread." one day come -- one day, a man was walking and he looked up to heaven. and he could see hell. in hell, as you can predict, a lot of criminals were being tortured.

he was walking and felt sympathy towards a criminal. he put down a thread, so to save him. the criminal grabs on and started to climb. halfway up, he saw thousands of other criminals coming up the same thread. he shouted down, "hey, don't come up." of course, buda lost his sympathy for the criminal and cut of everyone -- buddha lost his sympathy for the criminal and cut off everyone. meaning, not everyone wants to

come up. that is inevitable. we will have to take that as it is. -- meaning, everyone wants to come up. third, there is the accumulation of wealth. and this accumulation of wealth resulted in the inflation of assets, and eventually a bubble. this made a lot of people make bad loans to financial institutions, and we've experienced the lost decade. . .

it brought huge change in japan as well. but things happened elsewhere. now it is continuing in the

u.k. it happened in turkey and career and the united states. i will point up the two big problems that the japanese economy is facing. these are the same with other developed countries. one is a balance between growth and the fiscal situation, striking the right balance. in the japanese case, our government is at 300% now. tax revenue for the 2010 budget was 40% of government spending.

and let people say that the american situation is very bad. but, in america, the tax revenue is still 60% of government spending. the gap is filled by a government bond. the difference with this country is that 50% of the government bond is sold to other countries, bought by other countries. in japan, 95% is [unintelligible] however, that is a debt to future generations. this cannot be continued. that is why we have to really change the tide. this cannot be continued.

we are aiming at reducing primary balance deficit to half of what is now by 2015. his philosophy is that, by meeting challenges such as environment, the emerging countries of asia, the need to create jobs in local communities, the aging society, human resource development you can create jobs. you can treat growth. that is what we should be doing squarely.

also, in japan, streamlined government budget and try to cut off unnecessarily budgeting is supported in japan. at the same time, we have to remember that the necessary budget is not in its -- it is not a synonym for quick results. we have a chip program with this country. with this city, we have cherry blossoms. we don't have a budget for that, but the long-term exchanges are very important.

just as a footnote, i would add my view of that. the second economic issue that we're facing is had to keep its technological lead. that is much easier to keep as well. about 35% of our manufacturing is electronics. this will continue to be an important pillar of japanese industry. japanese companies have a lead in some areas. for example, in lcd, japanese

companies have 60% share. in semiconductor components, we have some effect% share. we have 80% share in nuclear power plants as well. you have to always be engaged in production, manufacturing. since there are many areas in which in japan and the u.s. can cooperate, i will just to name some. one is energy efficiency. as you know, japan is the most energy-efficient country for more than two decades. if japan needed one unit of energy -- i am sorry to say, you

need twice. china needs nine times. however, 60% of international -- of international the energy agency countries, public financing energy is done by two countries. 30% is done by japan and 30% is done by the u.s. the prime minister of japan and president obama agreed that the smart red, electric cars, -- the smart grid, electric cars, together, that is one area. the secondary is the nuclear power plant.

there are 104 nuclear power plants. but the u.s. has made no power plants in 30 years. japan has made 29 in the last 30 years. japan and the united states companies are cooperating. president obama son to give insurance and the u.s. congress is ensuring this -- president obama has given insurance and the u.s. congress is ensuring this. we had a seminar in january. two weeks ago, we had a seminar in chicago, too.

i had the privilege of speaking as well. i said that you americans have invented cars together with the germans, maybe. you made the airplane. he made the television. you made the computer. kindley, you're making and ipad as well. i am not going into a long lecture, but please remember six of the japanese high-speed

railway. the first one is its appearance and safety. there have been no passenger casualties in 46 years. the second one is for exactness. average delay time each year is less than one minute. this morning, i was in new york. i am a great fan of your amtrak. but my train was canceled. [laughter] i hope that my friends in amtrak will not see c-span. third is economic efficiency. the fourth is environment friendliness. the fifth e is employment

creating. the sixth is earthquake proof. as a country with a lot of earthquakes, we know to stop the car as soon as there is a wave. it may not be so useful here, but in california it can be useful as well. all of these areas, i think we can cooperate. we can also cooperate through a packed and other areas as well. -- through aipac and other areas as well. we are facing the similar issue was other developed countries.

the birthrate is dropping and life expectancy is prolonging. the birthrate is now 1.37%, the lowest among developed countries. in order to have reproduction, you need to 0.08%. in the u.s., it is two 0.12% -- 2.12%. as a result, people over the age

of 65 is 22% in japan compared to the united states, which is 13%. i am approaching that age and feel not so bad. it is good. but it is not good for social security reasons. we have quite a good social security system up until now. i think this is a touchy area. but i still will touch upon health care. we have universal health care. its cost in comparison to gdp is 8%. it is one half of that of the and and states. -- that of the united states.

we have a nationwide long-term health insurance system. people can get treatment. there is day care and short stay. 10% of the cost that the -- to% of the cost, the senior has to -- 10% of the cost, the senior has to provide himself. i was gratified for that. my father passed away four years ago at the age of 91. because those people came to my house every day to take him for a walk, to let him take a bath, change, he was able to stay at home until his death.

and my mother was so grateful for that social service system, too. however, this will not be possible for too long. if this tendency continues, people over 65 will be 40% of the population by two thousand 55. in that case -- by 2055. in that case, all point for people under 65 will have to take care people -- 1.4 people under 65 will have to take care of people over 65. that is a big project to plant. we have continually tried to lessen the burden, but always

the benefits have outpaced. isn't that a quarter of the national income now. -- this is a quarter of the national income now. we have to create new ways to change the system. a new growth strategy was announced recently, predicting that we will make a $500 billion market, 2.8 million jobs. in order to turn the base of the birth rate as well, this is a

long-term plan and the government is trying to give up $140 per child, regardless of income of the household, monthly. that is huge money, but in order to lessen the burden on households, it is necessary. education -- the government is making high school tuition-free now. what is also needed in my view is that we have to improve our english-speaking capability in japan. english has become an international language. my plan hopefully is that we

will send all of the middle school teachers to home state or go to college for a year or two years. [unintelligible] i think that is possible eventually. but that is my dream. lastly, about relations with local governments and the central government, it is true that you should go to japan, the smaller cities, the smaller towns. they're becoming deserted. people are moving out. we have to give more authority, decentralize the government. this is what the government is

looking at. try to increase the discretion of local governments. that is what the government is trying to push. this is part of the changes that are occurring in japan. we have to fortify what we are doing as well. this is just a rough sketch. i have spoken about 50 minutes or so. 30 minutes or so far left.

this is a barbecue day to grill the ambassador. i am ready for that. [laughter] thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ambassador, for those very thoughtful remarks. i think the subject you address, the competing priorities of growth, security, and welfare, particularly in a time of soaring government debt, it is one of the major challenges facing all countries. it is a challenge that are to countries share. -- that our two countries share. i would like to open up to your questions. please wait for the microphone. who would like to ask the first question? >> a lot of my good old friends, diplomats, and business people

as well, please do not be shy. [laughter] asked directly. a woman be offended. thank you very much. -- ask directly. i will not be offended. thank you very much. >> there is one area i would like to hear you address more fully. that is the relationship with china. you mentioned the importance of the alliance with the united states and the problems with north korea. i wonder if you have more to say about the relationship with china. >> thank you very much. china is a very important partner for us. it is the biggest trading partner as well. it is one of the greatest

countries, too. it is very important for us. in dealing with issues, such as north korea, iran, we need china's cooperation in the security council as well. we have to continue to engage china. we have to continue to have a partnership. that is exactly what a lot of japanese are thinking. it is true that there are issues as well. these issues arise between partners. what is important is that we should not try to make too much of an enthusiastic issue. right now, we're doing a very good job. thank you. >> michael billington.

i saw that your three leading electricity companies and/or three leading nuclear construction firms -- and your three leading nuclear construction firms have come together at about the decline in your nuclear exports. >> the japanese -- they were

allowed to give coverage for the gap that you just relayed to. it is very important that japanese and american companies have their projects. other countries who have nuclear power plants have this sort of official bank insurance as well. as for other countries, we cannot say how it should be carried. we have to do with the country by country. -- with its country by country.

we will have to examine the issue case by case. >> i have two questions on the economy. one is about the free-trade agreement with the united states and japan. the first question is about fda. president obama announced his intention about free trade by the end of this year. in light of his announcement, i think that the japanese dp j.'s promises have been about that. but we have not heard from the ministers and prime ministers in japan.

please comment on the issue. in the context of that, there is outstanding issues between the two countries. one is privatization of the postal service. the second question is from a bigger picture. it is about -- we all know that the japanese economy has been suffering for almost two decades. as japan suffers from this, our strategic power and influence has also been declining. a major question from the u.s. side is how will depend get out of the situation. prime minister kan has been

saying that he will have more taxes and will create more jobs and that that will fuel economic growth. that sounds persuasive for the rest of the world. how can you appreciate your counterparts on that? >> privatization of what did you say? >> [unintelligible] >> what an intensive question. [laughter] can i have about 60 minutes? [laughter] as for the fda, i do not think any negotiations have been started. i have not been involved with

the study of japan-u.s. fda. i was involved in the fda negotiations with other countries. when i was deputy minister, about five years ago, i negotiated all of those negotiations. the conclusion i had come up personally maybe this is not a straightforward answer to, is that we had a lot of preparations. we had to be convinced in the merits and see what kind of agreement would be when-when. we had to adapt -- would be win- win.

we had to identify them carefully. preparations are necessary. point number two, about beef, this issue has to be discussed between governments. you know when lot better than i do, but we often focus on beef. we are not importing as we used to. the united states remains the no. 1 agricultural exporter in our market. is're a share in our market 33%. pork,s.'s no. 1 in

soybean, and corn. the u.s. is by far the most important agricultural country for us. besides canada and mexico, japan becomes the no. 1 -- japan is still the no. 1 customer for the united states. it has to be discussed politically. the influence of japan going down, i hope this will not be the case.

for that, we have to have a sound economy, robust finance systems, and a growth strategy. as i say, our companies have to continue to be leading the world with the united states and others, korea, china. of course, we have to share the world market, but we can let things go. our companies have technology. if you look at the research and development growth, public and private together, the u.s.'s no.

1 in the world. japan is no. 2. if you look at patent application, international patent application, the u.s. is by far number one. japan is no. 2. private business is still strong and i hope that they will be so. thank you very much. >> as a practical matter, the president of the united states does not have trade promotion authority right now. negotiating in fta is probably not feasible until he has it. >> you mentioned north korea. what steps have been taken by the japanese government?

what would you like to see the u.s. doing in that capacity? >> the japanese position is that there are three issues, nuclear, missile, abduction, they have to be sold comprehensively. -- they have to be solved comprehensively. this reflects not just one politician's view, but national consensus. we are grateful for the united states to be supportive of our position. at the same time, it is important that we should not really rush.

we continue to work on north korean. we are very appreciative of u.s. cooperation in that regard. thank you very much. >> another question? >> carrie brooks, an interest in american. you have made many references to people when you have a lower level look into society. as i look at japanese movies and the news, there's a big shortage of doctors in japan, it seems, or the doctors are being over- taxed. are you aware of anything that is going on to correct that shortage or to give them a normal family life so they do not have to work very long hours? >> medical doctors?

some of us here, a journalist, bureaucrats, business people, they hope that you would be so sympathetic to them as well. [laughter] it is true that medical doctors should not be abused. and there is also the issue of discrepancy in some areas. [unintelligible] this may be a universal issue. i think it has to be really addressed. i do agree with you. this is a very important issue. >> this lady right here.

>> i wanted to ask about japan's interest in participating in the trans-pacific partnership going on right now. there is a relative lead -- relatively limited time in which other countries can join in it. >> we are watching these negotiations carefully. we have not made any decisions on this. one thing and may point out is that -- one thing i may point out is that japan fta, japan is

negotiating fta with other countries. we already have one with mexico and chile, too. we are not out of fta's. maybe you know already -- do you know how fta started? in 1947, smaller countries wanted to have some exceptions. they wanted to compete with larger countries. some middle eastern countries

wanted to have fta. at that time, 1947, and 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, no one would have thought a big country like canada, mexico, and another country would try to conclude such use of that fta. fta started from 1994. everyone until that was thinking that it was sufficient. now everyone is rushing. we were late starters, but it started in 2000. it started with singapore and then went to other countries. in the beginning, there was a philosophy in thjapan to stick o the previous policy.

there was the fear that fta would have a negative that fact. ---affect -- negative effect. looking back at history sometimes as interesting as well. thank you. >> scott herald. >> thank you very much for your remarks today. i have two questions for you. i would like to hear your thoughts on how to strengthen the images of japan and the united states and the united states and japan. i am sure you know that americans consume enormous

amounts of japanese cultural products, japanese exports of computers, technology, automobiles. certainly, in japan, there are a number of americans working and studying. the two societies are heavily penetrated, but in the united states, we hear talk about china and east asia, but not as much recognition of the rule that japan plays in our culture and our economy and our foreign relations. i wonder if you could give us your thoughts on the impact and it the understanding of the impact that japan's participation in international wheeling is having on the image of our country. secondly, -- international whaling is having on the image of our country. secondly, cooperation with other u.s. allies and asia, including the republic of korea, the

philippines, and taiwan, the maximum roll that japan to play to secure the benefits we all have from asia. thank you very much. >> this is, again, a very extensive area. japanese relations, this is very important. 150 years anniversary of the first book that a commission -- the first diplomatic mission, two years from now is very important. do you know? 2012? that is the 100 years anniversary of cherry blossoms.

two weeks in march and april, i am totally absorb in cherry blossoms. people are very happy. we're very grateful that they give them those 98 years ago. we would like to make it nationwide as well in 2012, not only here. if i may say so, japanese-u.s. relations are unique. first, security arrangements, as you know. second, economic relations, as i said. the global issues -- for example, the reconstruction of iraq, afghanistan, pakistan. the number one country contributor is the united

states. no. 2 is japan. we're closely cooperating. third, we share values, a democracy, freedom of speech, human rights. fourth, the most important, 80% of americans are like the japanese. 80% of japanese are like americans. it is very unique and important. in order to have good relations, we have to keep in mind three no's.

i am sorry to those who have heard it two hundred times. the first one is no surprise between governments. we really have to share our views. the second one is no over- politicization. those can be -- those that can be treated discreetly should be treated accordingly. the third one is do not take for granted. after 60 years of marriage, you take each other for granted, sometimes. maybe not in your home, but we have to be very careful about that. [laughter] whaling, we have to take this issue from a scientific point of view.

i know there are some commercial issues involved in some places as well. we appreciate the u.s. stance on this issue. luckily, relations between other countries in the region -- your from rand, you know very well -- japan has an obligation. we can defend the countries. -- we cannot defend other countries. we do not provide a collective security, like nato or other agencies. of course, we have been relations with the republic of

korea. but as far as security, some sort of arrangements are not foreseen at this juncture. thank you. >> the gentleman right over here. >> thank you, ambassador. i would like you to follow-up on your very welcome statement and that japan will not accept and iran with nuclear weapons. i would appreciate it if you would comment on what steps japan can do to ensure that iran does not gain a nuclear weapon.

the u.s. and some european countries have enacted or will look at enacting international sanctions. i want to know what are the prospects for japan taking similar actions in terms of unilateral actions or sanctions. thank you. >> thank you very much. the security council resolution will be abiding to this very faithfully. we will look at it, but we have not made any decisions on this issue. you asked about investment into iran. if you years ago, japanese

companies shared in one of the oilfields and it was 75%. it is now down to 10%. the reason that i say that we cannot accept iran possessing a nuclear weapon is that we think -- we hope that all the countries should become members of npt. if a major country like that starts to have it, there will be foowers. the country's surrounding them will think that they will have -- the countryies surrounding

them will think that they must have one as well. we think this is a watershed. . -- a watershed period. thank you. >> i have a follow-up. mr. ambassador, has japan been concern that, although it has shown restraint in nuclear investment in iran, that other countries might come in behind japan and exploit your departure? >> i think this should not happen. thank you very much. [laughter] >> the gentleman in the back. >> thank you. my name is alan and i am from denmark. i am just uninterested person. i have a question about immigration policy and what kind of a rule that will play in the growth of the japanese economy. does that play any role whatsoever in the new strategy

from the japanese government? >> it is true that we have not had immigration as much as other countries, like the united states. there are some criticisms about that as well. one very small opening that is occurring is through the free trade area agreement, fta. some nurses, caretakers are coming. but i admit that this is very narrow, very small. eventually, i think, there will be more understanding on this issue. but at the moment, there were people who think that what we

have been doing should be continued as well. let's see. thank you very much. >> the gentleman right here. >> first of all, as a former senate exchange member, i want to thank you for such programs. i think that china's trade agreement for the past 10 years is already in the triple digits. what is japan going to do to further take advantage of its position of the most developed country in the region to expand the japanese economy? >> i have no clear figure on that issue. it is true that japanese economic growth recovering is

thank you to chinese economic growth. we are exporting to china. so we need growth of the united states, growth of china. we are not depending on trade, as much as a country, for example, like germany, which has about 40% gdp shares straight. ours is about 10%. it is not very big. but there are related areas. we have investment going into those countries, too. we hope the coexistence between chinese industries and japanese industries, of course, there should be competition. that is why i said that japanese

companies need to keep their lead in industry in the areas they have. as i said, those coming up the ladder will be a threat. we have to see a way to cooperate. for example, 20 years ago, when japan was coming of the latte ladder, some countries in europe did not like that too much and close to the markets to us. some opened up for our investments. card companies went to that country and invested from them -- our companies went to that country and invested from them.

all the kids have to go through it and customs. they have -- all the goods have to go through inland customs. they have lost many opportunities. >> i have spent seven years in okinawa. india is coming and up and it is becoming industrialized. how do you see the japanese- india relationship? and how about the trial of japan, india, and the u.s.? >> it is also a very important partner. that is one of the biggest recipient of our assistance, our loans. i have done myself and discussed

the possibility of large-scale projects as well. we have talked about transportation between mumbai as well.ehli india has a huge potential, as you say, and, like china, we want to cooperate with india. it is the biggest democracy in the world and we respect their country very much. >> this will be the last question. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. a brief follow-up on iran, i know that japan was attempting

to make an offer or did make an offer to iran, similar to the russian offer, and one that is being pursued by turkey and brazil to take in the nuclear material and reprocessing it and returning it. can you comment on that and where it stands and have you viewed the current turkish proposal? >> as far as the turkish-brazil proposal, we felt that was a significant step. we commend the efforts of the two countries. however, while 20% enrichment is continuing, we need to show that

the international community is not accepting that. so we supported firmly, this resolution 1292. we still think the effort to done by these countries should be commended as well. thank you very much. >> mr. ambassador, thank you for exposing yourself to some any questions. i hope the flames of the bbq are not -- were not too hot. [laughter] please join me in thanking the ambassador for his precious time. [applause] if i could ask the audience to remain seated for just one minute, i can get the ambassador out and onto his next meeting. thank you again, ambassador.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] cable satellite corp. 2010] >> starting tomorrow, the