sending large amounts of money to loved ones in their homelands as well. immigrantsfinally, will goals of this immigration -- of assimilation today which is worrisome to many americans is nothing new. the amount that goes on today is the amount it has always been. what i find it is today's immigrants are the latest chapter in the never-ending story of the making of america. thank you. >> thank you.

why don't i began talking and we will see pit on the 50th anniversary of the publication of kennedy's i am "a nation of immigrants," ted kennedy recalled in july of 1963 his brother was pushing hard for immigration reform and told congress the enactment of this legislation will not resolve all of our important problems in the field of immigration law. it willnd basis upon which we can build in developing an emigration law

that serves the national interest and reflects in every detail the principles of equality and human dignity to which our nation subscribes. the president did not live to see immigration reform enacted and perhaps he would not have been delighted with all that flowed from the bill eventually passed in 1965. he was certain the government must relationship immigration demanded change from the racist laws of an earlier era. in the 1870's, immigration was largely a state matter. at the post such as castle dark in new york, state officials interrogated and inspected newcomers. and that same decade, federal barslation was passed to convicts and prostitutes. lawin 1882, a federal

excluded baggers, poppers, epileptics, the mentally ill, and those with tuberculosis, the developmentally disabled, and those who might be unable to support themselves and become public charges. since the government did not have the bureaucratic mechanism to handle all those tasks, states were very much involved. 1882, thew pass in chinese exclusion law, responded to their racial and economic and sank -- anxieties of what americans, especially in california. led by irish-born dennis carney and his working man's party, the anti-chinese movement in california blamed chinese for white unemployment. often it appropriated the violence racial stereotypes and waxed violent. everyone had a bad word to say about the chinese. even the african-american

newsmakers called for the exclusion of the chinese on the grounds that their labor for low wages hurt african-american workers. next slide, please. we have a list of the laws. more than any previous legislation, the chinese exclusion act used the power of the federal government to define demographic and cultural characteristics of this nation. the act did not bar all chinese, just labor verse, but merchants, students, the media the families and chinese american citizens returning from abroad were not barred. those who were returning were often-- their reentry was a difficult. it was a time when the government was involved in shaping the american population in response to the prejudices of that population.

and the economic issue was never absent. not long after the concern for foreign labour in 1885, there was the contract labor act beat those who had made prior agreements with american corporations and manufacturers out of the united states. there was this balance between economic fears and racial and cultural spheres which was very much the underpinning of the american legislation in this time. . legislation,o there was special agreements in order kirby japanese migration. theodore roosevelt negotiated an agreement with the japanese government, a gentleman's agreement of 1907, a quota system that's last approximately 72,000 arrivals from japan for a year by 1/3.

because hawaiian growers need of workers on the shirt plantations, the island's acquired by the united states in 1898 were exempt from the agreement. you can see how economic priorities played a role nine western states and florida acted to prevent those eligible for citizenship to own land in those states, and when japanese bought land, they often bought land in their children's name because their children, if born here, where citizens of the united states. this pattern of racial discrimination and its interaction with economic concerns is very much in evidence. after the severe economic depression of the 8090's, the flow of immigration reached unprecedented proportions. 1900, 11.71 and million immigrants arrived

betwe. tremendousme of movement of peoples around the globe. on the east coast, most of their rivals are originated largely from northern and western europe. a gradual shift to southern and eastern europe accelerated in the 1890's. 1914, millionsd of the southern italian catholics, eastern european jews, russians, greeks, and invs are rind -- arrived this country. at the same time, canadians were moving south, mexicans back and forth across america's borders. nor was the united states the only host nation. argentina, brazil, new zealand,

south africa also attracted millions of newcomers. it was a time when americans' interest and concern with immigrants was never hired. lacking confidence in the states to handle the interrogation, and the medical examination of immigrants because in the light of germ theory we were now on a hunt for germs among the newcomers, congress in 1891 established a bureau of immigration to curb inefficiency and regularize immigration procedures. immigration officers and physicians of the u.s. marine hospital service were stationed at immigration depots that are familiar names, perhaps now as museums. ellis island in new york harbor was one of those places. next slide -- the interrogations

took place and the examination for ellises. i do not also angel island in san francisco bay on the west coast. immigrants coming from asia were examined as well. next slide. thank you. and so the idea was to have a labour force that was helping, that wasn't robust, that would be disciplined there would be an ability to discipline this labour force for the benefit of the united states. sayingas an immigrant translated into many languages -- america bacchants, but americans repel. even as the united states craved foreign-born labor for factories and mines, nativists actively made newcomers feel unwelcome. opponents for immigration field job competition for american workers, but they were concerned that culturally and even

biologically the newcomers could not become integrated into the american population. the concern was undergirded by eugenics, the science of the perfectibility of humankind, and on that scale, the newcomers were decidedly in an inferior position. once this allows the just -- want physiologist where the to sayng -- it is fair the blood now being injected into the veins of our people is some common. 21 accustomed to the aspect of a normal american population, the caliban-type shows up with a frequency that is startling. observe emigrants' not as they come up the gangplank or as the issue from -- but in their washed, combed, and

their sunday best. many are pig-faced persons of low mentality. not that they suggest the bill. they look out of place in black clothes and stiff collars since they believe -- they belong in skins and waddled huts at the close of the great ice age. decided tongress study the matter and concluded while in recurrence from southern and eastern europe or awful jobs were often law abiding, the racial differences between jews, seven of times, and anglo-saxons and teutonic tribes made research in a good idea. some favored a literacy test. next slide. in 1917, buted congress recommended restrictions based on the merkel for marlins. during world war room one, the

u.s. appealed to new immigrants to serve in the armed forces cannot be patriotic, and congress was preparing massive restriction. after the war, and 1921, quotass passed emergency act, keeping the ban on asians and imposing a quota system that minuted european immigration to 3% per year for individual groups based on their presence in the population, according to the 1910 federal census. tot limited the entrance 350,000 a year, 45% from southern and eastern europe, but 55% from the traditional sources in northern and western europe. there's no question that the goal of the legislation was to maintain a racial balance in the united states and exclude the southern italians and eastern european jews who were often

looked upon in rationalized terms as people of different races, and therefore not eligible to come to this country. there was also talk, although it was not fully institutionalize, of the commission not unlike the one currently being discussed among policy-makers to decide what the economic needs of united states might be and to adjust very carefully the percentage of immigrants allowed every year to fulfill the needs of the economy. that was not quite restrictive enough been in 1924, and tonson-reed act limited 150,000 annually excess of the western hemisphere. and we attempted to maintain our good will with canada and to ensure adequate mexican agricultural labor. we allowed pretty much the free flow across our borders.

the new quota which apportioned according to the 1890 census, before must -- most southern and eastern europeans had arrived and therefore taking the percentage in this case 2% of those already in united states would push down still further the numbers of those groups coming to the united states now in this time. . a commission was established negotiations were held all the way from 1924 until 1929 for the law to be fully operable. by 1929, something else was going on, and that was the descent of the depression, the stock market crash in 1929, and yet further calls for restricting emigration. the arrival of franklin roosevelt in the white house did not change the system.

roosevelt's main priority was to end the depression and after 1941 to win the war in europe. other priorities, including the rescue of populations, the fiddling with immigration law, was not part of his portfolio as he saw it at that point. even the plight of the european fdr sought as a human tragedy, but not one that he wanted to intervene to do something about. even in terms of encouraging the state department to admit more refugees. between the 1870's and the 1930's, congress in fact transformed immigration policy from a state-centered system to a federal system that controlled and prioritized admittees based on racial ice conceptions and labor needs.

nor was the u.s. alone. australia, new zealand, south africa, canada were doing the same thing. the japanese, endued with their own sense of racial severity, and chinese and korean immigration. with the exception of skilled workers, canada drop all emigration accept migrants from france and uk, homelands of canada's original european settlers. on the eve of world war ii, preparing to battle the nazis and the japanese, two societies seat in racial ideologies, the united states had an immigration system firmly based on a racial ized hierarchy of aron, undergirded by federal law. torily, are, celebri a nation increasingly

restricting emigration policies that reflected a deep compound -- profound commitment to our own economic well-being, of course. thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks very much, and my apologies i do not have any slides for you. i will pick up where professor kraut left off. after world war ii, the racial dimensions that had been enacted in the previous time, the national origin " as an agent inclusion, these began to seem outdated and to americans, remnants of what was called out or prejudices and these are coming under pressure from

international and domestic trends, the influence of anti- fascism and racism from the war, the coming of age of the second generation of european immigrants who came in the early 20th century. he's become important voting constituencies in the urban north. for the second generation of european american ethnics, immigration reform is their civil rights movement in the post-war period. there is also the emergence of the united states as a world leader from the war and the advent of the cold war, which makes the origins, " vince, an asian exclusion an embarrassment to the united states appeared from world war ii to 1952, you see the gradual repeal of all the increments of asian exclusion, although it is tricky because even though asians are no longer completely excluded,

there are global racial quotas that are set up, so it is a down and allow for for policy purposes. congress is wary about letting too many asians in. and the final change in a post- war. -- post-work time is the united states begins to admit refugees into the country, because there's no special legislation for refugees until 1980. they are at hawk admissions, mostly from people fleeing communism. and gary, cuban, and later chinese the decisive. what does not change in the postwar time are things that carry through today. first, the commitment to numerical restrictions until 1924 was an open door. premier -- americans remain committed to there being a set limit of people coming into the country. the other thing does not change from the previous time is an

ambivalence toward mexican immigration. mexicans had no numerical quotas in the 1924 act, which was a function of state department policy and commercial agriculture plus interest. there were administrative restrictions put in place in 1929. why is there still this concern about mexicans? the easy answer, the user answers, that they were a racial bias, but there were plenty of racial biases against immigrants at the beginning of the century. there is also changes in economy where industry and manufacturing no longer needed, the levels of mass immigration that had supported it at the turn of the abouty, and is confusion agricultural needs, which is what mexicans are mostly supplying. and during the war, the united

states started as a guest worker program with mexico, commonly known as the bassaro program, but to address labor shortages during the war, but that program was extended a last bid until 1964 as a way to bring in low- skill, low-paid agricultural workers for intensive cultural -- agriculture work in the west and southwest. at its height, over 400,000 a year, and by the early 1960,, bringing in 200,000 people a year. there are lessons to be learned from the program that are important to think about as these issues are considered today. there was a lot of energy put into the contracts that the guest workers signed to protect them from abuse, low wages, and other kinds of abuse. these contracts turned out to be virtually worthless because they

were very weak enforcement mechanisms in place, but more importantly, the ultimate power at the -- that the growers had to send back workers that used to be protest of their treatment. as long as employers could deport unhappy workers, contracts were limited in meaning. to expectationy and belief, the guest worker program cannot eliminate unlawful entry. in fact, they were a magnet for a parallel straight kicks of all undocumented migration for many growers near the border. demand of the labour market exceeded the number of legal spots that were available. this is a general pattern. this, manytes to

agricultural workers simply want skipped a walk down on their contracts, so if they did not like the way they've retreated, they would go somewhere else. many remain in united states working in the shadows. many became regular rise, and eventually under rules in the 1952 immigration act that allow for suspension of deportation if you lived in the country for seven years and married an american or have american-born children. the program ended in 1964. because a public outcry against the abuses in the system and because with the mechanization of cotton and tomatoes. there was less need for that. passed, another act was major immigration limitation that serves as the foundation for current policy.

it eliminated the national origin quota system and was very much a piece of the civil 1964 andgislation of 1965, and the voting rights act. it was a triumph of reforms that were spearheaded by the european-american ethics, especially american jews, italian americans, and labor, and the churches. at the same time a commitment to global the merkel restriction remained. the ceiling put in place in 1924, when hundred 50,000, was raised to 290,000, which was the same as the 9024 ceiling, adjusted for population increase. it was more restrictive than the earlier law because it included the entire globe. in 1924, the western hemisphere was exempted. it is striking because and the

mid 1960's we had an expanding economy and a declining birthrate. there was commitment to overturn the quotas which were patently discriminatory for racial reasons, but what would be a better way to allocate the quotas? but toll backed passed, buy first the kennedy administration and the johnson administration, created a system based on family and occupational preferences with all countries have the same maximum limit of 7% of the total, which was 20,000 at the time. this formula reflected the civil rights because of full equality that we should treat all countries in the same manner. at the same time the bill set aside 3% of the total for refugees. phil hart, the senator from michigan who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, after he had his own bill that was sponsored in the senate in 1961 and 1962,

these are quite different and my research revealed that there was strong-arm linked that purpose in the kennedy white house that pressured him into sponsoring the kennedy bill. interesting, and i have a piece that was an adjusted and goes into the detail. he proposed a proportional distribution system according to the size of the population of the sending country, a proxy court need, and according to immigration to the united states in the previous 15 years, which recognized community and family ties, and he set aside 20 is set -- 20% of the total for roughest seas. in many ways it was much more thoughtful than the one size fits all policy, which in a sense because of its simplicity won the day. bells and the

bills come not intended to continue a policy of pan americanism. that exemption fell under pressure at the last minute. this is a great story of the behind-the-scenes negotiations when a bill is getting through the process. senators dirksen and urban help the national origin repeal hostage to the weston hemisphere quota. they said if you want to repeal the -- thus, you will have to put quotas on the western hemisphere. their reasons were what they said was an impending population explosion and latin america and that it would be unfair to impose quotas on the rest of the world and not the western hemisphere. the act has been called the law of an unintended consequences, and in the sense that it was not meant to lead to greater emigration from asia and latin

america, and that is what it did. the act was a reform for much greater exclusivity of european and asians, but was a more sure did bill for latin america and mexico. increases are modest and european immigration. italians used new opportunities to bring over adult siblings and parents. you're also has a falling birth rate in this time. no longer a major sending region of immigrants. as we know there is a vast increase in indirect -- in asian immigration. at first they use the employment preferences because there's not a large population in united states, and once people came in, professional or technical workers, they then use the family preferences. this accounts for the lopsided distribution to the upper middle class of agents in this country. policy, not culture, explains.

model minority phenomena. the deal made to impose a quota on the western hemisphere was one where it was done to get the bill passed, everybody knew that would put pressure on mexican migration. s, mexicanly 1960 p' immigration was about 200,000 yr. how you get that down to 20,000? a commission advocated against in america " for the western hemisphere quotas in favor of administrative regulation, but their recommendations and not prevail. the country quotas were phased in and applied in full and 1976, and immediately we have the problem of mass on lawful migration by early 1980. increased to a population of several million

and we have a fantastic rhetoric about the border being out of control. 1970's and 1980's, wheezy important changes in all. -- weeks the important changes in bel law. when one is in legal thinking and a result of the beginnings of greater political voice from the latino peace community, and there is moderation in how undocumented are treated. there are administrative rulings in case law and ins that decide how far can one be from the border without being stopped without a warrant, mort due process in deportation proceedings, and a balance of the equities test applied in suspension of deportation cases, and much of this is wiped out in 1996. as you know, in 1986, congress passed another act which was signed by president reagan,

which created the structure that remains in place today for how we think about immigration reform, what we call comprehensive immigration reform comes out of the experience. this is basically a formal but says we will try to stop, try to solve the problem of illegal immigration by legalizing those who are already here and putting in place mechanisms to prevent any future unlawful immigration. as we know, that the not quite worked out. and there is a lot of discussion as to why that is, that it was too idealistic, lenient, and in fact the reason why we continue to have unlawful migration is because the system put in place under hart-seller which has the same maximum for every country, 20,000, that means belgium has the same quota as mexico, new zealand has the same quota as

india. when people talk they're being long lines for visas, there are only four countries that max out on their fees as every year. only four, the same for, mexico, india, china, and the philippines street when people say you should go to the back of the line, that's line is for some countries 20 or 40 years long. in 1990, congress raised overall ceilings on migration by 40%. that is a lot, and that was in response to the economic expansion of the time. but because every country gets the same 7% limit, a 20,000 men it went up to 25% -- 25,600. a 40% increase meant for a country like mexico or india a very small increase. you still have the same problem that of these backlogs and unlawful entry.

say a fewend but i words about the most recent time of economic expansion and recent recession and how it has affected immigration. one is that i think the economic restructuring at the end of the 20th-century continued to drop migration also fed into anti- immigrants sentiment. you had declines in manufacturing industries and growth in the service sector, so that native whites and blacks suffered greater unemployment and it was a new sectors in the service economy as well as agricultural and agricultural processing that drew low-wage immigrant labor. the same time sought eight declining strength in organized labor and a shift to subcontracting in industry to get away from unions, which then hire a low wage immigrant.

another feature of this economic researcher was the reversal in trend in distribution of wealth. from 1947 until 1974, we have a steady trajectory of the declining gap between the wealthiest and the poorest in the united states. since 1974, we have seen an increase in wealth inequality and bind with the reduction in social welfare provisions and anti-tax movements have put increased pressure on state and the budgets and the middle class, especially. the 1996 immigration law was a response to the anti-emigration sentiment that had arisen in this era, as a response to these anxieties. were particularly harsh and punitive, with mandatory removal for relatively minor offenses. i will say that these are things

that appear not to be under consideration in the current round of discussion on immigration reform. finally, nativism has been fed by a new -- as my colleagues have pointed out -- the new group of choice now for nativists. attacks are latinos. some of this is open, but much is done under the rubric of concern of the illegals. and while mexicans make up a large percentage of the unlawful immigrant population, not all mexicans are a legal. 1/3 of the foreign board are naturalized citizens, in fact. we do not really hear the same kind of talk about unlawful immigration among other groups that have high proportions of an authorized migrations such as polish or irish. i will end there. i hope that this gives you some background on the structures that we are now dealing with in

today's debates. thank you. [applause] late,started a little but we are staying within a one- hour slot. we have some time, so are there questions? i am from the university of maryland. [indiscernible] it seems that one of the assumptions being made is what is called the ellis island paradigm, the assumption everybody who comes here wants to stay, wants to settle permanently. for different types, to what extent do you think that is true? given the fact that the u.s. is a civil, civic society, and citizenship is based on having been born here, but necessarily on a single ethnic group, and i

think both pointed out economic and racial motivations that seem to underlie immigration policy for a long time -- in an ideal world, what should be the criteria for emigration and should there be a ceiling, and what should it be? start with the first question, and maybe i will let you guys enter the second question. one significant difference between immigrants and the time i just covered up until 1860 and the time that allen and mae covered, all the immigrants coming to the united states to the civil war time intended to state pier court to permit, the irish filling their nation under colonial rule was not a place that they could make a good living.

germans for various reasons sought the united states as a new permanent home, also. in the time i covered, emigrants saw the united states as a permanent home. that changes in the later times when lots of people, starting with a tolerance and chinese and others, imagine coming to a united states, making money, and going back with that money to their homeland. as far as what the law ought to become i will let alan and mae deal wtih that. big mass labor migrations at the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th, many people do not intend to stay. the difference is at the turn of the 20th century, you could decide what you wanted to do within the constraints of their own families' interests and the community, but it was an individual choice because he could come and you could go or you could stay.

now not everybody can,, and one of the ironies of the late 1990's and the last 15 years of border control and the militarization of the border is that more undocumented workers decided to stay, whereas had gone back and forth before, even risking crossing the border unlawfully. it was much easier to do. we get to the figure of 12 million because raising the border that actually more people stayed. >> i want want to remind you that our goal in these briefings is not to tell congress what to do, but rather to provide them with a historical context that is useful to them to decide what to do themselves. often use the term trends nationalism to describe the phenomenon of people participating in two societies,

systems, economic systems at the same time. this is not new. southern italian labor at the turn of the century, they were a seasonal labor migration and they participated labortwo societies and the politics of their home society and the politics of united states and in the economies and so on. what is different now is the speed with which that can take place. and the facility with which that can take place. sometimes you can vote in the day of societies at the same time. that did not used to be the case. reported york times" of a story of a dominican man living on the upper east side of manhattan, when to the airport, flew down to the dominican republic and, did business, and got into manhattan in time for a late supper. that is extraordinary.

which you can participate at the same time is enormous. so you do not have to consider working for a while and going home. you can rather consider doing two things at the same time. in the time i covered in my talk, eastern european jews had no intentions of going back to russia, especially after the pogroms. there's nothing to go back to. that is not true of southern the thai laborers, polls, who hoped to work, save, and go back, so the expectations were completely different. i think we are dealing in a world of transnational wasn't in this world of rapid transportation of communication that has made it a different kind of environment to think about. >> can i reframe my question?

>> unless there are no others. >> i think we tend to believe law increasingly over time as put territoriality at the forefront, meaning control over the national space. the border is the most important thing in people's minds today. that was not always the case. there were many elements that went into how the government looked at migration, for economic needs, certainly, for families, and for refuge from persecution. there were all kinds of reasons when we had a policy, we have different policies toward different borders. there's one of restriction ford europe, one of exclusion for a measure, and a curious policy open buto which was only without papers.

we also had different kinds of border policies concurrently. there is the idea today that you have to have one single order policy that front of the house, historically that has not been the case. >> historians can commit is less telling congress what to do than to provide a sense of how thinking historically gives us a better sense of the option available when we have a better understanding of a larger variety of things we have done in the past. yeah. would like to connect a couple of the comments made so far from the beginning. the professor mentioned there has not been much change in the level of assimilation and americans fear assimilation will not take place. this way in which we have seen the rapid acceleration of the phenomenon of circular migration with people returning home, and

if we add to that, the globalization of media and to sustain a culture be on the first generation and so forth. how would you then -- how with the panel addressed concerns that one hears, for example, from let's say legislators from the southwest who say we are in a different era, the acceleration of cultural exchange and of physical movement means that maybe ok, we were wrong about the irish and germans being an assimilable, but maybe we are looking at a different pattern in which there is currently a slower rate of acculturation among immigrants who are able to move more rapidly and stay in close touch with their senate community. >> i will respond because samuel huntington was one of the scholars at harvard who was concerned about the mexicans and their ability to assimilate or

not to assimilate. i said to him then, and i still believe that mexicans, like every other group, will assimilate. other groups different lengths of time to become americanized, as we say, to respond to american culture, to speak english. that will be true with the current groups as well. we have never had in this country immigrant policy. we have immigration policy, but we have never been involved the federal government in the incorporation of immigrants into the society. the federal government does not pay for language lessons, for example. it has been the responsibility of the state's and private organizations and so on. i think frankly that the time has come for the united states

as a government to think through that issue of how it can facilitate for those who want get a assistance of the process of incorporation, to relieve the financial burden of state and private agencies, and to facilitate the process a little bit more than it has in the past. again, nothing overbearing, requirements, but rather to support the resources for doing that. and i think that certainly is one of the things that history tells us, that it is an issue of once you have all these folks who come to the united states, how do you make them feel less home, how you integrate them, and they do integrate. ause of it has bec television programs on tv,

whether it a little francie their friends on the playground, it has happened, and i have no doubt that it is happening now as we speak. >> there are a lot of data that show the same pattern of assimilation. first generation does not learn much english. the second generation, they all know english. for mexicans, in fact, that is not only true, but in the third generation, you have a much higher level of out marriage than in previous emigrant groups. what you have that is different is actually you have a different problem which is economic lower rates of mobility upward. and that has -- that does not correlate to assimilation because they are assimilating, but it does point to a difference in the economic situation today, where you have

things like crumbling urban public education systems, a difference in the kinds of jobs that are available for people with only a high-school education. it is much different than it was 50 years ago. and you have a real difference and what really helps the second and third generation of european ethics after world war ii was the gi bill, you could buy a house and the college. there are a lot of things that fed the incorporation of europeans that you do not have the today. >> we are running out of time. do we have time for one more pr? yeah. >> thank you for your talk. i am curious whether you would be willing to speak to the relationship between immigration and civic engagement and citizenship, because i think that is an

interesting subject. you look at before the secret about, it became very popular in state and national elections. white europeans were able to vote with much higher ease than people of color who were immigrants back in the 19th century. with the introduction of the secret ballot and literacy requirements, as well as racial restrictions for voting, that changes. how does that relationship between civic engagement and citizenship throughout our in the kind of play out modern day? how can that in form, for instance, legislators right now who are considering what sort of -- how, for instance, citizenship should affect --

sorry -- how their ideas of immigration reform should be -- should incorporate ideas of citizenship and whether this leads to the establishment of a guest worker program or things like that? >> small question. >> sorry about that. >> one of the interesting things is what ir question have found is that people's views -- people tend to use the civic engagement issue as a way to support their argument no matter what the senate engagement of immigrants is. when you find in the pre civil war time that americans complained that the irish were to politically active, and that was a reason to prevent them from becoming citizens as quickly as they were. when you get to the early 20th century, complaints about the

italian immigrants was that they were not politically active and that showed they were not engaged enough to be citizens. now it has swung back to the other way in that latino emigrate participation of voting and terms of helping one party or hurting another. what you tend to find in the debate about this is people use that more to try to put across a preconceived point of view than to really use it to make policy. >> there is lots of different kinds of civic engagement. you have been talking about the ballot, and that is important, and many of us believe that a path to citizens are critical, and traditional political engagement is terribly important. there is a sign of civic engagement, but that is not the only time. the armed services was a very important aspect of civic

engagement. anybody who watches the old world war ii movies or reads andan mailer's "the naked knows there is an italian, a jew. there is engagement in and of terror, service and of many different kinds. inclusion of communities into organizations. the massing together for common purposes and voluntarism jered there is lots of different kinds of engagement. comment would be despite this is a volunteer many you do see many, newly arrived immigrants and their children engaged and volunteering and in that form of civic engagement in the military. and in many other aspects as well. when you live in a country for a

time, you see it in your own best interests to engage. it is something that happens. >> let me say something brief to turn the question upside down, perhaps. what should we extract from people in this country. expect?s the government citizenship has always rested on an idea of productive labor. a good citizen was always one who worked. sometimes we are a little extreme about that. but going back to the founding of the republican, the jeffersonian idea of independent and productive labor was a core of virtue and citizenship. exactly. and that has held true. whether or not people are naturalized is not a question, but our concept of citizenship in this country has rested on an idea of republicanism that goes

down to a question of labor. now since world war ii, since we have had these numerical restrictions and we need labor, now we have these exceptions to that philosophy, which is that we can invite you here to work, but we will not the to be a citizen, and that should get people great pause in thinking about what kind of society and what we think citizenship, its real meaning is about. >> i think that is probably a good to end, said that all very much for attending. there is some reading by the door. again, as with three professors up here, i would be remiss in not reminding you that there is -- >> the take-home exam. >> that's right. thank you very much. [applause] >> they had a very political marriage just like john and abigail, so she would lobby and

the halls of congress. she was also careful to say my husband believes this and my husband advocates that. but she herself was doing the pitch. and one of her husband's opponents said he hoped that if he were ever elected president, she would take up housekeeping as a normal woman. and she said if james and i are at ever elected, i will neither keep house nor make -- polk.ight, sarah we will take your questions and comments by phone and by facebook and twitter. tonight at 8:00 on c-span and c- span3, also sees been radio and c-span.org. >> we will hear remarks from ashton carter discussing his

recent trip to asia and outlining the steps united states is taking to advance security and prosperity in that region. this is set for 3:00 p.m. eastern live on c-span. also, president obama is in connecticut today continuing his push for gun-control legislation. last week that governor signed into law widespread restrictions on firearms. live coverage starts at 5:45 today. coming up next, a conversation with kent salazar, with the --urn of lawmakers hamas lawmakers are expected to vote on his successor. if the senate vote occurs this week, salazar is expected to step down. this past week, lwe discussed with him

>> ken salazar is the outgoing interior secretary. was this a job you initially wanted? >> i didn't look for it. i didn't seek it. but at the end of the day when the president and i sat down and talked we laid out agenda that we wanted to get done. that mission has been accomplished and it's been a joyful and wonderful ride and now i'm looking forward to the next chapter in my life. >> we are in one of the largest offices for cabinet secretary in the government. what is the job of the interior secretary? >> the secretary interior is the custodian of america's natural resources and natural and historic heritage. what we do here at interior is make sure that 20 to 30% of the land mass over which we have significant say is preserved for the american people and used

for the american people. we work to make sure that the relationships between the united states and nate tiff americans is a great priority for the united states. it's a great job. it's a great department because it covers everything from sea to shining sea and out into the 1.7 billion acres of the shelf which we control at interior. >> some have called this the department of everything else. >> some v. and if you think back to the history of the department, it's one of the older departments in the united states and it was created to handle all matters related to the interior of the united states which and over time some function versus been moved to other departments and other functions added to this department. but it is a department with a

very broad mission. so the way i'd like to think about it is that we are the custodian of america's natural resources and that's all the energy. our national parks and also our history. because in the statute of liberty to the historic monuments that we oversee around the country, that is all part of our mission at the department. >> every cabinet secretary has to make decisions and get pressure on different fronts. but in your role you are dealing with the conservation movement and the oil industry. two very different political forces in this town. >> that's true. areit happens whenever you dealing with land use and natural resources issues. they are not easy issues. there is conflict, those who want to preserve and those who want to develop. we try to arrive at the right balance. so yes, we allow development of our energy resources. we've led the effort on renewable energy. we've doubled it over the last four years. we have 31 power plants of generation.

but at the same time as we move forward with the development efforts, we have been cognizant of our mission to protect the resources of this country. we don't believe you ought to have development everywhere. we don't believe you should be drilling for oil and gas in the vicinity of our parks. we try to find the right balance during my time here. >> how does president obama use this cabinet. how much direction to you get from the white house and how much autonomy do have you to make your own decisions? >> the president and i go back a long way. we ran for the senate together. i was 99 from illinois and i was 100 from colorado. long been friends for a time. i've had a relationship with him for a long time and it's been a positive and supportive one.

it took a collaboration between us to carry out the mission of the department. in this lack week for me has been a look back at the ways we've done here. and on the conservation agenda the land act which the president signed. it was the greatest conservation legislation in 30 years. last week his signature in the oval office of five proclamations to create five national monuments around the country. those are two oh examples of some of our conservation purposes which we have fulfilled but have done those under the president's direction and guidance, but obviously, with my input and suggestion. it's been a great relationship. >> how involved can he be on the decisions that have you to make? inhe knows what is going on his government and has some

great people at the white house. pete has been a wonderful advocate for the department. theever i need the help of white house i will call pete or someone else at the white house. so it's been a good relationship i feel i've had the support i've needed through some wonderful times at interior as well as some tough times. we lived through the oil spill of 2010. we have completed and are still working on the most significant overhall on energy production in america's oceans. and we have had the great support of the president as we've embraced the all of the above energy strategy and have been implementing that. >> i want to ask you about the cabinet meetings themselves. cameras aren't allowed in there. what happens? what are they like for you personally? >> the cabinet meetings are

formal and there is agenda that will be followed. interactionsy my with the president and his people to be much more productive when we are not in those cabinet meetings because we can have a full discussion of the issues and options. typically most of the work is done outside of the cabinet meetings. >> let's talk about some of the things you've dealt with, most notably the b.p. oil spill. >> you said you wanted to hold b.p.'s boot to the neck during that crisis. >> that's my boot on the neck of b.p. and i think we have done that. wordsmportantly than the i used we've held the oil and gas industry accountable. when i came into this department we embraced the agenda on a whole host of things because the department had been neglected in a number of ways in the prior administration.

we started looking at m.m.s. and how we might be able to reorganize that. we had hearings before the house. the mcconda well came along and we had to deal with that oil spill over a long period of time. but that has led to the greatest overhaul in how the united states of america oversees the production of oil and gas. reformis part of the agenda and part of the all of the above energy strategy which the president has been pursuing really from day one when we came into office on january 20, 2009. >> let's go back to m.m.s. you divided that into three very different agencies. take a step back and explain what you did and why you did that. >> m.m.s. has h been around and exist through secretarial order. even today they exist through the power of the secretary of

interior under existing law. those m.m.s. had been created by james watt, secretary of interior back in 1981. the agency had not evolved to keep up with the changing technology and challenges as we were moving forward in deeper waters especially in the gulf of mexico. we've taken m.m.s. and blew it up and created three separate agencies to deconflict the missions. we is have an agency that does revenue collection. some $1 billion that come into the treasury. and then to oversee the planning and the regulation, we the bureau of ocean energy management which does the planning for the future, looking at developing the resources out in the oceans. and then safety and enforcement. and that's essentially the cop. the cop on the beat hold it is oil companies accountable to

make sure they are doing everything in a safe way and in a way to protect the environment. >> you've been working on solar and renewable energy. >> sometimes i tease my colleague that we are the real department of energy because we do produce about 30% of the energy in america really comes from the public lands of the united states. on renewable energy, for me, it's always been part of our energy future and energy security for the united states for a lot of good policy reasons. when we came into this department in 2009, there had been virtually nothing that had been done on renewable energy. from that time to today, our renewable energy efforts have actually produced permits that will allow 11,000 megawatts of power to be produced for solar

and wind on public lands. that's the equivalent of 33 regular sized power plants. that's a tremendous amount of energy we've permitted over the last four years. that's one of my proudest accomplishments. it's one of the reasons we have doubled the amount of energy we are producing in the united states in the last four years. there is more to come. we have created the blue print for the future. we control over 20% of the offshore land in the u.s. as well as in the atlantic. i image you will see a offshore wind industry in the atlantic. >> where do you see us on wind energy in the next 20 years? >> the united states will lead the world. we were not leading the world

four years ago. we have gotten back into the saddle again and we are leading the world with a lot of what we are doing in the clean energy world. the largest solar energy commercial scale facilities are springing up out of the deserts of nevada and california today. they will be producing electricity to the grid, some of them have already started. >> and yet this wind energy that you point out from off the coast of the atlantic requires mills. how do you deal with environmental concerns and aesthetic concerns and also the advance with wind energy? >> we said we were going to be smart from the start so we're going to plan where we're going to develop our energy in the united states which what we've

done on the atlantic for example is we've mapped out the best places for wind energy areas. those have been mapped out in cooperation with all of the states along the atlantic and now we are already issuing leases for wind energy farms off the atlantic. atlantiche way the slopes off to the east, you can actually place these wind farms five or ten miles off the coast. aestheticith the issues in that way and you can deconflict them from maritime needs of the ocean as well as defense needs. energyapped it out for production. and i believe we're going to see a robust area in the united states developed in the decade ahead. >> etc. talk about alaska for a moment. this department has come under criticism from environmental groups and oil industry when it comes to drilling off the coast of alaska. can you drill safely and yet also alleviate the concerns of environmental groups?

>> the answer to that is yes. and let me give you an example on the on shore side in alaska, there is a 22 million acres of land that is a wonderful ecological resource for the united states. we've taken about 11 million acres of that and that will be managed for conservation. we won't allow development in those 11 million acres. there is another 11 million we've said it will be okay to explore for oil and gas there. in terms of the arctic waters in the baltic seas which are the northern most points of alaska and the united states which our vicinity is, first, we need to understand what the resources are that are out there and we need to develop additional seasons.

we've allowed for shell to move forward. we were watching them carefully and we made the determination they weren't ready to do that. we stopped them. but into the future my belief is the united states needs to understand the resources that are there and second of all the decisions can be made as to whether or not development will occur and what kind of safeguards need to be in place for any development to occur. >> and as you know, native alaskans worried about fishing and hunting which in some areas is their main source of sustenance. >> that is true. shell was very sensitive to those issues. they worked with the whaling captains from the villages on the north slope and agreed that they would not do any activity up there that would interfere with the whaling season. so the relationship with alaska

natives was tested in the 2012 drilling season. >> down the street the state department dealing with keystone. have you weighed in? is your department involved in that as well? >> we're involved if the that we are a commenting agency for example on the baring, beetle and other pipeline route. but it is a process under which is exclusively within the state department. we comment on it but it's a process secretary carrie is continuing to lead. >> you made the comment about the amount of energy we have in this country and the amount you produce. how much do we have? how much energy in this country and offshore do we have in the future potentially? >> we have a huge amount of energy and i think one of the most important things we've

been able to do under president obama's direction and leadership is that the country is in a much better place for energy than it was when i came to u.s. senate. i gave a speech on the floor of the u.s. senate in 2005 where i said at that time we were importing more than 60% of our oil. we were projected to import more than 70%. today i can report we are importing less than 40% of our oil from foreign countries. one of the reasons that is happening is because we have a much more efficient fuel efficient vehicle being created here in the united states. producing, we're energy from different sources including renewables. haser three, natural gas come online in ways people never imagined even five or six years ago. so we are on a good track to be

able to get energy security in a way that escaped other presidents such as president carter and others who spoke about these issues, even president nixon back in 1973. we're in a good place and we'll continue to march forward making progress on the energy side as well as the change side. because those two issues are connected. >> with all of these issues we've been caulk talking about, how does ken salazar make a decision? what's your process? >> i read a locality and learn a lot from other people. so i will is it around a table in this office with my staff, my deputy director and assistant director and my counselors and we'll walk through the options and make is decision that is are the very best decisions we can for the country. we've made sure seasons and biology guide our decisions. though there is tremendous political pressure exerted on the decisions i make. we say those are not to be

factored into the decisions that we ultimately make. it's the science and the biology that has guided us in making some very tough decisions over the last four years. scientist scientific integrity will be something that will continue. >> we commented on this office. this is bigger than the oval office. >> yes, the president has visited my office. we've had that conversation. it is a beautiful office and has a huge impact on the lives of the people of the united states of america and it future. so it's a great office. >> as your successor prepares to take over, what advice would you give her? >> enjoy the job. it's a joyful journey. it is a great privilege to serve the american people in a cabinet position, especially this cabinet position.

this is the best cabinet position i would say of any of the cabinet position. and at this time most joyful of them all. you get to see and make decisions from the north slope of the arctic with the native people there to the everglades of florida to california and everything in between and out into the ocean. so it's a wonderful world that you get to be a part of when you are secretary of interior. >> let me turn to a couple of career issues which you served as secretary general in colorado. and your state has been hit hard by gun violence. how do you balance second amendment rights and try to reign in the violence in this country? sense have to be common about it. i was attorney general when the columbine shootings happened.

didd investigations and school safety activities in colorado at the. i was dealing with background checks as well as closing the gun show loophole and things like that in colorado. those are common sense measures. those are common sense measures which the president is now advocating. you can honor the second amendment making sure that hunters and sportsmen have their guns. takingis planning on guns away from anybody or even registering guns. but we can have common sense measures that keep guns out of the hand of criminals. wholek the nation as a understands that but there is powerful groups that muddy the waters of politics here in washington, d.c. i think we are going to see

some common sense gun safety measure that is are passed. >> these shootings have been seen in all parts of the country but particularly in colorado. any sense why? >> i don't know why in colorado but you never choose where these things happen. columbine happened in colorado. the aurora shootings this last year at the theater were also tragic. the recent killing of our department corrections executive director. those are senseless killings and i think for all of us they just create the question which appropriate question how do we do everything we can to prevent other people from being killed or injured by these senseless acts of violence. >> your family first moved to colorado when? >> about 150 years ago. they helped found northern new mexico, the city of santa fe. they didn't move very far.

milesnch is about 120 north of the city of santa fe. we've been there for a long time. deep roots. ashave you been quoted saying you have felt over the years some eth nick slurs. can you elaborate on that? >> we've been a country that has been a nation in a march toward a more perfect union. celebratedeek as i some of the monuments the president created. the under ground railroad in maryland. the rights of farm workers. all that is a story that we have all lived and i have lived part of that story. today i serve as secretary of interior. i've been u.s. senator and attorney general. but civil rights history and

the pains we have gotten through has affected us all. we are in much better shape today in 2013 than we were in 1973, than we were when dr. king gave his speech here 50 years ago on the importance of making sure we had quality here in america. so our progress is one that is steady. confidenceso much and optimism in our country. i have a lot of confidence and optimism in my state. people thought i would have never been elected attorney general or senator and i was able to do those things in my life because i have a nation that has learned from our past and created opportunity for others who are coming along. i hope that in some small way i've been able to contribute to that journey of our nation to make it a better nation and a more perfect nation and better humidity around the world. >> what would you tell a new generation of immigrants who may face prejudice or injustice?

>> stand up against it. goodstand there are more people than there are people who would have racist or discriminatory attitudes. at the end of the day, we're all in this together. we're all part of god's creation is how i would say it in my own faith. and we have a much brighter future ahead. but it's important to look back and learn the lessons of our history as we're doing this year. as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the civil war. and create a better place for our children and grandchildren. >> both you and your brother served in congress. what's in the salazar family water? >> i would say it's our history but most importantly my father and my mother. my mother at the age of 19

found her way across this country to come help here in the cause of world war ii. helped open the pentagon at the. she was here in washington for five years. my father came to washington and went into the army. he had to make sure when he died he would be buried in his uniform because he was so proud. very grew up on a poor and remote ranch. all 8 children graduated from college and it was a sense from my parents anything was possible as long as we believed in ourselves and believed in our country. it's those values which i think are not unique to my family. there are so many other families across america that share that -- those sense of values and this great confidence in our future. >> if they were here today, what would they think of their son serving as the interior secretary?

>> they would be extremely proud. they would probably cry because for them, my life, but as importantly the life of my other siblings have been this joyful journey. engineers and teachers and congressmen and they are all people connected to the community and giving in some way. >> i think they would be very proud. >> you served four years before becoming interior secretary. your brother served is the senate working as it should be? >> i think it needs to be improved. everybody recognizes that. iting the time i was there, was still a time when we were doing some really great things. you know, we passed a 2005 policy act, the 2006 gulf of mexico energy security act, the 2007 energy independence,

security and energy act. and those are bipartisan efforts. kennedy and mccain were part of that and we formed it in the u.s. senate. so those are productive days. unitedpeople in the states yearn for that kind of production to come out of the u.s. congress. i was able to do a lot in the time that i was in the u.s. arete and i think we all very hopeful that the kind of collegiality will come back. >> why is bipartisan so difficult to come about in this senate in the congress? >> you know, i think a lot of it has been the fact that elections seem to go now all the time. there's no time-out between elections.

used to be a time when i think the senators would not run against each other, if you were in different parties you wouldn't be out trying to take off the head of the majority or the minority who ever they were. and that has changed. a lot of it has to do with the huge influence of money into the political system. and i think that's wrong. theink that's why some of campaign finance reform efforts i think hopefully will be helpful if we had the kinds of changes that would keep this money out from politics because i think that's part of what's soured many of the relationships in the united states senate. >> as you step down, it's been reported that you will go to colorado. and you have a granddaughter that is autistic. what have you learned about autism in this process? >> autism affects 1-88 families in the united states of america. you learn a tremendous.

a when the diagnosis first hit us, my family was here with me in washington. we moved back home to colorado -- my family moved back so that we could give my granddaughter the kind of attention that she needed. of learn that it's all part a joyful learning. even though our granddaughter mirea is five years old, she's brought a tremendous amount of joy. i'm recognizing her limitations and that fact that we don't have those same limitations allows us to be in so many ways so much more grateful. so we've learned a lot about it. i think there is still a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done in this country as we try to come to grips on autism and there is research underway and the growing awareness of autism including just a few days ago going to world autism awareness think there are important steps that are being taken that

will ultimately address the issue over time. >> what questions do you think need to be asked in order to get more answers? >> the questions that need to be asked, there are many. i think first of all, the early detection efforts because if you can detect autism earlier you can actually do more intervention at the early levels. second of all just informing parents and family members about what it is that you can do and ha the options are once you do have a child whole is autistic. and then thirdly and perhaps getting to the causal points here, no one understands it. so there is significant research and development that needs to take place as one tries to get to the root causes of autism because there are no answers at this point in time. >> professionally what's next for you? >> i'm -- i am still feeling very good about the future. i have some bright horizons ahead of me.

i don't know what those will be. some of them might be in the public sector again. myiously what i will do in next chapter is take care of my family and what i consider to be my highest moral responsibility. so i will be working hard and taking care of my family. >> is elective office in your future? >> it's a possibility. i frankly just don't know because i will have chapters beyond interior -- you know, i've had, steve, i think one of the most wonderful and joyful rides that any american can ever had. to have served my state as attorney general and to have been in the united states senate. to have served in the cabinet as eighth in line in succession the president, to a dozens of things that i was allowed to do. i don't know what the future hold but i have the same faith

that my parents had and their children that their future is a very bright one. and i'm very excited about it. >> you seem happy and content. >> i am. you know, my mission is accomplished. we set out to do five things in this department. and i agreed with the president that i would come and run it for him. now, almost four and a half years ago. time-e work that we set out do, we have done it. i feel good about having accomplished the mission. and i feel great about my successor salley jewels who will be an outstanding secretary of the interior. and i'm optimistic about the united states and very optimistic about the world. >> secretary salazar. >> thank you to c-span for you to educate all of america. >> we continue with another member of president obama's cabinet who is stepping down,

the transfer terry -- transportation secretary ray lahood. he joined us to discuss some of his department's initiatives, including high-speed rail and the state of politics in our nation's capital. we spoke with him for about 35 minutes. here at d.o.t. and one of them has been texting and driving. you have said that americans are addicted to cell phones and blackberries. why? thisll, we started campaign four years ago. we've had two summits here in washington. i've attended summits in texas and florida. we've really stirred up a lot of interest in what i consider to be a very important safety

program. every american has some kind of a phone or texting device. i think we should use them. i've seen people using them at church, funerals, weddings. we've gotten into very, very dangerous behavior because we think we can use them behind a wheel of a car when we're driving. and it's just not safe. only 18 states passed laws. now 39 have passed laws. we're working on trying to get all 50 states to pass laws. we think it's when we started our seat belt campaign here. nobody was buckling up. 26 years later, the first thing we do is buckle up. we have d.u.i. laws. .08, good enforcement. what we need on this campaign is not just ray lahood talking about it. we need good enforcement and

people taking responsibility to have both eyes on the wheel and both eyes on the road. >> have you ever studied what's in the psyche of the american individual that feels that they are compelled to respond to an e-mail while driving? >> look, we just gotten in a very bad habits because we think we can use these. we're attached to these and we think we can use them. and you can't use them and drive safely. you just can't because you don't have both eyes on the road and both hands on the wheel. you have the cell phone on your ear and if you're looking down for four seconds texting your car goes the length of a football field. orking about 5,000, 6,000 10,000-pound vehicle and it's going the length of a football field. very, very dangerous. >> when it comes to the roads that these americans are driving on, you said that america is

one big pothole. >> for many years, steve, we were number one in infrastructure. over 50 years we built the interstate. is no other country has the kind of interstate system that connects the entire country like the united states. we made the investments. we taxed ourselves at the pump. we used those taxes to build an interstate system, to build bridges, to build transit systems, trains and light rail but we're behind now. we're not number one anymore because we haven't made the investments. so what you have all over america are deteriorating roads, bridges, 50-year-old transit systems that need new cars, new tracks and we need to really make the investments, have a vision to get us back to being number one in infrastructure. we're not there right now. >> so how do we do this? >> the debate in america is not about what we should do.

everybody knows of a road or a bridge that needs to be fixed. everybody in the big cities has a transit system that's 50 years old. it needs new cars, new tracks. we need to really have a debate here in washington, congress does. and i think you're going to see the president really step up on this once we get beyond guns, immigration and sequester. i think you'll see the president talk very boldly about makings investments in infrastructure. we need to have a debate about how we're going to pay for all the things we need in america. roads in a state of good repair. bridges that are safe. transit systems that have new cars and new infrastructure. >> but it all costs money. >> it all costs money and that's what the debate will be about. how do we pay for it? the highway trust fund was to build transit systems and to do the things we wanted to do. but because people are driving less and driving more fuel efficient cars or receipts have

gone down. and as we go to hybrid cars and battery cars we know the trust fund is not going to be enough to do what we need to do. gashey said get rid of the tax and put in a tax that will generate more fun in virginia? is that something nationally that we should look at? >> in state where is they have raised the sales tax a penny or two and put it in infrastructure, they raised a lot of money, they've helped transit systems, built bridges. these referendums have passed all over america. people get it when it comes to fixing up their roads because everybody has a road in front of their house. everybody drives these roads. a lot of people now are using transit and they know that we have an aging transit system in

america. people get it when it comes to how do we do it, how do we pay for it. and governor mcdonald has changed the paradigm so to speak in terms of putting this out as something that is being debated pretty strenuously in virginia. >> is china beating us when it comes to roads and bridges and infrastructure. >> china is beating us. we're being beat everywhere. china, asia and in europe. europe has got it all over when it comes to passenger rail. china is building airports. two years ago or three years ago when i was in beijing just traveling down the runway on the airplane leaving beijing, i saw 88 cranes at the airport. they'rens that surpassing us. they're building roads, they're building bridges, airports, high speed rail. we've been left in the dust when it comes to asia and europe.

>> will we see high speed rail until this country? >> absolutely. absolute. high speed rail is coming to america. we've invested because of the president's vision. in the first two years in this job i visited 18 countries looking at high speed rail. and the common denominator, the common theme in all 18 countries, the national government made the initial investment. president obama in the last four years has made the initial investment. $12 billion. over $3 billion in california. over $2 billion in illinois. upwards around $2 billion in the northeast quarter to fix up amtrak to fix up the tracks. we've made the investments. americae companies in from overseas looking at making investments in california, in illinois, along the northeast corridor. the people are so far ahead of the politicians on this and the

president has a vision for passenger rail in america which is what the american people want. they want to get out of their cars. they want good transportation. they want alternatives and passenger rail is certainly a part of that. and in california, they will have a train in 10 years that connects san francisco all the way to san diego north, south, 200 miles an hour all new infrastructure. >> let me ask you about the cost. the looming issue in this country is a growing debt, $16.5 trillion. why is it so hard for democrats and republicans to sit down and forge a compromise? a well, i think because it's big issue and because you know, people have their very strongly held views on this but we should take a chapter out of the book during the time i served in

the house. i served 14 years. five of those years we had a balanced budget. president clinton a democrat was the president. i'm a republican. we were the majority party. speaker gingrich forced a compromise within president clinton and we had a balanced budget. you can have priorities. you can set the priorities. part of the priorities -- set aside so much for deficit reduction which is what we did during that period of time. so much set aside for deficit reduction. the economy surges a little bit. you get more tax dollars in and we did it. it can be done, steve. and it can be done when one party is opposite of the other party and you do it by sitting down with the common goal of balancing the budget. but is your brand of republican politics welcomed in the republican party today? you got a zero rating from club for growth.

you work for bob michael described as a moderate republican. has the party changed? >> the party has changed. haven'tprinciples changed and the priorities haven't changed. people still come to washington, get elected to the house and senate with the idea, we've got to fix the deficit problem. and what they do is take a chapter or look back at history to see how others did it from opposing parties. it's not that complicated. i come from a part of the country that was once represented by abraham lincoln. abram dirkson who helped lyndon johnson pass the civil rights act. and he was from an all--white community. but he did it because it was the right thing for the country. look, we come from a part of the country where people have worked together and cooperated

together. during the 14 years that bob michael was the chief of staff, tip o'neill was the speaker. ronald reagan was the president. during that eight-year period they all worked together to fix social security and the tax cuts which they passed during the recession during 1982 to 1985. they all worked together. they came together and they made progress. >> did the politics change from michael to gingrich? >> well, they changed in style i would say that. but look, newt was speaker when bill clinton was president and we got to a balanced budget. and they did it by talking with one another, working with one another and ultimately compromise. and i think the style -- >> look, newt's style was different than bob michael's style.

but in the end they did what was good and right for the country. >> when did you first meet bob michael and how did you become chief of staff? >> well, i grew up in peoria. when i was growing up as a young boy, bob michael was our congressman. he served for 38 years. and so i had known him. i had known no other congressman during the whole time that i was growing up but i got involved with another congressman tom railsback who was a few miles away. worked for him and then worked for bop and then ultimately gravitated towards the top of the staff and became chief of staff and i was fortunate enough to succeed bob. >> what did he teach you? onlyat he taught me the way you ever get anything done in this town is by people talking to one another and

compromising and working things out. that's the only way big things get solved. i learned as a staffer he surrounded himself with a great staff. he got elected to congress at 32 years old. but he was a staffer, eight years -- for eight years prior to that for his predecessor. what we learned though is that you surround yourself with good people. you listen to them. you listen to your constituents. you come here and talk to one another. and you forge compromises in order to get the country's problems solved. >> what was the biggest adjustment in lot would say that i had a more power as chief of staff.

i was in all the leadership meetings. and then when i became a freshman member of congress, i didn't sit on the leadership meetings anymore but obviously i knew who speaker gingrich was because he was the whip under mr. michael. and i had worked with newt. and so we -- the big change really is having the vote. when you get elected to congress back then we represented 620 people. and you have a vote. and that vote is the most important thing you get elected to do. youing up and making sure vote. there's a lot of things members of congress do. the most important thing is having that vote. when i got that voting card, i knew i was a member of congress. and that was the big difference. >> let me ask you about a couple of moments. first in 1994, you were one of

three republicans who did not sign the contract with america. what kind of pressure did you get from newt gingrich and why did you decide not to sign it? >> i think they were disappointed that i didn't do that. i think that i felt that -- there was a gimmick. i don't know. i'd been around -- i'd been a staffer for 17 years. i had worked with newt. he was in the leadership. i was the chief of staff to the minority leader. and i just thought it was kind of a gimmick that i didn't really want to participate in. >> did they put pressure on you? >> i think after i was elected i probably suffered a little bit for not signing it. >> you presided during more house sessions than anyone else. how did that come about? >> because of speaker gingrich. his office is the one who decides who the speaker pro tempore is, the person who sits on the chair on a regular basis. theent a lot of time on house floor and i watched democrats who were the majority party then, i watched a lot of

them preside. i learned a lot about the house rules. i learned a lot about how you get things done on the house floor, how you use your rules to get your issue to the forefront. and that was a big, big help to me. really nobody else in my class -- we had a class of 83. nobody else in my class really had that kind of experience and know-how. plus, i knew a lot of the members on both sides of the aisle. the one thing that i knew is that when you sit on that chair, the one thing you have to be is fair. and you have to make sure that you follow the rules of the house. there's no partisan on the person who sits in the chair. you call them in the way that they should be called. you don't call a vote or you don't reflect your own political views on a particular member that's speaking.

you do it in a fairway that really reflects the rules of the house and the decorum that i think people want to see in this speaker. and i think because of that, because i had had the opportunity to observe that over several year, we did it in a way that i think speaker gingrich liked very much. >> and obvious, all of it captured on cameras. are you aware that the cameras are in the house chamber? or is that moved to the back of your mind? >> not at all. i've never really thought about the fact that there were cameras when we were in the chair speaking on the floor. i was oblivious to it really. >> you preside over the impeachment of president bill clinton. is that something that you wanted to do? >> the way that it happened and the way i heard about it is one of speaker gingrich's staff was if he is going to preside. and he said no that he wanted ray lahood to do it.

and i think steve, over that period of time of five years, i had developed a reputation for fairness for doing it by the book, for making sure that everybody was treated respectfully. that everybody got to say what they wanted to say within the time frame within which they were given to say it. bothhere was a respect on sides. and because of that the style that i used that speaker gingrich decided. it was his call. >> looking back at the impeachment of bill clinton as a member of congress was it the right thing or was it a mistake. ofhenry hyde was the chief staff in the judiciary committee. i knew henry very well. i believe that he was a very fair person. i feel that the hearings that he held, the testimony that he took let him to believe that they should have voted out four

articles of impeachment. ofhink henry hyde as chair the judiciary committee was fair. >> did you learn about how the house worked or that moment in history from your vantage point? mostat was probably the historic time that i'll ever serve in the house and maybe one of the most storied times in the house of representatives because what happened, steve on the first day that there was a lot of speech making from both sides of the aisle and presenting the case. on the second day, the first speaker was bob livingston who had already been selected to be the speaker to succeed speaker gingrich who had decided he was not going to be speaker anymore and our conference had decided that bob livingston was going to be the speaker.

and on the first, on the second day, the first speech was bob livingston announcing that he was not going to stand for speaker because of his own personal issues that he didn't feel that he should be elected speaker. and the air went out of the chamber. we all thought we would be coming here listening to the final debate and then voting on the four articles of impeachment. so that first speech set a tone that took the air out of the chamber. one democratic member comes up to me as i'm in the speakers chair and says do you think that we should suspend and take this up and figure out what we should do? another member came up to me and said if we could put the votes together would you consider being a candidate for speaker if i can find enough democrats? you know, so that really changed the whole second day. once we got beyond that there

were many meetings going on behind closed doors trying to figure out who the next speaker was going to be. as the debate continued and at the end of that debate, we voted on the four articles of impeachment. so a very, very historic time for the house of representatives not only because of what we were doing with the four articles of impeachment against president clinton but were -- thet we speakership was left void. >> did you want to be speaker? >> absolutely not. cards that was not in the politically. >> bob michael for 38 years always in the minority. republicansd the gain the majority. was he disappointed that he didn't serve as speaker? >> i think if he were sitting in this chair and you would to ask that question he would say yes. 38 years us a in the minority. 14 years as republican leader, minority leader, longest serving minority leader in the history of the house. always you can't -- you want to be the top person in

jobs like this. and i think that he missed it by one election. >> did you want to move up in the republican leadership if not speaker then various other -- >> i thought that being in leadership was a good way to be more effective but, you know, i realized that i was probably too independent minded and too focused on my district and not maybe focused enough on more legislative activities. and you've got to toe the party line. and ray lahood was not a party tower. >> so many times we hear the congress is broken. is it broken when it comes to issues, parties crossing, the political line to reach across the aisle and forge an agreement? >> i think washington is not broke but it takes a long time these days to reach the kind of compromise.

we didn't go off the financial cliff. and everybody thought that maybe we would. and we didn't because it was a compromise. mitch mcconnell got together with joe biden and it was passed. we're coming up on the sequester and people are wondering what's going to happen with that. people are talking about working together. the president's talking about working with republicans on immigration. republicans and democrats are talking about gun legislation. that could not have occurred a year ago. but they have discussions now in a bipartisan way. people meeting together, talking together. i think people have come to realize, the only way big things, significant things, big problems get involved in washington is when people talk to one another and work with one another and ultimately compromise. >> are they talking now? >> a lot of people are talking now. they're talking about gun legislation.

they're talking about immigration, sequester, talking about how we fix our financial problems and i think you're going see some big -- some big issues get resolved here in a bipartisan way. >> i want to ask you about president obama in a moment. but putting him aside you've worked with every president since ronald reagan as a staff or a member of congress. explain your interaction with these presidents over the years. who do you remember the most? >> as a staffer, obviously, i was a staffer for bob michaels during the reagan years. and then vice president bush, herbert walker bush was elected president. so we obviously worked closely for four years where that administration. then president clinton and so for me, i think the closeness of the presidency was really more apparent. but once i got elected, you

know, in 1994, you know, obviously president clinton was president then. and we got to know president clinton very well. wasfor me the closeness president bush. i was on the intelligence committee. i heard all the information about weapons of mass destruction and i was here in 9/11. i think there was a kinship and a closeness with president bush who i admire and think was a very good president. but mostly because i was in the position being on the congress, being on the intelligence committee being here when we had that huge 9/11 attack and really working with president bush. but then when president obama got elected to the united states

senate from illinois, he and i became friends and i'm probably proudly closest now to president obama. >> for any senate to work with the president, what are the rules of the road that any chief executive needs to know when they come to this town? respectingespect, the congress, respecting that these 535 were each individually effected by thousands of people in their districts or in their states. and that means something. an election means something. thato that mutual respect members of congress were elected by the people. and even though you're president and you were elected by the all the people there has to be that mutual respect, a mutual understanding that in order to really get the people's business accomplished, we have to talk to one another and work with one another and compromise

with one another. and i think that's really happening since president obama was re-elected. >> you decided in 2008 to retire from the house. why? >> well, for my first 12 years i was the majority party, and it's a lot more fun being in the majority. for the last two years i was in the minority party. i didn't like it much. and i felt i had done everything that i could possibly do. i knew i wasn't going to be in leadership. i really thought that i could be more effective doing something else even though i didn't thought what i was going to be. >> you thought you would have been president of bradley university. >> i thought they were going to pick me. >> still interested? >> the only one would be my alma mater. i wouldn't be interested in any other university. >> so president obama was elected in 2008. how did you become transportation secretary?

>> five days after he was -- well, a few days before he was elected president ram called me and said i'm going to be chief of staff do you think there has to been an election before you can be chief of staff. but five days after he called me for chief of staff. he said you know, we're going to be looking for some republicans. i tell this story because this is a signal about president obama. this idea that he's bipartisan and that he reaches across the aisle, i'm a classic example of it. obamainto president before he was elected president. he knew i was going to retire. he said if this works out for me, i'm going to be looking for some republicans. and this idea of bipartisan is in the president's d.n.a. he believes in it. five days after he was elected

to the united states senate from ill-, he called me in peoria. i was a congressman. he said i want to come and meet with you and figure out how we can work together. he believes in bipartisan. he believes that's the way we get things done. i am a great example of it. when i was a congressman. we had a 40-minute interview and few days said will you take transportation? >> why this position and why did you say yes? >> well, i wanted to work for what i believe was the most historic, maybe the most historic administration in the history of our country, an african-american from illinois and i just felt it was as somebody who loves public service it was a great opportunity to serve to work for a historic transformational president. we felt it was an opportunity we

couldn't pass up. >> there is a picture behind you. it looks like you are -- the president is signing something. explain this photograph. >> oh, that's one of the meetings where the president was going to the republican conference in baltimore. the republicans were having a retreat. and they invited the president to come. on the elevator going up to the meeting he said, lahood get in front of me and block as we see all these republicans. and i did that. and we walked in the room and all the leadership were there, and they got a kick out of it. >> you're in the cabinet. how does he run the meeting? >> it's all prescribed. for four years almost all of the cabinet meetings were about the economy. we'd hear from geithner or other people on the economic team. we would have some kind of a

foreign policy report from hillary or bob gates who had been the secretary of defense. and so almost every cabinet meeting was about the economy and how we were going to really manage what we were doing and sometimes we'd hear from janet napolitano or jack from o.m.b. when he was there. but mostly all of it was aren't the economic issues. because look the last four years were a real struggle when it comes to the economy. at d.o.t., i think we contributed a lot to putting people to work. almost all of the focus of the cabinet meetings were around the economy. >> what is the job of the transportation secretary? what is a day like for you? what are your responsibilities? >> well, we manage 55,000 people. 38,000 are f.a.a. employees located at a different location.

many of them are in airports around the country. really just sending -- our agenda really has been about safety and making travel safe but also for the first two years taking our economic stimulus money $48 billion that we got, spending it within two year, putting people to work. we put 65,000 people to work and 15,000 projects in two years. very proud of that we really contributed to getting -- getting at least the infrastructure and transportation economy moving. but i would say safety and i would say carrying out the president's agenda as it relates to high speed rail and then making sure that our economic stimulus mown was spent correctly. pass a transportation bill an f.a.a. bill. we were able to do some legislative, work with congress, work with our stakeholder, the governors and mayors of the country and really take the

president's transportation agenda on the road. i just finished in montana. that was my 50th state a few days ago. 18 countries, 250 cities. so we really tried to touch the people in america who really are involved with infrastructure and safety and those kind of issues. >> what have you learned about ray lahood in the job? >> i think really just having a focus and working hard, you can really make a difference. i served in congress for 14 years. there's a lot of satisfaction, but in this job you can really make a difference because you can get things done. you can really have an impact. and what i told our other cabinet colleagues when we first met for years ago. pick two or three things that you want to get done so when you walk out the door, you can remember two or three things that you accomplished.

and a lot of them we just had a dinner together before the last state of the union and i lot of them remember that advice. these are big agencies. they're full of career people. they are going to be here long after we leave. if you can walk out the door and say you accomplished two or three important things for the president and for the american people, that's a big accomplishment in these jobs. and i'm proud that we can say that and i think a lot of my cabinet colleagues would say the same thing. >> so what's next for you? >> you know, i don't really know, steve. i'm going to walk out the door and see if the phone rings. i have 10 grandchildren, five in peoria. four in indianapolis, one here in washington. we'll probably do a little grandbaby and grandchildren business more often. but we'll see where it takes us. i've never really worried about what's around the next corner and i don't think i'll have to worry about it when i walk out the door here.

>> any thoughts about writing a book? >> yes, i'm actually in collaboration with the head of the dixon congressional center in illinois. frank mcaman who is phenomenal. we've written some of what i call essays on my career in congress talking about bipartisan with retreats that i co-sponsors, the impeachment and all that was involved in those few days and a few things like that. so i'm going to write something. i don't know if anybody will be interested in it. but frank is going to help me with that. >> secretary ray lahood, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you.

secretary ashton carter has returned from asia and will talk about what the u.s. has been too advanced security and prosperity in -- and that part of the world. president obama is on the road in hartford, connecticut today. he is excited to continue his push for gun control legislation. live coverage starts at 5:45 eastern this afternoon. more reaction from government leaders to the death of former british prime minister margaret thatcher continued this afternoon. former first lady nancy reagan in a statement said, "ronnie and margaret were political soulmates committed to freedom and resolve to end communism." also, reaction from secretary of state john kerry.

the thatcher died today at age of 87 from a stroke. a very political marriage, much like john and abigail. she would lobby in the halls of congress area she was always very careful to say, "my husband believes this and my husband advocates that peer co- -- advocates that." but she herself was doing the pitch. one of her husband tossed opponents said that she hoped one of her husband possible and said that europe that if james were elected president, she would take up costs like a normal woman. take up housekeeping like a normal woman. crack abigail polk.

we will take your comments and questions via facebook and twitter. c-span and c-span three, also soupy -- c-span radio and c- span.org. >the u.s. export import bank posted a conference on global competitiveness. panelists included michael or neil -- michael o'neill and retired general james jones. this hour-long discussion was part of the export import bank plu export import bank's conference in washington. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our first panel to remain competitive in global markets. we have ursula burns, michael o'neill, and general james jones.

>> good morning. my name is steve pearlstein. i'm a columnist at the washington post. i'm also a professor at george mason university. that is where i spend most of my time these days. it is a privilege to be here again. some of us were here last year. we have an interesting panel. mike is paid double today because he is doing two of these two times zero is still zero. >> just that i prepared for. >> good. filling in for larry summers. >> tough job. >> i will introduce each of the

speakers and they will briefly introduce what subject they would like to talk about. focus on one thing about competitiveness. will you guys on the end move in a little bit so we can see each other? feel free to jump in and ask questions of each other. i'm not the only one who has questions. we will start on my left. ursula burns. she joined xerox corporation as a summer intern in 1980. it is safe to say she has moved up the ladder. she is now chairman and chief executive. she's also vice-chairman of the president expert counsel.

next to her is general james jones. former comandant of the marines and security advisor to obama. he once worked for the chamber of commerce working on issues. to my right is the president of the center for american progress. shall we say, a centerleft think tank in town. she worked on the obamacare at the department of health and human services as an advisor. at one time she worked on senator clinton's presidential primary campaign. and michael, whom you know very well by now. if you can focus on month in,

what should we focus on? >> normally i would focus on education, but i'll don my hat and speak about exports and shipping them around the world in an effective way. >> ok. >> general jones, what is the thing you want to focus on? >> it is important to realize just how the world of energy figures in our future, both from a competitive aspect, but also a national aspect. there are many solutions to our problems. one of the bright and shining paths that we should follow is the energy path. rewiring energy and have the

u.s. leads throughout the world on the energy potential. this is one of the bright things we have to look forward to. >> i think the most critical element is human capital. looking at education from zero to 22 and 25. we are seeing increasing competition from asia and other countries that traditionally we did not see as competitors. i think that element of the education system is critical to long-term competitiveness. >> michael? >> a variation on your theme i'm afraid. >> glad i went first. >> i think i will focus on talent.

basically, how do we educate, train, develop our citizens? second, how to attract and retain people from overseas that come to the united states to work? they often have big contributions to make. they're frequently unable to stay because the policy issues and other factors. i will not talk about enabling that talent. that is what this conference is about. it will be much the same. talent is the key. >> ok. we're doing pretty well in exports. imports and exports go down and

recession and now both are going up. problem solved? >> not at all. when i joined the president's export council and talked about doubling exports in the next five years, the 2010 export grew 16.5%. in 2011 -- the trend is slowing if we don't fundamentally change. we can have some trade agreements signed. in order for us to meet the goal and continuing double-digit expansion, we need to address this problem.

we need to think about being enablers. trade agreements, broader enforcement -- >> enforcement so that we can get into markets that we are shut out of for reasons that are not surely about the trade treaty, but things that go beyond it? >> exactly. what is happening around the world is that as we are changing the game, we have signed trade agreements and countries figure out another way to limit exports. a lot of issues around trade. we have to have the agreement signed and have a serious enforcement mechanism, which we are improving, which is good. if you do not follow the rules, you are out. we have penalties. we have been infrastructure, a broad infrastructure that allows us to be ready to sell around the world.

it has to do with infrastructure and education. the entire system is a system that makes trade and exports that needs to be stepped up another notch to get that double-digit growth. >> the question about enforcement, it is a real dilemma for the united states. and the business community. they say, enforced these agreements. open these markets. we have a lot to sell, particularly in the area of services. and so, you know, other countries do what they do. they slow and drag on having informal ways of keeping us out. it is time to get tough. we are for free-trade and you're violating the of it.

if you're not willing to take some hits, you cannot really enforce these. how will we resolve that? >> this cannot be handled by any individual country going rogue. what they've expected is that somebody has wrong or sinned and they would lead the charge. one of the things the export council worked on and administration helps with is for us to force behind the words. a coalition of companies that would go against the country if there is intellectual property

violations in say software. have a coalition with the government will allow companies to be more brave and forceful. without that, it would be silly for companies to stand alone. >> does that mean like sign a complaint? >> we are working on mechanisms to make it work. how do you streamline the rules and to make it more public. together, business and government would go forth and say, yes, this is a violation. we will take our toys back just like you would take your toys back. >> the business community is right. we need to get tough with

country x. some say, you cannot do that because we have this thing going on with them. how do we resolve that? >> i think we're in a new world and the aspect of our competitiveness is center stage of our national security policy. so it is not just about -- as it was in the 20th century about the defense department and the state department and the national security council and everyone else is on the outside looking in. we have cyber security concerns, we have economic security concerns. one of the things that the president asked me to do was go to capitol hill and talk to them about the necessity of leadership in reforms. i think we have to move major pieces in our structure of our government so that american business is, in fact, brought

into the -- if you will, the situation room on the same level as other issues. we have to have -- those actions toward us have to have consequences. one of the things i've learned in the last decade or so, there's a real affinity of american private sector involvement, generally speaking. but at the governmental level, we're not where we need to be, i don't think in terms of helping american business succeed. >> the good news is there is a place now being made at the table to at least participate in the conversations early. i don't know how other export councils work, but this one i'm surprised we actually do work.

we meet with the administration, we meet with the state department, with meet with all the agencies to make sure they understand and we work together to move the ball forward. this is not going to be easy. we can't say we're going to be forceful against china tomorrow. we'll make small steps every day to make it easier for businesses to do business around the world for u.s. business to do business around the world. >> let's turn to human capital. what is it -- so education, everyone is for education. everyone knows we have an education problem and we've been talking about it until we're blue in the face. we're making some progress but i would not say anyone is happy with the pace of it. how do we get out of this rut? >> i think there are a few things. the u.s. is making marginal improvements but i think if you learn the lessons from around the world there are unique

challenges to the u.s. education system. if you look at what happens in finland or other nations. fin land has one of the best educational system in the world and they don't pay teachers dramatically more. but they think teachers as almost like business leaders. how do you attract the top talent to do the best in the classroom. they provide teachers a lot of autonomy in the classroom. we can learn from the private sector in terms of education because, you know, in most of our private sector in most areas in the u.s. life -- in the u.s. economic life if we're professionalizing a field we give them more autonomy and more accountability for success.

when you look at our higher education system, that is the best in the world, that is what we're doing. that is a big set of challenges. one thing we did at the center was how china and india are ramping up their investments and human capital. one thing we found was by 2030, china will have more college graduates than our entire work force. they are very much thinking about how their work force competes on manufacturing against our work force and innovation in a variety of areas. so when we think -- in washington it becomes sterile. >> you noticed? >> not just in education but when we think about how to move forward, you know, i think we're competing with countries that are looking at this, looking at

education as part of a whole fleet of areas. one of the issues that raises is china is moving asia to compete in a more international place. they are thinking of that, their education system that way as well. their education system is an asset of the state to make them more competitive over long term. it is not just making people happier and good citizens, it is about making them good competitors for the u.s. and the world. >> you don't think we do that? >> i think we actually shun thinking about education as a partnership between the government. we don't think strategically about education as an economic issue and a national economic issue. there's a lot of partisanship about the federal role around

education and, you know, what role we should have in terms of what we should test and etc. i think that core belief becomes more difficult and it is more challenged in a world where countries are competing at a different plane. >> so you're associated with the left side of the political spectrum. so let me ask you this question. >> obamacare, left -- >> you're on the right right now. >> that's true. >> would -- do you think that liberal democrats and the teachers' union would accept your formula, which i think is a good one, autonomy plus accountability.

the two a's. you want more autonomy you got it. but here's the accountability but we're going to be tough about that. >> i can't speak for everyone. we would, obviously. right now, we have -- we are creating accountability mechanisms that are rigid under mining autonomy. how do you get the best person in the business? how does google attract engineers? how do you attract business leaders? >> money. >> you might want to look -- because i know how he attracts them. >> i think part of the reason that people get more money because they can make individual decisions. >> they make a lot of autonomy. >> i think as we navigate

greater systems of accountability in our education system, i worry that we're actually, you know, we are repeating the industrial model in the 21st century in education when we need to move to different models. where individuals have autonomy and they are account ability. i think actually, right now they have accountability and no autonomy. so that would be a step up. >> another big issue in education is choice. students and parents ought to be able to take their public money, ecertainly, their voucher and be able to go to any school, public, private, and that sets up a competitive dynamic. are you in favor of that? >> well, you know, i'm in favor of what works. >> does that work?

>> every analysis that has been done of private school charters and even public school charters i'm a big fan of public school charters. they have not shown positive results. i don't think -- i think we should do what works. i would be totally open to these models if they succeeded but so far we don't have evidence of them succeeding. >> general, do you want to talk about energy? frack is going save us, right? >> i don't know if fracking will but with the right science and if it is done by people who are responsible, is certainly a viable option. >> what would you do -- what else would you do in energy to stimulate our exports? >> well, the first thing i think needs to be done is to recognize that we are now organized as a government to handle strategically the concept of

energy. we have just finished a three- year study, i was co-chairs in this study, so balanced all good guy partisan and a very, very good of the representation of the energy savings trying to come up with a strategic path for the future. if we don't do this we're going to be right back where we were. we have not had a strategic energy policy for the last 40 years. there is no such thing. the department of energy, the secretary of energy, this is not a criticism, this is a fact.

-he secretary of energy is not - the secretary of energy is the secretary of nuclear energy. in my view, the best thing for the president to do is to organize the executive branch so that energy is dealt with one single point of responsibility and accountability and that's the secretary of energy. just as the secretary of state handles foreign policy, secretary of defense of the defense policy. so it is important to say that, because if you don't have a strategic point in our government that is responsible to bring together the 15 or 16 different agencies that have a lot to say about energy and the 30-32 oversight agencies on capitol hill, we're not going to get there. point one, that is extremely important to do. i think you should have a senior director in the national

security council, i think we should have -- we also think we should have an energy q.d.r. review. we advocate for the fact that we need all of our energy, it would be a tragic mistake to say we've got shale gas and shale oil and we don't have to do anything else. we need to have a complete portfolio from wind and renewables. if we do this right we can move forward to advocating throughout the world and leading throughout the world on this very, very important subject that affects energy for everyone but also on our climate and everything else. it is a big way for the united states to lead dramatically in the 21st century. but the first thing we have to do is get our house in order. >> let's talk about getting our house in order for a bit. first of all, now i'm going to play the right wing.

this is american, general. we don't have strategies for anything. that's the beauty of america. the government doesn't have a strategy for business. business figures out what to do. the invisible hand does it. when we get into economic planning and we're moving toward russia. >> or china. >> or china. we don't do that. >> i certainly recognize that and i wouldn't dispute that. i agree with the fact that we do strategic thinking poorly. but somehow we muddle through. but this 21st century that we're in is one we created. we advocated for other countries to be like us, compete like us, bring the private sector forward and compete fairly. of course, we don't like it when other countries have a close parallel between their government and the business sector.

in some cases, it is not distinguishable. i'm not advocating that is where we should go. but there is nothing wrong, matter of fact it is good that the two sides come together and it shouldn't be too restrictive, it should not choke off the winners and the losers will be determined by the free market. if you can do, that i think we, by the way, with the complete agreement of the private sector that was represent ed around the table, if you read the report, there is way you can have a strategy that doesn't restrict, that doesn't limit the private

sector investment and allows the free market to compete. >> education is where the old model of, like, you know, the government stays far away just won't work. that is my opinion. we need private sector involvement more than that, they need to be the drivers and leaders but we need integrated strategy on education, we need one on energy, i think we have one on defense. this is place where there is a strong coordination -- so it can work. i think just because we didn't do in the past that is not a good reason to not do it in a going forward basis. the people around the world are trying to be like us and playing it more swiftly and a little bit better.

>> on that point, can i say, education is a great example of, sort of the middle ground, right? germany is doing well economically, it is not china. there's a free market, etc. germanny has had a real partnership between the elementary school system, the higher education system, and their businesses. they have a system that trains that really drives the work force, creates a work force of high-end manufacturers. they have engineers, well-paid engineers and their education system is partnered with the private sector to figure out the human capital needs of the private sector and drives the education system in that direction. is everyone forced to do certain

things? no, they direct them more than what we would but there is that partnership. when we look at the higher education system or the community compliege system there are some models that we want to learn from. we hear from the private sector that we have huge gaps. there are huge areas where people in silicon valley want to hire engineers and can't find them. maybe if there is more of a strategic partnership between the public and private sector on some of these issues we could be more productive overall. >> there are political issues on the planet right now that have private sector solutions. if you could bring those two together, the united states can retain its potion well into the 2 -- position well into the 21st century. >> give us an example. >> you have one in turkey,

afghanistan and it has to do with the transmission of oil and gas. turkey would like to wean itself from the dependence on russia energy. they would like a pipeline from the northern part of iraq and into turkey and into the mediterranean. the government of the kurdish region for its own reasons would like to have that pipeline built also because they get 17% of all revenues that go through any pipeline. baghdad, i think has an interest in getting its 83% of that and they could announce a pipeline being built from baghdad to the mediterranean. washington has a strategic interest in kind of being the arranger and the proposer and so i'm giving you a scenario that could, if all the players chose

to play nice g.o. politically would have huge economic ram my nation for the entire region. it could be that american companies would participate in that kind of development. >> so retaining and attracting talent, particularly, non- american talent do you want to talk about that or something else? >> no, i would like to talk about that. i share the views that it would be nice to come up with annum annumbrellla solution to this issue. based our success in coming up with umbrella solutions to any issue, i'm dubeous. it is something we need to work

on but i think it is difficult to accomplish. i think there are micro steps one can take that would significantly improve our situation. last year at this time, at this conference, manual was here talking about a partnership between the community colleges in chicago, businesses in chicago, trade associates, union, etc. that were really focused on changing the vick william of the community colleges to specifically focus on, not only the jobs of today but the jobs of the future. it is in its early days but there is an example of a fairly localized approach that would hopefully generate some good success. we have this odd situation where 750,000 of our students at universities are foreign. half of them are from china and india. you will not be surprised to learn many of them focus on science and math, technology, subjects that unfortunately,

have not been in the u.s. for some time. we need those jobs as we talked about. but we grant every year, i want to say 78,000 visas. so there are 750,000 students that we attract that come to our great universities that we find difficult to retain given that situation. it gets worse than that. of that number of visas, basically, no country can take more than 7%. so we've got india, china, 50% of the students in our universities, yet, constrained because of the 7% limitation.

again, their focus is on precisely the skills that we need. we've got -- >> why -- people have been talking about this for years. this seems like the easiest problem to solve and no one -- not too many -- either party is against the visas. what is the problem? >> what is the problem trying to figure out our economic problem? [laughter] it is obvious, isn't it? >> i'm asking you to answer it. i could answer it but i want you to answer it. >> well, i think the facts are pretty straight forward. is there the political will? is there the courage to take some of this stuff on? thus far, not. there was a discussion last year in the house about basically about giving 78,000 visas specifically to foreign graduates or universities providing they majored in math, science, etc.

is it law? i don't think it is law. >> not yet. >> but they are coming close to it. they are coming close to a deal. >> so this is something that everybody thinks, ok, this is a good idea. there is a little bit of a problem. the little bit of a problem is half of these visas go to india firms that use them to bring indian graduates over here to spend one or two years working in a call center at very low wages so they can go back and be able to do call centers back home. all we need is for -- to be frank about it, your friends in the republican party say we won't do that. [laughter]

i want you to know -- >> it is not that simple and straight forward. it really isn't. >> what is complicated. that seems to be causing the simple thing we don't want those visas used by indian outsourcing firms. we want it to be used for the issue that mike said. >> i think this is a problem very much like the problem that the general is talking about. the political will, this is not rocket science by any stretch of the imagination. we know who the people are, we know the types of jobs we want them in. we have other people interested in other immigration issues. the high-skilled immigration issue, ok let's keep them here. then there is the low-skilled immigration issue, which is a big disaster.

no one is going to give them -- >> so we're going to hold this hostage until we get this. so everything is a hostage? >> it is not problems -- we're not discussing the problem. we're discussing the deal. this whole thing about the deal gets, i think everybody is like what are we talking about, let's fix the problem? that is not easy. >> you said we need an export policy that is better. --e germ talked about we need the general talked about we need someone really at the table, the inner table at the white house who represents business. ok, so there is a report and says let's take commerce and take a few other agencies and put them under one officer and is the economic development director of the united states as the way most governors are the

economic director of their state and let this person be there at the table. what is the immediate reaction of the two ranking members of the senate finance committee? no, we will oppose that until we die. that means my committee loses jurisdiction over the ustr. how to do we get the system out of these petty narrow things to focus on the big issues? none of this stuff is complicated. we can do this. how do we do this? >> i think part of the issues is that we elect some of these guys.

[laughter] >> we do. >> part of -- [applause] >> i think we -- >> i'm sorry, are you a democrat? [laughter] >> do you know what i am? i am the only living rockefeller republican. >> i'm a republican from massachusetts. >> it's the same thing. but anyway. we don't have a party so we had to -- i had to join one of the others. so, you know, this is getting to be a real problem. if we can't do the easy ones, there are hard issues. but if we can't do the easy ones then we have a problem in general. >> i think there are things that the administration can do. obviously, it is great to consult with congress but they can do in the interest of the country. these kinds of reorganizations, if you will, are good. they have to be done.

they reflect environment that we're in. a sure sign of decline for a company or country, is when they can't change itself to meet the environment they are in, they don't compete. there's a lot of people labeling this era the decline of the united states. i don't believe that. we've always managed to figure out ways out of previous predicted declines but this is a serious moment. and we have opportunities to do the right things and we have to do them. with all due respect to the congress, somebody gave me advice years ago, in washington, if you want to succeed you should be for what is going to happen. the private sector is going to force this to happen one way or the other. >> i don't want to have us all be completely cynical with this conversation. i think that immigration reform is an area where there is

optimistic signs. if there is any issue resolved, it would be immigration reform and it may not be the perfect resolution but it will be more of a system. we'll be keeping more of the graduates here. look, i think the challenge in washington is really, you know, i think it is easy to say people are done and petty and stupid and we seem to have this conversation every day. but, i think the challenge they are struggling with is the parties are farther apart than they have ever been in any other era. there are deep differences on the role of government and wlit makes any sense. let's remember, we were having a debate last year if we should have an export bank. so businesses are lined up on

that issue, yet there is a sentimental question about the role of government in this. the question of the role in government took place in an era where a lot of the world is shifting the other way. they are having -- countries are taking their own capital and investing in industries to compete against us in a way it is hard to win. so we can get cynical about these debates but i think there are principles animating it and the country is polarized, even after this election where one side won a lot of seats. we still have the level of polarization. we're electing these people so that is part of the challenge. >> i think business is far from cynical about this. far from cynical. one of the greatest things about being in business you don't have to spend a lot of time here.

so if there is a problem in education, businesses engage locally with educational institutions and try to do the best they can. what we found is they engage a lot. a lot of money, time, human capital, engaged in local grade school all the way up through universities and not necessarily effectively. so we formed an organization that is called change the equation to get companies pointed to more effective ways to use the money they are already using. there is a lot of work around the table as well. cynicism is not the name of the game when you try to go out and operate a business or live every day, we work to solve problems. i think all that -- i'm saying that a little help from government would be nice. but it if -- if it does not come we can do it but it could be

without a turbo charge behind us. we can try to lay a system that fundamental helps small to large companies exports more of their goods and services. that is the whole goal of the president's council. it is an infrastructure that can actually work. there are private companies say we're not going to wait to see going to debate until hell freezes over with the keystone pipeline. i don't think they are sitting back. i don't think there is cynicism until we come here and talk about the problems here. when we go back to our home bases we work and try to solve problems. >> let's have questions from you on this very wise and experienced panel.

i can see you. so there's a microphone there and she will find you over there. all the way over there. oh, that's another microphone. no questions? >> this is always an odd process. >> i'm angela from atlanta, georgia. i am a small business. i love what you just said when you talked about businesses going back to their own home base and still working in their communities to be able to change the problems. you also stated that when they try to take away the bank, the businesses came together and spoke up and there was change. so i love this panel. this is great.

why not take the same concept and use the platform of our export/imports and all the businesses that are here and take on issues one at a time and let all the businesses come behind it and the money? >> anyone want to take a stab at that? i could stake a stab at that but it would be very controversial. >> i'm going to start. there is a vehicle that is trying to do that, obviously, all the issues are, you know, too numerous to take on. one of the things i'm pleased about is that we're stepping back from a million issues and try to line up around some key issues, education, energy,

immigration reform, and try to get the voice of business -- this is clearly a bigger business forum. so they can have a common voice and a consistent voice around key problems. so when x.m. bank, when we had the silly discussion about the x.m. bank, businesses did weigh in very activity front and behind-the-scenes but we did weigh in and make it clear on what we wanted to have happen. there is work on that as well as education and immigration reform. on cyber security there is are things moving forward and it takes a long time. it just takes a long time. >> i think the short answer to your question is, large parts of

the business lobby in washington became partisan. >> yeah. >> some people who ran those organizations decided they could get more if they align themselves with the republican caucus and the house of the representatives. for a while they did. but that wound up poisoning the well in a way that now makes it difficult for those business organizations to be part of the solution because they are perceived by democrats as being in the pockets of the republicans. that has been a problem in the last decade. it was a strategy that worked and then it worked too well. now it is hard to pull back from that strategy and be so -- the business organizations to be what they usually were, which was quite bipartisan and provided the political balance for the conversation here.

they are not the kind of issues that people talk about in the country, how to treat h.b.1 visas was not something they were talking about in indiana. but that is how those things get resolved. until recently, like very recently, the business community was not providing that. i think they have an immigration and they said -- the chamber sat down with the labor unions and they ironed out a few things. that was unusual in the last 10 years. that that conversation did not go on 10 year guys but 20, 30 years ago it went on all the time. any other questions? >> i'm way over here. i asked this question the other day as well. since it is global, keeping the economy competitive in the

global market, in my opinion you need to have a weak dollar. if you agree with that, is there anything we can continue to do to keep the dollar at a lower rate so we can export more competitively? >> so this is a fairly standard argument that our currency is overvalued because it is the world's currency and among other things, it is better than the alternatives. but it causes a problem for us in terms of our balance between imports and exports. who agrees with that idea? >> i absolutely agree. >> go ahead. >> i think it is very -- look, some countries have manipulated their currency, no question about it. for a country like ours to manipulate the dollar would be difficult indeed. the more you do it -- clearly

exports is down. we have a lot of people who own our debt and the notion that it is worth less over time is not particularly attract pitch >> so it might help in the short term but it will be expensive for us to get our debt financed in the future and it may offset the economic benefit? >> yes, there is a real conflict there. >> he covered it all. i agree. as a company leader we try to stay far away foreign policy. we're going to make the best product, provide the best service, and go for it and someone else can deal with the currency issues. we would prefer if other countries did not have a duality in their currency or have ways to make it fundamentally unfair. we won't get too involved in the currency manipulation.

>> ok.re was a question there. there is a question there. of the education front, i turned on the tv when i went to the hotel last night. we're looking at individuals. my family wants to see my child be the best. as a community, it is irrelevant when it comes to educating. i see in some european countries, public schools is where the richest people send their children. here, in the community i live in, three-quarters of our tax system goes to support the school systems. 60 percent send their kids to

private schools. to go to a public school, you are just wasting your time. where are we going to change the focus to make public education of central focus of people that would like to bring their kids into the public school where they have the power to make it teachers teach properly and get the same skill. at the american public school system compared to the best -- do have power schools are on a continuum. our best public schools are as good as the rest of the world. it is the challenge that our worst schools are like the school's worst in the world. thou literally the worst in the world. the challenge we have is the middle schools are doing pretty poorly compared to the middle schools of singapore, etcetera.

that makes you look at what are the best public schools doing? it is the case of the best ,ublic schools in massachusetts minnesota -- which i would just add are states that are heavily unionized. they do have the best schools in the country. they have property taxes, and they have low gold support supporting them. that leads to equity issues, but they have strong, local support for the schools. the wealthiest people in the community, as well as the middle class and lower income people all send their children to those schools. i went to a public school and bedford massachusetts. there is no private school. pretty much as the engineer,

ceo, everyone send their children to public schools. i think we have this challenge. you cannot say to a parent, go to an inferior -- inferior school when you can afford not to. that just will not happen in the united states of america, and as a parent, i would not do that to my child. i send my children to public school, but they are good schools, and i am proud to do that. the publicto improve school system and make it so that parents want to send them. you see this in new york city. there is a concerted effort that schools and middle class neighborhoods that kids are going to in brooklyn, higher income, lower income all send their children to those schools. they have systems where you are creating a structure where everyone is invested in the school that will build slowly over time, and then wealthy parents have the option and hopefully will send their

children to those schools. they work and compete as well as any other school in the world. >> so there is a good example where we probably at some level think we ought to have a strategy, and maybe we ought to have a strategy in this country where everyone sensed their kids to the same school, but this is torica -- sends their kids the same school, but this is america. this is sort of our problem we think we know what the solution is but it runs up against the political philosophy. >> two are two extremes. >> they are not even on the same playing field. having everyone goes to the same

issue is not the issue for your -- having everyone go to the same school is not the issue. everyone should have minimum standard of performance. >> of the argument is unless everyone is invested in the schools and a personal way, the bad and mediocre will not get better because they are on a downward spiral or anyone who can take their kids out, does, and that weakens the whole system around it. >> i do not agree with it. go to the harlem children school. parents are involved. some are not. the good they have to be involved. >> someone has to be involved for these kids to go to the school. the community people go to the badol and a fairly community. abouts about, as much will and not being embarrassed to say that we are not doing

well than saying we are going to fix it. i was watching a news program about teachers cheating, which was interesting. if what you want to do is educate the child then actually having to cut their child -- have their child have a good result is not really the result it seems kind of an oxymoron, right? the problem we have now is we literally have a view on i think the wrong customer. the customer is not the teacher. the customer is not the parent. the parent is the paper. the customer is their kid. we do not have inland. we have people from all over the place because of different languages, all different backgrounds. we have to define a system that looks community by community. it will not be the same

everywhere. it will be public. some people will send their kids to private schools. it will all be there. you have to make sure all of them are reasonable. we need to treat them very much like we treat any other problem, which is what is the problem, how will we solve it, into is the customer? the customer is the child. it is not the administrator, union -- it is the kid. if we think about it from that perspective, we will think about a way to serve the kid. long verdes, shorter days, different days. i think we get ourselves really confused and make this political and we should do what germany does -- we should do a lot of what these countries do, but we also have to realize we are not these countries. in space our schools

are not competing. there are a lot of ingredients soane the harlem children is run, but the question is if upper income families are pulling their children out of public schools -- we see this in cities, it does leave fewer taxpayer dollars for those resources, so how do you make those schools attractive? those schools declined. how do you make those schools attractive, too? i agree the best way to do that is to focus on what the child is learning. that is the number-one agreement. that is the number one standard. how do we get there is the issue that politics involves itself in. panel.s thank our

we are at the end of our time. [applause] >> live now for the center for strategic and international studies in washington for defense secretary ashton carter. he will discuss the role the u.s. plays an age of us pacific region. the asia-pacific region. >> this is the topic of the day. he has undertaken this strategic management review. all of these issues are very timely. that is reflected by some much interest in the room. you are here for the secretary. let me ask you to join in your applause, ashton carter. [applause] john, for giving me the opportunity to be here at this wonderful institution that

you run so ably. i have learned so much from john throughout my career. something tells me there is something the apocryphal about that. i have had a great admiration for john for many years, one that has only deepened in my current role where i can fully appreciate what he accomplished as a deputy deckers -- secretary of defense. you made it look easy, and i appreciate your inviting me to be here. also want to thank the chair for a u.s.-india policies who made this event possible and for whom i have learned so much about this region for so long. thank you. as john mentioned, i did recently returned from a trip to asia that took it to japan, south korea, philippines, and indonesia where i attended the

jakarta international -- international defence dialogue. the purpose was to visit with the forces deployed there. also, to make sure our forces, allies, and partners of the region understand that we are serious about the defense mission there. that we will walk the walk, and not just talk the talk. this was my second trip to asia since president obama announced a new strategic concept for the united states. it followed recent visits to the region by president obama, secretary clinton, secretary penetta and the national security adviser, all of whom underlined the central importance of the asia-pacific to the united states and the commitments to make sure the region remain safe, secure, and prosperous. later this week secretary kerry

schina,sit seoul, and south korea. our forces out there are superbly commanded by sam loclier and j.d. thurman. i say this because i think it's important to point out how much time, energy, and international capital and resources we are investing in the rebalance to the asia pacific. as the president has said, our investment in the region will continue to grow in the years to come. this connection our rebalance asia is mostly a cold -- political and economic concepts, not political. given my role as deputy

secretary of defense, i will naturally comment on security aspects today. first, i would like to briefly address the devolving security situation on the korean peninsula. at the north koreans have been determined to create a crisis atmosphere. just because they have a habit of a building in extreme rhetoric does not mean we did not take the situation seriously. as we have demonstrated through the actions of the past few weeks, the united states is committed to maintaining peace and security. we are vigilantly monitoring the situation. we are in close contact with south korean civilian and military counterparts, as well as with the governments of japan, china, and russia. our position has been and remains that north korea should cease provocative threats immediately. north korea's nuclear activities

are in clear violation of u.n. security council resolutions and international commitments. we believe north korea should live up to the commitments and refrained from provocative behavior. to this end we are working with friends and allies around the world to employ at -- and integrated response to these unacceptable provocation, which include the security council resolutions with unprecedented the strong sanctions. additional unilateral sanctions of great effect. , on the results of which will to be leaving north korea further isolated from the international community. in the security sphere, the united states remained steadfast in the defense commitments to the republic of korea. together we are taking important steps to advance the military capabilities and did dance homeland and alliance security. in particular, we will continue

to provide the extended deterrence offered by the nuclear umbrella, and we will insure that all of our capabilities remain available to the alliance. gelsecretary ha announced, we are taking actions to strengthen our military alliance. these include the deployment of 14 additional deployments and alaska. provide improved early warning and tracking of any missile launched from north korea to the united states or japan. in recent weeks, we have also raised -- moved the guided missile destroyers uss john mccain and decatur to locations in the western pacific were there poised to respond to any missile threats to allies or territory. -- where they are positioned to respond to any missile threats

to allies or their territory. deploy up ballistic missile defense system to guam as a precautionary move to strengthen the regional defense posture against the north korean missile threat. in addition to the measures, we recently signed a new joint counter provocation plan with the republic of korea to enhance coordination and response in the event of a north korean provocation and to mitigate the risk of miscalculation. in annualticipating military exercises with south korea, including full eagle and key resolve to make sure the alliance is operationally ready to meet the security challenges that confront us in the region. as the president has made clear, there is a path open to you -- to north korea to peace and economic opportunity, but to get on the past, north korea must

abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons and abide by international commitments. with that, let me return to the broader theme of today's discussion, which is how we are implementing the defense rebalance across the asia- pacific region. i would like to be providing strategic context. after a decade of necessary intense preoccupation on two wars of a particular kind in iraq in afghanistan, one that is finished and one that will wind down to an enduring presence over the next two years, we are turning a strategic corner. we are turning our attention on the challenges and opportunities that will define our future. we know that many -- what many

of these challenges are, continued turmoil in the middle east, in during threats like weapons of mass destruction, and a range of new threats and new domains like cyber. we also see great opportunities. the most consequential of which is to shift the great weight of the department of defense, both intellectual and physical, to the asia pacific region to reinforce the long-standing commitments there. the logic of our rebalance is simple, the asia pacific theater has enjoyed peace and stability for over 60 years. this has been true, despite the fact there is no formal over arching security structure, no nato to make sure historical wounds are healed. time, first japan rose and prospered, then south

korea rose and prospered, and then many nations in southeast asia rose and prospered, and now china and india rise and prosper. welcomed byhas been the united states. in none of this was a foregone conclusion when you consider where the asia-pacific region was at the end of world war ii. while the asian political and economic miracle was realized first and foremost by the hard work and talent of the asian people, it was enabled by the enduring principles that the u.s. has stood for in the region, which we believe are essential to peace, prosperity, and security. these include a commitment to free and open commerce, of just international order of rights and responsibilities of nation, and fidelity to the rule of law , open access by all to the

shared domains of sea, air, space, and now cyberspace, and the principle of resolving conflict without the use of force. also enabled, and this is the theme of my remarks today, by the pivotal role of u.s. military power and presence in the region. we believe are strong security presence in asia pacific has provided a critical foundation for these principles to take root in for the prosperity to occur. we intend to continue to provide this for decades to come. our partners in the region will come leadership and robust engagement and committed to answering the call. it is good for us, and good for everyone in the region. it includes everyone in the

region. it is not aimed at anyone. no individual country or group of countries. with this as background, i would like to explain the various features of the defense rebalance to the region that is reflected in the first force structure decisions we have made and are making, that is what we keep and what we retire. second, presence in posture, that is where we put things and what we do with them, the most visible part of the rebalance. next, investments. not just in technology and new weapons systems, but human capital as well. then, innovations and operational plans and tactics, and finally, and perhaps most importantly, the work we're doing to strengthen the alliances and partnerships in the region.

let me begin by describing how we are shifting the force structure to the region. i will start with the navy. as we draw down from afghanistan the navy will release combatants and and and chile -- and eventually carriers and reconnaissance and their associated processing capabilities. already signals reconnaissance aircraft have moved to centcom to paycom. the navy will release fire scuds from afghanistan and several aircraft are available for reappointment. hasaddition, navy pier 3 conducted surveillance in the middle east for the past decade and will return. the navy is also adding a forward-deployed naval force to guam in this fiscal year 2013.

the navy shifting overall posture to the asia-pacific region in such a manner as secretary panetta announced last year, resulting in 60 percent of the naval assets being assigned to the region by 2020, a substantial and historic shift. the navy is accomplishing this in three main ways. first, the navy will be permanently basing four destroyers in spain to provide ballistic defense to european allies. previously this was performed by 10 destroyers that rotated from the u.s. to the mediterranean. the six destroyers that will not be released will shift deployment to the asia-pacific region. the four ships in spain will continue to provide the same amount of missile defense coverage for european allies.

destroyers and amphibious ships will deploy to the asia-pacific region. third, the navy -- maybe will generate more forward-presence by fielding ships such as the joint high-speed vessel and a combat ship that i mentioned and the new, local landing platforms in a forward-staging bases that uses rotating military or civilian crews. the air force, meanwhile, capitalizing on the inherent speed, range, and flexibility in the region will also shift capacity from afghanistan to the asia pacific, including assets

like the reaper, u2 and global hawk. the air force will allocate space, cyber, tactical aircraft and bomber forces from the u.s. to asia-pacific region with little investment as 60 percent are are ready station there, including 60% of combat-coated f-22's. as operations in afghanistan end, more b1's become available. this will augment those already on a repetition of -- rotational presence. the capability to provide round- trip missions will remain a valuable option.

the army and marine corps also have an important role to play. the army has 91,000 soldiers and civilians assigned to the asia pacific and maintains a forward presence of eight active for grade combat teams, 12 batteries brigadeots -- active combat teams, 12 batteries of patriots. the paycom commander regains controls of the other soldiers assigned to the region. as part of this regionally- aligned rotational concept, army units assigned to paycom will focus on specific mission profiles, such as bilateral and

trilateral training exercises and building partnership capacity. i should also add during the months of sequestration and beyond, the army is preferentially protecting the readiness and modernization of the more than 19,000 soldiers we have in south korea. so that they are able to decisively respond to any north korean provocation. the marines also have an important role to play in the pacific. roughly 18,000 marines are forward-deployed in the region. split between the fighter squadron, the third marine expeditionary force, and are one, the new rifle company. the marines have also put an additional infantry battalions for a total of three on the ground and will put another there this fall. these are rotational that will move in and out of the western pacific every three months.

all of this will be accompanied prowler squadron and more attack helicopters. i should also mention there are 5000 marines in hawaii. pacificity, the asia- region will soon see more of the army, rewrite -- marine corps in special operations forces now that they are coming home to the pacific from iraq and afghanistan. in addition to shifting our own force structure, we are modernizing and enhancing the four were present across the region in cooperation with allies and partners. let me start with north east asia. i have already mentioned the work we were doing with south korea. in japan, we have added aviation capability with upper mc22 offspray deployment. we've upgraded the missile

defense posture with the deployment of the second radar, and we are working to revise the defense guidelines with japan to meet the challenges of the 21st century. and as announced by a the secretary last week, the united states and japan have achieved an important milestone in the effort to realign the marine corps presence in okinawa. moving forward with this initiative send a clear signal that our posture will be operationally resilience and politically sustainable for the foreseeable future. in addition to strengthening the presence in northeast asia, we are enhancing our presence in southeast asia in the indian ocean region as well. in this regard, it is important to underscore we are not only pacificcing two the asia- -- asia-pacific but within, and in recognition of the growing importance of southeast asia and south asia to the region as a

whole. emphasizing humanitarian emphasis in disaster relief, maritime domain awareness, capacity building, and multilateral exercises. in australia, for example, the first company of marines rotated through last year, a key for step toward using the presence to engage bilateral and multilateral exercises as partners of the region. in the philippines, we are working with our full and equal partner to enhance the capacity of the philippines armed forces, increase rotational presence, and capitalize on other opportunities for cooperation. in singapore, the first of the four combat ships will arrive later this month, providing key capability to work bilaterally and multilateral with partners in the region. these are but a few examples of

how we are expanding our presence and that part of the region. next, we are giving priority in the investments to the development of platforms and capabilities that have direct applicability to the asia- pacific region, all the while preserving and integrating the counterinsurgency and special operations capability we of work so hard to develop over the past decade in iraq and afghanistan. these new investments include the va class nuclear-powered submarine, including the submarine itself in the new payload module for cruise missiles, as well as the maritime surveillance aircraft and the anti-submarine helicopter. together, these investments will help the navy sustained the undersea dominance. the navy is also fielding the broad area maritime surveillance and search to expand their range

in theacity for isr region. electronic aircraft and jammer with their frequency range and increased agility. these provide extensive electronic or four -- where fair capability. in the air force, while we have made reductions worldwide, by removing some of the older where single-purpose aircraft to make way for newer aircraft, we have made no changes in the tactical air posture for the asia-ups -- asia-pacific region. we continue to invest the fifth r,neration joint fighte tanker replacement and a host of isr replacement. the army continues to invest in capabilities that are being deployed.

at the dod will wide level, we are protecting investments in future focus capabilities that are so important to this region at such as cyber, certain science and technology investments, and space. inaddition to investing technical capabilities, we are investing in people, language and culture skills, regional and strategic affairs to ensure that we cultivate the intellectual capital that will be required to make good on our rebalance. with regard to the military installations, we are making critical investments in training ranges and infrastructure, including in the and [inaudible] . we are focused on delivering capacity, a managing resources and following through on

investments. secretary gates and panetta held regular video teleconferences. some of you remember them. the commanders and all of the key players from the pentagon would work on those very urgent problems associated with both of those theaters. given the priority of the rebalance, the secretary decided to use the same model for paycom, a model that secretary hagel has adopted now as well. it is a model that provides continued attention and focus on the region. to support the secretary, i have been convening a series of working sessions of the acting group, the principal management forum and the department, that are specifically focused on the rebalance to the asia pacific. so we're watching every dollar, every ship, and every aircraft to implement the rebalance successfully.

we also recognize that as the world is changing quickly, the operational plans need to change. changing them accordingly. we are therefore taking into account new capabilities and operational concepts, advanced capabilities of potential adversaries and global threat assessments. finally, partnerships. these many elements of our u.s. rebalance, the u.s. ones i have talked about are only part of the rebalance. we also see, as we have for decades, to build partnerships in the region that lever ship -- challengescritical and realized emerging opportunities. i have already mentioned the work we're doing with our allies and japan, korea, australia, and the philippines. but we are building partnerships

with many others also. for example, last november we work with the treaty ally, thailand, to update the u.s. joint vision statement for the first time in 50 years. zealand, the signing of the washington declaration and associated policy changes have opened up new avenues for the defense cooperation in areas of maritime security and disaster relief and peacekeeping support. we have resumed working to work in military operations and working to make sure they support the ongoing and dynamic reforms. with the vietnamese, we are expanding cooperation as set forth in a new memorandum of understanding. maritime security, search and rescue, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. in malaysia, indonesia, we are

similarly working to build partner capacity and conduct maritime security and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. with china, we have invited the chinese to participate in the exercise, and are delighted to have accepted. we seek to strengthen and grow our military to military relationship with china. commence rate with our growing economic and political relationship, a building in sustaining a positive and constructive relationship with china is essential to the success of our rebalancing strategy. finally, india, a key part of the rebalance, and more broadly, an emerging power we believe will help determine the broader security and prosperity of the 21st century with others. our security interests with

india converge on maritime security, a broader regional issues, including the look east policy. we are also working to deepen defense cooperation, moving beyond purely defense trade towards a technology sharing and co-production. multilaterally we recognize the importance of strengthening regional institutions that play an and the bridge against that play an indispensable role. in this regard, we have made ministerial meetings a priority for secretaries. especially the ozzie on defense secretary's meeting. defense secretary meeting. framework for regulating the conduct of parties in the south china sea.

we would welcome china's active participation in negotiations on it. our position is clear and consistent, we call for restraint and for a diplomatic resolution. we oppose provocation, we oppose coercion, we oppose the use of force. we do not take sides when it comes to competing territorial and historical claims, but we do take the side of a peaceful resolution of disputes in a manner consistent with international law. we are also deeply engaged in exercises planned this year, including humanitarian and disaster relief exercise that will be posted by at counterterrorism exercise that we are co-sponsoring in indonesia. a maritime security exercise code-chaired by malaysia and australia. -- co-chaired.

as we work to build partnerships and asia, we will complement them with alliances in europe. i mentioned a forward-facing of the destroyers and route to spain. we have established an aviation department in poland to more closely to train with allies' air forces. we will place land-based defense systems in romania in 2015. we will redefine the presence in nato response force with a steady rotation of u.s. army forces to europe to maintain the trans-atlantic military links and cement tremendous inner opera ability gains we've made with allies and partners in that part of the world over the past decade of operations together. as we rebalance the transatlantic bonds become even more important as we face, and challenges outside of europe. there is much that goes into

the rebalance. thate close by noting there are those that have concerned about, and perhaps some that have hope for a theory that our rebalance will not be lasting, or that it is not sustainable. i am a physicist, and therefore i put backs against syria. let me tell you why this theory does not fit the facts. the rebalance will continue, and in fact, a gain momentum, for two reasons. first, u.s. interests in the region are enduring. be the economic and political presence. this is accompanied by values of democracy, freedom, human rights, civilian control of the military, and respect for the sovereignty of nations that

america has long stood for, and that human beings will come and relate to. so our interest in staging a pivotal force in the region will, we believe, be reciprocated. second, we have the resources to accomplish the rebalance. some who wish to question the rebalance to the asia-pacific theater point to the seemingly endless debate in washington about the u.s. budget. and wonder whether all of this can be accomplished. i am interested to hear this because i am more cumbersome to listen to people question why the u.s. spends more on defense than the next 16 largest defense in the military -- in the world combined. this is true in fact and will not change much in the coming years. it is also worth noting most of the rest of the money the world

spends on defense are countries that are allies of france and the united states. these levels of defense spending are reflection of the amount of responsibility that the u.s. and friends and allies share for providing peace and security. you may also wonder whether the sequester will change the facts and a significant way. it will not. here is why. intended tos never be implemented and is very disruptive, because it gives us very little managerial flexibility in where we take the budget adjustments that we have to take this year. wherever we have flexibility, we are favoring and protecting the rebalance. we continue to review and revise plans for escalope -- executing 2013 budget and the face of sequester, and also the face of this rich -- the increased cost

of afghanistan campaign. back in january i gave direction about what is exempt from or protected from sequestration, and the services and components are applying that guidance. it explicitly direct the protection, wherever possible, of activities related to the rebalance this year. the main point is the arbitrary cut that sequestered imposes under the budget control act are contemporary lasting through october of this year. in other words, sequester is an artificial and self-inflected political problem, not structural. hopefully the turmoil in gridlock will end in the u.s. can get back to what you might call normal budget process. when it does, congress and the president will decide what the budget will be in the years beyond fiscal year 2013.

the president has been clear about holding defense spending steady in the long run or reducing by a few percentage points, especially by improving efficiency in defense spending. withrastic cuts that began sequester this year were extended -- if the district -- began withs sequester the sheer were extended it would be 10%. none of these political scenarios changes the mass i described earlier. the u.s. defense rebalance to the asia-pacific is not in jeopardy. that said, there is obviously considerable uncertainty about where the overall budget agreement that is needed to end the current turmoil, will lead. what is clear to us in dod is we need to think and act ahead of

this uncertainty and not in reaction to it. just the it is not budget but strategic necessity that requires us to examine and reexamined the defense and a fundamental way. strategically, as i said, we are turning a corner after 10 years of war. we need to master the security challenges that will define our future. and, as you know, i believe deeply in need to improve the way we spend the taxpayer defense dollar. all -- always striving for what i call better buying power since i was undersecretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistics. for all these reasons, secretary hagel asked me to lead a strategic choices and management review working with german dempsey and all the leadership of the department to examine the choices that underlie the

defense strategy, posture, and investments, including all past assumptions. the review will define the major strategic choice is an institutional challenge is affecting the defense posture in the decade ahead that must be made to preserve and adapt management under a wide range of future circumstances that could result from a comprehensive deficit reduction deal. or the persistence of the cuts that began with this year's sequester. will frame the secretaries guidance for the fiscal 2015 budget and will ultimately be the foundation for the defense review due to congress in february 24 teen. as the secretary said last week at the national defense university, the goal of the review is to ensure we can better execute the strategic guidance, including three balance to the asia-pacific.

reblance to the asia- pacific. it is important to stress this is not measured only by comparing budget levels. the end of the war in iraq reduction in afghanistan allow us to shift the great weight of effort from these wars to the stabilizing presence in asia- pacific region. next, this weight has accumulated over decades of u.s. defense spending. so you have to consider the nation's defense investment over time. it takes decades to build a military capability of the kind the u.s. has pier yen probably most importantly, another feature of the u.s. military today is operational experience is unrivaled, including such attributes as the ability to work constructively with

partners, to accuse intelligence and operations, to operate jointly among the services, to support forces with logistics'. all of these skills honed in iraq and afghanistan. these reasons, enduring values and increasing military power, the united states can and will succeed in rebalancing to the asia pacific and the years to come. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] deputy secretary carter, thank you for those remarks. it is great to have you here. you can see the turnout, a great

audience and few members of the press and the back. i do not know if you can see them. this is on the record. did you know that? >> i did. >> did you also know we are doing live tweeting? >> i don't. ither, but iweet ether would say the lead of what we just heard would be, u.s. rebalance to asia last thing and sustainable and not in jeopardy. you can use these, by the way. two other tweets. second would be rebalance primarily a political and economic one, not a military one, but lots of details on the ladder. finally, a deputy secretary to asia-pacific, rebalance not

named at -- not aimed at anyone. so, with those attempts at a summary, i would like -- it. maybe we should start doing that. i would like to turn to audience. we hubbub but the minutes regrettably. i like to ask you to wait for the microphone. i would like you to identify yourself and your affiliation baseball are back in season, right? i would like you to refrain from any long windup before you deliver the question. just go straight to the question, and only one question. with that, be prepared. we have people that will come with the microphones. i would like to do something that is the prerogative of the chair.

this gives me a chance, not surprisingly, to ask about where india relates to the rebalance? about theur comments partnerships. you also referred to india being a key part of the rebalance. it was called a linchpin in that strategy. these are all good ways to connect to the rebalance in india. i would like to ask you very quickly, what does this mean? what are the practical steps you would like to see to make this work? >> very good question. the thing i think i point to that is very much on my mind is -- i'm sorry. to -- there isnt much you can point to in the u.s./india security

relationship, and you are right, and no one knows this more than is destined to be a close partner of the united states. wheat just share so much in the way of values and of -- aspirations. -- we just share so much in the way of values and aspirations. that has nothing to do with defense or military but will be reflected there. one area of particular importance work i think we make building quickly is in the indian military capability. they do not want to do it just by buying things. closeant to do it would and code- corp. production. we have examples of that that

we're doing with the indians in that way. the secretary when he was there a year ago discuss this with the national security advisor there and came back and ask the deputy secretary of defense to take it from there. i have my instructions in that regard. i think co-production and technology development are the watchwords within india. that will not only build the indian power capability and power of the indian military but bring us closer together. >> a question right here have playback. again, your name and affiliation, please. aimedn you say it is not at anyone, and get the sense you do not always by that. you add to that some chinese, enters and state media telling us that they think even u.s.

deployments during this north korean crisis in response to that are the things that might be aimed at china. my question is, how to use address -- how you address those concerns when you do talks with china? >> obviously the things that we are doing in response to north korean provocations are just that, response to north korean provocations. i think china could play, and i wish they would play, a larger role in influencing the north koreans to stop the provocations. china has more influence than any other country over north korea. 's behavior isa causing not just the united and causingthers others to take action.

the chinese causing them an easy way they do not like to see, which is to talk to the north koreans about stopping the provocations. more broadly, the rebalance, as i indicated earlier, is the perpetuation of the pivotal american military role in the asia-pacific region, which has had the effect, as i said, it of providing for the peace and stability that has allowed the countries of asia, a first japan, southeast asia, and now china and india, to develop politically and economically in a climate that has been free from conflicts. that is a good thing. that has been of benefit to china in my judgment as well. i think that is the best proof

that the u.s. military presence in u.s. rebalance is not aimed at anyone. it has allowed all of the political and economic development to take place, and we welcome that. we have a very strong political relationship with china. that is the main thing. it grows every day. our military to military relationship with china is also important and grows every day. i mentioned rim pac in te the speech. >> thank you. you are one of the few u.s. officials that has traveled to korea.

is there more the u.s. can and must do? are you seeing a change in the rhetoric from north korea over the past couple of weeks that gives you hope that things are actually cooling off and slowing down? there is a lot that is counter- productive. they're not all u.s. actions. i mentioned the u.n. security council led sanctions that are unprecedented. i mentioned actions and statements of others around the world. what we're doing, as i indicated and gave you several examples, a great deal defensively to protect ourselves and to protect our allies and partners in the region. so all of this is just further isolate north korea. all of this just galvanizes

opposition to north korea and results in the kind of pressure that i think you see reflected and the security council resolutions. to go over here in the front. >> thank you for coming. partnershipd capacity, which is now more important and ever. we're still dating with outdated support system. we never defined controls for nato. what kind of structural or policy fixes are necessary for that part to work? >> it is a great question, and you named two in your question. one is export controls reform. those of you who know me as under secretary know that i am a mad dog on that subject as

secretary gates was, secretary theetta and hagel and president and so forth. this is something everyone agrees need to revise the export control system. it is a complicated problem because there are other agencies of we in the department of defense have improved a bit need to continue to improve the speed and the technical awareness by which we make export control decisions. wethe second part was how are organized for building partnership capacity. there is an area where we can improve. i take your point of suggestions as i always do. >> the lady here on the second

roll. -- on the second row. >> australian national university. how important is it for japan to embrace collective self-defense for the rebalance to work effectively? it depends on an increasing awareness of their own and theires increasing the freeing of themselves from the strictures they imposed upon themselves. construction thing. there are the kinds of activities they are willing to engage in internationally.

that is the process of healing and putting history behind in that part of the world. japan the opportunity to play a role that it can which is very constructive. in maritimeeady activities. these are areas where the world has a need. this is the for everyone. a ticket to the hat to the australian surety's the indo-pacific.

a final question. right in front. >> thank you. i follow up with these questions. there is the recent visits and focusing on the nuclear potential with the current one and all other potential alliances with china. tha?is your assessment >> a couple parts to your question.

a couple parts for those were not able to hear it. one was about china's relations with russia as they apply to the region. there i will simply mention what i already said in connection with north korea. , like others be holding the situation in north see chinald like to exercised more of the influence that it has with north korea. that would be a great way for china to exercise its influence. saide south china sea i when it comes to these territorial disputes they all have an individual history and so forth. the united states as a matter of

policy does not take sides. when it comeses to how they are resolved. we believe that they should be resolved peacefully. these are not situations to use force or coercion. we definitely prefer a multiational trouble -- national levels. >> we must call this to a close. if you want to tweet you can #besteventever. we have some things out here for you to pick up. we have done a couple of reports on u.s./india trade.

pay close attention to the assignments to recognize the full position of the indian defense trade and cut through the bureaucratic red tape. the only thing he needs to do is something i will now present him. again- -- godd ganesh who is the removal of all impediments. you can take this back with you. >> thank you. >> thank you all. please stay in their seats and tweet on whatever while we get the secretary out. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> the president is traveling to connecticut this hour to push for his push for gun-control legislation. last week the connecticut governor sides and all restrictions to firearms in response to the newtown shootings. >> they have a very political marriage, much like john and abigail. she would lobby in the halls of congress. she was always very careful to say a "my husband believes this and my husband advocate that" but she herself was doing the pitch. one of her husband opponents said he hopes of james r. ever

elected president she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman. ever elected, i will neither keep a horse nor .ake better >> we will get her successors and we will take your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. >> it is structured the way things used to be. wirelessght wired and division. it is required by congress on the state of wireless. the assumption behind that direction is that the wireless market is somehow separate from the wired market. in the world of broadband these

have increasingly converge. >> one thing that stands in the way is unlike the cable companies, they are beholden to a certain tax. there maintain two separate networks. the problem with that is that this is a diversion of their resources. it is not any kind of trivial diversion. if they were freed from his obligations, it they would have billions of dollars to go back in best and expand in the broadband networks. >> julie doyle and joshua thompson are at their pride -- t hird prize winners. there is about the role of small

business in the u.s. economy. >> of all the items on your agenda we believe that the internal growth comes from the top of the list, particularly in response to small businesses. represent 99.7 cent of all employers firms. they have generated 64% of all new jobs and paid 44% of total u.s. payroll. small businesses need to continue to grow. thank you for your consideration. >> when i took over as chair of the committee in january 2009 our country was facing the worst ouromic depression government lost jobs that month alone. the great recession what does 7 million american

jobs. in tightening credit markets, and sufficient resources to assist small businesses. there are struggling to keep their doors open. this itself was struggling to keep up with the demand after laboring under significant budget cuts in the previous year. of the is the backbone american economy. it is where most new businesses are started. it is where the growth curve is. peoplelso where many find their employment first and get work experience. it is literally the back lawn of the american at economy. well.oes as >> we can see the back bone of the growth. there are people that take the

risk. all by local people. they invest more time and resources. they are a part of the committee. certaine responsibilities. >> been a lot of people are involved in different organizations. these are happening where you start to realize how much a variety we have a where we live and that there are so many things to do and get involved in that are entertaining and healthy and also are good intellectually as the kids get older. >> they are more likely to be part of the committee invested in the city. they had more of the club structures. it is a very important parts of

the social fabric. thee is more focused on local committees. their success is tied to success of the committee. they want to be engage socially and economically in terms of the city they feel is their home. we have a smaller staff. your own rules. it is very important to do everything we can to make sure we have small businesses that are growing in striving. it means a stronger economy. been then that helps our economy do very well. small businesses provide that stable employment over time because many small-business invest and spend their income in communities which they

live. communities are more sustainable and provide more opportunities for people that are looking for jobs. >> i deviling notice slowdowns. at times it picks back up. it is anybody's guess as to what is going to happen. >> sometimes customers except that you're going to do a lot like the big box stores. operate this. it is harder for smaller businesses to operate like that. we have certain assets. we keep things out. if they want to return it and thatheir money back, it is much better. we cannot operate like the big stores do. >> it is an idea that is not

proven. raise times you cannot funds for starting up from scratch with no proven track records. they're all these things about not having a proven track record for your business or a new idea you are proposing. inse are initial problems establishing a customer base. >> it takes a lot of time. my family has to come and visit me at christmas time because i cannot go anywhere. it does take a huge commitment of time and energy and effort. i enjoy it. it is different than chain stores and those type of things. >> in the corporate world they

care about their bottom line. in a small business we care about our customer. while it is a business and do care about your dollar, it also take care of them better. that is very much customer service. >> after you look at spending money in a big box store after spending money locally, what you will find is that there is a much higher percentage of the money that has been on something at local shop that goes back into the community. it could even be $100 that was spent. it is a big box door. he may only fined $11 of that is back in the community. that $11 aonly find that is back in the community. people should start to think

about buying local and what that does to your environment for yourself. >> at this time this committee face the challenge of increasing the capacity to ensure that small businesses keep their historical roles spurring our economy. this was an enormous challenge but not an impossible one. it is one that i think we have met. .here are pros and cons but provide invaluable opportunities for everyone are around the country. we also recognize that basic begin early all play. only investing in the in the projects we can i get from large companies but they're also investing in our cells. all theatulations to

winners. to see more winning videos go to studentcam.org. the navye she is from and marine corps participated in an event looking at maritime security. specifically address the rising cost of military equipment. here is part of what he had to say. >> stuff costs more. that is not a hypophysis. in 2003 the standard united states and the chairmen, at what he wore from his boots to his camouflage, it is a vietnam era flight jackets. his weapon costs about $1,700.

today he goes out on patrol. it is almost an thousand dollars. thes almost 45 times fold difference in costs. why is that? that iran and body armor he or she wears on the front and back and on sites, that, somewhere between $4,000. heaven help us if our families find out that we do not have the right body armor and they lose their son or daughter. some of this is just the fact of where we are. staff costs more. a couple of things with regards to acquisition. constipatedrn acquisition process. i think the service use me to get back in be in charge of the acquisition process. not give the program manager a dime. congress is the service chiefs the money. the allocated in the service

budget every year through the appropriation process. it is our money. these are our programs. my sense is they need to get thisto rain down requirement growth, rain down all the different things that we're told we have to do or the testing that we have to have. there is plenty of blame to go around with regard to the acquisition process. >> you can watch all of this events at midnight eastern at c- span2. strategic and international studies held a panel discussion on u.s. military training in asia. participants focused on the effectiveness of the education and training program. is one hour.

>> good morning. southeasthair of the asia program here at csis. one of the things we have been how we dobout is the pits and at the same time -- work and at the same time through the sequester and but it cuts that are coming. the programs that could .e most vulnerable imet was created in 1961. funds. provided the

we will be looking at asia and south east asia. all of these speakers are welcome. if we look at southeast asia, targeted have been .etween 2000 and 2009 they use between one but $5 million and $2 million each. they've also gone to other countries mainly cambodia, indonesia, malaysia, and vietnam. the way we organize our discussion was to have input from two fantastic experts and

people with perspective. it will result in a good discussion. i do not know about a debate. i think a discussion with points of view is always a good way to suss out some of the policy issues. i will introduce both speakers and then we will start with lieutenant-general chip gregson. chip is assistant secretary of defense for asian-pacific security affairs. before that he served as a cheap operating officer for the states olympic committee. he knows a little something in terms of hands on experience. he was commanding general of the marine corps in the asia- pacific. he led and managed over 70,000 marines and sailors.

from 2001-2003 he was commanding general of the marine corps forces in japan. prior to that he was director of asia pacific policy and the cause for a secretary of defense. he was a graduate of the u.s. naval academy and holds a couple of masters degrees. john is the director of the human rights watch. his portfolio includes south southeast asia, a region he knows quite a bit about. rights joining human- watch, he was a director of a

one world research. he focused on afghanistan and pakistan. john has a lot of experience in south asia. he lived in afghanistan and pakistan. he holds a law degree from new york university and a bachelor's degree from st. john's college in annapolis. i guess you'd share some experienced in annapolis and afghanistan. let's see if you share anything else. i would like to kick off this morning. chip, i will give the first shot and then we will turn to john and i will moderate a discussion. >> thank you. i am happy to be here. the program has really taken off under your guidance. i think it is very valuable and even about time that we started paying some attention to it. let me try to set a framework this by talking a little bit about the overall purpose of our forces overseas and our

defense engagements for our engage the programs defense establishment of other countries. it is far broader than just simply waiting for military action. our active presence as well as our engagement including imet and other programs with other countries helps promote security, dampen sources of instability, deter conflict in give substance to u.s. security guarantees. it multiplies our diplomatic impact, it demonstrates professional military ethics in a democratic society. it can be used to reward countries to do u.s. bidding. it also be used as punishment against countries that have irritated the united states at one point or another. it can become a very large

issue when political or tactical adjacencies override our objections to abuse. we lavish military aid of pakistan but restricted do vietnam. one can also add other where we provide where we would otherwise refused were involved in afghanistan in central asia. there is still training and exposure is supporting a civilian control, professional military. it is an instrument of influence. relationship at an early career stage is one of the benefits

across the imet and other programs. a strong argument can be made that americans benefit as much or more than this as our foreign guests do. we sometimes tend to have an attitude that it is all about us. when you have to learn to get along with people who speak a different language or do things differently than you do, have a different tradition, when you are aging officer is often a very instructive experience. stronger relations enhance mutual understanding of other perspectives of others. it is one of the benefits as we go through this. in part to address some of the perceived difficulties with the imet program as it was begun in the beginning, we expanded imet

in 1990. this opens up the imet program to civilian officials. it was specifically an attempt to decrease the abuses. the types of training that were designed under the english language training, on the job training, professional military education, exchanges between student and command colleges, military justice training, civil military resource management and so on. not exactly what one would refer to as a training with close combat and hand-to-hand and bayonet fighting. the process begins at our embassies and includes careful screening. the ambassador has oversight of this. some programs are funded by the defense department, many by the department of state. congress has the ability and exercises its fairly frequently to provide oversight.

senator leahy and his efforts with indonesia. as a concluding remark regarding the overall context recent study added this institutions stated former presents an engagement are not simply helpful to setting the stage for effective responses to contingencies, they are indispensable for minimizing the likelihood of larger conflicts. with that i will conclude. >> thank you. john, what is your perspective? >> i will keep this brief. questionsgo to because that is a context in which to talk. i will discuss indonesia.

i think it is important to begin imet a begin in asia by acknowledging that there is indeed a debate about its utilities and consequences. in countries like indonesia, indonesias military has in the past committed some pretty major human rights abuses. it continues to have a problematic record with a lack of justice for those past and some impunity for current abuses. in july 2010, the last remaining restrictions that were really being put on the military and the efforts of senator was removed.

secretary gates with the defense minister of indonesia in the last restrictions on the unit that was engaged in some of the worst abuses or removed. that moment when that happens, obviously human rights watch disagreed with that. that goes without saying. that moment represents for the united states the crystallization of what is perceived as the purpose of imet. it was decided that this was the right thing to do. the reason was, the arguments go back and forth, that by standing on the outside and the indonesian military will accomplish nothing. it is better to engage in them and it will improve the right

situation. to be perfectly blunt, there are some units and persons and governments which are not redeemable. this is a real challenge to the imet program. i do not think that is the norm. it is all too common in asia for there to be institutions and governments which are not redeemable. i am not talking about people. people may or may not be redeemable. that is a theological manner. whether an institution is redeemable, this is the big policy question looming. it is funny. at the human rights group we are considered to be progressive art defense attorneys tried

to explain things the way that you are a bad person because of your background and upbringing. in reality, human rights groups are much more conservative. they do not consider people to be unredeemable. it is the pentagon saying things like you have to understand the context. we need to understand where they are coming from. we are often juxtaposed. the real question is whether institutions are redeemable. indonesia provides a snapshot of how the u.s. uses the question of redemption. the u.s. government believes hasindonesian military performed adequately. we disagree. there are still some abuses which are going on. how do we get to this moment? asia is a program for

redemption. you see throughout the region several other governments with rights abuse. in thailand, the military in the south has engaged in a lot of abuses in the context of the insurgency. the philippines has a long record of implications after the military groups. the countries that probably crystallizes the biggest problems for imet is cambodia. the program is very large. it is a country of about 40 million people. you have a military which dominates the political steam. the commander in chief, the deputy commander and chief, they are all on the permanent

committee of the ruling party. the chief of the navy, army region number one, number two, number three, and they are all on the central committee of the cambodian people's party. you ask yourself, why are we working with this military? then consider the fact that the commander in chiefs are veterans, another is sheet from the 70's that hangs over them. then the advancing issues. as a possible to screen them when there's such a large record of abuse? our experience is problem with

transliteration, collections and some other problems, you see officers being considered who are implicated in serious now, aland grabbing, the military is implicated in being sponsored by corporate entities to grab land. you see a large number of young officers whose pathway to vetting, they are the sons of cronies of the prime minister. this guy is a 24-year old colonel or 29 year-old three- star general. what is really going on here? is it in the best interest that we are treating them? i could go on but i will not.

this panel is quite well timed. on friday, the white house released a new policy, the u.s. securities sector systems policy. it attempts to deal with some of the underlying problems that i am getting too, how do you reconcile these different aims to engage and improve these government that are being considered? no. 3 in that policy, the

goals are to help build sustainable capacity, promote values such as good transparent oversight for security forces, rule of law transparency, and respect for human rights. what human rights watch what some it is that is impossible with some militaries, literally not possible. he cannot give security sector assistance to certain militaries. they may pass vetting but you should not do it if you are attempting to do those things. butn explain more about why i will not go on and on. >> i really appreciate the opening positions.

chip, you are saying there is value in good return on investment for imet. >> yes. along with our other security activities. >> john, your position is imet, what is your position? would you use it in some countries and not in others? a the issue is not is imet good thing. certain its role in countries. some military is to not appear to have a very serious rights abuse records.

the problem is you have certain countries where you cannot simultaneously promote rule law and good democracy and fight officers who are suitable for training, because either the military so politicized or it is so hard to vet. there is the whole unit distinction, it there are individuals whose hands have a blood on them. you are better off not doing it. you could limit its. you talk about role of law training. then trying to train a military to have a better accountability mechanism. train to have accountability mechanisms. you could do that. that would be the limit.

maybe would have your objections. when you look through the reports, there is stuff like that in that. counterterrorism training, jungle warfare, some of it is innocuous. you do not see a huge amount of that kind of training. do not do it. pull the plug. >> let's open it up for questions. [inaudible] >> i wanted to comment there is no imet [inaudible] it was limited through the engagement. the second question, when we consider the imet program, the main thing is to allow rising leaders, graduate degree type things. from your point of view, is

there any difference? >> i am trying to get at that there are certain contexts. i do not think this is the norm or true, a certain context where you cannot find people where that type of training would benefit. you have militaries that are so politicized or corrupt, so involved in criminal activity that no matter who you find is going to have an overlord who is more important to them and their career than pleasing the u.s. are becoming a professional.

it is not the norm. i do not want to stick it to cambodia. >> in a case where you have an unredeemable institution, what would your view be on making progress? do you just walk away from them? do you let it fester and get worse? what is the prescription? >> what i would submit is that the focus, if there must be engagement with a country that bad, solely on accountability. we're going to help you create review board/military component of your commission, what ever it is in the country that has the oversight, help you train that entity and try to make your military more accountable and transparent. or you can just make them and threaten them with full withdrawal of military assistance and then laid down the exact roadmap for how to get it back.

those are the two options. >> quick follow up. this is a point i wanted to raise. we have been tracking this very closely. china has been starting to u.s. military engagement strategies and southeast asia in doing their own version of imet which does not look a lot the american imet. there are larger numbers than we are from regional militaries. i am wondering if you would comment on that. are we leaving states open to the assistance that might not have the value based approach that the u.s. has?

>> that question gets to one of the core dilemmas on imet decisions. 14 just imet but the other programs we have to aid other people's militaries. is it better to engage or not engage? ronald reagan once said two anecdotes constitute data. indonesia in the days of the full patrick leahy we were about to travel to indonesia to do training on non-lethal weapons. we use that to go there frequently. at one of the mandatory things we had to do was to start with a class on militaries in a democratic society and justice

system. the pentagon, god bless, created the class for us. it was 20 a mind-numbing slides all to be given with a lot of detail on them. nevertheless, the sessions, especially with the indonesian junior officers, it turned out to be exciting. these were captains fluent in english or at least competent. they had done their homework. we cannot get through the class and the allotted time without all these capt. springing up incidents from the american

past that we would prefer not to talk or think about. it shows that they were thinking and people that are past a certain age are probably not going to reach them. they are vested in the current system. the senior officer, they have the tendency to say we always done it that way. been able to get into these countries and work at the capt. level or at least raising questions is far better than just cutting everything often saying that you only have one

choice. i do not think that is the best way. the university right now 1998, the indonesian military that's a really black-tie out of it because of the way they treated the students. the one exception was the indonesian marines. quite by accident i happen to be in indonesia not more than a few weeks after the riots. we were talking about the riots. i ask this group of senior officers, how is it you came out of the riots with reputation enhanced and the army did so badly? one colonel said we did not consider the students' the enemy. we went in civilian clothes. we negotiated the rules of engagement so when it came time for us to do what we needed to do the students knew what was going on. they knew that we have their best interests at heart and we did not disagree with them doing this. he said, at leavenworth are quantico? leavenworth. there are problems with imet and various government, but the point comes down to is a better

to try a or is it better to withdraw, let you do with your kids, sit in the corner till i feel better? >> we are certainly not saying every time a military is implicated in of use to just withdraw and don't do any business with them whatsoever, but this issue of finding the redeemable folks, people are redeemable, and even institutions are, is very difficult. i am not confident the u.s. government can figure it out. the leahy vetting problem is just one component. making wise decisions about who

deserves to be brought for course training and what kind of training and when, some good decisions get made but some very bad ones do as well. the age thing does not always work out the way you would expect it to intuitively. young officers are promising and the old guard is not. the person driving reform in burma is not the young person. it is very interesting what is going on. maybe the pentagon is right. maybe things have gotten better.

recently eight indonesian soldiers were killed by the local insurgency there. it is very small and very innocuous in many respects, but it's still having some legal capacities. we expected the tni to go next. they did not. it is not clear why. the jury is still out. as i said to some folks a few weeks ago, i do not think one could say that it is a sure thing that they have reformed. there is evidence that there is a lot of impunity still there and that if things get bloody enough there could be more abuses. neither of us really has the evidence to say we are right and the others are wrong. we are arguing with each other with and to do it. then there are other places like sri lanka and afghanistan and cambodia where i know we are right. the pentagon has a big problem. the can find a couple of navy units cannot involved in any political activities. you can train them maritime security or something. maybe. there's no maritime security in afghanistan.

the whole entity is messed up to the core. there is very little to do. what do you do then with those countries? either cut them off or be very tough with them. that is where we are with cambodia and sri lanka. we'rehem a road map like doing with burma. give them a road map. this is what you need to do. things will get better for you. >> the question here in the front. >> i do not know if we are including central asia in this discussion. if we are, can both give you talk about, [inaudible]

>> central asia touches on what i was trying to indicate with the tactical and political agencies. we have something called the northern distribution network that is a vital and might become even more vital. we have concerns with the human rights record. we have a base in kurdistan that is problematic from a human rights record. we cannot operate in afghanistan without support from this. it is not a base. it is a transit center. i am not allowed in the pentagon now. i would probably be shot. a be serious, it has been

problem because of the ability to operate in afghanistan versus what we would like to see happen in central asia with the human rights. it is not a clean thing. it is not just imet. it is a number of other programs that we have going on, too. for example, global peace operations initiative or disaster response or the 1206 program which recently was key to clean up the terrorist transit route among indonesia, malaysia, and the philippines. the bad guys are doing something and one country and the other country and have the proper means

to do it. now we have the right to do the radar's established. that serves all three countries so they can operate to clean this up. that could constitute showing favoritism to a country where we still have human rights concerns. it seems to serve a purpose. i use the example of the military aid. we decide the same aid to vietnam. vietnam is not have the same impact on us. pakistan has got other things

that concern us as well. for example, their weapons program. it is not at all aid decision. the programs are mixed in with this reality. one makes decisions and what one hopes is for the greater good. sometimes they work out. sometimes you end up with flowback. >> it goes without saying that most of them have human rights problems. they made a decision to go forward because of necessity. what is baffling about some of the country's is the necessity is not there. can you think of a country in

southeast asia that is less strategically important? why is it an important country that does not border china? we lavish a lot of assistance. when you think the per-capita, it is probably than its leader in the region. the navy only has 4000 people in it. it has these huge programs. we do not seem to have any need to pull back on it. i would submit that is because the pentagon and the state department and the white house do not realize how bad the human rights situation is.

that is our fault. >> the gentleman in the back here. >> i am from georgetown university. is every good antidote there a bad antidotes. that is part of the problem. that is the biggest issue with imet. in indonesia, the president is a fourth time imet graduate. he has led a lot of the democratization. that is as an antidote. i recently completed a study in georgetown looking at the long- term benefits of imet in burma. we trained 175 people. currently there are 13 of those individuals and the government. i think the issue that we need