requirement, and there virginia did not require that brain surgery be performed in a hospital or an asc. that's at of the simopoulos oral -- and that is that 5043 of the simopoulos oral argument transcript. it's because in looking at the laws, it's whether the legislature has a legitimate purpose in acting. legislatures react -- justice sotomayor: that's interesting. justice kagan: well, can the legislature say anything, general? i mean, if the legislature says we have a a healthrelated abortion regulation here, we've

looked around the country and we think that there are ten great hospitals in the country, you know. massachusetts general, brigham and women's, and we're going to make all our abortion facilities conform to the standards of those hospitals, and that will, you know, that will increase medical care. true, we don't make anybody else doing any kind of other procedure conform to those standards, but we think it will increase health benefits if abortion facilities conform to them. would that be all right? mr. keller: under this court's precedent, abortion can be treated differently. that's simopoulos. that's mazurek. -- justice sotomayor: well, wait a minute -- justice kagan: so every abortion facility has to hit the standards of mgh. that would be all right? mr. keller: well, there would have to be medical evidence. it is at a minimum disputed.

in here, their experts have conceded that doctors believe this this is precisely where there's a medical disagreement, even if you don't accept our medical testimony, although it was admitted into the record. justice kagan: i'm sure that there's medical evidence that if every hospital, if every facility was as good as massachusetts general, they would be better facilities. i'm sure that you could find doctors to say that, because mgh, it's a great hospital. but that would be okay, even though it's not applied to any other kind of facility doing any other kind of procedure, even though we know that liposuction is times more dangerous, yet doesn't have the same kinds of requirements. mr. keller: and that was the holding in simopoulos. and in mazurek, the court -- justice sotomayor: well, do you think would you put -- justice alito: would it not be the case that would it not be the case that a state could increase the the standard of care as high as it once, so long as there is not an undue burden on the women seeking abortion? so, you know, if they could if they could increase the standard of care up to the very highest anywhere in the country and it would into be a burden on the women, that would be a benefit to them. would there be anything unconstitutional about that?

mr. keller: no. provided that women do are able to make the ultimate decision to elect the procedure. justice kennedy: but doesn't that show that the undueburden test is weighed against what the state's interest is? i mean, are they are they are these two completely discrete analytical categories, undue burden, and we don't look at the state's interest? mr. keller: what casey noted was that the undueburden test is, is there a purpose or an effect of the substantial obstacle to access? and that's a question about access. as to whether what the state's interest would be, that would be going to a rational basis review or maybe a purposebased analysis. but you need the clearest proof under the court's general doctrine about unconstitutional purpose. to infer that there is an unconstitutional purpose when there is a legitimate interest in promoting patient health, which is what texas did here even roe v. wade said that states can ensure maximum safety for patients. justice ginsburg: but what is the legitimate interest in protecting their health? what evidence is there that under the prior law, the prior law was not sufficiently protective of the women's health? as i understand it, this is one of the lowestrisk procedures, and you give a horrible from pennsylvania, but absolutely nothing from texas. as far as we know, this is among the most safe, the least risk procedures, an earlystage abortion. so what was what was the problem that the legislature was responding to that it needed to improve the facilities for women's health?

mr. keller: in petitioner's first lawsuit, planned parenthood admitted that over women annually are hospitalized because of abortion complications. here at -- justice ginsburg: as compared to childbirth, many, many much riskier procedure, is it not? mr. keller: well, the american center for law and justice and former abortion providers' amicus brief dispute that. but regardless, there is evidence -- justice ginsburg: is there really any dispute that childbirth -- [laughter] is a much riskier procedure than an early stage abortion? mr. keller: justice ginsburg, those amicus briefs point out what when you look at record linkage statistic, instead of complication reporting, there may be a difference. and the reason why reporting is important is there's evidence in the record here that abortion complications are underreported. that's at ja 844, and a 70-872.

in fact, petitioner -- justice sotomayor: by hospitals? underreported, most of the complications you're talking about were reported at hospitals, correct? yes, there is some evidence of not reporting other things outside the hospital, but you know the number of hospitals are accurately reporting. mr. keller: well, abortion clinics are have to report complications in texas. and petitioner whole woman's health -- justice sotomayor: complications within their clinic? mr. keller: that's right. and in ja , petitioner whole woman's health -- justice sotomayor: what's the percentage of -- my math is pretty horrible. it's pretty small. mr. keller: and and the statistic at ja is it is lower than 1%. however, when there are two to three women justice sotomayor: i don't mean to to negate that one should try to avoid injury to anyone, and and don't take my question as that, but there are people who die from complications from aspirin. may be unusual, but there's a certain percentage that do that.

yet, we don't require that people take aspirins in asc centers or in hospitals. mr. keller: but in examining -- justice sotomayor: there has to be some tie between the benefit and the burden, doesn't there? mr. keller: in examining not effect, but the purpose. the constitutional analysis would be did the texas legislature have an invalid purpose? and if -- justice sotomayor: well, don't you think that you can read that from the fact that there are so many other medical treatments whose complication rates are so disproportionately higher, and the legislature is only targeting abortion when there is nothing about the figures before it that show a risk so unusual that it needs greater attention? mr. keller: but that would have been simopoulos, it would have been mazurek.

and this is why petitioners are trying to upset the balance that was struck in casey. justice breyer: i don't see where this fits in, i mean, to the argument. i don't question their purpose. i won't question their purpose. mr. keller: good. thank you, justice breyer. [laughter] justice breyer: but the the what their purpose is, that they're worried about these complications and they want to make life safer for the women. all right? let's take that as the purpose. you said there aren't very many complications. now, would you say if you reduce the number of clinics, as has been argued, maybe it isn't exactly that, but you suddenly have at least 10,000, maybe a few less, and maybe a few more, women who have to travel 150 miles to get their abortion,

maybe more, maybe stay overnight, maybe try to scrape together the money, you understand the argument. are there going to be more women or fewer women who die of complications due to an effort to create an abortion? i mean, you read the briefs, and you've read the same articles i have. and of course, the argument is if you lead to self-induced abortion, you will find many more women dying. so if the concern is this tiny risk of dying through a complication in a clinic, is this a remedy that will in fact achieve the legislature's healthsaving purpose? mr. keller: justice breyer, about self-induced abortion, the evidence in the record on that were two points of testimony, both from mcallen where petitioners prevailed, asapplied challenges could be brought in areas for instance, if there could be shown a substantial obstacle based on travel distance, the four clinics that closed in west texas between el paso and san antonio, all those closed before the admittingprivileges requirement took effect. they were all planned parenthood facilities. in petitioner's --

justice ginsburg: keller keller -- as applied challenge is a real problem with that. because suppose you bring in that asapplied challenge and you're successful. you can't have a creation of an ambulatory surgical center on the spot. i mean, these these once once these facilities are closed, they're closed, and they can't start up tomorrow. so how the asapplied challenge i mean, the woman's problem would be long over before this clinic, the kind of clinic they had before, could be restarted. mr. keller: justice ginsburg, the mcallen clinic reopened, and as justice kagan mentioned, clinics did reopen. the lubbock facility, though, which is one of the facilities in west texas, in petitioners' first lawsuit they told this court in their application that that clinic was going to close regardless. and seven of the eight clinics that closed before the admittingprivileges requirement

to the vet, and went from 41 to 43, seven of those eight were planned parenthood clinics. planned parenthood is complying with the law and providing that increased standard of care. and also, the eleven clinics that closed the day that the admittingprivileges requirement took effect, when it went from 33 to 22, i don't believe six of those clinics can be deemed to have ceased performing abortions because of that requirement. the lubbock facility was going to close anyway. killeen had admitting privileges. justice ginsburg: there was a stipulation there was a stipulation that is "no currentlylicensed abortion -- currently licensed abortion facility meets the asc requirements. each will be prohibited from performing abortions after the day the law goes into effect." that's a stipulation, not a question of what evidence there was for.

texas stipulated that no currently licensed facility meets asc requirements, and each will be prohibited from performing abortions. mr. keller: and that would go to the asc requirement as opposed to the facial challenge of the admittingprivileges requirement. but four of the facilities that reopened four facilities reopened of those eleven when the admittingprivileges requirement went into effect. that was dallas, two at ft. worth, one in austin. that is ja 131, 715, and 1111, and 1436. two of those were ascs. now, when it comes to the count of ascs, there are nine ascs performing abortion today in texas. three opened up after house bill was passed. -- house bill two was passed. so in examining the facial challenge to that requirement, when asc's exist -- justice sotomayor: can i ask,

where they opened as result of the law, or were they planned to be opened before the law went into effect? because i think that makes a difference to me that they were planned to be opened. it takes quite a while to dig up the money, get the investors, buy the land, do the building. it seems to me that they must have been planned for a while. and if they were, it was because there was a need independent of the number of abortions. mr. keller: well, -- justice sotomayor: in other words, it's fortuitous that they've come into existence, but it was in their need was not there was independent of the reduced number of facilities elsewhere. mr. keller: legislature provided months to come into compliance. in addition, you could lease space. texas has over -- there are 433 general ascs in texas at the time of trial. justice sotomayor: most of them don't choose to provide abortions.

mr. keller: that's correct. of course, space could be leased in those. justice sotomayor: so what you don't know is what do you have enough resources to open up an asc if you're going to do abortions? are you going to get enough developers to to invest in your work? mr. keller: yeah. the point being that there are going to be at least ten clinics -- justice sotomayor: can i ask about mcallen? there was testimony in the record that at least four doctors had from that spot had asked for admitting privileges. well, the fifth circuit's remedy only provided for one doctor, dr. lynn, who's past retirement age, to be the only doctor performing abortions in that clinic. now, if the clinic had i don't know how many it had, but it had at least four people before it -- it seems rather callous to say as a remedy that we're going to make that one doctor do the work of four, or maybe more doctors who didn't get admitting privileges. why is even the fifth circuit's remedy reasonable? mr. keller: because, justice sotomayor, that was the only

named plaintiff for the as applied -- justice sotomayor: but that but -- yes, as applied, the asc law is affecting this clinic because it can't get its doctors certified. so why does it require a named plaintiff to relieve that clinic of the obligation of going without admitting privileges? mr. keller: well, that wasn't the only one of the four doctors that joined this lawsuit, because most of the doctors and clinics in texas are not part of this lawsuit -- justice sotomayor: but you just lift the requirement because you know that it's the only clinic in the area. so if any doctor who's licensed appropriately can get admitting privileges, they should be permitted to work in that clinic. why does dr. lynn have to become an indentured slave to ensure that women in her area are provided with their fundamental right to choose? mr. keller: justice sotomayor, it would not be an indentured situation. if there were new facts that came into being that the doctor -- justice sotomayor: but she wants to -- mr. keller: didn't perform abortion, then another

doctor could bring in a future as applied challenge -- justice sotomayor: all right. justice kagan: general, could could i ask could i go back to a question that something that you said earlier? and tell me if i'm misquoting you. you said that as the law is now, under your interpretation of it, texas is allowed to set much, much higher medical standards, whether it has to do with the personnel or procedures or the facilities themselves, higher medical standards, including much higher medical standards for abortion facilities than for facilities that do any other kind of medical work, even much more risky medical work. and you said that that was your understanding of the law; am i right? mr. keller: correct, in this court's in simopoulos. justice kagan: and i guess i just want to know why would texas do that? [laughter] mr. keller: when there are complications from abortion that's in the record, texas can enact laws to promote safety. justice kagan: no, i know, but but the assumption of the question, and i think you haven't challenged this assumption, is that there are many procedures that are much higher risk. colonoscopies, liposuctions, we

could go on and on. and and you're saying, that's okay, we get to set much higher standards for abortion. and i just want to know why that is. mr. keller: justice kagan, this bill was passed in the wake of the kermit gosnell scandal that prompted texas and many other states to reexamine their abortion regulations. justice kagan: but, of course, the i mean, texas's own regulations actually have made abortion facilities such that that can never happen, because you have continual inspections, i mean, to your credit. so that was really not a problem in texas, having a kind of rogue outfit there. texas has taken actions to prevent that. so, again, i just sort of i'm left wondering, given this baseline of regulation that prevents rogue outfits of like that, why it is that texas would make this choice. and you say you're allowed to make this choice, and we can argue about that. i just want to know why texas would make it. mr. keller: i think the amicus brief for the texas legislators -- 121 texas legislators that

canvasses the medical evidence and canvasses statements confirms that that that there were complications that these laws do have benefits. and even the bill opponents said -- justice alito: isn't it true -- justice kagan: are you are you in you're not really contesting that there are greater complications in abortion facilities than there are with a great deal of medical procedures, that are not subject to the same standard of regulation. mr. keller: yeah, brain surgery, for instance, just like simopoulos, would almost certainly have it it would have higher risk of complication. but the point is -- justice alito: general, as to as to rogue facilities, which justice kagan just mentioned, one of the amicus briefs cites instance after instance where whole woman's facilities have been cited for really appalling violations when they were inspected. holes in the floor where where rats could come in, the lack of any equipment to adequately sterilize instruments. is that not the case? mr. keller: stories similar to that are also raised in the texas legislators' amicus briefs. -- in the 121 texas legislator'' amicus briefs. justice sotomayor colin but -- justice alito: these are not stories -- chief justice roberts: justice

alito. justice alito: these are, as i understand it, actual reports of of inspections of those facilities. mr. keller: the amicus briefs do discuss that, and the complications from whole woman's health were underreported to the state. justice ginsburg: random texas, under the prior law, has the right to make random inspections. was the problem in pennsylvania was this filthy clinic hadn't been looked at by anyone from the state in years. but texas can go into any one of these clinics and immediate immediately spots a violation? it says you can't operate till you come up to speed. so texas has had, as justice kagan pointed out, its own mechanism for preventing that kind of thing from happening. mr. keller: texas did have existing regulations, but increasing the standard of care is valid, particularly not only in light of -- justice sotomayor: it's valid only if it's taking care of a real problem. mr. keller: and there were the abortion complications and underreported -- justice sotomayor: well, no, no, no. a real problem, meaning,

gosnell, the governor of pennsylvania, said was a regulatory failure. and only in that, not this clinic had not been inspected for years. -- 15 years. he the doctor was fabricating his reports. that could happen almost in any setting. anyone who intends to break the law is going to break the law, whatever the regulatory rules are. you're going to have doctors, as happened pre our laws, who were performing abortions without permission in their offices or without licenses. and i don't want to suggest that we should presume that's going to happen, but it will happen. mr. keller: the constitutional standard for whether a state can make abortion safer can't be that it can only prevent the gosnell situation, and there are complications. justice sotomayor: well, but yeah, but but you have to see,

as justice breyer asked you earlier, why are the problems? isn't this a selfcreated problem? what happened in texas independent of gosnell that raised the gosnelllike situation --in texas that made legislature so concerned after so many years about taking care of this greater risk in abortions, as opposed to all the other procedures that are performed in non-asc facilities? mr. keller: because there are complications in abortion -- sotomayor: but there's complications in colonoscopies, and colonoscopies are, what, 15 times -- 28, justice breyer just corrected me. [laughter] 28% higher. i mean --

mr. keller: but legislatures react to topics that are of public concern. in gonzales, the court noted after dr. haskell's procedure for partial birth abortion became more of a nationwide concern, states reacted. when the legislature sees that there's a problem, and maybe that there wouldn't rise to the same level of a gosnell problem, but the legislature can still act to make abortion safer, which is precisely what texas did here. if i can address my friend's contention of the record as to what clinics closed preemptively. there is evidence in the record that killeen, mccallen and el paso, three clinics, closed preemptively. they brought asapplied challenges in mccallen and prevailed. they brought their asapplied challenge in el paso and did not prevail. and the killeen clinic did not seek asapplied relief. indeed, if there are any future concerns, asapplied challenges can be raised. for instance, the wide swath of area in west texas that does not have an abortion clinic today, there was no asapplied relief sought in this

case. and if there were if it would turn out that there were going to be an issue in that area, a future asapplied challenge could address that concern. justice ginsburg: well, that's the problem. once a clinic closes you said mccallen reopened, but that was very swift. once a clinic closes, equipment are gone, the doctors are gone, you can't reinstate it tomorrow. it won't be there. there will be no remedy for that woman who succeeds in the asapplied challenge. mr. keller: mr. chief justice, my time has expired, if may address it. chief justice roberts: sure. mr. keller: except even there, the clinic was not just closed for a single day. it was closed for a longer period of time. and there was an el paso clinic that actually reopened also months later. so an asapplied challenge could allow a clinic, if an undue burden, if a substantial obstacle were shown because of driving distances or capacity in the future, in that discrete instance, but we're in this facial challenge posture, petitioner's bear the heavy burden to show at least a large -- justice sotomayor: why isn't self-evident in that area -- justice kennedy: sonia is off. justice sotomayor: this area of western texas, it's as big as california. no? bigger?

mr. keller: i'm not sure about california, but it certainly is a large size. justice sotomayor: huge area. mr. keller: absolutely. justice sotomayor: why isn't it self-evident if you have a law that says you can only be an asc provider, and who's going to come in and say, i can't be an asc provider, but it's an undue burden on me, or it's an undue burden that's selfevident on the women in that area? mr. keller: well, the right is possessed by the women. the clinics and doctors can bring challenges. justice sotomayor: exactly. so why don't we take this lawsuit as those women saying just that? mr. keller: because there was -- justice sotomayor: you can't have a law that has marginal, if any, medical benefit be applied to this procedure anywhere where there's an undue burden on people on women. mr. keller: planned parenthood had four clinics in west texas. they all closed before any part of hb was actually put into effect. they could have brought an asapplied challenge. they didn't. planned parenthood did not join this lawsuit. they were part of the first lawsuit. and indeed, the facial challenges here are barred by res judicata and there are significant record gaps. justice ginsburg: may i ask you one question? you earlier in your argument, you were quoting how many women

are within a reasonable range of the clinic. but don't we know from casey that the focus must be on the ones who are burdened and not the ones who aren't burdened? there there is and the district court said, you know, this is not a problem for women who have means to travel, that those women will have access to abortion, anyway. so in texas or out of texas. so casey was quite precise in this, when it's talking about husbands and notification. you don't look to all the women who are getting abortions. you look only to the to the the women for whom this is a problem. and so the only women we would be looking at is not all of the women who are who live in austin or in dallas, but the women who have the problem, who don't live near a clinic. isn't that the clear message of casey and the husband notification -- mr. keller: when a law is regulating women, as it would in

the spousalnotification provision, that might be different. but when we're talking about doctor and clinic regulations, when the law is going to have a relevant effect, is going to be for every doctor and every clinic, which is precisely why the fifth circuit noted that that was the proper denominator, all women of texas reproductive age. and petitioners have not challenged that denominator holding in their opening brief. justice ginsburg: but this is about -- what it's about is that a woman has a fundamental right to make this choice for herself. that's what we sought as the starting premise. and then this is certainly about casey -- casey made that plain, that it the focus is on the woman, and it has to be on the segment of women who are affected.

mr. keller: yes. and and the right held by women to make that ultimate decision is not burdened in, at a minimum, a large fraction of cases in texas, when each metropolitan area will still have a clinic, even after the law goes into effect, and future asapplied challenges could address any possible concerns about west texas or otherwise. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. keller: thank you, mr. chief justice. chief justice roberts: ms. toti, you have five minutes remaining. ms. toti: thank you. a few brief points. first, the record cites from earlier, evidence that hb two caused clinics to close in texas. the plaintiffs testified that hb two caused clinics in killeen, austin, beaumont, mcallen, and el paso to close, and that testimony is that ja 339, 715, 722, and 731. respondents stipulated at ja and -- ja 183 and 184, that the asc requirement would cause any licensed abortion facility still operating on the day it took effect to close. plaintiff's exhibit 28 at page two, which is not in the joint

appendix but was admitted in the record at 2808 and 09, demonstrates that for the five years prior to the enactment of hb two, the number of abortion clinics in texas remained fairly constant. finally, at ja 229 and 1430, there is, at 229, testimony from dr. grossman, and at 439, our response to the fifth circuit's directive showing that 11 clinics closed on the day that the admittingprivileges -- chief justice roberts: and that that's the book? the last evidence was from dr. grossman? at page 232 he said, "i am not here offering any opinion on the cause of the decline in the number of abortion facilities." ms. toti: that's correct. dr. grossman did not offer an opinion on that. but his testimony supplies the fact, from which the district court drew the inference, that clinics closed on the day that the state first enforced the admittingprivileges requirement. the district court referred from that fact that enforcement was the cause of the closure, and respondents offered no alternative explanation for why there would be such a precipitous drop in the number of abortion --

justice sotomayor: can you tell me why planned parenthood left the western area? the general says that planned parenthood that asc and the and the admitting privileges had nothing to do with the closures in the western area of texas. ms. toti: well, the the two clinics in el paso, which is in in in that western region of texas that would be forced to close as a result of these requirements, are not operated by planned parenthood. planned parenthood doesn't have any clinics in texas. the plaintiff in this case and another independent provider operate those clinics. justice alito: and as to the the clinics where there is direct evidence, does the direct evidence show whether the cause was the admittingprivileges requirement or the asc requirement or both? ms. toti: with respect -- it does specify.

and some specify the admittingprivileges requirement, and some specify the asc requirement. and some specify both. so with respect to whether abortion can be regulated differently than other medical procedures, abortion can certainly be treated differently, if there is a reason to treat it differently. but texas may not impose unnecessary medical regulations that burden women's access to abortion. in simopoulos, the court found that the regulations of secondtrimester procedures at issue in that case were consistent with prevailing medical standards at the time, and that was critical to the court's decision. that is not the case here. there is extensive testimony in the record that these requirements are not medically justified. they are not consistent with prevailing medical standards, and their amicus briefs from

leading medical associations, including the ama and acog, confirming that. justice alito: do you think that federal district judges or this court is well qualified to determine whether there is a different risk, regard with respect to abortion, as compared to other procedures, that may or may or may not have to be performed in an asc? >> the reports are quite competent to determine the credibility and reliability of expert testimony. the trial court in this case determine there was no credible or reliable evidence supporting texas's contentions about the medical justification for these laws. further, had texas truly believe the laws provided some important benefit for outpatient surgery, it would have made them generally applicable. surgery providers would have to practice in an

asc, but that's not the case. texas law expressly authorizes other surgical procedures including those performed under general anesthesia which are early abortion is not, to be performed in a position's office. and even other physicians that operate at an asc are not required to have admitting privileges, merely a transfer agreement. these regulations target one of the safest procedures that a patient can have in an outpatient setting for the most onerous regulations. >> thank you, counsel. case is submitted. >> earlier today the supreme court struck down that texas abortion law limiting access to abortion services in a 5-3 vote. a texas lawled that unconstitutionally required a abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to hospitals within 30 miles of the and abortion clinics meet

hospital like standards for outpatient surgery. they ruled it being an undue burden on women seeking abortion. justice prior -- justice prior wrote the -- justice alito wrote the dissenting opinion. you over toto take the atlantic council in the nation's capital for a discussion on u.s.-mexico relations and the impact they have on security and the economy. expect to hear from several former administration officials and also current chairman of the economic council, jason furman. in the first panel you will hear from former homeland security secretary michael chertoff and tom ridge and the director -- former director of national intelligence, john negroponte. earlier today we covered it discussion here at the atlantic council on the future of nato after the u.k. brexit vote of last week. you can find that on her website

at www.c-span.org. [crowd murmurs]

>> live at the landing council in washington for discussion on u.s.-mexico relations. leaving yourst screen is carlos gutierrez, the former secretary of commerce. the first panel will feature people like tom ridge and michael chertoff. that should get underway shortly here. the'm the director of

economic growth initiative. thank you all for joining us today for this incredibly timely discussion. would call it a celebration on the importance of the u.s.-mexico relationship. there's a lot of misinformation about mexico and what it means to the u.s. and its time to put the facts on the table. i would like to thank the speakers who have joined us for such a critical moment. negroponte, jason furman at the last minute was called into a meeting with the president. thank you so much for joining us. by the founder of our center, sitting here in the first row. [applause] know, and is that round of applause shows, her vision and inspiration or to reframe thinking about latin america. today we have a great event. this is the launch of a larger effort.

the new united states and mexico are strong partners with the relationship that is unparalleled in indispensable. from security to trade, to immigration to culture, our countries benefit enormously from highly integrated partnership. this relationship is under attack. the presidential election has put mexico in the eye of a national political storm. the country is eating wrongfully blamed, i think scapegoated, for the anxieties many people have about how the world is changing and what it means for them. is calling into question the benefits of strong commercial relations with an important ally and proposing unilateral action at the border to combat unauthorized immigration. the kicker for all this? 6 billion u.s. jobs depend on trade with mexico. this type of rhetoric has angered our mexican allies, alienated many american citizens, and worried friends of the possibility of rejectionist policiesontational

becoming a reality. at the latin american center, dedicated to promoting the transformation of the region, , it is atlantic council our obligation to launch an initiative to highlight the importance of this bilateral relationship. this is unusual for a think tank, especially a bipartisan one. thatis not an issue follows along party lines. discussions about our southern border must be responsible and grounded. that is the purpose of this initiative to show why this have --ship should should not only be defended, but broadened and deepened. today we launched a major social media effort. you can find us on buzz feed. we will also share a video that we've made. --will continue to highly highlight the importance of this

relationship. we hope you will share information on social media and wide. we will highlight some of the most critical elements of the relationship. the first on national security and the second on the economic moderated by my friend and colleague, peter so feel free to start queuing up your question. this event is on the record. before turning it over i would like to thank our partners who made this event possible. new york university, george washington university, baker mckenzie, our media partners at , thanks toton post amy glover for her help with outreach and inspiration behind this event. we are grateful for the support

of our partners for this initiative. with that i'm thrilled to mary thean who is covering presidential campaign. i would like to welcome her and her distinguished panel to the stage and thank you all very much for being here. [applause] mary: even for such a timely discussion, we have an enormous amount of firepower here, so i'm delighted, especially when were talking about facts. as i run around the country on the campaign trail, there's not a rally or an event where mexico does not seem to come up, and yet there is an enormous amount of misinformation and a lack of

understanding. i want to introduce our panel here. ridge, whoernor tom has extensive coverage in u.s. government. was governor of homeland security under george w. bush. today he runs ridge global, an international cyber security advisory firm. and we have secretary michael chertoff, who succeeded governor ridge. he ran homeland security from 2005-2009. he was a federal judge as well attorneyant u.s. general. now he runs the chertoff group and is also senior council of covington burlington.

he was ambassador to the philippines and iraq and ambassador from our country to mexico. he was the first-ever director of national intelligence and currently is vice-chairman at mclarty. before we get into the nitty-gritty and some of the most interesting aspects when it comes to national security in mexico, i will turn to the former ambassador and ask him to talk more broadly about the u.s.-mexico relationship. the key question i hear in ohio and pennsylvania about how does mexico affect ordinary americans. mary,nk you very much, and thank you to your center for hosting us in this what i think is very important meeting. let me start with a resounding yes to the point that jason made about the importance of the relationship. when i was deputy national

security adviser under ronald reagan and george h dubya bush was elected and i was asked what post i wanted to go to, mexico was my first choice and i was delighted to get it. it was just a fabulous experience. it was during the time we negotiated the north american free trade agreement. u.s.-mexico relations, for ever sinceears, franklin roosevelt's ambassador , have generally been good. there were good during world war period.n the ensuing closer to the present, i think generally the cooperation has been better in the economic area. since the signing of the -- of

nafta, trade with mexico has quadrupled to the point where we have 500 and $2 billion worth of two-way trade between the countries. we do something like $1.4 billion worth of trade with mexico every day. there are hundreds of millions border crossings. mexico is the largest single destination for american tourists, just give you a few examples of how our daily lives are affected. as i said, the economic relationship has generally been good, particularly since 1985 when mexico joined the gap. that is what ultimately had to mexico's decision to be willing to negotiate a free trade agreement with us is when into effect in 1994. security has generally been a little bit more a row to issue with the country of mexico, for reasons of sovereignty, for reasons -- has been a little uralgic.

low point was a so camarena case when dea agent camarena was murdered by mexican drug traffickers, probably with the complicity of the government back in 1985. that left a hugely bitter taste and a lot of baggage in history to overcome, but i think we've managed to work our way through that in the ensuing 30 years. there are some things about security cooperation that are quite remarkable, if you think of them in the context of mexican history. i just cite one example, the willingness of mexico to expedite drug traffickers to the united states. -- to extradite drug traffickers to the united states. during my time that was a complete nonstarter with the mexican government. there are levels today of cooperation between the mexican

military and our military that again would have been unheard of jointrs ago, even small exercises, common communication facilities along the border. so the issue of u.s.-mexican relations is no longer just reduced to one simple question, which american general would come to the annual exercises in september? that used to be the big thing, who are we going to send down there? today is a much more complex and cooperative thing. along with nafta, economic improvement and improvement in other forms of legal cooperation, things have reached a very, very high and comfortable level of cooperation between the two countries. mary: let's turn to secretary chertoff, to talk about the breath of the security relationship. i think a lot of people don't follow the lines of

communication. tell us a few things that might surprise us. secretary chertoff: i think john is right. over the years our cooperation has gotten better. there's no question that mexico does have a serious problem with the organized, criminal drug cartels. both countries suffer, and there capacity limitations on mexico's ability to investigate and prosecute those people, although they have begun a process of reforming their prosecutorial and judicial system to make it more efficient for them to bring those cases. as john pointed out, they've increased their willingness to extradite to the u.s., so that has been very important from a cooperation standpoint as well. we have shared intelligence about what goes on on our common border. maybe even more important, we have worked with the mexicans to strengthen their capabilities at their southern border. the idea that most illegal migrants in the u.s. are mexican

is just completely hogwash. a significant number come from latin and central america. they may come through mexico, but that doesn't make them mexicans. is as interested as we are in finding a way to manage that flow and prevent people from trying to sneak in and then putting themselves at the mercy of these smuggling organizations and criminal gangs. so we've been working with the mexicans on the southern border. finally, one of the things i used to roll the time is, we are worried about terrorists coming in from mexico. think of a single instance when i was secretary for four years that a terrorist came in from mexico. quite good had cooperation with mexico in terms of identifying people who might be coming in to the continent that might be potentially terrorist threats. oddly, the neighbor where we have seen terrorist come in over the last -- over the border is

canada. had one caught by a border inspector and other instances over the years were extremists have come in for canada, but none that i am aware of the mexico. attributedhat is tribute to cooperation. i'm not saying the situation is ideal. the issue of these criminal gangs is a problem for both countries. in fairness, we are partly responsible for this. we create the marketplace for drug consumption and that is at least a portion of the economic fuel that allows these drug cartels to flourish. but i do think we are making progress in cooperating. ridge, i was just in mexico and i talked to a couple of the former president of mexico and they said there have been some instances where we have stopped people coming in. but when you look at that border, what is the most important tool that we have that

makes that border secure? drones, is it intelligence, eyes on the ground? ridge: all the above. that's exactly what it is. you have 2000 miles. we have almost 700 miles of need and people say we 2000. you can't put fences and so it'ss and things, about triangulating drones, it's about human intelligence, the exchange between both governments, and if i go back to those early days in the department of homeland security, it's interesting that the inantic as this conversation two segments, one is the security portion and in the economic portion, but they are really integrated, if you think about it. we have been blessed as a country to have good neighbors

to the north and to the south and we have to do what we can to preserve that. 2001, president bush said we need to sit down with the leaders of both countries and develop a smart border of agreement where we can integrate our mutual interest and collaboration on a secure border and also make sure it doesn't impede the flow of goods and services across the border. ien it comes to security, think it's pretty well in bed it. it's intelligence sharing, it's drones, it's 20,000 border protection agents. one of the unsung relationships that has proven valuable to both countries is the sentry program where we prescreen millions of individual mexican citizens going back and forth across the border. people agree to a certain in the supplyimen

chain from the manufacturer to the warehouse to the driver to the importer, and they get through a different lane to expedite trade. from day one the relationship has been, it's in our mutual interest to preserve a secure asder and manage that risk best we can. but let's do it in a way that does not impede this extraordinary trade relationship that we have. dayve a threat matrix every , some days a couple of pages and some days a couple dozen pages. i cannot think of a single time when the intelligence community ever suggested on any single occasion that we had a problem with the potential terrorist crossing from our friends in mexico. mary: why is that, given the length of the border? why are they coming in from canada or somewhere else? >> there were communities in

canada that had come in in over the years from parts of the world which did in fact become radicalized and they did attract some people to come in, maybe it was generous asylum, and some became of those people potential threats to the u.s.. there's is a tendency for the communities themselves because to beir makeup in history potential launching pads for admittedly a small number of terrorists. mexico didn't have that. there wasn't a significant community there. people from parts of the world where radicalization was taking place. as tom said, we had a good sharing relationship with mexicans, including sharing visibility into who was coming in from overseas and traveling in. mary: what do you think of the famous wall? -- do you just

build a 50 foot ladder? secretary chertoff: if you haven't ask, you don't use it to hammer a nail into the wall. you have to use the right tool for the right job. wall, in700 miles of areas where the distance between the border and a town or highway was relatively short. the idea was to slow up people coming in illegally so they could be intercepted. it doesn't make sense to build the wall in and him passable the rio grande river is wide. are important, surveillance, intelligence, unmanned aerial vehicles. people who come into the country illegally, and again, most of them are not mexican, they, they come from other parts of the world including latin america.

most of them are coming to work. if people are hiring those who don't have worked authority in the country, that's going to be a huge magnet. so dealing with that issue of employment becomes important. more of the people coming from latin america are fleeing , asence and failed states we see in certain parts of central america. if we don't address the problem at its source and try to help the rule of law regain a footing in central america, people are going to continue to flee because their lives are at risk. mary: before we talk about central america, i just want to quickly hear about what you think of this big, giant wall that we keep hearing about. does it make sense? who tearer presidents down walls, rather than build them. ,he sad thing about it is

everybody has been running away from the notion that if you had , where integrated system men and women from mexico and central and south america come back and forth across the border prescreen, you would not need 700 miles of fence. we don't have the means where people can lawfully go back and forth. i think it is a little arrogant for americans to think that someone comingr from central or south america wants to come here to become a citizen. that is not true. there is misinformation about the numbers of illegals in this country that are of mexican heritage. we've heard numbers that half of them flew in lawfully and they stayed. michael and i try to build an entry-exit system.

the government gave us money to build entry system but were sitting on millions of fingerprints and photographs of people and we never checked to see that they left. it's almost a diversion from an -- hownt and difficult can we develop a sophisticated on biometrics for people can come back and forth if we did border that, you don't need the wall. the easiest thing to do this and going to build the wall. you don't want to build a wall with a neighbor. >> there is a lot of legal mexican migration to the united states. people who are petitioned for by their relatives. for that decade going forward, about 100,000 people year gaining legal entry into the united states, getting their green cards and eventually citizenship.

so we mustn't forget that. you wantanother reason a wall or protection for people coming in that way. it's dangerous out there. these terrible stories about dozens if not hundreds of people getting killed coming across, one way or another, illegally. we want to have some kind of orderly system between the two countries. that would include, as governor some kind of mechanism whereby people can go back and forth and can also get employment. worker programt is not a bad idea. by not having that kind of program and abolishing it in lbj did, there was no come here andn to then go back home without fear of going back-and-forth across the border illegally. so what did they do, they stay, and eventually brought their families over. so by canceling that program, we

increased mexican migration to the united states. i am convinced of that. mary: in an era when millions of people cheer the idea of a wall, maybe because of not understanding the whole issue, what are some other solutions with the goal of making it more orderly? you're talking about a new guest worker program. can we just talk about some solutions that are doable in this climate? mr. chertoff: both john and tom are right. in some ways we created our own problem right making it difficult to go back and forth. those who get in do not want to go back. you cannot build a wall high enough that a ladder cannot go over or tunnel can go underneath. you look at promoting economic

development in mexico and other parts of latin america and help keep jobs there. establishing rule of law and order stops people from fleeing for their lives. having a legitimate guestworker theram that satisfied needs of american employers but gives the ability for people to come and go with proper identification and proper tracking. experience shows that if you create that kind of program, most of the people coming from overseas or other country don't want to permanently resettle. these are some of things we can do. >> i don't know if you will agree with this or not, but enforce immigration laws

domestically. we used to treat this is a order problem. it is not a border problem. mexico, they about were talking quite in fat equate about how it -- quite emphatically about how important it is to have a relationship with the president. i don't think people tend to think they have that much leverage. do they? why does it matter that weber is in the white house gets the last word? governor ridge: in the world of geopolitics, establishing a respectful relationship, understanding sovereign people have differences in relationships. you try to minimize them and focus on things for mutual benefit. government,mexican

if we had a debtor relationship , could do more with the flow of illegals. in 2009, congress that we will support theillion mexican government's effort to stop contra brand -- contraband and drug runners from the border. i think a good personal relationship between leaders does matter. i think it matters significantly. mary: central america is a hot issue. a lot of people are saying president obama is working on the southern border of mexico because a of immigrants are coming through central america. peoplee human rights saying they are fleeing horrible lives. do we have the right policy?

we hit this right, that we are supposed to be so harsh in turning them back, using mexico to turn back central americans at the border of southern mexico? mr. negroponte: the suggestion has been made that we need a holistic policy. you have got to focus on what is going to make central america better. i am sad to say, as someone who was ambassador to honduras that the situation in central american today is far worse than it was 35 years ago in many respects, particularly because of the gangs. i think we have to help them. i think it is an area of potential collaboration between us and mexico to make things right. i just want to put a next -- mr. chernoff: i

just want to put an expiration point on that. america does not have to necessarily be in the lead in trying to include the relationship with guatemala and honduras. they are neighbors with mexico. if you have that relationship that i and talking about, a trusting relationship, you work with your friends and allies in mexico to help. mary: you think obama is right to be working with mexico? it has to be a collaborative enterprise. -- governor ridge: it has to be a collaborative enterprise. whatever it is. they deal with their neighbors. mary: we have time for a couple of audience questions. raise your hand and say who you are. could i get your opinion about mr. trump's idea to deport 11 million mexican immigrants if he gets to the white house?

president obama and president pa nieto are president p planning on meeting. is there any way to build a better relationship? governor ridge: i found the meetings were -- mr. chernoff: i found the meetings were very useful, particularly in sharing intelligence. publicly, i think it is delusional to believe you were going to deport 11 million people unless you repeal the constitution and put everybody to work as an immigration inspector. i think it is nonsensical. said,t, as i think john if you enforce the rule against employers who employ people illegally, you are going to have a far greater impact at a legal way to go about it then if you

suggest the fact that you round people up and send them back. i think thete: notion of identifying and sending back is delusional. it is a bumper sticker solution. there are 11 million here. probably only half are from central and south america. if you focus on the mexican border, those who come here illegally have come here to work, to add value. they have. you create part of an overall immigration package. will say we are sequencing it. i think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. i think we can create a separate classification to legitimize their presence. we don't have to make them citizens. if you brought 100 illegals who had not row can the law and are

raising families and adding value, and you say we have to take you out of the shadows. you are doing good. we want you to be visible. mary: do you think congress could pass that? governor ridge: you could be a resident, but you can't be a citizen. 99 out of 100 would take that. i think the: majority of members of congress could get on board along the lines of what tom said. i think if you pull the american people, 60%-70% of people support this. who aree some people passionately and vocally against it, but the reality is if you look at the majority and what makes sense, doing what tom says, which is having a structured way for people to work, legitimately come out of the shadows, pay their taxes, pay their social security, is

one of the best tools you have to reduce the amount of illegal flow that otherwise comes into the country. >> i am a student with american university. we are talking about the immigration issue which comes up when you are talking about the mexican border. i wanted to know if there are other issues we should be thinking about when it comes to national security. you mentioned the mexican cartels. you highlighted economic concerns. i'm curious if there are other national security interests. it goes to the leaders meeting which is about to take place. all three of us attended these meetings that took place once a year. epidemicion of the opa in the country sense mexico is a source of opium and i hope

leaders will ratchet up the force against the flow. i think that would be a worthy area of additional dedicated effort. mr. chernoff: i think the cartel issue and issue of transnational crime, which is not related to just mexico but is a serious issue in latin america, needs more attention. these organizations challenge the ability of governments to manage their own countries. they do pose a national security threat. to have a collaborative interest in working to prevent. mr. negroponte: i meant to say heroin. mary: who really wants to ask a question? these are the last two. to thank you, but i

am also here is a mexican citizen and u.s. citizen. the wonders of north america. i want to thank you for the theme of the conversation. think it should go without saying, but we do need to build a narrative that mexico and u.s., our economies are close in length, we are among the biggest trading partners. going to mexico from the u.s. is an incomplete issue. the high-end industry is bringing jobs to the u.s. and i n willing to cite examples. firearms talk about smuggling into mexico. according to data from the government accountability office

from 2009-2014, upwards of 70,000 firearms -- mary: they are going south, right? >> a lot of them a legally, but also legally acquired. that is actually a big issue in mexico. thank you. mr. chernoff: i thought he made a statement. i did not hear a question. mr. negroponte: it is huge. the southward flow of arms. a big issue. steps have been taken. it isvery hard because illegal to export a weapon from the united states without a license, but it is not illegal to buy one and you get one and send it across. it is hard to enforce that. mary: right here. you had a question.

sorry. you --ame is elaine pain elaine pena. i appreciate your discussion of solutions and thinking about holistic policy. my question is how can we account for the strengths and limitations of each port of entry? that is to say, is one border policy toward security, towards immigration, towards trade going to work across all 2000 miles, or is there a way we can think about both ports of entry as playing a specific role in that project? if that is the case, how are we going to get municipal states, county officials on board? mr. chernoff: let me start. i think you are quite right that there are different economic and personal issues that apply to the ports of entry.

that is separate from what goes on between the ports of entry, where we want to stop people from coming across without proper authorization. i think we can do a number of things. andrams that prescreen identify people who are regular travelers helps speeds things along. our infrastructure at many of the ports of entry are outmoded. there are long lines. that makes it difficult and economically costly. there will be a real value of increasing capacity at ports of entry. modern technology gives us more capability to track who is coming in and to match that in respect to what we need to know about people before we admit them. if we apply all of these elements, we can have a more smoothly flowing set of travelers moving across the ports of entry, we would be more secure, and we would produce economic value, particularly for

those regions mary: that are basically adjacent to the border. mary: we are running out of time but i want to ask you one final thought. following what you said, there has been a lot of talk about improving infrastructure on the border, about getting technology that would help economic side and national security. let's look at five years from now. as the national security relationship between washington and mexico city. right now it is pretty bad. on the street, there is a lot of rhetoric, there was a lot of parties in mexico that are not saying nice things about americans and back and forth. when you cut the donald trump campaign, it is amazing how many signs you see about mexican criminals. it will be indict

five years, the relationship between the countries, especially with a focus on security? mr. chernoff: no one is going to jump it -- governor ridge: no one is going to jump into that frying pan, so i will. i think it depends on who prevails in the national election. i hope whoever there secretary of commerce is, whoever there secretary of state is, secretary of homeland security is are able the president of the security and economic relationship we have. i think it has been a sickly nordberg this is not a criticism of the incumbent -- i think it has been ignored. this is not a criticism of the incumbent white house. i am not sure we spent enough time cultivating the relationship with our friends in south america. particularly our neighbor. whoever prevails, if you look at

it, it is the second-largest market for export goods. millione a million or 2 citizens exporting goods. it is our national economic interest to pay more attention to the mexican relationship that we have before. mr. chernoff: i agree with that and i would add that i look more broadly at south america and central america. as important as it is to pay attention to asia and europe, it is important to look at the economic development in our hemisphere because that has a direct impact that we feel through the issue of migration. mr. negroponte: it is never as bad as it sounds, and especially if you are hanging around the from campaign, i am sure you hear a lot of negative stuff.

i think it will be better five years from now. i think it is going to sink in even more to the american people that when you talk about latinos in this country, you are talking about the second largest ethnic will be the country and close to 100 million strong by the year 2050. an on earth can you ignore ethnic property relation -- ethnic population as large as that? it behooves us to take into proper account the presence and contribution of the latino people in our country. mary: perfect place to end. theow some of panelists have to scoot off, and in the meantime, i wait to watch this video. presidential

elections had a lot of nasty things to set about mexico. what the you know about the u.s.-mexico relationship? did you know that 14 million american jobs depend on nafta? did you know that mexico was the number one tourist destination for americans? eight out of 10 avocados in the u.s. come from mexico. more than one and 25 companies in the u.s. are owned by mexican-americans. parto is the main auto's supplier. did you know that mexico is the third largest trade partner to the united states and a top export destination for 28 u.s. states? mexican and mexican-americans generate over 8% of american gdp. billion crossing

the rio grande every six days. know that in 2015, 14 million mexican tourists spent $10 billion traveling in the united states? this mexico really deserve all the blame? because now you know. [applause] >> and you thought the atlantic council was a think tank. we are movie producers. i want to say thank you to all of you for taking an interest in mexico. latin america -- we tend to whine a lot about the fact that people do not pay attention to us. why don't we get talked about in political campaigns, and suddenly we were surprised when mexico has taken such an

outsized role in this political campaign. mexico has really become the eye of the storm. all of us who follow latin america and care about mexico and the region are stunned by how mexico has basically turned into this poster child for all that are ascribed to immigration and all the ills that are ascribed to free-trade. i am really delighted to be able to moderate this panel with two people who are experts in the subject. gutierrez,arlos thank you. secretary gutierrez was the former secretary of commerce and is now leading work with the business world on reconciliation with cuba.

voicemportantly, he is a of both expertise, reason, and and passion on the issue. a member of -- he was called to a meeting with people more important than us. we are thankful to have you today. you are a professor of economics. as the council exercises a role and voice on international issues, he is a professor at george washington university, and has been a visiting scholar at the international monetary a visiting professor at american and european institutions. thank you for coming today. secretary gutierrez, let me begin with you. there has been a lot of

discussion in this electoral cycle about trade relations and the impact of trade in the american economy. nowhere has that been more acute than mexico and nafta. think forward and how it is going to be if our third-largest trading partner is suddenly de-linked from our economy. how is that going to impact jobs? how is that going to impact imports? exports? what will the effect be on the consumer? can you get on a magical carpet and get on a tour? sec. gutierrez: it will be a onaster if we cut relations trade. it will be a disaster for the triangle. aboveis worth somewhere

$1 trillion. throughout the years, 20, 25 years, companies have been setting up supply chains, they have opened up warehouses in certain parts of this country, can ago -- canada, mexico, so goods can flow readily. they get raw materials and are able to ship and manufacture easily. you have this infrastructure that is embedded. you can't just say i will leave it and go. in terms of nafta, i don't know how you would get started. for a government official to say nafta is bad, it is part of my campaign, people are buying it and they are going to vote for me so we are going to get rid of nafta.

think about what you do to thousands and thousands of u.s. corporations who all of a sudden are turned upside down and they probably have to fire a lot of people, they have to take huge write-offs, they have to take it on their business. it is one of the craziest ideas or one of the crazier ideas that i have heard even in this campaign season. >> let me stick on the issue of nafta, if i may. there has been a lot of anti-trade rhetoric. from all sides in this campaign. nafta as anpugned example of everything that trade should not be. how has nafta worked out? we are 20 years into this. how has nafta worked out for america? >> one of the important things when people talk about trade policy is recognize a difference between trade and trade policy. regardless. happens

is how we decide to shape those factors that are going on. in that sense, it is not just the trade, it is the technological shifts. people look to a time before a given trade agreement existed and think if it were not for that trade agreement, everything would look like that. that is not what reality would look like. whether it is on a manufacturing floor or on how supply chains are set up, changes in information, technology changes, as the secretary said, have supply chainsnd together in ways that are different from 30 years ago. it is not simply looking at changes over time. what nafta allowed us to do is linked together more efficient supply chains across north

america and integrate economies in a way that benefited a lot of people. on the really quick, the really nerdy thing people will focus on is the idea that one of the things that happens when you expand markets is the better firms better. that is important because better firms are more productive firms. they pay higher wages. if they grow faster, they employ a higher share of your economy and you raise standards. that is one of the important things that will raise the exporting ability of firms across all parts of america. it means that good firms grew faster. they were able to export more and hire more people. more.ay on average 18% peter: let me change this a little bit. in the previous panel, our moderator mary jordan had asked

national security experts what they thought of the wall. ,he is the national security international security reporter for the "washington post." she goes to a lot of the rallies and has seen a lot of people and placards rhetoric about the wall. there are two suggestions. one is the wall and the other is the roundup of undocumented immigrants. we talked about the security and economic results of the -- economic implications. sec. gutierrez: i think the wall is a talking point. it really does not mean much. we have to

understand, and for me, it is at the core. the problem with immigration and the problem with illegal immigration is not that the wall is not high enough. it is that our laws do not work and our laws are outdated. i will give you some examples. the recent senate bill that was going to be passed, which i believe is a little better than what we have. we have a quota for agricultural workers of 110,000. if you talk to farmers around the country, they will say we need about one million every year. you can bring in 110,000 illegally. what do you do when you get to 900,000? somehow they have to come in. somehow you have to run your farm. they are closing down, sending the farm to mexico, or just selling a lot less. i was talking to a restaurant owner the other day.

it,erms of just visualizing if i had more workers, i would have five more because i would be able to resource them and then i would hire more u.s. citizens as well. you have people like microsoft. they can't get enough engineers so they are building a center in vancouver. because itzy debate is broken because it is our fault. our congress has not done the job and they have not updated laws that are 50 years old. quotas that make it impossible for people to run a business, that make it impossible for the private sector. the other solutions are just a temporary band-aid and they are on the periphery.

they are not getting at the core issue. the reality is if you take undocumented workers, their unemployment rate is lower than the national average. they come for one reason only, and that is to work. around. anywhere you see it. we would not be able to run the economy the way we do today if we did not have them. the problem is it is a matter of providing a system. circularity, perhaps. they come in, they go back home, they come in. they don't leave now because they can't get back in. there is a way of doing it. one thing we have not tried is a bilateral immigration agreement where the private sector has to play a role in has to have a voice. right now it is politicians deciding how many people the

private sector needs. peter: there has been a lot of discussion about immigrants. the secretary was really very smart about looking at it, but i have heard the chairman of the council, of the president's council talk about the issue of dwindling numbers of males in the labor force and how that is an issue that could have a long-term effect on the u.s. economy. you have talked about how immigrants can help mitigate the negative impact of this. can you lay that out for us and how that enters into this debate? if you look at: the most basic idea, if you look at the bill the secretary just referenced, that would raise output in the united states by 3.3% in the longer run. that is a number. it does not matter. i am on a group that has to set

the economic assumptions underneath the budget forecast. we shed blood on the question over whether you raise the long-term growth rate by 1/10 of 1%. if there was a button you could higher make output 3% in the decade, that is one of the best things we could do. it connects to your other isstion as to whether it declining labor force participation of prime age males or productivity and growth slowing down, immigration reform can make substantial contributions on both of those. now,u reform immigration it has productivity impacts because you get people into the right jobs. you have people in the shadows who cannot be matched into the right job. if you suddenly fixed that, you will have higher productivity.

there are other issues, whether it is a shift in demography or labels and participation, social security and trust funds, commonsense immigration reform can fix issues like that as well. most studies that look at this find that wages for native-born americans go up. similar to your point about the restaurant person would hire more native-born workers as well. those wages go up because you improve productivity, you lift economic growth. everyone winds up better off. it is one of those issues. lifting productivity is hard. it is not like there are 20 things on a menu where you say i don't think i will do those. this is one that people do not argue over. it would help a lot. you can argue over the magnitude, but it is big. peter: just a point on demographics is a great point.

the numbers shift. i will use one of the numbers that i have heard. you can grown economy two ways. the number of people you have working and the productivity of those people. stopped immigration and said let's let the workforce grow on the basis of who is grow the workforce would 0.4%. that is not enough to grow the economy. if you want to grow 2% and you growth, that force is not easy. it is a matter of numbers and it is arithmetic and very clear. we get sidetracked on

issues which have nothing to do with solving the problem. peter: here is another issue we get sidetracked on. years over the last 10 has really transformed itself, from sleeping reforms in telecommunications to the energy sector. in the seen at&t invest telecommunications sector. there is going to be a large bid for the offshore rigs that is coming in mexico. american companies will be interested. part of the debate is should american companies be investing overseas. is that good for us in this globalized world? i think it is important to take this on head-on, which is why is it good for america when at&t invests in mexico?

because thenz: at&t has access to the mexican market, which means they sell more. hopefully it means they make more. if they make more, their shareholders are making more money. they can hire people in the u.s.. they pay more taxes if they make money overseas, as we know. there are circumstances where they would pay more taxes to the u.s. or known of aeen country that has been successful soughtcally and has self-sufficiency. they have looked internally and produce everything we consume and we don't want to have trade. economyld take this into a serious dive, you know?

rhetoric, thethe trump rhetoric is so alarming. if there are two things that have helped this economy for the last 200 years, it is immigration and it is trade. those are the two things he wants to go after. peter: trade. let's talk about tpp. a lot of senior administration officials have warned of the importance of ratification of tpp. mexico is a tpp signatory. whatpp is the opposite of many of the principal trump recommendations are on trade. i have two questions. ratify,g that we do not what is the effect going to be on mexico? what is the negative effect of not having tpp, and in particular, how does that

effects the u.s.-mexico relationship? and then talk about what are the economic advantages for mexico if we do ratified? prof. shambaugh: on the first one, which is one i prefer not to think about, but if we do not ratify, there is a real risk to the u.s. in its relationship with mexico, but more broadly in its relationship as a global leader with a lot of countries. trade is going to happen regardless of what we do with tpp. the big question is how to you want to shape that trade? how'd you want to shape these economic relationships? what do you want the rules of the road to be? tpp sets up a certain set of rules for the road. after having it exhibited a lot of leadership hitting those rules to be put in place in asia and across the

pacific rim on the side of the pacific i think would be seen as this massive failure of leadership. i think it would be hard for us with any credibility to go to these countries and talk about a global solution to anything. you look at the u.s.-mexico relationship now and on a lot of issues u.s. and mexico stand together on a lot of issues. you have some economies that are not operating in a market economy manner and that distorts markets. that is something that takes global cooperation to come together. mexico and the u.s. have try to work together on these issues. if other countries step up to pass tpp and we don't, i think you can say we forfeited our ability to speak on global economic relationships. on the flipside, what do we do?

it is ironic to me. many of the complaints, tpp in some ways is explicitly designed to take a lot of these things off. labor and environmental standards are part of the core part of tpp. some of the complaints people say about nafta wind up getting fixed. whether it is the way that investors see settlement were, a said what they wanted to see in trade is an tpp. much like immigration reform. this is a button you could push that would make the economy grow faster. this is a way you could let high-performing firms expand and grow faster, lift productivity. productivity growth is hard. if you have an opportunity to lifted in a way that is consistent with your values and the way you want to shape your economy and in a way that is so important to your policy of global economic leadership, it

is hard to see how you would lead that opportunity sitting on the table. sec. gutierrez: the point you made is excellent. underdeveloped as a nation. hopefully underdeveloped -- woefully underdeveloped. singapore,tralia, south korea. i am missing one. it is very slim. the world is actually regional icing. what is happening in europe is actually countertrend, the idea that they may be splitting apart where the u.k. asia has a plan to regional eyes, to make a regional bloc. , so itople call it r-sep is the 10 countries of south east asia plus three, japan,

korea, and china. one trade block without the u.s. and some people think without the u.s. dollar. unless we are in there, 10 years from now we run the risk of getting shut out, our companies run the risk of getting shut out. as we speak, china is building roads, they are getting ready. peter: i want to open it up to questions from the audience. i would like to end my questions with a question to you, mr. secretary, which is a little uncomfortable. as a leader, as a foreign-policy leader,as an economic as a hispanic and a republican, why the accusations against have been so successful with a portion of the u.s. population in the last couple of months? why does that seem to hit the

mark? sec. gutierrez: i would say they have been successful with a certain portion of the population, a certain primary voter which is not the mainstream national voter. 11 million, 12 million voters you are talking about. you are talking about a lot more if you get elected nationally. i'm not sure the that this is an argument that plays nationally. the way that it was communicated was false. it implied that the mexican government is sending us their worst people. getting, we are mexico's hardest working, most adventurous, most ambitious. they are willing to risk their lives to come over. somehowhat concept that the mexican government is sending us their worst people that -- you know, it is false advertising.

he sparked a lot of people because of something that is absolutely untrue. elected incannot get this country. i don't see the shape of the electorate to get elected without about 35% of the hispanic vote. romney had 27%, mccain had 33%. george w. bush had 44%. even though trump says he is going to win the hispanics, i doubt it. i am not sure it has been that successful. peter: let me open it up. questions, please. we start with the gentleman there. >> thank you. i wondered if you could talk about the role of education and

the economic relationship between u.s. and mexico and economic coordination collaboration between the two countries. i think thereh: are a lot of things that go back and forth in terms of teachers or students or attempts in coordination and cooperation. i think it is a place where nafta or having a free-trade agreement that make some of these flows a bit easier in terms of education is important. i think the other thing is, honestly, improving education on both sides of the border is a crucial piece because as i was saying, i think often people look at globalization and talk about trade agreements causing certain things when really it is changing from the global economy. one of the things we know is that upgrading the skill,

upgrading the ability to work with technology and improving standards on both sides of the border is a crucial part to ensure that both countries are successful in the global economy. sec. gutierrez: there are a lot of u.s. students in mexico. it is surprising how many mexican students are in mba programs in the u.s. words are used on both sides of the border. mexico city is like a big billboard for the american brands. there is such intimacy between that -- on onees hand it is ridiculous but somewhat painful that we are talking about it the way we are. one of the things that we have to think about is you build a neighbor.ck out your

that is the kind of stuff that 10, 20 years from now creates revolutionary movements. but we just forget about it. we are not thinking about, what are we really doing? how is this going to be perceived 30 years for now -- from now? it feels good because it gets an applause line and someone may get a nomination because of it. peter: other questions? >> i am a student here. i am wondering, as the u.s. signs a trade deal with atlantic and pacific trade partners, particularly tpp, the you think our trade relationship with mexico in the future will mexican our exposure to economy, especially as the gravity theory falls by the

wayside? prof. shambaugh: i do not expect tpp in particular to decrease our trading relationship with mexico. obviously, ave, trade agreement with mexico. tpp goes further in the number of dimensions than previous agreements we have with the number of signatories of tpp already. i think it is something that would make all of north america, u.s., canada, and mexico, more integrated into the pacific economy than they would be already but i don't think they would be less integrated with one another. i think the common supply chains across the border would be more important, frankly, then exports to the asian market. it is not something i would expect to decrease the tie at all. sec. gutierrez: i agree with that.

theco has a border with u.s. and that will never go away. that is an amazing asset. since the 1980's there has been this manufacturing culture developing in mexico going all the way back to dennings, physical process control, all of those. it was taken seriously throughout the country. mexican manufacturers are very good and very competitive. planted in mexico will tell you that is probably one of the most productive plants. it is a good hub for manufacturing, the border with the u.s.. i bet on that long-term. >> thank you for being here. i am with the embassy of mexico. why is it so hard to explain to people why trade is good?

justlization does not exist in the u.s., but in europe, mexico, all over the world. why has it been so difficult for politicians to explain to people that trade is a good thing that benefits the general population, or maybe there are negative things that half -- have to be taken into account? sec. gutierrez: there are 3 million jobs in the u.s.. the chamber has a higher number. jobs associated with exports in mexico. you have to ask yourself, with those 3 million jobs -- would those 3 million jobs be in existence or more or less if we did not have nafta? the problem with trade is if you look at the three countries and look at 25 years before nafta, 25 years after nafta, the three numbers are better in the three

countries. it is remarkable. anyone who has followed mexico at all before nafta, you had inflation rates of 6100%. usually had a crisis at the end of a six-year period. remarkable si nce nafta came in. the problem is it is anecdotal. i know a neighbor who has a cousin who lost his job because the plant went to mexico. it is true and it israel. -- it is real. the national numbers are better. how do you reconcile the national numbers are better but some communities have been impacted? i think there are things that we can do. we do have a program for trade adjustment assistance to help communities that have been impacted by trade. the numbers are there.

the numbers show that trade has been good and nafta has been a tremendous success. not for everyone, but for the country as a whole. prof. shambaugh: i think the trade does to why not resonate is a positive force is a complicated one. there is a story about a person who moves to a town and build a building and sell things in the town much cheaper. they must have an incredible technological advance. they open the door and they see a rail line to a port. people suddenly hate the person they love before. i think that is not necessarily a question economists answer but sociologist.

iso think one of the answers people get to vote on trade. they do not get to vote on technology. they do not always recognize the shifts they are responding to our technological shifts. states,nited manufacturing goes up. manufacturing employment goes down because we get more efficient at making the stuff we make. we also import things. we export things, too. when plants shut down because a plant is moved overseas, you see less attention on the plants that are built here. bmws in the united states. have jobs and that factory building german cars for export. i do think one of the reasons is we don't necessarily do enough for impacted workers.

there are a lot of them that this administration has proposed time, that people who are making minimum wage or displaced over time are finding a new job. if they took a lower wage to get some sort of wage insurance for a few years, they build up their skills in a different industry. i think there are a lot of different things you can do that will cushion the dislocations that do happen, due to trade or technology. in some sense it does not matter why. trade adjustment assistance is an important idea but because it is hard to say, did you lose your job to trader technology, it winds up hard for people to get it. broad-based support for people who lose jobs makes it more

likely for the public to have a popular view. sec. gutierrez: ceos go into the factories in office and say thanks to trade, this is what it means to our company and for your jobs. i think it has to be company by company. it is hard to make a national argument. time for one more question. someone with their hand raised here. is gabriella. i work for the department of agriculture, but i have an researchin conducting from the particular state i am from in mexico. they are one of the top producers of agricultural produce. immigration is going to have a great impact because currently they have about 20% of their

population of agricultural workers are here in the united states. that is what i learned recently. having the immigration program in place or agricultural worker increase, that will take away some of their labor. they are not particularly interested in that. my question is does it really as the the states such one in mexico to have such programs? has thefact that it free trade agreement? sec. gutierrez: you mean does immigration to the u.s. hurt that state? >> yes. sec. gutierrez: it is an interesting question. in 1970, the average mexican woman had seven children.

today, it is about 2.2. the u.s. is about 2.1. -- there is ae number where it tends to be holding steady. there is going to come a day not far into the future where there are no mexican immigrants or there are not enough as we need because they also need the workforce because the population is not growing as fast. there is a big number of young people so there is a lot affront way. there will come a day where we are going to wish where we had more mexican immigration. end by reminding everyone that on her website -- our website, we have a series of social media tools.

they are educational tools. they are tools for all audiences, young, middle-aged, and older. as i learned from my colleagues, we have to direct at the young crowd. i urge you to use those tools. i urge you to spread some of the titles on twitter. take a look at the video we have an spread those around. i think it is important to use as a one for the educational event we will have in the next few months. i want to thank both of you for joining in the previous panel as well. colleagueshank my for working so hard on this. it has been great and it is a really important cause. thank you all for coming. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]