see dhs's discretion in action. so, that's how this type of discretion should work. means that i.c.e. is focusing on high priority cases instead of people who would benefit from discretion and also mean the psychological impact of discretion during enforcement and the politics of any changes to enforcement priority are quite different than those for a an application based style program where people would affirmatively seek relief. ...

let's want to thank mpi for inviting me to participate in today's discussion. i really appreciated the opportunity to be able to discuss some of the gao's work looking at some of the issues and topics related to some of the issues and topics that are raised in mpi's report which are being released today. before i turn to my remarks on some of gao's more specific reports i just want to give you a little bit more background on the and also the gao is thinkine some of you may not be as familiar about who we are as an agency. so as doris mentioned, i'm a director ngos homeland security and justice team here and in that capacity i lead our work on border security and

immigration issues. gao ascent agency is located in the legislative branch. we are sometimes referred to as the investigative arm of congress or the congressional watchdog. and so in that capacity we examine how federal taxpayer dollars are spent and we examine how government programs and initiatives and efforts operate. will of our work is done at the request of chairs or ranking members of committees of jurisdiction in congress, or our work can also be mandated i committee reports or public laws. our reports are available on our website which is gao.gov. many of our reports contain recommendations to agencies that we are reviewing on changes or improvements that they can make to their programs. on the border security and immigration work in particular we have covered a range of

topics. on the border security side we've looked at issues like goals and metrics for assessing border security efforts. with also done work looking at dhs' management and oversight of efforts to acquire and deploy surveillance technologies along the border. we've also done work looking at how to agencies that have some responsibility for border security efforts coordinate and collaborate on their efforts. on the immigration side we've done work looking at various enforcement efforts including i.c.e. oversight of school study that foreign students, done look -- done work on overstay issues. we've looked at processes and systems for adjudicating immigration benefits and we've also done some work looking at employment verification issues. site just wanted to share those remarks by way of introduction just give you a flavor of food

gl this as an agency answer to the range of work we have done more specific on border security and immigration issues. for today's discussion i want to focus my remarks really are two or three key reports that relate to some of the issues and topics that are raised in mpi's report. the first report and going to spend most of my time discussing is report the gao issued in the summer of 2012 on the secure communities program. in the report we present some data and trends on removals of aliens identified by the secure communities program what you think are related to some of the trends and data that mark just discussed in mpi's report. so i will spend the bulk of my time talking about that report. i will spend a little less time talking about report that gao issued in 2011 looking at data and statistics on criminal aliens who were incarcerated in federal, state and local prisons. i think the date is relevant,

just to get a kind of sense of what were some of the trends and data that we saw in the population of aliens. so those are the two key reports that i will focus on, and so let me turn first to our work on the secure communities program. as you are all probably aware, the secure communities program is one of i.c.e.'s programs for identifying potential removable aliens who are arrested by state or local law enforcement agencies. under the program when an individual is arrested by the state or local enforcement agency, the individuals think of prince were taken and automatically checked against federal fingerprint databases to include dhs' think the system. if there's a match i.c.e. conducts additional to checks and determines whether not to request the law enforcement agency hold the individual so that i.c.e. can take custody for further enforcement action. as i get into my remarks now on

some of the trends and data i will present i just want to provide one or two definitions for some terms and concepts. for our report a criminal alien is a noncitizen in the united states who may be present on a lawful basis or not who's been convicted of a crime. it's important to note a criminal alien lawfully in the u.s. may be removable depend on the nature of the particular front for which the alien was convicted. i'm going to talk about a couple of sets of data that we present in our report. the first set a date i want to talk about his trends that we looked at in terms of i.c.e.'s enforcement action under the secure communities program. and we look at removal of aliens identified by the secure communities program relative to all i.c.e. removals during the time period of our study. what we found was the secure communities program can afford increase in% of all i.c.e.

removals during the period that we looked at which was fiscal year 2009 through the first six months of fiscal year 2012. so we found, for example, that secure communities was responsible for identifying about 20 pairs of the approximately 400,000 aliens that i.c.e. removed and fiscal year 2011, up from approximately% of the aliens that i.c.e. removed and fiscal year toward -- 2000. we also look at some date on the secure communities program in terms of the type of offense that aliens were identified by the program had. what we found was that majority of aliens who were removed and identified by the secure communities program had been convicted of a criminal offense. again during the time period that we are looking at, which is october 2008 through march 2012, about 74% of aliens removed and identified peggy secure communities program have been

convicted of a criminal offense, the offense that led to their identification under secure communities or they had a record of a conviction for a previous offense. 21% of aliens removed did not have a criminal conviction known to i.c.e. prior to the removal were identified as one of i.c.e.'s other removed priorities such as aliens who are fugitives or who reentered the u.s. illegally after reentry. excuse me, after removal. the remaining 5% also did not have a known criminal conviction prior to the removal but they were nonetheless removable because the into the country without daschle of the violated their terms. to further break down these data, we found that 27% of the aliens were removed by i.c.e. after being identified by secure communities were convicted of level one offenses, 17% convicted of level two offenses, and 30% were convicted of level three offenses. so level one includes aliens

convicted of aggravated felonies or basically to a more -- two or more phillies. level two includes any felony, or three or more what are generally referred to as misdemeanors. and level three includes aliens who were convicted of offenses punishable by less than one year. so in addition to those data, the 26% of aliens who were removed by i.c.e. after being identified by the secure committees program that had no confirmed criminal convictions, 18% were prior removals are returned, 5% were entries without inspection, or a work visa violators, and the other 3% were i.c.e. fugitive. that just gives you some sense of the data and trends that we saw looking specifically at removals under the secure communities program during the time frame that we study. in addition, we also looked at

the variation across fiscal years in the proportion of aliens removed according to the criminal level under the secure communities program. so, for example, we found that there was a decrease in the proportion of convicted level three offenders removed from about 40% of total removals in fiscal year 2009, the 26% during the first half of fiscal year 2012. we also found there was some change among level two offenders as well. and part of what i.c.e. attributed to those changes were that i.c.e. had continue to prioritize its resources to focus on the identification and removal of aliens convicted of felonies, and also that i.c.e. did have some redefinition of its criminal defense levels between fiscal year 2010 and 2011. so in closing of this report, we did not make any recommendations the dhs having to do with the

data or trends that we reported but we did make recommendations to the department related to how is managing its contracting process for updating or modernizing its systems use as part of the secure communities program and we also made recommendations related to dhs develop a workforce plan related to using resources under the program. and dhs can concurred with those recommendations and is acting on them. so let me now briefly turn to a report we issued in 2011 on criminal alien statistics. these data were last updated through fiscal year 2010, but i think they provide some useful information for the discussion today on the numbers of incarcerated criminal aliens and the types of offenses for which they were arrested or convicted. so let me get into some of the trends that are identified in our report. first, we found the number of

criminal aliens incarcerated in federal prison increased about 7% from 51,000 in fiscal year 2005 to about 55,000 in fiscal year 2010. and for context, the criminal indian population as a total of the federal, total federal inmate population, has remained relatively constant since 2001 at about 25-27%. we also used as part of our study a random sample of 1000 criminal aliens, and made some estimates a song that sampled. and so, for example, we estimated the criminal aliens had an average of seven arrests, about 65% were arrested at least once. for an immigration offense and about 50% were arrested at least once for a drug offense. immigration, drugs, and traffic violations accounted for about half of arrest offenses, and about 90% of the criminal aliens

sentenced in federal court in fiscal year 2009 were convicted of immigration and/or drug related offenses. so there's more data in that report should anybody be interested. i won't get into all of the data now for the sake of time, but that report is available on our website. the last report, very quickly if i can, doors, just call your attention to but i won't make remarks on the day, in 20 oh g8 oh issued a report looking at data on border patrol enforcement efforts specifically along the border while our data do not include removals which are part of ndis report has been released today, we did look at other data on border patrol enforcement efforts including data on illegal entries, apprehension apprehensions, recidivist rates and so on. and so i would commend that report to you as well should you have any interest in some of the other, or some different data on

border patrol enforcement efforts along the southwest border. so again, thank you, doris and mark, for inviting me. >> okay, thank you very much for that. i hope everyone had their coffee this way because i know we are giving you a barrage of numbers but we decided we'd make this be a research better because there really is a lot of information that is pertinent to an issue that is very important in the public policy discussion. we're going to continue on that, on that trajectory with more, although his work takes a slightly different angle of vision. so mark, let me turn the microphone over to you now. >> thanks, doors, and thanks to mark ayn rand as well for bring me here today. i worked as an enforcement fellow at the american immigration council. we are a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to shape a more rational immigration policy. and as part of the work, i do

work on deportation and detention, as in the eye does as well. i'd like to do three things in my brief time -- mpi. the importance of the work of the last couple of years in helping to understand modern u.s. immigration enforcement. secondly, given this data that's been put out to look into the future and forecast some of the coming debates policy of legislators, and third, to further describe the people in immigration detention that mpi has asked me and my co-author robert coolish at the university of maryland to write which couplets they work on deportation. so first, this is a very valuable paper and it's part of a series of valuable papers that mpi has done over the last couple of years that examine the enforcement system that congress has funded, and particularly in this paper phs prioritization of that funding.

under different administrations. but it's worth noting the key driver here is congressional funding. as mpi's 2013 report which doors and others put out, the u.s. spends more on immigration enforcement that all other law enforcement agencies combined. that's $18 billion to cbp and i.c.e. in fiscal year 2014. so this administration has been trying to walk a tight rope in between choosing between tough and humane enforcement, as mark said at an earlier paper this year. but at these funding levels in the administration would have to walk a tight rope in choosing between those sometimes competing goals. so let me summarize a little bit about what this data in this paper tells us about the policy. first, one of the important things that his paper brings

that is how the obama administration has shifted its priorities to border enforcement from interior enforcement. and moreover, from this data how they're very different systems and processes they use and the individuals involved. at the border the prosecutor general nonjudicial rooms out of course. at the interior they are generally interior windows. of the border removals are rising, generally of non-criminals or of criminals only for immigration crimes. moser apprehended soon after injury. at the interior there's a shrinking share of removals. they are mostly of individuals with criminal convictions but they're mostly apprehended after sometime in the united states, over one year. that said, both border and interior enforcement involved difficult policy choices, and some inevitable human impact. at the border you may have border crossers that are returning to join a family,

particularly reflected in the reinstatement of a prior removal order. you may have asylum seekers that are seeking to join families, particularly digital we've seen that from central america. and they are processed generally to expedite removal. so border enforcement still has impact inside the border. and removal through the summary out of course processes has attracted criticism for due process concerns. my organization, the council has been one of the organizations that has raised those issues. secondly, in the interior, most have criminal convictions. the majority are not serious convictions but it is a higher percentage than it is at the board but it is not a majority. moreover, many have deep u.s. ties, even more so today than a decade ago. the pew hispanic trust is put at information this year that shows that of the 11 million unauthorized, and meeting time this been in the country is now

13 years. only 15% have been here less than five years. 38%, or you million about live with you as citizen children. so even with the shifting of these priorities to effectuate a more humane enforcement policy, there is inevitable human impact. now, these priorities are not new. and as mark sets, dhs along with the legacy ins has always focused on these priorities. in the 2011 martin them a priorities are in many ways a logical extension of the priorities that commissioner meissner effectuate dinnertime at the ins. but one possibility that is raised by this date is that with such high funding levels, it may be getting harder practically to have such robust enforcements without raising difficult choices. without deporting the harder

cases, for lack of a better word. and notably as well among these priorities, the least of the priorities is increasingly occupying more of dhs' resources. let me explain what i mean by that. john morse memo prioritize public safety threats as number one, understandably. and within that he prioritize serious violent over minor criminals. but as this paper shows most convicted of crimes often not violent, or not serious criminals. an increasing percentage our immigration convictions. secondly, the martin memo prioritize obstructionist and with it that he prioritize for public safety threats as well as those with a prior deportation order. but we are seeing increasing numbers of reinstatement. and so as a dhs make serious

efforts to effectuate these priorities and within them the highest other priorities. in practice they are increasingly deporting the least of the worst, so to speak. so these priorities will inevitably have human impact and inevitably draw public the scrutiny. now that said, i think these priorities are likely to remain through the obama administration and very likely into the next, particularly because it's getting harder for i.c.e. to accomplish interior removals for two main reasons. one is the impact of the immigration courts being underfunded. these enforcement funding increases have not been accompanied by commensurate court funding increases. so there are record-breaking court backlog. average case now takes over a year and a half to be processed in immigration court. for removal numbers to stay steady year over year, if that was the goal, it would be almost practically impossible to do that without accomplishing more

removals out of court. simply because they are quicker. through nonjudicial removals it's possible to aprehend someone in fy '14 and remove them in fy '14 in a way that is not very likely in court. secondly, the impact of local noncompliance with i.c.e. enforcement is making it much harder for i.c.e. to accomplish interior removal in the same way. cities, counties and states across the nation are adopting noncompliance policy. rather remarkably. many are refusing to now turn over any person with a criminal charge to i.c.e. not even minor criminals, any criminal charge. this is now 250 counties across the u.s. i.c.e. could respond to this by conducting raids in the same localities that have expressed this noncompliance. that might engender further opposition to the logical process. so for those reasons it's likely

that the state of affairs mark described will remain over the next couple of years with enforcement shifted to the border. with the major exception of, depending on if the administration chooses to provide some affirmative administered relief this fall which remains to be seen. so the further questions looking forward, one may be is congress getting what it wants as it funds enforcement and just dhs prioritizes its allocation of that funding? or put another way, as the picture becomes more clear through reports such as mark's today, and mpis work over the last couple of years, will the american public agree with the political branches decisions? congress and the executive branch? after these two decades since 1996, very robust enforcement at high funding levels it's becoming harder for dhs to draw a bright line between removing

those with the least claims to stay in the united states, legal, equitable or moral, and exercising discretion over the most. as mark's is in the report from dhs lacks the capacity to precisely fine-tuned enforcement. but any law enforcement agency decide -- size would lack the capacity. as we look ahead, there's an unavoidable impact on those inside the border. the enforcement net remains wide and in some cases becomes wider. but we have an unauthorized population with deeper ties. we have studies, academic studies that are showing programs such as secure communities have little impact on u.s. crying. albeit impact on lawful migration but little impact on u.s. crime. and boosting local political opposition to increased

enforcement. so one of the questions is, is that if congressional funding remains constant at these levels, i think one is are there any policy choices that this administration or future one could make without impacting residents inside the united states? many have a vote. or another way of putting it is that the flash point going forward for change may be congress. the administration's decision to shift enforcement to the border may deflect some of that political criticism, but perhaps not all of it. and more broadly still, one of the questions is as we look forward, with the political dynamics of immigration enforcement change as the political dynamics surrounding criminal justice have changed over the last years? for decades we have had a political consensus that has supported tough on crime policies. recently that has changed. in a bipartisan way. we have senator cory booker and senator rand paul introducing bills on sentencing reform. we have a bipartisan house judiciary task force on over criminal session chaired by representative sensenbrenner.

in the immigration realm there has not been the same sustained widespread opposition to harsh consequences for noncitizen minor criminals as there has been in the criminal justice world. but we see around the country that jurisdictions many with high immigrant populations are starting to evaluate the trade-offs of expand immigration enforcement and starting to register opposition to the political process. now, i think one question is whether that local opposition will register at the federal level, and particularly in the appropriations process which may be fundamentally the main driver of the policies that this data describes. and again shifting resources to the border where enforcement is less visible in communities may deflect some of that criticism. it may not be that the same political opposition emerging at

the local level in certain cities rises up to the federal level of communities registering their opposition in the appropriations process but that maybe where the flash point is. last i thought i would mention a couple of words about detention that mpi has asked me to write. editing this is with robert who is a political scientist at university of maryland and director of the law and society program. it complements mpi's work on deportation with data on detention, which is a substantial part of i.c.e.'s interior budget, $2 billion under provides similar granulated that allows us to violate i.c.e.'s choices regarding detention. we gained this information through freedom of information act responses regarding i.c.e.'s new risk assessment tool. this is a computerized tool that evaluates flight and public safety risk, whether to retain

-- became another kind one using and 2013, we have several hundred samples in baltimore. so using this data we can evaluate through -- who i.c.e. decides who to detain or not. we can see i.c.e.'s recommendations as to flight risk and public safety. we can see collective criminal history and a really groundbreaking fashion we can see personal history. this data records family ties from when someone has a u.s. citizen spouse or child. whether someone has a stable address, whether someone has work authorization. it allows us to provide greater detail to tell some of the stories and even further detail i think and complement what mark has done. for example, of those with criminal convictions, are they more stable in fact? even if they might have lesser claim to stay in the united states because they committed a crime during the time you're.

and it will sell something also about the utility of mandatory detention laws because it will give us an one's own evaluation of the risks of people it arrests even though subject to mandatory detention. with that i'd like to think doris and mark ayn rand again for having me here, and headed back to doris spent okay, thanks very much, mark. that was not purposeful but somewhat of a teaser for things to come. so will be continued of course be working on these kinds of issues and this work that mark is doing should be particularly interesting. we turned you in a now, and i'm going, since we're streaming and recording, i want to be sure that you wait until the mic comes to you. but when it does come to you, please give us your name and affiliation and ask your question. so i'm ready for hands.

over here. [inaudible] >> mark, some of the slides you put up did not appear to be in the report itself, and i'm just wondering if those will all be available, for example, on mpi's website for reference purposes? and the other question that i have basically is, is there anywaanyway of knowing in termsf immigration offenses for deportation how many of those involve such things as alien smuggling as opposed to sell the being in violation of the immigration law? >> i think we will post the powerpoint on the website so yes to your first question. the short answer to your second question is also yes. that data is in, i mean, that

level of detail is in my data set. i don't have exact numbers in my head, but i can tell you that the overwhelming majority of immigration crimes are of illegal entry and illegal reentry. i can't renew if that's on the order of 85%, 90%, 95%, but it's somewhere in that range. and the other, the other crimes that are included in the immigration crime category are document fraud and there's a smuggling offense in there, but the great majority of them are entry and reentry. so crossing the border. being apprehended while crossing the border. >> i saw a hand in the back. yes. >> i am from the south east asian research action center. the majority of people deported in our communities our original refugees, cambodia, laos and

vietnam, and/or green card holders, usually who get in trouble with the law when they're teenagers or young adults. i'm wondering in any of the data set you're looking at including from the foia request, can you look at the impact of these enforcement regime on green card holders, maybe even those who originally entered as refugees? and in general, longtime residents with legal status. >> so, we would not be able to see if they entered as refugees or not. i do, we do have a feel on the data that is self-reported green card holder. ice asks people what your status and people and they have a green card. that's how it gets recorded. it's not confirmed but we wouldn't expect that that number will be underreported. you would expect perhaps it's overreported, not underreported.

but we found it surprisingly a green card holders in the data set. it was on the order of around 5000 a year out of our round three, 400,000 of the year. again i apologize i don't have the exact and in my head but i'm happy to follow up with both of you and give you exact percentages. but it was a surprising -- i was expecting to find a little bit bigger number than we found. and legally the reason that green card holders would be deportable is if they've committed a removable offense. and we did find that the people identified as green card holders have been, it was a very high correlation had been convicted of crimes that look like they would have been removable offenses. so we didn't find -- in the data we didn't find evidence of green card holders being deported without being convicted of a crime. >> in our detention data set there's not a checkbox that mentions whether they were refugees. there is an assessment of

special vulnerabilities, whether they're at risk of persecution. and there is not a checkbox for lpr status in that risk assessment, whether they should be is another question but there is not. there is a checkbox for work authorization, which may be related, although not exactly the same as green card status. >> okay. other hands? in the front. >> thank you. in connection with the interior goals, and probably for both of you. one of the things you have looked at, there's been an increase, surprising increase of removals of nationals from caribbean countries, jamaica, dominican republic and so on and on. is there a specific reason for that? the other thing is i wonder if

you have been able to correlate i.c.e. detainees with removals? and that's my part of the world you're doing right now. >> i didn't notice that trend. it's something we could look at. it's not something jumped out at me and looking, and spent a lot of time looking at these data, but it could certainly be there. you know, what comes out clearly in our data is within the interior that people convicted of a crime are a rising share of those interior removals. so i don't know if that could've been part of the driver. i didn't really find another interior trend that was obvious to me. and we unfortunately don't have detainer data in our data set

but that is something we would be interested in looking at. >> let me just say one other thing, and you know, the i.c.e. eid data set in one of the other things were frustrated by in this data set -- enforcement integrated database, the main i.c.e. removal database, isn't designed to really track exactly how people flow into the system. so there's an arrest program listed, but a lot of those arrests are by the criminal alien program which is the biggest part of i.c.e.'s removal operation. and you can't see whether somebody came into the system because they were identified through secure communities or whether they were identified through one of caps prison-based screening programs where the screen people post sentencing while they are incarcerated, on whether it's a cap team, because

cap has task forces also. so you can't, the data don't give you clear information about sort of, that level of detail about including for example, whether a detainee was issued. >> at the american immigration council we're doing some research now that actually gets at some of those questions mark answered, by which program someone came into the system whether it is caps or secure communities and that's something we're looking to do in the next several months. >> besides those causes that you think is attributed to whether putting priority, did you identify any triggers problem in the past, or any patterns in which we could start identifying some of these cases?

and i was also going to ask you in regard to the border removals, are the also proportional to immigration patterns? is there anything we can identify five years ago that could be useful to understand now? >> i'm glad you asked that second question because reminds me of something i supposed to ask which i forgot to. which is the border removals are not predicted by apprehensions. what i mean is that during the period that border removals have increased, apprehensions have been falling. the border patrol and dhs have had purposeful policy of placing a higher share of apprehensions in formal removal. this is something we talked a lot about in our april report, but border removals are going up while border apprehensions are going down. what's driving that is an increasing share of apprehensions are being formally removed, rather than permitted

to voluntarily return as they have in the past. so historically most people apprehended at the border are put on the bus or put on the plane and sent home with sort of no additional consequences. there's been a systematic effort to instead increasingly formally remove people which makes them an illegal for a visa to come back. in many cases to charge them with illegal entry or illegal reentry which makes them convicted of you as part of potentially subject to jail time in the u.s. so that's been an enforcement strategy and that's really been the biggest driver of increased rentals at the border, then, despite falling apprehension neighbors. in the interior, you know, we know that most people apprehended in the interior are identified through one of the criminal justice related

programs either through 287g or secure committees or other programs. the effort of the i.c.e. field offices is to sort of prioritize and been convicted of a crime but also people have previously been deported into a lesser extent people who can't document how long they have been in the u.s. those are going to be the priorities. overall, we know that the unauthorized population in the u.s. has fallen by about 1 million since 2007. so the available pool of unauthorized immigrants is going down, which may be part of what's driving the interior numbers down. but the number of people passing through i.c.e.'s filter is going up because of the implementation of secure communities, so i.c.e. has access to larger and larger potential for simple and they're using it fairly selectively, particularly in the last couple

of years. is what the data show. >> over here. >> thank you. matt graham from the bipartisan policy center. i've looked at similar data, maybe the same data set and one thing that struck me is that starting in fiscal 2007, there are substantial number of returns in the data. i think the code is voluntary return witness. on the order of 10%, sometimes more of the removals. so i was wondering, did you all examine or notice this, and if so, what do you make of it? >> so i think i saw you sneak in late, and what i said before you got here is we exclude all those returns from our analysis. mostly in order to be able to look at a consistent trend.

so we only focused on the removal. the reason that returns appear in the data set in 2007 is that prior to 2007 returns were not counted among the i.c.e. removals. i mean, it's not they they start increasing in 2007. it's that they were zero before 2007 and they represent about 10% of all i.c.e. deportations after 2007. that was an accounting rule that decision was made at the end of the bush administration to begin counting those witness returned as i.c.e. removals. so that's been a source of confusion and, you know, among some of the people looking at the data. the only cases that are included in i.c.e.'s data set are as you said, the witness returned. so if they give somebody a voluntary return and can't confirm that that person

actually departed, they don't get counted. but we decided to only focus on the removals. and i did look a little bit at the returns. the returns as you would've expected on less likely to been convicted of a crime. that's the main thing i can do about the returns is about, i mean, they appear to be consistent with i.c.e.'s discretion rules, that they appear to be the lower priority cases. as you said it's about 10% of the cases, so we were more interested in having the trend over time than complicating the analysis. >> anymore than it already is. >> yeah. >> right there. >> hi. i'm wondering if the data that you have at your disposal, does it have details on where they come from, which particular region in the country? and whether the analysis takes

into account people coming from a particular part of the country, and how then this information is relayed to the region back to the country? thank you. >> we have data about where people came from, what country they came from but only at the national level, not you know, we have their citizenship and birth countries, and we have data on the board of exit, where they deported through but we don't have data on where they were apprehended, other than by program, by cdp versus i.c.e. -- cbp. or more detailed data about where they came from. but something we would be very interested in is being able to disaggregate within the u.s. about where people are being apprehended. but obviously dhs has that data but we don't have the data.

>> i take it your question is where they originated, which state in mexico, which region in guatemala? is that what you're getting at? >> within mexico or guatemala there might be certain poorer regions. and if that's the case, how is the dialogue between -- it's not just sending them and hoping that the problem will be resolved. the problem is not going to be -- so is there a two-way dialogue at the political level to say these are people coming from a specific coastal area or down by where there are drugs or whatever, what sort of policies can you put in place to contain? >> i can tell you that, you know, with respect to mexico, most people are repatriated to the closest port of entry. there is a program. if used to be a program called the mexican interior repatriation program. the new program is called the

interior repatriation initiative, the iri, which does involve bipartisan, by national coordination through which certain mexicans are deported by air back to mexico city and then by bus back to their hometown. it's a pretty small share of total removal. i don't member exactly how many the iri has managed. do any of you all know? its small. it's in the few thousands, tens of thousands. [inaudible] >> that has a program where we find job opportunities for people that are being repatriated in mexico. we have statistics of the cities that they're going to. and, of course, those troubled areas are where most of the people are going through. we would be more than happy to post something about it on our website. i will try to make sure it is up by tomorrow. i will by monday. >> can i add one thing to the

previous point that mark was making about sort of where aliens who are identified for removal are removed from? in our report, and again is just focused on the secure communities program which is a smaller population, but we actually include a map that shows data by state on the arrest locations of aliens who were identified for removal to the secure communities program for the time period we studied so if anybody's interested in the data on state-by-state basis, again just as relates to secure communities we do include some of the information in our report as well. i just wanted to add that. >> others? in the front. >> i am from safe foundation. a couple of questions. one is the term reinstatement, and if you could explain that, what is. and second one is, those

mentioned that there are some counties which refuse to cooperate with, i don't know, nowadays they don't use the term ins, so i.c.e., and what the reasons could be. and third, you didn't focus on the present conditions without the immigrant population held by i.c.e. and what was the reason for that? >> so i'll try to answer those and then if others want to also add their answers. so a reinstatement is a noncitizen who has been previously formally removed, who's been subject to a removal order because a judge ordered them removed or because they were apprehended at the border and formally removed. if they're subsequently apprehended again within the united states, then dhs can

reinstate the removal order, turn it back on and formally remove them again without any opportunity to appear before a judge, or to petition for relief to make a case that they've got equities that would allow them to stay in the united states. in terms of why some communities are opting out of secure communities, this has been sort of a long story. when secure communities wa >> first rolled out it was presented as a voluntary program that i.c.e. negotiated agreements with states to include them in it. later, i.c.e. decided that they didn't need to have an agreement from the localities because the heart of secure communities is communication between i.c.e. and, between dhs and the department of justice to share federal information, and then when dhs determines that a removable immigrant has been arrested, the local i.c.e. field office can request that the

arresting agency hold the person for i.c.e. to pick them up. some communities don't want to participate in that because, i guess there are two main reasons. one reason is there are concerns they don't get reimbursed to hold people, so there's fiscal, you know, it costs money for local jurisdictions to hold people for i.c.e. but i think the more fundamental reason is that there are concerns that the program is being used to hold and to deport people who aren't public safety risks. and so this has an impact on the local immigrant communities. it's strange relations between immigrant communities and local laws forced the agencies. so law-enforcement officers to want to do community policing has a hard time with immigrant communities if they are deporting members of those communities who may not be viewed as a priority. so i think those are sort of the two main concerns is the cost and impact on communities, and concerns that the program is not

fine-tuned to only focus on high priority cases. do others want to say anything else about -- >> i want to say about conditions, detention conditions, gao has issued a report where to immigration detention standards issue. week issued a report last looking at how i.c.e. addresses sexual abuse and assault in immigration detention facilities. and last week we issued a report looking at how i.c.e. manages detention facility costs and standards. and so those reports are available on our website. i'm happy to discuss findings if anyone has any questions, but we have done some work looking at issues related to standard in immigration detention facilities. >> and we have a report also at

the american immigration council. i think mark summarized it very well. >> hi. i'm brenda. in terms of removal of mexicans, you've mentioned the iri, also the repatriations who are the closest port of entry and there's also the aliens transferred program. i was wondering what they did look into recidivism rates and whether there is a link in between recidivism on these three different ways of removing mexicans? thank you. >> so we don't do that in this report. i mean, that's something that cbp has been looking, you know, systematically at. so cbp through its consequence

delivery system tracks recidivism rates just at the border, not people who are apprehended in the u.s., within the u.s. and is able to describe recidivism for people who are voluntary return, people who are formally removed after appearing before a judge or through reinstatement or expedited removal, and also looking at -- and also people facing criminal charges. i mean, generally what they found is that the people are formally removed have lower recidivism rates than people who are voluntary return. people of this criminal charges have lower recidivism rates than people who just have formal removal. i do think they have published any of those data, but some of the state have been published in some other source. i know there's a congressional research service report that

came out in 2013 that i did when i worked at crs that has some of those, those data that cb be made available at the time. atep doesn't appear to reduce recidivism rates but it's confusing to look at atep because it's always combined with some of the removal strategy. but i think that atep is somewhat controversial partly for that reason, and also because the human cost of atep can be pretty high because people get deported back to commute with the don't have a connection and maybe, so it's a controversial program. >> and for the purposes of understanding, define atep. >> atep is the alien transfer as a program, the program, so normally unauthorized mexicans, or removal of mexicans are deported back to the closest port of entry.

under atep their intention to put on a bus it's a people apprehended in arizona may be deported through texas or through arizona. the effort is to disrupt the smuggling network and to make more difficult for people to reenter because typically people who are deported back to the closest port of entry made reconnect with the smuggler who help them enter, you know, and many more generally be able to attempt reentry more easily than somebody who's deported far away. so that's what atep is designed to do. it's an expensive program to send people to different parts of the country, and immigrant rights groups have argued, i think convincingly, that it really creates difficult circumstances for people who may be deported, you know, to high crime communities and they may lose their documents and/or not have money when they arrive, and so there's a real vulnerabilities that result from atep. so it's a controversial program i think for that reason. >> in the front.

joanne. >> thank you. i have two questions. the first one for marc rosenblum. just wanted to drill down a little bit more on your final paragraph in your executive summary to any proposed changes to the enforcement priorities would result in a modest reduction in overall removals. would that make any difference if the administration extended the priorities and prosecutorial discretion guidance to cbp? >> yes. i mean, so modest is not a very precise word. i think it's not hard to describe a scenario where you could see removals go down by 10 or 15% or maybe close to 20% to some of the scenarios we described, but certainly cbp has, i mean, as we described in our last report there's been a seachange in how cbp does enforcement just over the last, less than 10 years from mostly voluntary returns to

overwhelmingly formal removals. i mean, if what you're talking about specific this formal removals, you could reduce a substantial if you decide we'll go back to an era where you will voluntary return most people. which meant i may not be governed by, which you may or may not choose to try to enforcement priorities. but having said that, the data do suggest that the great majority of people that cbp apprehends, they apprehend within three days, and especially within two weeks of entry. so if people at the end within two weeks of entry are going to be used as a top enforcement priority, then you know, that's mostly what cbp does. >> thank you very much. the second question is for mark and for doris. mark, when you were saying that congressional spending and appropriations is a primary driver of the deportation

system. doris, i was one if you could comment on the given new year's as former ins commissioner, whether or not the actual congressional appropriations really has made the exercise of prosecutorial discretion much more limited, and what this current administration can do. and i want to kind of push one premise here in that. i want us to question whether, you know, a certain about of congressional spending necessarily means that that has to be 400,000 removals per year. because that is certainly been the way the administration has pursued the removals, but the thing done internally we know that many are trying to push for qualitative removals as opposed to quantitative removals. i was wondering if you could speak to that a little more? >> it's definitely a debate and it's definitely a discussion, both externally and i think within the executive branch.

you know, any executive, in any agency that gets money from congress has a certain degree o >> flexibility in how this thing takes place. you know as an agency when the congress is trying to view my generally for carrying out a mission, and when it is a specifically targeted. and it's really -- you were at your peril when with appropriators having the discussions that go on between appropriators and administrators, the administrator asked different from what it is that congress intends. now, it is certainly true that dhs has interpreted the funding for detention and deportation as quantitative. but that's also because it's been very clear that that's what

the appropriators are asking for. so i don't think that, i mean, i think that the executive branch has some, and i.c.e. a, and i.c.e. a particular come have some leeway which is the in the numbers. last year the deportation numbers fell to i think about 382000, something like that. ..

>> anybody have a final comment? >> are there any final questions from the audience or final comments anybody would like to make? [inaudible] [laughter] >> you've had enough airtime? >> yes. >> we want to thank you all for coming and we do apologize for the density of this information but not truly because this is very important research and the numbers tell us a great deal, and so we are thankful for your attention. there's there is a future events next tuesday we have the annual

which npi doesn't, the regime with a center for migration studies in new new york in the clinic as well as the georgetown law center. it's on tuesday and we have a very, very substantive lineup of panels for this year, very good speakers and topical subjects so the fly here is on your chair, registration closes on friday so we hope to see you all next week and with that let me close this and invite people to come forward with any further conversations you would like to carry on the dialogue. thank you very much. [applause]

>> are quite about her jobs plan and now she's at it again attacking scott robert jobs and the journal sentinel says are false. in the last year wisconsin ranked third in the job growth and that the facts are as condon cons and gained 100,000 jobs under scott walker. >> two-edged 50,000 new jobs by the end of the first term in office. >> is this a campaign promise that you want to be held to? wisconsin is dead last in the job growth to 250,000 new jobs

not even close. scott walker isn't one for you. it's been called a lie of the year. >> it doesn't mean the government is going to tell you which doctors to go to a witch doctors to plan. >> billions have lost their doctors and their plans and mary said she supports obama care unequivocally and wants to expand it. period, end of story. you know who had a bad idea, governor walk or did the opposite, cutting taxes for the

wealthiest and raising them on 140,000 wisconsin families raising taxes on working families isn't just bad economics, it's wrong wisconsin is known because we make the most cheese and the best. the industry developed in wisconsin from what was

homestead cheese where each farm family made cheese or their own viewers and it was recognized that we had an ideal environment and cheese was a way to take that perishable product before refrigeration would only last about three days. cheddar cheese can last for a decade. this was in the late 1880s when the industry got started in wisconsin. generally the farmers in the neighborhoods would form a cooperative and build a cheese factory and they would hire the cheese maker and the cheese maker would walk to work for the cooperative. there were thousands of them and in 1930, over 2,000 cheese plants in wisconsin had the transportation and the system improved the consolidation among a smaller plan and that continued until about 1990 when there were only about 200 cheese

factories in wisconsin former british prime ministers gordon brown speaks before the parliament on britain's relations with scotland following the referendum vote. last month scotland voted in favor of staying with the united kingdom after the feminist or about to be the scottish towers. mr. brown organized a petition urging the british government. following his speech at the secretariat's state remarks or 30 minutes. >> we come now to the adjournment. >> mr. gordon brown. >> the position that i was

presented to the house today signed by 120,000 in the referendum alike shows people determined that the ballot is made by over the party leaders and is kept. it was organized by 38 for the initiative and its preamble regrets and indeed poses the feminist is attempt to amend that balance future and ask that this keeps the original free of any new conditions. today's debate becomes even more relevant after what the leader of the house and i'm pleased he is with us this afternoon. when he made it clear they had english boats and english laws i want to share that speech is in effect a reduction of the representatives and today we are

going to be refined to this debate i look at where we can agree rather than what we can disagree to see if it is possible to move simply beyond the timetable on the scottish parliament and to see the issues and the northern irish and to be constructive if might help what should never be allowed to become a constitutional impasse in the housing of the country. first of all a belief that we could all agree that 60 new powers for the scottish government for permission attended the housing agreed by parties to the conduct of elections there were areas we would have to ask the conservatives to allow the democrats proposals including the end judgment of the parliament of the constitution,

the franchise, infrastructure and executive authority for the health and safety in the qualities. there are also areas i would ask the democrats for proposals for the fiscal taxpayers how the money is spent and where. given what has been said by each party in their submissions and afterwards i believe there's an agreement on every one of these new partners and i hope that the replays will say that he believes also. second, the remaining powers in towers and 16 as they relate to income tax i think there is a general agreement for the income tax rate in scotland into second but talk to. i would suggest however we reject 100%.

we should agree to maintain the income tax as a shared attacks across the united kingdom with 75% of the scottish parliament alongside the 50% of the votes and ensure that the test of accountability is met with a scottish parliament responsible for the majority 54% of its spending in 2016 and a year in which these proposals would be implemented. and the third i would like to think the status of scotland or wales or northern ireland in the house should not be downgraded and i wanted the leader of the house to read off his own party the conservative party to recognize in contradiction to the statement read by the feminist or in the house subsequently the northern irish mps should continue to vote on all issues that come to the floor of the house of commons. this is actually what the conservative party said in

putting their evidence before the referendum. in our view it is important that anything be resisted that the constituencies and any lesser function then the representative seats in the wind. the establishment of the arrangement is that the uk must address this and it would be unfortunate that there were to be two classes event under such as we have proposed the conservative party and will continue to have significant responsibility for safeguarding the interest so it wasn't the conservative party before the referendum to the scottish members of parliament voting on the tax laws or others in the uk

we consider considered the changes on the bill under which they would form the committees that we should insist and i will explain why he leader later that when any bill comes to the floor of the house that the whole house and did nothing nothing but the house is able to vote. the case does exist for the far-reaching changes in the constitution constitution and that does require a public debate but it could engage. we agree with the labor party on this cause and finally i think that we should all agree we must focus not only on the constitution but on the issues raised in the referendum by the citizens of scotland not just the power of parliament but about what we do with these powers and how we can beat their

jobs and a better national health service and the wage a war against poverty and commitment to social justice we should give our retention to these policy issues. but mr. speaker the constitutional crisis this is what it is and it has to be addressed. the proposal turns out not to be a new representation but the reduction in the scottish rites of representation in the house of commons and this was an issue material to the board referendum at the proposed change in the representations and the allegations of bad faith that have dominated too much of the political debate since the

referendum. but with the constitution i think the members should understand do not end with the proposal for all income tax to the scottish parliament they would've then been removed from the most decisive vote on income tax rates and the budget and on the point of demanding income tax dollars above all and we could stop then and it would be excluded on the tax decisions something that in the end may have to extend to blend in which it seeking its own powers of taxation but the power to decode input on the income tax. it's on anti-scottish and anti-british and against the key

matters to make them second class citizens in the house into the income tax threatens to end the whole system of sharing resources that underpins the unity of the united kingdom and it looks like the force of the fiscal autonomy that would spread of the union and enable the party ticket to to get to the back door of what they cannot get through the front door with the scottish people. england is 84%. scotland is 8%, northern ireland, 3%. when translated to members, 533 englishman and 107 parliamentarians have routinely if they choose. they have the ability with some protection for the interest of the minority nations.

america, switzerland and many other countries in the constitutions have found ways of managing the inequalities in the size of the region. they make them so that the plaintiff uniformity simply mimicking the scottish law does not end here fairness of the treatment it is the largest state and the smaller states have 700,000 in the senate representation with 7 million people and it's true if the spanish senate and the council brazilian, nigerian and mexican senate and in the constitution

written by the uk has about 30 times the population but only doubled the number of builders writes so we are not unique. countries have to make special arrangements at recognize the position of the minority nations or regions and ensure the uniformity of the provision is not the means to ensure a quality and fairness of treatment. i will give way once because i have to finish this. can i just ask about the money on the issue of the quality of the rights because as a result of the parliament formula scotland has doubled and gets a third less for the elderly and by ruling out any change i appreciated that is what this is about and evils and he's sending a message to the elderly, the

patient and the vulnerable but somehow they matter less. what would he say to them. >> he is not read what the prime minister said as well as the leader of the labour party. it wasn't me. the reason it exists is to allocate resources according to the needs. let us be clear because these is the issue that is at stake. there is no country in the world's parliament has has parliament has a first and second class of representatives. there is no democratic state in the world of federal or otherwise where one part of the country faces in context of the national government and another part of pot and get these are the two proposals of the conservative party. it would be strange indeed calling itself the mother of parliament for the fairness and a quality in the law if they became the first lawmaking body in the world for the first and

second class of representation and if this were only about the rights of members of parliament as might remain and inside issue of the political elite but the designation of the representatives as first and second for the citizens is not simply about the sensitivities of a few politicians it's about the status of each nation to be one united kingdom. according to the first-class status but the second class possibly than in northern ireland is that enough but of course the effect is that the government of the day would also be a servant not sure whether the existence depended on monday to the next whether it was in english vote or the whole of the united kingdom. of course members opposite might find it quite appealing. the prime minister of this country but if i may say so that is closing the door 20 years too

late. the conservatives commission report that i quoted earlier the scottish mps are as qualified as any other to hold the high government office including the office of the pie minister and chancellor and this is not my view it is struck by the commission and now mr. speaker, it is a way forward that listens to the more sensible voices and starts with a balance on the income tax this year built around the sensible english bills and its open to the powerful cities and regions of the country but also what constitution the country needs. but scotland has shown is that it's possible to debate about the distribution of power in our own country so as the debate about the regions in the british constitution, the constitutional

convention was proposed and it makes a good deal of sense to you under the last government we brought citizens together to debate how the rights would be respected and the constitutional convention that embraces england would then be had and not in the angry opposition to the voices of scotland but alongside them the part of security and what i want to see the proposals putting forward to today a better future for all nations and all regions as part of one united kingdom. >> thank you mr. speaker. can i start by congratulating the gentleman on the securing this debate for the role that he played in the course of the end

he vetoed the independence referendum country and nobody that has the speeches and witnesses passionate would have been any doubt of importance to the contribution. he was fighting not just for himself but also for his children into the contribution to give a legacy which it will come to be. mr. speaker, i want to make a few observations first of all and then i will come shortly thereafter to address the points that have been made by the right honorable gentleman in his speech. this is a week on a topic of the referendum and the consequences have never been passed from the chamber.

i welcome this and i think that it's a good thing for the united kingdom at the parliament to be doing. how they express their support for the united kingdom is what it means to be part of the country. with a positive choice from over 2 million people in scotland to remain in the united kingdom and to work to build a better united kingdom for all. that was the verdict handed down by the people of scotland. it was once in a generation perhaps once-in-a-lifetime and

both governments agreed from the outset that the objective was to hold a referendum that could be legal, fierce indecisive and got referendum was delivered. but it means that the decision has been made, not that the question should be asked again in three years time. had the result on the other way, it would have been considered unacceptable for those of us who campaigned to keep the united kingdom together to demand a rerun. so it is wrong now for the nationalists to maneuver for that outcome. people wanted to clearly and decisively to reject the core proposition. it is not for anyone to tell them that they got the answer wrong. uncertainty will only try people's patience just as they

did in montréal. they've been given an answer by voters in scotland and now is the time on the 100% of the people of scotland. >> it took two hours for the paymaster after the referendum. four weeks into 17 members of the parliament signed a motion for the debate to be reviewed. >> i say to the honorable gentleman, i cautioned him he seeks time and again to suggest that somehow or another you can sit and listen to the answer he says time and again that somehow the paymaster, the leader of the

opposition but no taxing. he says that every time to undermine the public confidence. if he still wants to pursue the cause of independence and he wishes not to accept it if he and his party are taking part in frankly they should have said that all of us are doing so in good faith. for them to accept the verdict of the people means an acceptance they will not deliver and outcomes are determined to to the unity of the family and this comes very much to the contribution of the honorable gentleman and we will not get independence by the bank door.

during the referendum campaign timetables supported by the honorable gentleman and others are designed to strengthen scotland and that is part people voted for and what we should give. more power for the scottish parliament within the united kingdom deal occurred to the timetable that we promised. the prime minister acknowledged that it will not be independent and the negotiations take place in that recognition of that fact turning to the points that were raised by the honorable gentleman and the suppression he said 16 areas in which it could

easily be thought he will forgive me if i don't address all 16. he is the dispatcher today not least because the government minister having tasked him with a job of constructing that consensus i think that it would be wrong for me to try to give the outcome. but let me say to him that the agreement is first of all the heads of the agreement that people construct should be ones that are consistent in that decision. that is they must be consistent with the united kingdom which has the constitutional framework and within this nation we will continue to operate as a single

country second, the terms of the command papers that were published on monday and it remained in chapter to the principles that underpin 2012 and i would remain that any proposal should first of all have cross party support and it shouldn't be to the detriment of the other parts of the united kingdom. i would say for smith to come up with proposals that undermined the integrity would not be consistent in the framework that we have given to them in the command paper. so i hope that the gentleman will take some construct from

that. i've always said mr. speaker that the independence referendum also does the opportunity not just to finish the job of the devolution of the scottish parliament and not just giving the extra power that he and ivy league is needed in the taxation in particular and while the other aspects, but also to see the process of the constitutional change take place across all of the united kingdom and ultimately the logical conclusion is a structure within the united kingdom. the only way that people achieve that is by building the strongest broadest possible consensus and that does require a constitutional convention of constitutional convention of the

sort which the honorable gentleman and indeed he and i both know we've run this a number of times in scotland it was not just in the political parties and it will always feel like it was just a political party because unfortunately we see things through the prism of their own self-interest and so for that reason you have to bring in the voices into the society of the business community and the trade unions for those that have something to see. so it is for that reason someone could passionately be leaving the united kingdom what i see as an opportunity opening in relation to building a new constitutional architecture and i hope you will remain engaged

because there is a substantial contribution. we have an unprecedented opportunity here. the commission can move forward to the collective endeavor in all of the political parties. never before did we see them come together. not just something to applaud that all of those taking part in the work must be willing to compromise at the honorable gentleman himself has already indicated and i commend him for this already. it's what was remarkable to beat in the opportunity of the results to secure video for all of scotland. the commission will look at the serious issues. taxation, welfare, the role of the parliament, the challenge

and as a result to make it more accountable. he is an able man facing a considerable task. he is also the man that can see the task as new. of course the process is not without consequences. the right honorable gentleman touched already on the course of the subject of english votes or english laws and it's clear from the debate in the questions yesterday that it's going to be an alliance today for some type to be co- time to come. they have no problems to replace the ones that are already

existing in the constitutional settlement but this is one that requires genuine consideration. should the strength of feeling brought to life the complexities of finding a solution that will strengthen the united kingdom's democracy is six and a half hours and i would hear from nearly all of it for the consensus in england and what with the future shape of the architecture should be. >> i appreciate the time you spend reemphasizing but what we at least acknowledge the speech

in the morning after the referendum has opened up the doors for these kind of questions to be asked and we probably wouldn't have been in this position. >> i would say i think that it was reflected in our being asked in other parts of the united kingdom. but i am able to get from this is an assurance that completes the paymaster himself is that as my honorable friend said change in scotland will not be held up while england captures so these are the two debates that will not be allowed to hold up the progress of the delivery of the vote in scotland because others said it's pretty clear that we already have done much of the work and the consensus but it

still requires to be done in the race of the united kingdom. i'm glad that the honorable gentleman said that the united kingdom parties are proceeding in good faith. it would be a shame if we were not able to stand up and see it in public. the honorable gentleman ignores the fact that we've already delivered the paper. he can't deny it and that is why he is remaining in his seat. it's clear that the referendum was won decisively and it might not have been welcomed with everybody else pleased that we got the decisions that we want and indeed that will be good for our children in the future.

>> i think the eyes have it. order. order. here's a look at the primetime lineup on the c-span networks starting at eight eastern.

iowa senate debate between congressman bruce brailey and republican joni ernst. >> i spent a lot of my time getting to know the people that i served with in congress. republicans and democrats. i have them over for dinner so i get to know where they came from. i get to learn about their families about the work they did before they came to congress and that's why i've had so much success working with republicans to pass legislation that's been beneficial to iowans. when the national guard came home from iraq and was denied benefits for the g.i. bill benefits and hardship pay by the

pentagon, i worked with republicans for minnesota toget their orders changed so they got paid to the benefits that they deserved. when i had a constituent who was the night and adaptability grant, i helped him get past that he could stay in his home and then i had him come to washington and testify and introduced a bill so that other veterans would have the same benefits because the program was going to expire. that is the iowa epects from their senator. someone like senator grassley and senator harkin who can bring people together and not drive them apart. >> moderator: what is one thing about you that sets you apart? ernst: i make public servants and i've served in my community and in my state and my nation in many different capacities and they work with many organizations at the community level and i still serve as they still serve as a sunday school confirmation teacher and a church that i grew up in. so, i remain committed to my hometown and my community but i

also served my state and my nation and the army reserves and the iowa army national guard and i don't do these things for personal gain. iab lead in serving the public whether it is a time of the flood in the eastern or western iowa, whether it's during winter storms making sure iowa is safe but also served overseas during a time of war and combat and in kuwait and iraq. i believe that is important that soundbites have but sound bites have consequences and i believe i have a pure heart willing to serve iowa where congressman brailey behind closed doors helps poke fun at our senior senior senator chuck grassley. i don't call that building bridges i'd say that's burning bridges. >> moderator: we have a couple of questions -- she knows i didn't poke fun at senator grassley and i talked to him the

same day and apologized to him and iowa farmers because that is what people expect iowa to do so if you are questioning my pure heart, senator aiken told you i've been an elder in my church and i've taught sunday school to adults and children and i've never seen a corporation sitting next to me yet you be leave that to their interests outweigh those of winning in iowa when it comes to contraception. ernst: again very misleading. i said i would support a woman's right to contraception. what you say behind closed doors really does matter to iowans and maybe you did apologize to chuck grassley that my father is a farmer also without a law degree and i think he's done very well and again i contribute to my community, my state and my nation and i'm ready to serve the people of iowa. brailey: then tell us about the meeting that you had -- >> moderator: we are going to

go ahead now. >> we have more tonight on the companion network c-span. we will show the second and final debate for governor scott walker and his democratic challenger that begins at eight eastern on the companion network c-span. also we welcome your thoughts on the wisconsin governor's race in general. share your reaction using the hash tag c-span the russian

ambassador to the u.s. talks about how russia and the u.s. can work together to fight terrorism and militant and he speaks about the crisis in ukraine in this event hosted by the baltimore council on foreign affairs. it's about one hour and 15 minutes.

>> ambassador, members of the council, guests and friends on behalf of the board of trustees is a pleasure to welcome you this evening. let me think the sponsors of this evening's program. first of all the mccormick company -- [applause] mccormick has been a wonderful support of the council as many of you know and also one of the most loyal and strong trustees carol and his wife. [applause] third, the lockheed martin corporation. [applause] and our friend anonymous.

[applause] our topic tonight as you know is the state of the u.s. russia relations, and enormously important question immediately because of friction and the danger and in the long run because of the importance that relationship is to international stability and we have had a policy which for years has rested upon the accommodation and desired that the greatest nations get along well and the united states has pushed to wished to have russia has its place in the sun. the definition is open to question at times but nevertheless it continues to be

an endeavor but as all of you know there are frictions today .-center-dot eastern europe and ukraine in particular. the issue of that place in the sun that should be commensurate with the strong role in the economy of the world as well as its military power but the definition exactly of that place is somewhat open and it's caused great friction and we are fortunate to have the ambassador with us this evening to address the status of that relationship. the ambassador was good enough to speak to the council when he became the ambassador in 2009 and as some of you remember, he's a graduate of the moscow engineering physics institute and he also graduated from the

academy of foreign trade. his career that began in 1977 has been looted being on the delegation to the united nations and then to the u.s. embassy as a first secretary he spent a decade in the foreign ministry as a deputy director in the department for international organizations and then as the director again of the international scientific and psychological group and a third he was the director of security affairs and disarmament. following that he went to belgium as the country's ambassador and while he was there he was also the permanent

representative to nato and told him following that he became deputy minister of foreign affairs and then came to the united states as the ambassador of the russian federation. it's a great pleasure to present to you his excellency. [applause] >> thank you for the generous presentation. it's a pleasure to be back. i think when i came to the united states in my current position it was one of my first appearances here in this room into a store owner how interesting it is somewhat surprising to me it was because

i came to work in the united states in 2008 immediately after the war that george launched. you might remember that i relations between us wasn't very good to put it mildly and i came here and my job was to see to it that the relationships develop in the right direction. it was the beginning and it was a lot of expectations russia and the united states can build as truly significant. there's a difference in the

positive direction. as the ambassador whose job it is to see the relationships improve. >> of the state of the regulations today isn't exactly what we wanted into there are a number of regions for that. i will dwell on some of them. before i speak to the reasons i would like to give you a brief picture as to where we are. currently russia and the united states still have a number of programs and a number of endeavors that are important

regardless of the difficulties that we have in other issues and just a couple of hours ago there was another meeting between the ministers and i haven't seen the full briefing on the meeting but as far as i understand and i had the chance to see a think both sides agree that agreed that there were challenges in the world that irrespective of the other difficulties we have to face together one of them as terrorism and the problems that do exist in the middle east including the trend that isis presents is something that we have to work in parallel. i would like to add a there are a number of other things and one

obvious example that goes a noticed is that the space station is flying around and our american friends getting there at the help of the russian space boosters. whenever i speak to them is a poverty of revisions we would like to have at some point that's honest a cool partnership and it's very respectful and it's something that brings people together on a human basis. at the same time the challenges that have existed in the past exist today i weapons of mass distraction and we do work on

these issues and parallel work together and i think that is still a substantial effort that we are mounting in concert. i would like to add the word permanent members of the security council and as a result, whenever we do cooperate and work together, the international community has a better chance to win the challenges we face rather than the ones we work against each other and it's something everybody understands and if you go to a number of countries and speak to them most probably a majority of them will say look we want you to be on the same page and to work on the joint issues because it is all

basically the same problems like international terrorists, like religious intolerance, like ebola, very new. in issue to all of us and we do have pretty significant -- [inaudible] >> louder blacks is this better x. you should have told me earlier. [laughter] i will try to do my best. i'm suggesting that challenges that we face at some point in the past i sit with my friends and jaw a list of challenges russia and the united states

faced together and the challenges are very important and very much the same and also there are things that us apart and i believe they are not as numerous and second, they are not as important to the well-being of russia or the united states. at the same time what we saw is russian and american relations were haunted by the stereotypes of the past and the cold war and we saw a number of events that happened in the previous years and made the decisions were difficult. some would suggest that the friends of what is happening in

ukraine to build the relations which isn't certainly the case that the difficulties came much earlier. we have significant differences where the secretary chose to call for putting russia in isolation since it wasn't supporting the united states and we also saw the rising number of criticisms internal especially after the elections in russia but with respect to the views we have our own political line that we are proud of him sometimes understand better than people in the countries outside of russia.

we also have the atmospherics with the canceling its it's something that we were not soliciting and something we were organizing when we saw the gentleman coming on the transit to russia. he was counseled by the state department where he was in the airport of moscow so not a single area would put him on board to fly further and we got a problem. the united states wanted to deliver but at the same time the united states had never agreed with us to have an agreement that allows such things to

happen. and it was the decision by the united states by several administrations because you still provide a safe haven for a number of people. so you thought saw what was happening and now ukraine. ukraine is a difficult issue and it's very painful taking into account how much probably economics but we are products of the same economy and intellectually and ethically you can hardly find a family of russia that doesn't have relatives in ukraine and vice versa. i am one of those and we

certainly see what can happen. .. on the shoulders of extreme nationalism almost sometimes fascist for