>> absolutely. he's an action oriented guy, smart, comes from a great background, dynamite choice. >> the reason i want to interview you hear is i heard you gave a talk in asp in a couple of years ago in which you talk about carbon and ways to deploy that. you just opened this mississippi plant at margaret mentioned but beyond that you are taking things to china and i'm interested you are one of the big power guy is and you also deploy your energy among the lowest socioeconomic constituencies in the united states. i'm interested in how you get smart energy choices when the economics are not necessarily their. >> there are a lot of issues -- >> you have seven minutes. >> it is so foundational.

when i took of the national security i cochair that effort when i think about the challenges in the economy we see right now come a 46% said they got the constituents that i serve, they make less than $40,000 a year and of the energy budget is relatively inflexible. we think about all the other challenges we face and our ability to balance clean, safe affordable energy for their benefit is in or miss. we are the only company strategy for those companies is cool cause it is super cheap. >> when you say what is the strategy, we've got to balance those things. we are a little bit smaller but similar to australia. this is a big company. but we have to do is figure out

ways to make all that work. it isn't just clean or affordable. we've been able to do that. we are the only company in america during the proprietary robust research development. we developed our own technology to essentially consumed low grade coal with a carbon footprint less than natural gas and we take the co2 and in this case. >> is that what is in the project? >> that's what we are working on right now. >> so how do you turn it into the timber project? >> we pay to have china absorb the projects. >> in fact what we have to do is build a full portfolio. if you want to see the whole thing the idea is we need nuclear dominant solutions in the world. 21st century we manage the co2.

natural gas, energy efficiency. the technology that we are talking about in mississippi which has had its challenges we signed two agreements in china. china could use 30,000 megawatts. it is impractical to believe that the rest of the world of a lot continued to consume whole. we have to find ways to consume a responsible way. when you think about the nation like portland which probably has a vast majority of the energy produced by low grade coal, not only is it high gas prices but here in the united states we have the 4-dollar gas prices right now. china, poland and the geopolitics. these ideas can make a lot of sense. he is the nuclear guy.

and after fukushima how do you deal with the public after fukushima to deal with this constant concern that nuclear wireless may help with carbon in the air and climate nonetheless it is creating other spinoffs that just undermine our health and safety. >> let me just say this, the nuclear guy. building a responsible call. one of the largest players in solar and one of the leaders in energy efficiency shall we say

ambition and courage to continue the path of nuclear in spite of fukushima. one of the things you must know is that the technology that we are deploying in georgia is the safest and most liable nuclear technology on the planet today. further, the circumstances -- >> how do you know that? >> because the design is different. they couldn't get the water where it needed to be in the time of an emergency. the major design difference in those relatively old technology. the new technology. you don't even need an external

power source to get the water where it needs to be. the power of gravity. newton's law will deliver it where it needs to be. so it is much more resilient. secretary is a great guy and if you believe carbon is important to the nation's future, nuclear is a dominant solution. there's only three kinds of -- the company that must go forward must have three characteristics. it's got to have scale. $14 billion over ten years. you better have scales because you can't set up the company. you have to have the highest level of financial integrity. you know that you will go through the world financial market. you better have staying power.

third, credibility of other nations. nuclear is no business for beginners. >> we have covered a lot of terrain in seven minutes. it's one of the areas i would step back and look at and i would have liked to have a whole other component on his china. when you think about the various efforts, you might look forward to the impact. nothing works unless you give china and india in a big way. how does it work in just a snapshot and is there the capacity to absorb the killer technology something that fundamentally changes their choices in a systematic way or do we all just think? >> this is why i am the portfolio. the numbers are so big no single killer act will solve the problem and they have an enormous issue to deal with.

they have growth and they have environmental issues if you've ever been to beijing you have seen it. you have trouble seeing several blocks away. so, the point is the chinese with all of their scale and growth have to think about ways to allen's this clean, safe, reliable obligation. >> just to wrap up we are out of time. you've been someone that's been border say and take away all of my goodies. you've got them billions of dollars of taxpayer money you give that up for the lower tax rate. what do you need to be to make it work to invest in the r&d.

president obama take this stuff away. >> here's my point we don't want tax policy deciding the goods business practice. get rid of all of the tax preference items. they've been around since the 80s there's no production tax credit and is still. >> tom fanning, southern company. thank you very much. >> thank you very much before i introduce charlie cook we have doctor john doing a deep dyed in

curing cancer on the innovators stage at this very moment. for those of you that would like to go down. charlie cook has become to go to source for tracking the congressional races since he founded the cook political report 30 years ago. how the races are shaping up and how many republicans are likely to pick up and what might surprise us the most when the polls close next week. let's welcome charlie. last year i spoke at this idea. i looked around the room and the audience was just as impressive as the green room. so it is an honor and we are focused to be here. he was outlining what it might

look like and i was talking to some people and ask them what you hugo along with raising the minimum wage in exchange for lowering the corporate tax rate and in a second those are the kind of deals we used to put together in this town. anyway let me get back on the subject. i am glad that everybody sees this but to fall over and hurt themselves. this election if you go back to early last year, really 2013, there were two different plausible scenarios we could have had. and one scenario might have been that some of the problems that hurt them so badly in 2012

m-mike just slow on into 2014. so that is one scenario where it becomes a referendum up and down on the incumbent president and policies and really midterm elections and every once in a while 98 was one and 2002 was another. it's sort of the light losses, heavy losses and what i call extra crispy. >> it is potentially flowing in.

2012 is an enormous disappointment for the republicans. there were on the three seats out of the majority and we only need three more seats to get a majority in the u.s. senate and it looked very plausible that they could get it. president obama had a was approval rating in any president at a approval rating was than his one line and so he was kind and degree area. it was stuck in low gear and the economy may have been recovering but most voters didn't think their economy was recovering. it's whoever is there. so the republicans had every reason to think that they would

have a good chance of winning. what ended up happening in 2012, instead of gaining three seats into getting the majority they had a net loss of three seats and came out six seats out of the majority instead of just three. go ahead and blame mitt romney for the loss and the campaign that but was inferior to the obama campaign that has that strategy but there was a sort of broad systemic problem that was plaguing the republican party and damaging the brand that also led to romney losing by four points at republicans losing the national vote for the popular vote for the house of representatives and came up short in the senate. the challenges with minority voters and young voters and women voters, moderate voters,

self-described moderate voters plus the four republicans and primary voters to nominate the candidates that my wife lucy is trying to get me to stop using the term wacko so i am using problematic. and people that had the unique capability. all these things republicans had to have on their mind coming into 2014 to bury them. when you go over to the other side where are we right now and the pool that i trust the most and like a lot of them but my absolute favorite is the nbc wall street journal over 30 years they paired up they had a fabulous pole.

anyway, they asked people to using the country is headed in the right direction or is it on the wrong track. and president ronald reagan's pollster used to call that the dow jones indicator of politics was to show 75% think the country setting in the right direction of 65% on the wrong track. the job approval rating is basically netted minus ten. 42 approved and 52 disapproved. the economy i think was 43-53. almost identical but underwater upside down. and handling the foreign policy. even though americans rarely vote on foreign policy over the last year people have been thinking more and more and anxious about what is going on in the world and for good reason. and the president's approval rating in terms of the foreign policy was minus 30. i think that it was 32 to 62. is just horrible members.

now two different courses of action and it's now become very clear which one is going to be. the thing is while there were the problems that hurt the republicans so badly in 2012, they were real, they are real and i think they may be big problems and challenges for the republicans in 2006 but in the context of this midterm election is kind of shrunken significance. and instead the problems that we are facing or the potential problems facing the democratic party is just as vague and broad and deep as democrats feared as a year and a half ago and so how's nothing is going to happen. 96% of all the democrats are in the district's obama carried and 94% of the republicans are in the districts that mitt romney carried. the house kind of sorted it out and republicans need a fixed seat and if you think about it it is a perfect storm of the

factors coming together that go against senate democrats. they have more seats up, 21 versus 15. but much more important, the geography. the democrats have seven seats up in the states romney carried. there's only one republican seat in the obama state and that is susan collins and she couldn't lose if she tried but more importantly, democratic seats, the same number republicans need to miss six of those are in the state's mitt romney carried by 14 points or more. montana, west virginia, alaska, arkansas, louisiana. given that he lost the national election by four percentage points, you show me the stage that was carried by 14 points and i will show you a state i wouldn't want to be a democrat running this year. so the bottom line on this is that republicans don't need a way to run to get a majority.

all they need is people that live in the republican leaning states to vote republican in a very republican year that's all they need. now to the extent they have weird things going on for montana, south dakota, west virginia they are gone. it's like a strong swimmer with a horrible undertow. the democrats are lucky if either one of them survives and the odds are probably not. so then you obviously have some problems but i think it is going to come down to besides georgia and todd ecopetrol did in kansas that will be those in the purple states kay hagan, jeanne shaheen in new hampshire, mark udall in colorado into the open seat in

iowa. we think there's about a 60% chance that republicans could get the majority, but keep in mind there are a lot of close races that will be about a point or 21 way or the other and it don't be stunned if democrats hold onto their majority but the odds are pretty good that republicans will. for the first time in my life i have done this in ten minutes and 30 seconds. thank you all very much. >> the great charlie cook. in the early 1990s, michael and barack obama were classmates at harvard law school where they both served on the harvard law preview and two decades later they became coworkers again and now president obama appointed michael the u.s. representative. a working relationship with significantly more international responsibility but probably much less. forman returned from talks in

sydney around the transpacific partnership that would impact 40% of the global economy. froman joined the financial times washington columnist and commentator ed luce to talk about this work. [applause] >> thanks. i'm told that we went on a little bit longer than planned so this will be a 13 minute interview. thank you so much for joining me. you've are in the midst of the big trade negotiations in the pacific and across the atlantic in the continental trade investment talks but you still don't have the fast track and correct me if i'm wrong but there won't be any significant trade in history. what are your chances of getting

is to track? >> the mechanism that gives the orders about how to work during the negotiation to approve the agreement and the key thing is the trade policy more than any other area of policy is one where the executives and congress need to work together so we've been consulting throughout all of these negotiations and we've had more than 1500 meetings with congress on tpp and that doesn't include tpif. they have been put in the negotiations so that when an agreement comes out he won't be able to go out and become trouble with this. i think ultimately this is an area there's a lot of bipartisan support for the trade and it's one of the areas that cuts across the party lines.

we look forward to working with congress on the trade promotion authority that has broad bipartisan support and this is one area that republicans are more so i secretly have been for the republican victory in the >> it is well-established. you have other speakers on politics and all i would say is this is an area that we need to work bipartisan on all these issues. we are working closely with democrats to ensure that the trade agreements address our interests as well as our values. tpp will have the strongest provisions of any trade agreement in history it's going to be the first agreement that takes on the issue of the state owned enterprises and make sure when they compete with private firms on a level playing field establish the rules for the

digital economy and certain disciplines in the real economy and all this is about unlocking opportunity for american workers and farmers and businesses who need these rules to navigate to the economy. >> suggests to pin down the fast track when are you going to need it to come good? >> for us we move forward with congress on that basis we have this broad bipartisan support area so the big one before you now in terms of your agenda is the transpacific partnership. after the midterm and ten days from now in 20 days from now you have the summit. do you expect to conclude the deal without fast-track and is that something that's realistic? >> we expect to have a final

agreement at a pack. the opportunity when all of the tpp leaders with the presence of it as an opportunity for them to have conversations with each other about tpp and what issues are left and to give more political impetus. >> what are those points on the conversation about agricultural access? you have intellectual property. what are the things that are tidying the negotiators down the most strongly? >> it's following a couple different categories. the heart of the agreement we have the agricultural issues japan and canada and we aren't making good progress with japan and hope to engage soon and we also have issues with japan and then you've got the rules as as the said intellectual property rights, state owned enterprises, labor and environment and the

ministry that we just completed a couple of days ago so we are making very good progress closing closing up the issue is nearing the differences on the remaining issues but we still have a way to go. >> you do need ultimately to have a strong majority for the american public opinion behind you for the trade deals in this environment. it's particularly tough. do you think that you are doing enough to convince the american people of the benefits of these kind of deals and what is the core arguments, but is in the electorate about tpp for example tax >> it starts with the economics. 95% of the world's consumers out of the u.s., 80% of the purchasing power out of the u.s., there are billions that growth to create good jobs and we know the export related jobs pay more than the non- export.

we have to be engaged in the international markets. our market is already quite open. it's about 1.5%. we don't use regulations as a barrier but that isn't true around the world is so in these trade agreements this is how we shape the global economy and globalization and by reducing the barriers disproportionately to be help increase exports from american workers and farmers and helping to grow jobs. wages and strengthen the middle class. it's vitally important that we are proactive in helping to set the rules of the road. and that starts in the asia-pacific. the global global trade-off to be conducted and we think it's important we have a race to the the top with a the strong environment. >> so this is about china. >> it is a strong rules-based system that shows our interests and values and that's what we

are trying to achieve through the tpp. and finally, there is a strong strategic importance that's about the key part of our rebalancing strategy to asia and tpp is a way the u.s. will be embedded in this region economically and will and one of broad spillover effects as well. >> so then the campaigns are getting the proper environment and you mentioned that this is a part of the tpp. can you describe what we are talking about? >> when president obama was running and said we wanted to renegotiate nafta that meant taking the issues that were literally sideshows in nasa and pulling them into the center of nafta and having obligations and subject to the same kind of binding dispute settlement that exist and that is exactly what we are doing in the tpp not just the candidate in mexico since city not just a renegotiation of

nafta but establishing that as a standard for the region and conceivably for the global economy. >> i know you've talked to all of the players here with the unions of the afl-cio. >> we have a butt of contacts back and forth with our colleagues. they have a lot of input the state owned enterprise, the rules of the origin. we certainly have worked to ensure this agreement raises the standards and -- >> and to get the backings of the unions that we aren't going to put the words in their mouth. we are working to ensure that we have the environmental protections in everything we are doing in this agreement is about helping to drive the production on manufacturing.

when you look at all the factors that we have in the united states we have a strong blue of law and objects in object in a real culture and skilled workforce and abundant sources of affordable energy. when you layer on top of that speed by then will be at the center of the agreement that give unfettered access to more than two thirds of the economy and that makes the u.s. the production platform of choice the place where investors want to put the factory to serve the u.s. market but more importantly to shift all over the rest of the world and that will drive the job creation and the good jobs, good manufacturing in the united states. ..

by moving the portfolio from the investor state relations, investor state dispute settlement mechanism out of the hands of the new trade commissioner, the swedish trade commissioner into a political, into the political court, his vice president, a dutch. that took you by surprise. i think it took a lot of people by surprise. my question to you is the european commission decides not to include investor state dispute settlement in the ttip talks, is ttip worth pursuing? is this a dealbreaker for the

united states? >> first of all we welcome the appointment of the new commission. we are looking for to them getting seated and we see this as an opportuniopportuni ty to have a bit of a fresh start in the negotiations. with regard to investor state, investor protections generally, none of us, neither the united states nor the european union want to do anything that will constrain the ability of our governments to regulate in the public interest. in fact, that's why we have worked for other negotiations, tpp and that was to raise the standard, to make it clear that governments congratulate in the public interest. >> the political debate in europe says this is a chart for multinational states to get around government. >> and we think it's important governments able to regulate and with certain safeguards to ensure that these procedures are used a properly. we can dismiss frivolous claims, award attorneys fees and make a fully transparent to labor unions and civil society or

concessions can participate. >> hearings -- >> they cannot only participate but submit briefs. >> that's not what most people think in europe. they think this is a multinational to trample on democracies. that's -- >> that's why we need to make it clear what it is and what it is an. that applies to a number of things in ttip. there's a lot of mythology about what it is we're trying to negotiate or what we're trying not to negotiate. we be proactive and europeans be proactive about getting the correct story out there. none of us want to compromise the ability of our governments to regulate, and all of us though think that investment protections, isds fundamentally gives investors, investors abroad the same rights we give foreign and direct investors in the united states. rights will not be subject to discriminatory or arbitrary treaty and, in fact, that's what part of a high standard trade and investment is all about. when we launch a ttip, the

u.s.-india agreed would have a high standard of an agreement that each negotiate in this area. >> is ttip without of that clause worth having? >> look, i'm not going to negotiate here. i'm looking forward to seeing our counterpacounterpa rts and going through this. >> i'm a european. >> it's hard to imagine a high standard agreement. this is intended to be a model for the rest of the world. it's hard to imagine an agreement that it doesn't have a high standard of investment protections as well. that means raising the standard. europe has 1400 agreements that have -- views has about 40. the most active users of investor states are european companies. not american companies. >> i think luxembourg originated a lot of these. >> perhaps so. i think it's important we look at the accusatioaccusatio ns out there, take them serious because i think it's important that both the united states and europe

recognize that we did it. we don't want to compromise the ability of government governmeno regulate but at the same time we see making sure that there is nondiscriminatory regulation, it doesn't have arbitrary impact on investors. we know investment feeds jobs that come it will. >> in terms of your expectation for a europe deal, and your expectations for a pacific duke of what kind of deadlines, what kind of timeframe are we talking about? could you get a specific you by january, every? >> we think the substance of the negotiation ought to drive the timetable. in facttimetable. in fact, we just cannot dismiss cheerio in sydney. i think we all, all 12 us, see that the final agreement is being crystallized. we can see where this is heading. we are closing out issues, making progress on market access. we still have a ways to go and we are not going to live by an

arbitrary deadline but we are all focus on getting it done. >> and with year of if you put the edward snowden stuck behind you, a lot of snafus a dialogue with europeans, is having a new commission draw a line under some the difficulties you've had in the dialogue over the last year? >> we worked very well with the old commission as well. my counterpart there has been a good part. with a new commission it gives us an opportunity to start fresh and to lay out a work plan for the coming months and to make progress on the outstanding issues. >> thank you for allowing me to machine gun you with questions. >> thank you. [applause] >> with the new andrew cuomo quarantine policy, who could be more interesting to hear from dr. anthony fauci? all, thank you. let me start over. with the new andrew cuomo chris christie quarantine policies,

who could be more interested to hear from the dr. anthony fauci of the national institutes of allergy and infectious diseases? he said that blanket court case for people returning from west africa who have not shown symptoms of ebola are unnecessary. dr. fauci joins us today with "new york times" columnist david brooks. thank you, david. [applause] >> thank you. welcome, dr. fauci. i guess the first question is where are we? there is declining slope in liberia. just in the curve of the whole ebola virus, are we up, down? >> we are still going. if you look at the list report we have about 13,000 reported or suspected cases, and about 5000 plus deaths, maybe a bit more. if you look at liberia, which has been one of the epicenters, particularly in monrovia, the cases are, in fact, going down. if you look at particularly the burials and you can monitor

death and cases, one of the concerns we have about getting complacent about that is that ebola historically can go in ways. as it goes down in the city come in monrovia, then you can start to see perhaps upscaling in areas around the rain forest. and then there is sierra leone which was a bit beyond liberia which we are consumed we may see an uptick. although it's better news than the opposite, namely it's going down, we better just be careful before we say we are on the right track. >> seat charts or maps that project what could go to you look at india, latin america. how likely do think that is? >> well, the reason we have is extraordinarily devastating situation in west africa, david, what i refer to as the perfect storm. people don't realize that there have been, since 1976 when ebola was first recognized in the

former zaire, current democratic republic of the congo, and sudan, there have been since 1976 about 24 outbreaks, most of which have been in remote areas in which you could actually contain it. this is the first time that we've had an epidemic the size of which is much more than all of the other 24 combined. so contact tracing and the health care structure that allows you to identify somebody, isolate them and keep them out of society when they are sick. because the only way you can spread ebola is by coming into the direct contact with the body fluids of someone who is sick. so you do all that. so in answer to question if a country has a health care system where you can at least to contact tracing and isolation, it is very unlikely that there will be an outbreak in that country. the perfect storm in nigeria, sierra leone and guinea is that it everything going against them. they have porous borders but you look at the map of africa,

guinea routes itself around sierra leone and liberia, and there are tribal interrelations or you go across the border. poor health care system, customs of burial, customs a distrust of authority and that's how yet the outbreak. so although potential you could have it in another country, nigeria get a very good job of contact tracing and stopping the outbreak there. a headcases but they work secondary spread the same in senegal. so we're hoping that the best way to protect the rest of the world is to suppress the epidemic in west africa. >> you had a patient, you treated a patient yourself here. can you describe what you did? it's interesting to learn how you can beat it is. >> well, people who die into poorly with ebola, essentially lose and credible amount of fluid, either through diarrhea or vomiting. they rarely when you look at the motion picture depictions of

this disease of people bloody eyes and bleeding out, that occurred in a very, very small percentage of people. most people buy from what's called hypothalamic shock, namely, they lose so much fluid that you can get enough back into them. their electoral lights or the things that keep all of your systems going get completely out of whack and that's i had a very high mortality. so depending upon the strain and where you are, the mortality can be as high as 90% or it can go down they set as low as 40, but it's curious that the patients that we've taken care of here in the united states where you have tertiary care, intensive care capabilities, that the only person who died is thomas duncan who came in very sick into the dallas hospital. the seven other patients, one of which i had the privilege of taking care of, did very well because we gave them terse he or he care, u.s. medicine, replenishment of fluid, monitoring electrolytes and things like that.

>> so if you can't get adequate health care facilities to these people you can adequate reduce the death rate. >> it won't go to zero but it will be very, very much diminished. >> that's been the last question is loudly get, how many health care workers we need in africa? in the details a little bit about the christian-obama dispute -- how we should regulate the returned to this country and that we should regulate that whole flow of talent spent let's address the first point that you made first, and that is that many hospital beds occasion of the united states has really stepped to the plate. we already have up there now a 25 bed hospital van by at least 65 united states public health service officers for health care workers who get sick taking care of people there. so you don't come you didn't incentive to go, not like if you get sick, forget it, you're on your own. that's not what we talk about. we will to give them. the rest is we have a lot of volunteers in over there now and

the department of defense is not committed to setting up 17, 100 bed hospitals in west africa and there are many, many more coming. we need hundreds if not thousands of health care workers as well as many, many more beds. that is coming. i hope that is already can shooting to the downtick that we're seeing in liberia and if that's the case it will go up. now the issue with this conflict is i think taken out of proportion. if you look at the situation about the ball is transmitted, it is only transmitted by direct contact with the bodily fluids of someone who is ill. not just feeling a little badly, but ill. so if you don't come into contact with the body fluids were not getting that. how do we know that? because we've been taking care of ebola people since 1976 and we know that's how it is transmitted. the issue of what was just mentioned about quarantining battled people are traveling

from west africa, but health care workers who donated their time can put themselves on the line, if you have a blanket, namely just completely everybody can't do anything for 21 days, that we feel would be a major disincentive. but that doesn't mean that the people who are promoting that are doing anything wrong but i believe the governors and others who have been pushing that in good faith are trying to protect their constituency. so there's no criticism of them but it's just that as a health person, as a physician and a scientist, i would say that you look at the data and it tells you what the risk is. so if someone comes by, rather than putting everybody in one bucket, you your quarantine or you can go out and do whatever you want, i think both of those are extreme. so what does, the cdc recommendations now are that you match the stratification of a risk of someone being infected. versus the stratification of how

you monitor them and the degree to which you restrict them. so if someone is at a high risk and comes back, if they are symptomatic right away you get isolated and treated because it is a good chance you have ebola. but even if you don't have symptoms, if you're at high risk, you don't travel. you don't get on the subway. that's already in the guidelines. i don't think people appreciate that, but then there are other people who are at some risk and some who are at low but not zero risk. so with the guidelines say is don't put everybody in the same bucket where someone is really feeling well coming back, and all of a sudden you say, you can't come out of an apartment we can't come out of a facility for 21 days. because if that happens we are concerned that health care workers who are donating their own time, when they come back and have no scientific reason why they should be quarantined,

that would be a disincentive for them to go. and i know because these are my colleagues. i know. i mean, the fact is they would say, you can't going to take out a month of my life to go there and then when i come back, if i symptoms i definitely don't want to be in society. i want to protect myself and society. but if i perfectly well without symptoms, i want to get back to doing the things that you. i think that's, ma i would say the controversy about that. but i don't fault those who feel that a core team is necessary because i think they're acting in good faith. the only thing i don't think it's based on what we know about the scientific data. >> you been doing this a while, hiv, sars, anthrax, this. they fear of the public attention on this seems gigantic compared to the actual fatalities in this country. how do you compare this to the other things you have dealt with? >> well, you know, in my 30 year career as director, actually for our five but three years, hiv crisis in the beginning, and

that was an interesting, a little bit the other side of the coin because there was the emergence of a phenomenal, historic pandemic now that dwarfs anything else. and there was in some quarters not a lot of attention paid to it. there was fear in society that was unrealistic, you know, i can tell you stories that we had about, you know, being in the same school or going into a restaurant where a gay waiter is waiting on you. just ridiculous. but those were the fears that were going on. that was one level. been there was the anthrax attack right after 9/11. so after the 9/11 attack on the world trade center, on the pentagon, people respect. then you have the anthrax attacks right here in a city but everyone was afraid of touchingg their mail into thinking they're going to die of anthrax. that was a bit unrealistic. this one here has got a special flavor of fear because if you look at the ball and you look at the front page of your paper,

"the new yor"the new york timesy everyday they show pictures of people dead in the street dying horrible deaths. so people extrapolate what they see in west africa with what they think might happen here. i think what we are seeing is a catastrophic health crisis in west africa, and epidemic of fear here. i don't disrespect that fear and i don't criticize it but you've got to evaluate your risk and relative risk based on scientific evidence. and to this day to people have gotten infected in the united states of america. two people have gotten infected while they are here. both of those people were brave nurses who were putting themselves in harm's way life taking care of an ebola patient and the hospital. there's -- that doesn't mean there might be other infections. there might be, i don't know the look at what's happened and they

fear that it has generated. >> you are on tv a lot talking about this. do you just tell people to man up speak was no. you don't want to do that. david, you have to come and i always have to all of these crises that have been through, you have to respect the fear of people. you can't denigrate it as a while you frank with you got to try to explain to them and you got to do it over and over, that if you look at the scientific evidence about its is transmitted, you've got to give examples. and i think one of the best examples is that the two nurses, and had the privilege of taking care of one of them, nina pham at the nih in bethesda was a patient of mine last week. some of you see we discharged her virtue doing very well. those two people got infected from mr. duncan when he was desperately ill in a dallas hospital. they were taking care of him to make that infected. mr. duncan had contact with many family members while he was sick.

none of those family members have gotten ebola. so what that tells you if you look at the scientific evidence that the way you keep ebola is by direct intimate contact with thbody fluids of someone who is really sick. not someone who is well, no fever, not be held. the risk of that is, you know, university zero but it is essentially zero because it's not transmitted that way. >> we've had a couple of outbreaks as you mentioned. why doesn't this keep going on? what do we do? is there going to be a vaccine? should there be a medical court to take care of is to anticipate these things because this epidemic will get under control but i'm only by health care measures, namely the kind of acceleration that the united states has done and hopefully other countries will do. hopefully it gets under control before we have a need to use a

vaccine. but right now we are very rapidly on a fast-track testing a vaccine. we started it in what's called phase one in bethesda, here, and also in other places in maryland where you give to 20 us for people to see if it's safe. by november we will know if it is safe. by december or january we will go on a much larger trial in west africa to see if it works. you don't want to give a vaccine to anybody if it doesn't work or it might be dangerous but if it works we will distribute it. but the core of your question is what about the next outbreak is what you're asking i think, david. that's something we need to look at as a global community. there's a concept that the president has spoken about in february called the global health security agenda in which you have a network of being able to monitor and see the outbreaks of these diseases, but to have a system that can track them so that you can stop it at its

source. also, you have to look at the health care infrastructure of countries. those are the countries in which outbreaks occur. so we have to do two things. we have to bolster up this global health security agenda, but we also have to convince the world that attention to the health infrastructure of the country is as important as anything else they do with their country. >> dr. anthony fauci, thank you very much. >> you're welcome. [applause] >> wwe will leave the washington ideas forum at this point. we are continuing to record the session and we will have them for you later along with a discussion we showed you earlier, yesterday and what happened earlier today. all of that is able at c-span.org you can watch online. s. campaign 2014 heads into the home stretch your cities and we are continue to show you debates from around the country. join us tonight for more here on

c-span2. >> be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. follow was on twitter and likes of facebook to get debate schedules, video clips, debate previews from our politics team. c-span is bringing over 100 senate, house and governor debates and you can share your reactions to what the candidates are saying. the battle for control of

congress. stay in touch and engaged by following us on twitter at c-span and liking us on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. >> this weekend on the c-span networks, friday night starting at eight eastern on c-span, our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues in prime time.

>> ten years after former colorado senator ken salazar crafted his legislation he addressed a form in your cities about why the country is still waiting for immigration reform. of the participants at the forum, university event included

at fordham university that is a retired justice department immigration judge and head of the national the team no evangelical coalition looking at immigration reform from political, moral and legal perspectives. this is about an hour and 45 minutes. >> when we begin to think about who might serve as presenters and conservation partners this evening, the first thing that came to mind was secretary ken salazar. before his executive branch service as secretary of the interior, and during his congressional service as in the united states senate, secretary salazar gave evidence of evenhanded intelligence on the range of issues related to immigration. when he joined a bipartisan group of senators to construct a comprehensive immigration reform package, a package that after senate passage in 2006 would subsequently die. 10 years later, the nation has yet to come to some consensus on

immigration. joining on his expertise in this area, secretary salazar will begin tonight by trying to make sense of the broad issues we as a nation are facing in the current immigration crisis. and hopefully shed some light on why we remain longchamp a decade after his initial efforts at reform. judge sarah burr oh -- not on as a federal judge rules on immigration, but also as an advocate with extensive background working in the immigration unit of the legal aid society in new york. in her remarks, judge burr will address the practical challenges of responding to the needs within the competence context of u.s. law and public policy.

finally, we are pleased to have with us the president of the national latino evangelical coalition. during his presentation he will explore the moral issues at stake and draw from his on the ground experience mostly his experience in recent months with building networks both religious and civic designed to serve the needs of immigrant youth and families, especially those who come from impoverished backgrounds. tonight you will learn a great deal about what indeed we all immigrant youth and children and what pope francis recently called the humanitarian emergency now underway within the u.s. borders. and so to start us off it is my pleasure to call to the podium secretary ken salazar. [applause]

>> thank you very much for the introduction, and to all of you who are here to discuss this issue of great importance, not only to the united states of america but really to the world. i want to thank my fellow panelists, judge burr and also want to just acknowledge gabriel salguero, because the last time i saw him we're actually working on this topic in the roosevelt room during the obama administration. was great to be here again and great for all of you to come together to try to figure out how we can move forward as a country, how we make sense of the immigration debate that's going on in our country today. about what we do is start off with comments by labeling what i see this period of time in american history. and i would essentially label our time in terms of immigration

debate as a time of change for the united states of america. and the time has changed -- a time of shame because of the moral values and the legal framework that keeps us as a nation a beacon of hope and opportunity and rule of law throughout the world, somehow is suffering in a way that seems incomprehensible to everyone. so now we can't seem to understand a national imperative of economics and national security and moral punitive values of this country. it should calls altogether to move forward with a comprehensive reform that make sense to our country and to its future. so i think about this time that we are in this impact -- impasse which is the one they decade-long impasse. and i think that history will look back at this time period and they will say that yes, america has been a place that's been a country that has been on

a march towards a more perfect union, and along the way there've been chapters of great pain and places where we have seen our country deal with issues that have made suffering come about two people who live in this land and to reside here. i think about those time periods of change -- shame which i study and been a part of azure sector injured and my time as public servant. and times such as the period of slavery for this country in its first 260 years. i think to the annihilation of native americans before then and even after that, and how that was and still is a stain on the consciousness of america's move toward a more perfect union. i think about the jim crow era from the civil war all the way to the 1954 brown v. board of education decision and u.s.

supreme court. and i think there to the doctrine of separate but equal that justice warrants that had no place in our constitution under equal protection clause, it was okay for us as a country to say that we could divide ourselves among blacks, browns and whites integrate separate schools in separate public facilities for people. those are times of shame, when we did not recognize the rights of women to vote and participate fully in the rights of our americans. and some other each of those periods the country has progressed and we've made progress and we'll solve problems. we still have a long ways to go, and on this particular issue, on immigration there's a call for us to take action as a country. in this day when you read the headlines and those of us who follow the immigration debate, you have to wonder what is

happening in our country in this time of shame, now for the last 10 years and even today, some 12 million people live in the shadows of our society. does your landscaping the gardens and the places that america calls america the beautiful from sea to shining sea has to live in the shadows of our society. those who are cleaning our hotel rooms as we go across this country, including places like here in new york, laces still have to live in the shadows of our society. those who work in some of the most difficult jobs where no one will work except for them. they live in the shadows of american society. never -- remember working with senator kerry and senator mccain trying to move forward with a comprehensive immigration reform package. i remembered a meatpacking plant

in greeley, colorado. therever workers tucking him i d ask me, senator, this is something that so important. what can you do? and a few weeks later those families dependent on that meatpacking plant were essentially torn apart as there was a raid on the plant. children came home from school afternoon. they had seen their parents in the morning, but they would not see their parents because they would be separated. i could tell you story after story about how those things so much affect humanity. and yet somehow we seem to be caught in this time of shame and a period of paralysis, a period where we don't seem to be able to move forward. i often ask myself, what is it that keeps us from solving this problem? why is it that today, 50,000

children and their families essentially in detention and jails, and trying to find a holding place in this country. or why it is that 12 million people who are here did not create the kind of movement to solve this committing problem right here in our own places but in my view, the issue of immigration reform and what's happening with children and their families across the southern borders today really represent the number one civil rights, a management issue of our time. it represents the number one civil rights and human -- imagine issue of our time. so why is it then we are not able to come to a way forward, that creates more consensus among this country? why is there such a division? why would a republican president like george w. bush, who i met with her four days after the

election now with president obama and with several other, governors from border states, why not within his efforts which were truly strong efforts on behalf of a republican president, working with our bipartisan coalition can we not get it done in 2006? why was it even when they came back to the next congress, the same kind of issues that seemed to falter even more? i still remember the call from president george w. bush from air force one the day after the final vote was taken, and it failed in the senate on the second time around. and he said to me, ken, we thought a good fight but this will not be solved on our watch. and then why is it that this president, barack obama, elected with a very significant vote among the latino community, promising that immigration

reform would be the issue which he would resolve in the first year of his presidency. six years later we are still in the same place we were back then. why is that so? both president bush and president obama are good people. i worked close with both of them. they are both my friends. they have the right kinds of value to fight a push come an agenda that ultimately gives us to solution. so it is important what you're doing here at fordham, here at the center, to ask yourselves why does it seem to be such a difficult issue to solve? i don't know that i know the answers. but i would offer to observations to why i think it is so difficult. i think the first is that we as a country have a very shallow understanding of immigration and

its roots here in this country. most people do not know the history here in new york about alice island to i had the honor of visiting the statue of liberty and opening up the ground to the world to see. and every time that i would go to the statue of liberty and i would go to ellis island i would think about how our country became what this country became. because of immigrants were drawn here, because of the freedom and opportunity that was here. we are an immigrant nation. yet there are those, including many of my former colleagues in the united states senate who would like to close the door behind them, and to say that we don't want those immigrants. they would refer to those who are attempting to come into this country to seek freedom and opportunity as those people, as though some of them are lesser human beings. that's very to in the u.s. senate and the u.s. house of representatives today, among

many of its members. and so i think that comes from the fact that the representatives of the people, and the people of this country still need to understand the history of immigration. and perhaps because of the impact of the crisis we see, that kind of education we'll see unfold in the years ahead as we strive for a solution for this major problem. secondly, i believe that part of the reason, maybe significant reason, why we've had such a difficult time to get comprehensive immigration reform is that there is a xenophobia with respect to mexico, central america, latin america. my family came here before the united states was in the southwestern part of this country. and before there was a united states of america. as president obama introduced me

in the last time he introduced become he said we've got to remember that ken's family was here and the borders came over to dr. salguero, as opposed to the other way around. he said my family help found the city of holy faith. before jane said, before plymouth rock of 250 before the conclusion of the mexican-american war. [speaking spanish] very deep roots. very, very deep roots. and yet when you look at the immigration debate today, it's all about creating a wall. between the united states, mexico and all of latin america. i often think about how president reagan went to the berlin wall, writing his speech on the way over to get the famous phrase when he said, mr. go chop, take down this wall.

and -- mr. gorbachev, taken as well. but we do is invest in building this huge wall between the united states and our neighbor to the south. in fact the latest bipartisan bill that passed the senate, some $45 billion allocated to building more walls between the united states and latin america. i have often pondered why it is even in the debates where i was, spent too much on the floor with senator ted kennedy and senator john mccain and our colleagues were working on the successful passage in 2006 of these senate bill on comprehensive immigration reform, why it was that people would insist on creating such a wall to the south. and yet to the north, to the north year 2000 miles between the u.s. and mexico, nearly 5000 miles between canada and the u.s. no wall to the north. in my view part of the immigration reality that we seek, and some of the rhetoric and some of the poison that we

see has truth in some of that history. has truth in the history of the southwestern part of the united states was, in fact, a concord place, a place where the rio grande and colorado river and a place in between, that there was supposed to be a wall there. and yet when you look back at the history of this country, and those who have died in war, who have done so much to serve this country, there are cultural, historical and economic ties that go back 400 years between the united states and all of latin america. and so how we passed the immigration solution has to take, in my view, a new understanding of the role that the united states of america should play in terms of our foreign policy. in november of 2004, the first meeting with president bush and vice president cheney at the white house, i said to the

president and to a small group of people over breakfast one of the things what to do with our foreign policy is yes, we still need to pay attention east and west to yes when you to pay attention to what's happening in the middle east and other places around the world, but that we have forgotten the importance of the relationship the united states of america to latin america. present cheered and his efforts under the alliance for progress -- it was president kennedy's vision that we would form an alliance with all of the americas in the western hemisphere. and yet somehow time after time, president after president, republican and democrat, somehow we have failed to do. so much of the discord and poison that we see around immigration reform, in my view, reflects the failed policy by the united states of america with respect to our neighbors to the south. and we need to re-examine that as we move forward with

immigration reform. to those, lease in my view, central elements that contribute to the impasse that we see today. so now as a look at it, because i know elections are approaching, i know that there will be a time between this november and the end of the obama administration where there may be additional action that will be taken, i know this issue will be debated and universities across the country like here at fordham, and in many states, texas, arizona, you name it, all over the country. so what is it that we can look forward to come in my humble opinion? my humble opinion, i think you can look forward to first of all bold leadership. i hope that as the president has promised, that barack obama delivers on his vouchers and she says yes, we are going to do something to make sure that the united states upholds its moral and economic values to this

country to executive action at authorities as the president does, in fact, have. so we must all remember that those are short-term kind of action. because of in the executive order, legal counsel to the governor, i've worked closely with three presidents and the executive order can be undone by the next president of the united states. so it's not a lasting solution to so what needs to happen is when you to fix our immigration laws through comprehensive immigration reform, and the united states congress needs to be involved in that effort. so will we see bold leadership from the united states congress? after november, or will we not? the last decade has not shown us that we see a lot of bold leadership in the u.s. congress. so i think we can look ahead always with hope, thinking that members of the united states house of representatives and the

senate will appeal to the battle angels and try to create a better comprehensive immigration reform package moving forward. i don't know if that will happen until the third area where i think we have to go. to make sure that we have the people of this country involved in a march for this next chapter of civil rights. my view is such -- it's an issue that calls out for the kind of leadership that many of you here today bring to the table. it's a kind of leadership that the evangelical organization, which are headed by my good friend, trenton. it's that kind of leadership that hopefully ultimately will appeal -- dr. salguero. the consensus of a good comprehensive immigration reform. so we still have a long ways to go. we still have a long ways to go. we cannot give up on it. the issues are at stake are so important to the economic issues

for our country really depend on us in able to bring talent in to this country from many places. and that's why, whether it's people like mark zuckerberg, and so many others, are so involved in trying to make sure that we have the right talent here in this country. that's why the dairymen, the agriculture groups estimate others want immigration reform issues fixed. it's also about national security. we don't have to think long about how we need to know coming in and out of her country and how we keep america safe where we are here in new york and right up to the aftermath of 9/11. it is also about national security. but importantly i would say it is also a national moral imperative for our country. we need to make sure that we get it right. let me just conclude my comments by saying yes, it is a time of shame, and we have to recognize that here in the united states.

it's a time of shame but there have been others that have led us through tough times where we as a country have come out much better at the other end of the debate. and that will happen here as well. and i am reminded of cesar chavez, the leader of the united farm workers, where the president and died a few years ago had the honor of creating a national moment in his honor. he became the 400 unit of the united states national parks system come to honor his march for civil rights, for the farmworkers. in his most famous the prayers, the prayer of the farmworkers were he says, let me know the plight of the most miserable. so that i will no my people's plight. let me have the courage to serve others, for and service there is to life. i am reminded of dr. king, for

whom we now have an african-american monument, or a monument of an african-american hero on the national mall of the united states in washington, d.c. i've had the honor of moving the project along during my time as secretary of interior. and if you visit washington and you could see the most famous quotes of dr. king, one of them is about the arc of the moral universe. where he says the mark of a moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. the issue of immigration and children and families at the border is one such issue, one such issue. and you all who will hang on to the edge of the arc, to try to help this country and its leader

understand the importance of having a system of immigration reform that makes sense to this country is one of those important inheritance that will fulfill the vision of dr. king, that that arc of the moral universe bends towards justice. thank you very much. [applause] >> good evening. i'm very pleased to join in this conversation and to be invited to speak to this evening. what do we owe to immigrant youth and families? from my perspective, from having sat on the bench, we owe them

due process of law. it's a very simple phrase. it's an ambiguous phrase, and it has a long history going back to the magna carta. due process of the law has been enshrined in our constitution through the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment. and what is a due process of law? i believe that it means fundamental fairness to all persons in all proceedings, told civil and criminal. let me just make that distinction between civil and criminal. immigration proceedings are civil proceedings, and they are not criminal proceedings. and immigration proceedings, due process encompasses the right to notice of the charges, the right

to an attorney of your choice, the right to defend yourself or to contest the evidence against you. the right to an and partial orbiter -- r. berger, that being the judge and the right to appeal if you disagree with the decision. in criminal cases, the right to counsel is absolute. if you cannot afford an attorney one is appointed for you at government expense. in civil cases you are entitled to the attorney of your choice but the government has no obligation to provide you with a free attorney. you, if you're in proceedings, have to go out and get your own lawyer. in juvenile cases, and those are the cases of young people 18 years and younger, this right to

counsel becomes crucial. how can a juvenile or young person really understand the charges against them without a lawyer? how can they mount a defense, or how can they question the evidence without an attorney? you're talking about a very vulnerable population. juveniles as a group are impressionable due to the young age. if they are particularly young, they are legally considered to be incompetent. there's the issue of whether they can properly testify in court. forget about whether they understand the charges. can even tell their story in court?

another issue that immigration judges deal with in terms of juveniles as a vulnerable population is a very disturbing issue of trafficking. there are children who come through immigration court who are brought to this country to work. they are being trafficked for working or in the sex trade. so the judge not only has to deal with the vulnerability of age, but the possible vulnerability that you have a young person who is being trafficked. how do judges, how did immigration judges deal with these dilemmas? in new york city, which is the only venue that i'm cognizant of in terms of my own practical experience, the immigration

court set up a separate juvenile docket about 10 years ago. we started to see a real increase in the number of juveniles about 10 years ago, and decided that these kids really needed to be separated from the general population and have their own docket. there are now four judges in new york city who hear juvenile cases in which the entire docket is juveniles. those judges are trained to deal with a younger and more impressionable group of people. the judges do not wear a robe. they tailor the language in court to be as clear and as simple as possible to deal with the children in front of them.

when asking the children questions, they ask very simple and non-leading questions, questions that do not suggest an answer. generally, the judges tried as hard as possible to make the proceedings stress-free. all of that is important, but the most important thing is that the children be represented by an attorney. we are very lucky in new york city because we have a number of legal aid providers. we have law schools who help. we have legal aid groups, and thanks to all of their efforts, the children who appear in immigration court are all represented by children -- by lawyers. [laughter]

that would be interesting. [laughter] so i would say that we are lucky if we are lucky to have the level of talent and commitment among the legal community in new york city to provide due process to these children. this is not so in many parts of the united states. there are many areas in this country where there are immigration courts in remote locations, or in detained facilities, where there is virtually no access to an attorney. not only is their very limited access, but there is even more limited access to a pro bono or a free lawyer. so that the real issue is in

covering the courts across the country, how are we going to afford due process to these young people? as a society i think we are judged by how we treat the weakest among us. society, through congress, through laws, has authorized the juveniles receive a full and fair hearing. i believe that a full and fair hearing for juveniles necessarily requires the appointment of free counsel to all children. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you for the center on religion and culture, in the center for ethic education to secretary salazar and judge burr. i couldn't agree more with judge burr's last comments. i think that humane and moral society should provide free legal counsel for all children. the question i was asked is what do we owe immigrant youth and families? you might ask, why would they invite a puerto rican evangelical to a jesuit organization? [laughter] to speak to this issue. i think it's because faith perspective has been deeply involved. it's not lost. this is the 10th anniversary of the center for religion and culture. and many faith groups, including

the evangelical immigration table, of which i'm apart, our coalition and national evangelical coalition, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, the hebrew immigration society, and so many others that for more than 10 years have been providing a faith-based, moral, interfaith, moral response to the immigration crisis. ..

so if the answer is blowing in the wind, it is up to faith leaders to create the changes in the wind. let me begin with what has been done, secretary salazar was right. we met on more than one occasion in the white house and most recently in the roosevelt room. let me name a few of the organizations that have been advocating vigorously for immigration, comprehensive immigration reform. the question is not, does the country want immigration reform. the country does. every survey, from any political stripe or ideology has said, that the country wants immigration reform. 2/3 of americans want immigration reform. every major faith leader has

advocated for immigration reform. there is even an organization called bbb, bibles, badges and business, where you have sheriffs, evangelical leaders and catholic leaders and business leaders which includes the head of the u.s. chamber of commerce, that very progressive group, who have advocated for comprehensive immigration reform. the new american partnership headed by former mayor bloomberk zuckerberg. one year ago, over a year ago, it was a senate bipartisan bill that came to the floor for comprehensive immigration reform that has just been sitting. [speaking spanish] the question is not, does the country want immigration reform. the question is, why aren't the leaders following the lead of the country?

i submit to you that there are several obstacles, many of them outlined by secretary salazar, political. there are places in the country where this argument is not making headway. recently, about a month ago, there was a late bill that passed in the house about uacs, that is the legal term, unaccompanied alien children. not a term i would use. i call them, children created in the image of god. and part of, there were two bills. one of them called for the repeal of dachau -- daca, deferred action for dreamers. the other one did not lean heavily enough in the direction that president obama lad asked for help in the -- had asked for help in the border. one of the conversations were part of it that saddened my

heart was, repeal of tvpra. to trafficking victims, protection reauthorization act. to help over 50,000 children who came to the southwest border of the united states would be contingent on repeal being the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act. protecting children who are trafficked, many of them as you know, coming from hon during remarks guatemala and el salavador. countries ravaged by violence, gangs, corruption, extreme poverty, virtual dominance of organizations like those that what would make us turn children away fleeing violence and in the same breath, ask people in the

middle east to take over a million refugees in syria? it is as if we have historical amnesia. and emma lazarus never spoke to us, bring me your poor, your hungry, your huddled masses. yearning to be free. i submit to you that what we owe them is a stronger moral argument and a more vigorous defense of children everywhere. i submit to you that what we owe them is common sense and comprehensive immigration reform that does not divide families. we can not say we value families as faith voters and then deport parents to another part of the world. it is at best inconsistent and at worse, hypocritical. you might ask yourself, where

are evangelicals on this? much to my pleasure, the growing number of evangelicals, including white evangelicals, have advocated publicly and privately for immigration reform. the national association of evangelicals has signed public documents saying that we want common sense immigration reform. that insures family security and unification. secondly, we owe the truth to the american public. these frivolous arguments that somehow immigrants are going to cause the apocalypse of the u.s. economy, when the bipartisan policy center, a center chaired by condoleeza rice, has said that immigration reform would be over a billion, a billion dollar boon to the u.s. economy. the frivolous economic arguments

are falling apart, yet, we still don't have common sense and comprehensive immigration reform. at the core of the issue, this is a moral and spiritual issue. to quote one of the greatest thinkers in christian thought, if you're protestant or catholic you pronounce it differently, st. augustine or st. augustine. what is the -- that is the question. what is the sumabonum? what is the highest good when it comes to common sense immigration reform and receiving, yes, what i call refugee children running away from the open veins of latin america. jesus, the great teacher, in that great, last sermon of his over there in the new testament in matthew 25, there's a --

called the judgment of the ethna. translated in english, judgment of nations. the word where we get ethnicity is translated nations. he says when all the nations come before god to be judged by god, he will ask them, when i was hungry, did you feed me? when i was naked, did you clothe me? when i was in prison, a reference to mass incarceration, did you visit me? and when i was a stranger, did you welcome me? and the nations will say to jesus, jesus, when did we see you hungry, naked, thursdayty, a stranger? jesus respond in the way only a great teacher can, as you did to the least of these, my sisters and brothers, you have done to

me. you see the question is, what we do to the immigrants we do to ourselves. it noise not just what do we owe immigrant youth and families. it is what do we owe our country? secretary salazar quoted former president kennedy. kennedy is known for two great books. one is, "profiles in courage." courage is in high demand and in low supply. the second one is, "a nation of immigrants." immigration built this nation. and when we don't invest in the future of immigration, we do not invest in the future and prosperity of our nation. secondly, there is a wonderful greek word for hospitality in the new testament. over there in the book of hebrews it says, never forget,

the king james version is the one i learned as an evangelical. i went to symphony nary. they introduced me to other versions. new revised standard, niv. it says, do not forget to entertain strangers, another translation says, be hospitable to strangers. the word for strangers in that new testament text? xenophilia. love of the stranger. you see, to be consistent with our hierarchy is not just to welcome the rich diversity of immigrants and their children. we don't want to be tolerated. we want to be celebrated. xenophilia. and people have said we can't sustain this, this is not economically viable.

even as those myths fall away, the words of st. augustine ring to us. we do not always do things because they work, trying for pragmatism. we do them because they're right, the triumph of morality. so, we'll see what happens after this midterm election. we'll see what president obama does with an executive order. the truth is, for us to treat the children mainly through the families, we need comprehensive, common sense, humane immigration reform that, the best in our faiths, in our moral values, in our commitments, as children of god. [applause]

>> thanks to all of you, for your wonderful presentations amounts our regular attendees know, we divide our events, our programs into two parts. presentations and conversations. and now we move into the conversation stage. to lead the conversation i want to invite a man who, if you watch the 5:00 news on channel 4 tonight, he was on it. david ashery is an emmy-award-winning journalist the in the new york area. is co-host of weekend heed digsings news 4 new york and host of debrief with david ushery. a long time journalist both in television media but also in print media, having written for "the hartford courant" and "the los angeles times." a pleasure to invite a real pro to the podium tonight.

david usherry. [applause] >> jim, our problem in local news is not enough people are watching the 5:00 broadcast but enough about me and my woes. thank you, sir. what an honor to be here. what an honor to share this distinguished dias. i'm sorry, i did have a broadcast just before coming here. i was a few minutes late but i heard most of mr. salazar's presentation and everyone else. i was even a few more seconds late. i always insist combing my hair before i enter a room and takes me a minute. [laughter]. the my role here is to really facilitate discussion. these are the learned people and you in this laboratory of learning, have many questions. so that is what we want to get to. we will as a journalist. i will try to frame a couple dialogue points which is what i will tree to do, not provoking debate necessarily but trying to

raise some of the issues. i wanted to ask this, mr. salazar, secretary salazar, i'm embarrassed, you said this, this requires nothing short of a civil rights movement to move this ball down the field, perhaps the greatest civil rights and humanitarian issue facing us right now. reverend, you said if you want to change the law you need to change the culture. so acknowledging that 2/3 of americans want immigration reform, always issue how to get there. i did a little dig, are you concerned there is chilling effect because of inaction in washington, this political freeze? abc and "washington post" did a poll recently. they said concurrent with reverend saluguaro, many want comprehensive immigration reform but can't agree how that should take place. mr. salazar, in colorado, there is a race right now, congressman kaufman trying to retain his seat and both he and the democrat report when they go out, even in the hispanic

community, many are much more likely to raise concerns about the economy or the cost of living than about immigration reform. so what i want the panel to take up now, if it requires some civil rights kind of movement, this groundswell, are you concerned now about momentum being lost even in the communities that might be most affected if i'm making sense? i will start with you and then reverend saaluguaro and then i have something for judge burr too. >> thank you very much, david. the fact there is lot going on in the world today. issues in the middle east, ukraine and other things distracting to the issue but issue itself is not going to go away. you fact is you still have a broken border and broken immigration system. you have 11 or 12 million people living in the shadows. 50,000 children and families living in detention, growing to 90,000 predicted by end of the year. so the issue simply is not going to go away. the drumbeat for change is something that will continue.

i think it will continue to increase. i think like most advances in terms of civil rights of this country, they have taken time to get done. i'm confident it will happen? i will also say, it is interesting, i'm involved in poll, i know this is not a political forum but how people define being pro comprehensive immigration reform package requires a educated citizenry to pull back the coverses to talk about. i won't talk about the race in colorado, because there is different kind of forum but the difference between the two candidates is night and day. it is important that the american public that cares about the issue and organizations from the chamber of commerce to the evangelical organizations, to others that they really understand what it is that we are debate about in this, on this important matter. >> reverend, that large bully

pulpit of your organization, can it be heard? it is falling on deaf ears. >> i think that as a pastor i transact in hope you know. i'm, i know that things, anything worth anything takes time. so you have to have a capacity to, resilience in the civil rights movement taught us that. the antiapartheid movement in south africa taught us that. the women suffrage movement. so we have a great history lesson what it takes to move things. i do think that the frustration you mentioned earlier, david, is going to come to the fore. we elect leaders to solve problems and i don't know how long, for how much longer the u.s. public is going to tolerate, gridlock and inefficacy around some of the most intractable problems of our day. the issue with the uac, the children, and the border, is directly related to to inaction

around immigration reform and, as secretary salazar mentioned earlier, it failed, foreign policy of development and sustainability in latin america. so we need comprehensive reform. especially among younger people of faith. you know, they're profoundly, i asked one guy, what are you going to do for a living? they used to use social entrepreneur. no, i'm a solutionist. so what we're looking for in the house and in the senate, let's be mindful that the senate already passed something a year ago. so there was some movement and even in january house republicans and speaker boehner said they were for and had some principles laid out. so there has been some problem. movement. the question is, when will we have real leadership and when are we going to move. and how long will the country allow for leaders who don't solve problems and play the political ping-pong? i think it is going to come to the fore. >> house and senate, frustration

with the white house as well, is that fair? >> i think, you will, you know, the remember this number, 71. 71 is the percentage of hispanics that voted for president obama, in the last elections. good number to remember. one of my favorite numbers when i'm at the white house, 71. [laughter] right, ken? so, i think that we will see what happens after midterm elections in terms of executive action but clearly, some of the groups have voiced discontent around lack of inaction. congressman gutierrez one much them. but we will see what happens after the midterm elections where the latino electorate and faith electorate on this issue. >> judge burr, i didn't want to exclude you from weighing in on that question. >> i don't think there is anything i could add. >> let me ask you about, is this red herring, some of passion we

saw, quite frankly attracted the attention of people who were not tuned into the border debates and immigration debates, some of the passion we saw in the south border there with the children, is it articulated as people fearing that the social net, the social truck struck of the -- infrastructure of the united states will be too much under strain if there sun checked process of allowing undocumented people to become legalized? >> judge burr, i looked it up, a few years ago you raised a red flag. you said in the courts it is overburdened. to be fair you felt out there were a lot of cases ended up before you and other judges that shouldn't have been there, because homeland security sending them. but you did raise a red flag we are having a tough time. so, is that a red herring? frame that discussion if you will, the idea, this notion that people are worried, generally worried if we keep saying yes

the united states keeps saying yes, it will just put interminable strain on our system if you understand what i'm saying? >> well, no, i, in terms of the courts, we have been historically underfunded and and that is a problem. i think, you know, immigration is so political and there is an inability to think through the consequences of stopping people and putting them in proceedings. men what happens next? seems to be more fervor for building up the border. there seems to be more fervor for apprehending people without thinking through the consequences of what you're doing, that you're putting them

in a court before judges, in a system that is operating to the best of its ability but that is greatly underfunded and understaffed for the number of cases. this has been generally true and now it has come to the forefront with the incredible number of children that are in proceedings i say this is nothing new for immigration court but this present crisis has highlighted this problem. >> david, i would make two points on it. the issue of impact and consequence of undocumented children here in the united states, or undocumented families is one that has been the long debated. it generally, in my time in the u.s. senate and my time trying to work on this issue the last several years comes in the form

of a negative to the economics of the united states of america, to immigration and the fact is, as gabriel just stated, even the chamber of commerce and leaders from across this country and business world see the positive economic impact of immigration in this country if we have a system that in fact does work. so i think when people raise that issue, it is in fact a red herring. i think second of all, the response, i do think that the whole issue, the uac issue, the unaccompanied children issue across the border really allowed those who were opponents to comprehensive immigration reform to essentially raise their flag that says, our border is broken and we need to build more walls across the border. and they use that as evidence of a broken border. reality of it is, that when you look at what's happening today in guatemala, in honduras, and

in el salavador where most of the children and their families are coming from, you have people in those countries who are living in very dire conditions and there is a reality there that i think, the manifestation of it in my view is a failed policy over multiple administration, over multiple decades of the united states of america, and its relationship with latin america. >> you're on the front lines in many ways on this in terms of responding to the these -- >> you know, as a pastor, i lament, when children are used as political ping-pongs. it is lamentable. and i mean that in the kind of basic, jewish, christian, islamic tradition of lament and beyond other traditions. the uac issue as secretary

salazar and judge burr have said, is a consequence of inaction. we have dealing with a 21st century immigration challenge with 20th century immigration laws. so, it seems to me everybody knows the system is broken. and then, when there are manifestations of that brokenness, we go back to the system that is broken. it is incongruent intellectually and humanly speaking this arguments about economics has been from all sides of the political spectrum been put to rest. with very few exceptions, right? george will, conservative columnist said, i think, on fox news and one of the news channels, we could easily integrate these 50,000 kids into the u.s. system and in the long

run, benefit from it, right? so, i think you're quite right, david. saying this is a red herring. but morally speaking, even if the good cost us more, as a faith leader, i have to go with what costs us more because it is the right thing to do. >> remember to write questions. hold them up. i think jen is collecting some he have them. judge burr, i want to ask you a little bit more what you talked about in terms of the application of due process or availability of due process. can you talk a little bit more about the inconsist ski that you referenced with some courts? we know that particular courts in new york city, may be the caseload but seems like there was fundamental difference in approach where the availability to have a lawyer or, some of the inconsistencies that you mentioned, in the due process application and some of the rural courts and something like that, when we come to federal law, why are there such differences? >> well, are you referring to the difference between right to

counsel and in different areas? >> some of those things you said in new york, we tend to be, we author a little more robust thing than somewhere else. i'm looking for the disparity. why, if we're trying to have a fundamental approach from federal law or federal, if you understand what i'm saying? >> yeah, well i think the real problem lies in the fact that there, through case law, due process has gideon v. wainwright. if you're a criminal defendant you're entitled to a lawyer at no expense to yourself. the theory that in civil cases such as immigration cases you're not entitled to a free lawyer is that, you're not facing imprisonment. and that the threat of imprisonment is triggers the right to an attorney. a free attorney. if you can't afford one.

but, obviously, whoever framed that argument wasn't thinking about the consequences of immigration law which can very much result in possibly deportation. now is deportation as bad as imprison meant? yes. it is. it is possibly much worse. and i think that, unfortunately this distinction in the law still exists. i do hope that with, that the law that can move forward to deal with this very, very harsh situation where children are not guaranteed a right to an attorney and immigration court to encompass the right to counsel for children by the

government. i'm hoping that the situations like this, which are very, you know, which appeal to a broadband of people, most people probably, nobody would want to see a child appear before a judge unrepresented. that can happen. you know. it doesn't happen in new york city because we live in a, in probably the most, you know, advanced city in the country in terms of immigration and attitudes towards immigration but there are many places along the border in arizona and new mexico, utah, places outside of the large cities where conceivably children are facing charges without a lawyer. to me it is unfathomable but under the laws at presently exist, they are not constitutionally guaranteed a

free attorney. >> extraordinary. you know, mr. salazar mentioned xenophobia, mexicans, central americans. judge, i don't know if this is fair to ask you, paint a picture about the cases that came through your court system. i mean, a lot of people think immigration is really owning dealing with central america and obviously this issue on the border is pretty specific. but paint a picture what we're talking about, when we're talking about immigration cases. . .