the cost of making calculations does not increase linearly. they are disproportionally larger for small firms so that's a huge burden on entrepreneurship in firms trying to launch their businesses. >> i am jim pinkerton from the rate coalition. this has been a terrific conference and of course the title is the tax base and that's obviously a critical issue but i have also heard at least three of you on this panel talk about the deleterious impact of the corporate tax rate which people know is the highest in the world and i've even heard a discussion about simplification and complexity. those are three issues therefore. the base, the rate and complexities/simplification.

on the off chance that there's an impressionable staffer on the ways & means committee here what might the four of you and i would like to get all four of you -- your opinion on this him or her, the staffer that is to take back to chairman ryan and say this is what we might accomplish in this congress. >> we will go lefty right. the first thing is forget what can be accomplished. the first is lesson that only people pay taxes and corporations are fictional entities of the burden falls on people and not corporations pass through. second the ideal rate and they use the word rate for corporate taxation is zero. that's the ideal rate. now i think what we can get done is the narrative that we are not

competitive and to be competitive we should be at or equal to which means the rate should be no higher than 25%. that is still higher than i would like but at least that gets you to say we are not being competitive with our oecd trading partners but around effort so that seems to be a narrative. >> i'm not sure i can disagree with what jason said we want income taxed only one time so therefore we shouldn't have both the corporate income tax and the double tax on dividends and capital gains. tax dividends and corporate gains i think administratively is much simpler to tax the income onto the corporate level and not have double taxation on individuals. there's one corporate taxpayer. that's easier than tracking and potentially hundreds of thousands of shareholders but

six of one half-dozen of another it's simply a question of administrator -- administration. in terms or question jim lippi set an example. ireland is one of a few countries besides united states and has a worldwide tax system but nobody really complaints about it because ireland's corporate tax rate is only 12.5% and i forget whether was weber jason made the point that if your work marginal tax rate gets low enough some of these distortions no longer have a big belly. let's imagine we are going back to 1980 and the jimmy carter tax rate is 7%. the text of the deduction was valuable because for every dollar of tax deduction you could lower your tax bill by 70 cents. by the time you go to the end of the reagan years the top tax rate was 20% were you going to go to as many gymnastics and hires many lawyers and accountants and tax planners to benefit 28 cents? you have much greater incentive to go out and earn income and be

productive without worrying about the tax consequences of the rate is critically important that i say that even though the purpose of this session today is to focus on the fact that we should fix the base. in reality they are both important. have the lowest possible rate and make sure you have the base defined correctly because we don't want to penalize the investing that every economic. greece is so critical to our economic prosperity. >> let me briefly say to bring us back to the point of tax reform. appointed tax reform is to primarily grow the economy to increase the will --. which should make the country -- that it hasn't experienced since the 80s. that would occur over period of time years but it would be front-loaded. most of that gain, most of that potential gain comes from

improvement in business taxation and the taxation of capital. so reducing marginal tax rates on past amenities and corporations is critical but getting the tax base rate is also critical. to the extent we are dropping marginal rates by getting rid of unwanted preferences like wind energy credits for low-income housing credits or the employer-provided health insurance or take your pick is pro-growth. improves the welfare of the american people. to the extent he use drop corporate tax rates by further extending the period over which you have to deduct your investments whether it's pro-growth are not is a very iffy thing and it probably isn't isn't. so you lose all the growth effects by broadening the base by raising the cost of capital

and further extending the capital cost recovery periods. that is one of the problems that they can't proposal had is a large portion of the revenue that was raised in that proposal was raised by lengthening capital cost recovery or doing things like m. making it deduction amortize a bull over 15 years. if you do things like that you are not doing something that is meaningfully pro-growth and you have to buck up and i think understand that we are now way out of the mainstream in the industrialized world. we tax or businesses too heavily. we needed business tax cut and we are not going to be able to drop their rates and become competitive and get to that 25% average. it's just an average by broadening the business tax base. there's just not enough deadwood

or an appropriate tax references in the corporate code to do it. >> i have a question about whether or not you have good estimates of how much you get from improving the efficient allocation of capital as opposed to changes in the overall cost of capital. >> i think the answer to that is not very. most of the macroeconomic simulations looking attacks reform tend to simply look at the capital deepening effect either enlarging the capital stock but i mean to sort of get wonkish as dan put it there is no doubt you get gains from more efficient allocation of capital as well. the price -- basic rights theory would lead you to that result in as far as i'm aware the tradition of optimal tax

analysis doesn't look at that issue either. it tends to just look at the relatively simple size of the capital stock uniform homogenous capital stock and i think it would be good if we could get people to focus on the efficiency gains from a more efficient allocation of capital because it's certainly there. the simplest way to get there and accomplish both his expensing. alternatively you have to come up with some economic depreciation concept that is accurate but that is i think conceptually difficult to impossible because to know the actual decline in the future discounted asset you have to have robust secondary -- and we don't. so i don't think you can ever solve that problem in terms of getting it right except by expensing.

>> i will add one thing to that. doesn't address your your question higher your question height estimated but remember every distortion preference exclusion credit you put in the tax code is put in there to encourage people to make decisions that they wouldn't otherwise make because they are not economically sensible. bribing people into making -- there has to be an economic cost of that. what is the cost of all these ethanol and wind credits and stuff like that? we have to estimate how are those resources otherwise used presumably in ways that are better for the economy but again it would be good if someone measured data maybe it would be a project for jason. >> let me add one thing to show how weak that literature is. as far as i know the only people that have actually looked at this other than folks within treasury is the hulton wyckoff study in the early 80s. but if you really look at that study they look compared way up

the length but in terms of the pattern they assumed that result with geometric decay. an important sense nobody has ever gotten. confirmation on this because there is no empirical information because they don't have -- widget making machine so therefore with basic weak have proponents of an income tax heaven insoluble theoretical problem. there aren't going to get it wrong because there's no information. the whole tax system is built on a guess. >> i would say one more thing. this discussion is very enlightening. i would rather not force a joint tax on the hill to do gymnastics to figure out how to make something fit. what i think we do know is we are seeing a corporate tax base in some ways the road because the high corporate tax rate in the uncompetitive nature of our tax system.

one thing and i would have staffers take back to members is even on the static score if the corporate tax reform costs money we should still do it because it will be better in the long run and i think we all know that in our guts. we should stop with the static revenue loss and just get this done. >> so this week senator paul announces candidacy for president and last week we saw senator cruise do that. it looks like on sunday hillary clinton is going to put her name in and i think a week after -- >> officially? >> that's what i heard on the news today and it looks like next weekend senator rubio. so what do we know about their tax plans? if anything? >> senators leahy and rubio are going to be speaking at the heritage foundation we released a paper it's very possible that

on the is the site and people should look at what it does. one of the more constructive plans. you may want to talk more about this but as far as i know senator cruise and senator paul's plans are 30000 feet flat tax plans without much detail. so i don't believe secretary of state clinton has given any details about what she would do on tax. >> i would add to david's point about senators leigh and rubio there've plans are probably the best deceit, but capitol hill in a while and business side and they are not trying to hamstring themselves by revenue control. they are actually going for but the more efficient tax code on economic growth and that's

important. >> one last one. >> you were talking earlier about one of the goals of tax reform with complexity and having worked on the income tax for years in the corporate tax specifically i can tell you that any income tax is going to be complex. it is so complex now that even if they cut it in half it would still be incredibly complex. tax people forget that if you talk to the average person about simple tax concepts their eyes are going to spin over. they don't understand understand any of that in even other attorneys that i have talked to or tax attorneys can have a real meaningful discussion about taxes. my point is this idea of getting rid of complexity without getting rid of the income tax to

me is, whatever you want to call it income tax as a consumption tax if you start off with income that determination is a distraction and a very broad extraction -- distraction. >> he definitely highlighted an obstacle but i disagree with you because if you let the hong kong flat tax because it basically doesn't have any double taxation because of the territorial tax system no-caps-off gains tax no death tax and all those things the hong kong flat tax which has been around for 60 years. it was very durable the thing is remarkably simple. is it as simple as the -- postcard? snowe but other flat tax systems around the world you find some of them literally the page back in for so a few are dealing with the tax base correctly as i said before that automatically eliminate so much of the competition.

if you are in business and you don't have to figure out things like depreciation you simply put down on your form these are my gross receipts, these are the wages i pay these are my raw material cost these are the investment expenditures are made in what is left is are taxed lancome you can have it to medically simple system. in other words i don't think the definition is complicated if you have a consumption-based. if you go with the paid time and space and mix it with 102 years of congressional micromanagement then you get to a system that you correctly describe which is a big giant mess. he can be solved in weather will be of course we will be appear at 110 giving the same presentations. >> it does away with libreville or they flat tax cut. note the personal lives you just deduct capital expenses.

for any of you who have been in business inventories is a mess. it's particularly messy if you take the tax laws seriously and to capitalize various cost. before you know it you have employed an army of accountants. the tax goes away because you deduct -- and all the expense allocation rules separate baskets all goes away. but under a sales tax financial tax cuts are irrelevant so you take into account capital gains or bank accounts weren't just takes bense is because interest is neither deductible or taxable. so while the major sources of complexity and income tax fallaway with any of these plans plans. they are really a consumption tax -- tax.

>> in a flat tax taxi would put a sales tax would be irrelevant. but it also doesn't matter so much anymore. >> without our hour has come to a close of thank you everybody for coming. i will do one housekeeping thing. on friday with -- friday april 17 we will have another event called the gao federal reserve so hopefully he can come out in for that. let's thank our speakers. [applause]

secretary of state john kerry was on capitol hill with members of congress on the iran because she shins and the framework reached by iran to u.s. and other countries while congress is on a two-week recess. the closed-door meeting comes as the senate foreign relations committee is preparing to mark up legislation sponsored by committee chair bob corker that would require congressional oversight of the nuclear deal. at today's white house briefing press secretary josh earnest was asked about the legislation from reporters. >> the legislation as it's currently written is a piece of

legislation the president would absolutely support for friday presents. one specific example i can give you is the example that i offered up for the first time last week which is there's there is a provision in the current version of the bill that would make the deal contingent upon iran essentially renouncing terrorism. it would require the to certify that americans weren't at risk from many of the terror activities that iran supports. we have been very clear about the fact that we hope to resolve disagreement in a way that would prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon precisely because we are concerned about the fact that if iran were able to obtain a nuclear weapon it would make their support for terrorist organizations even more dangerous in even more risky so we do not anticipate in the context of this agreement he able to resolve all of our concerns about iran's tara to

the spree in fact that's the reason we are pursuing this agreement to ensure that iran can't obtain a nuclear weapon and then share it with a nuclear weapon or some technology for those materials with the terrorist organizations. that is why we will continue to strongly oppose the legislation and veto it because it essentially includes a provision that would make the deal impossible to implement. now what is also true is that this administration has been deeply engaged with congress since the agreement was announced back on april 2. since that time there have been more than or maybe exact way no more than 130 telephone calls that have been placed by everybody from the president the vice president, members of the cabinet and other senior officials on down to members of congress on capitol capitol capitol hill. you'll recall that congress has been on recess for the last couple of weeks so we have not been able to have as many

face-to-face conversations as we would like but that is going to change today. you also know i believe that secretary kerry, secretary moniz, secretary lew and some senior officials in the intelligence community will be convening a classified briefing with members of the house and senate over the course of the next two days and again that reflects the fact that we are at the beginning of the process of helping members of congress understand exactly what commitments iran has made so far and how those commitments we hope will be finalized over the course of the next two and half months. >> in terms of crafting something alternative is that an alternative that might satisfy your concerns and concerns of lawmakers to have some sort of oversight role? >> that remains unclear and the fact is the way the legislation is currently written is something we strongly oppose but

we continue to have extensive conversations with members of congress on capitol hill. we are going to make sure every member of congress can get a classified briefing from secretary kerry who is leading the negotiations secretary moniz is one of the foremost it where experts in the world he was involved in these negotiations. secretary lew is obviously the leader of agency responsible for implementing sanctions regime that has been successful in pressuring iran. the briefing will also include intelligence officials who can offer an updated assessment about iran's nuclear program and our knowledge of their thinking so far. we have honestly got there's obviously a lot to this agreement that has been reached so far. the other thing that will be included in that conversation is the knowledge meant that there are details that still need to be worked out and that is why the president wants congress to ensure that our negotiators have the time and space they need to

reach an agreement.

virginia governor terry mcauliffe outlined his case investment in early childhood programs at a recent event hosted by the center for american progress. governor mcauliffe called the investment a cost-saving measure and talk more about what it could mean for virginia's future workforce. this is 30 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. my name is neera tanden and i'm thrilled to have governor mcauliffe here today. we will discuss the value of stating communities taking action on early childhood education. i'm really happy to have him here at the center for american progress. he has been a leader on this issue as on so many issues. early childhood education is really a bright spot in our national policy landscape. it brings together diverse leaders at the city state and federal level and at the state level and local level we have bipartisan leaders who have been really focusing on these issues. i believe that is really because there has been incredible data

points on the return on investment we get from early learning. early childhood programs not only even the playing field for children as they begin kindergarten. they also build a workforce that can drive future economic growth and ensure american businesses remain globally competitive. that's one reason president obama has called for more investment in early education. in december he brought together stakeholders including state and local policymakers mayors school superintendents corporate and community leaders as well as advocates to discuss the importance of early education and to harness additional funds for early education. really the next steps are to help communities implement these important proposals. state and local leaders have really rushed to answer the call. states like pennsylvania georgia, virginia and cities like boston and indianapolis in columbus have increased and expanded access. we are thrilled to have leaders from those communities here

today but i am particularly honored to introduce governor mcauliffe who has really focused on investments in early education. it's really from that perspective of human capital. we know that virginia is growing growing, growing very strongly. it has its lowest unemployment rate in 15 years at 4.7% rate congratulations governor mcauliffe. [applause] but i think it's really when leaders were focused on the long-term ensuring that those businesses will have their human capital needs not just now but well into the future and that's where early learning and early investments make sense. if you are investing in allotting k-12 that makes make sense to invest in early years as well because we know that's the even start the kids need. so, we are honored to have governor mcauliffe here or he

understands prioritizing early childhood programs is essential to the virginia economy in the 21st century and he has been instrumental in securing $17.5 million in preschool expansion grants from the u.s. department of education which will allow the commonwealth to serve an additional 1600 students kids at risk, 4-year-olds in high-quality preschool classes in the first year. so we thought that it would be critical to have his voice heard because he understands this not only as a governor as a former business leader, community leader but someone who recognizes that this is not an important issue just now but want to the future. governor mcauliffe. [applause] >> thank you. good morning everybody. it's an honor to be here at cap and i think this center for american progress for inviting us here today. my deputy secretary of education is here with me as well and we

thank you for this opportunity. this is a very very important topic to us in the commonwealth of virginia and i would make the argument to the entire country. early childhood investment early childhood education. i make the argument will determine what type of workforce you have for many years to come and if you are going to be competitive in a global economy given that or start early. it is an investment. when i became governor actually inherited a $2.4 billion budget deficit that i had to work through so to try and convince folks to say take money invest here and try and close the gigantic legit deficit at the same time sometimes very challenging. we were able to do it because we have consistently made the point. this is an investment and it's an investment that will return so many times over and over. i want to thank the center. the timing could not have been more important. as i say this is such an important issue for virginia and i would make the argument for the entire country as a whole.

.. >> we have the largest naval base in the world military assests with the pentagon, so

when defense is spending it is great but cutting back is a big impact. october 1 sequester could cripple our economy. we have to diversify, grow the economy, and less reliant on the federal government and build new diversified 21st century economy. all of the crabs jobs of the future and you can cannot -- you cannot do that without the best education. this is important for me going forward to build the economy and bring in new jobs. we have been successful in virginia low unenemployment we have been done 351 economic development projects since i have been governor 6.44 billion has been brought into direct investment in virginia and that

is double than any other governor in history. because of the success with job creation and economic development, i was able to forge a bipartisan relationship with our general assembly and realized -- first southern governor to actually perform a gay marriage and the sky didn't fall in. my point always is in open and

welcoming. if you want to come to virginia and want to start a business we want you. investing in the education system is important. we face challenges historically on education in virginia. i recognize we have a lot of things to do. in virginia 52% of the three and four year olds are not in school. think of that. living in households below 20,000 there were 60% of those children not in school. if we are going to lead in the global economy we cannot wait until students reach kindergarten to begin preparing them for economic success. research tells us 90% of the child's brain development goes on between birth and five years old. the point i am trying to make is let's not take winners and

losers at birth. your economic future shouldn't be dependented on your parent's financial condition or your zip code. we should allow every time to have early childhood success. i realize if we don't maximize their learning in the early year, they will not get to reach their full potential. you invest early and it saves you money on the back end. it is not only investment this is a cost-saving measures. 73% of your four year olds -- our -- in virginia are not enrolled into public school and that amounts to 76,000 children. more than a third live in economically depressed communities that need a new generation of well educated high skilled workers.

we have the south side and southwest seeing the loss of coal furniture and tobacco. many jobs overseas and changes in economic conditions. we have to bring businesses back into the communities and you cannot do it without a highly educated workforce and i would argue that starts in pre-k. as governor i make the business case every day for what we need to do expand our pre-k initiatives. the key has been first and foremost the partnership we have established with the business community. i would make the argument to every elected official here and everyone who argues for pre-school why we have been successful in virginia is the virginia chamber of commerce and most community leaders have come out hole heartedly to support the pre-k initiative. our virginia chamber of commerce i think it is fair to

say is not the most liberal organization put together, does support my efforts on this. they came out with a blueprint virginia and said their number one goal from our chamber of commerce is early childhood development and pre-school involvement. having the business community with us hand and hand made opportunities to work with the legislature because we need to go to them to get the funding we need. our top corporate leaders recognize in virginia we will need two million workers in the future to support our state's economic growth. we are doing great in virginia we have a lot of new businesses coming in 351 new economic development projects have been announced and projects from all over the globe. i was one of the most travelled governors last year going to japan, china korea and europe. the largest investment into a

chinese company every we won. $2 billion investment and new jobs. 150th anniversary at a local plant and i spoke when a 150 years ago general lee and grant ended the civil war. and it was exciting. we brought a company back from china. the largest deal done in had 44 years in that area of individual. the thomasville furniture factory is now a manufacturing facility and it is making pollution-controlled devices and guess what? we are taking the pollution-controlled device to our port and guess what? we are shipping them back to china and selling it back to china. you want to talk about a new economy. that is a new virginia economy.

and the reason we had to do it was i was able to convince the ceo's in china after several visits we had a workforce you will have 5-20 years from today. you mean you will not invest state unless they are convinced there is a workforce in 5-20 years. it starts with early childhood education. everyone is getting on the bus to see what we need to do to compete. every governor faces the challenges i have today; growing and diversifying the area. preschool and early childhood edge education is a bipartisan issue and everyone needs to work together. i want to thank the department of education. virginia is one of 18 states that was provided a grant with

$17.5 million in the first year. this was a grant we worked hard to get. it was very competitive and i am proud of the education team who worked to actually put this together. i think my secretary of education who many know happen to be married to senator tim kaine kaine. we will serve 13, 192 low income four year olds in a high quality setting for what we are calling the virginia pre-school init initiative initiative. we have a focus on poverty, the number of schools that are title one schools in the region, number three the number of unused slots available to our existing state pre-k program. we give money out that has to be magical if that community.

it was common sense but not an easy easy to pass. we have developed a bold model that builds on the vpi program to go forward and the program severs more than 1804 year olds who are at risk and don't fit in the head start program.

i want every child having a book that says s.t.e.m. on the front because we need them exciting about the courses. not only s.t.e.m. but all of the other avenues we need the brains to be opened up on. we have state of the art performances. we want a child to staff ratio of 9-1. and we really focus on parental involvement. you cannot do this folks, if you don't have the parents involved in this. we can do whatever we want in the school. once they go home if those parents are not engaged, it really diminishes what we are trying to do. we are really trying to get parents to come to school to be part of the process is so important. why -- we have expanded them and health care for the children. i can tell you horror stories i

have heard from teachers in the commonwealth of virginia when some of these kids come to school. i started a children's cabinet and we have to start at birth and i just passed and signed legislation for 45,000 pregnant women in virginia have access to dental care for the first time. it is important that woman have access to dental care. it is important during the birthing process and we continue it for six months after. we have to have strong community partners. we are spending about $68 million in state funds for the vpi program. this grant enables us we got other day to address barriers in communities that are struggling

today. it gives us money. if the local community can't make the match this money will help us. we have communities who want to do this and step forward and we ought to assist them. this federal grant, i can't thank them enough for giving it to us. we will see the results shortly. it is important we all work together on this. we have put this in concert with our education department and our secretary commerce morris jones, who put it together. i tie it in the workforce development and the two of us talking about education and job growth in the community. dorthy and i have five children and we want them to stay in virginia but they will not stay unless we have the jobs of the 21st century. it is a global economy and the children go anywhere and getting them to stay and build the economy it starts with education

and early childhood education. we have a world renowned researcher on teaching techniques and he is involved in helping put the programs together. we have a great public-private partnership together and excited about the future. but the key to all of this is encapsulated and growing and diversifying your economy. and nothing better than success when you are bringing in jobs and making that argument people understand that and we have the ability to move forward. i would say finally as i talk about the 360 approach. my wife dorthy wife of 26 years, the first lady of the commonwealth imagine being married to me for 26 years she is a saint, her whole initiative going is that we have 300,000

children in virginia who go to school hungry. you cannot learn and expect a child to go to school who is hungry. whose stomach is growling. our gel is to end hunger for all 300,000 children who go to school hungry. i want to thank the department of agriculture and the secretary from there we received $8.8 million for several districts to feed our children three meals a day for 365 days a year. we are one of five or six states that won this award. so tying it all into health nutrition, tied with the early childhood learning. i want to come here and say thank you, virginia is stepping out front on the early childhood development, our whole early childhood education, we are taking a 360 degree approach,

the results have been amazing and the numbers we have and you look at the statistics of those with a pre-k education, when they go into kindergarten, as you know 90% of the children actually 97% are excelling and only 3% were not. and those who did not have a pre-k education that number of those not excelling goes up to about 30%. from 3-30. those metrics speak for themselves. it is an honor to be here. thank you for inviting me and i look forward to taking questions. thank you. [applause] >> you are great. >> i would love to get questions from the audience. when you ask your question tell us who you are. thank you again for being here. one of the -- i think you helped

us understand something that has been a little bit of a mystery to me. which is so many of the benefits of pre-k happen -- the benefits of the investment you are making, and i hope we are doing it when you are no longer governor too, but it is way where you are preparing benefits because you will not capture the benefits you are making. but the argument is you can attract business. are there other ways -- basically why do you spend all of this time if the jobs created because of the human capital are going to help some future governor? >> it will help the future governor but it helps me i i said we shattered all investment records with $6.4 billion. i travel all over the global and

love bringing business in. that is why i ran for governor. all governors can sit around at the end of the day and talk about they would like to invest in this and put money there. none of that matters if you don't have economic activity to create the money and invest in the priorities you have. i would make the maurment -- make the argument when i travel and i am good at sales and enjoy and have fun doing this i don't like to lose is education is the key. i cannot stress it to anyone who is out there trying to bring business to their state enough. we brought $2 billion investment from china. if they didn't think in 15-20 years they would have that workforce they will that you would not come to virginia. so i talk about the benefits of grow taxes, business-friendly environment, great universities all of that i talk about pre-k. we are starting our education

system early. in fairness when you go to asia they are doing it. we are competing. they go to school longer and more days than we do in the united states. they are attuned to what you are doing on education. for all government and officials you better get in the game on this. we offer incentives and have everything else. but they are smart. and they are determining where they invest their capital, i will make the argument that pre-k and starting education early is one of the best drivers we have. i show it with investment. we cannot just talk about. i have to show i put $68 million in and i am doing more. >> we did a study that showed how much china, india china ramping up the investments in a major path. and most kids are in pre-k and early learning is 0-5.

>> studies show it. 97%. they are metrics we have. some of the people on the other side we argued about this site one study saying after four years they have forgotten everything they learned in pre pre-k. you go talk to one or multiply kindergarten teachers and they will tell you it is night and day for the pupils in the classroom they know without data in front of them who had pre-k. >> it is bipartisan so that is a great aspect. you see lots of governors, democratic and republican governors even leading on the issue, perhaps because they are responsible for investment and economic growth. we have had a little challenge at the federal level to create the same level, is there anything we can learn from your efforts that have been successful to generate bipartisan support? >> i am glad you mention and i

see we have c-span and i hope everybody at the department of edge education and members of congress are watching because we need reauthorize the programs. paul it has caught up like everything else does. as a governor it is hard to plan we cannot make long term plans without certainty. we cannot afford the cuts to the military we have today. how are we going to fund transportation? i have 350 projects that will stop immediately in virginia if they don't do the authorization for the funding. we are competing on a global bases every day. i am competing against 200 nations every time i get out of bed. every day. if they continue to show uncertainty and their inability

to make decisions it affects us at the state level and every governor. let's get the reauthorization done. the numbers speak for themselves. this is important for virginia and for all 50 states. this is important for america. for us to compete on a global bases. >> questions from the audience. just identify yourself. >> tim dillion. virginia has excellent universities, are there ways to engage them more in this effort? >> great question. the university of virginia is our key strategic partner. they are part of the children's cabinet. i put it together and asked my lieutenant governor who is a pediatric doctor and set it up. university presidents are all part of that children's cabinet

we have today. all of our pre-k, all of our education, i make sure we have community and edgeucation leaders, but uva provides us with research data i provided here. they want to be involved but we can do a better job when i talk about the key elements of the teachers at pre-k. we can do a better job using our higher ed institutions to train the pre-k teachers and get them active and have a pipeline of pre-k teachers. i will give several commencement addresses this year and one of my themes is i need you, once you have a great education, it is your responsibility to go back and help plant seeds for young minds to get going and have the education you had. great question. >> we are out of time because the governor has to go see children in virginia. so i want to thank you for your

remarks. we will bring up the panel and i want to thank you for being here. and your remarks. but importantly for all you are doing for those kids in virginia. >> thanks everybody. [applause] >> a hearing on immigration and custom enforcement and the director director of ice is live at 10 a.m. on c-span three. and events remembering the 150th anniversary of president lincoln's assassination. at ford theater the president was shot and then carried across the street to the peterson house where he died the following morning. we are live from outside of ford's theater as they outline

to details of the night including medical updates from doctors reinacted. and taps will be played at 7:22 eastern time the exact time of president lincoln's death and sally jewel will remark at the peterson house steps. live coverage starting wednesday an c-span2. >> next weekend in los angeles is the los angeles annual festival of times of books. april 18th and 19th we will be live from the university of southern california campus. we have the deputy publisher of the los angeles times here. when and how and why did the los angeles times start sponsoring this book fair? >> the los angeles times started this book fair about 20 years ago. it is the 20th anniversary of the festival of books.

it was an important way the newspaper could engage with the community to provide a space for all kinds of people from publishers authors, bankers, and also chefs and artist and actors and actresses, to come together to celebrate los angeles as one of the created capitals of the world. >> and what can we expect next weekend in los angeles? >> we will have over 500 authors, celebrities, musicians, and book sellers and publishers and cultural organizations across nine stages. there is something for everyone. bring your kids bring your grand parents, there is a lot going on. we have notable names like roy troy the chef, tara destine, billy idol, jason seeing gal,

poly parety a science fiction writer spencer, there is something for everyone. families, foodies, hipsters students programming, staffers -- more than a hundred conversation from california crime to digital privacy rights to the future of the american identity. >> what kind of reaction do you get from the community to a book fest? >> it has been in the media success. when it started 20 years ago it became a cornerstone event in los angeles culture and when people market out all year long it has been a signature event. it has been a way that the los angeles times invites all kinds of folks around the community to celebrate the great city. it has grown to one of the largest festivals of its kind. there is if nothing like it anywhere in the united states. it started very simply as

bringing together people who create books and people who love to read them. it has grown into a broader celebration among other things we have a big book award we get every year. and this year we are adding something new, something called an idea exchange. and malcolm glad well is talking to the film critics of los angeles kenneth tran and that is npr's film critic. >> well booktv will be there, the c-span bus is there and we have partnered to create a book bag and we will hand them out from the c-span bus. if you are familiar on the usc campus we are half a block from tonni trojan. there is a cost to attending the festival?

>> the bulk of the events are free. some are ticketed due to limited space. but this is really a chance to invite the country in invite los angeles in and partnership with usc to look at california as, you know the gateway to both latin america and pacific rim, to took at the future challenge challenges the country faces. there is drought and climate change and immigration in the united states going on and multi cultural diversity going on. across the board, all kinds of exciting opportunities. >> you can go to the latimes.com and follow the book test at lafob -- los angeles festival of books. thank you for being here. and booktv is live on c-span2 all weekend next weekend from the los angeles times festival

of books. saturday and sunday april 18th and 19th. go to booktv.org to get the full schedule. a lot of call-in opportunities and panels and non-fiction authors you will hear from all weekend. the "the communicators" is next with karl nebbia who worked as the associate administrator for spectrum management at the telecommunication and information administration. and then a look at immigration policy and border patrol security with michael chertoff. and a conversation with former house majority leader eric cantor. >> >> and now on the "the

communicators" we want to introduce you to karl nebbia who spent many years with the national telecommunication and information administration. what was your role over there? and what did you do? >> i spent about 30 years at ncia. my final years i was the associative associative min strart administrator. in our office we had engineer functions, policy functions, it people, international efforts and so on. so basically oversaw the whole federal government spectrum management. >> host: how do you manage spectrum? >> well, you could separate them

in time but now we are using signals to stop interference and more sophisticated capabilities of determining when the systems are operating to allow openings for other systems to fit into the gap and lots of different things. much of it is technology-based. but there has been significant changes in how we manage the spectrum, how we provide spectrum to different users, the introduction of auction authority back in the '80s changed the landscape and how we provide spectrum at least to commercial plays. they have changed significantly. we have lots of users out there that don't have any license at all. we love them and know them as unlicensed users like grandparents and children using every day day different types of radio devices. things have changed.

>> who owns the spectrum? >> guest: the american people own it. it is a resource area in, that is npa on the government side. and the fcc on the non-federal side or private sector people call it but there are state and local governments they deal with. it is a breakdown basically along constitutional lines between the executive branch and outside of that. >> is there a spectrum crunch? we stopped making it a long time ago area. >> the growth of well cell cell -- cellular has been huge

and we are looking to give that portion of the community more spectrum. the federal government use is growing also. the federal agencies have lots of different kinds of operations. so while on a cellphone band everything is cellphone and maybe at some point of the evolution and technology stand point but they are all cell phones backed together as uniform. we have a mixture of lots of systems on the federal government side. the federal agencies have lots of different kinds of operations, so while on a cell

phone band everything in the band is basically cell phones, some different technology standpoint, they packed them together. very uniform. we have a mixture of lots of different kinds of systems, many are airborne, which we don't deal with too much in the private sector. all kinds of fixed and mobile satellites are in the same bands , they are openings the government has, so they pack as much as possible in the bands as possible. >> host: an spectrum is natural, correct: >> guest: yes. >> host: depending on what criteria has different characteristics that support different types of gigs >> guest: communication, the higher you go, the shorter the distance that you can source that signal to go the lower the spectrum the signal travels. that is why people want certain portions. >> host: let's bring paul kirby into the discussion.

there were commercial systems when you started and when you retired there is now more than the population of the united states demand. there is always tension between commercial and spectrum for the federal government. >> there is a lot of pressure there because every administration that i worked for during my time was seeking ways to try to accommodate the commercial users who were coming along, starting with cellular operations, as i recall those licenses were provided by what we used to call beauty contests. based on somebody saying, we need this deck down, we are the best people for it, we got into lotteries, which opened the door to more cellular growth, and of -- turning it into an auction-type process. certainly, the pressure has been there the last two administrations on -- had memorandum on's spectrum. we got into the lotteryry which opened to door to more cellular growth and turning it into an auction process. the pressure has been dollar.

the last two administrations have written presidential memorandum on spectrum. when i started spectrum in 1979, i came theft -- out of the military and i didn't know anything about spectrum. most people that i met and some i worked with didn't understand much about spectrum. now everybody realize it a part of our daily lives, our devices relying on it. and our ability to communicate and do our jobs or stay in touch with our families depend upon it. the fact the whitehouse had an eye on spectrum always created a certain level of pressure. when i starteded the first task at ncia it was a report covering 947 megahertzs to 40 gigahertz

to come up with extra spectrum and our answers was there was none available. that has changed and we have found spectrum and it has been useful for the commercial world. that effort continues today. they are continuing to pursue that, working with the federal agencies. one thing i saw thing change is ntia and the federal agencies as a whole got on board with trying to make the effort happen, the policymakers in the groups are trying to make it workable. there has been a new effort to operation collaboration in the last couple years leading up to the auction getting the federal agencies particularly defense department with the same -- in the same

room to work third differences and come up with analysis was meaningful. those were big steps, i would like to see that continue. that is my goal and my retirement, to continue to play a part to getting government and industry talking together. >> how can that be improved upon? the last couple years of the auction industry and the government agencies particularly dod work together, and the results were not always a pretty process. what other ways do you think that can be improved going forward? >> anytime you are breaking into a new process, there will be hurdles that you need to learn. in that particular case, when we set up the discussion under nti's spectrum management committee our goal was to keep it as open as possible.

we think that is important to the discussion. and serm important semishell -- certainly important to the first steps. the complication that had is a wide open discussion, there might be a hundred people on the telephone and the defense people didn't know who they were talking to, now they are much more cautious. the ability to continued the discussion, to get those falls, -- calls -- and who the people they would need to continue the dialogue with after the work was done and direction was provided additional meetings went on between the dod and commercial operators to talk about how we could improve the analysis done and what we can do to coordinate the use and get past this. i think in the next round, and

ntia already put proposals on the table for increased collaboration in terms of public events and more limited discussions and more face-to-face between the agencies and the specific service providers and technology providers. >> does dod control much of the federal spectrum? >> dod doesn't control any of the spectrum. they have access to a lot but ntia is the regulator on the government side. they have access to a lot of spectrum where their use would make it difficult given during technology and processes; would it make it difficult for non-proal federal users to access the spectrum? yes. there are radar bans with

non-federal radar bans you don't hear much about but the defense department works with those people. if you put a mass commercial wireless system in the same broadband with federal radars you will have to come up with new capabilities whether it is new technology or spectrum management networks to make that work. the defense department is open to that. if you look at the strategy they put out at the end of 2013 but it is still there driving a document right now, part of what they are arguing is their battlefield needs are such they need to be more flexible. if you in fact continue to narrow their spectrum and say this is the box that we need to keep forcing dod into a more and more efficient type environment that in fact that only makes it

easier for the advisaries to know where they are and how they operate. dod knows they need to spread out and blend in and can't hold on to pieces of spectrum and say this is where we will be and stay. that requires some new discussion about other ways they can share in the bands. there is a lot to talk about. >> one of the key talks about how much information dod and other industries would share because it is sensitive and classified classified. one of the solutions was having people in the industry sign non-disclosure agreements. give us a sense of how that

works and how it can be expanded in the future? >> i think it worked well. they had had long discussions already and i should say on the other hand as we were looking to work out the five gigahertz wi-fi sharing arrangement five to ten years ago we pulled in wi-fi technology people in the same types of agreement so why the aws-3 discussions were never classified, in the wi-fi world they were witnesses to the operation specifically. the radar system i think we have done it before and i think it works well and we will

continue. >> has wi-fi alleviated perspective on the shortage? >> wi-fi is being used by the industry and a lot of us use it in our homes. some of the carriers are moving in that direction and i heard statistics it is over 50% of the traffic heading on wi-fi and that is connecting into the wired network off the wi-fi and therefore relieving the burden on the wireless network and i think that plays a huge role.

we are working through those issues. >> were you surprised the revenue failed of almost $43 billion? >> i am not familiar with how to do the calculations. it was way beyond what anybody was estimating and people ask me what are you going to do once you leave the government one of the things i am going to do i said is advise the private sector, when we brought up the aws-3 and 1755-1850 and offered it for $18 billion and everybody said that is too much we want a smaller piece and in the end they paid $45 billion for smaller pieces and we will get back at a the other piece sooner or later.

anyway it seemed like they could have used my advise at thereat point. >> there is legislation pending that would allow federal agencies to get 1% of the proceeds of the auction of spectrum as an incentive to give it up. do you think the proceeds from this sale not based on this type of system would further encourage agencies to? >> well, i certainly think and that is my experience with federal agencies is the people who work there are all about getting the mission done. they see in the future as to how their responsibilities and the types of things they have to deal with particularly dod looking at changes in how they deal with the enemy they have to deal with from day to day. so, those people always looking for how to meet their mission and ultimately they have seen in

this particular case there were in fact opportunities to fund movement in the new technology and bands. it was somewhat limited but as that increased i think everybody sees this would be a win-win for everybody. but they have to come away with the sense the technology is there. and ultimately because the types of mobile operations that the government needs to operate in the same portions of the spectrum that the commercial mobile should. this should fund technology changes and new capabilities but it is probably going to be more oriented toward sharing the spectrum and how to make it happen. their whole goal is coming out of this being able to perform the function they have. they will not make a lot of

money off it. none of the federal employees will get rich. >> would you still be there? >> no it was time for me to move on. the agencies should see it as an opportunity. it has to be a real opportunity. the concern they have expressed about the 1% number and even in the ballpark. >> has the ntia and other federal agencies been reluctant to share or give up their spectrum? and what is the downside to the federal government? >> everybody in the business is reluctant. there are were people that were not reluctant to share the folks advocating for use. they came in on the bases of sharing spectrum.

you had to tell that to the people whose garage door was received interference and they didn't read and know it would happen. everybody is hesitant to share. there is pain there. it is like growing up and sharing with siblings. sharing is everything everybody moved toward as a sense of this is watt we have to do and we have to learn how to get along and cooperate together and make our technologies work together so that you know it comes out. and even if you look at the cellular phone system there is a system of sharing in cooperation and everybody gets their own frequency and system. everybody is joining into that one thing. there is a cost to it on the benefits. i think we will see more sharing. but everybody is

when you go into the international meetings you will see countries with 50 year old mobile radios someone provided a long time ago absolutely defending bans over the fact they don't want to go home and tell their government they just lost that 50 megahertz even though it would benefit them more to move on and have cellular phones adopted in their country. >> does the u.s. spectrum stop at the border? how does mexico and canada manage their spectrum? >> each country has their own process. we found over a number of years that the united states usually breaks out on new ideas. whether it is auctions or so on. and we find those countries have adopted the same things they see

work. it is a fact that we have our own autonomy within the united states to manage the spectrum the way we want and the mexican government has the same autonomy. certain bands have been worked on through the international tell communication union and adopted in a way that makes them more appealing for international services. there are some satellite systems that beam down solely in the united states for broadcasting and so on. much of the satellite lives in an international world every day of a provide service to various countries. they are supporting u.s. defense department in ways we never dreamed 20-30 years ago. they are the backbone for communication. so the dod and into the field of

commercial satellite systems. it is an international world we live in. why getting friday a conference in october and november of this year so those agreements are reached. we have close relationships with mexico and canada and agreeing with them on how to share certain bands. but there are bands we have cell phones on both sides of the border and the companies themselves work together to make that interconnection so that somebody passing through the border their cellphone service is seemless. and they are sometimes differences -- seamless -- on the boat sides of the border but there is a great amount of alignment, too. >> i want to get your views on the broader spectrum management proposals. folks like to say one problem of the united states is we have a

bi-system and we talked in the past but you said it is not one agency in other countries and others say you should have a defense closure commission and use that type of framework to identify spectrum. you should have a general services administration like framework to try to run and manage that system. i wanted to see if you had any views on the broader spectrum management issues about how things can be improved going forward. >> i believe the people engaged in these processes are working hard to move the u.s. forward. a lot of 'people talk about whether the united states is falling behind this or that group. but the united states has the wide widest distribution of 4-g cellular in the world. we were dealing with 3-g a

number of years ago and the europeans were advocating this one technology, this one band for 3-g and the united states sat back and said we believe in flexible technology let the service providers decide and europe plowed a they did an auction where people had to spend more than they had and the u.s. came pressing forward in the end. i think we have a good system. i think it works. i don't think it is always easy because we make difficult choices. but when people talk about let's have a base closure or one agency deal with this it is starting with the presumption that type of process is going to remove the federal government

out of the broadband. from my experience i don't think it is going to be that easy. you are not going to pack up the air traffic control system. it is just when people talk about that they don't have a good sense of what the government really does. when i ask do you want to pack up the air traffic controllers they said no i don't want to do that. you talk about replacing the satellites the government is using and they say we don't really want to do that. you get down to a fairly, you know, smaller group of possibilities and i think those possibilities are being worked by ntia and the fcc. it dozen mean people will come up with great ideas making 30 or 60 gigahertz in the future. i think there is a good relationship between the federal

agencies and the commission and i just think we need to continue that process of getting them in the same room talk about a plan for the future because the demand is still there and it would be great to have industry and government talking about the bands we can share and what we can make available. >> when you see the growth potential and is there a chance of running out of spectrum? >> first of all you will never run out of spectrum because even though why not making anymore of it you can keep splicing it up more and more and we figured out ways of doing that. there are things the cell industry could do in terms of using smaller cells in terms of using adaptable antenna techniques to multiple the amount of their capability. so there is still a lot that can

go on there. ultimately we will get in a place where we cannot keep moving people out of bands. moving the government out of a band and coming back to years later and saying we want that band is an inefficient process but it is disruptive to the government process. the whole process if you think government through the experience of moving your family, it is disruptive. if you thought we will move them every two years and that is what people in the military may have grown up in that environment know how disruptive that is. moving every two years. the government needs to know where the future is also. >> paul kirby, we have 90 seconds left. >> i guess my last question is

you spent 30 years in the government, and now you have a private consultant watt is it like seeing it from the outside? are there things you could not do or say? do you see what the outside is telling you are the things we have to live by and why is the government enforcing us to do that? i am in a situation where i am going both sides. i am talking to dod regularly and commercial operators as part of the work i do. i am seeing those things and you see the disconnects in the discussion and for that reason my hope is to be able to bring them together hopefully over the 30 years i did spectrum management there is a level of trust to that discussion. and i think that is for me really the critical thing.

certainly one of the differences from working in the government is at the end of the eight hour day i was astonished and the lab top mobile capabilities were great and allowed you to take the work home with you and i know folks on the federal side worked hard and long hours and there is great people over there. but i am also working a lot with commercial folks who to be honest i have gotten to know over the years. it is not like a lot of new faces. this is a business where we are grown to know and love each other and work together over the years. >> karl nebbia and paul kirby, thank you for being on "the communicators." >> thank you. >> c-span created 35 years ago

and brought to you as a local service from your local cable or satellite provider. >> florida senator marco rubio announced he is running for president in 2016. he made the announcement at an event in miami. he joins fellow senators ted cruz and rand paul and former secretary of state hilary clinton who officially launched her campaign yesterday with a video posted online. you can see senator's rubio's announcement on our website. and tomorrow our road to the whitehouse coverage continues with hilary clinton in iowa. it is the first stop in a multi day road trip through the event. it is a round table discussion with local students and educators at a local community college. we will have that live at 1 p.m.

eastern on c-span2. the bipartisan policy center heard from former homeland security secretary michael chertoff on better ways to manage security and immigration enforcement. he is the second person to head dhs after his formation in 2002. his remarks were followed by a discussion that included u.s. border patrol chief michael fischer. this is an hour and a half. >> good morning, everyone. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you very much for coming out to the bipartisan policy center and thank you for

joining us today for this discussion of border security metrics and immigration enforcement. we have a very great lineup of speakers. and i will introduce you to them in a minute. but first let me say i'm theresa cardinal brown and i am the director of the immigration project here at bipartisan policy center. a little bit of background that those that don't know about bpc, it was founded in 2007 by four former senate majority leaders, howard baker, tom daschle, bob dole and george mitchell. this is the only think tank that is bipartisan, we pull together knowledgeable leaders of both parties to drive solutions to some of the country's most challenging problems. we do analysis. you have probably a copy of one of our recent reports that we'll be discussing today. negotiation among task forces and commissions that we put together and dialogue to develop bipartisan solutions that we think are the way forward on these issues. bpc has projects in multiple issue areas includes the immigration project.

the immigration task force was formed in 2013 to work on bipartisan reforms and engage both parties to develop bipartisan legislation. the task force is co-chaired by former governors haley barbour, ed rendell, and former secretaries condoleeza rice and henry cisneros and includes business leaders, farmers members of cabinet and cabinet members and like former secretary michael chertoff a couple words about the project today. immigration reform legislation has been debated in congress over past few years, particularly last summer which saw arrival of thousands unbe a companied children and families from central america. that caused challenges for the border agencies. one key area keeps coming back and that is the issue of securing our border. this is continuous mantra for many leaders and put forward by some as precondition to immigration reform it is very ill-defined concept and it is rather not well-understood.

in fact when it comes to border security the lack of understanding and solid data tends to make a secure border something in the eye of the beholder. yet this isn't a really good way to make policy so we at bpc engaged in a project to determine the best ways to measure the security of the border and effectiveness of immigration enforcement and results are in the report you have today. what we found briefly is that the history of developing measures is a long and varied. it has been inconsistent over time and has led to a lot of confusion and yet all of this study and work has produced both inside government and by outside researchers some widely accepted measures and estimates that we believe if taken together could provide a comprehensive, common understanding of the state of border security and we will be talking about that with our panelist as little bit later. so we've invited our guests today to talk about issue in greater detail starting with secretary chertoff, and a brief bio of the secretary. as the second secretary of

homeland security from 2005 to 2009, secretary chertoff oversaw foundational period for the department which was still coming together after being formed in 2003. during his tenure he undertook a major review of the department, second stage review and made significant changes including approach to border security, making several changes to the way the department dealt with third country nationals apprehended, reforming detention. he undertook a soup-to-nuts approach to the issue and engaged all components while at the same time working with congress on one of the earlier attempts at immigration reform. secretary chertoff is founder and head of the chertoff group where he advises corporate and government leaders mr. chertoff on a broad range of security issues including border security and key member of our immigration task force. so please welcome secretary chertoff. [applause] >> well, thank you for you all

coming. it is a great turnout and i'm delighted to be part of this effort and i thinks as theresa explained, to talk a little bit about the issue of securing the border. as theresa was talking i was reflecting on the fact that i've been involved with this issue for about 10 years. i started out shortly after i got sworn in 2005 as the secretary. wound up not only working operationally with folks from border patrol and customs and bored protection and i.c.e. but also with congress on an effort to get comprehensive immigration reform. i'm reminded of the fact that probably about a year after i was in office, i testified before the senate judiciary committee. maybe senator domenici was on the committee at that point and we talked a little bit about comprehensive immigration reform in terms of operational and security benefits because one of the things you learn when you look at the issue of the border is the flow in and out of the border is very much driven by forces that are demographic and economic. it is not simply a question of infrastructure and people

although those are important. it is about the incentives and disincentives. and, as i used to tell people, in some ways, the border flow reflects the purest example of a market-based system that you can imagine. it is very sensitive to even very small changes in operational activity and in the law. to give you an example, i remember, that when i came in, there was real particular challenge relating to individuals crossing between the ports of entry illegally who were bringing children with them. and sometimes they weren't even their own children. that was because at the time we didn't really have a detention facility for families. so therefore people who were apprehended, who were with kids, wound up getting by and large released, and of course those never showed up for their

hearings. as soon as we built a facility that allowed you to maintain families in a discuss towed y'all setting before they were deport, all of sudden that started to dry up. another example was, there was a period of time where there was a court case that required that for people from el salavador who were caught crossing the border, there had to be a special process in place, a more elaborate process to deport them. and what we discovered was, if you, again talked about apprehensions, most of the people being apprehended, a very significant proportion came without papers and claimed to be from el salavador. they knew they could take advantage of this process. and that is one of the things that again, overwell emed amount of detention beds we had and resulted people being released many who never showed up for hearings. as soon as we went to court and reversed that decision, and got it lifted, all of sudden number of people claiming to be from el salavador dropped precipitously.

the word got around so quickly, literally in stays you could -- days you could see change in behavior. the important lesson, when you talk about the securing the border, it is not a question of lining people up to apprehend folks but a much more complicated dynamic situation. the real solution to the issue of border security is a solution that create as legal pathway for people that want to come in and work, deals with interior enforcement and's well as deployment at the border itself, deals with issue of people who have come illegally would be perfectly happy to go, come back and forth to work, but right now feel they don't have that opportunity. so they will stay in place. all of these pieces tend to fit together. now i remember in particular the issue of securing the border was, you know, a mantra that i

heard almost anytime i talked about this issue and i think what's useful by what the bipartisan policy center has done with this study is to unpack what we mean by securing the border. to recognize that there are different challenges and therefore different measures, that one of the critical issues if we are going to ultimately tackle the issue of immigration reform is to get agreement upon a disciplined, reasonable, and internally consistent set of measures that we can use to determine whether in fact we're succeeding or not. so let me stand back by saying there are three different ways in which people enter the united states illegally. one is coming between the ports of entry. and that's what usually, when you watch television shows about this, that is what they focus on. people crossing whether it is

the mountains or the desert or perhaps coming by boat trying to land on the beach, this is what most people conceptualize or think about as the source of illegal mig graduation into the united states. but in fact there are two other significant pathways as well. one is sneaking through the ports of entry. this is coming through an airport or more off the onen a land port of entry either with false documentation, or more likely way it is accomplished by hiding in, for example a truck or train. i remember going down to some of the border ports ever entry and amazingly seeing in the dashboard of an suv was a, like a hole where someone basically hid themselves in the dashboard to try to sneak into the country. so this isn't what people think about as coming over land or by sea between ports of entry. it is literally going through a port of entry trying to get into the country without being detected.

then the third very significant source of people who are lear here without permission are overtastes. enter lawfully and overstay and don't leave. often will wind up working illegally and things of that sort. statistics that i recall were roughly 40% of the people in the united states without authority came as overstays. and one of the reason that is important, that is not a pathway into the country that is going to be dealt with by lining up people between the ports of entry. in fact that is one of the most challenging issues when you deal with issue of illegal migration because whether or not people overstay depends a lot upon interior enforcement and rules with respect to employment and similar types of activities. so, one has to look at issue of flow into the country, using all

three of these pathways as part of what you are considering. couple of other points i think are important. one is, there has been a tendency to look at the issue as one of brute force. what do, what are our inputs? how many border patrol agents do we have? how many miles of fence do we have? how many different types of infrastructure do we have? but inputs are really an imprecise at best, and probably misguided at worse measure whether we're succeeding or not. what measures is outputs. the key, are we being effective. ideally you want to be effective with fewer inputs. if you can come up with a strategy that allows you to take your resources to make them effective as policy that is not only good pro a budge standpoint but in the end, success is measuring results. one of the lessons i learned early about again was the issue of fencing. shortly after i came into office there was a bill passed required miles of fencing at various places in the border. congress basically designated the places and logic of it was,

to be charitable, less than 100% clear. so we looked at the question of fencing. we said, what is the value of a fence? because a fence doesn't, after all keep people out forever. all it does is slow them up. and what we recognized, and i was, benefit greatly from the experience of the border patrol in tutoring me in this the key issue is the time of interception. if you are at a place in the border where crossing the border illegally puts you within 100 yards or a quarter of a mile of either a town or city, or a major transportation hub, there is very little time to intercept someone before they essentially enter into the flow of commerce and would be very difficult to find them again. what some people call the melting point or the vanishing point. i remember when i went to yuma early on in my tenure, the town was quite close to the border.

there were literally, hundreds if not thousands of people would run into the border to swarm into the town. once they were in the town it was much more difficult to find them that was an area where we concluded that fencing would make a difference. that it would allow a sufficient delay to permit the border patrol to make interceptions. in fact once that fence was built, it was tremendously significant in reducing the flow of people that came across on a daily basis. but other parts of the border where you may be miles an miles from a town or a city, or a transportation hub, don't require fencing. and fencing may be, if not counterproductive, at least wasteful. there what you want is visibility and ability to surveil and make an interception or an apprehension. at some point that is convenient for you. it is a little bit like playing football.

you don't put everybody up on the line. you want some people playing back. sometimes the way you will wind up intercepting something is playing back of the line. but again, for people who have very simplistic view, whose idea is, we ought to literally line folks up on the border and like a human chain, they find that unsatisfactory. from efficiency and outcome standpoint though, having the ability to deploy in depth, can be very, very important. one of the concepts that we also dealt with when i was in office was the question of operational control of the border. and i'm not quite sure how the phrase got generated but i think it is sufficiently ambiguous it means different things to different people. as i understood it, it was reflection of two things, first the ability to have a significant or a high percentage of people or visibility into who was crossing the border illegally. so that with a combination of surveillance tools and radar, you could be, let's a80, to 90% certain you were seeing people

coming across the border illegally. the second element you wanted high percentage of people that could cross you could intercept before they vanished. that is where the significance of employing infrastructure as enabler to slow up transit became very important. but, one of the challenges with operational control is, some people regarded it as zero tolerance. nobody across the border ever, even one foot across the border. and that is, to my mind an unrealistic expectation. it is unrealistic first of all, if you look at the border, again, as a matter of defense and depth, you are not intending to, or even advise, to try to stop people literally when they put their first step across the border because there aren't enough people realistically that you could deploy to actually make that happen. and if you can pick somebody up further down the line in more efficient way, that achieves the result that you want to achieve. i also used to tell people, look, 100% is never expected of any law enforcement agency. if you look at the best police departments in the united states, like say the new york police department, best police chiefs, nobody says, we expect

zero crime. if you can reduce crime, if you can get it to manageable level, that is considered a rousing success. so again it is about being realistic how we define our objectives, realistic in the measures we use to achieve them. then having a way of measuring outcomes that allows us to be in agreement what will constitute success. so, let me suggest briefly some of the techniques that i think, bpc has come up with. it will be laid out in fuller detail in the report. first as i mentioned, there are three pathways to getting in and there is also the overall population. i think you want to measure all four to get an effectiveness rate. first you do want to use surveys and other kinds of data to tell whether overall population of people within the country without authorization is increasing or decreasing and

there are some non-governmental agencies that do a pretty good job of surveying. and again it will not be precise down to the 10th of a 10th, but it gives you a pretty good view what is going up or down. second, how do you deal with overstays? that is pretty easy to measure. we know who comes in with a visa. we have exit system is buy graphic, not biometric that allows you to tell which people left. that difference, that delta is the number of overstays. it is not perfect. the one loop hole measuring overstays our land borders do not have a way of measuring exit. we don't watch people leaving. and, unless we're prepared to build a lot of infrastructure, probably solution there is work with the mexicans and canadians, have them exchange information with us. that would close that loophole. second area is port of entry. again that is challenging to measure how many people are getting in through ports of

entry. but i think based on what we do, we can do some random sampling. the third, and hardest is between the ports of entry. there are a combination of known flows, which will be described later. surveys, seeing what goes on the other side of the border. all of those give us a metric as to what percentage of people were apprehending and what percentage are getting away. we need to come to resolution of this. we need to have understanding not only with people in the community but with congress, about, what constitutes a real measure of effectiveness. if we do that, then i think we're on a road to success, not only to securing the border, but to dealing more generally with our immigration system. i'm happy to take some questions. [inaudible conversations].

>> robert schroeder with international investor. the student populations here, from our understanding are not being very well-tracked in terms of overstays. i wonder if you would comment on that? >> that has been a problem, problem goes back to my time. to be honest, a lot has to do with the schools. a lot of the schools are reluctant to inform the authorities when someone is no longer enrolled in class, or they have otherwise failed to comply with the requirements of their student visa. some of that is because, for some schools, the ability to track foreign students is financially important. they don't want to do anything that create as negative reputation. and then i think, frankly i think some schools, from a maybe a political or standpoint, don't necessarily agree with the immigration policy therefore they really don't want to be part of what they view as

enforcement. i think both from inflow standpoint, frankly from a security standpoint we need to do a better job of tracking overstays among students. yes? >> my name is michelle with america's voice. we heard that people talk about securing the border. we also hear we need to secure the border first before taking other steps. i wonder if you could comment first of all, if you think that is more of a political question, where we ever get to the point that people will be satisfied we secured the border first? and can we really secure the border without taking other steps anyway? does that make sense in terms of securing the border first? >> i said, i used to testify, i still believe that to really secure the border you need to do the other pieces as well. that is because, as i said earlier the driver for most people who are crossing

illegally to work, i'm talking about the minority coming across for criminal activity, is the economic incentive system and demographics and social systems. and if you don't tackle those, you're really swimming against the tide. it could be done but be enormously expensive and would require brute force. what would make more sense to have a staged process where you have in place the tools necessary to secure the border, including the accurate metrics but you're also creating a legal pathway for people to come. most of the people who come illegally would be much happier to come legally. you create a way to track them when they come. you have employer verification system that makes it, practical for employers to vet their workers, and creates an incentive for them to use

legally authorized workers rather than illegal workers. even with respect to people who are here illegally, if you give them some visa or some basis to stay, assuming they have not otherwise violated the law, you're removing one of the things that tends to keep people here and creates infrastructure that invites more illegal traffic. they have the freedom to go back and forth. experience shows actually many people who come into work be perfectly happy to go back home. they're cyclical. so in the end to me, in a world of budget constraint, all of these pieces have got to be part of the solution. i will say though that i do understand that there are people who are concerned looking back historically in 1986, that if you do comprehensive reform, the politics will ultimately result in dropping the enforcement piece. so you need to find a way to reassure skeptics that if you're going to do everything, you will lock in the enforcement piece, you will not simply abandon it. that is were the metrics and

published metrics i think are very important to establish credibility. i think credibility is now the biggest obstacle to getting this done. other questions. >> michael, this is pete domenici. i remember you when you had much more hair and i still had just about what i have. i don't know why. >> -- senator. >> i understand. i would like to suggest to you, that in the little town of artesia in new mexico, sits a center, i think the chief is here today, the center has my name on it because, for about six years of my, life in the senate, i was the sponsor of that facility and i, could i say that it is a pretty adequate facility for the training of border agents, male and female and other law enforcement

people? does it still remain an active player in the training of officers and is there sufficient facilities for training, or are we in need of more? >> first of all, i'm a little out of date because i've been out for a while but the chief can probably answer that i remember going and attending the graduation and it was a terrific facility and there is no doubt that the training remains a very important part of this. we expanded the border patrol. i think when i came into office there was less than 10,000. when i left there were 20,000. but the key to being effective is training. that involves both understanding some of the real challenges in working in that very difficult environment of the particularly the desert, also understanding rules of engagement and what policies and laws are. i guess i will let chief cover that when he does the panel. but i think it was a great, a great facility. other questions? yes, back.

>> from wbb consulting. i'm president of the military operations research society. you mentioned 100% apprehend suns for, in general for law enforcement is unattainable and kind of hard to do. >> right. >> however, having some benchmarks that look at targets of where to shoot at and, measure ourselves and how well we're doing in those different areas, is what really can help getting to those effectiveness analyses and other areas we can explore. do you know if there are any specific benchmarks in some of these different areas in the apprehensions, the overstays or others that can be very beneficial to get into those measurements? >> yeah. well i think you're right.

one example in the law enforcement area is pioneered first in new york and then in l.a. and other parts was come stat. the --com stat. use of statistical reporting to determine high crime areas in the city and deploy officers and hope district and pre-sent commanders accountable based on driving those statistics down. ...

there tend to be challenges in other sectors so you want to make sure that you are being more or less stable across the entire border and that includes by the way they see as well as the land. i would also say just to round out the picture, we do have to work with our partners in other countries because part of what drives the inflow is things that push people out, and of its economic issues or demographic issues or crime issues, as we have seen in some parts of central america to the extent we can help our partners alleviate some of those pressures we are actually making it easier on ourselves. it's a little bit like if you look at this migration has a flood, if you can do things upstream