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 to reduce the flow

because you are making conditions better that makes it easier when people are finally crossing the border trade so i agree we should measure it. we should make sure we are not only looking at between the ports of entry but considering the over stays and active ports of entry and to the point made earlier, creating a legal way to come to work would be a huge benefit to allowing the folks who are on the line to focus their attention on the people you are really worried about which is your criminals and bad actors. yes, one over there. >> chris with the aclu. i wonder if you could say more but the doubling of order patrol you mentioned. in retrospect were at the time were you concerned it was going too fast oversight and accountability measures were in keeping up with expansion? >> you know i think the concern was to increase the population

of border patrol in a way that would allow people to be adequately trained and mentored recognizing that you need to bring people out into the field with experience partners for them to really learn how to do the job properly. i certainly agree that the timely double the border patrol we hit what we were comfortable with a reasonable pace that probably the upper limit of a pace. people who said let's go to 50,000 or 100,000 in a short period of time were unrealistic about the ability to assimilate train and get field experience for these agents. it is a tough environment. you are on your on a light -- a lot. it's challenging terrain and by and large most of the people you apprehend are not violent but we have some really bad actors they are in their graves that have a business model that is

threatened by enforcement. they will act violently against the border patrol so you have to make sure people are adequately equipped and prepared to deal with that set of issues. we have time for one more question. well listen, this is an area where you can have a lot of debate about what the precise best metrics are but we do have a lot of experience. the border patrol has spent a lot of time coming up with different ways to measure including foot prints if i'm not mistaken in certain sectors and the key is to get two things. an agreement about what will be metrics that are trustworthy and second in agreement about what is going to be the definition of success. if we can agree with those and not change it over time then i think you give the border patrol and enforcement folks something

they can really target and that's a measure of success. so that to me is the value of this debate and i look forward to continue to participate and assist. thanks very much. [applause] >> i'm going to invite our panelists to come up and while they are doing that i will provide you a brief introduction. starting to my immediate left, the man in green as you probably know is chief mike fischer of the border patrol. mike fischer, mike fischer is the senior executive in charge of all of the border patrol. he is responsible for planning organizing coordinating and directing all of the enforcement efforts of the nation's borders. he entered the u.s. border patrol in 1987 as a member of -- from artesia.

from glencoe, okay. his first duty assignment was at the tucson sector. he has worked also in the detroit sector as well as his period of time in san diego and headquarters where he also served a stint as the drip -- deputy director of the anti-terrorism that cmp headquarters. seated next to chief fischer is paul anstine staff director of the subcommittee on border and maritime security. he advises chairman mccall and candace miller on a wide variety of maritime security issues. prior to this assignment he was congressman candace miller's legislative director and he began in the united states marine corps where he had two tours in iraq in the first marine division. next to paul is christian ramirez. christian was born in tijuana mexico and has been active in issues regarding -- he is the

director of human rights programs and staffed in the rights consortium and the director director of southern borders community coalition. last but not least brian roberts who is the author principle author of the report we are discussing today. brian is the senior economist at econometric.incorporated. dr. roberts was previously assistant director for border and immigration programs and program and analysis evaluation of the department, security where he tried to develop these measures we are talking about today. he worked at the office of policy and science and technology division and before his work at the hse was an economic advisor in several countries the soviet union and the balkans. the way we are going to do this as i'm going to ask each of our panelists and introductory question and then we will have a conversation. so chief fischer, let me begin by asking you you heard secretary chertoff's assessment of what is needed for secure

border strategy. he talked about defense in depth. how was the border patrol strategy for security changed? >> the secretary hit on a couple of key points. when i first came to border patrol there were only a few thousand of us spread out primarily on the southern border and little infrastructure to speak of. as the secretary mentioned we doubled the size of the organization and almost overnight we had increased capability to include detention capability and access to the border which in many cases was for the first time in many of our careers. when you look at what it was that we are trying to accomplish that has changed over the last few decades in terms of the way that we approached border security. first and foremost i can tell you as a young age and as the agency the day they approach this job i wanted to apprehend everybody that comes across the border and certainly and a

koppel till you up there is crime they want to go to make the arrest towards the final disposition that we also recognize just building a fence and adding more border patrol in and of itself was not security and we started shifting the way we were thinking and tracking a secure border. as the secretary mentioned we really focused on how many miles of border and how many border patrol agents equaled more operational control. those areas where we didn't have the buildups we didn't have as much operational control but measuring the guns in a linear fashion or numbers of border patrol agents really was doing a disservice to capturing what was actually happening and shortly after 2010 we started looking at the threat environment and how we were going to identify the extent to which we believed we were making this country more secure and we switched from a resource-based strategic philosophy into a risk-based

approach and primarily when we look at the state of a border we take three things into consideration. first and foremost is advanced information. the more information we have about people seeking entry into this country that bans the better prepared we are to stop that in second which is the topic of today's discussion risk indicators and metrics. not whether the apprehensions are increasing or decreasing in having a narrative, this broadening the data that we have come either didn't capture in the past are looking at data differently than we did in the past. the third and critical component to the secure border is increased situational awareness. in one case in 2013 we started an initiative called sky fall where today we are capturing and collecting information utilizing coherent change detection for over 900 miles of border. so with that technology and camera systems and radar system we are using technology to be

able to understand an environment in which we operate and identify how many people are coming through 900 miles about order without order patrol agents or cameras in place. >> poll after hearing the chief talk about a strategy let me ask you chairman mccall has introduced legislation to the last two congresses on border security. talk about how congress is important to this issue and how do you look at what the administration the government is doing in terms of the secure border and what are the most important factors from your perspective? >> this is my third generation that they built. this is a tough nut to crack in the secretary alluded to that little bit. each time we tried to craft legislation when it comes to border security we are animated by three questions. what is a secure border look like wife had we get there and how do we measure success? let me unpack is a little bit from a criminal standpoint. what is a secure border look like wife you have to have an in

state trade this is my goal at the end of the day and work backwards from that goal. last congress the goal was operational control. his achievement as well he testified before the subcommittee that he could achieve 90% operational control of a high-traffic area. we took what he said we ran with that analysis van der weide shows last congress. this congress the standard is 100% which as the chief knows in the secretary mentioned 100% operational control is not achievable. many members on the hill were uncomfortable with the fact that 90% would be as good as it gets so we went back to the previous standard obviously understanding is not achievable but many vendors want to hear it has to be 100% and what you achieve this something we can debate and argue about where the right line is. it's always something you can figure out later.

once you have that angle in mind how do you get there? how do operationalize that and put tools in your toolkit to use? you are talking about personnel and infrastructure and technology and the way we approached it in this congress was we said each area of the border is different. we have sections along the border that are vastly different terrain and different threats that you have to need the full thread in the train. so we went sector by sector and we said san diego unique tunnel detection in the rio grande valley you need the right toolkit would be aerostats and surveillance packages. congress can craft the right mix that moment in time but that's a snapshot in time and i can change so we gave achieved the ability to change the geer city will that he uses to get operational control at the threat changes because it will. secretary chertoff mentioned you squeeze one area and you will

have challenges across another so we want to account for that. once you have figured out where you are going this is the most important part in terms of the hill which is how do you measure success or failure? for many years we have apprehension and operational control. the chief can play better than i cannot operational control was never designed to be all-encompassing. border security measures turned out to be but secretary napolitano nothing replaces veteran and apprehensions so she has said many times in testified he can't have a measure that is good when it goes up and good when it goes down. it's meaningless. you have to have something a bit more robust something that's easily understandable and concrete. the american people have to understand that and congress has to understand it and say this is the right measure. this measure is for security so we have said the domains of the border different let's have a set of metrics. a set of metrics at the port of

entry and a set of metrics in the maritime domain and something we added this year was a set of metrics that measure how actively are using aviation assets. 28 different metrics and hopefully across those 20 different metrics we get a better sense of where we are and if we are going in the right direction or not. from the hill standpoint secretary chertoff talk about credibility and that's the key issue when it comes to metrics. many members have a deep reservoir of mistrust when it comes to the administration worried about manipulating the numbers. statistics can be manipulated plus or minus so what we built and the legislation this time was we have to have third-party verifiers take a look at the numbers and make sure their act or then statistically valid and make sure they are measuring what we want them to measure and not subject to manipulation for better or for worse. that is how we approached border

security in the aggregate. it continues to be a challenge and we will see what happens for the remainder of congress. >> as you have listened to the discussion so far about securing the border and what happens at the border from your perspective as someone who lives along the border what do you think is missing from this discussion? >> it's a great question to resell. one of the missing pieces in this important conversation is in the last 20 years enforcement only approach to the border for democratic and republican administrations the missing piece of that conversation has been how the border residents feel about border security and how this is increased enforcement of doubling of border patrol agents in this last 10 years and suggesting the senate asked congress to increase that even further. it really has left border communities wondering are we

ever going to be consulted in this conversation? there has been a huge gap between law enforcement the law enforcement agency of the united states and civil society along the border. as you grow an agency and when you don't instill in that conversation appropriate mechanisms for oversight and accountability when there issues that remain unresolved and terms of use of force that begins to create a -- between civil society and border residents. i am thankful and we are thankful for chairman mcauliffe and the last congress who said when we start looking at the impact on civil rights we started looking at measuring how this enforcement impact border communities and that was an important step under the leadership of chief fischer and commissioner kerlikowske. we have engaged in a robust conversation about the need to

have that on issues relating to force. unfortunately we are going back and forth. last congress the house under the leadership of chairman mcauliffe we said let's measure the metrics, let's look at accountability, let's look at the civil rights in the senate threw that out the door. out the window under the guise of well you have to enforce the border and have a pathway to citizenship. the reality is we have a path to citizenship now but we have one of the largest law enforcement agencies operating with the native site -- and it states operating with very little oversight and accountability. i'm very optimistic at that this piece of the conversation will begin to be folded into the need for having a secure border and another piece i will touch quickly on is the moral question of the impact of border security in the last 20 years since

operation gatekeeper began in san diego. thousands of people have lost their lives crossing through the desert. no matter where we stand on this issue and we believe 90% of troll of the border or 100% control of the border we have a moral obligation as a democratic society to ensure that we do everything in our power to prevent the loss of life in our deserts and their. that's also conversation that i'm glad we are going to have because it is urgently needed and it's more than just a political conversation. it's an issue of ensuring we do everything to protect lives of innocent men women and children who are doing nothing but coming to this country to better their lives. so as we are moving forward i am encouraged by this sincere dialect we have had within the administration and that members of congress and i'm thankful to the partisan policy center for

really approaching this issue not just from a perspective of security but also from a perspective of the importance of civil society has along the border. >> so brian, everybody here has talked about metrics and measures. why is this so important and if you can comment a little bit trying to counting inputs and outputs how do we get from ear to there? >> while it's important because as the secretary mentioned we had a comprehensive immigration reform in 1986. immigration reform and control act and it took us a long time. we don't remember this will put the cart of administration tried to carry out immigration reform and couldn't introduce anything to congress. it took us well over 10 years from the time mass illegal immigration to the u.s. became politically controversial to actually achieving new reform in

1986 and it barely passed in the congress actually. and it did deliver on a program under which i think 1.9 million people were legalized but it did not unfortunately succeed in stemming the future legal info which grew dramatically in the 1990s. so in part as a result of that failure of the reform there is a perception that u.s. borders are not quote unquote secure. over the last 15 years polls have consistently shown that a significant majority of americans believe that our u.s. borders are not very secure and that much more needs to be done to make them more secure. i think for me as an analyst the most rheumatic -- dramatic poll results came out in 2013 in which 80% of those polled believed that inflow of illegal

or unauthorized immigrants in 2013 was the same or significantly higher than in 2008 or 2003. now all of the evidence that we have at our disposal suggests that inflow has fallen substantially over the past decade. but that evidence has an influence public perceptions. as a consequence we saw the difficulty of creating the perceptions that were needed to help immigration reform passed in 2013. i think that this failure is due at least in part to the fact that the u.s. government really did not try to measure objectively what was happening in terms of legal inflow into the u.s. and if we could establish measures that enjoyed

acceptance and credibility this would enhance the ability to have a better public debate about these issues. let me just look at my notes. yes, i think there is also a need to move away from a dialog in which the borders described as either being quote secure for quote now secure. it's presented as a binary outcome, one or zero. either have a secure border we don't. we would be better served if the dialog dialogue move towards what is the actual outcome at the border? what are the number of people that are successfully illegally entering the u.s. in the three domains mentioned earlier today? iowa is the probability that somebody is caught when attempting illegal entry? that will help us understand if we want to significantly lower whatever is happening today whatever outcome is obtained

today what are the resources and policies necessary to achieve that? and finally i would mention that we also need good outcome measurements so that decision-makers both in the government and in congress can better understand what policies and resources are needed in order to change outcomes. without that we are basically carrying out activities. we are spending money. that's a bit of a shot in the dark and the example of fencing was mentioned earlier. the government has been required to spend i think several billion dollars on building dancing and we actually have no idea what its real impact is and i think if you talk to many border patrol agents they will tell you that fencing is useful in some areas and very much not useful and others that we could better spend that money on alternative

resources that would help achieve the goals of border enforcement. now understanding the impact of resources and policies designed to achieve law enforcement missions on outcomes is only part of the analysis that needs to be done. that is embedded in a broader cost benefit analysis of our policies and i think the points that christian was making those need to be taken into account in a broader cost benefit analysis but unless we understand the impact that law enforcement resources policies are having on outcomes they really can't begin that cost benefit analysis. >> chief fischer let me ask you so the importance of measures. everyone has said it so what measures of order patrol currently using and what of these measures are you making up for -- making public. if the ideas we need to create a common understanding to address

misperceptions from your point of view what more can dhs, the government do to help dispel and provide that information? >> so we have currently 12 risk indicators and metrics that we are using it i won't war everybody with all 12 of them. i will give you some examples. we think there is value in looking at recidivism. how many times is the same person caught this is important for us in a variety of ways to differentiate individuals who are apprehended only two times versus those individuals who are apprehended eight times. the other thing that we are looking at and we have heard the phrase but when i talk about effectiveness that is how many people came across the border last night quicksand of that member how many people that we apprehend and how many got away quickly or collecting that data and have for the last two years and trying to be more informed in terms of the security and the border security framework then just apprehensions themselves. the other thing we are looking

at is the average weight procedure for marijuana. you may say well what about cocaine and heroin and methamphetamine? it's not necessarily about the marijuana. it's understanding the less it networks and transnational crime that occurs on the border areas and the more we know about the individual networks and how they are exploiting vulnerabilities along the border the better prepared we believe we are to be able to move our resources into areas of high-risk. what the average weight procedure tells us is these organizations and the extent to which they are exploiting those vulnerabilities. what is different this go around with each of these 12 metrics then perhaps the apprehensions that paul mentioned is that each one of these has a definitive trend line. it's either going to go up or go down and we take a look at those 12 we mathematically and this is something i don't do by the way, we look at those within the corridors across each of the four quarters along the southern border to be able to wait and

ultimately decide areas of high-risk versus low risk rated. >> but nasa question mark more time. those are the things you are using internally but if we want the public to understand the trend lines as you said are we getting closer or farther away from it more secure border? how much of that are you publishing and making public? is there a report read to these measurements of the public can see those trend lines and how to have a better understanding? >> the vast majority of publishing the 2012 strategy was published. we did out -- one on did it trilogy plaster pit if you haven't seen it on our web site site.gov there is the third part of the trilogy that talks about the metrics. they go into a little bit more detail in each ear and continuing and the staff is continuing notches with members of the committees but public engagements like this to explain what it is. it's not just by the way for us

to say here are measures any need to agree with them. the intent all along has been for us to show everything we are collecting and have a broader discussion about what is valuable and what is less valuable. we are learning as we go throughout this process and the under-secretary johnson's leadership is taking a broader look at these measures as well as it relates to his campaign plan. >> paul from your perspective what do you think it will need to convince your colleagues on the hill? they share some of these perception gaps as well but what do you is the most important trying to get them to have been more realistic understanding about this? >> i think there are two things. first any time a member gets an opportunity to go to the border and they come away with a more profound understanding of the complexity of the situation on the border, the terrain that is certainly helpful but in terms of the metrics and measurements these go back to the old adage

trust but verify. i think many members want to trust the metrics that the department would put out and say these are accurate valid measures on what's going on at the border. ..

>> we talk about what measurements the government has but there's a lot of research outside of government that is looking at these issues. what's from your perspective the right mix? paul talked about an external validator. can these external researchers help with the validation? >> absolutely. i can abc in two ways. -- i can answer in two ways. we argue in this study that we should be measuring the number of people who successfully enter illegally. what's talk about between the ports. it was actually the economic community that first made to the estimates in 1990. it was part of the effort to measure the impact of the reform and basically the government outsourced the effort to two think tanks and they came up

with a very clever way of estimating successful infrom it's based on what the chief mentioned, recidivism analysis. 100 people come to the border and try to sneak across and border patrol captures 60. they put those 60 people on a bus and they're driven across the border and all 60 of them try again and this time 30 are caught. you can estimate just from those apprehensions, 60 the first time, 30 the first time, what the probable of apprehension is, which in this case would be 50%. then you can calculate how many people successfully entered. now, that was done for many years by academics. using either apprehension records or using data from what are called migrant surveys. a big assumption required is that everybody who is caught and

is sent back tries again. what has been happening in recent years is that border patrol institutedded what they call consequence programs where you aren't simply sent back across the border with no legal consequence. in various ways people are sanctioned for attempting illegal entry and being caught, and those sanctions are producing what is called at the border deterrence. people give up and go home. they don't continue to try. so we need a methodology that permit us to take that turn into account and those are available and i'm very, very confident that if the department of homeland security made data available to the research community, who has been working on this for a long time -- i see a couple members of the community in this audience -- i'm very confident we can produce good, reasonable estimates with reasonable uncertainty around them. they will be estimates. we're trying to estimate a

population that is being very active in not being observed. they're trying very hard to not be observed. so that requires some creative approaches. creative approaches were produced men decade ago. how can that data be made available? there's a reluctance in what law enforcement community to share the data at the level of detail that is necessary to do this kind of analysis. basically you have to share records on individual people. i think that there are ways in which the data can be shared that also respects the sensitivities of the law enforcement agencies involved. to give one example of how it could be done there are many government agencies that have sensitive data that collect sensitive data, and that find

ways to share it we researchers without compromising the commitments the agencies made under which the data cass selected. the u.s. census collects at that time to on individuals and businesses that is very, very sensitive. that data cannot be released to the become because it would affect participation in the census programs. so census has come up with a way to share that data with researchers at specific sites. the researcher canning do the research public their papers, but the data is not released for public dissemination. i think dhs could do something very similar if there was a will. >> christian let me ask you. a lot of this conversation tends into focus on the -- the secretary talked about ports of entry but they're not -- it's where a lot of commerce and trade happens. from the perspective of border

communities, how do you feel about why the conversation doesn't look at those issues? >> well, partly because the majority of the land ports of entry are an fix indicated. they -- antiquated. congress has taken a very long time to fund the extension for the port of entry, where thankfully now after money has come in, that port of entry, largest in the world, have reduced significantly, and let's remember that one out of every 24 jobs in this country depends exclusively on the trade between mexico and the united states. so when there are delays at our ports, when we don't invest in making sure that ports of entry are up to date with american -- making sure that able to access

ports. that's important piece. and one of the challenges we have faced is that along the border this lack of paying attention to the needs of civil society, of commerce of environmentalist groups or first nations, has created a consensus that the business community, ranchers environmental list groups, human rights organizations, all agreed, we all agreed that let's insist on our ports of entry. let's make sure we have modern ports of entry so folks will come and go every day, sometimes two or three times a day, are able to do so in a safe and orderly fashion. there's no excuse to have folks who are going to come to shop in douglas or in san diego to go to the baseball game to wait for two hours under the sun or in the rain because -- also coming to our country to shop to use their dollars and i think that

is the erroneous vision folks on the hill have of the border. the imagine the border of being this desolate land, nobody lives, there's no trade, no family connections, cultural connections and those days are over. we have to really get that image out of our minds. the fact is that we have the largest urban centers in this hemisphere. san diego, tijuana, a huge center. these communities depend on each other, and we in turn depend on them. so, so long as we continue to have the conversation about the border as being sort of a line in the sand, where there are no communities, we're going to not pay attention to the importance of make sure we have modern ports of entry, where folks will come and shop and visit family and go to baseball games, can do so safely, orderly, and quickly, because that is the guarantee that we have to have as a democratic society to folks who

want to come and visit our country. there's absolutely no excuse to have folks waiting hours and hours, two or three hours sometimes to come through the port of entry. >> i know chief fisher, this isn't your area, but maybe your colleagues in oso have talked to you.the importance of security at the ports of entry. and christian talks about long lines. my recollection from some of your colleagues is that long delays are not helpful for security. you want to efficiently process as many people you know are not growing be a problem quickly through the ports, and then you have time to deal with those that you don't know or maybe trying to come in unlawfully. do you have any comments there? >> well, sure. i think if john wagner or todd olen were here, they'd tell you where that's where advance information is critical. not practically speaking at the land borders but the air environment. the more information we can have before somebody approaches the

inspection to come into the country, on the back end we'll be able to do that, cross-check those individuals so that the flow process is a lot more fluid going through the ports. >> so, we have some time for questions. so we will let the audience -- there are mics. if use could let us you your name and where you're from, that would be great. and let us know if it's directed to the whole panel or one panelist.

there's a reason we focus just on immigration metrics and we suggested very strongly that similar metrics for other missions that be created. can you speak to why we think there needs to be separate measures? >> well, if you look at the dhs homeland security review, where the department defines its missions it -- the key mission that the department define for is is preventing illegal entry of people and goods and so good encompasses both illegal drugs and also violation of other trade laws but illegal drugs is probably the most important illegal good that enters the country and gets the most attention and needs to be

measured separately because it requires a different methodology. all of these major threats need to be measured and ultimately the important measure is how much successfully gets in. i will tell you that when i was in dhs my colleagues and i took a hard look at what had been measured with respect to legal drugs. what we found was that there was one time when the u.s. government made a serious effort to measure successful illegal entry and that was in 2001 and 2002, and they look at four drugs, cocaine, methamphetamine marijuana and heroin and it became clear the most mature measurement area was for cocaine. for several ropes, it's easier to measure the inflow of cocaine and there's been more effort put by the government in measuring that since the early 1990s.

that said, the poll i referenced from 201 that actually specifically focused on the illegal entry of people, and so i do think that the response of the poll is reflecting the perception about ill lee entry of people as opposed to cocaine. i would be very interested to see polling results related to illegal entry of drugs but i haven't seen that. >> chief, do you want to comment about the -- how you -- you're dealing with unlawful immigrants with drug smugglers people smugglers and traffickers, multiple threats the border. from the border patrol perspective, how do you determine what you have and how do you measure those different threats? >> sure. i think to your first point, sir, everybody that is apprehend by a border patrol agent between the ports of entry is process. part of the pressing is a concern print biometric where we do fed rated queries. we'll know in short order

individuals that have been apprehended by the department of homeland security before. another database will tell us whether they have had criminal conviction in the united states before. others will check and see if they've been entered into the department of defense database. so there's a lot of information we know subsequent to the arrest that we do take into consideration, for instance on identifying levels of risk because you can imagine an area where only 15% of apprehensions in a given period of time are individuals with a prior arrest versus another area along the border where that number may be 40%. it tells us about who is operating in and around that particular area, and each one of those areas will be treated differently in terms of deployment postures. >> what about fingerprint resources? do few -- financial resources? is that enabling them to penetrate -- [inaudible] >> we have seen that grown over the years. they have a lot of resources to include a lot of

money. they employ very sophisticated counterintelligence techniques against our agents and officers. we just have to be aware about that as we to through our deployments. >> just a followup to that question, there's been some indications that those trying to cross unlawfully for worker economic reasons are using more of the criminal networks to do so than they may have in the past. has that been your understanding and experience as well? they're benefiting -- the criminal networks are taking advantage of their desire to come and the saving traffic flows that can -- same traffic flows that bring drugs can also bring people. >> it's true that individuals wake up sometime today and decide to come into the united states between the ports of entry. what has changed throughout my career is they no longer make the choice on where and when they will cross. all that has been done by the organizations who own and operate the peninsulas saturday. if if your intent is into coming through a port of entry your

will be smuggled into the country one way or the other. >> from the council of foreign relations. question for the chief you. mentioned advance information on individual coming. we kind of think of that as illegal ports ports of entry information. people have documents, may be coming by airplane. what does that mean between ports of entry in how do you get advance information on people who may be thinking about coming in between the ports. >> two ways. we changed our collection requirements each year them last couple of years we try to identify so we can get from the intelligence community estimates of flows. the other way we reached out to the government of mexico ex-last summer when we started seeing the influx from central americans, help us understand what the flow was for this year and so the government of publics increased their capacity along their southern border and in doing so, we had some border

patrol agents working in central america with their law enforcement, training them and helping them understand and identify in advance some of those flows and with the government of mexico telling us when they're setting up checkpoints what the flows are on some routes of travel. what does the train look like cooking across? is the train full or lotment those are things during the review we try to get smarter about. it's not perfect but we try to reach out to identify the flows and also identifying some indicators of advancements of people coming into the country. what we found out some of our preliminary information now, being able to track elicit money flows, and understanding that generally people are going to travel once the payment has been made. and we're doing so initiatives now with a broader u.s. government approach, and identifying some precursors of flows of people based on money

transfers and flows in specific areas. >> more questions? >> talked about you can't really secure the border without dealing with other immigration issues, guest worker interior enforce; what to do with 11 million people already here illegally mitchell question is in terms of the mccall bill. the secretary mentioned 100% operational control is not achievable. you seem to have acknowledged that. if that's the criteria for secure the border first, how do you ever get to the other pieces? >> i think that there's a two-part question. the first part the secretary is right, you have to couple the interior enforcement and everify and other mechanisms and i think in terms of the bill and how it wail be packaged you'll seal you'll have border

security will be box car one in the train, and box car two in the train will be interior enforce independent a couple of different bills solve border security is first. that's whatever calls for. interior enforcement will be coupled with that in terms of operational control, it's clear that 100% operational control is not achievable. it's a problem of politics more than anything else. right? as i mentioned, during my opening comment, many members were concerned that 90% was not good enough, and so because that many members were concerned that 90% was not good enough, that led us back to what current law already says, which is the 100% standard enacted in 2006. so it's a matter of how do you reconcile those two things. as we move through the process, that's how you recognize the 100're standard with what come outs the other end. [inaudible]

>> thankfully that's beyond the scope of my -- i see in my -- >> maybe the next cars would be illegal immigration reform and dealing with the undocumented but we haven't seen those products -- >> those car i don't have my hand nonany meaningful way. >> okay. other questions from the floor? incline from the center for huber homeland security at george washington university. a question for mr. rushes and others can jump in as well. with respect your paper as you improve methods for immigration enforce. how do you ensure you're dressing the national security concerns, whether it's special interest alien countries, people coming from there or other sort of human smuggling counter-narcotics related concerns, win the immigration

enforcement flow. thanks. >> that's -- i think that goes back to the discussion earlier that there are different threat factors, and broadly they would include those coming illegally to the u.s. for economic reasons. the entry of illegal drugs and then the entry of potential terrorists, the national security component, and i think that different measures are needed for each of these three vectors. a very broad sense, the probability of apprehending somebody coming into the u.s. does relate to stopping all three of those threat factors, but the number of people entering the u.s. for national security -- adverse national security purposes, like counterterrorism issue is so small we need another set of measures that relate

specifically to that and i would welcome others too. >> chief, do you want to speak about that? national security the? >> certainly. just from the border patrol's perspective, you have to remember, when -- last night there was probably thousand people that name between the ports of entry. all of whom were a threat. they were a threat because they were coming into the country illegally. already broken a federal law and the border patrol agents made an arrest. it's not until after we sit down and start talking with these individuals and running the biometrics and trying to figure out the level of threat and everybody is different. so when a border patrol agents are being assigned today there's not some border patrol agents that go out and do immigration enforcement. not agents that look for terrorists and others look for drug smuggling. the mere fact that anybody or anything is coming in between the ports of entry in and of itself is a defined threat, the

extent to which can only be done post arrest, which is the reason why win we look at this and we train agents, is to be responsive once they get the tipping and cueing there has been an incruise either radar, eyes on, either from the sky or agent working a camera. we have to be able to first and foremost to the extent we can increase the probability of apprehension, increase the effectiveness. increase the numbers so when somebody does come croat there will be an agent there and then we can figure out enough fact one of the 144 countries they were with last year with over 425 apprehensions, because you're right, not everybody is equal when it comes to threats, but the mere fact there's vulnerability and our priority mission is to protect america and that's from anyny -- any bad actor. that's how we train or deploy and how we operate. >> what i hear you saying from

the perspective of the border patrol agent at the bordery, can't do any risk segment addition because -- segmentation, any analysis of the threat has to start before they get here. so if you're talking about national security threats you're looking to find out what are the people who are looking to do is harm? are they trying to come between the ports of entry? who is helping them and other things like that so you can with your law enforcement partners deal with them before you encounter them at the port of entry for unlawful immigration as you mentioned, trying to find another more about what is coming your way, where the flows are generating and i assume the dea and the law enforcement agencies are interested in drug flow as well. so it's more about understanding what threats are coming. you can't triage what is coming across when you're there. >> absolutely. >> back there and then to you.

chief fisher, if you could speak about the report referencing the border deaths. how this border patrol -- do you feel you have enough resources on the search and rescue side? this fiscal year the deaths are up and it's an ongoing and tragic situation. >> we continue to add capacity and capability for teams such as the border star team border trauma search and rescue teams. i can tell you this year, compared to last year, our deaths in the desert or along the southern border, in particular, are down about 20% and the rescues are up over 50%. so we're seeing more and more agents getting into the areas and trying to identify the individuals when they become either incapacitated or the smuggling organizations just leave them out there and turn around and go back to mexico.

we try to understand those types of groups. we work with the local district attorneys and the u.s. attorney's office for enhanced sentencing in those investigations continue with hsi. >> did you want to respond? >> i think the chief just laid out the real commitment from border patrol to address this issue. i think if we are going to have consensus, i would want to hope that the consensus is that we have a zero percent death rate in our deserts and mountains and i think this particular issue, how to address the horrific consequence of our enforcement policies, has to be addressed from multiple sectors. and we have enjoyed a great working relation show with the tucson border patrol chief and self society groups to look at the patterns of crossings, to do the mapping of deaths and to make sure that resources are

deployed by not only law enforcement but also by civil society groups to prevent deaths, and i think that this is one important piece that we need to have a conversation on in congress. folks in civil society groups and faith-based groups border patrol agree this is something we can work together to address and get to that goal of making sure that not a single person dies because there was no resource available to them to rescue them from the desert or the mountains, and if we have that conversation in congress, and if we begin to look at the impact that our policies have in terms of death on the border we will have much different narrative about what the border is about. that it's not just about enforcement. it's also about making sure that we really have response and a mobile obligation of the country

to address this very horrific issue, and other point i want to quickly touch on, border communities are -- enjoy a very low crime rate. one of the safest cities in at the country. san diego is one of the safest cities in the country, and arguably san diego, where i'm from when we neighbor dangerous cities and they have been through dedicated work between civil society groups and local law enforcement in those cities. the leadership of -- in tucson and sheriff wales in el paso and chief in call chula vista. the tie get to the low crime rate is working together between civil society groups and local law enforcement. we're behind working with federal agencies not that sense. we're moving in that direction. there's another metric we need

to explore, how to get to a place which we measure the relationship between civil society and law enforcement so we don't have such a gap between law enforcement and civil society that there's no trust, there's no communication, and we're dangerously getting to that point if congress continues to make this mandate that you need to have doubling of agents you need to have 100% control of the border. where you have these political conversations without taking into account the importance between significant dialogue between civil society and law enforcement, you really run the risk of undermining the very nature of the mission of the ohmland -- homeland security. >> one more question. this gentleman here. >> independent consultant. this is for christian and brian but anybody can chime in. we focus on a lot on illegal immigration on this equation not nearly as much on actual

legal immigration, and because of that illegal immigrant illegal immigration has got a real neglect testify tone to ain't point we don't use that terminology anymore. that negativity has kind of grown to be that immigration actually -- not just illegal immigration but immigration ailes bad thing in and of itself. this is kind of a cyclical thing in the united states. there's nothing new. it grows and ebbs ebbs and flows depending on economics and other issue wes have. i'm just wondering, how much of the current problem we're seeing is actually part of that negative cycle that we have in the united states and in europe as well, of actually not seeing the benefits of actual exception what it does, and we focus so much on the negativity of illegal immigration it changes the culture identity of the indigenous operation. i brings crime and negative things and we don't focus nearly enough, maybe it's bad

messaging -- on all the benefitses to actual immigration, not just historically but even today. so your comments on how much of this is part of that trend and how much should we focus more on advertising the benefits of legal or immigration period. thank you. >> i grew up in the san diego tijuana border region. i was a high school kid, the early 90s. and then my backyard, you had folks coming through every single day. hundreds of people crossed through the backyard of my home. so we -- i'm very sensitive to the importance of making sure we have a good narrative about around undocumented immigration into the united states. folks should come orderly, should come safely shouldn't be dying in the deserts and the mountains. political conversation, of course but here's my point.

today there's still zero in the muss media about folks coming through interstate 5 from 1994. as though operation gatekeeper never expected, as though the enforcement strategies of the clinton administration and the bush administration and obama administration were never put into place. we do have an obligation to change the narrative in the united states about exception the benefits and negative consequences. obvious live it's a loaded conversation. but i think more than that it's a conversation about what happens to border residentness this debate. we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. and if border communities are not considered as being part of the united states, if we're viewed as being some sort of fringe element between american society in which our constitutional rights are trampled pop and which i have to go through a checkpoint to see my sister in l.a. or go to a checkpoint to see my in-laws in imperial county, and i have to have a passport card for my

one-year-old son in order to avoid getting harassed at the checkpoint. those are the kind of conversations if we don't have meaningful conversation on that and look at the negative impact that unchecked enforcement has on civil society, we can't even get to the point of the benefits and the negative consequences of irreal migration. we want -- residents want to make sure we have a safe orderly, and humane immigration system. we are the most interested in making sure that happens. we live through that. but it has been so difficult to have that conversation. paul makes a point. when we have to sort of capitulate to having an impossibility as a plea condition to have -- a precondition to having a conversation on immigration reform it's that much more difficult. it's not just about going to the border and seeing the wall and having a speech in from of the

border wall but it's really about talking to business leaders, talking to law enforcement leaders in the community, and that is when you begin to change the narrative. we begin to change the narrative by making sure those folks most. peakedded by the unresolved debate over exception border enforcement are brought to the capitol, and we engage in conversation that says how we get to addressing that important question. >> so, i'm an economist, and i'm an analyst so i always try to step back from the political issues and get to the quantitative analysis, and there -- immigration, both legal and illegal, involve costs and benefits for native-born american households, legal immigrant households, and undocumented household, and it is possible to do research on

the economic costs and benefits of both types of immigration. when i was in the department of homeland security in 2007 in fact, i made sure that a study was done on that, and the economic impacts of alternative immigration policies were quantified. it's difficult to introduce those kinds of findings into the public discussion, but i do think that maybe more of an effort could be made. i had been hoping to see that be more part of the dialogue that took place in 2013 but again, it's difficult to introduce that in. i just like to make one observation about the narrative on the border. it's interesting to see how the communities on the border stemses -- phelps -- i was recently in el paso and saw a t-shirt for sale around the city that showed a picture of a handgun and it said, el paso

you're not in kansas. and interestingly enough, if you look at the data, the murder rate in wichita, kansas, has been much higher than the murder raid in el paso for 20 years. >> i'm going to take the prerogative of the they're since you asked about analysis i will point people to a study from october 2013 that did a macroeconomic analysis of what was then the senate immigration reform bill and seater scenarios around that, looking at the gdp, is in fall affects, wage impacts, housing. we're working on another study that will look at additional scenarios that might come if the house were to move legislation. so we're doing our part to talk about the economic impacts of immigration and the benefits. i want to ask you to join me in thanking our panelists. we appreciate your time.

[applause] will'll hear more about immigration policy from immigration and customs enforcement director, sarah saldona. she will testify about her agency's operations live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. and later in the day the senate foreign recommendations committee will meet to consider legislation that would give congress oversight of agreements related to iran's nuclear program. that's at 2:15 eastern. live coverage on c-span3. >> were you a fan of c-span's first ladies series? it's knew become published by public affairs. lookinged in permanent --

personal life of after first lady based on original interviews, learn details of all 45 first ladies that made these women who they were their lives and ambitions and unique partnerships with their presidential spouses. the book first ladies, 45 iconic american women, provides lively stories of these fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house, sometimes at great permanent cost while supporting their families and famous husbands, and even changed history. c-span's first ladies is an illuminating entertaining and inspiring read and is now available as hard cover or an ebook through your favorite book store or online book seller. >> coming up next here on c-span 2, a conversation with former house majority leader eric cantor. then a discussion on policing and race relations in the u.s. and later, former homeland

security secretary michael chertoff talks about immigration policy and border security. >> former house majority leader eric cantor recently talked about the challenges of long-term political decisionmaking at harvard university's institute of politics. mr. kantor lost his seat in congress. this is just our an hour. >> good evening and welcome to the john tv kennedy, jr. forum. i'm director of the institute of politics. tonight our guest is former congressman eric cantor. he currently serves as vice chair of the investment bank but until 2014 he spent two decades in public service.

first, serving in the virginia house of delegates, and beginning in 2001 representing virginia's seventh district in the u.s. house of representatives. in 2008, congressman cantor was elected republican whip, and in 2011, he was elected house majority leader of the 112th 112th congress. known as a smart and pragmatic legislator congressman cantor called for a vision of conservatism, and i quote founded on decency, inspiration, and a desire to let every american have a fair shot at earning their success and achieving their dreams. end quote. last january, then congressman cantor addressing congress and the obama administration urged both to think about the eight million children who will be born before the next election

and for their sake forego -- focus on where they agree and what they can do to create growth and opportunity. we are proud to welcome eric cant you're -- cantor back to the forum. [applause] >> our moderator for tonight's discussion is the political editor of "the boston globe." she is an authority on congressional races and elections, appearing frequently as a political analyst on cnn, msnbc, and fox news. she is a former political edit temperature of roll call and was a staff write for political and was a resident fellow last year. welcome back. >> thank you maggie. >> welcome to the forum, congressman. >> great to be back. >> host: so, i think everyone here probably knows how this

works. we're going to chat for a half hour and then take it to questions so start thinking of your very wise and smart questions right now. so let's talk about about your new job. what exactly are you doing and how dot is relate to being the former house majority leader? >> guest: well, first of all what i'm doing now is i'm -- i'm vice-chairman we are a global and independent investment bank with 17 offices around the world, 600 employee, just went public last spring and what we do is we advise ceos, boards public companies in terms of strategic decisionmaking whether it's through growth by acquisition, who it's merging with another entity, and general decisions on how to conduct affairs. and so in many ways i'm in the business of giving advice, and if you look to see what i did in my prior role as majority

leader i guess one could say it was trying to offer advice in a very friendly way, and if that didn't work, get kind of serious. but i am -- >> host: talking about with the speaker or the caucus. >> guest: just with members in general, and certainly as -- sort of cutting my teeth as deputy whip and then whip, trying to assess a certain outcome in one voting was very minute about advice and learning and helping the education process through advocacy of a cause in terms of a bill. but is it those -- the intersection if you look at business today, the one who is allocating capital in a decisionmaking capacity has to obviously assess risk, and unfortunately more and more sectors of our economy are being affected by government action

which increases the unknown, which increases the risk. so i see a real merging of the two worlds and now at seven months back in the private sector. >> you spoke a little bit or you eluded to this idea of short-termism when it comes to decisionmaking and making deals. what are some example's short-termism you see in government versus business today? >> guest: i go back and look at sort of my career as a elected official in government. i served for about nine years in the virginia house, and then served for about 14 years in the congress. and over that period of time, certainly what drew me to that service is i think what the kennedy school and the iop is about, which is trying to promote public service trying to promote students who are aspiring to make their way in

the world, to also make they're way in terms of the conduct of our government and our country. some very, very supportive, delighted to be here, because i am so energized no matter which side of the philosophical spectrum or party you're in, the fact that you care enough to want to influence the outcome of the country and its future is really really a calling that obviously i've spent a lot of my life pursuing. what i saw in that time in government although one who offers himself up for elective office, does so with a long-term vision in mind to affect some good. there are forces at work in our electoral system that tend to be much more short-term in nature. just the very sense of a two-year term as a member of congress tends to be something that is countering as separations towards a long-term

view or long-term goal and similarly in business. what you are seeing today is increasingly with the technology we have, the availability of information about the performance of a company, if you are on the board or an officer in a publicly traded organization, all of a sudden quarterly reports mean a whole lot. wall street is going to look at you in terms of your performance in that light. that has to have some impact on decisionmaking, and one who is in a leadership position in a company, i think it is imperative for that man and woman, just as it is for one in elective office to be very definitive in his or her long-term view in order to navigate the short-term pressures that exits in the business world as well as the political arena. i think that is what largely shapes what leadership is about

today, the ability to maintain a strong view of the future and long-term value while at the same time having the practical ability to do your day job and navigate the short-term pressures. >> host: government specifically in congress, were there certain issues you believed suffered from short-termism more than others? >> guest: i can tell you right now, both sides of the aisle. i think that there's equal opportunity on this. and i'll say on my side of the aisle, immigration has been something that has evaded a lot of -- solutions have evaded us and we as a republican party have not had a unified position saying hey, we want to face this and here's how. i took the position early on that because anything comprehensive in nature in terms of the legislation -- you know this -- that hasn't always worked out well in washington there can be a lot of unintended consequences. so i think like in so many other

instances in life, perhaps maybe if we can't but so complex, maybe you need to break it down into parts and accomplish getting across the goal line one-by-one. so i for a couple years felt very strongly that although -- although we couldn't come together on a fix, we could -- should be the dreamers the kids who were brought here by parents in men cases, unknown unbeknownst to that child, they were brought here, were raised in this country, didn't know any other country ever as home. to me it would make sense to give them citizenship. what else are you going to do? so i felt very strongly about that and wanted to go about passing legislation to that effect. had a lot of difficulty in convince something of my colleagues on my side of the aisle it was something we should do. and i believe the reason why there was such resistance is because there was short-term

pressure on -- from many interest groups on the right which said, even that dealing with the kids, when they themselves did not commit any wrong, didn't break any law that somehow conferring citizenship on them was amnesty and the siren of short issue termism, the incentive to respond to that there was a lot there for folks to say, you know what? right. i'm not taking any risk. i don't want to be accused of amnesty. i'm staying away from even helping the kids. and i would say on the left, there is a real commitment on the part of some on the far left to say hey this system of ours is rigged against us and that means the big bad corporations -- and i say that just in jest but this is what i believe that the attitude is on the left -- the bad corporations, they are getting theirs while you're not getting yours. so what is the bill that is

purported to be that which safeguards and puts big banks and corporations in their place? what the left will say is it's dodd-frank. and we can't touch dodd-frank because that was designed to protect the little person. and to put the big banks in their place. honestly issue there's no perfect law or legislation. anything can be improved, and there was instances where one would want to improve dodd-frank to make it work better, but yet some on the extreme left would say, we're not touching it. sacrosanct. very analogous to right and this amnesty question involving kids who didn't break the law. so the short-term slogan which many in the advocacy community put out there as a line not to be crossed, but thwarting in the

end what is beneficial to everybody on the immigration side to say we're a country of laws and immigrants on the dodd frank finance services side say we had the most successful deep, sophies 'til tick indicate capital markets in the world which helped fuel the growth in our economy. >> host: i want to ask you one more question about immigration reform. when you lost your primary some people in my business, the media, wrote that immigration reform was dead. what is the prognosis in your opinion for immigration reform? how can republicans, house republicans, confront the issue in a successful and productive way? >> guest: i really think that one needs to take a step back and see what it is that people can agree on together rather than complete gnashink of teeth. there's short-term pressure of

anybody been accused of implementing am in the cities. so that's a short-term pressure. the point is, incrementally what can you do ultimately to get to a solution where both sides have to give. so goes back to the sense of although one has a long-term view, how do you get to that long-term goal incrementally make process. that's the key. my sense is right now very little prospect of that happening until there's a presidential election. >> host: and when you say incrementally, can you maybe give an example of one of the starting points? >> guest: the kids. why not start with the kids? the notion is, if the criticism on the right is amnesty these kids did not break any laws. it was their parents, if you want to get to the issue, they were the ones in search of a better life. they were the ones who came here or overstayed a visa, that brought the kids in.

now, we have a tradition of law in this country, in fact it's biblical as well, we don't hold kids liable for the illegal acts of their parents in america. so you can counter the criticism on the right, and at the same time those who back what at the president is trying to do you can get one step there without getting everything. i think both sides have to give a little bit. you can't get everything on one side, and you have to start making progress on the other side. >> host: let's talk about the guy in the white house, the president. you have been a critic of him in the past, fair to say. you have had a couple confrontations with him, reported confrontations with him, for example over the system husband and the debt limit. did you draw any lessons from these experiences when it comes to negotiating and dealmaking, and do you think the president suffers from so-called shot short-termism?

sunny think the example of the stimulus debate was pretty instructive about where things have gone since then and it's been well over six years now since that debate occurred. remember what was going on at the time. this was a historical election the nation's first black president. he was extremely popular at the time with over 70% approval rating. had everything going for him. in addition to the fact the country had just suffered a tremendous setback with almost crash of the market, and this was all post the mortgage crisis and iaig and lehman brothers and the whole thing. so the president was there to bring the country together. when -- right before he was sworn in, he asked then-leader boehner and i to a meeting with the other members of leadership, and he was president elect, and i recall meeting in the lbj room

of the senate, and he came over to us and said -- the president said president-elect said, i'm serious about wanting to work with you itch want us to work together to bring this country so we can move forward. and he indicated that we should bring him our ideas about what should be and what was reported to be coming, which was the stimulus bill. after the swearing in, we all went to the white house met in the roosevelt room. i -- i guess i was so bold, i brought a white paper to show the president. he said bring your ideas, and i did that. and the president looked at and it initially said there's not unreasonable,ing in crazy in here, i think he said and we were very careful not to be crazy in this white paper. because i know that what the assumption was what republicans wanted in tax reform and stimulus was not ever going to sell with an obama white house. >> host: the white paper, policy memo. >> guest: a pool -- policy memo.

unfortunately what happened was the items on the white paper never made it into a stimulus proposal, and for whatever reason the white house would explain about what should or shouldn't be considered a republican position in the stimulus bill, nothing on the paper was there and in the end the white house did not get any republican support at all. however many we were strong at the time no republicans voted for the bill, and this is when the president has a 70% plus approval rating, there was every indication that we wanted to work together, that he wanted to work with us. so i think when you ask, was there any education, was there a lesson learned there i hope that the white house would say -- and i believe this -- if they had taken the time to engage to interact, on a personal level, i believe they could have easily gotten republican support. maybe not the majority republicans, but they could have

gotten republican support to get off on a much more bipartisan basis. and i would think you carry that through they last six years, there is something about human interaction that tends to take the chill off if you will break the ice. and i would jump up and down and tell the white house, i don't care how rock red river pub pub district one would have, if you're invited to the white house, to have dinner with the president and the first lady, in the intimate setting you better believe that member of congress and his or her spouse is going to be there and will want a picture with the president of the united states and his wife. so that to me shows you there's a power in that office. unfortunately that's not been used to leverage what it is that needs to get done on policy basis jive you gave the president a great between a and f on his relations with congress -- >> guest: i think he's doing

pretty badly. >> host: and joe biden -- >> guest: joe biden and i -- this is to the point -- is i actually have a very good relationship with him and i cringe every time i say that because i have to call him and tell him i hope i didn't hurt you. by saying that. again, we were brought together during the debt ceiling debate and the president had asked the vice president to sort of host a commission that lasted for about seven weeks, three times a week, two and a half hours every day and the speaker at the time boehner, asked me to go and it there with the vice president and his team and otherness the cabinet who were there, and members, and we actually developed a relationship. and there was a recognition about the political sensitivities. my wife and he and dr. gelled biden have seen each other and go out to dinner socially, based on that experience. that's what is missing. it's the human element, above all else that at the ends of the

day could force or prompt someone if they're at all reasonable into solving problems risking taking steps that may not be totally what one would want, but in the end of the day could bring people together. and that's i believe what is missing. >> host: we reporters on capitol hill realize the white house particularly the president always haven't been the best at reaching out to members in congress. what do you think it is about him? because he didn't serve in congress as long as joe biden? >> guest: i'm a lawyer. i'm a real estate developer. i'm now an investment banker. i'm not a psychoanalyst. >> fair enough. ...

the theme of the discussion is about the short-term. is there anyone who has a proven ability to prioritize long-term decision-making dealmaking? you said before you have for favorite -- for favorites among the field. >> the 2016 election on the republican side and i think even in the general election hopefully will be able to result in an election of an individual who can demonstrate that type of

leadership which says one, i have a few. i know where i want this country to go. people have elected me to do that and number two back to this other discussion we were having with what's missing at the white house i have got the ability to practically on a day-to-day basis conduct my day job to make it so that i can get along with people and get things done and so i do think on the republican side i have said before there are four people who i believe will be one of those which will receive our nomination. >> and those were jeb bush chris christie marco rubio and scott walker? which one of those four did you last speak to on the phone? >> you are getting me to say something. >> once a reporter, always a reporter. >> i have spoken to all of them recently. i don't want to say which one more recently. something will be taken from

that. >> fair enough. let's talk about dealmaking and a big deal right now the news is homesick former secretary and secretary of state john kerry's big oceans with iran. the framework they have put out to think this is the deal for the long-term? >> i'm really worried about this deal. i'm really worried about the framework that has been proposed and obviously the meat on the bones comes by june and several points that concern me and whether you can sort of count on it in the long-term i'm doubtful. one is the whole question about iran's breakout capacity and blood and when is that, what is it really can be verified and clearly to allow iran to have that kind of capacity is a danger to us all. so i think secondly the nature

of the inspection regimes and there's a lot been discussed the in the media lately about snap inspections. what will be the inspection regime and how do you resolve disputes if there is deemed to be a violation of the agreement? are we in the u.s. going to have to rely on the u.n. and perhaps iran's the countries who are sympathetic to iran to be able to block any kind of u.s. response and then what is the response, what is the nature of the sanctions and how quickly are sanctions going to be lifted is another question that needs to be asked. i think in the end this agreement as the president himself and his administration keeps saying it only deals with an air question. what about all the other destabilizing things that iran has been undertaking over the last decade?

i moss hezbollah and what's going on in iraq and syria what's going on recently with the hutis in yemen. all of this can contribute right back to iran so if we are going to lift sanctions because some house there is a dearth of nations that iran has complied with the david -- the deal all that does is give tehran more money to go out stabilizing and doing all they can to reach hegemonic goals in the region. so i'm very worried about this deal and i know those who are proponents think it's a good long-term thing and a long-term benefit. i'm worried about it. >> at the time or when you were in congress you are the sole republican in congress at least for period of time. i think it's a fascinating to watch republicans especially when john boehner asks to bibi

netanyahu to speak to the chamber, where do you think the relationship between the house and senate republicans and israel is at this point? as compared to the other party? >> there's no question the trends on the republican side of the aisle have been clearly on the upswing. i think you are down to low single digits for those who would not necessarily be there on every vote to support israel. and i think the trend is the opposite on the democratic side of the aisle. there has been a lot of sympathy towards those who would claim that palestinians should right now be given a state. there are those who would advocate the progressive left in america on this bds movement boycotted best insurance sanctions against israel who support the u.n. disproportionally going after israel. i think all of that you've are not seeing that on the right. now there have been on the right indicators that some would say

we don't need to be so globally engaged. we don't need to be spending money on foreign aid etc. noninterventionist. i don't think that's anywhere near as prominent on the right as the bds movement and others on the left trade i'm much more concerned with what's going on on the left. >> shifting gears i would like to get your thoughts on indiana governor mike pence and the religious freedom law that just passed in indiana or the governor should mention as your former colleague in the house of representatives for a few terms has received a lot of backlash from businesses about the law. i think you might have perspective on this given your new industry. first to think it was a good idea for mike pence to go back to make changes to the law or try to make changes? >> the fact that the changes were made so quickly probably reflected the fact that those who supported the law didn't realize how violent the backlash would be and i am always

concerned when there is some sense of exclusion that comes out of a public act. we are a country that should be tolerant and based on tolerance. again as you say shira i am a member for a minority religion and i grew up as a minority in an area that didn't have a lot of jewish people and so i understand what it means in terms of the sensitivities or if you're in a situation cap or religious service like the school you attend at all of a sudden you are the odd one out. and again but we as a country have come a long way. we are not perfect and certainly we are built on this notion that you have the ability to practice your religion and there's no imposition of a state religion that we also have a country that protects people's rights. the question at the heart of this debate of the indiana rfra

law which some would say tracks pretty closely and i have not read the law to see if it tracks closely to what clinton has signed in 20 other states have. i think some would say its license to allow people to discriminate based on their sexual preference and i think that that's wrong. you should not allow it. i can't say that law is or isn't. i think the evidence is in the courts. what if the courts done to say that there is a law in place that is needed to protect one's religious rights or has a court ever come in and said this law is unduly burdensome to one's ability to practice their faith. and i just don't know where the examples are to say that a court would ever come down and say that you shouldn't or you aren't compelled to serve someone because of their sexual

preference. now i do think this question of the ceremony and the photographer and the intimacy of a ceremony, this is where i think one on the religious freedom side says don't make me do that. i'm not so sure a court agrees with that. i'm really not. >> i mentioned that indiana businesses were quite angry with governor pence about the law. the alliance between business and the chamber of commerce and christian conservatives many tobacco was precious to the republican party as a long-term coalition. do you see that coalition air risk for threatened and you also dealt with the someone in the house where you have a lot of libertarian leaning members at odds with the chamber of commerce. this coalition of risk. >> and the coalition between? >> a between chamber commerce pro-business and christian conservatives.

>> it's interesting when they say christian conservatives and i'm a conservative and i am jewish so i was able to i guess -- i don't think there is necessarily a bridge that has collapsed. i do think there are some issues and remember sir crown ming a lot of the shutdowns and a lot of libertarians it was less libertarian and more fiscal hawks would say we need to shut down the government because unfortunately the country has grown in the wrong direction we need to do something extreme and then you saw the business community get really upset at the hands of republicans somehow you saw the shutdown of government. as you know i was very much in opposition to shutting down the government. i don't think it helps anyone. i don't think it helped the conservative cause at all. i don't think it helped the limited government cost to do that. it is about leadership.

i don't think there is any permanent drain of this coalition that makes up the republican party but if you go back to even the politics on the democratic side on the left just like the republican side there were different interest groups. there are things that you have in common. on the republican side what we have in common i believe strongly's individual empowerment, individual rights. not to say the democratic party doesn't stand for that as well they just get there different way and the focus on opportunity and operability. to me long-term, that is what is needed more than anything else. economic opportunity for growth and it's going to take leadership so we get out of these discussions about praying here and framed there. there needs to be long-term vision i do think 2016 gives us that opportunity. >> there's only going to be one question about your primary and this is it.

looking back is there anything you would have would have done differently? >> sure, think that the mistake made in my primary was the assumption that we had republicans only voting. virginia very unique and i know other states do have that but there's not open primary law in virginia and the democratic candidate did not have a primary that day. in fact it was later uncovered that my opponent in the primary was actively engaged in recruiting the democratic voters and the postelection polling that was done indicated i think almost 23,000 democratic primary voters came into my primary. and whereas i still receive the majority of republican votes i didn't receive anywhere near as much as i used to because of lot of the issues we talked about.

my stance on keeping the government open and making sure we didn't go into default. my stance and passing the tar l. l., all things that i feel should have been done and i wouldn't given where he was in those instances whether taking the same votes now. knowing what i knew then that i think the fault was in the political calculation about who are the voters and who were coming out to vote that day. >> so do you miss congress at all? >> you know i miss the people. i really do. think about being in a place where you worked for 14 years and you get to know people and you work and you convene meetings day in and day out. you grow really attached to working with people. i had a great team of people that i worked with on my staff as well. some of them are here today. one is a fellow here who is leading up the digital efforts in terms of the digital age in

politics and business so i have been meeting with him and to students today. john murray who is a former fellow also is here so i'm able to go and continue the contacts and relationships at that. >> a fun question for you and then we will go to questions from the audience. i'm going to make the assumption that you have a little more free time than used to. maybe just a little bit. have you picked up for lack of a better word hobbies are you doing anything fun or new or or you have a favor show you watch on netflix besides house of cards? >> house of cards i'm actually traveling a lot. it's a global business so i'm traveling more than i used to travel because if you recall the majority leader has the ability to schedule the floor and you knew when he had to be in washington and you knew when you were. now you are really at the call

of the clients and the businesses that you work with. i will say the netflix house of cards show is probably the number one question that i'm asked and especially when you go to countries in asia and elsewhere who are watching the show thinking wow and they always ask is it really like back? but now again enjoying my new my next chapter in life to. >> terrific. we will start with questions now and just a couple of ground rules and reminders for the questions. all questioners must identify themselves. one brief question per person. no speeches please. he has heard enough of those in congress i'm sure and please and your question with that question mark it is an editor i very much appreciate that so lets start of the year. >> my name is jim arkedis. i have a question in relation to the citizens united decision and

the $900 million at the koch brothers are planning on spending for 2016 so i'm wondering for a typical everyday american not as fairly typical but a person from a socioeconomically disadvantaged background you think people still have an opportunity to allow their vote to count even though there is so much money that goes into politics now? >> i'm going to give you my view on campaign finance first and talk to a little bit about what you have alleged in terms of the koch brothers and influences in politics. first of all i have always taken the position that you really ought to be transparent in terms of political donations. i am one who believe believes strongly that what you do with your money is a lot about your constitutional rights to state your position. if you are going to do that you have a duty in our country and our system to disclose what you are doing. unfortunately the evolution of the campaign finance laws

mccain-feingold and the rest what it has done is it has increased the opacity of the system so that people are able to get money and hide behind these organizations so that the public doesn't realize who is funding them. you cite some republican donors that are involved. i'll bet as to the public doesn't know that so they are just hearing things blindly. i do think that there is a problem for lack of transparency. but when you say should billionaires who happen to be republican have the ability to do that and is that unfairly advantage in them over the working people in the country remember the press and no harm intended, but press has total license to do and opine with whatever they want in politics. as we know and i don't think i'm

crossing any uncharted ground here, most of the press self identifies as liberal. okay, i don't know shira the latest polls i have seen most will self-identify, more than half are you. [inaudible] [laughter] most will self-identify and you are human beings. so why is it that one industry has unfettered ability to push out on line every day whatever it is he or she may feel but not necessarily one of us, a company company, someone who is wealthy. no one says that they should so that's why i come back to this and not to mention there's this whole debate about corporate america on the republican side and the union and labor movement on the democratic side and they have all kinds of constitutionally deemed right to organize their members and

communicate with their members unlimited so it's unfair to single out say hey we have undue influence because there are a lot of those that have disproportionate influence compared to you and me. so i think the best ammo or method should we let everybody get what they want but just disclose it. let people see who is behind a particular candidate and let them draw their conclusions. >> my name is. i'm in me -- department. thank you for coming and in hearing your marks your basic way saying it seems the ways to compromise with democrats and you can take both sides and look at common ground and hyperpolarization with the separation of positions is due to short-term-ism but what happens if it's the opposite and i will give you an example of labor relations in the upper midwest and governor walker and the idea that the labor movement comes in and try to enshrine

their rights and there's a scorched earth battle. that is actually if it's enshrined in our constitution quite a long-term solution. so there's a case where hyperpolarization led through scorched earth to a policy enhancement that's about as permanent assists going to be in the state level. so i'm wondering what you think about. there is a relationship sometimes compromise might be good but sometimes hyperpolarization might get it policy goal you want. >> i'm not so sure i would qualify the right to work movement as hyperpolarization that is essentially what scott walker was about and governor snyder was about a michigan to reinstate the right to work well in those states. it's certainly not in my region of the country where i say there's a lot of incentive and i think to the detriment of the right to work movement having been very engaged politically. in the states they were.

i think a lot of it has to do with the alleged abuse taking place in the public space with the union movement and there was a backlash. when we talk about so i agree with you, right to work is not necessarily short-term pressure. it was much more of a long-term message and structural issue for the labor situation in the state state. but the budget that we just passed that we just signed congress passed, the budget was only a partisan budget by and large. it was a republican budget that balanced in 10 years. now that's a very short although one would say good balance and good for republicans to put out their model. you know that budget is not going to pass but it was a

concession to the short-term imperative to those who don't think washington is living within its means. but in the end, it's very hard to see the democratic president solving that problem in that way. it's not going to happen so at some point there's going to be a breakdown of those expectations about balancing the budget in 10 years given the political makeup makeup. and it's this short-term sort of saying we are there for you, don't worry. we are going to balance this budget in 10 years. that is not happening so that breeds cynicism and that also i think is actually gets in the way of long-term if the goals should be deficit reduction you do that much more effectively through economic rope and why can't people rally around economic growth rather than stay out here fighting on the polls between balancing the budget within a year and never balancing the budget.

>> we are going to go up a level. >> leader cantor thank you for speaking to us. my name is alex jürgen and i'm a student at the kennedy harvard business school. my question concerns your home state. the commonwealth of virginia has been talked about a lot as a place that was republican and is trending blue but we just had for many people is surprised where ed gillespie did fantastically against mark warner in the last election. to the extent you have peering into your crystal ball what is the future you see for virginia? >> i think that virginia being a native lived there all my life and it's still a center-right state. it's a state that has benefited from a lot of growth, not just in the northern virginia suburbs in washington that the metropolitan areas downstate richmond.

the state's population if i'm not mistaken is about 28% northern virginia and the rest 73 72% the rest of the state. and you have a fairly significant downstate minority population that tends to vote democratic. so if you are going to run statewide in virginia you have to run up the middle. ed gillespie was a candidate but really had not been tarnished by any kind of record or statements he had made in the past that offended those suburban families out there that make up the bulk of the electorate in these major urban areas. unfortunately was unable to get over the line. i think mark warner, if you remember he campaigned as the quote unquote radical centrist and that again says a lot about what the statewide intellect or it is. unfortunately and i think part of the analysis looking back at that race while some say warner

was unable to generate enthusiasm and the democratic base, was because he didn't go off into the extreme. you listen to some of the extreme populism we talked about before in terms of the dodd-frank and all that and about the big bad corporations business and everything else being against you. you didn't hear mark warner saying that so again maybe there is some sense that is what generates the enthusiasm on the base of the democrat side. i don't know but the fact that he stayed and said i'm a radical centrist reflects his notion of what that state is in the fact that ed gillespie was a center-right candidate contributed to his really cute performance in that race. >> hello congressman. thank you for joining us. i'm a freshman at the college. i had a question relating to the future of the republican party specifically what you think it

is and what you think it is regarding social issues? will the lines with issues such as immigration or a lgbt writes will the republicans hold steadfast in their current views or world they be dragged by future supreme court decisions? >> i would see their say for some immigration issue i'm not sure the courts can resolve at predicting congress will have to resolve that. my sense is that will be resolved after the next election election. i think the time is, and it will be resolved. again for a lot of the reasons we talked about earlier. on the question of marriage in particular i think the courts have dragged the republican party or the situation in this country back to the state level and those issues pretty much being resolved at the state level. i would say that there is plenty of room for diversity in both

parties and just to claim there is a monolith republican position i'm not so sure that in and is what it will be because there are some -- you take the life issue on abortion. there are some really heartfelt religious conditions that a lot of us had on either side of the issue that you are not one to deny people those convictions. again i think the question of tolerance and a question of the culture and breeding that sense of tolerance and how that intersects with the politics but now question when i was majority leader i spent a lot of time on focusing on the question of women participation and support the republican party as well as minority participation and support. >> hi. my name is sally i'm a freshman

at the college and i'm wondering piggybacking off of that western what do you think is the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the republican party going into 2016? >> i think it is really the republican party's two-year the race to lose because i think the country i think we have seen when there is that president in office for eight years whether it's this president or the prior one the country gets kind of tired of them. i think there's a lot of wariness on the part of the electorate right now and the things going on with this administration that america likes a change. some in the republican circles say we have tried that hope and change and look how that worked but i do think that this country does look forward and likes a change and a new generation. i think there is a lot of sense to that right now in the electorate. so there is a stringfellow

twirly. there has been a real collapse in confidence on the part of working middle class in this country. we have been well reported. you look at the lack of wage growth as we begin to see a little bit of economic growth although there's a hiccup in these last set of numbers. we really haven't seen the wage growth that we need for the low-skilled and then up in terms of the wage earner. so there is something of an advantage to be advantage to begin by the republican party to say look we have had in one place one party for eight years and there has been no wage growth. let's try it our way so we think that's a strength. obviously the weakness and where my party has to focus is how to expand the field? i we go about an electoral college map with some very large states that will be impacted and

minority votes? we have not been very successful about it over the last couple of cycles. i think some candidates that share a mentioned before have the ability to appeal to those constituencies. >> hi. thank you so much for coming to speak with us today. i am a junior at the college. today it as a form he spoke about short-term and long-term politics unless you start the next chapter on wall street what is your personal long-term goal? >> you are trying to make news just like shira. i am also a father. i have got three who are probably most of the students here age and my personally, my long-term goal is to make sure i do what i can. i have been in public o