residential center and found mothers and children showed high levels of anxiety, especially separate anxiety for the children and symptoms of depression and feelings of despair. they showed signs that detention had called develop amount real regression and major psychiatric disorders, including usuicidal ideation. ongoing stress and despair and uncertainty of detention significantly compromises a child's intellectual and cognitive development and contributes to the development of chronic illnesses in ways that may be ir reversible. these combined with many due process concerns like prohibitive high bonds and difficulty accessing lawyers, makes family detention a truly truly troubling institution. it runs contrary to the 1997 florida settlement agreement

regarding the detention of children. the agreement that juveniles should be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their age and special needs. and generally in a nonsecure facility licensed to care for dependent minors. and it said that detaining children in prison-like facilities both secure and unlicensed runs contrary to very hartd of the flores agreement. as we speak, flores counsel petitioned the court to reinforce the agreement in light of the expansion on family detention. given the concern regarding the mental and physical health effects on children in prolonged detention, i urge you to adopt a policy that minimizes the lengthy detention of children. and use more humane alternatives like alternatives -- my staff attended a live bond proceeding

for a mother and 5-year-old child who had been sexually assaulted. the child was suffering from severe psychological stress while being detained at arttesia, the family had already been detained three months before the bond hearing. yet the 2014 priorities states that field office director should not expend detention resources on aliens known to be suffering from serious miz cal or mental illness. how do you reconcile detaining mothers and children with such serious physical and mental health illnesses in light of the directives and priorities memo. if you can answer these questions of the lengthy detention of children as well as the detention of children with mental illness. >> well, i'm not going to comment on the litigation but there are two separate issues one is unaccompanied children who we do not detain and those that are coming over with families. i said earlier i wanted to

satisfy myself that our detention facilities for families were operating securely, safely and humanely. that's why i visited back in february a month after i came on board. i found that to be the case. in fact, i was very impressioned with two teachers i met for these children who are there in the facility and the openness of the facility and these teachers who i visited with who said -- whose commitment and love -- and mind you i was a school teacher at one time. commitment and love for their children and children they were educating, was very evident. the facility was wonderful the technology they had for these kids was incredible. i'm not sure i could operate some of the interactive items that they have. but that's an issue of great concern to us ma'am, under that order that we're under with respect to family detention, we have reviewed all of those people that are members of that

class. a number of those families have been released. you know one of our problems is the immigration courts and trying to get a resolution and a decision based on credible fear or whatever there is to move on with respect to these families and have them know what's going to happen with them. that's a matter of -- i think the last number i saw was something like 480,000 backlogged cases in the immigration courts that are under the department of justice. i urge this committee to the extent there's anything you can do to help those courts to get more judges that would help with our disposition and request for 2016 for more lawyers to assist us to get these people through the process so they don't have to be waiting or be detained. >> thank you, the gentlelady's time has expired. now i recognize the gentleman from south carolina.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. madam director i want to thank you for your service as a prosecutor and as a school teacher, i am biased towards both. i hope that questioning does not reflect that bias but i do thank you for doing -- both of those jobs are incredibly hard. i thank you for your service. you have cited the case that explains 8% of the releases. how about the other 92%? >> i'm sorry, sir? 8% of any releases? >> 8% of the 30,558 convicted criminal alien releases were under the holding of zaf dos. >> in 2014, yes. >> so 92% were not -- >> another 10,000 were under orders from the immigration courts that we have to comply

with. >> right. i want to back up and ask you to put on your old hat. the prosecutial discretion what are the limits of prosecutorial discretion? >> on a situational basis, i think you're very familiar with the process where you kind of have to decide can you take a fraud case with a million dollar loss that is substantial to many victims or do you have to limit it to cases above 5 million. it depends on resources and safety issues in your specific community. >> there would be declination levels based on the amount of loss and drug acts enrobberies usually depending on how good the case was but immigration cases can't go state or federal. they can only go federal. so you mentioned in your testimony that you counted 3,000 statutes that were responsible for enforcing as a united states

attorney. how many of those 3,000 did you announce ahead of time that you were not going to prosecute anyone under that particular statute. >> announce it to the general public? >> ahead of time. >> no, i didn't do that. many people knew what they were and we shared priorities with the federal agencies. >> sure but, again you always have the recourse of going through the state. the state can vindicate its -- texas has narcotic statutes and texas has fraud statutes and bad check statutes. there's always a safety net the state could step? >> that's correct. i am stunned and i'm sure you may be too i don't want to put words in your mouth. you work with state and local law enforcement as a prosecutor right? >> yes sir. >> and you would work with them in the full range of cases from child pornography to you maim

it, there's a state and local officer at the table with federal officers. >> that's absolutely correct. >> why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to resistant to giving state and local law enforcement officers any role at all in immigration? >> to the extent they are here, i guess you could ask them. i'm not sure i can answer for anybody else. >> well in their defense i'll give you the excuses that i get, that the statute is too -- you can't expect them to understand the complexities of our immigration law, as if dui laws are also complex -- >> i can't speak to that. >> the state and local law enforcement officers you work with did you think they were capable of understanding the complexities of immigration --? >> no, that someone on the other

side of the aisle has that view. i don't know that. >> well, they do. >> prosecutorial discretion ziltd it pli in all categories and some require to do something like register for selective service and some forbid you like possession of narcotics and some laws, for instance, congress could make you issue us a report. are you able to exercise prosecutorial discretion? >> i can with respect to the first one. i know you would be on my case and so i guess that would be no and can't remember the second one. >> the laws that force you to do something, register for selective service? >> i mean, i don't enforce that law, registration for selective service. >> i know, you're a smart lawyer and you've got a broad background.

i really -- all politics aside i think it's important that our fellow citizens understand whether there are any limits to this prosecutorial discretion my time is up and i know the gentleman from idaho will gavel me in just a second. there's a big difference between you exercising your discretion not toe do a $20,000 fraud case in texas and your decision to confer benefits on that same group. those are two entirely separate legal concepts and regardless of who's in the white house or what job you and i have, it's important we have lines so people understand the limits of this thing we call prosecutorial discretion is. with that i'll yield to the gentleman from idaho. >> i now recognize the gentle dsz lady from washington. >> thank you for being here with us today. many of my colleagues have talked about the terrible conditions in family detention camps and in detention centers

and in washington state in tacoma, in the middle of negotiating terms of a contract and had to be extended -- negotiations have had to be extended twice now. the firm deadline to wrap up is now the 23rd of this month is my understanding. there's been very little transparency in these negotiations according to some estimates. american taxpayers are on the hook for $300 a day per detain ee. so why is there so little transparency in the negotiations like this that are taking place across the country and are you doing anything to open up the process to see what's happening? >> i'm not familiar exactly with that. i can certainly give you more background after the hearing. but we do want to have

transparency. you know, they are part of the negotiation and usually it's up to those parties to come up with the final terms. but i will tell you, we do seek through all of the meetings with all of the stake holders and whether it's law enforcement or nongovernmental organizations or others, their views on how thengz can be improved. and i certainly am intending to -- i hope i can get out there but i want to get to more facilities to make sure -- i think we've communicated clearly to folks doing those negotiations to make sure that we're doing them in the way that ensures security but also humane treatment of individuals, whether documented or not. >> if you have other information you're able to give me i greatly appreciate it and if you're able to come out to washington state and visit the facility, we'd appreciate that too. thank you. >> so you can have that direct experience. >> i'd actually like to do that. >> as a follow-up there was an

october gao report that i requested with a number of colleagues, identified three areas where ice is falling shot in managing detention costs and expenditures and three areas were collecting and maintaining cost data, two, ensuring cost is considerate in placing aliens in detention facilities and preventing improper payments to detention facility operators. so do you agree that there could be improvements made in this area? if so, what steps are being taken to improve? >> i always think we can be more efficient. i preach that since i've joined the agency we need to look for efficiencies because as we well know, funds are not guaranteed from year to year as we have experienced firsthand at the department. but we need to make sure costs

are allocated properly and we have staff trained in order to look for that specifically. and we do periodic audits and the report you're speaking of i would like to read it, to make sure we address those areas you've identified. >> if we can follow up on that too. i appreciate that. >> and you know, there are a number of counties in my state in washington including king county, our largest county, that formally adomted policies to ignore certain ice detainer requests. so i know you've talked about this a bit before but i was wondering if you could explain your views regarding whether states and localities should be forced to comply with ice detainers? >> we are in the middle, as you know and i've indicated earlier of a cross country tour of those jurisdictions that have refused

to work with us. to ensure they are looking at priority enforcement, not just general undocumented immigrant enforcement. we're looking at requests, not asking anyone to detain someone as we did before, beyond the term of their local jurisdiction sentence. we are working to identify the areas we can work on murderers and sexual assaulter, that present a danger to the community based on the facts and circumstances pertaining to a case. so it's a challenging job and presents opportunities for us to visit with our local and state officials and not only them but nongovernmental organizations to help us allay their fears and assure them that it is different and we're trying to work with communities to do it in the best way for that specific community.

>> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> i'll recognize myself. it's great to have you here today, i understand how hard you work and you work you have is very important. ifgs an immigration lawyer before i came to congress and i worked representing aliens who are in the united states without documentation. and so i worked -- how many agents do you have? >> about 11,000 total -- >> agents yes. >> you are saying that you are here to enforce the law is that correct? >> yes sir. >> yet you spend most of your time explaining to us why you don't need to enforce all of the laws, which seems really interesting to me. you gave the analogy of fraud cases, maybe a $1 million fraud case is not a good thing to pursue because of your resources

but a $5 million fraud case would be something that would be worth while pursuing, is that correct? >> that's one example. >> let's use that example. what would have happened to the crime in your area, if you announced zero and $5 million in fraud you would not be enforcing as a federal officer? >> i used that as an example. >> it's a great example. >> well, we would work to try to find a local jurisdiction that might take the case but they are strapped as well. >> what if you had the sole authority as a u.s. attorney to enforce the law regarding fraud? we know that's not the case but if that was the case that as a u.s. attorney you had the sole authority to enforce the law in that area, in that region you're covering, what would happen to the fraud rate in that region if you announced publicly that between zero and $5 million in fraud you are no longer

enforcing. >> i presume there might be more activity in that regard. >> doesn't your experience tell you it would be a fact that there would be more activity in the -- in the commission of fraud between zero and $5 million. >> using that analogy, i would say so. let me correct something. i'm sorry, it's very hard to let things like that go by i'm not spent my time xpounding on whether executive is good or not. i'm respondsing to your questions. >> i understand, but that's what you have spent most of the time doing and that's what this administration have done. they have told the people from other countries that there is a limit, there's a threshold that they are not going to enforce the law. in fact you just showed us a card. can you show that again? that card is what you use. can you imagine if you had a law enforcement agent in your area that decided to have a card like that about fraud and on that card about fraud, it would say

no case be higher than -- below $5 million would be enforced in that area that every time they arrested somebody with fraud, they were taking that fraud kaud d card out showing that these crimes are no longer going to be enforced by the law. you know what would happen in that area, the number of fraud cases would go up and number of people committing fraud would go up and number of people who would think they could get away with fraud would go up. would you not agree with that? >> yeah, except you're talking about criminal activity in fraud and you're talking about a civil enforcement system in the immigration laws. >> what if fraud was just a civil activity, would the number of civil activities would go up? the violations -- a civil violation is still a violation of the law whether it's a criminal activity or not, it's still a violation of the law. >> that's true but i'm worried about the impact on public safety. the violation is not the same as a criminal violation. >> so you're saying that -- safer because we are allowing

more people to come into the united states illegally is that what you're say sng. >> i disagree with the premise. >> that's what you just said worried about the safety of the community. i'm worried about the safety of the community. one last point, you have said several times that congress has to extend a due process to the people here without documentation -- >> yes. >> you're aware ina, 238, 241 explicitly state when we should have expedited removal of people here without documentation, are you aware of that? >> yes. >> so that's what you should be doing. it's really important keep hearing about these stories about what's happening in all of these detention facilities. would you not agree, if we did expedited removal and took care of the law and actually were enforcing the law that these families would not be held in detention for a long time we would be able to expedite their cases and figure out who should

be here and who shouldn't be here and they could go back to their home countries and actually live in a better environment than in a detention facility. would you not agree with that? >> i agree that we need to prioritize and families are not in general going to create a public safety arrest. >> not in general. >> no. >> we should allow any fraud under $5 million thank you very much. >> our decision is on a case by case basis. >> i don't believe they are not. they are not on a case by case basis. you just showed me the card, that's not a case by case basis, you're deciding where a whole class of people should stay in the united states and people who work under you are not happy about that decision, they are not happy with what the president decided to do and it's unfortunate a law enforcement officer would come here and testify before this committee to say it's okay to violate the law, whether civil or criminal. i'm done with my time. >> that's a misrepresentation of

my testimony. >> we now recognize the gentleman from illinois mr. gutierrez. >> welcome i've been listening to the testimony in my office that you presented here today. i guess in -- i'm very interested in this dhs, civil immigration enforcement this kartd. you carry this card with you? >> yes. >> has it been entered into the record, the card? i'd like officially to enter the card. and who has this card with them? >> all of our officers making decisions. >> all of the ice agents have this card with them? >> generally. >> and it states the priorities of the administration. let me ask you something, does the lawsuit in the fifth circuit have any implication in terms of your ability to carry out these

enforcement priorities? >> the one in south texas deals only with expanded -- and the initiation of daca. >> only on expanded daca. >> my sister agency -- >> it doesn't have impact on these -- >> not on enforcement. >> these are priorities issued by the secretary of homeland security on november 20th of last year. >> yes, sir. >> those are still in place? >> yes. >> a couple of things number one. there is concern among those of us who advocated for changing of the priorities and are thankful for changing of the priorities, in terms of making sure there is a clear line between ice and immigration and local police departments. we understand that you have a new program that you have yet to unveil. we look forward to that program. i just want to state for the

record, i think if somebody is selling drugs somebody is gang banging, somebody is out there murdering, something is doing harm, somebody is creating or committing a serious felony, i think we should look them up and give them a fair trial but if he's found guilty, sentence him, jail him and as soon as he's finished, he's jail time, deport him immediately from the united states of america. now that's very different than if i'm driving my children to school been here an extended period of time and they are american citizens and i have a tail light out which unfortunately many local law enforcement departments were using, using security community as simply another way of going out and taking their immigration policies locally and saying, we're going to arrest everybody we know listz at this trailer park that probably is

undocumented and works in this community then hand them over to you without any discretion. so i'm happy to hear your clarifications you made before and the clarifications you've made today in terms of making sure that there is a difference and that local jurisdictions -- many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will always say that the experiments of the democracies are always best conducted at the local level of government. well, local level of government in chicago and throughout jurisdictions in the united states of america, we do not want immigration policy carried out by our local police department. we think that creates a division between the population and their safety and their security and the police department's ability to be able to carry out. when they say serve and protect, we want them to know it's serve and protect. i'm happy to see you brought

this list of priorities that feature the agents because a group of us last week put out this family defender tool kit that we are issuing, people can download it from my website and from the websites of other members of congress and it says if you can take this out, do not deport me because i'm eligible for daca or dapa and all of the things people should put together just in case. you take the gutierrez tool kit and put birth certificates of your american citizen children for example and put your work history and you put your visa or i.d. from your country and if you get stopped by one of the agents, he looks at this and you've got the information and you put them together and you're not a priority for deportation. that's the kind of discretion we should be using. so we don't get confused if

you're driving a car and you're drunk, you go to jail and you get deported. if there's a tail light out and you're taking your children to the emergency room because they are sick, then you should be able to proceed. if you can prove that you are not a threat to the society and not a threat -- i thank the gentlemen for being -- look rkts director saldana you've got a tough job keep the criminals at bay but at the same time you have to have an immigration policy that protects american families from the devastating effects of our broken immigration system. i thank you for your testimony and for your incredible service to our nation as a u.s. attorney and today as a director of ice. thank you so much. >> gentleman's time is expired and i recognize the gentleman from florida -- sorry -- mr. go mert. >> thank you for being here.

november 20th i know you're familiar with the case and order, this temporary injunction enjoins the implementation of the dapa program and three expansions editions to the daca program and also contained in the same dapa memorandum. he said it does not enjoin the previously instituted 2012 daca program except for the expansions created the november 20th 2014 memorandum. there was an advisory dhs advisory that said dated march third, specifically between november 24th 2014 and the issuance of the court's order, uscis granted three year periods of deferred action to

approximately 100,000, we now know it was 108,000 individuals who had requested deferred action under the original 2012 daca guidelines and otherwise determined to warrant such relief including the issuance of three year eads for those 2012 daca recipients that were eligible for renewal. these injunction grants and deferred action to those eligible for 2012 daca were consistent with the terms of the november guidance. do you know who issued that november guidance that base beingally indicated it would be okay to issue three-year benefits? >> no, sir, ice does not have responsibility over daca and dapa that's our sister agency. >> you don't care who issues the orders or the benefits that say

you can't do your job and deport people who are here illegally? you don't care? you don't look to see who's responsible or benefits that are violating a court order? you just -- you just say, oh, well, they have the benefits, even though it violated a court order, i don't care they are illegitimate? you don't care who issues those -- the guidance or the illegal order or the illegal benefits in opposition to the court's order? >> i care about violences of court order sir, but that's not something i was directed to do. that's those who confer the benefit which is citizenship and immigration services. >> if someone has benefits that are fraudulent or illegal, do you say, oh, well, i guess we can't deport these people because even though they are fraudulent or illegal, i'm going to recognize them because i never look beyond the face of

the benefits that people that are illegally here have? surely you don't accept fraudulent or illegal benefits or visas allowing people to stay, do you? >> no, i don't like fraud. >> well, i wouldn't think so. i come back to the original question, your job is in part to deport people who are illegally here, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so let me just ask you and never ask a why question, but why you didn't deport people who got three-year benefits when those three year benefits were illegal? >> i am -- i'm not aware of that being the fact. i have not seen anything that says that someone -- that was granted status or lawful presence under the 108,000 has anything to do with me.

we're enforcing the priorities. that's how we're going about our business. >> well the judge made clear that this court -- if this court ruled according to government requested schedule it would rule without the -- knowing the court granted 108,081 applications despite multiple to the contrary yet the government stood silent, even worse they urged this court to rule before disclosing that the government had already issued 108,081 three-year renewals despite their statement to the contrary. if you don't like fraud, does it bother you that you're homeland security department that you work for has actually instigated a fraud upon the united states district court for the southern district of texas? >> representative gohmert, with

all due respect, i would appreciate you not yelling. i'll answer your question as well as i can. but my -- >> thank you for your dill tri answer but i would like an answer. >> if i may. that whole issue of the 108,000 as you said is in the middle of litigation. i cannot comment on that. i don't represent the entire pan plea of federal agencies coming within the united states of america. i can only speak to questions regarding ice and i'm glad to do so if you've got one that connects the subject to ice. >> thank you. >> i'd ask -- >> i'd ask the question -- mr. chairman i would like consent to give her one more chance. you're telling us in this hearing you have no idea where the november guidance came from that authorized three-year benefits? >> as they say in federal court asked and answered. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> just want to make sure

because i don't believe that. >> ms. saldana to correct the record, we heard from mr. gutierrez, very eloquent on this esh yu and very good at making statements here in our proceedings. we heard that you -- we're deporting people here that are traffic offenses yet we should be deporting people with duis. are you aware over 13000 people were released out of custody last year because of duis and the previous year it was 15,000 people? between the two years we've had close to 30,000 people being released into the united states because of the orders of this president with the dui convictions? >> well i don't know specifically the numbers you're talking about, but i will tell you that i explained earlier that a good portion of those are court ordered releases.

the others are made on a case by case basis depending -- >> you're aware it's close to $30,000 have been released from ice custody for dui convictions -- >> i presume you're looking at something we provided you. >> thank you very much. >> i yield the time to the gentleman from florida. thank you. the apprehension detention and removal of illegal aliens my first question if an alien was illegally present in the united states but did not fall within the enforcement pry oorts would that alien still be subject to removal? >> it could be because as i pointed out earlier there's a provision in here that says even if someone doesn't meet the priorities, and but you believe they are a threat to public safety, you're permitted to go forward with that to speak to your supervisor and see if that decision -- different decision

should be made in that instance. >> case by case basis. >> if somebody is not in one of the criteria, you obviously would need some affirmative evidence that they were a threat to public safety. i mean, there are people who are threats that we may not have evidence or absence of evidence doesn't mean they are not a threat. in that situation, if there's no evidence, then under these enforcement priorities, there would be no action whatsoever against that individual who was here illegally, correct? >> no evidence of a threat, that's correct. >> how many aliens who did not fall within the priorities have been arrested, detained and removed from the united states since secretary johnson announced those policies on november 20th? >> well as i said earlier, they did not go into -- at least with the apprehension and removal guidance did not go into effect until january 5th. and -- >> do you know since january 5th? do you have a number or something you think you could get for us? >> i think i could get it for you. >> we would appreciate that.

has anyone in dhs determined how many removable aliens fall within the priorities for removal set forth in the november 20th memo? >> at large? in general? >> that's correct sfwl the estimated 11 million? >> what percent amg of that would fall within the enforcement priorities? >> i'm not aware of a study in that regard. i can confirm that but i'm not aware of one. >> is it your opinion that you couldn't determine that? >> on 11 million? it would take a long time. >> what do you think -- what would be the ballpark? could you get us into the ballpark so we know numbers? >> now we're in the area of pure speculation, sir i'm sorry. >> so, if you can give us whatever -- if there's been anything done with that, that would be great. is ice going to do anything to remove aliens who received a final order of removal before

january 4th 2014? >> do anything -- again as i said, if that person doesn't meet the priorities as in someone who was here before january, 2014 if they are a public safety threat, yes, we can't act on that to put them in removal procedures. but generally speaking they don't fit one of the priorities unless we have some -- as i said -- >> that's true though even if somebody already received a final order of removal say december 2013, gone through the system, law has been enforced you then would say, unless there's additional evidence, that the person could propose a threat to society, that order of removal is essentially rescinded? >> keep in mind there's always a process through the immigration courts that someone can even go and contest that order. so -- >> right but let's put that aside for the enforcement perspective, anything before november -- january 1st 2014,

it's final order of removal, if not accompanied by evidence of a threat to public safety, that would mean that ice would simply move on. >> or national security, that's correct. >> i will yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. thank you very much for your time and service to the nation and i know you've been getting it from both sides here. so it's been an interesting hearing. this concludes today's hearing. thanks to our witness for attending without objection. all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. hearing is now add adjourned. >> thank you, sir.

[ speaking foreign language ]

>> i know you from tv. that is so cool. you always seem -- i just appreciate that so much. i do. >> the house judiciary committee wrapping up the hearing on immigration policy, specifically

looking at the deportation of undocumented aliens who have criminal records. if you missed any of the hearing, we'll be airing it again later in our schedule and it will also be available shortly online at c-span.org. and more live public affairs programs to tell you about later today the chair of the senate foreign relations committee bob corker will work on a bill to require congressional approval of any iran nuclear deal. we'll have live coverage of the meeting at 2:15 p.m. eastern. and what rule do you think congress should play in the nuclear negotiations? logon to our facebook page to leave your thoughts or tweet us using #cspanchat. more foreign policy tomorrow when the u.s. ambassador to united nations samantha power testifies on the 2016 state and foreign operations budget. that gets under way wednesday, 2:00 eastern. we'll have that here on c-span3.

>> this weekend the c-span cities tour has partnered with comcast to learn about the history and literary life of saint augustine florida. >> a lot of people have said that he was out for additional property for the king of spain and colonization attempts and goals which is true. once ponce de leon, this area presents one of the few fresh water springs in the area around 30 degrees eight minutes and also the location of the 1565 first settlement of saint augustine, 55 years before the pilgrims landed on plymouth rock. >> the hotel ponce de lee onwas

built by henry morris and flagler, one of the wealthiest men in america. he essentially had been a co-founder of standard oil company with john d. rockefeller rockefeller. he was a man who always wanted to undertake some great enterprise and as it turned out, florida was it. he realized that he needed to own the railroad between jacksonville and saint augustine to ensure that guests could get to his hotel conveniently. so clearly the dream was beginning to grow on flagler he was a man who had big dreams. i was a vision nar. >> watch all of our events saturday, at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american

history tv on c-span3. >> with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and senate on c-span2, here on c-span3, we compliment that by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events and on weekends it is home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series and civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts and touring museums to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. the best known american history writers, the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nations commanders in chief and lectures in history, with top professors into america's past and real america featuring archival government and he had kaegsal indicational films. created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable

or satellite provider. watch us in hd. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> florida freshman senator marco rubio added his name to the growing list of first term republican senators running for the presidential nomination. he joins ted cruz from texas and kentucky's rand paul. we'll look at his campaign announcement from miami next. this is about 20 minutes. [ applause ] >> marco, marco! >> thank you.

thank you. that is a lot of cell phones, thank you. thank you for being here. after months of deliberate race and prayer about the future of our country, i have come here tonight to make an announcement on how i believe i can best serve you. i chose to make this announcement at the freedom tower because it is truly a symbol of our nation's identity as the land of opportunity. and i'm more confident than ever that despite our troubles, we have it within our power to make our time another american century. in this very room five decades ago, tens of thousands of cuban exiles began their new lives in america. the story is one of the largest stories the american miracles how united by common faith and god given right to go as far as their talent and work would take them, a collection of immigrants

and exiles, former slaves and refugees, together built the freest and most prosperous nation ever. for almost all of human history, power and wealth belonged only to a select few. most people who have ever lived were trapped by the circumstances of their birth. destined to live the life their parents had. america is different. because here we are the children and grandchildren of people who refused to accept this. [ applause ] >> both of my parents were born to poor families in cuba. after his mother died my father had to go to work when he was 9 years old. my mother was one of seven girls raised by a disabled father who

struggled to provide for his family. when they were young parents had big dreams for themselves but because they were born into -- not born into wealth or power, the future was destined to be defined by their past. and so in 1956, they came here to america. the one place on earth where the aspirations of people like them could be more than just dreams. here in america, my father became a bartender. my mother a cashier and maid and k-mart stock clerk. they never made it big. but they were successful. two immigrants with little money or education found stable jobs, owned a home, retired with security and gave all four of their children a life better than their own. my parents achieved what came to be known as the american dream. the problem is now too many americans are starting to doubt

whether achieving that dream is still possible. hard working families that are living paycheck to paycheck, one unexpected expense away from disaster. young left to struggle under the weight of more tax, more regulation and more government. why is this happening in a country that for over two centuries has been defined by equality of opportunity. it's because while our people and economy are pushing to boundaries of the 21st century, too many of our leaders and ideas are stuck in the 20th century. [ applause ]

they're busy looking backwards so they do not see how jobs and prosperity today depend on our ability to compete in a dploeglobal economy. they put us at a disvangsadvantage by taxing and regulating like it was 1999. they look for solutions in yesterday so they do not see the good paying modern jobs require different skills and more education than in the past so they blindly support an out dated higher education system that's too expensive and too inaccessible to those who need it most. they have forgotten they have forgotten that when america fails to lead, global chaos follows. [ applause ]

and, so, they appease our enemies. they betray our allies. they weaken our military. the turn of the 19th century a generation of americans harness the power of the industrial age and they transform this country into the leader economy in the world. the 20th century became the american century. well now the time has come for our generation to lead the way towards a new american century. [ applause ] if we reform our tax code and reduce regulations and control spending and modernize our immigration law and repeal and replace obama care, if we do

these things -- [ applause ] if we do these things if we do these things the american people will create millions of better paying jobs. if we create a 21st century system of higher education that provides working americans the chance to acquire the skills they need that no longer graduate students with mountains of debt and degrees that do not lead to jobs and that graduates more students from high school ready to work then our people will be prepared to seize their opportunities in this new economy. if we remember, if we remember that the family, not the government is the most important institution in our society.

if we remember that all human life deserves protection of our loss and if we remember that all parents sderve to choose the education that's right for their children then we'll have a strong people and a strong nation. if america once again accepts the mantle of global leadership by abandoning this administration's dangerous concessions to iran and its hostility to israel. [ applause ] by reversing the hallowing out of our military, by giving our men and women in uniform the resources, care and gratitude that they deserve.

by in longer being passive in the face of chinese and russian aggression achbd by end aggression and by ending the near total disregard for democracy and human rights around the world especially cuba venezuela and nicaragua. [ applause ] then if we did these things then our nation would be safer, our world more stable and our people more prosperous. these are the things that we must do. this election is not just about what laws we're going to pass. this election is a generational choice about what kind of country we will be. just yesterday leader from

yesterday yesterday, began a campaign for president by promising to take us back to yesterday. yesterday is over. we're never going back. you see we americans have proud of our history, but our country has always been about the future. before us now is the opportunity to author the greatest chapter yet in the amazing story of america. we can't do that by going back to the leaders and ideas of the past. we must change the decisions we are making by changing the people who are making them.

so that is why tonight grounded by the lessons of our history, but inspired by the promise of our future i announce my candidacy for president of the united states. [ cheers and applause ] thank you. i know my candidacy might seem improbable to some watching from abroad abroad. in many countries the highest office in the world is reserved for rich and powerful. i live in an exceptional country.

i live in an exceptional country where the son of a bartender and a maid can have a same dreams. i live in an exceptional country where the son of a bartender and a maid can have the same dreams and the same future as those who come from power and privilege. i recognize, i recognize the challenges of this campaign. i recognize the demands of this office that i seek. in this endevour as in all things, i find comfort in the ancient command be strong and courageous. do not tremble or be displayed for the lord, your god is with you where ever you go.

i've heard some suggest that i should step aside and wait my turn. but i cannot. i believe our very identity as an exceptional nation is a stake, and i can make a difference as president. i'm humbled by the realization that america, america doesn't owe me anything. i have a debt to america i must try to repay. this isn't just a country where i was born. america is literally the place that changed my family's history. i regret that my father did not live to see this day in person. he used to tell me all the time he used to tell us all the time. [ speaking foreign language ]

[ applause ] that means in this country you will achieve all the things we never could. [ applause ] on the days wheni'm tired or discouraged i remember the sounds of his keying jingling well past midnight as he returned from another long day of work. when i was younger i didn't fully appreciate all he did for us. now as my own children grow older, i more fully understand. my father was grateful for the work he had. that was not the life he wanted for his children. he wanted all the dreams he once had for himself to come true for us. he wanted all the doors that closed for him to open for me. my father stood behind a small

portable bar in the back of those room for all those years so tonight i can stand behind a podium in this room. that journey from behind that bar to behind this podium is the essence of the american dream. whether we remain a special country will depend on whether that journey is still possible for those who are trying to make it right now. the single mother who works long hours for little pay so her children don't have to struggle the way she has to. the young student who takes two buses before dawn to attend a better school halfway across town. the workers in our hotel kitchens, the landscaping crews in our neighborhoods, the late

night janitorial staff that cleans our offices and even the bartenders who are and the standing in the back of the room somewhere in america. if their american dreams become impossible, we will have just become another country. if they succeed, this 21st century will also be an american century. this will be the message of my campaign and the purpose of my presidency and to succeed on this journey i will need your prayers and your support and ultimately your vote. tonight, i'm asking you to take that first step with me by joining us at our website, marco marcorubio.com. my wife and my four children are

here tonight. [ applause ] the nx 19 months will takenext 19 months will take me far away from home. i'll miss my kids. i have chosen it because this election, this election is about them. theirs is the most important generation. i'll tell you why. if we can capture the promise of this new century, they will be the freest and the most prosperous americans that have ever lived. if we fail, they will be the first generation of americans to inherit a country worst off than the one left for their parents. the final verdict on our

generation will be written by americans who have not yet been born. let us make sure they record that we made the right choice. that in the early years of this century, faced with rapidly changing and uncertain world our generation rose to face the great challenges of our time. because we did there was still one place in the world where who you come from does not determine how far you go. because we did the american miracle lived on. because we did our children and theirs lived in a new american century. thank you. god bless. god bless the united states. thank you.

[ cheers and applause ] there's more live programming coming up to tell you about. join us later today when

chairman bob corker speaks. that's live at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. we'd like know what role do you think congress should play in the iran negotiations. log onto our facebook page or tweet us. the brookings institution hamilton project held a forum discussing the economy. this next portion is about 1:10. thank you all for joining us this morning.

my name is melissa karney. it will take the premiss that has been laid out for us. we're going to ask the question ha does that imply for the future of work future of workers and nature of employment and country this particular. as we tried to lay out in our paper there are a wide range of views on this topic and in particular on whether this is going to be good or bad or how good or how bad on that. unfortunately, this morning we have a really expert group to discuss these issues with us. truly, i would say some of the leading minds in the world on these very questions. you have their full bios in your program. i won't run through them in detail but i'll briefly introduce our panelists this morning. to my immediate left is david

otter. he's probably contributed more to the academic lit clur on recent trends this labor markets than anyone. we have larry summers. served our as chief technology officer pointed by president barack obama. served as virginia's fourth secretary of technology. the way we're going to do is i'm going pose a question to each of

our panelist. we will be collecting your questions on note cards. david, i'm going to open it up with a question for you. you have written extensively about the nuanced relationship between technology and computers and workers noting there are certain things that computer can do that substitute for tasks. other thing that computers do that compliment tasks performed by humans. in light of your research and the frame work that's played out for us how do you see this all shaking out for workers? >> that's a great question. honored to be part of this discussion. i'm glad this topic is getting sort of thoughtful discussion which it deserves.

i would say people should not panic. that's a number of remarks i could make. i think there's reason for some skepticism about how fast things were actually moving. there's a lot of aggregated that don't support the idea that the labor market is changing nearly as rapidly as the dramatic story. for example, the premium to higher education has plateaued over the last ten years. we see evidence that highly skilled workers have less ravage skilled occupations. that's an important look. productivity is not growing very

rapidly. a will the of employment growth we see have been relatively low education this person occupation. i would say it's easy looking at these examples to see an inflection. when we think about how technology interacts with labor markets, we think this terms of substitution. technology are generally made to substitute and do something that we're doing. we've been substituteing machinery for labor as long as we've been able to think to do that. that's the kind of first order that's a mechanical effect that we can automate transportation

and automate information. in general what is neglected is that compliments us as well. many activities refer a mixture of thing. information prosayscessing and tuition. motor power and dexterity. if those things need to be done together when you make one of them cheaper and increase the value of the other. doctors have not become less valuable of medical technology. they can do more and that makes them more valuable. there's three things that sort of contribute to how an aggregate, a reduction affects employment. one is whether the technology directly substitutes you individually or whether it helps you do one thing. you think about diagnoseing,

medical testing. the second is how elastic is the demand for those services. we can do all the medicine we did in 1950 in ten minutes a week. of course, as we get better at it people consume more of it. we spend more and more on health care because there's many problems of health care partly because the service produces a much greater value. then third from lay perspective it matters how scarce the skill set is. there's many many examples are productivity increases lead to

growing wages and growing employment and making jobs more interesting and challenging. that's not always the case. that's on one side. on the other we do see a lot of growth technical jobs. look my final point, a lot of what matters is how rapidly things change. we woild have it by monday. that would be a dramatic advance. we would all buy it. there's lots of people. if amazon said we're going to

have this in 2045, we would be well situated to adjust in that because we would recognize that's not the place they wanted to be it matters how quickly we get there. things are doubling. i would say the technology especially academic is very divided about this. you talk to maybe the m.i.t. president, they're view is these problems are really hard. they're making progress. we live in very trusting times.

>> thank you. i'm sure we'll revisit those ideas. as our nation chief technology officer you were tasked with using technology inthoughnovation to reduce health care costs, protecting the homeland. you've spoken very optimistic optimistically about the power of technology to improve our lives. i'm curious to hear how your view of what technology has done compares to that as andy and eric laid out. >> i have three observations. the first started with my first trip to google which was in '06. we were trying to open up government da to is search

engines to make it more accessible p accessible. most people were getting information about search engines. i saw this globe when i walked in which had extensively a light admitted for every search conducted on google. as the globe was spinning it was like dark. it was sort of the stark observation. many parts of the world had darkness. if you think about the american economy, what sectors are on the e kwif equivalent of that darkness. health care, energy and education. have not been plugged into the internet. when you look at all this

amazing capability and productivity gains in manufacturing and others you look to gdp and thinking this sector, these groups of sectors have been completely missing from this revolution. obviously the incentives start to change and data opens up at the same time. you might get an explosion of venn ration. we're seeing that in health care. we've made great strides opening up data. now the incentives are changing to reward a different type of health care delivery system which makes it a wide open terrain. that's very exciting. it's creating new types of jobs that never been existed before in the health care sector. all of which require a phd in physics. you can be a low level employee

who is utilizing these technologies. the north carolina-virginia border used to be the world's hot spot for furniture manufacturing. that was it. those jobs aren't coming back. how do we build the safety net down there. we get maybe broad band is the answer. we did everything we could to improve that northern, north carolina virginia border. manager interested happening around the concept of automation. manufacturing is cheaper because you no longer have to have the same labor intensity. we can insource manufacturing jobs back to the u.s. at a faster rate in response to china. ikea opens up a manufacturing

plant and furniture, where? right in the heart of that north carolina-virginia border. the same place that's been written off for the capacity to build furniture. manufacturing jobs are coming back. they are not the same labor intensity when they were previously here. the third observation is it's pretty much the most exciting thing that i've seen because in that same north carolina-virginia border there are people who used to have parents and grandparents working in textiles as well. now they are building designs for clothing that can be 3-d

printed or property can be transmitted over the internet and creating economic value in the same market because folks that didn't think of themselves as silicon valley entrepreneurs can now plug in. i'm really fired up about the impact this is going to have over the next decade acknowledging the challenge. the goal of the commission being to address rising levels of income inequality. in your thoughts and views on all of this, what do you see as long run occasions for the maco

economy. >> thanks melissa and thanks for the chance to be here. i'll leave the question of what she should do until lalter. let me focus on diagnosis and make a confession of ignorance and observation. i think it should apply to everybody who speaks. it points to technology having huge information of things. whether it is comeplemented or person making much more in a happy way. whether it is substituting for them and leaving them unemployed. it's another possibility that could be debated. either of those scenarios you

would expect renaissance of higher productivity. we on the one hand are convinced of the pervasiveness and greater pervasiveness of technology in the last few years.evñ the other hand the productivity statistic half dozen years are dismal. any fully satisfactory synthetic view has to reconcile those two observations. i have not heard them reconcile which leads me to think we don't have this all figured out. it is a big problem to believe. if you believe that technology happens with a big lag and it's only going to happen in the future, that's fine. then you can't believe it's already caused a large amount of inequality an disruption of employment today. that is a major puzzle which i

think hangs over this subject which i want to put out there for discussion. i think it's a mistake the think of the economy as producing something called -- as we approach these issues. there's an aspect that doesn't get enough attention. which is sectors through progress work on themselves. we think of it as a trivial sector.

basically what's happened is that illumination has become quasi free. where candle making was major industry in the 1900s, illumination is trivial today. a sector that has rapid progress that the world can only absorb so much of it becomes ultimately unimportant in the economy. is that kind of thing irrelevant in the world? they were all set to be 100 in

1983. consider to goods today. a television set and a year at universal. instead of using year at universal i could use a day in the hospital. there's been a hundred fold change in the relative price of tv sets and the provision of basic education. if anybody is wondering why government can't afford to do the things they used to do i just gave you a big hint. if anybody is wondering where most people will be working in the future, i just gave you a

big hint. everybody's completely confident ta that we're going to have rapid productivity growth in the future, they should be given pause. that's becoming true of larger and larger fraction. automation displaced all things. what i was taught is people get it right. obviously there will be enough demand to work itself out.

i actually believed that for many years and repeated it. it has occurred to me when i was being taught that about 6 prs in the united states between the age of 25 and 50 were not working.% prs in the united states between the age of 25 and 50 were not working.prs in the united states between the age of 25 and 50 were not working. in the united states between the age of 25 and 50 were not working. today 16% of men between the age of 25 and 50 are not working. it won't be very different when the economy is in full employment by any definition. something very serious has happened are respect to the

general availability, equality jobs in our society and we can debate whether it's due to technology or whether it is not due to technology. we cannot debate, we can debate whether it's the cause of dependence or whether it's caused by policies that promote dependence. i think it is very hard to believe that a society in which the fraction of people choose whatever your most prime demographic group that should be working.

i would want to leave you with that. whether you think it's due to technology or globalization something very serious is happening in our society. >> i want to make sure we return to the questions that larry raised about policy and where we need to push. i want to pick up on the first observation larry made. this is a great point for you to jump in on. given all of these tech know logical advances, really celebrated why is it that gdp per capita isn't rising more rapidly. why isn't it that median wages are flat and what is that imply about the impact technology is having on our living standards?

we're not see sg it in numbers. are we not measuring it appropriately? >> that's a great question. there are a couple parts that are worth proposing. the part about median income, i don't see that being a paradox. as i suggested earlier there's no economic lotness that says enk will be given the benefit and could be some small group left behind or a big group. you could have bias technical change that grows the pie but some people are made worse off. i think that's a fair

description. people with certain types of skills are in much demand as they were in the past. it's more puzzling. you don't see as much of a problem as you do with the median. i think a big part of the angst is that median line. not the top line. even there it maybe hasn't been quite as robust as maybe some of us would have expected. >> technology has been super and more strong and more potent. the question isn't whether it slowed down. the question is why didn't these new forces technology lead to be

big acceleration? >> let me address that. i spent a lot of time visiting companies with these technologies. some of them are actually quite -- you say erp system, we document the intakes five to seven years for them. during that process it's a huge amount of organization disruption that you can do this on case by case basis. it shows there's a long leg. if you roll that up to an entire supply chain you can imagine that these organizationa will recollect disruptions that are about ten times larger themgss and they take much longer to roll out can be part of these

enormous disruption but also the complimentary pieces are replaced people like paul david have documented it took po years for significant productivity gauge. i think that may be part of the story. we're in the midst of a big reorganization of the economy. yes, that is disruptive. people see they have been laid off. you get a lot of disruptions about how you can have disruption of getting the full pay off. i'd also like to take a moment to touch on the things that david brought up and very interesting. partly about the leveling off skill bias and technical change.

it's very consistent with what we see in changes in the technology. it's different parts of the labor market. i think he raises the right question about compliments substitutes and what's happening. technology initially are broadly complimentary as many pieces of the systems or others fill in. you look at whos the number of horses increased all through the industry revolution up to about 1901. it was this longer not out of it. we have much broader skill set.

we can think a lot better. and also once labor started disappearing you can have humans own capital or some of them. humans can vote. humans can have guns and do other things that they're not happy with. there's a will the of other things that are potentially different but economic, i don't think there's any necessary inevitability as harry was saying. it takes care of itself. that's one of the reasons we should have this discussion is figure out what are the policies the address it. even in the first industrial revolution there's a lot of policy changes that help us navigate that in the way we dit create prosperity. >> larry do you want to jump in? >> just on the productivity and disruption i think it's a

difficult argument. you can imagine you'll have all kinds of technology. you're no longer going to have people on the cash registers. the problem is you wouldn't expect that the people behind the cash registers get fired before the people working the systems got the new systems. the challenge about right now is people see there's a lot of ace appointment that's already come from the technology but they don't see any productivity. i understand why it might take years for it all to have an effect. i have harder time understanding is how there can be substantial disappointment ahead of the effect of productivity. you thought it was possible to put in these systems and so forth that you might think in the short run it would be a big employment boom because you'd

have to keep your old system going and keep your legacy system going and you'd have to have a main guys running around figuring out how the put the new computer system in. i understand low productivity. i think it's hard to square and it's not like i have the answer to this puzzle. think about it hard i don't think it's easy to square low productivity and substantial disappointment. i don't think the lags to reorganization story quite does it because it shouldn't be getting ahead of the productivity. >> it is a complicated story. the other part of the puzzle is there's a lot of rents in the economy as well. if you get the types of people who do the reorganization from the type of people who's demand

is falling, you can have big changes in where the rents are happening way ahead of the changes people have. >> i want to talk about policy. i'm going to pose this to the panel as a two-part question. first, it seems to me that in large part the way it's going to play out for the american worker will depend on how labors respond in terms of skills. in other words, is there way to imagine that a sufficient number of people in our population will require the skills or the talents that are needed to economically prosper in the second change. what would it take?

our education system broadly defined to delivering those skills. the second part of my question is what about those workers simply can't acquire those skills or don't possess those talents or even the ones who do but there aren't enough high paying jobs for everyone. i will admit that i am in part wor rid about a scenario where a small share of the population commands increasingly high wages and larger share is regulated to low paying service jobs presumely providing services to the highway. it doesn't make me feel much better that robots will not be able to give a good manicure or clean houses any time soon. is that a reasonable thing worry about, and if so don't we need to rethink our social contract and dramatically expand our system of wage companies?

>> i might want to take a stab at this starting with the premise if we applied the same capabilities that may have a positive or negative affect but unleash them in this particular question, how efficiently are the skills being communicated by employers, the training programs commune kats what you'll get if you join and what the job seeker has you might push to get. to me we're like in the dark ages of the quality of that experience. you log onto amazon.com there's feed back loops that they have been analyzing. what's probability of being there to shop. the same answer is drastically no. we read every job posting in the economy and said what are the underlying skills associated with the job postings. we then looked at as best we

could the government data, the underlying skills of unemployed veterans. we took a spotlight on the commonwealth of virginia. we had hundreds of technology companies post jobs from employers who made a commitment to hire veterans. they are going out of their way to want to hire veterans. they communicate the job in way it feels it's not available or an attainable. what we figured out is every single entry level technology job, every single one in april of 2014 from an employer who made a veteran hiring commitment could have been filled by a tech trainable vet who was at that moment in time unemployed in the commonwealth of virginia. neither the employer knew to look for that tech trainable guy

whose background may not have made the screening nor did the tech vet not know they could get that job because it wasn't in their career path. if there's that left of inefficiency in information sharing about basic matching of talent opportunity. we're making bad decisions in our economy. if we unleased recommendations. the gentleman that talked about the go game or whatever if the same capability could advice, if every person in the economy had a little helper said given who you are and who you want to be here is the shortest path the awesomeness based on the limited additional skill you need to obtain to land the best job available for you. is that in our system today? how exciting if it was a leashed marketplace of tools to do just that would be solve this before you get into the income subsidy question.

make the system better. i think that's an initial place to start. >> where will they get that skill from employers college? >> we did a panel highlighting this in at&t partnership for nano degrees. these are six month chunks of learning. here is the irony of it. they are great for cyber security and other sort of mentoring. i asked are any of you regulated. they are just connected from any actual government support. these are the areas i think there's opportunity.

>> i agree in terms of skilling. i think there's policy college and that's been healthy at some level. our education system is geared towards get people out of high school into college. if they don't go to college, they didn't do well, didn't work out. that's beyond productive when less happens. that's not going to be 75% or ten years or 30 years. there's been an increase in high school graduations and college tuitions over the last ten years. we need to think about the skill sets that allow people to do evolving jobs. many of which require real skill sets but they don't require four year liberal arts training. i think we push too many people

towards extensive four-year degrees which either are not as efficient as they could be or not as appealing as they could be. there are opportunities on kind of the new middle skill occupations. a high school degree is foundational. i think there's a lot of productivity room there. there's great potential and great uncertainty about how fast and how well it will work.

the gradient in college going has become much more steeper and in college completion much steeper still. i think that worked against mobility. it means that kids from low backgrounds are much less likely to be going to school and to be gainfully employed. when larry talks about the declining employment rate among workers, we're talking about young males. many of them minorities. many of them from poor families. it's a pretty concentrated problem which makes it worse not better. if you look for the median on up it's el thi and looks like it's making right investments. they're just that message and the tools correct that problem are somehow not going to do.

>> first, with great respect i would engraj in the experiments. i think the policies are largely passed. the core problem is there aren't enough jobs. if you help some people and help them get the jobs but then someone else won't get the jobs and unless you're doing things that are affecting the demand for jobs you're helping people win race the get a finite number of jobs and there's only so many. this was very powerfully demonstrated. they looked a t a variety of these kinds of job matching innovations and they found that in low unemployment areas of france it worked and in high unemployment areas of france they only helped some people at the expense of other people with

no net impact. folks, wage inflation in the united states is 2%. it's not gone up in five years. there's not 3% of the economy whether it's any evidence of hyper wage inflation of the kind that could go with worker shortages. the idea that you can just have better training and then there's all these jobs all these places where the shortages and just need to train people is an invasion of the problem. i'm all for trying to do it but it's fundamentally an invasion. second what we need is more demand. that goes to short run cyclical policy. it goes more generally to the way we operate that policy and the enormous importance of having tighter marks so that firms have an incentive to reach for rather than workers having

an incentive to reach. it's quite remarkable to look at over the years that the harvard economics department, there's 30 profess source and 40 graduate students, it's the graduate students are treated. when there are 30 professors and 25 graduate students, and every professor wants a student it's remarkable how well the students get treated. people who have been to school and environments where there are 60% men or 60% women are not unfamiliar with this phenomenon. having the labor market run tight is fundamentally important for fairness. it is fundamentally important for generating investment and workers. third thing i would say is that i -- and this is in the same direction as what david was saying, and i agree with him. he knows more about it than i. i think we can't think of education as just an

undifferentiated blob of human capital where more is good. the idea used to be kind of kind of the way i would have thought about this 30 years ago, was that part of what would be good about having more education is that people would be able to work in an office, rather than being plumbers. that was part of what was good. that would upgrade people and give them opportunity. plumber's children could work in offices rather than being plumbers. it's kind of the essence of the technological changes being described, that they are much more heavily bearing on people who work in offices than they are on plumbers. so the whole idea of working with a craft and a specialized skill, rather than this generic general manager with liberal

arts competence, is, i think, central to thinking in a rational way about wages. if i can say one other thing i think that the broad empowerment of labor, in a world where an increasing share of -- increasing part of the economy is generating income that has a kind of rent aspect to it and the question of who is going to share in it becomes very large. one of the lesser puzzles but very large puzzle of our economy today is that on the one hand we have record low real interest rates that are expected to be record low for 30 years, if you look at the index bond market. on the other hand, we have record high profits. you tend to think record high profits would mean record high returns to capital meaning real

high interest rates. what we actually have is really low real interest rates. probably the right way to think about that is that there's a lot of rents in what we're calling profits that don't really represent a return to investment but represent a rent. the question of who is going to get those rents which goes to -- >> you can see this online at c-span.org. update next on the nuclear agreement reach between iran and the six major world powers. the meeting in about 20 minutes or so, to take up legislation that would require congressional review of the nuclear deal. s reports today, the republicans and democrats reached a compromise on the bill. we'll hear more on 2:15 eastern live coverage on c-span3. that came earlier today. john kerry for a second straight day joined by secretary ernest, the energy secretary, treasury secretary

were back on capitol hill for closed door meetings about the iran nuclear deal. after that, several senators spoke with reporters. we'll start with bob corker, the chairman of the foreign relations committee. >> i just attended the briefing that secretary kerry and our national intelligence manager and jack lew, our treasure secretary, and our energy secretary. i didn't learn anything new, only because i've spent a lot of time already talking with them and others about the deal. so i think it was helpful to a number of our members to hear firsthand from them their viewpoint of where we are. i think we all know there are -- the real negotiation. i mean, what's really happened is a negotiation before the negotiation. the real negotiation is going to happen over the next 75 to 80

days. more fully than ever i believe congress should play a role in ensuring that all the details that need to be in place are there, and that on behalf of the american people, before the congressional sanctions are lifted, that we on their behalf ensure that this is something that holds iran accountable, is enforcement and certainly is transparent. with that, i'll see you all at 2:15. >> as i'm sure you're aware, i will not comment on the information we have received in the brief, but i'll answer other questions. >> can you talk about the deal you reached with senator corker? >> we reached an agreement on a

manager's package and we are optimistic that that manager's package will not only carry out the two major provisions in the bill, that is an orderly and thoughtful way for congress to review the agreement when it's submitted by the president, but also timely notice if there is material breech so the congress can take action. that's the two major provisions. we have -- i've listened to the white house and their concerns, and we've been able to resolve some of the concerns not related to the primary purposes of the bill. i hope we can move forward. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> the areas of terrorism, we made it look more comprehensive. we want to be kept informed as to any activities that iran is participating in. as far as the certification process that has been removed from the certification process.

pardon? >> have you agreed on a reduction of the review period? >> we believe 30 days is adequate for a review by congress. it gives us adequate time for hearings. the white house would have to speak for itself. >> you have interested in -- >> what does the agreement mean in terms of terrorism? the new language, what happens if congress decides iran is involved in terrorism? >> the new language is stronger in this regard. the new language that we've agreed on will provide more information to congress in regards to terrorism. as i'm sure you're aware nothing in the comprehensive framework effects the current sanctions imposed against iran for terrorism, human rights or ballistic missiles. that is where we make that clear also. we have a different regime in place for that. as part of this process on notification, congress will get

information about iran's terrorist activities or human rights violences, et cetera. it's stronger than the original bills that we were looking at. we've actually improved that section of the bill. >> senator, without talking about what the white house would do or not if it did come down to it, do you think this version of the bill would have 67 votes to override? >> i think this is the right way for congress to take up this issue. it's congressional prerogative. we who imposed the sanctions will take it up for permanent changes. i hope the white house would recognize this is congressional prerogative we have. if anything, reinforce the president's ability to negotiate. there will be no action taken by congress or the substance of the agreements until we receive them. congress can always take action. this gives an orderly path. i hope the administration would support that. >> what would happen with bills of amendments such as senator rubio, that seek to have israel recognized as part of the package they're working on?

>> first of all, senator corker and i are committed to making sure we keep the process focused on the two purposes of the bill. there's not a member of our committee who does not stand for this agreement making sure that israel's security is maintained. we strongly support that. we will be very clear about that. thank you all very much. >> are there 67 votes for that? >> i can't speak to it. there is considerable support in the committee for this bill. >> we've just received a classified and technical briefing from the administration. there's nothing classified or technical about the fundamental flaw with the president's proposal. it puts iran the world's worst state-sponsor of terrorism, on the path to a nuclear weapon. whether it's a matter of months or matter of years it's a

dangerous outcome, not just for the united states and our allies like israel, but the entire world. the president has walked back from his own commitments. when we started down the path he said the goal was to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. now we're content to maintain a balance of power with the nuclear iran or delay their nuclear status. he said iran doesn't need a four to five underground bunker for the program. we're willing to give them a bunker. he said they don't need stockpile stockpiles, which we're allowing them to keep them. i'm focused on stopping iran from getting nuclear arms today, tomorrow and a year from now, but also 10 and 13 years from now. >> how would you do that, considering that sanctions so far have not stopped progress? >> we shouldn't have started down the path where we granted sanctions relief in exchange for iran doing little more than coming to the table. almost two y