"washington journal," every morning on c-span. on c-span tonight, defense secretary robert gates talked to reporters about afghanistan and iraq. . .

>>today i'm pleased to announce that i've recommended to the president that he nominate general james mattis as the next commander of u.s. central command. general mattis, who currently heads joint forces command, is one of our military's outstanding combat leaders and strategic thinkers, bringing an essential mix of experience, judgment and perspective to this important post. he has served and commanded at all levels and has held a number of key leadership positions in the centcom area of responsibility, including battalion command in the first gulf war, leading the first conventional ground forces inserted into afghanistan, commanding the 1st marine division during the initial combat and stability phases of the iraq war, and command of all marine corps forces in central command. whether commanding troops in battle, leading the marine corps combat development command, or developing new operational -- operating

concepts at jfcom, general mattis has proven to be one of the military's most innovative and iconoclastic thinkers. his insights into the nature of warfare in the 21st century have influenced my own views about how the armed forces must be shaped and postured for the future. general mattis' strategic insight and independent thinking were among the reasons that i selected him to lead the red team on the department's 2010 quadrennial defense review. the post general mattis is taking is a critical one at a critical time. the united states has vital, long-standing interests and commitments in central asia and the gulf region going back decades -- interests and commitments that transcend multiple presidencies of both political parties. i consider it essential to have a confirmed, full-time commander in place at centcom as quickly as possible as we confront the challenges posed by the ongoing operations in afghanistan, our troop

withdrawal in iraq and iran's nuclear program, as well as the threat represented by militant and terrorist groups throughout the region. on a personal note, i want to thank general mattis, who otherwise would be looking forward to a well-deserved respite after a long, eventful and indeed brilliant military career, for taking on this tough assignment at this time. i would add that, while if general mattis is confirmed we would have two marines leading in central command -- general mattis as commander and general allen as the deputy commander -- the chairman and i are comfortable with this arrangement for a period of time. the key is having the best people in the right places. i would also like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the guidance i issued last week dealing with this department's engagement with the news media. for starters, when i took this job more than three and a half years ago, i spent my first few months on the job telling military audiences that the

press was not the enemy and that to treat it as such was counterproductive and self- defeating. accordingly, in my approach to media relations i've attempted to be as straightforward and cooperative as possible and encouraged this department's leaders to do the same. none of that has changed. in short, last week's memo was not about how the media does its job but about how this department's leadership does ours. it is not a change of policy but a reaffirmation of an existing policy that was being followed selectively at best. it reflected the fact that for some time now, long before the recent rolling stone article, i have grown increasingly concerned that we have become too lax, disorganized, and, in some cases, flat-out sloppy in the way we engage with the press. as a result, personal views have been published as official government positions, and information has gone out that was inaccurate, incomplete or

lacking in proper context. reports and other documents, including on sensitive subjects, are routinely provided to the press and other elements in this town before i or the white house know anything about them. even more worrisome, highly classified and sensitive information has been divulged without authorization or accountability. my hope and expectation is that this new guidance will improve the quality of press engagement by ensuring that the people the media talk to can speak with accuracy and authority. this should not infringe or impede the flow of accurate and timely information to you or to the public. that is not my intent, nor will i tolerate it. an additional personal observation. over the last two years, i have lost a first-rate central command commander and an outstanding commander of isaf in afghanistan due to their own missteps in dealing with the media. i've had to recall a combatant

commander to washington for a verbal reprimand for speaking out inappropriately on a sensitive foreign-policy issue. i've had two very different presidents each on several occasions express concern to me about senior defense officials, both civilian and military, speaking out inappropriately on foreign-policy issues. these instances together with my own frustration -- with premature disclosures of personnel, budget and other options under consideration -- led me to conclude several weeks ago that we need greater coordination and discipline. effectively communicating what we do and how we do it remains a top priority for me. in fact, i consider it my duty. it's a responsibility i have, not only to the commander-in- chief and to you in the media, but to the american people. i take it very seriously. and i expect everyone else in this department to do the same. on that note, we'll take your questions.

anne. >> i and many of my colleagues have a lot of very basic questions, about how this new media policy is going to work on the ground. and i hope that you'll have some very specific guidance about who is covered, what's covered, and whether this amounts to a pre-screening policy. i wanted to ask you something more broad on that point. since your predecessor was widely criticized for reining in dealings with the press and said that he had a bunker mentality, does this mean that you are also developing late in your tenure here a worry that the press has in fact become the enemy? >> no, not at all. this is not about you. this is about us. this is about us doing things in an uncoordinated way. it is about people in this

department speaking out on issues where they don't have all the facts, where they may not have the perspective. it is about somebody in one part of the world, in the military or a senior defense civilian, speaking out on an issue without realizing that the same subject is being addressed in a different place and also is sensitive. and it's trying to give them that kind of situational awareness. a lot of the interviews you ask for are already vetted through public affairs or orchestrated through public affairs. and so this is as much about our being better coordinated and our making sure of what the -- what the parameters of an interview are so that people that are being interviewed, if you will, stay within their lane and are not speaking out about issues that they don't know everything about or where they may not be informed at all.

so this is more about our being more intelligent and thoughtful about how we respond to requests for interviews and to try and make sure that the information you're getting is accurate, as well as making sure that our people aren't speaking out about issues where they may be treading on sensitive ground and not even know it. barbara. >> i wanted to ask both of you about the nomination of general mattis. i'm sure both of you recall that back in 2005, not on background but in front of television cameras in southern california, general mattis said, quote, "actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. you know, it's a hell of a hoot. i like brawling. you go into afghanistan, you got guys who slap around women for five years because they didn't wear a veil. you know guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway, so it's a hell of a lot of fun to

shoot them." given the fact that you said you are nominating general mattis due to his judgment and his influence on you -- and this was said in 2005, and he was then reprimanded in writing by the commandant of the marine corps at the time and asked to watch his words more carefully. he nonetheless is going into an extraordinarily sensitive part of the world where the military is trying to demonstrate it is about something more than killing. do you have concerns about general mattis' remarks and his views about this that he has expressed in public? >> well, first of all, as you -- as you point out, that was five years ago. action -- appropriate action was taken at the time. i think that the subsequent five years have demonstrated that the lesson was learned. obviously, in the wake of the rolling stone interview, we discussed this kind of thing. and i have every confidence that general mattis will be -- will respond to questions and speak publicly about the matters

for which he is responsible in an entirely appropriate way. >> may i also follow up very briefly on the media memo? because, again, in it you say, sir, any means of media and public engagement -- any means -- with possible national or international implications. that is perhaps, i think, the broadest, by any measure, bounding or restriction -- any means of public engagement. could you explain, do troops and commanders and people in the united states military give up -- i'm quite serious -- their right of free speech, their right to speak freely? does any public engagement they have, which is what your words say, now have to be screened? do they -- what rights of free

speech does a person in the united states military have? >> let me ask the chairman -- >> from my perspective, this isn't at all about the first amendment. it's very much about what the secretary laid out in terms of coordination and synchronization and the discipline. it is not in any way, shape or form meant to preclude the -- the proper engagement with the press. and all of us in the military understand that being in the military, we follow certain guidelines. and this is -- this is to actually, in great part, emphasize guidance that has been out there for an extensive period of time but we've just -- we just walked away from. and so i think in light of what's -- certainly in light of what's happened recently -- but it isn't just the rolling stone piece; it was -- would just reaffirm what the secretary said. it's something he and i have been talking about for longer than that, the need to, in fact, ensure that we're coordinated, synchronized, and

that -- and that we do tell our story. in my engagement with the military since the rolling stone article, it's important that, one, we don't see the press as the enemy, and i've said that; two, that we don't overreact here; and, three, that we do tell our story. and so it's -- and it is a -- it is a challenge today because of the 24-hour news cycle, because of the pace. we understand that -- and that in engaging the press and the media we have to do it from the position in which we're qualified to do that, very specifically. >> admiral mullen, don't mean to take too much time, but "any engagement" -- are you in fact saying that a trooper in the field, before he e-mails, has a telephone conversation, posts something on his facebook page, twitters, has any public engagement with the media, it must be cleared by this building? >> if i were to use the trooper in the field -- who is very specifically, let's say, with an embed -- i think the rules

with respect to that embed should be understood going in, and then just follow those rules very specifically, as an example. one other comment i'd like to make just specifically about general mattis. i've watched -- i've known general mattis for a number of years, but i've also watched him very closely in the last couple of years. and one of the hats that he had, in addition to joint forces command, was one of the allied commanders in nato. and i watched him interact in nato at the highest levels, diplomatically, politically, and on very sensitive subjects. and i have every confidence, you know, that that skill -- i watched that skill. and he didn't just execute it, i watched him do it exceptionally well. and so i have great confidence -- great confidence -- that he will be able to carry out the duties of this command, without presuming his confirmation. >> the remarks don't trouble

you? >> i think the secretary addressed that. >> secretary, in the interest of information and even accountability, it's often difficult to find senior military leadership who are willing to engage the media. are you the least bit concerned that your memo could have a further chilling effect on their willingness to talk, not only to the media but to the american people? and just out of curiosity, what was your reaction when your memo against leaks was leaked? >> that it was highly predictable. look, let me -- let me address this more broadly. we need more internal discipline about how we coordinate the substance when people are going to be interviewed or going on one of the television talk shows or sitting down with you all, to

make sure that they are not talking about issues that are outside their area of knowledge, their area of expertise, and to make sure that they know that if there are some areas, even within their areas of expertise, that may be sensitive, because it's in the middle of a decision-making process or something, the idea is not to turn off the interview. the idea is to try and help the person who is giving the interview understand what the sensitivities are. after all, every time before the chairman and i come down here, we sit down with people from our public affairs office. and here are the issues, here's what the press has in mind, here's what's on their minds. that's the kind of thing we're talking about, so that when people do have interviews, they have greater situational awareness. we're going to have to use some

judgment in this. the reality is, stories in the press, and you've heard me say this before -- whether it was the stories on the treatment of outpatient wounded warriors at walter reed in the washington post or stories about mraps in "usa today" -- have been a spur to action for me in various areas. so the kind of reporting you do, as far as i'm concerned, is one of the tools that i have in trying to lead this department and correct problems. if you're not -- we understand that as the chairman suggested, speed in responding to you often will be of the essence. and this burden will fall on the public affairs office. and i fully expect that if they're not being prompt enough that we will hear about that from you all. and we will take corrective action, because the purpose here is to be as responsive to you as we have always been, but for us to do a better job of preparing people before they

have interviews. and we will make adjustments as we go along. and i would just say, you know, if you're a captain in a unit that has an embedded reporter, as long as you're within the guidelines and the rules, we expect you to be open with that embedded reporter. on the other hand, if you're a captain in this building, working on budget options, i expect you to keep your mouth shut. >> to pursue another aspect of the memo and your comments today, which is the unauthorized release of classified information, charges were filed this week against private manning in the so- called wikileaks case. how significant a breach of national security do you view that? and given that a young soldier is alleged to have had relatively free access to information, was able to download it and take it out of his headquarters, are you

ordering any kind of review of security clearance processes, computer security, or any other steps that are necessary? >> well, first of all, thom, i don't know the seriousness of the breach. i'm not familiar with the investigation that took place, and so would basically have to say i defer to the army in terms of the specific case. in some respects, what this illustrates is the incredible amount of trust we place in even our most junior men and women in the uniform. and i would be loath to change that because of a few examples, because there are a few bad apples. we have over 2 million men and

women in uniform, and i believe we should always err on the side of trusting them because virtually all of them -- not 100 percent, but nearly 100 percent -- give us reasons every single day to continue trusting them. so, no, i haven't ordered a review. if the results of the investigation suggest that might be necessary, then we'll take a look at it at the time. but my instinct is to take these on a case-by-case basis. did you want to add anything? >> the only thing i would say -- add to that, thom, is that i think it's being appropriately handled in the chain of i think that any commander, when they look at a case, looks at the facts as he or she understands them, and the mitigating factors as well, the specifics of which i just -- i'm not familiar with here. and then obviously, if it looks like it's going to be something that is bigger than it is just

locally, then it comes up and then i think we have -- we would look at making adjustments. but there's no indication of that right now that i see. >> yeah. >> -- i just want to clarify something you said on the memo. if everybody's following the spirit and the letter of the memo, are you confident that stories like stories about the mrap and the walter reed problems would emerge the way they did? you seem to be acknowledging that there will always be leaks, but i'm just wondering if you're confident that that would still happen. >> actually, i am, and it's largely because of my confidence in the persistence and the skills of the people sitting in front of me. >> can i just ask about don't ask, don't tell? 400,000 surveys went out electronically, i think, yesterday. can you just give us a sense of how much that will inform this review that carter ham and jeh johnson are doing? i mean, what -- can you kind of talk to it and just tell us how

much we should expect from that? >> well, i think that we see this as -- as i've said all along, beginning with the testimony the chairman and i gave several months ago, i think it is very important for us to understand from our men and women in uniform the challenges that they see. first of all, to get their views on this issue and then the challenges that they see, in implementing a change in the law, that will help us prepare better to implement those changes, when and if the law is changed. i would say that this survey is a very important element of this effort, in part because while -- while general ham and general counsel jeh johnson have talked to thousands of troops in dozens of military facilities,

and we have gotten several tens of thousands of comments and views on the -- by e-mail on -- in response to the request for people's thoughts on this, this size sampling is obviously the most significant element of getting the views of the troops. and to be honest about and we've designed it -- it has been designed in partnership with a professional survey company and according to the best practices that they have for that industry. i would tell you that i put my oar in, in only one respect. and that is, the original proposal was to sample 100,000 active -- active- duty and 100,000 in the reserve component.

and i suggested -- i strongly suggested that they double the size of the sample, that i wanted -- i wanted a significant percentage of the force to have an opportunity to offer their views on this. leastare that there's at one group that has suggested that gays and lesbians in the service not fill in the report. the good news is that a number of the other advocacy groups have urged gays and lesbians in the force to fill it in. i strongly encourage gays and lesbians who are in the military to fill out these forms. we've organized this in a way to protect their privacy and the confidentiality of their responses through a third party, and it's important that we hear from them as well as everybody else. but i think we're satisfied that this is an important element of this effort and that

it's being done in a very professional way. >> can i ask you about the often-ill-fated tanker program that -- tomorrow, for the third time in nine years, you're going to begin an effort to replace these eisenhower-era tankers. what steps broadly have you taken to minimize the chances that a protest will be sustained by the general accounting office when inevitably it'll happen, and also to ensure that this process is going to be transparent, that taxpayers are going to get the best dollar, and these two or three bidders are not going to underbid their way in? >> well, you're asking really about the whole process that the air force and at&l is going to run -- are going to run. my view is that the way it has been designed is as transparent as possible. and i think that i have assured

the congress that this will be a fair and transparent process, and i think that the -- that the various criteria that the air force and at&l have come up with make it as objective a process as possible. so i think that i am very optimistic that this time we'll be able to get on with it. >> can i ask a you a memo follow? of all the litany of things you laid out -- your frustrations about having to call back an officer who misspoke overseas and all these other media- military foibles -- you didn't mention bob woodward's leak, the mcchrystal report that he got in september. there was no leak investigation convened here. there was no threat to prosecute. there was a deafening silence. why did you not go after that at the time, sir? because that was classified, every page. that was typical of what you want to avoid. but the silence was deafening here. and why -- i just want to know

why not -- why didn't -- >> because i was never convinced that it leaked out of this building. >> what steps did you take to track that down? >> i've got a lot of experience with leak investigations over a lot of years. and i was very cautious in calling for leak investigations, especially when lots of people have access to documents. >> and, mr. secretary, on the rolling stone interview specifically, to what extent did you know the actual controversial content of that article beforehand? and if you did -- do you wish you had? and you said you -- the idea is not to try to shut off the interview. would you have tried to shut off that interview? >> well, i think -- i think that there is a question of -- i think you do have to address questions of appropriateness. and those are -- those are areas where i certainly depend on the advice of people who have been in the public affairs

business and know these different publications. and i think, frankly, this is a world that has gotten a lot more complicated, with a lot more freelance journalists, a lot more blogs, a lot more of everything. and so people who have full- time day jobs doing something else aren't going to be a familiar with a lot of these entities. so yeah, i think -- i think one of the issues that would be reviewed by public affairs is, is this an appropriate publication or television interview opportunity for this particular officer? these are -- like i said, these are judgment calls, and i -- we make them every day. we already make them. and so i don't see much change in that respect. >> we had -- >> -- you might have tried to shut down them? >> i don't --

>> i think that's pretty easy in hindsight at this point. but i would say -- to the first part of your question, is that there was no advance knowledge of that interview at all. >> and also it would -- and general mcchrystal was disrespecting his civilian leadership. shouldn't the public have known about that? shouldn't the civilian leadership have known about that? exacton't know the circumstances. i don't know what was going on in his headquarters. i don't know what was going on in paris. and frankly, as far as i'm concerned, at this point -- first of all, let me be very clear about one thing. general mcchrystal never, ever, said one thing or in any way, shape or form, conveyed to me any disrespect for civilian authority over the military. never. i have never had an officer do

that since i have been in this building, in three-and-a-half years. so i think -- i think that this business of questioning of civilian authority, as far as i'm concerned, is -- has been taken out of context by virtue of the rolling stone article. i believe, at least in my interaction with military, and from e1s to four-stars -- because i meet -- i meet with troops everywhere i go -- and i have never encountered, at any level of the military, any disrespect for civilian authority. so i think -- i think this was a rare circumstance and an unfortunate one. but i think we can move on. >> secretary, another question

about "don't ask, don't tell" and the survey that was sent out yesterday. is there any information that you could glean from that survey to make either of you think twice about supporting repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"? >> if i were going to add to what the secretary said about the survey, i think what it does is it's going to be able to give us some objective information with respect to the responses from the people that we care about the most and the people that this -- a change in this law and policy would affect the most. to reach out at this point and try to predict either what they might say or what the results might say, i just think it's too early with respect to that. and i -- you know, i really wouldn't -- i wouldn't do that at this time. >> so your decision isn't contingent on the results of the survey? >> i'm -- i've been pretty clear where i've been, and it's not my decision, actually. it's to remind -- it's a law, and it's going to be -- it

needs to be changed -- it really needs to be changed, from that perspective. >> -- secretary, a few hours after your meeting with prime minister netanyahu, israel has released today new satellite photos showing or confirming the flow of iranian weapons through syria to hezbollah. do you consider -- do you consider iran's activities -- new activities in the region -- in lebanon, in gaza -- as a serious threat? and do you think -- are you concerned that a new war or another war will erupt soon in the region? >> first of all, i've said publicly before that hezbollah now has more rockets and missiles than many governments around the world. and i am absolutely confident they didn't manufacture them all themselves. i think that iran has been

supplying these kinds of weapons to hezbollah. i think it is a concern. and we are working very hard to ensure that there is not another conflict in the middle east. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> on tomorrow as "washington

journal", all look at the health risks facing gulf clean-up workers with the john howard with the national institute for occupational safety. the heritage foundation's curtis dubay will talk about increasing taxes on higher income earners. and "the washington post" reporter ceci connolly on the implant -- and commendation of the new health care law. >> the most important mission as a journalist, the most important mission in journalism is to confront those in power, question those in power so we can prevent abuse of power. >> since 1986, jorge ramos has anchored the television news on univision.

we will spend an hour with him on sunday evenings "q&a". >> you can connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. signup for our scheduled alert e-mail spes at c-span.org. >> british prime minister david cameron announced on tuesday and independent inquiry into allegations of terrorism suspects being tortured. the panel will focus on at the treatment of british nationals and residents held at guantanamo bay after 9/11. -- detainee's transported to other countries where they were allegedly abused. following his statement, he took questions from members of parliament. this is 50 minutes. >> this statement from the prime minister. >> mr. speaker, i'm sure that the whole house will wish to join me in paying tribute to the royal marine who died on

thursday, the soldier from the royal dragoon guards who died yesterday, and the soldier from 1st battalion, the mercian regiment who died from wounds sustained in afghanistan at hospital in birmingham yesterday. we should constantly remember the services and sacrifices made on our behalf by our armed forces and their families. and keep them in our thoughts and prayers and thank them for what they do on our behalf. with permission, mr speaker, i would like to make a statement on our intelligence services and allegations made about the treatment of detainees. for the past few years, the reputation of our security services has been overshadowed by allegations about their involvement in the treatment of detainees held by other countries. some of these detainees allege they were mistreated by those countries. other allegations have also been made about the uk's involvement in the rendition of detainees in the aftermath of 9/11. these allegations are not proven.

but today, we do face a totally unsatisfactory situation. -- unacceptable situation. our services are paralysed by paperwork as they try to defend themselves in lengthy court cases with uncertain rules. our reputation as a country that believes in human rights, justice, fairness and the rule of law -- indeed for much of what the services exist to protect -- risks being tarnished. public confidence is being eroded with people doubting the ability of our services to protect us and questioning the rules under which they operate. and terrorists and extremists are able to exploit these allegations for their own propaganda. mr speaker, myself, the deputy prime minister, the coalition government -- we all believe it is time to clear this matter up once and for all. so today i want to set out how we will deal with the problems of the past how we will sort out the future and, crucially, how we can make sure the security services can get on, do their job and keep us safe.

but first, let's be clear about the work they do. i believe we have the finest intelligence services in the world. in the past, it was the intelligence services that cracked the secrets of enigma and helped deliver victory in world war ii. they recruited russian spies like gordievsky and mitrokin and kept britain safe in the cold war. and they helped disrupt the provisional ira in the 1980's and 1990's. today, these tremendous acts of bravery continue. every day intelligence officers track terrorist threats and disrupt plots. they prevent the world's most dangerous weapons falling into the hands of the world's most dangerous states. and they give our forces in afghanistan the information they need to take key decisions. they do this without any public -- or often even private -- recognition, and despite the massive personal risks to their safety. we should never forget that some officers have died for this country.

their names are not known. their loved ones must mourn in secret. the service they have given to our country is not publicly recognised. we owe them -- and every intelligence officer in our country -- an enormous debt of gratitude. and, as minister for the intelligence services, i am determined to do everything possible to help them get on with the job they trained to do -- and we desperately need them to do. however, to do that, we need to resolve the issues of the past. mr. speaker, while there is no evidence that any british officer was directly engaged in torture in the aftermath of 9/11 there are questions over the degree to which british officers were working with foreign security services who were treating detainees in ways they should not have done. about a dozen cases have been brought in court about the actions of uk personnel including, for example, that since 9/11 they may have witnessed mistreatment such as the use of hoods and shackles. this has led to accusations

that britain may have been complicit in the mistreatment of detainees. the longer these questions remain unanswered, the bigger the stain on our reputation as a country that believes in freedom, fairness and human rights grows. that's why, mr. speaker, myself and the deputy prime minister are determined to get to the bottom of what happened. the intelligence services also keen publicly to establish their principles and integrity. so we will have a single, authoritative examination of all these issues. we cannot start that inquiry while criminal investigations are ongoing. and it's not feasible to start it when there so many civil law suits that remain unresolved. so we want to do everything we can to help that process along. that's why we are committed to mediation with those who have brought civil claims about their detention in guantanamo. and wherever appropriate, we will offer compensation. as soon as we've made enough progress, an independent inquiry will be held. it will look at whether britain was implicated in the improper

treatment of detainees held by other countries that may have occurred in the aftermath of 9/11. and if we were, what went wrong, so the inquiry will need to look at our security departments and intelligence services. should we have realised sooner that what foreign agencies were doing may have been unacceptable and that we shouldn't be associated with it? did we allow our own high standards to slip -- either systemically or individually? did we give clear enough guidance to officers in the field? was information flowing quickly enough from officers on the ground to the intelligence services and then on to ministers -- so we knew what was going on and what our response should be? mr. speaker, we should not be naïve or starry-eyed about the circumstances our security services were working under in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. there was a real danger that terrorist could get their hands on a dirty bomb, chemical and biological weapons -- or even worse. threat levels had been transformed. the urgency with which we needed to protect our citizens

was pressing. but let me state clearly, we need to know the answers. if things went wrong, why? and what we must do to uphold the standards that people expect. mr. speaker, i have asked the rt. hon. sir peter gibson, former senior court of appeal judge and currently the statutory commissioner for the intelligence services, to lead the inquiry. the three member inquiry team will also include dame janet paraskeva, head of the civil service commissioners, and peter riddell, former journalist and senior fellow at the institute for government. i have today made public a letter to the inquiry chair setting out what the inquiry will cover, so sir peter gibson can finalise the details with us before it starts. we hope it will start before the end of this year and will report within a year. this inquiry can not and will not be costly or open-ended -- that serves neither the interest of justice nor national security. neither can it be a full public inquiry. of course, some of its hearings

will be in public. however, we must be realistic. inquiries into our intelligence services are not like other inquiries. there is some information that must be kept secret -- information about sources, capabilities and partnerships. let's be frank, it is not possible to have a full public inquiry into something that is meant to be secret. so any intelligence material provided to the inquiry panel will not be made public and nor will intelligence officers be asked to give evidence in public. but that does not mean we cannot get to the bottom of what happened. this inquiry will be able to look at all the information relevant to its work, including secret information. it will have access to all relevant government papers -- including those held by the intelligence services. and it will be able to take evidence -- in public -- including from those who have brought accusations against the government and their representatives, and interest groups. importantly, mr speaker, the head of the civil service and the intelligence services will ensure the inquiry gets the

full co-operation it needs from departments and agencies. so i am confident the inquiry will reach an authoritative view on the actions of the state and our services -- and proper recommendations for the future. mr. speaker, just as we are determined to resolve the problems of the past so are we determined to have greater clarity about what is and what is not acceptable in the future. that's why today, we are also publishing the guidance issued to intelligence and military personnel on how to deal with detainees held by other countries. the previous government had promised to do this, but didn't. we are. it makes clear that-- one -- our services must never take any action where they know or believe that torture will occur. two -- if they become aware of abuses by other countries they should report it to the uk government so we can try to stop it. and three -- in cases where our services believe that there may be information crucial to saving lives but where there may also be a serious risk of mistreatment, it is for ministers -- rightly -- to

determine the action, if any, our services should take. my rt. honourable colleagues -- the foreign, home and defence secretaries -- have also today laid in the house further information about their role in these difficult cases. mr. speaker, there's something else we have to address -- and that is how court cases deal with intelligence information. today, there are serious problems. the services cannot disclose anything that's secret in order to defend themselves in court with confidence that it will be protected. there are also doubts about our ability to protect the secrets of their allies and stop them from ending up in the public domain. this has strained some of our oldest and most important security partnerships in the world -- in particular that with america. honourable members should not underestimate the vast two-way benefit this us-uk relationship has brought in disrupting terrorist plots and saving

lives. so we need to deal with these problems. we hope the supreme court will provide further clarity on the underlying law within the next few months. and next year, we will publish a green paper which will set out our initial proposals for how intelligence is treated in the full range of judicial proceedings, including addressing the concerns of our allies. in this process the government will seek the views of the cross-party intelligence and security committee. and i can announce that i have appointed the rt. hon member for kensington as the chair of that committee for the duration of this parliament. mr. speaker, as we meet in the relative safety of this house today, let us not forget this. as i speak, al-qaeda operatives in yemen are meeting in secret to plot attacks against us terrorists are preparing to attack coalition forces in afghanistan the real ira are planning their next strike against security forces in northern ireland and rogue regimes are still trying to acquire nuclear weapons. at the same time men and women, young and old, all of them loyal and dedicated, are getting ready to work again around the world. they will be meeting sources, translating documents,

listening in on conversations, replaying cctv footage, installing cameras, following terrorists all to keep us safe from these threats. we cannot have their work impeded by these allegations. we need to restore britain's moral leadership in the world. that's why we are determined to clear things up. and i commend this statement to the house. >> harriet harman. >> can i join the speaker in commending the soldier who died yesterday and the soldier from the first italian regiment who died from wounds sustained in afghanistan yesterday. our thoughts are with their grieving families. mr. speaker, i am grateful to the prime minister for his statement. the use of torture is morally abhorrent and has no place in a civilized society. it is against our law in this

country and is one of the small number of defenses which can be brought to court in this country no matter where in the world the offense is committed. it is a crime against humanity and its prohibition is embodied in national law in international law. there is no excuse for those who turned a blind eye to it. the united kingdom should be at the forefront of international efforts to detect and expose torture and to bring those responsible for it to justice. to play our part in leading the world, we must lead by example. can i reiterate our condemnation of the u.s.-guantanamo detention center? it is clearly in breach of the law, which is why it is not on the mainland and why we made great efforts to secure the release of british nationals and residents from guantanamo. the only country to successfully brought back our citizens, having secured the release of all our citizens and all but one of our residents, can i ask

whether he is continuing the efforts that we made it to bring back the final remaining british resident is still detained? can i agree with him that it is right that anyone who takes part in or who aids or abets torture is criminally liable and must be accountable for their actions and responsible to the criminal court? there is a criminal investigation under way which was referred to the police by the attorney general. will you confirm that that investigation will proceed to its conclusion, independently and unimpeded? can i agree with him that it is right that we have proper accountability for our security services and can i reaffirm our support in that respect for the work of the intelligence and security committee and can i welcome his appointment of the right hon. member for kensington to chair the committee? he will undertake this important work with the integrity and

commitment for which he is respected on all sides of the house. insuring that the intelligence and security committee plays its part in the strong framework of accountability which includes accountability to ministers, to the heads of agencies, to the two commissioners for intelligence services, a retired high court judges, independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, lord carlisle, and to the courts? can i welcome the publication today of consolidated guidance for intelligence officers in the military on the questioning of suspects held overseas? that is a complex process which we committed to and which was under way. so we are pleased that process has been completed with publication today. i hope that the administrative inquiry led by peter gibson, who is one of the in talent --

intelligence services commissioners, which he announced today, i hope that will bring this matter to its conclusion. can he tell the house a bit more about the terms under which the inquiry will be conducted? can he tell the house what the inquiry will be able to do which the intelligence and security committees are met -- not able to do? will the inquiry have extra powers that the isc do not have and if so, what? he told the house that the inquiry will be able to have hearings and public. isc can. he told a house the enquirer will be able to look at all the information relevant -- including secret information. as i understand it, that is the case of the isc. says it will get access to all relevant government papers, including those held by intelligence services. i very much hope that that will be the case for the isc.

she has also said there will be able to take evidence in public, including those who brought accusations against the government and interest groups. that is the case with the isc, too. he concluded it will have the full cooperation of the civil and intelligence services. of course, we hope that is the case always with the isc. he has confirmed that concluding the question of criminal responsibility will take precedence and that the administrative inquiry will start only when the criminal investigation and any proceedings are concluded. as he said, there are under way and number of cases in civil court where former detainees are taking action against members of the security services. can you clarify more specifically the effect of the mediation in advance of the administrative inquiry on these cases? can he confirm that these cases

will not be superseded by the inquiry, which would need the consent of the plaintiff and any future plaintiffs? and can be clarified in what circumstances, say -- compensation may be rewarded if ultimately the courts would find there was no liability? will the prime minister acknowledge the importance of the human-rights act, which enshrines in british law, the european convention of human rights and the protections afforded by article iii. will he affirmed to the house today its support for the human rights act, which ensures that where there is a breach of human rights, including torture, the right not to be tortured, the victim can take action and our courts rather than spending seven years taking their case to the european courts in strasbourg. can he reaffirmed that it is never right -- [inaudible]

[unintelligible] ken i invite the prime minister to reaffirm of the work of the united nations to end torture, including the convention against torture and the 2002 optional protocol which establishes an international system of inspections of four places of detention? and nor the security services can proceed with their important work to protect -- in order for the security services to proceed with important work to protect this country, can you -- can he say how long he expects the inquiry to take? he says it will take no longer than the year. can he confirm how the believes it will be able to start, which we hope it will be able to start as soon as possible before the end of the year? finally, can that i endorse his support the difficult and dangerous work of our security services. the country has reason to be grateful to officers from all

branches of the intelligence theaters for the work they do across the world to keep this country safe. >> we can i think the right hon. lady for her responses to those questions? in terms of security service issues, you're absolutely right to pay that tribute. it is really because we revere and respect what they do, we want to get on with this inquiry and get it done. to answer one of your questions, it will be limited to a year. i hope to get started before the end of this year. let me take each question in turn. i agree with her about torture. we signed, as prohibitions against it. we do not condone it anywhere in the world. we should be clear that information derived from torture it is in any way useless. we should not support people to be tortured elsewhere, but we should, and the foreign secretary will be doing this with the home secretary, redouble our efforts to make sure we have guarantees from other countries so we can deport people to those countries, knowing there will not be

tortured. on guantanamo, we are making efforts on behalf of the cases you mentioned. and she knows, that is the u.k. resident rather than the u.k. national. on the question about could criminal cases continue? yes, of course. that is a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities. she raised a number of points about the intelligence and security committee. i thank her for what she says about the right hon. john and from kensington. in answer to questions about why having this inquiry rather than just asking the intelligence and security committee to do the job, i would say this -- this inquiry is going to be led by a judge. it is a fully independent -- it is fully independent from government. i think that is what we need to get to the bottom of this case. i think the very fact it is led by a judge will help to make sure that we get this done properly. and i would say, while i

respect -- have respect for the committee, during the last parliament there was such a run around between the government and that committee over the issue and not of an -- over an inquiry, but a publishing guidance. i do wonder whether she is taking the right line on this. much better to have a judge-led inquiry. she has not taken a position. i am pleased to hear that. in terms of the civil cases, she asked a question about why try and mediate? the point is here, we want to clear the decks. we want to get this done and sort this problem out. why not try to mediate the existing civil cases, it rolled up, do with them, then hold the inquiry, get to the bottom, said of gardens for the future, so we removed it -- remove the stain -- set out the guidance for the future. i do not see an alternative to this. i think the government has a grip did comprehensively --

gripped it comprehensively. >> mr. campbell. >> i would like to join in a tribute to all three services. may i say to the prime minister, i think he has struck a very delicate balance of competing interests. perhaps, the most powerful reason for having a judge rather than the committee, apart from the volume of material which will have to be examined, is the primary need to ensure public confidence and an out, in which the public can be satisfied -- an outcome in which the public can be satisfied everything has been done to get to the bottom of these allegations. >> i am very grateful to my right hon. friend. public confidence is essential. there are competing interests. that is the reason for not having a full judicial inquiry.

we do what a judge-led inquiry, but we do need to have regard for the importance of the security services, the work they do, and they do after by their nature remain secret. >> mike gates? >> mr. speaker, he refers to his hope that this inquiry could be established by the end of the year, if this mediation process had led to the porroper -- being removed from the equations? is that very naive? -- is that not very naive? and this term of concern about public finances, can he confirm how much money will be available and what happens at the end of the year of the people do not accept the mediation process? >> i have to say to the right hon. member what would be naive

is trying to mediate in public, which is what he is inviting me to do. to answer his question as directly as i can, i think there are two things that perhaps those involved in these cases -- one might well be compensation if they feel they have been mistreated, which mediation can deal with. the second printer, which the inquiry goes too, is some recognition of what went wrong and what will do about it. i think this two-stage process, doing the mediation and the inquiry is the right answer. >> i welcome the prime minister's statement -- in can he confirm that these reports will be made to the inquiry?

the diary that is being published today, is it the revised guidance? >> the reports he refers to will be made to the inquiry. it is not the past guidance. it is the new amalgamated guidance. it would be reporting to guidance that does not exist. i would urge him to look at the guidance and see what he thinks. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

the prime minister will be well aware of the impact of these events which are subject to the inquiry. i would ask them that, as the inquiry progresses, to be conscious the need to explain and be as transparent as possible. >> i think the efforts will be welcome today to get to the facts to make sure it will not happen again. i think that will be welcomed and i am sure that she would be happy to play a part in that. >> the statement that the prime minister just had is a very thoughtful statement and

courageous statement. can the prime minister clarify that the remit that will be given to the inquiry will be broad enough to encompass all allegations of complicity, including rendition and the use of diego gustier? >> i can confirm that the inquiry will look at all of those issues around rendition, extraordinary rendition, and the case of diego that he mentioned. >> canion it -- can i welcome the prime minister's statement today? would he proposes to do is correct.

there will be some cases that arise whereby, if there are some doubts about an issue or the dangers involved in public safety in this country, can he give us assurance that the ministerial involvements are necessary? he and those sorts of cases, it will be dealt with speedily? -- in those sorts of cases, will it be dealt with speedily? >> the guidance is there as guidance. it is as clear as it can be. i think he is right that there are circumstances where it is important that the decisions are referred to the ministers.

in the end, the ministers are responsible for this house and are able to make these decisions. if this happens, it may need to happen very speedily and we will put in place arrangements so that that can happen. >> i would like to commend the prime minister for coming to such a fast decision, including his commendation to our intelligence services. so like to us and to reiterate the independent what he had to say, that this tribunal will be able to follow the evidence wherever it goes, that it will not just have access to people on paper, but will also have cameras in court records, and, when it comes to the conclusion, it will be the decision of the tribunal and the tribunal alone that is published in the national interest. >> thank you for those points and support over this issue. i think it was important to

reach a speedy conclusion because it has been hanging over us for too long. these go back, some of them, after 9/11. in terms of his three questions -- two questions. can the and cory looked at court records? i am sure the answer to that is -- can the inquiry look at court records? i am sure the answer to that is yes. it will take them wherever it leads them. he can look at all of the intelligence information. the report will be for me. in the end, i have to make a decision about what should be put in the public domain. it is my intention to publish a report. but i have to have regard for what is in national interests and security interests.

>> no one in this house is likely to underestimate [unintelligible] is not a matter of great concern, the british security officials appear to have a record when it comes to human rights and coercive techniques? was it not expressed time and time again that torture does not help to undermine it? >> if there is no suggestion that the british agents were officials were involved directly in torture themselves. i think that is important that we get that straight. fed is not for his being said. but the general point that we do not keep ourselves safe and secure and do not promote things

we believe in if we drop our standards, that is, of course, right. i remember the very great pressure that was on everybody after 9/11 to figure out what was good to happen next. we should remember the pressure that was on security services across the world to prevent a repeat of those dreadful events on 9/11. >> the previous findings on these matters will be the building blocks of this inquiry. there is the classic moral dilemma when, having taken every possible step to ensure that, in no way, britain has assisted or participated in torture, it will have to decide to the processes of regimes misconduct we do not trust.

-- processes of regimes whose conduct we do not trust. >> on the issues of what the ministers will have to decide, let me try to clarify a bit further. it is not that ministers will be consulted in cases of torture. what this difficult cases referring to is the mistreatment. that can range of things that we do not approve, like waterboarding, to other things. that is why there is some need to have that level of discretion, the moment that we need to get right in not be over-bureaucratic about it. >> the prime minister is right

to support the security services. one recommendation of the committee is the entrenchment of the national security council and to look at the second recommendation in this area, to allow intercept information into proceedings. >> that is an excellent recommendation that the committee has made. we'll want to see that happen. we all want to see all those accused to be charged and tried and convicted. it is extremely difficult to do. in the last parliament, one of the greatest enthusiasts of intercept in court was michael

howard. he was on the committee and has not yet found a way to make this happen. let us not overestimate how it will be done. it is not easy at all. >> i strongly welcome the prime minister's approach. does he agree with me that, recent years have shown, the targeted intelligence is much more successful at defending a free society than having an overextension of guards, and dance, and gates? , and gates?s, and gunguns >> we need to have a robust defense of our liberty. that is why this announcement today is important. would we do not need is what i call ineffective authoritarianism. i think we had a little bit too

much of that in the previous regime. >> it is to be the role of government, not the role of judges. the security commission should be appointed by this house, not appointed by him and reporting to the prime minister appeared >> -- the prime minister. >> i have been very happy to look at this issue. can we change the nature of the intelligence security? can we do the job in a better way? i am very happy to look at that. i do not think for a moment that we should believe that the i s c should be doing this piece of work. i think that independence from parliament and government should have the right of having a judge-left inquiry. -- judge-led in korea.

2002-2003 -- judged-led it inquirinquiry. >> intelligence gathering is not the same as the gathering of evidence. after the inquiry is over, can the prime minister give assurance to the house that he will think carefully before we introduce extra guidelines that may prevent them doing the job that they do so well at the moment? >> i know my friend has experience in the issues and thinks about the lot. there is no doubt that there are serious allegations into what happened in the past. i do not want to preempt the report. but it does ask how do we stop it from happening in the future? one way is to have better guidance so that our security services have a clearer understanding on what is

unacceptable. that is not easy. inevitably, some people will say that the guidance is quite bureaucratic. i and understand that. we have to have some way to prevent what happened from happening again. >> is he aware of how many civil cases there are and does he know what will happen or what the position will be if the claims do not wish to go to arbitration? >> there are a dozen cases, as i and stand it. obviously, it would be better if the mediation is successful, those cases are rolled up, and we go into the inquiry. clearly, the police have a view that the criminal case should not be ongoing and the inquiry should not start until the criminal case is settled. >> may i commend the prime

minister for his excellent statement. i am sure that he will be greeted with some relief by the intelligence community. he is standing by the controlled principal, which is so important to be restored. intelligence linked to us by our allies should not be passed were leaked or released through the courts in a way that has been happening and has damaged our intelligence relationships. will he give an assurance, if it becomes necessary, to not flinch in order to protect our -- to protect our relationships with our allies? >> on the point of the intelligence services, they do welcome the statement today. i did worked very closely with them on this issue. from their perspective, this is not that difficult. this is not without some painful examination that will take place, but it will take them to a better situation where we can

deal with the stain on britain's reputation. he is right on the control principle. i do not think it has anything to do with the human rights act, but we will enacted with a green paper next year. it is not easy to find a way in an open and liberal democracy to protect [unintelligible] >> for security services have saved the lives of many people. is it possible for him to ensure that the inquiry is short and

sharp? that it is not allowed to stop the morale of our security services who can be put down by inquiries that are largely used by propaganda by their enemies? on judicial proceedings, can the prime minister ensure that he will consult and number for kensington on security intelligence matters on these points? >> i am sure that the gentleman from kensington would have heard with the young gentleman has said. would it be a short and sharp inquiry? yes. do we want to make clear it will not set the morale of intelligence officers? absolutely. if that is the purpose of getting on with this, to try and

clear this issue away. it is not easy. it will take some time. the mediation, the public inquiry, the guidelines for the future, it will put our safety in a much better oting. >> does he believe that this material should be put in name public record for inquiry? if he does think so, will he allow this to happen? >> the question is, is it safe to do so? yes, it is. this is not about trying to cover up bad things that might have happened. it is about trying to get to the bottom of what happened, to explain the context, to get the information out there. but i have to have regard, as the minister for intelligence services, in the end of what is

safe to release. >> [unintelligible] his statement is very welcome around this house and he should be commended for it. can the prime minister confirm that the 46 documents of that have originated the discussion with the cia will be made available to the inquiry and more vitally? >> let me be clear. this is not an inquiry into with the u.s. authorities have done. this is an inquiry into what the uk personal mayor may not have done. i think it is important -- with the u.k. personnel may or may not have done. i think it is important. that is what we're trying to deal with. we're not having some grit

inquiry into the practices and procedures of other intelligence services. >> the segment will be even more welcomed by the family -- the statement will be even more welcomed by the family of those who have suffered greatly over the last eight years. in the event to the inquiry decides that evidence is withdrawn, aid would be ideal for him to get it. >> she makes a very good point on behalf of her constituents. there will be opportunities for public evidence to be given to this inquiry, including those making allegations against uk personnel. and think that is available in a lot of this inquiry will not be in public because of the nature of what it is investigating.

>> i congratulate the prime minister. on the mediation point he is making, could part of that be to encourage these gentlemen not to go around promoting the hottest principles of actions? -- promoting jihadist principles and actions? >> can an inquiry driveline under this? i do not think there has been a proper attempt to look systematically at this set of allegations about whether british personnel were in any way to implicit because of the

things they witnessed or were involved in. that has not been done. that needs to be done. what is the alternative? do you really want the civil cases to roll on and have year after year-end up with paperwork, trying to try these cases rather than trying to clear them away, getting to the bottom of it, and letting them get on with the jobs that they do so well? >> will the prime minister except that it is more controversial when it comes to compensation, particularly if that's been no deal -- no wrongdoing by the security services has been proven. >> of the hon. member is right. this is a difficult process. nobody wants to pay compensation

that is not warranted. but there are two things i will say to him. one is that it is getting increasingly typical for the security services to defend themselves in these selections because the information they would use to defend themselves would be made public. the second thing i would say is that the point about mediation is a private process. if you start advertising your mediation strategy, even if you describe your outcome that will not necessarily make mediation easy in the future. >> i find it extraordinary. the prime minister says he does not want to be political, but maybe i can encourage him a little bit. the refusal to accept claims of

torture and various attempts to make this go away, does he not believe that former ministers should appear before this inquiry? >> that will be a matter for the inquiry who they want to see as witnesses and they will be able to summon who they want. this is not some attempts to draw former ministers in to some great argument. if the inquiry wants to talk to ministers, of course, they can. above all, this is a clear attempt to get to the bottom of what happened during those very difficult years and difficult times when allegations were made and a need to be addressed. this is the right process for doing that. >> can i think the prime minister for acknowledging the mansions -- the dimensions of this issue?

can he also accepted that we cannot tell joining in the negation of the claims of the security services? can the prime minister addressed the peculiar sequence that now seems to be in front of us of mediation, composition, and then investigation by this inquiry -- compensation, and then investigation by this inquiry? might that not be a self- frustrating sequence? >> i hope that it is not. we have spent some time looking at this issue, trying to find the right way to deal with the issue. we think that mediation followed by the inquiry is the right way to do it. i would ask him to take a wide view and look across the years, across the history, and across what the security service is due today, not just in northern

ireland, but across our world to help keep people in this country and in this house safe. we should pay tribute to the brave men and women who are not known about and have fought and died in their call of duty and we think them on our behalf. >> prime minister benjamin netanyahu talks about the middle east peace process during his visit to new york. then there is a discussion of immigration at the brookings institute. then defense secretary robert gates talks about afghanistan and iraq. >> this weekend, we're bringing you the national governors' association annual meeting from boston. our live coverage begins tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern time with the opening session.

>> watched the entire confirmation hearing for the supreme court nominee, including hoarheard testimony. to purchase a copy of any part of the hearing, click the "buy now" button. c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books, all as a public service created by america's cable companies. >> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu talked about reviving peace talks with the palestinians. he also discusses israel's west bank settlement. from new york city, this is one hour.

>> i am well aware of the hatch of singling out some and not others. we welcome prime minister netanyahu, the prime minister's wife, the security adviser, the prime minster's senior adviser, israel's most able ambassador to the united states, the representative of israel to the united nations. benjamin netanyahu comes from a

family along the center of its country's political and intellectual life. the have a great deal to do with reforms that have made the recent financial turbulence much better. the prime minister met president obama in washington on tuesday. they both went to great lengths to describe it as positive. history shows that a strong cooperative relationship between the united states and israel is very much in the interest of both countries.

today's meeting could hardly come at a more opportune moment. there have been serious questions raised about the nature and quality of the u.s.- israeli relationship. there is the critical question of negotiating peace between israel, the palestinians, and syria. there's the challenge of what to do about iran and its ongoing enrichment of uranium and its push for nuclear weapons and a capability that would put them on the threshold being able to produce nuclear weapons. not surprisingly, these and related questions are central. the subjects figure prominently .n our meetings like to davtoday

we look forward to discussing all of these issues today. today's meeting, given the cameras on the back, will be on the record and in three parts. it will begin with remarks by the prime minister appeared i will ask the prime minister several questions. then there will be an opportunity for you, our members, to ask questions. i request all of you to take a moment to make sure your cell phones and other electronics and the like are turnoff, not only to avoid interruption but also to avoid interference with the sound system. with that, mr. prime minister. [applause]

>> thank you all for giving me some time to discuss the issues of the day. i have a very robust delegation with me here today. we had a very good day today in washington. i sat in the oval office. the reports of the demise of the u.s.-israel special relationship are not only premature, but they are wrong.

they are not wrong simply because of the unbreakable bond between our two countries. it is a bond anchored in shared values, democracy being chief among them, and shared interests. it is a bond that transcends the differences of opinion our two governments may have from time to time. they are wrong because, for the past year, most of those differences of opinion have focused on how to best use of the peace -- best to move the peace process forward, but not about the goal of moving it forward. on how toes disagree best achieve the movement of the peace process. i think there is a much greater meeting of the minds between president obama and me on how to

move forward at this time. how to make the transition from proximity talks to direct talks and how to ensure that those track tops are as substantive as possible and is -- that those talks are as substantive as possible and as fast as possible. talking about talking, making preconditions about getting into talks, that is a big mistake. i think it has cost us about a year. i do not think it should cost us any more time. both sides have grievances. we have grievances, too. when the palestinians calle public squares recently, until they rename these squares, i will not get into these talks.

this could delay the talks. i think it is important to move into peace talks as quickly as possible. it needs a resolution. the substance of my vision for peace is a solution of two states for two people in which a demilitarized palestinian state recognizes the jewish state of israel. this is anchored in two core principles, security and legitimacy. security sounds obvious. it has been around as an issue for a long time. but the nature of the challenge of security has changed. when the talks began, we launch of the israeli-palestinian peace talks. first, there was the rise of iran and in second was the rise

of rocket warfare. these new developments post significant problems for israel. we are prepared to vacate territories for the sake of peace. we have done that twice, once in lebanon and the areas that we vacated were quickly taken over by the iranian proxy, which poured rocket missiles into them that were later fired on us. the second was gaza. that area was quickly taken over by iranian property. 12,000 rockets and missiles and total have been fired -- by iranian proxy. 12,000 rockets and missiles in total have been fired. that is a real problem. if we are going to have a third withdrawal, we have to address

preventstion of how to presen this from happening again. it is a palpable strategic thread because our cities are targeted, our airfield are traded, are military installations are targeted. we have to have real solutions on this, not on paper, but on the ground that actually prevent lemass smuggling of rockets, missiles, and other weapons into the areas that we vacate. this is a significant challenge. i have spoke to president obama about it. i think he understands the full seriousness of this challenge. i think that we are both committed to try to find a realistic and concrete solution to this. security is number one.

secondly, the question of legitimacy -- i think the solution of allegis may -- of the dismay -- i think the solution of legitimacy is they recognize it -- their recognition of us as a jewish state. they must prepare their people and themselves, the leadership, for the idea that the conflict is actually over, that the palestinian state is not a stepping stone to continue the battle but an end to the conflict. the two most famous issues of legitimacy revolt around palestinian refugees. israel a source said has a sword the jewish -- israel has absorbent the jewish refugees.

equally, there are no demands on their citizens. their rights are fully guaranteed as individual rights , full equality in israel, as is the case, and there is no demand for separate state in delhi or the it -- in galilee or the economists regions. -- in delete or the autonomous region -- in galilee or the autonomous region. israelis are prepared to go in very long way and i am prepared to lead them to make peace. but this has to be a real

peace, secure and an end to conflict. these are the two principles that i have put forward in my speech. we also removed hundreds of roadblocks, checkpoints, ramps, to facilitate movement in the palestinian areas. there is an economic miracle in the palestinian areas. the palestinian leadership have been doing good things there. but they will come to naught if we do not change the policy. you cannot have economic and commercial growth if you cannot move people. so we changed it overnight, not as a substitute for political peace, but to facilitate it.

the third thing we did was to do something that is unprecedented. i decided to freeze the construction of new settlements for 10 months to encourage the palestinians to enter the free zones. so far, seven months have passed and they have not come in. they should come in. we should not waste any time. [unintelligible] they tried to prevent entry into the oecd. it was a great salutation to

israel. it was accepted into the club. if we can get them into the g- 20, that will take some time. [laughter] it is a great tribute to the economy. i do not think we should linger on this. i do not think they should linger on us. i think we should seize the moment. it is a challenging moment and an important one when you have the ability to negotiate a peace. know where the pieces in the middle east will move in the coming years. there is the great challenge from iran. there is movement in turkey. there is instability in egypt. -- there is stability in egypt. we should take this opportunity

and i am prepared to do it. there is risk. that is what leaders do. you take risk. only three people came back to second time to govern israel. when you get to be at my advanced age, you do not come back to spend time in office. you come back to do something. i am prepared to do something. i am prepared to take risks. i will let take risks with their security. -- i will not take risks with our security. i know that president obama is

willing to assist us. he has credibility in the arab world. this is important. this is an asset that we must use. but we need to get on with it. we must stop all of the delays and start now, next week. get the talks going. only if we start them can we complete them. i think people talk about the economy, a top-down political process. it can only be handled from the very top. it can be done by the leaders themselves. you cannot just have the leaders show up for ceremonies.

it cannot happen with committees and holding endless meetings. i can tell you all the decisions i have made on changing things inside israel. i have always had to participate in the man had had to cut through -- this is polite company. you just have to get on with it, grapple with things directly. there is no other way i know there is -- there is no other way. i know there's a lot of skepticism. skepticism is certainly warranted in some ways. i remember the moment that sadat came to jerusalem. only three years earlier, he tipped and israel had fought a terrible war.

-- egypt and israel had fought a terrible war. you should read the mountains of skeptical print that were written about sadat. i went on to confound the critics and the skeptics. i need a partner. you have to have that. and this is one great challenge that we face today. i feel we are up to it. i kill the moment has arrived. -- i feel the moment has arrived. it can bring untold benefits. you have already seen part of that, before we have a formal peace. you can positive lot of things

that can happen in the region. israel is a great economic engine, full of creativity. it is probably one of the most innovative -- i do not think there is a more innovative society on earth, a more innovative economy. we can unleash those forces. we have done so internally. this is reality. to our children, palestinian children, and the other peoples of the region who choose to participate in this vision of peace with us. there is another challenge. it is a great one. i have been talking about it for many years. 14 years ago, when i came to the united states, shortly after rose first elected prime minister, i was given the honor of addressing the joint session of the u.s. congress. i said that the greatest danger facing the world was the threat

of iran developing nuclear weapons. i can tell you that quite a few eyebrows were raised at the time. far fewer are raised today. there is now a broader and a deeper understanding of the potential dangers of a nuclear- arms iran. you hear it in europe. you hear it in just about every private conversation that i or my staff have with arab leaders. almost every single one, there's almost no exception. all of these leaders understand that iran is not nearly a threat to israel.

it is a nuclear-arms iran -- nuclear-armed iran. in historical circumstances, the problem is translating and understanding into action -- actually, the problem in many catastrophic periods of history was that there was no understanding. that is a prelude to correct action. but when to have understanding, there's still that gap between what is understood and what is done. i spoke with the white house for about the recent resolution of sanctions against iran.

the u.n. sanctions are important because it sends a message to the actors seem that the international community is led by president obama and stance against iran's nuclear program. listener the sanctions are implemented and more vigorously they are enforced, the -- the sooner the sanctions are implemented and more vigorously enforced, the more fight they will have. the regime is vitally dependent on the energy sector. but we cannot be sure that these sanctions will have the necessary effect of stopping iran's nuclear program. i appreciate president obama's statement that he is determined to prevent iran from developing

nuclear weapons and that all options are open. i think to for late -- to fully translate understanding into action, we must address the question of whether the world can live with a nuclear iran. for a lot of influential people, and for some of the people here today, a nuclear- armed iran would certainly be a danger. but it perhaps would not be a new danger. after all, the soviets had nuclear weapons. they were contained. so, too, hated his argue that iran could also be contained. -- so, too, it is argued that iran could also be contained. the soviets certainly had global ideological ambitions, but, in

international affairs, they acted with supreme rationality. every time the soviets were faced with a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose survival. in berlin, in cuba, and elsewhere. to the best of my knowledge, there were not many soviet suicide bombers. the iranian regime is different. they are driven by a militant ideologies that are based on an entirely different set of values, a value system that would seem entirely irrational to us, but is pervasive and very powerful among those competing for leadership among the islamic militants. look at what happened nearly a decade ago in another part of

this militant world. the taliban allowed al qaeda, operating on its soil, to dispatch terrorists to bomb new york, this city, and to bomb washington. what were they thinking? did they think that the greatest power in the world would simply ignore mass destruction in its cities? did they think that the united states of america would ignore an attack on its financial center, on its military headquarters, on its capital city? were they that stupid? or were they driven not by cool reason, but by fiery fanaticism that overcomes normal logic?

iran sends children into minefields. perrin denies the holocaust. -- iran denies the holocaust. iran empowers, us with rockets hamas withpowers home los rockets. iran sent tentacles into yemen and saudi arabia. iran sent weapons into south america. this is what they do when they do not have nuclear weapons. think of what they will do tomorrow when they do have them. it is very hard for modern men and women to come to terms with the rule of irrationality in

human affairs. we tend to think that people and states are driven solely by interest, by a sober calculation of cost and benefit. we must recognize that those who glorify death and those who dispatch hordes of suicide bombers are not driven by grievances that can be addressed or by a despair that can be alleviated. we must recognize that they are wide-eyed true believers, even mad believers in the world. there are fanatics who prescribed to it twisted creed and they are willing to pay any price for its realization. they are driven by a fervent hope that they will succeed at any price.

shakespeare advises us to see the method in the madness facing today's militants in the middle east. we should be well advised to see the madness in the method, to recognize that not everyone is constrained by the calculus of cost and benefit that has been associated with nuclear weapons, to recognize that some people, organizations, and regimes might act in ways that no one has acted since the advent of the era of nuclear peace that has followed hiroshima and nagasaki. we must not allow the world's most dangerous regimes to possess the world's most dangerous weapons. this is the single greatest challenge of our time and we must not fail to address it. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you. i would like to begin where you began, the u.s.-israel relationship. there has been the theme that israel would become more of a strategic liability to the united states when a strategic asset. how do you reviewed this, particularly for americans who have come of age since 1967 and see if israel as more of a victor than a victim? >> there are so many questions in your question. >> i violated my own rule. i am sorry. [laughter] >> will work as a politician do? they simply decide which one of

them they want to answer. [laughter] first of all, it is better to be a victor than a victim. if you were a victim, this was the condition of the jewish people for 1000 years. when you actually have a state and you have to defense to ourselves and there are racketeers and you try to seek them out, you're still held to an impossible standard. there is one standard for the democracy is there is a standard for dictatorships. they have their own standards. and then there is a third standard for the democracy called israel. the only thing i can say is that we will put for the truth of our case. we're the only nation threatened

with annihilation. we're the only country that has been attacked by thousands of rockets and suicide bombers. we seek genuine peace. we're willing to make concessions for peace. and we are ready to make those concessions today. the best way to test that is to have them, to get into those negotiations. that is the first part. the second question you asked is israel's strategic utility. the most unstable part of the world begins west of india and stops somewhere in north africa. there is a land mass of their

that is highly unstable -- there is a land mass there that is highly unstable. they are filled states. -- they are failed states. within that, i would argue that there are several forces of stability. in the heart of the middle east, israel is the source of the greatest stability. i know that flies in the face of people -- the only way i can prove that is a way that i will not. just imagine what would happen if we were not there. what would happen to some of our neighbors? i will not spell it out. israel stops the brunt of an

attack that is i think that if it were not for israel, a lot of that would have been sent away by radical forces long ago. i would argue that we provide an important strategic service. that is understood in ways that i cannot elaborate by the hourly sharing between our intelligence services, security cooperation that is enormously valuable. i think i can safely say that it is important for the united states and four others -- and for other countries. i was going to say western

countries, but that would be an incomplete statement. we also share important assets with non-western countries and quite a few of them. this was very much reflected in my conversation with president obama. >> let me ask you one or two questions. >> if you ask smaller questions, i will be shorter answers. [laughter]

>> the israeli moratorium runs out in less than three months. what would persuade you and your government to extend it? >> the settlement issue was supposed to be a final issue from the start. along with security, refugees, water, these are the principal issues that need to be discussed. i actually did this temporary freeze to enter the talks. seven months into this moratorium, i think the right thing to do is get into the talks. this is how we will resolve this issue.

i think we have shown our good faith. no other government has done that. the 17 years, there was never any precondition placed on talks. on day one, when i formed my government, i called on the president to come in and sit down bread -- a sit-down. this is just wrong. nobody is going to deliver an agreement. or a settlement to the palestinians from the outside. if they are waiting for that, that is a big mistake. they have to come in and negotiate this. we are prepared to talk about everything. at the end of the day, only when

you sit down and mesh all these issues together and show the palestinian people and the people of israel, here is an agreement. it will be very painful. not only for the israeli side and the palestinian side. they will have to tell other people, it is over. that is the way this thing is going to end. i think we have done enough. let's get on with the talks. >> you said that barack obama was ready to assist. what would you like his role and the american role to be if he can get direct negotiations started between analyst -- israelis and palestinians? what would you like is to do? >> every peace negotiation we have had involves the assistance of the united states. in camp david, the talks between egypt and israel, the oslo

accords, peace with jordan, it always involved american support. the united states is a great mediator and a great facilitator and the problems that we will need help with -- not only from the united states, but from the international community. i gave you one example. water. water, like land, has one advantage. you can make more of its. -- make more of it. it is expensive and we are going to need it. we're going to need it more. water consumption grows. it is growing in israel. it is growing in the palestinian area. this is a problem that is

affecting the region. you'll certainly need international help. some countries can help with the refugees. some countries can help with water. the united states can help with everything, including political mediation and certain hardships will arise. it can help address some of our most pressing security problems. some of them can be addressed by advanced technology and i think america's willingness and cooperation in this matter is there. it is important for the achievement of success. >> i have two more questions. imagine that you have a negotiation on the west bank and it succeeds. how would you think about

dealing with the challenge of gaza and hamas? >> this is a big problem. it could handle negotiations. we could say that we will not proceed until we solve because the problem. that means we will be hindered for a long time. or we can recognize that we have hostile element there. it is opposed to peace and opposed to recognition of israel and sponsors terror. we will have to think about it as it is. think about what it could be and try to see how we work together to make that transformation. i think it will be unrealistic for us. to assume -- to say that it is not there and we should not

address it or to say that unless it is resolved, we did not move forward. either position is wrong. i think we should move toward a negotiated peace between us and the palestinian authority. we should take the proper precautions against what can flow from gaza. >> it would also provide some opportunities for them to opt in. >> if they could, they would throw hamas out today. they would lose the election like that. it does not give any people of bosnia and the options. -- the gaza any options. that is how hamas governs. it does not allow you freedom. if there were a change, it they could choose, they would choose

a route of moderation and of peace and prosperity. they are not given the choice. how we help them have that choice is a good subject for discussion. i am not sure -- >> you gave me a natural segue into iran. you are articulate about the risks and costs of nuclear weapons. what about the risks of cost of using military force to prevent dissension? do you worry about irani in retaliation? -- iranian retaliation? >> we hope that it is possible to stop iran's programs.

it so happens that the statement that the president has made is probably the most effective pressure that you could direct at iran. i would not say anymore. that is ultimately what they looked at. and they have an -- in the past, as you know. they thought that the u.s. would act in a more forceful way, you know what happened. it was the only time that the iranian program was held back. i would not change the statement made by the president. i think that would be a mistake. >> i asked you to wait for a microphone and identify yourself. limit yourself to one precise

question and resist any temptation to speechify. >> that you only lead to the speaker. >> mr. prime minister, i would like to change the subject. the last couple of years, israel's economic activity has been rather extraordinary versus the rest of the western world. i think it is fair to say that a lot of it is attributable to beat -- to your stand as finance minister. -- or stand as a finance minister. what is your next step in charge -- in terms of privatization, a high-tech? how do you maintain this high rate of growth? >> the most important thing to understand in the global economy is something that something -- that all of you understand is that competition never ends.

it never ends. you cannot say that if you -- you cannot say that you have achieved such and such a market share and you can rest on your laurels and stock. -- and stopped improving. the same is true of economies that compete in the global economy. you can never stop improving. how do you produce growth? it is ultimately the consequence of improvement. how do you produce the growth if you are a $30,000 per capita economy? if you have about $800 per

capita of income, you can put in roads, electrification, communication lines. if you are $30,000 or a $40,000 economy back, -- how do you grow at 4% consistently, which is what israel has done over the past five or six years? how do you do that if you are a $30,000 per capita economy? i maintain that there are only two ways to do that. one is that you have got to add value to your products and services and the best way to do that is by technology. israel has a lot of technology.

the have to do certain things that are technological edge is maintained. we have a very innovative society. there is a second thing that you can do. it is not obvious. if you are lucky enough to have an advanced economy with a messed up bureaucracy, it as you remove the bureaucratic hurdles, you are going to get extra growth. it is like taking a steal boats and removing it and what you are removing it, you grow. while you are addressing the high-tech part of the economy, you are addressing the low-tech part of the economy.

planning and designing, construction -- israel is number one in the world and a penetration of personal computers into the homes. i am happy to report to you that we are number 140 in the world and property registration, 120 in the world in the time it takes to get a building permits. it is virtually impossible to build anything in my country. why am i happy to report this? if we change that, we get an extra bounce of growth just for doing these bureaucratic corrections. there is a lot of political capital that you have to fight. i do not want to take more of your time, but i will describe to you how difficult that is. 93% of the land in one of the world's smallest countries is

controlled by government monopolies called the israel lands authorities. in america, it is probably 30%. i cannot provide more land in order to have more construction unless we see this up. i had a bill to reduce that number. i was challenge from the right that i was giving land to the saudis. i would challenge from the left that i was giving it to my fat cat friends. i did not have any, by the way. the voting came on this land reform bill and we started having be reading and i have a very comfortable majority. they disappeared. many of the recruitment ministers were not there. the labor ministers were not there. i stopped the vote.

i went down to my office and issued a statement and i said, we are going to have another vote in 10 days. any minister or deputy minister that does not, be fired on the spot. in 10 days we had another votes and it passed with a wondrous majority. these are advantages. the advantage you have been developed countries is if you can reform, if you have the political will and division and are willing to spill political blood, you can pass these reforms and get extra years of growth. it is technology and basic structural reforms that produced the advantage for any country. that has what has produced the advantage for my country in the last decade. this is what i hope to see in the coming decade.

>> i can see already that i will disappoint people. a lot of hand. >s. >> you have stated your vision of a two-stage solution. you will have to move some of these settlements. it may involve civil disobedience or even of violence. do you feel that you have the support along -- among the ideological support to support that kind of solution and do you feel that the israeli public is prepared for that solution? >> the most important thing is to try to define a clear vision of peace were people see the benefits of what is they're doing. the second thing is to introduce a very important to

mention for the implementation of this peace agenda. time is a crucial element, both for security and for other critical elements of the solution. -- of a solution. it is a great facilitator of change. if you build in the time factor to any solution that we have, i think it would help enormously. the rest i will leave to the negotiations that i intend to have with president obama. >> mr. prime minister, if president obama succeeds in

getting new to direct negotiations, it is obvious that you know the demands. if you have direct negotiation, d.c. that within a year we can have an agreement similar to -- do you think that within a year we can have a great an agreement similar to 1979 it? >> yes, i do. >> use think -- you think he is willing to make peace? >> if it is up to me, we will have an agreement. i cannot speak for him, but i will not do what some -- what other debts due to me. -- what others do to me. i will not rule out the possibility of leadership. you have to be tested in real times.

the only way you can change the reality is to change the package. a total package. that is a peace treaty that is anchored in security that has -- that give sufficient that gives a feeling of hope and comfort to people and they can actually see. that is where we have then. i think that is why it is fair. i think this is the alternative than i am prepared to pursue it. i hope to see the president take the same choice. we are not youngsters anymore. we have a certain responsibility to our people, to our children, our grandchildren and the coming

generations. this is what leaders are expected to do. i think president can prove to be an important palestinian leader that helps me along with president obama reshape our future. >> why is it so important that palestinian leaders give up their goals? why cannot -- why can they secretly harbor a gold so long that they do not pursue those goals with violent means? >> because part of the change that is required, there is an asymmetry. it is important to understand it. the reason why the conflict exists and it has not been resolved in 60 something years is because of the enduring engine of the conflict. what is the true underlying force of this conflict? ofis not israel's possession

the territories, even though it is widely held to be that issue. it is certainly an issue that has to be resolved. if you really understand the source of this conflict, it goes back to 1920. the first attack against the jewish presence took place in 1928 and discontinued in the 1930's and continued in the great upheaval in 1948, continued in the attacks in the 1950's, continued with the creation before 1967. it actually wage from 1920 until 1967. that is nearly 50 years before there was a single israeli soldier in the territory. before there was a symbol is

resettlement. it was in opposition -- there was a -- an israeli settlement. you would think that it was transformed. after the 1967, at the issue was the territories. in many ways, the discussion about this issue changed the results of the conflict. the territories for a result -- were a result of these repeated attacks. we are prepared to negotiate a solution to its. but having left territories, we let because the and were fired upon. we left lebanon on and we were fired upon.

when you ask them why they are firing on israel, they said they have to liberate occupied palestine. the west bank? they said, nope. when we left gaza and the hamas fired -- we have to liberate palestine. do you mean the west bank? they said, no. the real engine of the conflict is the refusal to recognize the jewish state in any boundaries. unless this is addressed, it continues to take hold in the palestinian psyche and it does not get resolved. if leaders began to talk in this way, they will guarantee that there will be a change of heart. it is a necessary precondition

for change. otherwise, it will never happen. they did not say we will end the conflict. they do not say that israel will be here to say. they do not recognize the jewish state of israel. they said they will make peace. we want an end to occupation, but they do not actually say it's because they are intimidated by hamas or they harbor secret wishes. they have to openly say it for the sake of persuading their people to make the great psychological change. i have said it. i have stood before my people and before my constituency and i have said what my vision of peace concludes.

i did that without some consequence i can tell you. this is what we have to do. they have to educate their people. they have to state its the way it should be. i do not think that the palestinian leader should be exempted from it. having said that, let me carry your question to its conclusion. let's say that they said it. suppose they said it to. are we guaranteed that this will percolate down? are we guaranteed that there will not be rolled back? are we guaranteed that there will not be regime change the way there was in gaza? the answer is, no, we are not. that does not nullify the need to say it and the need to sign

on it, but it does make the first component, the question of security, all the more important. there might be a roll back, the pillar of security has to be enormously powerful, cast in the strongest concrete terms. it has to be very, very solid. i think this is what is required of the palestinian leadership. i would like the president to say these things very clearly and i would like to meet him to make peace. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> a discussion about immigration at the brookings institution. robert gates talks to reporters about afghanistan and iraq. prime minister david cameron announces an investigation and allegations of british -- britain's involvement in the torture of terror suspects. on tomorrows "washington journal," a look at the help risk facing oil workers.

washington post reporter on the implementation of the new health care lost. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00. >> this weekend, fox news analyst on the unconstitutional behavior of both the bush and obama administration. he is interviewed by consumer advocates ralph nader. >> the brookings institution in washington hosted a discussion today about immigration policy. panelists included former miami mayor.

this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> it is a busy time for immigration. the president gave a major speech last week. yesterday, the justice department said it was suing the state of arizona. it is only thursday. who knows what will happen tomorrow or next week? every day, there is something big and dramatic happening in the immigration area. it also has been a big week for the -- for me personally

because the brookings institution published my new book. the book store does have copies out in the hallway if you are interested. i will be signing copies at the conclusion of this event. and a book, i argue that we need to enact comprehensive reform in order to boost long-term economic development. i put a picture of albert einstein on the cover of the boat to remind all of us about the many contributions that immigrants have made to american life over the years. we all know that google was co- founded by a russian immigrant and that yahoo was established by someone born in taiwan. what would the american economy look like today if intel was a hungarian company, google was based in russia, and now who was a taiwanese company? in my book, i argue that these are not isolated stories.

studies have found that more than one-half of silicon valley companies had a foreign born founder or co-founder. immigrants have made vital contributions to our economy, our knowledge base, our agricultural sector, are cordial heritage, our culinary life, and the world of sports. despite these and other immigrant contributions, our country is paralyzed by immigration policy. i talked in a book about why it is difficult for political leaders to address immigration, even though everyone dislikes the status quo. i. review press coverage about immigrants over the years and suggest that the media focus on bad news and not the good news on immigration. we have a long history dating back to the chinese exclusion act of 1882. i went back and reviewed 50 years of public opinion data on

immigration to see the ebbs and flows of how we think about immigrants and immigration. i look at our legal justice system and analyze the disparities in justice ended immigration courts depending on whether you have an attorney. defendants when there cases 46% of their cases if -- of the time if they have a lawyer. i talk about border security and how illegal border crossings from mexico actually are at a 30-year low. even though most people do not believe this, we actually have had to made tremendous progress on securing our border. that story never gets reported. i wrote this book to inject some facts into what is a very emotional and polarizing topic for many people. when you look at our history and our contemporary discussions over immigration, we have made a

number of very bad policy decisions. we need to step back and think about what it is we want to accomplish as a nation and what are the best ways to get us where we want to go. i got interested in this subject several years ago when i married a german woman. in seeking to bring to the united states and get her a green card, i discovered how complex and frustrating the immigration process is. i have a phd in political science, but i found the entire process very confusing and a very difficult to navigate. maybe that was because i had a phd. i do not know of that helped or hindered. eventually, we did get her a green card, but discovered many things along the route that i american did not know about the immigration process. my book is to inform other people about what we do to move forward in this very important area. to help us develop a better understanding of the immigration area, we have put together a

distinguished set of speakers. we have the president of lake research. she is one of our country's leading pollsters. she has worked closely with a variety of democratic candidate. she was -- she has advised the national party committee around the country as well as the number of groups that work in this area. she is also the pollster for vice-president joe biden. she has been quoted in every news outlet in the united states and given the people the benefits of for research and expertise. the new arizona lot and weighs progressive advocates to refrain the issue in order to pass comprehensive reform. she will be addressing the role of public opinion in immigration reform. we have the associate deputy

attorney general in the united states department of justice. before he was appointed to that position, he was an the department of justice and had oversight over the office of immigration. when he was there, he helped organize civil immigration and litigation and coordinate immigration matters before the various federal courts and the circuit courts of appeals. prior to that, he chaired the board of immigration appeals. he received his b.a. from george washington university and is a law degree from american use -- american university. he will be discussing the legal and policy aspects of the immigration area. at the format that we will fall to date is -- a fall today is

they will outline their thoughts on immigration. i will have a few questions for both of them and then we will open the floor. [applause] celinda lake. [applause] >> thank you very much. the presentation is loaded on to the computer. there it is. thank you very much and it is nice to be here. i want to thank dr. west in particular, and produce in general -- brookings in general, for adding more like to a conversation that often has mo heat then like to it. i think is a very thoughtful book and a great analysis of a lot of information out there. i want to assure you recent survey that we have done looking

at the -- to show you a recent survey that we have done looking at voters nationwide. latino's have become very important in the 2010 elections, but generally in the future are very important. we looked at how people feel about the arizona law, how people feel about comprehensive reform, and how might this play out in the current elections. one of the reasons i love being a pollster is because conventional wisdom is usually about 95% wrong, plus or minus 5%. this is yet another area where conventional wisdom is wrong. there are tons of public polls out there. we found the majority of voters to support the arizona immigration law. but that is for the accury ops. the assertion has been, particularly in this town, that

it means a diminishing support for comprehensive reform and that the law was put in place as a rejection of comprehensive reform. both could not be more wrong. first, we found that with the passage of the arizona law anwas largely about frustration, critically at the federal level. people still feel overwhelmingly that this is a federal solution, not a state solution. even the people of arizona and feel this would be better served by a national solution. support for comprehensive immigration reform is stronger than it ever was and, in fact, it is most strongly supported by those same people who support the izona law.

people are becoming increasingly aware of what comprehensive reform is. dr. west talks about security as an important component. cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants and requiring those who are here illegally to go back to the back of the line for this insured. -- for citinship. you are required to register, pay taxes, work, learn english. interestingly, people thought that if you pay taxes, you really should become an american because there is nothing more all-ameran than the fate of sharing taxes and irs. people thought also that learn english was better than no english. people did not want a lot of grammar test out their for themselves or others.

finally, we asked people what about acting now and people want to iraq and now. one of the really interesting -- what to act now. one of the really interesting conversations in the book is how the mood has been set for reform in terms of the economy and in rms of the flow of immigration. ironically, people say this is a bad time for immigration reform. actually, what we have found in our work is that it is a good time for immigration reform. people do have more awareness that the flow is down. who knew that the canadiens were such a threat? and michiganders are feisty, but as one blue-collar workers at in michigan, you would have to be an idiot to come to michigan for a job right now. and these pele do not look dumb to me. the flow of the economic

situation has made it easier to have this conversation. people also think that is an equal opportunity recession, that everybody lost their jobs in this recession/depression. actually, i think during a time of recory when there will be more tension about who is getting jobs and who is not. first, hooking a comprehensive reform, do you support or oppose it -- looking at a comprehensive reform, and you support or oppose it? there was aime, and frankly, a time in the last debate where people did not have a very good sense of what comprehensive reform was. now there is increasing awareness of comprehensive reform and 57% of people say without it being defined, i guess, i support it. only 18% are opposed to it. it is not the overall levels of

support that are key here. what is particularly key is it the intensity. intensity is important on any issue, whether it is abortion, gay mriage, or immigration. 42% of the voters are saying that they strongly support comprehensive reform. only 11 percent saying that they strongly oppose it. latino voters are increasingly important and increasingly disengage as we are approaching -- as we approached the 2010 election. among latino voters, 60% favor comprehensive immigration reform. when we defined the bill anwe defined it, as we said, including border security, including registering, paying

xes, getting to the back of the line. , 70 -- 77% of all latino voters were in favor of it. every single demographic group overwhelmingly supported comprehensive reform. you can see strong bipartisan support. in fact, the republans do not know that they are supposed to be against this. their support is the highest of anyone's. you've got to love conventional wisdom. and there is strong support across the region. this issue is not nearly as regionally defined as people think. we asked people, and you think it would be better if people were in the u.s. illegally and that we made them legal and they pay their taxes and pay their fair share, or that they leave the country anbecause they are

taking jobs that americans need? 58% said it better for them to pay taxes. peoe are seeing more and more services cut back and are 2 to 1 upseppa-john r. beating two to one of the thought that they should -- and are between 221 the thought that they should leave -- are betweating 2 to 1 e thought that they should leave. 64% said that they should register, become legal, under grow -- undergo background checks. there was a time when people

thought it was kind of anti- american. now people are earer that this is an arduous process, even if they do not have the level of dr. west's experience. if you are here and working and paying taxes, become an american and join the rest of us. people think it is wildly unrealistic to think -- to try to deport everyone and people do not want temporary workers. they want them to be here long term or not here. the support for temporary workers is something that has diminished with the toughening of the economy. people say they will vote this issue. 66% -- 56% of all voters and 57 percent of latino voters say this is an important issue. 24% of all voters say this is a very important issue.

across every political group base davis's it. -- they say this is a very important issue when votevoting. at a time when people in congress really is not getting anything done and congress' own rates -- own ratings arhalow, pe want congress to take some kind of action. in the same way that people support of the arizona law, 60% of people vote -- support the arizona law, 45% strongly. but notice, among latino voters, 55% opposed it. there is a challenge here of redefining the issue for a generation in the latino

community, increasing the an important constituency. here is a description of the arizona law. there is a very positive discussion and nothing pejorative in doubt. supporters -- in that. supporters of the arizona law are more likely to be white and supporters of the tea party than other voters overall, but it is marginal oil -- marginal differences. when we asked people why did you support the arizona law -- and we did not just assume that we knew, and we did not tell people why they supported. we asked them. 52% said they supported the law because the state took action when the federal government failed to solve the problem. and people still respond very strongly to the language you hear the president use that this is a broken immigration system and we need to fix it. the 28% supported the arizona

law because they thought it would reduce illegal immigration, 12% because it would reduce crime and 8% for no reason at all. the overwhelming reason behind it is frustration. not that people think this is the best approach. the reason that people said that they oppose the law is because it will lead to american citizens be asked for papers either for their accent or their race and will divert law- enforcement from concentrating on more serious crimes. people think ovehelmingly this needs to be handled by the federal government. at a time when feelings about government are solidly negative, people still that you cannot handle this just state- by-state.

you can see that people believe overwhelmingly that the federal should deal with this and not just individual states. then we looked for comprehensive reform by whether or not you supported the arizona law. conventional wism would say that if you supported the law, and you would not support comprehensive reform. but 84%upport a comprehensive reform, including a 67% strongly. if you were an opponent of the arizona law, 62% supported the arizon law, 48% strongly. and again, you can ask people in a different way, which view is closer to your own view, that a state by state approach will not work, or i think we need a version of arizona's law and our

state and give police the tools to enforce our lot and finally cracked down on -- our laws and finally cracked down on immigration. the large majority of people said no, we need a national solution. the state-by-state approach will not work. i should have started by saying that this was a bipartisan pl that we did with public opinion strategies, a republicanolling firm. never one, the fact you support the arizona law is not at all inconsistent ineople's minds with suorting a comprehensive reform. number two, people are frustrated with the system. they want to get moving with fixing the system and are interested in new approaches. i think that is why dr. west's book is such an important contrition truth -- contribution to the solution.

and finally, people do not want to be next to a state that does not enforce this law. they want a national solution here. they do not want to have people moved by laws from one state to another. and even arizonans, they are not the only state that is unhappy with passing a unconstitutional laws. states said, it is unconstitutional then i do not want to pass it. qarizadah said, i want to -- arizona said, i want to pass it. i look forward to your questions. [applause]

>> it kind of intimidating. -- that is kind of intimidating. [laughter] thank you for inviting me and thank you to brookings for having this important event. i would like to talk a little bit about what has been happening on comprehensive immigration reform, where we have been, maybe a little bit about where we have gone, some of the sections that are likely to be included and some of the challenges that we face in gettingthis reform done. the big news this week is the filing by the department of justice of th lawsuit in arizona and while there are obviously strong opinions about that lawsuit, one thing we can all agree on is that the department believes that the arizona law is a manifestation of a federal failure, a failure by the federal government and congress to enact the very needed reforms on a level that

are required for the national interest. i think this is something that we can move forward on. the administration believes that. the president believes that. we will see what we can do for the rest of the year-end going into next year. as the president said last week, we do have a broken system. we do have a system that does not serve the national interest in a lot of ways. the only into this is a comprehensive national approach that needs to move forward -- the only end to this is a comprehensive national approach that needs to move forward an is not going to be easy. i was like to say that if you thought that the health care town halls were ugly, wait until congress starts considering comprehensive reform. it is going to be very contentious. it is going to be very difficult. but as the president said last week, it will be one of the challenges of our time and this administration is not willing to

kick the can down the road on such important issues. that is where we are. no one should underestimate how difficult it is going to be. all you have to do is look at the last time we tried this in 2007 with a bipartisan group of senators with the full backing of theush white house for comprehensive immigration reform and it still couldot get done. it is going to be a difficult issue, but it is something that the president and the administration are committed to moving forward on. in the vernacular is cir. theaction has started in the senate with senator schumer. as you may know, he took this on to his credit and to on the responsibility of trng to craft a bipartisan bill. senator lyndsey gramm of south carolina joined soon after and it looked fairly favorable for moving forward, at least on the

bill at some point. -- at some point last year or this year. late last year, they came to the old to ask for some assistance on the various portions of this bill. the department of homeland security has been designated the lead in agency -- the lead agency in comprehensive reform. but other agencies, including the doj and otherthe labor depat and others have been moving forward and try to provide some feedback, some ideas on some of thedeas that are being bandied around. it has been an effective set of meetings that start of last summer. it did look like there was the possibility of something moving forward late last year or sometime this summer. the plan was really to have a bill drafted by early in the

year and introduced and moving forward in the senate. as i y, if anything happened on theay to the formal. -- a funny thing happened on the way to the form. it was very controversy will and serve to enhance the partisan rancor on the hill and made the moving forward of other bills much more difficult. things were relatively quiet for a few months. there was still a fair amount of actions behind-the-scenes trying to graft ideas, trying to see what was doable. but there was not much movement. there was some catalyst for action that occurred a few months ago and that was the passage of the arizona law. again, it was a recognition that the