immigration reform on a national level was a real catalyst for that. a lot of organizations started coming forward and saying how concerned they were about the arizona bill. and that was the blueprint that the democratic -- and then there was the blueprint that the democratic offices released on what comprehensive immigration reform could look like and it had republican support. but we also have theffect of senator gramm, who was a key player and continues to be a key player, backing away from his effos with senator schumer. that put the entire effort -- it took several steps back. one thing that the president leav, and we all believe, that it is one of the few ironclad must deducdo's is that it shoult

be done with only demratic votes in the house. it is going to require some significant republican support. not just a token republican support, but significant republicanupport -- support. and that is good to be a challenge for the rest of the year and into 2011. the democrats have released th blueprint. it has been out there for a whil so far, unfortunately, we have not had any interest from any republican offices coin forward, at least not overtly. -- going forward, at least not overtly. absentomething changing over the next few weeks and getting some bipartisan effort on this,

there will be little movement on this. at this point we are looking toward the elections in 2011 to see if something will be moved forward. we do not know how things are going to continue to play out, for example, in arizona. arizona is a somewhat volatile environment. there is passion on both sides of this ll that has been passed. there is the border of their and the narrative that -- the border out there and the narrative that is not as secure as it could be. the border is more secure than it ever has been and the president said that last week. if you go down to the border, you will see that the border of 20 years ago is not the border that is now, just in terms of the resources that are down there. but it is going to be something that will have to be provided for.

and the president is committed to providing additional enhancements to border security. that argument is out there. there is the argument that until the border secure that cir will not be possible. it will be interesting to see how that plays out going forward. a lot of this will depend on what happens in the elections. if we have a significantly different make up in congress than that will change the dynamics of this. butt is something that we all hope and we expect that congress will moveorward on either this year or maybe post-election because most folks do recognize even though there are significant disagreements over this issue, this is a national priority and it h to move forward at some point. the president is committed to

not kicking the can down the road any further because it is really necessary. let me conclude with some of the broad sections that are kely to be included in comprehensive immigration reform if this ever moves forward -- or when i which move forward, i should say. -- when it moves forward, i should say. is it enough for a stand-alone bill all by itself, or wrapped up together is it enough to make it a significant burden to move forward on? i think any version of all of these things are going to be included in comprehensive immigration reform. number one is a title on enforcement. what i mean by that is not just border security, but interior enforcement. there could be some innovative ideas that are put forward to

try to deal with people who are here and documented -- un documented. the desire is that there will be a fix to this. people are required to come forwa if they are undocumted status and there could be some some significant punishment for not doing that. the second thing is that there is likely to beat unemployment -- likely to be an important employment verification system. senator schumer has proposed a ecurity ca that every employer would have to provide and everyone would need to this card in order to get a job going forward.

yes, it is going to be costly. yes, it is going to the ctroversy 0, but it is something that the senate officers who are working on this are committed to seeing in comprehensive reform. and they're right on this. full control of illegal immigration is going to brely on full control at the workplace. really doing something about the magnet of jobs is keyed to enforcing and deterring illegal immigration. number three is what the president has called the gauck to citizenship -- the past to citizenship, or similar terminology. it is unrealistic to expect massive deportations. nobody thinks that is doable, even if we wanted to do that. at the same time, we cannot ha a blanket amnesty.

the president has to have some sort of acknowledgement, responsibility for these folks to come forward. but they do need to be brought out of the shadows, as has been said, not only because it is good policy for a number of reasons, but also for our national security. we need to know who these people are, where they are, who they are. it is an unhealthy situation for a umber of reasons to have people here under undocumented status without knowing who they are or where they are. finally, there is what is called future flows, or adjusting the legal immigration system so that it makes sense going forward. there are a number of proposals out there, enhancing visa's for high skilled workers, the agricultural workers of tuition to provide some sort of mechanism to allow employers to bring in agricultural workers

more easily than they can now. in the senor's proposal that was released in april, there was a commission to study and make recommendations on future flows, or marked changes in the economy -- market changes in the economy that would make it easier to bring in certain kinds of workers, or by contrast, not bring in certain kinds of workers going forward. that is a very difficult challenge, but it makes a l of sense because one of the signs of the system being broken is that it does not serve our economic interest as well as it should. the system that should be included in any kind of reform. finally, i'm sure there will be other things thrown in there. when this thing doesn't start moving forward, you can expect numerous -- the start moving forward, you can expect numerous amendments -- when this thing does start moving forward, you can expect numerous amendments,

but that will be when this get some traction on the hill. i will stop there. i am happy to answer any questions. again, the administration is committed to seeing this happen. it is national priority that the president has committed to make happen, but it will truly require bipartisan support. we are hopeful that as the year goes on and the elections loom, and post elections, there will be some republican members of congress, especially inhe senate, who will come forward and join in the bipartisan effort to get this done in the national interest. thnk you very much and i am happy to take any questions. [applause]

>> i would like to thank both celinda and juan for their contributions to this discussion. i think they have raised a number of helpful points. i would like to ask a couple of

questions to each of them and then we will open the floor to questions and comments from you. i would like to start with celinda. you presented some very important -- interesting information about the american public opinion about the arizona law. how you see those issues playing in the midterm elections? what do you see as the risk for each party, particularly as it relates to the latino vote? >>, in two minutes or less -- [laughter] that is aood question. in terms of the arizona law, you have to separate out arizona appeared and -- to separate out arizona, and particularly in places like california. and u have to separate it out

as yet another problem that in the voters' minds are not getting soft. you were acquitted in your remarks about this and the president has been an eloquent about that the president -- that we cannot keep kicking the can down the road. there is this sense that congress and the administration has not done enough done. i think leaving anything on the table is going to cause frustration for the voters. that is question no. one, that as just an issue, yet another area that people can point to where nothing is getting done, that will be a frustration to voters and across parties across the country. in terms of arizona, in a number

of congressional races -- there is a senate race with a very aggressive primary. he has been very conservative on that issue in the face of the primary. this is a man who once got a 60% of the latino vote. and a member of the congressional districts are dependent on the latino vote, but there is also a sense that they are legitimately at ground zero on this conversation. nobody bracketed this conversation better than jenna nepitano. it is a very difficult conversation to bracket. elected officials in arizona have taken a stand against the federal government suing them. when this will be a vy hot issue in that state. california and other places, this is already emerging,

including in the gubernatorial debate. and you have an immigration fight as you had with the governor before pete wilson where he alone made it -- where he alienated for generations of latino voters -- four generations of latino voters. this is someone who had gotten quite a bit of the latino vote before he alienated people. [coughs] sorry. i think this will play out in terms of the latino community, and whether we are able to get latino voters out -- i think many will say that if there is no action on this issue i will sit home because i do not see this government doing anything

that i need for me and my family. and i think in general, you will see divisions around -- in stes particularly with latino populations -- that could define generations to come. >> juan, what i found it especially interesting was the legal rationale that was used. when this lot was first paed, many people talked about the raal profiling based on the arizona law, but the legal argument presented in the justice department lawsuit was based on federal preemption and not the possible discriminatory impact. the question i have for you is, why prevention as opposed to civil rights and discrimination? -- white pre-emptiwhy premptiono

rights and discrimination? >> the president and the administration is concerned about the impact on the racial profiling in this law. that is a concern with these sorts department of the division of justice as much as for its civil-rights implications. the reason that the department felt it needed to be on a pre- emption basis is because the law and should does not take effect until july 29. -- the law actually does not take effect until july 29. the full impact of this will not be seen until that time. at least, the full impact of the civil-rights issues at that time. the language of the statute itself led us to conclude that the statute on its face conflicts with federal immigration law and therefore, is pre-empted under the

supremacy clause. that is the reason for the focus on the lawsuit. >> celinda, we were talking before this event started about a family unification principle. many of you know that this is the dominant issue in american immigration policy. about 1 million visas have been awarded each year, and 64% of them have been based on family reunification, as opposed to 15% for employment related reasons. in canada, those numbers are reversed. canada is much more strategic in linking to economics. at 59% of their visas go for employment related be says. -- a visas. what are the ones is in how people view that? should we define the issue more narrowly or broadly? what do people think about that? >> it is a principle that

americans tend to be pretty committed to. one of the things that is most disturbing to them is the length of weighthe wait for family reunification. they tend to be thinking in terms of parents, siblings, and kids and bosses. -- spouses. one of the things that was interesting is that we asked if this will provide a flood of immigration into this country and most of the people in the test group said that most of their family did not like them and they were not that worried about wanting to come over -- them wanting to come over.

making those visas to come much faster with a narror definition, that might be more popular. but in general, they thought the delay was outrageous, and the delayed by different groups, depending on your ethnic background did not make any sense to them. >> and the flip side of the question is, how do people feel about the economic aspects, the employment related to be suspects -- employment related visas? >> there is some tension around temporary workers, in general, has a broad category. that is an action area where the rest of the pressure has been off of immigration. you have seen less of a desire for temporary workers because if anyone is going hired, it is

going to be me. there are some interesting tensions are rounound the says e you have some in some communies, like the african american community, that if you're going to have those programs, then there should be simultaneous programs investing in our community. there is no reason that we should have a google founder in the african-american community in detroit, but that person is getting a much worse education than their counterparts in china or india. there is a real desire that we invest in people here. there are complex views on the economic front. >> in my opening remarks i discussed some of the problems in america's immigration courts. i have a colleague that has done a an interesting research on this. you gave testimony a few weeks

ago before a house judiciary subcommittee on the condition of the courts and discuss the court shortage of judges has led to an overboard and court docket -- overburdened court docket. what is the justice department doing to fix the court part of the immigration system? right now, we have 48 vacancies, which is 17% of all of the immigration judges. what's one of the interesting things about our immigration system -- >> one of the interesting things about our immigration system is that ere are so many pieces to it. there are about to wonder 35 immigration judges and 58 immigration courts are around the country -- 235 immigration judges and 58 immigration courts around the country. the deal with about 400,000 matters in a single year. it is very high volume. the department -- and adequately

functioning immigration courts begin with adequatel resources. if all goes to plan, we will be hiring 47 immigration judges in 2010 alone. many of those are already in process. some of those have already come on board, and the restaurant the final stages of selection. if congress approves the department's request for 2011, there will be an additional 21 immigration judges hired for next year. and when i say immigration judge, it is actually an immigration judge team. that means there is support staff and other resources a we because as has been pointed out by russell wheeler and others, it is not just judges, but the law clerk resources that they need to have.

the department has identified this as one of their high- performance goals for 2010 and 2011. thhiring of immigration judges in order to stay up with the caselo, especially detained cases, has been identified as one of the six high priority goals for the department. beyond that, there is also more recognition than there ever has been at the department and within dhs as well that this is a shared burden. it begins with an enforcement action by the department of homeland security. we are trying to engage quite a bit moreith dhs in making sure that the research of -- the resources are required -- acquired and that they will be there on the judge decide to handle the case going forward. but one thing that you want to avoid as much as possible is cases being presented and then

not handled. that is a very bad situation to have happed. that type of coordination wi dhs is something we are engaged in along with other initiatives. >> i have one more question for each of them and then we will open the floor to questions from you. celinda, i hate to cite a competing poster, but a few weeks ago, the gallup poll showed concern about -- they gave the respondents a long list of items on the debt, illegal immigration and other items. 84% of americans thought that the nationalebt represented a a a great threat to the future well-being of the u.s. each rivers and sign it cited unemployment. 64% said illegal immigration --

86% cited unemployment. the 64% said illegal immigration. it showed that we are afraid of everything. one thing is joined with the high emotion attached to this, the anxiety, the fear loss of jobs. how you advise how do you advise politicians to deal with the emotional side with this? >>irst, in terms of the mood of the country right now, it is a time when people think things are not going in the right direction. there are many -- very many long-term problems that we are a long way out from under a very big concerns about -- a long way out from and there are very big concerns about.

there seemed to be multiple problems, wars that we cannot be out of, take -- and an economy that cannot seem to rebound, oil that needs to be capped and then they knock the cap off. it is all part of the very real anxiety the people are facing. and they also think of it as more long term. in terms of dealing with emotional issues, first, -- and again i aside secretary nepolitano as an example -- by site secretary nepolitano as an example. on these issues, you can run, but you cannot hide. your instincts might be to try to avoid this issue, and it is an eminent -- an understandable and instinct, but you have to lean into the issue and engage your voters in a dialogue and say clearly what you are for and not try to obfuscate it. and with the data showed, but

the new language and in turn -- and also how to talk about it, for example, i think many of us are more comfortable with the term of -- with the term "undocumented worker" and "illegal immigrant." well, american voters were very uncomfortable with the term of undocumented worker." -- with the term "uncumented worker." people associated with a terrorist because if you're undocumented, then you can are even get a drink. -- you cannot even get a drink. one of the things that i would say about iit is, conventiona wisdom is at least 99% wrong when it comes to social issues.

it is very easy for politicians to get intimidated. they need to understand ere the -- where the broad base of the republic is. >> the other thing that i write about in my book is that the u.s. supports 350,000 people annually. since 1999 we have deported 2.2 million people approximately. there is little attention paid to the 350,000 people removed from this country each year. can you talk aout that policy and whether there are any differences between the bush and obama administration's in how they think about this issue? >> that is primarily a dhs matter. so, let me give it a shot. removals' are at an all-time high.

that is the technical word. deportation is at an all-time high. the priority -- well, there has been an emphasis -- there are different enforceme priorities. dhs has its priorities in terms of going after be both criminal convictions, people who are violent, who may be dangerous. that is the number-one priority that the dhs has in terms of enforcement efforts, not just insurancef finding people and putting them in deportation proceedings, but in terms of actually getting them out of the country. there are different levels and a denard member the exact terminology, but i know there are different levels of priorities. number one, national security risks, dangerous people, violent criminals -- those are the ones they go after first. and i should note that criminal aliens are increasing percentage

of the population of people that are actually deported from the country. it is not just people who are coming across the boer. actually, a growing number of the deportation numbers are the high priority folks, the ones that -- i do not think anyone would disagree khaybar-1 is that we should be going after first because -- i do not think anyone would disagree are the ones that we should going after first because they are a threat to our community. that is the emphasis now as opposed to in the past, but the numbers have been going up for the last decade or so, as you mentioned. >> we're going to turn to the audience participation part of this. we will take two or three questions at a time from the audience and give the panel a chance to respond. there are people with microphones walking around. the we would ask you to give your name and organizational affiliation. please keep your questions. so we can get to as many people as possible. a question in the front row

here. >> i am from the orange county register and i have a question for, -- for each panelist, if i can. you said in your polling that you oversee of latinos -- you over sampled latinos. do you think that might have had an impact in the results, in particular in support of comprehensive immigration reform? and how should candidates view that when they're looking at your results? >> actually, we're going to take two or three questions, so if we can hold that question for a minute. >> can ask juan -- chelan >> let's keep it to one question because we have a bunch of questions. >> just piggybacking on dr. west's first question to mr. oceana about the justification

for the lawsuit against these -- mr. osuna about the justification for the lawsuit against arizona, when the federal government's use the state of arizona for this reason law, -- when the federal government sues the statef arizona for this recent law, how do they justify a 18th century cities across the country better in direct conflict with the federal -- 18 sanctuary cities across the country that are in direct conflict with the federal law? . .

i understand it is only about 7.4% of the national boat. the black vote is almost double. i would say that the black vote is important if not more so than the latino vote. have you ever parse out some of your answers to your polls according to the black vote as well as white verses latinos? >> we of questions on over sampling latinos and then one for you. >> i realize it did not explain it well enough. the over sample, 300 people, we

then awaited it down. all of the total numbers you saw was weighted down. i'm really sorry i did not clarify that. thank you for your question. in terms of the latino vote, it has been increasing. we have done a lot of work. we have worked with the leadership of civil rights. worked with african american voters, and their attitudes. i did not bring this out in the sample because we did not teat this population overall. we have repeatedly sampled african americans. i think one of the reasons that we talk about the latino vote in arizona, the latino vote is significantly gater than the african-american vote. in michigan, it is the reverse. it depen very much on what

state you are looking at. the numbers were not that distinct in the data, so i did not break it out. >> sanctuary cities? >> i think it is a good point. there are a lot of differences. i would just say very generally, i can see a difference between localities, saying they are not going to use these resources, these resources to help enforce federal immigration policy in the entire state and enforcing policy by mandating law enforcement officers carry out their duties in a way that prioritizes federal priorities in immigration. i think is important say that we are not going to commit to doing this, which is again a federal

priority. i would like to also notes that many, if not most, a sanctuary ordinances i am familiar with have some exceptions said in there for people -- violent criminals, but violence -- violent criminals, violent dangerous aliens. so, again, without lookin at particular ordinances, i think there is a difference between the two situations. those are significant. >> ok. there is a question over there. >> this question is for mr. osuna. might the arizona lawsuit be fought in the courts? what might the next steps be?

>> there is a question behind her. >> tiffany murphy with the institute for the study of diplomacy. with the law, the briefs were excellent. if you had anything to do with them, kus. it mntions foriegn policy, but it does not describe that a lot. is says foriegn policy, but it does not expand on that. i was wondering if you could? >> yes. >> ok. in terms of the next steps, i wish i knew what the reaction willbe. the law takes effect july 29, as you know. there will be a hearing sometime before then, likely, or arguments before the federal district cot. they will be hearing this challenge.

the department has asked for an injunction, meaning stop the law before it takes effect. the emphasis has shifted to the federal judge here. as to what happens after that, it will be riding on what the judge decides on the injunction. apart from, again, some of the other civil-rights implications with the law, which will continue to be monitored, a the foreign policy front, the complaint does make the foriegn policy argument because, as you have seen, from the reaction to the law, there are foreign policy implications year. that is not the main focus of the argument. the main focus is on the pre- emption issue, because we believe this is a state statute that crosses the line, hinging on a federal priority. it is certainly an important part of the argument, but it is

not the main part of this. of course, that is also a federal priority. >> there's a question here? right here. >> i am with trinity university. my question is for mr. osuna. there's a lot of argument in the national security circles garding the voters. do you think that argument at the end of the day will win? for people who think you have to secure the borders, what ever it is. >> ok. there is a question behind him. actually, over here. >> i am from colorado.

>> you came along with for this forum. >> the first question is for mr. osuna. you mention the criteria for the new immigration reform. is it an extension of the 1996 reform in many ways? you mentioned border control, job identification, and you know. one of the features of that immigrati reform in 1996 was it open the door to what we are seeing -- it opened the door to what we are seeing today in arizona. it allowed the state governments, it was an option for the state's to enter into immigration policies.

so now the government responds to arizona with the supremacy clause. do you think -- one of the criteria you use has to do with allowing for more internal control. is that not a way of extending this power on states, going from policy power to emigration power, and how will you control that? >> actually, let's stick to one question right now. let me answer your border question and you can answer the internal control aspect of that. your question on the border security and why that has emerged is so important as part of this debate. the simple answer from my standpoint is, this is what people are worried about. when you look at the history of american immigration policy, the fear and emotional componen i

so strong. when y compare this to other policies like education and health care and energy -- sometimes there are emotional aspects to those policies, but immigration reform has such a high component. so borer security has become important because it ps that dimension of fear about borders. crossing the border, terrorism, crime. people who do not look like americans, that kind of thing. it wraps around that symbol. i do not see that issue going away. when you look at what the president has talked about, and celinda's polling supports this, and democrats have to be tough on that issue, otherwise it will be massacred by republicans. juan, do you want to discuss this? >> just quickly, on the border -- there are two things at work here.

that is absolutely right, it is a great counterpoint to amnesty if you say tighten up the border. also, dhs and the justice department cracking down on employers is a very popular with the public. the public believes if there were not jobs, there would not be this pressure. they feel it is unfair to employers who are not hiring illegal workers. having said that, the public is also clear they do not want to stop that border security. you can go to the american voices website and see a lot of the polling on the national immigration forum. other pollsters have done work on this as well. people say border security is not eugh. that does not deal with the problem. it is an important component, but it is not true that it is t only component or if it is

the first thing people will give. people will do this in combination with other measures. >> let me take a few points on border security and the question on states. i think it is in -- an important. i agree with the statement celinda and darrell made about the importance of the border security. not only is it important, but it is important for the other reforms that a necessary to get done. there is no way it will get traction if congress and the public get the message we are not serious about controlling the border. that is absolutely approves the requisite -- that is absolutely a prerequisite for this happening. let me take a little bit of a different spin on this. a lot of people assume that the people that are here illegally all came across the border. up to 40% of the population is estimated to have, legally,

with a visa, and overstayed their visas. all the security in the world we put in place is not going to limit the pulation. that is 40%. our focus is what can we put in place, what is doable, to try to reach the population? to put mechanisms in place that are not border security necessarily, because that would not do any good for people who came here legally with a visa, but to make it easier to track and actually require those people when their visa is up to leave the country. that is a significant challenge, but it is necessary to making the comprehensive reform we all want. the second thing -- the point of the arizona law and the arizona challenge, the justice

department's a challenr to arizona is not that the states do not have a role in civil immigration enforcement. and you are right. e 1996 law -- maybe i should look back at the 1990 act. that opened the door for state's involvement in several immigration enforcement. and the federal government welcomes the state involvement, as long as it is consistent with federal priorities and driven by the federal government. the difference with the arizona law is it puts arizona in the driver's seat. that is the distinction. it is not that there should not be any state involvement in helping enforce imgration laws. it is a force multiplier issue. it i a force multiplier that can be helpful. instead of the federal government being the quarterback, it is the state of arizona driving the priorities

year. that is the distinction. >> ok. in the very corner. question? >> thank you up for coming today. it is good to see you. my name is cheryl. soy an iigration lawyer. i have been practicing since 1919 eighth -- 1998. -- i am an immigration lawyer. >> you're on t front lines. i am on the front lines. i see it litigation against employers. if the jobs exist here, then people, i believe, based on my experience, will find a way to get here and do those jobs. so i am wondering if there is going to be a focus on employers, especially in consideration of the new employment verification system you are talking about?

>> there's a question right nex to you. right there. >> i am with the american political science association. some of the congressional critics of comprehensive reform said, fine, let's secure the border first -- basically the u.s.-mexican border, and then we will get to the other issues. what does it mean to secure the border and how will they recognize when that time arrives? >> ok. good question. one you want to tackle? [laughter] >> we may not have emphasized it as much because we were going to quickly. comprehensive reform we tested exclusively, cracking down on employers. it is very popular. as popular as border security. real people have that line in their heads. they like it for two reasons. they believe if the jobs are not the lawyer, -- lure, people will

not be coming. they also believe these people e not just recruiting immigrants workers because they work hard or have skills they need, but because they can pay lower wages and a whole bunch of other goals that people think do not observe wage andards, etc. the public has a very stro narrative. they also believe that you put lawful employers at a disadvantage and that is not right. that is in their very, very strongly. we may have read over that too quickly. in terms of the congress, i think you would have to ask them. probably in their mind, they do not want to separate it out. they do not bother too the border first. politically, that is absolutely on non-starter. to separate it out.

>> on the employment issue -- yes, i think that comprehensive immigration reform in terms of what is being discussed is likely to include additional mechanisms to crack down on employers that actually, after putting in pace a very robust employment verification system that is transparent, acceptable, and effective, if you still have employers that go forward and hire someone not eligible to work, then absolutely there should be additional ways, up mechanisms to go after the employers. i think it is likely to be in any legislation. but the real key, the starting point on the employment side is what senator schumer and senator gramm have proposed, and that

will be the starting point. the enforcement mechanisms will flow from that, but that will be the key to drawing this. i agree with you,s i said earlier, all the border and enforcement you put in place is only going to be partially effective if you do not control the workplace, the employment of people who should not be employed. the border security is an excellent question. there is no answer to that, really. people have different answers. some believe the online for were the border is secure is here. other people believe right here. there is no way of managing that. there is no system of actually assessing that. the border patrol uses the term "operational control of the border." and they feel that they have control of certain parts of the border right now. which means basically they are

very confident that particular section of the border, they know who is trying to come forward across the border and they can get to it very quickly. i think the short answer to your question is as long as we can get operational control of the entire border, that is when some people can maybe say the border is secure. that is a shifting standard. you can line up 10 members of congress and ask them what you need to secure the border, he will get 10 different answers. >> you will get 20 different answers. i just want to go to the employment verification question. there is no question we are moving towards greater enhancement of employment verification. i think it is also iortant to have an appeals process attached to that. any of the processes we use today, there will be a certain

number of mistakes made. i think one of the reasons why people are opposed to employment verification is the recognition there are going to be mistakes made. there has to be an appeals process by which someone who gets spat out by not meeting that verification test should have the ability to bring other evidence to bear. >> i from a janese company. i have a question about enforcement. president obama signs the tourism promotion act, to promote more incoming visitors, tourist, to the states. that is generating jobs. then you definitelneed to

invite the customers from foreign countries. speaking of enforcement, on the immigration side, how do you coordinate between dhs, doj, and congress to promote tourism? >> we definitely want to risk. behind you, another question. >> my name is joseph. in a private citizen from chicago. regarding the issue of -- correct me if my and then it is wrong. under the 14th amendment, that is probably unique in the world. most countries do not have that law. is there any polling on that issue? there are tremendous costs associated. any more information -- any polling information on that? >> if you can pass the

microphone. then we will give our panel a chance to respond. >> thank you. i wanted to pick on a phrase which celinda lake used several times, but the phrase that people are not here legally going back to the back of the line for immigration. i want to explore that ait. i think one of the worries people have is precisely the fear that people who are here illegally will go to the front of the line, compared to someone who stays home in guatemala. what do we actually mean, in practical terms, by saying people "go back -- "go to the back of the line?" an how does that relate to the blueprint or any other proposals out there? >> ok. have questions on tourism and going to the back of the line. [laughter]

>> let me start with that. this is not dealt with within the blueprint other than saying, you know, people need to go to the back of the line. there are different mechanisms put in place. the concept is really simple, which is, someone who is here illegally should not, as you said, go ahead of someone who went through the legal process in their home country. all you do that is the difficult part. -- how you do that is the difficult part. there have been examples that require them to go back to their home country. there are proposals that require some kind of temporary status, whether they should actually get a visa, require visas from people who are here legally. that still has to be -- it is one of those issues that has to

be worked out moving forward. the concept itself, meaning that there should not be an unfair advantage for people who are living here, i think that is likely to be enshrines in some way in this bill, if it ever starts moving forward. that is something the president touched on in his speech last week, when he said he rejected the concept of no deportation for people who are here unlawfully. that sends the message there are no rep precautions to illegal behavior, and there should be. -- that since the message there are no repercussions to a legal behavior, and there should be. that will be a significant bone of contention moving forward. on the tourism issue, the legal immigration system is designed

not just for enforcement. it is designed to welcome people we actually want here, for economic reasons and other reasons. and the promotion of tourism is one of those anchors of about -- that. was this enforcement against tourists or -- >> [unintelligible] >> coordination? the department of homeland security has the bulk of the enforcement mechanism on that. they are the ones responsible for tracking somebody down if they overstay their visas, as i mentioned earlier. doj comes in if someone is put in deportation proceedings. in terms of promoting tourism, i think dhs does coronation with the department of commerce to make sure consistent messages are being sent out. we do have some discussions.

>> there is some research that has been done on a. there are mixed views. it depends on how you word the question. if you say to people, if anyone is born in this country, you will have less support. uofd founding fathers wanted this, and i wanted, -- the founding fathers wanted this, and i wanted it, too. many of the attitudes we are talking about have remarkably little geographic variation, contrary to conventional wisdom. you do see more knowledge about the issue and the problems on the borders. the further away you are from the border, the further you are from the mexican border, the more support you have for people

being born in this country being automatically a citizen. it ries a lot. in terms of one other thing i would say about getting to the back of the line, we have a couple of the dilemmas here. one dilemma is people are unaware of the backlog, and they tend to think why is this taking so long? is it bause of volume? or is it because of the bureaucracy? if it is the bureaucracy, let's get going. if it is millions and millions want to come, then maybe we do need to spread it out. that is very confusing to people, about why the backlog. how long is this line? this is a culture actually that really believes in a line. there are all sorts of sociological studies on how people get in line. we are notorious in a culture

that people will get in one line and when you see openings you will get in all line. -- a line. this is a culture that really believes in the fairness of the line. whether you're in line for a coke or baseball tickets or immigration. i think the administration stands up for that value. >> i the question about technology. based on my wife's experience, i have spent an inordinate amount of time at a photocopying machine. you always have to mail everything. this is the 21st century. are we thinking about e-mail documents? >> i am glad i do not have your job. >> are you saving that for another time because of who she was married to? sure, the answer, one answer to

a lot of these issues is better technology and trying to make adequate use of technology. i know i keep going back to dhs, but they are the ones who actually handled the green cards. they are looking at a number of technological advancements that possible. the federal govement, it is going to take a long time. given where technology is now, i think that we are certainly much better off and i expect continued advance is going forward. >> ok. ok, we have a microphone coming over to you. >> good afternoon. my name is michael. i am a reporter with the hispanic weekly news service. myueion and it's about immigration -- my question is about immigration reform. the dream act.

what you think of the chances of something like that getting passed thisear? do you think the federal government will support it, or will they say they are fighting for comprehensive immigration reform? >> we have a question over here. we have time for two or three more questions. >> thank you. i am at the center for international studies. if there should be comprehensive immigration reform in the u.s., to you think the reform should take in consideration for and development, in order to treat the problem, not the symptom? >> pass the microphone to that gentleman. and we are almost out of time. we will make this the last set of responses from our panel.

>> what is known statistically about the success of this immigrant workers that ngregates at select known locations, to take what ever jobs are available at any rate offered to them? what do you know about the market rate for immigrant workers? >> bouquet. that is a very broad range of questions. -- ok. >> let me take the question on the piecemeal approach, which is -- and it is somewhat of a subject for discussion. if comprehensive immigration reform continues to prove difficult, is there room for a smaller piece of legislation like the dream act? there is the legislation sponsored by senator feinstein and others. the administration supports them, supports the concept of the dream i, supports the

conct of allowing, making it easier for courts to bring in workers that they need. i do think if the debate keeps going on the way it is and there is little action this year or next year on comprehensive immigration reform, we will have increasing pressure to look at smaller pieces, smaller measures of reform. certainly they willot have the impact of the larger form. they do affect significant portions of the economy and people who are here. the administration does not have a position on that approach yet. we do expect there will be part of the continuing and probably expanding discussion on immigratn reform in general a the year goes on. the development systems -- i think it is possible to have

additional mechanisms in the immigration reform bill. i would not expected to be of major part of it. -- i would not expect it to be a major part of it. that is because it takes a long time to fully impact conditions -- that is because it takes a long time. to fullympact conditions in mexico, it could play a role. it may be some kind of provision in the cir bill. >> i have of thoughts. the one thing about development assistance -- that is the one part of the debate that is not very popular. people want to bring the money home. the american public is notorious for having very interesting critiques on that, overestimating our generosity. they think we are the biggest

foreign aid country in the world, and of course, we are not. hey, from a political standpoint, the american publi is not so keen on that. you are adding controversy to it. i would imagine -- i cannot imagine that would be a huge piece of reform. >> the problem with foreign aid is americans think we devote 10% of our federal budget to foreign aid, and of course, is a tiny fraction of that. it makes it a hard sell. >> i am sure there are numbers on the impact. i am sure the labor department has them. i have not seen them. i am sure someone has done those. i cannot help you. >> we had a question on the dream i am public opinion on that. have you looked at that?

>> we have. it used to be a very popular. it has diminished in support, but it depends on how you explain it. it used to be popular when people thought -- there is a very firm belief. people have talked about the sense of the father should not be inherited. stops do not ask anybody what their parents did. -- do not ask anybody what their parents did. that is really rude. as student aid was diminished and people were wondering, then you started to see attention. when you tell an individual story, and there are very moving stories, people who were quite young, they move, they excel, whatever, you are able to shift it again. it depends on what values are driven by this conversation.

>> you can tell times are tough when -- >> right. that is right. times are tough. >> we are out of time. i want to thank juan and celinda for sharing your thoughts with us. and thank you to the audience. [applause] [captioning performed by national captiing institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tonight, defense secretary robert gates talks about reporters about afghanistan and iraq. prime minister david cameron announces an investigation into allegations of british involvement in the torture of terror suspects. an israeli prime minister

benjamin netanyahu talks about the peace process during a visit to new york. this weekend on c-span, we are 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. here on c-span and on c- span.org. >> the most important mission as a journalist, the most important mission in journalism, is to confront those who are in the public, to question those who are in power so we can prevent abuse of power. >> since 1986, jorge ramos has anger the nightly news on univision. we will spend an hour with him on sunday night on "q&a". >> before the senate judiciary committee votes of are down, watch the entire confirmation hearing for a supreme court

nominee elena kagan, including her testimony, centers questions and comments, and all the witnesses online at the c-span video library. to purchase part of the hearing, just click the buy now button. >> defense secretary robert gates said he is recommending marine general james mattis to replace general david petraeus who is now the top commander in afghanistan. at this briefing, secretary gates always discuss the pentagon new policy. this is a half-hour. >> 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 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 seral 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 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 point out, that was five years ago. 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 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? 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 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 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. 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 command. 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. i'm aware that there's at least 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?

>> i don't know the exact 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.

>> 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. >> book tv and prime-time wraps up tomorrow with a revisit of custer's last stand in the battle of little big horn. former assistant education secretary on why to much testing is killing the american school system. c-span is now available in more than 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, all as a public service, created by america's cable companies. >> british prime minister david peerman discuss it inquiry into

torture of terror suspects. treatment of detainees transported to other countries, where they were allegedly abused. following his statement, he took questions from acting labour party leader harriet harman and other 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. 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 ves. 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 i . . 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 inquiry? the diary that is could he confirm that the guideness ayes publishing today is the guidance that was available earlier today? >> 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 footing. >> 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 >> on c-span tonight, israeli prime minister benjamin

netanyahu visits new york. then a discussion about immigration at the brookings institution. later an interview with deputy homeland security sec jane lute. this weekend on c-span, we're bringing you the national governor's association annual meeting from boston. our live coverage begins tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern time with the opening session. here on c-span and on c-span.org. >> the most important mission as a journalist, the most important mission in journalism, is to confront those in power to question those who are in power, so we can prevent abuse of power. >> since 1986, jorge ramos has anchored the nightly news on univision, the largest spanish language network in the united states. we'll spend an our with him sunday night on c-span's "q&a."

>> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you washington, your way, a public service reated by cable companies. >> benjamin netanyahu talked about peace talks with palestinians at a press conference and he discusses west bank settlement. for new york city. this is an hour. >> i want to welcome each and every one of you to the council on foreign relations. i want to welcome prime minister netanyahued on the entire delegation. i'm well aware of the hazards of singling out some individuals

and not others, but i would be remiss if i didn't mention the presence of sara netanyahu, the prime minister's wife. my old friend, the national security adviseor, the prime minister's senior advisor, israel's most able and telegenic ambassador to the united states. the permanent representative of israel to the united nations and israel's consul general here in new york city. mr. netanyahu comes from a family long at the center of the country's political life. his own career has been as minister of foreign affairs and minister of finance and he's now serving as prime minister, as you know, for the second time. in his first stinlt as prime minister he signed agreements and as prime minister and finance minister he had a great

deal to do with the introduction of significant economic reforms that helped israel grow and also weather the recent financial turbulence considerably better than most other countries. as you all know, the prime minister met president obama in washington on tuesday. a meeting that both sides went to great lengths to describe as positive. i for one take that as positive because history shows that a strong and 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's the critical question of negotiating peace between israel and palestinians, syria, and lebanon, as well as broader questions of israel's relations with other arab and muslim countries, including egypt, jordan, and turkey. and there's the challenge of

what to do about iran's ongoing enrichment of uranium and its apparent push for nuclear weapons or the capability that would put them on that threshold of being able to produce nuclear weapons. not surprisingly, these and related questions are central to our work here. no fewer than 10 council on foreign relations scholars focus on one or another aspect of the middle east. other subjects also figure prominently in our meetings like today in our outreach, in the journal of foreign awares and on cfr.org where one can find a crisis guide providing background on the middle east. we look forward to discussing all these issues today. today's meeting, which obviously, given the cameras in the back is on the record, will be in three parts. it will begin with remarkings by the prime minister, after which i'll ask the prime minister several questions, and then

there will be an opportunity for you, our members to ask questions. i'll do my best to throw in a question or two from councilmembers and others listening in from around the country. last, one bit of housekeeping, i request all of you to take a moment to make sure your cell phones and other electronics and the like are turned off, not only to avoid interruption bus to avoid interfering with the sound system. with that, let me again welcome the prime minister to the council on foreign relations. mr. prime minister. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you, richard, and thank you all for giving me the opportunity to spend some time and discuss the urgent problems of the day. i'm delighted that i have a very robust delegation with me here today, ambassador michael warren, ambassador shalev, other

ambassadors and my own delegation from israel. today, we had a very good day in washington. i said in the oval -- i sat in the oval office with the report os they have demise of the u.s.- israel special relationship are not only premature but they're wrong. they're wrong not simply because of the unbreakable bond between our two countries, it's a bond anchored in shared values, democracy being chief among them. and shared interests. it's a bond that transcends the differences of opinion our two governments may have from time to time. they're wrong because for the past year, most of those

differences of opinion are focused on how to best move the peace process forward but not about the goal of moving them forward. we sometimes disagree on how to best achieve the renewal of the peace process. but we share a fervent desire to do so as speedily as possible. so i think there's 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 into direct talks and how to ensure that those direct talks are as substantive as possible and as soon as possible. i think that delay does not get us any benefit. i think delay in the process, talking about talking, making

preconditions about getting into talks is a big mistake. i think it's cost us about a year and i don't think it should cost us any more time. both sides have grievances. we have grievances too. for example, when the palestinians call public squares in honor of terrorists, including most recently. i could say -- i could say, until they rename the squares, i won't get into talks. that can cost us a lot of time. i think that the right thing to do is to move directly into peace talks, as soon as possible. the only way this thing is going to be resolved and it needs a resolution. the substance of my vision for peace is a solution of two states for two peoples in which a demilitarized palestinian state recognizes the jewish state of israel. this vision is anchored in two

core principles, security and legitimacy. security sounds obvious. it's been around as an issue for a long time. but the nature of the challenge of security has changed. when the talks began to launch the israel-palestinian peace talks, there were two things that weren't present and in a sense loomed large. the first is the rise of iran and its proxies and the second the rise of missile and rocket warfare. these two new developments posed a significant problem for israel. we are asked and are prepared to take territories for the sake of peace. we have done that, twice. once in lebanon and the areas we vacated were very quickly taken over by iran's proxies, which poured rockets and missiles into

them which were later fired on us. the second time was in gaza we vacated every last inch of gaza and thatter aa was quickly taken over by iran's proxies, it poured missiles and rocket into them and they were fired into israel. 12,000 rockets and missiles in total. on an area, i think, slightly smaller than new jersey. think about that. that's a real problem. now, if we're going to have a third withdrawal, we must address the question of how to present this from recurring a third time. strike one, strike two, third strike you're out. in the case of israel, it is a palpable strategic threat because our cities are targeted, our airfields are targeted, our military installations are targeted. we have to have a real solution to this, not a solution on paper, but a solution on the

ground that actually prevents the mass struggling of -- smuggling of rockets, missiles and other weaponry into the areas we vacated. this is a challenge, i spent a great deal of time speaking to president obama about it in a serious way. i think he understands the full seriousness of this challenge and i think that we're committed, both of us, try to find a realistic, concrete solution to this issue. security number one. secondly, the question of legitimacy, i think the solution of legitimacy means that we recognize the palestinian state, the nation state of the palestinian people and they recognize israel as the nation state of the jewish people. there's an implication about their recognition of us. it is that they prepare their people and themselves, the leadership, for the idea that the conflict is actually over,

that the palestinian state is not a steppingstone to continue the conflict by other means but it is an end to the conflict, an end to the claims of conflict. for example, the two most important issues of legitimacy in ending the conflict revolve around palestinian refugees. israel absorbs and has absorbs the jewish refugees from the 1948 war and from other parts of the world, the palestinians accept the palestinian refugees. equally, there are no demands, no real demands of the -- of israel's arab citizens. their rights are fully guaranteed as individual rights, full equality in israel and there are no demands for another separate state in the galley or

the negev or in autonomous regions. in other words this issue is resolved here and now. as the late egyptian president said when he came to jerusalem he said no more war no more bloodshed and what we expect president abbas to say is no more conflict no more claims. no more demands. israelis are prepared to go a very long way and i'm prepared to lead them, a very long way to make peace, but this has to be a real peace, secure and an end to conflict. these are the two principal goals or the two principal pillars of peace i put forward in my speech. that was one of the things we did. we also removed hundreds, many hundreds of roadblocks, of check points, ramps to facilitate movement in the palestinian

areas. there is sort of an economic miracle in the palestinian areas. palestinian leadership has been doing important things there, but they would have come to nouth if we hadn't changed the policy. we can't have a robust economic and commercial growth if you can't move goods and people. it's impossible. and we facilitated that and changed it overnight. not as a substitute for political peace, but as a facilitator, the economic peace i've spoken about that's come to pass is a very good supporter of a political peace. and the third thing we did was to actually to do something that is unprecedented, i'm using secretary of state hillary clinton's words. we -- i decided, unlike any previous government to freeze the construction in new settlements for a 10-month period to encourage the palestinians to enter the peace talks. so far, seven months have

passed. they haven't come in. they should come in. they should have come in yesterday. they should have come in 12 months ago, seven months ago, we should not waste any time. while we did this, palestinians advanced the goldstone report and the i.c.c., they tried to prevent, unsuccessfully, i'm happy to say, our entry into the group, it's a great salutation to israel that despite these and other political pressures it was accepted into the club, we feel like we get to the g-20, that will take some time but the acceptance to the o.c.d. is a great compliment. i don't think we should linger on this. i don't think they should linger on us.

i think we should seize the moment and it's a challenging miami and an important one when we have the ability to negotiate a peace, we don't know where the pieces in the middle east will move in the coming years. we don't know that. there's a great challenge from iran, there's movement in turkey. there is stability in egypt. i think we should use this moment to address -- to advance the peace and i'm prepared to do it. there is risk in doing this. that's what leaders do, is take risk. i mentioned the israeli economy, i took some risks. i was smart enough to do it young enough because you lose elections after that, and it allows you to come back. but you come back. the only three people who came

back a second time to govern israel. one was ben gurion, i'm the third. you come back to do something. i'm prepared to do something. i'm prepared to take risks. i won't take risks with our security but i'm willing to take political risks. so does president mahmoud abbas. he must be prepared to take these risks. i know that president obama is willing to assist us in this. he has credibility in the arab world. it's important. this is an asset that can be used. but we have to get on with it. we should just stop all the delays, stop all the preconditions, stop everything and start now. next week. get the talks going. because only if we start them can we complete them.

i think people talk about a bottom-up process. we talk about the economy from the top down. top-down political process. in my view, the top-down part of that equation can only be handled from the very top. it can only be done by the leaders themselves. you can't just have the leaders show up for the ribbon cutting ceremonies. it won't happen by forming dozens of committees and holding countless meetings. i think that's actually not productive. i can tell you salt decisions i've made on changing things inside israel. i've always had to participate in them and had to cut through a lot of, this is polite company. you just have to get on with it. grapple with the issues directly.

there is no other way. this is what, i'll say for the last time what is required now. i know there's a lot of skepticism. after 17 years, since the beginning of the oslo process, skepticism is certainly warranted. but remember that moment when sadat came to jerusalem, remember that only a few years earlier, egypt and israel had fought a terrible war. people dismissed sadat. you should read the mountains of skeptical print that were written about them. i intend to confound the critics and skeptics. i need a partner. you can't go on a trapeze, hold out your hand and not have a partner on the other side. you have to have it.

so this is one great challenge that we face today that i feel -- i feel we're up to it. i feel the moment has arrived. the making of an israeli-palestinian peace, that our people yearn for, pray for, to bring untold benefits. you're already seeing part of that, before we have a formal peace in the west bank and you can posit a lot of things that can happen in the region, veil a great economic engine, a font of creativity, it's probably the most innovative, i don't think there's a more innovative society on earth a more innovative economy. we can unleash those forces. we can do this in the region. we can bring a different life a different reality. to our children, the palestinian children and the other peoples of the region who choose to

partake in this vision of peace with us. but there is another challenge. it's a great one. i've been talking about it for many years. 14 years ago, when i came to the united states, shortly after i was first elected prime minister, i was given the opportunity to address the joint session of the u.s. congress and i said then 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 i would argue a deeper understanding of the potential dangers of a nuclear-armed iran. you hear it in europe.

you hear it in just about every private conversation that i or my staff have with arab leaders and arab officials. almost every single one. there's just about no exception. all of these leaders understand that iran is not merely a threat to israel, a nuclear-armed iran. they understand that if the world's greatest sponsor of terror gets the world's most dangerous weapon, it is a threat to the region and a threat to the entire world. now, the problem in historical circumstances is translating understanding into action. actually, the problem in many