. >> up next on c-span, a discussion on same-sex marriage and california's proposition 8. princeton, from pri university, a look dead deportation and immigration policy. later -- a look at deportation and immigration policy. >> live on saturday, the annual correspondents' dinner, starting with red carpet arrivals. later, remarks from president

obama and seth myers. our coverage includes your comments from facebook. >> coming up next, from the university of southern california, a look at same-sex marriage in california -- in america. we will hear from the lawyer trying to overturn proposition 8. this event is just under an hour. >> welcome, and thank you for coming to our final students talk back lunch panel.

we co-sponsor these lunches every week along with the college republicans, college democrats, and the daily trojan. as is the case every week, i am joined by a representative from the editorial board of the daily trojan as a co-moderator of our discussion. this is the associate managing editor for print. we are co-sponsored by the college democrats, who i understand elected their new executive board for the 2011- 2012 school year last night. congratulations. i am understand the republican'' election is a week from tuesday. we will eagerly await the results of those elections as well. today's topic is life after

proposition 8, who can marry in america? as some of the juniors and seniors may remember, in november of 2008, immediately after proposition 8 was passed in california, we convened a talk back lunch with proponents and opponents of the initiative. here we sit more than two years later, and the debate has shifted from the ballot box to the courtroom. we are going to talk a little bit today with our panel about how that debate is progressing, where it is headed, and how it is likely to resolve itself. with that, let me introduce our panelists. to my immediate right, a frequent commentator on both local and national broadcast news on various political matters.

sitting immediately to his right, a representative of college republicans. then, a representative of the college democrats. finally, way down at the far end of the table, chad griffin, the managing partner of a strategic communications and strategy firm, also the board president of the american foundation for equal rights, which, as many of you know, has been a sponsor of the legal challenge to overturn prop. 8. as we do every week, we will ask panelists questions for roughly the first half of the discussion, and then we will open it up to your questions. >> chad, as someone relatively well informed on media and communications on the issue, now

that prop. 8 has reached the courts, can you give us an update on where everything stands? >> next month is the two-year mark of the case we filed. we had a trial that lasted about three weeks. this past august, august 4th, we got an historic, a sweeping victory in federal court that proposition 8 is in fact unconstitutional. that then led to an appeal by the opponents in our case and a few months ago, we had a hearing before the ninth circuit court of appeals, alive hearing. before the new hearing, two issues had to be addressed. it could be intervening defendants who were attempting to appeal the case had to have standing to be there. those who lost actually agreed

with the decision in the case and refused to appeal. therefore, an independent group founded by james dobson let the appeal. they had to make the case that they had standing to appeal the case. the second hour -- this is all televised so you can see it, on c-span, in fact -- was about the merits of the case. a few weeks, if not a month later, the ninth circuit court of appeals certified a question to the california supreme court. we took a brief diversion and went from federal court to state court. the question that was certified actually had nothing to do with gay marriage. it was a specific and simple question. under california state law, due proponents of ballot measures -- meaning those who file them, have standing in court to appeal when the state refuses?

essentially, if the attorney general and the governor refused to appeal a decision that was against them, can an individual or a small group of individuals act as the attorney general or the governor and appeal? the california supreme court set what they called an expedited schedule, and at some point in september we will have this oral argument before the california supreme court. they will send their answer back to the ninth circuit court of appeals. it is our belief that the ninth circuit, as they did in the first round, will move the case quite quickly. >> thank you. adrena, you had some thoughts not only on the legal ramifications of the california supreme court decision, that is, who has standing to act on behalf of the proponents of prop. 8, if anyone, you have

given some thought to the legal ramifications and the political ramifications as well. what does it mean politically, depending on where the court comes down? >> this is a very a important case politically. if the california supreme court rules that they do have authoritative entitlement, which is pretty much standing, in order to be able to try the case, then it means that the ninth circuit can address it come and they can either of poled the district court decision that it is an constitute -- coupled -- uphold the district court decision that it is unconstitutional, or overturn it. the ninth circuit is responsible to multiple states, including arizona. so it will be very interesting

to see how it plays out. however, if it is tonight, if there is no authoritative entitlement, the ninth circuit cannot look at it because there is no standing. while that would be a small term gain because the ban would be lifted and same-sex marriages would be allowed in california, ultimately it could have negative ramifications politically. that pretty much means that if the attorney general and the governor decide that they do not want to defend the proposition that the people of california voted for, that they functionally have a secondary veto. the idea that this could be the case is something that is negative toward the democratic system in california. so, those are the ramifications. even though the and could be the same, the means by which they are obtained could cause- ramifications.

you see this partially taking place at the federal level. we are going to talk about president obama not defending doma anymore. the idea of standing on not being defended by people who we elect to defend the law of the land is something that is going to come into question. >> you raise a couple of interesting points, both about states versus national venues for this discussion moving forward, but also logistically, whether it is move forward through legislation or through ballot initiative. i want to come back to this discussion in a minute, but i know you want to broaden out the discussion before we come back to this. >> again for chad, but anyone in, asnts to can weigh an to the issue of handling this at

this -- handling this at the state level instead of the federal level, what do you think about that? >> i think ultimately this is a decision that needs to be handled at the national level. clearly, california has been a trend setter in this issue. unfortunately, because of prop. 8 that issue is monday at best. it is not going to be solved -- is muddy at best. it is not going to be solved in any speedy time. the reports that i have read saying that everything is going well, at unit cohesion and military arguments are not bearing fruit, similarly with doma, the only problem that i have with doma is that it is not

the president's job to decide the constitutionality of law. it is the court's job. it may work for people who believe that everyone should be allowed to marry, but use your eraser and erase the issue and put in something that you find equally troubling. the flip side could have negative ramifications as well. but ultimately, just to shorten my answer, we need a national policy that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry just as men and women. there should be no difference. it is more of a legal, financial issue, and i think it should be resolved as quickly as possible because it just makes us look bad as a nation. >> i want to come to you in just a minute, but i want to bring michael into the conversation first period before we get too far down the road in the states versus local discussion, i know

you have some thoughts on where the broader debate is headed. >> sure. the broader debate is ongoing, obviously, but it is not a question of if so much anymore as a question of when and how. as you get younger and younger, the support for same-sex marriage becomes greater and greater. it just passed a majority when surveyed nationwide among all voters. it is really a question of do the proponents of same-sex marriage want to stay in the courts avenue or push for national legislation, or do they want to push a ballot initiative? it is more a question of tactics and timing rather than the actual issue. the issue is rather inevitable, it passing. >> chad, if that is the case,

and certainly there is public opinion polling that younger voters are much more likely to be supportive of same-sex marriage than older voters, if that supposition is correct, could you talk through those various venues? >> first of all, i think it is important to put a human face on this. there are real-life consequences every single day when a group of people are specifically and intentionally discriminated against in our laws. gay and lesbian people are directly discriminated against in our federal and state laws, and the message that that sense and the license that is to discriminate leads to the horrific consequences we see across this country, whether it is bullying, teen suicide, matthew shepard, or only a couple of years ago the murder of lawrence king simply because he was gay.

time matters. there should be a sense of urgency to gaining full and complete equality for all people. i think it is important to make progress at the state level as well as the federal level. at the same time, i do not think we should let our guard down on any front because there is an opposition, and they are trying to make progress every day just as we are. we need to fight this on all fronts, and we need to be on the offensive. however, i fundamentally believe that a ballot initiative is the wrong approach, is playing on the playing field of our opposition, and is a place where one's fundamental rights, particularly the rights of a minority, should never be put to the vote of the people. in 1967 when the supreme court decided it was unconstitutional to bar african-americans from varying caucasians, a gallup poll was done the following year

that said 74% of americans disapproved of interracial marriage. i do not think that public opinion or who has the best fundraising or the best television ads should determine a fundamental right. in that case, should your students' freedom of speech be put to the vote of the california voters? if we had $1 million, we could put that on the ballot, and with enough money, perhaps we should pass it. there are certain fundamental rights that should never be put to the vote of the people. i do not believe this is an issue that should be determined by ballot measures. it should be determined by the court and the legislatures. >> just to hone in on that last point, because it is an important one. if proponents of same-sex marriage, the opponents of prop 8, were to collect signatures for an initiative to codify same-sex marriage in the state

constitution, you would not be comfortable with that approach either? >> i do not believe that there should be a public vote on one's fundamental rights on any subject. as someone who works in the ballot initiative world, i think there are a lot of things that are appropriate to be voted on by the people, but the fundamental rights of minorities are to be determined by the courts. that is why we have a constitution. we do not determine the rights of a minority by popular vote of the people. that is counter to the principles on which this country was founded upon and i believe it is a mistake to take this back to the ballot here or, quite frankly, in any state. >> can i bring up another point? it is about the resources that get spent on these ballot

initiatives. in 2008, it was $40 million. that is a lot of money. would that money be better spent on litigation, which is ultimately where this will be decided? or, you know, take a risk with the ballot process in the state of california, which can get really volatile, especially as we saw in 2008, the ads that were run, the amount of money that had to be spent on leaving it up to the california people to decide, when it should be left up to the courts. that said, if it is going to be a system that is upheld by our state and supported by our state, then it should receive the full support of the government. that is why we have the court, so they are able to strike it down. that is why it will be interesting to see in august when the california state supreme court makes their decision. if the ninth circuit supreme

court takes it and upholds the district court decision, that will be a much bigger win in the end than another california proposition. >> matt, maybe you could broach the topic of the cultural implications both in california and on the national level of defining marriage. >> well, cultural implications, that is an interesting -- i mean, [sigh] can you broaden the question just a little bit? >> here is another way to look at it. at the same time that the prop 8 debate is taking place in california, there is an ongoing discussion in washington over don't ask don't tell. there are any number of policy issues in this broader matrix that are occupying public and media attention at the same

time. >> well, i mean, i think, i will quote mark mckinnon who said, "of the wedge has lost its edge." we have seen wedge issues like the same-sex marriage issue being put on the ballot or raised legislatively by one side or the other because they perceive that they can achieve a legislative victory or motivate a certain group. let's not forget that the defense of marriage act was signed into law by president bill clinton, in large part because the numbers at that time were pretty strongly anti-same- sex marriage. even look at president obama, who in 2008 has said he was opposed to -- or was -- came out in support of prop. 8. he has now changed his position

and said his position is evolving. if what we have said on this panel is any indication, as the young people in america at age, they are more receptive to and willing to be tolerant of same- sex couples marrying. i think that what barack obama is doing is not purely political. i believe he does truly believe it. he is listening his group on -- loosening his grip on this issue because he sees the public accept it. john boehner said that looking to take over the legal side of the defense of marriage act -- fiscal issues are running the day right now. the last thing republicans want to do is get involved in heavy social issues that split people down the middle. i think we are winning the day on fiscal issues, spending and

deficits, tax cuts etc. i do not think we want to get involved in those issues, which i think is a good thing for gays and lesbians to get the rights that they deserve. but it is all wrapped around politics. california was not the forefront, but there are two active federal issues, the defense of marriage act and don't ask don't tell -- don't ask don't tell, for all of the screaming and crying, is turning out to be a whimper. even the head of the marine corps is saying it is not that big of a deal for his troops. >> question for michael and perhaps format as well. as matt just identified, this is an issue that breaks down on demographic grounds, age differences, and also among different racial and ethnic

communities. maybe one or both of you can talk a little bit about those demographic challenges for building a coalition. >> as i said in my opening statement, the younger you go in terms of a voting ages, the greater support there is for gay marriage. as the 18-35 voting bloc becomes a larger portion of the actual electorate, it is certainly going to be reflected in the elected officials that decide. i think it is also a recognition that there is not some quality that gay men and women lack -- to be a soldier, to be a good spouse. there is also a very big indicator on your support of gay marriage if you have any gay friends. there tends to be a high

probability -- not a high probability -- there tends to be a good indicator of what your support will be on those issues. >> i would just add to that that this issue has, particularly over the past few years, become incredibly bipartisan. when we launched our case, the two lead attorneys were ted olson, who represented george bush in bush of the gore, and the attorney who represented al gore in bush versus gore. if those two can agree on this issue, so can the rest of america. president obama actually did come out against proposition 8. it was not widely known and perhaps more should have been done to let the public know that position, but there is no question that this too has become -- it is no longer bipartisan. it is actually non-partisan. those who i would call the extremes on the other side who

spend their lives trying to stop a marriage, they are a dwindling minority. just this week we saw a team member from the national organization for marriage leave that organization and say that they felt very guilty and realized they were taking the wrong position on this issue. i will let you in on a little secret. whether you know it or not, every single one of us have someone -- in our family, our friend circle, our church, our neighbor, who is gay or lesbian. the more people who come out over time, the more likely that people, regardless of their religious affiliation -- one other point i will make. there was a poll that came out last week that said that those who identify first and foremost as religious individuals have crossed over now in their support of gay marriage. in fact, the majority of catholics in america now support

the freedom to marry. we have made tremendous progress in this country in making this a non-partisan issue. in fact, a judge in the defense of marriage case that found it unconstitutional was a republican judge appointed by president nixon. the federal judge that found proposition 8 unconstitutional was first appointed by reagan, actually blocked by democrats, and later appointed by the first president bush. there have also been republican judges in the other cases. it has really become bipartisan, not only in terms of voters and the judicial system, but also state legislatures and some of our federal elected officials, although some of them we would like to move more quickly than they are currently moving in both parties. >> i just want to bring up a point. i am not so sure it will go away as a wedge issue.

it will certainly come up in terms of the republican jockeying for the presidential nomination. appealing to the primary base, evangelicals in iowa among other states, i am not sure it is going to go away as a wedge. >> in just a moment we are going to open the floor to questions, but before we do, how do you see this issue playing out in the 2012 presidential campaign? >> michele bachmann was in iowa and talked about the legislation she is pushing in her own state that decries same sex marriage. you already see it coming up. how could be -- huckabee has talked about it on his show before. do i think it will affect the general too much? no. it is currently affecting obama now. the reason he had to come out

against doma was because he faced a lot of pressure from his own party. they want things to get done. there are others who may not. it is the in between, not pushing legislation -- which he cannot do right now because the republicans control the house. he could not risk alienating that part of the party. >> the party, i think, is going to be more forgiving of the president than that, but it is certainly going to play out in the republican primaries. it is not going to be as big of a factor in the general, but the primary voters are going to have to be, shall we say, talked to in a certain way by the ones who actually want to win the nomination. it is going to be a very delicate balance between going too far to the right that you

will end up alienating some of the center that you might need during the general. >> let me ask you this before we open it up to questions from our students. in addition to the primary ramifications, there actually may be some impact for these generalin the election. in other words, a democratic president who is proposing a broad deficit reduction plan and overseeing military engagement in libya might benefit to some degree from having an issue like this, not as a persuasive mechanism, but a motivational mechanism for members of his party who may be concerned about a move to the center. is that fair? >> there is no question. polling shows that in democratic

polling. but there is also a republican polling that shows young voters, dozens in this room and the millions of you across the country, regardless of your political affiliation, religious affiliation or the region of country that you levin, you find it absolutely ridiculous and preposterous that this is an issue we are talking about in this country. i think it can be used by some in some races to motivate the youth but to actually get out and vote on this issue. in some of the republican race is that we were talking about, it could cause some young voters to stay home or to vote the other way. certainly more democrats support this issue than republicans, but it is changing very quickly. among the youth vote, it is quickly becoming an equal number. it is not there yet, but it is

quickly becoming equal and i think we will soon be able to take the issue off the table. >> george will has written that his daughter and her friends find this issue to be remarkably and interesting. >> we cannot take this in a vacuum. a candidate's position for or against same-sex marriage will not determine the outcome of the election. where this plays into the grander political role are a couple of things. the general election of the thing audience will look to how far to the right any republican candidate gets pushed on a whole range of social issues. that includes same-sex marriage, abortion, and three or four others that are going to be the "hot button issues." if you look at where the electorate has moved from 2000-

2010, there are some conservative states in that mix. it could have some impact, but i am willing to bet -- and every poll i have seen, whether a california poll, an arizona poll or a national poll, fiscal issues are top of the heap. the war is far behind. social issues and environmental issues are way down the list in terms of priority so, i mean, it is clearly an important issue and one that i think needs to get resolved, and it is ultimately going to get resolved by them being legal across the united states in the long run, but it is not going to be the sole deciding factor or even a major influencing factor on the 2012 presidential race. >> we are just past the halfway point in our discussion. as we do each week at this point, we would like to open up

our discussion to questions from the students in attendance. i will offer you two reminders before we take the first question. number one, when andrew brings you the microphone, please identify yourself so we know who you are. second, just as a reminder, if you are posing a question in particular to someone with ham you may disagree on the topic under discussion today, we remind you that they may be your opponent in the issue, but they are not your enemy. we ask you to treat them with the same level of respect that we hope they will show you. because of our circumstances today, we will ask that you wait for a microphone before you speak. with that, who has questions for our panelists? >> hi, my name is melanie.

in a junior year. my question is, last night we watched the movie 12 angry men. the decision of the jury of this on's fate was based prejudice and ignorance of his circumstances. what do you feel about gay marriage? do you think people are opposed to it because of how they feel about the constitution of marriage itself, or because they might be ignorant or prejudice against gays and lesbians? >> it is a great question. did you see the original or the remake? [no audio] you lucked out then. i think melanie asks a great question. let me put it to you with a slight twist on it. i think the point you and other panelists have made with regard

to demographics, particularly age, is an important one. that said, there are people who disagree with the idea that people of the same gender ought to marry, and they have come to that decision based on reasons in their own religious faith or their own morality. you might certainly disagree with those individuals for coming to that conclusion, but how do you approach the issue with someone who says, i have read to this. i have thought of it. i have simply come to a different conclusion for this reason. >> i think we have to respect citizens, fedfellow but on this issue, we have seen a drastic move meant, particularly from people who vehemently disagreed with the idea of marriage equality. those people moved because they

heard a story from someone that resonated. they heard a story from someone in their family, their church, a next-door neighbor, a brother, a sister, a daughter, a son. what you quickly find out, once you peel away the political rhetoric, you realize that at the end of the day we are all human beings. we are all born the way we are, and to treat someone unequally because of the way that he or she is born is not something that we do in this country. it is not something that any of our religions teach us to do. and the research shows that quite quickly when those people who are either undecided or perhaps on the other side are reached and talked to in a convincing way, they will often times move their support to marriage equality. it was mentioned earlier that

there are now three national polls in this last year that shows that now a majority of americans support gay marriage. a majority. it is now a majority of americans who oppose gay marriage. and it is our job to further those numbers and to tell those personal stories, and to show the consequences of inequality to further that majority. the evidence shows that we can do that, that we have done that, and i think we need to be more aggressive in doing it more quickly. >> what i hear you saying, just to ruthlessly oversimplify your point, is that it is not so much for many people a lack of intelligence, but a lack of exposure. and both in terms of personal circumstances -- and i will put this to other panelists as well -- not just personal experience

but popular culture as well. we could call it the will and graceification. >> as someone involved in electoral politics, you always try to figure out the most effective way to communicate with your target audience. there is a certain part of the population that is bigoted. it is not even on this issue. there are certain people that if you are giving away gold, they hate cold. they want silver. that is just the way it is. part of the initial opposition to same-sex marriage and ecology and things of that nature was born out of -- e. quality and things of that nature was born out of fear. where political campaigns have been affective is where they humanize the issue, putting it to the person next door for

someone in your church. over time, the taboos of being gay and lesbian in the african and american and latino communities, as those barriers get broken down, it is all about communication, not in your face, you have to take it, swallow this bitter pill, but as people become more comfortable with the situation -- that does not mean that the big it will not be the ones that screen the loudest and get the most ink. that happens on both sides of the issue. but i think letting people know that it will not be chaos when this happens, and it is going to happen. >> for those of you from outside of california, we called the alternative laid out the new some approach. we will have more on that later. i know some others of you have questions as well. >> my name is josh.

in a sophomore majoring in broadcast journalism and political science. i have a question going back to the court side of its. say the supreme court does rule that they have standing in this case and takes the issue to appeal and overturned the ruling. how do you feel that would, like, change the time line and push forward the argument of same-sex marriage? >> if they struck down the district court's ruling, it would set it back within the legal realm. that said, there are other cases going on across the country, like in new york. i think it would set it back for california. it may not set back the national debate as much as people think it would. but, you know, if there was a win in that case, it would be a

huge gain. i think it is less of a risk and incredibly more of the gain from the victory. >> i know a lot more people have questions, so why don't we keep moving forward? >> i am a political science major, a sophomore. you mentioned earlier madden that gay marriage potentially has financial -- you mentioned earlier, matt, that gay marriage potentially has financial implications. i am not sure that is the case. what are the arguments that proponents will use? >> i am not a lawyer and i do not give legal advice. but i wrote an article before prop. 8 was even on the ballot about the economics of gay marriage. it is as true then as it is now, and i never stated my preference before or against a

ballot measure on the subject, but there are any number of studies that show that a marriage would be an economic boom for california in terms of the fees you pay to get the license and the celebrations and so on. the other part of the argument goes a lot deeper, to the actual economics of family. same sex couples, in many respects, are not allowed to do many of the things we consider normal. it deals with money, taxes, insurance, retirement, being able to assign social security benefits over to espouse, visitation rights, adoption rights coming it is much deeper than simply saying someone should be able to say i do and get married. there are a whole litany of ramifications that go along with it that, if you do not look at the issue on a deeper level, if

you have a life partner and you are with someone, you should be able to do all of those things. it does not matter if you are two men, two women, or a man and a woman. those are the economics. one, the state of california could make a lot of money. if you want to be really cenacle, if gay people get divorced -- really cynical, if gay people get divorced at the same rate straight people get divorced, that could be a lot of money for california as well. >> next question. >> there has been some discussion over whether or not judge walker should have recused himself from the hearing on prop. 8 because he is, in fact, gay. i was wondering what your opinion on that is. >> the idea of recusal would not have stemmed from him actually,

as you know, being gay. that is not what the controversy is about. it is about the 10-year relationship he had with another man and whether or not that would cause a conflict. the main issue is about the disclosure. there was no disclosure during trial, and it was not until recently, after he retired, that he announced that he was gay and in our relationship with a man for over 10 years. the only reason that would have caused any sort of conflict was because he was in the relationship for 10 years, it is possible that he may have wanted to marry and there might have been a conflict of interest. but i want to make it very clear that it is not because he was gay that that would have caused the conflict. it was more about the long-term relationship and that he had something to potentially gain.

the act talks about reasonableness. if there is a reasonable argument for him to have some sort of conflict, then there should have been some sort of disclosure. nothing is really going to come out of it though, because the only way it really can is if the attorney general filed a motion posthaste and that is not going to happen because they are not supporting the litigation as is, so it will not cause and effect. >> something else that is important to note, it is always the case that those in a legal outcome that is not the one they sought tend to attack wherever they can attack. some have chosen to attack in that particular instance, but it is an incredibly slippery slope. we could do a whole question on

recusal, but should thurgood marshall have recused himself from the many cases before him that impacted african americans? should ruth bader ginsburg recused herself from cases dealing with sexual harassment? should catholic judge is -- six of the nine -- recused themselves from religious cases? most people on both sides of the aisle do not believe that judges in a case such as this or in those that i mentioned should recuse themselves. >> we will explore the possibility of the panel on recusal. [laughter] in the meantime, next question. >> i am a senior studying

international relations and political science. regardless of the california supreme court ninth circuit court of appeals decision, there are many that believe this case, or at least the issue, will eventually reach the supreme court. if the supreme court remains as it is, the swing vote will go to justice kennedy. i am wondering if any of you have any opinions on how he will fall on this issue. >> thoughts on the potential outcome for a case in the u.s. supreme court? michael, i know you and justice kennedy used to go on weekend camping trips together. >> justice kennedy -- whatever the decision comes down to, he will probably be the one who ends up writing it, as the chief will probably give it to him. he is a wild card. he could go either way. i really do not know. >> we obviously have a federal

case pending in court, so i will not comment on any particular justice, although one attorney in our case has said that he will bring in the five of those he got in bush versus gore and the other has said he will bring the four votes he got in bush versus gore and it will be an 9- 0 decision. >> i am not an avid supreme court watcher, but i do not see this being a 5-4 vote. >> as someone who recently decided not to attend law school? [laughter] >> i hate to ask you yet another legal question, but i want to take the hypothetical and flip it a little bit. if the ninth circuit ends up affirming judge walker's ruling

and we have same-sex marriage in states like california, alaska and idaho, are we looking at a situation where there has to be a quick national endgame, or could we see regions of the country where same-sex marriage is legal in several regions but not in few or no state? >> you will probably see a larger debate on the issue of the defense of marriage act. some of these states would be falling under the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit and would therefore be able to allow. some of the states will not. there will probably be that discussion, the coming into 2012, i do not know how many people in washington will want to have it. >> what it causes is a logistical nightmare for congress. now there is no national policy,

and there is going to have to be some sort of discussion if half the country is one way and the other half is the other and doma no longer exists. questions about social security entitlements will come into play and that will have to be addressed. doma still exists. it is just not being enforced. there will be in need to handle that with some sort of national policy. >> but handled quickly is anyone's guess. >> i am a history major senior. i am the brother of a lesbian senior, and this -- the brother of a lesbian sister, and despite that, i voted yes on prop. 8. i felt that california and america was not ready for same- sex marriage. i am also a veteran. once down ask don't tell was

lifted, i really felt that there was a shift in the momentum. i really feel a confirmation on the public of the is what is needed to legitimize -- public though it -- public vote is needed to legitimize same-sex marriage. >> i believe that it is an issue for courts and state legislatures. new york is one that is moving quite quickly. again, the principals from which this country was founded do not support a public vote to determine the rights of the minority. should we let a public vote determine a woman's right to vote, freedom of speech, whether

an african-american can marry a caucasian? public opinion in many of those cases was very much the other way when those decisions were decided. it is my personal, not professional view that that is not the way to go. just a logistical issue, it is also not permanent. suppose you took it to the ballot and you won. the other side could come back and put it back on the ballot, and you would be doing this again. it ultimately needs to be decided by the courts and the federal government once and for all. >> just to clarify, do you have a preference for judicial versus legislative? >> i think the battle has to be fought on all fronts. in fact, there are some states that even as we speak both avenues are being sought. there are court battles happening as well as legislative battles. i see this as something that has

a true sense of urgency. we have to win it as quickly as possible. i support as aggressive of an action as can be taken on the court level, state, federal, as well as legislative. >> real quickly though, it will be interesting to see if it does make it to the supreme court, whether or not the supreme court will change where it classifies people who are gay, lesbian or bisexual. currently states have a rational basis standard. i am sorry if i am rambling on constitutional law. it will be interesting to see if the supreme court raises them to intermediate in terms of that classification group. >> the courts are not limited to blue states. the arkansas supreme court

recently found unconstitutional their ballot initiative defining marriage as one man, one-woman. i think there will be in need to resolve the multiple opinions of the legal system that are currently there. >> last question to you, and then if anyone else wants to weigh in. if the ninth circuit ultimately decides that prop. 8 should not stand, despite the preference that chad voiced earlier, do you expect that if prop. 8 is overturned we will see another initiative on the ballot in the near future? >> knowing what little of the ninth circuit i do, they will likely overturn it just because of their philosophical leanings. i would be equally surprised if the people who put eight on the ballot did not put something back on the ballot again, and we

are forced to endure another five months of aggressive campaign. i would just hope -- and if you are listening other side -- that the no on 8 campaign runs a little bit more aggressive campaign from the get go. whether or not you agree with the issue, and i will not even ask people where they stand on this, the yes on eight campaign ran circles around the no on 8 campaign last time, and that played a significant role in the measure passing. yes, you will definitely see something on a future ballot. >> we only have a minute or so, but you and your business partner were brought in belatedly by the no on 8

forces to accomplish what match was just talking about. -- what matt was just talking about. if it were to end up on the ballot again, how do you see a campaign being run differently? >> first let me say that i think it is highly unlikely that this will go back to the ballot. we believe the ninth circuit is going to affirm judge walker's order, and there for a marriage will be legal in the state of california if not beyond that. i do not believe this will actually go to a vote before the people again. if it does, i think we can all agree that the campaign would be run differently and more aggressively. should certainly be more aggressive in responding, but i hope this is never again on the ballot in california. >> for those of you taking

political communication, you will note that chad answered the question very carefully in a way that did not disclose anything in the opposing side could use. please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] >> up next on c-span, from princeton university, a look at u.s. immigration policy, deportations and national security. after that, a hearing from the commission on wartime contract in in iraq and afghanistan. umaru, virginia governor bob macdonald -- tomorrow, virginia governor bob macdonald will talk about the fiscal condition of his state and the challenge they face. later in the morning, jim leher

of the pbs news hour along with executives from npr will discuss the future of public broadcasting. that is live at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> now available, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, a new and returning house members including district maps and committee assignments, and information on the white house, supreme court justices and governors. order online at c-span.org. >> according to u.s. immigration and customs enforcement, the bureau supported record numbers of illegal aliens in 2009-2010. next, a panel at princeton university looks into deportations and u.s. immigration policy. we will hear from civil rights

groups and in new jersey congressman. this discussion is just over 90 minutes. >> very few districts in the whole united states can gregg that their congressmen -- can brag that their congress man is a rocket scientist. ours is. if you have been keeping up with the news, he recently twice defeated the ibm computer at

jeopardy. [laughter] this is not his first computerized competitor at jeopardy, but this time it was what sen. -- was watson. we welcome thank you. would you like to have me speak from here? thanks for the invitation to take part in what promises to be a very good discussion. i look forward to taking part in net as much of it as my schedule allows. i would like to say a few things to kick off, and then get to the

discussion. i should get to the point. mass deportations are a manifestation of a dysfunctional immigration policy. occasions,d on many we as a government cannot encourage breeding of the law. and clearly, the people of the united states have a legitimate right to insist anyone wishing does so through ae legal process. the 911 hijackers successfully exploited our broken immigration system and penetrated the country and carry out their attacks. there is some common sense steps that should be taken to watch for come out to intercept, to prevent terrorists from

repeating the kind of thing. most of the targets of deportation are not those who are known or suspected of being terrorists. in most cases, they are poor people looking for jobs and ways to support their families. our current antiquated and patchwork system of immigration laws make it difficult for potential immigrants to realize their dream. becoming americans are making their way in america. for those who have come here illegally, other constitutionally dubious laws are making it impossible to keep their families together. let me tell you about one case. some of you know these folks. one of my constituents married henry zelandia where same-sex

marriages available. -- marriage is available. henry is an eligible for a spousal visa and will be deported unless the court rules on the unconstitutionality of that law. or some other bill passes congress. as a u.s. citizen, joshed should receive the full rights granted to all citizens and should not be singled out based on his sexual orientation, which is clearly what is occurring here. josh to sponsorg jus henry for a visa. there are -- on the widows of

u.s. citizen husbands who were killed in iraq. there is no reason why the department should not take a similar analogous approach to josh and henry's. attorney general holder said that after careful consideration, including his review and recommendations, the president has concluded that given the number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination based on sexual orientation should not be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. the president has concluded that section 3 of doma as applies to same-sex standards fails to meet that standard and is

unconstitutional. the president instructed the department not to defend the statute in such cases. i would hope lyonesse case -- i would hope in this case and similar cases, that approach would be taken. right now, the new majority in the house is unlikely to take a realistic or meaningful steps to solve this problem. we got a taste of that when the .m. act was derailed last fall. it is interesting a few months ago "the wall street journal" published an editorial supporting it. what is to be gained by holding

otherwise law-abiding young people who had no say coming into this country responsible for the illegal actions of others? it used -- makes [unintelligible] that ought to be encouraged and rewarded. we can argue about whether such contingencies should be attached. it is interesting that even the journal board can support such a bill but regrettably the senate republicans and some democrats could not see it that way. which is why the bill died. we must have comprehensive reform. this is the result of a broken system. for practical and regulatory reasons as well as political reasons, i think a comprehensive

approach rather than a piecemeal approach to reform of immigration laws is what is called for. >> thank you. we're honored by your presence of and let me briefly explain what the format of this event will be. we will have three presenters, julia preston will preside. i have the necessary but sometimes unpleasant job to be the timekeeper. i will have to be draconian in my time keeping. i will not hesitate to interrupt our gas which it takes a lot to do that and i apologize in advance. in order to make this work, we will need to be attentive to time. there are a couple of other

people i will recognize in the future. this has been an extraordinary citizen. she is here with channel 30. we are proud to have her as a board of directors. i recognize the director of the program in latino studies. and i want to acknowledge his presence. let me introduce julia preston who i think is a part of a reason why so many distinguished guests are here with us today. she has been the national immigration correspondent for "the new york times" since 2006. she has had numerous positions and is a 1998 pulitzer prize

winner for reporting on international affairs. she will be presiding over both panels. we will have an intermission around for 20 p.m. or 4:30 p.m. and ally repast will be served. we hope you will interact. i will have the unpleasant job to bring you back to your seat so we can have the second panel. the first panel is an overview of the challenges confronted by the department of homeland security and immigration as they try to implement the law of the land. this is important because we are especially in this crowd as sympathetic to individuals and communities who are receiving the brunt of these policies but do not often listen to representatives who are charged with the important and difficult

mandates to implement the law of the land. that is the reason why we're so pleased to have among us are dess to is counselor to the secretary dhanapala tunnell. also with us is seth grossman. they are representing those important organizations. is a ther speaker will b distinguished member for the council for foreign relations. there is a recently published book and he will alert us to the significance of placing immigration law under the rubric of national security.

you have heard some thought- provoking comments from congressman holt. i proud to introduce our provesider. >> did you want to introduce a me? >> i am sorry i did not introduce amy gottlieb. she is emigration for the american friends committee. amy has been remarkable in her effort to see activities and a knowledgeable person about immigration. thank you. >> i want to make one last acknowledgement i hope will not be pro forma. many in this room have been involved in organizing an event like this. it takes a lot of planning and imagination and hard work. that work was done by our staff

and we're grateful for the enthusiasm and passion you have brought to this organization. the rapid pace of deportation of foreigners from the united states under the obama administration -- are we ok, can you hear? have had a wider, more conspicuous, and deeply felt impact than perhaps any other impact of the -- aspect of the policy. almost 780,000 people were removed from this country. in 2009 and 2010, i set records for the annual numbers of deportations. the began its operations in 2003, surpassing 122,000 in those years.

the number of deportations have -- [inaudible] i.c.e. has grown into a huge investigateion agency. dhs has achieved its record deportation numbers by intensive and sometimes expedited prosecution of illegal entrants in some areas of the southwest by expanding efforts to identify immigrants in jail and prison drug the criminal alien program, by sweeps called enforcement's searches, in coordination with state and local police which have focused on gangs and by stepping of operation to locate fugitives, including many immigrants. in addition, i.c.e. is

cooperating with local law enforcement. the operator signed memorandums with authorities which allowed i.c.e. to deputize police. it is a small program. operating in 72 jurisdictions nationwide. with a very big political and social echo effect when everett is activated. also since october 2008, i.c.e. rolled out a program called secure communities. it connects state and local police departments to dhs fingerprint databases alongside the fbi criminal databases already in common use. this is not a small program. dhs's current position seems to be this will be a mandatory for all jurisdictions by 2013. the immigration status of every

person in the nation will be checked by the year. within these programs, i.c.e. said it will use its resources to detain and deport criminal offenders first. by way of starting the discussion, i would make three observations. these programs are conducted under the broad national security from work of dhs. an organization created in response for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. the mission is to promote a homeland security and public safety through the civil and criminal enforcement of the law. second, the of restoration's removal policies have attracted notable political opposition. the depot dog -- deportation has affected communities.

supporters have been surprised and dismayed to find the most salient aspect of his policy has been a vigorous effort to build an effective immigration enforcement system and not the comprehensive immigration reform he repeatedly promised. republicans have called for more crack down measures although they have avoided a grain to benchmarks which will measure how policies are working. the operations of these programs signify the use of the programs of advance discretion in carrying out its priorities and deciding who will be deported. this discretion seems to be little understood by the public and perhaps by agents on the ground. more than 450,000 of the people removed were non-criminals. recent data show the exercise of discretion varies widely from one jurisdiction to the next and

from region to region. we hope today to have what diplomats call a frank and candid discussion. with that, i will turn over to our next speaker. >> thank you. thank you for having me today and allowing me to represent the department. i wanted to give an overview of what our priorities are and why we're doing what we're doing. let me make clear one thing. dhs and i.c.e. are not enforcing the law because of politics. we are a law enforcement agency with a statutory obligation to enforce the law.

we up been criticized for over enforcement. or for under enforcement. i want to make clear what it is we're doing and what we're doing. well we have to enforce the law, we have discretion in terms of deciding what our priorities are. when secretary napolitano came to the department, her obligation was to tighten up who the program was removing. over the last two years, we have shown what -- that you can do it enforcement in a more intelligent way. targeting positions that represent a threat. how have we done this? secure communities is probably one of the best way is.

let me explain. there is a lot of misconception about what secure communities is. secure communities only work if state and local law-enforcement agencies -- if they booked into the jail. you have to -- the officer has to have probable cause that individual violated a law. it does not mean speeding tickets or broken taillight. a violation of state criminal law. there are couple crimes we can discuss that the department is looking at. your fingerprints are taken and most will send that to the fbi to verify that is your identity. if the person -- if it comes back as someone who was not in

the country lawfully, i.c.e. will notify the office which will take action. i.c.e. exercises priorities. we do and 3300 -- 33,000 detentions and we have limited room on the dock at. we look at the history of the person in exercising our priorities. we determine how we're going to enforce the law does not always appear that way but the reality is that we have taken a good look at the numbers and secure communities has been dramatically enabling i.c.e. to increase the number of people

they removed. i.c.e. deportation found that 50% of those who were removed had a criminal offense. largely due to secure communities and how it allowed us to tighten up who were focusing on. we have gone away from -- the operations that do not result in the apprehension how -- apprehension. we have not done the work site rate since washington in 2009. we have done fugitive operations. those operations targeting serious and convicted criminals who have been released or were not identified early on. under any objective measure, i.c.e. has tightened up who it

is we enforce the law against and greatly increase the percentage. i am happy to get in more about secure communities and the other programs that we have been running. unless and until the statute change, dhs is under and -- obligation to enforce the law. there has been no bigger proponent for change than the secretary. the secretary spent hours on the phone with members of congress, doing press calls and all that significant our reach to encourage passage. until those laws are changed, we do not retain its statutory discretion to do wholesale changes in our enforcement posture. what we can do is focus on the public safety and try and identify and remove those individuals who are not just in the country unlawfully but have committed a criminal offense.

the trend will continue to improve and the noncriminal side will decrease. that is largely because it is a secure community. >> i think we will -- thank you for your brevity and for your clarity. in addition to timekeeping, our job is to make sure we do not end up shooting each other. this is a very civil group and i am sure there will have your response. i would like to give the floor to our next speaker. 12 minutes. >> thank you for the invitation to be here. the discussion of immigration and national security is rarely about what it should be about. what ought to be about is how the u.s. government can best use the tool of immigration policy. background checks, identity verification, border searches and internal enforcement of the

law which is the subject of the meeting today to keep out or remove those who pose a serious threat. since the september 11 attack, the fear that some immigrants may pose a security threat has led to a massive expansion of enforcement measures that has rarely affected illegal immigrants who do not pose any security threat. much of what we will talk about here today on the detention and deportation as a consequence of the confluence of to offense. the 9/11 attacks and record levels of illegal immigration. the year preceding the attack, 2000, saw the highest number of apprehensions by the border patrol. 1.7 million incidents that had taken place in a single year. the number this year wasn't fewer than 450,000. one -- 9/11 occurred in an environment when people were concerned about illegal

immigration and were embraced -- embraced harsh measures. if you look in the aftermath of 9/11, the arab and muslim men who were arrested and detained khomeni for months and even years, almost all were held on immigration violations and eventually deported, even though none were shown to have a connection to terrorism. programs like the system for registering and tracking arabs and muslims to come to the u.s. was put into place. given the details, these measures made some sense and all 19 of the hijackers had received legal visas to come to the u.s. which reveals holes in the system. five of the 19 were out of

status at the time of the attacks which indicated we can -- weekend enforcement could be a serious security problem. most important way in terms of what followed, four of the five, including three of the pilots were stopped for traffic violations in the months before the attacks when they were living in the united states illegally. the individual in the bush administration who seized on this fact is known to some of you in this room. chris kovak, who was an adviser to john ashcroft. he was more recently the primary legal advisor to the government of arizona on sp 1070 and was a lawyer defending hazleton, pa. which took measures to crack down and he was the one defined pjoe arpaio.ending george

he did more to launch the program that was referred to earlier. 287g was creative by congress but no agreement had been signed between the local and state police force. no agreement had been signed before 2011. it was kovach a revived it and the rationale was counter- terrorism. you might ask, what is the link between getting state and local police getting involved? one of the pilots who was the pilot at the controls of the plane that was brought down in pennsylvania, he was stopped driving at 95 miles an hour heading north.

the officer went back and ran the usual warrants and nothing showed up. he broke a ticket for $270 which was found in the possessions after the attack and sent him on his way. he had over stored -- overstayed his tourist visa. that was not in the database that was being checked. two of the other pilots have been stopped for traffic violations. had such information been available, three of the four pilots might have been identified and turned over to federal immigration authorities and deported and perhaps the plot may never have gotten off the ground. the first to 87 -- 287g memorandum of understanding was

entered into earlier. there is much to explain why the number of people in the tension has doubled. before 9/11, the old i.n.s. simply did not have the bed space to detain those it picked up on immigration violations. most were released and told to appear before a judge and were never seen again. catch and release was the shorthand for this practice. it was considered acceptable in the pre-9/11 environment. when officials began to look back, they discovered one of the failed pre-9/11 plots in order to -- to bomb the brooklyn subway had been led by a palestinian terrorist who had come across from canada and was detained and released. there was no bed space. after september 11, largely on national-security grounds, dhs took on a sizeable project of ending catch and release by

building enough jail cells to incarcerate most of those arrested for immigration violations while they awaited their date before a hearing. on any given day, we have 32 or 33,000 of these people in jail up from 7000 in the mid-1990's. there were some sound national security reasons for improving the enforcement of immigration laws. the 9/11 attacks have shown terrorists were capable of exploiting weaknesses in u.s. immigration and entering the u.s. and remaining here while the plot of the attacks. many of the net -- the launched, biometric identification, all these made it harder for would-be terrorists to enter the u.s. and

the fbi and dhs have been able to use arrests to deport some of those who were believed to be connected with terrorism. the national security argument has been exploited and effectively by those whose primary agenda is not advancing security issues. and looked at everything their rote and not a single one of their peoples focused on immigration. if you look post-9/11, half of the publications have been about various aspects of how immigration policy threaten national security. we can interpret this in different ways. it is true that september 11 was a wake-up call for many.

it is true that after 9/11, the terrorist threat became an argument in favor that groups had advocated. a crackdown on illegal immigration. two things are clear about the relationship between national security and immigration. the u.s. has expanded its enforcement efforts. secondly, the overwhelming majority of those affected by enforcement do not pose any security threat. terrace, criminal, or otherwise. 9/11 solidified to the public mind in the actions of the government the notion that illegal immigration poses a serious threat and harsh measures and deportation are

appropriate. that continues to be the frame through which the issue is considered. the of, administration cannot publicly embraced the notion that all illegal immigrants should be deported. this is an administration that favors reform that would legalize many of those who are here illegally. the public justification is the policy is aimed at removing criminals who pose a security threat. some do and the vast majority do not. i fear making genuine progress on this issue will be all but impossible unless the perception of a strong link between terrorism and criminality and illegal migration can be broken. unfortunately, this is not part of the current public debate. for all the genuine efforts and has made to make the system somewhat more humane, the obama administration's crack -- strategy by reinforcing the link between serious, miley --

serious criminality and immigration plays and to those who are opposed to reform that this administration wants. >> thank you. amy, 12 minutes. >> thank you. kind of a tough act to follow. i want to thank the organizers for this. it is an honor to be speaking here among such incredible minds on this issue. i was asked to speak -- to speak about the impact of deportation. this is a tiny bit of background. i had been working at the american friends committee since 1996, i started as a staff attorney out of law school. right after the immigration law passed. learning immigration law was learning about this incredible

change in the structure of how the immigration laws were processed and whether people were able to remain in the u.s. or not. back then when i was practicing and i should say i do not practice any more. seven out of 10 people who would come to my nonprofit office looking for legal assistance were not eligible for any kind of immigration status at all. there was nothing we could do. we have to tell them sorry, you do not qualify, even though you have been here for 10 years. there's nothing we can do. he may have a license. there was nothing we could do. we have seen this big picture of immigration law shifting and changing but with a constant that has been in effect since 1955 that shows that our immigration law is kind of a disaster. there are many immigration law professors in this room, i will

still this line. this is from the textbook we use. the first sentence, the immigration and nationality act is a hideous creature. that says it all as you are trying to untangle what the real story is. what is happening in our immigration law. i agree with pre much everything that has been said so far. accept for the numbers of people who have been deported without criminal convictions. the issue for us is what is the big picture? we have this schizophrenic policy. how was it directly affecting our families and communities, and how can we take away the statistics that claim we are deporting high numbers of people who supposedly pose a threat to our communities when what we're seeing every single day are families being torn

apart, communities being devastated? i wanted to share a year and a half ago. my office organized a briefing before members of congress and we brought down a busload of families from new jersey who have been impacted by immigration detention and deportation. we had four kids read their testimonies. they are available on our website and we have audio. we saw these kids speak to a packed room of representatives and staffers of congressional offices and tears were flowing. these are hard wrenching cases. i wanted to share one. my name is joselyn. the last time i saw my mother was on a friday morning before heading to school. i have not seen her since that day which was about three years ago. i do talk with her, but i get very sad when i do. her voice has changed with the passing of time. she might not look the same.

she probably looks older. i think about what my mother looks like. i wonder she thinks of us and how much we have changed and grown. i think about the last time we saw her. i wonder how and why she had to go and leave my brothers and i. my brother -- i remember my brothers reaction. it was heartbreaking to see their sad faces. my mother left when my baby sister was about to turn one. it is challenging to take care of a baby and four younger brothers. this was a high-school student who is now taking care of her younger siblings, is working, is trying to finish her high school degree, and her mother has been sitting in mexico trying desperately to think about a way to rejoin her family. that is one of the thousands of examples we see and we know thousands of people, 1100 people a day have been deported under the obama administration.

what our perspective is, we would hope that in recognizing that the current immigration law is not working, we know it has to change and we would hope there would be more of a transnational approach, not only looking at immigration from how it impacts the individuals residing in the u.s. but more broadly at the causes of migration. why people come here, and tried to consider that migration is a global phenomenon. we're not going to fix our policy through this mass deportation. the mass deportations are a manifestation of our dysfunctional system and we're having a hard time getting that message heard. we as a community have a responsibility to be getting these stories out there and talk about the individuals. the reality of the 1996 law's

and subsequent changes to our system have created havoc. it is in part due to the creation of the national security system but even before that, we saw this massive increase of people in detention and people being deported. including people who were convicted of crimes a long time ago and that mandatory detention and deportation of people who of ben members of the community who have a tone for their sins, those people are facing -- facing deportation are not being heard and we are not hearing their stories but the impact on those families is one that we desperately need to talk to. " we would like to see is an immigration judge has discretion to look at a person beyond their criminal conviction or charge and also at this stage, until we have this

change, we do recognize there is discretion. i live in new york city and i work in new jersey and i've seen discretion used in very different ways on the new york side against the new jersey side. the same person having it depend on where their case lands is problematic for our big picture. it is not to say we should use a harsher approach but we should look at an approach recognizes the individual in each of these cases. as we move forward, we need -- meet frequently with i.c.e. and many have been in the office. to walk in there and to see a packed room of faces of people who are in there for a regular check again, at which they might be arrested, they might not be. the fear that people have going

into those chickens, the crowded room, the sense of terror that you feel when you walk into the waiting room at the deportation office in new jersey, knowing that these are people who are walking free on the street. even if i had a criminal conviction. the system has determined they are eligible to be released and they can be living amongst us. i.c.e. and the laws have decided these people must move about. when you feel that terror, that fear of permanent separation or often permanent separation. we also need to be in communication when a parent has been deported the impact spread beyond the individual and hits

every single person and where all deeply impacted. >> we are thankful for her comments and for brevity and directness. before i pass the baton over to our provider, let me remind you there are biographical exert its. we're not reading them in the interest of time. i would like to bring your attention to the presence of individuals who are truly extraordinary legal minds, including david martin who i suspect will be soon speaking, who is a distinguished professor of international law and who has had direct experience with the department of homeland security. we also have robert ashbaugh, who is the former deputy

inspector general for the department of justice. i did mention seth grossman, from the department of homeland security. you have the floor. >> i think what i will do is, i do not know if you have heard comments that you want to respond to. in the presentations. i would give you that opportunity now. if not, i will open it up to the floor. the way we will work is i will -- to raise your hand if you want to speak and we can either ask a question or make a brief statement. by brief, i mean very brief. >> there will be a time for members of the audience to ask

questions at the end of this panel. thank you. >> i do not think we characterize our enforcement, we're not doing it on national security grounds. what the department is -- we have to enforce the law under the mandates we have to do to do 400,000 rubles a year. the best place to do that is to identify people who might present a public safety threat and the best way to determine that is by a criminal [unintelligible] is a public security issue. what we're trying to do is change the mechanisms by which

in 2008, there were 114,000 criminals removed. trying to change the mechanism so the system catches less people who are identified. those people who have committed crimes as they do pose a greater threat. >> i would have one question. when you say you have an appropriations mandate, what do you mean? >> congress gives us money to do roughly 400,000 removals in a given year. >> is that a goal for the agency? >> it is not a goal. it is broken down by a target with a third removal costs. it is a mandate to do roughly

400,000. >> i can -- [inaudible] i calculate the cost to remove -- that is how we reach the numbers for the numbers john mentioned and the number of removals that we are appropriating and we take direction from congress. >> it is not a quota or gold. we do not operate that way. it is roughly a mandate. >> thank you. >> one other quick thing. we detained 33,000 the year. we removed 400,000.

it is a fraction of those who we are moving -- removing who are detained. that is by public safety determinations. there are other priorities such as individuals who have come across or been removed previous times. it would be misleading to say that the majority are in detention. that is not accurate. >> i want to mention one thing in response to the introduction. i think it was a comment that the emphasis has been on the enforcement and not immigration reform. there has been devotion to enforcement. the department is funded for that and there is an obligation to go forward. it is an enormous amount of work

that was done on comprehensive immigration reform from the first week of the administration. it proved not possible to put together the right combination largely because of the inability to get a second republican co- sponsor in the senate. there is background work that has been done. there are more steps that we're taking with a lot of hours. i would also take issue and pose a question. i do not think it is quite fair to say it has been a national security issue that has driven the emphasis on enforcement. the 1996 act was enacted before the 911 attacks and before there was major emphasis. there is a rule of law rationale that contributes to the emphasis on enforcement.

it is important to understand. there may be a lot of people with unfortunate motives for emphasizing enforcement. they find resonance in the middle because people are concerned that people are here outside of compliance with the law. i think that drives it and that led to a number of exaggerated reactions. stripping away from discretion from immigration judges. you suggested the current strategy reinforces the link between immigration and crime and national security. how would you change the strategy, given the resources that are provided? given the mandate to spend money on enforcement, would you go back to a more random collection of people who are non-criminals? to throw in with the priority on criminals? >> how would do with that is

through legal changes that do with the demand side for and regret workers. a lot of the people we are arresting are people who came here for work. i do not think this works outside a comprehensive framework. we're doing the enforcement side and you will never solve the problem outside of a comprehensive framework. one of my concerns is with the language we use. i was on a panel with david adler -- aguilar, threat. what are the border threats? syria's criminality, drugs, and illegal immigration. illegal immigration is not a threat of that magnitude. he loved it together and i think it works against sensible solutions. what you're going to find if we are trying to get a mandate is we will keep defining

criminology down. a lot of the criminal offenses, a fair number are rather minor and some are quite severe. those are people we can agree we do not want in this country. to keep hitting those targets and continue to say a higher percentage are criminals, will have to define criminality and i do not think that is a productive way to get at the problem. i would like this administration were committed to the comprehensive solution and less focused on the enforcement. i understand will you do it. you are in a difficult position by do not think it is the right solution. >> our next speaker is the founding national director of the american civil liberties union immigrants rights project and he was referred to me by jim shepherd -- kim shepherd. >> i want to respond to a few

points and one that underscores something that amy said and david acknowledged. the impact of the 1996 law. we're seeing the confluence of 9/11 and undocumented immigration, but also the 1996 loss in two critical respects. one is that it did remove an enormous amount of the flexibility that previously existed in law to allow for someone to gain legal status. secondly, it has the perverse consequence of freezing people into undocumented status by virtue of the operation of the law in many ways that are not worth exploiting now but essentially say that individuals who qualify for legal status are not pursuing it because of the way the law is written, but they are eligible.

it is a mistake for the administration to view this as purely a matter that requires statutory changes. because a lot of the operation of the law, while about to be changed and desperately needs to be, it is amenable to administrative and regulatory interpretation. but administration could undertake in order to address some of these perverse consequences. it could adopt a regulation and adjudication of waivers that would allow individuals to apply for the legal immigration status for which they're eligible. it could adopt court interpretations of the detention statutes that allow individuals to get individual hearings at which there -- they're educated rather than requiring mandatory detention of people who do not pose that

risk. the program has been demonstrated that the agency made no effort to determine who actually needed to be detained and who did not. if it had the resources to do that and a willingness to do that rather than spending the money and attention and mandating detention under the law and failing to adopt interpretations, we could have a more efficient system that would authorize the tension when it is needed but not impose a one it is not. one last point is how to reconcile the secure communities program with the enforcement priorities that have been articulated. i wonder how that works in operation. we heard the example of the traffic stop that could have led to the arrest of some of the terrorists but we understand traffic stops do not trigger the

secure community if they did. in some places, they do. they lead to the concern about racial and ethnic profiling in order to bring people -- into the booking system. the other thing i would add, the secure communities operation as i understand it, the booking triggers the screening but it does not mean and in many cases there is not actually a criminal prosecution on the underlying events that led to the arrest in the first place. secondly, i wonder how even if booking is pursued, how that is reconciled with the immigration enforcement priorities. mine understanding is once that secure communities screening is triggered, those dhs not pursue individuals who were brought in

if they do not have a prior conviction or are people released by i.c.e., or are we having the local police department setting the party? one last point i wanted to ask about, where is secure communities now in relation to those police departments who what like not to participate. there are chiefs of police who prefer not to be engaged in immigration screening who believe that it undermines their ability to engage in community policing. are they allowed to opt out or is it mandated by state agreements or dhs? >> if you want to respond to

that. there are two secure communities question. the discretion and the opt out. >> kindly do speaking to the microphone. -- speak into the microphone. >> i will start with the opt out. it is the policy of i.c.e. an dhs that the program is not [unintelligible] there are changes. there is the uniformity issue. the federal government stepped in so we do not want a patchwork of state enforcement laws. the same logic applies to secure communities. we do not want to let local

jurisdictions decide immigration policy. there are many of the same arguments there. there are procedural questions. who can decide? is that the state or the city or the county? the policy is it is uniform and rollout nationwide. we want to work with local communities and the department's position is that they do not arrest victims or witnesses. absent a criminal arrest, you are not going to come across i.c.e. in any way. if the local jurisdiction has concerns about lower level aliens, you do not need to run the figure prince. virginia excludes classes of

misdemeanors. certain towns do where they do not run them through the fbi database. we will never know. we're concerned with the issue. we have -- we're working on taking a look at the policies in place and working on potential policies that might address what to do with witnesses and victims and interactions with local law enforcement. we do use discretion on important cases of a case by case basis. generally, if you are a match in security committed to is, we will take enforcement action. it is a prioritization with that.

will define those as level one, level 2, level 3. if you're a level line alien, you are a much higher priority. level to aliens -- level 3 are misdemeanors and coat there is a prioritization within that who we are going to use our limited space on. while we do not -- we will take enforcement action, what that action looks like will differ dramatically. we had 13,000 -- about 40,000 criminals removed in 2010, convicted of a crime.

our priorities include more than just criminals. people been -- will take a look of those numbers to make sure that we did not have a problem. the majority of those people do fall under of their priorities. the local jurisdiction is set to release the person. discovers that the person had been previously removed from the country and reinstates the final order of removal. prior to the criminal case proceeding, the person is removed from the country. although they are never convicted, it does not mean that they are innocent of the charge. there are a number of these cases where the local prosecutors make a resource

allocation decision. i am not going to spend the money detaining this person in jail. what is not ok are jurisdictions where there are rest designed to trigger the removal proceedings based on stereotypes. we are monitoring the data and we're very sensitive to that end up prepared to take action should be five jurisdictions that are engaged in the behavior. >> are there other questions? one of the inspirations from this event was a distinguished immigration attorney in the area. he deals directly with such cases. would you like to say something? >> [inaudible] i am certainly aware of some departments or much more

enforcing the law that others. i've talked to other lawyers that specialize in the wind -- dui. >> i think anyone to say something -- amy wants to say something. >> we do not have said george communities in new jersey. but we do have a directive that the attorney general issued back in 2007 that requires local police to ask about immigration status when there is an arrest or thank you or for -- court -- or a dui. what we have seen over the last couple years -- i am speaking of

this prospective of who we see in detention. my office provides legal orientation programs for all detainees and over the last three years, we've seen an absolute surge in people who are there for minor traffic violations. a passenger in a car that was pulled over for a broken tail lights. i appreciate the priorities, but we see on the ground every single day is different. my question, if we are all in agreement that we have a dysfunctional immigration system and we all sit the need for change and we recognize there should be discretion, why such a pushed for secures communities?

it is something that is going to force people into what is an unfair deportation system, white is its absolute a mandate to have it in every single jurisdiction by 2013? >> you never knew you had so much power. before you receive all the brunt of the responsibility, let me ask you, are there other questions for john? >> [inaudible] >> i swear to hear a little bit more about the work site side of things. i am curious about a couple of. i would like to understand how you think about workplace enforcement now and about the problem of workers been involved

in organizing drives and their employers suddenly wants to discover the true status after they have the market at a firm for a long period of time. we know there is a move to protect those workers and give them some kind of temporary or permanent status if they have been involved in organizing. i'd like for you to say a few words about that. >> the president of princeton busier -- is here. >> that the federal level, it is largely mystifying sometimes. i hear what some suggest -- the

actual impact that creates the fears and suspicions are quite pervasive and quite intense. we are interested in princeton borough and keeping our local streets under control uncivilized and friendly to wall and to the extent that to we have a segment of our population that makes itself invisible to us on account of these fears for prosecution and despite the fact that the chief of police has met with the local population to suggest the attorney general regulation and what they are for these limited amounts of offenses. there are a lot of other things that can get you caught up, also. it causes people to disappear from the civil component of our society. it becomes hard for police to enforce safety because people

will not come out to say what date assault on the street corner of the night before. we have a series of events like this. at our small level, the numbers you cite, 40,000, well beyond our ability to comprehend. the fear locally is such that it makes it very hard for us to create a secure community. >> taking the blame. -- take it away. >> we've not been a very good job about talking publicly about secure community is and what it isn't. if someone has a legitimate

fear of their community and has an understanding of how it actually works, they should only be fearful if they have committed a violation of the laws. that is not the perception. we need to do a better job of engaging the communities with advocacy groups, to explain how it works. along those lines, if i was an advocacy group, -- that sounds counterintuitive, but the -- wey is, we're going to are firmly committed to a legal change. we're doing 390,000 removals' a year. a variety of other ways -- would

you rather have us removing them from the job -- from the jail? the answer has to be the latter. recognizing that in the criminal world, this problem will go way. criminal convictions are going to be a disqualifying factor. you what expansion because it is a program that enables to get us over the 50% for the first time. in 2010, the numbers do not necessarily support that. we identified 248,000 people through a secured community.

that was when security amenities only were in 620 jurisdictions. it will be greatly enhanced and we can focus our limited resources on removing those individuals and not the people in your community. that is why it if i am standing in your shoes, you would want to expand the security manatees. >> she does not. [laughter] she clearly does not. >> i can show you the numbers. those people are still getting fed through the system and as long as we had our mandate and there is -- but you want for us

to be focusing on the people who have committed a criminal offense in the community. >> thank you. >> we are working with the department of labour on a variety of issues. we are very cognizant of and sensitive to those and we will continue to work with the department of labour to ensure that where there allegations of violations, we just don't march in and remove people. >> would like to intervene at this point? >> i want to make a observation. below context is very important -- the local context is very important for the execution of carrying out the programs, especially in light of the proliferation of state level

legislation designed to curb illegal immigration or punish illegal immigration at the state level so that one of the more -- the state of georgia, which has made it a key attainable offense. driving without a license in the state of georgia is a mandatory 48 hours detention now on the first offense. that is but many immigrants -- the driver's license is not available in the state of georgia to a person who does not have lawful status. that puts that person into the whole immigration database, although it is driving without a license is not a serious

offense. previously, it was an offense that could be dispatched with a fine. that kind of local legislation, i think, is increasingly occurring across the country. i just make that observation from my reporting. what is the test doing to ensure that -- dhs doing to ensure that the implementation will not be vulnerable to the interpretation of local law enforcement? and to the differing severity of local laws? >> timekeeper. let me advise you of two things. there will be overlap with the second panel, so we actually want to take some of these questions for after the break.

i would like to know whether it -- we have time for a nother intervention, very brief comment to questions from the audience. would you like to say what you have to say? she is the executive director of the latin american and defense and education fund. >> i would love to get your feedback. if we were to have any kind of legislative reform, that would help provide restore some rationality, would reinstate ithe the most desirable? if so, should be as the representative to try to spearhead the effort? >> i will put that to david

martin as well. >> thank you. i began by saying that i do not think that we should be planning for major changes in immigration law in the coming months. the question is, how do we use what we have? one of the things that i am going to take back to my colleagues on the appropriations committee is that they should make clear to the department that funding sufficient for that number of deportations should not be interpreted as a quota to reach. it is possible that that is what they had in mind, i hope not, and they certainly want to take

fact back. i have been listening very closely, and i think i detected a significant difference in the approach to the existing model as discussed by a knee -0- -- amy. i believe you began at the beginning -- everything comes back to you. it is the enforcement agency. i believe i heard you say that we are targeting populations that pose a security threat. there is a big difference

between that way of phrasing and of individual, individual, individual. that is what they said over and over again. i think it has to do with whether an individual who was picked up is subject to evaluation to determine whether that individual is a security threat. rather than the other around. i am not saying that it is profiling, but it is a different approach and i am having a little trouble expressing best, but i thought i heard a different -- difference that makes -- that would be reflected on the street. i think maybe congressional instructions of what is intended here might be useful.

clearly, they want people to pose a security threat to -- and that is what i will try to take back. >> david? >> part of the problem is that it is not easy to identify you is a security threat. there are security threats and people who will wind up committing much more serious crimes are drawn. -- late autumn -- later on. it is more damaging to be general image of the person who is illegally present is when there is someone who was been in the system before somewhere and commits a serious offense. we've had some very serious ones in virginia.

the dilemma is how to address those kinds of situations. it is extremely damaging to the effort to get sensible immigration reform. secure committees should go forward. i acknowledged what julius said about the driver's license offenses. driving without a license is not an automatically 48 detention kind of offense. but dhs cannot effect that. hillary clinton talked against that's as she was a candidate.

that is not something that dhs can solve. that was the point of it from the beginning, to take away discussion that could be used by law-enforcement officers. we try to proceed on that basis. it will leave some hard cases underside of the line, but that is where we need to proceed. there could be better ways to exercise discretion in the system. we may not have overall legislation, but it is very easy to tack it onto an appropriation bill and exercised discretion by agencies can triggered legislative reaction. some of the more ambitious

suggestions i fear would trigger a legislative reaction. we had something like that in the 1996 act. immigration judges could exercise, to let someone state even though they had deportable offense. well was in the conference committee, the exercise -- the issue decision the key members of the conference committee did not like it and they cut that way beyond what it was. i offer that as a cautionary note to think about that we need to keep our eye on the long run game. a key part of the effort is to create the right kind of image.

sometimes, some hard decisions have to be made. >> before john, we will close this part of our meeting. is very pressing question for members of the audience? speak up, please. >> i and the american -- my husband is under threat of deportation. that was rejected last month with the defense of marriage act being disparaging decided -- act being decided -- cited.

what policy has been formulated that would fund the activism that we have done? with the legislative act in the works? >> thank you very much. another question? >> [inaudible] a lot of people in this room know me. i've been practicing immigration law for almost 20 years. the reality is racial profiling and everybody in this room knows that. if you are a certain color, you get picked up, and it is a real problem in this state. the court is r increased -- to

the quotas are increased said that the point is that in new jersey, what happens is there is some discretion. families are torn apart and you really are not practicing what you preach. come down here and talk to our make sureperson and that they do a rights. when are you going to do that? >> and john, you have the last word. the president's directive was to continue to enforce the law until there is a court that it determined that it is unconstitutional. that is where we are going with that. the reality is, we're going to

continue to enforce the law. the anecdotal stories about abuses in securities amenities, all we can do is modify the numbers overall. we have hired a statistician to take a good look at the numbers. beforeooking at patterns and after. we're looking at this from a thousand different angles. that said, it raises tough questions. we are not seeing any wholesale abuses in the practice. serious violent felony offenses, we are able to remove them from the country. that is a public safety issue.

i do not know if there is anything more to add. >> i think i was quoting the attorney general correctly when he said, the president has concluded that section 3 of doma fails to meet the standard and is therefore unconstitutional. the president has instructed the department not to defend the statute in such cases. i realize he is not talking about deportation cases, but he is not saying, let's wait until law is declared unconstitutional. in certain cases, we will not in force doma. by a fairly easy extension, it could also apply to deportation cases.

>> we have been working very hard. in terms of the litigation position, the government will longer -- the attorney general mix crystal clear that the executive agencies must continue to enforce a law as they did before. they have looked into this issue and their guidance is quite clear. for a layperson, it seems strange that there is a divide between what you do in court and in terms of practice. until either congress repeals section 3 or there is afforded of a judicial caught --

termination, if there is a change, we are ready to implement the change as well. >> thank you very much. we're going to break right now. i will be asking you to move back into your spot in 15 minutes exactly. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> up next, a meeting of the commission of wartime contacting in iraq and afghanistan. a video documentary on internet regulations. after that, part of today's white house briefing. later, at a discussion on same- sex marriage. on tomorrows "washington journal blakey.n after that, marc rotenberg will talk about cell phone software. we will talk with their student camera out winner.

"washington journal," each morning at 7:00. c-span will simulcast on radio programs from iowa. wednesday it is the exchange. i will radio live this week on c-span -- i what radio live this week on c-span. >> later, remarks from president obama and south myers. streaming at c-span.org. >> the commission on wartime contacting in iraq and afghanistan will issue its final

report to congress in july. the group is investigating how u.s. tax dollars are spent. this examines the effectiveness of past recommendations on contacting reform. this is 3.5 hours. >> the other commissioners is my fellow co-chair. we have two other commissioners better not with us today. we have distinguished guests at this hearing. we have a public policy

professor, a senior official of the government accountability office, and three inspectors general. i will introduce them shortly. our conversation will focus on judgment. our witnesses have spent a great deal of their professional time identifying and combating waste. this is really important work. our diplomats, development officials, and taxpayers all suffer when the funds designated for contingency operations are spent needlessly. or are stolen or misdirected for personal advantage. the commission's is directed to assess the extent of waste, fraud, and abuse in iraq and afghanistan. as part of our work, we have asked our i.t. but this is to update us on their work in the field and to give us the best

current estimate of the extent of waste, fraud, and abuse. we also solicit their evaluations of the shortcomings. what are the relative contributions of poorly defined requirements, duplication of effort, poor management, lack of coordination? what are the most glaring of opportunities for fraud? what kinds of people are most likely to engage in bribes, kickbacks, favoritism? besides combating waste, fraud, and abuse, our witnesses are working for change. they may do this by identifying wrongdoing and referring its perpetrators to this triggers or prosecutors for punishment. or they may pursue change by offering recommendations for improvements and contacting. the office of the inspector general and the department of

defense produced an excellent report in may of 2010. what of our first witnesses has led the reform panels for both the army and the defense science board. the commission has also pressed for change. our second report made 32 recommendations and are four special reports its may 13. the commission's final report to congress will offer many more recommendations. all of us are pursuing change. we hope to engage our witnesses today on three kinds of judgments related to change. we will explore their various recommendations, including the back on testimony and data behind the. its recommendation we're interested in their views on the obstacles they have encountered with regard to their

own recommendations. fear of change, a turf protection, personal vanity, or whatever, and what tactics they have used to overcome these barriers. the commissioners are keen to hear our witnesses opinions on the recommendations we made our second interim report. we will be reviewing the new research and to check whether any of them need to be revised before we issue our final report. hearing the opinions of our experts assembled today will be very helpful in the process. we have two panels of witnesses today. our first panel consist of dr. jack, former undersecretary of defense and chairman of the army panel known as the commission. he is a professor at the university of maryland school of public policy. paul francis, managing director

with the government accountability office. the second panel has three members. special inspector general for iraq reconstruction, deputy inspector general for auditing, and acting special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. two of our witnesses are veterans of our proceedings we consulted with the doctor or early in the commission's life and welcomed him as a witness last september. the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction was a witness in our very first hearing in february 2009 and has been that sense. we're very pleased to see them both again. thank you to all of you. but after witnesses to offer five minute summary is other

testimonies. we also asked that witnesses provide within 15 days response to any questions for the record any additional information they may offer to provide. if our witnesses will please rise and raise their right hands, i will swear you by name. i -- do you all is whether the testimony will give in this hearing is the truth, and nothing but the truth? but the record reflect that both of them answered in the affirmative. in.tor, please bega [inaudible] >> ok.

thank you for this opportunity to appear before the commission and discuss implementing improvements to defense wartime contacting. my testimony is based on my chairmanship. on the congressionally mandated defense science board and improvements to services contacting. as well as my own experience in the defense industry and the government. you ask me to comment on these studies as well as your own commission's recent publications and during the opening statement, i will highlight a few topics in each of these categories. my written statement contains far more detail.

essentially, all of the 270,000 contractors in iraq and afghanistan are performing services. the task force found that overall, the dod buys more services than supplies. in 2010, 57% of the acquisitions in terms of dollars or services. services are different from buying weapons systems. services do not follow an incremental process. there measured by a wide variety of different standards and required continuous performance so they are not subject to amenable breaks in contracts. historic data clearly shows that government personnel should always carry out inherently governmental functions and that not inherently governmental functions are best completed

among commercial providers or between government industry. if the dod automatically in sources not inherently governmental functions, it loses both performance and cost benefits. a congressional budget office study determined that for equipment maintenance, using the army military units would cost roughly 90% more than using contractors. the sharing contracts clearly these are inherently governmental functions to acquire -- to require services is more difficult and requires high-quality experience in government contrasting and program managing personnel. after the trained and ready resources must monitor and in short that the contractor is

performing and providing the desired services. these government work force demands are only compound did in a contingency environment with the accelerated operations of the tempo mandate faster responses, flexible approaches. the secretary of defense make improvements in four areas. policies and processes, leadership and organization, people with experience in services, and contingency contract in as a special case. the specific recommendations to improve management oversight of contingency prop contract included developing a single playbook, modifying the federal procurement data systems, and

granting limited acquisition and contacting a 40. -- authority. we recommended that all military department and defense agencies conduct realistic exercises and training that account for services contacting and the role of contractors during contingency operations. let me shift to the army commission, which predated the effort. our key findings here include the observation that the dod has an extremely dedicated core of acquisition people, but they are understaffed, overworked, undertrained, under supported, as they are undervalued. the military leadership for this dwindling community had also diminished dramatically. on a positive note, in the three years since the study, the department has made noteworthy progress.

growing the depleted acquisition workforce, funding growth of the civilian acquisition corp., and congress added -- the army established the army contract in command and now the contrasting field in the army has the benefit of foreign aid general officers -- of four new general officers. right now, defense contract management agency fills this function will be army grows its work force. this puts a strain on the mission. further concern is contacting officers representative for contract oversight. the department should be examining the role the reserve components might play. the importance of contract administration cannot be overstated and we need

professionals to give it the attention it deserves. i am pleased to see that your commission also sees the importance of this function. i read your report and the 32 recommendations. you've taken on a very important topic that needs attention and your focus can be of great value. you requested by feedback on your report, so i offer the following fought -- thought. the main title right be identified risk as a considerable issue. the subtitle is opened to very significant misinterpretation. correcting overreliance on contractors conveys an impression that the dod should reduce the role of contractors. in reality, contractors plate and a sentence role in contingency operations. the government focus should not

be on decreasing contractors, but on assuring that they are performing the appropriate functions and being properly managed. my opinion on the title reflects my general comments on your second report. the focus on punishments, like suspensions, comes the expense of positive incentives. missing is a discussion of creating incentives to reward outstanding performance, such as awarding contacting with all long work if they achieve higher performance of lower-cost. i strongly believe in the value of competition. if the threat of future competition is enough, to get those desired result, competition should not always be mandated. it should be required if the desired results are not achieved.

the greatest incentive for a contractor in achieving the desired result is the fault -- is the following award. these are inherently governmental functions. i assert the importance of limiting organic capability to only inherently governmental functions, which must be filled by government employees with relevant management experience, not providing public-sector monopolies for not inherently government work that can be competitively awarded in the private sector. >> can i get you to wrap up? >> i am on my last paragraph. the concern should not sit so broadly that it pulls and efforts by our industry

partners. the government gains great value for contractors. i suggested exclusively or recording of recommendations in this area. i encourage your commission to shift the focus in your final report toward rewards and recognition versus punishment. i believe this will go a long way in creating the system that improvements are troops deserved. contractors are an important force multiplier, but we must build a government capability and infrastructure to manage as reality. there are many actions were your commission can play a very valuable role. i see the key issue as getting the right people, government and industry, and creating positive and sentence for it -- incentives for these individuals to get with the war fighter needs.

i believe this can be done and it must be time. the men and women serving in our nation deserve alas -- no less. >> thank you. you put your suggestions to us in the end. we will split the difference with you. thank you. >> thank you. good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to engage in this discussion. ocs has been a reactive ad hoc phenomenon. it has been the sum of thousands of decisions. the goal is not necessarily to accept this as the new normal and to codify it, but rather to

define what should be and try to make that happen. the challenge before that is not necessarily to look at this as something broken and has to be fixed, but something that has an inertia to it. it has been in place for a number of several years in a state of equilibrium. that will take more energy to change. i think the distinguished -- is -- a distinction between service and products is very important. dollars are not a big proxy for risk inundate -- engaging services acquisitions. it works for weapons, not for services. that is not going to change. it ought to be how to put the people at a local level in a better position to succeed.

turning to recommendations, i think of recommendations and actions as occurring on the strategic level and a local level. i think there is a fair consensus that we do need a cultural change your. -- here. ocs needs to be integrated into plans. we do need a strategy for defining roles and responsibilities. we need to find that mixed force and plan for it. we need to incorporate lessons learned. the strategic level, i do think it sets the context for those who manage at the local level. it creates a culture for making local decisions. we have to understand that this is where requirements are set. this is where a source selections are made. oversight takes place.

i think it is really essential that we have that cadre of experts experience deployable contract officers. we need to train and educate and prepare our non acquisition workforce. the combat units are the ones with the requirements, they have to work with the contacting officers and developments and they will be ultimately responsible for monitoring execution. going forward, i would like to think in terms of enact, enable, and in power -- empower. i think that has been largely done, and i think secretary dates january memo put a cap on that. the commission put this very

well, that many initiatives are in policy, many are in planning, but if you are in action. there has been enough out there, but we have not done yet. we do have a lot of work to do yet. we've talked about the need for planning at the strategic level, but i think we need a normative view, some vision of what ought to be in terms of integrating ocs into plans. we to think about scenarios, ratios, start to get some ideas out there. we cannot wait for perfect information. we're still trying to measure the number of people right now. we cannot wait for perfect information, it has to be good enough for iraq -- to act.

we have to get some chalk more -- chalk marks on the board. a couple of weeks ago, admiral mullen made a comment in a press conference that was insightful. over the past decade, we have doubled our budgets and in so doing, we have lost the ability to prioritize. i kind of think that is what is at the heart of the problem. the commission has recognized that we have been enabled by on constrained resources. that is really something that has to change. my last point is how to enforce. we have to start doing something about the budget and getting in front of the problem. if we want this planning to be done, maybe we need to budget for it, and hold people accountable for executing the budget.

the services acquisitions are very hard to fight in the budget. there are no line items for them. we have to change that as well, especially for contingency operations. hold people accountable for managing efficiencies, make it an imperative. i will close with this that. we will be leaving iraq at the end of the year and we have a timetable for leaving afghanistan. i think the work the commission is doing will most likely be able to affect future military operations, but the agencies that could benefit most right now will be state and u.s. aid. they are more dependent on contractors and have less organic capabilities to manage them and they are in there for a long haul. >> thank you.

the process we will use -- we are going to begin with my co- chair. >> thank you. mr. francis, you talk about accountability, and that has the concept of rewarding for doing while -- well and is closing -- and excluding those who are not doing while -- well. i am hard pressed over 10 years of seeing how we have held contractors accountable and those who oversee contractors accountable when services are not done well. are you pretty comfortable that we have held people accountable when they have not done their jobs? >> i did not feel like my

distribution was 90%. it was more than 2% -- 50%. when that is there, up we will have a lot less mistakes being made. as far as the concept of suspension from the company, for something that one employee happens to do that the company may or may not even have anything -- any disability into, that may be an extreme. >> we would graham. -- agree. >> that is not the report says. >> that is a misinterpretation. i cannot name on my hands in 10 years, i cannot think of five

companies that have been debarred for a full-service. i can tell you companies where we have renewed the contract or we did not have any one else to take their place. >> a number of years ago, this was a general electric -- >> i am just talking -- >> this was a very good example. >> that is not my example. i cannot name five companies that have been debarred for bad service in spite of bad service, not by just one employee. overbilling and so on. >> let me distinguish between fraud and waste. >>