the problem with the opposition is about that there leaderless. local committees, based on region, will have to solve the deal. that will be difficult. >> we have heard all ideas members did not respond well to. a daily limit would be your word. >> the regime are not as stupid as a lot of people make up. they are aware of international opinion. they're also aware of how many gaddafi killed, and feel that after a certain number international opinion turned

quickly. there is an issue with the number of people who are seen. >> you do not have a microphone. we're going to give you one. yes you do. there are people watching all over the world. >> i have a question. who supports these armies? how are they employed? how'd they control the demonstration? how many%, after five months, are in it? how many have accounted? >> it is quite a lot to get through. you're saying there are many military but not many protesters. would you like to follow that?

>> the last five days, estimates of about 3 million protests, 24 million who risked their lives to demonstrate. the answer would be to hold a free and fair election. i think that is the best thing to do. >> and said you could ask this lady a question. you can after the panel. there will be time. we have heard a great deal from the panel tonight. iraq is selling discounted oil. turkey may cross the border. the protesters are desperate but determined. we have heard predictions of status quo. i hope we have had a full airing of views. i would like to thank the panel for giving us a briefing, for helping us an inch further from

understanding the situation. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in a few moments, defense secretary leon panetta's first official briefing at the pentagon, warning congress about spending cuts. in 45 minutes, republican representative steve lott correct -- labourette on the federal aviation administration. there was a deal to resume full operation. then, a hearing on u.s.-mexico border security. later, a forum on political unrest in syria. >> the house of representatives has been off eight weeks already this year, including this week. did you get eight weeks of vacation this year? i did not.

>> former "russia today close to host -- a "russia today" host takes a slightly more amusing take on the news. >> we are trying to figure out how to make news entertaining and informative again. it has dwindled. >> she will talk about her network and her show sunday night. >> defense secretary leon panetta says congress cannot balance the federal budget by just cutting discretionary spending, which includes the defense department. meeting with reporters at the pentagon, the secretary warned against automatic defense cuts that would be triggered by certain provisions of the debt ceiling bill. this is 45 minutes.

>> good afternoon. this is my first press briefing here at the pentagon as secretary of defense. as you know, i have just completed my first month as secretary. during that time, i have had a chance to travel to the war zones to meet with the troops and commanders. i have had a chance to consult with a number of the ministers of defense. i hosted for bang of my counterparts -- i hosted four of my counterparts at the pentagon. i visited north, last friday. i will be traveling to so, on

monday. -- socom on monday. i have had the privilege of visiting walter reed and meeting with our wounded warriors. finally, i have established a regular dialogue with congressional leaders on the hill and a very close working relationship with the service chiefs and service secretaries. i meet with them on a weekly basis. i've been truly impressed with the expertise and professionalism of the department's senior leaders. i am proud we are going to build on this terrific team in the weeks ahead. we just announced yesterday -- the president announced he would nominate ash carter to be the next deputy secretary of defense. the senate confirmed general marty dempsey and admirable sandy [unintelligible]

to be the chairman and vice- chairman -- vice chairman. i am very pleased the senate was able to rapidly approve the nominations. there are a lot of challenges that will face this department and the nation. we have efforts to meet our fiscal and national security responsibilities. that brings me to the debt ceiling agreement that was enacted this week. it had an impact on our national defense. as i said in a message to dod personnel that i issued yesterday, a reduction in the defense budget enacted as part

of the debt soon agreement is largely in line with the civilian and military leaders of this department. it is what we were anticipating and preparing to implement. make no mistake about it. we will face some very tough challenges here. we're trying to meet those numbers. but those numbers are within the ballpark that we were discussing with both the president as well as with others. and we have the opportunity to make this decisions based on sound and balanced strategy and colleges -- and policy, and with the best advice that we can get from our service chiefs and the service secretaries on how to proceed, to build a strong

defense not only now, but in the future. thankfully, so far this is a very different process than has so often been used in the past when there of been defense drawdowns. defense cuts were applied across the board. the force as a result was hollowed out. it was left undersized. it was underfunded relative to the missions and responsibilities that this country must fill. that approach would be particularly harmful, because of our nation at war. we face a growing range of security threats and challenges

that our military must be prepared to confront, from terrorist networks to ruminations -- rogue nations that are making efforts to obtain nuclear capability, and to dealing with rising powers that look at us to determine whether we will maintain a strong defense here and throughout the world. it is that multitude of security challenges that makes me particularly concerned about the sequester mechanism that was contained in the debt ceiling agreement. this mechanism is kind of a doomsday mechanism that was built into the agreement. it was designed so it would only take effect if congress fails to enact further measures to reduce the deficit.

but if it happened, and god willing that would not be the case, but if it did happen, it would result in further round of very dangerous cuts across the board, defense cuts that i believe could do real damage to our security, our troops and families, and our military ability to protect the nation. it is an outcome that would be completely unacceptable to me as secretary of defense, to the president, and i believe to our nation's leaders. most importantly, it would be unacceptable to the american people. the american people expect that our military will provide for their security. rather, they expect that will always protect our core national

security interests while meeting reasonable savings targets. as i have said before, we don't have to choose between fiscal discipline and national security. i recognize the resource limitations with face as a result of the size of the deficits that confront this country. but i also recognize that the department of defense has a responsibility to do its part in dealing with that, and we will do so. but we always have to remember those who are doing their part, men and women in uniforms and their families. truck this process, i will be working closely with the leaders of this department, including the service chiefs, to insure we do not break faith with troops

and their families. we have a volunteer force. it is the heart and soul of our military strength. we have to do everything possible to protect the volunteer force. i have no higher responsibility as secretary of defense and to do everything i can to protect and support them. every decision i make will be made with them in mind. they put their lives on the line. too many have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of this country. we owe it to them to do this right and do this responsibly. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i would only add that the chiefs and i fully agree with you.

we have no issue with the military budgets being held to account in these challenging times, or with the need to make tough programming decisions moving forward. we have long ago braced ourselves for a decrease in defense spending and of work hard to ease some of that by finding efficiencies where we can. we're gratified an agreement was struck to raise the debt ceiling. we believe the terms of that deal are, at least in the near term, reasonable and fair with respect to future cuts. the cuts required for this agreement are in keeping with the president's previous budgetary direction. we are already hard at work to find the requisite savings. we also share your concerns about the devastating impact of further automatic cuts should the congress failed to enact additional budget measures.

the defense department may represent 50% of the discretionary budget in this country, but there is nothing discretionary about the things we do every day for our fellow citizens. from the wars we are fighting in iraq and afghanistan to the support for nato allies in libya and disaster relief missions in haiti and japan, the training and exercises and joint operations with conductor around the world, the u.s. military remains a linchpin for defending our national interests. to loosen that with capricious cuts nearly double to those already in the offing puts at grave risk not only our ability to accomplish the missions we have been assigned, but those we have yet to be assigned. i was struck by the degree to which the debt and the state of

our economy preoccupied our troops. they probably saw the media coverage. there was not an engagement i conducted in which this issue was not raised. i found it encouraging that the troops were informed and interested. on the other hand, i found it lamentable that they needed to be. our men and women downrange have enough to worry about just getting the job done. they should not also be concerned about whether or not they will be paid to do that job and whether or not their families will continue to get the support they need during long absences. we can do better than that as in military and a nation. our growing debt remains the single biggest threat to our national security. the military exists to eliminate or mitigate the security threats. we will do our part in this regard. but we cannot allow that effort to go so far and cut so deep

that it jeopardize our ability to deal with the very real threats around the world. the cannot afford to break the all-volunteer force on whose backs we rest. we seek it successful cuts. we look forward to working with you, mr. secretary, as you lead the effort to make these critical decisions. >> mr. secretary, as you start to look across the defense budget, which has doubled in the past 10 years, where would you see the best opportunities for saving, among health care and all those other benefits? and do you think these cuts will affect the pace and drawdown in

afghanistan, and equipment the u.s. can lead in iraq beyond the end of the year? >> with regards to the first part of your question, we have, and it is ongoing, a comprehensive review to look at all areas of the defense budget. the service chiefs are looking at all of those areas and will ultimately make a recommendation as part of this comprehensive review. my goal is to be able to use that comprehensive review to inform the strategies we will have to make. that is going to be key in the areas we look to for savings. >> from the standpoint of troop presence in iraq, afghanistan,

and around the world, i do not think there is a decision now that is not one to take cost into consideration. we have to do that. our budget has doubled. a significant part of that has been the investment in our people and families over the course of the last 10 years because of who they are and what we have asked them to do in fighting these wars, and the stress they are under. i would argue with the strategic comprehensive umbrella the secretary described that a balanced approach looking at operational costs, investment in our people, and in programs -- where the service chiefs are is recommending strongly that we looked at all of these. given the strategic approach, we can adjust accordingly.

all of that said, i have no expectations, from what i have seen from secretary panetta or the president, that we will send people in harm's way without the support they need. there are resources necessary to fund that support. i expect that will continue, whatever the outcome in iraq and afghanistan. >> the comprehensive review is ongoing. how can you make the claims he said today and yesterday about the amount that can be implemented as fair and reasonable and the amount that would cause great damage, when you do not have the analytical factor completed yet? >> we are not sitting in the office is doing nothing at this point. what i am basically doing is having a number of discussions with the service chiefs, with budget people, with policy

people, to talk about all of the areas that need to be considered. we are waiting for the review itself as it goes through. that is not stopping us from the ability to have discussions about how we would have to implement the savings requirement we are facing. >> secretary gates implied the review would inform the public and congress about the risks inherent in different approaches to cutting $400 billion. do you intend to make this public later this year, some date on this review? >> the most important responsibility we have is to make public the recommendations we have with regards to our budget. that will reflect some of the decisions and recommendations in the review. i think what the american people are entitled to is a

presentation of what our defense system will look like in the next five or 10 years. that will reflect a lot of the decisions that went into making the final recommendations to the country. >> is it fair to say you are drawing up contingency plans in case be sequestered cuts are triggered? >> i am not. we are focused on the number that was part of the debt ceiling agreement, which is very much within the ballpark number that we worked out with the president and omb. i feel confident that number is manageable and we can achieve it in a way that will protect our national defense. i am not even beginning to consider what would happen with regards to sequestration.

all i know is that from the review we have been doing and what we have to deal with in these numbers that anything that doubles that would be disastrous. i am going to give congress the opportunity to have this committee work. i think that is what we are all looking toward. i think the president and everyone who was part of the debt ceiling agreement really believe and hope this committee will exercise their responsibility to look at other areas of the budget other than just discretionary to come up with the kind of numbers that have to be part of a deficit reduction agreement. >> i understand the debate is ongoing. but you have inherited a military which has grown significantly in terms of budget and manpower since the start of the wars.

the think you need a military that big? can you shed personnel, regardless of whether it is $400 billion? >> i am not going to get into the particulars of what we will or will not decide here. i think it is fair to say the goal here is to design a defense system that will make the threats not only of the future -- not only of the present, but of the future. there are three areas we have to protect. we have to protect our core national security interests. we have to be able to provide the best military in the world. we cannot break faith with the troops and their families. those of the key elements that have to be part of what we decide. >> the question presumes that we have dramatically increased our

strength. that increase has been in our ground forces. when you look at the increase in the army and the marine corps, even before this decision, the numbers are starting to come down. the army is programmed to come down to 520. the marine corps is at 202 and will come down 15,000 or 16,000. at the same time, the navy dropped its strength by 50,000. the air force came down 20,000. when you look at the totalitarian -- at the totality of the and strength buildup, it has not been that significant, relatively speaking. >> on your recent trip to iraq, you were emphatic in urging the iraqis that if they wanted american troops to stay beyond the deadline for withdrawal at

the end of the year, they need to make that request soon. this week, vice president joe biden is quoted in "atlantic monthly" as saying the deadline has passed, it is too late, and all american troops will be out by the end of the year. is that the case? if there were a dispute within the administration about whether to keep american forces in iraq beyond that withdrawal date -- >> think everyone appreciates the commons that were made yesterday after the taliban meeting in iraq. those comments and decisions are now being reviewed to determine what the next steps ought to be. we will always maintain a fraught long-term relationship with the iraqi people.

whatever decision we make with regard to our military presence will be done in that context. >> you have contingencies to consider looking forward to the budget. what numbers are you thinking about in terms of how many american troops may need to stay beyond that deadline? >> that has to be part of the process of discussing exactly where we need to go in the next steps between now and the end of the year. i think we appreciate the fact that they have made the decision to engage. now the question is for us to engage and decide what that will look like. >> yesterday, defense officials said there should be no more cuts from the super committee to the pentagon. they should look at taxes and entitlements. do you think that is a realistic

position? >> let me put my old bucket hat on. you cannot deal with the size deficits this country is confronting by simply cutting the discretionary side of the budget that represents less than a third of the overall federal budget. you have to, as the president has made clear -- you have to look at the mandatory side of the budget, which is two-thirds of the federal budget. you have to look at revenues as part of that answer. while i am commenting on that, let me make a point on the discretionary budget. the discretionary budget has taken some pretty serious cuts, both as a result of the continuing resolutions from last year as well as the decision

that was just made. when you look at national security, i think you have to look to the broader context national security is not just dependent on a defense budget. it is also dependent on quality of life in this country, which involves the domestic side of the budget. it is also dependent on the state department budget and their ability to conduct diplomacy abroad. all of those areas are contained in the discretionary side of the budget. i think all of them represent in a very real way the security of this country. i would hope that the leadership and the congress will take the time to look at the areas they should be looking at if they're serious about dealing with deficit.

>> do you think the answer is that there should be no -- >> we are already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt ceiling agreement. those are going to be tough enough. i think anything beyond that would damage our national defense. >> recent analysis at the pentagon, over the past 10 years, found the dod spending more and getting less for it. some of the things driving that are likely to continue. how will you deal with that in your budget review, should that go forward? >> as you know, the last couple of years we have focused very heavily on the efficiencies aspect of who we are. that continues to be the case in terms of the review on going right now. underneath the process of this comprehensive review, we will

continue to look at our staffs, to look at the overhead that exists here. we recognize that resources that are going there are not going to those that are out on point. there is a trade. we also fully recognize that at some level, depending on where we take the cuts are what the cuts are, that our force structure comes into play dramatically. that is why i talk about this balanced approach. i think programs that cannot meet schedule, but cannot meet cost and schedule requirements, are very much in jeopardy and will be very much under scrutiny, if you will. i am confident we can meet the targets we have been given thus far.

it is in that review that we have understood or do understand, if those cuts were to double -- we have looked into the abyss, if you will. the service chief view is that is very dangerous for the country. all of us are looking at better and more efficient ways to do this while continuing to focus on these national security requirements, the demands of which are still out there, and will be in the future. you said you hope sequestration would not happen, but the military is fond of saying hope is not a strategy. you said you could not allow the cuts to go so deep as to risk national security.

with respect, the question is -- if sequestration happens, just how unacceptable? do you feel at this point that you could continue in office? >> [laughter] i did not think he was going to sequester me. >> seriously. there are serious cards on the table here. >> i know what you're saying. i did not come into this job to quit. i came into this job to fight. my intention is to fight, to make sure that hopefully some common sense prevails, and that the committee that is established does its work in looking at these other areas of the budget. i also have to emphasize the dangers of sequestration and the impact it would have on our national defense. i think mike and i and others

have a responsibility to educate the leadership on the hill of the dangers if they allow sequestration to take place. i was involved in the conference on grammar. i know what sequestration is about. at that time, the decision was to use this tool as a way to force the right decisions. it has not worked. i do not think it will work. it was the approach taken in the past. congress made the decision not to proceed with sequestering because the results would be so damaging. every time the trigger was about to take effect, it would be postponed. >> twice within a number of months, before you came here,

you have had to say to the troops you do not know if they would get paid. i do not know if any of us can afford that happening. how can you command in a war when the troops come to you time after time and wonder if they are getting a paycheck? >> i tried to address that in some of my comments today. i think putting them in a position where they have to worry about this and their families is something we just have to make sure in the future debates does not occur. we have a significant number of our younger force who are married and who are living paycheck to paycheck. that was a source of the question the other day, when i was in afghanistan. all of that said, throughout my career, when pay starts being

discussed, it comes to the top of the list for our troops. it always has. but i do not think we should put them in a position to have to ask that question. >> talk about the threat picture for a second. as you are doing this review, tell us how you perceive the security threats to the country. in your last job, you worried a lot about that every day. when you were in afghanistan on this recent trip, you said you thought al qaeda was on a strategic level almost defeated. obviously, there are offshoots. what are the threats to national security, and how do you match that to national security?

>> that is one of the fundamental issues we have to deal with, to make sure we are prepared to confront those threats. that is what the defense is all about. clearly, terrorism networks are still a threat, even though we have badly damaged al qaeda and their ability to conduct attacks in this country. they still remain a threat. there is a threat coming out of yemen, a threat coming out of somalia and elsewhere. that means we have to continue the pressure to deal with the threat of al qaeda. in addition, as mike mentioned, we have two wars we are still dealing with in afghanistan and iraq. we have responsibility to try to bring those wars to a stable conclusion. that is what we are trying to do. in addition, we have threats

that come from iran and north korea. we need to continue to watch them closely, with the danger be in the could achieve nuclear capability. in addition to that, the responsibility is obviously to be able to project power in the world in order to make sure that rising powers understand the united states still have a strong defense. all of those are important national defense areas we have to pay attention to. >> what is your level of concern with north korea and chinese military expansion? >> having visited china recently, i think we are all concerned with sustaining continued stability in the

region. north korea has historically generated provocations which included last year, where they killed 46 south korean sailors. i think they killed three south korean marines. the south koreans have taken a strong position they are not going to tolerate that anymore. south korea is a tremendously strong, longstanding ally. we support them. we continue to work with them to try to ensure that stability. that is a lengthy discussion i had when i was in china. there is concern throughout the region with the growth of china, the pace they are growing their defense, the capabilities, which in many cases are anti-access. they would like to see the united states stay out. we are threatening those issues.

we could restart military to military negotiations, a relationship, so we can have the discussions. there will be rough times. i hope we can sustain that relationship and build on it over time. it is an area of growing concern as china builds. we are speaking to china about strategy. how are you building this? >> the unity of the countries in the region, with respect to the south china sea, is important. we need those disputes to be settled in to support stability in the region. that is what we are focused on. >> could you give us more details about who will be in charge of the negotiations with the iraqi government's?

do you believe the mission can last for more than two years? can you use contractors without u.s. troops? >> the general heading our forces there and the ambassador will be heading that. >> some members of the procurement sector there was not enough industry experience in the under secretary. will his replacement come from that background? >> if he has a long and distinguished history on defense issues. having worked with him in the time i have been here, having worked with him in past capacities as well, i find him to be someone who is serious

minded and very capable, and a good manager for the department. that is the primary interest i have, is making sure the deputy understands his department and can help manage this department. i think he will do an outstanding job. with regards to his successor, i have obviously asked for a list of individuals that we think can replace him and that have an industry knowledge and i think is important to that job. >> i would add to that. i have been in and out of the acquisition in my career. i have watched secretary carter worked inside acquisitions for the last couple of years. i have been incredibly impressed with how he focuses on programs. he is a bright, capable guy. he has interacted exceptionally well with industry in that regard. his other focus has been on those things we need in the fight.

he has made huge difference. i think he will continue to do that, should he be confirmed in this new assignment. >> two questions on the war that has not been mentioned, libya. you have warned about allies essentially becoming exhausted in libya. i wonder if you think there are more steps the u.s. ought to take in the near term to break the stalemate. second, i think the request for additional forces from the nato commander -- has there been a decision on that? >> i am not going to comment now on what additional steps he may be -- we may be considering here. with regards to working with our allies, i do believe nato has done a very good job at conducting the operations in libya. we have been working within the nato context.

we think they have made pretty good progress. the key, obviously, is for the opposition to continue to exert itself, to bring pressure on the regime. the combination of nato and the opposition has given us a better opportunity to put diplomatic pressure on gaddafi to step down. >> on the i s r feed, i would not comment on what combatant commanders are asking for or not. i would say, with respect to isr, there is not a combatant commanders who would not like more. it is something we look to adjudicate and a portion all of the time. >> we have time for two more questions. >> of the alliance, ours is not the only country facing serious

budget problems. many of our european allies face them. can you talk about what you see the future of nato being and what the future challenges are four nato, considering how many of these countries are in tight financial times? >> bob gates i think made some excellent remarks with regard to the responsibility of the nato countries to be able to put up their fair share in order to make sure nato remains strong. i am a believer in those partnerships. i think it is not enough for the united states to maintain a strong national defense. it is important that other countries work with us to assume responsibilities that an increasingly difficult world is presenting, not just us but to other nations throughout the world. my goal will be to do what i can to strengthen the partnership

with nato. i think one of the keys is we have to approach that and try to develop some kind of resources for nato so that it can be strong for the future. i think it is important. i think it plays a very important role in terms of world security. i think more needs to be done to strengthen the partnership. >> congratulations. you have both been in afghanistan and pakistan and have met the officials there, inside and outside. some of them perhaps are targeting high level officials in afghanistan. what role the think india will play and is playing now -- do you think india will play and is

playing now as far as afghanistan and the region? >> i came out of afghanistan a couple of days ago. with respect to threats growing in afghanistan, clearly we had some expectations that they would move to the spectacular assassinations. we do not dismiss them. they are very serious threats in that regard. the taliban suffered for the significantly last year. they no longer own the battle space. we expect this will continue and that is what they have moved to. we're working hard to protect our forces and provide security for the senior afghan officials which are targeted here. the second part of the question was -- >> hors d'oeuvre growing

security concerns? >> as you know, i have felt it is a regional issue, a south asian regional challenge that all countries have. the united states has a global interest in the region. so do the countries that lived there. we need to continue to work together to address those challenges, or they are going to get worse. i am encouraged specifically with the discussions between pakistan and india in recent weeks and months. if i understand both governments, those are going to continue. i hope they do. i consider that to be a positive step. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> in a few moments, republican

representative steve latourette on the federal aviation administration. there was a deal this afternoon to resume full operations. in a little more than half an hour, at a hearing on u.s.- mexico border security. later, italian prime minister berlusconi addresses parliament about the economy. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow here on c- span. president obama will be at the washington navy yard to talk about administration plans to help veterans re-entering the workforce. that is at 11:00 a.m. eastern. at 12:45 p.m., a joint economic committee will get the july jobs report from the bureau of labor statistics. >> this weekend on book tv, the

life and times of clarence darrow, attorney for the damned. afterwards, amanda foreman on the british citizens who fought for the union and the confederates. three hours of calls and questions, in depth with "ann coulter." look for the complete schedule at book tv.board. -- at blooktv.org. look for weekend schedules in your in box. >> congressional leaders agreed to fund the federal aviation administration, ending a stalemate that had furloughed several thousand workers and it stopped airport construction projects throughout the country. before that announcement, representative steve lott to read it spoke with reporters in the capital. this half hour contains

language some may find offensive. >> thank you for coming. i wish there was a more famous republican to stand in front of you today. i called my friend the speaker yesterday after a witnessed what i considered to be a disgusting display in the press conference in the capital and that occurred in the white house press briefing room yesterday with the secretary of transportation. i asked the speaker if he would be kind enough to invite all of you so i can share a perspective. i do not think any member of the united states house of representatives or senate thinks it is ok for the faa to not be extended while the differences are worked out on a long-term bill.

however, i would also add that i was still a member of the committee when the last extension or bill was passed. we have now had 20 extensions. to be completely frank about it, the last serious attempt to come up with a long-term bill in the last congress -- mrs. pelosi was the speaker. the chairman of the aviation subcommittee was a friend of mine. they could not get it done. one of the sticking points as to why they could not get it done did not have anything to do with labor issues or essential air services. there was a fight over something on the slots at national. those of you that cover aviation news know that reagan national has a perimeter rule and only a certain number of flights per day are permitted to go in and out of reagan national. there were some boats in the

united states senate that wanted to expand the number of slots to permit them to go outside the 1,600 mile radius and take nonstop plans to their districts rather than having to stop. i will avoid the obligatory minnesota airport joke when i tell you that was a nonstarter in the house of representatives because the proposal favored u.s. airways and they would have been awarded 48%. nobody agrees with the effects of that shut down. i think we are all agreed that there are 4000 furloughed workers. a number of them came to visit me yesterday. idle construction workers are about 70,000. about $2.50 billion in projects

that should be under way in airports across the country, including mine. there is a ticket tax that is going uncollected at the rate of $30 million a day which is not going into the aviation trust fund to pay for these projects. what is at dispute here, the essential air services -- their budget, which they tell me i might have screwed up -- they said it might be $200 million a year. for the purposes of this discussion, we will say no more than $300 million a year. already, as we enter our 14th day of the shutdown, the ticket tax lost to the aviation program has exceeded the entire cost of the essential air services budget for an entire year. why i wanted to give you a unique perspective on this is

that i was offended by the way the secretary of transportation and the senate majority leadership yesterday attempted to message this discussion. this is my 17th year in the house of representatives. to show you how geeky i am, i look forward to how the democrats and republicans are going to go home for the august recess and what the messages coin to be. our friends the democrats have settled on hostage taking. i doubt you will conduct an interview over the next few days where the words hostage- taking are not mentioned. they got into trouble with the media when they attempted to call some of our colleagues terrorists. the have pivoted in a classic message shift and are hoping that if they call us hostage takers some of the public may connect the fact that terrorists sometimes take hostages, so we

are terrorists at the same time. what i have to bring to this discussion is that last week raised the hood called me. -- ray lahood called me and asked for help with the republican leadership in unraveling this matter. i suspect it is because we are classmates from the class of 1994. that was the class of 73 republicans, the newt gingrich revolutionaries. i remember they thought we were crazy. we have nothing on the current crop of 87 freshmen. frank and i are the cochairs of the republican labor caucus. on the labor issue in the big bill, frank and i differ with the chairman on the legislation. frank and i and president bush suspended the prevailing wage laws in the gulf coast after

hurricane katrina. we worked to have those reinstated. when president bush had a dustup with air traffic controllers, i led the fight to get the controllers a good and decent contract. i could go on about the number of labor issues in which we have differed from a number of our republican colleagues. but also to read the national mediation agreement on the house floor. not to get to into the weeds, but frank and i and a number of other house members wrote to the nmb in support of a petition by the afl-cio to change the way unions can be certified under the national rail labor act. it was that since the 1930's if you had a thousand people in the union, a majority had to vote yes in favor of certification.

that seemed odd to us. the rule is now 50 plus one of the people who show up and vote. kind of like the elections we run in every two years. bill in thecah's house attempted to put it back to the old rule. i argued on the floor that i did not think that change was appropriate. frank and i immediately in response to our friend's colorado went to work. we went to the majority leader and the speaker of the house. even the speaker boehner was busy last week with some things you might have read about, he tasked his chief of staff to negotiate with the folks in the senate to see if we could not the ground way to make sure this problem went away before the august recess. a number of offers went back and forth without result. we were not able to work it out. on monday, the vote of the debt

ceiling bill, we went to the speaker and barry again and said even though we would be in pro forma session we only have three hours were the house is going to be conducting special orders to get this done. mr. jackson empowered me to go over to the senate and indicated that we cannot leave town with the faa closed down. the speaker is willing to agree to a clean extension and shake hands on the issue of eas and other issues. i indicated we would move forward without prejudice, which meant we would continue to discuss them and everybody got back in the fall. i was advised that now i am going to be called a bipartisan sniper are rounder and have problems with senator coburn. we immediately ran to the cloakroom and the senate side and i talked to senator cockburn

by telephone. i will describe that conversation in a second. i think it is important to talk about who the hostages are and who is holding them. the house of representatives passed an extension of the federal aviation legislation on july 20 of this year. it has been sitting without action by the senate since that time. it's 6 pages long and i invite it who want to talk about but apparently haven't read the six pages. it has the coburn essential air services language or amendment. essential air services, not to be too mundane, but there was recognition by the federal government a number of years ago that in order to provide air

service to people in outlying regions, the federal government would subsidize and pay money to the airlines if they would offer flights from some of these more remote airports. you can go to the next slide, please. now, a couple of things about poison pills and what the coburn language and what it isn't. the coburn language on e.a.s., someone might say, well, it it was coburn so there must have been this spirited debate in the senate and broke down by party lines and everybody was yelling. the coburn language on essential air services passed the united states senate by voice vote. then you can flip forward and say, well, if this was such a big deal, then surely the democrats in the senate would have opposed final passage of the senate f.a.a. bill because it contained the coburn e.a.s. language. 87 senators -- and i don't have the roll call but you can figure out who they are -- and when you

get 87 senators in this town to do anything, it's an accomplishment and i would assume that in that 87 number, there are a number of members from the democratic party. and the coburn language, to be clear, indicates that for those airports that are on the e.a.s. program that are within 90 miles of a hub airport, rather than the american taxpayer subsidizing the cost of the ticket and paying the airline to transport those people, we're going to ask those folks to get in their car and drive the less than 90 miles to a hub airport. that's what this fight is about. next one, please. now, there have been a lot of allegations that this is somehow a mean republican trick to target airports in democratic districts. the coburn language that's in the senate bill passed by 87 votes, deals with these 10 and

only these 10 airports. and just to walk you through them, here's where the community is. next to it are the members of congress, the members of the house of representatives, who represent the location where the airport is located. next to that is the nearest large-on-medium hub airport. is the number of miles you would have to drive if you, for instance, the top one, lived in athens, georgia, you would have to go to hartfield jackson international and it would be 72 miles. until the coburn language was adopted -- let me continue on. the next line is how much the federal government has subsidized those airports in fiscal year 2011. the next one is how many people have used those airports in fiscal year 2011 so picking on poor paul broun down georgia,

6,715 passengers have gotten on a plane rather than getting in their car and going to the atlanta airport and the american taxpayers paid $157 per passenger so they could do that. that's what the coburn language is. if you study the charts, there are only two airports that are in districts that are currently occupied by democratic members of the house, and that's mr. higgins and mr. crits and of course, mr. crits is the successor to the late john murtha and that's the johnstown pennsylvania airport. to be perfectly fair, the micah proposal, not only has word for word in the six-page bill, the coburn language, it added another requirement and it said, you know, we're going to deal with those airports that are miles but we're also going to look at airports

wherein the american taxpayer is paying more than 1,000 dollars per person to subsidize the mileage. these three airports are a greater distance from a hub airport but the micah language in the extension doesn't say we're not going to subsidize these trips anymore, it says, we're not going to subsidize them above $1,000. not to pick on anybody in particular, but the first one happens to be in nevada, eli, nevada. it's currently vacant. it was dean heller's seat who is now in the united states senate. and if you wanted ago to the nearest hub you would have to drive 234 miles to the salt lake city international airport. but how many people have taken advantage of that this year? 471, and the price that the american taxpayer is paying per

person that chooses to get on the airplane in eli, nevada, rather than driving or finding another way to get there is $3,720. the micah language for these three airports said, in addition to these 10, that we weren't going to pay more than $1,000 per passenger anymore in the extension. so that brings us to 13 and as you can see, even though there are democratic senators who the states and the districts represented here, all three of these airports are in districts that are occupied by republican members of the house. now, we spend a lot of time here attempting not to be impolite and that's why we say things like, "my distinguished colleague from across the aisle

is surely confused on the subject matter at hand." but it's time to not be impolite as we deal with this crisis. i'm a proud graduate of the university of michigan, even though i went to ohio and it's a you-standing tradition if go to watch a football game in the big house, when the referee makes a call that is questionable, 105,000 people go -- it is time to declare b.s. on the messaging that is occurring currently on the aviation bill and strip away what's going on. now, the hostage takers here are not the tea party. the hostage takers here are not the house republicans. the hostage takers here aren't even anybody in the united states house, republican or democrat. go to the next one, please.

here are the two people, for reasons of their own, who have the ability and have had the ability since july 20 to make this problem go away. now, i left you with frank lobeando and i running to the cloak room to talk with senator coburn on monday and i asked the senator if he would drop his hold on the bill and permit the house to remove the coburn language from the extension so we would have what everybody in town is calling a clean extension. he said he would not. he said it's the first piece of cutting legislation that the senate has adopted in 2011 and he wasn't going to yield. now, i could tell you that that argument, although it's a problem, i have some sympathy

for that argument. if you study charts three and four and what we are talking about, and that is the fact that -- let's back up to this one for a second. we'll just take another airport. i don't know, let's just pick virginia, as an example. morgantown, west virginia, you can go, if you don't want to fly out of morgantown, west virginia, you would have to drive 75 miles to the pittsburgh international airport. 20,000 people have chosen not to drive to pittsburgh and instead want to get on the plane in morgantown and the american taxpayer has paid $73 for every of those 20,000 people and ask you and i to pay for it than requiring those folks to get in the car and drive to pittsburgh.

so, to be clear, this crisis could go away if senator coburn relented and agreed to have his language taken out. i happen to be in favor of what senator coburn is doing and it's not just me. the coburn language was adopted by voice vote in the senate. it's in the senate f.a.a. bill and 87 senators voted for it so for people to stand up and wave their arms and talk about the fact that this is a poison pill is not accurate. senator rockefeller, when the proposal was made that we pass the house bill, which is pending, and has been pending since july 20, and the senate has always had the power to not only have averted the shutdown at all but could have opened it any day it chose to, has declined to do that. now, i'm not going to ascribe motive or anything else to the senator. i don't think $73 a passenger is

a lot of money in the scheme of things. but he also has had the ability to drop his objection to the house version and pass the house version and these people would all be back to work. the construction would go on. and america's infrastructure could be improved. now, the last thing that i want to mention. i've mentioned congressman frank lobiando a number of times and he is my partner in all of these endeavors. he isn't here today because he's in new jersey burying his mother. but for our friend and classmate, the secretary of transportation, to stand behind a podium in the white house press briefing room and wave his arms and say, you need to come

back from vacation and fix this, it's vulgar. and i think that the secretary owes frank an apology. and the last thing that has not been reported to my knowledge that people need to understand, i don't have the secretary's picture up there, but if people take the time to actually read the bill, the extension that was sent over to the senate on july 20, on page 6, line 20, there's a provision that says "waivers," and it says, "the secretary may waive subsection a-1-b, which is eliminating these 13 airports with respect to a location, any location, if the secretary determines that the geographic characters of the location result in undue difficulty in accessing the

nearest medium or large hub airport." so in concert with the senate leadership, if senator reid and senator rockefeller indicated, called up the secretary and say, there's a waiver provision and i would like to make the case that it's too difficult for my people in morgantown, west virginia, to drive to pittsburgh, will you grant me a waiver, the secretary in the extension has the unbridled authority to grant a waiver for one of these airports or all 13 of them. and so for the administration, through the secretary, to dig in its heels and somehow make fun of the united states congress and its offensive enraged case because he served with us for 14 years, this matter could go away by passing the house extension. so, that's where we are.

let me say one nice thing about senator reid, however. senator reid has publicly indicated that it's embarrassing that the american taxpayer is paying $3500 per ticket to support people flying out of eli, nevada. >> you said that you carried to the senate the speaker's office -- >> mr. jackson, on monday last, indicated that the speaker, because this was something nobody wanted to see, would be willing to do the handshake on the no prejudice on these issues and do a clean extension but he indicated that the problem was going to be senator coburn so the offer was never extended because we had to get by the

hurdle of senator coburn. senator coburn would not remove himself. >> congressman, what are the chances this issue will be resolved before the recess is off? are you hearing of anything happening behind the scenes? >> there are conversations continuing on a regular basis and i would be shocked if this week turns to next week without action. the senate can take the bill they've had since july 20 and pass it or they can work out something else which would require -- but unlike what people are saying, it doesn't require 535 people to get off their lounge chairs on beaches across the world and come back to washington, d.c., it can be accomplished through unanimous consent, pro forma session that we're currently operating under permits the speaker of the house on every tuesday and friday to indicate that we're not

suspending legislative business on that day and we will proceed. now, there's a lot of things you to do, you have to get everybody to agree. i'm an optimist. i thought this thing would be worked out before monday and i thought it would be worked out on monday and it's not for the speaker's lack of trying or senator reid's lack of trying. >> are these two hostage takers, who do you think will fold first? >> i don't serve in the senate and i don't understand their rules and this whole business that one senator can stop the country has always baffled me for the last 17 years but there you go. >> you talked about the airport in johnstown, pennsylvania. we know how much criticism we heard about that airport. to a degree, though, is that to some in your party, is that not emblematic of what this issue is? we heard so much associated so

closely with congressman murtha and some say the government shouldn't be involved in spending money on a facility of that size. >> i know of no motive on senator coburn's part or chairman micah's part that we would ding nine republican airports just to get at the murtha airport. this was an objective standard and they indicated that it's not unreasonable to ask an american with today's highway structure to get in their car and drive 90 miles or less to a major airport and not have the american taxpayer pay a portion of their ticket. now, the fact that the murtha airport is in fact caught up, i a coincidence but there are, as i indicated, only that and mr. higgins up in buffalo, are the only two democratic members of the house who are impacted at all by this language and to suggest we went after all these other guys to get the murtha airport i think

is a stretch. >> can you talk a little bit about the labor position and if there are members on both sides sides -- is that true? >> i think there are a number of issues that are there and quite frankly on this issue i don't support chairman micah's position. >> but is it holding up the -- >> i think it's one of the major issues holding it up but i understand slots are still being discussed, the amount of money is still being discussed. there's a disagreement on the level of spending that should occur in the bill. so if the labor issue went away would we have a deal? i don't know. >> just one other quick question. do you think there's a possible compromise as mr. micah has suggested, that you can find a way in between. >> on the labor issue? >> yes. >> there are a couple of things

that can be done on the labor issue. what i heard as the carried the amendment on the national mediation board from my republican colleagues, a number of them said, you know, if the rules weretion changed to mirror the certification rules and that is 50 plus 1, we can go for that. and, you know, i have to tell i ran the traps with my friends in labor as this thing was being discussed last week. they don't seem to be jumping up and down at that as a solution but a compromise is a compromise. that may be one path forward but i don't know. >> mr. latourette, did you call -- and say, ray, can you apologize? no. but likewise, the secretary did not call me and indicated that he was going to go and he continues to go on television talking about hostage takers and

everything else. ray lahood is a friend of mine and throughout this entire process last week, i called him more than i called my wife and talked on a regular basis about where it was and what we were doing and he was very helpful in those things so, to then sort of turn on a dime when the democratic party here in washington has decided that hostage takers is the new drain the swamp, it's offensive to me. and i think he owes frank an apology. >> you say you don't believe it won't be resolved. do you think the senate will pass the bill as it is? >> the easiest path forward is that the senate passes what they've had for close to two weeks. believe that's what's going to happen at the end of the day but it's important to know that the speaker stands ready, willing and able to engage and find a way forward.

>> do the democrats have any right to be concerned as they say they are that they accept this extension bill with something they hadn't negotiated on it, the next extension bill, something will be on it that democrats in the senate like even less and they'll be up against a time deadline all over again. >> that's a great question because the highway program comes up next. i will tell you that i don't happen to think that putting poison pills on straight extensions is a good idea but i have attempted -- for instance, if mr. micah had chosen to put the n.m.b. language on this extension, we wouldn't be having this conversation. but what i think is disingenuous for the democrats who take that view is that, again, this

language passed by voice vote, 87 senators voted for it and i guess some senators may not like it because it impacts their airports but this is not a poison pill. i know poison pills and this is not a poison pill. >> congressman, you said the speaker stands ready. in your recent conversations with him, did he give you he is willing to move to a u.c. and get this done in the next 24 hours or so? >> that's what he did last monday. i mean, we were there. but in that scenario, i mean, again, the house is just the house and in that scenario that's why i was tasked to go talk to senator coburn and senator coburn has made it clear that he will object to a clean extension that doesn't include his e.a.s. language. as i said, i don't disagree with him in terms of philosophy, if you look at the airports and what people are paying in

exchange for the just asking somebody to get in their car. i live on the far close to pennsylvania and i think hopkins airport for me is 40 miles and you said the choice was for somebody to pay $500 to subsidize my ticket if i lived further away, that's ridiculous. but the speaker is ready to solve the problem and senator reid is ready to solve the problem but these two gentlemen for their reasons are not. and i think that it's horrible. two more.

>> could you be more specific about when this might be resolved? we expect a bill to be passed tomorrow or next week? >> that's all above my pay grade. i'm not involved in those discussions. but the rumor is this matter will be resolved next week. >> if the speaker is willing to a clean extension, why not send one over and let senator coburn to subject to it. >> senator coburn has already objected to it. >> but not to a house bill. >> the house -- and i grow weary, we produce all kinds of legislation at the senate and they don't produce their own legislation and they just say no and attempt to call us hostage takers. it happened during the debt crisis. i think they've had a bill and they should put it on the floor

and vote it down, which would in my mind indicate we need to do something else in the house, or not. this notion that we have to continue to bid against ourselves in the house because the senate doesn't want to do anything is ridiculous. anyway, thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> we're joined by keith laing of the hill it. seemed like a series of chess moves on the f.a.a. bill. what happened by day's end? >> by day's end, the senate agreed to pass the house bill that the senate has had for two weeks which included cuts to subsidies for rural airports in exchange for the house agreeing to not challenge transportation secretary ray lahood from waving those cuts so the end result is these 4,000 f.a.a. workers and 70,000 construction workers will get back to work here and the

f.a.a. will be funded through september 16, which is after the end of the congressional recess. >> tell us more about these sticking points between the version the house passed and the senate, what the senate really wants. >> well, there were two bills that were at issue here. the house and senate had disagreed, they passed drastically different versions of a longer term funding bill for the f.a.a. the f.a.a. has been operating on short term extensions since 2007. the one the senate will pass tomorrow will be the 22nd, if i'm not mistaken. so in the longer term bill, the house had included some labor provisions. they undid some rules that the national mediation board had adopted to make it easier for railroad and airline employees to unionize and those provisions drew a veto threat from the president and the senate -- were not included in the senate bill. so when those negotiations

stalled, the house passed and the senate passed a short-term extension for the f.a.a. that july.hrough it expires -- expired on july 22, and that's when the house inserted the cuts to the essential air service program into the next short-term bill and democrats objected to them because they said they were politically motivated, that the airports that were cut were in the districts of democratic leadership in the senate and there were three airports, one in nevada and one in montana and one in west virginia, which are the homes of senators harry reid, jay rockefeller and max baucus. >> why didn't the senator put the emphasis on the bill at this time. >> the secretary has been making the push 13 days ago. the last f.a.a. short-term bill

expired at midnight at july 22. the impasse didn't get attention because the debt ceiling negotiations were capturing everyone's attention including the white house. it wasn't until that was resolved that this issue moved to centerstage and everyone involved ramped up rhetoric. >> it's a short-term solution through september 16. how quickly will congress get back to work on it when they return? >> well, they'll probably have to get back to work on it right and they will also be bumping up against the september 30th deadline for a highway bill which authorizes congress to collect gas taxes. >> keith laing keeping an eye on that debate on capitol hill. read his work at thehill.com. thanks for that update. >> thanks for having me. >> in a few moments, a hearing on u.s.-mexico border security and in about an hour and a half,

a forum on political unrest in syria, than italian prime berlusconi addresses parliament about the economy. and later, defense secretary leon panetta's first briefing at the pentagon. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we'll look at how the debt ceiling deal may affect defense spending. we'll discuss tomorrow's new employment numbers with marie johns, department administrator small business administration, and we'll be joined by sarah binder from the brookings institution to look at how the proposed super committee to cut federal spending compares to other commissions appointed by congress and the president. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this month, >> this month c-span airs the

final releases of the johnson library. this saturday hear conversations. >> hear conversations from richard russell and dean rusk. >> i'm trying as hard as i know how to get peace in vietnam as quickly as i can. for that reason i am not running. >> listen to c-span radio in the baltimore/dc area, online at cspanradio.org. >> the head of customs and border protections says the u.s. is moving toward what he calls satisfactory control of the u.s.-mexico border. allen burson was one of the speakers at the event hosted by the americans for progress. this is an hour and a half.

>> i think we'll get started. welcome, everybody. my name is marshall fitz, i'm the director of immigration policy here at the center for american progress. thank you all so much for coming. we obviously have a packed house, and i think it's going to be well worth your time. for the next hour or so i'll be moderating the conversation between our two highly distinguished panelists. we're going to be focusing on u.s.-mexico border security, evaluating the past, present and future. the last 30 minutes i will open up to questions from all of you and so keep your questions ready. we'll pass the mike around at that time. so the focus of our discussion today is really on the most recent chapter in what is a rich and storied history at our southern border. over the last 18 years, it has gone -- undergone what can only be described as a dramatic

transformation, and we're fortunate to be joined today by two people who can tell the story of that transformation perhaps better than any two people in the world, same going to introduce them in a minute but let me start by setting the stage. if you listen to some politicians and some radio and tv personalities, you might think the last 18 years had never happened. the story that they tell is one that's built on sensationalism and half truths at best and frankly demagoguery or falsehoods at worst. they describe porous borders where the borders are penetrated equally by international terrorists and economic migrants. they talk about spillover violence from the deadly cartel wars that are occurring on the mexico side of the border. they talk about our deserts

being littered with headless bodies. and most importantly i think and what we want to address and tackle head-on today, they claim the federal government refuses to do anything about it. the facts belie each of those claims, attempted unlawful entries are at historic lows. the rates of apprehension are at historic highs. our border communities are safer than they've ever been. the crime rates have been on the decline for more than the last decade. and border cities of all sizes, in fact, have lower than the national average in terms of crime rates, in many cases well below the national average. unfortunately, though, sensationalism sells. and false as it may be, it does tap into what is a continuing sense of i think national vulnerability in the most-9/11 era. so it's all the more critical for us, and this is the reason for our conversation today, to

tell the real story of the evolution of the border the last 18 years. by discussing where we started and how far we've actually come, i think we're going to be able to help debunk some of the most persistent myths and shine a light on where we still need to go. i don't plan to gloss over the difficulties or challenges with managing a 2,000 mile border that spans four states and some of the most treacherous terrain in the country. i also don't want to ignore the unintended consequences that have come from this border buildup and really the singular subject of enforcement. i hope today's conversation will help advance the public's understanding of just how far we've come in what is really a shared objective and that is to strengthen our national security and assert control over the border. and who better to have us

explore this issue than doris meisner, the former commissioner of the naturalization and immigration service when this border buildup began in the early 1990's, and the current commissioner of customs and border protection, allen burson. i'm only going to briefly cover their bios because a full description of their accomplishments and their experience would frankly take most of the next hour, but let me just start with allen burson. he's been the commissioner of customs and border protection for the last year and a half or so, since march of 2010. he overseas c.b.p.'s 57,000 employees. it's a small city. more than 21,000 border patrol agents. but commissioner burson has a long history well before he assumed this position at the

southwest border. he was previously the assistant secretary for international affairs and the special representative for border affairs in the department of homeland security and also in the 1990's, the u.s. attorney for the southern district of california and the attorney general's southwest border representative. doris meisner is currently a fellow at the migration policy institute doing fascinating work and cutting edge analysis but as i indicated during the 1990's, from 1993-2000, the entire tenure of the clinton administration, she was the commissioner of the immigration and naturalization service and really oversaw this initial phase in the border buildup. but her rich, and frankly unparalleled experience in this field goes back well beyond that. she was actually the acting commissioner and the third in line during the first half of

the 1980's as well at i.n.s. so i want to thank you both for your extraordinary public service and for taking some time to be with us here this afternoon now. you represent really i think book ends on what is this most recent chapter in our southwest border history. and while i would normally go first to the commissioner as a matter of etiquette and good form with my first question, i think it's really important that doris have an opportunity to help kind of set the stage for us and describe to us what was really happening on the ground in the early 1990's and kind of what led to the genesis of this border buildup. let me start with you, doris. you think you could try to kind of provide a picture of what you walked into in 1993 and where you carried that forward? >> well, thank you. i will do that, marshall.

i want to begin, of course, by thanking you for such a kind introduction and for all of you coming today to listen to this program. it's always great to be on the podium with commissioner burson. and i'm looking forward to having this discussion. but the way that you asked me the question and the way you set it up, you have to indulge me in a little bit of personal reminiscing to sort of get this going because these stories are always policy stories and inspirational stories but ultimately they often come down to people and particular circumstances where people are concerned. so to take us back, and it seems in some ways we're going back to ancient history, but we are talking now about the early 1990's, the election of president clinton in november of 1992. my -- the announcement of my being the kess i go knee -- the designee appointment was in

june of 1993 and my confirmation hearings were in october of 1993, so we're talking almost a year into the administration. but after confirmation hearings in october i was sworn in in november of 1993. and that period and what was taking place in the fall and in the broader backdrop was very critical to understanding how it is that this issue of the border and border enforcement unfolded because during october, something took place in el paso called operation blockade. operation blockade was an idea put in place by the border patrol chiefs down there at the time whose name was a familiar one because he is today a congressman, is congressman silvestre reyes who was the chief of the border patrol and tried a new technique. his technique was basically to take all of his resources from across the el paso sector, added to by money for details,

overtime, etc., and put them right on the border. so the idea was overwhelming force moved forward at the border to see what would happen. and basically what happened was that it shut the border down. now, that made national headlines and national news just as i'm going up to the hill for confirmation hearings, and of course members asked about it. and pressed me very hard to pursue those kinds of tactics where border control was concerned broadly and we had quite a discussion about what at that time was called operation blockade. simultaneously, the attorney general who was janet reno and also was quite new in her position took a trip to the southwest border, went to san diego and saw the southwest border firsthand and came back and said to me as i was coming

in to my new duties, doris, you must do something about the border. sometimes that's the way policy is actually determined. and in this case, it was very clear that my first priority was to be to deal with the southwest border and particularly the circumstances as we saw them or as they were taking place in san diego because in san diego at that time proposition 187 was on the ballot in california, governor wilson was running a re-election campaign based on these failures of a federal government where immigration and immigration enforcement were concerned. and that was buttressed by lawsuits that had been filed by the federal government by the state of arizona and i believe the state of florida, i don't even remember anymore. but there were several lawsuits suing the federal government for abdication of their enforcement responsibilities.

so these are not new scenes, they've been around a while for a long time. different ways, different players. but the focus on the border was absolutely essential. so the question was what to do. well, o.m.b. said that it would support a new budget focused on the border, border enforcement fit very effectively with president clinton's broader anti-crime law enforcement agenda which was an agenda that was a centrist democrat kind of a priority. intended obviously to take the law and order issue away from the republican party and border enforcement fit into that broader frame. so i went to the border patrol and said you're the professionals, you know what's needed, if we really had resources to do border enforcement, how would we do it? and they came up with a plan and with a strategy that led to

changing the budget between november and december when it actually goes up to the hill in january, and i then spent a lot of time on the hill trying to convince members of congress to accept the strategy that we wanted to put into place to change the dynamics on the border. i remember in particular a meeting with senator feinstein who was essential, of course, because she was from california and our effort was to persuade her that whereas there would have been enough money in that budget for 600 new border patrol agents, could we please hire only 450 border patrol agents, i think these are the numbers. they're close. and use the rest of that money for equipment, technology, support, vehicles, other things that would make those border patrol agents be more effective. that was not an argument that had ever been made before and

we had to really argue the point, but they gave us the chance, they did change the budget and we began, then, to set the standard for different kinds of budgets that were comprehensive budgets on how it is that you go about doing the border. now, those new resources then allowed us to mobilize a couple of new operations and the first operation was operation gatekeeper in san diego which we announced in the fall of 199 4, and that really, along withhold the line in el paso, which came at almost the same time really was, i think, the official start point of the buildup of the border that has continued through republican and democratic administrations in the congress as majorities in the congress as well as administrations in the white house continuously, from that

time to today, this has been an issue of bipartisan support and engagement from the start. now, what did we really try to do? what were the key characteristics of these operations and of a new approach to border enforcement. i think there are six critical characteristics. the first one is the idea of deterrence through prevention. that's the idea that kill investigater reyes first democrat -- that silvestre reyes first demonstrated. and that is that you move your personnel and efforts to the actual line of the border in order to prevent people from entering in the first place. that is not what the border patrol had traditionally done. traditionally the border patrol had stood back to some extent, because there were not very many of them, and try to apprehend people once they entered the united states.

that was a recipe for chaos and it was a recipe for all kinds of corollary problems, the most vivid example of it was the famous soccer field in the san diego sector where every day as nightfall approached, you saw hundreds of people on the mexico side of this huge bowl get ready to cross at nightfall. the border patrol stood on the other side of the bowl and as people came across, the chasing began. and many, many more people obviously got through than were ever caught. so the idea was move your people forward, prevent people from entering in the first place, and then you will begin to get deterrence. the second major principle was to concentrate your resources. the concentrating of resources

meant to look at where the crossing patterns had actually -- were actually taking place. and it was very clear it had been this way for decades, that there were four corridors of high crossing corridors, they were the san diego sector, nogales, el paso and mcallen. if you could get control of those corridors and there were relatively few number of -- number of miles in each of those place. if you could get control of those quarters, you would be controlling 60% to 70% of the apprehensions that had been taking place, and those, of course, were the corridors that were linked to transportation routes in mexico and that's where the smuggling took place. that was what the network looked like. so the idea of concentrating resources in those high crossing corridors seemed now to make perfect sense. but it was very different at that time and quite unheard of.

what had happened prior to that time was what i always thought of as sprinkle around which is that every border patrol sector, every chief, every community ought to get pretty much a pro rated share of any new resources that came into the agency. that made everybody be happy. but at the same time, it never led to enough critical mass anywhere to actually make a difference. so the idea here was to concentrate and begin to gain control piece by piece by piece of parts of the border and to have more force available as you were gaining control, but then once you gained control, to be able to leave enough of a residual force in place to hold it permanently as you then began to move on to other parts of the border. the third big idea had to do with the mixture of resources. we called it the people

equipment technology combination. it was a mantra, people, equipment, technology. because the history, of course, was to just put money in personnel. and border patrol agents. that was the coin of the realm. but that persuading of people on the hill that we did initially to let us have a mixture of resources of course carried through, so the idea was to give those agents support staff, implant more sensors, put cameras in place, do night vision, all the kinds of things that are now very familiar, stadium lighting, come recon touring so you had more access for vehicles, have enough vks, and one enormously important innovation which was automated booking through a system called ident, bringing

that kind of technology to the border. because up until this time huh a system called i-2 p 13 system, if there are any hold hands in the group, you'll know what this is, it was carbon copy 3-5 part form filled out by hand on the top of the vehicles by each person being apprehended. so one of the things that happened in operation gatekeeper and in the others of these operations was when people were apprehended they were brought into stations, there was an actual booking operation in place. everybody's fingerprints index were taken in order to create an automated system that kept the records of arrests and made it be possible to know who were the repeat crossers, who were the new crossers and have real information on what it was that was taking place. i think the fourth big principle had to do with mobilizing all of the department of justice resources. after all, this was i.n.s., it

was in the department of justice, so to mobilize all of the justice department's resources beyond simply the border patrol and to engage in very intensive aggressive community outreach was a major feature of the border buildup. that's of course where allen burson comes into the pick, as you mentioned and that's how he and i got to know each other and work together because he was the u.s. attorney in san diego at the time. therefore the chief federal law enforcement official on the ground. of -- and the idea of course, that prosecution policy needed to support what the front line law enforcement agencies were doing and more than that, that there needed to be continuous communication and coordination among all the federal -- all law enforcement agencies on the ground and with the government of mexico. we worked very hard at the national level with the embassy here in washington and in

mexico, and allen and the chiefs and the border patrol officers on the groundworked very carefully with the consuls in those locations to stop problems before they began or to keep them from escalating when they did come up so that we didn't have international incidents and foreign policy stalemates over things that could be solved on the ground. that allowed us to do an enormous amount of outreach. there was a press release for every new agent that arrived in any sector on the border. there was a continuous drumbeat of what it was that was taking place of new things coming into sectors. i think i know every coffee shop in east county because we went to community meetings, we were with editorial boreds all the time.

you can envision the city council room in nogales because of hearings that we held with the city leaders, etc. so outreach, communication, information, shaping expectations, preparing people for the changes was an incredibly important element of this all along the way. another thing that was extremely important had to do with the ports of entry. the ports of entry were viewed to be an essential part of an effective border enforcement effort. so that the terminology we used was idea of seeking borders that work. and borders that worked meant preventing illegal crossing but facilitating legal crossing. and the facilitating of legal crossing was extremely important and in some ways the most difficult task in enforcement because that's where the legal and illegal come together.

the more you tighten up between the ports of entry, the more likely it is that you're going to have pressures through the legal avenues of entry. so that needs to be part of the equation. and where that was concerned, we were most dedicated to helping the flows of legal traffic. we created what was called a 20-minute rule at the key ports of entry, the most heavily crossed port of entry in the world, allen knows it well, and was actually able to observe no more than 20 minutes' rule through a whole variety of techniques we used with staffing and so forth to bring people through the border. that was combined with introducing the sentry lane concept which was the "fast lane"s that go through san diego and el paso and i think they're in a couple other places on the border. that actually required legislation because there was a

prohibition in the appropriations against that. so we worked with the san diego delegation in particular in order to change that legislation to make it be possible to do "fast lane"s. and then finally, i think the final piece of it was the border safety piece because as there was increasing success in closing off and controlling the most heavily trafficked parts of the border, of course it pushed people to the less heavier crossed areas and those tended in many locations to be more dangerous areas. so you now saw people crossing in larger numbers in the old time mountains. you saw them crossing in the deserts on the outskirts of nogales. you saw them in more dangerous parts of the rio grande river in south texas around mcallen. you saw them coming across the all american canal in el central. now, the border has never been

a benign place. it has always been dangerous. there were -- there was a lot of crime and a lot of personal danger in the soccer field area, etc. the highway, the interstate coming up from san isaedro, allen knows it well, always had big posters of a father and mother and child, pedestrians crossing, because people came through the port of entry and they went up the highway, they were not accustomed to what an interstate was like and they got killed. it was dreadful. so the issue of safety at the border has always been an issue. but what happened, of course, with these operations was that it heightened and intensified. the border patrol had always been engaged in rescue missions of one sort or another but now became an explicit priority to have water be in all the

vehicles, to have trained e.m.t.'s available constantly, to work with local officials, deaths at the border, for instance, had always taken place. they had never been counted. we made it an explicit policy to keep track of that,o to work with mexico to respond to the families, to provide information, etc. resources were deployed over deserts, drones, aircraft, etc. -- we didn't have drones at that time, helicopters, six-winged aircraft in areas that were not heavy crossing areas but for the purpose of dealing with safety issues when there were dangerous issues. so i think that that question of border safety was one of the adaptations that was made that wasn't envisioned at the beginning of the program but that had a very prominent part of it all. so there's a report card for

all of this. we probably want to talk about that later. there certainly are lessons learned and things that we might have done differently but that's what it looked like from the front end. >> that's fantastic. i don't think anybody could have given us that type of -- the breadth of challenges that were faced and the thoroughness with which you guys approached it, and so, you know, what it does, though, is it suggests that while we had some really significant challenges that were just, you know, right front and center in 1993, you spent the next eight years, you know, adopting a series of initiatives and mechanisms to try to confront them, but still there were -- i mean, in 2000 you can look at some of the data about how high the apprehension rates still were, that there still was enormous pressure. commissioner, can you then fast forward us or carry us forward

from there to today because that was phase one, but phase two has seen perhaps even -- an even more tangible set of accomplishments. >> thank you, marshall. and i think doris has done a terrific job of setting the stage of where we were in 1993 when in fact in the same month i'd forgotten i was confirmed in november of 1993 and just so you don't feel alone, janet reno said something very similar to me. it was in december. but let's look at -- take what doris has laid down foundationally so well and move it up to the present time. when we describe the situation in 1993, recall that there were fewer than 3,000 border patrol agents.

from the entire length of the -- just under 2,000 mile border from san diego to brownsville, mcallen, texas. today we have just under 22,000 , a commitment that actually started in 1994 in the budget deliberations that doris described and have continued steadily with the major points being by 2006, 2004 there were 10,000 border patrolwe have doue border patrol and the last six years with a dramatic impact on presence. this might be an inopportune time to discuss why apprehensions, which are discussed on the night and go brief, which i would say is the

most coherent statement of what has happened on the border from 1993 until 2011 in terms of the change in the equipment, personnel, infrastructure, and technology available, but starting with personnel, in san diego there were fewer than 450 agents for the entire sector. today there are 3300 agents. the same in el paso. as almost increasing by tenfold with the number of agents. the specific theory of action is to put people out of you see -- of easy urban places to cross the border, to push them out of situations where you can simply walk across the border, get into

the transportation network, and moved anywhere in interior of the united states, so if you look at 1993, the two places -- there were relate to places in which most of the migrants entered illegally -- san diego and el paso, and it was not difficult to walk across the bridge or walk across the river from juarez into a of paso or to stand at the field in san diego and surge across the border. which may be for the agents on duty holding maybe two in each hand and everyone else surging .yro you did not have to be anywhere particular to cross and enter the transportation network of the united states. if you follow the progression of

traffic of illegal migration across the border in last 18 years, you will see a basic phenomenon of squeezing the water balloons so when you actually have sufficient personnel in san diego, which was the first of, five years later the traffic had moved out of san diego into the imperial valley immediately to the east of san diego, and moved into the next sector, which is arizona, and that took a process of approximately 10 years. the same thing is happening moving west of taxes. if you look at the statistics in the rio grande valley, you will see there is a movement of traffic in which as you build up

the border, the traffic and would move west steadily, and fast-forward to the year 2000 and 2001, the traffic was pushed successfully east from san diego, successfully was from texas, -- successfully west from texas, and where did it center, arizona. you will note to the high point of apprehensions in arizona was the year 2000, in which 616,000 people were arrested in the tucson corn borer record or -- tucson corridor. in fact, it has remained the in thetive corinridor

united states. more than 50% of all illegal immigration takes place there, and what is noteworthy is that it is not the place that you or i or any criminal organization and who would set out to find a place to smuggle people into the united states would shoes. arizona, some of the most spectacularly picturesque to rein in the united states, is also some of the most dangerous and difficult. good the sonora desert, the mountains and make it difficult to cross, but that is where the traffic center there, and by 2000, it became one of the few places in the united states where we had double-digit levels of apprehension.

let me describe this counter intuitive measure of success, which is that you see declining apprehensions. taken alone, that would not necessarily be an indicator of progress, but in the context of any policing activity, whether in an urban area or a rural area, the first thing that happens when you put a greater number of police officers in a place is you see the apprehensions go up, because you have more eyes on the problem and more capacity to arrest criminals violators. you see a response that will then relocate away from that area, and what we expect to see is to see a decline in apprehensions common so it -- in apprehensions, so then you begin

to see the deterrent alluded to as one of the objectives. now that has happened across the border. and when that increased presence of personnel is coupled with a greater capacity to detect, you begin to have the ingredients of a successful enforcement effort common -- successful enforcement effort, so we are back to 1993. in the soccer field in san diego, 560,000 people were arrested, and probably twice the number actually got around border patrol, got on the freeway on the way to los angeles, and made its way to the united states illegally. today when 68,000 people were being arrested in the san diego sector, that represents a much higher percentage of people trying to cross illegally

because of the infrastructure defense that exists in urban areas, because of the number of agents that are able to respond, and because of the incredible technology that now costs the border from san diego to brownsville, eyes on the border so we can detect attempted illegal entry and respond to it. that is why we say in the context of san diego, very few people today believe the border is out of control, because they do not experience what they experienced in 1993 with people running through the backyards, with people running up the freeway against traffic, with events of illegal migrants in overturning on the roads, with high accident rates.

that does not happen. if you talk to all those who continue to believe for a secure border means a sealed the border, you will not find community leaders or business leaders telling you the border is out of control the way in arizona it continues to be heard and why the equivalent of 187 to place in arizona -- took place in arizona, so traffic gets pushed into arizona. i think probably in fairness to the difficulty we have had, taken 10 years to get to the point we are asked today in arizona, where the apprehensions have gone from

616,002 last year it was 212,000, and the data this year suggested we will be at about half that number, or 120,000 apprehensions, and that is a consequence of having applied the same approach of more personnel. we have over 5000 border patrol agents and officers in arizona. the greatest resources ever placed by the united states in one place. we have technology in terms of cameras, radar, that is far greater advance and the scope that was in place 15 years ago. we have infrastructure at critical waits, and remember the

fence is not of berlin wall. what the 650 miles of fence has two functions. 350 miles of pedestrian fence are high fences place in urban areas intended to keep people from having easy access into the urban area so they can get lost, find their way into the transportation networks, and move their way into the border. by having a high pedestrian fence, you actually move people into the areas where they are more amenable to apprehension, because they are subject to detection and apprehension by border patrol agents. the other fans are more like the normandy vehicular barriers -- very affective for what they do. we do not need a high pedestrian

cents. what we need in certain places is to prevent trucks and passenger vans from simply coming south to north, so we use that infrastructure together with technology and agent strength to produce the same of fact we haven't -- the same affect we have elsewhere. now after next year, there will be no sector in which we have more than double-digit apprehensions. we will drive the apprehensions alone and in 100,000 in arizona, and we will see the same affect in arizona we have seen elsewhere. the last play -- the last point is but there are a couple of

significant differences in the way in which we operate today from the past. doris pointed out this ability to diametrically identify who is crossing, and i want to indicate why that is so critical. back in the days before the border patrol had identification, and the way this was done was said you would arrest someone in the soccer field. did you would bring them into the station. there was no way to fingerprint them because there was no way to check on who you have. border patrol agents would write the name down that was given to them by the migrant, and they were maintained in shoe boxes in terms of who had been apprehended with descriptions, because the agents knew they were not being given correct

names tattooed on shoulders. that is where we are today. one great strength of border patrol is when they apprehend someone, they can tell you the history of the person over the last 10 years. they can tell you how many times that person has been arrested, where the person was arrested, and what consequences have been applied to the person. this ability to analyze data permits us to apply consequences we could not in the past due, so in arizona, we have a consequence system in which a juvenile and humanitarian cases, nine out of 10 people are actually receiving a consequence. some are being prosecuted. some are being transported away from arizona. some are being flown by into

arizona in cooperation with the mexican government. no more voluntary returns, which is an important element in affecting our ability to analyze what has happened on the border, because when we make our russ, we know how many unique individuals we are dealing with, -- when we make arrests, we know how many unique individuals we are dealing with, so it may turn out to be no more than 65,000 unique individuals. that is important data, because it prevents -- permits us to tell consequences to specific individuals. the last point is openness to mexico, the ability to communicate and gain cooperation of mexican authorities in ways that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

as a result of the president called barone and president obama's joint resolutions, the full responsibility by mexico and the united states for border problems, we begin to see a communication with mexico and the ability to work with law enforcement that was simply not possible a short time ago. that together with the elements of infrastructure technologies are what made the difference. we have more work on the southwest border, and we will continue that work until there is a legitimate labour market and between the united states and mexico, but measured by virtually any metric, the border

is simply not what it used to be, and we need that to be recognized feature of our debate. >> thank you so much. i think you have just told an incredible story about the last 18 years, and it is exactly what i was hoping we were going to be able to cover here, and i did not even have to prompt you, because you covered it in such comprehensive fashion. there is so much i would like to take a on. let me start with one of the things you touched on about the impossibility of and of sloot seals, -- an absolute seal, and congress did not seem to think that was a possibility, and in

2006, they were requiring and in penetrable seal of the entire order from any contraband or humans entering. from any official i have talked to agrees that is a fundamentally impossible standard. that is one of berlin wall itself not have set aside, -- have satisfied, but there is a disconnect, because the average american who does not think about this and considers the united states the most powerful country in the history of the world, it is not about unrealistic to think we could seal the border. how can we overcome that disconnect, because that really is a challenge in our political debate going forward, when you have got members of congress

passing a law that suggests that is viable, but we know it is not as a practical matter? >> 0 craig rates are not -- zero crime rates are not happening. sealing the border theoretically is possible, but i think there are very few americans who would be willing to pay the cost would be involved, so we would need 400,000 or 500,000 border patrol agents to seal the border along the -- using the tactics of simply having border patrol 25 yards from agents next to him or not so the difficulty isn'

that the american people would not understand it. is that there is a volatility to border politics so any particular incident gives loan into this contradicts -- conflagration that things are out of control. the occurrence of crime in a community does not lead people to believe in their entire community is flawless, so i think this is a problem, but the sound judgment of people when actually presented with the argument, and would you want to make this expenditure for this result as opposed to dealing with satisfactory control of the border i think we are moving toward, i think that is a case that could be made.

>> if the seal is unobtainable or fundamentally contrary to our national interest, how should we think about what is susceptible bowman -- what is susceptible -- able.dablaccept what should we be pushing towards in terms of an exceptional level of control? >> i think that what people would consider to be lawless in their communities, the first important thing is to be thinking about the border as an area of law enforcement. we do not expect any kind of perfection, but what we do expect is said somebody is

minding the store. we expect when something happens, the 911 number is going to work. there will be an ambulance if needed, and people will do bad things. the perception along the border has yet to be achieved in some places along the border, but more importantly along the interior. the building of an -- who live along the border know the difference. one example is the tijuana river basin, which was totally no man's land, and which is now a housing development. people live there along the border. people who actually live there -- in el paso it is the same thing. in most parts of the border,

they recognize there is a difference, but that has not been perceived within the rest of the country, and the pot is being stirred in some places along the border region most importantly in arizona, where there is not yet the level of control you want to have, so some of that has a two-seat , but i also believe we have to do a better job, because the evidence has to go beyond apprehensions and beyond the with the commissioner explained apprehensions. that is all true, but there is much more evidence. there is an enormous amount of evidence in the system, which is

being used operationally in a way that has been ascribed to determine how the responses are to be made to any particular case, but it is not aggregated. it is not available, and there is a lot of other information. all of the visual information from the border, even if you cannot tell the whole border, you can tell the key parts because of the technology that , so the important issue of the denominator, how many people are trying to cross as opposed to the number of people are free handed? order control is close to being able to know that, and in many cases, they can know that. there has to be a great deal more debate about those kinds of

outcomes as compared to the debate we're having now, which is look at all the resources we put into it. we are proud of the resources. we are proud of how we were able to create a different managing of the enterprise common -- enterprise, but that is not what is ultimately affect its. right now is the perfect time to do it, because we are helped by the economy. jobs are not available in the united states. there is a convergence that has taken place within the border until the fed makes isn't primetime for laying out the bigger story and -- within the border that makes it a prime time for laying out the bigger story. >> let me talk about the last

remark about economic impact. there is no a question the economy counts, but i think it is important to note there is a long-term trend for decline that begins in 2000 that is continuing ever since. that is not to deny the affect of the economy, but it is to admit this is a function of the economic toll of the united states coupled with the enforcement posture we have on the border. the second point in terms with the paradox that people who live on the border know it is more secure than ever can be confirmed by talking to any mayor or community leaders from the san diego to brownsville area, and they will confirm what the fbi crime statistics actually confirmed, which is the

crime rate is lower in border counties than it has been in the last 30 years, and four of the 10 safest cities in the united states are in border cities, including san diego, phoenix, .ustin, texas, and el paso of pasco actually six of river juarez,m nora's -- from arguably the bloodiest in the western hemisphere. these are facts we need to consider going forward. >> let me ask one more question, and we will open it up to present your questions to the panelists.

i mention that something unanticipated was the border safety challenge. there have been unintended consequences of this effort. there have been a lot of unintended consequences us with any major transitional effort now. one has been driving migrants to increasingly dangerous areas, and that has led to 5000 people having died in the desert, which we can know because you help make an effort to quantify that tragedy, but also it has really increased the cost common and which is one of the goals -- the cost to come, which has made it more challenging to enter the united states, but there is something different, because they are not just paying the to help smuggling seefee

find new rate that is the safest. many smugglers are under the auspices of the drug cartels, and drug cartels to have their hand in basically all smuggling operations along the southern border, and it seems to me that you have these migrants coming for a singular purpose, to find a job and working, and we have deliberately tried to end that practice justifiably, but now they have been funneled into the orbits of much more violent, nefarious, and ruthless criminal syndicates, and i wondering how that affects your mission and the challenges that not everyone is -- there are not any more of the separate strains of

migration. they are being funnelled into one super strand. >> just going to wednesday have with the safety it -- to what they say about the safety programs. the border patrol has saved, depending on the time of year. most of the operations we have going on down -- going on now are patrolling for thosethese i. the second point relates to the dimensions of the smuggling.

in the 1993 most people being prosecuted for alien smuggling work mom and pop operations, people who were crossing small numbers of people across the border in a loosely, very loosely organized way. as a result of the effort, you cannot cross into the united states now without enlisting and paying for a smuggler. for smuggling, the fee has gone up to no less than $3,000 apiece, which has led to the organized criminal significance. that requires and we attack the organized criminal elements and prosecute the coyotes, and that is a major focus. all the tragedies we now read about in which large numbers of

migrants, many of them other than mexican, are being killed, extorted, on their way north is one of the consequences we address, and i think it is being addressed in the overall approach to supporting mexico's eric struggles against organized crime. we need to stand by with that effort. we need to remember it took us 30 years in the and i did states to beat the mafia and that it will take confronting and overcoming organized crime in mexico, it is not want to happen overnight, but what is important is the commitment of mexican society much as it was on the american side. the involvement of organized crime in migrant smuggling or at least controlling velcro corridors through which they

operate is a new feature and a consequence of the heightened enforcement. >> this is what happens in law enforcement. this is not unique. it will continue to be this way. the price will continue to be driven up. the more there will be criminality, that as long as there is a desire to come to the united states. if you have a broader response to illegal immigration, that takes away the incentive. it is a change that needs to happen. it seems that the most important lesson out of everything we have said is a lesson when i left

that i had to draw, we were swimming upstream against the economy, for all the investments we made, all we had done, for all the apprehension numbers we did, the size of the on authorized population in this country grew by at least 500,000 a year because we were living in the longest sustained period of job growth and productivity in our history since world war ii. you have to do border control. you must do border enforcement. it is part of the immigration equations. it is necessary, but it's not sufficient. >> brilliantly said, doris. a perfect way for us to conclude. i would like to open it up to questions from the audience. if he could introduce yourself and tell us where you are from. >> i want to ask you to expand

on and no more voluntary returns, because this has been one of the options for many years. how does that relate to the attorney generals in different states that seemed to have a lot of leeway on the decisions they make as far as prosecuting cases? >> speak first as a former prosecutor, and this is true throughout the criminal justice system, the job to arrest law violators, the job of a prosecutor to determine who should be introduced into the system and sanction, because you cannot accommodate the numbers. when 565,000 people were being arrested in san diego in 1993, you could not have prosecuted all of them.

once we did once we had the ability to track who it was we were arresting, we prosecuted criminal aliens, those who had committed serious felonies. for most of the history of border enforcement, the pattern as been the voluntary rily return people. that is why it is a significant to be able to identify the history of the crossing and the violator so you begin to make a judgment about how to deter that person from crossing back. we still use the system,, to streamline prosecutions, but the criminal justice system, in arizona, where we are doing 70- plus a day, would not account for that.

you could not prosecute all. we developed a whole series of other consequences that involve either a brief detention and then the transporting of the person and releasing them at a far different place on the border or flying them into mexico under a program with the mexican government. the intent is to separate the migrant, create a degree of difficulty, a separate them from the smuggler from -- with whom he or she has been working, by not releasing them over the border. this exercise becomes a lot more informed when you know the history of the violator you are dealing with. [unintelligible] we have limited in arizona the voluntary returns to juvenile

so, unaccompanied minors who are handled in a special way, and humanitarian cases that a rise, and there has to be a special reason why that person would not be put in a consequence program. that is an important new dimension of deterrence, and we are beginning to see an effect in terms of who tries to cross again and where they try to cross. >> can we get the next question, over here? >> we do not have an ax to grind, but we are confused by the numbers. i would like to hear some projections of how many people are crossing legally, so moving beyond the arrest and the apprehensions, and is it not true that some of the pushback on some of these efforts is that people are coming through legally, but using better forms

of false identification, etc., and we know that there is a lot of groups now that are putting out some really excellent i.d.'s that are false. how will the u.s.-mexican trucking agreement now affect this in terms of trucks passing to the borders? do you expect that will complicate this? >> the first point in terms of legal entries, independent of those who are fraudulently entering, as every day cdp process is over 1 million people a day. this is the vast overwhelming majority of people entering this country entered legally and are processed. the problem of fraudulent documents is much less serious

than it used to be. still serious when you have the very highly expensive counterfeit forged documents, but doris will confirm years ago there were hundreds of documents that people used to get in fraudulently, and ever since the western hemisphere travel card, which limits to a certain to approve the way of entering the country from mexico and canada, the problem of false documentation is still there, to be sure, but much more manageable than it was in the past. with regard to the trucking, i think the ending of the -- over time and a careful way in which wasr president's decision made will be a big plus to the economy of north america and the

united states in particular, and i do not think will contribute to the illegal migration problem in any significant way because of the checks that ordinarily are in place because of all trucks that come into the united states, remembering that as a national matter we have 60,000 containers coming into the united states, 20,000 -- 27,000 trucks a day coming into the united states, and we have in place the mechanisms and the protocols to inspect them. >> right behind. >> thank you. this is a question for the commissioner. i would love if you could comment on the not tax -- narcotics flows into the u.s.,

but it would be helpful to know whether the narcotics issues are growing or have decreased during this build up. specifically, i would like asking about a leaked document regarding this strategy not having any defect in dropping the numbers coming into the united states. >> which policy? oh. first, with regard to drug flow ," yes, in much the same way, the border is a barometer. it is a place in which you measure the effects of phenomenon taking place far from the border in the same way that illegal immigration is a function of economic conditions of mexico and the push out of mexico and economic conditions in the united states and the magnet, the job magnet in the

united states. so, too, the flow of drugs is a function of criminal activities in mexico generating drugs linked to organizations in the indicted states and the overwhelming unfortunate and disgraceful consumption level of drugs here in the united states, that draws the supply of mexico in through a demand to the united states. the enforcement effort had led to a much higher level of seizures in terms of every - particular- leak marijuana, but also methamphetamines. cocaine consumption is down in the united states, and those areas where we see demand increase, we see seizures both by the border patrol, between the ports of entry and by

customs and border protection officers at the ports of entry. with regard to the kingpin strategy, it is one element in terms of attacking organized crime, and it is a very critical one. disrupting leadership patterns in the way that the efforts of the mexican government, supported by the united states have taken place in the last five years, particularly the fax -- the effects the dozens of drug kingpin leaders taken down has disrupted leadership patterns in organized crime in mexico, but i do not think president called run -- calderon described that that alone makes the result we see. that is an important dimension,

the takedown of organized crime, much as it was in the united states when the fbi focused on mafia family leaders in a variety of cities. >> right there. >> i was just wondering in terms of a water balloon effect, is there a plan now for looking at a poorly protected lands? it seems that is an area that has seen increased activity. is there a plan to end it, because i understand there is still a legislative roadblock in the way? >> yeah, they are polythene -- piloting a way from it. the the part of education is working on pilots to gauge the impact. >> the baloon effect. >> the border patrol, when doris

ins, was not a good relationship between department and the department of interior. there are arrangements and conventions that affect all across the border, between the department of agriculture, national forests, and the bureau of land management and interior, and there is close collaboration. there's not a place in the lightest it's where border patrol agents cannot go with a whole variety of conventions governing how notice they get after the fact and when they go in. agents have taken huge strides working with interior so that you go to a place like the big bend area and find border patrol agents working hand in hand with park rangers and blm personnel, and this is not a problem.

there have been some congressional proposals that suggest that the border patrol has been barred from certain areas, and that is not the case. the water balloon defects, the difference in 2011 is as the problem moves across the border, east from san diego, west from el paso and texas, we were playing catch-up, because we did not have the technology in place. as it moved, we were always reacting to where the smugglers were taking the problem. the difference in 2011, 2012 is there is no place on the border that will ever be vulnerable to smugglers coming in, setting up shop, and not been challenged from day one. fact that the smugglers have gone and entrench themselves in corridor, is aurt or reflection of what they have had

to react to as opposed to them controlling the agenda in the way that they did for so many years on the less-mexican border. >> thank you. right here in the front. >> hi. it is great that both of you on one stage and thank you for your 20-year perspective on tackling this problem. i wanted to bring up an issue, what impact did the creation of the department of homeland security have on this effort, and you talk about increasing resources, personnel, could all that been done under the legacy structures? what effect does the demand have, and does it have a detrimental effect, where they change offices and change stations at the same time? 995, i was blessed to be

working with doris meissner, and the collaboration was quite good. but i think within the crucible of the aftermath of 9/11, the notion of creating joint border management actually has had an paid huge dividends. the fact that we have a unified order management and avoid some of the oddities that were caused by history, you go to a port of entry, you would have three separate offices. you would have an immigration officer -- office, he had a customs official office, and an agricultural inspection office. all of this is a function of history, customs being created in the first act in the

washington administration, ins being in the labor department, then the justice department. history produced these departments which depended on relationships and good coordination. unified command i believe has made a big difference. in terms of the resources enhancement, i think that is an independent variable, and that is a function of 9/11 and a bipartisan determination to restore the rule of law to the u.s.-mexican border. >> i think it is a very interesting question, and i think there is a deeper implications to it all. it certainly is the case if you had continued giving resources to the department of justice in a way that had been in the 1990's, you would have continued building up and a careless -- that was a bipartisan effort at

that time. and there were some real advantages to having these functions in the justice department, that are in some ways a bit of a problem in the department of homeland security. in homeland security, the profound thing that happened is border enforcement became an issue of national security. and that was a perception that people, professionals in that field that worked along the border, have always held, crier 2 9/11. if you were to talk to inspectors, border patrol agents, they believed they had a national security mission, they work hard to try to get other parts of the government that were explicitly charged

with national security to recognize the value that they could bring to the table, but that was not institutionally recognized, it was not legally supported in terms of their actual authority to handle particular kinds of information, and so forth. that all changed with 9/11, so what 9/11 did and the creation of the department of homeland security, that is a means. the real purpose or the real transformational shift that happened is that poor enforcement became front and center as a general concern of the country, an imperative in terms of a political imperative, as far as the congress was concerned, or resources for attention, and the people who actually do the workers and the agencies that actually do the work are in part of what they do connected to the national

security enterprise. that is a whole larger debate in terms of what are the advantages and disadvantages of that, where does that take us, etc., but i think it was a major shift. >> we have time for two more questions. >> to what extent, even though there is a rationale for the border security, controlling immigration, which the whole question of turning to a national issue of national security republican red herring? >> the you want to fall on what you were saying? >> i would not subscribe to that issue, so that horoscope -- so that doris' poitn -- you come up to a point of entry in

homeland security, you face immigration inspectors who are focused on admissablility issues, and reciprocally you have customs officers to manned half the booths who were looking at stopping contraband and were making immigration admissibility issues. when 9/11 introduce the notion of keeping dangerous people and dangerous things away from a homeland became the overarching, the umbrella in which immigration and customs functions were subsumed and each officer became responsible for customs immigration and security, i think that has produced a more professional

approach to border security. the fact of the matter is that keeping dangerous people and dangerous things from the terrorists to the drug courier, to the alien smuggler and human trafficker, is a very important national security function. i think we are now better equipped to handle backup, and i think in an instantaneous communication world in which things move very quickly toward the border that that is not a bad perspective to bring to the enterprise. >> last question. >> thank you. i would like to go back to the issue of apprehension. i wondered if he could elaborate about the projections to see that just for this year, 120,000

apprehensions. >> in arizona. >> you give us an estimate about how many apparition's since the you spend for this year across the whole border, and what have you been seeing the most high numbers of less activity in crossing across the southwest border? >> in 2010 we saw 400,000-plus across the border compared to 1.6 million in 2000. i focused on the errors and the numbers because i focus on that sector. i suspect we will be in the 250,000, 260,000 as result of

the whole quarter, down significantly from last year, but still 40% will be in the arizona corridor. >> well, thank you, all, for coming up. thank you, commissioner. thank you, doris. this gives us a lot to think about and hopefully we will be able to overcome some of the congressional gridlock had been preventing us from taking the next that's here. thank you all for coming, and that concludes our program. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> in a few moments, a forum on political unrest in syria. then italian prime minister berlusconi addresses his parliament about the economy.

then defense secretary leon panetta. congressional leaders reached a deal late this afternoon to resume full faa operations into september. a couple of the event -- a couple of events to talk about four tomorrow. 11:00 a.m., the president talks about unemployment and veterans. then the joint economic committee it's the jobs report from the bureau of labor statistics. >> the house has been off eight weeks this year. did you get eight weeks of vacation this year, because i sure did not? >> a slightly more record of you on washington and the united

states. >> we are willing to step outside the box, to figure out how to make tv news exciting and entertaining and informative and again, rather than garbage it has whittled down to be. >> she will talk about her show q&a.ay night on c-span's >> this 19-minute program was hosted by the london-based front line club. how busy you are, and we have a lot cover, so i'm not want to say very much at all. please, this is your meeting. if you are not hearing the other side explained, please say early, did not wait until the

end and y you are disappointed. say it early. audiences we intend it to life changing issue properly, which means with you want us to go. to keep our discussion our area. we will end with edictions. update the situation on ground, the protesters, the regime. topics. welcome, everybody. panelists to yourselves and give us in a statement that a short your or your briefing for us tonight, the thing you most want to know at this critical time? thank you, i am the chief editor of syriana oppositi television in london. frame the debate on syria in a way that i think is

accurate, in a way that i think best reflects the reality ground. >> which is? >> that is not a struggle between opposition and the government, but between the what flourish. >> sue? newsnight." >> can you hear? no? >> my name is sue. i think i was the fst broadcast journalist to get into after the trouble began. is a point that the burmese monk once

to me, can any revolutionary movement, can any people succeed when the government shows an insatiable and consistent appetite for and murdering i own people? >> my name is daniel. i am a freelance journalist. was the deputy editor of the current affairs magazine in damascus. >> do we have an application? if so, let's put it to use. >> i will speak up. i worked as a freelance i in the mid february. what i'd like to talk s the growing movement and syria. -- the growing movement in wch may be disorganized chaotic and have many

different elements to it, but there is a movement of people of the world to and do everything they can to understand. consultant in the u.k. as well. i came from damascus 10 days ago. i% the point of view that the best way forward for syria is to keep the current government and have a change from within. tt so of the violence has intensified a. -- has intensified it. it has sent the wrong messages demonstrators, and now syrian government, even thougit has many points to declare, cannot give it to everybody else in the world. what i would like to talk about today.

>> my name is chris phillips. completed the international identity in syria, which involve me living in syria for two years. i could talk about the economic situation of people want to, which can probably be best as absolutely dire, but what i would like to race to the issue about sectarianism in syria. i met many people who would that sectarianism inot prominent in syria as the media wants to portray it, but i am very worried about recent reports of attacks on different groups, and i would like to raise that point with the group. >> thanks. comg with this question.

would it the two journalists best view, an update, if you are locked into news, the security council, if social media reporting during the meeting. will you situation is and other cities? start, sue. the army has fought back the regime, has fought back. they estimate 140 fatalities and many more wounded. little enclave, how syria could government themselves before the army decided to move in. been an explosive month for syria. in syria, it could be arrested group of people meet in a place, whichs why it

ramadan, when thousands go to their mosque every day, it -- it is a chance to demonstrations. this is what had happened, and the army was waiting for it to happen. and they retaliated in a brutal way. week -- >> sorry, what we want to hear you, daniel. give him a microphone. close. start again. >> i was in the country last wee and at the time it was part of this enclave, if you would call i there was no security on the streets, no military, no police. the streets were full of young kids,

among barricades, standing in the streets. mostly, they were carrying sticks and so on, but there were kids, mostly teenagers. evidence of violence, there are weapons all over syria. syria, it is very easy to get hold of guns and ammunition, but people have not used them, or on occasions people have used weapons. now remains have security, torture, and they have not full insurrection.

at the tank put down? >> i think we are in the first week of ramadan. regime, after ramadan, if the regime emerges than what it is now, then i think we could very well the beginnings of a civil war in syria. the slogan from the beginning of death over ty." there is no going back, as far as they are concerned. they know if things go back the wor there will be a

network of informers. however, after ramadan, if the regime is visibly weaker, i think it could spell the beginning of the and thend. >> chris phillips, but do you agree with this assessment, the whole arabs bring it is into three weeks in syria? the uprising succeeds in three weeks? say the entire condensed. certainly at key juncture, the gloves have come off by the regime. he is some kind of reformer, some kind of character who is not willing to use violence. clearly been involved and

willing to use force. in for civil war to break out, you need another side, you need people fighting back. one of the reasons that the peaceful movement is taking that slogan is they know full well if ever there is a regime, if ever there is justification, . it is not like libya, where of the with hardware switching sides. the update of the situation on the ground, so i will come back to that. what is your view? you said you did not want a change of regime? what is the critical nature of now, in your eyes? wait over.

the civil war is already starting. my humble opinion, this is the regime has toughened up. if it had not, the other side matters into their own hands. that is my perception. syria right now is very much pulverized. in damascus the past 10 days, since when i is myself during the 1980's growing idolizing the president, idolizing the military. that is how diehard supporters are being reared at the moment. feeling is there are problems. homes, there has been a lot of sectarian tension.

me the people on the do not listen to the of the other people. >> is the regime right to now? that if they did not, people into their own hands. >> if they do not, people things into their own hands. >> anybody else? yes, you, madam? you would like to use the microphone. . find now one single sectarian by syrian activists. you

to parts equally. it is a regime empowered by extreme force and civilians fighting against it. reform coming from within the regime -- >> what is your update, what is happening? is it three weeks to decide be syrian uprising? >> no one can know what the future will happen. will it. think that is realistic. on the now? how is the situation right now on the ground? media, we don't know. we don't know what is going on. slogans of

were there from day one. many. seen them, we have heard them, and if they are not reported to you, i don't know who yo sources are. second, a lebanese colleague of hamas and he said is the kind of part of syria. the media is not reporting. >> how can we if we are not invited in? >> look, some bbc journalists did. >> not buy a vacation. invitation. views. thank you for giving yours.

it is largely your fault. that is not true. with sectarian slogans. the people he is referring to honest, going to the sunni majority, that is simply not true. 1971, when the hamas, they about 30 sheet for the president. but put that to one side. >> the protesters have been keen not to do anything that might be interpreted as sectarian. calling

sectarian languish describe the population that way. bombarded the bombarding the hamas. update of situation on the ground, but panel wants any part of that? we want to know your updates. have you missed an important point? sue? you mentioned one. of sectarianism and the country. i have heard sectarian slogans demonstrations, anti-regime demonstrations. they are perhaps maybe one person and the crowd shout something, everybody else says,

not what we are about. are here as one people against the regime, and this is feeling. >> when we talk about the vision to look at the various divisions. of them are economic as well as sectarian. i was speaking with various people, and it was interesting, but sectarian violence that took place took place in the poor neighborhoods, a recent economic to the city involved. it is not the establishment that had been a longtime, the class, it was a small segment of an economic strata of society. is often missed by the media. that there war blooming or under are casualties in the city, but you don't want change, the rest of you want change.

we will come to the regime in a moment, but for now we'll talk about the protestors. you have bn living in damascus, daniel, as a westerner. who do you think the protesters are? has the right to tell us who they are? the second part, i think the only people who have the right determine who they are are the protesters themselves. as i mentioned before, it is a disorganized movement, and different actors, different people involved. arexiled groups to have with networks within syria. there are also local coordination committees who over become organized but began as a groups of mostly men. there is a women's movement. it is an entire spectrum of people's movements. sue? a movement of discontent.

make a basic point, forget the of syria and indeed much of the middle east. 60 percent of the population are under 30. the perception i got from some to in syria frustration status quo, corruption, the inability to get jobs without bribes or knowing the right people. they get very impatient with the government's paranoia of always outside forces. i was told time and again, the discontent, the humdrum of every day. >> how these disparate groups communicate? social networks, al-jazeera english was an influence in egypt at t time.

how are the groups in syria communicating? facebook, social twitter, and also of communications, arranging and coffee shops. , there is not a coherent organization. >> how would you answe the question, who wore the protesters? top-down revolution at all. embryonic stage, civil in syria. have emerged syria, first at a level, the which now they are organizing on a city wide or

level and now a national level. the young people in syria, but also women's groups. been very active in revolution. active figureheads in syria at the met are women. -- at the moment are women. a very diverse mix, but i comes under the of civil society vs. the the regime. describthe battle in syria at the moment. >> free people against militarized society? >> absolutely. , said, who for dignity reasons they did not policeman

anymore. equal opportunity in on, so you have these factions. faction that is think, from the outside. with regards to this particular certain on the presence. example, when i was in damascus and a couple weeks driver said -- we restaurant, and there was a demonstration, pro-government demonstration at time. the taxi driver said, don't you think this is provocative? some people are dying and the people saw the burning in the streets? said, yes, well, some of those out on the time seeking to much.

at the end, we may not get any democracy at all. . dignity. but there ithe economic problems. a lot of people cannot find a job. that do i will have an opportunity to express my skills. i will have to be friends with someone. >> are you saying peoplere because they want to be engineers? >> no. they're frustrated.

>> wire they putting their lives line? >> they want a regime change. >> that is thr right. is feared how the change regime, from the inside? -- it is. how do you change the regime, insectinside? you know? i know what people tell me. houses that be ended very soon. what you said. in syria, the biggest and most force is the regime.

they have used the different sections. there is always one person from here. they use a very cleverly. beirut. >> pointed at your mouth. some interesting with close leadership. what i heard gave me the impression of what is going on in syria. contained.

it'll stretch out to lebanon and turkey on the side of the tur in the north of syria. from the protection. to come in. i read the slogan. thoughit was important. the have fled to beirut

having an uncomfortable time. were knocks on the door. >> what do you think they what? there be a very clever in the they use it themselves. change the regime. we have to keep the existing power structure. we may be need to curb some of the

become part of the government. this is the road map. this is the idea that they can stay in place. lives can go on. judd a madinajad. a people have their rights for the assets. it is natural for there to be a reaction.

it is illegitimacy. there once call on these external forces. they're saving give for the syrian people. they will be fighting . the existence is impressed. >> some people have suggested this. i wanted private regime.

>> the question to you is, what do they want? in highlighting this. they initially just wanted to reform the regime. a key point is being missed. it is not necessarily about two is on the street but who is not the street. there are a key geographical regions. the uprising. is the question. they uprising, it cannot possibly proceed. >> why are they not joining inde in?

they say they do not like the regime. we did not like them in power. we will not there out are lost opposition and so we convinced where it will go. is whether the military and forces will stay there. three options will happen now. e crack down. it'll terrify people into submission. the third option is that they refuse. biggest is the appeal in egypt. yemen or libya.

there's something from turkey. there are embassies about not that is there. >> can you give this a briefing? after it came out of syria. this. has been the senior officers. his was quite close to this. there were towns that were hits. about one month ago.

there's a parallel army. who knows if this will go away. >> the problem with the military ishat the machine has a bill. it was designed there. they separated the powers. they're all spying on one another. the high positions. that means the chances of it affecting it is far more diminished than the bottom level. is far they using the for the republican guard. be fiercely loyal. fight to the death. they are largely being used in

widespread ones. what is interesting is whether not you get multiple sources uprisings. >> thank you. in terms of international reaction, these are the things that could happen. it. it is the sense that people may ken be held to responsible. this is what they're picking up. made no difference whatsoever.

g at them. . do you think they're right to do that? the army and the security at each other.

on with an ambush in the army on the way to beirut. that at all. there's overwhelming video evidence for the deliberate people, women, and children. a 10-year- girl who was shot. there's a very graphic video. we showed it anyway. the reality of what is happening in syria.

it is very difficult. with cannot always hear you. did you want to answeris aspect? >> i will not suggest the revolution that started five been 100% peaceful. said it is 95% peaceful. >> is this is a small question.

i can give you an update. this was reported by the bbc. they have not been shown. we will move on to the regime of. it is common to talk about this. down to a family. >> they are quick to answer that. really have confidence. they have huge optimism. think this is a new one.

this has accelerated the process. we believe that you can reform. show us. when he did not, it reaches its. have pointed there. question about doing this. akin to a faly. nobody really knows. nobody knows if they're calling shots are these are

among the small group. about the regime. prisoner in his father's prison. i wonder if we did talk about whether that is right. link was there. brother that was not supposed to takeover. family? >> it is interesting. make it

there. it is the different. security army forces together. dependent on the various

clans surrounding it. is one more thing about the reformer. it is quite possible that he be overwhelmed. he is not a politician. goes there the process. and he learns how to role in many ways. that he is a weak demand. the army? the army supporters as 1975.

he is calling the shots. he came to power. he made the change. still in power. listen to it anymore. is very hard to do change. there is a mass of people. top prime minister position. >> he was a prisoner.

>> and he is planning this. reason. >> i can give the 10,000. >> it is made up to scare people. they had taken to the streets. the end

products. is about freedom, democracy. these are very simple questions. i think the way things are. >> would you like to comment deck'? >> was the most popular is this. people are actually cursing. it is the first wheone that they have.

it is the system. he decided to live with a continue. this is the system. they explained why there through this. anyone that was a loyal, is there. did the minister of defense. he has been put into the government.

there will never lose their jobs. they're quiet comfortable. there is a democracy. they're completely ineffectual. there are these militiamen. another extreme, you had a scholar. he said it is ok to about down. there's a wide spectrum of people that have been coopted. >> there's a widespread ceiling.

there was a plan. they have this. they are unified. this is not a process. there waa process that should fall they're being justified. that backing that followss dangerous. >> would you comment on the what else is there a?

one of the things they have base themselves on is a they have grown its roots. nothing goes on in syria without toucng the regime. most of us have had enough. they do not have time to think about this. they will keep this for another 40 years. >> i've been impressed by the democracy. they're quite proud about what they achieved.

e message was sent out. they did not have much experience. it can be a bottom up process. >> what happens next? >> until you action find out how it falls, one thing that is difficult is what is it about? they say they are trying hard to separate the army from the security forces. they're trying to stage a coup. the problem get a situation

where they go beyond the armed forces. probablyy, they're trying to protect as many assets as possible. if that does not happen, but there's some sort of violent confrontation. do not underestimate the ability for a conflict to change the objectives of people. >> we have that from pro- democracy people in egypt. it is another army person. what about the deaths >> it had a democracy for a while. >> what could replace their aging? let's there is the type of that we have.

it should be game on. the re-emergence of civil society has an alliance between businessmen and clerics. >> who could believe? >> i could name me se names. we will be free of elections. >> we're very much occupied with three or four people at the top of the regime. they are not the regime. the regime as hundreds of thousands of people. if you kill the president and his brother, that is not changing the regime. >> to you think it has the capability to that minister a

whole approach that is it too late? -- to administer a whole approach? is that too late? >> several top members of the government are backing offrom what has been done. they were tricked. since then, if they have had to live in ile. this is highly unlikely. >> they were misinformed. he was not sit on a mission before. he only did it after the assassination. perhaps i got the name wrong. so far, the response has been

mixed. what do you expect? is most afraid? is the regime was fearful of? would you like to tackle th tax quite sick and ask a not at this moment. there's nothing worth fighting for. they're most afraid of turkey. this 10 years ago.

factories and employ others. say we invested in me. >> we demonstrated this. tackle that is about engagement.

it is not that they did not have is another element in deed. it may be fair to mess up. >> israel is not the enemy. they are a great friend for the regime. this is the excuse for everything. the march into the west bank.

it is really a huge benefit to have israel there. of yes, i deal with turkey. essential damascus. they're not able to contain it. plexus the second time you attention to this. you're saying this undecided middle is it. >> you have very small protests. that is your tipping point. about for the armed force to contain it. that is too great a number to impress. >> i keep hearing over and over again.

lot of demonstrations about i to go to those areas. -- there was relief in there. because the private sector is considerably larger other problems are cities in syria. have been if it did. -- benefited.

losing their jobs. there on thursday, there was a shutdown. they would have the area itself. it is in order to defend what best. -- it is to demonstrate. >> syria is a part of a chain goes there. another important link in the chain was libya. if no one said anything about hat might impact syria. will lose some support? there is a three legged stool. could this affect the regime?

this to be something by the opposition. >> how was the economy doing? was the economy supply, they're about the regime. you keep mentioning the economy. to give this a briefing? not in good shape at the moment. bad as making out. they like to get a narrative with all the money running out. the currency ll devalue.

you're seeing a decline in economic ability. consumption is down. all this was through the roof. a bad couple of years. there's still trading with turkey. 25% goes there.

this latin thousand barrels a discounts. while the economy is looking bad as it is. many new about ? >> their 9 million people demonstrating. it, you would see a lot more people. in terms of linking it, there rumors about this. ?

>> we are with you. is people will be thinking it.

they probably do not want it to fall. >> we will go talk about possible outcomes. if you are missing things became into a room hoping, but do that now. then we will go to possible outcomes. >> i have a question that relates to the future. single day there women the first time. there this kind of movements in syria? much too difficult for them fact?

>> it is far too difficult. the it is very difficult. this is the strength of the movement. although there is a lack of education of how to do things. there is not a need for educational programs. reporting this that they were being cused on people inside.

sides they said they cannot do anything. >> if you protested out, what happens to them? >> people told me they were protesting. people then received enormous phone calls. they said their relatives. they're telling them they have to get your people in london to lay off. it has to stop people from doing

that. >> we did a report. it has serious repercussions. what about scholarships and travel bans sex with you just answer this question that we're moving on steel in a moment. >> i think this was exaggerated. the problem is that you're not hearing it. they were outside the embassy.

th is always the subject of intimidation. they were threatened in front of the embassy. >> perhaps. when those people visited, it was interpreted by threatening. they're calling things down. they know people personally. >> we heard you. i think he is a diplomatic one. that happen.

>> it is someone who was that e does not go around intimidating. i don't think he ever stepped out of it. >> there's one very d tel acquisition about the behavior. we're moving around the audience. the do not need to be disappointed. >> the action is sold the regime. what suppo do the protesters have? >> there the king to make it about a fifth of all employees. there is a war that they will

run out of money in it that they do they have to pay the security forc tt do. i do not know what they were to do. >> i would delegate that. i would not want to come in on the deficit. >> this is something i heard from protesters when i asked the question that journalists always do. i heard time and time again that is playing into their hands.

this is our problem. they have intended the recent protests. others say no. it allowed them to go by former colonial power. >> can anybody comment on how the rest of the economy is being affected by a reduction there is a complete collapse in tourism. can anybody comment on the position? >> i just wanted other times. they're running out of money.

after the 21st of june, there were demonstrations. they are refusing to gto the city. they are checking everybody. people are trying to take their exam. inside the selling city. >> when you said they have not seen anything dx that brought to mind this. this is whayou're referring to?

they have much better intelligence on the ground. >> that cannot comment on it. what don't you want to comment on? >> they were not on this. their outside shooting in. it seems pretty unpleasant. do you think that the government could go further? you have to be brief. >> as winning if the government could do more.

>> do you think it is a surgical military response? >> they have not the least the full potential. they do a lot more damage. i think they're willing to fight to the debt. -- death. they know if the regime falls, it is the mother of all revolutions. there is a morally corrupt system. many more people will die. i am sure.

>> f people who want to share solidarities some how, there is the embassy. >> thank you for your question. let's seek the audience reaction. is there anyone on the panel that wishes to disagree with that statement? keebler saying that there will not be any. it will appear to dig people are sang that there will not be any -- people are saying that there will not be any. >> turkeyight bring it to a

bubble on the northern part. >> i'm not being rude. what do you know about it? is it because of the refugees stopping there that they have to make some kind of response? >> is a not be entirely for the benefit of the syrian pple. we do have the issue of a lot of refugees. turkey does not what trouble to spillover. we're coming to the conclusion. would you like to give as an outcome? >> i am depressed. people talking that they did not want outside intervention.

we have seen a largely ill- equipped protest movement. government has prepared to put it down. they have nothing to fight back on. and did not think it be the outcome for most of them. >> do you think there are more skirmishes in which they are killed by this tax we're not going back. you have a microphone. there's some pretty bad news.

there were a thousand strong executives. it is a weakling. i can see two possible outcomes. they hit a deal with certain elements. if you continue protesting, this was the war and everyone would be a boozer. we know there are opposition leaders.

this is a different issue. the other scenario is a low- level civil war. i think it wod be similar to what happens there. these attacks were isolated. the debate should be difficult for the army. it ihard them to remain there. >> do you reflect what we have heard decks t?

do you think that might have been? >> if a suddeassad is not emerge winner, and do not see how it would be strengthened. i owed reminded that there is historical flavor. >> your zero possible outcomes? it is sooner rather than later.

civil war is unlikely. anything can happen fairly soon. the current situation could continue for some time. >> i am pessimistic on this. and of the underground movement is well developed. what people feel as if the government will do some of the political situation. >> i would forecast the situation.

they have a lot further to go. this is what they can stomach. i think it will grow. they will not reach the critical mass. there will be some kind of internal tcoup the problem with the opposition is about that there leaderless. local committees, based on

region, will have to solve the deal. that will be difficult. >> we have heard all ideas members did not respond well to. a daily limit would be your word. >> the regime are not as spid as a lot of people make up. they are aware of international opinion. they're also aware of how many gaddafi killed, and feel that after a certain number international opinion turned quickly. there is an issue with the number of people who are seen. >> you do not have a microphone. we're going to give you one. yes you do. there are people watching all over the world. >> i have a question.

who supports these armies? how are they employed? how'd they control the demonstration? how many%, after five months, are in it? how many have accounted? >> i is quite a lot to get through. you're saying there are many military but not many protesters. would you like to follow that? >> the last five days, estimates of about 3 million protests, 24 million who risked their lives to demonstrate. the answer would be to hold a free and fair election. i think that is the best thing to do.

>> and said you could ask this lady a question. you can after the panel. there will be time. we have heard a great deal from the panel tonight. iraq is selling discounted oil. turkey may cross the border. the protesters are desperate but determined. we have heard predictions of status quo. i hope we have had a full airing of views. i would like to thank the panel for giving us a briefing, for helping us an inch further from understanding the situation. thank you very much.

blacks under the authorization of the aviation commission. theight they reached a deal for the middle of september. a hearing on u.s./mexico border security. >> we will look at how it may affect defense spending. we will look at how the proposed super committee compares to other commissions appointed by congress and the president.

it is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend, the life and times of clarence darrow, attorney for the dams. then amanda forum on the british citizens that fought for the union. three hours of your calls and questions in depth with and culture -- ann coulter. look for the complete booktv schedule at booktv.org. >> stock market declines included a significant drop in italy. was financially solid.

they passed an austerity package. this is one half hour. >> we will be resuming the meeting now. this is the informational stage by the prime minister on the economic situation. following the speech, the representatives of the political groups will intervene from the largest to the smallest that are 10 minutes each before reached each. the floor is yours.

>> thank you. thank you. mr. president, and honorable congressmen and women. i'm here to give you the status of the italian economic situation. there are consequences of the international crisis and the decisions of the government. everybody sees that the problems are the direct consequence of a confidence crisis that shakes the markets all over the world and continues because of the uncertainty on the euro and the speculation.

it hears them. our country has a political system that demonstrated its was able with the opposition's support to approve and only 38 days and economic maneuver of almost 80 billion euros. did international cohesion. our banks are liquid and saw them. in july, we have registered a sip of again decrease of that claim.

last year was 28.7 term. the government has approved on july 6 and economic mover that will ensure they objected to balance the budget by 2013. this is a condition with the debt. it will progressively decrease in since they compared the gnp. this stayed in line with the objectives set by the union. it was deemed adequate by the

international observers. there's also the european commissioner for economic affairs. they have compared this. i had a long telephone call with the european from minnesota. he called me after hour cabinet meeting. i would like to further analyze the situation for which we are here starting from the trend of the financial markets. everywhere uncertainty of the growth in the world has increased specifically in the united states and japan. in the united states, there are

reaching a consensus on increasing the public debt ceiling and avoiding default. it has induced the industrials portfolio. the bipartisan agreement has eased international attention. turbulences has been fueled by the presentencpresence of a slo. on july 21, the european council has approved a program for greece that is aimed at insuring it meets the financing needs and improve it with lower interest rates.

the involvement triggered a lively debate. the council also expanded the capability of the funds for financial stability to be a managing a crisis. these are decisions that are important. but the markets have not responded, it is the importance of this. we need to define the instruments and resources.

is this to the detriment of the other country's bonds. this has extended to our country. the same problems are phelps in many other countries of the eurozone. this has increased the differential between the 10-year treasury bonds and those of the corresponding bonds. the yield seven increase by 10. it often happens during the crisis. the markets are not evaluating this. investor and valuations did not take into proper account the solidity of our banking system

it justifies the pressures on our mark. a sort of large losses on this. their resorts is in a timely fashion to the markets.

the past in year. it is sufficient to address the payments. the banks are well capitalized. get to thee to recovery. the deep-rooted system has allowed this to increase.

it was taken from the expansion. it mentions the quality of the credits. the decrease in value is there. it is being registered right now. the market value is much lower than the budget by you. also the families and the businesses, it is characterized by a solid financial situations. families have babies compared to the -- have the least compared to the gnp.

it is less than half the great britain. it is particularly high compared to the international situation. if we add to our public debt the system of the savings of the italian families, we would go up to the second place in europe right after germany and before sweden, great britain and france. this was more favorable compared to other advanced countries.

this value is still lower. the recovery in the accounts have improved. in 2010, this decreased about o1%. the deficit was lower than what we had envisioned as our objective, which was our 5%. other countries was 6.3.%. they agreed it is going faster. that is what is requested.

that is what we are going to do. the us, uk, and japan had -- 9%ts betweens n% and and 11% of the dp. we defined a measure that will 3.9% gdpdeficirt to this year and 2.7% next year. government needs are in lines with the objectives we have est. they set a bath that will lead to balancing the budget by

2014. further strengthened by parliamentary into law. it allowed us a rapid reduction of the deaths right under 113 term. by linking the eight, with the measures in terms of social security, we further strengthens the solidity of the public for the future. the reforms of the last few years set italy among the pressures were the threat of social security will be the most.

this is appreciated. we did not do it so. we know there is much more to do. we need this for the development of the market. we need to consider measures that will bring to zero the financial needs in the latter part of this year. we need to increase -- improve the quality of services that affect our competitiveness. we also need to look for

resources for investment, calling for collaboration of the private investors. it is an essential that they implement the mandate and modernize the fiscal structure of italy. it is gross. the economic committee this morning and implemented the plan for the south. they gave 7.4 billion to realize 130 interventions that will launch the economy of the south. [applause] this morning i also signed two.

one will provide the necessary informations to reach the salary leveling of the official meeting. the second decree and the limit of usage of the service cards can limit the number and cost. ito proposed cooperation with stability and growth. it will have to be in line with

the program presented in brussels in may. the growth of the economy is a consequence of the positive convergent. we will strive to reach an agreement between the the ways in which to realize a common purpose. this meeting will will focus on the four. the bank will sell financing to finances. we will have to give a strong

response on the commitment to growth that will make the stabilization plan credible. for this, i like to anticipate to parliament's the subject of our discussion with the unions. the management will focus on measures that have been tested. of the joint monitoring, it will allow us to have an oversight. it gives us the possibility to have an oversight of the effectiveness of the execution. biddle let us see the effectiveness of the measures. -- it will allow us to see the

effectiveness of the measures. the role of financing is even more importance in this long term difficulty. in addition to the agreements, the government and these associations determined the time and modalities to offer sustainment to businesses. it industrial relations are fundamentals. they're here to attract investment and a guarantee productivity for the fall with the views of the equipment. the government has offered the union to see a draft of their

reform of workers that we have called statute of work. we need to verify the level of consensus. the negotiation is sustained by the extension of the taxation and the profit increases that it generates also. there are adequate resources for a safety net. there are activities every important. the new laws will require rationalization of the public administration, guaranteeing salaries connected to individuals and collective productivity.

i will also talk about the cost of politics. that is the subject and many discussions. based on the economic maneuver, they will act to contain all the salaries of public officers. it brings them to the average european value. also, the government, based on the reorganization of the provinces, which is based on the decree of the federalism will reach a further containment of the fiscal pressure and higher efficiency of local services. you all know the cabinet has already improved the reforms. it limits because of legislative activity.

a reform is really needed. it is parliamentary regulation. they will be able to jointly verify the purpose of businesses and agencies. this caught us at a time when we were adapting to new technologies and to globalization. this has been more slow. shows the effect of the legacy of the past. and because the structural issues that slowed down the development.

first with the decree on development and them with the three-year budget. it is in line with what we have done since 2008. it has introduced 27 concrete measures. it is relative to the fiscal structure. 11 to get a sentence to the production system. i would like to high late the distraction their giving. this is the least.

this is managed by individuals under 35 years of age. the government is strongly committed to. it was just in the last eight months that we solved 30 disputes thanks to the government action and the desire to react on the business community and the collaboration with the unions. we've been able to guarantee the future for a lot of businesses and families. they decide you is at work in new has produced this. we are aware that the

innovation is fundamental to the economy. our economy is energetic. there is a need to accelerate the relaunch in growth. the country is solid financially and economically in the difficult moments. the difficult moments know how to stay together. the government and parliament will act with a large political and social incentive to fight every threat to our financial stability. we need to ask -- act altogether.

they all have a duty to roll up their sleeves. our duty is to operate for the good of the people. this is the winning weapon against speculation. nobody is denying the crisis with the comments. [applause] >> you are listening to an entrepreneur who has three businesses looked did -- listed in the stock market. therefore, he is in the

financial trenches, aware of what happens in the markets. >> we each have to do our part. i do not think or believe. i am not asking for the opposition to support our program. i hope they kang contributes with their ideas and proposals to put in place what the country needs. am asking that they do what they need to do. they have the same objective to bring its silly -- italy out of this crisis.

it is planetary. they will not be deaf to the proposals. there will be inspired by this patriotic spirit. the italian people have called this in 2008. it comes in such difficult times. this will complete the path for reform bill if already cemented to the parliament's which are all very important for the modernization. more theirgthen even

relationship with the union. it sustains the growth of its of the. -- italy. the government is ready to do its part. we had the desire to give it time and a few years of stronger and more itself a where the country. it is a difficult challenge. italians need to know that we are all together. we will meet this challenge all together. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] cable satellite corp. 2011] >> and if the