in. the rest of it did not seem like much of an issue. but they are talking about economic policies, foreign affairs. >> you can see video of margaret thatcher on our website c- span.org. you can see appearances that we have broadcast over the decades of her time in office and after word. we are reflecting on the death of margaret thatcher as she passed away at age 87 today. that is off from "washington journal this morning. thank you for joining us. we now go for the center for strategic international studies to look at military training in asia. we have provided funds.

to speakers are welcome speak to a broader region if they like. primarilyhave been targeted at our facilities in 2009.nd between 2000 and gone to othero countries, mainly cambodia, indonesia, laos, malaysia, and vietnam. we did that happen and the programs with singapore or myanmar or burma. the way we organize our discussion was to have input and two fantastic experts

people with perspective. it will result in a good discussion. i do not know about a debate. i think a discussion with points of view is always a good way to suss out some of the policy issues. i will introduce both speakers and then we will start with lieutenant-general chip gregson. chip is assistant secretary of defense for asian-pacific security affairs. before that he served as a cheap operating officer for the united states olympic committee. he knows a little something in terms of hands on experience. he was commanding general of the marine corps in the asia- pacific. over 70,000manage .arines and sailors

from 2001-2003 he was commanding general of the marine corps forces in japan. prior to that he was director of asia pacific policy and the a secretary of defense. he was a graduate of the u.s. naval academy and hold a couple of masters degrees. director of the human rights watch. his portfolio includes south and southeast asia, a region he knows quite a bit about. before joining human-rights what caught me he was a director of a one world research. he focused on afghanistan and pakistan.

experience in of south asia. he lived in afghanistan and pakistan. he holds a law degree from new york university and a bachelor's degree from st. john's college in annapolis. i guess you'd share some experienced in annapolis and afghanistan. let's see if you share anything else. i would like to kick off this morning. shot i will give the first and then we will turn to john and i will moderate a discussion. >> thank you. i am happy to be here. offprogram has really taken under your guidance. i think it is very valuable and even about time that we started paying some attention to it. let me try to set a framework on this by talking a little bit ourt the overall purpose of

forces overseas and our defense engagements for our national engage the programs with the defense establishment of other countries. it is far broader than just simply waiting for military action. our active presence as well as our engagement including imet and other programs with other countries helps promote security, dampen sources of instability, it deter conflict in give substance to u.s. security guarantees. diplomatices our impact, it demonstrates professional military ethics in a democratic society. used to reward countries to do u.s. bidding. punishmentused as

against countries that have irritated the united states at one point or another. it can become a very large issue when political or tactical adjacencies override our objections to abuse. we lavish military aid of pakistan but restricted do vietnam. other countries where we provide where we would otherwise refused were not involved in afghanistan in central asia. there is still training and exposure is supporting a professionalrol, military. it is an instrument of influence. relationship at an early career

stage is one of the benefits and other imet programs. a strong argument can be made that americans benefit as much or more than this as our foreign guests do. we sometimes tend to have an attitude that it is all about us. when you have to learn to get along with people who speak a different language or do things differently than you do, have a different tradition, when you are aging officer is often a very instructive experience. stronger relations enhance mutual understanding of other perspectives of others. it is one of the benefits as we go through this. theart to address some of perceived difficulties with the begun inram as it was

the beginning, we expanded imet in 1990. this opens up the imet program to civilian officials. it was specifically an attempt to decrease the abuses. the types of training that were designed under the english the job training, on training, professional military education, exchanges between student and command colleges, a military justice training, civil military resource management and so on. not exactly what one would refer to as a training with close combat and hand-to-hand and bayonet fighting. at ourcess begins embassies and includes careful screening. the ambassador has oversight of this. some programs are funded by the defense department, many by the

department of state. congress has the ability and exercises its fairly frequently to provide oversight. senator leahy and his efforts with indonesia. concluding remark regarding the overall context for imet, a recent study added this institutions stated former presents an engagement are not simply helpful to setting the stage for effective responses to contingencies, they are indispensable for minimizing the likelihood of larger conflicts. with that i will conclude. .> thank you john, what is your perspective? brief.ll keep this i like to go to questions because that is a context in which to talk.

i will discuss indonesia. to begint is important imet a begin in asia by acknowledging that there is indeed a debate about its utilities and consequences. in countries like indonesia, indonesias military has in the past committed some pretty major human rights abuses. it continues to have a problematic record with a lack of justice for those past abuses and some impunity for current abuses. 2010, the last remaining restrictions that were really being put on the military the and the efforts of senator leahy was removed. secretary gates with the defense minister of indonesia in the

last restrictions on the unit that was engaged in some of the worst abuses or removed. that moment when that happens, obviously human rights watch disagreed with that. that goes without saying. for theent represents united states the crystallization of what is perceived as imet the as, to improve these -- as the purpose of imet. that this was the right thing to do. the reason was, the arguments go back and forth, that by standing on the outside and yelling at the indonesian military will accomplish nothing. the it is better to engage in them and it will improve the right situation.

to be perfectly blunt, there are some units and persons and even governments which are not redeemable. this is a real challenge to the imet program. i do not think that is the norm. asia for too common in their to be institutions and governments which are not redeemable. people. talking about people may or may not be redeemable. that is a theological manner. whether an institution is redeemable, this is the big policy question looming. it is funny. at the human rights group we are considered to be progressive and

art defense attorneys tried to explain things the way that you are a bad person because of your background and upbringing. in reality, human rights groups are much more conservative. they do not consider people to be unredeemable. it is the pentagon saying things like you have to understand the context. we need to understand where they are coming from. we are often juxtapose. the real question is whether institutions are redeemable. indonesia provides a snapshot of how the u.s. uses the question of redemption. the u.s. government believes the indonesian military has performed adequately. we disagree. there are still some abuses which are going on how do we get to this moment?

is a program for redemption. you see the rattie region several other governments with the rights of using -- throughout the region several other governments with rights of using. in thailand, the military in the south has engaged in a lot of abuses in the context of the insurgency. the philippines has a long record of implications after the military angroups. the countries that probably crystallizes the biggest stephen for imet, wright, and cambodia. the program is very large. it is a country of about 40 million people. you have a military which is which dominate the

political steam. the commander in chief, the deputy commander and chief, they are all on the permanent committee of the ruling party. the chief of the navy, army region #1, no. 2, no. 3, and they are all on the central committee of the cambodian people's party. , why are weself working with this military? that theider the fact areander in chief's veterans, another is sheet from the 70's that hangs over them. then the advancing issues.

thempossible to screen when there's such a large record of abuse? our experience is problem with transliteration, kohr dad said collections and some other problems, you see officers who arensidered implicated in serious abuses now, a land grabbing, the military is implicated in being sponsored by corporate entities to grab land. you see a large number of young whose packed away to -- pathway to vetting, they are the sons of cronies of the prime

minister. this guy is a 24-year old are 29 year-old three- star general. what is really going on here? is in the best interest that we are treating them? i will call on but i will not. -- i could go on but i will not. well timed.s quite on friday, at the white house released a new policy, the u.s. securities sector systems policy. with some ofo deal the underlying problems that i am getting too, how do you reconcile these different aims

to engage and improve these government that are being considered? policy, the goals are to help build sustainable promote universal values such as good governance, transparent oversight for security forces, rule of law forsparency, and respect human rights. watch whatrights some it is that is impossible with some militaries, literally not possible. he cannot give security sector assistance to certain militaries. but you pass vetting should not do it if you are attempting to do those things. i can explain more about why but i will not go on and on.

the really appreciate opening positions. isp, you are saying there value in good return on investment for imet. >> yes. along with our other security activities. >> john, your position is imet, what is your position? would you use it in some countries and not in others? >> the issue is not is imet a good thing. it plays its role in certain countries. some military is to not appear to have a very serious rights abuse records. the problem is you have certain countries where you cannot simultaneously promote rule law and good democracy and fight officers who are suitable for

because either the military so politicized or it is .o hard to vet there is the whole unit distinction, it there are individuals whose hands have a blood on them. you are better off not doing its. you could limit its. lawtalk about role of training. the trying to train a military to have a better accountability mechanism. it train then to have accountability mechanisms. you could do that. that would be the limit. maybe would have your objections. when you look through the reports, there is stuff like that in that.

counterterrorism training, a jungle warfare, some of it is innocuous. did you do not see a huge amount of that kind of training. do not do it. pull the plug. >> let's open it up for questions. [inaudible] i wanted to comment there is no imet [inaudible] theas limited through engagement. the second question, when we consider the imet program, the main thing is to allow rising degree t ype

things. from your point of view, is and different?entia >> i am trying to get at that there are certain contexts. i do not think this is the norm a certain context were you cannot find people where that type of training would benefit. you have militaries that are so oliticized or corrupt, so involved in criminal activity that no matter who you find is going to have an overlord q is more important to them and their u.s.r than pleasing the

are becoming a professional. it is not the norm. i do not want to stick it to cambodia. anin a case where you have unredeemable institution, what would your view be on making progress? do you just walk away from them? d. let it fester and get worse? what is the prescription? is thati would submit the focus, if there must be engagement with a country that .ad, solely on accountability a're going to help you create review board/military component of your commission, what ever it is in the country that has the thatight, help you train

entity and tried to make sure military more accountable and transparent. -- tried to make your military more accountable and transparent. or you can just make them and threaten them with full withdrawal of military assistance and then laid down the exact roadmap for how to get it back. those are the two options. >> quick follow up. this is a point i wanted to raise. we have been tracking this very closely. china has been starting to mimic u.s. military engagement strategies and southeast asia and in doing their own version of imet which does not look a lot like the american imet. there are larger numbers than we are from regional militaries. i am wondering if you would comment on that. are we leaving states open to

the assistance that might not have the value based approach that the u.s. has? one of question gets to the core dilemmas on imet decisions. not just imet but the other 14 programs we have to aid other people's militaries. is it better to engage or not engage/ ? twold reagan once said antidotes constitutes data. in the days of the full patrick leahy restrictions, we were about to travel to indonesia to do training on non- lethal weapons. we use that to go there frequently. at one of the mandatory things we had to do was to start with a

class on militaries in a democratic society and justice system. createdtagon, god bless, the class for us. it was 20 a mind-numbing slides all to be given with a lot of detail on them. nevertheless, the sessions, especially with the indonesian junior officers, it turned out to be exciting. these were captains float in english or at least competent. if they had done their homework. we cannot get through the class and the allotted time without all these capt. springing up incidents from the american past that we would prefer not to talk or think about. it shows that the were thinking and people that are past a certain age are probably not going to reach them.

they are vested in the current system. he senior officer, they have the tendency to say we always done it that way. been able to get into these countries and work at the capt. or at least raising questions is far better than just cutting everything often ying that you only have one choice. i do not think that is the best way. now 1998,sity right the indonesian military that's a really black-tie out of it because of the way they treated the students. the one exception was the indonesian marines. bete by accident i happen to in indonesia not more than a few weeks after the riots.

we were talking about the riots. i ask this group of senior officers, how is it you came out of the riots with reputation enhanced and the army did so badly? one colonel said we did not consider the students' the enemy. we went in civilian clothes. we negotiated the rules of engagement so when it came time for us to do what we needed to do the students knew what was going on. they knew that we have their best interests at heart and we did not disagree with them doing this. he said, at leavenworth are quantico? leavenworth. with imet andlems various government, but the point comes down to is a better to try a or is it better to withdraw, let you do with your

kids, sit in the corner till i feel better? >> we are certainly not saying every time a military is implicated in of use to just withdraw and don't do any business with them whatsoever, but this issue of finding the redeemable folks, people are redeemable, and even institutions are, is very difficult. i am not confident the u.s. government can figure it out. vetting problem is just one component. making wise decisions about who deserves to be brought for course training and what kind of gooding and when, some decisions get made but some very bad ones do as well. the age thing does not always work out the way you would expect it to intuitively. a young officers are promising

and the old guard is not. prisoners driving reform -- the person driving reform in burma is not the young person. what isry interesting going on. maybe the pentagon is right. maybe things have gotten better. recently eight indonesian by thes were killed local insurgency there. it is very small and very innocuous in many respects, but it's still have some legal capacities. go next.ed the tni to they did not. it is not clear why. did the jury is still out. as i said to some folks a few ones ago, i do not think could say that it is a sure thing that they have reformed.

there is evidence that there is a lot of impunity still there and that if things get bloody enough there could be more of uses. neither of us really has the right ando say we are the others are wrong. we are arguing with each other with and to do it. then there are other places like cyril lanka -- sheila and afghanistan and cambodia where i know we are right. the pentagon has a big problem. the can find a couple of navy units cannot involved in any political activities. you can train them maritime security or something. maybe. there's the maritime security in afghanistan. no maritime security in afghanistan. the whole entity is messed up to the core. there is very little to do.

what do you do then with those countries? either cut them off or be very tough with them. that is where we are with cambodia and sri lanka. give them a road map like we're doing with burma. give them a road map. this is what you need to do. things will get better for you. >> the question here in the front. i do not know if we are including central asia in this discussion. if we are, can both give you [inaudible]

>> central asia touches on what i was trying to indicate with the tactical and political agencies. we have something called the northern distribution network that is a vital and might become even more vital. we have concerns with the human rights record. thatve a base in kurdistan is problematic from a human rights record. we cannot operate in afghanistan without support from this. it is not a base. it is a transit center.

i am not allowed in the pentagon now. i would probably be shot. -- to be serious, it has been a problem because of the ability to operate in afghanistan versus what we would like to see happen in central asia with the human rights. it is not a clean thing. it is not just imet. it is a number of other programs that we have going on, too. for example, global peace operations initiative or 6isaster response or the 120 program which recently was key

to clean up the terrorist transit route among indonesia, malaysia, and the philippines. the bad guys are doing something and one country and fleeing to the other country and we did not have the proper means to do it. now we have the right to do the radar's established. that serves all three countries so they can operate to clean this up. that could constitute showing favoritism to a country where we still have human rights concerns. it seems to serve a purpose. i use the example of the military aid. we decide the same aid to vietnam. vietnam is not have the same impact on us.

gotstan has gone others -- other things that concern us as well. for example, in their weapons program. their aidat all a decision. mixed in withre this reality. one makes decisions and what one hopes is for the greater good. sometimes they work out. sometimes you end up with flowback. >> it goes without saying that most of them have human rights problems. they made a decision to go forward because of necessity. what is baffling about some of

the country's is the necessity is not there. kenny think of a country in southeast asia that is less strategically important than campeau that? -- strategically important? why is it an important country that does not border china. we lavish a lot of assistance. when you but the per-capita it is probably the its leader in the region. has 4000 people in it. it has these huge programs. any need seem to have to pull back on it. becausesubmit that is the pentagon and the state department and the white house do not realize how bad the human rights situation is. that is our fault.

the gentleman in the back here. i am from georgetown university. for every good antidote there is a bad antidotes. that is part of the problem. that is the biggest issue with imet. in indonesia, the president is a fourth time imet graduate. he has led a lot of the democratization. that is as an antidote. i recently completed a study in georgetown looking at the long- term benefits of imet in burma. we trained 175 people. are 13 of those individuals and the government.

i think the issue that we need data in gather the every country, good stories and bad stories. graduates, a cross reference that with a special designation. it was to see if there was any graduateshat these were associated with human rights abuses or had any activities, any behaviors' that would be deemed to illegal or immoral according to u.s. policy. this is something that i think we need to do. let me ask a question. the main metric is not sufficient.

they have suggested it is not enough. we need the officers in order to organizational reform. should we be tracking officers across the board and to see if they take positions as commanders and look for knowledge transfer. do they try to become better? >> of like to see that report by the way. do not leave without talking to me. any comments? >> let me just say at the outset that the fact that you did not find anything does not mean anything. i do not mean to be insulting. burma is a black box. it is the first office that would agree with that.

the military leadership is sparse not because there's not information out there, it is because it is not written down. not in the data base for the intelligence committees data base. it is literally not there. it is not mean commander sell and sell to happen to be here in 1986 did not lead a unit and slaughter a bunch of people. it means nobody wrote it down. that is the problem. less so in indonesia and thailand and pakistan but more so in burma and cambodia and other places for there is not a lot of written down evidence of what the history is. then you add on top of that transliteration problems. recipe for a lot of misplaced assumptions. you do not know what you are dealing with.

about this.alk we created tremendous problems for ourself. ,ot only did we shut down this there is a huge void their and their relationships were developed with pakistani officers were now seniors with the dialogue. they are extremely distrustful.

pakistan is unique in a number of ways. well i was in office when knocked ourselves out to be of aid in pakistan in the flood. held the pakistani is recover from the floods. them.hed helicopters to our senior military representative said do not think this is going to change public opinion polls a bit. we went in with at about a 15th term public opinion poll rating. we came up with an 11th term public racing.

we have had a relationship with pakistan over the decades. it has been a bit schizophrenic. instantly.em back that we areuspicion .hangeable, that we use them from their perspective it is well ingrained. that is one case. drawing a straight line or a case may provide some illumination. i would be very careful of applying everything that we think we observed for the lessons that we think we have learned at pakistan.

>> the question is causality. it is difficult to figure out what is going on. if you do not train them they go off, at commit abuses, hate us, i hate the u.s.. abuses, hate us, and the u.s. politicians aon horrible things about the united states -- a lot of politicians say horrible things about the united states. i am not going to say we have all the answers to the causal information. we have been adapted to poke holes in the causality arguments the pentagon makes. neither of us really know a lot what this causality issue,

gets what outcome. it would be good if it is an acknowledgement. they are aware of this. isy understand the continuum not well known. we do not really know what is going on. >> one of the issues we have to address is do we engage are doing not engage that that is a question. >> i am just wondering if the private sector can fall into this. we have eight footprints in these countries.

ofre is the intersection human and security rights issues. it is important that we are concerned with. human rights is enough to work ngos toernment and address some of these issues working aside public forces. one of the biggest challenges is not always having the top of these countries. necessarily being able to work with the u.s. military are the australian military. i'm wondering if you have any thoughts on whether it there are any other mechanisms to address issues. >> thank you for the question. steprivate sector is also

on the contract law and all the thegs that are covered by foreign corrupt practices act. or akes you an arm powerful component of the .merican values message private and corporate involvement is exceedingly important in all of this. if it is just the government it isg with something, not all that compelling. minorn's efforts and companies, at the private sector involvement means things that directly affect the life styles and earning power of everybody there. important thatly the private sector continue to

forward or promote the u.s. human right brand which i think is one of the strongest components we have. i think the differences between john and i are about the implementation of that message, not the value of it. speaking of that, we have been banging on cambodia of it. america has gotten a moral obligation in this area to vietnam. we were there quite a long time. the spill over of that war into do with had a lot to setting the conditions for the rise of the khmer rouge and the rest of this whole thing. on a visit to

cambodia about the extensive therts at the u.n. -- that u.n. was putting to teach young women the facts of life about motherhood. the khmer rouge depredations had broken the change from grandmother to mother that did all of this in a traditional society. at the time i visited, it was really broken. the efforts of the international community and private sector to start from basics and work cambodia back up to a and theing country with , doingan cultural norms it in a manner supported by the international institutions and one that was important in the

context we were trying to do it. i understand the human rights objections to the cambodian military. we are back to the differences of implementation. how do we fix this? how do we get to the right in saying that we want? i would think that we should chaosearned on 9/11 that in any part of the world can create a threat in any other part of the world. we can do what we are able to do to rebuildtical side places that are tending toward chaos so we do not end up realizing a bigger problem somewhere down the line. i'd seen the two biggest

problems are implicated. ones likeertain burma and thailand. enchildathe whole involved in the whole revenue creation. , the of local commanders prime minister as a corporate sponsorship. movedhe people have to be they are not called in as government offices. they are called in almost as guards for higher. the revenue transparency is a big problem with burma. you have toys said

push the military not just on the abuses but on the revenue transparency. then the issue of them just being involved in private business needs to be pushed. the idea that is not appropriate for the military to be in business. .e are all for dialogue it is about telling them what is up and what to do to change this. i just have to respond to this moral issue in cambodia. human rights watch obviously agrees there is a moral obligation with cambodia. the paris peace agreement of 1991, the u.s. was party to those agreements. the agreements obligate all the signatories to promote human rights and democracy in cambodia. our position is when you have somebody in power for 27 years he was involved with the khmer

rouge and the genocidal acts that were carried out and the commander and chief was a khmer rouge commander and to have all these millions of cambodians who are living without democracy, you have an obligation to try to fix that. it is precisely by using things like the pressure of conditionality and the appropriations act or the pentagon talking tough about what needs to happen. it has been 27 years. it has been 21 years since the peace agreement. if you do not shape up, one day we're not going to be there for you. talking tough is a necessity. moreis consistent with obligations. >> just one question. geostrategicw

balance. if you allow a country those choices, you basically press them completely into the hands of a very welcoming china. how do you guys think about that issue? >> in the new context i would say burma was in the arms of china. they did not like it. it was probably one of the causal factors that led them to realize that they should open up to the united states and everybody else. friendly andng so he is still carrying chinese water like he was last year, why do you not just pushing all the way into china's orbit and see how they like it? i do not think they will. make it morell amenable to the u.s.. onlynk the solution is tough talk. there's no diplomacy to be had. >> i'm willing to give each

contestant -- [laughter] contestant. there will be a prize. i reverting to my natural state of game show host. >> what is the price is right? to have each of the make a short in final statement. it has been a great discussion. >> the questions were all very good. please they limited it to buy minutes each. -- to five minutes each. in the days now when we're moreng about, becoming inward looking, questioning what we're doing overseas, and these are the right things to talk about. we need to make sure that we

preserve our ability to shape the environment, to reassure allies in friend to promote those of values that the united states likes to aspire to. friends andence allies in that direction so there is no shortage of people out there. to the extent that we can try to the righte of this is thing to do. posed about was measures of effectiveness on this. that is an easy concept to grasp but a difficult one to control. that is the way we need to go to make sure that in our differing views of what we need to do with assistance to other countries that what we want to promote

that we're delivering the right that we do not support those views. i would just close by saying the debate is not about whether imet should exist. it does exist. the debate is about what the consequences are, good or bad, and whether there are decisions the government can do to promote the consequences and mitigate the bad ones and what that would mean in practice. you can either do more of the same that keep running imet and everything the way it is, keep doing it. nobody i think things that should be done. number two, which is what i think the white house announced last friday, is try to improve. otheroing imet and the

programs but tried to improve the substance. courses, better substance, picking better people ,o attend as opposed to cronies the better only hleahy vetting. if you really want to improve everything, recognize that in many cases nothing is wrong, and there are some questions or everything is wrong. i'm not suggesting everything is wrong with imet worldwide but there are certain places in context of everything is wrong and we need to rethink everything and be willing to cut or threaten to cut the assistance as appropriate. >> thank you very much.

i think this discussion really goes a long way toward helping us think about important institutions and engagement and how we use these things. i thank you very much. i hope we can carry this discussion on further. thank you offer joining us today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

of ourou missed any morning session, it is available video library. we'll have more this afternoon from remarks -- with remarks from the defense secretary. he is expected to outline the steps the u.s. is taking to provide charity in that region of the world. president obama travel today to hartford, conn. where he will continue his push for gun

control legislation. last week, that state's governor signed in to law widespread gun laws in response to the shootings last december. we'll have live coverage starting at about 5:45 eastern this afternoon. news from london today that former prime minister margaret thatcher has passed away at the age of 87. known as the iron lady, she is the longest serving british prime minister of the 20th- century. we have several events featuring margaret thatcher to the indices that library. tributes are coming in today. president obama released this statement -- with the passing of baroness margaret thatcher, the world has lost one of the greatest champions of freedom and liberty. many of us will never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with president reagan reminding the world we are not carried along by the currents of history but we can shape them with moral conviction.

also, former president george w. bush had this to say -- laura and i are saddened by the death of fairness margaret thatcher. she was a leader who stood on principle and died in her nation with confidence and clarity. in 1995, c-span spoke with prime minister thatcher after her -- after the release of her book, "path to power." this is about 30 minutes. >> i think you see the heroes in a way you never see when they were living day by day. no matter how much we managed to crowd into the time, you look at the path to power, it's almost a first time you see the whole sweep of your life. you don't see it with the anxiety to get from day-to-day. see it actually happen.

because you are writing it with hindsight -- you know all the anxiety face each day and it was then known. that was a different aspect of writing history and living in the future. >> you write a lot about your father -- more about your father that your mother. figureather was a public locally. my mother made it possible for him to be a public figure by organizing the house and helping in the business. she is a very good businesswoman. she had her own dressmaking business and my father had his own grocery business. both savers and because they saved, they were able to buy. my father left school at the age of 13 because there weren't

facilities to stay on. but he had an excellent mind he was the best educator i ever knew. he read and read and thought -- and taught us to read and discuss. in a way, he influenced our thoughts much more than our mother. our mother made it possible for him to do all the things he did by helping with the business and running a family. an excellent cook. a good dressmaker. could trip -- could decorate the house and so on pre >> do you remember the first book you read? >> the first book i read? >> that would be difficult, but a probably would have been book of poetry. every sunday, it would have been some of the bible. things dad said never do just because other people do

them. >> that's right. our lives were very organized. on sunday, when to morning sunday school and morning service and afternoon sunday school, occasionally evening church as well. then one evening i said my father ahmanson the evening that i wanted to go for a walk. he said never do things just because other people do them. that's a very bad thing to do. make up your own mind what you want to do. never just follow the crowd. it was very tough and very good advice. i did not go for the walk. >> was there a political lesson in that? >> yes. never be bewitched by public opinion polls. they change very quickly.

principles,al explain why you believe and why, the politics that flow from them, and how you're going to implement them. then, my father would say something else -- if you set your hand to the task, he was completed. it's easy to be a starter, but are you a sticker to? you have to persevere until you see it through. your home town, there's a photograph -- could you explain this photograph? >> this is at the end of the war. the unionding behind jack and the mother is beside him. ofwere a town with a number air fields not far away from us. that is why they're marching past. work said you were put to

putting up election leaflets extolling the virtues of conservative philosophy? deal did not have a great of party politics in those days. that came later. but we did have a general election in 1935. i was only 10 and we were supporting the conservative candidate. but you put what you believe and what he intended to do during the coming parliament. it's quite a big job to fold them and the post was free, a candidate. come election day, you have to get your people to the polls to vote. our side had one person standing.

you know what has been that voted. the voting was taking place in that committee room. involvedly on i was wasi remember a can that it the under secretary to the admiral. what a great thrill it was to meet him. hes was a very great man and only died just recently. 1935 was a great year. of these things are vivid in my memory. but whatever happens in a small

town of 25,000, goes to the shop and involved in the church. it was a very much a community. ,e knew if anyone needed help our father was involved. far away? >> about 110 miles. >> you write one final note about the 1952 council elections. you say you try to take this as an example and his departure from 10 downing street. >> he had been on the council for years. u.s. the chairman of the finance committee. in those days, you have elected councils. but there was an also automatic bench who was not elected. the council asked them to stay

on college with a great honor. they had special gowns. they asked my father to stop being alderman and to leave. wellwas not fought very loved at the time because alderman where people who were men of wisdom and highly regarded. my father was deeply hurt. he made a short statement and took off his down and said in honor i took up this town, in honor i hope i lay it down. after that andd

left with great dignity. itown experience was suddenly happened suddenly. these things do come suddenly. i decided i was two votes short from a 15% majority. i'm not going to go through another round. get it clear during the first round, we will have to have a second attempt without me. quite different because i had five days and there was a confidence -- a no-confidence motion in the house of commons. dramatic debate. most dramatic the . bate i won had to go on and

the leadership election. the party in power would carry the prime ministership. a nursery politics is for talent at oxford. >> yes. oxford was a nursery for mps. all our meetings were addressed by ministers and we met a lot of them in those days. the end of 43 that i went up, so 44, the time of the normandy landing. very tough and winston churchill had said many studies of reconstruction because we knew of many people coming back from the war and we had a tough

time in the '30's. -- mainly the anxiety was what was happening in the war and it ended in 1945. greatwere no celebrations. -- they camenot back a much older age group and we were able to profit from his experiences. they were working on the very first antibiotic, which was penicillin. she was a nobel prize winner.

i mention that because we are so accustomed that it's just as well to remember the colossal advantage of science that had taken place since 1945. >> when did you study chemistry? i what -- >> i went to oxford to study chemistry. i had to choose between the sciences and the arts and i had extremely good chemistry teacher. how often your future is determined by a very good teacher. so i went for a four year degree at that time. i had i went up at 17, three years because one have automatically been called up. i tried to get the three years in. mrs. dollarsabout gatehouse? >> she was a marvelous person in our political organizations.

we were taught how to speak in public. not to go on for too long and really to be fluent and to speak without note. she was extremely good. >> at what point in your mind did you say i want to be in the house of commons? it crystalized in a very strange way. almost at the end of my time at oxford and several others who aew one another -- in village, had a friend as so often happens, after the party, we sit around in the kitchen and have a cup of tea or lemonade. we were just talking politics and all of the sudden one of the people said would be really want to do is become an mp, don't you?

that was the first time it crystallized properly. i said yes, i would like to. but i couldn't think of it because in those days members of parliament were paid very little and i had to earn my living. later, when we were paid more, it was possible for me to think about it. the path to power, there was not a path we walked along and said i will get to that milestone by certain day or year. you made yourself and often the unexpected happened. by talking about the thing that is greatly interested in, i came to the idea i like to be a member of parliament monday. >> how much did you get paid? >> 400 pounds a year.

there has been a lot of inflation since then. twins, and carol, your when did they come? "they came in 1953. we had been married two years and i thought i was very lucky. to have a boy and girl -- having children changes your whole life. >> did you know when you're pregnant that you're going to have twins? >> i did not know until the day they were born. there were six weeks early and i suddenly had to go into hospital because something was happening. the doctor told me i was going to have an extra on the following monday but on the previous day things are going to happen. before that. ack when did you meet dennis? >> i met dennis when i was being

considered for the candidate for an industrial parliamentary seats. i had put in for that seat, all of the chairman said we could not possibly consider a woman for this seat. just have a look at her, as i went down and i was chosen mmi you have been chosen by the committee, you go to a big meeting of the whole association. one of the people at the supper party who was also very interested in politics had s factory in the area and he came and he happened to drive me back to london. to catch a train to get work the following morning.

-- i thought of that seat white. there is one in 1950 and again in 1951. -- i fought for that seat twice. the life i have led and shipped the most important thing of all, which was the man i'm married and i could not have done it without him. he was absolutely marvelous. in the book, you write about your about -- what do you want people to say about your 11 and a half years as prime minister? on verye they say act strong political principles. facewe had the political and philosophy of the rule of law with a market economy.

policies andthe through thick and thin. that is what my father had taught me. when i had a change of course, had a major change of course when i came to power. we had to get taxation down, whole different approach and i stuck to it. then it began to work. is a note -- we were the first country to say we will not appease an aggressor. when the falcons were occupied, i said straightaway the last of my life is never appease an aggressor. stop him and stop him quick.

the falcons were invaded by friday morning. i called parliament on saturday and we sent a task force down ascent -- led by two aircraft carriers and ships was on its way monday. the aggressors were stopped and turned off the islands and the islands were restored to the people of the island. what do to the book -- you remember about one of your early homes? we lived in london until the twins were for. i thought we must get a garden for the children. it wasn't too far from where my husband's factory was in kent. we had a look at it and it had a very nice garden. the children would run and play and the garden and it was the

first time they were able to do that. there were lots of young children in the area. we rebuilt the garden and i loved it. i love gardening. >> you put in the book a couple of headlines -- you are in the shadow government at the time? was ted heath's government. >> headlines -- the lady nobody loved and why mrs. thatcher is so unpopular. >> i had made secretary of state for education. we had to cut expenditures because that was the program. taxation got much too high in tolerably high. what was i to do in education? i didn't want to cut the educational side. education is extremely important.

i decided to do was cut the amount of free milk available an increase the charge for school meals. my parents were not very well off and paid for me to have milk at school. meals, i have school went home for them. onid not want to economize the education. except for children age 5 to 7, i kept in and i increased the size of school meals. this was thought at first to be very good. i wanted more teachers and so on. i economized on non-educational things. i had to introduce a bill and to puthouse of commons and that measure through. i was hard hearted -- all of these things. when you actually do what you reasono do there is no people should have free milk at

the taxpayers' expense. have cut 9te easily million pounds from the capital trade and no one would have noticed. but it wasn't what i wanted to do. i wanted to keep the capital program intact and cut what i thought was not a fair burden to the taxpayer but keep it for the and this children. the campaign was colossal and i learned from it. oris there a newspaper column is that particularly annoyed you? >> i don't think so. a lot of education correspondence -- before we came had set up any education correspondent asked me to lunch i have never forgotten. myas the only one of political persuasion. all the rest were very much on

the left and believed in comprehensive education. no schools with selection viability of any kind. it was a terrible egalitarian age. people like me needed grammar schools. whatted on the basis of you can do, regardless of background. people like me needed grammar schools to be able to compete with those that private occasion. but they were all absolutely . ainst me the egalitarian atmosphere that time is going now because they realize how much damage it had been to education. "the right the book approach? >> it was a book in search of party policy between elections. philosophyur whole

and the policy points which flowed from that and it was extremely well received. >> i asked when you wanted to be a member of the house of commons. when did you decide you wanted to be prime minister and leader of the conservative party? >> again, it is one of those coincidences. i held up very much the same as one of mylicy close colleagues, a brilliant man of great humanity and modesty. of ted's end government in 1974 and we lost the election and labor got back in, we departed from true conservative policy. we must relate redefine our policy and new.

central policy studies and we had many academics and we had the best experience, keeping a marvelous series of speeches. that you have to have an enterprise economy and so on. then there was an unfortunate by someritten sociologists about social groups and the numbers of children being born there. and there were banner headlines against him. houseess camped aside his for three or four days and would not let his family alone. his house. soner in on monday evening, the beginning of that week, i was in my study at the house of commons and a can i come and see when he came in and said i

have come to tell you i simply cannot stand to be leader of the party. time inad a terrible the last few days and my family and i just can't go through that. i can't put them through it. at i wasoing to stand going to try to persuade him and he said don't try to persuade me. i'm not going to stand. this was a terrible shock. not only was he a remarkable man but a whole political philosophy we had worked on. say if you arelf not going to stand, someone who holds our view of politics has to stand. so i will stand instead. was very relieved. i went home that evening and tod to dennis i'm going

stand for the leadership of the party. he said he must be mad. you haven't helped. of course, i didn't think i had no be there. -- i didn't think i had a hope either. i tried to persuade others that our way was right and others would come out and say they would stand and perhaps someone would be chosen, but someone with our views had to stand. sorry for i felt taking it personally and that i had no doubt that ought to go. >> we had done a very big you whichrom our policies on we came into power in 1970. andad a very difficult time had done a complete turnaround

on everything we believed in. that didn't work. on tradeneat u-turn union reform and they've just wouldn't have it and everything had gone wrong. lost three elections out of four and had become much more on the left of the party doing things we said we would not do. so i did feel he had to go but not to replace him by someone who held the same views but someone who held their views on the party keith joseph and i did. >> you had a campaign button in 1979. >> we did a much more martin -- get a campaign bus in 1979. we had a much more modern campaign. we would speak in the market it

square and we love it if we were heckled. they would put a sharp commented and you could have a debate quickly. >> do you miss it? >> yes. but i will not go back. you can't go back. half years as prime minister. >> thank you. thatcher passed away today from a stroke. she was 87 years old. buckingham palace says queen elizabeth the second was said by the news and prime minister david cameron expressed sadness, thing we have lost a great leader, a great prime minister, and a great britain. toare getting your reaction prime minister thatcher's passing. you can share your thoughts on our facebook page. >> they had a very political

marriage, much like john and abigail. would lobby in the halls of congress. she is careful to say my husband believes this at my husband advocates that. but she herself was doing the pitch. one of her husband's opponents said he hoped if james were ever elected president she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman. she said if james and i are ever elected, i will either keep house nor make better. >> tonight, all the most politically active and influential first ladies, sarah polk. that "first ladies'" live tonight on the c-span and c- span 3.

we will continue our live coverage from the center of strategic studies this afternoon. the deputy defense secretary is expected to outline policy on charity in asia. president obama is on the road today. he will continue his push for gun-control legislation. the state's governor signed into law widespread restrictions on firearms in response to the school shooting last december. live coverage starts at about 5:45 today. in washington, congress is back from their two week recess. a full schedule of hearings on the budget and testimony from some of the president's nominees for key positions. the senate is back at 2:00 eastern. a judicial nomination is on the agenda as well as another couple of non-cabinet nominations.

the house returns tomorrow at 2:00 eastern. we expect a bit of small hydropower projects and a bill limiting a national labor relations board. ahead on congress this week, we spoke with a congressional reporter earlier today. guest: you are going to see a lot of things happen behind the scenes on the immigration debate. negotiators in the house and senate have to decide upon in particular. there are groups meeting in the house and a group meeting in the senate trying to come up with a that couldproposal

serve as the bill going forward. that will happen behind closed doors. i don't know if we will see actual legislation until next week. but we will also see guns. it's a major week for the president on his gun control agenda. there is a background check bill being negotiated right now between a conservative west virginia democrat who is trying to win some republican support for a compromise plan on background checks that will not go as far as the president's call for universal background checks, but there's a possibility for bipartisan compromise. by the know about that end of this week and that is going to come at the same time the president releases his budget on wednesday. the whiteent and house are trying to position that has a bipartisan way to get a grand bargain.

entitlement cuts to social security and medicare and tax increases. it's not clear whether that's going to win any support on the left or the right. we see you in the "new york times" this week with rubio this weekend where he falls on the immigration front. who are you going to be watching as key players in the immigration debate? >> he is certainly the biggest player right now. he's the guy both sides need in this debate to support this emigration bill. signs on to this bill being negotiated right now, he would give a lot of cover to republicans who are sort of skittish about this plan and it

would help his prospects going forward. his ultimate support is not guaranteed even if he backs it initially. the going to go through judiciary committee and go to the floor of the senate and who knows what is going to happen there. but he continues to support this bill and i think you could see a lot of republicans in the senate come on board and it will strengthen its chances in the house. he is a key player here but there are other senators in this group that will be important to see the signs they're making this week and the progress they're making on the emigration bill. chuck schumer and is the ringleader as is john mccain. we hearthem, the words from them will be important to determine whether or not this bill will be released this week or whether they're getting serious roadblocks.

host: the president plans to give his budget to congress on wednesday. we saw some battles already starting to play out. what are you watching for this week as congress response? guest: it will be interesting to see how much push back the president gets. a lot of democrats are not happy with his proposal on the so- cpi which would affect future cost-of-living adjustments for social security beneficiaries. that's something a lot of liberals do not like. there's a lot of push back and there is pushed back from the aarp and very powerful interest groups on capitol hill. it will be interesting to see how much perspective is from the president's own party if it's

enough to actually change and make things harder for the president. republicans will say the president needs to get out in front of these entitlement or cuts to get democrats to come on board. as we know, they have been dead set against any new revenue, including leaders in the senate and house. if they do show any interest in cutting a deal on revenues, it could pave the way for a deal down the line. we will see all of that payout and wednesday is the day the president has his second dinner date with said republicans. it will be interesting to see what he says there and how republicans respond. host: thank you for talking to us. >> the senate returns today at 2:00.

the house is back tomorrow at 2:00. you can watch the house here on c-span. friday, the national history center look at the history of immigration in the u.s. it that was aimed at giving congressional staffers, numbers and the public a comprehensive overview of the u.s. immigration system possible evolution through the years and how the debate on how to reform it continues. this is about one hour 15 minutes. >> good morning. i am jim grossman, the executive director of the american historical association and the chair of the board of the national history center. on behalf of the national history center, want to welcome everybody to this congressional briefing on the congress

possible on immigration policy. it's an initiative of the american historical association and an important part about injecting the insights into historical thinking into conversations about public policy. orneither reveals secrets invites controversy to know congress finds anything -- by a difficult to achieve consensus on anything at all. but anyone who spends any time on the hill, generally they hear the same thing from people on both sides of the audience. there is a tremendous interest in the house and the senate and americans in general don't know enough history. enough meanswhat but i would venture for the purposes of this particular neighborhood, and that means an understanding of the historical

context that any issues on the table. as a is no such thing legislative agenda item that doesn't have a history. to understand the basic framework of that history is to comprehend how federal policy has affected people's lives, health or lack there of in our economy and the development of institutions. it makes no sense to repeal a law if we don't understand why the law was enacted. noted -- nor does it make any sense to create new laws that addresses processes whose evolution remains a mystery to us. to do either would be akin to a physician diagnosing a patient without first taking a medical history and perhaps worse, performing surgery. the national history center

briefing program aims to provide that history and context. the programs have been somewhat regular and we intend to move to a regular schedule that will probably include more briefings per year. each on that topic on the legislative agenda. today, we will talk about immigration. few americans lack an opinion about immigration and immigrants. today, we offer the policy community an opportunity to hear three distinguished historians contribute to our understanding of the impact of earlier legislation and the historical context within which that legislation was enacted. proceeds, they will have some context before they do surgery. on behalf of the associate the national history

center, want to thank everybody for attending an think the house science, space and technology committee for hosting this event. we also are very grateful to the historian of the house of representatives and the historian of the senate for helping us understand how we might best conduct these events. i also want to thank c-span for televising and remind everybody that when they ask questions, they are going to be on television. first, turn off your cell phones, please. second, a reminder that a few articles -- because these are historians and they are not going to let you leave without some reading, a few articles are sitting on the table over there.

we will have time for questions and answers after the presentations. ourve asked each of panelists to speak for 10 or 12 minutes and offer their insights in a way that is non-partisan. our goal this morning is not to convince anybody of any particular position other than the position that to make change, one must understand how a change has happened. our speakers will speak in chronological order in terms of the story they're going to tell. we will star with a professor of history at george washington university who has also taught at the university of wyoming. he has written to award-winning books. i love it when people have

titles that really work -- five points -- the new york city neighborhood that invented tap dance, stole elections and became the world's most notorious slums. he is currently working on a book called "city of dreams -- new york's emigrants in the making of modern america." he has been a consultant to martin scorsese on "the gangs of new york" so that you know he can do more than write books. t is a professor at new york university. you can s him. he has been a fellow at the migration policy institute. i'm not going to list all nine of his books, all of which focus on either immigration or ethnic history, history of american medicine and public health, or both. his books include "silent

"silents and -- travelers" and "huddled masses." he has served as president of the immigration and ethnic histories society and next week will become president of the organization of american historians. he chairs the statue of liberty foundation's history advisory committee and has been a consultant to many documentary films, museum exhibitions and the national park service. mae ngai is a professor at the university of chicago and has had every fellowship one can possibly imagine. author of "m possible subjects -- illegal aliens and the making of modern america."

her books have won prizes but what's impressive about this one is that it has won prizes from six different organizations that focus on six different things. she is the author of "the lucky ones" which is about to be published both in beijing and taipei, so get your mind about how someone pulls them off. she is currently working on a book comparing gold miners in australia, south africa and western portions of north america and has had articles published in the "new york times" and the "washington tribune." welcomeon the new york committee for nelson mandela's first visit to the united states. so i'm going to let our panelists to know a lot more than i do speak.

>> can you go to the next one, please? history ismigration one of those fields that prove the validity of the old adage, the more things change, the more they remain the same. we tend to think of today's immigrants as totally different from those of our past, but well superficial differences do exist, at the fundamental level, today's emigrants are no different than those who came to isrica up to 1860, which what i've been asked to cover. i would like to focus on for such similarities. can i have the next slide?

in every time in american history, there has been one immigrant group that is especially feared or vilified and whose members were said to be fundamentally different and inferior to the immigrants who came before them. but before long, that group becomes widely accepted and most americans forget they ever had an objection to them. second, americans have been conscious of and in some cases wary of the potential political power of immigrants. since the days of george washington called immigrant voting rights have been a partisan issue in which one party, the one that expected their votes, worked to ensure emigrants could vote. meanwhile, the party that did not enjoy the immigrant favor tried to woo them but more often did everything in their ability to cast them out. third, in nearly every time of american history, native americans have badly mistaken the relationship between immigrants and poverty.

and fourth, americans have mistakenly believed immigrants of their generation assimilated less than those of previous eras and immigrants of their era would never become as american as older immigrants had. these address each of issues up through the end of the american civil war and and with brief observations about what these facts may tell us about the current debate on how to overhaul our immigration laws. the immigrant group that received the most attention before the civil war was the irish. in almost every year from 1820- 1860, more immigrants came from ireland than almost any other place. the irish became the most numerous and most visible immigrant group in america. to give some context, today, mexican immigrants make up 29% of the u.s. immigrant

population. in 1850, the irish made up 43% of american immigrants. the irish came to u.s. fleeing persistent poverty and political oppression and arrived in the largest numbers during the great potato famine of 1846-1851. the united states in the pre civil war years were home to made german immigrants. number of them proceeded to the midwest and bought farms. in littlesettled germany's in new york, buffalo, cincinnati, milwaukee, st. louis and other cities. most of the remaining emigrants living in the u.s. came from england, scotland, wales and canada. these four places plus ireland and the german accounted for 90% of the immigrants in 1860. in 1860 believe

the irish could never be true americans. these critics believed products is -- protestantism made america free and democratic wall irish were mostly catholics who did not suppose we understand these values. germans also came in for condemnation, the less often than the irish. native-born americans complained that germans were got listen prone to socialism and resistant to learn english. germans succeeded in many states in convincing schools to construct -- to instruct their children in german, knowing natives who taught english should be the only language used in public schools. a generation later, even though immigrants continue to pour into the united states, these complaints about the irish and germans had been forgotten as immigrants from both places have become solidly middle-class and desirable compared to other groups. my second subject is immigrants

and politics. americans have always looked at immigrants as potential voters. many states and localities in the 19th century allow immigrants to vote even before they became citizens. to rolloutarty tried -- rollback immigrants' rights. federalist increase the waiting time for an immigrant could vote from 5 to 14 years because the girls believe most immigrants voted for their enemies, the republicans. when republicans gained control after the elections of 1800, they repealed this extended waiting time. in the 1850's, when most immigrants voted democratic, republicans were divided over what to do. massachusetts republicans response was to add two extra years to the waiting time before immigrants could vote. others insisted the party should try to win the immigrant vote rather than suppress them. abraham lincoln was one of the leading advocates of this stance

and the party's 1860 platform reflected his views. immigrantsubject is and poverty. the irish were condemned as importers of poverty. have the next slide, please? emigration believe the poorest of europe sport dominated the immigration to the united states. fact, the poorest irish peasants could not afford to emigrate. a cost a lot of money to cross the atlantic in those days and you had to bring one month's supply of food and water with you. in most cases, only those with resources could make the trip. immigrants were not as poor as the natives thought. because the immigrants dressed so shabbily and live in overcrowded apartments in the nation's most decrepit neighborhoods, they assumed they were penniless.

the immigrants bank accounts revealed they save a lot more money than their material possessions would suggest. this is because the immigrants did not indulge in the material comforts the natives took for granted. they shared bedrooms and worked multiple jobs. thereby saving every possible penny said they could send remittances to ireland to support aging parents or pay for the immigration of loved ones or start their own businesses. this is a situation very similar to what we have today. most of today's new arrivals are not the poorest of the poor. the most destitute don't have the bank balances to qualify for immigrants who do make it to america are fanatical savers who share crowded spaces and work multiple jobs in order to support web ones back home or to save to buy a home or business.

the final subject i want to look at is assimilation. americans have always believed there immigrant forbears assimilated more than the immigrants of their generation. if we used the term assimilate the way native more -- with native-born americans do, then no immigrants from any era have assimilated much. adult immigrants tried to continue to speak their native tongue, socialized primarily with their compatriots causing the same songs and play the same games as they had back home, each -- eat the same food and complain american values are ruining their children. the process of assimilation for immigrants a century ago was not identical to that under god today, but in the end, those differences are largely superficial. approve one'sto

self and begin life all over again in a strange, new place has not changed much from the 19th century to today. so what do these facts tell us about the current debate over overhauling our immigration laws? i think there are three main lessons to take. today'st is the fear of immigrants will pass. it has passed for every previous generation of american immigrants and history would tell us it is going to pass for this generation also. second, immigrants today are not as poor as they seem. we can use the historical record see immigrants from the past were perceived to be penniless but in fact had significant savings. sometimes brought with them, sometimes earned quickly upon coming to america. there's no reason to believe today's immigrants who seem impoverished are not in fact actually savg