>> president obama heads to austin, texas on thursday for a middle-class jobs creation initiative. he will speak at four different events on that day. live coverage of the u.s. house, members are gabbling back in after a week-long break, beginning their day with general speeches and later it's a number of suspension bills. now live to the floor the house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., may 6, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable kerry bentivolio to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the circuit court for colum county, alabama, for documents a civil case to which i am not a party. after consultation with the office of general counsel i will determine whether compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed sincerely, jennifer butler taylor, director of constituent services, u.s. epresentative robert aderholt.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. miller, for five minutes. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: mr. speaker, over the past several years more than 1,000 workers have died in working in bangladesh's garment industry. an eight-story building collapsed, it houses five garment factories. it's killed more than 650 workers so far, injured more than 1,000 with still more buried in the rubble. this staggering body count occurred just five months after another factory fire that killed at least 112 workers. 40 more incidents, including explosions and fires, causing death and injury, have taken place since the tazarine factory fire. i visited with one of the

survivors last month. she toiled in a factory with bars on the windows and no place to run if fire broke out. she told me how she jumped from the third floor of the burning factory to save her body from the fire so her family could recognize her in case of her death. and many of her co-workers jumped with her but did not survive the fall. during our meeting, it became clear that it was only a matter of time before the next fire would take place. two weeks later, another plaza collapsed. unfortunately, these tragedies in bangladesh are not isolated and more of these tragedies undoubtedly will occur unless the major international corporations that keep these dangerous factories open decide to change their business practices. clearly, there is a greater role for the u.s. and other governments to play, including the bangladesh government. however, the primary burden for action now lies with the major

brands and retailers. let's remember what is at stake here. the lives of thousands of young -- and mothers trying to working 12 hours to pay for a garment. wal-mart, jcpenney, h.&m, the children's place, the gap and the dress barn among horse are made there. we buy the clothes that these women sew in bangladesh. we buy them here in america. unfortunately, these young women are in a garment industry that pits against supplier and a calculated race to the bottom. often the margins these corporations is the wages and the needless disregard for safety of these young women. that is the subsidy they receive. low wages and unsafe working conditions for the workers that produce these garments.

four million bangladeshi workers provide clothing to americans and european brands while earning one of the lowest minimum wages in the world, about $37 a month. but they shouldn't have to risk their lives for the fashion industry profits. these young women are forced to work in factories that are overtaxed, electrical circuits, unenforced building codes and premises without firefighting equipment and adequate exits and in most cases the exits are chained closed. americans who are the consumers of these products, are worried that the labels made in bangladesh actually means made in a death trap. why aren't managers of these factories forcing these workers o work in these deplorable conditions? fear. fear that they'll take their orders elsewhere because of a missed day of production, a late delivery or a minuscule increase in the production

costs. the brands know this. that's why i believe they bear the ultimate responsibility for the horrendously unsafe working conditions in bangladesh and elsewhere. corporate leaders in the fashion industry have a moral imperative to ensure that these tragedies do not happen again. these retailers and brands need to sign on to the enforceable agreement that will improve safety called the bangladesh fire and building safety agreement. it was developed by the bangladeshi trade unions and nongovernmental organizations to prevent these types of disasters from occurring by addressing the most elements. audits conducted by independent safety experts, mandates that factory owners make timely repairs, an obligation for the brands to terminate a contract if a factory defies the responsibility to keep workers safe, the right for workers to refuse unsafe work without retribution, to be able to refuse work without being

fired, being penalized. and a union access to factories, among other labor protections so they can see for themselves what are the working conditions on any given day. to make this work, these commitments must be contained in an enforceable contract between the brands and the worker representatives because it is the workers' lives that are on the line. the holding companies of calvin kline, tommy hill figure, and others have signed on to this agreement already and a major german retailer have signed on as well. others are meeting in europe to discuss these provisions. i applaud their efforts toward corporate responsibility. it's time for the major u.s. corporations like the gap, wal-mart and jcpenney to join them. but we must also take note and call out to any attempt to water down the key provisions of this agreement. experiod of times believe this safety agreement -- experts believe that this safety

greement will cost them a dime for the life of these workers. a major global brand now face a choice. they can attempt to wait out the storm and go back to business as usual and continue their race to the bottom or they can chart a different course that includes healthy profits without a human death toll by signing on to an enforceable safety agreement. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until

host: what is going on in congress when it comes to online sales tax? guest: just before they left for the recess, the senate seat up legislation that would allow states to require online retailers charge a sales tax for purchases, even for people

who buy out-of-state. essentially an online retailer here in dc would have to charge a sales tax for, say, michigan when somebody from michigan bought a product from them online. host: is it going to pass? guest: it looks very likely it will pass the senate. we are almost certain. it asked cloture twice and it has about three quarters of the chamber's support. the house is less certain. there is still resistance. house leadership is not fond of tax increases or anything perceived as a tax increase. thee is concerned about implementation of the bill itself, how difficult it would be for online retailers. what i think it is fair to say that this is something that has momentum and it will get a strong look in the house and if it does not happen this year i think it is something we could see in the next year or two. host: what is the name of the vehicle or the building are debating and who are the prime sponsors? guest: arco place fairness act. that is really part of the theme, fairness -- marketplace fairness act. the main sponsors are senators

michael enzi, lamar alexander and dick durbin and enzi in particular has been focused on this for about a dozen years. this has been around since the did 1990s -- since the mid- 1990s. in the house we have representative steve womack, a republican who is very strongly in favor of the bill. host: the republican from arkansas, is there a walmart factor there? guest: walmart is very strongly in favor, as are most of the major retailers because they have to pay a sales tax. the rule right now is you have to charge a sales tax if you have a physical presence in a state. walmart has stores in most dates, i believe, so therefore they have to charge online sales tax for every state essentially. amazon.com used to oppose this heavily. they have seen their physical presence increase so they also had to start charging a sales tax, so we have seen them support this legislation as of last year. big retailers.

retailers industry in general are already collecting the sales tax and they think they are at a disadvantage of -- to online retailers that do not. host: is this considered a revenue bill? wouldn't have to start in the house before it being debated in the senate? guest: a point of contention that the small group of senators who opposed the bill, which include mostly senators from states that do not have a sales tax currently, they have actually tried to introduce amendments that would cause -- senator durbin framed it as not a tech or revenue bill but essentially an administrative bill that gives states the authority to extend something already do to them. the argument is the sales tax is not new. consumers oh sales taxes when they i products on amazon.com or anyplace else they are not charged. the fact most consumers do not

remit their sales taxes, it does not change the fact. we may see it come up in the house if the opposition there coalesces. host: gautham nagesh, what are the arguments against this bill and who is leading that charge? guest: as i said, senators from states that do not have a sales tax strongly oppose this. that is a pretty broad coalition. senator max baucus, the finance committee chairman, he says also that his committee was bypassed with its bill, which is somewhat true, actually, because the senate majority leader harry reid brought it directly to the floor rather than sending it through the regular process this ashen. as i said, baucus opposes the bill. montana does not have a sales tax. senator wyden from oregon has also been strongly opposed. obviously from the moral liberal wing of the senate, but he framed this as businesses taking over government responsibility. oregon does not have a sales

tax. he sought exemptions for those sorts of states and retailers. the problem with that, senator and see points out, that if certain they cannot forced to comply by all likelihood those states would become the center of online retailer progress -- retailing gossip -- retailing because everyone would move there. host: how much could be raised? guest: $23 billion has been going around. it would go to states, counties, localities, whoever that are not charging sales tax on internet purchases? guest: absolutely. i think it is fair to say most companies don't. the retailers and companies do, maybe not the majority but gradually an increasing number of online purchases have sales tax assessed. however, most retailers still do not -- they are not required to,

especially when selling out-of- state, so they generally only collect from purchases in state. host: gautham nagesh, what about international purchases? guest: there are some things like the vat and other countries that resemble a sales tax. if you purchase things physically in another country you can apply to have it remitted and customs. it depends. these things are not enforced uniformly. a lot of countries do not have a sales tax. air is an argument online retailers will move abroad if we assess this -- there is an argument online retailers will move abroad. could see enforcement on that and also. mrs. grant was interesting. shemost of their lives, regarded him as an abject failure. in almost no context at all,

suddenly at all he was the most popular man in the country, the man who had saved the union on the battlefield, and then president of the united states. >> julianna loved her time and the white house. she said it was like a bright and beautiful dream, the most memorable time of my life. if you some idea of how much she enjoyed being first lady and how she felt her husband had finally achieved the recognition he deserved. >> be part of the conversation onjulia grant, live tonight first ladies at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c- span radio and c-span.org. last week a former legal adviser to george bush talked about the dilemma a president faces when deciding to approve a drone

strike. the remarks are part of a panel discussion on the use of drones, hosted by the bipartisan policy center. this is just over an hour. >> among them i feel a guy who flashes paint on houses about subtle aspects of portraiture painting with a good -- group of rembrandt's. let me begin by introducing the panelists. seated next is john, a partner legalaw firm, a former adviser to the national security council. issues.s on public lot recently he testified before a house committee.

happy to have you here. left is a director of the national security project, which is dedicated to make sure that the practices are consistent with human rights. her work includes a focus on counter-terrorism within human rights. she is a lecturer in law at columbia. philip zelikow is the associated dean of university of virginia's college of arts and sciences, was the executive director of the 9/11 commission. he has served on national missions and task forces and has written books too numerous to mention. i dare say the word "drone" has been mentioned once or twice around him.

and mark mazzetti is the national security correspondent for "the new york times," the co-winner for the pulitzer prize on reporting for -- he is author of a recent book which is on point to our morning.n this here is the book. i recently read it, and i recommend it to you all. let's dive right into the subject at hand. i would like to turn to john bellinger. you have been in the arena on so many of these issues, and if you could begin by framing some of them for us, the legal policy aspects. >> thanks, mike, and thank you to the bipartisan policy center for putting this together. when i testified before the house judiciary committee a couple weeks ago, i started and ended my testimony with a plea for more bipartisanship. as we all know, one of the

saddest byproducts of 9/11 has been that national security issues have become so divisive when we really ought to be pulling together. republicans do this to democrats and democrats do it to republicans, and drones are yet another one of those. i was present at the creation of the legal basis for the use of drones. i was in the white house in the summer of 2001 when we developed the armed predator and were thinking about using it against al qaeda leaders. in fact, osama bin laden, if we could find him. so i was responsible for developing legal framework. i do think as a general matter, it is permissible under both domestic law under the subsequently developed law giving us the ability to use force act. al qaeda leaders planning

attacks against us. the main legality of the program, as both the bush administration and the obama administration have practiced it, i think are correct. the devil is in the details, how in the problem we don't know a lot of the details. the obama administration would never have guessed four years later that they would now be being accused of war crimes, have the aclu suing them, have the human right's counsel conducting investigations of whether the obama administration is committing war crimes and violating international law. a british group has sued the british government for supposedly sharing intelligence with the obama administration, resulting in the death of a man in pakistan, so four years later, the obama administration is now finding some of the same charges that were leveled against the bush administration. a couple of years ago i wrote

in "the post," called "will drone strikes become obama's guantanamo?" at the time i wrote that, i did not really think that drone strikes could have become obama's guantanamo. i think this is a real problem for them. they have been grappling with the issue through a number of officials -- john brennan, harold koh. others have issued a series of speeches generally explaining the program, the problem is -- and this is my real point here -- no other country in the world has at least publicly agreed with the legality of our drone program. that is not a good place for the united states to be.

it may well be that there are a handful who are cooperating with us that believe it is legal or they would not be cooperating. but right now the united states is isolated as the obama administration has launched more than 300 drone strikes in four different countries, killing more than 3000 people, and the rest of the world is finding this very controversial if not unlawful. they have given the obama administration the benefit of the doubt for four years, but as we now go into a second term, i think they are now beginning to become increasingly restive, and the challenge for the obama administration, as it has been for us when we enter the second term of the bush administration, is now trying to convince the rest of the world that what they are doing in terms of counterterrorism policy is in fact lawful. so they are rapidly on the back foot. the obama administration -- i

know they are working with this inside the white house to do a better job explaining the legality of the program, who they are targeting, why it is lawful, and why the rest of the world should in fact agree with what they are doing. in a moment i would be happy to get into the more of the legal details, but that is where we are right now. >> thanks, john. >> thanks, mike, and thank you very much to the bipartisan policy center for having this event and inviting me. let me start out in the spirit of the center with agreeing with a lot of what john bellinger has said. the targeted killing program has profoundly important legal and policy questions, and the public debate is crippled because we do not actually have a lot of the information that we need in order to determine the full extent of where the program

is being carried out, how, against two, with what investigation, and what measures to prevent harm to civilians. let me also start out with another point of agreement. often a straw man is created, the idea that -- as a legal matter, i don't think drones are per se unlawful, but as a policy matter, they have raised a family important questions because they are easier to use without risk to u.s. forces, and they may be able to use -- to be used in places where we otherwise at war, as has been explained to the american public where we are at war. it also becomes a legal issue when you talk about who is using the drones. it has been widely reported

the cia is using drones. the idea that the cia program is secret is one of the worst kept secrets in the world, undermining our legitimacy to make that claim. but it takes us to the question of how are we using this weapon or any other weapon, because helicopter airships have also been used to carry out the program of targeted killing, and that is really what the this debate is about. what we know is deeply troubling, and i think there is a general feeling amongst international law scholars that the use of lethal force is permissible under international law, human rights laws, may be permissible in response to a specific and concrete threat. in the law of war context, in

an armed conflict, it would be permissible against civilians who are directly participating in hostilities, as the terms are defined under the laws of war and as long as other law of war requirements are met. what has been made public in speeches by administration officials -- and i appreciate that those speeches have been made -- as well as the white paper that was first leaked, is that those are not the standards being applied. if you look at the white paper alone -- remember, this is a white paper that was reportedly a summary of the memo used to justify the killing of a u.s. citizen who is a senior operational al qaeda leader, or alleged to be one. the restrictions the white paper recognizes -- for example, on what constitutes an imminent threat, the capability of capture, the law of war requirements -- when you read the white paper, you realize

that they are permissions. it turns out that the senior high-level officials making the determination about whether lethal force may be used does not need to have, for imminence to exist, according to the white paper, actual evidence that a plot is going to take place, and all of a sudden the imminence requirement is read out of existence. it is vastly elastic. something similar happens with respect to the requirement and capture. where we are now is recognizing that the requirements that at least what we know with respect to u.s. citizens raise at least significant concerns from our perspective, more than that about the legal requirements, whether they are being abided by. if we have that concern with u.s. citizens, we should

equally have that concern with noncitizens. one u.s. citizen has reportedly been publicly targeted, three others have been otherwise killed, but, as senator graham said, there are reports that approximately 4700 noncitizens have been killed. and i think that there are fewer things that are more likely to undermine the legitimacy of our country as securityur national than even the perception that we are not abiding by the rule of law with respect to noncitizens as well as our own citizens alike, and that we are in different -- and that we are indifferent to civilian casualties. disclosure to the legal standards of who can be targeted.

what is the process by which those decisions are made? who is a senior high-level official, who reviews the decision-making of senior high- level officials? and who should the public hold accountable? who are militants or the civilians who have been killed out to the extent that the numbers are known, they should be disclosed. to the extent that identity is known, that should be disclosed as well. we will not be able to move forward with the kind of debate that we expect of ourselves as any liberal democratic society, one based on checks and balances, without that fundamental transparency which is necessary to accountability not just in court but public accountability in the public sphere. >> thank you. phil, your views? >> i am actually not here as

representative of the administration, and none of what i say should be construed as representing the views of anyone in the obama administration. between those two pillars, let me navigate a path. moment like to take a and explain to you an argument about how to conduct warfare in this strange way. the united states has been involved in a global armed conflict with al qaeda and its affiliate organizations now for approximately 15 years. al qaeda knew it was engaged in that global armed conflict before the united states agreed that it was in it. forcefullys able to impress on the united states government that it was in such a conflict, probably most

strikingly beginning in august 1998. whether it can be conducted with remotely piloted vehicles in many countries around the world. let me offer you two different paradigms for how to think about this problem. in these paradigms, i will try to make this very clear, and maybe too clear. you need to do three things. first you need to define what is the doorway through which i must enter that allows me to kill these people? what is the doorway? second, having passed through that doorway thomas i have two defined which people i can legally kill as a government. third, having defined that, i must set some sort of standards

of evidence and circumstances under which people so defined can be targeted. now, there are two contrasting approaches for how to answer all three of these sets of questions. one approach i will call and on-conflict/law of war which i support. the second is what i would call a constitutional/self-defense approach, which worries me. let me just explain the way these two approaches work. for the doorway, if you are in an armed conflict approach, the doorway is and must be a public doorway. the country knows and discusses that has entered into this

armed conflict. the congress debates it, the congress in may pass an authorization for the use of military force especially authorizing the government to wage war and enemies around the world. this is a healthy attribute of a democracy. under the constitutional approach, the doorway is some entity or person poses an imminent threat to the united states that allows us to defend ourselves. that doorway need not be public. that determination can be concluded in secret, whether or not the government has determined that it is in armed conflict with some larger entity, and that this in other words rises to the stature of a war or warlike thing, rather than being a person or group of people who are dangerous to us in our secret determinations. so you can see the significance of these paradigms, and if you

parse the administration public statements on this issue, you will see references to both of these paradigms. what you are hearing from me is a strong argument about the significance of one and the dangers of the other. now, the second standard i mentioned -- what about the definition of the people who you can kill? under a law of armed conflict standard, i must say the bush administration badly mangled this definition. and indeed did quite a lot to discredit it. it expanded the definition of the term "enemy combatant" to include anyone who has given or might have been seen to be given some sort of material support to a terrorist organization, equating it with other standards of u.s. domestic law, often in the context of guantanamo litigation.

that is very pernicious because the enemy combatant standard is very important, someone who our military can lawfully kill or capture without a lot of advance notice. thatis a determination should be approached with care. now, properly defined, an enemy combatant is someone who, as international law experts would put it, is directly participating in hostilities. dph is sometimes called the standard. to its credit, the obama administration has publicly endorsed the dph standard and in my view has restored credibility to that kind of approach. credibility that was tattered when the obama administration

entered office. paradigm,stitutional the definition of who can be killed does not use necessarily these law of war determinations and doesn't judge whether that person is a member of the larger entity with who you are with in armed conflict. instead it mentions the threat posed by the individual. either way, you'll notice it is potentially pernicious in some ways. at the same time, it begins assuming annexed ordinarily high standard of intelligence and evidence about particular individuals that is rarely attainable in practice. then at the third level, that is, what evidence and circumstances you need, we have a great deal of experience and a lot of people who are well

trained on the application of the dph standard of enemy combatants. that is a result of 15 years of warfare, of this is now a standard that a lot of people understand and know how to apply, and they know how to second-guess mistaken applications of it. we have had a lot of trial and error with this. we have had some seasoning in how to make judgments about this. in the constitutional standard, because it will turn on evidence and circumstances so related to this individual determination, assuming that the government involved is one of good will and does not want to abuse its privileges. it is going to want to set very high evidentiary standards. the irony, then, as i look back, for instance, on the years around 9/11, is there is a level at which we are a little spoiled about the intelligence

we might have about certain people in areas we have been watching very closely now for a long time, areas that we now know better than people living in fairfax county know the street map of arlington. i am serious. so don't assume that that evidentiary standard is going to be met in other situations we will encounter. that evidence may look a lot more like that pre-9/11 story, where if you read the 9/11 commission report you will see all kinds of uncertainty about someone there, who else is there, judgments had to be made, repeated questions came up in 1998 and 1999. should we shoot? and in every decision after the first, the decision was made not to shoot. now step back.

i am basically offering a paradigm, you will notice, that is very public about how you get in. applies fairly well understood standards about how you work it. but then takes into account the inherent uncertainties of warfare in making judgments about when you can strike. but that is because the country has decided it is in a war and candidate that decision. in the other paradigm, a pure constitutional paradigm, you can bypass an aumf, you don't need an aumf, you can make these to constitutional determinations, and you can make this less open to the public, less open to debate about with whom we should be at war. simultaneously, because of that, impose standards on you that actually make it harder to deal with the sorts of enemies we may encounter in the future, whether it might be, what would we have liked to have been able

to do in libya last year, if we had had just a little bit more information than the information we had, and had more assets on the scene. let me stop there. >> thank you, philip. mark, you thought deeply about these issues and investigated them. give us the benefit of your thinking. >> thanks, mike, and it is terrific to be here. i was a last-minute addition to the panel. when the original rembrandt was going to be here. appreciated and being on this panel. i come at this subject to friendly than anyone appear. i am the only person who is not a lawyer. even the former cia guy is a lawyer. i am a reporter and a national security report where we are

getting added basic question about what is happening now and what has happened in the past on these issues. we are all sort of basically trying to ask the same questions and get some answers. what i do in my reporting for "the new york times and also in my book is try to basically describe as much as possible the history of this secret war that has been waged since 9/11, as philip points out, because he really is a war and it really has been in secret. since those early years. i think by now we know the broad outlines and contours of in iraq and afghanistan, but what is happening in pakistan, what has happened in yemen. in other parts, places like somalia, still, those stories

need to be told, and that is what i have been trying to do. i agree with hina that we do focus on the idea of drones as a weapon because there is the science-fiction quality to it. there is the aspect of, although they are not robots, that they are robots carrying out war. the deeper question is obviously how they are used and the idea of targeted killing or not so targeted killing in places where at least officially the united states is not. so that is what i have written about, how this way of war has become sort of the default way the united states does. it was begun by the bush administration, in overtime if you are looking at targeted

killing killing, the bush administration went from primarily a capture strategy and interrogation strategy two, after a few years, the detention and interrogation program, especially with this cia, really started to tail off and the policy of killing started to escalate, and the obama administration came in in 2009 and has expanded in many ways. as a reporter, it has been i think the most important story, to understand how the obama administration sees this way of war, how it has conducted this way of war. also the question of, will there be repercussions or this war being conducted. john mentioned earlier that he thought that using drones to

kill off al qaeda leaders is certainly lawful, and he supported it. i think that what we see these days in many cases is drones being used on targets that are far from senior al qaeda leaders, and in many ways al qaeda as it existed on 9/11 is a shadow of what it was. the questions we have to ask things like, what is the bar for targeted killing? who is being targeted? is it al qaeda? is it al qaeda affiliates? are they enemies of the state of pakistan, of the state of yemen? is the united states the counterinsurgency air force for yemen or pakistan? these are questions that i think are being answered, but obviously we still need to know more about because if this is really the default way of doing

business, if this is -- if we don't expect to see another afghanistan anytime soon or another iraq anytime soon but a lot more somalia, i think everyone agrees that there does need to be greater transparency, greater public discussion on these issues, and sort of greater accountability for how the war is being waged. i still find it striking that, as a reporter, when recently i was covering the john brennan confirmation hearings and john brennan was being confirmed as cia director, i was struck to find that the members of the senate intelligence committee who are the dozen people in congress who are authorized to have the highest level of classified levels of intelligence inside the government do not have the

memos, the legal memos that are underpinning the targeted killing program. the white house makes the point that congress is not entitled -- they are. as an outsider, it is striking to me that members of the intelligence committee was formed after the committee investigations of the 1970's, the agencies do not have these memos. not having these memos significantly limits their ability to conduct oversight. i think if that is the position they are in, i think it is a lot tougher for citizens, people not in government, to really make informed judgments about what we think. and i hope for more discussion in the future. >> mark, thanks very much. john and hina, just your reaction to what phil laid out?

>> i take a slightly different angle. one, a couple things about the debate are really not about -- we talk about drones. the problem is not the use of drones. people now start saying the problem is targeted killings. it is actually not the problem, targeted killings. if we are in a real war, with germany and japan in world war ii and we developed a weapon in which one could only kill a single person rather than engage him in that is wonderful. that is legal, that is good. it is not actually that targeted killings are bad. when lawful and legitimate, they can be good. the issue here, and this begins to fit with what philip is saying, is that there is a

fundamental disagreement around the world, which i experienced when i was a legal advisor, as to whether the united states really is in a war at all. we are about the only country in the world that believes we are in a conflict with al qaeda. i spent part through years as legal advisor in the bush administration engaged in the dialogue that was kicked off by the 9/11 commission, and one of the 9/11 commission recommendations was that we need to work with our allies to develop common standards for detention based on article 3. what is now going on around the world is a different debate with the rest of the world about not the tension, because as mark said this administration has decided they do not want to do detention anymore. the bush administration got in trouble with detention, so they are now just going to kill people. the issue is not the targeted killings. the issue around the world, and i see a number of members of

embassies here, is is the united states in an armed conflict around the world? can you be in an armed conflict with the group? with a group that goes on not just in one country, in afghanistan, that any lot of different countries? through successive administrations, the bush and obama administrations have been unable to persuade our allies that after the initial phases of the afghan war that the united states remains in an armed conflict with al qaeda that allows us therefore to use lethal force against members of al qaeda around the world. this is where what i am talking about fits together with what philip is talking about. from the rest of the world's perspective, it is not the law of war versus the u.s. constitutional law. other countries apply a paradigm of human rights law. we do not think we are in a war, and therefore to the extent

that the united states may use force lawfully under international law, one has to apply human rights law paradigm, meaning that one can only target someone who poses an absolutely imminent threat. under a human rights law paradigm, other countries would say, yes, if it can be shown that someone in pakistan is willing to launch an attack in pakistan is unwilling to do anything about it, the united states has the right to self- defense. but where we can kill members of al qaeda no matter where they are, and the rest of the world's perspective -- they were very surprised to find the obama administration adopt this armed conflict paradigm that european countries in particular thought was going to be dropped like a hot potato as soon as the obama administration came into

office. and to not only continue the war paradigm but to wrap up the use of drones. i agree with philip, at least from a u.s. versus international perspective, there are paradigms, i would say there is a law of war paradigm that we are applying versus not a constitutional paradigm but a human rights law paradigm from the rest of the world. >> hina? >> one way to think about it is the constitutional standards and the human rights standards are very similar, and with what the constitutional rights allow i'm going to put that aside a little bit and pick up from there john left off about how the rest of the world not only does not agree but i think from our perspective we have to be concerned about the precedent that we are setting for the rest of the world to follow. not just with respect to the use of drones, to the legal framework in which we conduct targeted killings.

perhaps we can discuss this. in a very literal sense, when we talk about the signatures trikes and such, there is no question we are talking about targeted killing in a literal sense. but going back to the precedent-setting standard, there is no question that multiple other countries, nonstate actors, will have access to drones technology. whatever standard we claim to use today, we have to accept that other countries are going to cite back to us tomorrow. while we can accept that terrorism is a global threat, the idea that we are engaged in a global war on terror which allows an executive branch, regardless of which country's executive branch it is to declare people unilaterally

enemies of the state and order their killing without judicial review before or after the fact is one that we must at least debate and seriously consider whether that is the kind of world in which we want to live. it used to be that our country condemned what we now call targeted killing. it will be the case tomorrow that other countries will carry them out. we look to ourselves as a standard setter for international law, the rule of law. we undermine our status, our legitimacy, and our ability to argue for the rule of law approach if we don't recognize that limitations that we want today -- that we might want for others are ones that we have to recognize for ourselves. and there i want to talk very quickly about some facts.

the reality is, as mark said, the majority of people who are being killed now are not senior-level al qaeda leaders. they are lower-level insurgents who do not necessarily pose a threat to the united states but may pose a threat to pakistan, yemen, and other countries. at the least we need more information and debate about where we are committed to being at war, why, and for what reason in order to be able to really have sound policy going forward on these issues and an informed public debate based on which u.s. people can let their policymakers know what their thoughts are. >> phil zelikow, any response to what john has said? >> i do not disagree entirely with john. i think the two paradigms are important in the american

context. but reacting to both comments, i have to observe that country's under attack are the ones that get to decide whether they are at war or not. whether or not that is a legal principle, i will make that observation as a historian. country's under attack will decide whether they are at war or not. if they think they are at war, they will act accordingly. if terrorists came to shanghai and blew up its holdings and killed thousands of chinese citizens tomorrow, it would not matter what president we had said or what labels we had applied. if the chinese thought that came from people oversee, they would act as if they were at war, and they would use 100% of their available power to attack the people who had caused that.

to the absolute limits of what was possible. and wherever those people were, they would do that. frankly, so would any other government that felt a sense of responsibility to its citizens. >> i have a couple of buttons i would like to pose myself. mark mazzetti, we have talked about the legal aspect here, the legal frameworks. on the policy side, as well, does the use of drones and targeted killing, when we think about long-term potentially doing more harm than good -- john bellinger, you made a similar point toward the end of your recent testimony to congress, so i will come to you next -- a kind of a brief answer, mark, if you can. >> i think this is something we will find out in the years

ahead in terms of, as i said before, blowback for what is being done now. at this point there is anecdotal evidence of the radicalization happening as a result of drones strikes in yemen and pakistan. one of the more famous cases is in may of 2010 when faisal shazad tried to blow up trucks in times square. i know that john brennan has said there is little if no evidence of radicalization. i think making firm judgments on what right now about the impact -- it is a little dangerous. i think, though, that if the cia is doing its job, they should be doing very thorough analysis on the analytic side other side of the

cia, the operations side, is doing, and the impact that the drone strikes predominately are being carried out by the cia, are having on the views of the people in pakistan and elsewhere. and will that be more radicalization? will it mean more attacks, attacks directed by what is left of al qaeda, or things like the boston bombing? we still do not know too much about the brothers that carried out the attack, but certainly we all agree we may see more of that in the future. so what does that mean? >> john bellinger, just a very quick response. >> i was mostly quoting people that were more knowledgeable than myself, like stan mcchrystal. my point was to know that people who really are in the know are concerned that our use

of drones, while effective on one hand -- we certainly, one can quibble whether every last person ought to have been targeted, we are knocking out a lot of al qaeda leaders. but is it reaching the point of minimal returns? general mcchrystal's point is that we don't understand how much of the united states is becoming hated around the region because of the of drone strikes. my concern as a lawyer is that we are also losing support of our strong allies in europe, who really were willing to give president obama the benefit of a doubt in a way they were not willing to give president bush. these drone strikes have really ramped up the european public, their parliament, their journalists are putting pressure on their governments to say why aren't you saying anything about this to my are you sharing with the american administration, are these things legal?

these are really echoes of guantanamo, so phil is right that any country that is attack has a right to decide if they are in a armed conflict. but it becomes a serious problem for the united states, who needs the support of our allies and is committed to the rule of law, if none of our allies really believe that we are in that armed conflict. where philip and i really worked very hard in the second term of the bush administration was to get out and do a better job in the second term than we had done in the first term to try to engage our allies in dialogue, explain to them what we were doing, explain to them for example why one can detain people under the laws of war without charging them, which is something that we absolutely did not accept. this administration problem, because they feel they are on the side of angels, is that they have not had to explain themselves. we had been attacked, everybody ought to be behind us.

we got into a deep hole. philip and i know that we worked hard in the second term of the bush administration to convince our allies that we were doing the right thing. these are exactly echoes what happened. the obama administration now finding itself maybe not in as deep a hole, and they have the support of their allies, but they need to get on top of this and explain to our allies why what they are doing is legal, why it is permissible under international law. >> philip, a very quick response from you, and then hina, a response from you, in that you have talked briefly about the number of dead. >> i think it is time to have a debate about the public authorization of military force that the congress passed into his house in one.

-- 2001. that was 12 years ago. that is the corollary of my argument. it is time to have a renewed debate about are we still in a war, or should we move this into another paradigm that maybe treats this as something less than a global armed conflict because of the different size and character of the enemy we face now. i think it is an appropriate time for that. if this year is not the right time, 2014 as our posture in afghanistan, which really was the catalytic event for which the congressional legislation was passed in the first place, that we can move into a different phase. i think we are entering a period where it is time for renewed public discussion of these issues, of what framework really is appropriate for this particular set of people. >> philip, you have anticipated and answered well a couple of questions i have had. i will skip those, if you can just comment on this issue. >> last week the senate

judiciary subcommittee headed by senator dick durbin and ranking member ted cruz had a telling hearing on these issues. and to the extent that folks have not looked at the statements there, i would urge you to do so. i think the issue -- two issues. i don't think even with those explanations are allies in europe or elsewhere in the world will agree that this war based framework is one that accords with international law. so we really have to think through the fact that we have to ratchet set down and abide by the laws of war, which i think allow us to maintain our security and do so in accordance with a set of standards that the rest of the world recognizes and that we helped establish.

what happens when we don't? one of the testimonies that i thought was most powerful last week -- and kudos to senator durbin and senator cruz for inviting a very first time a young man to discuss the human cost and consequences of targeted killing operations in yemen. this is an exceptional young man. he comes from a remote village in yemen who has learned english and went to university as a result of u.s. scholarships, and to high school here for a year sees himself as an ambassador of american values and principles to yemen, and six days before his testimony his village, drones were used to strike it. what he had to say was up until then what people knew about the united states was based on his love of the country and his talk about american values and what it meant to him about this nation.

now what they know are drone strikes that killed someone that he and other people think could easily have been captured by yemeni forces, and that instead of this capture what resulted was death, fear, and a real backlash against the united states. so we need to hear more from people who are actually impacted on the ground to inform what otherwise might be a sterile legal argument and recognize that, as i think stanley mcchrystal said, general mcchrystal, that what may appear riskless to us here, to the perspective on those on the receiving end is very much like war. that is part of what we are doing and what we have to consider going forward including whether we want to expand authority at a time when the public is tired of the blood and treasure that has gone into war-

based endeavors, and when our policy makers are telling us that al qaeda and other organizations have been decimated. it is a debate we have to have, a debate we have to have more information to have on an informed basis. >> thank you, and i would like to open it up to your questions. we do have microphones. wait till the microphone comes, then please state your name and organization. if you would like to direct a question to a particular panelist, please do so. >> john gannon. >> thanks, great panel. john bellinger mentions the obama administration was making efforts to clarify this issue. i have read those speeches, and it seems to me what i have read is more of a rationalization for what we have done rather than establishing a critical framework for where we need to go. a couple of questions have come out of that.

what is it with regard to roles and responsibilities? i think no one has any trouble with the imam, but when we go to his 16-year-old son two weeks later, we learned that that operation was not conducted by cia, which was supposedly in charge of this, but by the department of defense. on the issues of roles and responsibilities and accountability that comes out of that, what is the legal foundation for either of those agencies or departments to be involved, and how do we get that clarified so that we can have clearer policy and then embed that in law? and the final point that hina has made are the international implications from a legal standpoint. ofyou look at the migration this technology, it is

proliferating. it is not just an issue of our values and the standard we want to represent to the world. ultimately we are going to be threatened ibis technology ourselves if we don't understand -- if we do not establish international law that governs the use of this kind of capability. how do we move to embed in domestic law and then get into the international arena and established international law that is going to rain in this? i would expect any president to use whatever capability available to him or her at the time of an attack, but i also expect, and our history shows, that we get our senses as time goes on and we recognize we have to rein in and in that in law, because we are a country of the rule of law. >> if you could keep your response is concise so we can take as many questions as possible in the remaining time. >> a great question.

the administration speech is really our great as far as they go. what i am arguing is they need to go further to explain for the multiple reasons you have heard the precise legal parameters why it is lawful to persuade other countries to go along with us. the administration has not felt the need to do that. and they do. also, if we want to constrain other countries from the use of drones, we need to be extremely precise in what is a lawful use of legal force and what would be unlawful use of force. i pity the poor department spokesperson when china or russia uses a drone of a spokesperson has to come up and tap dance and said that was an illegal targeted killing in contrast to all of the lawful targeted killings. the reason that can be difficult is we have not been precise. that is a challenge for the administration to explain in more detail.

again, i have talked about the echoes of guantanamo. in some ways i see echoes of the cia interrogation program, which was the reaction, perhaps an overreaction to 9/11. now we have the drone of strike proposed by cia puts the white house and a difficult position of saying no. now we need to get these on better footing in the second term. >> on the roles of emission point, i think the administration has made it clear it intends to move towards greater reliance on the department of defense for the conduct of warfare in the 21st century. i support that. >> very quickly on this point,

it was one of two recommendations that was not ultimately adopted, which was to take military function out of the cia and give it to the dod. if anything not only was not adopted, the court mission is using droned strikes in targeting in killing the terrors as some center has become part of the agency. so we will see -- there has been indications the administration wants to move back into the other direction. we will see what happens. >> there is no question one of the most unsympathetic characters you could have in connection with being a poster boy for these public policies. the reality is if not him, what about the next as an in person after that. right now the administration takes the position in response

to the transparency freedom of information act that we cannot confirm or deny we actually carried out with respect to the due process challenge, the administration takes my challenge the killing of three u.s. listens cannot be subject traditional review. this is in essence a political question. i think we profoundly disagree, but that is a very dangerous proposition for a system of checks and balances that the executive branch may be able to unilaterally take the life of a us citizen and not be subject to judicial review, even after the fact. >> in the back. >> thank you very much.

thank you for a very interesting panel this morning. it is a hypothetical question. i hope it might help me better understand the argument for the international legality. if al qaeda were to use them to attack u.s. military sites here or government offices involved in planning attacks, what would be the international legality of that, given that the u.s. is engaged in a mutual act of war with al qaeda, and the other being response to an imminent threat. if al qaeda was to satisfy the requirement, would that passed >>e international legality?

philip, you want to respond to ?the guardian" [laughter] >> we are discussing warfare with remotely piloted vehicles against people with directly- piloted vehicles. >> [inaudible] >> there is nothing in international law that prohibits the united states. there are consequences from it. it would be legal to go to war and legal for us to wage war against the people who did that. >> governor king. >> historians through history -- knowed civil rights. history we suspended civil rights. we have done things profoundly illegal, sometimes regretted them afterwards but that is what we've done during war. we've never had a war that has

lasted 15 years. the idea you can be extra legal for this time and have a program like this that kills people -- i tried to follow this. i do not even know who authorizes it. i do not know if it is john brennan or a military man or who it is, let alone legal framework for the rationale for this kind of thing. i worry very much that as this technology spreads, we have throughout history been a refuge for revolutionaries. we have people rebelling against the government and we make a home for them because we often support what they're doing democracy. we have done that since our earliest days. does that mean some other country has the right to target them on american soil? >> yes? one moment.

>> i was in pakistan in october. the foundation for fundamental rights interviewing a lot of the families impacted by the drone strikes. it seemed quite apparent the signature strikes you mentioned were quite a significant proportion of the strikes. i did not understand the legal framework for that. people keep using the word targeted killing. that is clearly not targeted killing. this is patterns of activity where they do not know who the individual is. how is that justified? >> i think that is one of the concerns that even for those of us who think that some drones strikes are illegal. on the one hand they have said and the president has said he is personally approving drone strikes at one point a year-and- a-half ago.

there were stories to suggest the president was personally poring over the target list and approving them and they were reserving the targeting only for the people who opposed the most significant threat, and that does seem to be inconsistent with the so-called signature strikes of people who bear a certain signature. so we do not know enough about what the rationale is because the obama administration has some explaining to do. and they have not explained what they're doing for it to be criticized. that gets to a point that almost all of us agree with, which is if we do not want to get further on the back foot around the world and inside the united states, the administration needs to explain who they are targeting and why and what the-- rules are as john gannon said.

>> just to take this out of the pakistani context, let's propose your talking about a signature strike against the taliban encampment and afghanistan. everybody knows the united states conducts military operations in afghanistan against the taliban. then you would say, might say, how do we know it is the taliban and afghanistan? well, there are intelligent indicators about things people have observed that cause people to conclude it is an encampment of people directly participating in hostilities against our forces. and we make judgments. we have made hundreds, possibly thousands of those judgments in afghanistan and iraq without getting into any place else in the world. not all of those judgments are always accurate. in war they never are.

there is an arcane terminology about signature strikes, and signature strikes in a way are the kinds of strikes that militaries conduct at war. then you get into the arguments of what are the intelligence indicators that provide compelling evidence that these of the people in combat against you. >> there are three major problems with signature strikes. one is it is a form of lethal force operations that may be conducted and war. this is further away from what is locally referred to as a hot battlefield. not clear the administration is abiding by a direct hostility standard or even what thei was very struck when the former u.s. ambassador to pakistan was asked what constitutes a militant who can be struck here. he said an e-mail between 20-40. he was pressed to say one-man

'smilitant is another man's chump who went to a meeting. the legal issue with signature strikes in this context is it threatens to turn up the perception of civilian status on its head. civilians have up resumption and war and outside of it of not being targetable. i agree we do not have enough information. we certainly need more information but there is a real threat to their being conducted in armed forces. some of them are not, some of them may be. the final concern is, how did that lead to the counting of civilian casualties? if people are categorized as militant vs civilians and we do not know who the cia is killing until after they're dead, what are the counts? what do we know and what are the

numbers? we still do not know that. >> the pendulum is swinging too far in one direction. as someone who was actually the legal adviser for the national security council before and after 9/11, who responded to all of the 9/11 commission request for what were you doing prior to 9/11 to make the country safe and why did you not do enough? i can tell you on behalf of someone who has been in the white house, these are difficult. all of these things are on one side of the spectrum. on the other hand, if you are the president of the united states and are sworn to make the country safe, your c.i.a. director is giving you information suggesting there are threats against you that happen and1 could you do nothing, you also have a problem. i am sure the administration

looks back and looks at the investigation done by the commission that suggested that not enough had been done and is mindful of that. i only want to make the point that although all of us have raised concerns about drone strikes, i don't want the pendulum to swing so far as to suggest that these are not incredibly difficult decisions if you are the president of the united states and his advisers. >> congress is back today. the houses coming back in at 2:00 p.m. eastern and then back it 5:00 for legislative work. on the agenda, one bill allowing recognition of donors to the phenom veterans memorial center -- vietnam veterans memorial center. later there will be a joint meeting of drivers to hear from the president of south korea, and a bill allowing players to ,raham, time to -- to grant time to the senate is back today at 2:00 p.m. eastern, returning their weeklong recess on the finishing work on an online sales tax bill.

you can see the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2 and public affairs programming on c- span3. we are planning live coverage of a number of hearings. coming up on wednesday, house house oversight committee resumes hearings into the libyan embassy attack that led to the deaths of four americans. among those testifying arts eyewitnesses, including gregory hicks, the number two diplomat in benghazi, who told investigators that he thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. another witness, the formerly security official for the state department in the via was, according to the committee, pushing for more security, saying that this was a problem leading up to and shortly before the attack. that hearing is set for wednesday at 11:00 30 eastern .- 11: 30 eastern thursday, the house homeland security committee will begin looking into the boston marathon bombings. what uses will include the boston police commissioner and former and homeland security chair joe lieberman.

live coverage is a set for thursday morning at 9:00 eastern on c-span3. virginia's are public and governor, bob mcdonnell, discussed the impact of sequestration spending cuts on his state at a recent bloomberg summit in washington, dc. he was asked about immigration reform proposals in congress as well as an fbi investigation into his personal relationship with a top donor. this is about 35 minutes. , governor, thank you so much for being here. i know we are going to spend most of our time talking about sequestration and taxes and job growth and the like, but there is this kind of giant news gorilla in the room today and i really do feel like i need to ask you about that with the fbi looking into your ties to star scientific and its chief executive, johnny williams. i know he has been a major,

major donor viewers. he ended up paying for some food, the catering and her daughter's wedding, and the fbi is looking into that. what can you say about that? >> first, i came to talk about sequestration -- >> and you will. >> as has been my policy as attorney general and governor, i don't talk about investigations or potential investigations. , have not read that article although i know that those reports are out there. i think it is important to say -- i have been in office for 22 my reports, iile diligently filed them. i was clear with my daughter -- when my daughter had her wedding two years ago that i believe that the gift as it was given under the rules was a gift , and under karen virginia rules, gifts to children or spouses or non- officeholders under current law

are not reportable. >> you think -- >> well, the rested a lot of discussion about that and i understand the concern and i think it is important to have open and honest governance to know if there is influence. over the past two years, publicly $25 million of different campaign contributions from people all over the state and the country that have been made to me. forms, campaign contribution forms -- everybody knows what has been donated to me. here is what i would say. what is important for citizens one,rginia to know -- there is nothing going on that impairs my ability to do a good job as governor. if you look at the unemployment rate, surpluses, things going on in virginia, we are doing a pretty good job treat it as a team effort. it is not just me. and this is most fundamentally important -- i am blessed with a number of friends, and even governors are

allowed to have friends did mr. williams and his wife have been friends to my wife and my family for a while. ,ut i would never do anything whether it is with mr. williams or this company or any other person or any other company, to give anybody special treatment when it comes to the way we run our government. at least a week and half ago it was clear that there are not any economic of element grants of any kind that have been -- that of god to star scientific havey of their -- that got to star scientific or any of their committees. there was during governor warner's time, but not during my term. >> you mentioned financial disclosures to you and your pac, and mr. williams and his company made $20,000 in contributions to your pac. when you have events for him and his company, rather, at the

governor's mansion, or your wife goes out and speaks about the company and its products to doctors, do you think that that has an appearance of a quid pro quo? >> well, the reason we give disclosures is people are going to be bold -- be able to make their own determinations. some of the acts -- some of those facts are wrong, susan, with all due respect. i explained to them when the press inquiries first started. i wife went down -- she has been in the business for a while. she has a great interest in alzheimer's research. there was an institute clinical trial that was being done on laboratory -- a laboratory .tudy for alzheimer's she went down to be able to talk to doctors about that, to be able to see and learn about the clinical trials. she is excited about a virginia

company and the state of research. the event at the mansion, as i said, it was something that was coordinated by the first lady's office, and i went because this virginia company the first few minutes of thought or not to bestow any particular benefit on the company. toy were giving out grants these virginians. >> i am sure any virginia company when love for you to talk up their product. >> that is the point that i love to make. during the time i had been governor, i have done hundred all over the state and world. i just got back from china and japan. we were promoting virginia andnesses and products

specific ones that were dealt to help -- were there to help with technology. this is the heart and soul of what i do as governor. my top priority has been creating jobs. multiple look at the offense you have done, i'm going to places where i am giving out grants to companies. some of those might have contributed to my campaign or somebody else's. they are based on what we think will promote growth and opportunity and jobs in the commonwealth. what is important is winning a house and things i getoing to be done,

requests all the time for things to be taken in or under the budget, things to be passed, programs that people want us to evaluate. my secretary and cabinet are constantly evaluating people's proposals and products and so forth. i guess this is part and parcel of what government does. i think it is certainly fair to be able to ask those questions. i have been clear, i have gotten four or five flights to my pac, there have been gifts to me by mr. williams and my company, and also multiple other people as well. for all i know, some of those people may have asked for certain things as well.

what we do, what i have my staff to do, what the economic development people do, when they have proposals made and they are asked to evaluate those, it is based on merit, payback, and based on our ability to create more jobs and more opportunities. my wife is the first lady. you know how much she gets paid? 0. she is a volunteer. she has done a great job as a first lady. this is important to know -- i invite people to look at the website. the top priorities in her flight program, as it is called, is the first lady's team initiative. promoting health care, wellness, diet, exercise, and number two, promoting jobs and economic development. or has done probably 200 more events, susan, and around the state, around the country, promoting jobs, companies,

promoting trade relationships and so forth. i think she has done a good and effective job. the disclosures are there for the citizens to decide how they want to look at it, but we do the best we can to make our disclosures. >> if this is all just the course of business, then why is the fbi interested in looking? >> i cannot comment on whether there is or is not an investigation. i always defer those things to law-enforcement to let them make any announcement. what we know is there is a former chef of the mansion being charged with embezzlement. he has a pending criminal trial. i know there have been certain things that have been said in the course of that trial. i do not think it would be proper and i have never have a policy of commenting on any

investigation or trial. i let a lot for the officers or prosecutors to that. >> let me ask you one more question and then we can talk about sequestration. >> that is why i thought i was here. >> this is news, too. there was a report of a picture of you holding up one of the company's products on their website that is no longer there. you asked for that to be removed? >> no, but when i was asked, i do not remember where that was taken. i tried that product before. i take a lot of vitamins that my wife gives me. i have been doing that for 30 years. when i was asked about that, i looked at the picture, i could not tell where that was taken. what i said when that was asked, i certainly did not authorize the use of the picture for them or anybody else. as governor, i cannot tell you how many pictures there are of me on the internet that people have taken and that might be used on facebook or any number of places that i did not authorize. there are people that use my name regularly for things.

i know that there was a question about the scope of the star scientific discussion, but i have countless things out there, whether they are quotes, pictures, or my name on invitations, people have said that i am coming to appear at events -- we do not approve most of those people who use them. people are doing it today and that will be a in some newspaper or facebook page somewhere else. i do not remember where the picture was taken. >> well, thank you. why don't we turn to sequestration. >> that would be a great idea. >> nationally, we have heard so much discussion about how this federal budget cuts will affect all the states. virginia is the poster child, being the home of the most

federal spending. if you look at the march unemployment numbers, virginia has fallen at a faster rate, even than the national jobless rate. do you think the impact of sequestration was perhaps overstated, that armageddon really has not come? >> i do not think we ever thought it was going to be a cliff. sequestration is something, as everyone knows, will take place over a 10-year period. the problem with sequestration is not the amount and volume of the cut. in fact, sequestration is not even enough. $1.2 billion every year. our cuts are far bigger than sequestration. the problem with sequestration,

one, it was not flexible, two, it was 50% defense, and three, as governor of virginia, it unfairly hits my state in a tougher way virtually compared to any other state. my objection was, when you are fighting a two front war in afghanistan and iraq, you have uncertainty in the mideast, north korea, and you are going to cut half of the nation's -- half of the spending cuts envisioned will come out of the defense sector? that is just bad policy. secondly, it was -- sequestration was on top of the $487 billion of additional defense cuts that took place in previous years. for defense, it is $1 trillion over 10 years. >> with the ending of the two wars, shouldn't defense cuts be part of having responsibility? >> yes, but not half of it. certainly, their goals for the future.

we always talk about once the peace is there, but there is no peace in afghanistan. we have started to see the decline in the technology sectors. they do a lot of work with the defense department. we have already started to see the downturn for r five months ago. already getting the reductions and orders and other things from the agencies. we have already seen it. >> we keep visiting in looking at the impact. you talked to people and they seem like everything is pretty

much ok. >> it is thought in the bottom line. in march and april we had the in a to-overall growth long time. we had pretty good growth. surplusescord totaling about $450 million a year. what we have seen over the last six months is starting in the fall a downturn in the procurement sectors, particularly in a region basis for use a lot of defense contracting. the last two months more globally we have seen a bigger hit. we had negative ragged and -- revenue growth in february and march. we put a fair amount of that on sequestration. we have not begun to see the

impact get of the furloughs. the aprilshow up in numbers. some have been ratcheted back. as people work was coming you will see less disposable income and less in the way of tax revenue. we have had some really good cities that have been done by noted virginia economists puree both of them had similar analysis of sequestration. estimated 130,000 jobs every 10 years. the economic impact would be in the hundreds of millions of

dollars. changed with that. if you're going to cut this amount of money, you have to be able to expect that you will have those declines in revenues going forward. it's all not be a cliff. it'll be a slow bleed. >> they are having a bang up year. >> that is the way the pipeline works. what they tell me is on their building an aircraft carrier our submarine they get these contracts all last six or seven years. five orl affect them in six years between repair. things.e pipeline >> what about smaller

contractors? where we're seeing some of the numbers i described before. everything from travel being reduced to certain types of contracts being brought back. he cannot pulled the rug from underneath an aircraft carrier. you can change it when it comes agreementrt may and or challenger arrangement. most ofwhere i think the short-term changes are made. long-term for if you are going to hit $600 billion of cuts on top of what was on the done last year, you cannot do that by

furloughs and things like that. that is why they have asked for that grounds. it is doubtful they will do that right now. have appointed a commission to get ready of this. security and some of the of the years we're doing, heavy to get ready for this. we want to be ready to have downturn, though it may be slow.

responsibility is not these deep restructuring of social proposal to allow for cost-of- living increases for social security to be smaller? everybody, we are broke. $17 trillion in debt. i just got back from japan on china. japan is not much worse. >> are we seeing an economic

recovery here? crushinge point the amount of debt is going to up with us. were at before world war ii, where the debt is approaching 100% of gdp. that is an unsustainable trajectory. gotten us to $25 trillion by the year 2021. so, we do not have a plan. as bad as it is, the problem is that we are still spending at a trillion. or have significant coverage

domestic spending -- and you are exactly right, my problem, many of us, we do not make half of itdo not put the burden on kids in uniform. personally. my daughter was in iraq. theot put this burden on kids in afghanistan today when we have not even touch entitlements. that is what sequestration in visions. said that part of the solution is raining in the increases ini tell you, that is a good start, but in order to have the ends meet and have a balancedi live in the world of a balanced budget. like a family, i have to balance the budget every year.

every governor but one has the and we have very limited debt ceilings. i cannot print money, i cannot borrow. we have a self-imposed 5% debt limit in virginia. fiscallyhat is very prudent. for president clinton. he is the only one that had a debt reduction and i really think that that helps. but the point is, we have over- spent and over-borrowed essentially for three decades. if we do not have the significant rethinking of how in> do you think the people

the country are going to accept security and medicare? >> if you explain what the options are, which is the masses spiraling and increase of debt of $1 trillion, it is unacceptable to continue to level that on to your kids and generations. look, americans in times of trouble have always been willingthat is what my mother and generation. sacrifice is inherent in the american psyche, but you have to be able to explain why. and that it is going to result in a greater good. the greater good is the united

states of america. >> let me ask you about another in this country. do you support that act? >> i have not looked at all the details of that, i know that gang had some agreements, but as many of them have said, the devil is in the details on how that works. here's what i think. one, we have had 70 million, 80

america in the last 100 years. my father, my grandfather came on the boat in 1912. that is why i am here. immigrant. so, our goal should be finding states, because that means that people are flying by the rules, paying taxes. at the same time, we have got a problem where we apparently have somewhere between 12,000,015 million people who are here either illegally or their visa has expired. everyone knows that these people are not going to be rounded up and sent back to their home country. what we have to do as a start is find ways to expand those visas and guest permits, as we

more people -- more people with specific disciplines to be a potbound come here to study, rather than having them going back to their i would like to see more people staying here in america. while now, they have not been able to get a resolution on this issue. there seems to be some good from both parties to find a way to make sure that this problem is resolved. that we get these reforms none. >> how important do you think it is for the republican party to be brand itself on issues like immigration?

or the perception that many women have of the republican party following the last election? >> well, when you lose it is fun. i think we have done a pretty thorough review. i was chairman of the association last year. i worked a lot with other republican works and said -- why did we lose? you know, national politics is statewide, republicans did very well. from virginia to arizona.

holding the southeast and the southern part of the united states, a sea of red. 180 million people have republican governors. swing state, with obama winning>> it is a swing state, but it has been a swing state for 35 years. you are correct. but if you look at the last 10 governor cycles, they have been have democrat, have republican. at the state level we have swung back and forth. we have the majority of legislators be a republican. governors, legislators, the the entire term, debt is mounting, and popular health care bill. should have lost. but i think that they ran a pretty good campaign. theirnot like some of tactics, but i think that your

point is correct. there was a branding that stock, that somehow our party is one that is not sympathetic or in tune with the needs of the middle class, not sympathetic or in tune with most women. i find that to be inaccurate, but that was an effective message that the president pushed. i think that governor romney stretch. help him very much. all that aside, i am not making excuses, we have got some work to do. you have seen many of us with the party chairman of the autopsy. what did we do right? what did we do wrong? not just in turnout and technology and other things, but the message, the substance, the grass-roots effort. organizers for the republican party. >> i think that peter has some questions for you. >> i would give you a question

sequestration. virginia disproportionately benefiting from this spending, with disproportionate costs? >> clearly we are at the top of defense procurement. home of the pentagon, 19 military bases, 40,000 active affair with the military. i am very proud of my state for that. policy for the kids in afghanistan. as governor of virginia, in high and prevention. when those kinds of national

policies disproportionately will seek -- speak out about it. but this policy of sequestration was really never supposed to go into effect. everyone knows that it was supposed to be a sword of damocles from congress to make them get a deal done over 18 months. they failed to get that done. the president failed to lead. my real objection paillasse, it is provincial because i am a governor of virginia, but you cannot honestly fix the fiscal problems of america if you are only point to cut defense and certain other domestic programs and take entitlements off the table, that is not an honest conversation. >> related question along those lines, wouldn't virginia benefit as much as any other state from a grand bargain that included not only the entitlement reform

>> not a lot of specifics there. advocatedve transportation bills. finally taking the long-term revenue resources for ingestion, how many of you like that traffic? it is the most congested part of the country. we use general funds, we have done all kinds of other things. it has had some revenue increases. [laughter] particularly for northern virginia and hampton roads. so, when you have exhausted all other avenues and manage things well, and you have a aaa bond

rating, like we do, with the when you have done everything for the people that there is no other alternative, the answer iswhen you are borrowing and spending the way that i think states has over the last 30 years and it has been a bipartisan challenge in managing spending, the case has not been made by the congress or the now is relative increase. have you managed the resources well? if so, we will give you more. but if you have not and have not for a couple of decades, people saying that you should fix the reform, cut spending, programs, cut waste -- that is >> and we will leave this as the house begins to dabble in it.

then they will travel out. of the live coverage u.s. house here and sees them. bad -- on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, o god, for giving us another day. we ask your blessing upon this assembly and upon all to whom the authority of government is given. help them to meet their responsibilities during these days, to attend to the immediate needs and concerns of the moment enlightened by your eternal spirit. the issues of the coming months remain complicated and divisive. endow each member with wisdom that productive solutions might be reached for the benefit of

our nation. please send your spirit of peace upon those areas of our world where violence and conflict endure and threaten to multiply. may all your children learn to live in peace. and may all that is done within the people's house this day be for your honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: please join in the pledge to our wonderful flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, on friday i was grateful to conduct a town hall in akin, south carolina, where i listnd to hundreds of constituents -- listened to hundreds of constituents who were concerned about the reprogramming at the savannah river site. the president's office of management and budget sent it to both houses for approval. this is a crucial step to end at 0% pay cut for 2,068 the savannah nuclear solution. i appreciate the town hall participants, chairman young of the akin county council, akin county councilmembers, state senator tom young jr.,

president david jamison of the greater akin chamber of wilson and elly student hannah. dead cailted congressional staff -- dedicated congressional staff were instrumental in this success. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, for nearly 30 years government employees have had the option to choose paid time off or comp time in lieu of overtime pay. private sector employees, however, haven't had that choice, because washington and on old 1938 labor law won't let them. that isn't fair. when life happens in the form

of school plays, little league games or family members becoming sick, time and flexibility are essential to working parents and grandparents. money doesn't buy time. it would certainly help if every worker had the choice to receive comp time when they put in extra hours. government shouldn't be standing in the way. there are a lot of moms and a few grandmas in the republican caucus, and we want a solution for american families. that solution is the working families flexibility act. our legislation will ensure all workers, whether public or private, benefit from the flexibility of choices in overtime compensation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker.

i visited the town of west, texas, to see for myself how the investigation of the fertilizer plant explosion is proceeding. the town has suffered incredible losses, but i was impressed by the resilience of the people in west and it is remarkable how the community has come together after that tragedy. it's at the very beginning stages of collecting the facts and findings in how these events transpired. i have been working closely with the staff on the energy and commerce committee who have been looking into the matter and will continue to oversee the federal government's response to the tragedy as the investigation unfolds. i wanted to personally thank the assistant state fire marshal, the a.t.f. agents who handled the investigation, the fema coordinator and the district director for congressman bill flores, timothy head. i want to thank them for the service to our country and the community of west. god bless our state. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: mr. speaker, national review and the heritage foundation both oppose the senate immigration bill for many good reasons. there is no deadline for secure borders, yet millions of illegal immigrants would be given amnesty six months after the bill is enacted. this would only encourage more illegal immigration. the senate immigration bill would double the already record one million legal immigrants admitted each year. many oppose this and instead want to make sure that current immigrants are assimilated. the bill puts foreign workers ahead of the interest of american workers and the economic needs of our country. mr. speaker, it is inconceivable that an immigration bill with these uge flaws would be approved.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. bentivolio: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to introduce the read the bills act, to provide transparency and accountability from all of us to our constituents. read the bills would provide that members of congress and the public have one week to review any bill and propose amendments before voting on passage. it requires legislation be passed by roll call and it makes legislation easier to read by requiring that we show in context how bills would affect existing law. it is a basic moral question that a member of congress should only vote to pass legislation having read and understood it. every law affects how the

american people live, who prospers and who suffers, who receives help and who is hurt, who is regulated and who benefits. we cannot pass laws without knowing what they do. no legislation should be passed under cover-up procedure. it is our duty to be transparent to our constituents, and i hope members on both sides of the aisle will agree that this is an important step to rebuilding the trust between the american people and congress. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 5:00 p.m. today.

minutes ago. >> including the regular publication. and many certainties' remain which underscores the importance of a military dialogue with china. we describe our efforts to work military totinuous military relationship with

china. we view it as an important combination office this is an important part of our larger strategy to balance the region the armed forces made progress in building positive momentum. these are highlighted by the visits. then leon panetta pesto visit to china last semester. -- panetta's visit to china last september. and a meeting under the auspices of a maritime agreements. in addition to these exchanges which can improve

communication, that perhaps all areas of cooperation. we will continue to use military investment to expand areas where we can cooperate. this report has a lot of interesting information. tohope it will contributes the military modernization. i would like to take a couple of questions. your report cites as did not buy china over the last year. is economic s&p not a concern that it has shown vulnerability?

>> we have highlighted a number of cases for expert control violations are a matter of public record. about is as talked far as i would like to say. >> can you speak to whether or ?ot that has traded concerns >> we are always mindful of potential threats. this is also quick response to economic s&p knowledge. >> how active did the submarine's appear to be? china'sou assess

warplanes to be reliable? >> they are investing heavily in a robust program. developing submarines that are conventional empowered propulsion. in this respect we see china investing conservatively and operations in this area. in terms of your question on unmanned air systems, we have seen some reports that china marketing route these around the world. it is something we will have to continue monitoring very carefully. with respect to the fighter aircraft, china continues to prioritize more capable fighter platforms. this is one that is very similar to the 27 fighter.

it is a pretty capable third- generation platform. i think you also have to monitor china's commitment. >> are you saying you have not really seen evidence of china theorating -- proliferating technology? >> we have seen it china at itsy marketing defense agencies abroad. tore are active efforts customers abroad. in the last year were there any chinese weapons capabilities that arrived sooner than anticipated or were surprising to see? >> i would say that we have been monitoring china's military investment in capabilities.

i do not believe there is anything we saw this year that was completely unexpected. there have been cases in the past or military equipment has ier.ved a little early o >> descending arrive a little sooner? >> i cannot think of anything at this time. we have been monitoring this pretty carefully. you just listed a whole series of things. i am wondering if you could tell us what concern to the most? is it the moves in the china denial?the access what jumps out of you? >> one of the things that jump out is that as china makes

progress there is lot that remains to be said. this provides a lot of information. it poses a number of questions. me is the extent to which the modernization occurs in the absence of the openness and transparency that .thers are asking of china >> do you have any sense this compares? >> region not make a comparison in the report. comparisont make a in the report. >> thank you for doing this on the record. i want to ask about the violent

disputes in the south china sea islands. rise ofounts for the those tensions? the eastticipate that china sea will settle down like the south china sea? will there be continuing provocations on the part in terms of the radars? china's highlight increased assertiveness with respect to its maritime territorial claims. claims wect to these encourage all parties to the different disputes to adjust their issues peacefully through diplomatic challenges. our policy has been very clear. we do not take sides on the

question of sovereignty. expect all parties to address them. be hesitant to speculate or offer to-- speculate on how these issues could unfolds in the future. we do not want to see a return to tension in the area. >> is there any evidence that you have seen for programs like are exercising31 any realistic training? are they merely in the testing phase? 31 are stilland j-

in the prototype phase. we have not seen them principate and training. >> is there any evidence that china is exercising any advanced capabilities with any of their partners and allies? detail some examples of the joint training and exercises with china's partners. today a lot of these exercise activities focused on more conventional and less advanced like counter-ts terrorism. it is very rare that we have seen china used advanced military equipment in these environments. most has been pretty routine. the pentagon has just

released north korea military. is visitingsays it the united states. how do you evaluate the peninsula at this time? why did the pentagon choose now to release the report? monitoring the situation on the korean peninsula and lovery closely. it is a very serious situation. we will continue to monitor it very carefully. in response to your second question, we produced the report in part because we have to. provides forw that

these reports to be published. wish i to publish them on time every year. to publish them on time every year. sometimes it has been late. tore putting this out congress as soon as possible. >> thank you. you said that china has been looking at the military budget. 20may be even closed 18% 220to %. have you spoken with the allies o are afraidn wh oar of china's activities?

>> with respect your first question, we are monitoring very carefully the military and applications for opportunities to cooperate with china and a bilateral context. this is part and parcel of this report is all about. consult and top with partners in the region. it is part of the conversation. we talked about and describe china's bilateral military interactions with other countries including pakistan.

that is one thing we watch on >> at the spokane with the chinese in advance? it is a requirement they know it is coming. >> the report mentions china has started fielding this anti- miscibl missile. he have any sense of how large? we talk about the deployment of these missiles. i do not have that information.

this is something that china has invested in. we're watching it very carefully. >> is that a high-tech concern than some of the other elements of? >> we are concerned about the ability of china to develop missiles that can project its military power with precision great differences from china. it can hold at risk large surface ships. it is something we pay attention to. there is not one particular weapons system. is the overlapping nature of these systems into a regime that

can impede or restrict free military up positions -- authorizations in the pacific. from theou heard back chinese? >> i understand the chinese are interested in participating. have a written down why china got so many territorial disputes? the numbers increased? >> in terms of your first question, we talk about some of china's territories with many of the neighbors. inwould also note that china

the past decade or two has taken some effort to resolve a number of territorial disputes. we do talk about it in a report with some of the maritime territorial disputes. i cannot talk to why china is paying more attention. it is something i have to lead to china to address. the short-range ballistic missiles, the numbers appear to be relatively stable in terms of the specific numbers .f ballistic missiles it is hovering around the same number. we're hovering around 1100. is thate we are noting

the capabilities of the individuals are improving as they are replacing some of the plans with new capable plans. we also highlight them. medium-range ballistic missiles and land attack cruise missiles. it is taking in the totality and precision weapons opposite taiwan as they continue to grow. >> what is the accommodation for taiwan? >> we do not make recommendations to tie one in this report. where isyou tell us the anti-access threat stands now as opposed to a few years ago index is about where it was the? -- opposed to a few years ago?

is it about where it was? >> i do not know by will be able to quantify the differences between now and a couple of years ago. we have seen the deployments renew their capabilities with ship based air defense. china is an investing across the board. we continue to see improvements in the regime over time. we will continue to see them ing and the future. >> do you see any difference in their approach in the past year in?

? is this increasing toward that type of approach? one of the notable developments. use ais the increasing civilian maritime assets to provide a presence and to assert china's claims in these areas. before position i said with respect to the maritime issues. we do not take an issue on the question of sovereignty. i would add with respect to the east china sea the unilateral havens of any party will

no bearing on our position under the administrative control of japan. this report marks the first time he said it has been accurate. is that true? probably theis is first time we have said it has been deployed. it has moved out to the field. limited operational capability. >> does it also have the satellite architecture to provide guidance that this weapon is supposed to be on deck >> i do not know if it has the entire area in place. -- supposed to be? >> i do not know if it has the

entire area and place. whether or not they have all the bits and pieces and do not have a fully right now. >> york carriers are now at your for these weapons tha-- carriers are now at risk for those weapons? >> we do not talk about that in this report. i will not frame it that way. what we talk about is what we see in terms of china. assessment of an what china's capabilities are in reference to other country platforms. we know china is developing this capability and we're watching all the pieces of the architecture. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> this hearing comes to a close. there's news coming out of it captured by the ap. for the first time, they assert that beijing's government and military has conducted military base attacks against the u.s. including trying to sell information from federal agents. former commerce secretary under president george w. bush drew his support behind a senate 8 sang it -- gang of will benefit the u.s. with more jobs for the public. here is a look. >> this week the senate will mark up bipartisan legislation that the u.s. very much needs an able to make the system more responsive to economic conditions and labor market needs.

and very importantly to make the u.s. more competitive. i want to emphasize one thing that is reform. createtion reform will more jobs for american citizens. president obama has just returned from a meeting the coaster get where they emphasize the enormous economic and human interconnectedness of the region. forward witho move the initiatives. we believe there is a lot more to do in the future. in the 52 individuals .nited states the little more than 40 million

were born in mexico or honduras. three out of four come from those four countries. persons born make up a bit more than 35% of total immigrants population and a little more than 4% of the total population in the u.s.. some of the recommendations that we make our in the senate immigration bill. we certainly hope that they remain there as legislation through congress. we believe the proposal that has been started is very positive. it is the right thing to do. we need to move forward. we remind you, you can watch the entire event any time on our website c-span.org. a quick programming note.

of thee live coverage senate committee live at 9:30 a.m. eastern c-span.org. in number of anticipated hearings coming up. the house oversight committee led to the debt of four americans. 3.is will be live on c-span then they also looking into the boston marathon bombings. begins thursday span3.g on c- they had extraordinary roles. of them they were

regarded as an abject failure. time, you're the most popular man in the country usa the union on the battlefield. julia letter time in the white house. she says it was like a bright and beautiful dream. ofis the was wonderful time my life. i think they give you some idea of how much she enjoyed being first lady and how she felt her husband has finally achieved the recognition he deserved. >> began with your comment .onight on first ladies >> during the white house facedng, jay carney

comment on the topic of syria. >> >> the terrible situation in is the responsibility of al-assad. he is murdered tens of thousands of his own people. impunity likeith a tyrant to hold onto power. it is the rightful demands of the syrian people that they be rid of this tyrant and that they have a say in their future and we have worked with partners to help bring about that

opportunity for the syrian people. >> was the administration for warned? comment on going to any actions the israelis may have taken. >> i did not say israel. coordinationclose as a matter of course with israelis. we continue to be. to commentke specifically on actions they may or may not have taken. >> some discussions at the un war by one member of a commission. perhaps chemical weapons and activities conducted by rebels we at something on

where it stands. inquiry on this has put up a statement clarifying that the commission has not received this in terms of chemical weapons in syria. we aret of the matter is thely skeptical that opposition could have used chemical weapons. we find it highly likely that any chemical weapon used in syria was done by the assad regime. is going to kerry russia to be with newtoputin. is the administration optimistic that something might happen with that? seen an escalation by

al-assad by the brutality he is forcing honest people. they appointed clearly to the that furtherroof support for that regime is not in the interests of the syrian people or the country that pass support to him. we make that repeatedly. with consulting with them syria as a are other nations. we believe it is in the interest of the syrian. it is in the interest to dissociate from al-assad and

support political transition in syria. that is a conversation that is ongoing with the russians and chinese and others. we have been disappointed with their opposition to security council. >> regardless of who is at all, it is their worry about more developing in the middle east? >> we have been clear that one of the reasons we need to bring about the political transitions violence, stability and the broader region. release.ues to

it isn't everyone interest to bring about the transition -- it is in everyone's interest to bring about the transition. mentioned the al-assad regime has murdered tens of thousands of people. level of ao to the genocide? it is a level of violence against its own people that is worthy of content in condemnation. the terminology that may be united courts or the nations i will be to them. it is heinous. it is the kind of action that long ago rendered all sides

predict assad -- assad incapable of maintaining power with any kind of legitimacy. we expect the administration to announce the next steps? >> you heard the president of justice several times. is essential that we continue to gather enough evidence and that we work with our partners aboutl as the opposition the use of chemical weapons. we're continuing to work with our partners in our efforts to provide assistance to the opposition. we have stepped up our system. we are continuing to coordinate.

what i cannot do is put a time line on the end of an investigation. we have made clear that we support the united nations investigation into the use of chemical weapons in syria. to backon the regime its own call for an investigation and allow it to take place. we are not waiting for the action alone. we're looking at a chemical weapons used to assert its in a affirm aand firm -- to change of custody in the full consequences of that. this does take some time. for greaterpressure

involvement in syria? >> you have seen this administration engage in this terrible problem from the beginning. we have not waited for developments before acting. we have been acting through sanctions and other means, isolating him and his regime. the assistance is flowing as we speak to the opposition. thell point to what president said about this problem and the actions that we are taking. center john mccain said unlike the president, they saw a red line and they acted on it.

president obama will not act and that is a tragedy. he went on to say president obama has avoided involvement in syria much to the "shame and disgrace of the u.s.." is this an accurate portrayal for how the president has been handling it? >> we strongly disagree with those comments. the fact of the matter is jumping to conclusions and acting before you have all the facts is not a good recipe for weighty policy decisions. the not too in distant past the consequences of acting before we had all the facts. that is why this president insists we get all the facts. the assessment we have are extremely valuable and insignificant.

-- and significant. to make thefficient kind of determinations that the president will make if and when we can say clearly that a red line has been crossed, that the assad regime has deployed them against the syrian people. significant donor with other partners in assisting the opposition organizes itself. taking the steps we have to recognize the coalition as we have. up have continued to step ou our opposition and the effort against. >> what is the strategy in moving forward?

realistically, what can be done? thate president made clear the absolute necessity of the vast majority of the american people to reduce gun violence. they're insisting their voices be heard. when the senate may be unfortunate choice of siding whenthe 10% over the 90% it came to expanding background checks, and the 90% needed to be heard. they needed to let their representatives know how disappointed they were in their their own represent constituents. we you remain optimistic. the president does that when it comes to background checks of this will happen. we cannot say when the legislation will pass. we in the president remained

convinced it will. the american people have said it is a sensible thing to do. backgroundnce -- checks exist. it works. prevented a significant amount of people who should not have weapons because of their criminal backgrounds. the expansion was simply to close a loophole that existed in a system that works. law-abiding citizens who want to buy weapons encounter this every time they purchased weapons at a gun store. extremely fast and efficient. that system ought to apply more broadly. these loopholes me to be close so we can reduce the number of cases where a filing criminal has no right by law to obtain a

weapon can get one by going through these loopholes. that is something americans and red and blue and purple state support. -- itl have been carried will happen. we're working to pursue more legislative action. we are continuing in the implementation of the executive action that the president laid out. >> how exactly is he working? is the working with the senate to tweak the bill in some way that will bring on board some of the senators who voted against the bill the first time? how soon?

the nextt comes to step, i would suggest he asked the senators who are engaged in the process. we are working with them. we're talking to other stakeholders from the president on down. the president he has been having have obviously had the economy and our budget challenges and the need to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. it included extensive conversations to actively reduce gun violence. inwill work with congress pass of attempting to legislation that unfortunately did not pass recently.

>> the mentioned several times that this is an ongoing investigation. are there any suspicions they may have used these chemical weapons? important that we establish conclusively the evidence about chemical weapons used in syria. that means you use them and where. -- who is used them and where. there working through united nations and other means to gather evidence. related to that is that we are highly skeptical of any acquisitions the opposition news.

to the point of your question about why we need to be , we have to be sure about the case information. it makes unclear about his statements and the answers he gave. than he and further the staff had discussed? >> the term redline was delivered and based on u.s. policy. the world knew it the syrian government possessed chemical

weapons and we have concern that it might use chemical weapons against the syrian people in desperation. the message was the same message that he was delivering in private. haves one he and others reinforced by multiple occasions ever since. it was consistent with what we're saying to the assad regime and others. definition a game changer when chemical weapons use their international conventions that prohibit the use of chemical weapons and international norms that are violated when chemical weapons are used. it is a game changer. abouthe president talks the use of chemical weapons enhancing the prospects of by extension that

creates further threats to be indicted sets and their allies. that is why it is such a significant event. here is rated -- he reiterated it on numerous occasions. that there no concern you're raising concerns for some kind of action? >> the president made clear it was a red line and unacceptable and that it would change his calculations. the use of chemical weapons represents a kind of escalation and threats i just described. what he never said is that if x happen y will happen. he never said what reaction he would take to be proved crossing

of the red line in syria. simply that he would consider it a red line that had been crossed and he would take appropriate action. as the investigation continues, he is looking at a range of options. he is not removing any option from the table. action that he thinks is in the interest of the nine states and our national security as well in the interest of the syrian people. >> you said he will take action if and when that he will take action? >> the president made clear that he considers it a serious transgression and that is why we need to assemble all of the evidence to insure we have a case that chemical weapons have

been used and that he will look at an array of options that are available to him. the scene all the evidence before he acts? >> as a mentioned earlier, there is a reason enough example of why we need to have our backs in matters like these -- facts in matters like these. we do not need stories like this one to make the place. the president is very clear when how serious he is they have all the evidence before we make policy decisions based on the use of chemical weapons. ishow is it a red line

there's nothing specific tied to index >> we have this several times. it?ighed to times.ave this several >> we made it clear that we are concerned that assad would resort to the use of chemical weapons. it was essential that we made clear both in private communications to the regime as well as in public how seriously we would view the use of chemical weapons. we're not in the process of gathering the facts.

it is what the american people would support residents a precipitous action based on strong but limited evidence. >> is israel reacting to quickly? bay to military action. >> i will not comment on the actions that israel may or may not have taken. >> they may not have taken action? >> i am not going to comment on the actions. israel has been justifiably concerned about the sophisticated weapons to hezbollah. it is certainly within their right to take action to protect themselves.

it is what i would refer you to the israelis for for any actions that have been associated with them. is ageneral matter this concern they have had. it is certainly within their right to take action to prevent >> last week he said the state and defense departments said they were not aware of anyone wanting to come forward and say anything about this. now what looks like there are witnesses speaking publicly at issa's hearing this week. have they told aholt story? >> we have said we are not aware of anyone who has been blocked to speak to congress if they

want to. >> not blocked over the last eight months >> not aware of anyone. i would point you to the fact that there is an accountability review board shared by two of the most distinguished experts in our national security wand andment, admiral ambassador pickering, who oversaw this review and it was critical and help people accountable and made a series of recommendations for action that could be taken to improve security to reduce the potential for these kinds of events from happening in the future, and every single one of those recommendations has been or is being implemented by state. nowhy is grant hill takes want to tell the american people that there were u.s. special

forces in tripoli, that had gone to bed gauzy -- benghazi, and were told to stand down? issue, whatof that the response dead, the epartment of defense took and in response to what was toppening, i would refer you defense. admiral blunt, ambassador pickering, the former chairman of the joint chiefs, one of the most respected diplomats, served under presidents of both parties, oversaw an investigation that reached conclusions, including the fact that action was taken immediately and appropriately and that action saved american lives.

is challenging the white house. are you saying he is lying? people oversight process that was rigorous, that was critical in some areas, and that produced a series of recommendations that have all been acted on by the state department, as the president insisted be the case. what he made clear from the very benghazi, e wake of thewanted action taken that

responsible people were brought to justice and that we implement steps necessary to improve the security of our diplomats around the country so this kind of thing cannot happen again. >> there is another gentleman from state who will testify at his hearing that former secretary clinton tried to cut in theunter-terror unit hours after the attacks. is that accurate? do you have concerns about that? >> i have heard of that charge and i would refer you to a statement put out today by the former head of that bureau, counter-terrorism bureau, daniel benjamin, who says it has been alleged that the bureau was cut out of the discussion in the aftermath of the tax. i ran the bureau then, and i can say with certainty that this

charge is untrue. at no time did i feel the bureau was being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of. i refer you to that statement. >> has the power vacuum that followed in libya affected the white house lost calculus in decision making regarding syria right now? >> an excellent question, and we have said with regard to all the countries that have been affected by the arab spring and the turmoil and upheaval that we have seen across the region, that we look at them each distinctly and take action according to and make policy decisions according to the distinctions we see. not every country is the same. there make ups are different, their circumstances are different in terms of state

under arrest we have seen in the arab spring. draw tooossible to many parallels between libya and syria, as we may clear early on with regard to syria when some of these parallels were drawn. the circumstance that confronted the president in libya was one where he had the opportunity to take action with our international partners to prevent the eminent attack on a attack on anent city that would have led to countless deaths at the hand of tookaddafi regime, and he his actions that were available to him that he believed could be successful. the circumstances in libya present a different our rate of ofllenges -- array

challenges, including when it comes to countries in the international community and how they viewed the situation and the action they believe they should be taking. we are according specifically with the challenges in syria, with our international partners, with the opposition, using all tools we have available to sanction assad, to press for action, and to take action elsewhere. it may be impossible to not allowingsad you to go into that country and the chain of custody which is washington language for it is unclear who held this evidence when it got to the folks who are able to see it in neighboring countries like turkey. if you are able to meet that

standard, does that mean that the red line will not have been crossed? isthat nothing is happening not actually accurate in terms of u.s. policy. weeksat we have, in the and months preceding the revelations about chemical weapons use, stepping up our assistance to the opposition, and changing the nature of our assistance, and that process had been under way and continues to be under way, and you have seen a civilian increase in our engagement. and so, i want to challenge the premise there, when it comes to assisting the opposition or taking action to help bring era, the end of this assad that chemical weapons is the

only deciding factor, the provable use by the regime is the only issue here when it comes to the action that the united states can take. >> is the white house satisfied that if they are not able to meet that standard, if there is a high likelihood that chemical weapons would be used, there is not a game-changing element -- say it wary of -- i can is absolutely the right thing to do and the smart thing to do on behalf of the american people and our interests to be sure when these kinds of allegations are made and when an issue of such seriousness as the use of chemical weapons is on the table that we get our facts right. the american people justifiably and expect that when it comes to signal the policy decisions that a president makes on their behalf, decisions that could be americans atutting

risk -- i am saying only in a sense that all options remain available -- that we be sure we have our facts straight, that the evidence can be corroborated and reviewed and that there is acknowledgment that what we have presented is solid and true. >> one last question. there's now a new video evidence that the other individual has canen with 3-d printing he manufacture a gun that can fire off six bullets. given the conversation of the white house cost position on background checks, that you do not need one, you can create these guns in your own home. whenever concerts this causes in terms of new technologies -- >> i have not been at part of any discussion on that.

i can say that the actions that the president proposed, including the executive actions he is acting on and legislative actions he urged congress to act on and that he hopes congress bill will pass, even if all all course and, not of it the skirt of violence in america, the president believes and experts believe that they would result in a reduction of gun violence. they would save lives. bet certainly, there would children in america who would be alive because of these actions, and that is alone well worth the effort. >> should people be able to make guns at home? >> i do not know enough to make a comment on that. i simply make the point that the

fact that we can prevent every active violence does not mean that we should not act to prevent some. >> can you tell about what is on the agenda for the meeting tomorrow -- [indiscernible] will they be working to design a new strategy? >> the president looks forward to meeting with his new counterparts from south korea at the white house, and there is a full range of topics that will be discussed in this important bilateral ledger schip we have. north korea will be one of those topics, as will the united overall strategy with engagement with asia. our ties with the region, so i do not have anything more specific other than that. we will be able to talk to you this more tomorrow after

the meeting. this is an important relationship on a security level as well as economic and cultural. the president looks forward to the visit. >> is this an opportunity to reevaluate the posture to north korea? >> we work closely with our allies in seoul on the challenges provided by the north the provocation's north korea has engaged in, and the coordination between our two nations has always been strong and will continue to be. notto suggest that this is presenting a new strain of conversation, it is one that is going on at the leader level and also lower levels of foreign

ministers and defense ministers and professionals. >> [indiscernible] noncommissioned officers at the white house -- [indiscernible] thatou tell us how you see affect the operations at the white house? >> it results as is in the case across the government when furloughs are amended in a reduction of staff, which limits what you can do. everyone here works hard, and when we are a man or woman down in a certain department, that affects what we can do, but we are doing our best, as is the case across the government. >> is their political agenda for the -- [indiscernible] >> the president looks forward to discussing with and is probably discussing as i speak with senators a range of topics. this is in keeping with his

engagement with lawmakers of both parties and republican senators to see if he can find common ground on the challenges that confront us. when it comes to reducing our deficit, getting the physical house in -- getting the fiscal house in order, helping the middle-class grow and expand, there is a broad-base consensus and the country about how we should do that. there is a broad bipartisan consensus outside of congress about how we should do that. there is even some consensus among at least at the high altitude double among democrats and republicans in the senate, or lease some consensus among some republicans with some democrats. he has been engaging in conversations to find out if there really is a willingness to move forward with a compromise on deficit-reduction that allows

us to reduce our deficit in a responsible way that does not overly burden seniors and the middle class, allows for the investment in infrastructure and education that are long -- that are essential, and would achieve the kind of death as a reduction that republicans have long said they seek. bears remembering that this president has signed into law over $2.50 trillion of deficit reduction. we're now in the midst of the most precipitous decline in our deficit since demobilization 0 after world war ii. it bears remembering that the goal of $4 trillion over 10 years in domestic production is achievable if there is a willingness to compromise on capitol hill, if there is a willingness to do with the president has done, which is put

forward proposals that represent some difficult choices by everyone, and that includes republicans. that means that revenue has to be part of the deal, ask to be part of the question, because otherwise you have to do deficit reduction on the backs of seniors or students or middle- class families alone, and that is in the president's do you neither appropriate nor fair. >> does the president believe this is conducive to this kind of discussion? >> he is willing to try anything. [laughter] whether it is a conversation on the phone or a meeting in the oval office or dinner at a restaurant, he is well have the same kinds of conversations. thatll test the theory

of engagement can reduce results that everybody in the country, at least a majority, who care about and pay attention to these issues wants to see. i get asked a lot about inside game, outside game. he has long engaged in but. he had group conversations, meals, golf games, hard-headed negotiations with the legislators, and he is talking to regular folks about issues that matter to them and the need for them to speak up and engage the process, to demand that congress takes action and do the responsible thing to help the economy grow, to help the middle class. >> to follow up, what is the objective of there?

are there specific things that he wants congress to do? it is an effort to demonstrate in spite of some of the obstacles we face in washington to doing the right thing and helping our economy grow, or the inaction that washington thinks that wounds our economy. there are positive things happening and that that only ofnforces the need washington to do simple things to help facilitate economic growth and job creation, to help enhance the prospects of the middle-class rising and thriving, and we are in a situation where on friday we had another month of positive private sector job creation,

numbers that exceeded some expectations, but by no means were what we need to in the end to get where we want to go, which is what the president said, as long as there is someone out there wanting a job and cannot get one, he will keep working to improve the economy and the lives of the middle- class, and that is what the strip will be about. it will highlight the fact that we need to -- you remember the president talking in his address about the need to ensure that good jobs for the middle class are available in this country, and that includes the kinds of improvements we have seen in manufacturing that represent the future of the economy here and around the world, it means making sure americans have skills to fill those jobs and that reflects the education component. why we need to continue to invest in education to insure our people have the skills necessary to take these jobs

that are available and will be available in the future, and we need to make sure that those middle-class jobs provide a decent living so that the american dream can be achieved by americans in the middle class. taken as a whole, the proposal the president has put forward, including the key investments in the future he has talked about, as well as the reasonable balance deficit reduction that is part of it, will help bring about a stronger middle-class. -- are you saying from what i am cleaning, the red line for the use of chemical weapons --

>> the president made clear when he first discussed this issue -- i want to clarify. you are right, that the use of chemical weapons by whomever is a red line. the proliferation, the transfer of chemical weapons, is also a red line. one of the concerns we have and our allies and partners are around the world and in the region have is that these kinds of weapons would get into the hands of terrorist organizations, other non-state actors who mean nothing but harm to the u.s. and our people and allies. both are of a concern. the rebel question you are assda the the use by issue. we find it incredible, not credible, that the opposition has used chemical weapons. that is a matter under

investigation, but we think any use of chemical weapons in syria is almost certain to have been done by the assange regime. but any use would be a red line crossed. >> what is happening weekend in syria, is there a thought and the white house, gas prices are going up -- are you looking at a high gasthere is prices? >> we monitor will and gas prices regularly. there are a host of factors that go into the rise and fall of prices, as you know. the instability in the oil- producing regions is one of them. i do not have any comment about where prices are now, but we monitor them regularly and are concerned about oil prices. that general concern we have and

every american has reflects the need or reinforces the need to take every action we can improve our energies to curry, to make sure we are producing as much energy as we can in the united states and taking every action we can to reduce the -- our dependence on foreign imports. our imports of foreign feel similarly, as we have hit new levels of production in the united states. and as we have made significant inroads into the production of alternative energies in united states, which helps create injured a jewish -- which helps create industries that create jobs of the future. is talk that syria will retaliate, with gas prices going up, with the economy right now, there is a possibility of gas

prices affecting us here. >> no question that instability in this part of the world is something we'd watch and that is global oil prices. i do not have a comment on the current price or the level of impact of the situation in syria is having on prices now. >> on the explosion in west texas, is the president still focused on this, and is he asking questions about whether regulators did everything they were supposed to do to prevent this? >> he is, and you saw on a number of occasions, because of everything that was gone on, and the attacks in boston, make sure that he was speaking about the tragedy in west, texas, that those families know that they were not and will not be forgotten.

from what i understand, the issues involved of the industrial facility there are being investigated, so i do not have insight to share on the process or progress, but when it comes to doing everything we can at the federal level to assist texas and the town of west to deal with this tragedy and rebuilding, the president is committed to that. he spoke with the governor and other state and local officials as well as families of victims. >> when you talk about industry, the u.s. expected to talk about this in any way, the responsibility of the federal government? >> i do not have a preview of his remarks. he will be speaking about growth and development, but i do not have specifics. >> when [indiscernible]

that tobe talking about senators -- will those issues come up? >> anything is possible. the focus will be on economic matters. he would encourage those senators and every senator to embrace the kind of common sense deficit reduction that allows for the investments in the economy that are necessary that the president supports .ictur publicly? do that >> i will not preview the remarks. >> as the president gotten any information other than from the media on what is happening in bangladesh with the factory there that has killed four times shirty people as the

company? since there are so many u.s. retailers who get their goods from their proof, has been kept goods from there? >> he has been kept up on the tremendous loss of life, and his thoughts and prayers go to the victims of that tragedy. i do not have spears of information about issues you raised that go into questions about how this happened, but he is being kept abreast of that development. >> so we did not misunderstand, does the president choose these partners because there were specific issues -[indiscernible] --senator udall because [indiscernible] >> i did not know that.

maybe he did. it is fair to say that there are a host of relevant issues, policy issues, that the president would discuss with any one of the 100 members of the senate. he looks forward to these discussions that he will have today and it will probably range across a set of issues that he and the senate are dealing with. he well i'm sure make a pitch for his policy agenda, a pitch that pollnd of action after poll showed the american people support when it comes to our economic policies or reducing gun violence or a comprehensive immigration reform, actions to enhance our energy independence. these are all things that have brought support from the american people. they are very common sense.

he is looking for partners anywhere he can find them, including on the eighth hole. dinnersllow-up on the and golf game, they have become up just a fascination in washington, the outreach to republican senators. could you give us a sense of the frequency? other than we hear about this is a mix of restaurants, does he come to republican senators on a daily basis? how intense is this effort other than the -- >> i do not have a running list of every conversation he has. he speaks frequently with including, senators, republican senators, and i would weekly, buty not more than that.

ise engagement you have seen only part of the picture, and that is true of his involvement as well as that of the other senior officials in the administration, a vice president and others. he is looking to get things done, and he wants to talk to anyone who has that as his or her objective, too. and is willing to accept that they may not get everything they want out of a compromise. by definition, they will not, and they can live with that. partisan purists are not what he is looking for. he is looking for people who want to go about the business of building the economy, helping the middle class, responsibly reducing our deficit, or forming

our immigration system in a way that will help our economy and the middle class, and taking action to reduce gun violence. if anybody who meets that standard, anybody willing to say myccept that i will not get dream partisan agenda, i i accept i will have to give a little bit, that i may have to compromise in order to achieve these objectives, then he wants to have that conversation. >> at least once a week he has talked to republicans? much, everybody. >> [indiscernible] up here,rney wrapping mentioning the travels to boston this thursday, attending events focusing on job creation and improving the economy for the middle-class. jay carney also addressing questions on the libyan attacks

last year that resulted in the deaths of four americans. we will have live coverage of the house oversight hearings on that on wednesday. the house is in session today. members will gavel back in at 5:00 p.m. today. coming up wednesday, members will hold a joint meeting of the senate's to hear a speech by the president of south korea. live coverage on c-span. the senate is back from their recess. today they are set to finish salesn an on-line retail tax bill. eastern,ected at 5:30 and later this week, they are expected to vote on flood protection and water supply projects perry see the senate

live on c-span2. was alsorant interesting. -- had this extraordinary for most of their lives, she regarded him as an abject failure, and then in almost no time at all, suddenly he was the most popular man in the country, the man who had saved the union on the battlefield, and then president of united states. >> julia, of her time in the white house. she said it was like a bright and beautiful dream, the most wonderful time of my life. that gives you an idea how much she enjoyed being first lady and how she felt her husband had finally achieved the recognition

he deserved. questions and comments by phone, facebook, aunt twitter, live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c- span.org. policyy the migration institute unveiled a report outlining recommendations for addressing migration issues within north america. carlos goodpeakers, ierrez. -- gut zedillo ando eduardo stein. this is for about 90 minutes. >> good morning, everyone.

welcome to the joint effort of the wilson center. the title of the report -- and i am sure you have seen the reports and outside for you to take a long -- is "fink original marginally -- "think originally." this has tried to rethink how the relationships in the region, including the migration relationship, but perhaps more importantly, the development and growth within the region, in

which the region can compete more successfully in an increasingly global world might become much better over the next decade and beyond. the key words here are regional and the migration w. we need to do something, and in order to do so we actually started by looking at the migration status quo. consequences, and then we tried to look into its future, but we did through a regional planlens. solutions to problems that have divided parts of the region and the united states can only be found in the region, and the united states is part of that region. for migration in the future to be a matter of choice, not

desperation, and in order to make it a non-issue, the same way that migration from so many other parts of the world art non-issues, it seems to us that it must be overwhelmingly legal, orderly, and safe. in thealso think that future people who migrate within the region must increasingly have the skills and qualifications that can help them succeed, can help their families and households grow, and can take the migration issue as an issue off of the policy and political agenda for the region. of course, getting there from here requires a lot of work on all our parts. economic growth must be

sustained. and --al stability political stability must be enduring. the rule of law must put out more routes. social development must continue to grow. orders must have integrity, and we have dealt of course -- they must be dealt with more efficiently, and we need to do this together as neighbors, and personal security must become the first priority of governments in the region. we can do those things individually as countries, as people of different countries, and i am certain we will do so. but i think we can do it together as a region, and this is really what it is that this triedion study group has

to do. it argues that investing systematically in the region in building up for jury -- in building up cuban capital can create a better future for all those in the region, in a competitive world that will require much better prepared workers. what we are going to do is we ofl have almost a parade important people who have invested an awful lot of their time and their political capital to address this issue. we will start with president zedillo, who has eight video message that we will play in half a minute, and that will be followed by secretary gutierrrez, who will speak to recommendations of the report regarding immigration reform, but always thinking that

immigration reform must get into the life blood of the region rather than simply be something that the united states has to do. his remarks will be followed by stein,esident eduardo who will talk about key issues in the region, and between remarks, we will have our own selee,eissner and andrew they just came back in, to sort of pick up some of the comments that they would like to make. then we will hear from ambassador jones who has had a great deal of experience on the key issues of the report, not just the u.s.-mexico relationship, but a keen interest in education, and then

rubio, hear from luis one of the public intellectuals extraordinaire in the region. also, the presentations, i will sum up a little bit and then open it up to questions. good morning, and thank you very much for coming. >> i regret that the only standing commitments to not allow me to be with you for today bus presentation of the final report of the regional migration study groups. notwithstanding my inability to be with you in person at this significant event, i want to express my deep satisfaction for the work done there.

enormoust is of relevance, not only poor its sound content, but also for its timing. when the study group first met in february 2011, little did we know that the policy and of our work horizon, circumstances would it change rapidly for the better, making the possibility of immigration reform in the united states were likely than it has been in many years. of thehe robustness policy recommendations contained in the report, its publication now at the start of what promises to be a hopeful time of debate and decision on this important subject, conveys significant value. i am confident the participants in that debate will appreciate

that our study has done much to map adequately the to profound economic, demographic, and societal forces that are reshaping our increasingly interconnected region, comprised of united states, mexico, el salvador, guatemala, and honduras. the study has also taken great strides toward developing and articulating a collaborative approach to immigration and you capital of the element that can help build a social -- stronger social foundation for our region. meetings and washington and central america, mexico, along with research undertaken with background reports were ultimately intended to produce recommendations based on a

sufficient understanding underground political, economic, and social realities in this incredibly diverse parts of the world. aiming to balance policy ambition with realism and intellectual humility, we have tried to give practical answers to the fundamental questions of sow can our nation collaborate to ensure a safe migration purge, and how can they sustain economic growth skills and qualifications demanded by the labor market? the study group's final report seeks to promote policies that will benefit each of the nottries examined, but to advantage in the country over the other.

gettingg is clear -- policy right is important to the competitiveness in a fast- changing global economy. i am hopeful that the documents admitted today for your consideration will earn a place as an important reference in the ongoing debate that it will help governments of the region to execute sound policies of migration, labor markets, and human capital for the sake of their own national development interests. gratitude todeep all my fellow commissioners for their committed guidance, in particular to my esteemed co- gutierrez and stein.

i want to thank the valuable intellectual leadership provided all along by andrew selee, doris meissner, and demetrios papdemetriou. -- for growththe and development in our countries. thank you very much. >> thank you, and i should say thank you president zedillo. the president started us off in a way that he typically has done in his public service as

well as his work in this endeavor, and that is by touching on the key themes in a very coherent fashion, because this has been an effort that is very expensive. we are talking about very big themes here, very long term commitments, and efforts, but none the less, things have to start somewhere at some time, and these very important issues of how migration really fits within the broader context of well-being for each of our countries as well as the region overall is what it is that we have tried to get our arms around and begin to point to in this effort. now, president zedillo talked about the fortunate elements of timing.

timing fell in a way that we would never be able to anticipate when we began this a few years ago. where the timing is concerned, i want to stress that we all realize that what it is that is going on in the united states at the present time with immigration reform and immigration reform debate being, again, after many years on the front burner, is something united states has to solve domestically on its own. we are very much recognizing the individual characters of each of our country's and our political systems. at the same time, whenever it is we do in the united states on immigration policy, and on theng a brokenness of system, whenever we do will have critical applications for the region, for our relations within the region, and for the

features of all of our countries in north america. it is trying to deal with the sovereign nations and what each of us are doing in our nation s, the fact that we are arerconnected, and these ultimately themes that deal with all of us. though, to ourw, person who-s-chair, a has been involved in a broad set of issues, milliard with the domestic debate and discussion, carlos gutierrez. he served in the second bush administration, and he and michael chertoff were the point people for immigration reform. he has remained interested in

the issue within his party as well as nationally, and we are very pleased he has been part of this effort, and i am pleased to be a book introduced him and ask him to becocome to the podium at this time. gutierrez/ >> this is the perfect moment to talk about a new vision for greater prosperity and competitiveness in the region. this week the senate will mark up legislation that the u.s. very much needs in order to make the u.s. immigration system more responsive to economic conditions and labour market needs. the very importantly, to make the u.s. more competitive. i want to emphasize one thing, that is, immigration reform will create more jobs for american citizens, and i will repeat

that. immigration reform will create more jobs for american citizens. president obama has returned from a meeting with presidents of mexico and costa rica in which he and his counterparts emphasize the enormous economic and human interconnectedness of the region. the agreed to move forward with a number of educational initiatives that are also in our report. we believe there is a lot more to do in the future. first of all, we have 52 million individuals of hispanic heritage living in new s. 36% were born in another country. of those hispanics born in other countries, 14 million were born what too, el salvador, mollah, or honduras. that means three out of four come from those countries. persons born in these countries become more than 35% of total

population. some of the recommendations that we make in our reports are in the senate immigration bill. we hope they remained there as legislation makes its way through congress and to the president's desk. we believe the immigration proposal that has been started in the senate is very positive, the right thing to do, and we need to move forward. we are looking beyond this legislation. we are looking down the road, 10, 20, 30 years, and looking at the changes that will happen in our region and making certain recommendations beyond what is in the legislation. i will give you a few examples. we recommend exploring small programs and which the federal government could work in partnership with states and localities to create special

preference visas as part of an economic development plans in areas of the country that are ng.ulatig the study believes any new program or visa should include incentives for what we call positive certain clarity. that is, encourage or back-and- forth movements that allow migrants to pursue opportunities on either side of the border following the ebbs and flows of demand. to date we think of immigration too one -dimensionally. there's only one path for immigrants, and that is either you go for citizenship or you are not a real immigrant. we believe the future is a lot more about strategic circularity, where people spend

time in a country, in a given job, with special skills -- skills that that country needs, and they can circulate back to their country, and that is more of a 14 -- future we foresee looking down the road instead of a static one-size-fits-all. not everyone wants citizenship. what people want is the opportunity to grow and contribute and make the region more competitive. all these should be reviewed by agencies with assessing labor market conditions and making recommendations to congress and the executive branch on adjusting fees of levels. in 1970 mexican women had on the average seven children.

in 2010, that number is a little bit higher than two. will come a point in the not too distant future that mexico becomes an immigrant-receiving country, very different from what it has been over the past decade. so we recommend that mexico, guatemala, honduras, el salvador, also update and modernize their immigration systems. we also believe he should all have a shared accountability for border security and enforcement. thank you. [applause] the secretary has given us some of the key ideas that have to do with the u.s.

immigration system and then what the possible feedback loops or resonance for those changes would be within the region. i think what we are trying to stress very heavily in this work and in this report is really changing the incentive structure, changing the dynamics of migration in the region so that migration is an issue of legality, it is orderly, it is based on principles of fairness, certainly, it is safe compared to the perils of the way migration takes place today, and in that way there is a respect for rights and a basis on which to observe and enforce rights. but the point that was made about positive circularity -- and i like that term, because of

certain verde as compared with symbol circularity -- is one that i want to emphasize in terms of the way in which we could look at a different future, because the way that we have understood synchro -- we have understood circularity has been seasonal. people coming for several months, picking crops, going back, remittances flowing, and all of the things that go with that that have been by definition very difficult, because that kind of circularity tends to create a very unequal relationship between employer the workersit tends who have no other chances or choices in their societies, their communities, and a great deal of the the talk about migration has not focused on the

difficulties that surround that traditional form of circularity, what happens in home communities, the difficulty of enforcing the rights of workers. the kind of circularity that the secretary is referring to and the kind of positive secularity that is envisioned in this work, and, i think, in a way that in many provisions of the current proposed senate bill outlined is a circularity that is really more in the realm of mobility, mobility that has to do with a range of skills, economic needs, capabilitiesital, across the skills spectrums, choices, movement, an opportunity for people that are based on their own growth and on the growth of economies, where

it is that opportunities exist. so that one of the things we hope will come out of this work and one of the things to which we are committed at the migration policy institute and the wilson center is to use this work as a is use this work as a catalyst. for developing the kinds of training programs and kinds of work force and educational investments that will allow for positive singularity as compared with traditional singularity, which tended to be and, on ultimately, does not contribute in nearly as full a way to the broader development outcomes. with that as an additional dimension to what it is that we are talking about here, i would like to turn to our third co-

chair, vice president eduardo who has been in a less formal way returned to service for his current government, where he serves as an advisor and has been deeply involved in bringing the next generation of guatemalans leaders forward. >> when does the us -- [speaking spanish] one of the strategic elements that as a study group we wanted to put forward at the very how to moves -- away from a [indiscernible] aproach and move deeply into

network approach. theuse we could not tackle problems and complexities of migration agendas in this region of howe sole perspective to control flows. also, because we could not another them, that is perspective in the richness of the report. ofy from the perspective migrations specifically. we needed to look at other issues as well. however, the other issues are so complex in themselves as well that it is like walking barefoot on broken glass. the efforts that the different talents who were summoned to work at the set -- a study group tried to approach perspectiveset of

study ofry detailed what had happened in the region in the recent decades. secondly, what was changing in the region in the recent years. i want to " a few lines from the summary. the longstanding assumption that mexico and central america, having endless supplies of less educated workers were routinely physically demanding, or lee paid jobs in the united states, it is becoming less and less accurate when it comes to mexico and come in the years ahead, with the right reforms for much of central america. so, i want to begin as well by emphasizing that the countries

of central america faced a unique set of circumstances. we have some important success stories to talk about today. we have toh success recognize an ongoing challenge. first and foremost, i want to point out that there is no one simple story about central american development. indeed, our countries are highly interconnected in many ways. we face a number of common challenges and opportunities. migration being just one of them. that said, trends are uneven within the region. for example, guatemala has been experiencing a relatively high gdp growth since 2008. recession,hat great in addition to continuing strong population growth compared to,

for example, el salvador and their recent experience of lower gdp growth and very low population growth, as compared to honduras or guatemala. just to give you an idea of what i am talking about, 30 years or younger, that is 70% of the population. youngare very, very countries with very, very few opportunities for sustainable jobs. the most important thing, thegh, is to generate opportunities for our people. indeed, there have been promising job creations in economic sectors, such as hospitality, agriculture, and call centers, however, all of these countries confronted a

common challenge, creating enough formal sector jobs with benefits and wages that can sustain families. with the idea in mind that southeastern mexico and all of central america concentrates more than 30 -- sorry, 13% of the bio-diversity of the world. just in panama specifically there are more birds species that than in all of the united states and canada put together. the trend is not only in concerning -- and serving by a diversity, but taking advantage of it for productive export services in guatemala, honduras, and salvador. characteristics of

greenhouse methodology, 10 meters by 100 mers for t facility can give way for a aod, sustainable in come of 526 member family each year. and yet less than 30,000 hectares are dedicated to this type of technological advancement in this type of productive effort. your people in the northern triangle now live in extreme poverty, it is true. but for many families this is because they have received remittances from their relatives abroad, rather than because they are earning better wages. perhaps most importantly for what we are talking about today, educational attainment has risen

in central america. but we are all aware of the fact that we need to improve the quality and relevance of education at all levels. increase student detention in secondary schools and expand access to high-quality post- secondary education is for those who qualify. in particular we need to make sure they're giving students the s that they need to succeed in the real world. this means general communication and critical thinking skills, as well as the specific technical and, yes, english-language skills that the modern labour market demands. taught everywhere in central america, but only in private schools. i also wanted to put out that

after dramatic increases in security, homicide, and other violent crime over the last five to six years, homicide rates in guatemala, el salvador, have finally come to decrease recently since 2009. as we all understand, violence reflects what is fueled by institutional weakness and high levels of corruption with impunity in our countries. so, we know we have to do in order to do better for our people. the challenges and the opportunity for both the region people growth and the government is continuing and strengthening political stability, economic, social, and institutional reforms, and of course working closely with in the region to offer alternatives for

migration for the people. in the long term vision of the study group, migration would be a real choice for them, rather than a necessity. but until we get to that point, migration will have to continue to be part of the answer. ourwe need to work with partners in the region to make sure that such migration is legal, orderly, and safe. guatemala and el salvador are taking important steps on traditional police reform. it is slow. it is difficult. it has proven to be complex and cumbersome. but is crucial work. in honduras and for other reasons, this police reform is facing daunting challenges. visa long-term solutions that will help to resolve not just

individual countries but also a region to instill confidence and trust in our public institutions, to create real incentives for everyone to follow the rule of law and in so doing tackle the very serious crime and security challenges that are most destructive to those who have serious offenses against them. about mysimple note own country, guatemala. close to 60% of guatemalans belong to 22 different linguistic groups, mostly of my and origin. country and as a society have had a long standing policy in place for 400 years already of discrimination and exclusion.

so, this is another the mention perhaps to guatemala, but still very important to overcome, because they indeed have every withinor citizenship their own country. made great strides towards working together with the region. the study group has noted with approval mexican efforts to work more closely with what ramallah by issuing temporary border crossings for those who wish to visit, shop, and work in southern border communities. we encourage mexico to continue to consult closely with its neighbors. its it did in developing recent migration legislation as it comes to terms with all that this important role entails.

indeed has already become a receiving state for hondurans, guatemalans, and salvadorans. although the northern triangle companies face a difficult road ahead, in surmounting these challenges will we want to underscore today is that though each country must continue to persist in its own internal issues, it is now more important than ever that we continue to build trust with each other and with mexico and the united states to commit to collaborative measures that can help to solve these regional problems. that the nextieve strengththe regional starts with the acknowledgement that the united states, mexico, and central america, and central

american countries can shape the future in which working together brings benefits to each other and to them as a whole in a region that is much larger than the sum of individual efforts. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, mr. vice president. let me quickly knowledge the director and deputy director of the latin american program and the board members who were a member of the study group as well. as you have heard already the numerous speakers, the study group is genuinely very supportive of what is going on in terms of the immigration debate in the united states. i do not think we could have

planned the timing better. most of the studies have to do with domestic reform in the united states and hopefully this report will have something to say in communication with those discussions going on, but group members have been very enthusiastic about what they see. on the larger issues we have a strong sense, with migration only coming to terms -- we tend to think of it as part of a problem that needs to be solved. either in u.s. law or in central america by stopping people from leaving. the central tenet of the report is that migration is a central part of competitiveness and job creation in the region. in a long-term how we choose to manage this, regardless of the immigration reform debate or specific changes in mexico or central america is how we come to terms together across the region in managing migration, it will have a great deal to do

with how we manage jobs in the future in all the countries. this will continue beyond the debate in the united states and beyond specific debate going on now in mexico and central america. you will hear next from one of mexico must -- one of mexico's most influential writers and thinkers, talking about the role of the middle class in mexico and the changes in mexico. let me presage that by saying that one of the things that makes this debate possible now, not only is there an immigration reform debate going on in the u.s. that is positive that we can feel good about, but as we heard from mexico, things are changing very fast and i am positive directions. growing educational levels in mexico, steady economic growth over time, a containment of violence, although it not yet a drop, but containment is a step forward.

and with every step forward there is a new challenge. changingese speak of a country next door and changing countries in central america. this is a fundamental part of the piece of why we're having this regional conversation now. >> good morning. thank you, andrew. as the report emphatically establishes, the u.s. immigration debate on reform is clearly a sovereign concern, but it should not miss the changes that are taking place south of the border. these changes have had an enormous impact on the flights of migration over the last several years. not only for the numbers, but

for those who move, choir -- wherethey go to and why, the past is very different from the present and will be very different from the future. of the changes the most important one is the one you just mentioned, which is that mexico is rapidly becoming a middle-class country. it is no longer the poor country of old, although there are many poor people. more poor people means disposable income for people with wealth, better ways of dealing with local job interests and life, people who find it necessary to migrate. followingfor the first, because there has been financial stability, meaning lower interest rates and a level of fiscal deficits that

are very low. frankly, dramatization has meant for mexicans that the proportion of their disposable income that they spend on things like food stuffs, basic things in general, foods -- have come down in general. by the domestic producers produced by competition, and leslie to strengthen the government's creating much better paying jobs as it is the decisive way into confidence for the region. the automobile industry, like , particularly in the rural areas. there is basically an emerging middle class in the areas.

decentralization has transformed the picture of the country. veryo is also undergoing a dramatic transition that means population growth is much lower. and also means the standards can improve more rapidly. individually that means that there will be partial migration. there has been an extraordinary process of change in mexico. specially in the region in general. the facts of the challenges and the daunting nature of some of them, particularly security and the rule of law, with possibility, mexico has decentralized, politically. it found that police and traditional structures were

lacking and incapable of dealing with the most fundamental challenge of any government, which is protecting the population. the challenge is opposed by for accountability. as the government establishes itself as a source of authority , they will be making immigration reform successful. a government in mexico committed to the rule of law could become a natural source of regulation. critical point, changing mexico is altering reality. the more fundamental structure has been built and americans, i believe, need to see mexico and their central american neighbors as long-term partners -- partners in the development of the region. this is why it is about

competitiveness in the report being stressed over and over. the people have been successful. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. it has been a great pleasure for me to be part of this study group. i feel a little bit today like when i was in congress. i had a colleague who ran for president. at one political rally he was the mets -- the last speaker months many candidates and it was almost midnight when he was called upon to speak and he started his remarks by saying that everything that needed to be said has been said, but not everyone has said it. i have the privilege of being

the last speaker, i, with the last to talk about, something that has not been mentioned but i think it should be. if we are going to have a competitive region in this global economic area. withi left a mexico president clinton, he asked -- what was my advice going forward. what should be done? my comments were that if the enormous democratic political advances in mexico showed positive economic reforms that had taken place, let they would be strengthened by the most important thing. usch is that day and all of can invest in education and infrastructure, most important of those is education. in southernith many mexico, the other half of the

economy was basically left out. i met with various individuals and, without exception, what they wanted most in life was a better life for their children and grandchildren. they recognized that the way that they achieve that is through education and they were not getting it at that particular time. to the credit of the government this year and with the bipartisan support of the congress in mexico, they passed a major education reform act. i think it will add a significant difference in the future and the opportunity for mexico going forward. there have been improvements in education in central america, no doubt about it, but when you look at the region as a whole and you compare that region particularly to the area of asia, which for decades now has emphasized education and quality education, we are not

competitive. we are not competitive as a region and we should know that. we need major expectation reforms. not just in central america and mexico, but the united states also, if we are to be competitive in this global economy. the study group calls for that. not only in primary education, but also education at a higher level as it bears on science, engineering, and mathematics. be a in how we ought to fair point to be the most competitive region in the world. the best opportunity that we have for our children and grandchildren, that is the most important thing we can do in terms of creating a quality of life is better. if the u.s. congress through stupidity, irresponsibility, or a high degree of partisanship fails to deal with the pending

immigration reforms right now, this issue of immigration, or migration, is not one to go away. it is one to be with us for a long time to come. but if we seize the opportunity as i think that we can and we will, if we seize the opportunity and give particular emphasis to the role of education, not only education and basics, but education in relevancy, how does it relate to the needs of the global economic needs at present time and how do we train and retrain our young people and workers to take advantage of that opportunity? if we do that, the u.s., mexico, and central america, we will be the most competitive region in the world. we have natural and human resources. all we need to do is fine tune that and give them the education

that they need. it has been a pleasure to be a part of this and we look forward to your questions. thank you. [applause] is almost unbelievable that not only has every member started -- stop within the timeframe, remarkable to me, at least, but they also punctuated the most important element of what the report is all about. the report is focusing on the future. getting there from here. we cannot do it unless we all apply ourselves in the areas that members of the panel discussed. education, and as ambassador mentioned, quality but also relevance. i do not want to make too many people unhappy here, but perhaps

we should consider that we have enough ph.d.'s in political science and national affairs and perhaps we need many more people who are engineers and scientists, mathematicians. it took an agreement that focused on this kind of , if the secretary and the vice president make extremely important points about what it is that we need to do now, we begin to make the investments now that will take us to a different future than the one we have encountered in the past 20 to 30 years. it is -- if the essence of this report were be -- were to be reduced to just a few words and those words could be changed, opportunity, and hope, change

involves us looking at things the way that they are. three years ago, five years ago, 20 years ago. we had the extraordinary changes that had taken place in so many countries in the region. looking at mexico and el salvador, of course guatemala and honduras, and how much of an effort they are making, if you look at the kinds of investments that were made, if you look at the facts that they have had on their relationship with mexico, half of a billion dollars in two way pay, if you think this is an impressive number, let me give you numbers that are far more impressive. particularly the united states. almost 44% of the total trade is u.s. trade to mexico. no other country, no other

bilateral trading relationship even approaches anything like that. in fact, most of the other bilateral trading relations are extreme wing -- extremely heavy and the other side. what they sell to us. product40% of every produced in mexico that comes to the united states, 40% of the content of that product is american. for canada is 25%. everything else is further down the line. these are extremely important changes that most people are not aware of. we made up our mind, perhaps too easily, about what the region looks like and what the opportunities might be, and we focused on the opportunities, but the challenges are real. no one will say they are not.

, the security of individuals, a critical element of government, of good government. these of the institutional reforms that continue to need to be made. that needs to get deeper and deeper. economic and social development that we can focus on more and more. things will be taking place, but we must get focused on the opportunity. because of changes that have already taken place. the biggest opportunity that we see is to start thinking together about what kinds of skills -- how can we equip our citizens, each country on its own, but also latterly,

thinking within the region how can we equip our people? when our people of succeed, the country grows. holdpeople really want to onto their middle-class status, they make demands of their government. they create opportunities for investors. the more investors? the more purchases? the more confidence? the greater the opportunity becomes. once those opportunities begin -- began to spread, the region profits. it will not be easy. so, the last word that i mention in this part of my remarks is hope. we are all hopeful that this can happen. we think that the elements are already there.

we just need to work hard at them. i think that political leadership now and across the region can make an assumed commitment as we move forward. capital is if human the ultimate resource, as we all say that it is, let's hope that we believe it. if it is indeed the ultimate resource, let's try to make sure that we bill that restores up and commit it to a better future for the region. thank you very much. there is awful lot more in the report. is done in a smart way. if you read the executive summary and the recommendations, the recommendations are on all the topics that have been raised here by this superb panel.

this has been a great opportunity for us at the immigration policy institute. workve been very proud to with them to introduce this particular report. thank you. now we will open the report for questions, etc., etc.. [applause] all right, we now revert to the stage. no more up and down. and open the floor to questions. beent to just _ what has said in a variety of different ways. many of the people in this audience follow migration issues. of course, we have come to this through the lens of migration. one of the paradoxes, one of the things that is difficult in terms of policy and action

moving forward is that what this says and what we know is that solving our migration problems with positive effects in the society requires moving well beyond migration into many other policy grounds, particularly education training. really cross cutting from the standpoint of how one mobilizes societies and move is an agenda like this. dmitryreally are, as said, with too many words, perhaps in some cases, are more general than we need to be, but we are really trying to push the envelope into the ways that migration connect with an -- connects within society to so many other endeavors in order to thate the dynamics

ultimately create a much more positive migration picture. questions? the microphone will come to you. i am going to ask you to wait for it to come so that you can tell us who you are in your affiliation. over here? >> hello, my name is mario hernandez. course, western union. i work with a lot of immigrants here in the u.s., internationally, texaco and central america. i would like to raise the issue of immigrant into promotion. through immigration reform you create jobs. emigrants are entrepreneurs.

people have come here and created jobs. so, i think that the issue of immigrant entrepreneurs should should be promoted. many people are now thinking about going back home. after thinking about spending should be in the u.s. supported. comments? >> i think that everything the mentioned is right on target.

when we had a legal system for immigration that was right for was a lot ofere circuit there be, that reposits the circularity. people had come to work for several years. then they would go to go home with a few dollars, perhaps some skills that would be applied in that economy. and they would be a benefit to the region. today circularity has almost stopped because our legal system is broken. people do not want to leave because they may not be able to get back in. so, ball of the unintended consequences that you can imagine are happening today because the legal system is not working. that is why the first step is immigration reform and why we support the senate bill and we think it needs to get through as

quickly as possible so that we have a foundation that we can build on. i agree with what you said, very good points. thank you. >> we have data that may demonstrate the point that was just made. the number950's, people who had immigrated to the united states, people had gone back. people who do not always come work here, work here and live here, retire here and die here. part of the reason that we have seen this pattern in the last 20 because we have an notgration system that has

really look favorably upon the ability. whether it is the borders or the legal system the way it happens. this number changes dramatically. our narratives are all about people wanting to do what we discussed. increasingly, a small proportion is going to be more like nobility immigration. rather than immigration immigration. think that the secretary was very articulate in insisting that in the report, i think they did a good job of discussing this. creating opportunities for people to actually go and invest.

fail and still be able to come back. a ultimately, this is what you want to create in the opportunities. >> andrew? >> to the question from mario and dmitry, first of all, i think that if you look at the numbers there is a disproportionate amount of work done by immigrants in this country. there is something about immigrant on japan or ship that has worked in this country -- immigrant on sharpener ship that haspreneurship worked in this country. is patent office proportionally immigrant. on the attorney's side, and i know that some of you have been involved in these experiments, a

growing number that has happened organically in these organizations, particularly mexico and el salvador, they support small business creation back home. people have invested roughly $20,000 into small communities back home. some of these may succeed, but increasingly there is a movement towards doing this in mexico where we have seen support over here. to actually try to support these initiatives as well in ways the become sustainable. small businesses look for new markets to figure out how to register legally. there is a lot of beacons do in this country by helping the americans navigate these central american countries in terms of capital back home, seeing them as successful, plus i will not change the whole government.

but it may change small towns that have other opportunities in addition to the singularity question. people who actually came to this country for a while, went back home, and plug themselves back into their chosen profession. that is something that all of our countries need to think about. there are some huge opportunities. >> there are 1 million u.s. immigrants in mexico. they are also part of circularity. there for two, four, six years, the comeback to the u.s. and they also come back with new skills. so, it works both ways. >> over here? >> good morning. you for such a fascinating report. i am interested in hearing about how you see some of these recommendations been

implemented. since they are across the agency in this country, where do you see the most potential? where can society leaders support and take action around these? dimitri medvedev you take a shot. , it has to be competitive. we did not want to toss in their unverified atmosphere. we had worked on the three or four areas which had been growing and will continue to grow throughout the region. each of the cultures in the region had been making sustained investment. sectors that framed the entire .ealth delivery system

logistics'. everyone wants to move products and products throughout the region. and we need to do this efficiently and in a way that protects the produce from point a to point b. very expeditiously. advanced manufacturing. mexico is producing more engineers today, i think, than the united states. these are areas in which we are all invested. there has been an enormous of vantage i am beginning to think together about how to invest more smartly on that. pilot do that, we suggest programs initially in which people get educated by common standards. this is a very difficult thing to do.

that is why it has been suggested that we start little pilot projects. we have work with unions, universities, who have tried to do that. so, i am sorry about the noise. the whole idea of that is to begin to demonstrate that pilot , that this can be done. the mutual advantages can happen. punctuating my words, you know. >> your question, what is the next step and what can we do about it? start in this country with the bill before congress. there are private citizens and

different groups like that who play enormous roles, because of those who have been-on any side of the immigration policy, up there right now they will continue to put pressure on members of congress. we have to get political. that is our key to get the other side of the story. countries, central america and mexico, political action needs to be taken. in mexico, for example, ngo's have had zero effect in influencing their government. now i think it is much different. yourself year government, encouraging all of the government, as was said, to start coordinating, we will use pilot projects. this issue of the english- language, which we have also

emphasized as important, it is not as though we are trying to force english and anyone else, the fact is that english is the language of business and investment of around the world. if you are ignorant in that language, you will not have the same opportunities. so, putting pressure on your own government is very important. >> this is one of the typical areas in which we need a regional understanding of how the problems are evil and and what the solutions that are working are working in particular circumstances. the nation- even if is not by political scientists, we do need a very high level of political dialogue amongst not

only our governmental officers, but also amongst the people who can gaze into the solutions. giving you just a simple example, in this so-called war against drugs, and we are trying to move away from these types of concepts, the emphasis on interdiction that the united region,as staged on the it places a burden on domestic budgets in many countries, requiring loads of new money to give effectiveness in these areas of security controls. when it could be dedicated to education, infrastructure, health services, etc.. so, we need to share amongst ourselves strategic visions on

how to better allocate these resources and where each country responds to these pressures. one example tod what demetrias just said. if he thinks that the example of an nurse, or a nurse's aid -- we should be capable of assuring that the education of a nurse in theco, that those standards requirements of a nurse in the u.s.. if we have a shortage of nurses, which we do, then there has to be a mechanism that goes by in which we can convert together to have that positive circularity. because the nurse may save for four years, go back to mexico

with her skills -- that is how andoresee the future collaboration across government. >> did you have a question? no? right here, in the middle. thank you. >> i am from coast to rica. coast aricafrom just to be here today. i work for the business association for development there. organizationslar in our country's. to do withon has being responsible with society. i would like to know what other plans are there. are there any plans to share and

discuss the report conclusion with the region? not just with governments and migration authorities? but with civil society? because we really need to take this discussion and this approach to more countries. thank you. >> i think that maybe dmitri might want to emphasize that in the first place, the report is being translated into spanish, so it will be fully available. secondly, we will be doing a trip to the region, going to mexico and central america in the next two months or so, exactly for the purposes that you outlined. this is a discussion that needs to happen throughout the region and it certainly needs to happen with in central america and within mexico. we will try to be a catalyst for that.

this is very much seen as a document and conversation starter things that ultimately mean to be owned by each of our society's individually, then collectively. dmitri? a superb comment. i am sorry you had to file this way to hear. but the business community, they have an element in this. clearly they have something in mind. all organizations must participate in this. the community must be in tight roll, not just participate in this. in studies from both sides, , at itsg civil society

best it does well, which is hold governments and the other actors accountable. these the kinds of things that governments and the business community and organizations know they have to do. this is the future we have in mind and that the report proposes. >> just a second. >> good morning, everyone. adult services in southern california for the last 10 years and i thought it was interesting to hear these statistics in guatemala and honduras. there is an aging tsunami in the united states. we are aging very quickly. i was curious as to what the

population looks like in mexico and what you might have looked at as far as the opportunities, what they might be, and how these older adults go back and forth between these countries. just a second question, out of curiosity, i know that in professional soccer uc a lot of multinational team's scouting players, like for here in the united states, switching national teams, it seems like they are a step ahead in seeing lots of individuals going back and forth, curious as to whether you saw that in your study. >> ok. would you like to comment? >> two things, quickly. the democrats in mexico have changed dramatically. the birthtion growth, rate is slightly above what demographers call the fertility replacement rate. will come a moment, a

time in the not distant future when we will not have as many mexican immigrants. and mexico will have to become an immigrant receiving country. also, strategically looking at the skills that they need in order to be able to grow. that is a tremendous change. that is why part of our recommendation is that these countries also modernize their systems to get ready for the future. the other positive side of circularity, when we think about the extremely positive, we are also mindful of the so- called brain drain. take everywant to nurse away from mexico. but we would do great with

positive celerity after a period mexico, going back to guatemala, forever, with their skills, contributing to their country. again, pauses circularity. >> thank you. >> please. >> one report that has something very significant about this, the hason of circularity recently been matched as difficult with coming back to the u.s.. no one wants to leave. that has created enormous incentive for people to come, bring their families and stay, whereas if they are only coming , they can go and come back. they have no incentive to bring their families. the issues being discussed

over the last couple of decades , we would not be there if things were not so uncertain. how come the region's complement each other? introducing things like changes in the front. also in the areas that have been within the role of responsibility in governments. mexico has voting challenges in the rule of law. in dealing with these improvisations, nonetheless that have built the kind of

institutions that they have decided to work with. that is the kind of stability being emphasized and that is why it is such a key region. >> just to the provocation -- i apologize for my mismanagement of the english-language -- [laughter] honduras,and nicaragua, have been crossing both sides where several people were below 30 years of age in the population. whereas of salvador has curbing their fertility rate significantly. >> roughly 1 billion u.s. immigrants lived in mexico, probably a majority or a large percentage live there in retirement and have been doing

that for a variety of reasons. that is an enormous, industrial and economic opportunity for mexico and central america, but that requires skill. not just nursing skills, but also technology in delivering health care and things like that. somebody spn >> you have the needs and costs of health care getting larger and larger and will be more of a draw in central america and that's going to be a major economic opportunity for that region. >> dmitri? >> yes. let me say three things. the one follows exactly on what jim said.