tibet with the prime minister of the tibetan government in exile. and then discussing the bureau of justice statistics and firearm violence. host: good morning and welcome to washington journal on this friday, may 10, 2013. the house homeland security committee held a first hearing yesterday on the boston marathon bombings, examining what federal agencies knew in advance and whether or could have been done to prevent attacks. our question for you this morning, what is your opinion of the obama administration's handling of the boston marathon bombings? that includes agencies in the administration. here are the numbers to call --

you can also find us online. send us a tweet. join the conversation on facebook. you can also e-mail us.' \ you today what you think of the administration's handling of the boston marathon bombings. the front page of the boston globe this morning, courtesy of the newseum --

here is a clip of mr. davis, a boston police commissioner, and house homeland security chairman michael mccall, of texas. [video clip] >> we know there was a department of, security officer in the joint terrorism task force who was alerted of tamerlan tsarnaev's overseas trips, a trip to russia in chechnya. were you aware that before the bombing? as i was not. >> the officers you assign to the task force, were they aware of?

greg they told me they received no word on that individual prior to the bombing. , were madee bombing aware of this information? >> yes. >> at what point in time? it's intimations started coming in and immediately upon our identification of the older brother on the morning of the watertown arrest. the shootout occurred late in the evening on thursday into friday. friday in the early morning hours with started to get information about the identity of the individuals. >> commissioner davis, if you had had this information before the bombing, would you have done -- your police force and you, would you have done anything differently it? >> that's very hard to say. we would certainly look at the

information, we would talk to the individuals. the information i received, the fbi did that and closed out the case. i would not say i would have come to a different conclusion. >> boston's police commissioner talking to a congressional panel about the boston marathon bombings. it appears the headline in the wall street journal -- you this morning what you think about the administration's handling of the bombings. what are your thoughts?

tulsa, oklahoma, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. the handling after the boston er was arrested and was seemingly given miranda rights, and it later turned out this was directed by the attorney general. it was a pattern of seeming to cover up the information that could be gathered dealing with many issues, in this case a terrorist attack. i have heard a lot from knowledgeable people saying they could have held this guy quite a bit longer without greeting him his miranda rights, to allow him to be interviewed and information extracted. so it is a puzzling thing that

we had in our attorney general, fast and furious, the gunrunning operation with mexico, we have an administration that covers up benghazi, that got the ambassador killed. it is just a pattern that we have that is puzzling to common sense. i think that the obama administration is handled this, as they did in many other things. it just leaves the populace scratching their heads as these folks are supposed to be protecting us. host: this on twitter -- your takeng you about on the administration's handling of the boston marathon bombings. at yesterday's congressional hearing, questions were raised about what was known before the

bombings. here are questions from our facebook page -- dave in spotsylvania, virginia, independent. go ahead.

caller: yes, i have been very concerned recently, because of what we're hearing in the news, that americans are not doing the job of keeping track of people who might have other motives other than our well-being, in particular when we're talking about boston, the databases were knew, and, nobody we're getting information from other countries. when leon panetta was talking about benghazi, saying that we could not respond in a timely fashion. what this is telling the world is that america is not as vigilant and not as compared and pretty much tells our enemies where our weaknesses are, so i'm concerned about that. host:, in centreville, maryland, a democrat. hi. caller: how are you? host: fine.

fromr: there were reports runners in the marathon and other people that they were having a deal with bomb sniffing dogs at the beginning of the marathon and at the end. why is it they did not detect these bombs and there rehabing a drill going on at the same time as the marathon? that is what they told them. host: here's a story from the baltimore sun --

the article goes on to say that in the aftermath of the april 15 bombing -- let's listen to more yesterday's house hearing. congressman jeff duncan, republican of south carolina, asking why members of the fbi could not identify tamerlan tsarnaev, even though they had been looking into him prior to the boston bombings? >[video clip] >> i'm amazed the general public had to identify this guy and that somebody in the fbi did not say that guy looks familiar, did

not investigate him a couple years ago? they had to rely on folks within the boston community to identify him. one thing we talked about in this committee is the fact that cvp has a system, ice has a system, and if you want to research information about certain individuals, you have to go into one system with a separate password. if you want to go into another system, you have to come out and go to a different location and use a different password and do this over and over to make sure you have the redundancy if necessary to find out all information, whether it's a visa screening or whatever. we need to work. this was partly why dhs was set up, so it would be the hub and appeal to share all that information so we would not have the mistakes handled that is all leading up to boston that we are starting to discover now. host: congressman jeff duncan of south carolina. this on twitter --

jerry, what do you think? indiana, a democrat. to havei think it's ok intense hearings on the boston and someonebings should have known and everything. but i cannot remember back when we had 9/11 and the previous administration. it seemed like they were saying they should have had some inkling about what was going on. -- and ient about that don't remember, and whatever truth is to be known about anything, the american people have a right to know it. i just wondered, was there that kind of intense hearing on 9/11 in 2001 with over 3000 people

killed and thousands of soldiers killed and hundreds of thousands of injuries? i guess i cannot remember. that's just a question i would like people to think about was it handled in that way. host: you can find some of those hearings that happened after 9/11 on our c-span web site. we have a video library. you can access some of that history. one of the individuals who was very involved in what happened in the aftermath of 9/11, senator joseph lieberman, retired senator, independent of connecticut, testified at yesterday's hearing on the boston marathon bombing. he talked about helping create the congressional committees on homeland security after the 9/11 attacks. let's listen. [video clip] >> from what i know of the facts in boston, and none of us know them all yet, and from what i

have learned over the years about homegrown islamist terrorism, i believe that although it would not have been possible to have prevented terrorist attacks in boston, the homeland security system, mustad acknowledged that we built after 9/11 to protect the american people from terrorist attacks failed to stop the sinai of brothers. with your help, we must find out why and fix it. a leader in our homeland security community wanted to be the terrorists can keep coming at us and they'll have to succeed once. we have to stop them every time. that's almost impossible, but that is the standard are homeland security defenders hold themselves do and we have to as well. that's why i am so grateful you have begun this investigation. i think you've got to go back step-by-step, pull it apart, and ask what's more could the public

and private individuals involved here have done to prevent this. host: former senator joe lieberman. we're asking you this morning what your thoughts are on the obama administration's handling of the boston marathon bombings. in oregon on the independent line. hi. caller: good morning. 35% of the money and resources that have been put into home and terroristswo destroying people's lives all over the world. to terrorists. it shows the corruption in our government. host: this on twitter --

looking at our other social media, on our facebook page -- you can communicate to us via social media on facebook, look for c-span. and on twitter. little rock,t in independent. caller: hi. i am speaking about the christian majority of this 1975,y born before because the majority of the kids now today, whether they be white, black, and where ever they are from, if they were born after 1975 or 1980, they have their heads in the sand.

we are being attacked daily by the muslim left radicals, by immigration reform. the white house does not want to do anything to protect this country. it is disgusting. it is up to us, people born at least before 1975 or 1980. the kids growing up today have their heads in the sand. the left-wing indoctrination, we are being attacked. david in's move on to florida on our republican line. hi. caller: good morning. i don't think they are all that concerned with trying to stop it. when these things happen, they use it to justify the erosion of our rights. people were getting upset about cameras on street corners or what not. now they say look how good they are, we are able to catch these guys in 24 hours. i just think they really don't mind with these things happen from time to time.

they shut down the city. you can go on youtube and watch men in battle gear yanking people out of their homes at gunpoint, searching their homes. they shut down the town, did martial law, which you cannot do, but they did it, and nobody complained about it. i wonder if they sometimes are testing the waters to see how much of the american public will put up with. host: do you perceive a shift in policy from the obama administration compared to the bush administration? caller: i don't think it much matters. the new boss is the same as the old boss. people come and go. nothing ever changes. it stays the same. in theere's a story baltimore sun looking at a different case.

we're getting your opinions of how the obama administration handled the boston marathon bombings. a congressional panel examines this extra day in the first hearing to look at what happened in boston. here's "usa today" --

anthony, cleveland, ohio, a democrat. what do you think? caller: this is unbelievable, these republicans. they are the biggest hypocrite. their mouths in the bush administration on the twin towers?

and who was responsible for sending our boys and girls to war without the proper body armor? [indiscernible]. and what about walter reed? george bush came from a border state. why did he not close the border? republicans are so hypocritical, it's a shame. this is why the republican party is going down. these guys had 9/11 on their watch. you guys do nothing. where was darrell issa? the reason i get upset with obama is 21st came into office he should have investigated bush and dick cheney and brought them on war crimes. those are the facts. host: let's hear fromj a republican hearoe in new york. caller: new york. hi.

haveworries me is we 75,000 muslim people come in on college visas and they cannot find 15,000 to 20,000 of them. they never showed up for class. where are day? i think they are letting them come in and it really worries me about what's going on. that's all i have to say. tampa, florida, independent. hi. caller: hi. thanks for letting the public speak. one of the things that worries me is i read that the department of homeland security was hiring foreign contractors for the boston marathon that included israeli security people that had inside knowledge and information about the details going on there. i think our government has gotten too cozy with israel. if you think about who had the

most to gain during this to drag america into war with iran, i would be looking in that direction. host: let's go on through bristow, virginia, lidon. hi. caller: hi. concerning the amount of information that's available prior to the bombing, the government did the best that it could. that thisortunate happened, but you have to keep in mind -- like everyone says, the terrorists and criminals only have to be successful once. our government has to be successful all the other times. it is kind of unfair to say that they imposed martial law conditions on the people of boston. i think if you ask the people

who were actually inconvenienced by the searches, they are pretty happy that the law enforcement and there governor made the decision to do that, to actually get in there and protect them instead of just letting one individual and possibly more -- because they probably did not have that information at the time -- just run rampant. in your rampant host: what did you think about the congressional hearing yesterday? was it a useful exercise? caller: i heard part of it. i think that it's kind of like what the commissioner said. everybody would love to have as much information as possible. he wasthink that accurate in saying that if your igher -- if they say this guy is cleared, the fbi, based

on the information we have, that he would not have done any more. at least he was honest. he was honest enough to say it would've been nice to have the information, but i'm not sure i would have done any more than was already done. host: let's listen to more of what the boston police commissioner edward davis said yesterday at the house hearing. [video clip] in minority reache communities by doing community policing training in spanish. we try to do specific outreach to the latino community, because there's been such an influx in some of our neighborhoods. i go to those glasses and i listen in and have an opportunity to talk to people who have newly immigrated to the united states. they are incredibly thankful for the work we are doing and

outreach. we have developed information not through infiltration but through appealing to the community and nation. i think that's the answer to this in large part. you cannot develop a relationship with someone in a crisis. it has to be developed before the crisis. and so, there has to be real attention paid to who is in our community and what are we going to talk to them? we do that through out the clauses, but we're also having great luck with social media recently. all use of social media as a dialogue and not just as a loudspeaker but a dialogue between the police and the community plays an important role in our ability to do outreach to people. host: that's the boston police commissioner talking about efforts through the community outreach. a story in the new york times this morning traces the time

when tamerlan tsarnaev was overseas in russia --

that's looking at tamerlan tsarnaev in russia. our next caller from pittsburgh, pennsylvania, independent. hi, will. caller: hi. as far as the handling of the bombings, there's only so much you can do. you want to stop them every time. you want to prevent it. each administration there will be issues. the important thing is we learn from them. my issue with the handling of this is all the way to the top of the administration to be the lack of saying jihad or terrorism. those terms are very important and that is the truth.

, a lack of our leaders to tell us the truth on what the situation really is as far as homegrown terrorism and the things we are trying to do to stop it. this stuff needs to be presented to us in a better way. one of your callers who mentioned only those born before 1980, i think he's right to a degree. however, i was born in 1985. however, if you look at the media today, what do you do? you've got fox news covering benghazi for weeks and weeks and weeks trying to find the truth. and you have every other mainstream media outlet does not want to talk about it. you cannot blame kids for that or anyone else for that matter. you go to work, people are busy working two jobs to make ends meet. if they don't have time to look into all this stuff. if you hopefully depends on your local media to give you the truth.

that's all i have. host: a story in the wall street journal also looks at tamerlan tsarnaev's time overseas in russia -- turning to some other stories in the news. our last caller brought up benghazi. the washington times has this headline -- rand paul has a commentary piece in the washington times that says --

the new york times op-ed page says -- so that's a different perspective in the times. other stores in the news, president obama touts texas growth on a job store. he wants congress to pass his economic agenda and gun training. that's in the washington post. the washington times has a headline that says -- looking at the president's cabinet, the baltimore sun tells us that a republican stol the vote on president obama's nominee for the top post of the environmental protection agency. senate republicans yesterday boycotted a committee vote on the president's nomination of mccarthy, drawing accusations of obstructionism from democrats.

we talked about the impact of the sequester and federal budget cuts. here's a story from the washington post -- we're asking you about the obama --inistration and's handling obama administration's handling of the boston marathon bombings and what was known beforehand. let's go to middleton from west virginia on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. you made a mistake right off the bat by saying the obama administration, why don't you say it's the way it is.

it is homeland security. he did not start homeland security. that started a long time ago. you are inflaming people already against the president. you should not do that. host: milton, tell us more about what you think about homeland security. do you think the department of homeland security did a different job during the bush administration versus the obama administration? caller: no. those people do their job day in and day out. nobody changes how they do it. host: what do you think about how this was dealt with? caller: well, they did not do what they were supposed to do. they are supposed to share their information. the only thing about sharing of information is a bad person in another organization can give information about them that they should not be able to give.

there should be restrictions on how much information they do share with each other. host: what do you think about other agencies like the fbi, and you mentioned homeland security in particular? caller: all of them are that way. they need to share, but they need to investigate each other. so they cannot share everything, because if they do, everybody is aware of what they are doing. host: this on twitter -- dwight is on the phone from it wisconsin, republican. what is your town? mwood.: burna i'm really interested to know what happened to the saudi national that was in a hospital and 30 was a person of interest and then he was a suspect and all of a sudden he might not have even been a bombing?

so i think there is some decedent going on there. i heard that he was whisked out of the country and deported for terrorist activities. you don't see any of that reported on the news. it's like it never happened, but there's something fishy about that. i think it's a cover-up. host: this on twitter -- your rica, california, independent caller lee. eurika, california. caller: homeland security is but the administration does not want anybody to say the word terrorist, to offend somebody. i think we need to offend somebody so they don't come into

our country like these guys in boston. the constitution is for us as citizens. it is not freedom from being offended. .t irritates you theeed to check all of muslims that come over here. is headquarters for them to do with the want to. it disturbs me. i think our country needs to investigate it. it is not the christians that are renting airplanes and flying them into the towers and killing them. every time somebody comes up, they want to blame it on somebody here that is our own s, justhere in the state'

like the congress lady in the mexico, they try to blame it on a right-wing person. host: in the case of gabby giffords, the shooter was a white man who was not a muslim. would you do screening of all muslims before coming into our country > caller: yes, they were trying to blame that on the right wing. host: what about muslims and were born here? caller: no. --m just saying that overall i we have people in a college right down in florida screaming and hollering at us. 15 guys that killed in that helicopter a few years back, minister some kind of speak over them that the

government had there and they purchased them for being forstians -- cursed them being christians. the moslems, there are good people in every group, but it is sad that they're on -- that the wrong group gets blamed. host: michelle is in annapolis on our republican line in maryland. caller: hi. i'ven the last four years been looking into politics and paying attention to what's going on, trying to educate myself. soeel this country now is becauseand it upsets me like an earlier caller said, there are a lot of younger people out there who work two job to try to make ends meet and probably listen to their local tv station and news and have a one-sided report. that used to be me until i started really looking at all

the news and paying attention to who is saying what and who is not saying what. what i feel a sense the obama administration took over this justry, i feel that he has really been lax in saying a word terror and ousting al qaeda. i think other countries are looking at us now and laughing and they are getting into this country. i don't want to go off topic about benghazi, however the obama administration clearly now knows that it was not a video that took place. weeks after the event, the apologizing about the actions of this country with this video.

host: you mentioned the question of labeling and terminology. this came up yesterday in the congressional hearing. a republican congressman from pennsylvania asked questions of former senator joe lieberman, independent of connecticut, testified yesterday. he helped create the congressional committees on homeland security after the 2001 9/11 terror attacks. let's listen to their conversation about their definitions. [video clip] >> let me ask you this question, senator. why do you think this administration is not willing to use the term radical islam to describe these acts of terror? this is real important, because investigation and our national mood about how we deal with this is expressed here. what is gained by the president's refusal to appropriately described the high as expressed by radical islamist extremists as their motivation for attacking the u.s. and other free nations? -- jihad.

caller: i don't know. this is a debate i have had over the years with this administration. for all the reasons you say, you've got to know your enemy and call it what it is, particularly now. if you think that the enemy is al qaeda and you observed that bin laden is killed and central al qaeda is on the run, you may be lured into believing the war is over, but there is this islamistof violent extremism that is not over. it is spreading. it's not just spreading to enough people here to make us worry at home, but what is happening in syria and mali and yemen and pakistan and afghanistan and the chechnya and dagestan and in america. ofi presume it is because sensitivity that if you use the

term islam or muslim at all with relationship to violets lock extremism or terrorism, that it will do offense to muslims. i am privileged to know a lot of my fellow americans who are muslims. they are law abiding and patriotic and have nothing to do with criminals and terrorists. it's not fair to them not to single people out. maybe the words we are using are not right. somebody else said this and i just repeated, is too short and simple, but it does bear some truth, which is that, obviously, most muslims are not terrorists. the sad fact is today that most terrorists that we are dealing with in america are inspired by this violent islamic extremist ideology. host: former senator lieberman testifying before the house homeland security committee yesterday on the boston marathon bombings. , in, independent

chesapeake. caller: hi. it was real funny how the joint police force and everything has been totally militarized and it was totally obvious wednesday shutdown almost an entire city, which has never really happened before, over one person. that is very strange. i would be very concerned as an american citizen if i got a knock at my door and i was asked to come out of my home at gunpoint. it's very unprecedented. i keep the american people need to wake up and realize that democrat, republican is a for side. we need to realize that this country is going in a very bad direction. i would ask all the oath

keepers, police, military, to please keep your oath. host: on our facebook page -- eric is our last caller in temple hills, maryland. caller: i just wanted to comment about all this stuff that the one caller said he wants to send all muslims from this country -- to screen them. that was maybe a call 10 minutes ago. all of this bank's against muslims, i find it offensive -- this angst.

i'm an immigrant. it was less than 100 years ago that we had white christians setting fires and terrorizing black churches in the south. for americans to think we are a very progressive country, that history was not long ago. host: what do you think about the administration's handling of this, the boston marathon bombing? caller: it was swift. the american people are a little too quick to judge. i think they handled it very well. host: this -- forks for all your calls this segment. coming next, immigration reform and congress is our topic. senators in the judiciary committee are working on proposals to overhaul the nation's immigration laws. we will hear a prayer things stand with fawn johnson of "national journal. later on, the political

successor to the dalai lama joins us to talk about tibet and tensions with china and the obama administration oppose the policy approach to both countries. we will be right back. >> ♪ [video clip] >> this department may be nearing the stage with the frequency of this crime and the perception that there's tolerance of it would very well undermine our ability to effectively carry out the mission and to recruit and retain the good people we need. that is unacceptable to me and the leaders of this institution. and it should be unacceptable to everyone associated with the united states military. we need cultural change where every service member is treated with dignity and respect, where

all allegations of inappropriate behavior are treated with seriousness, where victim's privacy is protected, where bystanders are motivated to intervene, and where offenders no that they will be held accountable by strong and effective systems of justice. -- offenders know. >> defense secretary chuck hagel outlines new initiatives against sexual assault in the military, saturday. in libya ons senior the attack in benghazi, gregory acs. that sunday. on sunday morning at 10:45, how everyone is digitally connected. a former cia chief soviet analyst on cold war intelligence during the eisenhower administration, sunday at 3:00.

the first first lady to and a college degree. during the civil war, soldiers serving under her husband called her the mother of the regimen. if opposing slavery, she influenced her husband to switch to the anti-slavery republican party. she hosted the first annual white house easter egg roll. lucy hayes, wife of the 19th president, as we continue our series on first ladies, with your questions and comments through facebook and twitter, monday night live and 9:00, 8 eastern on c-span and c-span3. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: fawn johnson is a national correspondent at national journal. guest: good morning. host: we headlines about the senate judiciary committee starting the markup of an immigration bill. the washington post has this headline --

what did we hear the start of yesterday? guest: this is the start of a several-week process in the judiciary committee where they are going line by line in this 844 page bill, very complex immigration bill. they are amending it. there are 300 amendments that are pending on this bill. yesterday they were dealing mainly with title 1 of the bill, which involves border security. many of the amendments are little changes. a lot of them were accepted without any debate. some had a little debate. then a few were dramatically changing the bill. we saw the judiciary committee practicing this earlier this year, spending several weeks marking up legislation on gun control. they will do the sitting next few weeks. then the bill would go to the

floor after memorial day. host: as issues are debated, the democratic proposals and republican proposals, do we expect to see the bill changed? guest: i don't think you'll see much change from the basic outlines we have now. we can review those outlines. we have a program that would legalize about 11 million undocumented immigrants here in this country, those who have non-criminal records. we have another provision that would greatly enhance border security by doing two things. requiring employers to verify electronically all their new hires. and, also, complete an entry- exit system. that would allow people -- allow authorities to know which foreigners are in the country and who has left, even if they are traveling abroad. and it would establish a new work visa program for low- skilled workers. the idea is to allow those guys

to come here legally. that the basic framework of the bill. i don't expect it to change in part because we have four members of the gang of eight, who have written this bill. it's a bipartisan measure and four of them are on the committee. they have agreed that anything that would substantively change the bill, they will vote against. host: we looked at the four republicans in the gang of eight. tell us about why they are influential in this process and how they may be the ones to watch. guest: day four republican members are important. probably the most important person on that gang is not on the judiciary committee. that marco rubio of florida. the reason is he's a tea party favorite and a newcomer to this debate and he's the kind of toson whose whole purpose is give other conservatives cover to vote for this bill, to tell them that it's ok, but they will not lose their conservative credentials if they vote for it. so he's important in that sense.

two others on the committee, senator jeff flake, who is new to the senate, new to this committee, but not new to the issue. he sponsored a similar bill in 2005 and 2006 in the house. senator lindsey graham from south carolina, who was on the committee the last time they dealt with this in 2007 and pushed for it. the last person on the republican side is john mccain, who we all know has been involved in this issue a long time. those guys are essentially the ones trying to make sure they can bring the rest of the republicans along with them on this bill. rubio is the most important. the other three in have long histories of increasing something, prince of like what the senate is doing. will not be they able to bring extra cache for some of the tea party conservatives who might not be willing to vote for something as big as this. host: we saw the front page of

the national review -- looking at the question of where he stands on immigration and other republicans and conservatives can get behind him. opening up the story, it says -- not what weays it's expected from marco rubio. guest: rubio has undergone his own conversion on the issue of immigration. inyou think about his role the gang of eight in the senate, it is to have other people who are very conservative will of logotypes to follow the same kind of reasoning that he has. essentially, what he has said and he says over and over is when he first started out on this issue about a year ago during the presidential campaign when he was being talked about as a vice-

presidential candidate, said we need to secure the border first, we need to enforce our laws, make sure employers stop hiring illegal immigrants. he was very firm. then as he got into the issue and started researching, he realized if it's impossible to do that without some of these extra provisions that are being talked about. we have 11 million people and documented in this country right now. there's no way to enforce the law without doing something to adjust their status. so his purpose is to make sure that the rest of the enforcement that would happen after they have some kind of investment actually occurs. all his strength to do is make sure that lawmakers who are looking at enforcing the law are held to their promise. host: we're talking with fawn johnson of national journal about immigration reform. it's making its way to the senate judiciary committee right now. we will also talk about what else is happening in congress. here are the numbers to call if you would like to join this conversation --

"usa today" looks at five hurdles ahead for immigration. border security is one of the items listed. chris ault border security debated yesterday in the markup. let's listen to an excerpt of a conversation. senator dianne feinstein of california leading things off. there's back-and-forth with senator grassley, a republican from iowa. and a member of the gang of eight on immigration reform, senator flake of arizona. [video clip] senator, i am amazed at the progress that is being made. just the california border alone, it is amazing to see how it has been toughened. that extends all along the way. i think the beauty of what has happened is not necessarily that it's all relies on the fence.

it lies on backup, automated facilities, cameras, aerial surveillance. i don't think we are ever going to have a perfect situation as long as people can tunnel underground can swim rivers. but i hate to see the bill delayed when all this progress has been made already. >> could i react? first of all, i don't question the chairman -- or the senator from california's sincerity. and i hope what she says is accurate, but it seems to me that your argument makes it all the more easy just to have the bill say so. >> senator flake? lot ofally appreciate a these amendments put forward and i know the ranking minority member just want to make this better and make the border more secure. believe me, coming from arizona, that's what we want as well. but we not only suffer from

people crossing the border. we suffer from having a big population of people here illegally now. we don't know what status they are. we don't know where they are. they are in the shadows. we've got to bring them out. so i think it would not be a good move to wait on that process. host: members of the senate working through a proposal -- a proposed amendment dealing with border security. guest: i would argue that the amendment they were debating in that segment, that was the most important amendments they voted on yesterday in the committee. it was an amendment by senator grassley of iowa to not allow any of the legalization that the bill would provide until the border has been certified as secure for six months. this is the classic argument that the heritage foundation has talked about and a number of republicans in 2005 and 2006

also argued for. but the committee voted down grassley's amendment on the theory that marco rubio and others have argued, that you cannot secure the border without dealing with a population that is currently here. the other argument that i heard marco rubio expressed very articulately is if you already know that you are going to give some kind of legal status to the people here without papers, it makes no sense to keep reporting them until a certain benchmarks -- to keep deporting them until a certain benchmarks is met. beforeget caught that, you are out. it's a matter of fairness and leveling the playing field. they had no problem considering it. they talked about it appeared there was even some levity and joking about it and then they voted it down. i think that's what you'll see for the rest of the couple

weeks. the committee will take the amendments that fundamentally under the framework and the they will say thanks but no host: thanks fawn johnson of national journal. leo on the democratic line from california. things i wantle to ask. first of all, it would be nice if you put the ages of the callers, like myself, i'm over 70 and retired. also, i really believe that -- i work construction all the time almost since i got out of the service. i'm a korean veteran. thatl these young people are getting out of the service, they need a place to go. our illegals are taking their jobs. how do i know? i worked construction 22 years.

i taught carpentry for vocational training and the union for 18 years. , our unioncan tell you this is starting to sound like the democrats do it because they allow illegals to come in and take these apprentice jobs, and when years ago when there was the apprentice such as myself was able to get good jobs and pick up their education later. so we really need to stop this telling everybody that there are jobs that people won't do out there and stuff like this, because i have been out in the sun, as hot as anybody has ever been to where it is 115 degrees out in california, and i have worked, i know many people would

do it. but they have to pay them a decent wage. what is happening now in riverside county, they say they cannot find the people to work the track work. that is bull, because i know many carpenters who would go out there and work. the only thing, they won't work for eight dollars an hour. from fawna response johnson -- let's get a response from fawn johnson. guest: the one thing i would say to the caller is that the legislation that they are talking about would impose new wage requirements on people who are coming into the country under this new work visa, and to some extent there are business people i know, some of them in the construction industry, who are very concerned that it would

require employers to pay more than they would for an american worker. but that is because the unions have been very heavily involved in this debate because they want to answer exactly the point that the caller just made, which is that some of these jobs american workers will do, but not for the wages that a migrant worker from mexico would do. there are other jobs, and i think the agriculture industry is rife with this -- fruit picking and whatnot -- it would be very difficult to find an american worker willing to do those jobs. that is why employers have been so careful to make sure that there is some kind of a visa program for the workers to do these jobs. winter haven,m florida, an independent caller. go ahead. caller: there are a lot of things floating around out there that the politicians and the media are just kind of skirting

over, hoping that we are just going to let go by. of the people impacted know better. they are everywhere. you see them working on federal jobs and all these places that are supposed to be checking -- we already have laws. i don't understand why we have to change the laws just to accommodate this group of people. host: ok, thanks, mark. guest: one quick point on the federal jobs. the federal government is required to use the electronic e-verify system. if there are any undocumented immigrants in the federal government, they would have to steal someone's id. i doubt there are any of them in that capacity. but the caller is right, we see

a lot of day laborers, migrant laborers that i have met, many undocumented immigrants working in those kinds of fields -- the restaurant industry. , for example,hers are undocumented. but i think the thing that the caller points to, which is just a fact that there is a lot of anxiety inside the united states about what we do with immigration generally, and this is why this is such a difficult topic to talk about. senator grassley has been saying over and over again for the last several weeks that you only get a crack at fixing the immigration system every 25 years because it is so difficult. no one is going to tell you that it works right now, and that is the reason why they are trying to fix it. it is really just a matter of taking something that is a complete mess and trying to tweak it, but unfortunately it is such a big mess that you

cannot tweak it in any kind of small way. you need a big pick -- a big fix. host: "the washington times" says that two thirds of the senators have not seen the border, and those who have say it is a learning experience. guest: senator john mccain has spent a lot of time on the border. to him earlier this week about that, and he was very happy that at least one third of the members had gone down to see the border. he says as soon as they go down, they understand the enormity of the pressure. i have been down to the border myself, and the thing i was impressed with was not only the professionalism of the border patrol agent the way that they .perate it is a very high-tech system. the other thing i was impressed with, just the piece that i saw, there will be a fence here but not somewhere else. but there might the ground

r who can track anybody coming across. the thing that people realize who go down and visit is that it is complex. each sector has a different challenge. some sectors are used heavily by foot traffickers, others that are basically in the middle of nowhere. it gives these numbers and understanding that they cannot just put forth some sort of amendment that they are going to build an 18 foot fence with armed wire all the way across 2000 miles of the -- with barbed wire all the way across 2000 miles of the border. host: john, our democrats line. caller: with this bill legalizing 11 million illegals, does your guests have any sense as to how or what the feeling is regarding those people who are looking -- who are here or looking to come here legally --

does she have any sense as to what the view is of the people passing this will, how it relates to those people willing to come here legally? you have 11 million people who are suddenly going to become a legal -- or become legal who entered illegally. if i may make a general statement relating to immigration -- and maybe your guest may want to comment on this -- don't you think that in america today we have of you of this "bring me your tired, your poor, your hungry," which was valid when the country was growing, but we are in an entirely different world today in this 21st century. don't you think our politicians who are looking to pass these bills are looking more to the votes of the immigrants as opposed to what is best for the

country? they are looking really to their self interest in a great part of this immigration a committee, and i would like your caller's views on that, if possible. , the: taking then in order answer to the first question about what we do with people trying to come here legally, that is a very big part of the bill. you might have heard this, that the people who are here undocumented have to get in the back of the line, which means they are supposed to legalize all the people waiting for green cards first before these other folks can have access to a green card and to possible citizenship. what that means impracticality, though, is that the department of homeland security has a backlog of people. -- there are employment-based green cards, numbers of categories.

but the department of homeland security will clear the background -- we're that backlog very quickly. the problem is that there is a hard cap on the permanent visas and green cards that we have. once we hit that cap, the people waiting in line have to wait until the next year. that is a big consideration for members of congress, and they really want to make sure that they are fair to people trying to get here legally. just answering the second point, which involves how we think about immigration generally, that is underlying a lot of the debate we are seeing right now with conservatives who are concerned about the cost of bringing in immigrants to this country. the conservative heritage foundation has put out a study that is being disputed by a number of people, but they say the amount of social benefits

that would be taken from immigrants amounts to the trillions of dollars. but then you look at other economists who argue that immigration is really good for the country. there are specifics out there that show that for every immigrant who comes into town, two or three other american jobs are created. startups are started by immigrants. that is a big debate that is ongoing, and i believe will continue to be ongoing regardless of whether the bill passes. host: here is a headline in "the washington times," $6.3 trillion projected cost for legalization. conservatives fault they heritage report. "six years ago, a heritage foundation report helped kill

immigration reform. now the conservative think tank is on the defensive, facing attacks from conservatives over a similar report." that.to how are we seeing this play out? guest: this is a great story that i think the media picked up on a lot. i find it kind of amusing because essentially you have those coke different factions of the conservative party that are debating one another. the important thing to know about the heritage study -- $6.3 trillion, yes, that is over 50 years. salt on that.n of there is a lot that can happen in over 50 years. including we have social security reform to do. the heritage report -- and they are clear about this -- they are only looking at the cost of living in the united states, so they are taking an estimate of how much it costs the united states in all benefits -- including things like roads and

schools, for example -- if you're in a household that does not have a high school education. the estimate becomes $4500 a year, i believe. but they are not taking into account the benefits that would be paid. they are discounting taxes that would come from anybody who is working here, but the rest of the benefits in terms of job creation and growth -- keep in mind that the current american population is actually decreasing in terms of its reproduction rate, but then you have the hispanic population, the large majority of the undocumented who are increasing at a much higher rate. i think we need those workers and their tax revenue to pay for social security. when you aretly, looking at the dispute between the free market side, cato is a libertarian groups. law andho are much more

order, the people who are willing to say that spend a whole lot of money to make sure ,hat we reinforce our borders keep the country in the state that it is in, that is an ongoing dispute among conservatives for a long time. host: we are talking about immigration reform. melvin fromler is texas, republican line. how are you doing? caller: i am good. i have been listening to this hearing, and it is the most top again the thing i have ever saw. i drive a few thousand miles on a new car in texas and oklahoma. all outside jobs are done by immigrants. paving, state construction jobs coming out of houston, oklahoma city. when they pay the street, they run the machines. they put out that they do the low skill jobs. i am 72. in the 1950's@1960's, people

made a living for their family doing that. -- in the 1950's and 1960's, people made a living for their family doing that. overpopulation has killed us. theree big news says will be three in six. every small town like oklahoma and texas -- i go to both of them. i am originally from oklahoma, been down here 10 years. these people are taking over everything. they drive the paving machines, the graders. one guy says building a home with a guy who works for crap, from texas, there are so many immigrants building the homes now and stuff, he says they work cheap and they do work hard. they do work hard but they work cheap. guest: it is interesting to hear that. again, this is the kind of fear that people are expressing, and this is also -- keep in mind

that they are also taking over the country? that is something that members of congress, particularly in the house, hear when they go home to their constituents. they want to make sure they are not offending someone like the caller. if you are just viewing people paving the roads or various other jobs that you see outside, some of them may look like they are immigrants, but chances are a lot of them are americans. especially in texas and arizona. i have been down there, and there is a long history of families who are there for years who are all americans. it is mixed, and that is the place where i think some people have difficulty, that there are undocumented immigrants working on the roads, there are undocumented immigrants working on roofs. that is the jobs that they can get. keep in mind the face of the country is changing in certain

places, and some people are very uncomfortable with that. this is something i suspect will be a bigger issue should it ever go to the house, because most of the republicans in the house are in districts where more of their constituents are expressing views like our caller, and less of them will be saying go ahead and fix this, it is all kind of a mess anyway and i would rather not have to worry about whether or not the person next door will get deported. the: a timeline for us, senate judiciary right now -- when do you see it going before the full senate? and then what happens in the house? what kind of parallel work are they doing, and how is the white house involved? guest: the senate is the easiest one to talk about. senator leahy, who runs the judiciary committee, expects them to mark up the bill and have it ready by labor day. they expect to do the same thing again on tuesday and thursday, looking at each individual title of the bill.

i think it will pass through the committee without too many problems. the next step is to put it on the senate floor. that will take a couple of weeks of floor debate, and that will happen after the memorial day recess, in a week or so. depending on what happens, there is some doubt as to how many votes the bill would have in the senate. the members of the gang are looking for upwards of 70 votes, meaning they want to have a sizable chunk of the republicans as well as almost all the democrats vote for something like this because they think that will help. then we get to the big question, which is what happens when this bill goes to the house. we know a couple of things. ande speaker john boehner the majority leader eric cantor are fully in favor of moving forward and doing something. we also know there are lots of republicans in the house who are not at all comfortable with what the senate is doing. particularly, the chairman of

the house judiciary committee, bob goodlatte, is wanting to go slower and pack individual bills piece by piece, deal with things they can deal with on their own. how that plays out is still in question. the house judiciary committee will be having hearings on individual pieces of the bill, but they are not committed to doing any kind of markups or anything. meanwhile, we also have a house gang of eight, like the senate gang of eight, who are putting together their own comprehensive package. my guess is we will see some and then arid pieces big bill being debated on the floor. and then what happens, they do a formal conference or any of this pinging back and forth in the house and senate -- a lot of it will depend on the public reaction. whether people are more like our callers, who are saying don't do this, and other people are saying please fix this problem, we have been dealing with it for long enough. int: the president was

texas yesterday, but not talking about immigration. he was talking about job initiatives. how does the white house get involved in this, and what are they looking at in terms of their political power to get something accomplished as we head toward 2016? guest: i think the role of president obama when it comes to immigration, at least, he is kind of the puppet master. he really does not want to be out front in this because he knows he needs republicans, and he needs republicans running against his record in 2016. it has been very interesting to watch, the dynamic, a cousin there are people in the white house dealing with this for a long time. cecelia mu is one of the -- munoz really understand this backwards and forwards. it is not like they don't know what they are doing, but they the opportunity to

let congress work as well. republicans have as much credit for a passing as they do. in the end, if it passes, resident obama is the one who gets to sign it, but we have a possible presidential candidate in marco rubio who gets to say that he is the one who brought republicans along. desk,fawn johnson is our correspondent for "national journal," who covers migration as well as other topics. she has also written about the gun debate. less talk to our next collar, stanley -- our next caller, from massachusetts, stanley. caller: i have worked on so many engineering jobs across the country, with 30 different nationality engineers in this country. h-1b's, and some who come in on

a tourist visa. they don't pay any taxes. all the jobs are temporary. , ther as the border goes border is the international airport. they could sense the entire country in. it doesn't mean anything. am glad that we brought this collar on -- this caller on. we have not talked about the high-skill piece of this. this is not the undocumented population. are here in ao skilled capacity are in on some kind of visa. the h-1b is the most common one, and the tourist visa i had not heard of that one. a lot of them are temporariey. it is not true that they are not paying taxes. they pay payroll taxes and other

kinds of taxes. but there is a fair amount of debate particularly in the engineering community about whether these foreign workers are actually any better than the american engineers we have now. one of the things that this bill would do, it would make it much more difficult for who rely on h-1b workers to hire them. they would have to start paying pretty steep fines almost immediately if they have more of there will -- more than half of their workers on h-1b visas. 2/3. it is really big business model changing types of stuff. they want to make sure they have access to workers. there are high-profile cases of google and microsoft moving operations to canada because they could not have access to the foreign workers that they needed. but that in and of itself will likely be resolved in some kind of compromise fashion, which would mean employers who want

to bring in high skilled immigrant workers will have to pay a fine, and they also have to offer jobs to american workers first. it is not even clear how it is going to work. theyding on whatever decide to make as the criteria for hiring a foreign worker, it can only help american workers, particularly engineers. i hear from a lot of them. they might be skill but they don't have a particular programming language that an employer is looking for. so they worry they are being passed over for someone who does. immigration reform with fawn johnson. let's go to michigan, karen, up next on our democrats line. caller: hi. a thingly watched

showing about a migration study and talking about migration as opposed to immigration, and how mexico and central american countries could benefit by having an open-border policy where people could go from central america and the united states, and depending on where their needs were, whether it is an aging population, we will have a high need for people to take care of them. mexico is starting to develop, becoming a country where people are coming into that country for jobs. i think if they took the dollars they are spending on border security, and for god's sake the damned lobby -- i'm sorry -- i think the whole area could benefit from this. i just think all these arguments -- we stole this

country from mexico and the american indians. that is just a fact that people forget. of built it on the backs people from africa, and now we are demonizing them. to me, that makes absolutely no sense. i think the migration as opposed to immigration, the worrying -- it would make so much more sense. the conversation was so intelligent with leaders from the united states, mexico, central american countries. it is humanitarian, it is intelligent, and the global economy that people -- it is just like we are america, the best country. it is a global economy, and to me it makes no sense. host: ok, karen, thanks for your call. guest: i think that is a very good point. there are numbers of analysts and economists who i think largely agree with our caller, that they would be a lot easier

if there were not limits on people who could come into the united states. the biggest problem is that we have a huge imbalance into the united states versus mexico and other central american countries. that is essentially the problem. one of the more fascinating things about migration patterns generally is that as the 2008 and 2009,in so did the number of illegal border crossings. they went down significantly because people knew they could not find work here. whereas prior to that, the housing market, this huge construction boom, you had half a million immigrants crossing the border illegally to come and take those jobs. that really the economy is what drives this, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal. a numberhe argument of of these people pushing this

forward. richard, minneapolis, minnesota, republican, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have about three points. the skilled workers, i think you should do like whitaker smith said when he was on a few days ago. he said in germany the companies train the workers if they don't have a particular skill. we should follow that model for the skilled workers instead of bowing to bill gates so he can get cheaper workers. there are a lot of program results that are unemployed. on the unskilled workers, and a lot of people are unemployed that our citizens here, and they should be hired first, and sanctions should be put on the employers who are hiring illegals. if they didn't have work, they would not come here.

we have a lot of people that need work that are american citizens, born here, that should be given the work first. host: richard, the question of -- jobs came up yesterday. lindsay graham talked about the difference between the mexican and canadian border and how jobs come into play. let's take a listen. many fencesnow how we have along the canadian border. if we have any, i don't know about it. i don't know how many security people we have along the canadian border. i doubt it is 21,000. why are we uok up there and not to the south? the tale of two borders -- why is one of problem and the other is not? because canada is a place where people like to stay. they like canada, we like

canada. we love to have them visit, they want to go home because it is a nice place. people coming across the southern border live in hellholes. they don't like that. they want to come here. our problem is we cannot have everyone in the world who lives in a hellhole coming to america. we have to create order out of chaos. you have to do something on the southern border you don't do in the northern border, but if you don't agree that the differences jobs, then we just don't agree. there are 11 million people coming to the southern border because they come from countries where they cannot find work and life is miserable. so it seems to me that if you could control who gets the jobs, you have gone a long way to controlling illegal immigration. host: senator lindsey graham in the hearing yesterday. fawn johnson, what do you make of his comments? glad you pulled that.

that was my favorite moment from the two dishy or a committee yesterday. thetor graham -- from judiciary committee yesterday. senator graham has an amazing way with words. he is making the exact point that i think everyone who wants to see something change on immigration is making, urges that the reason why people come here -- and i have met people like this -- people making five cents a day in mexico can come across the border illegally and clean houses and make five dollars a day. why wouldn't you do that? he is saying why don't we come up with a rational way to let some of these people in, but then we also have to come down on the border because we cannot have everyone come in the country who wants to be here. he should be given credit for saying it like it is. -- i think most economists would agree, not everyone, that immigration is good for the country and the economy, but certainly you

cannot have everyone for mexico were some of these other war- torn countries to come in and work. we have our own country to run, and that is the point he is trying to make, which i thought was amazing. host: donna, st. louis, missouri, independent line. caller: good morning. i want to -- am i speaking -- host: yes, you are on the air. caller: there are two voices coming on to me. twont to know why republicans and business owners are going to fight us along the way. if you legalize the ones here, which i think they should do, business employers will not only have to pay the minimum wage to these people, they are going to have to pay medicare and social security taxes also. i don't really see how this can't pass, quite frankly. i would love to see it, but i would be shocked if it does. guest: i don't disagree about

the sentiment about whether it will pass. i see more at the wind of the backs of opponents than i had in years. i covered this back in 2006 and 2007, and that was a huge maelstrom of activity and it died spectacularly on the senate floor. businesser the community wants this to pass, they actually wanted very badly to pass. part of the reason is they are dealing with a completely irrational system. the people hurt most by our immigration system is the undocumented population who are by and large it would either intentionally or unintentionally, and then you have the employer community, who sometimes they don't know whether or not the person they are hiring is legal or illegal. if they turn out to be here without papers, they have to pay significant fines. their ability to check for it is really hampered. verifyy sign up for the e-

program, that could mean they could be subject to fines, tentative nonconfirmation for somebody. they have to keep an employer for a certain -- an employee for a certain amount of time, and then they have to let them go. a lot of employers are paying taxes and social security for undocumented workers who have a fake social security card. it is a real mess. whether or not they actually managed to take care of it is up for debate because as we can see, it is an issue to take somebody who broke the law and say it is ok, we want you here. pay a fine and we are good. host: one of our callers and pete yesterday, said, "the only ones attending from leaving the system as it is are the employers that hire

illegals everywhere they can to save money." says, "it will pass the senate controlled by democrats, but it will not pass in the house controlled by republicans." giving his odds on what may happen. on twitter, not who doesn't like the oz. he says, "no immigration bill is going to make it right now. if there is a 12 year wait, democrats want to kill it. if there is no border security, republicans want to kill it." , independenta color. caller: i have not been able to work since 2007, and now you are going to give amnesty and a pathway to citizenship to criminals who come across the border because they enter the country illegally, and you will not give me my right back to support my right and -- to support my wife and daughter? that is discrimination, and i don't believe in it. guest: one important thing to

note is it is true that people across the border who come in illegally -- not everybody does that, a lot of them come in on extend theirnd stay illegally. those are not crimes, they are misdemeanors. if they are repeat offenders, they are charged as criminals and they are not allowed to come back. host: one quick final thing, we are seeing other issues coming up and being incorporated in this bill. "the washington times" says that gay rights may be an obstacle. how is this being incorporated in this right now. gay rights are one of the more salient issues coming into this. national security-related issues, they are part and

parcel of the idea of immigration reform, so i would not call them not germane. but this one is interesting because there is a group of gay rights activists who want to have same-sex couples to have the same rights as do married couples. so the chairman of the committee, senator leahy of vermont, actually has a couple of amendments that will be voted on in the next week or so that would give same-sex couples the right to sponsor their partner as a legal resident of the united states. it would also give the international couples the same rights under the law. right now they cannot do that under the defense of marriage act. those are called pillar of merriment's -- pillar amendments, and my hunch is that they would be voted down by republicans. host: fawn johnson, thank you

for talking to us this morning. coming up next, we talked to the political successor of the dolly lama -- of the dalai lama about to that. homicides are down, but when people are killed, it is most likely with a jet -- with a gun. we will hear from "usa today" reporter kevin johnson. we will be right back. lot more/11, a whole people cared about national security issues than was the case before. so all of a sudden there was a ,arket for former cia folks

former defense intelligence agency, even former national security agencies, all those guys who are used to operating forhe shadows saw a market their services as commentators, book writers. so there was this somewhat uncomfortable kind of interaction between the agencies and the former employees. at the time i thought waterboarding was something we need to do. as time has passed and 9/11 has moved into history, i have changed my mind and i think waterboarding is not something we should be in the business of doing. >> why do you say that now? >> because we are americans and we are better than that. >> this is a guy who by most accounts served his country

well in dangerous situations, who risked his life to take on al qaeda and pakistan and to take on terrorism before that, and he is going off to prison for 30 months, leaving his young family behind. scotts weekend on "q&a," shane on the story of a jailed security officer. sunday at 8:00 on c-span. she is the first first lady to earn a college degree, and during the civil war, soldiers serving under her husband called her the mother of the regiment. opposing slavery, she influences her husband to switch from the whig party to the anti-slavery republican party, and she is also the one who started the first annual white house easter egg roll. the first lady of rutherford b. hayes.

also on c-span radio and c- span.org. "washington journal" continues. lobsang sangay is the prime minister of the tibetan government in exile. guest: it is very kind of you to invite me. host: you are tibetan, but you have never been to tibet? guest: i have been to beijing, and i made a request that i be allowed to go, and they said they did not allow people to receive me. i told them you have 1.3 billion people, and it should not be the case. what unfortunately the chinese my entryes refused into tibet. unfortunately, i have not been to tibet. but i am proud to be born as a tibetan, proudly serving the tibetan people, so it is a great honor and privilege.

host: explain how the tibetan government in exile functions, where you grew up, and how does the central tibetan administration function? left tibet innts 1959, under the dolly lama -- the dalai lama. -- thedy is invited to tibetan administration has 1500 staff makers, -- staff members, part-time and full-time. when any other government, it has international relations and 12 or so officers, embassies. reaching overseas, around 70- plus schools. and then the department of finance takes care of the money, the department of health takes care of clinics and hospitals. the department of religion and --ture, with monasteries and

we have replicated most of the asian monasteries were , and the security department and the home department takes care of all the tibetan settlements. , have a cabinet of six members including the seven-member team, and we function like any other government. host: if you would like to join the conversation, here are the numbers. familiar face is the dalai lama. we see the picture in "the baltimore sun" with maryland governor martin o'malley. tell us about the role of the dalai lama. you are his political successor. what does that mean?

guest: it was very kind of the government of maryland to host this. i was there just two years ago. was boththe dalai lama the spiritual and political leader, and he decided to dissolve all of it magnanimously. i got elected by seven people -- by the dependent people -- by the tibetan people. now our most revered leader -- now i am in charge of the political. ,here are big shoes to fill challenges of humongous proportion, but i am doing the best i can. and the tibetans inside and outside tibet have supported the transition and the unity and

the spirit of the tibetan people inside and outside, never greater in recent years. host: our guest, lobsang sangay is the president of the tibetan government in exile. he has succeeded the political dalai lama into that. , "tibet is the test of china's rise." you wrote this after president obama was reelected. you said the president should put the spotlight on abuses. why is this crucial for the american government relationship with china? guest: the international community and the u.s. and the tibetan government -- the tibetan government says that their foreign policy is theeful rights, and

domestic policy is harmony. but there is not peace or harmony, and it is contradicted by the reality into that. we have invested in democracy for the last many decades. and democracy and nonviolence should be promoted and supported the major democracies around the world, because it is the right thing to do. the tibetan administration is based on those principles. also the u.s. constitution, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is very much what we aspire. they are supportive of the tibet issue, that they should rest on the tibetan government -- the chinese government to solve repressive policy. it is very demoralizing, and 170 tibetans have

committed self immolation, burned themselves. a significant number of them are how -- it reflects desperate the tibetans are, and at the same time how determined the tibetans are that they would protest and resist the oppressive policies of the government. published aill" recent piece where you talked about tibetans doing themselves, self immolation, and you talk ,bout how last month two youths a 20 --year-old and a 22 to having-year-old set themselves on -- and a 23-year-old set themselves on fire. explain what this means. -- eachf you look on

time there is a protest into that -- if you shout a slogan, human rights, you get arrested. if you place a poster, you are arrested. what happens after that, long- term imprisonment, torture, death andlness, and disappearance. so if you look at the genesis and a harsh consequences that they suffer, tibetans are thinking that it is better to self immolate and die than suffer so long in prison. hence, many of them say don't make me fall in the hands of the authorities because falling into the hands of chinese authorities and suffering so long is so much worse, they would rather commit self- immolation. 170 tibetans have burned themselves, and it is the

highest toll on this planet in recent years. but still, not much is known about it. as far as the tibetan administration is concerned, our stance is very clear. as a human being, we discourage drastic actions by human beings, including self-immolation because we do not want anyone to die like that. but as a buddhist, we pray for anyone who dies. as a tibetan, the aspirations are the aspirations of tibetans everywhere. that is they want to see the return of the sovereignty of tibet and freedom for the tibetan people. these are our aspirations, and we all want to do what we can to support so that tibetans can have basic freedom. and that the self-immolation will and. -- will end. lobsang sangay is our

guest. let's hear from sarasota, florida, democrats line. welcome. caller: is there any kind of generation gap in the exile community where exiles -- older exiles are more dovish, and the younger exiles want to confront china? guest: yes, the generation gap is natural, so when you are younger, you have more emotion and are more passionate. hence they are more independent, many of them. when you are more reasonable -- when you are older you are more reasonable and sensible. the administration policy is to receiveuine autonomy, the framework of the constitution. neither repression nor separation from china, but genuine autonomy. under chinese law, so tibetans can have their own culture,

their own identity. it is true that some younger generation people think we should pursue more than genuine autonomy, including independents. but the administration policy and supported by mainstream tibetans remains genuine autonomy for the tibetan people. host: what would you like to see congress and the obama administration do regarding tibet? congress has done a lot for the tibetan people, as well as different administrations, including the obama administration, for which we are very grateful to the government and to the people of america. , given theime now vicious cycle of depression, resistance. the congress and the u.s. government should send a clear message and a strong message to the chinese government that we have to find a peaceful solution to the issue of tibet

through dialogue. and then from that dialogue, between the chinese government and the tibetan representatives, you know, from 2002 to 2010 there were nine rounds of dialogue between chinese ,epresentatives and tibetans but there has not been any since 2010, so it has been more than three years. not from lack of effort from our part. we are willing to engage in dialogue any time and anywhere to solve the issue of tibet. stories about china in the newspapers. the front page of "the washington post" says a frustrated chinese are trying their luck at president obama's door. "the chinese people have been putting in requests online to foment change from the obama administration. in a strange and diplomatically awkward turn of events, chinese citizens have flocked to the white house website over the

weeks to launch formal petitions against their own government. some are deadly serious, others from otis -- others frivolous and some both." film's most celebrated maker is being investigated for potential violation of family- planning laws, confirming reports in the state news media. that story comes from "the new york times." tell us more about the relationship with china, and give us more of a sense of history of how did that has come to the place it is now. if you look at the map of 60% of the area has historically been inhabited by minorities, of which between one fourth and 1/5 constitute did that.

-- constituted that. , and is a huge territory geographically important because of so many rivers flowing from tibet. there ares these -- quite a copper mines, lot into that. so historically tibet was an independent nation. there is no dispute about it. from the seventh and eighth century on. theit was occupied by present communists, chinese government, in 1951. now the situation, the continued u occupation and repression have made the situation from bad to worst. there is a lot of resentment,

so we are trying to find a peaceful so lucian to the situation. writes,nte on twitter fear the creation of free buddhist tibet will be a model for other religious groups in china to seek independence quest quot?" guest: the chinese government has also accepted one system in hong kong and macau, so there is aways -- there is already constitutional mechanism to solve the issue of threat. by granting basic freedom to the tibetan people, it could encourage the chinese government give basic freedom to other people or other people with different religious orientation. that should be welcomed. host: our guest is the prime minister in exile of the government of tibet. is our equivalent of a

prime minister. he is also a senior fellow at the east asian legal studies program at harvard law school, so you are at harvard right now. guest: i was at harvard law school for 16 years from 1995 to 2011. i did my master's and doctorate, which i finished in 2004, been employed there since 2011 -- employed thereby -- employed there until 2011. then i left the u.s., harvard, and went to serve the tibetan people. that is why -- that is where i am located, so presently i am not -- host: located in india. so i: located in india, don't have the coffee that we have here, but i have tasty chai. north in india, so

close to the nepalese border, close to the kashmir border, the cap the stand -- the pakistan border. to tibet thenarer to cambridge, massachusetts. , i can our day comes cross over the mountains and be with the tibetan people, return to tibet. that will be one of the best stories of the 21st century, and that day will come. one ofhy will that be the best stories of the 21st century? guest: because if you look at the size of the tibetan population, we are just half a percent of the chinese population. but then we are invested in democracy and nonviolence for the last many decades, so in some ways we have been the model of the struggle for so many other marginalized ethnic groups around the world. so if nonviolence and democracy

succeeds, it will be a very good story. economicallychina and militarily to accept the model should be good for china as well. and then stories of nonviolence. that will be a very good story for the 21st century. host: let's hear from george joining us from florida. republican caller. where are you from in florida? caller: ocala, florida, in central florida. with all due respect, i think you are the most beautiful celebrity on tv these days. that i am at agree, celebrity, but go ahead with your wetjen anyway. caller: i am a vietnam combat vet. when i got out, people told me that i was crazy for fighting

for what was called the domino effect. communism sweeping through asia. now, i was a 19-year-old poor kid, so i had nothing to do with politics, nor did i know anything about politics. but i got out of the army and did what i could do. now given the fact that china and its inhuman events against tibet, do you feel that the domino effect was correct at that time, this time, or both? thank you very much. the domino effect, one country turning communists were having a different -- and then having different regimes follow. guest: something i am sure he is very similar -- familiar with is the mekong river, but it origin dates -- it originates in tibet. it has a regional implication.

river starts from tibet and flows to india and pakistan. from tibet to india and bangladesh. close allong river, the way to laos, cambodia. and the yanks river -- the yangtse river. wars were fought over land, energy, and wars fought over water. the problem with the chinese government is that they have yet to sign many of the treaties, the un treaties with regard to water sharing. and then the neighboring countries are very nervous as to what will happen if the chinese government or the chinese companies started damming rivers. and unfortunately, there are

anywhere from one to two to 20 dams of rivers. whether they are environmentally sensitive, and whether they are culturally sensitive, and not all of these are big questions. i will give you one example. there was a mining accident a year ago the chinese government labeled it a model mine. a year later it collapses. if the model mining is collapsing in tibet, it is minings that 205 taking place, estimated up to 3000. there are 132 thousand different types of metals in tibet. billions of tons of reserves. the poisons on the chemicals they u