so students are prepared for the high-tech jobs for tomorrow. and that businesses offer flexibility to be good employees and good parents. i really want to commend deloitte and the ceos who are with us here today. the are creating exactly the kind of innovative workplaces that help hard-working americans thrive, and they are committed to act. when you have a chance to talk to joe, say thank you. ceos who are out there, if you ,ant a first-class company tapping into the talents and resources of all of your employees, make sure you are putting in place systems so they all feel like they are being treated fairly and equally. it is a simple principle, and it is a powerful one. and now is the time to make sure that we are putting in

place a minimum wage that you can live on, because 60% of those making the minimum wage are women. [applause] , and thisof this will be part of our broader agenda to create new -- the jobs and strengthen middle- class security, to keep rebuilding an economy that works for everybody, that gives every american the chance to get ahead, the matter who you are or what you look like and what your last name is, do you love -- who you love. that is what i will keep on fighting for, what you will keep on fighting for and we have all of you and your theecessors to thank for progress in eliminating the barriers and injustices that might keep our daughters from enjoying the same rights and chances and freedoms as our sons. i am proud of you. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you, mr. president. >> as the president wraps up, we will hear him once again in jasonst room, to nominate furman as chair of the president out -- counsel of economic advisers. he has worked as an economist in the clinton white house, and before that he was a senior advisor at the world bank. we will have it live on c-span, .et for 2:10 eastern we will have live coverage of a forum on u.s. cyber security efforts here and abroad. among the speakers, former ambassador and national intelligence director john negroponte and former ibm ceo samuel palma sato live at 12:30

p.m. eastern on c-span -- sunna.no -- samuel palma the house gavels and tomorrow at noon eastern and 2:00 for legislative work. it's a slater's are expected to focus the second half of the week on the -- legislators are typically focused the second half of the week on spending on national defense, an additional 86 billion dollars for overseas contingency operations. the senate is gambling back at 2:00 p.m. eastern. they will continue to debate a bipartisan proposal to create a path to citizenship for most of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants and improve border security and put cap on visas for higher skilled workers. and on friday lawmakers are expected to vote on final passage of the farm year which sets policy for farm subsidies, crop insurance, and the food stamp program. watch the house live here on c- span as always and the senate on c-span2.

in poor health, first lady ida mckinley also suffered from epilepsy and because of that her husband, president william mckinley, would sit next to her at the innocent so when she would have a seizure he would shield her face with a large handkerchief. despite her health problems, she traveled as first lady, attending the 19 a will -- 19 oh one pan-american exposition where her mother was assassinated. we will look at her life as would conclude this series on first ladies live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c- span three also on c-span radio and www.c-span.org. mf as the incentive auctions,ii- >> as the incentive auctions upon us now, i do think the -- as the spectrum auctions are upon us now, i do think the fcc needs to spirit in a way that very small, medium-sized, and toge companies are able)

compete relative to spectrum. and the idea that the big fish up little fish, i don't think it's healthy for our economy. they all have a business plan. obviously they want to make money. but when you look at the market in the country am a 80% is owned -- markets in the country, 80% is owned, in terms of the beachfront most valuable spectrum -- and spectrum is gold in our country and we have to do much more in order to loosen and free it up. auction,c spectrum))()))()))))( cyber security and freedom on( the internet tonight on "the communicators was quote at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2. 12:30 p.m., a at forum on u.s. cyber security efforts here and abroad from the council on foreign relations. until then, discussion of the federal health care law impact on young adults from today's "washington journal." host: we will continue our.

look at the health care law and its effects. today we focus on young adults under the age of 26 and how the health care law is affecting them. in this segment we have a special line set up for those who are 26 and under to talk about the health care law, and for your questions. we have jonathan block, a reporter with "modern healthcare" to answer those questions. first question for you, how are young adults impacted by the rules changes in the 2010 affordable care act? guest: perhaps the biggest change for young adults, specifically those under the age of 26. a provision that had already gone into effect allows young people who are under the age of 26 to remain covered under their parents health insurance plans. that has allowed, according to to have sixrelease,

point 6 million young adults under the age of 26 covered by the affordable care act. show some stats we will for our viewers. young adults are allowed on the parents insurance up to the age of 26. they can be married. they can live separately from their parents. they could be enough or out of school. they can be financially independent. they can also be eligible for employer plans unless in a grandfathered group plan. talk about that last stat and explained that. guest: the grandfathered? there are a number of plants that do not have to abide by certain regulations. they are known as grandfathered. however, those plans would have to abide by the aca regulations by, i believe, 2017. host: for those using the parents plants, is there anything else that would disqualify you from being on plans?rents

guest: not that i know what. -- called other host: other sx beside that change? guest: one of the main purposes care act is tole have americans who are under insured or uninsured covered. a large number of young people do not have covered. they feel like they are invincible and therefore they don't need to get coverage. now, just like everybody else who will benefit in this country from the aca, young people are now guaranteed coverage under the health reform law. host: president obama on friday in san jose, california, talked a little bit about what this has done for young people. we will play a bit of that. [video clip] you just got a wide array of the benefits, better protections, and stronger cost controls you do not have before and that will over time improve the quality of insurance that

you've got. , fluntive care, checkups shots, mammograms, and contraception. getare going to be able to those things through your insurance where they previously did not have to be provided. put sections like allowing people up to the age of 26 tuesday on their parents health care plans him a which has already helped 6 million americans. including 6 million young latino americans. host: in that video, the president said at the end, including 6 million young latino americans. that was a wrong number there. what is the right number? guest: according to a may 2 news release put out by h h x, 6.6 million, and it includes all young people under the age of 26 -- a news release put out by hhs. host: the numbers --

we have a special line set up for those who are 26 and under. that own number is -- mr. block will answer your questions for you to the best of his abilities in this segment. talk a little bit more about the enrollment of young adults and how the number has gone up. a few more stats for you, courtesy of hhs. 3.1 million young adults have been added. young men coverage has increased from 57% to 72% and young women, 71% to 78%. what is the timeframe? is that -- guest: that is from 2011, when the provision allowed young people under the age of 26 to be covered under their parents health lands. that is only since 2011.

host: on that coverage, here is a chart from "u.s. news & world report" showing the uptick in young people who are covered ages 19 to 25. this chart shows the blue line, the number of uninsured from 2010 to 2012. 31% of young people back in 2010, and that dropped down to 21% in 2012. youngble note that adults are solely responsible for the overall drop in uninsured adult populations from 20% in 2010 to 19% in 2012, as they were the only age groups to report a decline. why was it just a young people? mostly attributed to this new provision? guest: almost entirely it should -- a credible -- attribute will to the new provision. attributale to the under 26

provision. host: we will start with family from massachusetts on the independent line. stanley, your thoughts on how the health care law is attacked -- is impacting young adults. caller: hello? do whoes a 27-year-old owns college loans, has no job, what does he do? , that is a great question. someone who is age 26 or above that, they would have to get their health insurance on the health insurance exchanges that many of the viewers have probably heard about. the enrollment for that begins october 1 20 13 for coverage january 1, 2014. if you have a young person who is in the situation by the caller just described, who is 27, they would be eligible for exchange subsidies. the way that works is it is

based on the person's annual income. andhey are between 100% 400% of the federal poverty level, they would be eligible for some level of subsidies. and in states that have decided to expand medicaid -- not every state has chosen to do that -- ofyour income is up to 138% the federal poverty level, then you would be eligible for medicaid. host: explained the exchange is a little bit for folks who are still owns -- an sure about how this works. anst: it is basically online marketplace. some people have called it an amazon.com for health insurance. that is largely correct. october 1, as i just mentioned, if you would like to get health coverage for coverage starting january 1, 2014, you would go to your state health insurance

exchange, which is online, and you would enter in some information as far as your age, income level, and some other information. then it will give you a selection of different health lands to choose from, and they will vary based on what is known ness of benefits.hi planswill be these tier that go from bronze at the bottom, two silver and gold and platinum. the differences have to do with different deductible and co-pay levels. obviously the platinum level plan, you would have a higher premium but your co-pay and adoptable would be lower. host: you but a story about whether young adults on parents policies could impact those exchanges -- you wrote a story. the uptick in the number of young people now on their parents policies take people out of the pool that could be

used to help lower the costs. explain this. insurance way that works is you have every body who gets covered, they are in a whole pool. add will include both young people, who tend to be healthy and don't have that many medical expenses, then you also have a lot of older people who are in it we tend to have a more medical issues. so, the issue that i brought up in my modern healthcare article is that if you have approximately 6.6 million young adults under the age of 26 oh are covered under their parents policies, that 6.6 million relatively healthy young americans who will not be getting their coverage in the health and -- health insurance exchanges, what that will do is, you need to have a large number of healthy individuals because of the healthy individuals the ones who essentially help pay for the individuals in the exchange will have greater

medical needs. without enough young people in it, the risk pools will be off and it could possibly mean more -- higher insurance premiums for everybody in the exchange. host: jonathan block is a reporter for "modern healthcare" but has been reporting on health issues for quite a while. also work?you guest: previously at atlantic information services, health reform week and health plan week, and i was a pharmaceutical reporter for many years working for publications like "fda news ." host: we are talking about the health care law is affecting young people, specifically those under 26. we have a line set up for those folks -- if you are a young person and have a question about how the health care law applies to you, give us a ring. we will go to our republican line.

rapid city, michigan. jeff, you are on with jonathan block. i'll ago i am listening to the kindness spreading propaganda and not see them -- caller: i am listening to the communist spreading propaganda at nausea him. there were so many promises about obamacare but let's talk dollars and cents. i am a small business owner. premiumre and pay the 100% for all of our employees and families. the premiums have gone up over 30% the last three years. 18% this past year. now a plan that we offered our employees for 17 years is being questioned at the end of the year. they don't even know where we are going to go. we carry the extra water for that grandfathered in -- you will be able to keep your health care plan, you will be able to choose your doctors. for you guys to come on and

talk about the 25-year-old -- you know, 25 has become the new 15 in this country. people don't understand there is no such thing as a free lunch. host: do you think there is still time to repeal the healthcare law? thatr: it is obvious now the whole plan is just to bankrupt the whole private healthcare industry, ok? then we will all be forced onto medicaid. and the other thing, i support my senior citizen in-laws, and two have been driven off different medicare supplement plans in the last two years as those have been closed down. this is what is happening. we are going to smile and talk about how we are covering the kids who don't even want health care, and we are going drive the people who are freaking carrying them water and paying for

everyone else's right out of it. host: a chance to jump in. byst: a lot of points made the caller. starting off with a small business. i actually just wrote a story in today's issue of "modern healthcare." it feels exactly with some of the issues he is talking about with small businesses -- it deals exactly with some of the issues. one of the issues with small businesses is that have to now underby new regulations the affordable care act which includes something called essential health benefits, which are a set of 10 categories every health plan must include. because of that, in many states, the cost of health insurance has been going up. another thing that is negatively impacting people like the gentleman and his business is that there was supposed to be -- there are separate exchange is known as shop

exchanges were specifically for small businesses. those exchanges are separate from the individual exchanges i have been referring to before. hhs is the lame choice in those exchanges by one year in the -- a delay in choice and those exchanges by one year in the federally facilitated exchanges. i will explain in a minute. right now, for people like businessman who just called, they are not going to be able to have a choice if they are in one of the 33 states that is going to be either federally run of theely or the state federal government will operate in partnership. only 17 states will have state run exchanges, which means that the state will run all of the exchange functions. host: let's go to brent from south bend, indiana. on the independent mind. caller: i guess my question is,

i am not young anymore but even ien i was, basically any job ever had all my life, you know, you have to work so many hours to qualify, and once you qualify, it is fine if you keep working and this and that, and then it runs out and then you have a choice of cobra. when this finally does take effect -- i retired at 55. i legs are shot. i worked construction. legs are shot. i do not have enough medical stuff to show proof where i could get disability. forour years, i will file my social security and hope it offset the i need being taxed on my engines that are not state or -- hope itrelated offset what i am being taxed. is there something to make sure

i am insured or something. but what stops an individual from going down and sitting at the hospital all day because they are entitled because they have been mandated to pay into this system that actually i never had half my life and nobody ever cared, now all of a sudden everybody is caring? that is my question. if i've got to pay into it -- i never understood how insurance really works, because even when i was married, the wife would run the kid down because he was sick, you know, and into a three days you get over it and you just grin and bear it. host: talk about the penalty issue and how it works. guest: what he was talking about was disability insurance, which unfortunately i am not an expert at so i cannot address those concerns. some of the other concerns i can address. for example, beginning in 2014,

every american is guaranteed to get health insurance with a copy of of, if they wanted. if they choose not to -- with caveat, if they want it. if they choose not to, they are penalized. it is a relatively small provision, so there is a fear that many health experts have brought up, that the penalty at least in the first year is so many people, including many young people who, as i mentioned before, are needed in the exchanges to balance out the risk. or they just may say, heck with it. go and pay, i think $100 the first year, $100 annually for the first year. it will go up in future years. they may say, i feel young and healthy, that's fine, i am just going to skip it and pay the penalty. there is a real concern that a

lot of young people may end up doing that. host: we are already seeing some effects of the number of young people on their parents'plans. here are stats on nbc news talking about young adult emergency room visits. there were higher visitation amongo emergency rooms young people, and there are 22,000 newly insured young adults who visited the er in 2011, a three percent increase. 147 milliond dollars in claims paid by insurers. 140would have paid for the $7 million had these young people not been on their ?arents' insurance plans guest: the individual states. that is a major issue for them even not counting the young people. right now if you are uninsured, you have a medical emergency, the hospital has to accept you if it is life or death. what happens now, it you go to the emergency room -- say you

go to the emergency room and you can't pay. you obviously get treated, and then the state government has to absorb the cost. free quality hospitals absorb those costs as well. -- frequently, hospitals have to absorb those costs as well. medicaid expansion says, look, we will expand medicaid and all the money to expand medicaid in the first three years, 100% of those costs will be covered by the federal government. it eventually goes down to 90% of the state cost. these are only state to decided to expand medicaid. many states decided not to go and do so. this issue that you brought up will not be an issue anymore. it still may be an issue in states who have chosen not to expand medicaid. host: a minute ago you talked about the penalties that everybody would have to pay. but talk about how the government is reaching out to young people to educate them about healthcare and getting on health care plans before these

penalties kick in. guest: we have, for example -- you just showed the clip of president obama making the speech, trying to appeal to young people. we know secretary sebelius said the same thing with graduations occurring this month. so, they are trying to get young people, especially graduating from college, a big transition time. as far as specifically, other than that, i am not sure. however, they do have a website called health care.gov and they hope to be opening a call center this month. it may be already open for people with questions. individual states will do their own outreach campaigns, state- by-state. penned by a letter kathleen sebelius, secretary of health and human services back in laymen -- act in late may to the graduate, congratulating them on their graduation and informing them of all the benefits that she says they will get him getting on health care plans.

" -- "medcity news city news" -- guest: i heard the argument before, it is difficult to make health insurance sexy. i am not sure many young people care if you put it in an app, whether you make it -- whether you try to be more tech savvy with health insurance. it is something a lot of young people don't think about it cause they think they are young and invincible. let's be honest, healthcare is not the sexiest topic to talk about, even though i enjoy covering it every single day. host: a question for mark stone on twitter, maternity care and important issue. what items must be in all health care plans?

i heard the new law mandates individual health cover maternity care. guest: that is correct. that goes back to the 10 essential have cut benefits, which unfortunately i do not know off the top of my head. what i can tell the person that maternity care definitely is included. host: from louisville, kentucky, on our independent line. you are on with jonathan block from "modern healthcare." will itwhat impact illegal immigrants have on healthcare in the country? the reason i ask is this -- i am retired. six a caregiver of five or elderly people. i take them to and from a public health clinic here in louisville. there are about nine of these health clinics. they are all run by the local government. i take them in. i was sitting in their a couple of weeks ago with about three of them waiting for them to go back and see the doctor.

18 illegaled about immigrants sitting in there. i know they are ill legal because most of them spoke spanish, and a couple were speaking other languages. i speak spanish as well as italian and french. i knew what they were talking about. socialre down there with workers and they came to see the doctors, and they were all illegals. i started talking to them and one of the social workers became aggravated and told them not to speak to me. ont: let's let you comment how it illegal immigration is effecting changes in healthcare law. guest: certainly, one is not suchble for aca provision as guaranteed coverage unless you do have legal status. to my knowledge, illegal immigrants will not be able to aca.coverage under the there may be other programs that are available to them through local social service agencies, private organizations and that sort of thing. but under the aca, you have to

have legal status to qualify, i believe. host: we have a special line set up in this segment for those under 26 with questions about the healthcare law and how it applies to them. adam is on that line from bloomington, indiana. you are on with jonathan block. caller: good morning. and aa general question comment. my question is regarding hsa accounts. i currently have one. i just turned 27, so i am out of that range. but my wife, who i will get to in a second, was covered under the age of 26 under her mother. hsa there be any impact for accounts for younger folks? will we still be able to contribute as we are now? it is extremely beneficial and if you are very young or very old. and my comment generally is, i think it is very important -- i think you guys made the point as well -- most younger folks are

not going to pay for insurance. we have things that happened. i personally broke my elbow, shattered my elbow at age of -- one a4 and that surgery was over $30,000. i would not have been insured if i had not been working full- time. my question is how it will impact hsa accounts. i will hang up. thanks for c-span. guest: that stands for health savings account. there are these new plans -- not quite knew anymore. they have been around for quite some time. but they are growing in popularity. high deductible health plans, also known as consumer driven or consumer focused health plans. >> we are going to leave this conversation now. you can watch the rest of it online on the c-span video library. we will take you live to the council on foreign relations in washington, d.c., or a discussion on cyber security efforts at home and abroad.

among the speakers, former ambassador and national intelligence director john negroponte as well as former ibm isano.muel palma sant >> the question and answer period all on the record. refrain from leaving early, if you can. turn off all devices and anything that makes sound and if you would like to use another tronic device you can do so outside of the room. when you are called upon to ask a question, following the usual procedures, please, stand up and identify yourself. i want to say a few quick words about the task force program. it is chaired by john negroponte and sam palmisano and directed by senior fellow at them segal. cyber issues have dominated the news headlines recently, and this task force has met over the course of the year to consider the broad ranges of challenges and opportunities. task forces, as we all know, are bipartisan and independent. institutional

position. task force members are responsible for the content of their reports and each member participates to his or own capacity. they are consensus documents, meaning the members endorsed the general policy thrust of the judgments reached by the group, but not necessarily every finding a recommendation. task force members are listed on the back of the report, and we thank them for contributions. a number of them have joined us today. , eugene, thank you for being with us today. many others, of course, were instrumental and i thank all of those who contributed, and especially our hard-working staff. i am pleased to turn things over to tom from npr who will guide our discussion today. am a national security correspondent at npr, and i do a

lot of reporting on issues in the cyber domain. so it is a privilege for me to be able to moderate this discussion today and to help introduce this important report. you know, i have been to a lot of these cfr meetings and i usually get stuck way in the back. one of the special privileges of being moderator is you get really a friend and seat. it has become a cliché to say how revolutionary the development of the internet has been, how it has transformed politicalions, organizations, crime, intelligence gathering, and even war fighting. the development has occurred so ,ast that governments lawmaking, our institutions have not had time to adapt to it. this lag, this developmental lag has been exaggerated by the very decentralized nature of the internet. it hasn't needed any superstructure to leave all. but a technology this powerful -- it has not needed any

evolve.ucture to evi but a technology this power attracted the attention to government, especially those who are authoritarian, and it makes it urgent we think carefully about how to defend the internet. we are at this critical moment, and the council on formulations should be commended for focusing on this issue at this time -- the council on foreign relations should be commended for focusing on this issue at this time. i mention for the benefit of my fellow journalists and for people watching on c-span and for those in the room, i am going to make sure we at least touch on some of the current news, ranging from edward snowden's revelations, to the u.s.-china summit that just concluded in california, both of which raise issues relevant to the material we are discussing today. you are familiar with the cochairs -- john negroponte, one of the most distinguished records of public service in

america today, i think in ambassador to the united nations, director of national intelligence and deputy secretary of state, and sam palmisano know something about the technology world, having served as chairman of ibm, and i just found out today sam has been over the course of his career to china 35 times. so, he can lend a lot of expertise when the issue of china comes up. , director ofsiegel this task force. he is one of my own go to sources for all things related to china and cyber issues generally. welcome to all of you. i would like to begin with each of you sharing your favorite point that you have taken away from your deliberations on this task force. that you would like to especially drive home to this audience with respect to this task force. >> i think the most important thing i took away from the task is the origin -- what the

origins of the history of the internet are and how it in many ways apply to the future. the internet itself is old and and collaborative as the technology. looktechnologies, if you at there are agents, were created by an individual company, and that company -- looking at their origins, got created by an individual company and the government got involved. ibm, the mainframe, iker soft, the server model, etc. the importance of the internet is it is open, collaborative. academia, agencies, industry work together. there are informal groups on standards and compliance and the like, and everyone complies with it. i do mention that because, as the task force recommends, to try to defend the model, the key to defend the model is open

dialogue and collaboration. if you shut down the dialogue and collaboration, you are willing to -- you are running the risk of vulcanizing. there is trade off. but the task force came to the conclusion that we need bodies to steer but not necessarily overcontrol. >> ambassador negroponte? >> i guess one of my takeaways this exercise is i reflected on on the different challenges we face in defending the internet. i think this is a great title, by the way. we got that kind of feedback from others we visited around town. andhat however technical scientific the internet may be, that in the end, geopolitics also has quite a bit to do with all of this, and that some of the problems -- in fact, all of these topics -- open, global,

secure, and resilient -- have a political and international dimension to them, not the least thehich -- of which subject you promise to come back to later on. i guess that would be my main observation. there is a significant international and geopolitical dimension to this. >> a very powerful technology. over all theggling recommendations, i will take the view of the parents, which is that i love all equally. [laughter] what i think is most interesting for the report and for the task force and the council more broadly is that there are lots of players that came up in the writing of the report that the council normally doesn't ache about. private companies, we talk about. individual users, users and other countries. ink tanks and other countries helping shape the internet there -- think tanks in other

countries. an age -- we were underrepresented in the task force, but anyone between the ages of 20-30. the main shapers of the task force, of the internet and moving forward. whato we rethink traditionally for the council has been a simple problem of food we talk to? the ministry of foreign relations? the ministry of defense? how do we think about how we address these new constituencies and how do we think about how most of the users coming on will be in developing countries, how do we reach out to them? >> i would like to unite some of the points you all made. one of the promises it seems of your report is that we can defend the internet. sam, as you said, this was a technology that originated in an open system. it originated in the united

states. u.s. agencies had a tremendous amount to do with it. now given its power and its reach, is it presumptuous for you to think that we here in the united states can devise policies that are going to defend the internet? as ambassador never ponte says, we are not talking about -- we are now some in -- talking about something a tremendous geopolitical ramifications, as ambassador negroponte says. role in thea defense of the internet. who can lead? one thing we recommend -- because you will be one of many members participating, just as we do on the engineering side -- so, if you are going to be credible -- drawing analogies with engineering -- if you are not capable of engineering it is hard for you to have a role in this band or two of the evolution of the so, if you are a government, if you are not credible, it will be hard for

you to lead or to convene people who think your way to have influence. therefore -- and we recommend this -- if the united states wants to assume a role of leadership, it has to lead itself first before it worries about leading the rest of the world. there were lots of recommendations in the task force about what we should be doing here domestically to take care of our own role and then hopefully convince, cajole, , countries and leadership that think the way we think, that align with our interests, to come along with us. i think it would be very, very difficult in today's environment, given the nature of just the technology itself, for anyone to control it. it is just pervasive now. it is really -- it really touches everyone, everywhere. even in the government to tend be more authoritarian and restrictive. .hey have great challenges

it has gotten to the point where it has been part of the world's ecosystem, how the world functions. but there are lessons of history. you have lots of immature technologies that, when they become pervasive and touch society, governments have a role. when you go back to the origination of computer science and computing, mainframes. when itpoint in time, became such a large participatnt in the economy, they decided ibm had as much of a role -- it happens all the time. pc, it happens all the time. i know this is broader in many ways because there are billions of users and the internet, 450 or 500 million uses a pc's, so in many ways it is much more

pervasive, but it has followed a similar pattern. so, if you are going to be a nation who wants to have a construct of role in persuading role in- constructive persuading others, you ar need o leave yourself first. we recommend that in the task force. >> that keep this in practical terms as much as possible. ambassador negroponte, i don't know if you have been following the debate at the united nations going back almost 20 years, right, o over the international role of governance over the internet. it has been quite a title. >> right, and there has been pressure from parts of the international community to make the internet -- to try to bring it into some kind of a top-down governance approach. think until now, have successfully resisted that. there is still acceptance of the

existing mechanisms of governance of the internet. but i think we are definitely under pressure, and that is one of the points every work refers to. -- the report refers to. we are under pressure to broaden participation. i'm a there are steps taken daily to do that, to bring in -- as we speak, there are steps taken daily to do that, bring in more third world participants, to enhance the capability of other countries to benefit. the idea of a multi-stakeholder basically bottom-up kind of approach to the internet is still intact, although under some threat from this very phenomenon you talk about. >> how do you empower the stakeholders to a certain their stake? >> one of them is to increase their capabilities so they can use and understand the internet better.

i think that is probably as important as any. the other is, i think you will see around the world, as our societies move forward, a growing middle-class everywhere around the world, including a place like china, which is, at the moment, pressuring for greater control of the internet. and centralize control -- but i think they have elements in their own society that get it with respect to the internet and its freedom and its importance to the realization of the potential of human beings and business enterprises, who will be a force more aligned with us, shall we say, than they are with their own government in the future. and one can hope reasonably, i think, that eventually that point of view will prevail. august of 2009, the six member states of the shanghai cooperation organization -- russia, can't expand,

kyrgyzstan, tajikistan, uzbekistan, and china -- information war, they defined as a confrontation between two or more states and the information space aimed at undermining political, economic, and social systems, brainwashing to be stable society. i think that is a good indication some authoritarian governments see some of the exchange of information. they really see this -- the soviets used to talk about ideological aggression, but isn't this, adam, the background of what advocates of free and open internet are up thatst? these governments see free and open communication as potentially subversion -- subversive to the interests. >> one of the reasons we have had such difficulty finding common ground with the chinese and the russians because, as you point out, a talk about information security, which is the protection of information

spaces. we focus on cyber security, networks and routers, all of those things. there does seem to be some slow progress on that front, though. -- ou look [no audio]

>> unfortunately we are having technical difficulties with our live programming. we hope to return in just a moment. you are watching c-span.

>> noun to a discussion on u.s. defense policy from this morning's "washington journal." u.s.w to a discussion on defense policy. host: we are joined by the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs on discussion of u.s. defense policy. ofst, what is the office international security affairs and what is its role within the pentagon? guest: the office covers three regions of the world -- europe, the middle east, and africa. the, i am the principal policy office -- advisor to the secretary of defense on this three regions and i have about a team of 100 people why work with. we support the secretary in all of his engagements, travel around the world, preparation for meetings, as well as advising him on the policies, processes, and issues confronting us as they relate to those regions. are you advising the secretary of defense on a daily basis?

what is your interaction? guest: we see him multiple times a day, every day. when he is meeting with a foreign leader from one of those three regions, we will help him prepare for the meeting but also join him in the meeting. as well as we will represent the department -- i will represent the department at the white house and other agencies and debates and discussions about policies related to those regions. host: talk about this story that is leading all of the major papers today. i don't know what you can say about that. but on the nsa leaker that came out, what is your reaction? guest: it is an outrageous leak. i can't say much about it. i don't know much about it. but i think the rector clapper spoke clearly about this over the weekend -- director clapper spoke clearly about this. he called the gut wrenching. i usually visit under investigation investigation by our justice department, so i will leave it to my colleagues there further information.

but what i can say is leaks like this do great damage to our ability to collect intelligence and to protect the american people. host: what about the defense department ability to work with contractors? he was a contractor and a big art of the pentagon's operations. guest: obviously the pentagon has an enormous amount of contractors we work with to help us in a variety of issues. and it will raise questions about contractors moving forward. host: doesn't make your job harder harder? guest: absolutely, yes. u.s. concerned about monitoring efforts. the secretary of defense has been sounding the alarm about cyber security threats from overseas. what has he been saying? guest: the past two years, the u.s. government, the defense department specifically, has been focused on cyber issues. last fall secretary of defense panetta gave an important speech in new york about a cyber defense issue, and he called the threat of a cyber attack the equivalent of a 21st-century pearl harbor. that is an issue that secretary

agel has followed up on. his prior job was as cochairman of the president's intelligence advisory board. he is very familiar with these issues and very familiar with cyber issues generally. most recently, in brussels last week at the nato defense ministerial where i traveled agel there was aege special session in which he called for the nato alliance to take more action when it comes to cyber defense, understanding cyber threats our collective threats to all of us. not just the united states but all the nato allies against threats around the world. host: is the u.s. right now the leader in defending against these cyber attacks when it comes to nato? are we helping others defend? certainly ae leader. other countries have capabilities on cyber issues. but we created a cyber command in the united states, a

relatively new military command. what we are trying to do is both share our knowledge but also share some of the technology know how we have with others. this is a collective defense project. the: we are talking with department of defense assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. if you have a question in this segment, the phone lines are open. give us a call. host: moving onto afghanistan. talk about the latest on u.s. efforts in afghanistan and what you are doing there. guest: last week was an important week for our effort in afghanistan. again, at the nato defense minister ariel, secretary hagel spoke with the nato defense allies and theisaf partners,

the non-nato partners, on what the plans are for after 2014. host: the timeline -- guest: currently about 60,000 u.s. forces as well as 40,000 partners remain in afghanistan. a transitionhrough period period where we are slowly turning over authority and responsibility to the afghan government. that transition period will come to an end at the end of next year him and in the beginning of 2015, afghans will be in charge of their own security. it is a very delicate process to affect that transition -- >> you can see the rest of this program at www.c-span.org. we will return now live to council on foreign relations discussion on cyber security efforts. remarks from former ambassador and national intelligence director john negroponte and ibm ceo samuel palmisano. >> that was clearly probably targeted to the iranians.

-- denial ofll service attacks. but you are definitely right, we don't want to live in a world where everyone is completely known in cyberspace, and the task force is certainly not taking that position, that we are promoting that. we think the u.s. has a lot to gain from an open internet that is secure, but where people have the freedom to communicate their ideas and to organize what they need to. >> we also focus on the fact that without having to share from a traditional perspective, there are ways to better manage threats or issues as they occur. there are much better ways to do it than we do today here. there is a term called information sharing. if you look at the major participants in the internet -- and the technology, communication companies -- they see these patterns well in advance. .erhaps becoming a problem

if they were allowed to share the information with the appropriate authorities, by the way, whomever it happens to be, defined by government, and do it in a way where they were not exposing themselves to any kind of legal action -- kind of in a constructive way to solve a ,roblem -- not, by the way this problem occurred, and they take your credit card and now we have a class action suit against you because you told that you saw the pattern, so now you are liable -- right? that is why people tend to hold back because they are worried about the trial lawyers. but if there was a way to shared information -- because there are people who are seeing the patterns before the problem occurs. one of the things we recommended called information sharing some if you allow the information sharing to occur, and with the appropriate government authorities who obviously have the authorization to participate in this, we could at least anticipate and get ahead of some of the problems.

back to the emerging countries. we also argue that one way to get them to see it from our point of view is to make the argument on economic development. internet,the study -- four percent of the worldwide gdp, on its way to five percent. if they could see it as economic development, then they would be open to ideas about information data sharing so they can participate in this global economy. it just wouldn't be the cloud services of an internet borne companies selling to them. they could become, the internet born company selling to others. -- some referways to it as economic diplomacy. there are ways to get them to have an interest in defending and making sure they are secure and resilient in dealing with some of the bad apples. thatthink everyone agrees

our online presence right now with respect to critical ,nfrastructure is undefended and isn't it true that private industry has not stepped up? is it just a matter of fear of liability? but isn't it true right president street has stepped interest. own self- my company is heavily defended, we spent a lot of money doing it. the question is then how'd you share all that and participate? people argue that some elements in the technology industry are more advanced than others, telecommunications, banking financial services. people do complain about the utility's. utilities are not as heavily invested. you needr then becomes put mechanisms in place that is

in everyone's economic interests. that mandate with a heavy hand, you must do certain things. the problem with the mandates is they will not work. from an engineering technology perspective, not from a policy perspective the puree engineering, it will not work. and all you're doing is telling the bad guys out again. that is what you're doing. this has beeno more about if you're going to do least do top-down at it in a way that will work. think people will be open to that. it is very hard to do. why don't we collaborate with a heavy-handed approach? the industry argument has been let us cooperate with a heavy- handed approach and policymakers

feel like if you put somebody in charge to mandate through legislation or executive order than the question that we ask is what to the mandate and will it work? or are you exposing us to greater risk because you're telling people the combination to the balts? >> i guess we will have some responses from the audience. i have to sneak in a couple of sexy questions or i lose my arguments here. -- the report -- directors of national intelligence do not like transparency all that much. nevertheless your task force advocates the transparency of a possible offensive use of cyber weapons. are you comfortable with that? >> i am because i think what we say here is that just like in

other types of warfare, using other types of weaponry, it is important that there be an understanding of what they can do, how they are used. one of the things we ask in our relationships with other countries is for more transparency and how to prepare the military budget. i think the greater openness you have less chance there is of some kind of miscalculation. particularly, there is no doubt about it that the internet and cyber is an element of warfare. other tools of warfare, nuclear, you need to have a dialogue between nations about how to use -- why they are used, even if you want some rules of the road and what is off-limits and what is on limits. it doesn't mean you are

revealing secrets about latino or anything else. >> it just seems to me as a reporter u.s. government hasn't been very anxious to talk openly about its possible use. >> there is probably transparency in transparency. one of them is to have this discussion amongst the potential users and maybe start small and then expand further. initially you have to talk at ,east among the cyber powers china, russia. we recommend a cyber alliance. i think we need to work closely with our nato allies. what circumstance we use this kind of weaponry, if at all. i think that requires a certain degree of transparency. >> as former director of national intelligence how you assess this cascade of leaks we have had in the past week about intelligence community's use of

surveillance tools to track what is happening on the internet? >> the use of warranted surveillance, completely legal, not very new. i try to figure out exactly what is new. it is certainly not conceptually new compared to what we have been doing a number of years earlier. how to assess it? i find it shocking that somebody with clearances and who signs a confidentiality agreement to then turn right around and reveal publicly that kind of information. i think it is utterly reprehensible and i hope that the individual or individuals did concerned -- get punished for it. >> what are the population of people that have cancers that put them in a position to disclose information like this? >> there is a trap in your question there. [laughter]

however many thousands of people or even hundreds of thousands who have top-secret clearances there aren'tment, necessarily thousands that have access to that particular kind of information. my sense of it, without having inside information anymore, is that is a pretty darn restricted program and access to it was probably very restricted. >> i think it as to the point sam was making, information sharing is going to be much harder legislative push. nsa was high and now it will be higher. bills will be harder to push through. the second is what we see in china, already and in build assumption that u.s.

technologies were in bed with u.s. government. when you read writing from the are 80%website, we dependent on u.s. a. companies for . all companies have back doors for nsa. that perception is going to be widely reinforced in china. their efforts to keep companies out an increase procurement standards from u.s. companies require u.s. companies -- all that is going to happen. the operating environment is going to be much more supportive. >> we ran all over the place in this half hour and now i think it is necessary to at least get a little bit of sense of the sweep of this report, which is very impressive. it is your chance now to focus in on issues that interest you. in particular we are going to invite you to join in the

discussion. we have microphones. please raise your hand and once your call on please wait for the microphone to come to you. speak directly into it and give your name, and your affiliation, and please make it a question and not a speech. i am sure there are a lot of people that want to take part. yes, sir? >> thank you. from the university of maryland public school of policy. i am intrigued by the title of your report. if the ucb for additives as really being linked to each other in the way that success thends heavily on achieving others or dc them operating independently? >> i would say they are linked. inextricably linked? i would not go that far. themain objective of internet is freedom. three years, free expression,

free access, and hinder the use and access to the internet -- unhindered use and access to the internet. >> i would agree. resilient and secure for it to be global. there is an editor dependency -- and interdependency. are, in many ways, connected. that is how we thought about it throughout the task force. >>: the program up, that is a smart move. but i thought there would be attracted to the report. by your i was intrigued comments that to lead the world toward the objective in the report which should lead ourselves here at home. i wonder what you think about the implications of that for an

bodying our own internet policy, a privacy policy, cyber security policy, and legislation. you did speak about not wanting to mandate from the top-down. do you think that the fact that we have not had a comprehensive privacy statutes in the united states the inability to access sap security legislation and our hands-off approach to the internet, which has led the world for many years, do you think that creates a bit of a policy void that does not allow u.s. interests to a dance as they should be? >> i would hate to say that, it sounds so monday. what is our strategy from the perspective of u.s. national interest? multipleen involved in committees. i may not be knowledgeable of it. what is the strategy? darkny ways we go to the side of the internet. clearly privacy is the dark side of the internet, that needs to

be addressed. no one in this part of the world would disagree with the fact that there are many issues about privacy, not just national security, protection of children and the like, that we need to have policies around. i would do it in a strategic context of that. say yout so simple to cannot use the internet until you are a legal age. that is not going to happen the could be rules of the road, there are all sorts of things you can do beyond legislation. kids to understand the .mplications i think we need a strategy.

this is a personal opinion and we discussed this in the task force, it gets overwhelmed by national security and underwhelmed by personal economic interest. we try to accomplish a balance between national security and personal and economic interests so it tried to maintain that balance in the recommendations. err onlieve that if you the side of national-security and become restrictive on the open architecture of the and start with a strategy. having been involved in some of the legislative debates, i am more comfortable with the internet model forces open cooperation and people solving ways.oblems in their own the technology moves so fast. by the time it to the legislative process, assuming it -- let it is --

let us assume it is the best you can have in the world. it would still be too late. you really cannot. i understand why you could make the argument for political reasons and why you need to do these things. the technology is not going to wait to stop. it is done over the world. there are really smart people over the world working on these kinds of issues. recommend ing is i a way this collaborative a find that center -- i if there is the set of strategic guidelines that set the rules of the road, which is i think something that could be done through policy so we know when minor theft happens in the bank

-- there are some guidelines we conform as collaborative approach. i think there is hope. i do not think it can be solved legislatively. i only make the argument as looking from an engineering technology point of view. it goes too fast. and skills are global. there is almost nothing you can elsewhere in the world. it will come here because it is an open internet. yes, sir? you.ank david robinson, former legalizing -- former legal adviser to the department of state. has the internet made the ancient craft of as a nosh and counter-espionage -- hasn't made it harder or easier or both?

>> i think it has made everything faster. i think that is probably the one thing that has happened, the rate at which information moves around. the other thing i would say in terms of analysis, which is the end product of an intelligence look at aou have to lot more information. how you sort the weed out from the tap? on balance, i think the internet and modern technology have made intelligence far better and i think particularly with respect to the integration of information on the one hand and using it in a real-time

basis on the other, two key elements of intelligence and operational activity have been improved dramatically by the absence of information technology. >> appear in front. -- up here in front. i cannot help but remember -- i am going to do part of this to john. we know from a past experiences that so much is political, not just technological. i wondered a couple of things. you already reference the fact they did not have young people on your task force.

in your report it to make any recommendations relating to getting at the culture and getting young people to realize that this is another form of stealing? the second question is the degree to which you review the many treaties and laws that are on the books related to intellectual property, trade, copyright, and other things. i would make a third comment, the united states, canada, and europe are just a few countries in -- and just a few countries in asia walked away from the agreement in the itu in to buy. we have a lot of homework. that is a really serious demonstration of both our arrogance and naive to take. the model did not exactly

conform to the multi-state coalition that you all have advocated. >> that is correct. >> the itu agreed we would continue with the current governance of the internet while we debate these other issues. that is why the system is still enforced. that would be one point. one of the recommendations the is that wemakes also better prepare for the itu meetings and do it more before hand. the last recession in to buy, we only appointed our delegation at the very last minute. inather at the next meeting 2014 will not be one of these large scale meetings. we already have the head of the delegation in place at the

department of state. more attention to the itu and preparation for those negotiations. >> to answer the point about the coutnri mission, 55 ntries refused. and take your point, we have more work to do. the task force suggests a three- prong strategy. as john suggest, be engaging the itu air. earlier.u governance form, which are not really being used in the way they could be because often countries did not know about them, they do not have the resources to go there. the third is to search for an alternative forum. there are lots of people that we

think should have discussions outside of the itu on separate security where we need have more development capacity built in. on the young people think, if it is a problem for the council probably. offense to anyone in the audience. [laughter] we to identify a hacker eat those but not in a negative way the product. us haveitive way of let the system and make it better or build something ourselves. how'd you get those types of people to get to government service? how you involve them on the defensive side and the offensive side? about the guys who created tumbler and facebook and things like that. they think of themselves as hackers.

how'd you get them to contribute? part of that is having the idea of the cyber service. people think of themselves as the core of these groups. how can the council engage smaller startups in california, in the washington area? it would traditionally be outside the scope of the council. >> i'm curious, speaking of agriculture. it is critical, for example, of thatevelopment of people developed a zero-day exploits and back doors. those happen to be really important tools in offensive war. i know that the nsa is looking for people that have the skills. i am curious about that disconnect. are these people who are serving the american interest? >> we have a hacker on the task

force. jeff moss was a hacker. he started at one of the biggest conferences for hackers. i do not want anyone to think that he is playing a negative role. he serves on the advisory committee for the department of homeland security for these exact issues. i think on the proliferation of this isre -- of malware, an interesting place for government discussion. this is one of the areas where the chinese and russians, at least for malware focus on critical infrastructure and security centers, we do not want to see these things in hand of al qaeda or non-state actors. nypd would say reflect it. it.ould say we flipped >> in the blue shirt. >> thanks very much.

generalans with electric. how did the task force grapple with the metrics it? how do you measure this and what is the goal for achieving our knowing that to have achieved any one of those points, even if they are independent or connected? >> that sounds like a question for you. and maybe you could elaborate. i would say that one of the -- it is a great question. one of the thoughts the council has is to find ways of continuing some of the work that has been launched here. adam is the cyber force of the cfr. we found very enthusiastic

response everywhere. we had meetings, including out in silicon valley. i think you are raising the kind of issue that could be an important element of our work. >> i think that is a great point. there are places you can go to, freedom house, and other places that measure internet freedom. to secure resilience, probably less so. >> thank you. i am with the georgia institute of technology. i was wondering if you think there is any hope for china and the nazis to collaborate on global internet security and what sorts of mechanisms could get that going. i will talk with the hope that my colleagues can -- i'll

give you a few seconds to think about it. the reason there is hope for we'reoration is because ,oth countries are at this time there should be some constructive dialogue that can be viewed as leaders of the world. it is in their interest to come together. this is something that they can collaborate around. is a very difficult thing to say you do not want it. they can make progress. as i mentioned earlier, i will give a point, countries have had industrial policies. this is new. industrial policy in the economic sense. if you look at the people that

secretsteal ibm's trade over time, they moved around the world. i can give you oexamples of japan, korea, russia, and even the western european countries. what happens? all of a sudden those countries emerge and develop economically and create their property and therefore there is not the same goal of trying to take others in that process. you look at where we are and this is my sense that if china is going to be more of an innovation technology -- more of an innovation economy -- -- ifdy put top-bottom they create international intellectual property owners and process their coined have the same goal as all of the people that innovators have. therefore there is going to be

this natural collaboration. i was there before i even retired. if you look at the history of these things that is normally what happens. we get to this point and then you began with of the mechanisms. >> you ask about mechanisms, --iously the bilateral one perhaps on the particular issue that is before us. for example, one of the recommendations we make in the port is the stealing of intellectual property over the internet becoming a rate of feature in future trade agreements. it already is.

maybe you can ship them in a little bit more detail. onhink it somewhat depends the specific issue. in the back there. --this question is for leaked story, mr. snowden is now in hong kong under chinese security. are you afraid that china would like to get him into helping them? america has the capability of checking where he is and hongng the nsa folks to kong instead of turnign himself to the red china. ."

your firstard to question we are goign to have to wait and see what happens. i have been reminded that hong kong does have an extradition treaty. -- whenhe things that hong kong became the re- integrated to china was to maintain many features of your local rule. systems.nment, two we will have to wait and see how that plays out. obviously in the united states i would just assume that you have a strong interest in him being brought back to the united states so he can be brought to justice. i am sure we will do whatever we can accomplish that. >> we are almost out of time. you have to make it brief.

>> my name is pat from the state department. i am looking ahead with the upcoming transatlantic treaty that the investment partnership that we are going to be interesting and negotiating with a mitt the eu, to what extent can do expect separate security to be involved in these issues? >> the question is should they be front and center? the free flow of data should be part of all of our trade agreements? we do see emerging security standards being possibly a trade barrier or at least eight different trade restriction in different constituencies that may cause problems for u.s. companies moving forward. thinging on how this nsa goes, i did see some stuff about eu parliament saying we need to consider it. i think those are issues we are going to have to look for to as a move toward.

>> i think we ought to wrap it up. we did promise you would be out here by 1:30 and that time has now come. i would like to thank the speaker for this project task force. thank you all very much.

>> coming up in just over half

an hour president obama is jason furmanominate as chair of the council of economic advisers. he was a senior adviser at the world bank. we will bring you that announcement live here at c- span. it is set for 2:00 eastern. with a new sense of security today, british foreign cemetery theiam hague said the government communications headquarters tried to circumvent the laws that surveillance is baseless. >> it is being suggested that our partnership with the united states is being used to get around uk laws, obtaining information that cannot legally obtain in the united kingdom. i wish to be absolutely clear that this activation is

baseless. any data obtained by us from the united states involving uk nationals in subject to proper u.k. statutory controls and six cards, including the relevant sections of the intelligence service act, the human rights act, and the regulation of and that great tory powers act. our intelligence sharing work with united states is subject to ministerial and independent oversight. agencies pat and uphold uk law at all times, even when dealing with information from outside of the united kingdom. the combination of a robust legal framework, ministerial responsibility, scrutiny by the intelligence service commissioners, and public sector accountability from the intelligence security committee should give a high level of competence as the system works as intended. >> looking at the legislative

agenda in congress this week the house will be back tomorrow at noon eastern, 2:00 the legislative work. members will take up the 2014 defense authorization act, about $552 billion in spending for national defense and $86 billion for overseas contingency operations. you can see the house right here on c-span. the senate is back at 2:00 eastern today to work on a bipartisan immigration legislation. include also improvements to border security for high caps and visas skilled workers. a five-year farm bill is also set for 5:00 to do today. before 5:30 today. but in poor health first lady ida mckinley also suffered from epilepsy. and because of that her husband, president william mckinley, will sit next to her at state dinners so when she had a seizure he

would shield her face from guests with a large handkerchief into the episode past. despite her health problems to travel as first lady, even attending the 1901 pan american exhibition where her husband was assassinated. we will look alike of ida mckinley as we conclude our first series on first ladies. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span and c-span 3, also on c- c-span.org.ndi --as the voluntary optionshi)ii now i doare upon ushii think the fcc has to steer this small,y that is very medium-sized, and large companies can be able to compete relative to spectrum. the idea that the big fish swallow up little fish, i do not think it is healthy for our economy. they all have a business plan,

obviously. they want to make money. when you look at the markets in in country, 80% is owned terms of the beachfront, the most valuable spectrum. spectrum is gold in our country. we have to do much more in order to loosen it up. >> the fcc's spectrum auction. tonight on the "communicator's." a personnel announcement from president obama is coming at two o'clock 10 eastern. we will have live coverage when it did under way. right now, a look at the cost of operating overseas military bases from today's washington journal. >> we had joined by the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs for discussion on u.s. defense policy.

what is the office of international security affairs and what is its role in the pentagon? covers three regions in the world. i am the principal policy adviser to the secretary of defense on those three regions and i have a team of about 100 people who i work with. we support the secretary and of his engagements, travel around the world in preparation for meetings as well as in fighting -- advising him on the issues confronting us as they relate to those regions. host: what is your interaction with him? seen him multiple times a day every day. we will help to prepare for the meeting but also then join him in the meeting as well as we will represent the department at the white house and other

agencies and debates and discussions about policies related to those regions. host: talk about the story meeting of the major papers on the speaker that came out. what is your reaction? guest: i cannot say much about it. it was called that wrenching in terms of the dam to our national security. obviously this is under investigation by justice department so i will have to leave it to colleagues there for further information. this do great damage to our ability to collect intelligence and our ability to protect the american people. was a contractor and a big part

guest: the pentagon has an enormous amount of contractors that we work with to help us in a variety of issues. it will raise questions about contractors moving forward. host: will this make your job harder? guest: absolutely. host: on the concern of u.s. monitoring efforts the secretary of defense has been summoned the alarm on cyber security threats coming in from overseas. what has been saying about that? guest: u.s. government and the defense department have been past few years. last fall secretary panetta gave a speech on cyber-defense recall the threat of a cyber attack the equivalent of the 21st century pearl harbor. that is something secretary hagel has followed up on. prior to becoming secretary of defense he was co-chairman of the president's advisory board. he is very familiar with these issues and very familiar with separate issues generally. lastrecently at brussels week at the nato defense -- we

had a special on cyber security and defense in which chuck hagel called for nato take more action. cyber threat to our collective threats. host: is the threat the leader in defense -- are we helping others defense? guest: many countries have significant capabilities on cyber issues but we have created a command here in the united states. ist we are trying to do share our knowledge but also share some of the technological know-how we have with others. this is a collective defense project. host: he is the assistant secretary of defense of international affairs.

the phone lines are open. give us a call. moving on to afghanistan, talk about the latest on the u.s. efforts in afghanistan and what you're doing there. guest: last week was an important week for our efforts in afghanistan. the nato defense ministerial, secretary haggled talked with the non-nato partners about what our plans are in afghanistan after 2014, a period of transition -- host: 8 tie line -- guest: currently there are 60,000 u.s. forces as well as 40,000 partners that remain in afghanistan. we are going in a transition period where we are slowly turning over authority.

that will come to an end at the end of next year, at the end of 2014. at the beginning of 2015 afghans will be in charge of their own security. it is a delicate process to affect that transition. we want to to be sure it goes well. we think it goes bequeathing it is going up secretary hagel met with the attorney general and in afghanistan. we think progress is being made. the allies are with us and they are continuing with us in the fight. we had another insider attack in which two u.s. servicemen were killed as well as an italian servicemen. allies are still in the fight and taking casualties. we are in a pathway of transition in afghanistan and we believe in the next year and a half we will be in place for afghans are in charge of their own destiny. host: what is progress in your mind? guest: progress as the afghan

security forces taking charge of their own security. they have gained the effectiveness to take charge of their own security. afghanistan is still a tremendously dangerous place. undergroundseeing is the afghans are able to take charge of their own security and are gaining ability and strength every day. host: is this the green on green attacked we have heard about? guest: the attack is still under investigation. it has been a real skirt on what afghanistan. host: can you talk about what progress has been done on that front? guest: there has been some progress made and i think the folks in afghanistan have been trying to change some of their prophecies to ensure that some of our men and women in harm's way are protected. the events of last weekend have showed that this is still a great concern we have.

if we turn out -- host: if we turn out more responsibility to afghan troops is it likely that this will happen more? guest: the vast majority of afghan troops have shown that they are seeking to create a country that is more peaceful and is in charge of its own destiny. we have had these very tragic incidents over the past few months, these insider attacks. that is why we are taking steps and the afghans are taking steps to prevent them. there is no doubt their tragic. host: post-2014, can you see what happens if an attack happens on afghan troops. will u.s. forces be able to help them respond to some of those attacks? what are going to be our capabilities on the ground there? guest: that is part of what is being sorted out right now. the composition of the force on

the ground and afghanistan post-2014. the u.s. and nato allies will not be in charge of afghanistan's security after that time. what we have committed to is to help train, assist, and advise the afghan forces. we will not have a combat role. host: we're talking the assistant secretary at the defense department. phone lines are open. talk about what you did before you went to the pentagon. guest: i worked at the white house where i was the senior director of strategic planning of the national security staff. before coming to the white house asserts that the state department where i worked on secretary clinton's policyprior to the obama administration in

2009 i worked on the transition team from president bush to president obama. involved were heavily in some of the efforts around the bosnia conflict. can you talk about that? guest: i had a long association with the late richard holbrooke. i assisted him in writing his memoirs and then i worked with him later when he was the u.s. ambassador to the united nations in the late 1990's during the clinton administration. a work with him on africa, which i deal with now. a continued with my association with him through 2000 helping him with various projects. and the fortune of being responsible for that part of the world in my current job. host: during the bosnia conflict

there are folks there who wanted to throw their hands up and walk away. relate what you saw in bosnia to what is going on in iraq. iraq in years. -- we are seeing the worst violence in iraq in years. hosguest: what we're seeing is a unified government, the central government in baghdad right now, can struggle about bringing greater unity and peace. shownk that bosnia has that despite the fact that bosnia is a country with troubles and has a ways to go until this -- until they achieve the aspirations that i think bosnia wants, they have been at peace.

--is a police were there is a place where there is hope and opportunity to the people there. it shows that with perseverance and leadership from the united states in the rest of the world, we can effect change and people can have a positive future. host: we are taking your calls in this segment. randy is a first from madison, tennessee. good morning. go ahead. you were talking about cyber security. about beat ition before there was cyber there was security at some level. i am wondering why we would not non-the backup that is cyber in the event of a sniper attack. if somebody does hit as pearl attack wele with an

would be technologically over but reliable in the same sense that there was before. on contingency plans? guest: certainly that is what our cyber commands at the pentagon and our colleagues at that worked on these issues worked quite a bit if your e- mail gets wiped out or a computer system compromised in some way and you're not able to even log on to your computer it makes it harder to do your work. this is in the private-sector. in the government we have to spend a lot of time working on those. both the pentagon and the department of homeland security think a lot about how we protect critical infrastructure. --igrees and allows all that agreement allows us all to

connect to the internet as well as the water flowing and electricity running. it is absolutely critical. it is part of what folks in government do every day, make them stronger and more resilient. host: we were talking about the transition in afghanistan. a story from "the associated press " -- their target is unclear because they are at a distance from the airport. we have a lot of inflation from that area --

what we know about this attack and how does it complicate your efforts in afghanistan? guest: there were reports about this attack. as i mentioned over the weekend we had this attack that killed two u.s. servicemen. last week there was a horrible attack that killed several georgian servicemen. afghanistan remains a very dangerous place. are unfortunately all too common. that said the afghan forces are gaining in their capability. i think the fact that these attacks are happening is evidence that the enemy knows that capability is growing. they are trying to take opportunities like this to break the will of the afghan security forces and also the international coalition in support of the afghan security forces.

is their time frame to break this by? or are we expecting in enough of an uptick by 2013? guest: clearly they are optimistic and they are planning to do a tax like this. i think unfortunately this will not be the last of these kinds of attacks. that said i think that things are trending in the right direction overall and afghan security forces are gaining in capability. host: question format on twitter -- -- from matt on twitter -- guest: i do not know the exact number of contractors to have there. obviously they play an important role in supporting our men and women in uniform when they are manye field, helping

service variety or security service. think that we are tracking to end the war in afghanistan. that is what president obama has laid out as the coal he wants to seek. by the end of 2014 the combat in afghanistan will be over and they will be in the lead for their own security. host: we are taking your calls with the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. william is up next on our republican mind. good morning. caller: good morning. , am enjoying the c-span "washington journal" show. i think is really great and i am very pleased to be able to participate. how much longer is -- going to be president of

iraq? the same for president carter side. -- for president karzai. our soldiers are fighting and being killed and injured. the important thing is that we are reassured that we try to bring a form of democracy rather than replacing dictators with dictators. host: go-ahead. guest: very good question. those are two democratic elected leaders did in afghanistan next year there will be a critical election, a little less than a year from now, in which there will be a successor to karzai elected. that is one of the reasons the united states will stay engaged in afghanistan through next year. it is in all our interest that the auction goes well and there is a transition of power. face at he will

democratic election. it is critical that these elections secede and they are seen as free and fair. host: are you confident that if these elections happen that a transition takes place and can take place in iraq and afghanistan? caller: i believe the most -- the biggest problem we're facing in the middle east, they will remain in power. for both presidents, who are not doing a very good job -- these people have to be replaced. i do not care by whom. it is evident that they have

been in there for much too long. it is now a long time. 10 years or so. it is time for the president to step down. host: are you confident that a peaceful transition can happen in both of these countries? guest: i am. it will take some help answer to me in afghanistan reappeared -- we are prepared to provide that help. i believe there is reason to be competent. that said we need keep our eye on the ball, we need to continue the support that is needed. we can see democratic transition and democratic future for these countries to take shape. about what the u.s.

can do amid a rising violence -- what is the united states doing now to help direct the government? a defense department perspective our role is much different today than it was several years ago. certainly when president obama came to office -- we are creating a more normal defense relationship with a country like iraq. we no longer have troops occupying the country. iraq are ael in little more than 100.

develop seeking to their military. in situations like this we work very closely through our embassy and ambassador in iraq. -- in iraq to help them sort through what has happened. iraq's future. they are in control of their own destiny. it is something we monitor very closely. not in a position now as we were five years ago to help handle situations like this. twitter -- guest: getting indirectly at the collar's question, one of the

strategic moves president obama has saw to make is the rebalance. it was the subject of a very big defense policy statement that came out last year? guest: yes, in january 2012, which was the defense department effort to show how the balance would be implemented. it is what we call a whole of government strategy. when i worked with the state department with secretary clinton, she also was seeking to greengage what we are trying to do is. that's not to say we are ignoring the middle east or paying less attention to our allies or elsewhere, but it's a reflection of the fact that we believe when you look at the 21st century and the evolution of geopolitics in the next few decades, asia will increasingly

define our future because of the rise of china and india or the rise of southeast asia as a growing economic and political powerhouse. onare certainly focused intensifying our work in asia. on this previous trip that secretary hegel took, he went to the major meeting of asian defense leaders and ministers and then hepeech traveled to brussels for the nato defense ministry helped to bookend our efforts. host: back to the phones and the democratic line. good morning to you. i think we need to pull out of

afghanistan and iraq and just let them people have it and take care of their own affairs. we haven't accomplished anything over there except getting americans killed. we ared put that money spending to good use in this country and helping the people over here and just let them people have it over there and be done with it. we are not going to accomplish anything. that's basically all i've got to say. are we accomplishing anything? guest: i would take issue with that and that we are not accomplishing anything. we are giving iraqis an opportunity to build a better future. in afghanistan, we are on the pathway out of afghanistan. we are in the middle of a transition their. i believe we have accomplished a great deal there.

afghanistan still faces tremendous challenges and those are challenges we have to remain focused on. but the underlying thrust of our policy is to transition and that means afghans are going to be able to take care of their own destiny. coeditorguest is the of six books on american foreign policy, including the road to the dayton accords. and america between the wars nine/11.2 now to luis on our republican line. i would like to know how much defense do we really need. second, how do we have a good defense when i read in the paper recently that there is a state department amply that sold the says in vietnam and made a

million dollars. we also see through the state department they were giving visas to people like the boston bomber. these are all real people coming into this country and we don't know who's coming in. so what good is it to have all of these drones and countries, being involved in all these countries? the defense department with all the bullets and guns is not going to help anyone we have a state department where there is corruption, obvious corruption. they are supposed to be there to promote peace and i've lived for 62 years and there's nothing but war. we do need to have a strong defense. that takes a lot of resources to spend on defense. one of the things president obama is working hard on is to get greater balance in the budget.

our defense budget ballooned mightily in the decade or so after nine/11. one thing we are working with congress on is how we can write size that budget and make it more manageable and affordable moving ahead. that is one of secretary hegel's priorities moving ahead. wet is why he initiated what call the strategic management and budget choices review which is how we think through our defense budget and strategic priorities and how that all fits together in a sustainable way for the 21st-century. there is no doubt we need a strong defense budget. we also need a solid state department budget. i'm unfamiliar with some of the visa issues the caller mentioned, but the state department is a small, small fraction of the federal budget.

stateou get for a strong department is often underappreciated. >> what are folks like louise going to be seeing when these planning efforts come to fruition? >> our military will be the largest in the world by several orders of magnitude. we will probably spend more on defense than the next 10 allies combined. there are some choices that need to be made. there are tough choices when it comes to the size of our forces and the weapons systems we choose. if we choose not to pursue a certain weapons system, that could affect jobs because there is an industrial base that supports our nation's defense. those are the things being sorted through right now. it's something secretary hegel and president obama need to work mostly on. much have we helped women

in iraq and afghanistan? >> i think tremendously. both of those places, it's safe to say prior to our involvement in iraq and afghanistan, the role of women was very much limited, particularly in afghanistan and our efforts have helped open up opportunities for women. for the state department and usaid, they have created a lot of programming for women and women leaders. that said, there is a long way to go. here is a headline -- why iraq is on the precipice of civil war. is iraq on precipice of the civil war? >> iraq still has challenges. there are great parts of iraq that are flourishing.

there are genuine security concerns as the news you reported a few minutes ago makes i think iraq has a good chance of succeeding in the future with our support and the --port of others great others. i have our question about the use of the comparison to bosnia. it seems when we use that comparison, we are looking at an existing sectarian state. yugoslavia would have been the but afteromparison the cleansing that ended with a catholic croatia, orthodox serbia and a muslim oriented areia, that is where we seeing things devolve in the middle east.

afghanistan is starting to look like kurdistan within a rack or a separate loi nation within syria. how can we help these places when we are just seeing the beginnings of a sectarian civil war? even now, foreign troops are guaranteeing the independence of bosnia. how are we going to help these other nations when it requires our foreign intervention just for that state to maintain itself? the colors point that these comparisons can be over done is absolutely right. the analogy of yugoslavia writ large in terms of the broad ethnic mercy and sectarianism can be done. bosnia itself was multiethnic as a country.

what bosnia and yugoslavia shows is there is a pathway for these countries and a pathway out of the violence and a pathway toward a brighter future. in bosnia, there are very few foreign troops securing the peace. there are a handful. it's nothing like the 60 thousand that into bosnia in december of 19 95. we have reduced our presence to where it is very minimal and peace is being secured by the bosnian people themselves and a multiethnic state. i want to make clear that it's a state with challenges and a way to go, but it does show there is a path when we put our minds to it. we can help these folks build a better future. do you agree? when yout seems to me

are looking at the situation in bosnia, had we not intervened against the serbians and just let bosnia itself boil as we are letting iraqi oil, that nation would have completely dissolved into nothing but small sects here and there spread throughout an ever violent situation. even the comparison that says this small nation that had once been a part of the larger yugoslav nation survives as a multiethnic area, but the truth still seems to be without our handholding it down, it would boil over again to the same sectarian issues with the serbs wanting to maintain serbian bosnians are separate from the rest of the bosnian people, for example. guest: i don't think bosnia is on the brink of wailing over. it is at peace with itself and

its neighbors. moving forward, sometimes fitfully and not as fast as we would want or the bosnian people would want. it shows that through the application of leadership, by the united states and others, by working through negotiations like ambassador holbrook did in dayton, that you something together that will bring peace and hope for a brighter future. it is not easy, is not clean. it doesn't happen overnight, but it's possible. that is what i latch onto as i look forward at many of the challenges we face around the world, that there is a way forward. >> one of the books that you helped cowrite was with ambassador holbrook on the dayton peace project. what is the name of that book? "to end thes called war." it was about his

experiences trying to help end the war in bosnia. the cyber attacks from china really have me concerned because number one, they might be considered to be the number one or number two power in the world. there allies group is ready much our enemies group. i'm concerned anything they get will be turned over and sold or shared with our enemy groups which include north korea. i have a question following that very the question is, is there any kind of punishment plan or retribution we can install that would punish china for doing this? it seems like this administration has been lax on mentioning it. i also have two straight up questions i would like you to answer. number one, did we actually conduct a cyber attack on north korea in conjunction with israel? number two, was the

benghazi out post really a cia outpost, and you can -- and can you even say whether it is or not? guest: i will will start with the last two questions because i can't say much about those. in terms of the cyber issue, i take issue a little bit with your statement that the administration has been silent ,n concerns on cyber particularly regarding china. our national security guy gave an important speech about six weeks ago in new york in which he talked about the administration's concerns about cyber threats emanating from china. secretary hagel last week in theapore also talked about cyber threats emanating from china. and just last weekend,

president obama had a very important summit in california with the chinese president in was one of the main topics of conversation. is something this administration is very focused on globally but has been specific in public about our concerns about the threat emanating from china and have talked very candidly with our chinese colleagues about those concerns. >> several questions on twitter, wanting to know what the united states is going to do in syria. guest: we are working along several lines, trying to bring about negotiations in which the opposition would sit down with representatives from the regime to try to negotiate an outcome. part of that is to help the opposition gain greater effectiveness.

we are working as a government to help the opposition build its ability to govern and plan to help with humanitarian needs that we at the defense department are helping ship in medical supplies. lex we are leaving this segment now to go to the east room of the white house where president obama is nominating jason the chair of the president's council of economic advisers. >> extend his tour to serve as the chairman of my council of economic advisers, where he has been the driving force between actions we have taken to help restart lending to small businesses and create new jobs and arm workers with the skills they need to reduce income inequality and rebuild our aging infrastructure and bring down our deficit in a responsible way. that is driven by the basic argan that our work should be rewarded.

he is motivated by the principle that no one who works full-time in the greatest nation on earth should have to leave their family in poverty levels are below poverty levels. his commitment to the middle class shines through and has often passionate presentations, at least for an economist, they are passionate. [laughter] and the policies he has pushed. i know this will continue to be a focus of his research. his wife and son are here today and i know they are all looking forward to having allen back. now that he has some free time, he can return to their burning the economics, of rock 'n roll. this is something he actually cares about seriously. on wednesday, he is giving a

speech at the rock 'n roll hall of fame. he has a t-shirt under his suit of a big tongue. [laughter] don't show that. he has become one of my most trusted advisers and a wonderful friend. i am sad to see him go, but i know he will continue to do outstanding work. unfortunately -- and virtually, he will be available for rest to consult with him periodically because he is a constant font of good ideas about how we can further help the american people, so thank you very much. [applause]

i am also proud to nominate another outstanding economist to take his place. jason furman is one of the most really an economic minds of his generation. don't take my word for it great you can talk to other economists who know a lot more than i do about it. he has won the respect and admiration from his peers across the political spectrum. chairedthesis advisor the council of economic advisers under george w. bush. nobel prize winner joseph stiglitz hired jason to work president under clinton. after leaving president clinton 's white house, he finished his phd in economics and acquired a reputation as a world-class scholar and researcher. a public service kept calling and he kept answering the call because he believes deeply in it. world bankg at the

on issues of inequality in international finance to developing new proposals to strengthen our retirement programs, he helped shape some of our most important economic policy debates. when i asked him to join my team in 2008, even though his baby daughter -- you were this big -- had just been born, he agreed to serve once again. over the last five years, i have come to trust not only his head, but his heart because he never forget who it is who we are fighting for. middle-class families, folks who are working hard to climb their way into the middle class, the next generation. when the stakes are highest, there is no one i would rather turn to for straightforward, unvarnished advice to help me do my job. he understands all sides of an argument, not dust one side. he has worked tirelessly on just about every major economic challenge of the past four years, of earning a second

depression to fighting for tax cuts that helped millions of working families make ends meet to reducing the deficit in a balanced way that benefits the middle class. wife, who is an accomplished writer herself, has withp with a lot of hours jason away. henry and louisa were here. they have made a lot of sacrifices so that their husband and dad could be here working for the american people. i appreciate you guys for sharing daddy. just a little bit longer. is important is because while we have cleared away the rubble of the crisis and laid a new foundation for growth, our work is nowhere near done. even though the economy is growing, too many middle-class families still feel like they are working harder and harder and can't get ahead. inequality is still growing in our society.

notmany young people are sure whether they will be able to match the living standards of their parents. we have too many kids in poverty in this country still. there are some basic steps we can take to strengthening the position of working people in this country, to help our economy grow faster, to make sure it is more competitive, and some of that requires political will. an abidingrequires passion for making sure everyone in this country has a fair shot. but it also requires good economists. i know it is called the dismal science, but i don't find it that dismal. i think it's actually ready interesting and allen and jason appreciate that. sometimes the rest of my staff thinks obama is getting

together with his economists and they are going to have a -- afast -- they won't wonk fest. but it makes a difference in how people get a chance at life and how we optimize opportunity and make sure we don't have a contradiction between an efficient, growing free-market economy and one in which everybody gets a fair shot while we are caring for the vulnerable and disable them folks on our side he need help. economy that creates good, middle-class jobs and rewards hard work and responsibility. that is our northstar. jason shares that focus and allen shares that passes -- that passion. , he will beole working with some of her country's leading economists, including jim stock who has

joined us and i'm relying on them to provide analysis and recommendations with just one thing in mind -- what is going to do the most good for the most people in this country question work not what is best for a political party or special interest. i don't have another election. it's not what is best for me. what is best for the middle class? everybody is working hard to get here. that's with the american people deserve, so i would urge the senate to swiftly confirm jason furman and i want to again thank alan for his outstanding service and thank jason and his family for continuing to serve the country they love. for all of the economists in the for theank you occasionally underappreciated work that you do. [applause]

>> president obama this afternoon, nominating furman, a veteran white house economic official to be chair of the president's council of economic adviser. he replaces alan krueger who is taking a position at princeton university. jason furman formally worked the clinton clinton white house and was a senior advisor at the world bank trade his new position does require senate confirmation. we did join this announcement in progress. you can see it in its entirety .t our website, www.c-span.org

>> in poor health, first lady ida mckinley suffered from epilepsy. her husband would sit next to her at state dinners so that she had a when seizure, and he would shield her face from guests until the episode pass. despite her problems, she to the pan-en going american exhibition where her husband was assassinated. we will look at her life as we conclude this first series on first ladies, live tonight on c- span and c-span3. morning, the u.s. army chief of staff talked about preventing sexual assault in the military. his marks are from the u.s. army six annual sexual harassment summit held at the joint base andrews in maryland. this is just over 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody.

how are we doing? first, it is good to see everybody here. welcome everybody who is here today. this is a very important conference. we have this once a year. i think it is important for us to have a discussion, and that is what i want to do. not commanders, but leaders, we all have a responsibility. you may not have a commander after your name, but because of who you are and what you do we have to set the tone. for our civilian leaders as well. to make sure we are doing what is right. because of many factors, as you heard me say in public, we have a huge issue.

thing i want everyone to understand is that this is .ot just a passing issue for whatever reason, this is one that goes back a very long time and we have not been able to defeat it. i use that term because that is the term we are all familiar with. have not been successful in solving this problem. as women take on a greater role in the army, it becomes even more important that we ensure they have the environment they can excel in. this is about creating a climate where everyone can excel. i realize that men get sexually assaulted also, but this is about creating an environment where we do not tolerate sexual assault. from the things

i see, we still have people out there who tolerate sexual assault and sexual harassment. until we solve that problem, it is going to get worse. if i go around to everyone in here, your got a tell me i've got it, no problem. i understand the importance. i have gone out to some units and although we did it at this level, as i get further and further down, we are still not there yet. it is the answer is i don't have a problem here. no problem in my platoon. there's no problem in my platoon. there's no problem in my battalion. that's baloney. at the problem. we are not seeing ourselves. i'm an all-male unit, i don't have a problem. that's not right.

in fact, you probably have some perpetrators. you probably have some predators. you probably have some males who have bodily been sexually assaulted or sexually harassed. don't have aout i problem because i don't have females in my unit. this is about getting down to sergeants, set that -- staff sergeant, master sergeants, captains, majors, lieutenant colonel's, where they take this on seriously. because we are not doing that today. in the way i want us to do it. we were talking about advice earlier. .e have an ied every soldier knows what to do. they have a battle drill. they know how to react to it. ,nce we started figuring it out then we started going to the left.

there was all of this analysis of how we could stop it from exploding. maim ourg would soldiers. guess what? sexual harassment and sexual assault is maiming our soldiers. the same bar.e every soldier needs to understand what their role is and what is their battle drill to prevent this. to the left of the incident? what do they do when the incident occurs and what do you do after the incident occurs? to put it in military terms, we can deal with it. but we have to understand better what is here. we have to do the same type of things. i want to go over the five imperatives i put out and i want to make sure everybody understands this.

one is first from a protect victims and prevent offenders. provide care, provide rights and privacy of survivors. that is number one. number two, professionally investigate and take appropriate action. number three, create an appropriate positive command client where trust and respect are the cornerstones of what that command climate is about. thatur soldiers trust actions will be taken appropriately by the chain of command. that we have an attitude of respect for each other to wear this uniform. that is who we are. .t is who we are supposed to be respect each other. we need trust. i talk about this all the time.

it is critical to everything we do. the things we are asked to do require trust. the ultimate trust. that you can believe in anybody who wears his uniform. you have to be there to save each other's lives. in very chaotic conditions. but if we can't solve this problem, would you trust this uniform? if you think you can be retaliated on if you make a complaint. you don't think the chain of command will react properly. if it's just he said, she said, forget it. that's not trust. that is what we've got to work on. we have told individuals, units and commanders and leaders accountable.

the fifth imperatives is that the chain of command is fully engaged. possible for everything in her unit and accountable for everything that goes on inside that unit. the one thing i think we all have to think about is how do we see ourselves? what are the systems we have in place -- i mean cr units, cr directorates. our formations and organizations, whatever it might be. how do we see ourselves? their are lots of ways to do it. command climate surveys. i have dictated command climate surveys. six month after you take command and every 12 months after that. that's one way.

to people, walking around, you have to figure out with the best way is. you have to have a system in place to see yourself. it's not just about sexual assault. do you see yourself? i think in a lot of cases, i betly as i look back, you i didn't see myself. you have to make sure you see yourself. just basted on statistics or what you are getting from the chain of command all the time. when i was a commander in iraq, i believed in the chain of command, but i also went out and saw for my own eyes every day. every day i went out to see what

was going on and get feedback from the chain of command and also make my own assessments, talking to everyone i could so i could make the right decisions. this is no different. i ask everyone to make sure you have a system to do that. this is ultimately about leadership. it snowed different than any other problem. it requires leadership. the tone.s setting reset the tone. orn a commander, director the leader of an organization comes in, that organization reflects them. you are doing the right thing, they will do the right thing. if you hold people accountable for making sure they understand how important this is, they will get it. if you don't, they won't. they will realize it's not

important to you. i am going to be here the whole two days of this conference. why is that? because this is important to me. this is important to me. i want to make sure everybody understands that. as i go around, we are going to have discussions about this. it iss important to me. my number one priority right now, and i'm not kidding. i am not kidding. this is about the health and welfare of our sons and daughters. the sons and daughters of american citizens. people have sons and daughters serving right now? you should understand that. you want an organization that is going to take care of your

son and daughter and when you turn them over to that organization or command. that is up to us. that is up to us to make sure we do that. i want them to be proud of sending their sons and daughters into the army. that what it should be. we all know what the army did to races, people of all colors, religions, financial background, whatever. the opportunity to succeed, we all know it. to make sure they understand that and we sustain it. if we don't get after this, we are going to start having some problems. i ask everybody to make sure you understand that. >> name of this place still resonates with the shuddering in the hearts of the american

people. more than any other name connected to the civil war except for lincoln, gettysburg reverberates. americans retain the knowledge of what happens here was the crux of our terrible national trial. even americans who are not sure precisely what happened on these fields know all the glory and tragedy with the civil war resides most palpably and indelibly here. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live, all day, sunday, june 30 on american 3.story tv on c-span >> according to the associated press, the obama administration today began discussing whether the assad regime cost rapid military events across serial requires the u.s. response officials say a decision on arming the rebels could happen later this week. on friday, the national council u.s. arab relations look at the

latest developments in syria, where more than 80,000 people have died since the start of protests two years ago. former state department officials took part in this discussion. at 3:00, we're going to break away briefly to go live to the u.s. house for a brief pro forma session. members will return tomorrow for legislative business. [applause] >> thank you for that very kind introduction. i also want to thank the national council on u.s.-arab relations and the gcc corporate cooperation committee for sponsoring this very important event. , i wantould like to do to keep my remarks brief. i want to talk briefly about where we are right now in syria and as of this specifically on the regional spillover, which is becoming much more prominent.

of remarks about how we have gotten to where we are and then conclude with some thoughts on u.s. policy. in terms of where we are today in syria, the uprising, the conflict is into its third year. it is by far the most brutal of the arab uprisings. the death toll estimates range 100een 80,000 people and 20,000 people killed thus far, mostly civilians. the situation on the ground is nothing short of a catastrophe. what i would like to focus on this morning is the regional spillover. here, i think the conflict has morphed from a sectarian civil regionalmuch broader

factory in conflict. i think the events over the past couple of weeks mark a real inflection point in where we -- and a troubling term troubling turn in syria's trajectory. let's start with lebanon. lebanon in some ways is the most volatile and fragile of syria's neighbors. if it's over the past couple of weeks are extraordinarily significant in terms of the degree of spillover. we now have lebanese, hezbollah, shiite fighters actively and openly engaged in battle for a strategic town in syria. taken againstals hezbollah inside lebanon, both by syrian rebels and more concerning in some ways from those within lebanon. melding orng a

melting of the borders between lebanon and syria, where the arena for conflict is broadening. that has serious and significant implications from -- for lebanon's debility. in addition, if we look to the other border with iraq, another country with a very fragile sectarian makeup, we see may was the most violent month in iraq in five years, with a germanic uptick in sectarian violence. a result of dynamics within iraq, but also no doubt fed by the conflict in syria, in particular, by the rise of sunni jihad-ism in serious feeding into a nascent or resurgent jihadist element in iraq and vice versa.

if we put all of that together, ofsee the potential makings a broad swath of instability that stretches from the mediterranean to aggie at and beyond. that has huge implications for the region as well as u.s. strategic interests. we have also had significant spillover this week with israel. of the raise the specter potential for a broader conflagration between israel and syria. there were battles that went on yesterday over the golan heights border crossing, the only crossing between syria and israel, at which point, the rebels had the crossing in their control. this is obviously very concerning from an israeli security perspective. we have noted that the austrians are real -- are withdrawing their

contingent from the u.n. force responsible for monitoring that border. from an israeli perspective, what was the quietest order for the last 40 years is becoming perhaps its most interest. in addition, there are continuing and deepening concerns about the potential for this transfer of strategic weapons from the assad regime , the syrian organization in lebanon. this is of paramount concern to israel and we have already seen three missile strikes this year from israel targeting such transfers. israel has laid out a clear red line that it will not abide the transfer of strategic weapons to hezbollah or the loss of control to these weapons should they get into the hands of jihadist elements or actors in syria. in addition, we have continuing tension with turkey. last month, there was a double

car bombing which underscores the ways in which the syrian conflict is spilling over across the border to its neighbors. provoked a lot of upset, anger from the turkish at syrian refugees in turkey. there has also been errant shells that have gone across the border in basically all of the countries bordering syria. , which isve jordan bearing a significant strain , andrespect to refugees infrastructure that is already stretched to the limit, where its resources are already stretched quite thin. concern thating

the burden of syrian refugees on jordan's system is becoming untenable and it could be the source for instability. around thecan see region a picture that is quite 'ssturbing about how syria conflict is no longer contained within its borders. we can talk if people are interested in the question and answer about what some of the answers might be to mitigate that, but we need to be braced for a conflict that is going to be enduring and will continue to effects onicant regional stability and u.s. interests in the region. let me take a step back for a moment and talk a little bit about how did we get there? one of serious go from the many arab uprisings that started as peaceful protests and

then morph into an armed uprising, and then from that into a sectarian civil war and now, verging on a much broader sectarian of filtration. how did it get there? the situation on the ground in syria has been extraordinarily dynamic. the pace and velocity of events have been unmatched, certainly by anything i have seen. , thereout all of this have been three constants from the very beginning that i would argue are responsible for how syria got to where it is today. the first is that from the beginning, the syrian regime has viewed protests, although peaceful, as an ex essential threat. as a result, they responded to those protests with disproportionate and brutal force. they have not been open to any sort of reform, nor do i believe

this regime is really open at the hard-core center to any kind of negotiated exit area the second condition pertained from the beginning is that the syrian opposition has been divided. it has been in a state of disarray. the political opposition is in a greater state of disarray than it has been. unable tobeen coalesce around a vision of what a post-assad syria would look like. as a result, they have been unable to attract significant elements from syria's many minority populations, namely the lights,te -- the a la the section from which the president hails, from the christians and the kurds. that has been a significant failing of the opposition. in addition, even the current opposition at it -- as it is

configure is riven by personal rivalries and ideological differences, differences between those on the outside of syria, those on the ground, differences between the political opposition, armed elements and so forth. third, the international community has been essentially at a stalemate from the beginning, unable to forge a consensus on how to handle the question of syria. in particular, at the top of this are enduring differences between the united states and russia, but also differences in the region between saudi arabia, cutter, turkey, primary supporters of the opposition, and a ran as the staunch ally of the regime of the other. has beenlt, the u.n. unfortunately rendered essentially ineffective. certainly at the level of the security council on how to deal with syria. it is the interplay of these factors that has led syria to

where it is today. very briefly that i will conclude -- in terms of u.s. aussie, the u.s. policy has been marked from the beginning by a statement made by president obama in august of 2011 that bashar al-assad must step aside. that has been and continues to be the u.s. position on syria. its policies toward syria have done largely focused on diplomatic isolation of the regime, promotion of economic sanctions, assistance to the opposition in terms of helping to try to bridge some of these gaps i just mentioned, as well as training and technical elements ofo those the opposition and those on the ground who are already involved in some level of governance in areas of the on the regime's control. been a huge provider of humanitarian assistance.

in fact, the united states is the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to syrian refugees. but as many of you in the room probably know, the united states is also approaching syria with a great degree of caution when it comes to the question of any sort of military intervention. whether it is arming the rebels or the question of establishing a no-fly zone or targeted military strikes, all of these military options, which i think my colleague will be talking about in greater detail, the u.s. has opted at this point not to pursue those. large partis in because of the many factors we could talk about certainly, the degree to which the situation in syria is chaotic and becoming more so. i think very serious questions

about whether military intervention would in fact exacerbate a situation on the ground. where conclude by saying u.s. policy is now is a focus on diplomacy. we are engaged in active discussions with the russians to try to restart something called the geneva progress -- the geneva process, an attempt to bring the syrian regime and the opposition around the table to negotiate some sort of transition. it faces enormous obstacles. the next time the u.s. and russia are to meet is june 25. no specific date has been set for the geneva conference. -- itpe is july, but has has already been delayed as a result of some of the lingering differences. my sense is that this point, diplomacy, that approach, given

all the various risks and difficulties, not the least of which, concerns about civilian forection, in many ways syria, the answer is going to have to be a nomadic solution and i will leave it up that. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i'm honored to be here among such distinguished company. i have been traveling into syria for pretty much two years. most of it has been illegal entry into the country, proved by bbc management because we felt reporting on events in the north of the country in territory that was contested was important for us to do and that's why we took the decision to do that. i would like to talk a little bit about how the situation on

the ground has evolved, how i is a nonpartisan organization. i'm not a policy maker and i'd don't have my own opinions. what i can hopefully answer questions about the reality on the ground because it strikes a lot of policy and decisions are taken are not necessarily as well informed by the true story on the ground, and it is a very complex picture. our first crossing into syria was in july of 2011. northt point, the entire of the country was completely controlled by the government. the government controlled all of the crossings and what you saw was a protest movement that was in the state of evolution. pretty much splintered the local, based around families.

what we have seen over the last year and a half is how that has evolved. we've read stories about foreign jihadist and i would like to talk about what we actually see on the ground. this time last year, the opposition started to coalesce around larger groups. this time last year, we spent some time with a group called the martyrs brigade. that sounds as if it is it really wasn't. this was essentially a secular movement. these people were mechanics, falafel chefs, amateurs. rifles,lly with old trying to work out how to mount a campaign. already at that point, the outside world was taking an interest. people were supplying weapons, larger forces were coming to play. but at that point, when the syrian government talked about

foreign terrorists being inside the country, largely speaking, it was not true. this time last year, i rub her sitting with a group of rebels in the north of the country civilians, secularists, yes, most of them were sunnis, but they preached the language of inclusivity. of northern syria is not as mixed as other parts, .nd that is more problematic i know parts of the conflict have evolved into a sectarian struggle, but i don't believe it is entirely defined by sectarian differences and it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. one of the rebel commanders who sat there and was dressed in black, had a the rest ofd and

them kind of joked with this guy that he was the taliban amongst them. this was very funny. but he was the exception to the rule. you did not see people like that, you did not see people who were the logically are ideologically committed to another cause, and that has completely changed inside syria. torip we did recently aleppo, south of the city, in order to get to parts we wanted to rip port on involved getting a permissions -- a permission slip from a sharia court from one of the mayors. what the syrian government has been saying may not have been true to start off with, but it self- some ways become a fulfilling prophecy. many of the fears the outside world had about what would happen in syria syria if it became involved have come to -- have come to pass.

this time last year, the u.n. was quoting figures of 9000 syrians dead. now it is something in the region of 90,000. that's in one year. become radicalized and increasingly sectarian. if there ever were a possibility of a clear initiative that could bring a swift end to the conflict, i don't see it now. that doesn't mean it's a lost cause. i don't think anyone should view it as one, but it is as complex and messy as you can imagine. remember being in iraq in 2006. in a rack in 2006, people were talking about the division of the country. vice president biden that that point put forward a plan that talked about splitting iraq into three states to make it governor rebel and try to reduce the violence.

in its darkest hours during the civil war and after the war with israel, when it was wracked by political upheaval, you looked into the abyss but did not go that far. , whichakup of syria people are talking about, the secretary and differences are serious and should be treated as so, but i don't think it is a done deal at the moment. i think it is worthying about the armed opposition as two groupings and it is changing all the time. time. 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 rooms, washington, d.c., june 10, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable thomas e. petri to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. help us this day to draw closer to you so that with your spirit and aware of your presence among us we may all face the task of this day with grace and confidence. bless the members of the people's house as they return from a long weekend back in their home districts. may these decisive days through which we are living make them genuine enough to maintain their integrity, great enough to be

humble and good enough to keep their faith, always regarding public office as a sacred trust. give them the wisdom and the courage to fail not their fellow citizens nor you. may all that is done this day be for your greater 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 approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it ands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the

speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 7, 2013, at 10:15 a.m. appointments, commission on long-term care. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the house stands adjourned until noon tomorrow for morning hour debate.

>> we go back to the national council on arab relations discussions looking at the relationship in syria. they do not see the struggle as a way to reach struggle. this is what people tell you. many of the people who follow these groups followed them because that is where the attention is. they are able to pay fighters. most of the people who pick up weapons have not worked in syria for at least 18 months. many of them fighting has been the only way of managing to earn a living and they will probably move from group to group depending on which group is getting money, which group is getting resources. for western policymakers is something to bear in mind.

so i see any evolution over the last 12 months. the armed opposition control pretty much of northern syria, the northern provinces. ethnically it is muslim and sunni. that does not mean there aren't exceptions. so things have evolved but they have got on the a point where you feel the armed opposition is probably incapable of advancing much further than it actually has. it is relied on audacity, it has relied on gorilla warfare to achieve what has done. it has relied on david and goliath tactics.

it is not able to deal with military. if you put the two together, there is a potential potent force there. i just like to talk a humanitarian situation on the ground. on our first trip over was to visit people who were displaced, living in tents and woods right on the border. you can see the road in turkey on the other side are the bushes and the barbed wire. since then it is just spiraled out of control. everywhere you travel there are duplicated displaced families living in greenhouses, living in caves. we did one story and we were shown what was essentially an

old roman tomb where a family was being sheltered. this is an area that was between the armed opposition and the government. my camera man who is here went down into it and discovered five, six small boys in the dark on their own. their mother went out to get food and they were waiting for her to return and to take them out. nobody knew they were there. the humanitarian situation is a crisis. it is as bad as i've ever seen it anywhere. i think it's probably comparable to afghanistan during the civil war.

people are relying on handouts, i have no doubt foreign aid is making its way in. there is no perception on the ground that the outside world has done anything at all. people receive humanitarian aid, fighters get some weapons, but there is a general sense inside syria they have been abandoned by the outside world. people still to this day, ask what is the difference between a syrian and the libyan? it sounds like a bad joke, there is no answer. they don't see why the libyan's were assisted in a way they haven't been. most of them are victims of a war they didn't choose. whatever their side, whatever their ethnicity, whatever their religion, they are the ones that pay the price because when the armed opposition moves into the area then the government responds and the bombing is indiscriminate in the. you can't pinpoint attacks without advanced technology on the ground, which they don't

use. therefore, that is why you have so many killed from 9,000 this time last year to probably about 90,000 this year. so it is a gloomy picture. i'm happy to take your questions and thank you for listening to me. >> thank you. next. >> thank you. i should start with saying my remark do not reflect the blessings of the department of the defense or the united states government. i imagine that the professor will say something similar. i'm not speaking to -- for the defendant on defense. today, i wish to address two topics, first is the role of the unite nations and the implications of the no-fly zone. every american president prefers to take military action with

allies, even the invasion that is forgotten, was part of a coalition organization with states contributing resources. this urge is particular strong for democrats. the gold standard is a blessing by the united nations. since the fall of the berlin wall there has been two u.s. military actions that did not have some sort of u.n. sanction or claimed sanction. one was co-sew vow and the other with -- kosovo and the other was iraq. we know what happened with iraq. among the problems in kosovo was the role played by russia that determined to thwart what they saw a u.s. political grab. as of last week's gallop poll, 68% of americans did not support

military action. compounding this problem is an uncertain nation if assad were to be replaced. the leaders of the armed opposition within syria are uncertain at best and extremely shady at worst. a u.s. mandate is the minimum requirement to begin military action in syria. this will not happen as long as the chinese and the russians oppose a mandate. they feel they were hoodwinked when libya was first. the experience of libya has informed and to a great extend shaped the inaction on syria. even with the new powers team in

place, it would suggest unless there is a disaster occurring, i'm talking something along the massacres the u.s. will probably not take action without some sort of sanction. that's my points on the u.n. i draw that from my experience in peace keeping as secretary of defense. my second point concerns the nature of a no-fly zone. i'm not an air defense artillery man but i served in special operations forces. soldiers who work with big equipment they call people like me crunches because that's the sound we make when you run over us.

i'm low-tech i was a guest at a major weapons exhibition and they were showing these laser weapons and they said what are you looking for and i said i want wool socks that don't have a crease across the toe. the beauty of being an academic you can plagiarize anything as long as you acknowledge it. you can hear the panel on the u.s. institute of peace on their website and the remarks. i should also point out my colleague has written on this subject, very informative if you

go the website you can link to that. so let me make a few quick points. the first, a no-fly zone is a euphemism for war. it is an act of war and it will kill people and destroy things. some to feel killing and destruction will harm things we don't want to harm. a dominant narrative becomes yankee inspired death and destruction. let us discuss this issue without misconceptions. war even in an age of push- button warfare is exactly what general sherman said it was. there is considerably room in what a no-fly zone is. it is shaped by the decade long operations over northern and southern iraq but a clever staff officer could propose courses of actions which would not involve circling aircraft over damascus

and destruction of every missile and runway. my third point is a no-fly zone would require a base somewhere close by. these bases would probably come with a cost. turkey is the only credible base but they have issues of their own. they might insist on conditions that the u.s. will reject. our relationship with turkey is more transactional than it was in the mid 1980's. we can operate from more remote locations but this requires staging of expensive and scare military assets. particularly tankers and aircraft carriers, which are

still in demand in the gulf and to deal with the next act that if ongoing freak show, which is north korea. thank you. you're kind. geography matters. syria is not libya. in libya most of the targets were on a flat, lightly populated strip. syria is flying over mountains. the calculations involved in conducting aerial missions over syria are much more complicated. my fifth point and i have not heard any other commentators, is that modern practice is not to deploy a highly between area where you cannot retrieve them if his plane is shot down. forces are devoted to recovery. this means that any activity

carries the potential for ground combat of a limited nature. we should understand the implications of what is being proposed. do not let the salesman confuse you. my final point is my most important one. my study of history and i welcome people to dispute this suggests that whenever a no-fly zone is implemented, it will never satisfy those who seek a no-fly zone. we will hear about helicopters. as we did during the uprising in iraq after the gulf war. if the helicopters are destroyed, we would notice that most of the indiscriminate killing is being done by the machine is conducted by fire -- look, i do not blame insurgents, they are in a struggle against a brutal assad regime.

i want to have a concept. only the removal will diminish intervention. i've not discussed other technical matters. i will be delighted to take the question. please discount my remarks accordingly. thank you. i welcome questions. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you, dr. for inviting my organization here today. the conflict in syria has resulted in one of the most, largest emerges in history. the massive scale of displacement inside the country and to put a number on it, the

conservative effort is that more than 4 million people are displaced internally. tens of millions are in need of humanitarian assistance. 1.5 million syrians have sought refuge in neighboring countries. just today, the united nations launched its largest uphill ever for 5 -- appeal ever for $5 billion for the region. for more than a year, my organization has been working with syrian lead partners to deliver vital medical aid for clinics in war zones across syria. we are working inside syria to deliver health care to those who need it.

provide education to children who can no longer attend school and build safety -- safe places for traumatized syrians. supporting refugees in urban and rural communities throughout the region and reaching out to those who are suffering the most. so far we have a raised and spent nearly $50 million on aid to syria supported by among others the u.s., the uk, the european institutions and private donations. i want to focus on issues. what the -- community needs to do to get inside syria. second, how we can sub for refugees -- how we can support

refugees some working them. and third, how we can help refugees realize their rights as protected from the conflict. first, the international community needs to increase support to those in need in syria. although the u.s. and other donors have been generous in the response to the crisis, humanitarian needs far outweigh the strip provided. we need to significantly increase funding levels and do so quickly. the american government and american people deserve enormous credit for stepping in early and unprecedented assistance and is the largest donor and a greater role as a leverage or of assistance -- leveragor of assistance. equally important is that aid needs to flow through a diversity of channels. the international community should really consider ways to explore to reach those in the

worst of conflicts across borders from neighboring countries, across conflict lines inside syria through the united nations. international community of red cross and syrian relief structures, more aid to flow directly through syrian partners. especially those who are probably supported. the institutions of government also need assistance. the three key areas of need inside syria continue to be food, healthcare, and fuel. the infrastructure -- doctors have been targeted. now that summer has arrived, we are fighting increase support for water and sanitation -- providing increased support for water and sanitation. the international community needs to know it is not inflated with political objection. humanitarian assistance should be provided solely for the

purpose of alleviating suffering based on need. humanitarian action is about saving lives irrespective of nationality, gender, race, or political affiliation. it jeopardizes humanitarian workers, access to vulnerable populations, and risk the verdict insufficient resources from reaching the most in need of help. second, the international community should support syrian refugees and communities hosting them. while formal camps continued to garner the most attention and resources, it is not where most refugees are living. more than 70% live in urban and rural communities across the middle east. if they have financial resource, they rent apartments. if they have family and friends, they live with them. although that is increasingly rare due to the strain on host families. in order to survive refugees, they are sending their children to work. and exchanging sex for basic goods. across the region, tensions

between refugees and host communities are rising. these dynamics are clear today in lebanon. there are no refugee camps in lebanon. 100% of refugees in that country live in the communities and villages across the country. many are living in sediments that are emerging. -- settlements that are emerging. 4.2 million people -- in lebanon. the u.n. predicts that by the end of 2013, one in five people in lebanon will be refugees from syria. the you in appealed today -- the u. n. today appealed for the largest amount of $1.5 billion. this a clear acknowledgment of increased tensions of the lebanese government and the host community inside the country that are absorbing this massive influx of people.

in order to address the massive need and catastrophe, the international rescue community believes we should provide assistance to vulnerable communities. we also need to increase the quantity and quality of services provided to most refugee groups, specifically refugee women and children. we need to supplement humanitarian assistance by assuring that traditional development dollars that are most effective by the refugee influx. given the destruction, it could be months or years before displaced refugees to return home. the infrastructure and services will need to be rebuilt. signing about the future of

syria needs to address multiple range of issues including the needs of refugees and internally displaced people. i really, it is -- finally, it is essential that border countries bordering syria keep their borders open to provide safe havens for all those in need. the u.s. government should use diplomacy to encourage countries to keep their borders open. though they might sound appealing, i have a poor record and practice -- they have a poor record and practice. it will definitely take a political solution to end the civil war in syria. until then, it is important that the international community scale up and promote operations in order to forestall a regional

crisis. i appreciate the opportunity to join you today and i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. >> thank you. the last speaker before we open the floor for questions. >> a lot of territory has been covered. i have to give the usual caveats. these are my opinions alone. they do not represent this of the u.s. government or any other institution i might be involved with. i might get myself into trouble. this could be obama's roland. -- rowanda. how many people have died? this is not slow motion. from 2,000 to 90,000 in one year? this is far from slow motion. my head hurts when i think and my heart hurts when i think of

syria. my head because it is so complicated. also because if you want to look at this through a strategic level, this could turn into a maelstrom, no kidding. look at israel, jordan, turkey, the kurds, saudi arabia. iran is involved. the russians are a big part of the problem that is going on here. syria has its own maelstrom. as a strategic person or

thinking of this idea, this gets to me. this right here gets to me. the children in syria. if you have not read this report yet, read it. i think of myself as a tough guy. i work with the military. i read some of the stuff and i wept. this is what is happening here. the shattering of society, the shattering of economy. the shattering of infrastructure. this is a very dangerous situation. the question is how do we get from here to there? $5 billion, i heard for an appeal. how does $500 billion sound to

get this country somewhat stabilized? somewhat stabilized? we have to figure out our preferred outcomes in the short- term and long-term. i do not think that it eating has become what is meeting -- thinking has started for what is needed. and how this is going to come back at us. not just the united states of the neighborhood and possibly the world. have food. have clinics. take care of the orphans. bring some of into this country this is not bleeding heart

thinking. thinking andgic just being human. do well by doing good. do well by doing good. we can talk about all the military strategy in the world and lyrical science but it all boils down to the people on the ground. this is about people. a lot of people are mentioning this as a possibility to do this. no-fly zones are messy. people get angry. soft and hard power as a combination. thinking and just being human. it is probably too late. this could have been dealt with. months ago.

it was not. he is getting worse. it is pulling the region into the whirlpool of syria. at what is happening in lebanon and iraq and the border of israel. look at this as a 3-d moving spider web of intrigue and danger. every trying -- every time you try to change, everything changes. there is a military term. volatile. uncertain. complex. is happening in lebanon and iraq and the border of israel. look at this as a 3-d moving spider web of intrigue and danger. every trying -- every time you try to change, everything changes. there is a military term. volatile. uncertain. complex. ambiguous. washington is not particularly good with any of those. could we build a coalition to work on this? i doubt that right now.

the maelstrom is coming. it the timidity is astonishing. it is not just submitted seethe. it the timidity is astonishing. it is not just submitted see coming out of washington. it is all over the place. what is the option? give war a chance? get iran involved? officialsenior sunni for a call for jihad is an effective jihad out of lebanon. the iranians are there. iniranian general was killed syria. this is a lose cannon in the situation in many ways. the material is up there. it is really becoming out of control. this is magnified beyond what it should be. with of this has to do

money, power, and strategic positioning and the secretary and differences are available to all of that. they are is a great deal of nicole is him and all of this. with money, power, and strategic positioning

and the outside regime effect the administration's political calculus? would the current israeli government if at all

preferred the assad regime to remain in power or deal with what other new regime might rise to replace it? on iran i think the answer is the involvement makes the administration's calculus and ordinarily more calculated. just to take a step back and look at the role of this, iran is the staunchest supporter of the regime. you now have a deepening involvement by has blow to the extent that there is thousands fighters on the

ground operating in syria. in terms of political calculus, is ane have now inordinately more complicated situation. it is their ability to pay a key role. they have made a strategic decision to go all in in terms of their support. they view this as an ex essential battle. from my perspective i think ultimately we need to consider the role in this, particularly when one is looking at political and diplomatic solutions. iran i would argue has the power to play a real spoiler. therefore on some level

calculus has to take on board iran's role in how to this. i think at this point as i what israel is viewing happening in syria with increasing alarm. they are very much in the mode of. there are very clear lines in terms of israeli people and their borders. the third goal is being preventing the transfer of strategic weapons.

aid. a lot has been delivered on the@ ground. you can see that happening. +++ no idea where it hasrmm

come from. people go home and they make bread. in terms of intervention militarily. to that extent, the deliberately of arms extensively are tools .or defense they have been tools of offense. it has led to this. it is by its protectors and friends. that is what has led to this massive loss of life. do not pretend to know what

the answer is in syria. the only thing that is guaranteed is that more people .ill die the majority of them will be civilians. plenty of people talk about this. the looking perhaps this is a the government plan b. i think it will be incredibly difficult to pull off. it is hard to imagine this'll be a desirable outcome for in in the country. i go back to my earlier point that secretary and is him in and is driven by extreme elements on both sides. and also bruised by the national defense force.

it does not have to be inevitable. it seems to be a highly critical idea. historically, there has been this. we have enormous amounts. they have this in some areas. there working with the rebels. some villages you travel have run their own village. they have an agreement. are very practical agreement. it is between the governors.

when the next government of fits in damascus, then that will be a question that has to be addressed. how much economy is granted? i do not hear them pulling for a separate state. they will demand a high degree of a tonic me. what can be done to prevent spillover violence ?nto serious neighboring states might change the calculus of russia or china moving to to a greater degree than they are to have? is there any point where they aght agree to facilitate

transition of leadership? if so, where might that point be? third, how does the instability israel'schange with iran'sat all nuclear program? >> pussy -- thank you for the questions. if i can give you confident answers i would he upstairs surrounded by sycophants instead of the light being grilled. being said, i would give you my best efforts. what can be done? spillover violence i find to be an unhealthy metaphor. borders are impermeable and violence occurs in one state and happens in another that somehow your sovereignty has been to files, never to be recovered.

borders are permeable. it does go there. it can be restored. states realize this. they can either ratchet it up or ratchet it down. what we have done is in some states such as georgian you have headquarters. i would imagine any other contingency which should become possible. this is to deter any possible missile strikes from syria. measures like that seems to be the effective ones. the states that are concerned about spillover violence, if at iraq, violence could spill over. to what effect? the border is immediately on-

site syria. there's not much there. depth. have the u.s. border patrol does not have to intercept every single legal alien the moment they border.the there are steps being made. i think is it self relatively unhelpful. he had to look at each state as an independent element and say elements of stability in the state and then address those elements. that is more helpful analysis. what will lead to a change of leadership in china or russia? my own assessment is that russia's lead.ng let's put that aside. it could be incorrect. but just look at russia. i think feels humiliated.

they feel they were misled over libya. they just had one client over her own and shots in a ditch. what will be our place in the if we give up. there cannot be a win/loss. there has to be a win/win. counter to some of our goals. in particular, one of the big when i look at human rights which are a motivating be are notshould necessarily determinative fact heirs. one of the big issues is this idea of impunity. assadquite possible that will remain in power for me the it off the. it would easiest way to convince to play a more helpful role in this scenario would be your client who has been your client forever will

a graceful easement from power. might wind up in moscow. his wife is a british citizen. the british government recently has great problems deporting thise they do not like. would run counter to the idea the west that people who commit human rights violations should be punished. he lived out his days peacefully. and this is just an educated yes. i would prefer having a state where there are discrete buttons that i could post. they could get the reaction

that would be more stable for me. a line werere in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians have not up until gone anywhere near the same degree. view thisians distinction made by the west of what is and is not acceptable by syrian government? syria

1.3 million iraqis in the early years of the us-led invasion and occupation. correct me if i'm wrong, the the u.s. is allowed let in as many as 30,000 iraqis. many have put their lives on the line. his approach to been informed by , libya, andypt elsewhere question what lessons it any might he have learned s that haverevolt

allowed him to remain in power? >> let me say that as a humanitarian organization, we have to tread a very careful line and not answering questions. ityour question about iraq, is absolutely true that many the violence and are now going back to iraq. it is true that many iraqis were resettled by the united states, translators, and others who work thathe american government government continues. has resettledtes tens of thousands of iraqis and to do so in the future. we in thef syrians

international community have not at reached a point where massive resettlement program i has been instituted. there is some small-scale resettlement. that is in an area that the international community needs to contemplate and plan for in the future should this conflict persists. in terms of your question about , weeting of civilians, our do not have a red line on chemical weapons. our view is that the government should not target civilians. those that are targeted and who absolutely must see the ability to flee in the safe haven in neighboring countries. that is why we so strongly advocate for the principle of thatborders to make sure those civilians who are targeted or whoway shape or form

can a fear of persecution find a safe haven outside of the war zone. your third question was about assad. from libya ands egypt to what degree if at all have the informed is sought in he might be able to succeed in getting away with i remaining in power. from a humanitarian not in ave, we are position to analyze lessons governmentm any action. that regardless of the actions of any government civilians ought not to be targeted. are feeling in danger, that they ought to have the ability to flee and fund safety -- safe havens. comment on the

question that was originally 2 a.m., how well the courage recent self-governance changes at the rebels secure reins of power and/or the prevails? are still too soon to say? have the events impacted one way or another turkey's role in humanitarian manners? or security issues? is just a beginning situation. do not think it is clear what is going to be happening with this. exactly clear what was going to happen with this when the first demonstration in egypt and libya and syria and other countries. it could be a simple demonstration.

ofcould be a discussion political differences or spin into something else. huge difference between turkey's and these other countries. he was elected. he is not a dictator. turkey also has a long history dissent to being cracked down upon. we are not seeing that right now. societya maturation of in turkey. people are speaking their minds. most of this is page over. how this is here. he might be able to handle many the same things that time.

if this starts to spin out of turkey willne way, have to look inwardly for a while. that may affect things. turkey is worried about what is happening on its borders in serious and iraq and elsewhere. it is a serious concern for , especially when missiles go over them and start killing all villages near the border. ?hat was the other question whomever would like to , thend to these questions new york times reports today of advanced israeli preparations for the possibility of a third lebanon war. they say it will be a shock and we war of destruction. these elaborate on saudi arabia

one side or role on the other of this conflict? and happy to talk about .audi bothe question of saudi, gulf countries have played a role in supporting the syrian .pposition i think the issue to date has been rather than coordinating they have often worked at cross purposes. each country has been jostling for influence in syrian theater. the effect of deepening those differences. we are in a stage now where i there is more attempt to centralize channels and had the gulf

countries in particular work more closely in harmony, whether that will be successful or not remains to be seen. with regard to that, cutter involved in many regions. it is not exactly have a lot of to teach it depth. i think a way of looking at this is that they are playing with fire. come back with them. i hope that does not happen. is definitelyon limited. the idea of another shock and war, anyone in this room feel comfortable with that? the ripples and waves that come with that? do you think it will end in syria? think it will end in

iraq? has it ended in iraq? baad idea. >> >> a question to you regarding more recent events in turkey. on the role that the erdogan government can now play, given on what is occurring in the last week. on turkey. to paul turkey has been a host on endless -- - will pick up on the qatar saudi question. there has been a movement to has happened.

the focus of power in terms of support for the rebels has shifted to saudi arabia away from qatar. there was a meeting that took ice in saudi arabia with members of the syrian opposition. the general who is the normal military commander in charge of the recognized military structure within side the country seems to be being empowered by the west and saudi arabia to be a unified oteri figure. it seems there is a lot spoken about the opposition being effective. the central power is with the armed men. it is an interesting piece a person who has

monitored this movement from arabia, and the suggestion is that western policymakers particular in this town, they see that as a credible way forward of unifying the armed opposition. >> before thanking the audience and the speakers, i wanted to extend a note of appreciation again to c-span for its outsized role in making --isions through mary and myriad opportunities to inform the english-speaking public on these issues. it is hard to recall and more

thorny, complex, and urgent program and event that the national council has been privileged to host here in the nation's capital on capitol hill than the one we have been treated to for the last two hours. at the same time, with a note of humility, of of the speakers or any of those in the audience would claim to be bereft of of defects,, devoid or free from flaw. none have any pretense of having , monopoly on the method copyright on the concept, trademark on the technique for a patent on the process. we thank all of you for coming, and we have a lot of food for thought and a lot of thought for food until the next event. thank you, all. [applause]

>> according to reports, officials are saying the administration could decide this week to approve lethal aid for the syrian rebels and will wa eight the merits of imposing a no-fly zone over the country. ida mckinley

suffered from epilepsy. >> the house returns tomorrow at legislative0 for work. they are working on the defense authorization act. the senate is in today and will resume debate on an immigration measure. the bill will create a path to citizenship or most of the undocumented immigrants and seeks to improve border security as all has placed caps on visas for high skilled workers. cheduled a vote skille on the farm bill. ,atch the house live on c-span the c-span -- the senate on c-

span two. the white house today, president obama nominated jason furman to head his economic team. he formerly worked as an economist in the clinton white house. the position requires confirmation by the senate. on this day 50 years ago, president kennedy signed the equal pay act requiring menoyers to give women and equal pay for equal work. administration has pushed congress to pass the paycheck fairness act, which would make wage differences more transparent and guard against retaliation from employers. ellery gerrit and the head of valerie jarrett gave

introductory remarks. this event is 20 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to the white house as we mark the 50th anniversary of the equal pay act. hooray! [applause] it is great to look around the audience and see so many amazing could brave men this morning. president obama created the white house council of women and girls a few months after he took office. there are representatives from every agency of the government to serve on the council, and the executive director is here today.

the council is tasked with making sure we take into account the needs of women and girls in every policy, program, and piece of legislation we support. we have worked on issues ranging from knowing women's economic security to creating opportunities or women and girls to helping women starting their new business is, to stop violence against women and human trafficking, make sure that women have affordable healthcare -- [applause] and to support equality for women all around the globe. seen so many raise their voices agreement. warm buffet -- worn buffet said the greater output of goods answer is will be. we have seen what we can come

was when we use 50% of human society, capacity. if you visualize what 100% can do, you will join me in the unbridled optimism of the american future. women are increasingly becoming the breadwinner's at home. this makes equal pay not only a women's issue, but a family issue and a societal issue. that is why we need to build a strong 21st century workplace that includes equal pay for equal work, ensures workers are of treated unfairly because their family responsibilities, and helps women and men balance their obligations at work and at home. these policies have a huge impact. the president's council on economic advisers has reported while more women have been working over the last half century, that number has recently begun to fall, and one reason being that fax ability

policies have not yet adjusted to the growth of women in the workforce and the challenges of a dynamic between home and work. the council also noted that if we boost adult women's wages by one we would left over million individuals out of poverty, including more than 500,000 children. 10% does not get where we need to close the wage gap, but imagine what a difference it would make to families around our country. these are issues that matter to us here today. they're motivated by women like amanda mcmillan, who was a guest at the first lady's box at the state of the union this year.

amanda worked as a secretary for several years. she was doing many of the same duties as the men in her company, but at a lower pay, and she was told she would not be promoted despite her years on the job. with the help of the equal employment opportunity commission, she sued and she so grateful tore have her today. [applause] when amanda was asked why she pursued the case, she said she was doing this because it was wrong. she could never look her girls in the face and tell them they live in an america and could be anything they wanted to be. isn't that what all daughters, all sisters, and moms deserve? that is what i know i want for my daughter. he know the government cannot solve these challenges alone. that is why we are so thrilled to have advocates of the private sector touring us today, and i

want to give a special shout out to those standing on the stage with me to work so hard on the and girls. these give them a round of applause. -- please give them a round of applause. [applause] the private sector recognizes that our global competitiveness appends on creating a 21st- century work lace. one company that leads by example is the lloyd's -- is deloitte. now i would like t for you to welcome joe who will introduce the president. [applause] >> good morning. if we were doing this in spanish, it would be josé.

i have a real personal connection to this subject. i grew up in the inner cities of the south bronx. it was the poorest district in the united states at the time, and it continues to be. but i had a mom who had me work really hard. i had the help of government programming, and i became the first person in my family to go to college, and that was quite an accomplishement. in 1978 -- [applause] in 1978 i landed a terrific job deloitte, firm called and 35 years later i'm here as the ceo. one day early in my career the team got together and how we

would do a salary survey. the reason no internet back then, so we wrote it down on paper and through the numbers and a hat, and i was surprised to find out that i was the lowest paid person of someone who had the same title, the same responsibilities, and i believe the same performance. the only difference i could tell was our backgrounds. that was 1978. that was a long time ago. velot of chainnges has happened since then. we talked about the important laws passed by the congress. we had the lilly ledbetter act passed. laws alone will not solve the problem. the public and the private sector working together. i am proud at what we have done at deloitte. you talked in your speech but the young lady sitting right here.

i am living the american dream, and my firm helped be due that. i am happy to represent the 60,000 people and 3000 partners who defined our organization. we have lots of policies in place today to make sure there is equal pay, people are of value weighted, no retaliation for people who and speak up, and that is important. it is important for companies and what we do. when you pay based on performance, when you pay based on a job well done him a that is what is good for companies what is good for america. that is what we are about as a country. now it is my honor and it is an honor to introduce a man who has led on this issue and has championed the cause of fair and equal pay from his first day in office. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you so much. everybody have a seat. welcome to the white house. it is wonderful to see all of you. thank you, joe, for that kind introduction. thank you, valerie, for the great leadership gets shown on this. business leaders and advocates, members of congress who are here, numbers of my administration, i'm so glad all of you could be here to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the equal pay act. when you think about it, we're not just celebrating a law, we are honoring the heroes who made that law possible. the fierce determination of americans who saw a wrong and

worked to right it. the women who were sick and tired of being sick and tired. [laughter] seeing the same jobs advertised with the firm pay scales, women who are tired of being treated like second-class workers, women like dorothy height and congresswoman edna kelley. [applause] all who pushed to make the equal pay act a reality. today, we recognize the work of those brave women. but until equal pay truly is a reality, we are here to recommit ourselves to the work that remains to be done. 50 years ago today, president kennedy signed the equal pay act into law a right here in the white house. he said it was basic to our democracy that the idea that all of us are created equal. as i said in my inaugural address this year, our journey to equality is not complete

until our wives, mothers, our daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. the day the bill was signed into the law, women earned 59 cents for every dollar a man earns on average. today, it's about 77 cents. 59, now at 77 -- it even less if you are an african american or latina. i guess that's progress, but does anybody here think that's >> no.nough? >> i assume everybody thinks we can do better. yes we can. over the course of her career, a working woman with a college degree will earn on average

hundreds of thousands of dollars less than a man who does the same work. that's wrong. i don't want that for malia and sasha, i don't want that for your daughters, i don't want that to be an example that any child growing up ends up accepting as somehow the norm. i want every child to grow up knowing a woman's hard work is valued and rewarded just as much as any man's. what's important to realize is that this is not just an issue of fairness. this is a family issue, a middle class issue, and economic issue. just last week, report confirmed what we already know, that women are increasingly the breadwinners for american

families, women are the primary source of income for nearly 40% of american families. almost half. that's not something to panic about or be afraid about. that's a sign of the progress and the strides we have made. but what it does mean is that when more women are bringing home the bacon, they shouldn't just be getting a little bit of bacon. if they are bringing home more of the income and that income is less than a fair share, that means families have less to get by on for child care or health care or gas or groceries. it makes it harder for middle-class families to save and retire. it leaves small businesses with customers who have less money in their pockets, which is not good for the economy. that is not a good example to

set for our sons and daughters, but it's also not a good recipe for long-term, stable economic growth. to anyone who says 77 cents on the dollar sounds pretty close to equal, i would say your math is bad. you would not like it if your vote only counted in three out of four elections. you wouldn't like it if your daughters or sons went to school but they only got taught three out of four days a week. you would not like it if you were forced to work every fourth day without pay. men would be complaining about that. they would not think that equal or fair. it's the 21st century. it's time to close that gap. that's why the first bill i signed into law was the lilly ledbetter fair pay act.

that is why i created the first ever white house council on women and girls, which is working to close that gap. and valerie's council is doing a great job, bringing the experience of women into our federal policies as well. it's why i established the national equal pay task force to crack down on violations of equal pay laws which they are doing at a record rate. and through education and outreach, they are helping employers develop tools to comply with the nation's equal pay laws on their own. that is why earlier this year, i signed a presidential memorandum directing the federal government to close that gap for good for

its employees. we have to set an example. it is also why we are using the latest technology to help workers get the information they need to figure out if they are underpaid. thanks to innovators, we can now say there is an app for that. as long as this gap persists, we will have more work to do. now is the time to keep up the work all of those trailblazers 50 years ago is now. now is the time for congress to step up and pass the paycheck fairness act. now is the time for us to encourage more young women to pursue math and science education. now is the time for us to hire more stem teachers so students are prepared for the high-tech jobs for tomorrow. and that businesses offer flexibility to be good employees

and good parents. i really want to commend deloitte and the ceo's who are with us here today. they are creating exactly the kind of innovative workplaces that help hard-working americans thrive, and they are committed -- to pay equity. when you have a chance to talk to joe, say thank you. ceo's who are out there, if you want a first-class company, tapping into the talents and resources of all of your employees, make sure you are putting in place systems so they all feel like they are being treated fairly and equally. it is a simple principle, and it is a powerful one. and now is the time to make sure that we are putting in place a minimum wage that you can live

on, because 60% of those making the minimum wage are women. we do all of this, and this will be part of our broader agenda to create good jobs and strengthen middle-class security, to keep rebuilding an economy that works for everybody, that gives every american the chance to get ahead, the matter who you are or what you look like and what your last name is, or who you love. that is what i will keep on fighting for, what you will keep on fighting for, and we have all of you and your predecessors to thank for the progress in eliminating the barriers and injustices that might keep our daughters from enjoying the same rights and chances and freedoms as our sons. i am proud of you. thank you very much.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the first woman to represent nevada in congress died today after a short illness. she was 91. a funeral is set for friday. you can find our coverage of her work online in the c-span video .ibrary at www.c-span.org mckinleyr health, ida suffered from epilepsy and her husband would sit next to her at state dinners so when she had a seizure he would shield her .ace with a large handkerchief

despite her health problems she traveled as first lady. ve of idaook at the liv mckinley live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span c-span radio and www.c-span.org. >> the british foreign secretary said recent allegations that they government communications headquartered tried to circumvent the law to gather data on uk citizens are baseless. here is a look. that has been suggested to get around uk law, obtaining information they cannot legally obtain in the the united kingdom. i wish to be clear that this accusation is baseless.

us from theained by united states involving uk nationals is subjected to proper uk statutory controls including relevant sections of the intelligence service act and the regulation of investigative's powers act. our work with the united states is subject to ministerial and independent oversight and to scrutiny by the security committee. our agencies practice and uphold uk law at all towns, even when dealing with information from outside the united kingdom. the combination of a robust legal framework, ministerial andonsibility, parliamentary accountability to the intelligence and security committee should give a high level of confidence that the system works as intended. politico reports tomorrow

house lawmakers will be briefed by top officials from the justice department and the national security administration. this comes as lawmakers turned their attention to national defense and intelligence policy after reports that nsa called eva from cell phones and internet providers. you can watch more on cybersecurity tonight at 8:00 eastern with a former ambassador and a former ibm ceo speaking from the council on foreign relations. as the senate debates the gang of eight immigration bill, the new america foundation discussed the legislation. you will hear from the president and ceo of immigrationworks usa. this is an hour and 20 minutes.

>> welcome, everybody. martinez.andres thank you for joining us for eventurns out to be an timelier discussion than we had anticipated when we scheduled it, given the week ahead here in washington on immigration reform. to my left is simon rosenberg and to my right is tamar jacoby, and is thellow here president of immigrationworks. thanks. as you know, both these individuals have storied biographies, but to keep things rolling i will leave it at that other to save than to add that --you would be hard- pressed to find two other people in town who have had as active

and engaged experience with immigration reform and who have been more influential, both in this round of immigration reform, but also previous rounds, so we have battle- tested experts. our premise today is immigration reform has shown a great deal of traction this year. we hear a lot about how washington is broken. there is excessive polarization, nothing gets done, and that has been the working narrative for quite some time about our political process, and yet we have seen this year great progress on one of the more intractable difficult issues of recent years, immigration. in fact a lot of the conversations i have been around on the political climate

in washington generally always point to immigration as the one kind of sunny exception to the gridlock that has occurred in d.c., and one thing i worried about is that might be too optimistic and maybe to prematurely optimistic because individuals know, it is not quite done yet. we have seen a very ambitious bill put together by this gang of eight in the senate, voted out of committee, so we have an ambitious comprehensive immigration reform under way, and this week it is going to the floor of the senate and then the house will weigh in at some point. some of us have seen this movie before, 2006, 2007, so i i am a little skittish to predict victory. we have seen improbable success so far, or progress, i should

say. one thing i would like to start us off with and maybe you could get us started is to step fivbak and talk about what we have seen in the senate, how optimists -- how comfortable are you with the parameters of what this immigration looks like now? is this something you are ecstatic about? you are playing the role of democratic advocate for immigration and you are playing the role of republican advocate for immigration, i want each of you to talk about the potential pitfalls and obstacles that the other side toht throw out and play form and have at the end of the day be another instance of gridlock and disruption in washington. then we will reverse roles and each of you can see what each of your sites can compromise on to

get us to the promised land. simon, in terms of what the legislation looks like now, how are you feeling about it? thanks. it is great to be here. it is always good to be up here tamar, whom i have learned a lot from and i think she has had a harder job than i have over the last eight years, which is keeping the fire burning on the republican side. i have incredible admiration for the new american foundation, so it is great to be here. if we go back to wendy's these gang of eight negotiations began, there was not a lot of reason to be optimistic. this is an issue that has been through a, we passed republican senate in 2006,

mccain and kennedy leading the way. then the house would not take it up in 2007. the democrats had won the senate. for reasons we could spend the rest of the program talking about, it did not pass. there is caution, cautiously optimistic. we were cautiously optimistic, and the gang is a new group. i think it has worked. even though there are things are in the immigration bill that i do not like, i feel all the compromises that we saw were understandable. i could explain them. i did not feel democrats accepted things they did not get in return for. goesis in some ways -- it back to the origins of the bill, mccain and kennedy when they built the bill in 2005, did sell in an old-fashioned way, or everybody got something and everybody ate something, and

there was a powerful polish and i was going to see the bill through. that spirit prevailed in these negotiations. as a democrat, we would like to path to citizenship be less arduous, and there is the main complaint that you will adorhear from democrats. this is an indicia spill. this is at a time when partisanship has diminished the legislative ambition of a lot of legislators and washington. this is an annexed though to that. ,t deals with border security significant infrastructure investment along the border that will create jobs on both sides of the u.s.-mexico border. it deals with illegal immigration system so it is more more skill-based, the that theted in a way undocumented immigrants that at the end of the day i will take it. it may not have been how i would

have done it, but i will take it. those are the major components of it. can'tsm, happiness explain the compromises, and that is why you see democrats fighting for this. here.nk you for being it is great to be on the stage with simon. astonished at how much progress they made and how in the big view how good a product it is. we can get into the weeds about the concerns come up but it is remarkable, the work they have done, a year ago, to say that republicans would be for partners in a comprehensive reform bill, people would have laughed at that on a panel like this. they were at the table and they were full partners and the sides work together effectively to find the sweet spot. i think all of us in washington think that they lost those

muscles, that people do not know how to do bipartisan compromise anymore. what is astonishing is you put eight guys in a room and they have the will, they still know how to negotiate and get to a deal. they did that not just on the big things, because some egg forls, the grand bargain those who want an answer to the 11 million on authorized, more enforcement, they made the this comes down to every little detail has to be worked out so it works for democrats and republicans and works on the ground. they did quite an amazing job of getting analog of those things right. they looked for the sweet spot and found that. the biggest one is a humane and practical answer to the 11 million on authorized, combined with a pretty serious determination to get enforcement on the border and in the workplace.

they are going to spend up to $5 billion on the border, and every company in america is going to have to use either terrified to make sure that the people that work.hem will those are big enforcement pieces. the other big deal here, the big compromise, they rebalanced our immigration system. right now 66% of the green cards of the permanent visas 02 families, and seven percent go 7%.mployment space, way out of sync with other countries. canada, 25%.- the idea is there is a rebalancing. you talked about skilled people, but workers we need for the u.s. economy and what is in our interests and a rebalancing with their interests.

to predict and it will depend on the economy and how many people apply, that -40%.uld get up to 60% that was bipartisan agreement on that. republicans might have been after that for a long time, or .aybe some democrats a the answer for the unauthorized immigrants is there is an answer, it is tough, not automatic, but there is a path. we try to find the sweet spot. concerns on my side -- obviously we are going to see it playing out in the senate in the weeks ahead over are the border triggers tough enough, that it has these provisions that say people cannot it be citizens until the border is

verify, every company is using it. there are many republicans who say it is not a meaningful trigger. a lot of debate around that. >> and there are amendments. ofess you harass the 101% people trying to cross. is thatey point there for republicans to have --table requests >> you both are appreciative of the compromises that have been made and i should say you both played a role in making that so. let's interrupt the comb buyout -- kumbaya vibe. tell us what are your

concerns of what his team might do in the next few weeks, months, both in the senate, but when we get to the house that could get us off track and we will be here in the fall bemoaning the fact that immigration is another in a long list of things that congress cannot handle the gaza partisanship. -- if iwas imagining was a democrat, i would say we to 27% election with 71% of latino votes. that is a good score. why would you want to change that? parties work hard to get numbers like that. why would you want to change that? why would you have to share credit with the other party and go back to latinos and say you

do not have to eight republicans anymore? without knowing anything that --it is not hard to imagine that there are people thinking like that. will they prevail? there will be opportunities where things will be going badly, going rough, where it will be easy to say let's not compromise on that and let's make it look like it was the republicans and it will fail and they will say we tried. a lot of talk about should the house vote on the senate bill, and there is hope among democrats and you hear advocates on immigration reform groups saying the senate bill is a good compromise and the house should vote on it. the house will not and cannot in a million years vote on the senate bill. the house will want to come up with its own product.

if it was forced to answer -- to vote on the senate bill, the answer would be no. that, who continue to say that is in my view a nonstarter. to a lot of republican members, -his is the liberal democrat all overf fingerprints it. that is not what they want. even if it was good, they would not want to take it up to the senate, the democratic senate. that is one the issue, and there has been a lot of talk and recent weeks there is a bipartisan group in the house working to craft their own bipartisan answer that they hope will be parallel to the senate the law, and there is a lot of talk that the democrats have made it difficult for that group to get to a solution, that they have not been as

forthright in compromising as some in the house. i have not been in the room, and there has been talk that it is hard to get to a compromise their because there are folks who want the house to have to take up the senate bill. that is all procedural stuff. >> what to you think are the things on the part of democrats that would derail this and would be beyond the pale that you would consider the parameters of what is doable? it is it -- is it health care subsidies, that pathway to citizenship question mark --? >> there will be people who want the borders to be tougher. when you get to the house there will be movement to the right, and the house will try for something shaved back, and the issue where there will be

issues is there will be a path to the legalization for the on authorized. the question is can the democrats accept that? there will be huge debate on health care, and the issue that has kept this secret group in the house, that is where they have been hung up for the last month. health care, but not only health care. skilled worker program will be an issue. i and many republicans think the low skilled worker program in the senate bill is a good design, but it is too small to diverge and rechannel illegal immigration. republicans in the house who are concerned about we do not want to be here again in 10 years facing another on offer of 11 million, that program needs to be more responsive.

afl is adamant about that, and can it not be more market sensitive and can democrats give them all of that? tama was not talking about you when people were looking at the scoreboard and say why don't we preserve this lead and not endanger it by having -- allowing republicans to seem constructed on the immigration issue. you worked, right? -- you weren't, right? talk a little bit from your perspective, what are the stumbling blocks of republicans. just listening to both of you, i thought about this in a new way, which is democrats have basically signed on to the the housel, not in

yet, and we will see what comes out of the house this week, but in the senate there is no effort to drag this to the left. are happycepted we with the bill, we picked up republican support in the vote,tee process, 13-5 pretty extraordinary. gain this out we there is this other body that is about to weigh in that is in all likelihood going to attempt to move the bill to the right. there is no parallel effort to move the bill to the left. democrats are a sickly accepting what we have, which in itself creates a little bit of a curious situation in the way washington works, because in onery if in any negotiation side gets more, the other side has to get something, and structurally this is not being set up that way this now. the house republicans have an arrest decision to make them up

because i will pass a series of smaller things that will not be the senate bill, and the question is how far do they go? do they try to make something that will be reconciled in a normal conference committee, or will they stake out such ground that it will be thick difficult for their members come back and accept compromise? we may need only 20 or 30 republicans, so we could have a situation or there is a bill that passes him a 100 republicans in a house, goes to conference, and only 20 or 25 can accepted and the bills still passes. how much of an obstacle that is we do not know. gowdyll of goodlatte and introduced last week is something that goes so far that is hard to understand how the republicans go back from it, because it includes things like providing weapons for ice agents

and mandatory body armor, and it sounds like they are going to commit extraordinary acts of violence against undocumented immigrants. it is the wackiest moment we have had in this immigration the day. is the borderks triggers are a real issue. republicans have a legitimate concern about the border. the idea that 700,000 people can walk across any order of any entry when they want is anything any country can accept. we have to do a better job policing our porous mexican border. it makes sense and there is a to toughenrt that up on the triggers, democrats have said no. the senate gang of eight have said no, any re-altering of the trigger mechanism that was negotiated. the third thing that make it complicated down the line is the house republicans have said no

new spending, no new net spending. right now amendment, the senate immigration bill, it's $100 billion over five years. $15ill be $10 billion, billion, $20 billion a year to achieve the ambitious enforcement goals. i do not know how we will billcile, and the cornyn called for 10,000 new guards. that bill alone was $70 billion over a certain time. the issue of whether or not the house republicans are ever going to accept a bill that has net spending in it will be a bigger issue in the fall, but they have been aggressive about that and the senate bill will be expensive because it is ambitious. what is interesting is a guy cornyn, the amendment he

is for -- floating around is an affirmation of the role of government, giving government a lot more money to achieve goals. can house republicans accept that? that worries me in the fall and not in the next couple of months. the asymmetry that you a few facts, on the gay and lesbian amendment, it did not get voted on, but it was discussed, would have taken away from the left that republicans could not before. there were people in the committee, democrats, who when somebody's point of labor business balance came up said they would vote for it but with asterisk, where they would

fight it for another day on the floor, so it is not as if -- i am not praising either. >> has simon described them theectly, where we started conversation where there is this compromise that has been achieved in the senate am a but now we have to have compromise between this bipartisan compromise here and i republican -- and a republican majority that is not symmetrical. >> i would argue the original proposal was not entirely symmetric pee. you think it is fair to think of the senate bill not as a bipartisan bill question marl --? >> but leaning toward one side. , let's look ate

the low skilled worker visa afl was always saying if we are not happy we will walk, and if they walk, we will not get enough democrats to vote, and that was always a sword hanging over the negotiations. market had a veto on how sensitive it would be. it is a good compromise, that leans and little bit toward some of the people on that side of the table. on the border triggers as well. for those of us who are not as steeped in the detail, i think i know what we mean when we talk about a trigger. ,> in the original legislation they had requirements that had to happen.

to bewere requirements met on the border and could only be met in three of nine districts on the border. why would you have these requirements that they had to be met, but only in three out of nine districts? they were the three is this just -- three busiest districts. wholeou would secure the border, and just not in three of nine districts. >> the triggers that are in the current senate will are metrics that have to be met for both monitoring the border and people coming across and the number of apprehensions across the entire border. the second thing is -- and the heirs are kicking at different points -- a new, wildly

ambitious effort to create a legitimate worker verification .ystem is going to be national third -- >> before what? before anybody can be legal? >> before you can be legal, the government has have a plan. then for people to get citizenship, certain things have to happen. >> the key thing is what the huge-- this was thing that democrats gave up. the regrets got stuff out of the negotiations, but democrats accepted something and many people in the democratic family thought it was unacceptable compromise, which is that the was connectedth to a series of metrics.

what it meant was the whole thing for democrats became are the metrics that have to be met reasonable and will the government have the resources -- because these are expensive things. verify is an expensive thing. will they have the resources in the times prescribed? one of the things they are trying to solve the hill is having a huge number of people who live and work here, pay taxes here, be in this netherworld of status, whether they are neither here nor they are foreigners, which seems to be deeply inconsistent with american values about how we treat everybody. if the triggers are too hard, we are not solving that problem. >> one thing that strikes me a bit -- [indiscernible]

in the last few years there has been a lot done to make the borders and a lot more, and one of the fallacies of the political debate is it presupposes that nothing has been done since 2006 and 2007. >> that me articulate the republican certain -- concern. what people are afraid is 1986, we legalized 3 million people and we said there was going to be enforcement, and no enforcement happened. for years, there was a year when three notices got sent out to employers who were supposedly hiring fraudulent workers. lot did not happen. people are very skeptical. they said we are going to give you the candy but we are not going to get the -- and a lot of republicans are skeptical

about that at want to make sure there is real enforcement. it is not it is not necessarily anti- immigrant. i want to convert to a legal immigration system. whether itle is not is anti-immigrant or not. it is whether it is accurate. not. clearly >> a legitimate measure that is actually real. people are skeptical that we will have the person in charge of it to certify it is done. >> in a report we released recently which you can find on our website, we addressed this issue you are raising which is what has changed since we began this process in 2005. let me show you out a set -- i'm about a statistic that is