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 amazing. since 2005, violent crime on

the u.s. side of the border, you take el paso and san diego, violent crime is 1/3 the rate of what it was. there were 19,000 violent crimes in 2004. 14,000 violent crimes in those same communities one year ago. that the border region is this wild west, out- of-control, violent place, not true. there has been virtually no spillover of violence from mexico. this is a sign of them doing a really good job, working with local law enforcement to take a precarious situation and make it better. ofalso note the migration undocumented immigrants went from -- to now zero.

those goals were achieved and meaningful. those things were actually executed successfully by the obama administration. trade exploded. you know this better than anybody. it will be almost $600 billion by the end of 2013. that is a doubling of trade. we have not only had a significant gain in enforcement, we have had an incredible explosion of trade. i said this to the president myself recently. this has been a wildly successful part of your administration. we are making the u.s. side of much better. i do think there has been a mistake by our side that we have not leaned into the border success. it is allowed the republicans to get away with an exaggeration of what is the state of play today.

>> lets me just say to the vo things. i'm not going to dispute the numbers, but you do still meet ranchers in arizona. they come to it with a constituency that say, my life is still not what it should be. there is still danger. they are not just workers. they are dangerous people. i am not disputing the improvement, but i do not think it is unreasonable to say that we want a real measure. let's have some real measures. down now,n is way significantly due to the fact the economy has been in bad shape. as the economy improves we will see people come across the border unless they have a legal way to come. will certainly have challenges. it is not unreasonable to say,

there is going to be a deal where there is a trigger, let's have be a meaningful trigger. it is going to be a trigger, let's have it be a meaningful deal. this is where we are getting to the part of the section where we have about our own side. have republicans that are setting standards that are unbeatable. you know, there are plenty of unreasonable things. keep moving the goalposts so it is unbeatable. people who, i am sure, there will be unreasonable ideas in the negotiation. do you think that a republican majority in the house is going to go along with

some pathway, however an arduous, to citizenship in its own version of the legislation? or do you think one of the defining schisms at the end of legal status?e >> that is the $64,000 question about the future. thes hard to tell where center of gravity is among house republicans. knowally, every office i and go to visit, people say, we have to do something. go to,f the offices i and the center of gravity i see emerging, is we are ok with legal status, but we are uncomfortable with creating a special or direct path to citizenship. we do not want to say that these people who came here that today get a reward, which is a special path just for them. the way people talk about it is a special path or direct path.

they will hear too many people saying you can never have citizenship. people say there are other ways. we would be ok with programs where they and other people -- what if they came through a guest worker program. that is what the senate bill .as that is where the majority of republicans are. rule that no bill can pass without the majority of the majority. i do not see republicans being willing to pass on that rule. getquestion is what can we the majority -- what can the political marketplace there? i do not think we quite know yet.

i think that is something that will be a emerging over the next two months and it will be one of the questions going forward. >> how high do you see healthcare on the list? >> talks are going to be huge. the senate bill, as i understand it, a lot of the costs are to be paid by fees going forward. there's a big budgetary number, but the idea is that the theiring of this -- that fees will come in later and come back to pay for stuff area always complicated. if i understood that step after -- a better, i would make a lot money working at the bank. it is not meant to be a huge outlay. it is meant to be paid for going in. i certainly think costs are

going to go up. healthcare has already been the issue that kept the house -- the senate came to its answer, but in the house bipartisan group they spent the last month going over how this should mesh with obamacare. it is my understanding the answer is so vague that no one can tell you what it is. it will definitely be subject to cost and debates. i can almost guarantee it. -- duld you be willing think a democratic majority might be willing to accept that politically you have to exclude these 11 million legalized residents from the benefits of the subsidies that people might be getting under the affordable care act? >> i think it all depends on the deal. i think the question is if democrats keep feeling like they are being asked to give and

the house gets drawn further to the right, which was interesting is since friday the house -- the senate democrat in the gang of eight saying no to this court an amendment. i know not everyone watching knows what it is, but there was an amendment by john cornyn that that it would be better for him to support this legislation than not. he had certain things that he wanted. they were big chunks of what he wanted that i think were very positive. border infrastructure investment come a given how much border trade has increased in recent years, there has to be much more done about this. but to the senate democrats said no because they felt it would alter the structure of the deal. if i can use a language, vocabulary, as we go to the floor, there are going to be two types of amendments.

this deal that was done, and there will be things in there that will alter the structure of the deal. those things will be resisted to the a great degree. -- the democrats determine on friday, despite marco rubio's involvement. there is an annoyance at rubio that he went outside of the gang of eight operating process. they said this thing was structural and needed to be rejected. john cornyn's amendment is dead. he needs to come back and reintroduce pieces. that was a sign, showing the resilience and frankly the efficacy of this gang of eight process which has really been an amazing thing. the amendment was dead on arrival. i think there is going to be a significant effort to toughen up

-- even on thee senate side. there will be more movement on a lot of things in the house. >> can i just suggest real quickly, when we say toughen up on the border, what that means for republicans right now is moving out, at least with the john cornyn amendment to go from that. periodo from that where you go from legal to citizen. was.is really what it >> the other thing to consider is who is signing off. is it to the person whose job is to make it secure, and -- are they also going to get to say it? and if it is somebody else, who? >> you asked about the same thing i asked you, what are

things that might make you step back andou try to be fair-minded about the passability of getting a as opposed to keeping this convenient political issue a live. -- alive. what are your concerns about what some fellow democrats my throat is nonnegotiable? do you rail. >> sure. i was groping for a third trigger and i could not remember it. it is the entry-exit visa. we will not get into the weeds of that because it is super nerdy. [laughter] a whole another segment on it. for the last decade -- part of my history is that in a previous legal incarnation of my organization, i ran the first runy a group that was ever

in spanish. we did the first poll of latino voters that was ever done by a center-left organization. in 2004, we ran an ad campaign using what was called 527's that went head to head with george bush in spanish. it was the first major campaign conducted in spanish by any center-left organization. my position has more paternity than any other group other than the bush administration, frankly, who did a good job. that is why democrats had to respond. i have been delivering this content is battle over the large -- over the rise of latinos. so importantis about this bill is not only will the senate bill give us a buter immigration system, it will also resolve the issue of the undocumented. it will be resolved.

a lot of the rhetoric we have seen in the u.s. that to me is intolerable and makes me upset will be gone. he jan brewer's -- >> your side -- >> what i am saying, there are a lot of things we can except ndy trade-off. >> you want to see this get done. >> the democrats have already allowed there to be triggers and when -- then was a much bigger issue than anyone understood. it's meant our side was really trying to accommodate what we believe are unreasonable and almost ridiculous border objectives by the republicans. all, wethat, first of are going to get a lot out of it that is important to us. we have to stay focused on that because some of these other things we can compromise on. the second thing i will say, and i will make her happy by

saying this, i do think the low skilled visa program is imperfect. if there were ways to make it at her, i think democrats should be open to that. tohink the whole theory reiterate what she said is we just do not want illegal workers in our country. it is bad for everybody. businesses are excited about the idea they will not have to worry about if someone they are hiring is illegal. they just do not know. if they could get resolved, they will put up with it. it's resolve the legal penalties. if it is too small, restricted, and too nair, it will encourage more illegal immigration. to theot be as resolve fact that the flows are not what

it used to be because i think mexico is changing. mexico is producing more of middle-class jobs. there was a time in history where they had reason to export labor. i don't know if they will ever be the same. >> a lot of this was on the oneing -- hand, cosmetically, we would have a temporary worker visa program. so smalle numbers are to almost not be material. >> in the original mccain- kennedy bill, in order to ensure and legalize the flow and 550,000labor, we needed visas here to do that. first is 20,000.

you do not have to do the math to understand that this is a significant break from where we were with something that ted net -- that ted kennedy negotiated in 2005. let me just anticipate where this is going. republicans in the house have made it very clear they will alter this. the democrats have made it clear they are not going to accept any altering of the current chamber negotiations. i have a feeling that in the trade-off to come, this is an area where democrats can give a little bit if we get something on the backend. >> you think it would be unreasonable to not visit those numbers? >> inmate reasonable negotiation, if there are things that we can get that are important, this might be one of the things that can be improved. the numbers. this is important not just for the businesses, but for america because what we are trying to do here is deal with undocumented immigration.

if the deal is pass, you want to prevent future -- why do we do all this in order to not fix the problem and be back here in 10, 15, 20 years? you want to prevent future immigration. it involves three things. better control of the border, workplace verification and punishment of the bad employees, is the most important thing a way for the workers we need to come legally. if you think of it as water in the ground, you want to put it in the pipeline. the pipeline has to be big enough to take the water otherwise you still have water in the ground. that mexico is changing, becoming more middle- class. but america's needs are not going to change that much. what draws of this flow is a

push and a pull. the american workforce in 1950, half of the people were dropouts. today, less than five percent of the people in the workforce are dropouts. we do not need as many. it is like a swimming pool in a ixie cup. >> she has been doing this for a while. youhat, -- but the point is can change it without changing the absolute numbers. you can make it more sensitive. more sensitive to employers real needs. the numbers should be adjusted. they should go up in a good economic times and down in bad economic times when americans are looking for work. employees should have to hire americans first, no question. >> i did not come to the position i'm about to state until recently.

we don't need a lot more immigrants in the country than we have now. it will not going to get that many more. this is a negotiating thing with republicans. they verbally stated no new net visas, which is something that dropped out and we not know where they will end up on that. if that becomes a position that could end up killing the bill. >> this could increase. >> i do not want to overly dramatize it because it has been shrunk so much. a few secondsend on this. this is a part of the debate that has been grossly exaggerated by the opponents of the bill, this notion that there are millions of people coming in and the system is out of control. look at, for the size of economy, the size of our country which has increased dramatically

since many of these targets were set 40 years ago, we are allowing in legally one million people give or take. the economy needs more than that. what we are doing, i think it the end of this, one of the things that make you tomorrow in business beyond the immigration personallynot convinced that the way we are dealing with the legal immigration system is really at the 24th century -- 21st century american economy is. as we learn about workflows and learn about the american economy. >> i will go a little off the reservation. i think the discussion is about the unauthorized thing around the border. not really what america needs to we have nottury. even talked about the high

school. it is an important piece of the bill. now they compete for the smart immigrants with brainpower who can help your company innovate. ande cannot make it easy remove some of the uncertainty, we will be at an economic disadvantage. the bill potentially does that. there is a whole new system for how we decide that green card. it almost does not get discussed. how many people even know what the system is? prettyl making has been dead here. we are going to go on. there are some parts of this that are not getting considered arguably unknot. >> i think we can have a better immigration system but i think there will still be opportunities to make it better. are the chances from 1

to 10 that we will pass immigration reform? >> high single digits. 8 or 9. membere is a republican who is very engaged in this. he says, i have never seen the chances better. itsays, the president sees as his legacy. the republican see it as their future. and the chamber and afl agree. he pauses, and says i will give it 5. i am on the optimist side of 50/50. >> 6? >> yeah. >> i wanted to get into that, and i have about a dozen questions. i am eager to get your participation. let's get some questions,

comments. this is being streamed so wait for a microphone and identify yourself, please. >> hi. i run a group called help save maryland. i came today and really needed to get re-energize. fortunately, i did not have lunch before i came over. some of these cheshire cat god, we'ret, oh, my going to have e-verify in place. when you make everyone legal, we do not need it. when you spend five billion dollars -- $5 billion, we spent .lose to $2 billion a year crime on the border, low. sure. it is is is up here in baltimore and chicago and other

places the illegal immigrants have moved to. they are too smart to stay right at the border. i could go on and on. internal security measures here have been gutted by the administration. 287g is no security measures here have been gutted by the administration. there are many communities thumbing their nose, come and get them if you want to them. i was at a protest. the district is trying to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants a saying, who cares about real id for license? come and get us. this whole thing is really a joke. what is happening, and this is a on julymic sense 2007, 15, the black american leadership alliance is leading a large protest from freedom plaza all the way down to the capital. now we have black americans who

have double-digit unemployment and when they hear simon essay, we need more immigrants -- simon say, we need more immigrants -- we do not need more immigrants. we need jobs for americans right now. march.ll be a historic i think this will crash and burn as it should. >> thank you for that perspective. let's take another comment and questions if you have some. appreciate of that perspective. in the back. .> a good afternoon peter, community associates best consultants. is it true that this bipartisan group came together as a result of the demographics of the last presidential election? and two, given this, is this bill alive? first.you .> let's take another question

i know that gentleman. lease identify yourself to read rex i am with the -- please identify yourself. what they are doing something is to reclaim part of the latino they lost, what is that enough? are the latinas going to go for -- the most republicans can do, is that cap reducible? >> why don't we take some of these are now. woke aink the election lot of republicans up. no question. whoe were some republicans know the system is broken and want to fix it. as marco rubio bice to say, we have de facto amnesty right now. we have doe do something about it.

do something about it. there is no question that the election is what triggered the focus and everybody's minds. i do not think it is only. will it work as pandering, so to speak? i think the problem is with the republicans -- immigration reform has become a stand-in litmus litmus test for many latino voters. new latino voters are skeptical about, do we need more immigrants? they have come to put how they talk about immigration to determine how they feel a bout of them. the famous ads in california run by republicans where they said, they keep coming and showed people running across the border. people saw this on tv and the said, who is they? who are you talking about?

how do you feel about us? mitt romney -- i am a republican and romney was my candidate, but the problem with the romney campaign is the latinas heard it as, we do not like you. we want you to self deport. i don't really like people like you. the point is, assuming we pass this bill and republicans play an equal, a robust part, even if they get everything they want, i do not think it will immediately make latinas say, now we are republicans. -- it will take that hope the idea that they are enemies and they don't like people like us, start to take some of that off the table so republicans can talk to latinas about other things where they might you be interested in what they have to sell. whether it is about small businesses, education, social mobility, conservative values

-- president reagan used to say that latinas are republicans, just don't know it. i think there are a lot of things that republicans believe in it could be appealing to latinos their legalot status, no special path to citizenship, is that going to be enough to level the playing field, and it depends on the tenor of debate and who looks looks like they are trying to solve it and what happens next. this is not just about republicans. not so much about republicans coming alive to the reality of the guy who is washing your dishes as it is to them coming alive today reality of latino voters in their district who are increasingly new collar and middle class people who are on campuses and state legislatures

and in involved in our communities. republicans have not been talking to them. and a lot will depend on how republicans handle that. if theink you were asked bill is dead or alive? >> it is very much alive. to me, the most important sign is after the boston a month a terrible tragedy in the boston bombing, the hang of eight and guys like all ryan said this should not affect the debate we are having on immigration, and that was an important test. the gang of eight continues to prevail. quickly. two things i think the question was asked that was in some ways the important one. my own view is there is no build that democrats can support that in the house.

it is not possible. the idea we are holding that tamar has to say this. it is not possible given where they are. given that goodlatte is introducing a bill to give body agentsnd guns to ice this week, going from there -- remember the last time the house voted on immigration reform in 2005, the house republicans 2 millioneport people. it was actual deportation and funding for it. the house republican party, i think the republican party is trying really hard. i do not want to be critical of it. the republicans in the house and gottenhave woken up and the memo that they have to try harder. they really are trying, but there is a limit how far

ideologically any politician can travel in a searcshort time. i amen if boehner said going to sacrifice my career, the ultimate sacrifice for a politician, i do not think the rank and file republicans would >> >> a lot of it will depend, and how effective are the arguments, and the democrats have done a bad job at trying to win this argument about the order, which would have weakened the republican involvement. on the final point, one statistic i want to point out and there was a lot on the table here at the gentleman in the front row, the one thing i always go back to about the role of the undocumented's, the community that has a higher worker participation, the

people who work more than any other group in the country are latino immigrants. if you are undocumented, you cannot get welfare, yes, you can go to school, you can be treated in emergency rooms, as in any civil society. but the general test version that the undocumented community is more lawbreaking than the general public, not true. they work more than the overall public. the idea that this vast pool of the borderd's left region, which would be surprising to those who lived near the border, and moved to baltimore and commit crimes, we would call that bull whatever, ,nd it is just not fact based and it is sad that there are people taking assertions like that. refutable andsily

untrue and reflects the incredible racial bias driving the debate. reason i am talking about this is there was nothing based on fact. worker participation rates. you can look at all this. pitino immigrants do not -- mmigrants do not commit crimes more. so i will conclude by saying i think it is incumbent on us to do our best. i sat here with all statistics during this discussion trying to keep this discussion and fact-based. and it is encompassed -- incumbent on us to do the same. >> the man said we are living

at a time of relatively high unemployment across the country and he referenced the even higher unemployment rate among african-americans. he referenced the fact that local and state governments thatb a lot of the cost the undocumented population bring. in some ways people have analogized the current system to unfunded mandates. it might be unfunded and dates to the u.s. economy, but these costs are borne by county hospitals because of the er rooms and education systems at the local level. they are not being compensated for -- , that is thet say perspective of that he presented --at the end of the

day it was that center of where the political gravity was. the last time we tried to do this reform in 2006, 2007, you had bipartisan support in washington for it. ,ou had the establishment corporate. everybody was lining up to do this and it seemed like we were going to do this, but perspective he injected into the discussion turned out to be a pretty prevalent or at least quite a heartfelt perspective around the country and since then we have added an economic crisis. why do you we feel like that sentiment will not carry the day again? >> polling shows the public is even then it was when you dug deep that it was a small minority that was adamantly against the bill. every poll showed that adamant

minority to be in the 15% to 20%. there is another minority that is totally for it. if that day they sell in the dui illegal immigrant was in an accident, they would be against it, and if they had just redone their house and the guy did a good job for the drywall, it would be for it. it is very movable. the big question will be where is that middle 60%. polling shows that they see immigration much less of a kind of make or break do or die issue. the numbers are way down. i am waiting to see in the next has noteeks, the public been paying attention yet. this has not been leading the nightly news.

will it get to the point where muchublic is paying so attention it will lead the nightly news? i am not sure. is the public going to shrug and say it is time to do that question mark that is what they did when the president introduced his initiative for young people brought here as ors, republicans said it was time to do that. will they shrugged or will they werroar? i will say one more thing about the unemployment. let me put out one set of numbers. we did a study where we looked , thevernment numbers differences in the jobs americans do and immigrants do. we looked at three occupations, maid in a hotel resort, a dishwasher and a landscape guy,

and we looked at the people who work unemployed who had taken those jobs. those are hard to my physically intensive jobs. it was 10% in every case or lower. >> i will take a couple more. do we have more questions or comments? i am part of the mccain institute. debate is very big in texas. how do you think the president has played out in this question mark he seems to be very quiet on this. do you think it is a smart move or should he be getting more involved? >> a couple more. a quick question about politics for senator cornyn.

he does not give love from people from those up owning the bill. what is his logic? >> you get to answer that. >> why don't we take those? >> i want to say if i don't agree with the senator, it is important that he is involved in the debate and he is an important senator and represents a state that has a lot at stake in the immigration bill, and it is better now that he is actively and aggressively pursuing some public objectives than sitting on the sidelines. in that sense this is helpful, and in the amendment there is a series of things he is proposing about infrastructure investment that are usually critical to the u.s. and mexican economies that get adopted even if it does not get adopted. i am not character rising

involvement as's it was characterized on sunday as toxic. we need him in the tent and hopefully we can work something out with him in the next couple weeks. his amendment is dead and we will see what happens. on the president, i think that the white house has made a decision to allow the senate to lead. reasonable decision. it was going well. they have hung together, you have done a good job, have produced a bill. the second calculation was all the reports with the republicans that the more this , the moreobama's bill it would raise the ire of the opponents of obama, and the more it seemed like a bill that came

out of congress with a love of republican support that it would ineasier to sell to the 60% the middle. thecost of that has been defining of the issue to the public. to your port that was just raised that we will have a debate in the next three weeks. i do not think we have had an important debate in the senate ,hat this will be this spirited and in that sense this will be a good exercise in democracy we are about to see. whether or not the public pays attention to anything that happens in the senate is something we will find out, as there is general unhappiness with congress in washington. i do not know what messages amount. there will be a lot of force trading and weird amendments am a but i do hope that this floor debate will bring the people in because it would be better if this ends up passing if the public was inter-grilli

involved in the consideration of the gate about it and coming to their conclusions. i do not know if we have done it yet, and hopefully that will happen in the floor debate. , let'sng about polling be clear in virtually every poll taken on reform since 2005, there has been 55%, 60% support for copperheads of immigration reform. ,"c " wall street journal poll last week, when you do find that the path to citizenship will include conditions, the support in the poll went up to 76% in the public. there is broad bipartisan support for this bill in the country, and there has been for eight years. verythere has been is a effective opposition and the advocates have not been nearly as spirited as the opposition.

that has changed and that is why we will win this time. >> from the republican point of view, thank goodness he has left it to the senate. the president is viewed as a polarizing figure among republicans, and if the president had been more engaged from the beginning we would not be where we are, and it is -- at the beginning there were some of us who thought he would not exercise so much restraint, but they goodness he has. when i have my cynical, scary nightmare fantasies, it is that the president has a good angel and a bad angel and the bad angel are those in the party who say let's make this a partisan issue. the president does not

have that angel. i hope i am wrong about my cynicism. i hope i have the self-restraint that i have seen and the willingness to let the process work its well will continue. about cornyn, i will not try cannotanneling because i do that, but it has been interesting to see how all the republicans, many republicans, even those who do not support the bill -- in the judiciary committee markup, senator lee, cruz, they will not be in the same camp, those who will not end up voting for the bill have tried to be sensitive to thinking about being part of the solution. what can we do to fix the system? isn't legal immigration a good idea? cruz, his amendment in the committee was to add a million green cards, to say we

need more immigrants, or illegal immigration. i am not prepared to legalize the people who have broken the law. the vote counts we will see on the bill are evidence of the sea change going on in the republican party about latino voters. you can read that cynically and say they just want their votes or you can say they are listening to them. what you are seeing is people starting to listen to their constituents and saying what can we do? somebody like john cornyn, his platform is a let out law and order, and he is trying to reconcile this thing to latino voters and how we fix the system with his prosecutor 's concern about the law. the amendment with some combination of those things and

the concern about fixing the infrastructure so it works on the border. it is no accident that texas will be the state where latino demographics will make the most efforts in the next decade. texas has been a solidly red state for quite a while. that will not always be true. if the latino vote comes of age in texas and republicans have not started to win more hearts. quickly, this question that has been raised about whether there is this thought in the democrats'head that this thing could fail, i have never heard anybody say that this time around. it may have been whispered before. i was in a briefing this morning with someone from the univision who was showing clips about how the network is prospering, and the whole cores of

thing was the confrontation of obama about not keeping his promise. i think about fixing the immigration system, and what i think is what democrats are motivated by is the sense of obligation, that we have said we are going to do this for a long time, we have got to keep our word here. this is a real thing that will affect a lot of people and give us a better integration system. i do not think democrats -- the politics of this have been settled. this issue play over a long time. they've been terribly damaged by it. what they need to do is to have any chance -- this is a suing for peace strategy now. this is not about creating produc prosperity, it is about getting younger latinos to open up to their party. they will not get a lot of material benefit as a party if this passes.

a lot of it will accrue to the democrats, but it will put the back in the game and give them a chance to rebuild their standing over the next decade in a way that they have done well before. this is not pie in the sky stuff. george bush was expert in winning the latino vote, and it is not something that should be so hard for them. immigrants want to get this done. we are going to find out. weekshave interesting and months ahead of us. thank you for sharing your perspectives with us. thank you all for coming. and let's do this later in the year. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] began debating on the floor the conference of immigration bill.

the top republican on the judiciary committee warned the senate needs to take its time on the bill. he says the healthcare law was passed too quickly and he wants to avoid the problems he sees with healthcare. here is a look. what we did ine 1986 we got it wrong. he cannot afford to make the .ame mistakes of yesterday from our national security to our economic security, too much is at stake. 1986.'t repeat

see that the borders are absolutely secure, no excuses from that point, no exceptions on that point. now, we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. it is my some of my responsibility to respect law and in sure the law is upheld -- and insure the laws up held. way, not theht easy way. take what time is necessary to get it right. we know what happens in congress when it works and what does not work. and i think if we look back at healthcare reform as an example, we know that we did it in two hurried a way and consequently questions about enforced

carrying out that legislation now are legitimate points of discussion. when a in the year bipartisan group of eight senators released their framework for reform, i was optimistic that the authors were going to produce legislation that lived up to the promises. in their framework, they stated we will ensure this is a successful, permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited. without a doubt, this is a goal that we all should strive for. we must find a long-term solution to fixing our broken system. so i was encouraged. authors said--

the bill would provide a tough, fair, practical roadmap to address the status of on authorized immigrants in the united states, continued shots -- contingent on the success of securing our borders and addressing visa overstays. who can argue with that point? that is exactly what we all believe a piece of legislation should do. at the time that this bill was put forward and the framework was put forward, i reserved judgment until i saw the details of their proposal. i thought the framework helps hope, but i realize the assurances that the group of eight made did not translate when the bill language emerged. it seems as though the rhetoric was spot on, but the details were dubious. the professed was

professed by the authors, that the border would be secured and that the people would churn their legal status. -- would earn their legal status. that is not what the bill did. the bill as drafted is legalization first, border secure later, and tracking visa overstays later, if at all. " washingtont journal," our guest is the congressional the budget office. we will also be joined by a reporter with the associated press to discuss the recent article on how washington

investigate itself. she will look at the power of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern every day. also today, the first woman to represent nevada in congress died today after a short illness. she was 91. she was a republican, elected to two and served80 seven terms until 1997. a funeral will be friday in reno. you can find our coverage of her work in the house and after she left congress online in the c- span video library. ida mckinley suffered from epilepsy and because of that her husband would sit next to her at state dinners, so if she had a

seizure he would shield her face with a large handkerchief until the episode past. she traveled as first lady lady, even attending the 1901 pan- american exposition where her husband was assassinated. we will look at her life as we conclude our first season on first ladies tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 3, also on c-span radio and www.c-span.org. talked abouto preventing sexual assault in the military today. this was held at joint base andrews in maryland. this is a little over 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. how are we doing ech? it is good to see everybody here.

i want to welcome everybody. this is a very important conference. we have this once a year and i think it is important for us to have a discussion, and that is what i want to do, have a andussion with the two- three-star leaders. are, what you you do, we have to set the tone for our civilian leaders as well. this is to make sure we are doing what is right. , youcause of many factors have heard me say we have a huge issue. and the main thing i want everybody to understand is that this is not just by passing issue. for whatever reason, this is one

we have had for a very long time that we have not been able to defeat it. i use that because that is the term we are all familiar with. inhave not been successful solving this problem. as womenssue becomes take on a greater role in the army, it becomes even more important that we ensure they have the environment that they can excel in. this is about creating a climate where everyone can -- i realizeshman that men get sexually assaulted two, and it is about creating an environment where we do not tolerate sexual assault. i will tell you from the things that i see, we still have people out there who tolerate sexual assault and sexual harassment.

until we solve that problem, it will get worse, so i bet if i go around everyone in here, you will tell me i got it, no problem. i understand the importance. we have been out to some units, and although we get it at this level, as i get further and further down, we are still not there yet, as the answer is i do not have a problem here. there's no problem in my platoon, no problem in my company, no problem in my my battalion. that is baloney. that is the problem. we are not seeing ourselves. unit.n an all-male i do not have a problem. that is not right. you probably have some perpetrators, probably have some predators, and you probably have have probably

been sexual assaulted or sexually harassed. this is not about i do not have a problem because i do not have females in my unit. this is about getting down to sergeants, staff sergeant, master sergeants, lieutenants, captains, majors, lieutenant colonel's, where they take this , because we are not doing that today. the way i want us to do it. we are talking earlier, we were talking about we have an ied, every soldier knows what to do, they have a battle drill, they know how to react to it and then once we started figuring out it, we started getting these, we started going to the --and we did all this analysis to figure out how to stop it from exploding,, to maim our soldiers.

sexual assault is maiming our soldiers. we have the same thought. every soldier needs to understand what their role is, what is their battle drill to prevent this. what do they do to the left of the incident? what do they do when the incident occurs, and what do you do after the incident occurs? we can deal with that. we have to understand better what it is here, and we have to do the same type of thing. the five go over imperatives that i put out, make sure everybody understands this. the first is protect victims and prevent offenders come a provide care, provide rights, and privacy of survivors.

that is number one. number two, professionally investigate and take appropriate action. anber three, create appropriate positive command climate where trust and respect are the cornerstones of what that command climate is about, that all our soldiers trust, that actions will be taken appropriately by the chain of anmand, that we have attitude of respect for each other to wear this uniform. that is who we are. or supposed to be. her spec each other. we need trust. i talk about this all the time. it is critical that everything we do. the things we are asked to do require trust, the ultimate trust, the trust that you can

leave in anybody who wears this uniform. you got to be there to save each other's lives under very chaotic conditions, but if we cannot solve this problem, would you trust this uniform? if you think you can be retaliated on if you make a complaint? you do not think the chain of command will react properly to say it is he said, she said, server get it? it is not trust. that is not trust. that is what we got to work on. fourth, we have to hold individuals among units and commanders and leaders accountable. and the fifth imperative is the chain of command fully engaged,

responsible for everything in their unit and accountable for what goes on inside that unit. and there's one thing i i think we all have to think about is how do we see ourselves? what are the systems we have in place that allows us and when i say see ourselves, see our formation, whatever it might be, how do we see ourselves? .here is lots of ways to do it command crime and surveys -- climate surveys. that is one way. sensing sessions. talking to people, walking around, you have to figure out the best way for you, but you better have a system in place to see yourself.

it is just not about sexual assault. it is about everything, but i am focused on sexual assault and harassment right now. how to you see yourselves? a i look back, when i was battalion commander, i bet you . probably did not see myself you got to make sure you see your self. you cannot just base it on statistics, or what you're getting from the the chain of command all the time. he got to go outside. when i was the commander in the ofq, i believed in the chain command, but i also went out and saw for my own eyes everyday, every day i went out to go see what was going on, get feedback from the chain of command, but make my own assessment, talking to everybody i could so i could make the right decision.

this is no different. this is no different. makeasked everyone to sure you have a system to do that. this is ultimately about leadership, no different than any other problem. it requires leadership. it requires setting the tone. we set the tone. you know that. when a commander or a director or the leader of an organization comes in, that organization reflects them. right you are doing the thing, they will do the right thing. if you hold people accountable, or make dean sure how -- or make it sure they know how important is, they will get it. if you don't, they won't. they will will realize it is not important to you. i will be here the whole two days of this conference because

this is important to me. this is important to me. want to make sure everybody understands that, and as i go around about we will have discussions with this, because is important to me. it is my number one priority right now, and i am not kidding. i am not kidding. the health and welfare of our sons and daughters from of the sons and daughters of america's citizens. how many people have sons and daughters serving right now? you should understand that. you should understand that. you want an organization that will take care of your son and daughter when we turn them over to that organization or command. to make sure we

do that. it is up to us to make sure we do that. i want them to be proud of sending their sons and daughters in the army. that is what it should be. it is a great opportunity. the on know what the army gives to people, it gives all people, races, colors, financial backgrounds, the opportunity. up to us to make sure they understand that. and that we sustain that. that we do not get after this where we start having problems. to understandody that. on issues incus congress, including immigration and tax policy. taxguest is the head of the policy institute. we will take questions about data collection programs.

we will also be joined by a reporter with the associated press to discuss the recent article about how washington investigate itself. we will look at the relative power of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. became the longest service member of congress and ..s. history last friday cast more than 27 thousand votes. he was elected in 1955. he spoke about his career in public service with a washington "the atlantic's"

headquarters in washington. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> we are about to have one of the most extraordinary moments. that anyone could possibly have listening to john dingell. everybody in this room knows about him. i will not give you a long introduction. i will say a couple of words. for anybody who loves and is passionate about politics, loves the game of politics and making policy, you cannot help but admire, respect, and indeed even love, not all the time i am sure.

he has been center stage since 1955. his father was here starting in 1932. the word dingell is synonymous with getting things done in washington. there was a time when we got things done in washington. there's hardly a piece of legislation in the area of health or energy or environment or security or telecommunications and others that john dingell did not have his fingerprints on. he has been center stage for a long time. just to give a quick perspective, he's the only member here in the 1950's. is that right? he is one of two members that was in the house in the 1960's. he was born before president obama was in the house.

before president obama was born. we have some perspective here. what we are doing today is steve, the editor of "the atlantic," is going to have a conversation with john. we want to welcome and give a tribute to debbie dingell. [applause] let me quote from john and i will turn it over to steve. having a very tough race in 2004, one of the few tough races john ever had, he said, "i had the curious view that i have to be judged on what i stand for, what i have done, my ability and effectiveness --"

excuse me for being in your way. "my record and my personal integrity." he also said, "i keep on going." john, thank you very much. [applause] >> i wanted to say a special hello to those watching live on c-span. we have live coverage. i love the c-span guys. there are many distinguished people in this room. a special shout out to john. i am happy to say hello to all of you. i want to highlight elizabeth who is president of atlantic live. i do not see her. she is working hard.

it is such a pleasure to have you here. when i talked to your staff and your wife, we talked about various states. maybe not to doing this on friday when it is scheduled to rain. i said, no. june 7 is the day, 57 years ago surpasses the late robert byrd's record. if he was here, i wonder what he would say about you surpassing him. my first question, are you ready to put another 10 years on this? >> i am going to stay as long as i can do a good job. i do not want to stay here when people are sorry for me and when i cannot do the job or when

somebody else i think can do a better job job. we talked about this earlier in january. we had a discussion. >> i want to give our audience a quick snapshot of the legislation you have drafted and authored to remind people of what the world looked like when congress did things. john dingell wrote the endangered species act, clean air act, affordable care act, children's insurance program, food safety modernization act, it goes on and on. it is an unbelievable record when you look at legislation attached to somebody's name. i worked in the senate and knew quite a number of senators in that chamber.

when you look across history, this is like ted kennedy. do you think it is possible in today's political climate to have the kind of successful passage of legislation? are we deluding ourselves? >> no. each congress is unique. it depends on the challenges and the concerns of the people are. the congress has a leadership responsibility. this is perhaps the most -- it is a privilege to serve even in this congress. having said these things, we have had difficulty coming to an

we couldt on budget. ts up for 10 commanmends a vote -- [laughter] there is a real fault here. it is in good part that congress thought. they tolerate this. they sent us down here to fight. it is divided. you see the result in washington. you see it on the hill. you see a tremendous amount of ill will that should not be here. good will and respect and integrity should be the hallmark of the congress. we should be proud that we can and do work together,

proud that we are a few of the people that have had the privilege of serving in congress. we are the highest elected officials of people. [indiscernible] we have a unique responsibility. i have to tell people,compromise and conciliation, these are the words -- as we work together. we are the most fortunate of when we were born in this country, we hit the jackpot. this is a wonderful place. it is the happiest, richest. not just in terms of opportunity.

we are the oldest democracy. we insist that our government works. we are diminishing our ability to survive the challenges. >> when you were elected in 1955, sam rayburn was speaker of the house, lyndon johnson was the majority leader in the senate. "the washington post" reminded us that rosa parks had just not given up her seat. over that period of time, what would you say legislatively your proudest moment was? the top moment or top two or three that mattered for you and the country in that period? >> in my view, and my wife, the

single most important vote i cast was on the civil rights act of 1964. for the first time we addressed the problem that each american should have full citizenship. i was focused on this because i almost lost my job over this. [indiscernible] there were riots and trouble. the african-american people were patient and nonviolent. that was a vote that really solved a tremendous problem. medicare wasthers.

very important. the affordable care act was something that my dad started out with roosevelt in 1935. but of course there was a lot of environmental legislation, a lot of other conservation legislation. i am really a lucky guy to be blessed with a superb staff. i've had the good fortune to have members of the house in my times to mentor me.

people like rayburn and john mccormick. and of course, people like my dear friend john. i have had great people teach me the trade. >> were there times when you were disappointed in the house? what would be the memory that you found that congress did not live up to, what was the bad side? >> there were good and a bad and sometimes at the same time. i was always very frustrated about when people would not do things.

or when the president would not lead -- i do not mean this president, he is doing a good job. i was troubled about the fact -- [indiscernible] it is an important responsibility. >> who taught john dingell to send a dingell letter? members feared getting a dingell letter. did someone help you craft the first one or develop it into an art? >> i have had great friends. john moss was my greatest friend. he was great on this. i had a wonderful staff.

and they had a sense not only social justice but things that were not right. writing letters -- those three and four words that asked questions, who, what, when, why. you can get a lot more when you ask questions rather than starting a nasty argument. some were citizens.

they would receive these things and say this is something i need to take a look at. we could get more done by asking questions than trying to hit someone over the head. that was our chosen tool. we got the information that we wanted. when i became chairman of the committee, i was scared because i thought this was a big job and i thought, dingell, you better do it right. i said, how am i going to do this job? he said, john, two things. first, you got to be fair. second, you have to appear fair. so we always used our powers with restraint.

that does not mean we were weak but we just knew how to get these things done. i have a picture of joe mccarthy on the wall. i look at that and the reason he was there, i thought he was one of the biggest scoundrels in society and he was the prime example of what not to do. we were fair in the things we did. the staff knew and understood this. they were superb investigators. they had this wonderful sense of social outrage and a chance to correct something that is bad or make something better, and we were very successful and we never had a failure in investigating. >> as a representive you've been dealing with presidents since eisenhower and nixon was his vice president. you knew all these guys back and

given the fact that your father held the seat for what 23 years or sore before you, you had encounters with them. can you tell us the presidents that you appreciated and had good relationships with and the presidents that you felt did not cut it. >> i had good relationships with every president. the presidency is something very important. it is an office that we have to view as people love before me and wiser used to say it is an office that should be treated with great reverence. it is a huge responsibility. i got to say each president, whether i liked them or not or was in the same party, did some great things.

nixon was the guy i detested because of the nasty things he used to do. but if you you look at nixon's presidency he was said he was a great bad man. it is a very interesting way to define it. i'm not winston churchill, but eisenhower was a good president before him. kennedy, just an exciting administration. they didn't stay around long enough to really be appreciated or reach the greatness i thought he could have gotten. johnson was saving -- the same awful, crazy guy from vietnam. he should be recognized as a great president. butent out to create the neworl he did something else.

he is the guy that began the leadership and brings to the end of the terrible civil rights we had. nixon did some wonderful things and he did some bad. jimmy carter was one of the finest people but regrettably he did not have the successes that we would have liked to see him have because he was so concentrated on detail he did not have time to concentrate on the bigger questions. he is probably the most underrated presidents. i did not serve any of them. i served with them. [laughter] >> what a point of distinction. >> [unintelligible] we are equally important and this is

very important. clinton was a great guy who cared about people, he worked hard and he was smart as all get out. he had em empathy. you could watch when he walked in the room. folks liked to be around him, even phones who said nasty things about him because he had this warmth and he cared. it.folks knew the two bushes were quite fine. he's a great guy, never forgot his service in the house. i liked the first w. very much. personally. it is just terrible mistakes. of course, our current will ent i think history

be good to him. i think they have not done enough of what i would like to see him do. i've had the privilege of serving with some great presidents. honesty, jerry ford was probably the most underrated president we had. but hesabotage him, probably would have been elected the first time. [unintelligible] that was regrettably not to be and humphrey had the same problem. he left wing of this party, they sent out to destroy him and they succeeded. three days more, and he would have been president. >> i am pleased to report those watching on c-span can follow congress and john dingell on twitter. the longest serving congressman

in history is at twitter. if you went to look at the this morning. you saw the vice president biden stopped by yesterday and he gave you a gift. yet, you did not say in your twitter, your tweet what he gave you and i've been wondering ever since. >> he gave me a wonderful wall clock. something that i will cherish. i'm a great admirer of joe biden. friend has -- [unintelligible] irish poets. >> let me go to charlie cook. am i handing out the microphones or is someone running mics around? joanna? is somebody running them around? no, i guess i am. >> in honoring chairman dingell's longevity because that is easier to measure.

but he's had a greater impact on war legislation than any member in congress in history. the story that may kids love hearing and more people can relate to, tell us about december 1941. your role. >> i had a little bit to do of theservation history. remember on the 7, the japanese bombed pearl harbor and sank every battleship we had or seriously damaged every battleship we had. we thought the united states could lose that war. i was a page, and becausei was a senior so i was given the responsibility of taking care of the media and he was a conservative newscaster.

he was up in the gallery with an old-fashioned magnetic recorders. he was supposed to record. i was told see to it that he does not record more than the. president's speech. there'st, you know, enough history that is important. so i let him go on into the discussion. the country was badly divided. it was badly divided over different matters but the interesting thing was when roosevelt finished his speech, which by the way, was a fabulous speech he left the podium. the house -- the senate left the house proceeded to deal

with his call for the declaration of war. the country being divided at all the america firsters and were a lot of fellow travelers, and quite frankly, the germans. york. rallies in new york. everybody was trying to get on the right side of history. votedwas one woman who against world war i and world war two. she was from montana. she served one term twice. her votes on this cost her job, as you might major. -- as you might imagine. they would not let her speak and it was interesting period that went on at this time about she would be heard. they finely let her speak on wednesday. war was not declared on the

united states until that day. it was an interesting time. you can still hear some of that debate and you will hear this hiss that goes with the steel wiring recordings. an unpoint thing but i was sitting up there and looking down. roosevelt was interesting. he didn't want to know that he was crippled by polio. so he actually walked -- he had the floor to himself and he was supported by -- we had 10 pounds of iron. he had these frames that would hold him. he would come on the arm of one of his sons, franklin or jimmy or a couple of secret service

guys. he would actually walk in the door there by where the podium is and in front of the reading clerk and stand in front of the vice president and give his speech. it was a terrible, terrible stress to him. the people who walked in with him always said he had the most powerful grip they have ever seen. imagine, the difficulty he had in doing this. there's a lot of interesting stories we can tell about how he responded to this and how he did his job and how he -- in fact, concealed it. now, everybody knew that this butwas crippled by polio, they did not know it. because he did not report it. he always let everyone knew he

was in charge. >> interesting. jeff, identify yourself. >> i'm jeff trammell and mr. chairman, i have the privilege of working with two close friends of yours. >> i lev them both. >> as i was sitting here thinking about your many great contributions to congress. i thought about the epic fight over the clean air act in the 1970's and the film that was made about that. hr 261 act of congress. for those who haven't seen it i recommend it. but it explains the art of governance and i thought you might take a moment to help us understand -- think of today when we're not governing very well. the process, as you touched on, a compromise and how legislation should come together despite competing interest in the house. >> very wise observation and

question. congress is a human body. there was an observation like sausage or government -- [unintelligible] when we finished the clean air they handled it and we passed the bill in 13 hours on the floor. they said mr. dingell what a wonderful thing you did, you did it in 13 hours. this piece of legislation. you did it in 13 hours. topassed 420-10 or close that. that was a rough number. they said you did it in 13 hours. i said yeah, it only took me 13 years to do it. [laughter] what was interesting was you saw the their rifts of

government -- theirists of those who and understand the fundamentals of government but they don't events of that the human activities that make laws come to be. they tell us 6161 is actually a story of psychology and relevant thinking and attitudes way people interact with friends. inside theies congress. le it shows actually how outside forces come into play. it is interesting.

it shows government working as it should. it shows that the process of government can be and is an honorable thing. the compromise is an honorable and con sill dation and consideration, yet, they are honorable activities that should be cherished and not criticized. when we send someone down to washington, people don't seem to understand this, we talk a how they are going down there to work together to solve the great national problems that we confront. if the message or lesson that you take from that voting, i urge you to think about how it is that compromise and working together is important. lyndon johnson understood this.

together able to work >> how much interest do you in your colleagues in the house today in trying to reachieve that common spirit political foes? i've been reading about how you have remained close friends some of the people you were fighting battles with. do you find those members coming in seeking out to learn about that time? >> every force in our society fights the way congress should work.

somewhere around 3:00, 4:00 in the afternoon on monday or tuesday, the first act is to tell the staff of what is the first plane i can get out of here on thursday or friday? [laughter] so we give the folks a three- day work week. they say we don't see you at home but i'm supposed to be working down there on the nation's business. one of for important things is we ought to be friends. we don't have the time to achieve that friendship. we don't have the time to begin to work together. short terms, of course, work against that. the fact that we're always expecting to be home, not down here working on the nation's business. this plus the media, which encourages the forecastest kind of behavior -- nastest behavior.

5 or 10 seconds on television, to call the president a liar or something like that. that is destructive as hell. it really is counter protective. we're just -- the guys who hit this town and before they know where the restrooms are they are meeting to get some kind of thing where they denounce the president or raise hell about this or the other thing. the result is this is most counter productive in having this system work. i think i talk too much about the wrong questions but i feel strongly about these matters. yes, right here. >> yesterday, senator mccain

gave a speech and he kept saying the president this and the president that. smalld that he had disdain about the chief of staff -- the joint chiefs of staff. what i said back to him was from the people i know and the people in the diplomatic around me, they look and say you guys have a great country but you can't work together. how are you going to get anything done if sequester doesn't get over? >> you're asking about the sequester. >> yes. >> ok great. >> we put the sequester in because we thought it was so difficult and the result would be that we wouldn't let it happen.

some guy figured out right or wrongly this was going to cut the budget. we wouldn't know what the consequences were. the thing about sequester is we need to stop a problem that we created for us because it slows us down from getting home by getting the air traffic controllers not being able to move aircrafts action quickly. this is an example of failure. we can't put together a budget. i've got something to say, everyone is going to say this is partisan, it may be or may not be. i have enormous respect for speaker boehner but potentially he is a good speaker, he can't get his republicans to follow him. the problem in the house is

there is a huge battle between the republicans and they don't have time to fight against the democrats. [laughter] so they come back and tell them what he has done and his freshman and sore mores smack him on the side of the head and say no way. then it goes out the window then we have to have some process where the senate minority leader works to solve the budget problem last year. that is not the way we should have done it. so the intention, the mechanics, the wisdom of the fathers, those are gone. we're not using them. when i was a chairman, i got in trouble by my own party. i became a good friend of the senior republican with whom i

work with, if i was doing investigations or handling legislation. neither he nor she or i would ever reveal this because if we did we would be whacked on the side of the head. but it worked. [unintelligible] i was proud of it and so was he. it was questioning him. it was costing him a great deal of difficulty at home. he was a great friend of mine. i was sit in the meetings and i said make this motion and he said why should i do that i said don't be a smart ass just do it. [laughter] we would wind up with the legislation completed and we were able to work together to

see to it that we started in the middle and we worked out. the end result was good legislation, clean air, clean water. when he got to be the senior republican on an environmental sub committee, i said this is awful. he said no, this is not awful it is good. if i can sell him on this and he was a fair and deseptember guy, you remember -- decent guy, you remember. >> yes. >> he was a fair and decent man. it turned out that way. so, by the way, there is a funny story about him. who, as i said, he had the heart of an irish man.

forve the highest regard all the members and he popped up and he said does that include the gentleman from iowa and he said of course. certainly. i have the highest regard for all members and the gentleman theowa i have the -- minimum highest. [laughter] it should be is human. also, it should have a kindness to it. that is there because the people tolerate it and unfortunately, we're a divided andon right now unfortunately, that division goes and drives the ill will, which we find so corrosive. >> can you talk about the inside republican caucus.

can you give us a quick snapshot how the democratic caucus. i remember the blue dogs and the rival with nancy pelosi, you had your battle with henry waxman. theis the camaraderie in democratic caucus? >> it's there. the great uniting force in the democratic party is now caucus is through the republican caucus. right now we're opposing what they are doing and trying to have a meaningful impact on things and to protect the great fundamental legislation means

so much to us. social security, medicare, means so much. the affordable care act, the environmental law acts, the superfund, clean water act and other things and to make progress on things like global warming and the other concerns we have. that is holding us together. after the election we have about a half dozen left and that is a great shame. i tell my colleagues, they are the majority makers of this party but you cherish them and protect them. if you're going to run this place and you want to have a democratic speaker on the first

day of congress, you protect him. without him, you're not going to do it. i keep telling my colleagues that and some of them follow it, some of them don't. one of the big problems in this society is we're too much focused on the events of today or tomorrow. we aren't looking at a year, two years or six months ahead. the is the real concern of future. that is one of the reason why the asian nations are cleaning our clock. they are thinking in terms of scores or hundreds of years out. i was in china, and the people knew better about things that happens thousands of years ago. [laughter] >> over here.

>> first of all, congratulations, mr. chairman. secondly, very glad you mentioned superfund it is a legacy of yours. >> a little louder. >> yes, of course. superfund is an incredible legacy of yours and i had the privilege to work with francis of that. >> francis is a wonderful guy. >> the fact that you took a centrist, consensus approach made it possible for you to get so much done, more than any other single individual. >> you didn't work for him, right? >> no. [laughter] >> i wish i hired you. [laughter] >> the other part of it is you taught so many people how to investigate administrations, even our own administration, as a democrat. so your legacy is just incredible. so i wanted to ask you about

the current time. you've given us some great insights. tell us about the grassroots pressures on the republicans, the tea party pressures, how do you see that? how do you see that abating hopefully? and the role that that group is playing in this country as opposed to other movements if you will, nativist movements in our history? >> i don't have the mic here. i appreciate bill's question. but because i'm always fair- minded, i always presume that we've got a good number of tea party patriots watching this show right now. and i want to make sure that we like them watching. and participating in these discussions. but john, how -- can you talk a bit about the time and about the grassroots currents in the g.o.p. and i assume those grassroots currents just as alive in michigan 12 as anywhere else.

so how do you deal? and i would just -- to piggyback on bill's question about the tea party, the occupy wall street movement and others that ginned up a lot of concerns on the left were born out after lot of economic anxiety and your thoughts on these current political streams. >> frustration, fear, are terrible, terrible motivators. but powerful. and they often lead to some serious and unfortunate results. against the tea partiers. i strongly disagree with them. and quite frankly they have no use for me. thatis an ancient fight goes on inside the republican party and been going on since at least the time of goldwater. theyhat election in 1964, gave us by the way a democratic

landslide. but it was -- it was over control of the party. and they wanted to control the party. and they have a very adroit plan for perpetuating republican control of the country and the congress. and by golly, they're as smart as all get out. it's working. but having said this, they are -- they're afraid. they're concerned. there's a lot of honest concern. the problem that you have there is the -- really don't understand how the system can and should work. this nation was founded by some of the smartest, best educated people who had read thoughts of the great philosophers at the

time. these folks have not learned those lessons and the result is that they will -- they will rush forward to re-create the mistakes that we've made over centuries. there's not much new going on in politics. dumb ass mistakes are made today and dumb ass mistakes were made in an earlier time. having said -- having said things, they tend to believe that the end justifies the means. and they also have the belief that we have to move strongly and not to pay attention to the great system of which we're a part. we have the best system of government in the world. the problem is we're not making it work. and we're not permitting it to work.

the institution of our government, the institution of our congress, are really more important than any single person or any single issue. and we don't appreciate the precious character of this government. which is designed to protect our liberties, our freedoms, and also to see to it that each and every one of us is heard and has an opportunity to participate in our country. and this is -- this is a terrible thing. and i don't know whether i've answered the question. >> done a great job. former senator regal. >> if i may, i just want to make a personal observation about john. >> did he ever run against you in a primary? >> are you kidding? >> think about it? >> no one in their right mind would run against john. >> i supported jim o'hara against don. and it was one of the biggest

mistakes i made. because he cleaned our clock. a great politician. a great senator and a great friend. and i learned my lesson. and i haven't made that mistake since. >> john was a great mentor to many people. and i include myself on that list. very gratefully. but i spent my first six yearssd as a republican you sit on one side of the house chamber and as a democrat the other side. from the republican side you look over and see the democrats, and the democrats look over and see the republicans. i decided to change parties. and it's an awkward thing to do. and it was an awkward thing for me to do. so one day after i had done that, i crossed the center aisle. and i started to sit after six years on the other side of the'y welcome. there were a lot of democrats at that time. had a big majority and didn't need another renegade republican

necessarily coming over. but the first person to reach out to me was john dingell. and of course there wasn't anybody that was more respected at the time than john. or today. and one day he just motioned me to come over and sit beside him in the chair next to him on the house side. and i think he put his arm around me. i felt like he did. because that was the gesture he was making. and it was a wonderfully kind thing. it was a leadership thing. and a mentoring step. and john spoke about mentors who were important to him. like john moss and others. and john mccormick. but he's been a mentor to an enormous number of people. i have to be one of the lucky ones who went on to be a chairman and used a lot of his methods. but i see it now even in some of the republican chairmen in the house. i think the two republican chairmen from michigan that we have in the house today follow

certain number of john's practices because his leadership has been bipartisan. it's been bigger than party differences. and that's a wonderful gift to the country. and he's given it to a lot of people. and made a big difference. i think it adds up to as much in the end as his legislative accomplishments and that's saying a lot. >> we're coming right to the close. but would you like to share any thoughts on don riegle's congressional bromance? [laughter] >> don riegle was a great member of the house. a very smart politician. was very concerned about the public interest. he was a great friend of mine. he was a great senator. he served our people well. and reaching out to him was not a problem. it was his presence in the congress that helped us all and the country. and i was very glad to have him join the democrats.

because -- and when he was with the republicans, i always used to observe if the republicans were as bad as i thought they were, they needed a guy like riegle. [laughter] >> congressman, after -- this is an historic day that the ticker makes you the longest serving member of congress in either chamber to serve this government. and it's such an honor that you joined us here at the atlantic, our whole family of publications, national journal, the atlantic, the courts, wanted to have you here today to have a real conversation. we very much appreciate all of you being here. and the viewers of c-span for joining us. but i want to just give you a round of applause. >> can i say one thing? >> absolutely. >> can i say one thing before you do? i'm a lucky guy. i had great mentors. wonderful father. got a wife, a treasure.

and my dad who is one of my mentors, principal mentors and teachers, said son, it's a pretty long time. and they said -- he'd say you know, son, it ain't how long. it is how well. and there are people who have served relatively briefly who have served with great distinction. and so the amount of time i've put in just means i've collected a check from government. but the question is, what have i done with that time? and how well have i served the people? that's the important thing. >> well, we think we've covered that quite adequately today and i would like to commend you on the things you've actually done to serve your country so well. so thank you very much, sir. [applause]

[inaudible conversation] >> this morning, we talked about the calls and purpose of overseas military bases and the risks and sustaining them. this is about 40 minutes. each monday on this segment we take a look at how your money isn't being used in a different government program. we look at the cost of operating military bases overseas with michael lostumbo.

here that the policy of research is to toot -- institute. you study this issue for the defense department. what are the estimates of the price tack that we are paying for bases overseas? >> thank you very much for allowing me to be here. the defense department estimates they spend over $10 billion a year on our bases overseas. we did a report that was mandated that was released last month. theere able to look at cost in a different way than the defense department did. we actually came to a similar figure but in a much different way. with the talk about that of the course of the show. what is the cost that you came up with? guest: we looked at the benefits

of well. wet we get out of that is have a very capable military and our bases overseas allow us to deploy forces to conflict areas of very quickly and that helps with our foreign policy and secure our interests. we also looked at the way that our forces deter conflicts and so in many ways the forces that are in place in the country you andsay like in south korea so that is an effective way of using forces abroad. oflooked at a range benefits. another one with foreign militaries we can do that more often and we can have more confidence in training and so that improves of both our own forces.

when we fight and conflicts abroad invariably we are working with other militaries. that also brings up the level of their capability. the america military is the most -- in the world. host: approximately 600 basis as of september 2011. 70% of bases in japan, south korea, and germany. that $2 million yearly operating doeson that -- operations not include pay for soldier. what is included? that is not inclusive personnel costs. that does not include personnel costs. that's the most risk -- recent

fiscal year. wanted to do we something different. the defense department has these numbers. we wanted to look at the incremental numbers. is it of gullible online but mark -- is it of gullible online? , they are all of the legal online for free. to answer your question about if you had a chile , like an army unit the difference whether it was based here or the united states or abroad is what we were able to articulate. that is the first time anybody has been able to do that. it is more costly to put forces abroad, but we wanted to put

that into context of the strategic benefits you get out of that. host: we are talking with michael lostumbo of rand. he is the director there. the phone lines are open. if you're overseas and want to talk about this issue, you can call us. talk about that stat of 70% of our bases in being located in just three countries -- germany, japan, and south korea. what was the strategic thinking there. guest: the post-world war ii era, we had a large number of forces and large number of

basis in germany and japan. , many of those bases have been maintained. the actual number of forces that -- starting in the early 1990's. we developed a very strong relations with germany in the postwar to aero. they continue to want to have forces in their country's and a strong security tie with the u.s. programs, like other concerned with cost. somebody on twitter said we should make sure our troops overseas are taken care of. talk about the shift that is going on right now in the options that the governor is putting forward and that you

propose here for trimming costs on military bases overseas. guest: mostly the question we were trying to address is to the forces that are abroad serve our interests. we looked to the administration's on documents on laststrategic guidance of year. we found in order to be able to meet the strategic intent of the country which is to be able to deploy forces abroad very quickly and support our allies and we need a fairly substantial force abroad. we did find areas where you could cut, in particular -- you could cut and meet the strategic guidance. in particular, the amount of forces in europe could be considered -- if you were going

to make production in europe that would have some consequence. as i was saying before, the forces abroad were able to train with our partners. nato partners are some the most proficient and our strongest allies in the world. if we were to reduce forces there, that would mean we would most likely have less training with them. harm the say it could ability of the u.s. to support our nato commitments and there could be political consequences that those countries might look elsewhere for the security and guarantees that they now get from their relationship with the united states. host: who would they be looking to if they did it? guest: that would be up to them. i guess what i am saying is

-- it could be perceived as a vacuum in your. i do not know how they would fill that vacuum. host: some are concerned about the number of basis. tweetweaked -- , wet: since the korean war have had forces there. we continue to train with them. no, we are not at war. the north korean government is very unpredictable. still threatens south korea. from time to time it takes military action in small ways against south korea. we have maintained forces there in part to send the signal to north korea to remain committed. and a signal to the south korean people and government that will

continue to stand with them. host: what are these countries out locations and paying qwest work on we footing the entire bill trustmark -- bill? thet: they help to defray cost of bases there. what we found in our report is the misconception that those payments completely offset the cost to america. despite the fact that they provide substantial force, it is still more expensive for us in countries like japan and south korea. host: the armed service committee report that you brought up earlier talked about the rising costs that the u.s. is paying for bases overseas. maintain force in south korea grew by more than i've hundred million dollars between 2000 and eight and 2012 -- $500 million

between 2008 in 2012. in japan thomas the host nation payments have felt to keep pace. it has fallen more than 80% since 1992 from $1 billion to $200 million. why is it costing us more now for these bases overseas? a lot ofguest: material to go over. i want to talk about south korea. we are consolidating our bases and our forces there. that is an ongoing plan. the overallduce cost to the u.s. forces that we have in south korea. what you're basically saying is thatthe level of funding

those governments are changing and one of the things that is very complex to actually capture the amount that a host government pays is that many paid the benefits it essentially is that they provide that are intangible. for instance, we do not pay a rent on a base. it is not captured as a cost that they provide per se. it is something we do not have to pay because they are not charging us rent. we do as best we can to capture all of the payments, both tangible and intangible. the data is quite poor for a

number of reasons. we are talking with michael lostumbo from rand. for those do not know, explain what it is. are trying to expand public policy through research. it is nonpartisan. if people look at this report in particular, they will see what we are trying to do is not to take a position one way or the other. but to give another information so that an informed policymaker can make a decision. that was our objective here in this report. we are taking calls. gordon is on the republican line. good morning. i believe there are

many reasons to have bases overseas. some of which have been discussed by michael there. i am glad that we are out there. ,f you want to save some costs in world war ii we did not have folks doing the laundry for the troops and stuff like that. it is a controversial issue. put more on the troops to provide more of their own services. ,ompare the $10 billion a year how the stack compared to the cost of food stamps and other welfare programs. do have an abstract on that? do you have a response? guest: it is a tool that you can use to compare against other someams, whether it is

other program. in the scheme of the defense is somethinglion that is affordable. it is a question do we believe we get $10 billion worth of benefits and putting troops overseas? what we concluded in our report is that in order to meet the that the intent administrations since world war theave sustained is that united states wants to be engaged in the world and interacting with friends and allies to shape the security for the future, you need a fairly substantial presence of broad. whether you need it to the extent that we currently have as the questions that we

raise in our report. we provide a lot of information to help answer that. -- host: it is at rand.com. answer this question, what contributes most to the cost of ? base in a foreign country how difficult compared to a domestic base? guest: it is more costly because we provide a lot of payments that we do not have to hear. a service member will get a cost-of-living increase for being a broad. their move from the united states to that country is paid for. that is going to be if you are moving domestically. we provide more funding for schooling abroad.

those are the kinds of costs that make it incrementally more expensive for a unit to be based abroad etc. based here in the united states. also you open a base, there are fixed costs. no matter how many people you put on the base, you are going to have to pay. for every base that the united states has forces, that is going to increase cost. do we have what is the biggest amount? if you had to break it down? guest: there's a veritable cost which is the personnel costs. then the fixed cost which is the funding we have to pay for the physical. if it is an air base, keeping up with the runway.

the administrative buildings. -- he is's would be with be rand. what did you do before? i work in the defense department. chuck is up next on our independent line. caller: i have a few questions. why do we spend more on the defense of europe than in europe spend on their own defense? , why are we building highways and bridges? to all of the oil money that was supposed be close

to $1 trillion? who is getting it all now, china. we have to turn things around. start with the of europe. we have very strong ties with european countries. scene been a recurring for many years here in the the amountes about that european countries spend on their own defense. will show a map of some the bases we have in europe. the green star there is the installation. the blue fighters there. , yellow.rs

you explain what that is. all ofand this shows the that we have currently in europe. there is a substantial number. we do not have a large presence on but we do have access if we need them for a mission. for chuck's question about there've beenng, long-standing concerns. i am sure there are congressional hearings you can read about. u.s. concerns about the burden sharing. do not spend as much on defense as the united states. .ut that is a larger question

in our report, we talk about some of the facilities in europe that are in our own interest. if we want to quickly send forces to the middle east, we are going to send them through european basis such as a major hub. if we cannot have have that base, it would be more difficult for us to get power their quickly into the middle east. your point about iraq is a different question and not really relevant to the defense department. is a question on our ongoing political and eight relationship we have. host: stats on troops. the number of troops in europe is about 42,000 in europe.

over 1000 marine corps. close to 31,000 in the air force. that has theiggest most troops right now? you are asking me to do math. it will be slightly larger. host: 37,000 navy. 23,000 marine corps. guest: to pick up on that aim of we still have to army brigades in army europe. the question is what kind of combat forces do we need any europe? that is a question we raise in our report. woodstock, virginia. mike much you are on. i would like to say thank

you for your service. i'm a retired defense contractor. i had great respect for a senator's work. i have several questions. what would be the breakdown of contractor services and operating overseas bases? you stated that 70% of our basis are in japan, south korea, and germany. do you note the locations of other overseas bases? lastly, if you would, the status of our overseas bases as it compares to our state facility and consulates and where those

are considered u.s. soil, how do we compare our military bases versus our state facilities? i appreciated the act that we have this forum to proposed these questions. first, a breakdown of costs. guest: we did our assessment, we included the support that our troops get. it is substantial. , butnot have the fraction we do deploy. when we do deploy abroad, we have substantial support. germany, north korea.

where are the other 30%? guest: we have some in kuwait. we'll show this map. names of all of the basis. go ahead. in our report, we list major bases around the world. major bases and facilities. in the middle east am a we call attention that before the gulf war, primarily the way the u.s. and short security in the region was by putting forward the equipment that we need in wartime but not having a substantial presence in terms of people. and inthe iraq war afghanistan, we maintained substantial numbers of military personnel and it -- in the persian gulf.

in a post-afghanistan environment where we have little or no presence, what is the right size of our presence in the hirsch and golf? we talk about that. most of it is being handled by rotational forces. forces that are not permanently stationed in the persian gulf. theire most part, rotation is how long they stay in the field is one year. to be prettyg substantial. host: the last question was on the status of overseas bases versus consulates. is that considered u.s. soil? it is not u.s. territory. we are there at the pleasure of the host nation. that is important when operations are being planned.

we need to know and we need to negotiate with the host nation the type of operations they are willing to permit from their soil. that changes all the time. it is a constant sorts of discussion. you may have or read about historical cases where that access has not been to the level the u.s. has wanted. it can change. host: we are talking with michael lostumbo. you can check out his report at rand.org. the phone lines are open. john is up next on our independent line. caller: you've answered a lot of my questions. in the airere for -- force in europe.

then i was in southeast asia. during my time in the air force and i speak mostly of that because that is my background, 90% of the basis that i served on during that time period are no longer there any europe or asia or the united states. . was stationed in england the u.s. bases were kicked out of france. most of the bases that i was familiar with in england are gone as well as germany. and aerall u.s. spending mind it is better to fight on somebody else's soil than being attacked here, we have to have forward deployed basis.

your really appreciate knowledge on this. i would like to hear his -- we hadn comparison a lot more basis in the 1960's. more todayding a lot amount of u.s.er bases both here and abroad. i personally worry about that. host: thank you for the call. talk about the spending today versus in the past. guest: he is right. there are fewer bases than when he was serving in the mid 1960's. oft is because at the end the cold war, the united states made a decision to reduce the size of his military. needyou do that, you fewer facilities.

facilities were close to both in the united states and abroad. we did not do asterisk look comparison -- a historical comparison of 30 years ago versus the costs that are occurring today. of the like many aspects defense budget, it is probably more expensive but that is probably speculation. what is probably more expensive is the personnel costs -- as you probably know is a growing part of the military budget right now. host: the caller remember when basis -- bases were kicked out. has that been done recently? guest: he mentioned france. we mentioned this in our report, they asked the u.s. to lethal within a year. host: after world war ii?

guest: it was later than that. they were a part of nato and then they made a calculation it was no longer in their interest. they asked u.s. forces to leave. that can happen. when are other instances .ur needs are not met for instance, in the run-up of the gulf war, the united states wanted to move ground forces from europe through turkey and move them to northern iraq. the turkish government refused passage of those forces. they had to find an alternative route. that does continue to happen. es, were thereasi at the pleasure of the host nations. host: what happens to the money if you were asked to leave? do thisbuy the base from us?

is millions or billions of dollars. do they have to buy it back? guest: we observed several risks. we put a lot of money into the infrastructure at a base so that our forces can operate in their efficiently. if a country asks us to leave, we lose access to those. sometimes they are going to pay us for compensation. nevertheless, it is not an ideal situation. what we want is the capabilities that we can operate from those facilities. host: is there a recent example that you can talk about? we were asked to leave the philippines about 20 years ago and so that would be one .xample

host: we are back to the phones. good morning, cynthia. out was the terrorist watch list. i have been trying to get him for years. i thought i was on the terrorist watch list. i think we are basically topping off their local economy. ton our military gets paid spending their u.s. dollars in the little germany town or where ever they are, i think we should be spending that money here. i find it absolutely outrageous that we are paying.

we are paying. we do not need to be there. we do not need to be in those other countries. that is what i have to say. to be ando not need other country is what cynthia is saying. address that. a legitimates perspective. issue reviewed our he ports, she would see how much it costs to have forces abroad. and the potential benefits that you can get from. ,- if she reviewed our reports she would see how much it costs to have forces abroad. and the potential benefits and that you can get from them. a little bit of a clarification needs to be made. the additional costs go to u.s. service members. it is going to educate their children. it is going to them because it will be more expensive to live

in a country like japan. they get extra pay they would not get here. a lot of their commercial activities are taking place on the basies. a lot of them live on the facilities. it should not be characterized that this is like a direct cash payment to a foreign country. the defense department looks at this because we are broad because it makes it easier for us to influence events is if we in the idea can prevent conflicts from happening, we are all better off. when we think about protecting the united states, we want to make sure there are no conflicts. some folks on twitter feel the same. --s tweet from chris

onll go to bob from vermont our democratic line. caller: chris brings two point what i want to bring up. i asked a congressman once. in a time and an environment where. in a timeng cut -- and an environment where food stamps are being cut and other things, and you go to disney property -- for and relaxation places military and civilian employees. did you notice that any of these and are they being

propagated since we are moving to other theaters of activities to places where you can get a break from combat coming back? how are they funded is my big question? the rest and relaxation facilities is what he is talking about. guest: that is not without report is about. whontially, service members forin combat are taken out rest and relaxation. there are facilities that allow them to do that. we talk about the $10 billion number in your report. what do people want to get that number down to? how much room

for cutting is there? guest: the way we address it in our report is if you want to ,mplement the current strategy there is not a lot of room for cuts. coulds up to $3 billion be cut and still meet the objectives of the strategy. by thehis was outlined pentagon last year in the strategic guidance document? is issued int january of 2012. host: we can meet that guidance for $3 billion less? guest: that will be the minimum. we are not saying it would be advisable. if you want to make reduction in ,he cost of overseas forces you can do that and still meet the strategic guidance. host: what might be the most advisable in your assessment of this? guest: we are not trying to

advise, we are trying to provide information so somebody can make an informed decision. cut as muchrying to as you could from overseas facilities while still meeting the strategic guidance, the biggs area to look at would be in europe where we do have forces. if you were to cut forces in europe, the downside is we would traininghe kind of that we do with our nato allies. and so there could be repercussions for our relationship with european allies. there are also areas in the middle east where we could look for savings in particular the question of how many forces are necessary in a post-afghanistan environment in order to deter iran and to meet our counterterrorism objectives?

not aa, it is probably lot of room for savings. we have most of our forces in asia in japan and korea. there is a wide swath of geography in southeast asia where we have minimal presence. --re is a bunch of presence a bunch of questions. to what extent does our presence in asia meet our strategic objectives there? a we point out in the report, lot of the facilities in japan and korea thomas on most all of .hem face heavy missile threats that is something in the past we have not had to worry about when we had to locate a facility overseas. that canr of missiles really do a lot of damage and

so we have to think about a as a risk of investing in basis -- bases in countries. is withchael lostumbo the rand institute. you can read the report at rand.org. thank you for joining us. answeredm hague questions today. here's a portion of his remarks from the british house of commons. it is about 10 minutes. the matters have been explored. foreign and commonwealth affairs. secretary william hague. oni will make a statement the communication headquarters. -- it's legalwork

framework for the responsible for the work and the secret intelligence services. over the last few days, there's been a series of media disclosures of classified u.s. documents relating to the collection of intelligence by u.s. agencies and questions about the role. the u.s. administration has begun a review and to circumstances of the leak with the u.s. intelligence community. thatdent obama has said the area is overseen by congress and they are committed to respecting the civil liberties of its citizens. to maintain the security of our

own country and by providing a partial and misleading picture, they give rise to public concern. ofis been the policy british government not to comment on the detail of intelligence operations. and the house will therefore understand that i will not be drawn into confirming or denying any aspect of leaked information. informative as possible to give reassurance to the public and parliament. what the the british people to have confidence in our intelligence agencies. also wish to be very clear that i will take great care in this statement and in answering questions to say nothing that gives any clue to terrorists among criminals, or foreign threats as they seek to do harm to this country and its people. three issues have arisen in recent days. first, i would describe the action the government is taken.

i will set up how our intelligence agencies work. will describe how the law is upheld with respect to intelligence with the united states and deal with specific questions about the work. the intelligence security committee has received information and they will receive a few -- a full report tomorrow. kissing can who chairs the kensington who chairs the committee is headed to the u.s. they will see what action needs to be taken in light of the report. they will cooperate fully with the committee. i pay tribute to the members on all sides of the house. isc work is based on

democratic accountability and oversight. the use of secret intelligence and the uk which effective government has worked to strengthen. the intelligence service act of 1994 and the regulation of powers act of 2000. the act to allow other agencies to seek authorization for their activities. hundreds of proposals every year. the proposals are detailed. they set up the planned operations and risks and intended benefits of intelligence. they include comprehensive legal advice describing the basis. it requires a warrant signed by

me or another secretary of state. this is no casual process. every decision is based on legal advice. and carefullyy targeted. we judge them on that basis. considerations of privacy are at the forefront of our minds. i believe they will be on the minds of our predecessors. we balance individual policy -- privacy to safeguard the u.s. and its people. these have been difficult. we do not approve every proposal. on the authorization that we give is subject to independent review by its omission or and interception of communications commissioner. both of whom hold judicial office and report directly to the prime minister.

they review the way a beast decisions are made to assure their complaint with the law. they have full access to the information they need to carry out their responsibilities. the reports are publicly available. it is vital that we have this framework of democratic accountability and scrutiny. i have nothing but praise for the professionalism and dedication of the men and women. i know from my work with them how serious they take their obligations in the uk and international law. in the most recent reports, intelligent service commissioner gsq1it is my belief that members have the higher levels of integrity. this combination of needing a warrant for one of the most top members of congress decided on legal device and sub -- subsequent review and laments implements of an ethical

framework has been increased provides one of the strongest systems of checks and balances and democratic accountability anywhere in the world. i want to set out how uk law is upheld with information received from the united states and to address the specific questions about the role of gs q1. gsq and its american counterpart has had a relationship that is unique. this relationship has been and remains essential to the security of both nations. it has stopped many terrorist and espionage lots against this country. it is saved many lives. the basic principles by which that operates has not changed over time. i wish to emphasize to the house while we have experienced a.

period over the past few years, the general framework for exchanging information with united states is the same under previous governments. the threats from terrorists and criminals has only increased the importance of our intelligence relationship with the united states. this was the case in the run-up to the olympics. the house would not be surprised that our counterterrorism rose to a peak in the summer of last year. gsqas been suggested that is used to get around uk law and obtain information they cannot legally obtain in the united kingdom. i wish to be absolutely clear that this accusation is baseless. any data obtained dealing with uk nationals is subject to proper statutory controls and including the

relevant sections of the human rights act and the regulation of investigatory powers act. it is subject to independent oversight. and to scrutiny by the intelligence and security committee. to uphold uk law at all times even when dealing with information from outside the united and him. the combination of a robust legal framework, responsibility, as courtney by the service -- scrutiny by the service commissioner should give a high level of confidence that the system works as intended. this does not mean we do not have to work to strengthen confidence whenever we can while maintaining the secrecy needed for intelligence work. throughngthen the role an actor this year to include oversight operations and

finances. with introduced the national security council -- we have introduced the national security council. to make information available including diplomatic reports. all this information is careful in deciding the overall strategy. mr. speaker, there is no doubt that secret intelligence including gsq is vital to our country. they helps us to figure out threats. to prevent serious and organized crime and protect our economy. they disrupt complex plots against our country such as when individuals travel abroad to get terrorism training. i support the work of our armed forces overseas and to protect

the lives of our men and women in uniform. they help to protect other country to build the capacity and willingness to disrupt terrorism in their country before it threats reaches the united kingdom area we should never forget the threats are launched secretly. new tact is our developed a secretly. who plan attacks do so in secrecy. thesee used to combat must be remain secret. they must always be lawful. -- citizens of this country if this is of this country concede that care taken, and the strict controls in place to ensure that the law and our democratic values are upheld. if takeaway this is the integrity and professionalism of the men and women of our intelligence agency who are among the finest service that our nation has, i believe they would be real short by how we

go about his work. the british people can be confident in the way we keep them safe. would-be terrorists, those seeking to spy against his country, are those part of organized crime should be aware that this country has the capability and our new ship to protect its citizens against a full range of threats in the 21st century area will always do so in accordance with our laws and values with determination. forum on internet security. in an hour, our special series -- the first lady's. on after that, a discussion the immigration bill working its way through the senate. council on internet

security. speakers include the foreign director who says that recently revealed data collection programs are not new and those who leaked information about the programs should be punished. he is cochair. >> good afternoon. i am the director of the task force program. it is my pleasure to welcome you to this special event to release the reports on u.s. policy in the digital age. i hope you have all picked up a copy. let me take care of a few housekeeping items firstel. -- first.