there are governments all over the world -- in fact, most governments all over the world who are extreme beneficiaries of mr. snowden's choice. human beings all over the world consider him a hero, governments have been able to realize how their privacy is being invaded, to take steps to reform the abuses that we now know about, to convene investigations like the one we are here to participate in today. all sorts of people, all kinds of governments all over the world exploiting for their own interests and their own benefit the very great sacrifice that mr. snowden made. i am glad to see they are doing it and i'm gratified that governments are taking seriously what it is he has shown them. although governments have examined the choice is made and the sacrifice and bravery he has

shown, you are very few governments -- in fact, a tiny handful -- who are extending reciprocal courtesy to him by protecting his rights the way he has decided to protect all of ours. because of that, he is currently in a situation that is very uncertain where his own government has threatened to subject him to persecution and put him in a cage for decades if not the rest of his life and for having shown the light on behavior that is illegal and abusive, and most governments have decided to turn their back not only on him but their own obligations ethically and legally to protect people such as mr. snowden from persecution by granting him asylum. i think it is a very strange and disappointing dynamic to watch governments in europe express indignation over what he has revealed and take steps to protect themselves against it while at the same time turning their back on him and allowing

his own government to threaten him with life in prison. i would hope that governments around the world would not only decide to try to exploit his revelations for their own interests, but also to express gratitude for what it is that he did by protecting his basic human rights, which is the right to come forward with evidence of secret wrongdoing on the part of the worlds most powerful factions and not be sent to prison for the rest of your life for having done it. with that, i thank you once again for inviting me and i am happy to have a discussion if any of you have questions. >> ok, thank you very much for your introduction. now we are going to go to questions and answers, and i hope that the connection will remain stable enough. i understand that we can speak our only much and you will get translation into english, but that our colleagues here do not get any translation, or do you? no. but you should get translation >> ok, thank you very much for into ingush so signal if there

is a problem. i'm also going to ask colleagues and our guests to be as brief and concise as possible and to allow for maximum number of questions. we will have one question, one answer each time, and i will ask everybody to be very, very concise. first of all, we will listen to the man from the dsnd group. >> thank you, mr. greenwald for being with us today. can i begin with where you finish, the source, edward snowden? in my report, i am going to be talking about whistleblower protection. yesterday we saw the congressional committee that by mike rogers, and they rejected the definition of mr. snowden as a whistleblower. what is your view of that? is a problem. by rejecting that definition, they are seeing him as a felon. simple question, what is your

view of that? secondly, on the federal court judgment, which you welcomed, again the congressional committee but also dianne feinstein and others say it is one of many judgments. this is an important judgment for us and a report because it begins to perhaps address this whole issue of metadata as you describe it. you welcomed the judgment, but we are hearing voices saying that the judgment is not significant. tell us what you think. finally, the issue about the "guardian" reporting you have been doing -- how do you address critics who say that the reporting is putting people in danger or that it is inappropriate? my understanding is that you redacted all sorts of

information. please answer those critics. finally, we had a european parliament debate on the issue of miranda. please comment on the issue of how anti-terrorism powers were used in that instance. thank you. >> mr. greenwald? >> i will take those in order. yeah, i would just take those in order. i think mike rogers picked a very bad week to deny that mr. snowden is a whistleblower, given the federal court decision that you reference in the second part of your question, which is that the core program, the first one we revealed and that mr. snowden, when i first met with them, cited as what caused him to come forward, the collection of the metadata of all americans without regard to suspicion of evidence of wrongdoing, it regards the core guarantee of rights in the constitution and the court said it does not come close.

somebody comes forward and revealed that a federal program that a court says is illegal is a classic whistleblower. on top of the fact that his revelations have sparked a debate in the united states and around the world that -- as evidenced by the hearing that we are participating in today about all sorts of things that i think everybody on all sides of the debate agrees we are better off knowing about, and that is a classic whistleblower, somebody who reveals to the public evidence of wrongdoing, as well as illegality, and that sparked very important debate that no society can be about, and that is what mr. snowden has done and that makes him a classic whistleblower. as far is the opinion you asked about, what generally happens in the united states when it comes to surveillance is that the only court that rules on these programs are courts that no western democracy would even recognize as courts. they are tribunals that meet in secret and with only one side,

where the u.s. government is permitted to be present and heard. what happened yesterday is that for the first time, real court proceeding as if value weighted the legality of these surveillance programs. the judge's opinion, which i urge everybody in the world to read -- it is not only about the u.s. law but the way the programs destroy the concept of individual privacy and how the rationale offered by the u.s. government is false, mainly that it helps terrorism. the judge said there is zero evidence that it has stopped terrorism. this opinion was issued by one of the most respected national security judges in the united states. he is not known as a liberal. quite the opposite, he is a conservative judge when it by president bush. what he said is that the national security rationale offered by the government is not only false but woefully inadequate to address the serious privacy infringement that the collection of metadata imposes on everybody who is subjected to it.

given the gravity of the opinion, how vehement it was, and the fact that it was issued by the judge is quite vital. as far as the third question, responding to my critics, it is really remarkable, as although we have been criticized for disclosing documents which put people in danger, we have been pretty damning the criticized from the other direction as well, that we have published to view documents, that we have got to slow and how we publish these documents. i consider that criticism to be vastly more persuasive and valid than the one that says we put people in danger. terrorists have long known that the u.s. and the u.k. government and lots of other governments are doing everything possible to monitor the communication. osama bin laden famously used human couriers to communicate with his associates precisely because all terrorists already know that everything they're doing on the internet or

telephone is a subject to being monitored by various governments. we did not tell terrorists anything they didn't already know. what we tell people that they didn't already know is that not the terrorists, but that they themselves, innocent people, are the real target of this mass surveillance system. the only thing we have part is the perception of honesty and the credibility of western leaders who have built this massive surveillance system in the dark. the final point of the case of my partner -- the thing i want to say about that is that i hope everybody understands how extreme and radical the u.k. government is when it comes to press freedoms. they are literally equating the reporting we have done not only with espionage but with terrorism. the u.s. state department has for years condemned as tyrannical governments that equate journalists with terrorists, or journalism with terrorism.

that is exactly what the u.k. government is doing in this case. they have lots of other instances where they threaten core press freedoms of "the guardian" and journalists who have been able to report on this story in a way that any country that overlooks what the u.k. government is doing loses all credibility on press freedom when engaged in by countries that are not quite as familiar or allies of those governments. >> ok, thank you. the next question. >> i would like to talk in german. [speaking german] >> thank you very much, mr. greenwald, for giving us your time and an opportunity to put questions to you. i have got basically 3 small questions. first of all, if there is a serious concern to raise attention to what is going on in

our private lives around the world, then i am wondering at the moment whether we know everything that there is to know, that we ought to know, or whether there might be more information that could catch us by surprise. obviously, that would be interesting for us as to what more might be looking out there. then you mentioned always of intercepting communication and how that is being done, but for a long time now things are being made public which were in the realm of national security, and that was in the national realm. so for example, when you are talking about the opportunities of phoning up an abortion clinic and to be found out, is that in the interest of the nsa to

evaluate that sort of information? the fact that it is possible to do, i think we all understand that. that is not an issue. but is there any interest in the nsa doing that? thirdly, on the threats we are facing, obviously there are threats in our private sphere. that is what is occupying us at the moment. but what about the threats that exist, as it were, around the globe, threats to states and from states, fundamentalist movements? do you think it is justified to carry out certain reconnaissance work or activities even if that may involve delving into information that perhaps should remain private? >> thank you for those questions.

as far as whether we know everything, we certainly know the gist of what these documents reveal, as i began by discrediting, that the nsa and gchq and allied governments our attention to collect all forms of electronic communication. there are stories that we are going to report that are significant. but the documents are complicated and as responsible journalists it takes is a little bit of time to assess them and report them accurately. we're doing it as fast as we can, consistent with being responsible and accurate. there are stories that remain that a significant but after 6 months, everybody gets the fundamental point that drove mr. snowden to come forward -- the menace to everybody's individual privacy. as far as the question about the nsa and whether it has an interest in, for example, collecting information about a woman getting an abortion or people calling drug and alcohol

clinics, to answer that question all you have to do is look at recent history, not only in the united states, but other countries as well. there is no instance where governments have developed the power to engage in secret massive surveillance where it wasn't abused. for decades in the united states, the united states government used its surveillance authorities to monitor and eavesdrop on political dissidents and opponents of the government. the fbi famously tried to get evidence that martin luther king was having adulterous affairs and then threatened him or even tried to encourage them to commit suicide. there were decades of abuses that come from this system. i think it is widely understood that if can exercise massive surveillance power in the dark with no accountability or transparency, it is not likely but inevitable that it will be abused. just 3 weeks ago we reported that one of the things the nsa

is doing is monitoring people not engaged in terrorist activities or members of terrorist organizations, but who express what the u.s. government calls "radical ideas," who have been targeted by the nsa, and the nsa is collecting information about their business with pornographic sites or sexual chats that they have online with people who they are not married to, and the documents we publish contains plans to use that information to publicly humiliate and discredit those people to prevent them from effectively communicating their ideas to the world. a pure instance of abuse. it may be true that an ordinary person and never challenges the government is not going to be threatened with that kind of abuse, because they are not challenging the government, but i don't think we want to create a society that says you won't be targeted with abusive surveillance as long as you stayed home and mind your own business and never challenge the government. the measure of a free society is

how it treats dissidents and those who express ideas that deviate from the norm. finally, on the issue of whether there is justifiable surveillance, of course there is justifiable surveillance. everybody agrees that when there is evidence of somebody who is engaged in terrorist organizations or terrorist plots, that their conversations can be legitimately monitored. i think it should happen in a framework of accountability and the involvement of courts to make sure it is not being abused. but that is not what these documents show. the documents show whole populations being subjected to indiscriminate surveillance. and things we have reported on such as the targeting by the gchq of the oil giant, or the organization of american states, or economic conferences where economic records are being negotiated in latin america, or spying on energy companies, such as what we reported on in norway and sweden. what much of this spying is

about as nothing to do with national security. that is the pretext. economic advantage, essentially the accumulation of power. terrorism and national security are ways to excuse it, but not the real purpose and these documents leave no doubt about that. >> ok, thank you. i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask you to be a bit more concise in answering because otherwise we won't make it in the time slot foreseen. i am now changing hats and i am going to ask a question on behalf of the liberal democrat group. my first question would be, amongst all the countless targets that have been revealed, there is one that is of particular interest to the european parliament, and that is the server of a company called swift, processing bank data. there are early indications in the snowden papers that say that the u.s. authorities have

unauthorized access, or at least created the possibility of having unauthorized access. do you have any more information on that? second question, what makes a whistleblower a whistleblower is that he has exhausted all internal procedures for reporting wrongdoing. is that the case with mr. snowden? what happened with the internal procedures? my third question would be, in your introduction, you singled out the u.k. as an ally of the u.s. are there any other particular european countries that you would like to highlight? my final question follows up a little but on the other -- have you seen any evidence or indication that information has been used against political adversaries or that it will be

allowed to use explicitly against political adversaries? thank you. >> as far as the swift banking, "the new york times" reported seven years ago that the nsa had targeted the swift banking system. the documents we published in brazil and the targeting of petrograd by the nsa and gchq listed it as among its targets. that is the reporting we have done so far. clearly swift is part of the targets of the nsa and the gchq. as far as being a whistleblower and exhausting all the internal procedures, i think mr. snowden has explained in the past the past jobs he had where he brought the wrongdoing to light that he was dismissed by his supervisors and told to go back to work and mind his own business. the same response that other whistleblowers like chelsea manning received.

there are senators on the intelligence committee of the united states who were aware of this wrongdoing and tried to inform the public about it but were constrained by law from even telling the public what it is they found out and were essentially rendered impotent. mr. snowden saw that even united states senators were barred by law from speaking about it or doing anything about it and that his only recourse for getting action was to make it public, that internal systems for whistleblowers is really a farce. it is designed to suppress the information and not bring it to light. the u.k. is the closest ally. there is another level of cooperation, tier-b cooperation where these governments cooperate with the nsa on a

case-by-case basis for specific targeting purposes and germany, france, norway, sweden, and denmark are among the countries in europe which participate most extensively with the nsa, and we publish documents setting that fourth. as far as the documents used against illegal adversaries, i described the stories published in the huffington post a couple weeks ago in which the nsa plotted to use evidence of sexual activity on the internet in order to discredit and destroy the reputation of people they consider to be purveyors they think are radical and there is reporting i cannot talk about because the documents are not yet published and the reporting is not done. >> ok, thank you very much. the next question will be on behalf of the conservative group.

sorry, on behalf of the green group. >> thank you very much. first of all, let me say that i thank you for your work, because without the independent work of journalists scrutinizing and reporting about these documents, we would not have this discussion either. let me ask three questions. first, with regard to the awareness, quite a lot of politicians think that citizens do not care about this. what do you think about this? and these fundamental questions could play a role also in the democratic decision-making process -- for example, in

elections in upcoming years. second question, with regard to spying activities of intelligent services, do you have some hints that there could be also economic interests involved in the spying activities of intelligence services? for example, of the gchq into eu member states. the third question is about the work of journalists. i admired the work of independent analysts trying to scrutinize this information, but i hear from many sources that the work of journalists and free press in europe is in danger, and that extends -- my question would be how far you would see the possibility of us

politicians to safeguard the work of the free press in europe and worldwide, and if you consider going to the strasburg human rights court on the obvious infringements to the freedom of press in your work? thank you. >> mr. greenwald? >> thank you for the kind words, and as far as the question of whether or not citizens care, there is immense anecdotal and incurable evidence that demonstrates how much they do. around the world, millions of people have been in gauged by this reporting, have concluded that mr. snowden is heroic for what it is he did. the interest level around the world is as high as ever but i think it's a testament to that in the u.s., there are severe polling shifts in terms of how people for the first time since 9/11 are viewing threats to

their freedom and privacy from the government as being greater than terrorism, and all kinds of significant shift in how people perceive these issues. continuing to make people aware not only of the severity of the threat, but the reason why it affects them so personally, is instrumental to ensuring that people continue to take an interest, the governments are doing to their privacy. as far as the question of economic interests, as i indicated in my last response, there have been literally more than a dozen stories about programs that have as their only goal spying on economic entities for economic reasons, exactly what the u.s. on the left have criticized very vocally for doing is what the nsa and gchq and its allies are doing as well. i am hesitant to talk about reporting we have not yet done, but europe is by no means exempt

when it comes to the u.s. and the gchq putting it under a surveillance microscope in terms of trade talks and other kinds of economic interests. finally, the question of the free press, i think it is hard to overstate just how successful the effort has been to intimidate journalists and their sources by the u.k. and the u.s. i know i have received all kinds of invitations over the past 3 the effort has been to or 4 months to attend events and speak at events in europe, at private events, organizations, at public events, before government bodies, and have been advised that traveling would be very dangerous to me because the charges the u.k. government is threatening to bring. and so i do hope that to the extent that any of you believe the information is helpful in

fulfilling your duties as legislators, then you take steps to protect the journalists and especially the sources who sacrifice their own interests to bring it to light. >> thank you. now it is your turn. >> thank you, chairman. good morning, mr. greenwald. i assume it is morning where you are. i want to do more with the processes the new general observations. i would like to know really whether in the receipt of information whether you received a copy of the files originally from mr. snowden or whether you got that from an intermediary, and additional documents, or copies from "the guardian" newspaper. and if not originals, did you get separately any other copies from any other source or a mix of the 2? and the documents -- he talked a

lot about documents and what they contained. i would like to press you on this. what were the documents about? were there signs of redaction, particularly the names of intelligence agents? also, you say on your twitter account that it was the guardian's decision to give the gchq files to "the new york times. i wonder if you got the information on those files later, or did you already have them. some people, mr. snowden -- i mean, mr. greenwald, regard mr. snowden as a hero. i'm afraid i cannot join that club. but the reference to whistleblower -- as i understand it, the legal processes of the united states set down clear guidance as to how whistleblowers behave. there are protections for whistleblowers in the constitution and legal system. how is it that we have no

evidence that mr. snowden attempted at all to utilize what was legally available to him and, frankly, therefore left us with a situation that he could actually deal with these matters, and telling the world about it, was that responsible behavior when security was so important? finally, as a journalist, mr. greenwald, how do you determine yourself what is or what is not a matter of national security? you feel yourself qualified or work with -- i know you are no longer with "the guardian" -- do you feel qualified or groups to make such norms decisions? thank you. >> mr. greenwald. >> part of freedom of the press an important part of freedom of the press, like we have been talking about this morning, is that fortunately journalists don't have to answer to government officials about what

their sources gave them or how it is that they got the materials they are allowed to protect their sources and protect their journalistic material from invasions by questions from the government, like some of the ones you just asked. mr. snowden is the source for the reporting that we have done at "the guardian." we specifically at "the guardian" received the material and when we received it is not anyone's concern. mr. snowden is identified as the source because he wanted to be identified as the source traded beyond that, i am not going to answer questions about exactly when we got the documents or who at "the guardian" got the documents or when we decided to share them with one another. those are internal matters as journalists and as a newspaper and it is not for the government to intervene with that process. as far as what the documents are about, i think it is very clear what the documents are about. when mr. snowden came to us, he

said that he had a large number of documents, and if you think about it for a minute, and i think this is really crucial him he had a lot of choices with what he could do with that those documents. you could have uploaded them all to the internet. he could have given them to an organization and ask to that organization to disclose them all. he could have sold the documents to foreign intelligence services around the world and have been very rich for the rest of his life. he did not do any of that. he came to journalists that worked with the largest and most respected news organizations in the world and ask them to be extremely judicious and careful in going through the material and publishing only that which is in the public interest to know while not endangering any lives. i think that everyone can see that we have adhered to those wishes. as far as whistleblower protections are concerned, i am not really sure what you got the idea that there are protections for whistleblowers in the u.s. constitution. that is simply untrue. as far as whether there are protections for whistleblowers in the law, all you have to do

is look at the fact that the obama administration has prosecuted under espionage statutes more whistleblowers in the last 5 years than have been prosecuted in all of american history prior to president obama becoming president. as i discussed earlier, these mechanisms that exist in the u.s. government are designed to depress this kind of information and not enable the public to learn about it. finally, in terms of the question of how i is a journalist make these decisions, the simple answer is i make them the same way journalists around the world make these kinds of decisions every single day. i work with the largest newspapers around the world, france, spain, brazil, scandinavia, the "new york times" and "washington post" are going to the same process. we make sure the information we promise doesn't put anyone's

lives in danger and no one has suggested the information we do our job as journalists, which is to not repress this information and demonize those who ring it to life and so people know with the government is doing because that's what democracy requires. >> thank you. that brings us to mrs. gomez on behalf of the foreign affairs committee and i have two more requests for the floor after that. >> do you have any evidence any european leader has been spied by nsa has been blackmailed or could be blackmailed or intimidated in any way? my second question is when we went to the united states recently, we found out the

different elements of the administration and congress had no strategy and were quite fearful. at the same time, they were not taking responsibility because there was all of this came, the president was not aware and in congress, the mood was business. what does it mean? are we going to learn that he -- that the nsa was spying on the u.s. president? finally, there is a reference to the corporation with intelligence -- cooperation with intelligence agency and inherits to the rule of law, in that cooperation. you mentioned a few more cooperative with the nsa methods, but i would like to ask about mike country portugal -- about my country portugal.

>> as i have indicated, i'm hesitant to talk about the documents we have not yet reported because it is irresponsible to start opining on documents that have not gone through the journalistic process. what i will say is that there are a lot of stories about how the nsa uses and abuses its surveillance power. that are not yet reported, but we are working on. as far as the question of blackmail, i would simply point that history as opposed to what documents might reveal we have not yet reported in which surveillance powers have been abused exactly that way. it is naïve to assume that for the first time in human history a massive surveillance state that operates in the dark isn't being used for those purposes. as far as portugal is concerned, there are still lots of

countries where we tend to do very specific reporting in partnership with media organizations in those countries area virtual is one of them. the only thing i can say on that is that there is reporting coming regarding portugal and unfortunately, since we haven't done the reporting, i'm not able to be more specific. >> thank you. and the final questions. >> thank you for the work you have done which has allowed us to really understand the world we are living in. i think it has been very helpful. do you think the metadata or sensitive data -- we just heard from european experts who said basically metadata can give you

a time and place to allow you to identify a person area -- person. if it is sensitive data, should it be protected? in your country and the united kingdom, the role of the united kingdom is very important in this. do you think metadata should be protected? >> i talked earlier about why i think the collection, the mask collection of metadata is more invasive than the interception of content, the ability to read people's mail or listen to their telephone calls. the court decision that came out of the united states that found the metadata program violated

the privacy rights of americans is extremely compelling about why metadata is so invasive and i would encourage you to read it erie it -- to read it. the idea that it's simply a list of harmless information is antiquated. it's from an era where communications were radically different than they are now. given technology and what we use our phones for and what governments have been able to do in terms of analyzing metadata, metadata is what the focal point of these surveillance agencies is the cousin learn more of out people from metadata analysis than content. i'm glad you brought up the u.k. , because when it comes to european metadata, the nsa plays a very important role but it is the u.k. through their interception of underwater fiber-optic cables and their invasion into all sorts of systems, including by very controversial means of hacking that is a primary threat to the privacy of european citizens when it comes to their telephone and e-mail communications, at least as much or more so than

the nsa. >> thank you. the last speaker on the list. >> thank you. i come from sweden and last week, swedish television showed a program there you were one of the reporters showing how the swedish security agency are intimately connected to the nsa and that they play an active part in breaking into computers. that was a new revelation for people in sweden. i'm happy to tell you this has created quite a lot of attention in sweden and at the moment, we have the government basically saying they hope it will be followed and i get the impression if there are more revelations that they are planning to distance themselves and be able to blame the

security agency itself. my question would be will it be more on the swedish, the fra thing? and will there be more reporting on the involvement of european government? that is an issue that is of particular issue -- that is an issue with us here. you mentioned not jeopardizing lives. can i be confident you are thinking about your own security in the security of everyone else who has access to the material so it's not even a theoretical option for security services to suppress the material by killing you off? >> yes, thank you for that

concern, first of all. i'm glad you asked about the swedish television part because i wanted to emphasize that we spent a lot of time talking about metadata this morning trade but one of the revelations they are reporting in sweden demonstrated that the spying, including mass indiscriminate spying goes beyond metadata. one of the reports we did was about a very important program for the nsa and gcs q. but they have started to allow their closest surveillance partners access to their programs and has very little to do with metadata. it's about the ability to store e-mail and read them at will and collect people's browsing history and google searches trade essentially the content of communication and what is being done on the internet area that is very much a part of our privacy is being invaded. there are programs that are all about content and not just

metadata. as far as european governments are concerned, it is true that governments in germany and france expressed ingot nation when we did our first reports that the nsa was targeting their countries only to turn out that they subject their own populations to similar types of surveillance and even cooperate with the nsa. but nobody really competes with the nsa when it comes to the level of invasiveness, the amount of resources that go into it, and the objective and mission to pull back all forms of electronic communication. but the u.s. and the u.k. are at a different level when it comes to their ability to destroy privacy area and about my own security of the people reporting on this, we have taken a lot of steps to ensure there are

multiple copies of these documents in various places around the world grade very safe and very secure. eliminating somebody's ability to work on them would not impede the ability to do reporting on these materials. reporting on these materials is inevitable. i've been particularly fortunate to be in a country, brazil, whose government is appreciative of this reporting and understands the need to support the free press by the u.s. and u.k. on our ability to do the reporting. we feel as confident as we can't that this reporting is going to happen and nobody can stop it area -- nobody can stop it. >> thank you very much. with that, we have exhausted our list of speakers. on behalf of this committee, i would like to thank you very much for your time and willingness to answer questions. i think everybody is waiting with great syria city and interest in particular on the

issues you have said you could not answer our questions on because it has not yet been published. one of the things that sets a democracy apart from an authoritarian regime is that we have secret services, but we also have democratic oversight. the free press plays a role in that others also parliamentary oversight and we feel as a european parliament we have very limited means to exercise oversight. we would be extremely grateful for any information if you would feel the urge to share that with somebody. thank you very much for your time and that concludes this session. goodbye. [applause]

>> coming up on c-span, our year in review examines immigration policy. that is followed by discussion on new technologies for public safety. later, journalist glenn greenwald testifies before european parliament committee on u.s. immigration programs. >> coming up on the next washington journal, the discussion on the role of faith and religion in politics, public life, and civics. our guests are reverend barry and richard land, president of the southern evangelical seminary. targetsiscussion of the credit card security breach and ways consumers can protect themselves from identity theft. washington journal is live every

morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, andfings, and conferences, also complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. >> from the west of front of the u.s. capitol, where one year ago, president obama was sworn in for his second term. during his address, he talked about changing immigration law and talked about it a great deal on the campaign trail. over the next hour here on c- span, we will bring you more comments from president obama and hear house and senate debates on the immigration

issue. and a conversation with alan gomez. he has been reporting for "usa today." >> you wrote earlier this year about of eight. is it fair to say it took the lead legislative this year? >> absolutely. right after the election that the senate came together and decided they wanted to tackle the issue. mitt romney got a 27% of the hispanic vote, you saw a lot of republican senators get together and forming this coalition and a couple people drive in it came out. it ended up being eight senators that took the lead. >> it seems to have a lot of energy early on. what happened throughout the year? >> they ran through it. in this climate we are seeing in congress, very difficult to get anything through, they had a regular committee hearings and

vote and pass the immigration bill on the senate floor. something will not see too much of. that is when things stalled. >> they seem to have a lot of going in their favor. you mentioned the president and his desire to see immigration change. bill on the senate floor. something will not see too much of. that is when things stalled. you wrote an article about congressional budget office that the senate bill could cut illegal immigration in half. did it help their case or move it forward? did that have resonance over there? >> incredibly. the last time it failed in 2006 or 2007 was from the heritage foundation that found immigration reform would cost the u.s. quite a bit of money in the services we provide to them and health care and education. this year, that was flipped on its head. and they came out with a similar

study. a report said it would be incredible financial boom to the company, the taxes they would pay and contributing to social security and medicare. once the republicans saw it, they could say it is an economic argument for us. >> going back to your comments on the politics. mitt romney got 27% of the hispanic vote. a number of senators must be up for election in 2014. who are some of those senators? >> one key we saw senator hatch. he was one of those -- really trying to get it. he came over because they were able to do some things for high- tech pieces in utah that's very important out there. he is one -- utah -- and hispanic population is increasing.

you get one of those senators, arizona, nevada and places where the hispanic populations are growing. folks like hatch and others are coming from the region it has become very important. >> we will show some the floor debate and key hearings held throughout the year including the judiciary committee. some testimony on the path of citizenship. >> first, i know you are reported in the 11 million a here. assuming -- most people do assume, they are not happy about illegal immigration, isn't it better to have those who are here illegally able to work legally because they will be able paid a higher wage and wage rates for every body else will go up? in my neighborhood, as i ride my

bicycle early in the morning and i see on street corners people were waiting -- day laborers who are waiting to be picked up. the construction workers picking them up are not saying i will pay you two dollars above minimum wage. they say here's $20 for the day. these folks because they are living in the shadows and in need of money, they take it. my question for you is very simple, if, also, we cannot deport in the 11 million people is it not better to have a system in our bill where people can work legally work as opposed to work here illegally which pulls down wage rates even more? >> 2 things. i did not testify at all that i support deporting 11 million people. i do not think we know how many are here. i am not in favor of deporting. i'm an immigrant's son.

i am in full favor. i am here to take today even if you regularize and legalized across the board, everybody who works, subject to the same standards and everything else, the construction workers who are talking about are still going to exist. we are still going to have a sizable cohort of individuals that will take advantage of people regardless. >> is it harder if they are legalized than illegal? >> yes, senator. i see it on a regular basis. if we think by a stroke of the pen because when something on paper, people are not want to take advantage. >> people always take advantage. you admit it will get a better but marginally, some of us think more. >> great questions.

let me save important aspects go to the heart of the program. we really are creating in many ways -- in some ways, three brand-new programs. you have the year around contract part of the guest worker and judy at will guest worker -- at-will guestworker. we know it will be difficult and bumps and bruises on the implementation. this ensures that for agricultural production which is so important in terms of timeliness seasonality that there is going to be a maximum amount of time here before the e-verify system is kicking in and fully operational. so we can make sure that in these three new apparatuses are

working and the caps are being set and an adequate amount to provide the workers we need. it gives time, remember senator franken, these are small businesses out there on our farms and ranches. more than anything else, want to measure the small producers know the program and what it takes to get the legal workforce here before we get to enforcing this thing on every single farm and ranch. and that is only fair. >> especially for the small operations. we need to make sure that e- verify system has an accuracy -- higher accuracy rate than it has now. as we -- introduce millions of immigrants into the system, the error rate stands to get higher when you do that. when you run a dairy operation or other small businesses for that matter, you do not have a huge hr department like you

might at other businesses. i think this is very important that we understand how this all fits together and we deal with our eyes wide open. to me, it is absolutely essential that we do it at one time because everything is so interrelated. i am very pleased with what this is going to do again for our dairy industry -- half of all dairy cows in america are milked by -- by rather -- immigrant labor. i have called for this to be fixed for years and i am glad that senator feinstein has made efforts to do that.

keep in mind mr. connor, in addition to dairy -- by the way, the chairman said something about you said cows can't say they don't want to be milked -- they do not know what you are saying. >> maybe not minnesota. [laughter] >> well, ok. i know the chairman is a dead head. no comment on where he got -- sorry, senator. >> has the senator finished his questions? >> i wanted to -- aside from dairy, what are the two most important aspects of this agreement?

>> again, senator, we have a problem in american agriculture today reflected in the fact that so much of our workforce is currently undocumented. for anything else that we have recognized the problem exists today. the status quo is intolerable. across all of the agricultural sectors, the notion you are going to give us the ability to actually have a legalized workforce and that we know is legal and can verify that. farmers and ranchers are the most law-abiding people on this planet. they want to have access to the workers. they wanted them to be legal. fundamentally, this bill gives us that ability to be legal. that is huge. the status quo again -- what are the alternatives? i challenge those who suggest it. the current system is broken.

we have to change it. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the chairman and witnesses and saying all of you and senator feinstein for working so hard to get an agreement here. those of us working in the broader agreement were kept aware of the progress being made and the hurdles to overcome. it is not an easy task. congratulations for working together on this and getting it done. when we launched the broader bill last week, i grew up on a farm and working alongside migrant labor. i know the motivations that they have and how difficult it is. and i know that were here to make a better life for themselves and their families and for the life of me, i've never been able to place all of those who come here across the border undocumented and some

criminal class exists has never run true to me that way. i want a solution here. farm work is tough work. i made it off the farm with almost all of my digits. i love the -- i lost the end of one. it is a tough job. you cannot tell a cow we are not going to milk you today. it does not work. i appreciate what you have done here. mr. connor, i appreciate working with you at the usda on issues and appreciate the work you have done. let me say in your experience, i know you have been working on a solution for ag four years. why is that so difficult and important to have this as part of the broader bill? why is it the easiest part?

>> agriculture -- it is not a realization that has come about in the last few months. we have known that we have a problem for a long time. we have been working with senator feinstein on solving agriculture's problems for a long time. history suggests that didn't work. problem error cultural in another itself -- agricultural problem in and of itself was not going to work. we appreciate that, as part of the broader package, there seems

to be momentum to get something done this year. we have been talking and andosing solutions proposing legislation for a very long time because this is been a problem for a long time. we believe 2013 reflects what i've described many as the best chance in a generation to stop talking about it and finally fix it. >> can you go on with that? if we fail to reach an agreement and there is no agreement with the subset of agriculture, what with the consequent be -- consequence the? be? how much of our industry do we stand to lose? a the status quo means that large percentage of the american bekforce is going to

undocumented workers in this country, people who are not here legally. the is untenable to american producer. secondly, we have a labor shortages in the country. it is resulting in crops going unharvested. it is resulting in agricultural production, and isolated the study of tens of thousands of acres moving to another country. that will continue if we don't fix this problem. >> some will argue that if we don't have a foreign labor force that will mean more jobs for americans, but how does the lack of a program like this affect u.s. jobs or american worker jobs? several have raised this point.

out.know time is running this issue has been studied and looked at excessively. senator feinstein has been personally involved in efforts out there to demonstrate, are we replacing u.s. jobs here? are there people out there who would really do this and we are not paying them enough, or something is wrong, and therefore, we are turning to the foreign workers. it is been proven time and time again that that is not the case. willwilma do this work -- not do this work. food production will go overseas. cops will be unharvested in the u.s. -- crops will be unharvested in the u.s. passporte we tying the to citizenship to a guestworker program.

i want a new immigration system, and i am not going to trust them to give it to me after they get the path to citizenship. and they are not going to trust us. they will hold everything up. you live on the border. i know you are as sincere about this is possible. we have to talk about the elephant in the room here. every time we have this debate there is always a reason that the border is not quite secure enough. we spent billions of dollars. we got 21,000 borders. he agents on the border. we're spending $4.5 billion more. we are going to drones. we are going to have technology that we used in a rack and andanistan --iraq afghanistan. but we need some terms that are flexible because, at the end of

the day, people believe we are 95%. to use your desire to secure the border is my desire. the border strategy is substantially completed. it makes sense. expressed,tor has fences are not the best security available, in some parts of the country. the mandatory e verify system is the ultimate border security because they come here to get jobs. seaports -- and the airports have not had the attention that the land-based systems have. that is why we created a new system. if the airports and the seaports look at boston, that is the gap.

i am not against biometrics, but here is what i am against. i am against having system that can never be achieved in my lifetime. forward anding making the border more secure. the reason why we have 11 immigrants, none of them coming from canada, is because the people coming from the south and overstay their visas come from distressed parts of the world. if you control jobs, you will control illegal immigration. you cannot get the fence high enough if you still have an availability of jobs to illegal immigrants. we are going to do two things we have never done before. we're going to enhance order security, but we're going to finally address the cause of a problem, controlling the jobs. if you are anl, employer, and you hire somebody illegally in the future, you

will go to jail or lose your business. that is long overdue. >> mr. chairman? we can have a voice vote. >> mr. chairman, if i can just respond briefly to my friend. drug cartels and human traffickers to not use e-verify. i'm sorry. drug cartels and human traffickers do not use e-verify thomas and they do not use an entry exit system. i do not doubt the sincerity of what you have proposed, but here is the more fundamental problem. triggerer security calls for a plan. it does not call for results.

i am david from louisiana. i am pleased and proud to join the tea party patriots today. particular, one to hear from them and their guests you will see that we support america as a nation of immigrants. we support fixing, truly fixing, our broken immigration system. this is where we are with regards to the bill. a bill was supposed to come to the senate and essentially, bill sailed through. but once it was debated, that support started to erode. a lot of legitimate concerns started to arise. i do not think it has the 50 votes right now, as we speak. we are going on to plan b. that is to bring up this

amendment very quickly. lah abouta lot of hoop border security. we look attant that the details of the amendment. let's actually read it before we vote on it. i inc. once the american people think once the american people do they will understand that it doesn't fix the bill. happense legalization first. only after that are their promises of enforcement. secondly, all they guarantee is spending money. there is no measurement of success, of results, of actually securing the border. they have rejected having any verifiable measurement of securing the border.

those are the two big problems with the underlying bill that remains. it remains the same with this amendment. i'll be pushing for times a week and read and understand amendment. the american people need to build a read and understand the amendment. then we will vote. thank you. >> is there anyone in the chamber wishing to change the wrote? vote? expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate. the yays are 68. the bill, as amended, is passed. the clerk will call roll. >> yes we can.

yes we can. yes we can. says you can -- yes we can. >> the sergeant at arms will restore order in the gallery. sergeant at arms over store order in the gallery. >> we are back with alan gomez today" talking about immigration in our year in review. we saw some senate hearings. you wrote about this conservative line to start to sway some of the conservative members on immigration. how far did the house get, in terms of changes to immigration? >> not very far. but there was progress for them. there is a different tactic that a lot of immigration proponents were pushing this year. in previous fights it was more traditional hispanic advocacy

groups that was counterbalanced by a lot of folks on the traditional right, the chamber of commerce, things like that. would you have seen this around is bible leaders and business leaders. you have business owners who been putting pressure on republicans. this will give them cover when they go back home. they are saying, hey, the chamber is ok with it. let's go forward with it. that is a big change. it is gotten to the point where the leadership is saying that they want to get something moving forward. >> they want to get something going. what has stopped them from getting something onto the floor? >> who knows? the senate passed their bill in june. the house, what they have done is they have looked at it as a piecemeal approach.

instead of a big bill that fixes everything, they pass small pieces of immigration bill. two of them have to do with immigration enforcement, and two of them have to do with recapping illegal immigration. they have not introduced the bill that deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. we have been stuck there for the last two months. that seems to be a key point of rail opponents to immigration undocumentede immigrants, what is going to happen to them. >> at a time where you us unemployment is pretty high, are we going to bring in these workers from outside. why are we going to let these amnesty?give them

the counterbalance is saying that it is not amnesty. it is going to be a very long process. at least in the senate bill, they have to pay taxes. they have to learn english. they have to jump through all these hoops. and all they get is the opportunity to apply for a green card and then later for you citizenship. they are saying, why are we bringing all these guys and now? why are we letting all these folk stay here when so many americans are unemployed? >> every member of the house mentioned concerns for 2014. are there key members of the house who are trying against it. you mentioned steve king. >> there is a bill that garnered 190 democrat supporters. it is not very surprising that all democrats would be on board. but i think there are three republicans.

seeing, these three republicans come from heavily hispanic districts. they have stories about immigration. there's a huge chunk of the house that doesn't have a huge hispanic group in their district, a or doesn't have to do with the issue very much. at this point, house republican districts are now 70% white. that has increased with the redistricting. they just don't have hispanics in the district. >> not as much on the line. exactly. a grant amnesty to everybody that is here. it tells everybody that has been supported in the past to reapply. there is a, we really didn't mean it cause in their. there is also a promise that if

they can get here after the deadline they will also get amnesty. that is a factor of a year, everybody deported, and all are going to get it unless they are convicted of a family -- felony. nobody's coming out of the shadows that doesn't want to come out of the shadows. some will fail to show up to register. has anybody pointed that out? here's how bad this is. you know how badly i despise obamacare. i spent years of my life fighting against obamacare. i despise that bill because it is an unconstitutional taking of our body, our health, our skin and everything. it is terrible. it diminishes the destiny of america. ifit came down to this, somehow there was an offer that you will get one or the other, and you have to choose one. i would take obamacare and try

to live with that before i would take this amnesty plan. the amnesty plan is far worse than obamacare. that genie cannot be put in the bottle. we can't pay for obamacare. we can't get our doctor-patient relationship. but it the same as he gets through, the genie will of escape from the bottle. ultimately, the american people have little trust that an administration that is not enforce the law in the past will do so in the future. that is why real immigration reform needs to have a mechanism to ensure that the president cannot simply turn off the switch on immigration enforcement. the bill contains such a mechanism. not only does the bill strengthen immigration enforcement by giving the federal government the tool it but ito enforce the law,

also ensures that where the federal government fails to act, states can pick up the slack. states and localities have specific congressional authorization to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law. states and localities can enact and enforce their own immigration laws, as long as they're consistent with federal laws. a place that shows how to avoid mistakes of the past with regard to enforcement, especially the 1986 law, this bill has been and , includingivity criminal activity, drunk driving, manslaughter, and rate, -- rape. in addition to criminal provisions, the bill makes it more difficult for foreign terrorists and other foreign nationals who pose security

concerns to enter the united states. and immigrants whose written national security. such provisions are particularly relevant following the bombings, were naturalized immigrants killed, maimed, and injured americans. under the bill, no immigration help can be provided until background checks are completed. that is another item that the senate bill failed to include. the senate bill authorizes the waiving of background checks. and then there is the visa issuance process. its name and up to provides much-needed assistance to help customs enforcement officers carry out the act of enforcing federal immigration laws while keeping them safe.

not only does the bill allow one person officials to pitch into enforcement laws, but the bill strengthens national security and protects our communities from those who wish to cause us some. robust strategy that will maintain the integrity of our immigration system for the long-term. chairman for introducing this game changing legislation. chair will recognize the general lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this committee has engage in a series of informative and civil discussions, regarding immigration law. each of the immigration hearings have showed that members of the committee recognizes that our immigration system is broken and must be fixed for america's businesses and families. that the porting

11 million undocumented immigrants is unrealistic, and it would tear parents with from students, separate spouses, and cause a problem for businesses. portions of this bill should be familiar to the committee because they draw heavily upon bills that we considered in the 112th congress. provisions in the bill allow the withoutminate holding due process. i am confident that this language would never survive constitutional scrutiny. the bill is similar to a bill we considered in the 109th congress. this bill has many provisions from the bill, including provisions that essentially turn all undocumented immigrants in the country, whether they cross

the border or overstayed a visa, and criminals. and then every day the steny us they continue to commit a crime. bill, everyell, -- day they stay to feed or care for a child, he or she would be committing a crime. a family member could be committing products for living with them or driving them to the doctor. -- billk goes further goes further i authorizing officers across the country to enforce immigration law. they would have the power to apprehend, arrest and detain a person based on near suspicion that a person might be unlawfully here. the person could put them in jail for being here. we need to look at all the lessons we have learned when

what happens when local police officers are turned into federal immigration agents. policings community practices and it leaves communities less safe. for the resident and undocumented citizens alike. , the international association of chief police, and the salt lake city please chief testified at a hearing that placing local law-enforcement officers in the position of immigration agents, undermines the trust and cooperation essential to successful community oriented policing. recently, there was a survey of latinos. 44% of those surveyed said they contact theely to

police if they are committing -- if someone is committing a crime. many who responded toward undocumented said the same thing. they were afraid to contact the police. then crimes go unsolved. , thenrimes go unsolved they can rely on the police to keep them safe. this bill would decrease public safety. we also now know that placing immigration enforcement authority in the hands of states and localities, results in unconstitutional racial profiling and prolonged detention. the poster child for bad behavior is the mayor. office engage in a pattern of unconstitutional racial participatingle

in the agreement with the federal government in enforcement of arizona immigration law. last year this happened in north carolina. they engage in routine discrimination against latinos. the justice department also entered into settlement agreements in connecticut, it ising widespread discrimination and abuse. there've been charges such as false arrest and conspiracy. immigration laws complex. even federal officers highly trained can make mistakes, leading to detention of u.s. citizens and lawful legal residents. imagine what will happen when we turn over the power to people

who cannot possibly understand the complexities of immigration surroundinglaws derivative citizenship, ,specially in the states adjudication of applications, and a list goes on and on. this bill has a lot of problems, and that is a gross understatement. witnesses all of the talk about this as if it is a homogeneous group. we know it is not. that the agree with me members of the million people who cannot pass a background check should be a will to pass anything other than deportation? >> maybe the people that don't pass that projects, but i do believe that there should be a pathway for the majority. >> that is very different than what you said earlier. my point is that all 11 million

cannot pass any that project. all of the million of any category of people cannot pass it back project. why persist with the talking point of 11 million when we know that is disingenuous. all 11 million can't pass a background check. ,ven if you concede that affiliate to the details of what the back project is going to look like. for instance, if you were sitting there, if you have a conviction for domestic violence, should you be a will to pass the citizenship or deportation? >> for my sake and my parent take -- >> no. with all due respect. you advocate on behalf of 11 i am aspiring americans. the talking point of 11 land --

million americans, what does a background check look like? do you think a commission for domestic violence should stop someone from being on a path to citizenship? >> that is what you all decide. >> why do i constantly hear 11 it is ones if monolithic, homogeneous group? why not just say what you said? there are subgroups of that want different levels of scrutiny. for instance, children who were brought here with no criminal intent is one level of courtney -- scrutiny. the parents want another lower scrutiny. those of one conviction have a level of scrutiny. those of multiple convictions have a level of scrutiny. those who have federal convictions have another level

of scrutiny. why is not a more honest response? >> i am not here to cite who deserves what. if you decide that one person deserve something and the other doesn't -- >> it is hard for me. prosecutingears people for domestic violence, even though most states consider it a misdemeanor. with all due respect, the devil is in the details. the devil is in the details. i am out of time. i will just say this. good, you were very persuasive witnesses, even if i don't agree with everything that is said. you have contributed to the debate. when i see quotes like i did today from someone named dan pfeiffer who works for the president.

i think he said, the laws of relevant. he tweeted today that our plan is to allow some kids tuesday but the port their parents. he summarized this entire debate with a point. fornt to, you and thank you not being a political hack who cannot even be elected to a parent advisory committee, much less congress. i want to thank you for not being that. these are complex issues. shutdownhe government ended, the white house concerned the attention back to other issues, including immigration. 25will show you on november urging the house to act on immigration.

we'll all see show you our -- we will also show you our conversation about the path to citizenship. he was our guest on the "washington journal". >> if we get immigration reform across the finish line, and it is there, within our grasp. if we can just get folks to do any to be done, we are going to grow our economy. we will make our country more secure. we will strengthen our families. we will live up to our character. >> they are separated! thousands are separated! >> that is why we are here. >> please issue an executive order! right now!

we need to pass the laws at the same time! you have the power to stop deportation! >> actually i do not. that is why we are here. >> stop deportation! stop deportation! >> no. it's ok, guys. he doesn't need to leave. these guys do not need to go. let me finish. no no. he can stay there. let me. hold on a second. [applause] i respect the passion of these young people because they feel deeply about concerns for their families. , whenat you need to know i'm speaking, as president of the united states, when i come , if is community, is that

could solve all of these problems without passing laws in congress, then i would not need you all. but we are a nation of laws. that is part of our tradition. the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend a guy can do something by violating our laws and not taking the harder path, which is to use the democratic process to achieve the same goals that you want to achieve. but it won't be as easy as just shouting. it requires getting it done. [applause] >> immigration is one of those challenging topics. the biggest issue is there are no fiscal clips.

cliffs. there is no date. our job is to get the country focused on it, get the house members focused on it. we are doing that with a new bill that i've co-authored. and we're making a bipartisan. >> will we see an immigration vote soon? >> i am confident that we will. leadership is made it meant meant a full debate on the issues. our challenge is that we have had so many different issues coming up that we are running out of time. what we are trying to do is make sure that house leadership knows how many members are motivated on the issue, we are going to engage the entire public on the issue. this is a huge issue. now we have something out there, actually several bills out there, one in particular.

it is one thing to talk about how many democrats will support something or how many republicans will support a pathway, or would need to happen on our border security. we are getting them out. it is bipartisan. earlier this week you send a bill that would include a pathway to citizenship. guest: this is something i worked on for many years. when the senate bill came out baby bells -- beat the house. issue, which major was the border security peace. -- piece. >> that was a very flood issue. they passed the committee --

flawed issue. they pass committee. we address the path to earned citizenship. talk about border security, the new york times had a great run on these issues. they talked about spending $40 billion over the decade on border security. they passed a bipartisan bill to draft a plan within five years, which would have a 90% apprehension rate of those who crossed the federal border illegally. is that tough enough for you, or would you like to see further action? there will be room for amendments as we move forward. we're saying, look, if you have an issue with the bill. tell us what it is. let's amend the bill. a perfect example is the analyst

act to allow immigrants to serve in the military, just as we have always had immigrants serve in the military. being willing to change the bill is not only rare but refreshing. alan gomez of " usa today", looking ahead, where are things going in 2014? >> the first thing they need to do is figure out what the house wants to do with the undocumented population. of notoated this idea going all the way to allowing citizenship, but there is a samba between where they have legal status but can never achieve citizenship. the chair of the douche. committee are working on a bill to deal with the young undocumented population, those were brought here as children.

that is something the house is trying to figure out right now. there is a surprising amount of agreement. that makes it difficult for the house. i think we're going to see them working about that. >> you said that 75% of those districts are way majority. that is interesting. their districts have a larger portion of us panics in their district. thank you for joining us today on c-span's your interview. people can read your articles and follow you on twitter. >> we'll take a look at a conversation on the history of american immigration and way the u.s. continues to see it is unlawful. >> will we call conference of immigration reform comes out of

experience. it is a formula that says, we will try to stop -- solve the problem of immigration by legalizing those all ready here and putting in this mechanism to prevent future unlawful immigration. that didn't quite work out. there's a lot of discussion as to why that is. it was too idealistic. it was too lenient. the reason why we continue to have unlawful migration is because the system that was put in place which has sustained maximums for every country, what that means is that they will have the same border is mexico. it means that the reducing quotas india. countriesonly four

that max out their visas every year, and is the same for every year. mexico, india, china, and the philippines. when people say, go to the back of the line, that line is very long. congress raised the ceiling on migration by 40%. that is a lot. that is in response to the economic expansion at the time. because every country gets the same limit, the 20,000 limit went up to 25,000. ceiling meant that a country like mexico or india had a very small increase. and you still of the same problem of people backlogged and unlawful entries. and by saying a few words about the most recent time of economic expansion and recent

recession and how it affected immigration. i think that the economic restructuring that took place at the end of the 20th century continues to draw migration, also increased anti-immigrant sentiment. whites and native blacks suffered greater unemployment. that was the service economy as well is agriculture and agricultural processing that drew low-wage immigrant labor. and you saw declining trend in organized labor. and there was a shift with subcontracting to get away from the unions and higher low-wage immigrants. another feature of this was a reversal in the trend of , frombution of wealth

-- 1974.074 in wealtheclining gap inequality. since then, we have seen an increase in wealth inequality. tuesday, c-span's your interview looks at the senate filibuster rule change. we look at the action from the senate floor. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. up on the next "washington journal", a discussion on the role of faith and religion in politics and public life and service. barryests are reverend lynn and richard land.

then the federal trade commission discusses the target credit card security breach and whether consumers can protect themselves from identity theft. >> the 32nd version is -- 30 second version is that that was the anti-federalist. they wanted to have religious tests. they were the cosmopolitans. but they were able believing christians, but waited they take the approach they did? why did they come down were medicine condemn? , down -- comeison

down? >> there've been important developments in the law, in terms of governments and religious institutions. there were some really issues to work through and figure out the rules that govern the area during the clinton years, or the early clinton years. they were different. they were changed. some people think that was a good thing. some people think it was about thing. there are really important issues that people fight about and fight about with legitimate this agreement. >> current and former heads of the white house bait aced offices on the separation of basedh and state -- faith- offices on the separation of church and state. , american history tv

, bob hope traveled across the pacific for the tour of asia, including vietnam. that will be just after 8:00. >> next, look at new technologies for public safety and the issues that arise from areas. summit,t city lab examining these ideas from around the world. from new york city, it is one hour.

>> presented by bloomberg for to be, please welcome the president and chief executive officer of the institute and moderator of public safety, policy and new technologies. commissioner the from the office of privacy, and , the chiefo, canada executive officer of the professority, and a at the university of california, berkeley. >> this is our coast. good to see you. host.- good to see you. this is about how the boom and new technologies, and innovations in print -- in pinch

on our personal privacy -- impinge on our personal privacy and liberty. she helped found the security group. we started a group to look at these very issues. -- tell me, jane, how is this affected the way you run homeland security? >> the internet which is instantaneous and growing by a hundred connections a minute, is a global cyber awakening. all of us on the internet are instantly connected to information we need, making data liquidity something that is important and powerful, but in all of our hands. this cyber awakening has three important implications.

first, what we know a lot about people on the internet. we know people almost entirely as consumers, and not as citizens. two, the law which is supposed to anticipate the familiar and guide us is neither guiding or guarding in this environment. and third, the government has in been in the game cyberspace, largely because they are not the most powerful actors. >> when you're at homeland security and worried about a pattern of activity, you can find a thousand times more information than you could have years ago, about a person. give me some examples of how that works and why we should or should not worry about it. >> a way to think about how it works is how we have been fighting terrorism over the past dozen years.

bad guys are out there are trying to come here. the way we need to prevent terrorism is to find them where they are and keep them where they are physically, keep them abroad. we have used intelligence, the military, and our international partnerships, nato, and other governments. we want identify where they are and prevent them from coming, but what if they are here. and if they are ready here already individuals in the united states will valuate with affiliated with his ideas? we need a different approach to being a book to say to the american public that your government -- be able to say to the american public that your government is doing everything it can to keep you safe. >> there are cameras all over men -- manhattan.

of usingave new ways biometrics and scans to tell faces. their other devices where you can tell people's faces. tell me how that works. can you actually know where anybody of interest is at any moment? do you have seven new rules of the road when you do with that? >> with technologies, increasingly we can know where most people are at any moment. >> can you give me an example of doing that? let's talk about retracing steps based on personal mobile devices, the digital path. but that is been available for a relatively long. of time -- long time. andg this to fight crime examine what is happened is an

important component of law enforcement and policing in the community. as people understand the consequences of this ever knowledge, certainly our sensibilities are changing. the rules will change with them. >> there is this idea that the government knows where i am. >> the more serious problem is big sister, not big brother. ands companies knowing sharing your purchasing history. there was a father wondering why his young daughter was getting pregnancy literature. her habitsut suggested she was pregnant, and she was. >> a different type of question. there is no secretary of

homeland security for the united states. there is no deputy of homeland security. we can even fill jobs in washington now. is that a problem? is a problem if the process is broken down. because, inproblem the particular case of homeland security, because they are filling the positions on an active basis. i have a military background. it rotates all-time. everyone is was to be trained and ready to step into a leadership position. leadership is not a problem. to your broader question, i don't think anyone would accuse washington of being a weld oiled machine at the moment -- well oiled machine at the moment. thing.st respond to one

we have to worry about the brother. ofis not just a matter companies engaging in this kind of intrusive activity, but the states. the surveillance state has never been greater and is never lacked as much transparency, as we have learned as a result of snowden. surveillance from the state is a serious matter and increasingly serious. it threatens our freedom and our liberty. " we theitution is people." it is about living life that is free and free from surveillance. i am not talking about the bad guys. everyone agrees we want to get the bad guys. we have defined a way of doing surveillance and counterterrorism, but not to the solution of privacy. that is something we develop.

it is called privacy by design. privacyl about getting protection into technology, business practices, operational bridges, and working with the government to do this. i was invited to speak at the because theyarch were attracted to privacy by design. privacy and surveillance. privacy and counter terrorism. there was a lot of interest in this. let me put this on the table. worry about the state. let's do something to assure that our privacy, which is the aderpinning of freedom, it is fundamental human right. it is the underpinning of freedom. , inhen you talked about

your papers, you talk about it not being a trade-off. it is not either or. you can have privacy and security by using technologies you just are to talk about a moment ago. explain how those technologies work. >> we talk about abandoning the zero-sum model where it is one or the other. a been the trade-off. off.bandon the trade- this is where innovation comes in. it is important. privacy is necessary for innovation because it reads new ideas and creativity -- breeds new ideas and creativity. and there's facial recognition, fingerprints, but it is encrypted, so that the only way

in which you can get any aspect is if you are properly authorized. >> if i walk through grand central station, that is picking , and it isn't corrected. if they need to trace me, they would have to get a court order to do that. >> yes. they would have to have grounds to access the kind of information by law enforcement. you can encode encrypt the video only when it is properly required you can have it. we have done this in toronto. , would, really quickly that be fine with the people of homeland security? >> it is a ready and homeland security. more than 7 billion people move through the systems. data acquisition is never the

point. there's never been a privacy breach in tsa with that kind of information. you can have privacy and security. they can travel together. >> i was going to ask more philosophical question, which is , why is privacy such an important good? , if i walkgrowing up to the drugstore in new orleans and bought a pack of cigarettes, 10would take seven to minutes before both of my parents would know that. i had no privacy, in that regard. -- savedeople saved privacy when what they mean is anonymity. four years we have not had anonymity.

towngo do something in my where he grew up, my community, people kind of know. , we tend toymity behave better than we do with anonymity. do you feel that we need to preserve anonymity as we go about our lives? >> let me respond to one thing before he answer that. town youryour small, parents know where you are. but that information was not tracked forever. right now, the ability to track information, your whereabouts, your mobility, the ability to obtain this information and have it used in ways you never contemplated, and in ways it was never intended, that is one of the fundamental differences. is reason we need privacy

that privacy is like breathing. you take it for granted until you need it, and to the needs of air and you are being deprived. states, the first thread to unravel is privacy. academics have studied this. without privacy you cannot have freedom. the opposite suggests that the state should know everything you do. >> but let's not go to the extreme opposite? people often say, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. nonsense. they have every right to have access and information about you. i am not talking about your house or your bedroom, but all your activities that you engage in. it is an absurd proposition.

privacy is about control, personal control. the individual has the ability to use that information. >> not able to drive on an airline. >> not about concealment. it's about your choice of how to use information about your son. >> if i travel on airlines, does that remain private. >> not saying there aren't lots of places where you're required by law to get information. you give it gladly or you don't engage in that behavior. you fly, we don't have citizens, taxes, we have to pay the irs, of course, is required by law to get that information. we know the rules. but those are legitimate uses of information and the protection of that information by the organization. >> what about buying a gun? should i be able to do that privately? >> we can get into the gun debate. the point is, there are laws and the laws have to be followed. but the converse to that is that