us on twitter. mayor of san antonio, texas, and the former mississippi governor talk about immigration policy as part of a three-day civil rights summit. at the lyndon b. johnson presidential library in austin. they talked about the impact on civil rights, border security, and politics. this is 50 minutes. ] >> let me say it is an absolute pleasure to be here today as part of this historic event here in thrilled to be

very thrilled to be on the stage with governor barbour and mayor castro. we will talk about immigration, one of the vital immigration -- by the vital issues facing our country today. if you're watching at home, expand the audience and bring more people in to watch the event. let's start quickly with the bill that governor barnes has mentioned. the 1965 bill. it changed the quota system that had been in place for a long time referring to the national origins act of the 1920's. one of the things that president johnson thought that as a southerner, he was often looked down upon by the rest of the country for having been a southerner. he thought that this law that had been in place for so long did the same thing. it had strict limits on immigration from countries in the asia-pacific, for example, and that what we're doing was looking down on those countries and wanted to change that. he said at the time to the speaker that there was no bill before the congress that was more worthy of passage based on a decency and its equity then this immigration bill.

president johnson, having the signing ceremony on liberty island, something we have come to expect. let's start there. in terms of the notion of immigration as a civil rights. a lot of people agree with, other people may have a harder time with that. let's start there. how do you size of immigration? is it a civil rights? ation? is it a civil right? is it an economic issue? let's start with governor barbour, a guest to our state. >> thank you, for me 1965 happened to be the year i graduated from high school, and so i'm glad you didn't ask me to comment on the policy that we had there. [laughter] but look, in our country we have always been a country of immigrants. my great-grandfather came here from ireland, and we http://upload.youtube.com/clos_0 can look around the state of

mississippi where we don't have the kind of immigration, and in the mid-'60s when this was going on, we did not have the kind of immigrant of today. we had yugoslavs who fled the turn of the century. we had syrians who fled at the turn of the centuries, christians who had tried to escape and ended up in our neck of the woods. he couldn't get in new york. they and came up the river. the purpose you talked about is obviously something that has to be part of immigration policy. it has been mentioned, i cochair the immigration reform task force for the bipartisan policy center. equity is what this has to be about. that is with president johnson was trying to accomplish. as we have immigration reform, as i believe we will in the future, it has to be equitable. >> we want about where we are with immigration reform.

we will talk about the gang of eight. that is an excellent direction to move in. let me talk to you, mayor castro. in terms of immigration as a civil right. is that the way that you see it? as you're talking, you have a a -- appeared before congress, no pork with president obama on this issue. how do you see it in the context of the 21st century? >> i see it in a similar vein. as you look at our nation's history, what we see are different groups. when they live in the united states, we are seen as other and treated that way. benjamin franklin and his remarks about the germans ruining the nation. you can go on along the lines of folks who are different and who were new. when we think about the civil rights movement, that is what it was about.

people who were seen as different, and whether they would be treated equally are are -- or not. immigrants have had, throughout the generations, in that sense, a similar experience. i also believe that when we think of it as a civil rights, you can say yes in the sense that you have not only asked folks were not citizens yet, but impacts folks who are citizens. for instance, there are one million folks in our country who have a spouse who is undocumented immigrant. we talked with the importance of marriage as a fundamental right, and being able to be with the person that you want to be with, and that you love. maybe the best example are these dreamers, young people brought here through no fault of their own for all intensive purposes, they are americans. the united states is what they know. the question is, are they going

to be able to have the same opportunities and being treated equally? i see it in the same vein as the civil rights movement. >> give the bill now in congress that relates to that defense appropriation in terms of those who have been here through no fault of their own. would they be able to achieve some level of legal status, and that is being held up as well. immigration is a broad thing. that is the right way to talk about it. we are talking mutt to different different -- about two different types of immigration. the legal immigration system, which ever but he believes is broken. if you disagree with that let's talk about that. and illegal immigration. people who come here on their own. for whatever reason. is it all one umbrella to you? legal versus illegal?

>> of course, there are distinctions. it does count whether someone followed the legal process are not. that is reflected in what is a punitive aspect to legislation that was passed by the senate and is now part of the house of representatives. we want to encourage him more robust and active legal immigration system, first and foremost. we also denies that for a variety of reasons, usually to make a better life for themselves, we have 11,000,000-12,000,000 people who are here, you legal, undocumented, whatever word you use. folks who came here as students on a visa, and they got into the country, legally, and then overstayed their visa. they have been estimated at ranges between 15-40%. >> governor barbour?

>> mayor castro mentioned over stayers. people who come here on a legal visa and i'll go home when they're supposed to. i am on a high-end of the estimate. i think more than 40% of people here illegally actually didn't cross the border illegally. they came here perfectly legal and just didn't go home. that could be 4-5,000,000 of the 11 million. i hope when we talk about border security, which is something the american people are concerned about and want to make sure they don't have happen, what happened in 1986, when they said would control the border, and we haven't done it. when we talk about that people also think in terms of people who came here legally on a visa, and overstayed.

you have to solve those issues together, not separately. but made down -- put me down for endorsing with the mayor said. >> you have had a long career. do you feel personally that your views on this issue have changed over time? was there a place that you were years ago that now you have come to it? or places where you see the party has changed in a way that you have approved of or disapproved of? could you talk about that over time? this issue has become more and more heated. >> being honest with you, i didn't have much in the way of views on this growing up. 50 years ago, this wasn't much of an issue in mississippi. nothing like texas or border states. i was raised to believe we are a

country of immigrants. my own family. we are better for that. we are a better country for that. my party is a big party. remember, the two-party system, both parties are broad coalitions. broader than people would like to admit or give credit for. there is a diversity of views. i have to say that my views about immigration policy are just pure and simple. it is in the best interest of america, economically and other reasons, that we have immigration reform, and that we take the 11 million people that are here and given the opportunity to be here legally. so that they get out of the shadows. [applause]

anyway, those views didn't change. 'cause 25 years ago, i didn't have any. >> coming off of the 2012 election year that the republican party needed to stay the course on its core values. it did need to change its thinking on immigration. do you have leaders pointing in the right direction? they have proposals out there. they have the opportunity to move this forward. like speaker boehner clearly wants the house this session, this year to pass immigration reform package. it is not going to be the senate. it is not going to be one bill. it is immigration reform package he presented to the conference a few weeks ago. which i'm comfortable with. i don't claim to agree on every thing.

i think they're going to try to do that this year. they don't have the votes now. they are to try to get the votes. i think it is in america's best interest. set aside politics. we are in a global battle for capital labor. not just h-1b labor. we need essential labor in a lot of areas. we can going to that longer. they are trying to do the right thing. not easy. certainly not unanimity. >> mayor castro, back to you on that. the same question. has your personal view of immigration, the complexity of the issue, changed over time? how do you see that reflected in party? what leaders are you looking to better carrying the torch the right direction? >> i don't know that my views have changed on the. so much as, i have learned more

about the issue. going up to testify on washington, watching unfold a few years ago, and now today. it is been a process of learning more about the issue. i believe there have been folks on both sides of the aisle who have been good on the issue. we are going to have one of them as a speaker, george w. bush, when he was here as governor of texas. he set the right tone and a good job on this issue particularly articulating why it is important to bring folks into the fold. president obama has done a lot in terms of -- trying to ensure that he has done administratively what he could. congress is where you have seen activity. congressman gutierrez has been a champion for dreamers and the

undocumented. trying to ensure that this gets a vote on the house floor. >> if we take a look at the issues that are facing us, it would be nice to take the politics out. that is where we end up in terms of a logjam in congress moving forward. there are things that are worth discussing. have enforcement on one hand. you have legal visas. we do have issues with other things related to security, economic freedoms. people being able to come out of the shadows. what are the number one things that you are hearing that are the bases that are giving people the most pause on this subject? what are they things are you are hearing people are struggling with the most in getting behind some form of comprehensive

reform, which is what we looked like we were going to get out of the senate, to a piecemeal fashion assuming anything goes through. >> first of all, the american people demand we secure the border. they have been promised that once. nobody believes that actually happened. the recession was the great border security. not anything the government did. no administration of any party, my party or the democratic party, has ever done anything to enforce visa laws. it has been a sieve. the american people generally offer immigration reform. the status quo is about the worst thing we can have. immigration reform, they don't want to go through this again. they have been promised this once. fool me once, shame on me. it is important to people.

secondly, people want to be assured that it is an economic and fiscal plus. which i'm comfortable that it is. this is good for our economy. it is good for the treasury. if we do this the right way, deficits will be smaller. we will have more revenue. we will have a stronger economy which gives you more revenue. those are the first two big things. then you have the underlying issue that has to be dealt with. that is americans don't want people to be rewarded for breaking the law. how do you do this at an appropriate way that recognizes that somebody has broken the law, but allows them to become, to be here legally, any

in a probationary way to my base -- they pay some sort of penalty. my irish great-grandfather, they never threatened to send him back to ireland the cuts he had whiskey during prohibition. [laughter] it was against the law. if somebody wanted to find him. but, that has to be dealt with. that can be dealt with in an appropriate way. that's fair, equitable to people. i mentioned prohibition because when we are not enforcing the law at the border, we are not enforcing our visa laws, it is partially our fault. at least partially. the two big issues that i mentioned, and the underlying issues that you have to deal

with, you're not rewarding people for breaking the law. back in be done anyway that is appropriate and right. >> one of the underlying fundamental challenges has been, often times the issue border security, one of the problems is that people say border security, rarely is that defined. what does that mean? are we ever going to get the number of people who crossed the border down to zero? no. are you going to get it down to a thousand, 10,000, 100,000? that has not been defined in the policy debate. folks are able to use that politically in a way that in the the -- that ends the discussion. i think governor, you are right, it has prevented one of our political parties from taking this up on the floor of the house of representatives because people don't feel like the issue border security has been dealt

with. maybe it hasn't. we haven't even defined what border security would be. i saw one number that was thrown out. i care member who threw it out. i am turning 40 years old. i'm starting to forget. [laughter] i have a long way to go. >> you will be fine. >> a person said 80-90% reduction in the number of folks coming across would be a secure border. well, go back 10 years. 10 years ago to where we are now, i don't know if it has been 89%. it is been gigantic. the governor points out that a lot of that is due to the fact that mexico has had a higher growth rate than the united states. during this recession we have seen was people coming over here for opportunity when they can find it over there.

still, we have the challenge of how do you define an acceptable level of border security. we double the number of agents on the border. we've built out the fence. that was envisioned 10 years ago. we have deployed technology and more manpower to go and try and secure. we are looking for drug tunnels underground along the california border, and the other parts of the border. how do you get to the definition of border security? >> that becomes the thing that we hear as part of the magazine. that is something that they feel strongly about. so strongly about it they feel that it needs to be the critical first step. it is difficult to define. let me throw numbers at you as you think about that.

we share 1954 miles with mexico. texas has 1254 miles of that. we have fenced off 100 and miles with mexico. pretty severe terrain where fencing is not appropriate. areas in big bend where it would make any sense. since 2001, we've increased the number of border patrol agent's along the rio grande by 117%. 9000 border patrol agents to above 21,000. that is for the entire border. it does show how things have changed. this new package coming through, we are continuing to hear the phrase boots on the ground. more boots on the ground. are we comfortable with that? is that the right direction to be running in? if so, how do we find the gap in

terms of measuring progress on this? is it something that gets thrown up on this issue that is perhaps not achievable and forestalls any progress? >> the american people are willing to spend money to have a secure border. i think the senate bill unfortunately is all about spending money. the mayor touched on the critical thing. what is the standard? we have to set a standard. it isn't going to be zero. anybody in his right mind doesn't think it's going to be zero. the senate try to talk about that. what the american people want is, set a standard. then mean it. -- then meet it. they don't want you to spend x

jillion dollars, put boots on the ground, balloons and drones and whatever. they want to work. they're willing to pay something for it to work. that is where i think the senate bill misses the point. it says we're going to spend this money and then we are going to -- people don't want a commission. people want a secure border. [applause] >> folks want a secure border. we have to define it. there is no different way to approach that. you can define it in terms of progress over a certain number of years instead of a distinct number. we have seen apprehensions at a four-year low. we have seen a lot of progress. its causes are a matter of debate.

i do think it counts for something that we are spending more resources on it. we need to show those results. the government point that we haven't done much about people who will overstay their visas. ensuring we have a way to track who comes in and whether they leave in an efficient way is up or didn't -- is an important part of this. i can tell the people who are serious about the policy and the folks who are using as a political wedge issue. the people who are serious and actually care about the issue always speak to the issue of overstayers. give a full picture. the folks using it as red meat only talk about securing the border, and what we need to do their, and ignore the fact that 40-45% of the folks have nothing to do with actually crossing the border.

>> wiser perhaps to be spending some money on looking at people with expired visas or things like that. is there way that you make people feel better about the problem? >> i think so. sure. the senate version of the legislation does address that interior security. just in people's minds, that has not occupy the same specter and caused the same fear this issue of folks coming across the border has. >> it is under covered by the press. you would hardly know the huge percentage came here illegally. you asked the question. should that be part of it? you bet. if we don't do that we are kidding ourselves. we are not making any progress. i think everybody understands that now. i want to make sure the audience knows when i use the word border security, i include these a

security -- visa security. takes me long enough to talk when i say half as many words. >> let's tell about where things stand now. people talk back to the immigration reforms that took place under the reagan administration as one of the last big serious approaches. we might spend a minute talking about what it looks like back then. the country was a different place. partisan passions are much higher now than they were back then. you were at a moment where you have a second term president coming into the last midterm election with a divided congress. which sounds familiar to what is happening today. the joke is a can't agree on how to pass the time of day much less comprehensive immigration

reform. can you help us size up the opportunities for movement on this issue if any exist? >> coincidentally i was at the white house in 1986. while i wasn't deeply involved, i was aware of it. don't think it was easy. simpson would tell you if you were sitting here, it was pronounced dead. who saved it, he called the white house. reagan would say don't worry about my staff. get this done. let's go another step. try another thing. the president very much was behind it. you had a lot of disagreement. that is the way of the world. the president was very involved directly with the guys at the top. it wasn't easy.

it was as close as you can get to amnesty. they didn't have the kind of robust and rigorous requirements of people that are expected under the senate bill. in my opinion, the house bill will be to the right of the senate bill. the package of bills. it will amount to a comprehensive package of bills. it will be further to the right in what you have now in the senate. it wasn't easy in 1986. it wasn't like everyone thought this was a wonderful idea. clearly it was not as well done as we would have liked we would be in the shape we're in right now. 11 million people here illegally. >> you think starting at the white house and working our way down to the leaders of both parties, are they pulling enough, or the content?

-- or are they content? is it more to beat the issue as a campaign idea than to come together to solve it? >> if you look at the speaker of the house then, he had opposition from the unions. the unions were very concerned about this. agriculture tended to be more republican. they were always more for this. it was my bipartisan opposition in 1986 than it is today. speaker o'neill wanted it done. he knew he and reagan could work together. they finally got it done. speaker boehner wants it done just as much. for a variety of reasons. political as well as economic. where tip had 280 democrats, boehner has 230. if he loses 15-16 republicans he

doesn't have a majority. there were huge democratic majorities back in those days. i just think if you look at it, boehner is being honest when he says i don't have the votes today. i think -- i am trying to get there. paul ryan is working on it. so are others. you mentioned gutierrez. there is a guy who gets rave reviews from both sides because more important than politics to him is getting the job done. that is what got the job done in 1986. there were a handful of people who were determined to get it done. hopefully we can have the same kind of result this time but with a different future than that one. >> are you optimistic for movement this year? you testify before congress.

you have worked with president obama. how do you size up with the potential for movement is? >> i am optimistic for movement. i was in junior high 1986. [laughter] i can't speak to 1986. let me speak to 2014. i think the governor is right. in that process, what you need are folks able to work together and are working toward working based off a set of principles. there are enough of democrats and republicans were willing to work in that way on this issue. i'm hopeful there are, in terms of the mechanics, as we get past these republican primaries, that may make it easier as folks get through, they may have feared getting the primary. that is no longer a concern.

there are is some daylight between the primary and the general election or the end of the year, i do think there is hope. if it doesn't get done during this calendar year, it is going to get done before the 2016 election. the stakes go up higher and higher. >> i am a dreamer. we need to act now. will you fight with us? stand up with our families. >> ma'am. thank you. we're trying to have a civil conversation about this. let us continue. >> i didn't hear the word deportation come up. >> thank you for your perspective. >> we are in the middle of this panel. for the people watching, i

encourage you to let us continue and shall respect to others. thank you. [applause] the big issue people are going to be talking about, which is in addition to border security, which has been the thing that has been vexing people, if we do have 11 to 12 million people who were here living in the shadows, whatever term you want to use, if that is one of the major stumbling blocks to something moving forward, whether or not there is amnesty, which is strongly rejected in certain areas, whether or not it is a pay a fine, make restitution, go to the back of the line, start over. what is the best case individually you would make to an opponent who is concerned about immigration as to how to address that? what do you do? how do you solve this problem? one of the two main things that has really made this issue so

so -- such political dynamite where people are unable to talk about it. >> you start from the perspective of we are dealing with people. too often times in this debate we forget about that. we're are dealing with people. these are people who, although they may have not come over to the united states through the legal, usual way, they have built a life here. they have sons, daughters, spouses who are american citizens. we can craft a law that recognizes that we are dealing with people whose lives are they contributing to the progress of the united states and still also ensure that they have to earn citizenship. i do agree, and the governor mentioned in addition to border security, i hear it all the time

it rubs people the wrong way folks who entered the country illegally, now you are letting them stay here. they say, go back to their country and then we talk about in the coming citizens one day. i believe that is not realistic. it is not practical. you can give the opportunity but also have them shoulder responsibility for the opportunity to become a citizen. >> governor barbour? do you agree? [applause] >> we're talking about 11 million people. millions have been here for years and years. the average time of stay is lengthening all the time. you have people in mississippi who have been in our community 20-25 years. people who have children here. large number of these people are children. some are, some of these families, a lot of the children

are citizens. you are not just talking about dreamers who have been brought here by their parents through no fault of their own. they are actually citizens of the united states who were born here. families. anybody who thinks we are going to send 11 million people back to where they came from, if they tell you that, they will lie to you about other things. [laughter] that ain't going to happen. it shouldn't happen. they are the same people that have the same jobs for decades. the stupidest thing we could do is make them leave. we don't have anything to replace them with. the impracticality of sending everybody home should be obvious to everybody. what are other choices? our other choices, with a system that doesn't offend the laws of

the country. make somebody admit they broke the law. that they deserve to pay a fine. put them on probation for a period of time and then let them have a chance to live a regular life and be a productive citizen of our country. finally, economically we help ourselves so much by doing that. in the process, we stopped and put an end to the failed system that we have now. if i didn't know anything else, i know that anything is better than what we got. what we got is a failure. it is against everybody's interest. there are three good reasons that you could do this in a responsible way. the requirements ought to be rigorous. i think the people that are advocates of immigration reform

recognize that the requirements ought to be rigorous. the people that have come here -- we need them to stay. >> do you feel that on capitol hill right now that those people that are taking a hard line, particularly when it comes to what to do when those people were living in the shadows, how strong is the block of the people who do believe in mass deportation? is that the holdup or is the holdup elsewhere along the line? >> i think the people that think we'll send 11 million people off is few and far between. that is not going to happen. there isn't that many people that say that. there are people whose argument is we should not reward people for breaking the laws.

the vast majority of americans, vast majority of republicans, vast majority of conservatives do not believe in deportation of 11 million people. they just don't. as i said earlier, cost is an issue that people -- that has to be confronted. we talk about breaking the law and border security -- people have to understand gun rights -- rights -- done right, this is actually good for the treasury of the united states. you hear a lot about that. the last thing you hear is will they enforce the law? you can like president obama. i like obama. that is not the issue. he is not going to be president anymore by the time this gets going so let's talk about the real issues we need to deal with. i assume the law will be enforced. >> one of the things we saw were bits of news over the weekend which i think are worth talking about today as we look forward.

one related to the potential candidacy of jeb bush. talking very specifically about immigration at the presidential library in college station. the other news that came out as the lead editorial in "the new york times" on sunday was the fact that the obama administration has now surpassed the mark of 2 million deportations to perhaps get tough and ameliorate concerns from the right. are you comfortable with that? are you comfortable with the level of deportation? is that something that needs to be done to bring people into the tent or is there another way to go about that issue?

>> my hope is that the administration will go about it a different way. i am not comfortable with the number of deportations. "the new york times" article and other articles have focused on the fact that folks with relatively minor criminal records instead of the significant criminal records, the felonies that have been spoken about, have actually been deported. >> traffic violations. >> things that anybody will not argue that are concerns to the safety of the community or national security. my hope is that the president will find ways that are within his power that are constitutional to ease the level of deportation. >> governor barbour, to go back to the issue of governor bush, he wrote a book about immigration which did not provide a pathway to citizenship. one of the things that was pulled out of his speech on sunday was that he was taking a far more moderate view.

he in some ways referred to it as an act of love. essentially, those people that are coming to this country are doing so primarily in an effort to improve the economic stability of their lives and the economic stability of their families. is that the right message for your party going forward as we move into the next presidential election cycle or what is the tone you would like to see from whomever the next candidate will be for the republican party on the topic of immigration? >> i thought it was interesting in the 2012 campaign, rick perry and newt gingrich were very moderate, open, closer to what i considered my views, and it was mitt romney who was the least conservative candidate that saw fit to get over to the right of them, if you want to describe it that way. i think it hurt him terribly in

the election. i think it was a very bad strategic mistake. what people want you to do is tell the truth. if jeb feels that way about it -- it reminds me of my old boss ronald reagan. ronald reagan used to say when the blame america first crowd gets out of hand, you need to apply the gates test. what is the gates test? he says the gates test. drop all the gates and see which way people run. they run to america. that is what jeb is saying to me. this is the place for good reason. we ought to be proud of it. when you apply the gates test and people want to come here. that is what is good about this and i don't find that message has the benefit of being true.

whether everybody will take that same view is neither here or there. it is very similar to ronald reagan. >> is that the right direction for the party? >> i think for economic policy, for legal policy, for national security policy, and for immigration policy as well as being the shining city on the hill, every one of those -- we ought to have good immigration reform. >> as you get into the 2016 cycle, you are going to have more republicans than not that are closer to the jeb bush position. somebody with that view who gets into the general election and makes it more competitive general election against the democrats. >> do you have a particular window? we are around the magazine sitting around thinking that we are going to have two legitimate contenders for the republican

nomination which is good for "texas monthly" to be able to write about senator ted cruz and governor rick perry. as they move forward. it is interesting when you pull that moment out of the campaign in 2012, governor perry took a lot of heat about the comment that you don't have park if you you -- you don't have a heart if you don't support the fact that people are living here, whether they are here legally or not, if they had been here for a long time, should not have access to in-state tuition to our public universities. texas passed that law in 2001. california followed quickly behind. expanded in '05. was that something that is well received on your end? as you are talking about civil rights components of this, you are also talking about an economic component. is that the tone that you think is the right one for the party to be striking? >> again, what i think people want to hear from candidates is what they really think.

rick perry was obviously saying what he really thinks. his record matched what he thought. people should have been sticking their finger in the air and what do people want me to say? be what you are for. the first rule is be what you are for and the second rule is tolerate people who disagree with you. people can disagree with me on all sorts of things. what is the magic way to talk about immigration? you get people who are becoming contrived and not useful. >> fair enough. we are down to a few minutes. i'd like to thank both of you for being here today. mayor castro, if you could solve one problem related to this issue or talk to one person about this issue would have the opportunity to change somebody's mind who maybe disagrees with you, what would it be?

if you are able to break through on one aspect of it, what would you most like that to be? >> that is a broad question and a narrow question. i would say to look at the history of our nation and to understand that we have had the challenges throughout the history of our nation with peoples who have come from different nations throughout the world. every single time we have been able to surmount those challenges and welcome those groups in because of it it is keeping with our tradition as americans to welcome new immigrants and to find a way to have their brain power, their energy, and their talent to make america stronger. in this century, we are competing for investment, brainpower, for economic development on a global basis. we need them as much as they need us.

>> governor barbour, do you have a follow-up? >> i don't think there is a single silver bullet. i can't resist talking about one subject we haven't talked about which i think is really important. today it was announced that the united states government is going to quit taking applications for h-1b visas. these are the visas for their very specially skilled -- we only have 65,000 of them plus another 20,000 for people with more than a bachelor's degree, a doctorate or masters degree. this is the science, technology, engineering elite of the world who want to come here. they announced they're going to quit taking applications. they started last week. the window was open from april 1 till yesterday.

the 85,000 were more than applied for. when you have a system that denies these young people, the best and the brightest in the world to come here, go to school, and then we won't let them stay. so they go home and start a factory that employs 800 people. if we had let them, they would've gone to memphis and started a factory that employs 800 people that they would put -- [applause] in texas, you all have -- people think about texas's border. we are in one of the high tech centers of the world in this town where we sit. they need, as the mayor said,

they need this talent here. it is talent we are denying to ourselves. i would urge all of you to just do a little bit of research about how many jobs are created by the average person that gets in h-1b visa to come to the united states. in a matter of years, it is multiples. there are like four or six americans working for every one of those immigrants that came here. yet, our government's policies, we don't have enough of these visas to lasting whole week in the supply chain. >> excellent last thought. i did run a little bit over but i will like to thank you very much, governor barbour. thank you, mayor castro. thank you very much. [applause]

>> on friday, ambassador rice reports on president obama's korea,xt week. south malaysia, and the philippines. from the white house briefing room, this is 25 minutes. >> the president's trip as an opportunity to underscore the region. the world's largest

emerging region. over the next five years, nearly half of all growth outside the united states is expected to come from asia. our region that includes several important u.s. ally and emerging powers. we increasingly see our top priority as tied to asia, weather it is new markets or promoting exports or protecting our security interest and promoting our core values. countries, japan, malaysia, the philippines, intersect with our leading priorities. democratic development, advancing commercial ties, investing in regional institutions, and deepening cultural exchanges. unlike many of the president's norseas trips, there are

large summits involved. the agenda in each country can focus intensively on energizing our relationships and advancing different elements. of ongoing tensions, particularly with north korea and territorial disputes, bishop offers a chance to affirm our commitment to order in the region. there is a significant demand for u.s. leadership in that region and our strategy includes economics, political security, and cultural interests in northeast and southeast asia. the different components of our strategy will be on display throughout the trip. know what their nation other than the united states has a network of alliances and partnerships in asia that match hours. alliances remain the foundation of our strategy.

we are focused on modernizing alliances to make the more relevant to the 21st century and to our security challenges while holding them in the plot warms for cooperation -- platforms for cooperation. autheast asia has been cornerstone of our strategy. it willident has said enhance our engagement in this critical region. expanding american trade and is alsont with asia fundamental to our efforts to access new markets, create american jobs, export more goods from here in the united states to that very important region. throughout the trip, the president will have the opportunity to meet with business leaders and to promote initiatives like select

the tpp is a focal point of our effort to establish high standards for trade across the asia pacific and to ensure a level playing field for u.s. businesses and workers. in visiting japan and malaysia, two of the 12 key tpp partners, the president will have the chance to continue to make progress on this important agreement while insisting that it meets america's objectives. the president will reaffirm as well our steadfast commitment to our allies and partners, which allow us to deter threats and respond to disasters. on the trip, the president will build on the progress of his recent trilateral meeting with japan and korea in the hague, as we seek to advance trilateral defense cooperation more broadly. it will allow us to reaffirm our commitment to the peaceful resolution of maritime and territorial disputes consistent with international law. and it will allow us to underscore our commitment to help respond to humanitarian and

other disasters. our asian partners frequently look to the united states as a partner of first choice given our significant and unique capabilities, and our technical expertise. and indeed, in each of the countries we will be visiting, we have seen in the last few years tragedies of the sort that have been exceedingly taxing and traumatic for the people of those countries. and in each instance, the united states has been able to lend prompt and very effective support to our friends and partners in support of their response. we have demonstrated throughout -- whether from the japan earthquake in 2011, the 2013 typhoon in the philippines, the malaysian air flight 370 tragedy, and now the ferry disaster in south korea -- that we are there for our friends and partners when they need us most. ben and i are happy to take a few questions.

>> you're obviously heading to asia against the backdrop of the situation in ukraine. and i'm wondering what your sense is of how that crisis is impacting the way that some of these asian leaders are viewing their own territorial disputes with china and the threat that they feel from beijing. and while we have you here, if you could just give us a sense of the status of this agreement between russia and ukraine, given that the pro-russian forces in eastern ukraine have said that they have no plans to leave the buildings they've occupied. >> well, julie, we've been in close communication, as you can imagine, with our allies and partners around the world, including in asia, as it relates to what is happening in ukraine. and we have been talking with them about the importance of a strong international front to uphold principles that they and we all hold dear the sovereignty , and territorial integrity of nations, the need for peaceful resolution of disputes. and we will continue to have that discussion throughout each of the stops on our trip.

and i think it's fair to say that japan and south korea, major global economies, will -- as we have had to -- continue to reassess the implications of what has transpired in ukraine for their economic and diplomatic relationships, and particularly with russia. and we have coordinated closely with japan in the g-7 context on our shared responses to what has happened in ukraine and will continue to do so. but i think the countries of the region clearly are watching this carefully and are cognizant of the implications for the larger international order, given the importance and the unity of the international community in insisting that ukraine's sovereignty be upheld and maintained and the global condemnation of russia's annexation of crimea and its efforts to destabilize ukraine. these are countries that are

part of the united nations. and you will have seen that, a couple of weeks ago in the general assembly, there was an overwhelming vote of condemnation of russia's actions. and we all share a commitment to, as i said, a rule-based order. with respect to what has transpired since the agreement yesterday in geneva -- which, as you know, committed all the signatories of four countries, but obviously, particularly russia and ukraine, to disarm the irregular forces that are engaged in destabilizing activities -- to require that those forces vacate the buildings and public spots that they are occupying illegally, that there be an amnesty granted to those that lay down their arms willingly and peacefully, and that there be a constitutional process, which is ukraine's own constitutional process, to resolve the issues that -- the political issues that are so critical to

ukraine's future. now, we expect, and we will be watching whether russia does or does not uphold its responsibility to use its very considerable influence to restrain and withdraw those irregular militia from the buildings and spaces that they've occupied. we'll look to see what russia says, what it does, and whether it supports another critical aspect of the agreement, which was the agreement that the osce will send in monitors to those towns where they're most needed to help to facilitate a peaceful resolution of these standoffs. so we will see over the coming days whether russia upholds its agreement. we've already seen the ukrainian government begin to take steps to do its part by beginning to take steps to implement an

amnesty law for those that do lay down their arms, by the president and the prime minister making very constructive public comments today about constitutional reform and decentralization. if we do not see action commensurate with the commitments that russia has made yesterday in geneva, which we all welcome, then obviously we've been very clear that we and our european partners remain ready to impose additional costs on russia for failing to adhere to its obligations. >> did you give russia -- did secretary kerry and others in geneva give russia a firm deadline on when you needed to see that progress happening by? >> secretary kerry had very direct discussions with foreign minister lavrov, both privately and in the context of this quadrilateral meeting, made very clear the united states' expectations. and we will be looking to see in the coming days whether the agreement that was reached is,

in fact, implemented. it will be obvious as events unfold. >> susan, how do you think the situation in ukraine -- or do you think at all it will influence the conversations you'll have with south korea and japan about the air defense identification zone that the chinese established, the concerns, as julie brought up, about disputes over territories in that region? and what are you trying to accomplish with japan and korea on the question of the idiz -- adiz, rather? >> well, major, i expect that the issue of territorial claims and disputes in the region will come up in our discussions in both countries. the united states' position has been very consistent and very clear -- we do not take a position on the sovereignty claims, but we have insisted that these disputes be resolved peacefully on the basis of international law and through -- without resort to coercion or the threat or the use of force.

that has been consistent, and that is indeed the same principle that we have applied to the situation in ukraine. so i expect whether we're talking about the adiz or other aspects of the maritime and other territorial claims, that we will continue to reinforce that american perspective. >> ambassador rice, back on ukraine -- it seemed as though earlier in the week senior administration officials were saying that sanctions -- new sanctions could come immediately after the meeting if there was no progress. and then secretary kerry -- and apparently it seemed the president -- pushed that deadline back to past the weekend. is that, in fact, a hard deadline that the united states is looking at? >> well, in fact, there was some progress in geneva yesterday. and while geneva was a document to which all sides committed, and it was a document with some very positive commitments in it,

what we have said is it's not the words, it's the actions. so we will be watching very carefully over the coming days to see whether the commitments that were made in geneva -- which, if honored, would be a very positive set of actions -- are in fact honored. and if they're not, we have been very clear that we are ready, along with our partners, to impose additional costs. >> just to be clear, i'm saying that now that there has been progress, would the period of time you're watching, is that over the weekend? >> it's over the coming days. >> and then the other thing i wanted to ask you about is there's a report out in the times of london that the united states is looking at actually putting sanctions on president putin's personal wealth in switzerland -- in hidden accounts in switzerland. is the united states looking at sanctioning the president of russia personally? >> i'm not going to get into foreshadowing particular individuals or entities that the united states may target.

but let me just say we've been clear that there are additional individuals, officials, close associates of senior leadership, oligarchs, and those entities that they're associated with that remain very much potential targets of additional sanctions. we've also said that there are other potential ways in the framework of our executive orders that we could impose costs, should that be necessary. in the event of a dramatic escalation or significant escalation, including, as we've said repeatedly, the potential for russia to move its own forces on the border inside of ukraine, that those costs and sanctions could even include targeting very significant sectors of the russian economy. but beyond that, i'm not going to be specific. >> madam ambassador, are you

saying given that one of the leaders of the pro-russian forces has already rejected this agreement and claimed that the current ukrainian government is illegitimate, are you saying that we hold moscow responsible for making sure that these rebels, if you will, pro-russian forces leave the buildings they've occupied and the roads they've barricaded? >> what we're saying is that we believe that russia has considerable influence over the actions of those who have been engaged in destabilizing activities in eastern ukraine. and we expect -- and russia, indeed, is committed to use that influence to try to deescalate and defuse the situation. and that includes vacating the buildings, disarming, vacating those other public spaces that are being illegally occupied, allowing and cooperating with the osce monitors and other

steps, including public statements that would signal a commitment to try to work constructively to deescalate the situation. >> ambassador rice, can you give us a better understanding of the conversations that have taken place in regards to reports, and now in fact confirmation from members of the jewish community in donetsk reporting that there were some pamphlets, perhaps isolated, nonetheless outrageous -- as described by the secretary of state as "grotesque and beyond unacceptable", what the president's thoughts were when he heard about that, and what the administration is committed to doing to make sure that this isn't something more than an isolated incident? >> the president expressed his disgust quite bluntly. i think we all found word of those pamphlets to be utterly sickening. and they have no place in the 21st century. and we have conveyed that view very forcefully to all concerned. secretary kerry had that conversation very plainly with foreign minister lavrov

yesterday. and indeed, the joint statement that was issued in geneva made reference to anti-semitism and other forms of biased action and behavior precisely for that reason, because we were so outraged and alarmed by the surfacing of such pamphlets. >> ambassador, you mentioned tpp. would you describe that now in the context of this trip as being at a stalemate? and if you do not have any deliverables on that, on this trip, will that make it less of a success? and one follow-up to your other comments about the trip -- some analysts are calling this a "china containment tour." do you view that differently? >> well, with respect to tpp, first of all, we have made a great deal of progress over the last many months in terms of achieving ultimately a comprehensive, high-standards regional trade agreement. and we expect very much that the president's travels and our

continued work in the coming weeks and months on tpp will continue to yield progress. and we expect that as a result of that we will be able to conclude an agreement. so i think this is yet another opportunity to advance our efforts, and i believe that our tpp partners view it that way. and in the run-up to the trip, some progress has been made and we expect it to continue through and after the trip. so this remains a very important aspect of our rebalance to the asia pacific region, one that holds great promise for the countries in the region as well as for the united states. there has been some outside estimates by experts that suggest that as much as $123.5 billion in additional exports annually from the united states could accrue from a successful conclusion of the tpp. so we'll continue to work towards that given its

significance to all concerned. with respect to the trip and whether it ought to be viewed as a containment of china, i would say this trip has a very positive, affirmative agenda and that's how we are looking at it -- as an opportunity to solidify and modernize our alliances and partnerships, as an opportunity to advance our economic agenda, including tpp and our commercial interests, as an opportunity to affirm our commitment to the region and its security, and to show that the united states is and will remain for the long term a major security partner and a force for rule of law, stability and democratic development, and also, as i said, an opportunity to deepen our people-to-people ties and relationships, hence the young south asian leaders forum, which we're looking very much forward to hosting the president's opportunity to engage with civil society and young people throughout the region. so this is a positive trip with a positive agenda that

underscores that the united states' commitment to this region is growing, and is a cornerstone of our global engagement and is going to be there for the long term. >> ambassador rice, i know you've said repeatedly that you expect the russians to use their influence to rein in these pro-russian groups, but a day later, a day after this agreement, have you seen any actual sign that they're doing that? >> we'll continue to watch very carefully how they proceed -- what they say, what they do, and how indeed the osce monitors are allowed to operate when they deploy, which we believe will begin over the weekend. so i do not take the statements of an individual rebel leader here and there as dispositive or definitive at this stage. but i do think over the coming days, as i've said, we'll have the opportunity to see what russia can do and will do to uphold its end of that agreement.

>> can you say definitively whether or not putin's assets -- or whether you are considering sanctioning his assets? can you say -- >> i just said i'm not going to get into naming individual potential targets. >> but you're willing to say that sectors are on the table. >> we have said from the outset -- and if you read the president's third executive order -- that there is a potential for sectoral sanctions. and we've even illustrated in that executive order the range of potential sectors. >> why not knock down, then, the idea that putin -- >> i just don't think it's constructive, as a policymaker, as we make very complex and difficult decisions, to start to get into naming individuals that may be on our sanctions list. in fact, if you know how sanctions enforcement works, to presage that is counterproductive. >> china has obviously been looking very carefully about how the president talks about these maritime disputes in the south and east china sea. is he going to use the kind of

language that danny russel used a while ago which kind of angered china somewhat? and on a separate issue, is the president going to meet anwar ibrahim in malaysia, or will anybody else from the delegation? >> on the question of territorial disputes, i mean, i think you will hear the president say what has been consistently u.s. policy, which is that these disputes need to be resolved, ought to be resolved through peaceful means, not through coercion, not through threats, not through anything other than peaceful diplomatic means based on the rule of law -- and in this instance, the international law, and particularly the law of the sea. and that will continue to be our strong view, and we have shared that in all of our engagements with concerned parties, including when the president had the opportunity to meet with president xi jinping most recently in the hague. with respect to your second question, i think that the president is not likely to have

that meeting, although there may be other engagements at other levels. >> ambassador rice, you mentioned that the u.s. has demonstrated to its asian allies that we've been there when they needed it the most. does the administration feel any need to reassure them? is there any worrisome-ness from them about u.s. willingness to defend them in terms of aggression in the region? >> there should be no question that where we have alliance commitments and treaty obligations in the asia pacific region or anywhere else in the world, we will uphold those obligations willingly and definitively. >> but has there been any unease expressed from -- >> no, i've not heard unease expressed. in fact, i think that we go to the region at a time when our allies in the region are very much appreciative of and committed to our alliance relationships.

and these alliances are only strengthening in the context of a more uncertain security environment. >> we'll take one more because jay needs to do domestic stuff. >> ambassador rice, can you inform us or give us any additional information on the possibility of a joint u.s.-nato monitoring of the elections in ukraine coming up in may? >> nato doesn't do election monitoring. >> well, then u.s. -- is there any form of monitoring that might be possible going on? >> well, i expect that if the ukrainian government invites in outside monitors that they may be forthcoming, whether they invite them from non-governmental organizations, individual friendly states, the eu, the osce, is their choice, of course. but nato is an alliance, not an election-monitoring or political organization. thank you all very much. >> ok. >> a few more details about the

president's eight-day trip to asia. scheduled to visit japan, south korea, malaysia, and the philippines. on his way to japan he will stop in washington's eighth to meet with -- washington state to meet with emergency responders in the mudslide last month. he will also be the first sitting president to visit malaysia since lyndon b. johnson in 1966. we will bring you any updates on the trip on the c-span networks. in the weekly addresses, president obama notes the observances of easter and passover, and tennessee senator lamar alexander gives the republican address. he outlines the differences between republicans and democrats in their approach to government. everybody. for millions of americans, this time of year holds great meaning. earlier this week, we hosted a

passover seder at the white house and joined jewish families around the world in their retelling of the story of the exodus and the victory of faith over oppression. malia, sashalle, and i will join our fellow christians around the world in celebrating the resurrection of christ, the salvation he offered the world and the hope that comes with easter season. the holy days have their roots in miracles that took place long ago, and yet they still inspire us, guide us, and strengthen us today. they remind us of our responsibilities to god, and as god's children, our responsibilities to one another. for me and countless other christians, holy week and easter are times for reflection. we remember the grace that comes from god, who loved us so deeply that he gave us his only son so that we may live through him. we recall all that jesus endured for us.

the scorn of the crowd, the agony of the cross, also we may be forgiven our sins and granted everlasting life. we commit ourselves to follow his example to love and serve one another, particularly the least of these among us, just as he loves every one of us. the common thread of humanity that connects us all, not just christians and jews, but muslims and hindus and sikhs, is our shared commitment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, to remember, i am my brother's keeper, i am my sister's keeper. whatever your faith, believer or nonbeliever, there is no better time to rededicate ourselves to that universal mission. for me, easter is a story of to come justr day around the bend. so to all christians celebrating, from my family to yours, happy easter. and to every american, have a joyful weekend. thanks, god bless you, and may god bless this country we love.

>> i and senator lamar alexander. have you ever read something so obviously right that it made you wish you had written it? that happened to me the other day reading newt gingrich's book "breakout. talkingtim o'reilly, about how the government should operate in the internet age. "the besting this -- way for the government to operate is to figure out what are in society and make investments in those things. the same way apple figured out, if you make the iphone into a five form developers will bring hundreds of thousands of applications to the table." o'reilly went on to say the smart phone development used to now, vendors in a back room trying to decide what features to offer. apple turned the iphone into a

platform where the key feature was other people could make features. imagine if instead of mandating things for you to do, the government became a platform, just like your iphone, enabling you to create a happier, safer, more prosperous life. actually, government as an enabler was a good idea long before anyone imagined the internet. in 1944, the g.i. bill enabled world war ii veterans to attend the college of their choice, helping them become the greatest generation. today, half our college students have federal grants or loans that follow them to the colleges of their choice, enabling them a buy the surest ticket to better life and job. two weeks ago, these and it voted -- the senate voted to continue to give vouchers to working moms and dads to pay for childcare while they earn degrees that enable them to get better jobs. in 2012, house majority leader eric cantor's jobs act cut red

tape and made it easier for entrepreneurs to launch a business, raise capital, take companies public. steve case recently wrote in the "wall street journal" that the law enabled a 70% increase in initial public offerings this year and "provides a model to tackle other heart problems, with innovation, compromise, and courage." while these ideas have attracted bipartisan support usually in washington, republicans are the enablers and democrats are the mandate is. republicans say the success of the jobs act proves that lifting the big wet blanket of obama regulations will enable a free enterprise system to create plenty of jobs. meanwhile, under the democrats' . frank law, bankers spent more time filling out forms than making loans. mandate fixed to

wages and more lawsuits, and republicans want to allow more flexibility for working parents, enabling them to attend soccer games and piano recitals. i have proposed allowing states to turn half their federal education dollars into 2100 dollars scholarships that enable parents of low-income children to choose the best school. democrat mandate others insist on telling those children what school is best. senator tim scott of south carolina will allow federal dollars to follow your child with down syndrome or another disability to the school the parents choose. democrat mandate or is say government -- mandaters say government knows best. last year republican senators propose legislation to give to states control over whether teachers and schools are succeeding or failing. democratic mandaters proposed in effect a national school board.

health care provides the most glaring difference between republican enablers and democrat mandaters. too often, obamacare cancels the product -- policy you wanted to keep and tells you what to buy, even if it cost more or restrict your choice of doctors and hospitals. freedomans believe that and more choices will empower you to find the policy that fits your needs and your budget. republicans will let you buy insurance across state lines, allow small businesses to join together and ensure more people, expand access to health savings accounts, give governors flexibility with state medicaid programs, and allow patients to compare the price and quality of doctors and medical services. republicans want to enable you. we want to be the iphone party. we believe government ought to be a platform that gives you opportunity and freedom to create a happier, more

prosperous, and save her life. just imagine the internal revenue code, the food and drug administration, or the labor department, enabling you rather than ordering you around.u ar nd. now, let's make this address itself a platform that enables you to create a better life. imagine your government as your iphone. how can government empower you with the freedom and knowledge to make decisions to create a happier, more prosperous, and save her life for yourself and for your family? e-mail your ideas to ideas@ alexander.senate.gov. we will learn from you. thank you, and very best wishes on this easter weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.

on april 22, the supreme court will hear the case of american broadcasting companies v. aereo. the networks are claiming that aereo is transmitting their broadcast without compensation and without permission. here to discuss the case and some of the technology surrounding this company is chet kanojia, who is ceo and founder of aereo. kanojia, what is your strongest argument to the supreme court justices that you are not stealing broadcast signals? >> great start to the question. i think all of us -- all of our arguments are extremely strong. if you start with the basics, which is everybody acknowledges consumers have the right to an antenna. everyone acknowledges consumers have the right to make a recording of content themselves. everyone acknowledges there is nothing wrong with a commendation of