alex, good morning. aller: it just seems to be bunch of nomenclature to mask what seems to me to be drug addiction, marketing something that is as addictive -- i mean, i am not a drug user or addict, but my experience when i played roulette in las vegas 10 years ago, i won $100, i lost $100, my heart pounding, it seems to me that it is like a drug. they are marketing very clearly to the same thing that is alluring to drug addicts. this brief burst of pleasure. host: any thoughts? guest: you could say that gaming is really industry verbiage of taking the edge off a term that might have negative connotations. as far as problem gambling, that is certainly an issue.

the way that we look at it is the way that we look at other vices as well. at the end of the day it comes down to self-control, to some extent. no one forces you to go into a bar or any other vice activity. elsee same extent, no one forces you and you need to make the choice on your own. if this is something that you struggle with, you can sign-up for an exclusion list and they won't let you in if you show up. another tweet for you -- well, i would say that the racing business in the u.s., the horseracing business specifically is in a long-term structural decline. that is a bit of a different industry. however, it really seems that they -- you can draw some parallels between them, but it seems you are really losing your

audienceaudience as opposed to e they were 50, 60, 70 years ago, although there are three big races every year, other than that people have not really been going to the tracks. when you look at the casino business, and i mentioned this before, there are structural issues they go to the recovery following the recession. when you look at the demographics of people who are it skews more towards slig more blue-collar individuals and people in the middle to low income tiers, though that may be part of the natural dispersion of people in u.s. anyway, those jobs have really not come back at the same pace that higher wage jobs have. those people make up a larger part of your core customer base, you are going to see an impact through less revenue. one of the trends that has been expressed in the last year, a

lot of regional casino operators, there is a decline in visitation. when you go to the casino maybe you show up with $100 to campbell. if you were going four times per month, you would still show up with $100 but you would go fewer .imes are fro $10 in the long run before you show up? they just lost you the revenue that they were getting. taking a look at the data compiled by bloomberg, 2007 is where it was at four las vegas, and the downward trend for those areas -- brian miller, another tweet, how much in tax money does the fed take from gambling? host: --guest: it is an

interesting case. casinos are highly leveraged business. a numbers are based on that comes into play after interest. businessen a souring over the last five or six years and large business expenses for these casinos, some of them do not pay a lot of taxes of the federal level. however, i would say that part of that is because of the current business environment in another part of it is due to the way that their business structure is set up. when you want to think of revenue coming out of casinos going to the general populace, you want to look at that on the state and local level. you would not want to say that the strip is doing $10 billion per year in revenue, because how much is going to uncle sam? according to the american gaming association, in 2012 u.s.

commercial casinos employed 300 32,000 people, paid wages of 13 point $2 billion, and contributed $8.6 billion in earnedgaming taxes and 360 billion dollars in gaming revenue. working at aho is casino? what are their wages like? host: you have many different types --host: guest: --guest: you have many different types. the integrated resort, like in las vegas, with entertainment and dining options. a very big deliver gambling is only one of the things you can do. at one of those operations, you certainly have your employees on the floor and then you have the hotel service staff and entertainers, the people in food and beverage. for you look across those

demographics, getting very granular there, to some extent it goes beyond what the bureau offers in terms of data, you are certainly looking at an hourly wage of around $20 per hour. one thing i will point out is a biggere benefit at these locations, large portions of the workforce are unionized. collective bargaining tends to lend itself to higher hourly thes, a benefit for industry. conversely, a regional concede now might be a stand-alone , there you just have the casino staff. if it is a union workforce, your wages might be slightly lower. >> a net, you are next. --when you first came when you first came on, i wrote c-span an e-mail to tell them i really liked you.

stay with us. why are the casinos allowed to operate on palm sunday? it is very hypocritical. there is some sort of law in new york, something about the mutual greeting law. what is that about, mr. miller? it is craziness this. i could not go online to any other because they sent me an e-mail saying that to to new york state laws, i guess new york state must've contacted them and said that they are not allowed to service you. what kind of stuff is that? other people live in new york. people.eople, muslim who is creating these laws? host: brian miller? understand your question correctly, if you are forceg at any kind of based bedding or anything like that, that can be very

different, especially if it goes across state lines. one of the interesting things about the wire act is that sports betting is only legal in four states. if you are making racing bets in other states, a form of sports betting, the bet is taken in a state other than where you make it. without being 100% sure of what happened in your situation, i think that what might have occurred is that due to the laws in another state, because of those states specific laws you are not able to do an activity you wanted in your state. how that ties into religious holidays is probably outside my expertise. host: what is the wire act? guest: a federal law that prohibits sports betting, essentially, wagering on sports. when it was created there were caveats taken out of it. the one that people are most familiar with is that if you go to the state of nevada, you can

gamble on sporting events. what happened recently, 2010, 2011, the department of justice released an updated opinion on the wire act that narrowly pertainingas specifically to sports betting and other types of gambling. that is what opened the door to online gambling in new jersey, delaware, and nevada. you could see it pop up in other states as well. an offshoot of that that is interesting is the fact that the chris christie administration at that point attempted to push to as well sports gambling in new jersey, which really benefited atlantic city with its issues from a gambling perspective and losing business. i believe that that is going to dateupreme court, but to they have pushed back against

that and said that this is only for non-sports betting activities. host: this comes from bill on twitter -- so, there are two different ways to really address this. one is at the state level. the other is at the federal level. maybe we will take the state level first. that is the more likely rollout of online gaming across the united states to date. reinterpretation of the wire act really opened the doors. it has been up to each state to address it on a one-off basis. what we think will happen is , they will states also legalize it. states that have come to mind that have looked at it includes new york, hawaii, california,

nevada. not just for poker, but for other games. and illinois. i believe that eight or nine are currently considering it but it has been somewhat put on hold until they see what happens. at the federal level i think that is a different case. the problem that you have there is that at the federal level you need a majority of the nation to agree to go along with online gaming. although harry reid has been a , he essentially represents the casino industry who backs and financially, other than him really continuously every session or so pushing a new gaming law, there has not been a lot of ground support for something like that happening. for that reason, we think it will happen on a state-by-state asus as opposed to a federal basis. it comes up all the time at the federal level and it honestly never goes anywhere. host: what about the u.s.

gambling industry as opposed to other countries? how do they compare? an interesting question. until recently the u.s. was probably the largest gambling market in the world. if you look at the role of native american gambling in the united states, that is still probably the biggest. lasthas happened over the 10 to 12 years is gambling was legalized in macau, a special administrative region of china, very similar to, very close to hong kong. after that happened some u.s. casino companies, like mgm and las vegas sands, as well as steve wynn, they opened casinos there. that has been an enormous market driven entirely by mainland china. it is a different type of customer than in the u.s.. i think it is mostly slot

players. all everyone plays there is a game called rock around. similar to blackjack. that market has gone from essentially $2 billion to $3 billion up to $45 billion in the last 10 years. it is still growing very quickly while the u.s. gambling business has slowed down to a two percent, three percent annual growth rate. does the united states attract foreign tourists into our country for gambling? to some extent, they do. they have a scene in "casino" where they have to deal with the frail from japan or china. these destination markets have a certain amount of international business that is usually high-end. what you have there is even though it is a small amount of people, because they gamble so much money, how they do actually

skews the casinos revenue numbers for the entire company on a quarter to quarter basis. i would tell you it is a small demographic, but it has an outsized effect. you would deal with other tourists coming from other places. everyday, normal tourists who are not coming in to las vegas with $5 million or $10 million to gamble. do not have the same effect as these vip customers. host: doug is next. i was in atlantic city the day they opened the first casino. it is going to do wonders and it never happened. ha ha why would people think that this would change with the

number of casinos going up now? when it was the only game in town and it did not work, why would it work now that there is this large volume of casinos going up? guest: i think that is a great question that you hit on. i think two things are happening. one, if you specifically look at hasntic city, atlantic city many bureaucratic and municipal problems that extend way back to before the casino business came to town. someone recently commented to me that if you cannot have the casino market work on the ocean, why would it work anywhere else? in hindsight that market could have done many things differently. certainly the people running casinos now, some of the heads of the different operators there are investing in redeveloping portions of atlantic city, trying to bring in new business. one of the big opportunities that they have hit on is the

convention business. you already have a lot of hotel rooms with entertainment or it you have to bring the new business in that is incremental revenue. when that money goes to the municipal government, what are they doing with that money? are they putting it to the best use? is the money getting fumbled around in a repetitive cycle? the other part of your question is -- does the math work? ohio is a good example of atlantic city 20 years ago. gambling was recently legalized in ohio. casinos, onet 10 at a racetrack, have opened since then. you run into the problem of a saturated market and everyone struggles to as a result.

that is the basis of the article from "bloomberg is this week." of these casinos are folding. what about jobs, then? the hit to the economic community? casino closes, you certainly do lose those jobs. when i step back and look at it in a case like that, it might be that it is worse in the short run but better in the long run? where you have this situation where you have too much supply you sometimes need to go fix something, which can be more heavily for the whole -- healthy for the market in the long run. invested capital, the way that works in my mind, when you are profitable you can invest in your business. it can be any type of business. a small construction company, running a casino, it doesn't matter. more money with excess funds

adds amenities to do things like that. createsf itself that jobs that are temporary through the construction process. then there are the new amenities you have created. when you have too much supply without enough revenue to cover your fixed costs and investing in any regular menu or upgrades, it hurts the job picture from that perspective because you are not creating the jobs to make a property better. it is kind of a mixed bag, as i look at it. there is an immediate impact but in the long run it might be beneficial for the local economy as a whole. host: mark on twitter wants to know guest: this is outside my knowledge base, but i believe that this is handled on a

state-by-state basis. pennsylvania, for example, comes to mind. i don't believe that you get free drinks in pennsylvania. i think you have to pay for them . that may not be the case in nevada. they might serve you free drinks in other places. bars and casinos are not allowed intoxicated people gamble. a recent story from "the washington post," mgm gets the nod to build the six casino in prince george's. inside the article a have a whole -- should maryland casinos be allowed to serve on call around the clock? 65 protest of the five percent said no, 65% said yes. read? on the i am calling

racetrack. i am licensed by the gaming commission. racetrack, i was here when detroit got casinos in here. management led racetracks into the ground, with legislators maintaining in our casinos instead of getting down in the trenches. they chased people away. it was poor oversight from the state of michigan, also. every couple of years you get a new commission? we have been there and they know nothing about it. they have the worst management at these racetracks. here,he state employees

these people should not even be in there if they know the reputation. host: ok, brian miller? good: he touches on a point. this has its own issues. one of the fixes from the people that own these properties, and is adding casinos at these properties. a the other option would be certain states having a certain percentage of the money generated by any casino in the state going towards the horsemen's purse that supports the industry. should you tank your business to prove a point? no. people certainly do it. you see it in other industries. it is pretty prevalent in the nba, for people will run a franchise into the ground to increase their draft pick.

core element the of that, that business by itself needs to address specific issues that don't tie into casinos. host: this is a tweet from breaker -- he is referring to a front-page story today from "the new york times." the middle-class and poor in this country are losing klett -- losing pace with the middle-class class and poor in other countries. maureen, go ahead. maureen, you are on the air. percentage,e was a i believe that you said eight to keep yourable money. can you explain that to me? guest: i missed the beginning of your question, but i believe you asked me about how slug genes and table games worked. the way it works is there is a

-- although the machine is not set up to pay out on a predetermined basis, you can't go in there and it is not everyone but times you hit it with a jackpot. it could hit two big jackpots back to back, but the way the math is program is simply that over the long run, and this is regulated and set by the state within the certain range, over the long run a slot machine is preset to keep a certain amount of money. a better example is -- if you go to a casino like parks once per week, every week, with $100, over the course of the year every time you go there you will probably walk out with 90. one time you might hit $1000, another time you will walk out with no money. in the long run there is math

kind of the machines that predetermines how much money the casino makes. the american gaming numbersion have these put together, commercial versus other spending in 2012. byut $37 billion is spent consumers at commercial casinos versus $204,000 for consumer electronics, full-service restaurants, etc.. tell us about discretionary spending and how people spend their money at casinos. gamblinguest: certainly falls at the far end of the discretionary scale. the numbers you just pointed out, including nevada, i would argue that the majority of the state has never gone to a casino. those numbers, although gambling

is small, you probably have a small demographic that does it compare to the number of people going to the movies, for example. but your question was? did about a little the amount of money that consumers spend on gambling as opposed to going out to eat or consumer electronics. what is the trend on that? just talk a little bit about what that means, economically. host: ok. --guest: ok. i guess the way we have looked at that as we have looked at casinos around the united states, which excludes las vegas, when you look at a regional casino normally your business radius is within two hours. within that 50 mile radius, casino spending comes out to between one to 1.5% of the total

income generated by that population. comes outino revenue to about that. that is definitely skewed to people who gamble on a regular basis, tempered by those who never gamble at all. when you look at other activities -- trying to think about other relevant numbers -- when you look at moviegoers or anything like that, you are probably looking at a larger population demographic with a smaller amount spent per person on a whole. so, that one percent to 1.5% for factos is skewed by the that the vast majority of people don't gamble. host: let's talk about who is the gambler. who are the primary gamblers in the united states? host: i will reference a study --guest: i will reference a study done by igt, a slot machine manufacturer, the

largest in the united states. in 2011 they really looked at the demographics of who gambles at slot machines. slot machines account for about 70% of all gambling in the united states, the largest share. table games are the other 30%. poker, the other it, is very small. the largest percentage of slot machines, broken into different age brackets, is actually people 45 years old and up. i seem to remember a comment made from the manager at penn national in ohio, their demographic was women 45 years older and up. one of the challenges the industry may be for dash facing already, as the baby boomers continue to retire and move to more fixed income structures as opposed to generating a wage or living off of social security

retirement savings, that could be a headwind against revenue growth. you might not have as much money as you had to go gamble with before. but my base point is that on the whole you are looking at an older demographic for slots in the united states. host: what is the future of the gambling industry in this country? what are you watching for? biggest thing is diversification. las vegas is a great example. for anyone who really tracks their slogan is still -- what happens here, stays here. they sell themselves on that. within vegas what we have seen from 2006 to present is actually that their business mix is gambling and from towards other activities, like entertainment, food and beverage.

atlantic city has tried online gaming but it has not generated a lot of money. maybe in the long run, it could be a profitable business. the other thing is to get into the convention business. you have many large cities that are relatively close to atlantic city like washington and philadelphia and new york and boston. one problem is they don't have a large airport nearby. there is the atlantic city airport which is more regional. it is hard for people to get in there but the convention business could be a big boost. when you look at new markets, the final example is massachusetts. right now, there are three new casinos going into massachusetts and also a slots only facility.

what massachusetts did which i think was very smart is they said for a certain geography like western massachusetts, we will only let one can see now operate there. that gives you a mini monopoly and it stops the issue or limits the issue of having too much supply in a specific area where everyone suffers i'm going active the original story. when to fold them is the article in bloomberg businessweek are

speaking of not safe, ambassador faily is a veteran. he ran the boston marathon two days ago. so when he comes in -- he completed the boston marathon two days ago. so when he comes up please give him extra time to make it up

the stairs. but he will make it up. after he talks, he and i will have a discussion for about 15 minutes and then we will open it up to the group for questions. so please join me in welcoming him. i will talk about 10, 15 inutes if that's ok.

i think to start with let me say that i'm privelinled to be here today. first, because of the new magnificent facility and building which we have acquired and b, for being talking about iraq. and earlier which may have not been talked about for some time in d.c. from the troop withdrawal. but i think it's important that we provide some opportunities to discuss among friends as to what has taken place in iraq, in the region, and more importantly where the united states sees itself as a key player and partner in iraq. within that context i think the csi has played an important role and thank you for chairing hat part of the program. there i think you are in safe hands. o i appreciate that.

only two days ago, i ran in the boston marathon in honor and in support of the victims of terrorism, from bag dad to boston. i am proud that i finished and relieved that i'm finished as well. and i have tremendous respect and appreciation to those who completed the race following last year's tragic terroristic act. iraq's journey from dess potism to democracy is also a marathon. nly one week from today or actually on april 15th the iraqi parliamentary election will mark a mile stone in our progress and as an attribute to the sacrifices of so many iraqis and americans and other

countries that helped us to stay in the course of democracy. this will be the fourth parliamentary election since the overthrow of saddam hussein back in 2003. and the first since the u.s. withdrawal of troops at the end ofsy. and this regional turmoil and stability on sectarian polarization this offers us an opportunity to consolid state democracy, nurture greater stability and strengthen national unity. democracy means that the people can elect leaders on their own choosing. in this election, iraqis will be able to choose among over 9,000 candidates from 117 political entities, commeeting for many parliamentary seats. blocs, didates, 107

political parties or entities, and 328 seats. we want the composition of the parliament to represent the diversity of the people. 25% of the seats in parliament are allocated to women. christians and other minorities are guaranteed a certain number of seats in order to ensure their representation in parliament. 60% of the 21.5 million eligible voters are expected to turn out. about 60%. out-of-country voting will take place in 19 nations. here in the united states there will be polling stations in illinois, california, michigan, texas, arizona, virginia, and tennessee. we are doing everything we can to make sure that elections are free and fair. the process is being administered by the independent

control commission of nine commissioners nominated and approved by the parliament. hroughout the nation only 15 candidates have been brought by the commission. there has been much less controversy than in the past elections about candidates and about de-baathification. to ensure caubtability and transparency, electronic voting cards are being used in order to eliminate or reduce voting frauds. more than 650 credentials have been issued to foreign monitors. these improvements help explain more of iraqis are excited about this election according to recent polls. this week americans would

find feetors familiar. the campaigns are better organized and more profession dwral than in the past reflecting increasing the numbers of iraqis who are on line, the candidates are making greater use of social media to reach out to constituents and debate core issues. what are the issues? well, i have heard the famous american slogan, it's the economy, stupid. in iraq, the economy is one of four overriding concerns. security concerns are inescapeable. most iraqis believe that security can improve if iraqi forces are better armed and trained. regarding is the economy. surprisingly, most iraqis don't see the oil sector as the major

driver for growth and prosperity. instead, iraqis believe that the two things our nation needs are loans for small businesses and incentives to business owners to hire more employees. rounding out the major concerns, iraqi want to rebuild and improve our education and health care system. now, it is no secret that elections are being held and it is the rising threat of terrorism groups such as so-called isil and others. that is why it is more important than ever that the elections are held on time. when they participate in the election, the voters will take the striking -- will be striking a powerful blow against the terrorists who are trying to frighten us away from the polling places in order to

prevent the construction of democracy in iraq. make no mistake, every vote that is cast will be a vote for hope and not fear. ballots and not bullets and democracy and not dictatorship or deviciveness. when the final results are released, we should expect to be by the end of may, the democratic process will continue. since it is possible that no single party gains a majority, the conversations will continue about how the competing parties can come together to form a coalition government. an inclusive government will keep iraq moving forwards towards security, stability and democracy. and we want all three. having been ruled by one man and one party under the saddam regime iraqis understand that no single faction whether

political ethnic regional should control the country. when every segment of society has a voice and no community feels excluded the new government will fein legitimacy. let me repeat that. when every segment of society has a voice and no community feels excluded the new government will gain legitimacy. this will deny extremists the political support they need for the violent tactics. inclusiveness isn't only the best way to building democracy. it is also the best and only way to beat terrorism. as we succeed at holding elections and forming a new government we will be better able to make progress on the security, political, economic, and diplomatic fronts. in the seven provinces there

have been no reported security incidents. in the western provinces, mproved security will depend on the speed of process of form he new government. the government is committed to ensuring can conditions for a strong voter turnout. displaced persons will be able to cast their vote at secured sites. on the political front, the process of forming a government will be conditioned on reaching an agreement with key segments of our society such as the kurds over the oil revenue and the scope of federalism among other issues. we are hopeful that following the elections the odds will improve for breaking that

deadlock. this in turn will pave the way for a greater focus on trade and investment. on the diplomatic front, successful elections will improve iraqis' standing in the international community. this will enable us to play a greater role in the region as a voice for moderation. forming a new government will also reenergize implementation of the agreement which was signed between the united states and iraq. we want to build what president obama has called a partnership of equals. as part of that endeavor, our embassy will continue our efforts to promote institutional and people-to-people exchange between iraqis and americans. when you visit iraq, you will find an nrnlic and educated

people committed to building our democracy, stabilizing our region as rebuilding our roads, highways, and airports, restoring our water and electrical systems and improving our education and health care. we welcome american partnerships, friendships, and nvestment. we are determined to cross the finish line despite the challenges we face. we thank you again for giving us this opportunity to be here. i will be more than happy to take in any q and a questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mr. ambassador. one of the things that is curious sitting in the united states watching these elections is i haven't seen any coverage

of alternatives to prime minister maliki winning reelection. there don't seem to be other political personalities that are being reported on. there don't seem to be political movements that have a reasonable chance of winning a plureralt. could you just help us understand, we all know prime minister maliki. he's been there. he's been to washington. who are some of the other candidates who are either likely to be serious contenders or likely to be the ones whose decision will shape the consequences of the elections? >> ok. in iraq we have somewhat of a strange or stranger system of government. we're not like the british system in the sense that the number of parliament of prime minister and keep their parliamentary seats and every party puts their candidate forward.

that's not the case. we also have a situation in which the dynamic of electing the prime minister is totally different to the dynamic of voting. let me explain it to you. for example, you have the populous elect their representation in parliament. however, once the parliamentarians are there, the formation of the government is on who is best able to collect the votes of the parliamentarians. not of the people. so you have two different dynamics altogether. to be elected than the parliamentarians to be elected because the parliamentarians choose. you have also a culture in which there are very few red lines as to the blocs between what to give and not to give, which makes it a bit complicated for the formation of the government, a prolonged process, and more importantly

candidacy will not be put forward until the election is complete. so you don't have even blocs within state other blocs are not aware of anybody putting a name forward and saying this is my candidacy. although they have said we will secure or we will endeavor to government the formation. why? because they think they will undermine the candidacy by declaring the names between now and the elections. for -- primarily for tactical reasons. >> one way to read that would be that putting a name forward is they think that the prime minister is likely to be reelected they would rather be in the coalition rather than against it. >> that was the same scenario in 2009. >> but we had a -- who wone

more seats than the maliki coalition and he was clearly running and he clearly didn't win. >> yes. >> because he wasn't able to form a got. >> that's my point. the point is the formation of the government following the election than the different than electing your representative. because the challenge each party has can they govern enough votes, can they entice other blocs to form up a coalition to form the government. that's the key challenge. >> so speaking politically, it seems to me that gives tremendous advantage to incumbency because the incumbent prime minister would have tremendous tools at his dispostal to build a coalition and the dynamic outside that coalition, how do i get in? rather than how do i assemble an alternative coalition. is that a fair reading? >> i think you're right to a

certain extent. that, however, you also have an sue of no premiership is secure. so halfway through the last government there was a challenge to the prime ministers. no confident vote. and they were more or less there. so in a way it's that's what the democratic process of iraq is. people have been talking about moving on to the provencial situation. i think we're somewhat far from that. but also iraqis have historicically used to the presidential system. so you have a culture issue as well. so lots of problems. let me give you another example. the prime minister's position according to the constitution is head of the cabinet and his vote is one. and he has no authority of sort f the laying people off or whether the cabinet members or

others. he has to go to the parliament. so his power is different. people who put up the -- who voted for the constitution were sure about separating the powers in a way. and this is what's taking place in iraq. so at the cabinet level, the prime ministers vote is one among many. he has no veto, he has no extra weight or anything else. so we go through a new dynamic of iraq -- iraqi democracy and this is the key. i hope people appreciate. host: so dexter fulingen's article in the new yorker -- >> which i'm yet to finish reading. >> well, let me give away the ending. >> i saw him before. say e ending is that the that one of the tragedies of the iraqi political system is the prime ministership is too weak. maybe it's too strong. anyway, they are opposed.

and one of them says the prime ministership is too strong, the other says it's too weak. >> i think -- i know both have spoken to both extensively about these issues. let me project to you my analysis of it. you have a new political process forming in iraq. you have a new dynamics taking place. you have a culture which is not known to democracy in the whole region not just in iraq. you have three or four generations of militarization of the society. so there, the issue of what is the perceived versus power is very important. the issue of symbolism in iraq is very important. so that's another issue. for example, people were saying, well, the president is no longer there because of his illness. was that the president's position? eople say should that be a

kurd because the previous president was a kurd? president previous had the aura and personality to bring everybody together. and our culture, the personality is very important. it's not the actual power authority or legitimacy. it's a perpnalt issue. and we're trying to move away from that. and this is what i was talking about. >> the sort of clerical establishment in iraq has traditionally urged people to vote and tried to keep the shia community unified to protect shia interests. and it's not been active in this round of elections. in your judgment, is that a good thing or a bad thing? >> they have actually been very active in their weekly sermons

in which they focus primarily on the caliber of the candidacy , their displeasure with services provided to the people. so they try to keep away from personalizing the issue because there was labeled that they convened in the first government formation and therefore they thought that they should not take the baggage of that any longer and they said disassociate themselves. historically, especially the standing school of thought has never been involved in politics. but following the 2003 situation, following the lack of visible leaders, following the dynamics and the challenges, they -- people ked them to promote that and that role. and i think they have played a very positive role. they have been very stable,

very mature, totally opposite ends of sectarianisms, totally op sit ends, inclusion has been their fete. so they have been a very good player. now, in this election they have been advocating for participation, they have been advocating for the caliber of their parliamentarians, and they've kept away from personalizing the issue. which i think is a very nice position, very healthy position i a major religious or -- can't even call it a cult tral institution to promote. >> one of the troubling things we've seen in iraq in the last six months is the -- it seems that sectarian violence is ticking up again, thousands of death this is year. an you paint a picture of eelectric torl result which

actually helps address some of the sectarian divisions? or is it outside of electoral consequences? is there a way that this election could or is likely to lead to a decrease in sectarian tensions, sectarian violence? >> the election is within democratic systems are the reboot button for resolving and reenergizing society. and we are certainly look forward to that. nobody is saying the election is coins dental or marginal. the thing is essential for the serious discourse, serious discussion -- sorry, serious discussion to take place after he election. so in that sense, the election would provide us with reenergizing in having that

discussion, a fresh view with people who are just being given the mandate by the vote of the people. that's one aspect. the other aspect of it is no single party, no single bloc is saying i need to dominate or i need to have a full authority of the formation of the government in -- at the cabinet level or other representation issue. so everybody is saying we need to get the buy-in of the kurds, the sunnis, the majority of the shia. if you're looking at it from that way. or, we need to get the majority of religious establishment or we need to get mod vat voices involved, or we need to get -- moderate voices involved. or the professionals involved in the government. for example, the ministers. they're saying we need to move away from leaders of the parties being their on ministers we need to get professional people involved in it. or, we need to bring people in

who can work with each other and the prime minister or others need to have a bit more power or say in who his team should be. the election is the only way. not for any specific party to say, it has to be us to form the government. sunnis whoinly have feel systematically excluded from the process. >> they want to have representation in the cabinet. the issues we talked about before. not the have now is scenario of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. you do not have the ethnic cleansing you have before.

that is not the case. you have people who believe in the rule of law. say thispeople who democratic process is not working for us. that is the key issue. the governor who stood with the , byrnment, who was elected the way, he was a sunni as anyone could be, he stood with the government in falluja and ramadi, he is a sunni, he should have a say in governing in future iraq. nobody is expecting to dominate or exclude another. the constitution will not allow it. -- you need to select a president for the process to kick in. you have a period of 30 days.

two thirds of the parliament have to agree. it is not the 51%. agree to kicke to start the process again. >> i hope you have an easier time getting two thirds of your parliament to agree then we have. >> [laughter] a report that i'm sure you have glanced at that has some very surprising numbers right up front. the world bank ranks iraq as having low-quality of governments. world andhe accountability. 182nd and government effectiveness. 205th in the quality of role of law. 189th in the quality of government regulation. tony tells it straight. i'm interested in your

explanation of why that set of numbers can exist alongside with the fact that we see a prime minister who we think most who most people think is going to be reelected. if there is a democratic ross s and everyone is looking for inclusion -- process and everyone is looking for inclusion, how does that set of numbers not create some sense that there is going to be any alternative to the current government? are eliteumbers numbers. democracy is about the populace. the numbers are not disputing them. one thing i know about these numbers, we provide full access for those numbers to be known. a lot of other countries do not even allow those countries to be known.

we announce every month how much we have sold to whom, in oil. how many other countries do that? we go to the world bank. i was there two weeks ago. them, please give us more numbers, tell us exactly where we can grow. we want to build our country. the prime minister issue has to do with the populace who they think is right for the cabinet. people have been telling us that iraq will be divided for the last 10 years and that they are going through all kinds of troubles. wrong enoughg them for them to start thinking twice about these assumptions. the third point, which i fully agree with these numbers, we know we have a coalition

government in which there is no opposition party. if you have five or seven parliamentarians who are eligible for ministerial or senior officials, as well as high commissions and others, and therefore you are part of that. that is inefficient. but that is the system we have chosen. now we are trying to say, let's try to be more of. -- effective. let's get the majority of people in. that is what we are trying to do. as to why the prime minister is popular, i suspect that individual iraqis look at this election as what is the only issue of importance to them? what are the issues of importa t ce?

security, for example. in that perspective, they see a prime minister who is focused on security. whether that is right or wrong, that is for historians to tell. what we have is that we have to expect and accept these democratic processes. it may be painful, but that is what we are choosing. >> last question before we go to the audience. pressreading up all the on iraq and the elections. why do you think you get such a hard treatment in the press? why do the people who seem to know iraq seems so disappointed in what is happening? >> we are still a story in the making. as far as democracy is concerned

, in as far as adhering to constitution is concerned. the last constitution we had was in 1958. we are somewhat new to having a new social contract. the other aspect is the complexity of iraq, forgive me if i am saying that -- for saying that, i am not trying to be arrogant, i doubt very few people can extend it -- understand it. sectarianism, nationalism, having two big neighbors who were non-arabs, that aspect is difficult to understand. you also have a pride, a key theme of the people, pride is important. however, time is irrelevant.

people try to pigeonhole us and say how good it coalition government take nine months? it has taken nine months. we do not think, based on the american concept of a project, which is to do with time, resources, and scope -- those are the three elements we have in mind -- you have in mind. we do not have that correlation in a similar manner. therefore we are complicated and even contradictory to our character because of the complexity. that is why people are somewhat disappointed. don't look at us as individuals. look at the theme of the last 10 years. even those who are in opposition are saying we need to be open to the political process. we need to be involved in this democratic process.

they are saying that democracy is the only way. nobody is advocating dictatorship any longer. from that perspective, it is an issue. even the prime minister who has hen accused of dictatorship, is looking to decentralize more. n has eventralizatio come from the previous governor. you see the complexity of that? that is something that people need to appreciate. it is a long history. with that, you get complication. unfortunately, we are not binary. >> says the engineer. >> [laughter] mathematician actually. >> ok. happy to open it up to questions. just one question until everyone has had a chance to ask. in the back. you, mr. ambassador.

i am from the project on middle east democracy. to follow up on john's comments with the numbers that tony cited in his report. i think we saw for the first , an, especially with iraq attempt by members of congress to condition assistance come a particularly security assistance, on progress on meeting some of these indicators or responding to them, at least. can you talk about how the iraqi government view that effort and how it has spotted to some of those -- responded to some of those so far? keep talking to and communicating with our american friends. historically, the majority of the government has been between the white house and the government. , we do less work

with the white house and more with congress and others. we think there is an urgent need for it. we have good communication and understanding with the white house. that is what the key issue is. that is what the prime minister took back with him. with theeeds to work embassy to strengthen our relationship with the state process of the united states. the united states' decision-making is not one single thing and therefore we need to have an stood to shantou institution relationship. the security issue became clear to all people of the parties in the united states. haven will be a u.s.ficant danger to the and iraqi stability.

the house and senate can see now that they need to work with us. we have our own inner policies. to make it conditional, i think they know that we need urgent be happye and we would getting that and we think we're on the right track. >> right here, on the isle. -- aisle. thank you very much. congratulations. theuld like to get back to election, if i may. i would like to follow-up on things i said -- you said about the inclusiveness of it. i have not heard much about how the election is going to be run in areas that are presumably almost at war, such as falluja,

ramadi, and so on. -- first ofssess all, how is the government doing in terms of keeping security there for the elections? how would you assess the ability of the sunni population to participate in the election? >> that is one of the key ,hallenges, phoebe, that we had as to where our responsibility and the safety of the people's lives. the responsibility of the government to provide election and opportunity for people to participate. safety of us not barging into falluja or using -- orriminate -- sort of being gung ho in our approach. that is why we have been patient. that is not in our nature, by the way.

with the military is doing now is not in their nature. there have been a lot of urging for them to just go and, especially after they tried to close it down and there was an issue of water flow to the south. that is a challenge for us. an obligationis of the government to provide a safe environment for democracy to take place. for thean obligation security of the country, as well. that is a key challenge. displaced, and there are quite significant numbers, to be able to vote. for the numbers of the ramadi province. that is the idea. theirrovince votes for

own representative. that is one aspect. they will be getting electronic cards. we are still working on that. even a week before the elections, to be honest. we are still working on that. we know there will be less representation, unfortunately. to go to thenot 2005 scenario, where whole communities are excused. that is an issue for us as well. we are trying to get the right balance between true representation versus security and safety. and it is not easy -- it is not an easy formula. >> thanks for your presentation. i am a fellow here at csis. this is following on john's reference to how the media treats iraq, covers iraq

negatively. my impression is that there is a sentiment in the united states, a strong desire to see iraq succeed. americans may feel some responsibility for success in iraq, understanding that we pulled back and now it is your responsibility, and yet we spent a decade there and we want to for that it was worth it u.s. objectives and iraqis themselves. , was iti would ask you worth it to you to have the u.s. intervention? was it worth it to the average iraqi citizen? that iraqis may experience despite all the challenges that came with intervention? , whenyou may appreciate we evaluate it, historians talk about a value adding situations, they tried to move away from the binary element of it.

is it right or wrong? was it worth it or not worth it? issues foryriads of iraqis prior to 2003. that is one aspect. the other aspect is that the people used to have pride in their country. now they're alienated. there are more u.s. sanctions than anybody else. the middle class was evaporated. have a university professor doing taxi service in the evening.

that was the extent for a lot of the households. this is more for american historians than iraqis to answer that american definition of it. we now have democracy. -- nobody isenges underestimating those challenges. we have a big project ahead of us. we have an extremely ambitious project ahead of us. to achieve that, people want to do it in their lifetime, i think it will take generations. the negative to generations. it is always harder to build in to demolish. have provided you us with an opportunity. was it worth it or not to the americans? i will leave that to our american colleagues and so on. for iraqis, we have a chance. we have a reality we have to work with.

also, the legacy does not help us to sustain. saying --people are let me give you one example. people say, we need to be more effective. let us have a just dictator. a just dictator. -- dictator they have, they want them to be just. which is impossible. people are so much educated better. we are going through that painful process. it is not an easy ride. thank you, mr. ambassador. you tor if i could ask solve a problem for me.

you have emphasized inclusivity as the outcome of the election. the prime minister has made no secret of his desire for what he calls a majority area and -- majoritartian government. his campaign has been one of law and order, security, very heavily focused on appeal only to shia -- there will be very few sunni and kurdish votes for the prime minister. how do you reconcile his campaign and his interest in the majoritarian government with what you have emphasized here, the importance of inclusivity? of the day, he is a politician. he wants to be voted into power. i do not see any contradiction or anomaly there.

he is fully aware that the formation of the government, you have to have inclusivity and you have to get other voices into it. he is coming from that direction, as well. in also have a situation which people are saying we need to have a better sense of pace for decision-making. pull and push between the various institutions of the government. let me give you the anomaly. you have a cabinet which is not cohesive and at the same time, a mirror image of the cabinet at the parliament which is very dysfunctional. at the end of the day, the system depends on parliament for monitoring. dysfunctional, how would you expect the government be effective? prime minister is

coming from that point. i have not seen anybody who said we need to have a government in which every segment of iraq should be forming. nobody is calling for that again. to getdy knows they need more votes so that they can have more power so that they can become more effective in governing. -- questioner and we have now is that we have tried for the last 10 years to be inclusive, but also not to have anybody excluded. now we are saying that this is not working for us. because of the challenges, because of the pace, the decision-making, security, regional issues, and so on. we need to be more effective in our governing. however, the prime minister is a politician and he wants to get more votes. i do not see any discrepancy there. but can he form the government

by his own block alone? i doubt if you would even promote that. he is saying we need to get more parties, but we need to get some of the kurdish parties, some of , as muchnces parties as i need to get parties from basra to be involved. this is where he is coming from. if you look at it from a purely binary way, it will not work. if you look at it in two stages, government and elections, i think you can see it. >> let me pick up on that if i can. one of the large goals the in 2004, 2005had was bringing people together. solidarity inss the shia community, less sunnirity in the

community, kurdish community, that may actually be a better outcome. withes what you are saying party formation. there have to be people in opposition. it is perhaps one of the outcomes we should hope for out of this election. it is not the people come together into blocks, but that none of the blocks proves sustainable and there is a process by which people of all variety come together. there are lots of shia and opposition, lots of sunnis in the government, and we move into organizationian for iraqi politics. >> yes. that is what i am saying, in a way. it is necessary for us to evolve into one in which the policies of the issues, not the background or the color of your skin. that is essential for us.

let me tell you why the reasons are behind that. teamwork is not a core tenant of our people because of various other things. ,or them to form the government like what we call national government, that will not work. that no longer is the case. we have tried this. it has been a painful process for us. for us to be more effective in governance and address the core issues and provide better services, a country is rich, but we need to move away from these numbers. people are realizing that. we need to address these issues. that is where we're coming from. >> mr. ambassador, you have a

busy week ahead. you have a tiring week behind you. we wish you luck. we appreciate your coming to join us. we look forward to hearing more about iraq and the rest of come. [laughter] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] now, were seeing right are embedding competition on activities into our lived environment. thatsider the smartphones we carry around with us to be a trademark example. we are becoming human sensors because we're all carrying around an extremely powerful computer in our pocket. it takes the form of different sensors that exist in the

physical world around us. radiofrequency edification readers that we pass underneath when we pass under easy pass on the new jersey turnpike. it takes the form of weather centers that are all around us. surveillance cameras that collect data and send that somewhere else. as is all part of the internet of things. it is the embedding of communities into our real world. >> patrick tucker on a world that anticipates your every move , saturday night at 10:00 eastern on sunday night at 9:00. bing west, "the wrong war." read the book and join the discussion. live, look for next in-depth guest, luis j rodriguez. includes the award-winning book on gang life "always running." book tv, every weekend on c-span

2. >> at a forum on immigration policy, political analyst examined the record on border enforcement and immigration reform as well as discussed congressional action on immigration. this is an hour and 20 minutes. . >> welcome, everybody. everybody to make sure you turn off your ringers on your phones, that would be terrific. we have a wonderful event today that is timely and also very informative and eye-opening too many people here. it's on a hot topic in washington right now.

this is an issue driving the debate. the president has not followed the law. given them pause that he is a trustworthy partner. this is central to the way republicans are approaching the next few months and whether we will have an immigration bill not.- or this is a hot topic. there are dreamers demanding it

did return to the country. the issue of what has really with border and immigration enforcement is really the single most important , and we are really pleased to have with us three experts from across the political spectrum, people who are well sides,d by people on all independent thinkers who have done a lot of work. there are no newbies here. we have a lot of new data. been the mostways transparent institution. they have put out new data that has helped give a brand-new window into many of the issues we have been talking about to give us a fresh perspective and

a new look at old topics. any of you who worked on this issue no mark well. he has been a longtime thinker and leader in this arena. next week they are publishing what will probably become the definitive take on this. mark is going to preview a little bit of that but not all. he has to save some for next week. to -- mark is going to lead us off. on thisbeen working issue and has been a great collaborator. whenever we have questions we call ted to make sure we are getting things right. lastublished this pamphlet

year on illegal migration to the border. he will offer some thoughts complementing what mark had covered. finally, jamar jacoby and a great friend of ours who comes from a different perspective, a leader from the center-right for immigration reform. i want to applaud her for her courage and steadfastness and trying to bring along a part of our politics that is not always anxious to move in some of the directions we want to go in. immigration works as a network of small businesses we have been advocating for a solution to our broken immigration system. we are glad she is here today. then we will open it up for q&a to all of you. mark, want to take it away? >> thanks. thanks for having me and everyone for being here.

i will give a preview of the todings and encourage you check out the full version later. i'm going to focus on the three key trends in the deportation system. the first is that u.s. deportations, the system has moved from one that focuses mostly on informal returns to one that mostly employs formal removal. let me explain what that means. when an unauthorized immigrant is apprehended they can be deported in two main ways. one basically means the person is put on a plane and sent home. the alternative is a formal removal. it has more significant long-term consequences. it means they become ineligible for a visa. it also means if they get

apprehended for the u.s. in the future they can be subject to criminal charges as a result of that removal. 90 five percent of everybody apprehended in the u.s. was supported through informal return, put on a bus and sent home. last year that was earning three ercent. that's a big change. there is a lot of confusion about whether this administration is setting new records for enforcement. we are talking about deportations on one hand and formal removal from the other hand. in terms of deportations the overall numbers are down. there are a lot fewer unauthorized immigrants coming to the united states. there are fewer people apprehended at the border and fewer deportations, but because

such a higher share are getting removed they are setting all-time records. more than ever but not more deportations. the difference matters a lot. it is significant. focusing on those removals, previously, almost all formal ,emovers involve a judge involves going before an immigration judge in having a chance to seek relief. now most are handled exclusively by dhs. in 199597% of the people removed

went to a judge and had a chance to seek relief. last year 25% went before a judge. it went from three percent nonjudicial to 75% nonjudicial. unauthorized immigrants are being charged with criminal offenses. been a law on the that crossing52 the border without permission is a crime and being in the united istes following the order also a crime, but those were rarely prosecuted in the past. i think very rarely in 1997 about one percent of people apprehended at the border faced charges. last year the number is 25%. those criminal charges matter because when you are convicted of a crime you go to jail. you have a criminal record. you become for the rest of your life a convicted criminal, so

that's a big change also. recap quickly. we have gone from informal returns to mostly formal removal. we have gone from mostly judicial removal to mostly nonjudicial. we have gone from mostly not facing criminal charges to increasingly facing criminal charges. long-term trends that go back to the mid-90's. the obama administration inherited program's and funding that supported those, and he kept all those in place. all of those trends have continued. all three of them have accelerated under the obama administration. that's a broad sense in which the administration has been very tough on immigration enforcement. the other thing the obama administration has done is create new, explicitly articulated enforcement forrities and guidelines

prosecutorial discretion. what that has done is while keeping in place enforcement tools, this administration has focused on priority cases. cutting to the bottom line, that enforcement.in

in the interior, they are not getting these guidelines. focus on border

control.

administrations want to have it both ways. cross thele trying to border than any time since the 1970's. the odds of being apprehended are much higher than the 1970's. if you go back to the 1980's and the 1990's, you have only had about a one in three chance of getting caught. you would get put on a bus and taken back to mexico. today at least 50%, probably higher. much of that is an economic story. a weaker u.s. economy, fewer people trying to cross in the somewhat stronger mexican

economy. there is little question that robust border enforcement is making a difference. it actually does better -- does matter that we have 21,000 compared to 10,000 a decade ago or that we have 700 miles of fencing, that we have aerial drones monitoring 24 hours a day. we have aerial drones monitoring 24 hours a day. all that stuff does have a real mpact. why do they claim the border is hopelessly porous? some of it is there are places along the border were there are still high levels of crossings. if you go to the crossing at texas, and if you are a landowner you don't feel secure. successive administrations have done a poor job of gathering

administration. obama came to office established effectiveness was operation and control. this was largely based on the patrol. of border it measured capacity to respond effectively and to encourage them at different places along the border. it was a problematic measure for many reasons, partly because it relied on those subjective judgments. there are still very remote parts of the border where you see agents.

they came out with a report that 44%, and that became a ightmare statistic. they decided to stop using operational control methods. i supported that decision. i thought it was a good idea. their effort to find a replacement was badly missing. it was designed to throw together real estate values along with traditional come upent metrics and with an index. it never saw the light of day. the result was the administration didn't have

measures to tell a story. what it fell back on was the apprehensions data. there is the number of arrests by the border patrol in any given year. there are individuals arrested multiple times. 1925.ta goes back to border patrol has been taking fingerprints. we know there is recidivism. is very goodion but hard to interpret. if they are making more arrests, is that a measure of enforcement? is moreeople side it logical to read it the other enforcements that is better because fewer people are trying. they may not be coming for

economic reasons. they may also be deterred by enforcement. they are down dramatically. if you go back to 2000 over 1.6 million apprehension at the border. that fell after 9/11, rose again and fell in 2011. that was the lowest number since 1971. that has been a good news story that suggests the border is under more control than in decades. --t small novel of entries number of entries allowed them to get a lot tougher. the problem for the administration is that it darted to pick back up. the economy has gotten stronger. most of that is central americans coming through the

texas corridor, but it makes it harder to tell the story of progress they want to tell. what we arguede, for is that this administration and future administrations should be gathering a larger range of data. what's the apprehension rate at the ports of entry? people tried to get to the legal ports as well. what is the number of visa overstays? thethis should be part of report. there are challenges. it definitely could be done. there's a pretty good model for how to do this. the border security result was passed last year. bill sets out achievable goals for border security and lays out how the administration should assess and evaluate

progress to those goals. just in case anyone thinks it's impossible to find a consensus, that bill passed the homeland security committee in the house unanimously. every democrat. every republican on the committee voted in favor of that bill. cane is an approach we agree on. >> thanks very much. [applause] >> hello, everyone. thank you for being here. these guys have done such a good job of talking about the numbers. i'm going to talk a little bit about the political ramifications of the debate. the first thing to understand about this debate is you have one side saying we are not doing enough to enforce. the other side saying we are doing too much. it's the reason the debate can get resolved -- can't get

resolved. i think of it as a riptide. in some ways the administration has gotten tougher. in some ways the obama administration has decided to use discretion. to tell which of the crosscurrents is what they are reading. on the one hand there is a big spending buildup. hand there has been a culling off of workplace raids and calling off of the porting workers caught in raids and an important move for indiscriminate harassment to a much more targeted approach we have been hearing about. --me the most important there's this tightening, this loosening. what am i seeing? what's the result of that data? most important change is a change my predecessors have talked about, the change on the

from informal sending people back on the bus to apprehending people, fingerprinting them, putting them in the system, making it a formal offense so the next time they come -- this is the important thing. if you get caught the first time you get the same consequence but because you were sent back in a different way when you try the it looks much more and you are committing a real crime and the consequences play out the way they are playing out. the ultimate point is there is more deterrent and the border is secure. we want a system where there are ample legal ways to come and go but it's difficult to come in illegally. all these changes --

that's one of the consequences we are seeing. andnt to take a minute speak in defense of enforcement. is a longtimeo immigration advocate and spend more than a decade working to advance immigration reform, i'm also somebody who really and effectiveg enforcement is necessary. i think it's maybe worth explaining my reason. we live in a globalized world where workers and families are coming and going. mexicans work in the u.s. silicon valley would never have happened without immigrant. people talk about a day without a mexican -- without a mexican. the economy would come to a screeching halt, but the point is the american people are not going to support that kind of coming and going, no matter how

good it is for us in other ways unless there are rules. control,ople feel in and unless they feel the people are people we decided to let come in. we are not going to support immigration unless there is a system with integrity, and that means rules. good rules are the foundation of a good system. today we are living with dad rules. we are living with the consequences of a decade of bad rules. today we are living in an era where the rules are unrealistic and enforcement seems almost evil because we have these bad rules. to be aiming for a day when we have good rules and meaningful enforcement. even in a climate like today you can't ask people to say a total is ok.g of the rules

reasonable people can disagree about where the lines are, where the discretion should the. should he decide to target criminals or should he try to arrest everyone? there are republicans who say there should be no discretion. we should be doing everything. i think that's an unreasonable position. of course the government is going to allocate resources. i think more effective border control is a much more effective use of resources. i also think there are murky situations where one side can that's uncomfortable and the other can say that it's acceptable. i think there are some circumstances -- it seems to me most of the american public the violenthe porting felons -- there are not many people who think that's a mistake. the situation on the border is important because once you have

done something once, you have been sent back, and you do it again, most people think that's unacceptable. it's one thing to cross once but to make it a way of life to flout the law, a lot of people say no. looking the other way doesn't really pass. bottom line, if you think immigration is good for america and you want america to remain a nation of immigrants you have to believe in enforcement. i want to step back and talk about political ramifications in congress of these ideas i am talking about. giving obama a enough credit for what i am saying in some ways is good improvement on the border? simon says no, they are not getting enough credit. they are doing better on the border. why can't they recognize that? i would like to put it in context. there is a difference between

having priorities and making allocations of resources. that is one thing, having an allocation of resources. it's another to say the law doesn't matter, i'm going to do what i want to do. just taking the law in his own hand and doing what he wants. we are seeing this not in ofigration but in lots areas. republicans call it executive overreach. they see a pattern of it, and it's not just about immigration. it's obamacare and labor and the epa and drug sentencing. they have a whole laundry list. issues mr. cantor has 33 . the point is, and it's something where senator rubio was proposing something much like

what the president did and instead of going to resident rubio -- senator rubio the unilaterally.it this is infuriating for congressional republicans and i think in some ways justifiably so. to be here, but this is where i disagree. i don't buy that obama's record is really good and the problem is republicans don't appreciate it. i think there is some complexity to that. even if i liked the outcome of the memo focusing on interior enforcement and criminals, that doesn't make obama trustworthy. make him a trustworthy, appealing partner. case anyonelear in has any doubt, the road to a permanent fix on immigration runs through congress. no fix that doesn't

include legislation. obama can't do it alone. he can't do a real reform fix alone. action,her unilateral it's going to be a kiss of death for getting bipartisan action. passing legislation in a republican-controlled house will be the kiss of death for the next two years as well. if obama acts alone on immigration it's over. you have to try to see this from the republican point of view for a few seconds. they see this as a trade. they see they are going to accept legalization of some kind and get enforcement, but if they feel they aren't really going to get enforcement, then they aren't going to want to give up what they don't want to do and i suppose you can say, and maybe simon will say -- you could say republicans don't look like they are going to act anyway. the president just

act? i believe they are getting closer. i think republican leadership wants to act. i think more republicans understand we need to act. ishink the question really when and not if, not pressuring the government to do things that are going to get in the way of an eventual legislative fix. term we ought to keep our eyes on the prize. [applause] are going to take a quick 92nd intermission and move the 92nd -- 90 second intermission and move the chairs around a little bit. i want to remind people you are not only on c-span but on our internet feed forever. make sure you do it really well and pithy.

give us about 90 seconds. we will be back with you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> i'm using my mic. do you want to use yours? before we go, i want to thank, for putting this event together and andrea who is here today. she has been an amazing intern for a year a