combustible products. you have more of those individuals who need to quit or gone to a reduced-harm product. t me say for the record, c.v.s. still sells nicorette gum, probably all of the products that aid in eliminating or reducing the rate of smoking. it's not like they threw out the whole category. the retailer that reduced a large amount of sales, they still believe that risk reduction is an important thing for them to endorse, would you agree? >> i would answer it in this way, senator, the products that you are referring to have been approved by f.d.a. as safe and effective medications and have been on the market for over 30 years. there is a robust evidence base

to know those products work to help smokers stop smoking. they are actually not approved for reduction. they are only approved for abrupt cessation. but there is a robust evidence base that when marketed to help smokers quit and when used properly, people can succeed. by contrast, to go to the questions from senator alexander about what you know and what you don't know when it comes to e cigarettes there is a whole lot to know. >> i agree with you totally. can you point to any new innovation where we know right at the beginning everything about it and that we could come to an assessment. i'm hopeful through your studies you find this product as safe. we don't want an unsafe product out there that contributes to a different problem. ut if you find that it's safe,

are we going to say the same thing about e-cigarettes 10 years from now. gee, the body of evidence did a tremendous thing. isn't that a good thing? >> if we are going to regulate them as tobacco products, we have to find that the claims, the new products are appropriate for the protection of the public health. it's not the safety and efficacy standard. and under the standard of properties for public health, it's that mix that we were describing that we have to assess and make regulatory assessments. >> i look forward to the science that is produced on this. i just caution you and our iends at c.d.c. that if we kill technology and innovation, which is in essence what some

are attempting to do with electronic cigarettes, just stop it, no more, shouldn't be sold, then innovation isn't going to play a role in reducing the amount of americans that smoke. it's just not. and i think it's safe to say when i look at diabetes and we look at other things that we would consider a public health epidemic. innovation is going to give us the ability to do it. whether they can go to mcdonald eye and buy a double cheese berger. it's going to be innovation and driving technology and coming out with products that allow us to turn around the problem they've got. i think that's what we are talking about here and i look forward to the work you're doing. >> our discussion is how should the government regulate e-cigarettes. our guess is a tobacco reporter for the associated press.

is congress trying to play catch-up and likely to propose any sort of regulations ahead of the f.d.a.'s guidance? >> there are several proposed legislative remedies to address some of the concerns that have been raised in these senate hearings so far. but as zeller put it, the f.d.a. was give quen a framework to work with within in order to regulate these types of products and have to meet a certain standard in order to make a scientific-based regulatory rule. and that's what they are working with. >> few more minutes for phone calls. let's go to tennessee. patricia. >> i just have a few comments to make. number one, i'm nearly 35 years old and was a smoker for over 20

years. i tried numerous things with no avail. went to e-cigarettes and within two weeks i was able to convert completely and it was over a year. a few comments i did have. a lot of people have the perception that smoke, it's vapor, it's this and that, same stuff they used to create smoke. it looks like smoke and automatically discriminated against and until they get the facts what it does to people and i don't know why they are legislating against it. >> florida. >> what's going on? >> what's going on with you? how do you think the e-cigarette industry should be regulated? >> i think it needs to be regulated, particularly in regards to it being in possession of minors. that being said, i as a registered democrat and being

young, i found it surprising about how the senators went about the discussion on -- they em to be an unawareness or sinagain youness of how they unstood media advertising and how kids had access to advertising. there aren't any safeguards in regards to younger people getting access to those forms of media. you don't have to be a teen to make a facebook profile. and unless a parent is in control, there are tv settings and you have access to all these channels which are going to show these advertisements. i found it odd when senator klobuchar made the comparison and her daughters and friends of r daughters being in their

twitter. that is an indictment of young kids having access to the ads. and seems they wanted the e-cigarette companies to do know advertising so that no young people could see them or somehow manage to change advertising entirely and pinpoint adults versus young people. >> and michael, will the f.d.a. be the only government entity that deals with the issue of advertising, in terms of advertising e-cigarettes to minors or whatever? >> at this point, the f.d.a. is the regulatory agency that is taking a look at electronic cigarettes. one of the legislative efforts would give the federal trade commission some power to look at the marketing of e-cigarettes and determine whether those

levers need to be pulled in one direction or another. but at this point, yes, the f.d.a. is the regulatory agency that will determine how the products would be regulated and how they would be marketed. >> one more quick call. doug, you get the last word here. >> it just seems to me that since we are trying to get teenagers out of the marketplace for this product, make it a prescription product. the person wanting to get off cigarettes would be under the care of a physician who could prescribe the delivery system. and no longer be in the advertisement arena. >> michael, i believe you covered that a bit early. one quick question.

for you. c.v.s. said they will not carry tobacco products anymore. what about e-cigarettes? >> i believe and i can't say for certain but i believe in that discussion c.v.s. did say that would extend to electronic cigarettes as well. for that reason that they are not approved by f.d.a. for safety and efficacy for smoking cessation. >> joining us from richmond is michael felberbaum, who's covering the tobacco industry based in richmond since 20005. we appreciate you joining and speaking with our c-span viewers this evening. >> thank you for having me. >> thank you for your calls and comments on how the government should regulate

x a look at consumer drones and what they do in our society. and book tv looks at three best sellers this year. on c-span3's american history tv, various that u.s. foreign-policy including totalitarianism, al qaeda, and the rwandan genocide. donald verrilli discusses his role next as the government's top lawyer including his relationship with members of the president's cabinet. casesciding how to argue from the supreme court, elena kagan served as solicitor general.

[applause] >> diane, if i recall, that was a lot longer than the introductions frank used to give me. [laughter] it is such a pleasure to be here. dinners ate these the worst time of year, i have to say. but i wouldn't miss them. thank you for inviting me once again. the word back on washington, she is already doing an awesome job. not that everybody doesn't miss frankie and the extraordinary service that frankie did for so many years.

think you again for that, frank. again for that, frank. diane, or taking over this responsibility and doing everything you are doing. i start thinking about this event and what am i going to talk about? you guys always invite such great people. my favorite people. i say, that's ok, i will introduce don. i think i will introduce the chief justice or i will introduce justice stevens or whoever. and that is my task tonight. and it is really a pleasure. there is no lawyer that i respect more than don. it is great to be able to share a little bit with you tonight about why that is so.

ask, it iseople actually impossible to see your notes appear. -- up here. is there a light? [laughter] i hope you have your speech committed to memory, don. [laughter] people ask me, do you miss being solicitor general? [laughter] great, we are back in the 17th century. do you miss being solicitor general? are you kidding? did you see what we did to general verrilli last month? which is sort of true, i have to say. there asre up

solicitor general, it's happened to me and it happened to don. you get treated a little bit like a punching bag. or a pincushion. pick your metaphor. sometimes it does not feel all that good. know the high point, the low point of this. the health care case. everyone knows about the health care case. don had a little bit of a coughing episode. people are afraid to laugh. went a it actually little bit downhill from there. not because of anything don did, like, were we, tough that day. question.ion after i think it was an hour that day.

get int think we let him more than two sentences in a row. just bombarding him with questions. now on my side of the bench, you andthere and you look at it it is a bad job you got there. i am really glad i'm not doing that anymore. it is true. that is what i used to tell myself when i was solicitor general. i used to tell myself is a lot because truth he told, the chief justice has eased up a little bit in the transition between me and don. general argues the

most important cases, the cases where they are often the fiercest views, the fiercest disputes. he wanted really, for a reason. a list of all the cases the don has argued, i was looking at them on the plan. that hevery case possibly could of one. was no way i cut -- thought he could've one.

won. and that's saying a tremendous amount. whether it is in his oral arguments or his brief, he always figures out how to present the argument that if the government can win, those are the arguments going to get to a win for the government. that is an extraordinary thing looking over that list of cases and thinking he won everyone where it is possible. the reason i am saying we give him a little bit of a hard time is that he disputes matter. there andhat he is up if you don't give him a hard

time, he is going to make some headway. so you better give him a hard time before he starts making that headway. maybe some of the justices don't quite want them to make. timee known don for a long . not a long, long time. but i know him better than any of the other justices. in the obamaether administration in the department of justice. the last time i really missed on was when don was vetting me for the solicitor general position. see, too washington to leave my whole life there. he is sort of exploring any problems you might have and any difficult issues that you might face. and having been through this a number of times, one is not

guaranteed to love one's better. in fact, sort of the opposite. treated him with such diplomacy, such tax, such skill. he didas not much that not learn about me that i feel often uncomfortable talking to him. [laughter] i am having a conversation and he's thinking about what i did when i was 13 years old or something. that is how i first got to know don. i arrived at the justice department, don was already there. he had been there for a few months. himself did not get a hoity-toity job off the bat. my clerk showed me a newspaper said, theyt he

would've taken any job including sweeping the doors to work at the department of justice. that is pretty much what they gave him. deputy toassistant the assistant deputy attorney general or something like that. but don took that job which was the kind of lawyer don was or the kind of reputation he had that was glowing. andwalk around washington it is like everybody's favorite lawyer and everybody's favorite. they took this job that was really not all that much of a job because he thought he wanted to go in the public service. i used to think about, lawyers that were great

role models for students and why they are great role models for manages. people who their whole professional lives a combinedareers, private lawyering with public service, to always have a sense no matter where they are, that there is a way to give back and certainly that was true of don. when he was there for many years, he did it every year like clockwork. more of his hours were pro bono hours. he did these extraordinary death penalty cases, some of which took more than a decade to complete that were emotionally draining, i'm sure. in ways that i can't even imagine. and he decided after however many years that it was time to devote himself full-time to public service and he didn't really care whether he was going to be sweeping the floors.

it was time to do that so he went to the department of this sorte came in in of junior role and when i walked into the department of justice, it was three or four months later. he had become the department wise man. everybody in the department of justice. if you have problems, you have a substantive lawyering problem. if you had a personnel problem, that you can't stand the fact that the fifth floor is trouncing the third-floor kind of problem. just found their way to don burley's office. of layingt psychologist to the entire department of justice. and sort of playing legal advisor to the entire department of justice. that people would go to him and say i have this really hard

problem, how do i do it? in addition to being an extraordinary lawyer, he has these incredible personal skills and is an incredible problem solver. and he has this a little -- sort of total professionalism and integrity that the best lawyers have. i see that all the time. and i got toit know the folks pretty well. i still talk to them. and i hear what is going on in the solicitor general's office. i am sometimes a little bit in the us. everyone talks about don like what he wasver seen like.

what was i? chopped liver? the way people feel about don is such a testament to what leadership can be. and then in the court, we see not only month in and month out, but thisic lawyer, consummate professionalism and integrity. i will just tell you one small story. don argued a case called clapper versus somebody or other. probably clapper versus the aclu. case where the wireless surveillance program is being challenged by the aclu. people who could not say that they themselves had been tapped. the government was arguing they had no standing to bring the suit. this is an argument that don

was not allowing him to speak in interjecting lots of questions. in the course of arguments, don that if aourt criminal prosecutors and was brought against the person as a result but evidence coming from a tap, that person would be notified and that her son would be able to challenge the program so it would be challenge a bowl by somebody. and it turned out months afterward that notwithstanding, don had vetted his briefs and arguments with all the right people. and the national security divisions had not been doing that. campaignon a one-man to ensure that this would change.

don did of the reason this is he thought it was a substantively right result. i'm sure part of the reason is that he told the court something . and he was going to make it true. even though there had been a little bit of a snafu in the offices. that we allu noticed that and we all appreciated that kind of seriousness with which you take your job and you take what you say at the podium to us. your professionalism, integrity, and amazing lawyering. don, i guess you are finished for the year. donna sort of carefree and having a vacation. i want to say that i look

forward to kicking you around next year again. [laughter] [applause] >> wow. thank you very much, for that unforgettable and amazing introduction. which was a good deal longer than my remarks. [laughter] especially because justice kagan is quite right. you can't see a thing appear. you've got to stumble through it. judicial circuit and members of the association, i am really honored to be here with you. a special treat for me to be in chicago. i got to see a number of great friends here tonight.

this was the city i deeply love. it is a happy day for me to be here. what i'm going to do tonight is just talk for a few minutes and i would like to see if we could have something approaching a conversation and have the questions and answers for a good chunk of the time we have this evening. and my experience, that tends to be more interesting and fun for you and for me. the job of the solicitor general is to represent the united states. that is really an awesome thing. we phyla brief on behalf of the united states. i stand up at the podium and get the veggies he -- get the bejesus beaten out of me.m

it is quite straightforward. i do what most all of you do. i come up with arguments, i think about strategies. and that is the work of the solicitor general doing that. we'll just take a minute and talk about what our office does. it is amazing when you think about it. we have 21 lawyers, 16 assistance, four deputies, an sg, four young fellows with us for the year. we accomplish for the year. it we brief and argue 25 cases as parties, sometimes 30. argue 25-30 cases a year as amicus. we will phyla 10 to 15 served petitions a year. 500-600 briefs to serve a year. and by law, the sg has to approve every appeal united takes -- the united states

takes. we've got to go through a process of approving those appeals and that is a serious process. that is an amazing amount of work that the small number of lawyers does every year. they are probably going to say we are fakers compared to his office when it was the golden age and giant strode the earth. [laughter] lawyer was responsible for the total i just described. be that as it may, i do think that i would like to brag on the office because you think about it this way. our budget is about $10 million to $11 million a year. you know how much litigation you get for that. forcontrasting litigation 10 million to $11 million a year

is quite an amazing aim. it is a lot of work for those lawyers to get all that done. that is actually the easy part. by far, the harder part is figuring out what the position of the united states should be. and it is really an interesting thing to contemplate the cousin the relationship between the solicitor general and the clients is really quite different from the normal attorney-client relationship. i was in private practice for many years. i would come up with arguments, strategies, here is how we should approach this case. he is a, cause emission and will destroy the case. if the client said, i hear you, but we are making arguments h c,

unless you thought it was unethical, you did it. the client made the decision about what it would be in that they are pretty much the opposite. general, theitor client is but an abstraction. we went on spouse of highfalutin solicitorbout how the general's sole job is to apply his vetoes and rarefied the ambience of his experience and judgment. the part about the client being in extraction is completely wrong. i can tell you that on the basis of the many angry phone calls. officials are unhappy.

they think of themselves as clients. is, they of the matter are not in charge. they will make a decision as to what the position of the united states will be even if it means ofrwriting the interest cabinet departments or agencies. for example, if the epa were to and havegnificant case it struck down, we would be very insistent we would take the case to the supreme court. can say, we are not going to take that case to the supreme court. it might more and to review in an appropriate case.

present a terrible scenario. upwe were to take the case on this set of facts and lose the point of law, it matters to us. your agencyjust be that suffers but the entire executive branch that suffers. epa may not be the client, it is the interest of the united states. you tot not surprise learn that the executive branch is quite a behemoth and there are lots of different institutional views about what the position of the united states ought to be.

there are some structural tensions or differences in perspective that are kind of baked into the system. the copyright office tends to think most of the time that it is a position of the robust reading of copyright law. they will worry about if that will inhibit innovation. think, to hear claims of a violation of human rights that they are worried about that day. it is a different perspective and the job is to resolve those kinds of conflicts and come up with the position of the united

states. the one thing i have learned in the course of my time in the , thenment is that process transparent process is actually to resolving those kinds of conflicts and coming up with the best judgment about what the position of the united states is. i learned that justice kagan about six i arrived days after president obama was inaugurated, five days too late to avoid the hot potato which had been passed from one to another of people that got there before me. he hot potato was to figure out what the administration ought to do about the use of the state egrets privilege in litigation. there had been criticism of presidentuses and the and the attorney general wanted a new policy. figuring out with

what that new policy ought to be. finishing 20 plus years of experience i knew i would handle this in an efficient and effective private sector manner. a policy, hammer it out in four weeks. it would be great and we disseminated the executive branch. we hammered out the policy and it was beautiful. and there was a thermonuclear explosion. the other 60 or 70 people on the executive branch had an important stake in to what the policy would be had not been consulted. -- we had a much more laborious and thorough process that took months. but it produced a much better

product and it produced a product that had all that by an. it was a lesson that has served me really well. we understand that kind of thorough process. , they think explain the process is fair. once in a blue moon, that happens but most of the time, it doesn't, of course. you go through that process and what you end up with is conflicting views about what the government's position on to be.

as solicitor general, you have to make a judgment about what the position of the united states is going to be. you have to think about how you're going to make that judgment. what standards do you apply and what criteria do you apply? that is where it gets interesting and really challenging. one way to figure out how to make that judgment is to say, you approach it as though you were a judge. i think thede what best view of the law is and we will advocate what i think the best you of the law is. you can think about it differently. i am appointed the commission -- either one of those ways captures the way of the approach. the question of how to figure

what the united states is going to be. judgment where the function is different. maybe the general counsel of the hhs, your function is quite different and there is an even those that traces back a very long time.

and what that really means is what we do is try to defend the interests of the government in doing the things that the government does, forcing the criminal laws, defending the output of administrative agencies, shielding federal officials. we have taken that very seriously. that is the way you try to make your judgments. that is not to say there is no inm for legal policy choice the job of sg. . what the exact percentages but maybe 85% or 90% of the time, the position the

united states takes wouldn't be any different from one president to the next. is 10% or soif it over those judgments might be different. people fight about is thetly where the border is, case in which there ought not be different in legal policy judgment. there is one other thing that has kind of come home to me during my time. taking about what the position of the united states ought to be. it has become clear to me that the one thing you want to do is to perform something of a self

policing function for the executive branch, particularly in cases where you can anticipate that the court is going to be particularly differential to the views of the executive branch. i think it is fair to say the members of the court are going to feel reluctant to second-guess judgments about national security that are made by and advocated by the executive branch. i will use the historical -- an example that comes out of the cases which are well known, not exactly high point in the judicial history. it's come to light in recent years that at the time those , they werelitigated

considering the question of whether or not the internment of massive numbers of japanese american citizens could be justified under the constitution , that a secret study had been done by the office of naval intelligence which it concluded the vast majority of those being detained were being detained without any justification. i had come to the conclusion that there was a very small number of enemy sympathizers and thehe ranks intelligence authorities knew who they were. they had most of them. they said it was a justification for detaining all these people, the concern that they were sending radio messages to japanese ships that were off the pacific coast. , j edgar hoover's fbi and the federal communications commission came

to the conclusion that it never happened. it didn't happen at all. warriors knew all this information when they litigated these cases before the court. there was debate about what to ,o about this information whether to alter the position of the united states or not. they chose not to disclose it way, the pressure they must have faced, incredibly significant time for the country . i'm quite sure the leaders of the military were pressing hard for the continuation of this authority. was brought to bear on lawyers and the solicitor general's office.

the reason i am looking at that is it rings home to me about why this function is so important. both are pragmatic and principled reasons. out.ituation has now come it wouldn't surprise me in the forward even though it is many decades later, the fact that this episode occurred and could influence members of the judiciary to be his deferential -- as that might otherwise have been disposed to. the rule of law is not just something that judges provide, although they do provide it, of

course. you want to think it applies to you whether or not a judge is telling you. dangers,realize the thinking i don't want to do something like that even though it is 50 or 60 years from now, long after i am gone. that it will have -- you get an idea of the fascinating and interesting job i have and i'm not trying to field questions from justice kagan and the rest of the members of the court. don't clap, let's just do questions. >> we have two wireless microphones and it is hard to see appear so if you would and.

>> just speak up. >> you mentioned what the solicitor general said. >> i can't even hear the question even with a mic. you mentioned what the solicitor general's office knew then. it seems that the united states has not taken a contrary position to the holding of cora , and even though it has been distinguished many times since then, it does not seem that the government has asked for its overruling.

the government, what had gone wrong with the aclu. when should we expect a fix on cora matsuo. i don't think that you will be surprised at what the answer from the united states will be to that. if it comes up in litigation -- anybody else out there? i really can't see a thing.

don't let the first question the attorney you. teacherirst question deter you. [laughter] please. >> thank you so much. when the united states is comprised of so many vastly communities? . even the seventh circuit is comprised of so many vastly different communities. how do you discern what the position of the united states of america would be accu? >> it is a really hard thing and best with ther organs of representative government that we have.

it is representing the will of the people. you will look for policy judgments that agencies make. you just apply your common sense. is youer thing appreciate historical circumstances in which you find yourself and you have to think being answerable to history for the judgments you make. taking about questions from that perspective, i do try to think about the effects that the decisions will make in particular cases. there is not a formula for doing it. one thing about this job, unless justice kagan they'll to pass it on to me, i don't think there is

an algorithm that tells you what the interest of the united aces were you plug in the inputs and press a button and out comes the answer. you really have to use your best judgment and a lot of things that brought to bear on that. >> it is very unusual for the united states not to defend the constitutionality of a statute. i was wondering if you can answer those questions more specifically about how your office approached the defense of marriage act? >> i can't give you great insight into that for the reason that i was actually recused from working on the case during a time in which the judgment was made about whether to defend the

defense of marriage act or not. this administration has a two-year ethics restriction that you had to agree to and i agreed to it. anythingn't work on and that judgment was made in the two-year time frame. because i was recused, i was very scrupulous about making sure i did not have any role in that. i did not have any knowledge of it and i still don't. what i can say is the judgments i had to make was, given the fact that the president and attorney general had made that judgment, what was i going to do? was a comfortable litigating on that basis?

is anybody else out there? there is one. it's like hunting. verrilli, i want to switch gears a little. justice kagan talked about your integrity. how dok and the hatred, we inspire those outside of our profession to follow in the best tradition of public service and bring those people up? the best and brightest on both sides of the aisle to do what we do is lawyers.

>> i feel a particular obligation to do it now because i do think that -- and i have encountered this one i have talked to young people, law students in particular. to take reluctance chances. taking on pro bono or public .nterest they are concerned it would be held against them. and every now and then, you actually do see and we have recently seen a situation where it has come back to bite somebody.

what i say to them is what i would say to you, that we can communicate to younger lawyers that that is exactly the wrong lesson to draw, even in this poisonous climate. maybe especially because of this poisonous climate. i am 100% morally certain that i here and be ap up having justice kagan delivering the introduction and i would not have this position had i not done the pro bono work that i did. i am 100% sure that is true. if you had in the 1980's said that michael would become solicitor general of the united states, one of the things would be representing death row inmates on an ongoing basis because that was really controversial back then. i decided it was something i wanted to do.

i did a fair amount of it. as it turned out, five of the came out of argued capital punishment or death penalty cases. a big chunk of the cases that qualify me to even be considered , it came out of that work. itn more important was that was how i learned how to be a lawyer. you go down the county courthouse and try to argue a case. you learn a lot about how to be a lawyer that way. to you learn a lot about how be a lawyer when you're on the line and it is your judgment, deciding which issues to press and which issues not to press. it is on you to carry them out. you learn an awful lot about how

to be a lawyer when you're doing that. as i said, i am quite certain i wouldn't be here. i am not making an ideological point here. are a public profession and young lawyers ought to understand that the tradition of the lawyer in this country is one that is rooted in responsibilities to the public. them to actually be .awyers on top of that, their lives will be better. that is the message i would try to communicate to young lawyers. all right, i don't see any -- >> i was wondering if you could share thoughts and reflections from oral argument before the

supreme court. particularly if there is anyone justice that you dread receiving questions from most. >> other than justice kagan? oral argument is kind of an amazing experience. justice kagan summed it up pretty well. it is not always how she described. there are some cases where it is a little bit different. one thing i noticed, i could be completely wrong in this perception, but i noticed that on patent cases -- i have argued three patent cases. i have argued three. tenor is a little different because they seem to have less of a clear sense of what they think about the right answer going into the argument. time, they seem to me to have a pretty good sense of what they think and they are

asking, really probing and hard questions, which is their job. it is what they should do. sometimes, it will be justice kagan giving me a tough time. that is their job. they should be probing for weaknesses. they should be challenging the of the united states term chart to work through what of whatications agreeing to the united states point of view would be. that is what they do. that is their job. this is a really smart group of sit on, the justices who the court, and they are incredibly well-prepared. it makes it a great challenge to argue, but it also makes it incredibly rewarding because you do feel like, win or lose, they understand what is at stake in the case. they understand what the issues are.

the case is going to be decided on the basis of the legal issues that are really there and at the heart of the case. i'm done. good. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] an hour on c-span, a look at the increasing use of consumer drones and how smartphone technology is leading to smaller and cheaper drones. at the churchill club in california, chris anderson talked about the rapid deployment of domestic drones. weekend, three follow me projects launched. it is one of these things where the drone follows you. you are biking or skiing or running or whatever, and the drone just stays back there. it keeps the camera focused on

you and gets that kind of perfect cinematic, hollywood feel. is exactlyl, that with the youtube generation wants. on another level, it's incredibly complex artificial intelligence function. it is using gps and image recognition and creatively trying to figure out what the right angle is so you can get the sun and shadows and all of the stuff that was science fiction a few years ago. weekend,just this there were three projects that launched. one of them raised half $1 million in a day. today.s just tomorrow, this mapping function we are talking about -- what kristen is doing -- construction is arguably the number two industry in the world. agriculture is number one.

this $300 helicopter can do -- it is a one button mapper. it does circles around a construction site, takes pictures, it gets sent to the cloud, and it creates this 3-d model. that model gets snapped onto the model that the engineering company was already doing. it is happening every day in an automated fashion. you are the client, right. what is going on at the construction site? you can drive or you can watch on the cloud, watcher building -- watch your building buildup. digitized, perfectly aligned. there is no bs. that is a $300 copter doing one button building mapping. >> the entire churchill club event on consumer drones is

coming up tonight on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. next, the afl-cio's richard trumka outlines the economic consequences of doing nothing on immigration. at this immigration for him, he touched on issues like wage theft by employers and what he believes is the economic and humanitarian impact of inaction by the house of representatives. the senate passed its immigration bill by a vote of 68-32 in june 2013. >> buenos dias.

it is a great honor to be with all of you. my name is hector sanchez. i'm the executive director of the labor console for latin for the advancement house of latino laborers. also, the chair of the national hispanic literature agenda. here to have a very important conversation about an action, how failure to pass immigration reform harms workers. we want to be very strategic, we want to be very concise, and we want to look at from a more holistic perspective. a lot of times, the long-term impact of anti-immigrant are having on the working class is missing from the national conversation.

this is what we want to accomplish today. on the one hand, we have all of these republican anti-immigrant pieces of legislation in a number of states all over the nation that are having a devastating impact on the quality of life in the latino community. on the other hand, we have the highest levels of deportations we've ever seen as a nation.we ask the question, what are these impacts -- what is the this policy is having on the ground, not only on the immigrant communities, but in particular, the latino community? we have a great panel. organizers.ders, let's start with president trumka to open up the discussion. president trumka is the president of the afl-cio, which has 56 nationalized unions with

12 million members. andas led the afl-cio demanding for respect for all workers. trumka grew up as -- in a small mining community. he has led the afl-cio since -- since and i'm happy 2009, and i'm happy to call them champion -- call him a champion of workers and a champion of immigration reform. [applause] [no audio] >> -- i'm glad to see a whole

lot of trade union faces in the audience this morning, as well as many of our allies and many of our friends. today marks a bittersweet moment in the fight for justice for immigrants. it's obviously bitter because after 18 months of work, the senate immigration bill languishes, deportations continue, and our immigration system remains broken. inse republicans have failed their duty to serve the national interest, and they've squandered a very historic opportunity to move our country forward. today is sweet. pablo like tom signs and alvarado and hector sanchez and i, we have become closer as we

have fought. , our veryur causes movements are inextricably connected, and i can tell you, i'm happy to go to war with allies like each one of them. i really am. fightinghat we've been is, of course, a moral one. the devastation of families, the disruption of communities. in my heart, it hurts. it hurts every time i see a family split up, every time i see a life disrupted, every time i see somebody's plans sort of erased. the deportation crisis is not america as it is supposed to be.

north america as it can be. nor america as it can be. today, i want to focus on something else. i want to focus on the economics of immigration reform. while the moral reasons are enough to fight for immigration reform, they are not the only reasons. there are so many hardheaded in everyhy it is working person's interest to ensure that each and every one of their colleagues enjoys full rights. the best way to illustrate the economics of the crisis is through how we came to this issue originally. in the 1990's, our immigration system broke under the pressure -- under pressure. employers came to realize that , iters without legal papers

helped sleazy businesses exploit low-wage workers everywhere. why? employers grew to understand that immigrants without legal protections can't complain about working conditions. if the meat plant worker said unsafe,g about, it's and the employer can threaten to get him or her deported, the , andr probably backs down everybody lives in unsafe conditions. if the worker seeks workmen's , allnsation for an injury of a sudden an employer might be able to get around the law. finde construction workers his paycheck doesn't include the

overtime that he worked that have the courage to go to the authorities to complain and risk deportation? if you are a sleazy employer choosing between equally qualified workers and one has citizenship and the right to andd up for his or herself, the other can be intimidated, who do you choose? modest academic concerns. let's take the example of wage theft. the national employment law project estimates that 68% of low-wage workers, many of them undocumented, experience pay violations. we are not talking small violations. they accumulate annually to a .oss of 15% of their income

$2600eans employers steal a year from workers who only earn about $17,000. certainlyexploitation doesn't work for workers, but it also doesn't work for the economy as a whole. stealstimates wage theft $56.4 million per week from employers -- from workers' pockets in new york city, chicago, and los angeles alone. workers need status to fight back against injustice on that scale. we will all benefit, every worker will benefit when they finally have it. how much will we benefit?

the congressional budget office has shown that economic benefits from the bipartisan senate immigration bill are so great that they would increase federal $459 billion between 2014 and 2023. $459 billion -- heck, 459 million dollars would be a lot of money, but this estimate is 1000 times that. how can we improve the lot of workers and the economy as a wholed? well, the easiest and best way the deportation crisis is for the house to call for a vote on the senate bill.

that bill would pass overwhelmingly. boehner andy, john kevin mccarthy and the republican party seem to care more about the feelings of the in party than about justice america's workplaces and communities. week, thego last senate did its part. their comprehensive bipartisan bill created a clear and achievable path to citizenship, ensuring that our economy and social fabric would not be undermined by a permanent underclass of noncitizens without full rights. the bill strengthens the protection for all workers, and it divides a new type of employment-based visa system that was tied to real labor

market needs, not the whims of year, the house the last republican leadership has embarrassed itself before history. cheapened constitutional responsibilities, and they have diminished millions of lives. especially as the clock rolled s'to 2014, republican attention to action grew more and more transparent. while the country waited for , it got gameplaying. even though republicans have failed to act, the core

principles of comprehensive immigration reform aren't going to go away. the legislation enacted by the senate last year is our guide, and we will remain steadfast in principles of its next week, next month, next year, for as long as it takes to pass a real bill that gets citizenship to our brothers and sisters. in that regard, we renew our call for the administration to exercise its authority to uphold those principles by providing immediate temporary relief and work authorization to all those who would qualify for citizenship under the bipartisan senate bill.

we have a recent test of just how immediate the benefits of affirmative relief and work authorization can be for immigrant workers. 61% of deferred action for childhood arrivals recipients surveyed said they had received a new job since adjusting their status. sadly, more than two thirds of those same newly documented people indicated that they knew someone who had been deported. the new economic opportunities for working people were administrative active -- for administrative action would be considerable. that positive energy can only be realized if the president acts

togetherd if we stand , i believect boldly the president will act boldly. that bold action, brothers and sisters, will lift our economy while making our country more up to theiving slogans that we say around the world. brothers and sisters, we have much work to do. i suggest we begin. thank you. [applause] we have an opportunity to look after the labor rights of latinos in the nature -- nation.

[indiscernible] today, latino workers are the most -- workers in the nation. we have the highest levels of debt. we have the highest levels of wage theft. latinas only make $.55 for every one dollar a man makes. for women generally -- encounter --art we and there have been incidents of sexual harassment and rate for rapeas in the workplace --

for latinas in the workplace. [indiscernible] i want to introduce our great panel today. the president and ceo of the national council -- the largest national hispanic advocacy organization in the united states. she has harnessed the power of the nation's 50 million hispanics by strengthening the partnership -- have tom signs. he is the president of the council --nsel -- [indiscernible]

the executive director of the national labor organizing network. she works to unify and strengthen each member of the organization to be more effective in their efforts to lead and mobilize. that, i would like to start with one question for the panelists. from the perspective of latino , we have seen the impact inaction onlicans' immigration reform -- how has that affected latinos? >> thank you. good morning, everyone. i feel very privileged to be up here now. this panel has a number of wonderful leaders who have not

only been leaders for us in the latino community, but also on the immigration reform movement. i want to give a special thanks to richard trumka, our host. i really appreciate the leadership you have demonstrated on behalf of the afl-cio, are really social justice -- but really social justice. have all come together today at such an important time. i feel very privileged to be here. impact,lates to the rich put it in terms of how we can see the impact on three levels. it's an economic impact, it's a social impact, and i think what we will talk about today is also the political impact. the failure of the house republicans contact after a year the senate passed its bill, after many, many weeks when if

they didn't like the senate bill they could have passed their own bill, if they didn't like one bill, they could have passed several bills -- they made no effort and sat on their hands and did nothing. is impact of doing nothing in or miss. the economic impact is lost wages, lost salaries, and the exploitation of workers. we also are seeing an overall loss of revenue to our gross domestic product. we know -- we have the statistics to demonstrate it -- that passing immigration reform would actually add -- boost our economy and reduce our deficits by nearly $1 trillion. ofsee that kind of failure leadership and inaction, when we know that the country first and foremost would benefit tremendously from an economic

standpoint, is inexcusable. the human and social cost for the failure to act and the impact of that is seen directly in particular in the latino community but on workers in general. for us, it is families. is thatsee happening many of our families are still being torn up out. children are being separated from their parents. in turn, there are costs in those communities when we see that happening. the pain and suffering that we havethe fear that we still , for someone who has been everydaying in their bulletin board, making sure that they are contributing and living , excepteir potential for the failure to have the documentation -- for us to see that these people are still living in fear and in the shadows and formal -- and

vulnerable, it's also inexcusable. that has been the human and social impact we see still today. i guess i would just say on the political impact, it's one that the republicans underestimate in the minds of latino voters. what we see happening is the republicans are liberally turning their backs on not just our community but on moving our nation forward, when we know that it is within their grasp, it is within their hands to create a permanent solution. they have closed the door to that. they've said they aren't going to take up immigration reform. that is such a lack of responsibility that is astonishing to think about. for us as voters, we have been marking and keeping track with the leadership of these folks. where we asrt cards

latino organizations have been keeping check of who votes for what that we believe is a benefit to our community, particularly as it relates to immigration. one of the last clear votes that republicans in the house have toen was to replay it -- repeal the deferred action for arrivals for children. that is the last on record vote that they have. that is what they want to take them into the midterms and i guess into the 2016 election. why? it is fair to say here today that there will be political consequences for that failure and in action. ,or us and the latino community the republicans may have given up on a permanent solution. we will never give up on a permanent solution. what i heard from richard trumka

is that the flc iowa never give up on a permanent solution. we are going to continue to fight for a permanent solution to this, and in the meantime, we will make sure that everyone votes. the accountability should live directly the feet of the house republicans and speaker boehner. it is within their power to move something forward on immigration reform. they have utterly failed to do so. that will be remembered for a long time in the minds of latino voters. [applause] >> to answer your question, the impacts we have heard already stated. the devastating impact of this in action on communities, the economy, on our families -- beyond that, i would say much more about this nation. are those-- and there

who would attribute this inaction to another example of partisan congressional gridlock. we need to recognize that inaction on this issue in particular is of a different kind. what is at stake is the very soul and humanity of our nation. is a mark ono act the success of our nation that draws away from our reputation around the world and that undercuts the very principles upon which this country was .ounded this is not another instance of gridlock. this is the defining issue of injustice of our day. our nation has made great progress on other issues, notably, for example, the issue of marriage equality, but we have not, in over a decade, made

any progress on this critical issue. history will judge our nation reacts leaders and how we . will we demonstrate a belief in the abiding, unifying, and prevailing nature of our principles and values, or will we continue to betray those principles and values? peoplection comes from , some of whom have built their careers around the notion of colorblindness, yet they continue to support through ther inaction discriminating against immigrants, primarily from mexico, but from other countries in latin america and asia.

because you are for mexico, you will wait 20 years to immigrate legally, while those from other countries will wait fewer years. can you imagine leaders accepting that in another context? can you imagine leaders accepting a university, public , saying to applicants, we've already admitted enough of people from your background, so you will wait 20 years to be admitted to this university? it would not last one minute. we have had the system for decades. lead.s have failed to we have leaders who have built their political careers around a bedrock devotion to family values, but those leaders are as family be seen upon family is devastated and torn apart daily by our broken immigration system.

we have leaders who have argued in election after election that they believe in the power of entrepreneurialism, but these same leaders have failed to in theze the value spirit of those who at great personal danger and cost, even date -- even children, traveled great distances to come to this country to build a better future for themselves and their families. these believers in havepreneurialism demonized, politicized, and characterized children who have engaged in that entrepreneurial endeavor. this is no question that inaction is an assault on our values as a nation, and our very soul and humanity is at stake.

more than that, there is an urgency that you have already heard. we must act now. dailyvastation occurs from our broken immigration system. deportations continue at record paces, tearing apart families and communities across the country. nearly 51 years ago, martin inher king jr. gave a speech the march on washington. certain parts on of that speech, but i want to focus on one not in the record. dr. king at the time was facing those who would argue for a slower, more deliberate approach to solving the defining issue of civil rights for african american. he warned us of 51 years ago to reject what he called the

tranquilizing -- [indiscernible] that is where we are today. the urgency is now. we need bold leadership. toneed aggressive action ensure that our principles as a nation are vindicated through adjustzing the needs to -- address the justice. -- the injustice. [applause] >> buenos dias. thank you, president trumka for having us today. the board ofognize directors of my organization. i was thinking about how broken

the immigration system is, but i think it's conventionalism that it's not just broken -- conventional wisdom that it's not just broken but it's really in just -- unjust. it is unjust because it denies immigrants so much they deserve. and then these images of kids , and i to my head couldn't stop thinking about it. i'm from a small village. are five people in detention from that village, including a cousin of mine right now. there was also a minor detained

in arizona from my same village. as i listen to the president's speech yesterday, i think that this is not -- this is actually for us to show our moral courage. it is simply on acceptable what is happening with these children. if we want to do good and advocate for workers rights, if we want to do good for people, if we want to do good for civil , wets, if we want to doballot r must do good, we must do the right thing for the children. immigration, this debate has been so polluted with hatred, to the point that in

this city this debate hasalmost. that has to change. --se children [indiscernible] a significant part of the society has become desensitized to their suffering. it is time to demonstrate our moral outrage. the problem is that yes, the status quo is causing a lot of harm. is covered a lot of suffering, a lot of hardship. there is a group of vigilante politicians in congress that are holding the legalization of

people hostage. we have an unprecedented national security apparatus, well-funded. $18 billion. we have an incredible deportation machine that is enforcing unjust laws. that is the result of inaction. the reality is that my organization has been fighting for immigrant communities. pressure the to president, and we haven't been able to pressure him. hope.is still in thesece do we have circumstances? we have taken this battle to courts. we have taken this battle to state capitals, the city halls.

[indiscernible] many jurisdictions are saying, we are not going to detain people just because we suspect they are undocumented. the fight -- the tide is also turning. i think people will also continue to take this battle everywhere. example, its, for example of how we can fight back. it has opened the doors for many families. every time there is a jurisdiction that says, not one more unjust deportation, we're achieving the goal.

[indiscernible] we suspect these fights at the local level will expand. we want to make sure that there is justice. [applause] >> all of the speakers before me how really made clear failure to act by the republican has had a devastating effect on our communities. , being split up, not just being split up, but living in fear every day of being split up, not knowing if your loved one will come home at the end of the day. all of those things happening to

families. they are just immigrant families. -- aren't just immigrant families. every day a worker gets cheated out of a wage, every worker set her's. that is part of the cost of delay. when workers are injured or killed on the job, and there are 150 of them dying every day from injuries or occupational diseases, they are more likely to be from latino community. they are more likely to be somebody who doesn't have the ability to stand up and call out those unsafe conditions. sometimes rise against each other. sometimes racism, anti-immigrant .eelings get carried away

less healthy, less productive. and mentioned earlier, speakers before me mentioned, our economy suffers when workers are cheated out of wages. they can spend. think about those workers i talked about, $70,000 a year, and they get -- $17,000 a year, of they get cheated out $2600. that hurts every american. the failure to act has been devastating indeed. it presents challenges to those workers who are out there in the community, yet every time we see them -- [indiscernible] see oppressionwe step up, we also see -- somebody

be creative. we see courageous campaigns coming from communities and workers who really have the most to lose by their actions. we see the cone of the positivet has happened besides the devastation is that we are seeing leadership emerge. you are going to see some courageous people stand up and speak for better country. they fight for rights not just for undocumented workers, but they are fighting for work -- for rights for every worker out there, and that leadership has been bold and creative. the new tactics that they are doing, figuring out ways to get around@ç the traps that has been set for them.

the other byproduct, it's built partnerships that will never, ever be broken again. the people right up here on this , we've bondedw together in this fight. we will never be divided or separated again. while there has been much there have been a few rays of sunshine, and that new leadership that has bubbled up as one of those rays of sunshine. the new partnerships that have been forged and bonded together is another ray of sunshine. me, it hasyou, for been one of the most inspiring times in my life.

what we are able to do now, all of us coming together, the entire progressive community coming together to fight for fairness and justice -- [indiscernible] i seem to have a devastating effect on this microphone. [laughter] thanks toted to say these people here, and to all of our other brothers and sisters that rise up every day and fight against injustice, common men and women who are never going to articles written about them, but every single day, they are fighting to make this country a little bit better, a little more and ia little more just, just think it's an honor for us to be able to be with you. [applause]

>> it has been a longtime, and --e question i have for you [indiscernible] what are the next steps we've got to make to fix our broken immigration system? is there anything that makes you hopeful? >> thanks, hector. we have always had a three-pronged strategy, legislative, administrative -- i think it is time for us to lean into those strategies. it is for that the house isublican leadership refusing to act on any sort of legislative reform.

gives the president every opportunity to intervene and stefan -- step in and create administrative relief. fact that he the has authority to do something, and we are going to encourage him and call on him to be bold, to make sure that through this administrative authority that he has, well within the legal authority laid out, that he uses that authority to provide, albeit temporary, but relief for many who right now are in the shadows and are suffering and fearful of being separated from their families. we want very much for the president to build on deferred action for childhood arrival

programs and look at the parents of these children and understand that we have seen deportations to 2aggering levels, up million individuals deported, and within that, we've seen more -- 277,000 parents of u.s. children that have been deported since 2020. we believe the president has an opportunity right now, because of the failure of the republicans to act, to step up and intervene and make sure that we can end this separation of of the end the suffering children who are being torn from their parents, and to do the right thing economically by this country and make sure that we are taking advantage of these individuals who are working and contributing to this economy. see a very important

step for the president to be very bold and to build on the daca program, and to really make sure we are doing everything we to grant this kind of relief at this particular moment, building on the daca preogogram. that was something we saw supported by the vast majority of them are in public that vastdes republicans -- majority of the american public, that includes republicans. the other prong of our strategy is to pursue an electoral strategy. we need to make sure our communities, voters, that they're able to register and to go to the polls, and we mobilize of them to the polls. it is important to weigh in as a community and hold these elected officials accountable. that becomes another theme --

[applause] accountability and without us exercising our own aren't going to be able to achieve our full potential. for us, it is really making sure that we are pursuing a strong and bold administrative action and encouraging the president and calling on the president to act within his legal authority to build on the daca program and to look at the scope of individuals who would have qualified under the senate bill and think about how he can get as many of those individuals with some administrative, temporary relief. in our community, we need to make sure that all of us understand we have a responsibility to weigh in and make sure we are part of this process, this democratic process. we need to make sure that we are registering to vote, that we are educated, and that on election

day, we are voting and holding these elected officials accountable. that is our strategy. [applause] what made me hopeful is that house leadership does not reflect this country. it is absolutely clear that action on this critical issue, they are capitulating to a thin slice of americans better feel democraticfearful of -- a demographic change. they feel exploited by others. the truth is that this country as a wide majority support action to address this issue and injustice. we see positive indicators across the country. states and localities are taking action to ensure they limit their complicity in the ongoing

devastation. that is encouraging. is 100% clear that we now must look to the president to take actions consistent with the authority that he and his todecessors have exercised ensure that our immigration inorcement does not result devastation and injustice. a few years ago, the administration announced a policy of prosecutorial discretion, but that resulted in little change. we need the president and the secretary to take action to ensure that the rank-and-file a rational,low principled policy of prosecutorial discretion, and we need the president to take bold action consistent with his to allty to grant relief of the immigrants who have been raisingntributed,

families, ensuring that our communities grow -- [indiscernible] at the same time, we will be emboldened, as we see across the leaders step forward in to ensure that the deportations end and that there is relief for patriots in the form of immigration reform legislation. we need the president to act. we need the congress -- a congress next year that will better reflect its constituency by supporting principled and progressive policies. [applause] >> what is next?

for almost 15 we have let washington, d.c. determine what is good for our community. we are talking about citizenship everywhere. citizenship -- [indiscernible] that requires that people speak for themselves. talking about the immigration debate -- the fruits are ripening on the trees. [indiscernible] it's exactly the way forward for our organization.

sure thatng to make this immigration debate make and addresses the suffering of the people at the center of the debate. that is at the core for us. accept thelonger promise of legalization and the threat of deportation to be used as a bargaining chip for legislation. yesterday in s speech, from my standpoint, the president was admitting that he was wrong and that strategy has been wrong, that his enforcement-first approach and deportation policies essentially haven't been able to persuade the right .ing republicans

that was the difference between his speech yesterday and other speeches my past -- in the past. we are going to make sure that he ask on the right things. we are going to stand with him when he does the right thing. that is the way forward for us. [applause] afl-cio is all, the in this fight for the long haul. we are not going to quit until we are absolutely victorious. there are several things we are going to do. the first is we are going to continue working to pass comprehensive immigration reform. that is truly, with a pathway to citizenship -- it truly does protect all workers.

in the coming months and whatever it takes, we will be gearing up to pass that legislation and to defeat bad pieces of legislation. all the while, we will be looking for ways to protect brothers and sisters at the state and local level. anything we can get done there to protect them and help them, we will continue to that. we will work to end the deportations and insist on a more humane enforcement strategy. we will work to promote bold executive action in the weeks and months coming up. the third thing we will be doing -- the naturalization of nearly 9 million community members who are currently eligible for

citizenship. room,aturday in this very families came here for help with processing their citizenship and their daca. we helped them. we are turning our local union halls around the country in two to help naturalize those soizens and get them a path they have a voice in the political arena, so they have an everyday voice on the job, and they are all better off for that. first, we will continue to fight for immigration reform. we will continue to educate our members and the general public about the effects of a broken immigration system and what can be achieved. we will continue to mobilize them to get bills passed to defeat bad bills, and to unelected people -- to unelect

people who have been obstructionists. [applause] [indiscernible] [applause] all of the immigration teams -- bring someg to workers to continue this conversation. i want to thank you, pablo, u guys are doing.

be a quick to change. we are going to continue this conversation. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] orowth industrynts, a form in the u.s. followed by a look at grown safety. -- drone safety. iraq's ambassador says his country needs more military aid. later the role of isis in syria. book tv sat down with former secretary of state hillary clinton in little rock to discuss her new book. >> getting to the point would you can make peace is never easy because you don't make peace with your friends. you make it with people who are your adversaries who killed those you care about, their own people are those you try to