potential to be one of the finest institutions in the world. we have seen certain aspects. the pharmacy cannot be matched. it is one of the best in the world, very efficient. there are many different things that are very efficient within our system. but we should ask ourselves -- when someone came up with the idea of seeing a veteran within 14 days, that actually sounded like a good idea, for veterans to be seen promptly. what we should be questioning is, if we made a mistake and somehow overloaded the system, how come people's names disappeared off lists? come hundreds of thousands of veterans electronically no longer existed? that should be the question. because of exists the culture. this culture of retaliation, that is the cancer to the veterans administration. nurses andians and

people who work in health care are disgusted. people come up to me all the time and say, did that happen here? people care. when i heard some of the testimony i heard from the phoenix v.a., it was gut wrenching. i couldn't sleep. peopleve there are many within the v.a. system who feel the same way. but there exists a cancer within leadership, a few individuals that perpetuate this idea that we should be silent, that we shouldn't stand up and tell -- and do the right thing, and be honest. everyone makes mistakes. but when you make a mistake and try to conceal it, that is the question we should be asking -- who are these individuals who would alter data and hide the truth and prevent patient care? collects our primetime special

on veterans health care is tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern. in a few moments, republican senators saxby chambliss of georgia, ranking member of the intelligence committee on national security. in an hour, the group inter-american dialogue posts every form on central american immigrants. and we will hear the divorce -- we will hear the debate again between bill ayers and dinesh to sousa on what is so great about america. event student tell you about tomorrow. the head of the world war i commission will be at the national press club to talk about legislation for memorial at washington, d.c. that is a 10:00 eastern. and next, the cato institute on the legalities of how the affordable care act is administered. and the focus on immigrant children on the second

anniversary of the administration's action for the childhood arrivals program that allows child immigrants to work legally in the u.s. for two years at 2 p.m. eastern. >> republican senator saxby chambliss of georgia spoke monday at the commonwealth club of california about national security. this is an hour. [gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the commonwealth club of california, a place where you are in the know. us online at commonwealthclub.org, on facebook, twitter, and our youtube channel. i am john diaz, editorial page editor of the san francisco chronicle and your moderator for today's program. pleased to welcome saxby chambliss, the united

states republican senator representing the state of georgia. he is here to speak about his view of the overlap between americans fiscal policy and national security. -- how cantions america address domestic or international crises and adapt to emerging threats both here and abroad will me have that i bring $17 trillion debt -- that staggering $17 trillion debt echo he served as the chairman of the house intelligence committee chairman on homeland security and released a detailed report of shortfalls within the intelligence community's performance and technological capabilities immediately following the september 11 terrorist attacks. eight years later, he was elected to the u.s. senate, where he continued his work on national security issues and now serves as the vice chair of the senate select committee on intelligence along with our california senator diane

feinstein. 2011, senators chambliss and mark warner cofounded the bipartisan senate partnership known as the gang of six, which focused on our nations deficit and other issues with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. senator chambliss's announcement that he will not be seeking a third term in the senate has sparked quite a race for a seat between georgian republicans and democrats with the new york times reporting that control of the senate may hinge on the georgia race. i suspect there may be a question or two on that issue as well. please join me in welcoming senator saxby chambliss to the commonwealth club. [applause] >> john, thank you very much and thank you for coming out today and letting me have the opportunity to share some thoughts with you. when i do these things similar

to this around the country, i usually find out that i learn as much from you as you will learn from me about what is going on in california, and in the world. as john said, i've had the privilege of working with a number of my colleagues in california. principally right now, dianne feinstein, who chairs the select committee on intelligence. i have been the vice chair for the last four years, serving with diane. when i was on the committee for eight years prior to that server and -- serving with her. diane is a good friend and a great leader and someone i've enjoyed working with. i will talk a little bit more about some things we've done together. mentioned, my chairmanship on the subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security in the house , mylligence committee really good friend jane harman from the los angeles area was the ranking member on that subcommittee. jane and i traveled the world

and dodged some bullets together in some very unusual places around the world leading up to 9/11, and following 9/11. i always enjoy working with californians, and i'm particularly pleased to be here today. justught i would start by taking a minute to tell you what is happening in the senate. now that i've done that -- [laughter] -- we will move on to other issues. there is literally not a lot going on in the senate these days. we have had a number of crises that we should have been occasionally, we do find a solution, such as the veterans administration bill that we passed recently. it has already been signed into law by the president, which is a whole other story. i could take all afternoon talking to you about that. examplet -- but a good

of why the senate, or at least how the senate is doing nothing, how we are operating now, took lace right before we left. california is right in the middle, along with all of our , ofr southern border states having to deal with the crisis of particularly these young children, but we know for the most part it's not young children. it's mostly adult. still, a lot of children being driven to the border by the folks we used to run the drug cartels, and dumped off knowing that america is going to accept these individuals. and we are trying to deal with the problem of what we do with them and how we are going to ultimately deal with these young children, particularly those that are dropped off at our borders. they bring all sorts of issues, from disease to mental disabilities, because they have been so abused by the time they get there. i could go on and on talking

about that. we need to deal with that issue. congress has a responsibility to deal with issues like that. and while he had a lot of debate , and on the house side some to pass al activity bill that deals with this issue. and the house actually authorized some money to provide for these young folks, and provide not just food and housing for them, but trying to figure out a way to deal with them to hopefully ultimately integrate them here or send them and to where they come from reunite them with their families, hopefully back in southern and central american countries. but on the senate side, we had a similar bill that came up before us. as we normally do on a monday are called back

into town to vote on a judge. and we vote on judges, or executive nonce that the white house -- nominations that the white house sent out. and we did that last monday, nimby go to cloture, which means a vote to go to the border -- and then we go to cloture, which means a vote to go to the border security bill. there were a lot of republicans, republicans like me, who joined with democrats to vote to proceed to the bill, because it is an issue that we need to a dress head on. -- to address head-on. we need to debate the bill. but the bill as presented to us was not a bill that i could vote for. but i wanted the opportunity to file amendments, debate the bill , then if the amendments pass fine and they don't pass fine, you either vote the bill up or down at the end of the day. but what the leadership in the senate has done over the last senate -- several weeks and

months is we have had this vote to go to the bill, and then instead of giving republicans and democrats amendments to the bill, the leader has his own amendments, which he will do " andwe call "fill the tree he allows note amendments -- no amendments or debates that republicans may want to offer. come thursday, we will vote on include and we don't cloture to vote on it. we will get off that cycle next week. the border security issue is something i do hope we will but yet the opportunity -- we will get the opportunity to address fully come back in september because it's not going away. i have been on the armed services committee in the house for the eight years i was there. and in the armed services committee on the senate side for all 12 years i've been in the senate.

house intelligence committee for two years. i've been on the senate intelligence committee for 12 years, and vice chairman for four years. when you are vice-chairman or chairman, as diane and i are, it is to in a little bit of a different position -- it puts you in a little bit of a different position from an informational standpoint. in that the cia or whatever the intelligence into agents the -- thelligence agency is, particular matters that they are involved getting information on, they share information with diane and me that does not go to other members of the committee if it is a sensitive issue. in other words, diane and i knew about the plans to take down bin seven or eight months before it actually happened. i think it happened on may one and i became vice-chairman in january. the first meeting i had -- leon

panetta called me when i became vice-chairman, on the day, and said, i got to talk to you. that is the kind of information that we get. when i think about the way the world was in 1985 when i went to washington from a small south georgia town, and i think about the difference in the way that world looks today, boy, is it ever different from a national security standpoint. today, we have ongoing conflicts in afghanistan, and obviously now again in iraq. we have gone three situation in libya. we are in the middle of a conflict in syria. ,e have seen uprisings in egypt indonesia, and any other number of countries in north africa and the middle east. and obviously, the latest situation we've had is the ongoing and ever continuing conflict between the palestinians and the israelis. lots of complications around the world. and let's face it, the united states, even though there are a

lot of folks who criticize us -- sometimes justifiably. but whether it is a military conflict, natural disaster, or an economic disaster, the first country that is looked to his the united states of america. and the reason they look to us is, they know we will respond and they know we will respond in a positive way. actually, we are in the middle of each of these conflicts in a little bit different way in each one of them. continuesion in iraq to deteriorate. i was at a meeting at the white house the thursday before we left on friday, we can have to go now. -- a were about 10 of us week and a half ago now. there were about 10 of us, those of us that deal with national security matters. and we had a sit-down with the president to deal with these issues before we got the august break.

and we were there to express ourselves to the president. when he came not -- came my turn to do so, i said, mr. president, here are my thoughts. the two most serious situations right now in my mind facing you from a decision standpoint -- we are still trying to feel our way through syria. i do not have the answer for what we have done in serious, syria, but we do know there are about 170,000 people within syria killed in last months and years. bashar assad is a guy we ought not to lead in -- leave in power. is anw we deal with that issue that the continued -- the president continues to deal with and wrestle with every day. the other related issue is what is going on in iraq today. there is no need to rehash why we went into iraq. the situation is what it is.

there is no reason to rehash in my mind whether we should have left troops there or not. we didn't. withe are having to deal whatever the situation is on the ground today. the president has some very tough decisions to make. but i wanted him to know because of the information i get every day as member of the arms a membercommittee and of the intelligence committee, i get information relative to how bad it is on the ground. and you don't have to be in those closed sessions getting briefed by the cia to go to youtube and see where eight christian men were taken out in front of mosques about three weeks ago and beheaded because they would not renounce their loyalty to christianity by these isil. isild isis or

is actually the correct name, but whatever it is. these are the kind of people that if they have the opportunity, they will come to american soil, just like those individuals pre-9/11 that decided they wanted to come to american soil and inflict death and destruction on america and americans. we do have a vested interest in weq because of the fact that have a number of diplomatic personnel there. are -- we don't want to see the terrace community get legs -- the terrace community get legs. we knew what was going on. we had briefings the end of last

year into this year. iraq nowa gap inside who has been in syria, and he now. up isil he is an offshoot of al qaeda and he's a very dangerous person. and we knew he was organizing a group of folks. what we did not know was that the organized group of militants inside iraq. we did not know that the iraqi military were, and that is basically what they did. the other thing that we as americans have a hard time understanding about that part of -- world is the relationship i don't know whether hatred is the right word.

i hate to use that word, but the cts,ike between se particularly the sunnis and she is -- and shiites. and it was sunni against sony il going against the city of modal. it was sunni against shiite going after tikrit. but then it was sunni against shia going after baghdad. and suddenly we saw the iraqi military stiffened somewhat and do a better job defending themselves. but i told the president that to do something. we cannot sit idly by and just watch that country disintegrate knowing that theory is leaning now toward a breeding ground for terrorists. f towardis leaning now

a breeding ground for terrorists. aich means iraq would become green ground for terrorists. those terrorists would make land again to harm americans. you've got potential airstrikes on the table for discussion. as long as you've got a goal set and you do it right, this is one member of the senate that is going to support you. i have been supportive of the president's action to try to attack these individuals, to slow them down, hopefully take away some of their weaponry and give the iraqi forces the opportunity to defend themselves, and defend the .reedom of their country just as tyler and i were coming in today, we got word that not only has a new prime minister been appointed, but that prime minister has named a new

president, and it is not mr. malik e, which is a good news -- a good move. he needs to move on. an individual who is a shiite andactually work for maliki is the speaker for the current iraqi parliament, he is the individual that has been named the president. i will take that as a positive step. and hopefully we can see a government that can stand together and defend a rocket -- defend democracy. and let's not kid ourselves. iraqi democracy is not what we think of in the united states, but what is best for the iraqi people is what we should want there. and yet, we've got all of these scenarios swirling around the world. and here we are in america dealing with another crisis of our own. my friend, admiral mike mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs , has continuously said

that the number one national for the unitedst states of america is not al qaeda. it's our debt will stop we are -- it's our debt. about $227y spending trillion a year in interest paid -- 227 million hours a year in on $17t payments trillion of debt. if you let interest rates bump up a little bit, and can you imagine the direction those payments will go? , thee current scale current direction our country is going from economic standpoint, in the year 2020 and that is not very far away, our interest payments will equal the amount of money we spend on defense. and if we don't change things , all of theand 2030 entitlements that we pay for in will exceed the

amount of tax revenues that we , so that everything we do from a discretionary standpoint -- i.e., defense, ouring, basically all of social programs, all of the discretionary spending, veterans, all of that money will have to be borrowed. who will pay it back? it's not our generation. it's these young folks, some of whom i see out here today, who will have the responsibility of paying that back. that is not right. long-term plan a to pay that mortgage off. we need to have a plan in place that tells the next generation of americans, look, we inherited a great country. we will do everything in our power to make sure you in here at that same great america. and i will tell you, if we don't stare this problem down and we don't fix this problem for the

next generation, they are going the first -- generation of americans to inherit a country that is not as great a country is the country we inherited. with twoed very hard other republicans and two other democrats to try to address this problem. unfortunately, we got to a point where folks will have to make hard and tough votes. we were prepared to do that, but we simply could not get that idea and concept to the floor, and could not get encouragement from enough other folks, particularly in leadership, that they were willing to bring these hard and tough votes up to the floor of the senate so we could begin to solve this problem. it's not rocket science as to what it's going to take to solve this problem. we are spending too much money in washington. you've got to cut that spending. we've got to reform entitlement programs. otherwise, we are going broke. they will not be there for the

next generation. and thirdly, we need reform a very broken and outdated tax code. if we do it in the right way, we will generate additional revenues. the combination of all three of those will solve our problem long-term. hope by the end of this year that we will have a foundation that we can build upon -- that can be built upon by the next group of the members of the senate and house to address this problem head on. i'm here over the next couple of days speaking at a cyber security conference down in palo alto tomorrow. security, in my opinion, or the issue of cyber, is the next battlefield that america will be fighting on. the russians, the chinese, the iranians are masters at attacking us from a cyber standpoint.

we've got to make sure that we have the capability to respond to those cyberattacks. i will be talking with some very smart folks down in silicon valley in the next couple of days about how we are approaching it from a policymaker standpoint. to need to work hand-in-hand with those folks and other folks around the world in the private actor to solve this problem and to put in place a program that allows the protection of the private sector as well as the program -- public-sector for these kind of cyber things we are seeing every single day. talk to you,o feinstein said, don't talk very long, but take lots of questions. [laughter] i'm going to stop. i look forward to your questions. thank you very much. [applause] but we do have questions.

thank you very much, senator. i and the editorial page editor for the san francisco chronicle. i'm pleased -- pleased to be here with senator saxby chambliss, republican from georgia. you can catch up with us on facebook and twitter and you can see video on our youtube channel, or in this case, we are joined -- pleased to join c-span. let's get to some of these questions. there were a number of questions . you touch on a number of rich topics. a number of questions came in on your observations about iraq, fact asarly about the you indicated that the intelligence was basically there , that you could see what was developing. a number of questions as to why it took president obama so long to respond and whether you think

it could have made a difference if he had intervened earlier. >> well, first of all, the information was -- i remember very well a briefing we had from lieutenant general mike flynn last friday with the defense intelligence agency. that briefing from general flynn took place in either december or january. and never member him -- and i remember him talking about this core leadership of this group. back then, they were isis, and syria.y have spread into they want to not just move in iraq, but in surrounding countries like jordan and others. but ira member talking about these folks becoming more and more radical. they are becoming more and more militant. we've got our eyes on them.

and we are concerned about what action they will take. but what john brennan, the director of the cia could not have riddick did is what i have alluded to, and that is, the reaction of the president got the same information that we got. he wasn't hearing anything different from what we heard. time, when we in thisosul fall and we saw group called isil who wants to callafade or an islamic syria to iraq to jordan, as far as they'll go, is a far -- much militant islamic state than we see anywhere now, it may have been the time to act. you never know.

i'm not saying the president theld have done something day that the attack on mosul took place. but he's got a lot of smart aople around him from national security standpoint. he, obviously, was not being thesed by them to go on offense against this group. to sit back now and say, if we had, we would slowed it down. i do wish he had, as a smarter ago, instead of now, versus months ago when all this started. games i say, we -- blame doesn't get us anywhere. we are where we are. forward, the president said this is not going to be easy. he's right. it's not going to be solved in the short term. he's right. we're not going to put boots on the ground. there becauseght

nobody wants to see american boots on the ground in iraq. i assure you. >> i think the word that that scarese phrase a lot of americans is mission creep. the president indicated over the are looking at a matter of months here. how do we avoid mission creep? what role do you think the senate and in particular is going to play in trying to this?n >> the definition of mission thep is in the mind of beholder. some folks say we're there now, just by going in and carrying out air strikes. i don't believe that. beennk the president has deliberate, some would argue but he haseliberate, been deliberate in justifying in his mind the decision that he made i guess last friday was when the decision was ultimately the air strikes. but he also had directed that

this -- these air strikes be put on the table, that the planning begin. you don't just decide you're going to do that and a couple of later f.a.18's taking off an aircraft carrier. the planning was in place so that when he did make the decision the f.a.-18's could carry out the strikes. where we go from here, what extend we'll go to relative to additional offensive action there, it's all going to be dictated by what happens on the ground. example, that the isil forces are now gathering and children around them. it's a favorite tactic to use as shields.ildren we're committed to not having collateral damage. that just means innocent people being injured or killed in

we carry out. that's going to become harder and harder to do. if these strikes are going to be successful, they'll probably have to be done in a little bit different way and somebody at time hopefully is going to be 100% the iraqi boots ground that carries the fight to the enemy there. how do you make the case to americans that this is in our stop isil?terest to >> it's in our national interests from a couple of very obvious perspectives. number one, we've got people on the ground there. diplomatic corps still in iraq. we spent -- whatever figure i it will be the wrong figure -- but my recollection is about $25 million on an embassy the green zonede

there.have a staff we have american interests in iraq. we have an economic interest. we have american businesses in iraq that certainly we have a to.omatic responsibility in addition to that, we know for a fact that terrorist groups love to have all or some part of iraq to carry out missing for the long ultimatelyn and carry out missions against or american interests in any part of the world that spot butfind a soft ultimately they would love to those actually come to america. we can't let that the happen. happenwed that to unfortunately in afghanistan 9/11.g up to we learned a lesson from that and now we're trying to make out thet we do carry necessary toare

keep those folks from being able from coming toys america. you mentioned the change in leadership in iraq. although maliki is suggesting he quietly. do you think a unified iraq is a probability or something we should be aspiring for? said earlier, a unified government or a democratic form of government in iraq is not look at andns would say, wow, that's kind of a mirror of america. culture.fferent it's a different mindset and it's pure and simple, a people with a long history of conflict, a long history of economic troubles, a history of living in a neighborhood where those type of and economic difficulties have been a way of life.

to see,we would love obviously, is a new leadership regime that puts economic policies in place that people hope inside of that give young people an quality of to earn a living that will give them a quality of life to raise their children in a better atmosphere than where they've been today been for they've last several years and then be shiaso unify sunnis and and kurds together in a way that defendlow them to themselves from a military standpoint. very, very difficult proposition. but it has the potential to be and we've got to be there in a support role all the way to

try to make sure that this new leadership that's here today, we sit that they're able to unite the create at first and new government which they've been charged to do, that will allow that movement towards peace and at the same time allow operate in ato defensive and offensive way to ensure that peace. that a few years after we withdraw from afghanistan we're going to be going through a similar situation there? >> absolutely. it's one of those things that me awake at night because i know what's going on inside of afghanistan from the standpoint of what the taliban is doing. leaving. we're there's still a lot of activity from aof afghanistan offensive standpoint. we all know, unfortunately, and hearts and prayers go out to the green family, but we had a

lastal that was killed friday, highest ranking army official that has been killed since vietnam. so it's still a very dangerous place today. indication to us that when we leave it's going to get more dangerous. of your turn to some work on the intelligence committee. there's been a lot written and discussed in the past few days the report coming out on enhanced interrogation techniques. you've been very critical of the suggesting it was politicized. >> and i'm still of that mind. know, we're 13 years away, now, from 9/11. after 9/11 happened, after we saw two planes hit the twin towers, a plane hit the pentagon, a plane go down in shanksville, pennsylvania, in

of 3,000 americans were killed by an outfit called nobody in america basically had heard of to any great degree. jane harman and i got our staff who were very familiar al qaeda to make a presentation to all members of congress. invited all 435 members of we house to a meeting where had our staff complain -- al qaeda is and what we were now facing as americans from a military standpoint. if key captured some of those individuals, people wanted to make sure that we got the right kind of information from them that wouldn't allow september 11 to happen again. awayurther we've gotten from that, the more difficult

detention,elative to interrogation has become. c.i.a. was charged with a responsibility that was new to them. the detention and interrogation business. they're in the information gathering and intelligence business. they were charged with putting together a program which, in effect, they were a high valueapture target, then we're going to turn these individuals over to you to interrogator -- you're toe them and get what information you can from them and you're going to do something with them. that was before guantanamo was ever created. that's what they did. not the best program in the world from a rendition detention interrogation standpoint, but the c.i.a. and the justiceuse told department, look, here's what we're going to do. give us legal opinions as to can do with these individuals. they got those opinions. and they operated within the

legal parameters that they were told by the department of justice. that we got annk awful lot of information out of these individuals. and in our report, we're going to document some of the information that we obtained from those individuals. a forever argument about whether or not the enhanced interrogation techniques that were used went beyond, and that's an argument that i'm not going to defend the c.i.a. they're very capable of defending themselves. but the fact is that we got a of information that ultimately in all probability because wecan lives thwarted and disrupted potential road.down the >> as you note, it seems there are two elements when we talk interrogation, or torture, if you will. one is, is it legal and ethical?

second, is it effective? on the latter point in terms of effectiveness, you suggest that there is evidence that it has been effective in information.ble how much of that is going to be american people where it can really be convincing? because there is a lot of debate as we're seeing with the senate report. >> well, the senate report itself, that was done 100% by 6600emocratic staff, is pages. excess of $40in million and it's taken place a period of five years. compiling that 6600 pages, there was not one single interview conducted of an individual. it was all done by reading andments that the c.i.a.

orers had completed after during interrogation and what-not. the c.i.a.'s going to have a that and say that if you had asked us about this, here's what we would have told you. we have views that take the position that substantive information was gleaned from those individuals. certain specific instances that will not be redacted. redactions insome there. we can't reveal sources and methods. the 6600 page report will not be released at this time but there's a 500 page summary, a response from the c.i.a. and views that will all be understanding is that about 85% of all of those documents will be released. about 15% will be marked out with a black line.

a pretty good amount of information that's going to come out. diane wants more than that. they're in discussion with the white house on that now. >> i saw in your interview with "face the nation" that it was boardingion that water is not torture and that it is genevaent with the convention. >> that was not my opinion. i never gave my opinion on water boarding. was that thehen white house and the c.i.a. with the department of justice, here are the techniques we're going to use and they were told that under u.n. convention treaties, apparently those types of techniques are within the treaties. but that's not my opinion. that was d.o.j.'s opinion. make of theou argument that some make that that has -- that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques has put americans at

risk when they're captured? >> well, you know, there was a reporter from the "wall street captured by was al qaeda and they cut his head off. >> daniel pearl. we can cite any number of there's beenre terrible treatment given to americans whether they were or not that have been captured. al qaeda doesn't know what the geneva convention is. not know whats the geneva convention is. we train americans, particularly our special forces, individuals, we call siri techniques harshnclude very treatment during their training inpreparation for a point time for when they may get captured.

i -- i would hope that never happens. be, folks, we have to honest, we can't kid ourselves. these are the meanest, nastiest world that we're dealing with. they flew an airplane into the knowing theyenter were going to die, but yet forward togh looked it because that's their mindset and those are the individuals we're dealing with. these are not bank robber out there. killers. -- these are and we need to -- we need to that if -- if they capture americans, whether they're military or not, they're be dealt with in a very pleasant way. >> here is an audience member speaking of the c.i.a., are you concerned that monitored your investigators' computers? >> yes, yes. about that.ncerned

not only am i concerned about it, we know they did it. not right. it's not just a violation of the constitution because it is a violation of separation of is work thathis i -- i say that, the whole staff committee isr the diane and mine both staff -- but our staff working on those computers. c.i.a. had no right to encroach the work that they were doing. i don't care whether our staff thesomething wrong or not, c.i.a. had no business going into our side of the computers i expect director brennan to with thosey individuals who, whether they did or not, i'm going to leave accountability board, but if they worked for them.would have fired mr. brennan? should he be held accountable? anis the o.i.g. made

investigation of our side of the computers and the inspector general made a specific finding that john brennan did not know this had taken place. takene found out it had place, he ordered it stopped immediately and he immediately called chairman feinstein and me and came to the hill and briefed us within a matter of a couple of days. came back and briefed us hadn when he found out what happened. so he kept us fully informed and reason to disagree with the finding of the inspector general. and if john knew it, it would be different. it, icause he didn't know expect him to deal with his but john directly i can tell,far as did not know this was going on. >> let's turn to the issue of the national security agency and its surveillance, particularly

domestic surveillance. senator patrick leahy recently introduced a senate version of a would rein in the n.s.a. to some extent. i saw where you were quoted as veryg it's going to be difficult to get a bill out of capitol hill given that the a differentssed version. what is your view in terms of where the line should be drawn on n.s.a. surveillance? well, if i were concerned at n.s.a. was listening in on a telephone anybody sitting in this room today, i would be totally outraged. get briefed on these programs on a regular been to n.s.a.e any number of times, i've watched what they do. our oversight. that's part of my responsibility of you, andntative diane's responsibility as a knowsentative of you, to

what these programs are and to know what they do and to know n.s.a. is going with programs of this nature and we do -- there is no program in the that isence community more highly scrutinized than metadataall the collection program that n.s.a. has been operating. congress approved what we call the foreign intelligence surveillance act that gives n.s.a., gives c.i.a. folks in the intelligence community certain power and authority to try to bad guys around the world and to gather -- use to gather possible information from them. areion 215 and section 702 that billovisions in

the n.s.a. the authority to collect telephone numbers from individuals around and around the world and to store those. but this is the key. they store them. telephone companies store them today. have ever since we've had telephone companies. simply the n.s.a. storing those numbers and not thoseable to access numbers without a court order. and you would like to think that comfortve people some that n.s.a. is -- is only going look at telephone records of folks who are carrying out activities or not in accord with u.s. law and that are in interests.to u.s. unfortunately when you have a ofelation like came out mr. snowden, all of that

changes. unfortunately, some of the could that mr. snowden happen can't happen and i can't talk to you about them because happen.'t just alexander, the retired director of the n.s.a., has talked in more detail about those things. reason to look at a program like this. there is reason to try to make it more transparent. i think americans ought to know what we're doing but i can just assure you that nobody's is evere record intorized to be looked unless there is a case made to a judge, a federal judge, that ins individual is engaged terrorist activity or he is engaged with some individuals terroristgaged in

activity. therefore, i mean, i have been a supporter of the n.s.a. on the 215 program. i do think we ought to make it transparent. to know how many times it's accessed and you shocked to know that we've accumulated millions and millions of telephone numbers only a very minuscule number of those telephone numbers have from aen looked into content standpoint. you get your telephone bill every month. the day you made a long distance call, the number you time youhe length of talked and what it cost you to make that call. that's what we call meta data. information that telephone companies keep and that n.s.a. has stored. nobody can look at that information until a judge has

an order saying, based upon the information that has a judge,ented to me as i think it's in the national statesy of the united for that number to be modified. we've done that on the mob, for example, for decades. order and yout them.rry out a wiretap on it's the exact same scenario. it's just a different program under.'re operating >> let's turn to the debt and deficit which your comments drew a number of audience questions, including this one. president obama lost me when he appointed the simpson bowles with ideas toup reduce the debt and then ignored its recommendations. there's any hope for something getting done in washington? i gotk warner and 2010her in the summer of

and we began talking about this issue regarding the debt, the deficit, and during that period republicans were out campaigning, democrats were out campaigning. this was in the senate. nobody was talking about the yet wed the deficit and knew that this is long range the biggest issue that we're all of whatnd that's kind started us. we also knew that the president appointed this commission that became known as the simpson commission and that we knew that in december of 2010 aey were going to issue report. and we didn't know what it was going to say. ironic aboutreally that is that as mark and i ofked to any number individuals around country, from the business world, economics,f

governmentas well as individuals, individuals in the government who understand and the direction we were going, we came up with some conclusions and the conclusions that i said earlier to happen ifgot we're going to really solve this problem. cutthat is, you got to spending. entitlementsform and you got to figure out a way to get revenues up and we do the taxough reforming code. simpson bowles came up with a that simple almost and the person that asked that question is exactly right. i mean, the president had every opportunity to take some action did was just he pat erskine bowles and al the back, said, guys, you did a great job, and we're going to put this report on the

and we're going to let it gather dust. none of us agreed with that report but i wish the president had just said, i don't agree with byrything in here, but golly, congress, this is a foundation for y'all to begin to that,n and if we had done then i think there's a reasonable chance that, with the pushing it andy providing leadership, that we could have gotten something done. i still think that foundation is there. that's exactly the premise that concluded on and they're now only going to be three members of the gang of six left in the senate but hopefully -- and i know how committed those three guys are -- they're going to carry the work on. we had questions, including this one, on the lack of action generally. and that is, if gridlock continues in the next few years, either, one, the tea party breaking from the

republican and becoming an party of its own, or, two, moderates from democrat republican parties getting together to form a new independent party especially and more americans are becoming independent. right to beve a frustrated with washington. i'm frustrated with washington. leak -- elected in first political office i'd ever run for since i left law school and i was fortunate enough to get elected platform of term limits. thought six terms in the house, two terms in the senate envisionedso i never that 20 years later i'd still be in washington. we haven't done a lot of things -- we haven't addressed a lot of issues that needed to be yearssed over the last 20

but even when we did, we would make a decision that something done and then it would take two, three or four years to actually get it done. that's a frustration to me. thatt's one of the reasons led me to the decision not to run again. particularly became frustrated over this fiscal issue. and kentdick durbin conrad and mike crapo and tom i spent hours and hours and hours together and our than thatnt more time together looking at this issue of fiscal problems and i say on the stump and i mean it timeally, i spent more with mark warner than i spent with my wife for about a two-year period. but we're concerned about this is.we know what the answer and when we presented the answer one group of senators

morning in july of 2011, there not just general acceptance that this is the direction in there waso, but general agreement that this is the direction in which we ought to go. and then we were frustrated by interests who don't entitlement reform. we were frustrated by outside groups coming in and saying when talk about raising revenues, about raising taxes and we're never going to do that. that's not right. to raise taxes and you're not going to eliminate medicare, social valuable those programs we all depending on. we're just going to make sure they're here for the next generation and if we don't do that, they're simply not going to be here so all of us as the gang of six and then mike bennett and mike tolionions joined us later

make it eight of us. all of us shared that frustration with congress and inaction of congress that members have that people have out there now. ison't think the tea party going to do anything but conservativeupport candidates. listen, i get sideways with them every now and then. but i believe basically in what they believe in. core americanhard values. but, you know, we've had ups and downs in the political world in country for in excess of c-spanrs and if we had or cable tv back jefferson and other,an against each you wouldn't believe the nasty ads they would have run against each other. why do you think, when you talk about these fiscal issues prospect of this interest that we're paying on the debt of $200 billion plus a

and what even a modest rise in interest rates can mean, why you think -- why is that not resonating with the public overwhelmhat would these interest groups that are trying to -- from right and trying too are prevent reforms? >> i think the problem right now is that we're seeing the economy improve a little bit. bit. a little it's a very dad gum little bit. but there is hope out there and think people sense that and we've got so many other things going on. golly, it's hard to believe that it's been a couple of years now we lost an ambassador in benghazi. news for sont page long. then you had the -- the the ukraine. that was front page for several days. in syria, situation that's been front page. iraqot the situation in

that's now front page. this world is just so complex now, that it seems like one crisis after another previousand then the crisis goes to the back burner but this is one crisis that's not going away. and people are going to feel it more and more when they write their check on april 15. and i think people are going to about more and more upset the inaction on the part of congress to address what mike mullin has continually said is the number one issue, and he's a national security standpoint, that it's our debt. so we're going to continue to and hopefully keep it at the profile it needs to be. >> maybe it's amazing that we this next question considering the crises that you domestically and abroad and the frustration at getting something done. for advice would you give students interested in running

office some day? my own example as a pretty good scenario. number one, i graduated from law school and i didn't have the luxury that my son had when he graduated from college. he said, dad, i'd like to take a trip to europe. to work.go wife toved with my --ll town in south gaziantep georgia and we began our life in our community. community.ved in the you naturally get involved in politics. you got good friends that run for public office whether it's city council, school board, congress, whatever. to support those individuals but you just need to average, ordinary american from the standpoint of raising family, making the commitment to your church or

your civic clubs or whatever your interests are, and when it comes time for you to get politics, you'll know it. you'll particularly know when it's time for you to get candidaterom a standpoint. i had a group of individuals who after the re-districting process took place in 1992 and asked me to think about running for congress. as you say, i'd never run for public office before and i came told my wife that i was thinking about running for congress. she thought i was nuts. i remember after i made the decision, i was at a fundraiser and my daughter was there and she was, gosh, in guess, and i i happen to overhear her talking of her friends and her friend said, why in the world dad decide to do this? thingghter said, the only

i can figure is he's going through a mid life crisis and this is his response to it. felt a strong commitment to do something for my country. i was dissatisfied and frustrated just like folks are today and that's why i got involved from the standpoint of for public office and i would just encourage young world to go out into the and work hard, do everything you can to support your family, community, support your churches and get involved politics. get involved in -- whether it's politics andonal if it's meant for you to run for office, you'll know it. unfortunately, with as many questions as we have, we only have time for one more. so i'll make it a softball for you, senator. who's going to be the republican for president in 2016? >> it's not going to be me. you know, who knows. it's going to be wide open.

i've got lots of good friends who certainly got it under now.deration right we've got lots of good governors around the country, lots of good former republican governors around the who would make excellent candidates. i've got one that lives south of me in florida that his family is friend. whether the country would go for another bush, i don't know. but he's an example of the quality of candidates who we've got. john kasich in ohio, scott walker in wisconsin. chris christie in new jersey. i served with rand paul and a folks like john thune who are certainly giving consideration to it. these are all really, really men, all men who are committed to what's best for america and i think at the end of the day it will be a slugfest

comehe right person will out and i look ford -- forward campaigning for him in 2016. senator.you very much, retiring u.s.ss. senator from georgia. thank our audience here and on radio, television and the internet. i'm john diaz and this meeting commonwealth club of california, the place where you are in the know, is adjourned. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

think the v.a. has the potential to be one of the finest institutions in the world. we've seen certain aspects, the pharmacy cannot be matched. it's one of the best in the world. very efficient. there are many different things that are efficient within our system. we should ask ourselves, when someone came up with the idea of seeing a veteran in 14 days, that was actually sounded like a good

idea, veterans seen promptly. what we should be questioning andif we made a mistake somehow overloaded the system, how come people's names lists?ared off how come hundreds of thousands of veterans electronically no existed. retaliation exists because of the culture. the culture of retaliation, the cancer to the veterans administration. physicians and nurses and people who work in the hospital are disgusted. morale's extremely low. people come up to me all the time and say, did that happen here? care. when i heard some of the testimony i heard from the v.a., it was gut wrenching. i couldn't sleep. believe there's a lot of people within the v.a. system that feel the same way.

but there exists a cancer within individuals, few that perpetuate this idea that we should be silent, that we stand up and do the right thing and be honest. mistakes.akes but when you make a mistake and conceal it, that is really the question we should be asking. were these individuals who would alter data and hide the care?and prevent patient >> our primetime special on veterans healthcare is tomorrow eastern.8:00 in a few moments, the group inter-american dialogue hosts a forum on central american immigrants. in a little less than an hour a debate between ayers, andill

greatt azusa on what's so about america. then senator saxby chambliss on national security. several live events to tell you tomorrow. at noon, the cato institute hosts a discussion on conflicting circuit court rulings, on the legality of how the affordable care act is the pughred and .haritable trust now, a forum on central american group,nts hosted by the inter-american dialogue. 1:20 discussion includes a look at the causes of migration,

andicularly economic security problems. much foryou very attending this meeting. many of you probably have otheripated in some gatherings relating to this the immigration crisis. terms have been used, the surge, the crisis, the development and violence, et cetera. extent this is basically a byproduct of something we have been warning six years, that is, that governments in central taking migration seriously. for those of you who have our meetings on migration and development, we been warning about a need to take this trend of migration because there will be serious implications for

people in the short term and examples ofof the those implications. debate is mostly as peter talks, paying attention to crisis, as if that is the main issue. look, theake a closer main issue is not simply of holding facilities and carrying of the number of apprehended children and adults, about theore beention trend that has going on for the past five to seven years relating to a number individuals, adults and minors, who have been leaving theregion as a byproduct of conflict going on in the region, particularly the continued homicides in central america, the spate of violence that is taking place. so, you know, it is troublesome that while here this is a focus in washington of the

surge, in noneis of the central american countries -- and with all due to government officials and diplomats from the region -- there is a legislator calling howpresident to ask them, come they were not aware or if they were aware, they allowed to at least have 10 to 20 minors leaving their countries every day for the past five years. that was -- of which many government officials were aware. we work directly with different political officials in central migration,ling with immigration and development issues, and they were aware that there were problems but for the part, countries like guatemala, for example, had a dangers ofign of the migrating, a campaign that they invested less than $1 million two years to tell you, you know, just be careful, take water just in case.

way there is a trivialization of the problem in the region that amounted to this crisis today. is not about the because you cannot argue basically that you have -- represent apeople crisis as opposed to 30,000 or 10,000 minors. who defines what constitutes a crisis? think the problem is that there is significant neglect in what isamerica about happening. there are five points i'd like to conclude with before i talk about the results of the survey. thenot going to deal with study itself because you have the report with you but i want main -- six five main issues. first one is that, yes, violence thate common denominator comes across as a byproduct of the migration flow of adults and

minors going on and it's more pronounced among adults than exceptions ofe honduras where you see that 70% me -- ofdes -- excuse where kids are coming from is takenall homicides have place. reflects is the presence of crime network, a different source, not just drug trafficking, narcotic trafficking networks but an underground economy operating at level of extortion, kidnapping, political harassment thatfferent sorts, groups include groupings of five people in a neighborhood to networks of youth gang members in some cases. widespread effect of that is haser epidemic that it prompted basically a situation not just insecurity that is read a situationys but

of fear that is quite widespread. is that situation of fear that has pushed people to move out why that's then case. second is that it's an important fact to keep in mind that poverty is not a driver of migration. there are issues development that are causing people moving out. you looked at what did the work we did basically, we mapped out all of the areas in the migrantsates where come from because we have been collecting data on the flows of money whereand the migrants come from and sent money to that has allowed over past years to map out the entire region of every single point where people are coming able to plot that to where minors come from as violence is taking place using homicides as a

proxy, as well as the local human development indicator at the municipal level. we also looked at the school enrollment rates, too. and basically when it comes to human development, there is no correlation in most cases with el salvador but the reason is that central mediocre levelhe of human development, in the of thein terms indicators. does it mean it's doing well? actually, no. because using the indicators, you have six years of schooling against 14 of the high human development index which is basically the benchmark that you are measured in terms of being the global in economy. so there is a problem of clearlyent that is not reflected in the indicators that are typically used. is not enough of an indicator. there. reality is you cannot live on $300 a month theverage when 2/3 of

population actually live on less than $200. the third point is that there is no question about the fact that laborion is connected to market deterioration in the united states. demand for foreign labor and transnational networks well established between the united states and central american countries where you know where labor opportunities exist. if you are in the washington area, for example, you know that salvadoran community from you getel salvador and information about the migratory flows. disregarded.be who are the people who are migrating? you have people from different range of occupations but they're mostly coming to work in the typical industries -- domestic work, agriculture and the hospitality industry in general.

point is basically so if we know that there are problems with insecurity, fear one hand, iton the is a problem of development that impact beyond the basic indicators and that there is a reality of migration labor market demands in the united states, then we need to have an approach ofdevelopment that the pace opposedabor sector as to other sectors, like capital or agriculture. agricultural modeling in america is obsolete at this point in time and we need to pay attention to an asset building approach that basically deals labor force that is unskilled, informal, uneducated and underpaid and that's reflected in the report. so there are different ways to learned ad we have lot of lessons in development to tackle that. the problem is that central

america has not been interested manyvelopment case and for years. and finally it's important to into the migrants solution, into the strategies development. and there are ways to integrate them and we have talked about that previously. so let me tell you a little bit about the research in five so that peter can attest that latins can do it, too. triangulate -- we have been following this trend for several years because as you work on family remittances, you work with migration and as you work you also learn where people are coming from, where money's sent, the differences in volumes and the motivations for which money's weng sent and five years ago started to notice that there was a flow of children leaving

central america. and, you know, for example those elyou who are familiar with pathways -- paro, for example, produced a very important study in 2009 that tell of the experiences of this plight and know, youwood, you don't have to go very far. move called "sin honduran kid. a the writing was on the wall way before anyone was talking about this and today suddenly there is a crisis. but the research basically looks at the mapping of all the locations where migrants are coming from and we plotted against the certain indicators homicides as a proxy for violence. we did not include extortion. we did not include kidnapping which is happening at every the three countries. we also did a nationwide

survey in elsalvador tot month where we tried understand a couple of things. one is anybody in the average hadle knew someone who theated and how, if they, interviewed person, planned to migrate and why, and how did they see were the main problems of the country. at the same time, because of the backlash that came out saying that immigrants were opportunists looking to exploit some flaw in there were that permits being given to kid who aossed the border so we did survey in the washington area interviewing 215 people to get a what did they see were the issues coming across. so with regards to first part, we definitely find that violence statistical -- in statistical

terms, looking at nearly 900 municipalities in the three it's basically positively correlated to the asration of adults as well unaccompanied minors. in honduras, the statistical strongest.p is the when it comes to development, as only inned before, el salvador, development was negatively correlated. is, the lower the level of development, the highest level of migration was going to take place. country like guatemala, andumstances were different that asks a number of questions differentguatemala is but then there is a strong correlation of migration with adults. migration ofe is adults taking place, it correlates with the migration of minors, for the case of guatemala in particular. in honduras, the most powerful is violence alone. in fact, not even the location

come fromgrants necessarily correlate at all times. we reach out to el salvadorans. choose el salvador because there are different circumstances. smi ways it is historically more modern country than honduras but slightly less than guatemala. country that has economic growth experience in some ways not asthan honduras but good as guatemala. faces country that problems of inequality in to otherterms, similar countries like guatemala but not as inequal as guatemala and honduras. we tried to get a sense of that. it's a country with a dense the transnational level between the united states and el salvador. basically, 60% of people know andone in the united states

the last majority of people who migrated left without papers crossing the border. thelso have estimated outflow of adults that have left for the past five years to get a and i can explain how we have done that. foundcond result that we is that 25% of salvadorans say would rather live in -- leave el salvador than stay and crime.mary reason was when we take a look at the of salvadorans who say they will migrate and among crime is the major problem, they say they were leaving for the problem of because overall, they found crime to be a major amongm, but also higher those who wanted to migrate than

among those who did not want to migrate. so 25% is a critical mass. may of this year, the central ank of el salvador released report and i don't think they about therefully writing they put on it because they said remittances will follow. to 50% of el salvadorans want to coursehe country and of lapse,an intentional not but it was a mistake, i guess, coming from a government institution. basically have been there telling you that people want to leave. with the elle -- el salvador survey in central america and at that time it was the number who wanted to leave. it was alarming at it and no one the issue.ion to then we looked at the immigrants

here and we tried to make sense, know someone? half of the immigrants knew has come in the past nine months to the united states crossing the border without papers. half also knew that it was an unaccompanied minor. we have also interviewed a case study as context unaccompanied minors as well as immigrants to get a issues that have to be with economy. but when you ask them why do they think, we didn't volunteer the question of the we left an open-ended question. the answer was insecurity in our countries. 3% say something. clear that from whichever way you want to look at this ssue, the problem comes again

knocking to the door with insecure as well as with development and development of insecurity is nothing but the presence of an underground economy operating along the lines of criminal that find the operating costs of working in the criminal profitable one. economies are competing against the -- not just the informal economy but informal and criminal economies. o, within this context while the approach continues to be seen only as a security one, back to thent to go development issue. i mean when i came project and age a e provided a blueprint for economic growth for central america and regional development in this country, and it was

practically ignored. is still -- a the report o wrote 15 years ago was deal., this is the real to pay attention to labor and increasing skills of investment rce and n the local markets as well as increasing communications. mean, these are very basic cannot be ut they isregarded, especially cannot

be disregarded when they ask for central orking for america alone. this without tackling. minutes. with my ten >> thank you. christina. want, well first of all, i to thank the dialogue for having me here today. it's a pleasure. name is christina garcia. alliance he national of latin america and kphaoupb in ties and an organization which we have 40 to 50 members across the united states as well allies in latin america, specifically in central mexico. so, we were asked to come today to sort just kind of give our

iagnostic in how we see the issue from the migrant's and ective on the ground what are we recommending in terms of recommendations. just want to start by kind of giving the face of thattories of the children are coming, who are they. e have one of our members in boston who has sort of been a lot of these families specifically from honduras, honduras oming from and she's seeing about five families per week just this last couple of few weeks actually. they're reporting they are definitely sort of -- a lot of trauma right ing now. they were just kind of really afraid and not really wanting to in terms of what's happening to them. levels are very low. margarita is a small business

and she owns a small warehouse that sells goods. he mentioned she was not fleeing because of poverty. her family was okay. and they meet.aking ends they were receiving threats they were going to kill their 5-year-old son. one day they came to the business and someone left a note -- if they didn't pay them -- their business was times.several if they didn't get more money from them they were going to kill their son. and there was margarita that's one of the ladies -- the rganization with boston is working with. then there's a story of four whose father had been paying a gang tax for protection village in which they lived. the father was killed when he he just couldn't pay the tax anymore. they call came to the nited states and they were all processed and given ankle bracelets and they have court ates to appear before an

immigration judge in january. just to give you sort of like a to what these families are going through and who they are. want to comment on what manuel said. he called this a crisis and the has been recorded and we a -- only crisis decisive moment and turning point for the worse. this is something that could have been prevented and this is that we saw coming and so this is a pattern that they well over racking as the years. there's not hat, one explanation as to why the children are coming. and very -facetted complex situation. messaging that is predominant has been one of hate kind of harsh -- very harsh positioning from the

and unfortunately as well as both parties, one licans and democrats, for one reason and one for the other. we see is that this huge spike -- the children coming to the united states as opposed to what you believe.l have united nations high commissioner therefugees recorded that 435% of asylum applications in mexico, costa belize from individuals from the three countries and this is between to thousand 8 and 2013. right around the time that we see the record number of of coming from the same region. that was another big sort of red could have been doing something about it. sight fear children of return as a number one reason

we're very concerned in dealt f how it's being with locally. i wrote a little piece about mexico but i'm not going to go it because i don't want to go over my time of the but exican children are being omitted from this course and in many ways mexico is another ountry that's also sort of plagued by violence specifically borders, the corridor. there.eave it so i want to get into the why the he what, the why -- recent triggers of why children are fleeing. it too much, but besides violence and highest and homicides we are also the militarization and the in oach that is taken central america as well as on another sort of

reason that this is sort of fostering this insecurity working on internal development. broken factor would be a and out dated u.s. immigration was pointed - as out earlier, a lot of these families -- these children have already.here t's -- we were working closely with hartland alliance and they report that 80% of children a blood relative ere in the united states, so there's a strong migratory we cannot p one that talk about this without acknowledging that. ties re's strong family already here so it's only natural this a child will want mother united with his or father or even an aunt. reforms for ancy immigration system and there hasn't been in the last 20

years. that is sort of exacerbating issue. we see long standing structural causes. triggers immediate instability and history of civil wars that have countries weak, again, with the militarization approach they have taken has necessarily been in our opinion move forward.o specifically especially if we're ao talking about issues of development and insecurity, we the see sort of united states involvement and approach towards latin america or towards that region terms of ly in providing military support, weapons.g more this is the united states. there is a lot of these weapons during the years and those weapons were ind of scattered out into the

people the gangs or shouldn't have them. nother big structural cause is wealth and equality over the last few years. wealth has been concentrated really e rich and squeezing the poor into higher poverty.f high unemployment as was already mentioned and so just all around ery few opportunities for families to make ends meet. i already noted it. actually mic policies --e not kept up with sort of the whole dynamic and the shift happening, right. we talked about low-skilled orkers and there is a demand for low-skilled workers but we're unwilling to acknowledge

to find a way for people sort of come here legally. that's going to continue to propel people not boy choice but to come hey have to into the country legally. thing is that -- most people already know that in obtain a visa from -- eople coming from that part of mexico or central america usually you have to have -- be able to show substantial income homeownership in order to actually be able to obtain a visa. process in legal migrate.y can they played a role of submission to u.s. policies and really kind playing into sort of our policy.h to foreign the war on drugs is another big one. laid out a lso have supply and demand flow in which

united states consume the number of cocaine, for does countries from south of the border supply it. so that's sort of implicit in here and that's another thing talked about. what has been congress's response -- well, i talked about in the tle bit beginning, it's bleak. one end republicans, we called them bills that had no possibility of passing whatsoever. sort of being is sorry, republican -- i'm congressman cruz and those oices that call to repeal administrative forms of relief as to deport as many as approach.nd iron fist democrats haven't been better.nately any

originally the president deal ted $3 billion to with the crisecrises. for of the money was going border enforcement. we don't see that as a solution. there was mention of other sources that could be implemented especially when children have access to asylum, a visa or other forms of relief. mention of compassionate and compassionate we oach to the children, so see that as very concerning. get quickly to our recommendations. -- okay. i'll be get to our recommendations. i'll get right into it. of -- we see four big areas that are needed critically moment. legal support unfortunately children are now being given due

process. they're now being given access to legal counsel and sort of processed and put into facilities and now we're they're kind of being reunited with family embers and given a court date with no legal counsel. their safety and protection first.be shouldn't even been talking about other things without that, thinking about fami family unity should be a priority. let's find a way that they can stay here. n terms of administrative relief, like i mentioned, there's several things that could be done. there's even tps, temporary protective status. will to move the in those directions. in terms of social services this portion we see that needs to be addressed. as i mentioned in the beginning hildren are coming with trauma from this dangerous journey, having to jump on and off trains

the coyotes pass and a pass in girls, young girls coming, whereas before that wasn't the case. girls are going through sexual assault, rape. we think education. -- they're hildren going to be living here at least term, education. translators, people that speak their native languages and integration. them into ntegrate the overall society. communicationsis in which we've been very active. it littleng to change by little from different areas of the country as well as in america. the we need to sort of give him approach to rian this whole component. onecacy and policy is a big for us. andeed to rolely prioritize

start to change the way that we foreign talk about u.s. policy towards latin america. human to prioritize development. local ent in schools and infrastructure and jobs. change the approach to security. unfortunately every since 9/11 we've taken this radical towards security that s it.itize so we need a system that is more

equitable and prioritizes people over free trade and mobility of goods. i'll leave it there. i can kind of talk about what is the ground a little questions.f you have in terms of what they're doing of onally i can also sort answer to that as well as internationally. there.l leave it i don't want to go over my time. >> thank you very much, christina. rich base for discussion. specific t ask a very mentioned stion you the fact that a large number of the children are joining to tives here or they want parents.atives here, first, who is making the for the migration. in other words, is it their

here or it is their parents there. is it their relatives. who is doing it? it is themselves or older kids. sense of any good that? anuel, you're exempt from that question. secondly, people making those, putting down large amounts of money, are they ell-informed about the process that the children will face once they come into the united states? they realize they're going to be probably reunited with the children? and before they get a hearing to may take, one ry year, two years, three years. well.y know the process fact , you mentioned the that people are well-informed and a lot of this. ho make the decision and it is based on good information?

just add that in terms of who is making the decision. lot of times it's the parents themselves. the childrens it's themselves. children's these parents are already here and trying sort of working money to payoff smuggler. it's a variety of different answers and not one answer. know the process here? parents and the families aren't of well versed ith the protocol and the legalities behind every step of the way. they for the most part may understand that the child is upon arriving to the u.s. living han they are

there. if i can get my child across and with bordero end up be apprehended he's probably already in a better here wherehan living they're getting death threats every day. in the not necessarily know, at least what we've seen when we talked to families about once theyng to happen get here. as opposed to what the media has been floating that they're accepting their kids because of like his sort widespread belief they'll get -- -- ybody's going to get families aren't really aware of happen. oing to >> i think who makes the decision? we're talking about unfortunately doesn't get you there because the family transnational.

the decision is taken as family where the uncle, the grandmother, the immigrant here basically decides to move the next step. triggers on is what that next step, the decision point. the decision point is by two factors. one is the frustration that immigration reform didn't happen year. the hat corresponds with increase, the large increase of people. second one is that people that given the circumstances in which they are because they're aware of what day, there is that you know that a neighbor was killed or omebody was robbed, et cetera and that's another triggering i think there is a third one.

up with ave come packages to offer you to bring a group.hild but as far as in the interviews we of them give ne you a sense that you pay a coyote to drop you at the border. deal is to come to the u.s. there is something that says you're going to be dropped because the patrol will take you they'll send you to your home. lot of people a and in many of the cases they tell me that coyote just told me had to drop the kid at the he was about to -- there is a factor that became a triggering component. are they well-informed? no. you put your trust in the --

okay. we're open to your questions, comments. michael barns? >> president obama is likely to executive order this month with respect to policy.tion what is your hope that he will and that executive order what is your best estimation of actually do? >> tell us who you are and what do for a living. [laughter]

[laughter] > i was in honduras in '96 and i was traveling. careful.d me be polite.d, please be t that time it was not so violent what is the relation all the people that have 3, 4, ported in the last years and the increase in violence? you. >> two short questions related.

respect to the coyotes, who pays the coyote? the family in the united states receiving or is it family in the region, a combination perhaps. manuel, you've had some -- your on that. some light and second of all, i'm emphasis on your development because at the ottom -- at the roots of all this is really the problem of the political economic of these countries. of critique would you have interamerican bank and national of rs, et cetera in terms their emphasis and follow through on this development issue? you might put that in the context of the countries hemselves, their own sort of

approach. do you want to start us off this side? >> sure. i will take some questions and i aght defer to manuel, perhaps one.lation n terms of president obama and will he pass? what are our hopes of passing an order.ive we are hoping for the last eight years that this will happen or greater would have happened in the first half of his presidency when he could it. done politically if -- we sort of see this as -- politically we feel position ton a good do it and that we -- we think of his ome to the end presidency not having to risk

and he ion he could should, right, proceed with something. some of the more likely forms of could that we think likely happen would be a sort of deferred action that was given to the youth now action g that deferred to their parents. that would probably not help all 11 million people in the country a greatill sort of list number of people out of undocumented status. now the problem is that him on administrative relief or executive -- any executive fearing and re we've seen this through some and phone conferences they fear losing seats in november.

and so politically the president s still sort of kind of gauging, right, whether he should or shouldn't. and time again already that he's been sort of coming out periodically over the last few months making a public statement. so we strongly feel that he's in get d position to finally something done. nd politically it's the only able to do ight be as much as he's able to because f fear of backlash from the other side or seeming easy or less restrictive on immigration, of this idea he's going to open up the border so he'll give amnesty. i'll leave it there. want me to -- the easy ones.

the data said it's not here so i answer the specifics of your correlation question. deportation, to u can't generalize about violence. 45% of homicide are gang related. only 5% in hon durs. the minority of homicide in honduras are drug cartel related. you are dealing with different population groups. with dwat mall la about 20% are gang related. the rest is coming from undies closed association to organized crime because it is not drug cartels.

it is a lot of extortion networks that are composed of five people and there might be 1,000 of them across the entire country. people who ask to you get paid n extortion, not in cash but with phone cards. now there are prepaid cards that are being used for those activities. i have a very serious problem talk about the northern triangle countries because it's a term that was actually used during the cold war to trofere completely different circumstances and now it's being extrapolated as if the three countries are having the same problems and they are not. on the question about who pays. the payment takes place in the home country and people carry cash as a contingency in the likelyhood of some emergency.

this in some cases and is tricky and problematic because in some cases you might be talk about 3% of the cases, we don't know exactly. there is a lot of kidnapping. once you've been taken to the u.s. and a lot of the kidnapping occurs in facilities by trafficking networks in the united states, in texas and places like that. nd they are getting paid using wire transfer companies. not that the company is in the business but it's the quickest way to get paid. this is something nobody is looking into it. it's a political one. but if there is human trafficking taking place, it's taking place in the united

states. so this is an issue that nobody is paying attention but the organizations in mexico that have been working for years to deal with the problem of relief to people who are kidnapped were beaten up because they were not able to pay and a lot of it happening in arizona and texas in holding facilities by the networks. and finally, the follow through. i think the follow through is a by product of politics in terms usaid.loping strategy of all of the members of the washington consensus have different views on what to do on development. those contrasting views have seldom coins sided and they are not prepared to work together. the central american governments unfortunately are always expecting to be told what

approach to take. so what approach central america took the approach of developing clusters. and it was to develop non-traditional exports. central america is growing now and r drivers, migration christina aguilera exports. - ago gri culture exports. that's what the economy runs by. so the models relatively obsolete because it relies on unskilled labor forces. why people like the world bank don't -- they know there is a limitation. why is there not a shift? i don't think -- it would be simplistic to say what's wrong

with these guys. and it's not that easy. because you want immediate resolve and immediate resolve you see visiblely is increasing export markets. expanding market access. and you see it in a matter of quantitative perspective. increase unemployed people in the labor force opening new markets and you do that in the industries. unfortunately that is something that blinds you. and then the central american government dozen lack a vision of the right developing strategy. departmentized to the approach more thuroughly. i'm a maryland state delegate

. my question was partially answered by your last response and it's a concern that i think we are not yet dealing with the larger issue of the crisis. i think that everything you said something oms of very serious that needs attention in our countries. i was in el salvador recently and i was quite surprised at the lack of attention that this issue was getting by the government officials as well as with the legislators. i asked to debrief.

there wasn't really that much interest usually on immigration, i have opportunities to share a lot with the legislature being a legislator myself. then all of a sudden it appeared that there was a summit. unfortunately i was down there. we had been calling with a group here for a summit because we think there needs to be a regional perspective and politically it even helps to take the decision away from congress and from obama. but again i was down there. i don't know if there is anything that resulted from the summit. it was not that well covered. so my question is: being that there needs to be a broader regional view, what is it that

we can be pointing to here to make this issue more of a topic with our international agencies, with our u.s. agencies because i've also personally seen the shift in investment in el salvador away from tall social issues, education, health not even mentioned. and the money that is being provided targeted to that approach. i think we're completely missing the in depth understanding of what are the next steps, what kind of solutions we need to take. and i think they need to be addressed both here and in laten america because our countries are so different, i'm afraid there is not going to be a united view. but i'm appalled they are not

even talking among themselves. it's as if under the circumstances a different problem. i know it's a long winded question. >> we'll get a long winded answer for you. is it that every time we ask for donations for hurricanes nd things like that we get it? how many hispanic families would be willing to donate money? how many hispanic companies, how many states would be willing to donate? why not ask them instead of the , why ment taking tall pot not show what a great country we are. retired foreign service

officer with service in south america. for a couple of years director for the center for immigration studies. question i have you touched on it but i wonder and your presentations have been fantastic in putting these enormous issues together and seeing how they fit. i am wondering if though there isn't some stimulus coming particularly for the children. i don't know whether it would be nepharious, not necessarily of the coyotes promoting more business by getting these kids involved or people encouraging and want the u.s. government to do something about all of this torks get the children involved

to embarrass us and to make us a little bit more forthcoming. i'm just wondering if that is part of the stimulus from somewhere. >> take one more right here. >> international trade and ommunications corporation. the central american countries know what the coat tess are are doing.es why isn't there legislation to stop these people. the human trade is trading with hildren. >> i'm going to touch on the last two questions first. i think that's my question all

along. why -- what are the central american governments doing? i think i made the distinction between coyotes and traffickers. the coyotes are there because there is a need to have somebody to mediate in the process to cross the border. and there is not a force process. now i don't know what would be the implications of stopping them. but definitely something has to be done about that. at the very least, the government should be able to detect these networks and break them down. , the k more importantly issue of the stimulus that you talk about, i think that's

definitely a by product of presence of coyotes, etc. i meanwhile violence is driving, developing is driving, a demand for foreign labor in the united states is driving migration. ere is something of an opportunity when the network of intermediaries is easily accessible. and you can't deny that. so i think you point -- i think your point is well taken. there is definitely an element of fact in the sense that coyotes do a very good marketing job at this. on can argue that they prey mystery. i don't think they do it to embarrass government. i was able to -- i don't know ow to say it in english.

on your question what to tell. i think there are three things one can tell. you have to hold central american goveps accountable and we are not doing that totally. the central american presidents with all due respect, it was a little of a shame. i think you have to hold them accountable on different basis. someone migration is occurring because people are not getting the right solutions in their home countries. takeaway the united states debate that there is a demand for foreign labor. i can demonstrate there is one. but then if you make migration a , oice rather than a necessity people will think twice. the second issue is that it's

important to take on a developing strategy in the region that requires a lot of commitment from the united states international community and the central american governments. and we are not short of ideas and solutions on how to implement that strategy. what is central is to put central america in the path economy not make the export market the only growth for the region. that's why focus on the labor force is really important. and the third element is one needs to integrate migrants in many ways to eliminate entry for them to invest in their home country, to increase production through trade. to increase mobilization in

their home countries both for them and their families. it's a wealth of money that is mostly formal that hasn't been dealt with because of neglect from central american governments. and so i think that's the kind of message one needs to provide. >> to that i would just add that the idea that sort of we need to sort of work -- look at central america in a silo and then use the united states in another silo is i think should be obsolete. i think we need to be able to look at the region together. we share a lot of the work force. we share a lot of sort of this kind of flow of goods, flow of people. i think yes, we do need to hold

central american governments accountable. but just as much as we need to be able to hold our own government accountable. so i feel like you can't speak of one without speaking of the other. and i think that there really needs to be more political will on behalf of both sides. here needs to be more -- a different approach that is taken in terms of how we deal with migration in the general sense of the word. our country here hasn't done anything, as i said, in the last 20 years to allow people to migrate in a legal manner. , so when our president central american president and our own come and meet and speak

and i was i wasn't a little ashamed. i was a lot ashamed we had predicted nothing would come out of that meeting unfortunately. it's sad. there is no political will on behalf of either and the region needs to be looked at as a whole. as consumers and as american people we need to be more vigilant in terms of how our tax dollars get used. that's is back on us. where are we ininvesting, how are we ininvesting it? why are we throwing billions of dollars to the border and we're still where we're at today? that's the larger question i would ask ourselves is how can we sort of but our advocacy hats on tighter and get out there and take a critical look at how ore own government is spending our

own money. >> thank you. >> you start off this round. with uld not agree more the last two comments. i think that unless you address not only development in these countries why the violence is taking place, it has to do with the drug consumption in the united states. we are guilty on the drug con sullings and weapon side. something have to be done. why doesn't the u.s. government talk to these dwovement more effectively to get something done? one last point, nobody has mentioned mexico and the obligations they have to do with the train.

inaudible] in your on i think conversations with migrants, did you talk to people who had come without human smugglers and if so what characteristics do they have? what country did they come from? do they tend to be poor? that's all. we are a human rights organization and we are working closely with commission of human rights addressing this issue. i have the two questions about mexico. if you could expand a little bit

about the problem with mexico migration of children because this has been silent, the problem. and as far as i understand the situation has allowed officers to deport mexican children in even 24 hours so they don't even go to court. and the second question i had was related to violence. we have identified violence with drugs and unorganized crime but there is also state violence that mrs. garcia mentioned a little bit about. we have heard about people fleing from their countries because there is violence from the army or from state police. have you identified any of you both have you identified any of those cases with any of the people you are talking to because these will deal with different issues of protection than only refugee protection

fleing for violence related issues, it would arouse the issue of torture and domestic violence. we have heard about cases of domestic violence as also a reason for fleeg out of the country and these will relate to the institutional response by the state with a lack of judiciary with a weak state police and judiciary, people are afraid of going to their governments. >> you said 34r than 80% of the children who come stay with family. i wonder how much is family

reunification if the family had the possibility of bringing those children to the u.s. >> one last question and then to respond. >> the government of el salvador, you talk about have a in 1996 they program to insert themselves in the economy -- >> i've seen the power point. >> they have the vision to upgrade the skill of the youth and education. so the problem in laten america, i'm not talking from the world bank. we have changes in the

government and sometimes when you are building something you destroy something [indiscernible] . >> just to answer quickly on the children. -- so the what some children already have some blood relatives here. and so it could be a mom or dad or uncle or aunt. doesn't have to be an immediate parent. but so what is hang is they are being placed in housing site run by institutions like heartland aligns that gets federal dollars from hhs and they are waiting trial. they are awaiting trial for their court preegged. and what we as advocates are seing is that because the children are now being given access to legal counsel, initially there are some

children who have been deported because of this hard line approach to the coming of the children in large numbers from central america, appearing tough on illegal migration if you will . that was being swept under the carpet. the immediate due process of that. kid were not being given. so it's not until now that providers and legal organizations nationally are sort of rallying around this issue to ensure that children are being given a legal representation. and perhaps there is some relief. as u.n. report noted is a lot of these children could potentially have access to some form of relief here. because they are not going through the channels of having legal counsel, we are not necessarily knowing because the

child has gone through a dangerous journey. he's not going to tell you x and y has happened to me. it's a blur. so you have to give the child some time to recuperate from that dramatic experience and be able to talk to attorneys and social workers, etc. that's a big gap that we're trying to address right now. other organizations and ourselves. in terms of sort of like what is the mexican government doing, not a lot. unfortunately i wish i had a better answer. ey themselves haven't been responsible i guess in terms of seeing for their own migrants. there are people that are migrating from mexico to the united states. they have i think responded, i think the latest i was reading on the mexican president was

responding to this crisis by sending more troops to the southern border. exact thri same model we're utilizing in the united states which we have seen not work. 700 mile board and there is a lot of patchy areas. it's very forested and it's impossible to man or militarize the entire board just likes the impossible to do it here. the other thing they try to do is stop the train. but how is that exactly supposed to get to the core root of the problem? stop the train which say train that traverses all of mexico which migrants jump on and off of. not nearly enough in that regard. and the question of sort of corruption and military and officials being impolice it in

this entire web of corruption and trafficking. it's a blur. i don't know if he has better data on that but as far as we can see under the circumstances a blur. so families and children aren't necessarily ready to kind of spill all and name individuals or be at free will to be able to denounce if there are authorities 1r068d, we know that there -- involved. we know that there are but we haven't seen a way that can be proven thus far. >> i'm just going to touch on the question on the human rights issue.

it's very hard to make this distinction, especially in a country like these. political violence occurs when the use of force is used by a security and authorities in a country to achieve a political gain or a political aim. in that very strict sense of the word, there are many cases of violence taking place politically motivated. after the coup there has been a lot of cases. what the scale of it is,s the one in 1,000. now the next step is migration. and in that case, under the circumstances a very hard issue to demonstrate especially when we're talk about the u.s. legal system. we're not dealing with refugee but asylum claims. where you have to demonstrate that you are escaping for fear

of your life. and you may be escaping because police forces, security forces threaten you but not for political reasons, they were doing it for reasons associated to organized crime. that makes it a little difficult. however, i think it still constitutes if you escape gang violence, if you demonstrate it, it can constitute ground for asylum. there are other grounds when you can demonstrate. the problem is how many people that escape, that left their home countries able to demonstrate thate effectively. this is why some groups are are talking about refugee status because the situation is one of a critical mass of people who are just simply leaving in mass