here are some comments from mr. coleman. >> around the world, science was focused on this great catastrophe unfolding because of man's use of fossil fuels. their meetings, was at all scientists? oh, no, you's bureaucrats, politicians, and firemen list, a consortium of people with agendas come of one world government led by taxation on the nations that burn fossil fuel to help third world countries. this was it. invitedscientist were to international conferences and glamorous places around the world. and they compiled these great reports and issued them and published them. was adoptedre focus

by the press around the world and it became a great concern. is writing a gore second book "an inconvenient truth." and you know what happened from that. the sci-fi movie -- [laughter] histhere is al gore with academy award. and then out gore and the unipcc received the nobel prize and the global warming scare has peaked. of thatan watch all program tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. a short time ago, eric holder announced a settlement of the bank of america mortgage fraud case. he also offered remarks on the tensions in ferguson, missouri after his visit there yesterday.

>> small crowd today. thank you all for being here. i'm joined today by the associate attorney general tony west, united states attorney for the district of new jersey paul fishman, united states attorney for the eastern district of new york loretta lynch, the united states attorney for the western district of north carolina ann thompkins, acting united states attorney for the central district of california, kentucky attorney general jeff conway, maryland attorney general, acting inspector general the federal housing finance aid michael stevens, an associate regional director enforcement william hicks of the united states secured is an exchange

commission. we are here today to announce a historic step forward in our ongoing effort to protect the american people from financial fraud and to hold accountable those whose actions threaten the integrity of our financial markets and undermined the stability of our economy. the department of justice has reached an agreement with bank of america totaling over $16.6 billion in penalties and consumer leave. this constitutes the largest civil settlement with the siegel entity in history. addressing conduct uncovered in more than a dozen cases and investigations. and it addresses allegations that egg of america, merrill lynch, and countrywide each engaged in progressive schemes to fraud. as a part of the settlement, bank of america has acknowledged in the years leading up to the ,inancial crisis that it was

merrill lynch, and countrywide sold billions of dollars of the toxic loans whose quality level of risk they knowingly misrepresented to investors and to the united states government. these loans contained material underwriting to fax. there were secured by properties with inflated appraisals. they failed to comply with the federal state and local laws and they were insufficiently collateralized. yet these financial institutions knowingly and fraudulently marked and sold these loans as sound and reliable investments. multipleill on occasions when confronted with concerns about their reckless practices, bankers at these institutions continued to mislead investors about their own standards and to securitize loans with funnel credit, compliance, and legal defects. under the terms of the settlement, the bank has agreed to pay $7 billion in relief to

struggling homeowners, borrowers, and communities affected by the bank conduct. this is appropriate given the size and scope of the wrongdoing at issue. unfortunately, because congress has failed to extend the law ensuring that most of this relief would not be taxable income, this debt relief will create tax liability for many consumers. that is why the department secured a commitment from bank of america to pay a portion of a settlement over $490 million to defray some of this tax liability. and our settlement requires the bank to notify all consumers of this potential tax liability. at that is not enough. i also call upon congress to extend the tax relief coverage of the mortgage forgiveness debt of 2007.t until congress acts, the hundreds of thousands of consumers we have sought to help through our settlements of j.p.

morgan chase, citigroup, and now bank of america, macy a significant tax bill just as they're beginning to see the light at the end of a dark financial tunnel. to be clear. the size and scope of this multibillion-dollar agreement goes far beyond the cost of doing business. this outcome does not preclude any criminal charges against the bank or its employees. nor was it inevitable over these last few weeks this case would be resolved out of court. i want to thank associate attorney general west, especially, for his leadership in helping to obtain resolution we announced today which is both historic and commences with the conduct at issue. i want to recognize each have come together to make this landmark settlement a reality. this is merely the latest example of the important work the president's financial fraud enforcement task force is making possible. this agreement, limited the actions of the task force is

working groups including the residential mortgage-backed security's fraud working group, members of which played key roles in advancing this case. i have in order to chair this task force since its inception in 2009 in a with like to thank each of the members who contributed to this outcome and are continuing to advance a range of open matters both civil and criminal across the country. at this time i would like to turn the podium over to the associate attorney general who will provide additional details. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. thank you all for being here today. this morning, we demonstrate once again that no institution is either too big or too powerful to escape appropriate enforcement action by the department of justice. billion as the attorney general noted, this resolution with the bank of

america is the largest that the department has ever reached with a single institution in american history. but the significance of this settlement lies not just in its size. this agreement is notable because it achieves real account ability for the mac and people. -- american people. in addition to the billions of dollars the bank will pay, bank of america has agreed to sign a statement of facts in which it admits publicly its repeated failure and repeated failures of its affiliates merrill lynch and countrywide, to disclose to investors key facts about the actual quality of the loans they packaged up into residential mortgage-backed investment securities. the statement of facts details evidence we uncovered in three separate investigations conducted by u.s. attorney and

thompkins of the western district of north carolina, the central district of california represented here by acting u.s. attorney and the district of new jersey, led by u.s. attorney paul fishman, whose case largely drove the discussions that led to the resolution we are announcing today. his investigation found that merrill lynch new based on its own due diligence that substantial numbers of the loans was packaging in the rmds and selling to investors failed to meet underwriting guidelines, did not comply with applicable law or were inadequately collateralized. all contrary to representations merrill lynch was making to investors. the cases in california, north carolina, involving countrywide and the bank of america respectively to those also involved in similar conduct with

during degrees of egregious this. at all involved bank of america or its affiliates saying one thing to investors about the quality of the loans they were packaging into rmds, yet in reality, knowing the facts indicated something quite different. it is like going to your neighborhood grocery store to buy milk that is advertised as fresh, only to discover that store employees knew the milk you are buying have been left out on the loading dock and refrigerated the entire day refrigerated the entire day before, yet never told you but the condition of the milk. like you got home to pour yourself that glass of milk, investors such as public pension fund and federally insured financial institutions, they were unpleasantly met with lanes

of dollars in losses -- millions of dollars of losses when the securities they had invested in soured. the statement of facts doesn't end with the bank's admissions about its securitization of risky mortgage loans. the statement also achieves accountability by requiring bank of america to accept responsibility for faulty loan origination practices that in many cases, resulted in misrepresentations about the quality of those phones -- loans to fannie mae, freddie mac, and to the federal housing the administration. concluded to the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. as uncovered in the investigations conducted by u.s. attorney general loretto lynch in new york and u.s. attorney and his office in the southern district of new york. cases haveher, these

construed it to a civil penalty of $5 billion as reflected in the settlement. the largest civil penalty in history. in addition to accountability, this historic resolution is also significant for what it achieves in terms of restoration. it requires that those we're holding a couple today, they have to show -- shoulder some of the responsibility for repairing the harm caused by their conduct. and in this case, that is achieved by the $7 billion in consumer relief the attorney general mentioned a moment ago. this is one of the largest consumer relief packages we have ever assembled with a single financial institution. and its impact could benefit hundreds of thousands of americans who are still

struggling to pull themselves out from under the weight of the financial crisis. and some of the key consumer relief measures include affordable rental housing, where bank of america will provide millions of dollars in financing for affordable rental housing with a focus on family housing opportunity areas, what of the most critical needs in housing today. and itee reinvestment put civilization, where the bank will invest at least $100 million in committed he development funds. legal aid organizations, and housing counseling agencies. and in some areas, bank of --rica will donate profits donate that will allow nonprofits to make productive use of those properties come something that can help bring back the vibrancy of neighborhoods that have been challenged by dormant, abandoned buildings. perhaps most important, this consumer relief will allow for

significant loan modification, where the bank will provide certain homeowners with mortgage principal reductions that will bring their loan to value ratio down to 75% come along with a permanent interest rate of 2%. in plain english, was something like this can mean. imagine a just rest homeowner who has -- distressed homeowner has a mortgage of 250 thousand dollars, but is under because the fair market value of her home is only $150,000. under the consumer relief plan, this type of consumer relief, over one of a $37,000 of her mortgage debt will be wiped out. the midterm mortgage will come down to about $112,000. so instead of $250,000 mortgage, she got a mortgage of 112,000 dollars. she has a house that used to be a liability, now it is an asset with equity.

that is real consumer relief and is made possible by this settlement. relief theorm of attorney general mentioned, which really merits emphasis, is this. before congress allowed the mortgage forgiveness debt relief act to lapse at the end of last year, consumers who received the type of relief i just described, they were not liable for any federal taxes that they might go on the consumer relief the received. but now you see the act is no longer enforced. until it is extended, consumers will be on the hook repaying the taxes -- for paying taxes on any consumer relief they make it from the settlement. so to help consumers to fray that federal tax liability, we negotiated as part of the a 2525 tax relief fund. once a consumer receives relief such as a principal write-down

25% ofgage forgiveness, the value of that relief will be made available to help offset the tax liability that may be incurred by the consumer up to $25,000. now this type of relief, this was going to help tens of to offsetof consumers at least, in part, any taxes that may result from the consumer relief they receive as a result of the settlement, but as the attorney general noted, this is only a temporary fix. the fund isn't large enough to cover every potential he whycted consumer, which is the best solution to this problem is for congress to heed the attorney general's call to extend the tax relief coverage of the mortgage forgiveness debt relief act. before at these press conferences with

announcing these types of resolutions, the consumer relief that we are offering here as a result of the settlement, it won't solve every problem and ill created byy the financial crisis, but it will do something that is very important. it will offer hope to thousands of americans, hundreds of aresands of americans who still laboring under upside down mortgages were struggling and neighborhoods that are beset by vacant properties or fighting to avoid foreclosure for themselves and their families. and i think that alone makes efforts like these worth trying, which is why we're not letting .p and we're not going away it is why we will continue to pursue these cases either in litigation through the courts or two significant resolution, whichever is in the best interest of the american people. let me say today's resolution

would not be possible were it not for the extraordinary partnership that really defines the collaboration with and among this justice department, our sister federal agencies, and the committee of estates attorney general's. fdic,, fha, sec trusted attorneys general beau biden of delaware, jack conway of kentucky, maryland to california, and lisa madigan of illinois and eric schneiderman of new york was also one of the cochairs of the working group. one final note, there are so many people who deserve recognition for the hard work that they did to make today's announcement a reality. but allow me to name just a special few. who wast u.s. attorney the driving force behind the maryland investigation in the district of new jersey.

group,ector of the graber. and counsel, stacy grigsby. in my deputy chief of staff cindy chang. thank you to all of them for their dedication and repeated all nighters of the last several weeks. it has made a real difference. >> before we go to any questions, let me add a few words about the situation in ferguson. interday, i visited ferguson order to be briefed on the ongoing federal civil rights investigation into the august 9 shooting death of michael brown. the investigation i launched with in a week ago. during the course of my visit, i met with law enforcement as well as community leaders. we had constructive discussions

about the importance of maintaining peace, diverting future acts of violence or vandalism and ensuring public safety as well as the need for outreach and engagement to rebuild a fractured trust between community and the law that itent community serves. i will continue to get regular updates and closely monitor the situation as it unfolds. although our investigation will take time, and i cannot discuss the specifics of this case in greater details since it remains reactive, the people of ferguson can have confidence in the federal agents investigators and prosecutors who are leading this process. our investigation will be fair. it will be thorough. it will be independent. i've seen a lot in my times as attorney general but a few things have affected me as greatly as my visit to ferguson. i had the chance to meet with the family of michael brown. i spoke to them not just as attorney general, but as a father of a teenage son myself.

many of ferguson, what answers. in my conversations with dozens of people in ferguson yesterday, it was clear that this shooting incident has brought to the surface underlying tensions that have existed for many years. there is a history to these tensions and that history simmers in more communities than just ferguson. law enforcement has a role to play in reducing tensions as well as to as the brother of a retired law enforcement officer, i know firsthand that our men and women in uniform perform their duties in the face of tremendous threat and significant personal risk. they put their lives on the line every day and often have to make split-second decisions. the national outcry we have seen speaks to a sense of mistrust and mutual suspicion that can take cold and the relationship between law enforcement and certain communities. i wanted the people of ferguson to know i personally understood that mistrust. i wanted them to know while so

much else may be uncertain, this attorney general and mr. prominent justice stands with ferguson. of i hope the relative calm we list -- we this last night can be enduring. people take great pride in their town. despite the mistrust that exists, they reject the violence we have seen over the past couple of weeks. in that sense, while i went to ferguson to provide reassurance, in fact, they gave me hope. my commitment to them is that long after this tragic story the longer receives this level of attention, the justice department will continue to stand with ferguson. we will continue the conversation this incident has sparked about the need for trust building between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve, about the appropriate use of force, and the need to ensure fair and equal treatment for everyone who comes into contact with the police. thank you.

>> good morning. mr. attorney general, does the $17 billion salman exonerate -- settlement exonerate bank of america for many future? allocate $7 billion. why should the bulk of the penalty go to the government instead of consumer relief or pension funds that lost money? well, this certainly does -- this resolution to first question, certainly does bring to a close certainly a part of the chapter for bank of america. there are things that are very specifically carved out. we have made public our settlement agreement and there are some very clear areas in addition to criminal liability and addition to liability of

individuals in the criminal or civil that have been carved out from this agreement. but in terms of the breakdown of the money, much of the money is actually going back to public pension funds. for instance, when you look at the past resolutions we have been able to reach with jpmorgan, for example or with citi, where states have been involved in those resolutions, we have seen no state attorneys general return funds they get out of those settlements back to public pension funds which have suffered losses. so i think one of the benefits of a resolution like this is that we can actually begin to compensate public pension funds that were victims of this as well as help to bring some relief to struggling homeowners and other consumers who are victims of the financial crisis. >> [indiscernible] actually, $5 billion will go

to the united states as a fine, but the rest of the cash that is been provided by bank of america actually goes to compensate losses that were suffered because of losses on investments. >> question for the attorney general regarding the ferguson situation. you talked about the mistrust. you talked about the anger in the community. many of them believed the officer used excessive force. aggressive and independent investigation, but you can guarantee the facts will lead to prosecution and/or conviction. how much patience to think the community can and should have? >> i was actually heartened by the response that i got out there yesterday when i talked about doing a thorough and fair investigation. fair process.

i think that seemed to satisfy a great number of people. it will take time for us to develop all of the facts and all of the evidence and see were the case will ultimately go. i think people were concerned that there was not going to be the kind of investigation that i have promised and that in fact will occur. we have been working very diligently out there. i got a briefing from the fbi agents and the prosecutors who were involved in this case. i think significant progress has been made. but it will take some time. i think patients is in abundance in ferguson. it doesn't mean this thing should drag on. we will try to do this as expeditiously as we can. on the other hand, at the end of the day, it is most important we get it right and that means thoroughness, completeness is what we will emphasize. >> each of the settlements comes

with an assurance that they do not preclude future criminal charges against the banks or their employees. so why haven't there been more criminal prosecutions and what to expect going forward? >> we are many tools in the toolbox when it comes to financial fraud. i think what you have seen the one of the reasons they're so effective, the lower burden of proof a lot of times, more effective because we can move on them quickly. but that does not preclude us being able to use any of the other tools in our toolbox. so i won't comment on any particular criminal investigation, whether one exists or not. but i will say it is very intentional we carve out criminal liability and the liability of individuals under the settlements. mr. attorney general, you spoke

of the mistrust in ferguson. people in ferguson referred to other incidences, many of them reported in the news in which they feel that were mistreated by police. there was a tasting death. i know you spoke to the victim's sister yesterday. you have been for leaning on the pattern and practice investigations. is that something that can be done and where is your team on that? >> there's nothing i want to announce at this time with regard to that possibility, but there are number of tools the justice department has with regard to examining police misconduct cases. >> have you looked into those past incidences? >> i will say we're keeping our options open. >> what was the greatest thing you learned yesterday visiting with the families? what did they give you personally that you can bring to this case? >> the real desire on the part

of the people of ferguson to be treated fairly and have a good relationship with people in law enforcement. seen as equals, a real desire to have healing. there is a real fracture out there now. people are trying to work their way through. as i indicated to them, out of this tragedy comes a great thattunity for reforming committee. it i think that is something we can do nationwide. this has engendered conversation i think we are to have. but he can't stop at the conversation. it is time to take a concrete step -- but he can't stop at that conversation. it is time to take concrete steps. the justice department is hopefully going to be a leader in that effort. citizens and state and local officials have to be a part of that effort as well.

have concern that local profiteers will affect their ability to do so? >> our investigation is independent, it is going to be zero, it it is going to be fair -- thorough, it is going to be fair. i'm really confident that at the end of the day the investigation we are going to be doing will be thorough and will be fair. >> -- immediately struck you that you would have concerns about? >> no. >> cnn. i would like to ask you about the murder of journalist james foley. i was interested in what role the justice department plays in the investigation of that, if you are trying to identify the specific individual, if there are any suspects, if you are looking at the leadership that might be involved in this. also, i was interested in what role the justice department may

have played, if any, in negotiations for mr. foley's release and the rescue efforts. >> first, let me just say that byare as -- i am as appalled the brutal murder of jim foley as all the rest of us are. it was heartbreaking to see his parents yesterday, who showed composure that from my perspective was almost in comprehensive will, and my heart goes out to them. the justice department is actively pursuing this case. we have an open criminal investigation. those who perpetrate such acts need to understand something. this justice department, this department of defense, this , we have a long memories and our reach is very wide. we will not forget what happened, and people will be

held accountable, one way or the other. i wonder take note of the fact that jim is a jerk -- i -- i want to take note of the fact that jim is a journalist and he gave us a view of the world in very dangerous circumstances. i think that in part is what led to his death. he was a journalist and he was a symbol of what is right about the united states. as i said, the matter is an open investigation and one that we will be pursuing vigorously. >> was the justice department familiar with the efforts to free him through negotiations? >> i don't want to comment on what i would consider a national security matter. >> did you watch the video, and what was your reaction if you did? >> i don't want to comment on that. >> thank you. >> thank you.

host: [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] >> here are some of the highlights from this weekend. friday on c-span in primetime, the civil rights movement. saturday, the new york ideas forum. " with new york congressman charlie rangel. friday on c-span2, reza aslan. words," ben"after carson. sunday, the competition between the wright brothers and glenn curtiss to be the predominant name in manned flight. 3merican history tv on c-span on friday, a look at hollywood's portrayal of slavery could saturday, the 200th anniversary of the battle of what inspired.

-- of bladensburg bit sunday, former white house chiefs of staff explain how presidents make decisions. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. presentsh c-span debates on what makes america great, evolution, and genetically modified foods, with in-depth looks at veterans health care, irs oversight, student loan debt, and campus sexual assault, new perspectives on issues including global warming, voting rights, fighting infectious disease, and food safety, and our history tour showing sights and sounds from america's historic places. find out tv schedule one week in advance on cspan.org, and let us

know what you think of the programs you are watching. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. jo --z feed counter peretti founder jonah sat down to discuss the website 's combination of light content and serious news. >> it is going great. >> how many of you have read a buzzfeed article today? >> today? wow. >> how about the past week? cool. here is the question. but is-- buzzfeed has been evolving over time. what is it today?

>> one of the reasons i started thinking about the history of media little bit is when i would look for -- what are other companies similar to buzzfeed that are much bigger that we can aspire to be like when we grow up? it was really hard to find any. when you look at facebook or twitter or tech startups, we are hiring people who make content, we have journalists in the ukraine, we have people doing stuff that none of the tech companies are doing. when you look at time warner or disney or viacom, they are these giant companies with multibillion-dollar -- billions in profits that are using cable and broadcast in of -- and are very different than what buzzfeed is doing. when i look at what is buzzfeed, the companies i find that are the most similar are media

companies in their first 10, 20 back athen you look newspapers and magazines and the hollywood studios, and they are surprisingly similar to buzz feed and companies like vice and vox and these new media companies that are emerging today. >> a lot of people see buzzfeed as a place to look at funny lists or cute photos of kittens and puppies. when did you start hiring journalists? what inspired that? started as actually . site that was like a lab what people cared about when we first started on the social web was cute kittens, whether friends have for lunch -- what their friends have for lunch, entertainment content. it evolved were people were sharing longform journalism and news and entertainment. about three smith

years ago and he started building a new steam and we have -- we have aneam investigative team led by a pulitzer prize winner and he has been hiring impressive reporters who are just now getting into their groove, doing longer term investigations. we have 2 reporters in the ukraine. elder joined us from "the guardian" and she is building a team of foreign editors. we have expanded the news coverage we are doing. >> what percentage of buzzfeed readers are engaged with the journalism as opposed to the kind of lists and frivolous content? >> it depends on the time. when the boston bombings happened, the most popular content on buzzfeed was hard news content.

we had reporters covering the boston bombings and we have people in new york who are using their knowledge of twitter and instagram to figure out what was going on on the web. we were the first site to authenticate twitter accounts, because we noticed that the avatar predated pictures in the news. we look at who was following wentaccount and they all to the same high school and we were able to use our knowledge of the social web to figure out what was happening and follow-up with reporters making phone calls. during those moments, the most popular content is news content, but during slow news, the most likear content is things 23 animals who are extremely disappointed in you, or what city should you actually live in, things like that. >> how are people discovering the journalism content?

>> when you look at facebook, you see hard news next to cute kittens next entertainment content. when you look at twitter, you see that makes trade when you look at buzzfeed, you see that next. >> or percentage is the -- what percentage is journalism as opposed to animals disappointed with you or think that people worn in the 1980's would understand? >> back to looking at the history of media, one of the things i found so interesting looking at the history of newspapers is that there was limited space so you had to make these decisions because of limited space of how much news and advertising and how much serious and how much frivolous stuff. there was a battle to be the number one paper in the country.

and there was newspaper rationing, paper rationing. there was limited space. less pages to print stuff on. the "herald tribune" shrunk the size of the news to keep advertisers happy. "the new york times" cut ads so they could cover news. they lost money during the war but when the war was over their circulation was higher. all the advertisers came back and there was more paper and they were able to win this war. the decision of how much do you use limited resources for ads or how much for news, what is different about the internet is we do not have to make that choice. we can do all the news we can possibly do because the internet never runs out of space. we will do all the cute animals

and quizzes and lists because we are not going to run out of space for those and we will do all the branded content and native advertising and all that can exist on their own track without scarce resources of either time like a television station or bandwidth like radio or print like a newspaper. that has created an interesting opportunity to build a media company that is -- does not have the normal kinds of constraints that companies have had. >> are there times when those focuses common to conflict? >> we have a tremendous food and food section and diy section, we have a test kitchen where we are making incredible recipes and it is awesome stuff. a lot of people do not know we

have it. they come on the front page and if they are not -- if you're active on pinterest you are likely finding our food and diy content. it is becoming more about having each piece of content reach its full potential. that is why there is not these conflicts. there is some lingering legacy from print where people think that if you do one thing it means that you cannot do something else. it is not true. people who are used to the newspaper dropped on your doorstep and the news and how many ads are there. you take that calculus, it is a weird site. if you think that there is no

constraint on what you can do and the adjacency does not matter, then you start understanding more about what we are doing. >> are there instances where someone who is familiar with buzzfeed comes across a serious article and doubts the credibility because it is the buzzfeed brand? >> people are used to one brand doing different things. there is were you had edward r. murrow doing the news but you had comedy and variety and you had alfred hitchcock on the same network that had the evening news. people are used to having that mix. i think the bundle is something that has always been so important to media.

a lot of the journalism wars were between papers fighting over the content. a"e washington post come when it was bought by the family up until very recently that owned it, he said to his deputies, comics really matter? they said, "yes, if you lose the comics, you will lose half the readers." there was a protracted bidding war. fewer people would read the journalism if the comics were not there. it is something that our news content, our longform content reaches a much larger audience than it would if we did not also have almost 200 million video views a month and massive

amounts of viewership on quizzes and lists and other content. media startups are more of the thing than they have been. >> why do you think there are so many media startups happening currently? media startups are more of a thing than they have been. there is a lot of tech startups and what you generally see looking at the history of media is new technology emerge that often is a distribution technology. distribution technology gets built out and people create content companies that take advantage of the distribution that did not exist before. a lot of people do not know the early story of cnn which was wtbs was a local station in atlanta that was owned by ted turner and cable was this new thing where satellites could be signal to a region.

and you could -- ted turner realized i could be my local station by satellite and it could be carried on cable to all these places around the country. it seemed like it was an exciting new thing. people thought why would anybody want to watch the local television station? in phoenix or new york or somewhere else, but he started licensing television shows and movies and lots of other kinds of entertainment. and started to be a distributor of this kind of entertainment. when he saw the possibility, i bet there is going to be someone to dominate news on cable and he started cnn. it was interesting he started with entertainment and moved into news. at the time, the networks were spending $200 million year to do half an hour of news on the

evening news and cnn's plan was to spend 20 to $30 million to do news 24 hours a day. everyone thought it was impossible. you could cover things in ways that you could not if you only had a half hour. and you had to wait. he had this built-in advantage by content that fit with this type of distribution. it has grown into a giant company. when you look at time, inc., newspapers were exploding and there were so many people could not read them all. time said let's aggregate the newspapers. with "life" magazine, it was possible to print photos. people would listen on the radio and they would hear someone's voice. they did not know what newsmakers looked like.

life magazine let people see for the first time what people looked like. when you look across -- or even radio. people thought paley would go back to cigars because cigars are much better business than radio. no one would stand for ads that interrupted the flow of audio and radio. and radio would never be up big business and that was the start of cbs. the key is the reason there are so many media startups is because there is an explosion of distribution technology. whether it is radio or new printing presses or cable television, there follows close behind an explosion of new kinds of media companies.

with smartphones and social, you're seeing ability to distribute media internationally more quickly than ever before in history. lots of companies have started to form to take advantage of that map of distribution that did not exist five years ago. when buzzfeed started the iphone did not exist. now we have 60% of our traffic or more on mobile devices. that has enabled distribution that people did not think was possible a few years ago. >> is there a point of saturation where there is only so much that media startups can grow and only room for so many in terms of distribution accessibility? >> there used to be what people called natural monopolies. if you are the biggest newspaper in philadelphia you would have a natural monopoly. you had the big printing press and had the trucks to drive the papers around and who else can start something to compete with

you and the argument was on the web we would never see that happen. any blogger can start a site. it does not cost a lot to publish and there is tons more content. there is no limitation of space. likewise with radio. there is limitation. if you get a slot on the dial you have an advantage. what you are saying is the competitive advantage is having to come from technology. it is not coming from spectrum, it is not coming from region. it is the ability for editors to make content more quickly. pages loading faster and better data to optimize your site. it is possible to will the great media business but the way that you build competitive advantage is in technology. that is why we have a focus on

building technology for news and entertainment. that is why a lot of companies are focused on that as well. >> what is the future role of technology and media? >> you cannot tell a good media company unless you have great technology. >> is that limited to the platform or is it beyond the lab -- beyond the platform, especially moving forward in terms of hiring data scientists? >> we build a lot of the tools we use everything that allows us -- and we think that allows us to make a better product because all the pieces fit together. some sites make the mistake of having a frankenstein approach where everything is powered by some other start up and they are stapling them all together. that is a better approach. i think there will be some

startups that end up commodifying one of the layers. google analytics will be used by people because no one wants to build their own platform from scratch or something like that. it is still up for grabs which payers will end up being outsourced to other tech companies and which publishers will build themselves. when you look at cable or newspapers and you see that there is this virtuous cycle of media businesses where people who build the better platform end up attracting better talent and that talent into the back -- ends up improving the platform and it is a virtuous cycle. there will be several companies in this current crop of new companies building media businesses that get that cycle going.

and end up becoming big players and building companies that will last for a long time. if you work that buzzfeed they should be able to reach a larger audience and have better understanding of how people work. so we're focused on building that cycle and other people are also -- also have a similar focus and that will lead to interesting new companies that will keep growing. for the long-term. >> given that there is this rise of the new media startups and given that you do not think that there is a saturation point, what advice would you have for someone who is launching a media

start up today? >> it is good to look for new emerging platforms that people laugh at and think are not that important. people laughed at radio and cable when ted turner went to cable. looking for areas where people think this is silly and this will never amount to much is often a good base to go because other people are not there and you can figure out how to build something that is unique for a new distribution platform before it matures. we thought we would be focused on social and we saw social becoming the dominant way of how people consume news and entertainment. mobile became bigger than pc's and that was not something we predicted or expected that we were interested in social almost for intellectual reasons more than anything else.

being interested in something when it is small helps you have a deeper understanding and a unique approach. >> what are some of the lessons that people should look into, such as lessons learned from old media? >> every big media company was once a start up. if you look at cbs there is not that much you can learn because they are a giant and you are small and starting out. if you look at them when they were losing money, that looks like a lot of startups. when you look at "time" magazine that looks like a lot of new media startups that are starting today. hollywood studios are

interesting. i was surprised reading about the early days of hollywood that you would go to a movie theater and you would see a bunch of short films and then you would see a newsreel updating you about the war or something and then you would see a 60 minute western. that is what you paid to see. people look at startups in the media space and they are doing these small, silly things. they're not like these big movie studios but if you look at what paramount was doing, they were making short films that are more similar to what we are doing on youtube than they are to the feature films they are doing today. it is a case where there is something to learn from history. there is lots of differences. the closest comparison is old

media companies are the model and there is lots of interesting lessons to learn. >> do you have a list or what would it look like if you were to give advice or wrap up the history of old media in a list? >> i am not as good at lists like the pros at buzzfeed. i think that for me, the things that happened most interesting is newspapers, early magazines, early hollywood studios, and early cable television and those are huge industries that became multimillion dollar industries. when you look at their early days it is shockingly similar to the way small media startups are operating now.

they would be on my list but it would need a better name created by an editor and not by me. >> it looks like we're just about out of time. we have some time for questions. does anyone have questions? we have a question over here. >> you published the 96 page report of the new media people as to what they need to do different. did you see lessons for the new media companies of what they need to do different? >> it depends a lot know what the new media company is, but

huge, andmobile is can't be ignored. if there is new media companies that are not thinking deeply about mobile, then they should be. and i think that report had a lot in it, so there is also the question of how do you focus. there is a lot of really good ideas, but you can only focus on a few things, and there is the question of what are you going to focus on with your particular company, or if you are "the new york times," if you are bigger, you can focus on a few more things but you have got to stay pretty focused. sorting through the ideas is the hardest part for me harder than coming up with them. >> other questions? >> do you see yourself getting into other things, conferences and events that you stage, and

then you record for your own purposes? for example, in other areas -- >> we do something called buzzfeed brews where we interview people like jerry seinfeld and anthony weiner and the ceo of hbo. it is an interesting way to generate media as a live event. there is a trend of live events plus content associated with it that is pretty interesting, and you are seeing >> other questions? >> just say it.

i will repeat it. >> i want to tell you how much i respect your business model, and how you went back and studied. i'm from atlanta, and you are right. turner's deal would be nothing if it wasn't for a guy by the name of [indiscernible] he was the one, and i read a book. i have met with reid. was the one reed who recruited all the people from new york to atlanta and they all lived in a fleabag hotel while he founded cnn. >> it's a great story. i have not read reese's book. lots of amazing stories of early entrepreneurship.

.ed turner is out on his yacht the guy who was actually president running the news. >> thank you. we need to wrap up. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> they say nothing happens in august in washington, d.c. good morning. welcome to the heritage foundation. i am the director of lectures and seminars. it is also my duty to ask everyone to check their cell phones have been turned off as we prepare to begin. internet viewers are always welcome to send question or comments to us at any time, simply e-mailing speaker@heritage.org. on the post the program heritage homepage and on the

national review page following today's program. opening our session this morning is genevieve wood. genevieve served as senior contributor to the daily signal. [applause] >> thank you, john. good morning, everyone. "the daily signal" is the news foundation inside the heritage foundation. heritage colleagues, along with our friends at national review, we welcome you to this event. there is a lot going on in the world, and is certainly something that has caught the attention of many americans -- our border. is it secure, how that will impact immigration reform. to kicka terrific panel off our session, and we will be hearing from the governor. we will be taking questions at the end of our panel this morning. anyone who wants to ask a

question, just raise your hand and we will send a mic to you. let me begin by introducing our panel. i'm going to introduce everyone and they will make their remarks. is thest speaker heritage foundation vice president of foreign policy studies. the allison center, the asian studies center, center for international trade and economics, and center for freedom. jim is an accomplished historian and teacher and prolific writer. he is the author and co-author of several books, including "lessons from the cold war for defeating terrorism," and his most recent book, "wiki at war, conflict in the socially networked world." test analyst on television programs in the u.s. and around the world. he is a 25 year army veteran. he is a graduate of west point,

earned a graduate degree and doctorate from georgetown university. jim will be kicking us off talking about where we are on the border today and what the situation is there. following jim will be rich lowrie. rich began his journalism career in college at the university of virginia, where he edited a conservative monthly magazine. he later went on to work as a is arch assistant and reporter for a local paper in northern virginia before joining national review in 1992. and covered congress for nr served as articles editor. you have seen his byline in many newspapers. he is a syndicated on this and syndicator for fox news, and the author of a "new york times" bestseller. talking about the

whole debate over administrative amnesty, and where the gop should be going in terms of how it thinks about immigration policy. professorrich will be ting. he teaches in the areas of citizenship and immigration law and tax law. his articles and media interviews related to that subject have been published in newspapers around the country. he will he -- he has been commentator on pbs news hour and npr. he has regularly testified before congress. the professor was an assistant commissioner in the immigration and nationalization service in the early 1990's and ran as republican candidate for the u.s. senate. on thefessor serves board of directors at the center

for immigration studies. he is a graduate of harvard law school and oberlin college. the professor will be speaking to us about the rule of law and how that specifically applies to immigration across the board. joining us shortly will be kelly and conway, the founder of president of the polling company. i'm sure many of you have seen her on tv. she is often right. her team was one of the few on the republican side of the aisle to use correct modeling and predict the outcomes of many of the major races in 2012. she is the co-author of "what women really want." throughout her two decades in market research, kelly has provided research for clients in 46 of the 50 states. she's not just involved in the political realm. her clients go from policy organizations to leading brands

of other industries, including major league baseball, american express, and lifetime television. her company just put out a study on immigration, how the american public is increasingly viewing this issue. a lot of interesting findings she will share with us. we have a great panel. i will hand it over to jim. >> thank you for coming today. care where you stand on this issue. it is an interesting issue. the contribution i want to make today is talk about how we got here from there. not just an academic subject for me, it is something i have been personally in fault in. i visited the border with local law enforcement, federal agencies, and trips to mexico. you can start the history of the

border with the reform bill. it said, we are going to do amnesty and clean the slate and then we will fix the problem going forward because we are going to deal with all the components. we are going to implement better visa program so we can get the workers and employers need to grow jobs and grow the economy. we are going to force internal immigration and workplace enforcement laws. we definitely did the amnesty. we did not do so much on the visa reform and worker reform. we did enhance border security. that is very interesting. dave is a terrific researcher at heritage. he did a fascinating study where he looked at the available social science research on the border. he concluded there was a lot of consensus about what happened.

put more money and resources on the border through the 1980's into the 1990's. government did what it promised. of that, the unlawful population of the united states grew. how did that happen? in part it happened because since it was more difficult to come in, people that came in instead of being migratory in their employment, they would come and do seasonal employment and go back to mexico. it was difficult to get back in, so they would stay. also having to coincide with the rise of the economy in the late 1980's grade there was a lot of construction. you could have full-time year-round employment. .eople stayed more the economy was growing, some people tried harder to get them.

the transactional cost was pretty low. the economic incentive of getting them was far higher than the cost it was of getting caught and getting sent back. -- the estimates on this very widely. between 40% and 50%. simply overstayed their visas. border security does not affect that. the tougher your border security, the more growth you get in the unlawful population for people who come in illegally and overstayed. that problem continued to grow. the next really big change happens on 9/11. one of the things that 9/11 did theprompt the creation of department of homeland security. it added some efficiency to what we were doing at the border. we treated goods and people as two completely different things.

no real incentive or requirement to cooperate with each other or other federal agencies. one of the things the department of homeland security did accomplish his greater efficiency from how we addressed border security issues. that was good. not just because of being concerned about security at the border, but the northern and southern borders are economic engines for america. the job of the security is not just to keep bad things out, but keep the people's goods and services that are growing the economy in the western hemisphere moving. in 2007, the last time we talked about comprehensive immigration reform, the model proposed to move us forward was pretty much a repeat of 1986. as that was being discussed, not shockingly, the numbers of

illegal crossings started to bump up. just the promise of amnesty cause the numbers to increase. the bill failed in the administration at the time said, we get it. continue to work on internal enforcement and border security. and they did. in 2008 started to go down. we can equate some of that to the fact that we were in a recession. it was also due to the increased security. those numbers continue to decline through about 2012. you have the impact of military sequester. that does impact border security. a lot of the illicit border crossing people was a result of of cartels and the amount

introduction we did against the cartels began to drop. i was in key west and the guys said, if we had twice as many assets, we still would not have enough to intraday everything we find. that was at a time we were growing the mission. the mission significantly atrophied and the pressure on the cartels has gone down. the second thing the put more pressure on the border was success. a lead of the cartels were pushed out of columbia. they went to other places and started to set up this mess. with the poor interaction we had with countries working on public safety and security missions in central america the last couple of years, the money was going to the wrong programs, we weren't working with those programs very well. all that led to the strengthening of the cartel. you have heard of the removal of alien children.

much like 1986, that was whether the administration intended it or not, that was largely put up as a billboard saying now is a time to come to the united states because another round of amnesty is coming. that is kind of what has gotten us where we are. learnede lessons to be from this history, and they are pretty clear. borderns all want security. everybody wants a safe, secure, productive -- i have not met in a buddy who said that is a bad idea -- anybody who said that is a bad idea. we have not wrapped our heads around what it takes to do that. you cannot secure a border by standing at the border. you have to address the system as a whole.

is part of that. but so is the enforcement of your internal laws, so is having worker programs. and part of it is dealing with the countries in latin america that create the conditions to grow the economy as opposed to moving people. we never put a solution on the table that does that. all we have ever done is, let's have another amnesty. all dayalk about this long but until we actually address the problem rather than debate the amnesty, we will wind up right back where we were in 1986. thanks. >> rich? >> thanks, genevieve, and thanks to all of you for being here. the heritage foundation has a special place in my heart because way back in the day, i was an intern at the heritage foundation. i was a part-time intern. i like to think this wasn't

because heritage wanted to deny to me the full benefits and protections that are due full-time interns at the heritage foundation. sometimes i wonder. i grew up around here. i started reading "national review" in high school. i would smuggle issues into the classroom and hide them in my textbook and read them during class. i would record episodes of "firing line," posted by bill everyy, and focus on detail of the argument and rewind to make sure i was following everything. i wasn't a very well-adjusted or popular teenager. enough about my personal problems. i want to underline what jim said. the border crisis is not really just about the border.

it's about a broader rate down in the enforcement of our immigration laws in the interior. comingolks who have been across the border in increasing numbers are not trying to invade border patrol agent's. they are deliberately going out totheir way to surrender border patrol agent because they know they will be processed somewhere into the country. if they are kids, they will be enrolled in school and very quickly, they will become part of that broad category of people who are subject to the de facto amnesty that president obama has implemented just through his say so. this is really the root of the problem, and all indications are that the president will make it much worse in the coming weeks with a sweeping amnesty that

very well may on top of making the immigration situation worse, precipitate a constitutional crisis. i would urge him not to do this. over the last six years, i have noticed a strong and distinct theern, which is that president doesn't listen to me. i don't know if it is something i said, but he doesn't. i would like to share with you a few thoughts about what the republican party's posture should be on the issue of immigration, and not just at the border but more broadly. this is an issue that i think the republican elites and the republican establishment just doesn't get. or are a couple of reasons for that. one is that they have a very simplistic view of the latino vote, which is that if you go ahead and have a big amnesty, you will naturally win latino

voters. that is not the case. we had this experience in 1986. the republican party share of the latino vote in 1988 actually goes down. a lot of the republican elite elite'se broader .isdain the house was still considering whether to take up comprehensive immigration reform. i had a conversation with a top republican who will remain nameless, a conservative in good standing, and he said we have to move forward on this because if we don't, everyone will know that the nativists have won. by his definition, most of the republican party are nativists

and most of the country are nativists because survey after survey shows that people do not want higher levels of immigration of the sort we would have seen in the gang of eight. finally, the republican establishment is very close to who areness interests desperate for higher levels of low skilled immigration, more guest workers, because they love the idea of cheap labor. for me, this gets to the crux of the matter. i believe with many of my colleagues who have been arguing this for a while now that the republican party is overinvested in the entrepreneurial idea. entrepreneurs are important. financiers are important. big business is important. but there are also people out there called workers.

i believe it's very important for the republican party to reconnect with its original founding ideal as a party that believed in the inherent work -- worth of all labor, which means you have equal dignity as a worker whether you are sweeping the streets or whether your vice president of the united states. that might not be the best example. you probably have more dignity if you are sweeping the streets. the republican party cannot truly be the party of work in the party of workers the way it onuld be if it is insistent importing ever higher levels of low skilled labor to compete with native and immigrant workers down the income scale who are already here. i hear atime

republican strategist or a republican politician say that there are jobs that americans won't do, that person should be shot, that person should be hanged, he should be wrapped in a carpet and thrown in the potomac river. that is what they did to rasputin. it works. the fundamental american attitude towards work captured in a story about calvin coolidge's son. it was after calvin coolidge had become president. calvin coolidge's son was out working in a hot field that summer. some snotty kid came up to him and said, if my dad was president of the united states, i would not be out here working in this hot field. calvin coolidge's son said, if your daddy was calvin coolidge, yes, you would. that is the american attitude towards work. founder ofe great the republican party, abraham

lincoln, said, whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling, laboring worker, i am for that thing. it is long past time that the republican party realizes that mass low skilled immigration, whether legal or illegal, is not one of those things. >> rich lowrie, thank you very much. professor? >> it's a pleasure to be here and i associate myself fully with the previous remarks of both rich and jim. both my parents were immigrants. we are not nativists. but that is not the issue. the issue is how many, given the fact that we admire and respect immigrants, given our immigrant tradition. specifically, the issue is, do we let everyone in the world who

wants to come here come here, or are we going to enforce some kind of limit? i'm a lawyer. lawyers like to think we can argue both sides of every question. are we going to let every single person in the world wants to come here have their shot at the american dream, or are we going to enforce some kind of numerical limit? it's a hard choice but especially hard choice for elected officials. neither of those choices is really appealing. borders, nobody is going to take that position. in forcing a limitation means you have to turn around people who look a lot like our ancestors, who just want to work hard and take their shot. they are not criminals or ifional security threats they come in -- threats.

if they come in and violate our laws, we have to remove them from the united states. there are a lot of people who really enforce the limitation because that is too hard. give me a third choice. there isn't a third choice. people think there is and they are making one up as we go along. let's pretend we have an immigration system, but let's not enforce it. do you think anyone will notice? if a lot of people come in illegally, we will give them a big amnesty. that will be the end of it. thise going to deal with issue once and for all, get it off our plates, never deal with that again. it does not work that way. as jim has explained, we have done this before. past a city hall in cambridge, massachusetts recently.

forgive me while i read this. commandments, from his commandments men have framed laws. it is praiseworthy to serve the people by helping to administer these laws. if the laws are not enforced, the people are not will govern." -- well-governed." of the currente administration's decision not to enforce the nation's immigration laws. president obama has gone to congress and asked for a big which will amnesty virtually all of the illegal immigration population and double legal immigration going forward. he has not been able to get that from congress. initiated through executive order various policies, including prosecutorial discretion, which means the only illegal aliens who are high priorities for

removal from the u.s. are those convicted of serious felonies or who present national security threats. if you don't fall in those two you have almost zero chance of being removed from the united states guide -- states. through executive order, the president has unilaterally decided that illegal aliens who enter the u.s. before the age of 16 ought not to be held responsible for their illegal entry and should receive work authorization. 550,000 aliens have already been deemed qualified for that status by the administration and as rich mentioned, the president is said to be implementing a vast expansion of that deferred possibly toam, include the parents of the people who brought these people. because they were not responsible for coming, but we will give daca to the parents

who were responsible for coming. the u.s. wonder that is now experiencing this flood of aliens crossing our border illegally, including record numbers of minors, all expecting to benefit from the administration's policies? if you listen to the administration spokesperson they say, technically we need to explain to them that they will not qualify for these benefits. on the ground coming in across our border know better what is happening on our borders than the bureaucrats sitting here in washington, d.c. they know they are getting through. they are getting benefits. the kids aren't rolled in schools. -- are enrolled in schools. they know the reality, that they are here to stay. they are never going home as long as this administration's policies remain in place. a are calling home to spread the word. this works.

a smuggler to get yourself into the united states and take your best shot. the administration says, these unaccompanied minors, our hands are tied -- but the center for immigration studies has published a document showing there are at least three reasons why this is another administration excuse. the vast majority of these young people don't fit the definition of unaccompanied minors under the statute. they are not victims of trafficking. they are being smuggled. their families are spending large sums of money to smuggle them into the united states to join relatives who are already here. there is an exception in the statute for exceptional circumstances. a future president wants to cut income taxes to a flat 10% but can't get congress to go along with it? could the president execute

prosecutorial discretion to announce the taxpayers refusing to pay taxes at the statutory rate will not be a priority for enforcement as long as they pay 10%? it seems to me that is where the president is leading us right now. if we want an imperial presidency, if we want cesar chavez as our president, that is the way to go. >> thank you very much. kelly, i introduced you earlier. i will hand it over to you. ,> thank you very much genevieve and co-panelists. i would like to thank all of you for your interest in our remarks today, or at least her excitement in seeing governor perry and giving us some time ahead of that. we do have a big poll that came out this week on immigration. it goes beyond these very simplistic questions.

americans, fill-in the blank reform, and always get a high response. we took a deeper dive and a look at the immigration reform issue and the immigration issue overall. the entire 10 page memo is provided through a link and you have hard copies of it. it is there for you to see. let me go over some of the key results but also shows some of the underlying imperial evidence to some of the remarks made earlier today. in 27 years of polling, i have never seen immigration at the level where it is in terms of the american consciousness. what has happened at the border recently has brought public opinion. they see, andat seeing for the public is the first step towards believing. what is it they see and believe?

thatf americans saying immigration is a top issue, that they believe congress and the president should address. that will not happen if you ask it the traditional way, what is the top issue that congress and the president should address? people, is immigration your top issue, not the top issue but in your top three, not in your top three but in your top 10, and then not say it your top 10, 18% is a top issue and 39% say it is in the top three. have a spiking of paying attention and pricking the american consciousness. situation, border most americans say it is not humane and compassionate to have the children there. these hardly seen shelters are safe havens set up.

everybody has a pie in the sky of ideas but very little action on the issue. the media seems to be in ferguson, missouri. americans don't see either party having a national advantage on immigration. it is true that president obama's disapproval rating on immigration is over 60%. it is four points higher than the disapproval rating generally. part of it is a lack of a coherent plan or coherent message. if even base voters can tell me what the four-point or five-point plan is from either party, i'm listening. test the recently house passed a three-point plan by the republican party. 58% of americans support, 32%

oppose this plan, which has three main parts. quote, extra funding for immigration enforcement. making it easier to return young illegal immigrants to their home countries, and restricting the president possibility to act on his own. that goes for any president, not just this president. in a separate question, 74% of americans say they would like the president to work with congress, not on his own when it comes to immigration. 74 percent overall would prefer the president to work with congress trade -- congress. , 75 percentendents of moderates -- the only subgroup ideologically or politically [indiscernible] that once the president to act like the lone ranger on

immigration are self identified liberals. there is a real divergence of opinion between democrats and liberals. what do people want? a bigmigration issue is issue unto itself. it is also seen as part of the overall economic equation. they willcans think run on jobs and the economy for the fifth election in a row, he will probably get the result that mitt romney got and can kuchen l.a. got. when you talk about jobs, we have been speaking for a while about the difference between talking about just the job .reators most americans do not fancy themselves as entrepreneurs. another 7% are the job seekers.

they are the folks who are unemployed or chronically unemployed or underemployed and stop looking. if you're talking to job creators and seekers, you are up to 15% of the country. majority oferican -- american households are job holders. they are the ones saying, why do ourave two, three jobs in household. we are not worried about losing or replacing a job, but why is the job no longer enough? it was enough when your grandfather had a job or my grandfather had a job. they do worry about job security and affordability. they look at immigration as one piece of that overall economic equation. it should not just be looked upon in some hermetically sealed issues package. it is seen as part of the macroeconomic picture. survey, itout this

is very clear that americans don't believe we have a surplus of jobs. they believe we have a surplus of job seekers. a are competing for these jobs. americans overwhelmingly believe -- americans who are looking for work should have a fair opportunity, if not a preference, to do that work. theurns on its head, cynical meme that immigrants do the jobs that americans will not do. that is not true, when you put that question to people who are looking for the job. they are willing to do those jobs. anbe not for four dollars hour under the table, but they are willing to work. they do not think we have a surplus of jobs. is unfair that we bring in one million immigrants who can look for jobs while millions of americans are having trouble finding work. the unemployment situation will get worse in the next few years. they are not looking at the

monthly jobs report or listening to macroeconomics. they just know what they believe in terms of their own financial wherewithal. 89% believe they should have that preference over illegal immigrants. 58% agree that there are plenty of americans who do the jobs in the construction, manufacturing service industry .obs 80% also believe businesses should be required to recruit and train more american workers. business cannot just sign up for e-verify and say, we are doing our part. they also want businesses to help recruit, retrain, and train a workforce that does include many americans who are looking for work. the upside also shows that politicians as leaders may be

ignoring these issues. they may be ignoring what is happening at the border. the american people are not. it is not as simple as just talking about the same issues over and over again. it really is recognizing when people see something for a while in seeing is the first step towards believing, they expect solutions. they expect action. there is a very strong consensus for some very simple economic solutions on immigration. one is to strengthen enforcement of immigration laws. when politicians say that, it is like saying i'm for equal pay for equal work. everybody says that. issue, youan 80/20 wait for the poll question. everybody agrees it is enforcement. americans see that as the floor, really far away from the ceiling. they do agree with strengthening

enforcement of current laws. they also believe in encouraging. people talk about denying and restricting. they believe in encouraging immigrants who are here to return to their home countries, particularly the children at the border, and encourage them to do that trade they also believe in limiting chain migration to the nuclear family. this is incredibly important to them. if you look at the final page, you see a tremendous amount of tri-partisan, both gender, regional, all ideology agreements the rule of law, national security, macroeconomic concepts are incredibly important, but jobs is the primary motivator for awakening action on immigration. you see that hispanics, even , and 85% ofthere blue-collar workers agree with this. that protecting

american jobs is an incredibly important point of this immigration equation to them, even if it is left out of the national conversation. thank you. [applause] ann, thank you. a lot of good information and observation. we want to get your questions on that. please raise your hand. we will have a microphone come to you. when you get the microphone, state your name and affiliation. first question, here in the front. here is a microphone. >> [indiscernible] we owe anything to impoverished third world countries not to lure their best and brightest through increasing visa cap as heritage suggests, or as haley barbour suggests, handing out green cards at graduation ceremonies? >> the one thing i'm really

excited about this panel and the great thing that has been the strength of the immigration debate is when you get people on the panel who don't absolutely agree on everything, that is how you have dialogue. everybodyrtant that -- i don't think it is important that everybody agree. a policying from perspective, because i don't do politics. if the notion of the immigration debate is the key to unlocking the human capital potential of america, i don't think that is exactly right here in -- right. if you take the chains that limit the opportunities for economic growth and freedom, if you focus on education reforms that give people the skills they need to be successful rather than throw money at it, if you have welfare programs that encourage people to get into the workplace and work rather than

make them dependent, and if you encourage families to create the environment that create people who want to be productive future citizens, those are equally important things to really focus on. the mostital is valuable thing america has, and the ability to draw that from around the world is a huge competitive advantage. is one thing we all agree on immigration is part of that. you can never get a system that really works if you are just pretending that you have immigration laws and you are pretending you have border security. you are not exercising sovereignty over your own country and ability to choose your own future. thank you, ma'am. john, chief political correspondent with "news max." following up on jim's remarks

about other countries and their economy and dealing with it, mexico after 12 years went act to the pre-party that had been in power. some people were nervous about the president, and yet he appears to be moving in the direction of more market aced basedions -- market- solutions as well as giving people who have a business degree an opportunity to pursue private sector employment grade the same could be said about the president of guatemala. my question is very simple. do you see other countries moving in the right direction, and if so, how many years can we see it where people will not be inclined to come here? we did this thing called the index of economic freedom where we grade every country on the world on their level of economic

freedom and opportunity. if we want a western hemispheric , atet that actually works the end of the day economic freedoms is a huge part of that, talking about all the countries in central america in which we have seen spikes in the same correct.not fair or there are different problems stemming from different reasons. mexico has done better. the problem i have with mexico -- mexico has this located this latest round of migration from the central american countries to the united states. we have seen that problem before. we had a big influx of unlawful immigration from brazil a few years back. people were going to mexico and getting visas. it was easier to get a visa to mexico. and then they were just coming to the united states. we went to the mexicans and said, you have to deal with this. they cracked down on brazilian visas to mexico.

it is not just the mexican economy that is important to normalizing the markets, but they have to have a responsible foreign policy in their dealings with these countries. >> thank you. [indiscernible] there has been a lot of discussion about the rule of law and it has pretty much been identified that the united states isn't exactly following our own immigration laws. when it comes to international requirements to honor refugee tatus, i haves spoken to a lot of people on the other side of the immigration debate who see the u.s. turning away, especially the young immigrants, from central america

as a violation of our responsibility to honor incoming refugees, which is also commitmento our u.s. to fighting the drug war in central america, latin america. what is our responsibility to international law as far as refugee status with these immigrants? >> international law places a more restrictive burden on the united states and other think it does.we the definition of a refugee is someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution. you are fleeing generalized poverty, if you're fleeing generalized violence, if you're even fleeing civil war, you don't actually fit the definition of refugee. is just a fact under

international law. in reality, the vast majority of people coming through should be turned around and the united on its booksws providing for expedited removal at the border where we make a quick determination, do you even have a credible theory under which you are a refugee on account of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion? the president is saying, i have got this 2008 unaccompanied minors being trafficked law that ties my hands. i can't use expedited removal at the border. said, there are good reasons why we shouldn't be applying that law. we are using that law as an excuse. our actual international respecteds are being under current law. one could argue the united states is consistently gone beyond our international obligations.

to bring in outside overseas refugees from refugee camps around the world to whom under international law we have no obligation, and yet we regularly bring refugees to the united states because they are in need of refuge and we want to do our fair share in the united states. we have a record of dealing with refugees in the united states which exceeds our international obligations and is one of which we can all be proud. thank you. i am an attorney. could congress legislatively -- legislate consistent with the president's article to power to outlaw all of his amnesty the deferred, undo prosecution policy and so forth, or is congress because of separation of powers barred from doing that? allms. conway, you have

this polling data that shows that taking a tougher line on immigration reform is politically popular. why is it so difficult to get the leadership of the republican party to pay attention to these numbers, or are they just so emotionally or financially tied to the u.s. chamber of commerce that no matter what data you show them, they just won't budge? >> i will take the second first. the leadership in the waning days of congress, they pass this bill. we tested it. opposedrted 58%, 32% without explaining who was behind it. i don't think blaming the chamber is advisable so much as something rich lowrie said earlier. there is this huge misperception held by many that if the way to win hispanic voters is through i think it is

incredibly cynical because it treats hispanics in this country as a monolith. it is really the way left believes that all women cares about is the -- is from the waist down. they call it women's health. on immigration, is similarly cynical. it is completely disproven. hispanics are like every other cohort in america in public opinion polls. they care an awful lot about many issues. [indiscernible] a masterful report earlier this year. how untrue that is. it has got an awful lot to do with electoral politics. ofther seeking on behalf public opinion or myself, i

don't think any politician should ever act on immigration being craven for votes one way or the other. we have to do what is right. we have to do what is right for everybody concerned. fairness is a core governing value in this country. especiallydebate, with the border crisis, is always about what is fair to the immigrants. americans are also saying, what is fair to the workers, the blue-collar workers, the college students who are told, we'd will just help you forgive your loans? anybody who is doing anything on immigration with votes in their eyes really should take a look in the mirror and find another line of work. >> on the question of what congress can do, congress can do anything they want to do and are able to do. in order to enact legislation under our constitution, you

usually have to get the president on board or you have to override a presidential veto. in the current situation, that is difficult to do. we should not lose sight of the fact that congress has enacted laws already. we have very complicated immigration laws in place that were enacted by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president of the united states. very laws set up a complicated formula which decides who can come into the united states and who can't. the most generous legal immigration system in the world, bar none. cards fort more green legal, permanent residents with a clear path to full citizenship every year than all the rest of the nations of the world combined. of that.not lose sight congress has spoken on this question. they have enacted the laws. it's up to the president to fulfill his constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws properly enacted under

our constitution by congress. >> let me associate myself with this sentiment. have laws in the books that the president is ignoring, what good is passing a new law saying he should honor the laws? the -- the administration's defense is that this is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. there is some wiggle room like that that has traditionally been used. chinese students subject to deportation at the time of the , willmen square crackdown you delay their deportation. nothing is this sweeping. prosecutorial discretion typically involves you don't have enough resources to prosecute everyone. don'tt go because you have the energy and time and resources. this is taking energy and resources and personnel from enforcing the law and using them to administer an entirely

distant station -- distant patient -- distentation. the applications will have to be reviewed. they will have to get id cards. there will be a whole new administrative apparatus devoted to this out of nothing in defiance of the laws that are already on the books. >> we will have to leave it there. please help me thank our panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] toi will ask rich lowrie come up and introduce our special guest. >> we are all familiar with the washington cliche that if you want a friend in washington, you , but ourcquire a dog

guest of honor today really brings home to me what a cold and ungrateful city washington is, because we are going to welcome a governor whose state is responsible for a disproportionate share of the obama recovery, but does he get any gratitude from the white house? governor perry should not have to be slumming it here with the rest of us at the heritage foundation in the middle of august. he should be at martha's vineyard with the president of the united states, playing 18 holes of golf every day. we know that is impossible because the governor has a real job and does not have that kind of leisure time. we have asked him to come here to discuss a lawlessness on our border. unfortunately, since the time we extended this invitation, he has become a victim of an entirely

different kind of lawlessness, and this pathetic joke of an indictment last week, which i believe is already backfiring. one sign of that is, have you ever seen anyone look as relaxed and happy in their mug shot as governor rick perry? the next time i need one of those new little pictures from a drivers license, i'm not going to the dmv. i'm going to texas to get a mug shot after seeing that thing. let's welcome a great spirit, a leader on thea border as on so many other issues -- governor rick perry. [applause]

>> thank you for the imitation to be here today. i refer to this as a little wellspring of wisdom in the desert of washington, d.c. heritage, thank you for what you do, and to genevieve, for allowing us to come and be a part of this today. and jan, thank you for the program. you do, a fact, look eternally young. some of you may not know this. rich has been ahead of national review for as long as i've been governor of texas. it's a pretty lengthy. of time.