specially with airstrikes, it is being conducted with our partners in iraq, our iraqi partners. yes? >> are we likely to see an i got time for just a couple more. >> on the budget, are we likely to see an additional oco request before congress takes up spending measures sometime in september? >> i'm not aware of any, and i wouldn't get ahead of that. i think the secretary said it pretty well yesterday that we think we're going to be ok for fiscal year '14, but he wouldn't -- he opened the door for the possibility that in -- for '15 we might -- you know, we might need to look at some additional funding sources. but we're not there yet, we just don't know. >>do you have any sense of a timeline of when that -- >> i do not, no. you had your hand up for like ever. he got -- that was easy. all right, last one. >> so, i want to go back to the china fighter.

excuse me if i'm naive about this, but you said they intercepted the p8, and i was wondering if there was any message from the chinese pilot about why they were intercepting it and if -- if there are any standard procedures that go with an interception, if it's noted -- >> well, you're not supposed to do a barrel roll over the aircraft. look, i'm not aware of any radio communications. i'd point you to pacific command for details like that. i think the message that they are apparently trying to send was you know, they -- resisting the flight of this patrol aircraft, which i'll remind you -- as i said at the outset, was in international air space. the message we're sending back to china is that's unacceptable and unhelpful to the military relationship that we would like to have with them. listen, before i go, i tried to make a quip, and i don't think i

came off the way i wanted. i said i have a hard enough time doing this, i meant my own eloquence. i didn't mean that i don't like the job and what i'm doing. i very much do enjoy the privilege of being up here, but i was just talking about my own poor performance on most days. all right, thanks everybody. appreciate it. >> what is the possibility you could release footage or video of the p-8 -- >> we'll take a look at it. i don't want to give you a -- >> it would be great if you could do that today, quite frankly. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, the white house senior director for cyber security talking about how americans can protect their privacy online. discussion about immigration and executive power. after that, former arkansas

governor mike huckabee on education standards. on the next "washington tillman examines the role of the defense department in countering isis. matthew siegel, cofounder and president of our time discussing issues for millennial voters. of these utley wilderness society talks about the 50th anniversary of the wilderness act. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. " washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next week, special primetime programming. monday on c-span, from glasgow, i debate over scottish independence. on tuesday, issues spotlight on

irs targeting of conservative group. wednesday night, the principle of hartford connecticut p turn mega school and educating children from disadvantaged backgrounds. thursday, house budget committee hearing on federal, state and private anti-property programs. at friday night, native american history. on c-span 2 next week, book tv in prime time. monday at 8:30, a discussion about school choice. tuesday night at 8:00, a writer on his book how the poor can save capitalism. and wednesday at 8:00 p.m. an interview with an author of a biography about neil armstrong. thursday night at 8:00, a tour of the headquarters of simon & schuster. on friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, in depth with former commerce and ron paul. on american history tv on c-span 3. monday, the reconstruction era and civil rights. on tuesday, the end of world war ii and the atomic tom. wednesday night, the 25th anniversary of the fall of the

berlin wall. thursday, a look at how americans attitudes about world war i changed through the course of the war. documentary nasa about the 1969 apollo 11 moon landing. find our schedule one week in advance that c-span.org. call us at -- #c123 orr use the email us. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. next, white house cyber security advisor eric ringwald. efforts to educate the public on ways to share information. he talks about the cyber breach at target and says that most threats are unsophisticated, originating from unknown vulnerability or out of date system. the american bar association hosted this event. it is 35 minutes.

thank you for structuring your introduction that way. i like to get one round of applause and before i begin speaking to make sure that that happens at least once. askg those lines, let me everyone for a round of applause for the conference organizers, in particular joe whitley. they have done an amazing job. i have not been able to attend the program but i've been looking at the various panels with jealousy. colleagues andmy other folks i do not get to hear .ery often speak

we can also get another round of applause for cle credit. those of you are attending this luncheon in hopes of getting cle credit now, you are mistaken. but hopefully you have been able to get credit for some of the stuff you have seen during the rest of the program. i will start with a disclaimer that the remarks i'm about to give our cash represent my personal views and not the views of the administration. happyure as joe said i am to take some questions and answers. i can give some answers. i may and those answers, deflect because i want to avoid getting fired. try toill do my best to provide as much insight as i can it to what ever questions you do have. so i want to talk -- the billing for today's speech was about the national security cyber strategy.

and i am going to deviate from that a little bit and talk a little bit more about information sharing, because i think that is an absolutely critical topic for purposes of cyber security. and i think i would like to start out with a general principle. rule of cybe. cyber you do not have to be smart in order to be really annoying. i think there are a lot of companies that have come to poorly this, that one crafted exploit can compromise a system and penetrative system and once you're on the inside, it is possible to compromise massive volumes of information. in one recent incident that we will talk about soon, in my very basicere was a compromise of a company that led them to steal more than 10

million customer records. a high levelquire of sophistication for them to carry that out. this was the community health services. most of you probably did not track very closely the various and sundry cyber incidents that pop up from time to time. we have actually had a few of them come up in the last couple weeks that are pretty serious. particularly serious, and it was accomplished with an exploit that did not require nationstate level technical capabilities. but nevertheless was a very serious breach and has led ch to a place where every day this week they are sending out 250,000 notices to customers of the hospitals that they provide themces for to let know that some of their personal information was compromised. it is a very serious matter carried out by somebody who did not have to do very much work to get it.

what i think is important to understand in line with that is that better network defense really requires as a general matter better overall hygiene. improvinge call it our cyber immune system. the analogy to public health is quite apt. we talk about computer viruses, malware. to protect need ourselves. both companies and government and private individuals need to protect themselves is not dissimilar to some of the ways that we provide for community health. and some of the measures that people take are fairly analogous. but i think what i want to emphasize here, and i'm going to give it a statistic, but i will emphasize it is my statistic and it is not really a truthful statistic. i would say is probably well over 80% of the loss that

companies and individuals and government experience in the cyber realm come from unsophisticated threats. matter ofs a simple an existing, unknown vulnerability, maybe even a long-standing one, perhaps years old or a system that is no longer receiving technical the technicalre support department is not doing an effective job of patching th ese holes that can be exploited by a wider rate of actors, some of whom are just making mischief. others of whom are actually trying to steal information in ways that can be very harmful to the business from a competitive point of view or just in terms of the mitigation that they need to undertake, as in with committee health services and the very costly notification and credit check services that they are going to have to provide to all of the customers the 10

million plus customers whose information was compromised. or even threats that can threaten critical infrastructure and government systems include iety basic, simple exploits that could be prevented if basic measures are taken. and i would say that one of the primary problems is lack of accountability. so, one of the positions i have had that joe did not mention is that i was deputy director for information and cyber command. i got an opportunity to see how

the military deals with cyber security. and the military structure for governing the information infrastructure within the dop.mil space is fundamentally different from the way that dot gov space is governed. in the military, cyber com has the authority to issue orders to every enclasv with in the department of defensee. and these are orders that, according to the chain of command, have to be followed. but, and they are issuing orders constantly to patch even the most basic of flaws that exist in systems around the department of defense information network. but it is an enormous amount of work for the different components to try to keep up with that. it requires resources, expertise, prioritization. military does not have is a clear system of

accountability. i should say, the system is clear but the enforcement pattern is not as consistent as it needs to be for a lot of commanders to be able to understand what the consequences are going to be for data breach. and the example i will give is if you had a base commander who was informed that he had a truck sized hole in a fence surrounding the perimeter of the base, and was informed about this and told that this represents a risk and did not do anything about it and a few days later several trucks went missing, that commander would be relieved from command and possibly dismissed. but there isn't quite the same culture with respect to what happens when data is lost or computer systems on that same base are penetrated. we need to develop a stronger culture of accountability, not just in the military, not just in the government but also

across the board in the private sector space as well. that sense of canuntability that you actually start to ensure that people will take these basic hygiene measures that they need to that will prevent, or at least make much more difficult the exploits of a lot of these unsophisticated actors who represent a broad portion of the special of cyber threats -- p f cyber of the spectrum o threats. i do see some reason for hope, some believe that we are moving in the right direction. one of the single biggest element supporting that that view is what happened with target. arget intrusion was actually reasonably sophisticated in terms of the number of steps they had to take, their ability to remain

undetected as they penetrated point-of-sale terminals in store after store around target's franchises. is what, to me, route relevant is that after the dust began to settle and people began to realize how significant a loss target was facing as a result of all the damage that was done, the ceo was fired. think that is probably the first time that has ever happened. fired because of harm to the bottom line that resulted from a computer breach. target contexthe was a pretty big deal. so, i do not think it represents a dramatic shift. i think it may be as a starting point. to me, i believe it was a real wake-up call for a lot of ceo's around this country, certainly, but also around the world to understand that they actually bear some responsibility for the

security of their networks, both inthe way they are constructed and the way they are maintained. i think that is a critically important step in establishing the mechanisms for even the most basic hygiene and protective measures in cyber security, which is -- it is not going to protect you from everything, but truthfully, it is almost impossible to protect the company's network or the governments of network or your own personal network from 100% of the threat . but it is nevertheless possible to protect yourself from a wide array of threats. it gets to appoint that we can discuss -- it is not really a part of my planned remarks, but we can talk about in q&a if people are interested. and that is the notion of the lack of due diligence with respect to what a company or a government employee is supposed to be, is required to do with

respect to defending their networks and protecting against known and unknown threats. it is a big blank spot. and it is part of what contributes significantly to what is an insufficient culture of accountability with respect to cyber security. that beyond that accountability, another key element is information sharing. bothwhen we, when companies, governments, private individuals alike have access to information about these basic, unsophisticated cyber threats, they are empowered with the ability to actually do something about them. and we have, we have begun to make real progress in the arena of information sharing. and this is not only sharing between the government and private sector ought also sharing within the private sector and also broadly

internationally. i think there are a couple of recent examples of cyber intrusion that demonstrate how information sharing on cyber security threats can make a difference. ups recently, just on monday, announced they have had a point bunche attack that hit a of their stores. for those of you to not know what a point of sale attack is, whenever you swipe your credit card at the grocery store or any other store, you are doing it on a point-of-sale terminal. an the target breach, as example, the attackers were able to collect data from credit cards that were being swept through those terminals. and they did across a huge number of stores for every wasle transaction that conducted on those individual point-of-sale terminals. so, ups got hit with a point of that wasinal malware

related to what happened in the target breach. the way they found out about it is because when a target breach was happening or sometime thereafter, as we were learning about variance of that malware, secret service issued a bulletin that they disseminated far and unlike similar bulletins that other arts of dhs and fbi issue that said, we have got, we've got information on this malware. send it around. it, when theirt network defenders got it, they scanned the system to see if they had that malware. they managed to find it on point of sale terminals in 51 stores. and they were able to root it out. they set act, compromise 100,000 transactions during the six months that it was resident on the point-of-sale terminals up ups -- in ups stores.

but it could've been more on the scale of what happened to target. the way they were able to root it out was by virtue of the information that was shared with from thehis case government. but there are all sorts of information sharing mechanisms that happened. again, in collectives, and the private sector and the rugged sector to the government. but it is because so much of the threat comes from these basic, in many cases unsophisticated attack vectors, having that information sharing mechanism is absolutely critical to being able to protect systems across the board. earlier the example of community health systems who had over 10 million customer records compromised. they learned, about the breach from a tip that came from outside their organization and began to try to do work to figure out what was going on and how to stop it. what i want to highlight from

there is what is a speculative report. there is one commentator who has suggested that the way that the chs compromise began was as a result of what's called the heartbleed vulnerability. many of you have heard of this but in the context of you need to change your passwords for various website. but the heart lead vulnerability was discovered people realized it existed across systems countless systems across the internet in private sector, government and elsewhere where with a very simple exploit, a user could actually see traffic going to a network unencrypted. and by doing that exploit over and over again, eventually you can get username, password credential. then you can log onto the system as a valid user. again, it is not clear this is how the exploit on community health systems began, but it is

at least a matter of speculation. would represent a very simple exploit that was once advertised, once people were aware of it, it was also information on how to fix the vulnerability was also spread around. and so, there are a lot of companies that actually, as soon as people knew about this vulnerability were getting pinged over and over again by people trying to use that to do exploits. by virtue of getting that information out to the public at large and getting people to actually be responsive to it, getting network defenders to look at their systems, figure out whether they are using the open ssl protocol and a way heartbleed to take the steps to patch it. remediation for that vulnerability was quite simple. they then secure themselves from that particular threat. tooknyone who did not, or

a long time, was vulnerable for that time. and something like what happened in the committee health service breach could happen. not clear if it was the heart lead vulnerability, but simply username and valid password credential you can get access to a system and then you are able to get in and start gathering massive volumes of information that, even if not incredibly sensitive, could be really costly for the organization. chs is in the process of sending out notifications to all 10 million plus customers whose records were compromised. for creditto do, pay check reporting for all of those customers. so, it ends up being very costly potentially for having failed to do timely remediation on a basic

formality. i want to emphasized that it is not clear the heartbleed vulnerability is how it was compromised, but it is a subject of speculation at this point. of what i want to do is sort wrap up my prepared remarks by emphasizing again that so much of the threat that we face, private sector, individual, government, comes from these very basic vulnerabilities, ones that can be addressed through basic measures of hygiene. information is out there on those vulnerabilities and on the way to fix them, it is not just incumbent, not just important but critical that network defenders actually take the action to patch the vulnerabilities, address the threat. and i believe the only way that we are going to get there is by increasing the culture, improving the culture of accountability to where, whether

you are an individual computer owner or a business or a government employee, that you have a sense of responsibility for actually defending your network against these basic vulnerabilities. again, that's not the end under ory story -- of the st because there are more sophisticated threats that require more costly mitigation and remediation, but so much of what we face out in cyber security in terms of threats to, for the target ceo, his employment and for many others, the livelihood of their business and their fellow employees depends on taking action on information that is available. the remediation is done and done in a timely manner so you protect yourself from these basic and very plausible threats to your business. i wanted to say

in terms of prepared remarks. i'm happy to take questions either on the four corners of what i was discussing or more broadly. if i could have used up for it. when you ask your question, i will restate it so everyone in the audience can hear it. [inaudible] >> so, your second question. i am not sure what you mean by changes to national security clearances. >> [inaudible] >> you mean specifically in the context of insider threats? that question was about what we're doing to try to better defend against insider threats

like we saw in wikileaks and with edward snowden and whether i guess specifically this attorney clearance process should change to address that. so, there actually is, the executive branch has undertaken a very comprehensive review of both of those incidents. been are, there have directives that have been issued to try to address some of the specific insider threat issues. and a review of security clearance process, not just because of those two into this but also because of the navy yard shooting. i know that a lot of that work is in progress heard so i am not comfortable trying to outline exactly what measures have been g anded or are bein endorsed through that process, but what i can tell you is that that has been a subject of careful and close review involving the white house e aually convening a larg number of agencies together to

try to figure out what exactly is the nature of the threat, what can we do about it? i will offer one other data point, and that is there are a lot of ways to improve the process that are extremely costly in terms of resources. hardhere are some questions we have to ask and answer about what it movements actually buy us enough increased security to be worth the expenditure in resources. and it is a difficult calculus. it is not an area that i am working in, but i've had some exposure to the work that is being done. and it is a lot of hard choices that have to be made. yes, sir? >> [inaudible] about thestion was

analogy i offered to public health for cyber security. postershat there are and bathrooms showing how to wash your hands to try to control the spread of diseases and asking whether there are ways in which we could conduct public information campaigns. is that thereswer are such campaigns. i do not honestly know how much of an impact they have. we do them and we will continue to do them, but it's really difficult to actually get people to take even what you would think are the most basic measures to defend the run networks. this is true in the corporate world as well. here's another shot at me -- shot for me to get statistics wrong. i was talking to people from microsoft about their adoption rate for patches.

they have patch tuesdays where they send out patches for all microsoft software. there are lots to issue. orderet something on the of a 15% adoption rate for the average patch they send out. all you have to do is clip on a button and it will update your software for you. occasionally they will send out ones where they have the blinking red exclamation point saying this is a really important up date. there they get about a 35% adoption rate. it kind of extraordinary even when you make it really easy for people to up date their systems then they are not always very good about it. there are a lot of organizations way better than others but this is what i'm talking about when i say culture of accountability. to be fair, a lot of the users of microsoft software,

individual users rather than companies, it's hard for anyone bemake a private citizen accountable other than themselves, but i know that a lot of it is business systems where there should be a greater sense of accountability for patching known vulnerabilities this freshly when the company makes it easy for you. i feel like we're up against a pretty big challenge. that when wenk would hear about really that itant breaches would lead to cyber security awareness. cyberis actually a security awareness month -- it might be this month? maybe next month? example, the breaches that i mentioned here today, how many of you had actually heard about those breaches before? that's pretty good. significantis

mostly for the reasons that i had cited, not for the scale, but the community health service breach is for scale. when there was an intrusion to nasdaq from issue years ago, i had seen information about it before it had gone public. i thought to myself -- oh my gosh. people are going to lose their minds. this will change everything. it didn't. it had a pretty significant/and then the story died down. several months later, they announced they had been breached. of the key fobs were compromised. i heard about it before became public and i thought people were going to lose their minds and they did not. just a few months after that where there was a stronger reaction to a cyber security

incidents and it was sony but because people could not play their video games. to me, it's instructive that it's difficult to really get and onntain people's attention cyber security in a way that's actually going to significantly change and shape their behavior. answerfairly long-winded to your question, but we do have cyber security campaigns, information and awareness campaigns. i have not seen statistics or any assessments on how effective they are, but based upon the lack of a sustained, significant reaction to profound cyber security breaches, i'm not sure how much awareness campaigns on the rhône can actually do. we will still do them because i think they are really important. it's also important not put too much faith and reliance on those awareness campaigns.

>> [inaudible] >> the question was a reference to suzanne spaulding's remarks from yesterday about the notion in mergers some due diligence elements before actually bringing networks together. i will say this not just because i see some of her employees in the audience, but i think it's a wonderful idea. howfollow-up to that was

you would actually go about doing that. i will go ahead and avoid giving any legal advice from the podium . truthfully, i would have to think about that more. i will use that as an opportunity to deflect and answer a different question which i referenced earlier on about the idea of establishing diligence standards as a standard matter and how important it is. right now, we don't have a clear mechanism for doing that. from my perspective, i think what suzanne is suggesting is a good idea for people to adopt voluntarily, but there is not a mechanism to require it. one way it might eventually be required is through shareholder showits if they manage to the failure to manage certain care referring from the use of standards of care. failure to take reasonable care in the process of merging

networks having led to some significant loss to shareholder seee, you might actually the imposition of such standards through that mechanism. you could also see it through insurance companies. right now, there is enormous resistance to the government imposing a duty diligence standard externally on the private sector. that's part of the reason why i wanted to dislike the question, but let me just reinforced that i think what suzanne is describing would be very useful and it gets to the utility of the cyber security framework crafted as an offshoot of aecutive order 1366 that is voluntary framework and a fairly basic voluntary framework that topanies can use to try impose some discipline on themselves and some structure and how they shape their own due diligence. standards but an interesting note, one of the

most significant ways in which the framework is being applied is by companies who has vendors where their networks are not being merged with theirs but at least have to touch and communicate with the company network. a lot of companies are taking the framework and saying to their vendors that they will only be able to touch the network if they are in compliance. beginningat is a good to the development of a due diligence standard. a shadow of what suzanne is describing. i think it is a much more significant undertaking and reflecting a more significant merging and networks. we at least have the beginning of what that could look like by looking at the framework. one more question. yes?

>> [inaudible] >> that's a great question. speaking specifically in the context -- you are talking about government contracting specifically or as a general matter? the idea is when you can impose on government contractors certain basic cyber security measures that they must take is part of the contract that the same thing for a private sector to private sector contract. that's a great question. i cannot claim much perspective on what's happening in the private sector as far as requirements like that.

as i referenced, the way in which the framework is being used could be incorporated into contracts. it could be more informal than that but it could be also incorporated. and the government, we are looking at this very question and in the dod, there actually is a provision that requires defense contractors to report general and it outlines guidelines and remediation in response to a breach. there is serious consideration underway on if we need to expand my the writ is looking at the requirements there or applying them to the far. there is any number of ways where the government or private --tor entities could impose whether it is basic hygiene or something more involved than

that, and contract requirements. that is absolutely a vehicle through which you could impose standards like that, definitely. i think that's all the time we got here, but thank you guys very much. i really appreciated. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> also at the american bar association annual conference, a panel examining the powers of the exam -- executive branch of government regarding immigration law. they discuss the concept of prosecutorial discretion. they also looked at possible future actions by the obama administration to deferred deportations. this is about one hour. midafternoon. i'm happy to be here this afternoon and to help bring you this a really wonderful and timely panel about executive power in immigration law. topics a very important tom a one of those ripped from

the headlines kind of panels -- this is a very important topic, one of those ripped from the headlines. they have delegated authority over immigration law to the executive branch and the executive branch has consistently and historically whenised much discretion it comes to the enforcement of immigration law. this discretion is exercised through a complex web of federal agencies. we have the department of homeland security playing a big role. the department of homeland security house is nice, immigrations and customs enforcement. also within dhs, cbp, customs and border patrol. uscis, united states citizenship and immigration services. the department of justice also plays a role. justice housesof the immigration court system.

the department of labor plays a role in some types of immigration, benefit applications, and the department of state and a role in issuing visas outside of the u.s. or permission for individuals to travel to the united states. when we think about the executive branch in terms of immigration law, those are the main players in terms of the federal agencies. now, the nature and the scope of executive power over immigration law has been in the news recently and i will just give you two quick examples. one is the fairly recent program called daca, deferred action for childhood arrivals which the government issues a promise not to deport foreign nationals who meet the eligibility requirements. it does not grant legal status but it is a promise not to deport for a certain time. the second big example is literally going on right now.

we have heard messages from president obama's administration that he is considering possible further action in exercising discretion over the enforcement of immigration in the space of 13 plus years, give or take, of attempts for legislative reform in congress that have not succeeded in a bill that has been passed and signed into law. with that little bit of background, i want to briefly introduce you to our three speakers this afternoon. i'm so happy that they were all able to join us. these are three individuals who are really sort of a dream team wish list of speakers on this topic. our first speaker today is going to be marshall. he is filling in for esther oliveria.

for immigration policy at the center for american progress and a key strategist for immigration reform and has been so for many years. he frequently appears on national and regional television and radio talking about immigration reform. he has held several positions in his career where he has been a leader in pushing for immigration reform in the united states. we are very happy to have marshall here with us today. next, the samuel weiss faculty scholar, clinical professor of law, and director of the center for immigrants rights at dickinson penn state law. leadingne of the experts on prosecutorial discretion and immigration law here in the united states. we are happy to hear -- have her here with us.

their full biographies are included in their packets if you want to read more about them. our third speaker will be margaret stock, an immigration attorney from anchorage, alaska. you may win the award for for this traveler to attend this conference. for coming. much margaret is an expert not only just on immigration law generally but also immigration law as it in a sense with issues involving the military and constitutional law issues and immigration law. perhaps the most important piece of information i can tell you about margaret is that she is the recipient of a macarthur foundation genius grant. i should just say she's a genius and sit down. we will listen to whatever you have say. we're going to let these three speakers talk. at the end, we will have 10

minutes or so for your questions. if you do have a question at the end, when i open it up if you will come to the microphone to ask, that will be great. i'm going to sit down and martial, if you would lead us off, that would be great. can you hear me in the back? there we go. thanks so much, jill. i'm a weak substitute, but bear with me. this is a last-minute pinch hitting effort here. as jill noted, this is an extremely timely discussion, won the conference organizers could not have planned better for dave -- had they tried. the president has announced that he is likely to issue more executive actions on immigration in the coming weeks -- literally. before we get to what those

actions might look like, i'm going to try to kick things off by quickly reviewing how we actually got to this point. in june of last year, the senate passed a historic immigration reform bill that would revamp andlegal immigration system massively expanded border security infrastructure and personnel and it would have established a process for the 11 point 5 million unauthorized immigrants living in the united forward and earn legal status and eventually citizenship. since the senate bill passed, we are in month 14, house republican leaders have talked about the need for reform but have refused to bring any legislation actually to the floor. in january, speaker john boehner issued standards to guide the conference on evaluating immigration legislation. within one week after internal objections from some elements

within his party, he put those standards on ice and declared his parties distrust of the president was too great and made it too difficult to move forward with immigration at that time. behind the scenes, the speaker repeatedly asked the president to provide him some additional time before he took any actions on his own to prepare the conference for moving forward on legislation. it was widely understood i many of us and widely assumed in the press that house republicans were making a calculation that they did not want to engage this issue, immigration reform, until they had made it through several rounds of primaries including a big round in june. with the senate bill waiting in having worked so hard to get that across the finish line, the president and many advocates did not want to declare the immigration process of dead tree maturely.

you do not just snapped her fingers in this town and get a serious piece of bipartisan legislation like 744 was accomplished. we compartmentalize our skepticism about whether or not republicans would move forward and we really bent over backwards to give them that space to try and find a sweet spot within the conference to bring legislation forward. the record immigration continuing ass aggressively as ever while legislation remained at this and pass. this is something that johnson had promised to many of us even prior to his confirmation but now he was under a erect order basically to determine what steps the agency could take to

further refine their policies and bring them in line with the administration's priorities. at the same time, the president asked immigration reform advocates to keep the pressure on house representatives to try to break the gridlock. he basically asked us to give house republicans kind of a final window in which to move legislation. he also promised that if they refused to do so then he would do what he could within his legal authority to start fixing the system. it's hard for us to know, and maybe time will tell, how serious the house leadership ever was about moving legislation. it seems clear that the speaker himself has committed to the issue and understand this is critically important to the long-term viability of his party. it seems that there were really deep divisions in his leadership and rank and file members were asking why we would move forward

on an issue that is potentially so divisive to our conference when the prospects for success in the midterms look so good. of course, we were making the exact opposite argument. conditions are so favorable and you have the wind at your back him of the perfect time to try to tackle an issue that may be internally tricky. then when majority leader cantor lost his primary to a tea party theidate, john boehner and rest of the leadership team viewed that as a decisive factor in refusing to bring legislation to the floor. oftor was never a supporter immigration reform, so this was not a real litmus test on the electoral import of the issue but the threat to the establishment incumbent by tea party insurgents that was represented in his defeat was deemed sufficiently great to terminate the prospects and compromised really on a range of

issues but certainly on an issue like this that generates such feet and vocal opposition among certain elements of the party. when that happened, the speech or recount -- reached out to the president and said we would not be advancing a legislation this year. the president's immediate response was to call attorney general holder in secretary johnson and ask them to provide recommendations by the end of the summer for what could be done within the administration's legal authority to start fixing the system. will sketch the parameters of the legal authority. i think it might be helpful to frame the backdrop against which any executive actions address the undocumented population. there are an array of actions

that could be taken and a menu of options we think might be under consideration of this next decision point. the visa be the current undocumented population -- vis a vis, i want the sketch were the context is for that. we did not get to this point overnight. the problem is in the system especially with the large-scale undocumented immigration that has mushroomed over the last 20 years and this is not the first congress that has tried and failed to reform the system. we were on the cusp of an overhaul when 9/11 hit. then in 2005 and in 2006 they came back to the issue in the house and senate passed their own competing version of what reform should look like. then a bill died on the senate floor at a point where we were extremely helpful about the politics reaching a point where we were going to be able to get something over the finish line.

we never got off the launch pad in the obama administration's first term although it did receive a lot of congressional attention. we had a vote on the dream act. the issue never really left the tont burner but it never got the process of cooking it. hase congress over this failed to overhaul the system and overhaul the laws themselves, it has succeeded in appropriating really astronomical sums to enforce the existing broken system. just during the president's tenure, i think there has been $100 billion spent on immigration and border enforcement. the u.s. now spends some $3.5 billion more on immigration and border enforcement and on all federal law enforcement combined.

it is a total of somewhere $18een $17 billion and billion, higher than the annual gdp of 85 contraries. we're spending a king's ransom trying to force our way to a solution and here we are today. the system is as broken as ever. increased enforcement on american families, businesses, and communities has reached a breaking point. some 75 cents has lived here for over a decade. that means they are deeply rooted here with american families. they owned businesses. they are very valuable workers. they are long settled and they are long integrated into our communities. they're also being deported in record numbers. some 4 million people have been current just cents the president took office. some 2 million people have been deported.

just put that in context, that in 5.5 years wiping out the entire combined population of boston, miami, seattle, and st. louis. hole inthtaking communities across this country. president obama has argued because he has been pressed aggressively on this by particularly those of us on the to rein in the deportation policies but he did not build the battleship that he is the commander of right now. he has claimed and asserted on numerous occasions that he does not have the authority to simply stop all the deportations. in one critical sense, he's right. only legislation can provide a permanent solution that includes

a path to legal status and citizenship for the unauthorized immigrants living here and any administrative relief via executive authority or executive action will be temporary. it could be subject to revision, reversal by a subsequent administration and it is likely not going to cover the entire undocumented population. it is high definition going to be inadequate and incomplete but the president can do a lot more administratively to make it more rational and humane while congress continues to be suffering from this paralysis. that is because the administration has wide administrative latitude in deciding how to enforce the laws, how to spend resources that congress appropriates. pursuether to enforcement against certain specific individuals. they have the discretion to recognize individuals with certain equities hama mitigating

factors like how long someone has lived in this country, what their family ties are. experiencemployment is like and authorize them to affirmatively get temporary relief from deportation. it's that type of policy we hope to see and it is that type of policy that will be scrutinized for its legal authority. with the bat, let me turn it over to some of the experts to talk about that legal authority. -- with that, let me turn it over. >> thank you, marshall. professor wadhi, tell us about that legal authority. >> thank you for inviting me to be part of this panel and for mr. whitley for featuring immigration in this homeland security institute. marshall has provided a great job for how we got here and he asked for some to have the administration exercise discretion wisely and widely.

what i'm going to do here is talk a bit more technically about the role of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. it is certainly not a recent phenomenon. what is prosecutorial discretion in immigration? it refers to the agency's decision or choice about the extent to which the immigration laws should be enforced against a person or group, if at all. it has been part of the system long asdes, perhaps as the system has operated. you may think of prosecutorial discretion to be just one form, like maybe in a criminal context, a prosecutor choosing not to file charges were choosing which charges to file. p.d.ainly, that type of

applies in immigration law but there are more than two dozen forms of prosecutorial discretion. there are the so-called non-enforcement actions, the decision to refrain from taking action, like a non-serving a charging document or notice to appear on a noncitizen or not filing that document with the immigration court, which is the trigger for removal proceedings. there are as well, as marshall alluded to, affirmative acts that the agency may take to grant temporary reprieve to a person or group of persons. some of the historical types of prosecutorial discretion that have been carried out in this stays of removal, parole, deferred action. program is one form of

deferred action. does this prosecutorial discretion, from. is it legal? where is the authority? this is grounded in the u.s. constitution, the statute case law, regulation that is binding on the agency as well as policy. or as administrative law scholars like to say, some regulatory guidance -- sub-regulatory guidance. even the u.s. supreme court has acknowledged that prosecutorial discretion exists and the administration and executive has broad authority to decide how enforcement dollars should be spent if at all. and by the way, equities matter, too. in addition, there are several federal court cases dating at least the back to the 1970's

looking at deferred action and the extent to which denials of deferred action are reviewable. that thisther example concept of prosecutorial discretion is recognized in the legal system. similarly, as alluded to by professor family, congress has delegated much authority to the agencies. right there smack in the beginning of the immigration code, formerly called the immigration and nationality act sometimes compared second in complication to the u.s. tax code is a broad statutory the secretaryng of homeland security authority to administer and enforce the immigration laws of the united states. perhaps that is the most important statutory provision driving the authority to exercise discretion.

there are other sections in the speak to thislso prosecutorial discretion. theion 242g talks about non-review ability of certain forms of prosecutorial discretion like the commencement of removal proceedings and the execution of removal orders. why would congress have explicitly barred judicial review on certain acts of prosecutorial discretion if it did not exist? similarly, another section of the immigration and nationality 234, talk about victims of crime, trafficking, and abuse. this is a preferred tool that was named by congress and has been exercised by the agencies for years around this concept of prosecutorial discretion.

let's continue on our journey from the statute to the regulations. agencies are guided by binding regulations. and for immigration experts, many times it is the cfr. within the regulations, there is a specific one that authorizes work authorization for individuals who have been granted deferred action if they can show economic necessity. there is an independent ground authorization based on having been granted deferred action. there is another regulation that does the same thing for another form of prosecutorial discretion called the orders of supervision. finally, the body of guidance that you may either be the most familiar with are the policy memoranda. we have the daca memorandum from

2012 and the popularly named morton memos. in prior administrations and , the oldthat, ins agency abolished before the department of homeland security was created, issued a string of memoranda affirming the role of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. in 1970 six issued a memorandum. doris meissner, bo cooper issuing memorandum in 1990 and 2000. we really have a string of policy guidance that talks about the authority, practice, and theory of pd. we have this legal authority. what are the limits and who qualifies? there are certainly limits to granted one of

these forms of prosecutorial discretion. pd does not create a former legal -- formal legal status and it does not have a path to permanent residency, citizenship, or direct derivative benefit either. notlarly, the agency can affirmatively grant citizenship, for example, to somebody who does not qualify for naturalization. or they cannot affirmatively give a green card to someone who is otherwise ineligible under the law. those are some of the limits that apply to prosecutorial discretion. there has been quite a bit of talk about the take care clause in the constitution and the extent to which that is being violated. thus far, my view is that these arguments really lack a foundation, at least as a legal matter. i would go as far to say that

sound prosecutorial discretion execution andh enforcement of the immigration laws. the supreme court has in fact said so. it is when the administration is using resources wisely and conscientiously that laws are being faithfully executed. not in aat, we are situation where the administration has failed to enforce the laws. we heard some of the numbers from marshall earlier in this past year or a roughly 400,000 people have been removed. beyond even physical removal there are all types of enforcement actions that the agency can and has taken including arrests, interrogation, detention, etc. just to end on a

bit more of an appealing note, let us talk a about the theory of prosecutorial discretion. these limitedre economic resources and that might be a little bit of law and theory, but the second theory is more humanitarian. there are people who are here who have laid down roots. some have been here for 10 years or longer as marshall mentioned but they do not have a formal legal way to be here. what should the agency do? in a world where resources are limited and there are scores of individuals who present compelling equities like a serious medical condition, long-term residents, a relative with a green card or daca beneficiary or u.s. citizen. what kind of affirmative relief can we provide or the administration provides within the bounds of the law?

this humanitarian theme in prosecutorial discretion is not a new phenomenon. equities, types as age, health long-term residents, the presence of family members. those the same kinds of equity use of that ins used to pro prosecutorial discretion in the 1970's. i will let professor stock to talk about trust tutorial grounds for discretion and beyond. -- to talk about prosecutorial grounds. >> one of the reasons why i ended up with the famous grant from the macarthur foundation was for work i did under the bush administration to use existing legal authorities to benefit u.s. national security by using immigration law and capitalizing on the dysfunction of the immigration laws to benefit the department of

defense. i will talk about that a little bit because i think it's a good example of one of the deep mysteries. everyone agrees the system is broken but no one wants to fix it. there are some people out there benefiting from the dysfunction of the system which is rather interesting. other speakers today mentioned the problemsbehind with reforming our immigration system today and if you're interested in this issue, the underlying issues are well laid out in the current issue of foreign affairs magazine which has the picture of a very broken american capital on the front cover and a statement from my former harvard teaching colleague gideon rose. "american politics marked by discontent and ideological turns on both side of the aisle." then there's another article by david frum. they are increasing dependence on the old and the rich and the

misfortunes will have to wait for a truly multiethnic socially tolerant conservativism. the legal framework is fuller -- further confident by immigration law itself is a technical mess. the best quote on this topic comes from a spokesperson who is speaking for the old immigration and naturalization service speaking on the record. she said quote immigration law is a mystery and a mastery of obfuscation. see also went on to say that they are worth their weight in gold. this points out a central fact that the immigration and nationality act is a mess. it is contradictory. it has this enforcement stuff but then it has benefits granted to people who are here

unlawfully. as a technical matter, the code is a maze. what immigration practitioners are experiencing today because of this perfect storm of bad politics, congress not being able to solve the problem is chaos, confusion, gaps in the law and the inability for people to gain any legal status anymore. even though 100 years ago the easily would have been able to get green cards. even people who are married to american citizens and our otherwise perfectly law-abiding except for immigration are not able to get status. our legal system is broken. we have backlogs, quotas, rules that don't make any sense in me have a lot of anger in the code undermining our national security. you have the headlines today with the crisis of the unaccompanied minors on the southern border and i will talk about that a little bit.

what is absolutely true is something contrary to a lot of the headlines. the code is chock-full of legal authorities given to the executive branch. inre are piles of provisions the code that mention the president having authority the secretary of homeland security having authority. those of you in the audience who are national security lawyers -- you will be familiar with the famous test that applies in situations like this. 's opinione jackson takes a flexible approach to the issue of presidential power rejecting any fixed boundary between congress and the president. i think it would be helpful in today's news media when people talk about presidential power to remind them because jackson divided presidential authority into three categories in descending order of legitimacy. first, the most legitimate cases

in which the president is acting with "express or implied authority from congress." side note, there is tons of that express or implied authority in the code. the second category, cases in which congress has been silent. the third, cases in which the president is defying congressional orders. just to mention a few specific authorities the president has to deal with immigration. the immigration and nationality act has section 207. "if the president determined after appropriate consultation that an unforeseen emergency refugee situation exists, the response is justified by grace humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest. admission to the u.s. of these refugees cannot be accomplished he mayubsection eight, fix a number of refugees to be admitted during this is seating. secedingceed -- in the

period not to exceed 12 months." this puts them in tier one of the youngstown test to do certain things on his own to deal with this kind of crisis. there are further authorities, (d)5 gives the president the option to parole, humanitarian parole, to give because i legal status. it's an authority that has been used for decades are the president to use people and who otherwise cannot qualify for a visa. 242 permitting no judicial review. 274(a), any when they decide they want to give a work tomit to, they just get

publish that and they are given authority.atutory i'm only mentioning a few but the code is chock-full of it. it's unfortunate that they are making statements that there is no authority to do different things. in fact, if you look in the code you can find it quite easily. evil often say there is no authority for categorical grants the relief. it's one of the most open secrets among immigration lawyers today that it is simply not true. there is plenty of categorical authority. beenis one that has long exercised, the parole authority. many presidents have repeatedly affirmed the executive branch's authority to give categorical relief and the example i give are the cubans. cubans who are found to have entered the united states unlawfully are immediately given parole and work permits for free

by the u.s. government. this has been going on for decades. the has not been a big outcry about it. the reason they are given this parole is so they can qualify to adjust status and get green cards under the cuban adjustment act. if they were not given parole, they would be ineligible to adjust their status under the cuban adjustment act. this has literally been going on for decades and there are numerous memos discussing this authority that is purely categorical. that is one bald example but there are others. there has again been no outcry. another relevant recent example is during the bush administration under secretary of homeland security michael chertoff. it came to the attention that there was a problem with certain military family members who could not get legal status in the situation came to his attention because there was an army soldier who went missing in action in iraq. the government of the unit night

it states was trying to deport his wife. he could not appear at the deportation hearing because he was missing in action so he ordered the parole of the wife and that allowed her to get a green card under regular legal authorities that exist similar to the cuban adjustment act. secretary chertoff did this and it started a formal program that tonow solidified in a memo allow military family members to be treated like cubans so that for several years now. military family members who were the immediate relatives have been granted parole that that allows them to adjust status under existing congressional statutes and they can therefore get rain cards. they do not have to leave in order to get green cards. they are treated like cubans. another example and the one i will more or less finish up on his military actions vital to the interest.

i was recognized by the macarthur foundation. there is a statute that allows the president through the circuit area of the services. you listed all the agencies that have something to do with immigration and you did not mention the department of defense. among the many agencies with immigration authority is actually the department of defense because they can enlist people into the military or existing title x authority and authority,le viii they can turn the enlisted into citizens. in world war i, 20% of the soldiers in the army were immigrants, many of them right off the boat. they were drafted and turned into american citizens. in world warpened ii, the korean war, the vietnam war. it was required by some international law.

the very difficult to claim that germans living in the united states that you want to draft should be serving in our armed forces unless you turn them into yo citizens. we have a long history in america of recruiting immigrants. interestingly, after 9/11 immigrant participation had dropped to its lowest level ever historically and that is still the case today. why? because our immigration system is broken and the department of defense imposed a requirement that you have to have a green card to join the military. going to get a green card anymore. we have millions living illegally with h-1b visas, j visas, but the quotas and the backlog was crazy. you could have a young man at m.i.t. getting a masters degree

to some great relevance to national security but once he graduates he has to get h-1b, o.p.t., and by the time he gets a green card he's 35 or even 40 if these chinese are indian. that's how long it's taking to get people green cards. to join the military with the green card and you are too old, that ends up being a problem. under the osha administration we started a program using existing statutory authority -- under the bush administration. 504(b), we can enlist people vital to the national interest. we started enlisting only people who were legal although they had the authority to enlist undocumented immigrants. to administration wanted enlist people legally present because they had a record with

homeland security and could have their security status verified and so forth. we allowed them to join the u.s. military and it turned out to be an incredibly successful program because the legal immigration system is broken. doc hers, highly educated people with phd's, master's degrees, they flooded army recruiting stations trying to enlist in the military. i gave you the example of the m.i.t. person and that's a real case. an individual from a country that would be backlogged but he realized he would not get a green card or citizenship until he was about 40 years old. he dropped out of his m.i.t. phd program and joined the army as a specialist. that's dropping down the education level if you are familiar with the ranking system. he would get citizenship and

could use his degree to get commission as an officer later on. the program was widely successful and gave us the soldier of the year 2012, the winner of the ring core marathon, a kenyan attending alabama as an ncaa athlete, lots of people like that. -- the winner of the marine core marathon. it is rather ironic. we have a system today that does not serve our national security. we hear people say we must enforce the law to help our national security. a littlective is it backward. it's so broken now that we cannot get the resources and that we need to sustain. if you look at it from a broad perspective, you look at economic security and you look at the needs of the military. back to being generous with green cards, it would enhance national security and give them a much larger pool

of talented recruits to draw on. we don't have that right now. there has been bipartisan support. we mentioned dysfunction but one thing house republicans have been strong on is using the immigration system to help the military with recruiting. a e-house tea party member has decided to make that permanent. on the border with the children, there has been a lot of bad information in the news. they know it has been building for a really long time and it is a crisis partially caused by the heavy enforcement of the past 10 years. i only mention a foreign affairs article if you are interested in how the gangs took central america from 2005. it talks about how the u.s. mass deportation had destabilized central america and created a national security problem where the new commander of southcomm

acknowledged has been partially caused by our deportation policy. the legal authority exists to deal with this in a humanitarian fashion. so far that has not quite happened. the administration's response has not been in line with traditional notions of due process. this has resulted in some unfortunate headlines. today, i got this article, five children murdered after being deported back to honduras. this is pretty typical with what people thought was going to happen with short-circuiting due process and not being able to apply for asylum. i hope the crisis on the southern border will be looked at holistically and not just as a problem of children who need to be sent out as fast as possible. that congress and the president will look at the underlying socioeconomic factors because of begin on solve them, we do not help our national security. one of the underlying factors is

a legal system that does not meet our needs. there are ways the executive might act lawfully in line with youngstown and the president would be in tier one. i hope to see that happening in the next few weeks. thank you. >> thank you so much, margaret, marshall, and shoba. we do have some time for questions if there are any. i have a question. really, i think any one of the three of you could answer this. if we do see some additional executive action coming from the obama administration, just to be clear, what will it be? you think it will be a benefit that individuals could apply for? might the benefit be? i just want to make sure we're clear on what exactly we are talking about in terms of the

actual end product or result of further executive action. >> one clarifying point that most forms or all forms of prosecutorial discretion are not deemed to be a benefit in the eyes of the agency though they are certainly a de facto benefit to the individual especially if, or example, they have the ability to apply for a work permit if they have deferred action or a supervision order or the ability to apply for a driver's license. one form that we could see is deferred action. that would be something like daca aimed at a particular group of individuals. in terms of what it should look like and maybe marshall can share more insight on what he thinks it will look like.

have the opportunity for really good administrative law form, a fee, a process. these procedural ingredients were part of the daca program and that's part of what made it a success but there were also some costs to that transparency including a lawsuit and legislation to freeze authority. i would like any program that does come out to include these basic ingredients to ensure consistency and the outcome of cases so that people with similarly relevant facts and up with the saint down -- >> i am not going to speculate as to what it might be. deferred action for childhood arrivals provides a template for the administration,

they are trying to privatize -- prioritize their enforcement resources. debateure of the public is sadly misinformed, often. this is viewed as a benefit for the individuals. margaret can speak to this and i have learned this over the years. , peoplewere to decide have been here 10 years and are eligible to come forward and request the exercise of discretion. they are going to have to identify themselves. the process of identifying someone who has lived here for 10 years and is unknown to the government provides an important and powerful national security benefit. 5% of the workforce is unknown

to the current government officials. that is a security risk. just the process of getting people to come forward and register is a benefit to all of us for our collective national security. there are significant economic benefits to the tax revenue base. we will be coming out with a report in a couple of weeks. in line with this national security point, i think it is important to know this is not -- in the process of fixing the system through executive action is that about providing a benefit to an individual as it is about trying to rationalize and make more functional what is sadly a grossly dysfunctional system. with theno idea administration is planning to do. i have heard the rumors everyone else has.

one of the things is i hope they will look at the currently artificial barriers that prevent people from getting regal status -- legal status. we have built up a collocated --tem that allows complicated system that allows laws on the books. congress passed the cuban adjustment act. to adjuster status under this act, you have to be paroled. the executive gave them parole so they could use the existing law and would not have to go back to cuba to get their status. congress said that they could get. the executive has the authority to fix a lot of arbitrary very years preventing the spouses of american citizens.

the parolexpand or authority to people who were ed to cubans.uati we don't want us in the back to liberia. why don't we just parole them? they can then adjust their status. i don't think too many people would argue if we you -- if you explain them. it is difficult to explain to the public that the legal immigration system does not let people get status today. that is why we have this 8-20,000,000 population of people running around without papers. >> looks like we have a question from the audience. >> my name is sheila. i used to be a now i work for dod.

prosecutor. be a now i work for dod. i asked about the effects of deporting felons. what that has had on fragile countries. creation of prime -- crime problems. and children fleeing the country in order to flee -- avoid gang involvement. the panel didn't want to comment but did say they had been creating programs to try and mitigate the effects. you comment on that? do you know whether there has been developments? >> there have been developments. the problem is creating programs like this takes resources and effort. i will play out the scenario.

you are a central american gang. ms 13. to be a game, you need to have your human resource department. recruits. were finding a viable source of the ports were -- recruits were the rotation flights. eportation flights. the new america well but did not know also the door -- el salvador. they would get dropped there with no money or and nobody to meet them at the airport. ms 13 figured out a great way to get recruits would be to meet the deportation flights. you can imagine the scenario. to offer a place to live and

food. a social support network. by the way, you get to run drugs to the u.s. you want to be there anyway, that is your home. you will not work for us. the u.s. was slow to recognize we were actually fostering the development of ms 13 with policies. they are trying to come up with programs in the receiving countries so the people that get to thed are not left depredations of the gangs. we have had problems with the jamaican government complaining we are deporting u.s. educated criminals to jamaica. these folks were not criminals when they get to the u.s. originally. they learned a lot of their criminality by interfacing in our cities or with our gangs. the stuff got learned in america. the techniques of criminality were honed in america.

these folks are deported back to a place like jamaica or honduras. guatemala. with networks already built. the receiving country does not have a capacity to deal with it. they're are starting to develop them but i don't -- wouldn't say they're full-fledged. the government was assuring people that when they got deported back, they would be safe. we have seen kids getting m urdered. i wouldn't say they were fully operational or effective. guatemala, they are -- there is a limited program in effect. very limited. and on doors, there is nothing. they are greeted with nothing, no opportunity.

now, there is absolutely no infrastructure to receive these folks and make them more productive. again, is not only be people who have been returned but one of the problems it in those countries. there is so little infrastructure to protect them and provide them with the opportunity. it is a vicious cycle. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> i am a private attorney. my question is for margaret stock. , and alsogranted daca the subset of those granted daca who have outstanding removal orders, would they be eligible for this program that allows for enlistment into the military and obtaining citizenship?

if they are not currently eligible, are there plans to broaden the category all those thesee so they could -- young dreamers could into the military and gain citizenship? >> is a question i get asked a lot. the administration policy is not to allow the dacas to enroll. this could be changed with a one-page memo. .huck hagel could sign a memo so far, secretary hagel has not exercised that authority even though he hasn't. it.as there is a bill pending in congress that was introduced by a house republican that would aca's the dock is -- the d to enroll in the military. there are two bills. one is colby and list act. -- one is called the and list act -- one is called the enlist

act. it would allow people with no papers to enroll. i don't support it. the bill that is a good one is the military enlistment opportunity act of 2013. introduced by a tea party republican of colorado. that allows people to enlist in the military if they have a daca document which means they have cleared terrorism checks. themand security has run through the gang member database. they have no serious criminal record. that population is a very safe operation to allow to enlist in the military. they have been here at least five years. they have a high school diploma. they have a file with dhs and the social security number. it is a little-known fact that

the military has a huge demographic time bomb happening. it is difficult to find qualified american citizen recruits for a number of reasons. of five of -- one out americans can qualify for the military due to factors like obesity, drug use. all kind of disqualifying issues. the pentagon numbers are scary right now for the future of the all volunteer force because of a lack of qualified recruits. a rapidly aging population. increasing disqualification. if you open up the pool to that 's youof people, the daca add a few hundred thousand people to the potential of recruits. they are u.s. educated and a low risk population. so far, the president has not

chosen to exercise the authority he has to allow the doing list -- allow them to enlist. i suspect that maybe president bush would have been less reluctant to exercise executive authority. >> thank you very much. that is all the time we have you read these join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] and thank you for joining us today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] arkansasformer governor and republican debate i can't be on education standards. scottish parliament. in the discussion on threats to

the u.s.. >> special primetime programming on the c-span networks. from glasgow, a debate over scottish independence. spotting ofue conservative groups. wednesday, the principal of a magnet school >> thursday, i house budget committee hearing. friday, native american history. on c-span two, book tv. monday at 8:30, a discussion about school choice. tuesday, a writer. ad wednesday, the author of biography about neil armstrong to read thursday, a tour of the of simon &s

schuster. and friday, in-depth with ron paul. monday, the reconstruction era and civil rights. tuesday, the end of world war ii and the atomic bomb. wednesday, the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. american attitudes of world war i changed through course of the word. any nasa documentary about the 1959 apollo 11 moon landing. find the television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org. call us. #twitter. hashtag on twitter. >> next, former arkansas governor mike huckabee. he and he leadership conference

support higher standards. this press conference came after education polls show public support for common core standards dropping. this is about 30 minutes. >> good morning. it is not the calendar or the seasons that i sent it in terms of time. day looming. it is not the start of arkansas football. 15 years ago, i would be standing in front of a group of students teaching them english.

there are a couple of trends that impact of the classroom then that are relevant to our discussion now as well. i noticed students come into the classroom are part of what was later dubbed the browning of america. they had beautiful skin. i noticed another trend. this is much more disturbing. the students were not prepared for what i was attempting to teach them. they had come to the classroom less and less prepared. there were these moments in the classroom they would look at me and i would think the same thing they were. part of me as a christian, i felt the lord was impressing on me.

these are your children. if they are going to love me with their mind, it is your responsibility make sure that they are successful. that is the spirit and the heart of what raising the standards is about. that is the initiative we're here to talk about. we believe it is raising the standards as one of a initiative that can help not just those students but those of the coming today and tomorrow. if we fast-forward 15 years, a collective minority will be larger than the white population in classrooms today. this is the first time in u.s. history. we have seen some progress among hispanic students in terms of high school graduation. in terms of college going. the second half of that story

isn't so terrific. they're not completing college at the same rate. it is 50% lower than their white counterparts. we believe that today is a day of action. we're are here to announce an initiative that will. our national hispanic education sunday. a every sunday in september we lift up education and pulpits across the country. some of the pastors represented here today will be tearing down these false walls of separated faith and education for too long. raising new rigorous standards in our homes and schools and say no longer will we dumb down standards and socially promote students of any background. we will hold all students accountable. pastors and principles should

meet. parents and professors should meet. we no longer have a false dichotomy that keep us apart. we believe that in addition to that we have started a faith and education website. we are going to send hispanic parents to get resources to assist their children and assist them to be more successful. these are all part of raising the standards initiatives. the next person to the podium embodies what happens when we expect more. we hear about an achievement gap for hispanic and other minority students. we don't think that is accurate. we think it is an opportunity gap. as someone who works for the nhs

clc, her story and her confidence as a young woman success story will be inspiring. [applause] >> good morning. as a daughter of first-generation generation immigrants, my education was a high priority. their understanding of the language and the system was limited. they prayed for and dream for the same things for me that my schoolmates has one of their children. a good education, strong faith, solid family values and a future of opportunity in this great nation they called home. we lived in dallas where ethnic diversity was the norm that high educational standards in neighborhood schools were not.

i was one of the few to apply and get accepted to a magnet high school. it expected us to graduate not just from high school from college as well. my friends and extended family at the high school in the neighborhood were not so fortunate. they were not held to rigorous academic standards and were not prepared for college-level work. thanks to the high expectations of my parents and teachers, i was motivated and prepared to earn a bachelors degree and then a masters degree. today, i work here on national education initiatives. next year, i will enter the program. i am living proof that high educational expectations and family support empower students from the most this vintage neighborhoods to not just

graduate, but to impact the next generation. as the fastest-growing segment in schools, we must seize the opportunity set high goals. they are a national resource and national treasure with the potential to lead americans to discovery and creativity. hispanic students and the nhclc welcome the support of national leaders committing to raise her in the standards for public education. we can ensure that hispanic families are encouraged to pursue the american dream of freedom, opportunity, and a better life for their children. thank you. [applause] >> she inspires me with that every time. our featured speaker today we are blessed to have.

he has a record for educational reform and supporting my nordic students as the former governor of arkansas. this is a man who also has a background in the church and understands the intersection of faith and education. he understands this intersection between common sense and conservatism from our perspective. he is one of the leading voices for conservatives and christians. please help me welcome governor mike huckabee. [applause] thank you. so you're looking at the scene and saying what is wrong with this picture. you have two hispanic leaders and an obvious white guy in the middle. i care because america is a better country when all of its children are well-educated. when every student in this

country has equal access to an excellent education and there is no such thing as a student who is required or somehow destined to go to an underperforming school. that should not be tolerated. it does not matter if ace to do is black, white, brown. it matters not. there is no such thing as a disposable child. every student in this country is an integral part of making us everything we can be. the reason i stand here today is raising academic standards is not simply the role of the school and it is certainly not the role of the government. students are not dry-cleaning.

parents can drop them off of the morning and pick them up in the afternoon spot free. what we have to do is remind parents that it is a biblical mandate for the parents to raise the children. they need to accept the responsibility for the outcome of their students. it goes back to the proverbs. train up a child in the way that he should go and he will not depart from it. it is as fundamental as life itself. it it was never acceptable for us to say we will give the responsibility of the education to the government and hope for the best. it will not end well. it does not matter who a person may be. it is the leadership of 40,000 hispanic churches across the country who decided that on education sunday they are going to use the power of their pulpits talking to millions of their constituents and remind them of their pivotal responsibility to take charge of

the educational opportunities for their children. this is wonderful opportunity for america. if we turn this over to congress, their approval rating is 9%. we want to turn it over to the government. we don't see the government top really doing a great deal. it would be against our own biblical convictions to ever turn over to caesar that which is god's. part of the challenge to the pastors is that they will remind the parents that it is your responsibility to make sure that they are getting the best education they are able to receive.

if that means they can't get into the school they are assigned to, they need to push for school choice. or they choose to homeschool or whatever decision is best for the student. education decisions ought to be about what is best for the student and not best for the government or the tax base or the people who are running the schools. i had a department of education director that was a real partner in reform. we work hard in our own state. one of the things we used to say it was there are two kinds of people, school people and their arcade people. school people are about the institution. that is not why we are there. it is about the children. we need to be kid people and focused on how the students are being prepared for life. i just want to mention that if we even thought tv time for parents to challenge your

students and challenge yourself. we could not be as effective as to see these pastors go into 40,000 churches. they will reach more people that sunday than on any television show we could buy time on. there would be more people sitting in those pews. imagine what happens when they heed that message. that is why i salute the leaders who will be joining together on that momentous day. i really believe that from my time when i was chairman of the education commission, the one organization that brings together all of the major

players in state policy. a study discovered that the most important predictors of academic achievement outcome is every student would be exposed to a broad and challenging curriculum. we cannot accept anything less than a very widespread curricula that touches all of the talents of every student and one that challenges them to be their very best. refuses to accept anything less than high standards for excellence. we are delighted to be here. i am thrilled to be part of the event. i believe we will entertain some questions. [applause] >> thank you, governor. we have times for a few questions.

>> hi. i want to differentiate between what is new and what you have done before. >> there are a couple of new initiatives. this idea that we are asking churches to take a love offering for every child that will be baptized or christened and deliver to them a college scholarship. this can be set up for $25. it doesn't have to be something huge. every child to be present with a bible and a college scholarship. we believe that this parallel between faith and education is widening. it should be an intersection. another quick one would be the