it is an important one, the information that we gain from the private sector will be shared with the federal government to protect and defend this country. i have been very encouraged by the sense of patriotism of companies that come into my chairman, this is such an important issue, it is not just my company anymore, it is about the united states of america defending the nation, and i want to help and be part of this information sharing process. that information is a two-way street. again, 85% of the information we don't have, it's not shared private to private, it's not shared with the federal government. that can be used to better protect our defenses and our nation from attacks. as you know, every federal agency is being hit, and country is under attack. >> what about the other part? chairman mccaul: i cannot really speak to hipsi.

i do not want to get out of my jurisdictional lane, other than i know that it has been marked up in the senate. i anticipate the house will markup a similar type bill that will have other portals and -- in there. we think dhs is the primary portal, the lead portal because of the civilian interface, the fact you cannot be prosecuted, it is not a spy agency. we think it is really the place for the sake harbor. -- safe harbor. however, if a member company wants to go to nsa as a portal we will allow for that as well. so i think house intel will deal with some of these other portals, nsa being one, the other being treasury. i know the financial sector members like to go to treasury. there is no reason why we would want to stop that. we want to preserve current

relationships of information sharing that exists, and not shut those down and say there is only one portal you can use. i think it is important that there are multiple, several portals, and we want to enhance that information sharing through those portals, through the liability protection keys -- p iece. that is the cornerstone of this legislation that will enhance the information sharing in greater and fuller participation. host: maybe i will do a final question and if we have a little time, which is you are the chairman of the committee. you are one of the recognized leaders in cyber security. you have been doing it almost longer than anyone else in washington. i say this in a positive way. what do you see the dhs agenda being the next couple years? what would you like the department do, what should they focus on? not just ciber, but across the board, which a dhs's priorities -- what should dhs's priorities

and agenda be? chairman mccaul: dhs, a lot of it is about travel and preventing travel. i think they have got, talk about kinetic threats, foreign fighters going through turkey into syria and iraq, keeping them out of the united states is a number one priority. jay johnson, who i've respect for, we call it the dual threat. you have the foreign fighter and the homegrown extremists. they are going to radicalize over the internet and pull off a major bombing. or you have a paris-style attack and someone goes there on a train and comes back, or the westgate shopping mall, the ak-47's in shopping mall, doing a lot of damage. we are very concerned about keeping that threat outside of the united states. in addition to the group in syria, premier bomb makers within al qaeda, very sophisticated.

they still -- they already have nonmetallic ied's and they're trying to get these things on airplanes. that is a great challenge for dhs at a priority in terms of protecting the american people. the border obviously is a big issue as well. but then the area that has no borders, and i think is the future that is not already here, is the cyber piece. that is one of the more exciting, innovative things coming out of the department that i think will have lasting consequences for the department of homeland security as it is moving forward. ncic i think will evolve into being not only the primary but the go to place in the future for the private sector. so that is how i see the kinetic threats on one hand from isis and al qaeda, and i see the cyber threats. particularly as rogue nations and terrorist organizations gain cyber capability, we have to stay ahead of that. it's going beyond theft and

espionage to more terror and destruction. you can buy a lot of this stuff already on the internet. so i think this is the area -- they say what keeps you up at night, well, there are a lot of things. but cyber has the probability of getting higher, but the consequences are very severe too. so the probability of getting attacked is high, but the damage is that itself, but relatively low casualties, but it is human casualties. the cyber piece is higher probability, but the consequences could be extremely severe and damaging. with time it will get worse. host: great. chairman mccaul: it is great news, isn't it? host: we always feel good. but i'm really grateful that you came and talked to us, took time out of your schedule.

i know how busy it is. you were busy before you were chairman. i have no idea what it is like now. thank you so much for joining us. chairman mccaul: thank you for having me. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indistinct chatter] >> and turning to the economy the labor department released the job numbers for march, showing the u.s. economy added the fewest job since december 2013. the unemployment rate remaining at 5.5% with your paper -- with

fewer people looking for jobs. later tonight here on c-span, bill clinton moderating a discussion on the health care industry with a panel of young entrepreneurs, including an adventure capitalist who started his own health insurance company. all part of the annual clinton foundation health summit. you can watch that tonight at 8:00 eastern time. and tomorrow. auntie spec, former texas state seven enter -- state senator wendy davis, who was back in the news in 2013 after a 17 hour filibuster on a debate on abortion clinics in texas. ms. davis: perhaps given the sexualized nature in which women candidates and women's issues are framed, woefully, might be a more apt way to describe the tactics. some of that occurs in failing frightening ways -- fairly

frightening ways. for example, my opponents derided me, using photoshop images inviting a response from potential voters to review be as highly sexualized, rather than intelligent and competent of a potential state it appeared there were also questions raised about my mother qualities, that i abandoned my children when i went to law school. so attention was diverted for my achievements. i was no longer to be applauded for graduating law school with honors, while also juggling the responsibilities of caring for my young family. i was to be reviled for self-improvement at the expense of giving my full time to childbearing. >> wendy davis on women in politics tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour will learn about the

history and literary life of tulsa, oklahoma. >> this is the most famous phrase writing of "this land is your land," but he was much more than that. we are very proud to have his work back in oklahoma, where we think it belongs. he was an advocate for people who were this and franchised. for those people who were migrant workers from oklahoma, kansas, and texas during the dust bowl era. some people arrived in -- arrived, literally starving. he became the spokesman. through his music. >> willie recorded very few songs of his own. we have a listening station that features 46 of his heart in his own voice. that is what makes the recordings that he did make so significant and so important to

us. >> ♪ this land is your land, and this land is my land ♪ ♪ from california to the new york islands ♪ >> what all of our events from tulsa saturday at noon eastern. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present the winning entries in this year's student cam documentary at -- edition. the current -- encourages -- encouraging middle school and high school students to think with their imagination. student asked to demonstrate how the policy, law, or action by the three branches of government have affected them or their communities. 4 eli kirshner, ricardo moreno arden siegel are our winners.

>> from this day forward all students will have a better chance to learn to excel, and to live out their dreams. [applause] >> in january of 2002, something unique happened. admist a political controversy and a war on terror, a bipartisan act of legislation depicts america's broken education system. the goal, straightforward, yet ambitious. all children will be provisioned in reading and mathematics by 2014. the year is not 2015. so, all children have been brought up to grade level, right? >> we need to make sure we are holding schools accountable. but the method and means that no child left behind has relied

upon to measure performance and to assess performance i think our very lacking -- are very lacking. >> the question, did succeed it's complicated. in short, the best answer might be, it depends. what it depends on especially is where you live. >> so, it is true that that future is already here, but the future is not even region -- evenly redistributed. we do not have the same resources in every local community. >> here is a snapshot of two cities in southeast michigan. less than 40 miles apart. detroit and ann arbor. the two offer a striking contrast in the results and responses to the federal mandate. one of the largest urban districts that the center assessment measures, dbs performed the lowest on fourth

and eighth grade reading and math. seeing the most significant it an average math course -- scores for eighth graders in the country. in 2013, only 7% of the city's eighth-graders -- eighth-graders were proficient in reading. in june 2011, governor rick snyder with the secretary of education at his side, introduced a revolutionary new experiment to improve michigan's lowe's performing schools taking the bottom 5% and consolidating them into a state run district. as a result, 15 schools from only part of the detroit public school system are now in the hands of the educational achievement authority. >> during the time when the state has had control over dps dps has actually gone further into deficit. >> many have cited the lack of a

democratic process to elect the eaa's board of trustees. seven out of 11 of whom are appointees of the governor. >> when ever have a person, a governor who takes and consolidates all of that and says i, the governor, can decide on behalf of all, that is problematic because you are really diminishing diversity you are diminishing different views, perspectives, peoples' ability to weigh in and be heard. >> while response into the crisis have been controversial at best in the decade and a half of no child left behind, the results in resource rich ann arbor have charted a different path. >> we think of ann arbor such a beautiful and diverse community. and we often don't have in our picture of ann arbor that one in four of our students come to us with needs, socioeconomic needs.

>> with an array of financial, pre-k, literacy after school, and nutritional resources, the public schools have been able to approach the problem in a multi tiered fashion. >> it creates an environment where kids who aren't, you know, at grade level, have the opportunity to see success. i am more than capable of being a successful student. >> the goal of all of that create that opportunity because we know without opportunity, to go to museums to do the science activities, to go on the trips our students are going to be left behind. >> ultimately, the sanctions that the legislation threatened for schools that did not make sufficient progress created a sense of urgency in ann arbor which has had the advantages of an affluent taxpayers and abundant resources.

so what have we learned in the last 13 years? what could we do better? >> when you do something on a major scale like this, involving public education, it is critically important to have -- to bring parents along here to bring the community along. to have them understand what you are trying to achieve here what will be the outcome -- achieve. what will be the outcome of the situation will somehow be much better than what was. >> we have to think about the fact that these are communities that have often been disenfranchised. they are economically stressed. they need all sorts of economic support if, in fact, the schools in them are to thrive. >> in places like finland, or the have a system that is often regarded as one of the best in the world, they have a much much more narrow achievement to cap because what they do is when

they recognize areas that have high percentages of childhood poverty, they put additional resources into that school. to try and ensure that those kids are being brought up to the level of proficiency that they need to. we are certainly not doing that here in michigan. we are doing the opposite could -- opposite. >> -- exposing the challenges, we need you during that. if you are advocating for children, we need you during that. and if we are educating kids and missing the connections and your friends have a closet full of clothes and it, and you make that connection for that kid, that student, everybody has a role. >> to watch all of the winning videos to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on student cam.

also, tell us what you think about the issue the students addressed on facebook and twitter. >> the university of arizona posted a discussion about your note hostages, including freelancer james foley, who was the first american killed by isis in syria last august to february, his parents took part in a discussion, along with former ap correspondent terry anderson, who was held hostage in lebanon for seven years. this is an hour and a half. >> journalism has changed enormously over the last two decades. and smart phones and global internet have put the whole world to the palm of our hands. yet, that relentless stream of news has not made the world more comprehensible. speed and technology are one thing, context is something else. for me, and for my colleagues in the school of journalism

serious journalism, the idea of journalism that we share with students begins with a simple idea. it is about being there. not just to get the story, but to help illuminate places. it is about people crossing frontiers in the hope that they can bring light to the stories of people who live in the world's darker places. but these days, this type of journalism comes at a price, and it is that reality that brings us together. john and diane foley and terry anderson can attest firsthand to this brutal truth. we are grateful to them for joining us to share these experiences and thoughts about this hard new world. today, journalists are seen as a targets, not only by terrorist organizations and narcotic cartels, but by oppressive

governments. tense -- since the early 1990's, more than 1100 journalists have been killed, or kidnapped, or driven into exile. it includes local reporters, who lived and worked in these places. it includes a growing number of freelancers, americans and other westerners, who have enlisted to cover faraway conflict zones. the center for global journalism was launched to try and bring greater focus to challenges faced by journalists anymore -- everywhere as they face a more perilous world. working with academic departments across campus and leveraging the work of our journalism school faculty, not only a along the borders, but in the middle east and afghanistan, we hope to explore programs and initiatives to preserve and extend the free and independent global reporting that is essential to the democratic society. what can we all do as professionals, educators advocates, to support journalists who are out there

now? how can we train and equip them and keep them as safe as possible? leading this discussion tonight is my colleague, dr. rosenblum a faculty member of the journalism school. mort is a former correspondent for the associated press. and has ran euros in africa, south asia, and europe. he is the author of several books on reporting and over his career has filed stories out of 200 different countries, and -- a number of which he likes to point out, no longer exist. as mort knows, the essential qualities of a good correspondent has not changed over time. now as then, it is about curiosity, intelligence, importantly it is about empathy but more than ever, these days it is about courage.

dr. rosenblum: the numbers are shocking, but tell only part of the story. behind the statistics are victims that do not know what will happen next, and families that can only hope and pray for something better than the worst. in some regions, the death toll for journalist rises with an outbreak of war. as happened in south east asia in the 1960's and 1970's. in other places, such as a nearby border, the danger is ever present. since 1992, 32 journalists have been killed in mexico. until the 1980's, most victims were casualties of war. journalists were seen as observers of the news, not part of the news, and were seldom targeted. then, in 1985, terry anderson, the associated press -- in beirut, was muscled into a green

mercedes. seven years passed before he could meet his daughter who was born while he was chained to a wall. one capture told him, don't worry, this is political. when anderson asked his guard gave him a new red bible. the associated press executives worked with u.s. officials to get him released. the situation changed after 9/11 , journalists were targeted for what they wrote, what they represented. in 2002, wall street journal reporter daniel pearl was executed as he pursued al qaeda activity in pakistan. in the years since, the victims have increased. the threat can be seen in france, near the normandy beaches. in a tree shaded park, the monument to reporters, 20 eight

-- 28 columns have been engraved since world war ii, with more than 2000 names. men and women who have fallen on battlefield, assassinated, or killed in accidents while covering the news. since 2001, many of the names have been those of journalist journalists -- journalists hired in their own societies to get stories that outsiders cannot reach. other names are those of freelancers, who ventured from the united states and other nations to cover news in the most dangerous areas, without the continuing support of a large news organization. now, with so many freelancers, people such as david mccraw are working to confront the challenges faced by journalists and families in perilous situations. this year, a fresh name symbolizes the spirit and kurds, -- courage, not only a freelance journalist, but also the family and friends who support them. james foley ventured into syria

to help make sense of conflict that was reshaping the world. he was executed on camera. his message of the importance of news was clear. the reporter must be there to tell the story. his parents now work tirelessly to make sure that an easily distracted world hears this message. his death is no reason to turn away from the danger. on the contrary, in america and other nations, people must support journalists who choose to go into dangerous places on the public's behalf. dr. rosenblum: thank you all for coming. we have some serious business to discuss this evening. in fact, what can be more important than our eyes and ears in the most perilous places. just briefly, just some

background. about two seconds after i met diane and don foley in france, i knew that this meeting had to happen. people seldom get so warm and wonderful, as you will see in a moment. but their courage and strength are beyond any words i can come up with. among those white columns, you just saw, we mourn also a young french reporter killed on the border in the central african republic. diane put aside her own grief to to comfort her distraught mother. the message is wise and unwavering, we need those brave journalists out there in the ugliest parts of the world to reflect realities that we almost understand. -- all must understand. and we have to realize what too many learned the hard way, the

prices high, not only for them but friends and families at home. the foley as -- foleys have started a foundation, we will talk about it tonight. the message to mind my old friend terry anderson, a colleague from the ap, for seven years i wore a bracelet with his name on it, awaiting his release. when he emerged from the lions den, none of us could believe his towering spirit, his strength of spirit. today, he teaches young people exactly what the foleys taught us, reporters must be out there. even today, it is up close and personal for terry. salome, that cute little kid that we saw, she is a reporter covering stories in lebanon and beyond, like her father.

i asked terry last night, if he was worried about her. duh. happily enough, some gifted people look carefully to help journalists in trouble. among them is david mccraw. the new york times fifth amendment lawyer. bill smith glanced at it and said, well, and arizona, maybe the second amendment lawyer, but it is the first. [laughter] but i underscored the first amendment. he is also with us this evening. we are extremely grateful to have this panel. actually, the foleys are here because john got tired of shoveling snow in new hampshire. terry teaches at the university of order, and his gators are freezing. david accepted the invitation without a second hesitation. thank you for coming. when i left tucson, from here,

in the 1960's to get mixed up in faraway mayhem, you had to be pretty unlucky or unaware to get into serious trouble. my first post was the congo, covering a mercenary war, with people who believed that their magic amulets turned blank and -- bullets into water. before the pentagon tried to limit our access, and therefore increase the danger, we could go anywhere. in asia, africa, the middle east, latin america, we journalists were observers, not part of the stories. somebody once put it, garnished at the side of the plate. pretty much, across the board combatants left us alone so we could tell their side. today, all of that has changed . we are no longer a definable press corps with correspondents

that no one another -- know one another and bosses back home watching our backs. freelance independent and local reporters hired at low wages operate on their own. freelance means, no wages, you get what you sell. governments arrest them, militias hold them hostage gangs with no political purpose kidnapped and ransom them. that is our topic for tonight. what now? and keep in mind, because people tend to forget this, we are talking about journalists. if we as journalists ask our government to protect us, we are asking them to control us. it is a serious conundrum, because that is not what we are, we are not representatives of anybody's government, at the same time, u.s. citizens elect a government to do their business.

and one job description is helping americans stay alive. we are not a policy pond for any administration. so let me start with terry. terry, if you could give us a brief rundown of how the u.s. government first worked with hostages back in the early 1980's and then talk about the associated press, what changed how do you see it evolving? mr. foley: the american government used to look at hostage taking as a criminal enterprise. just as you do in crimes that

involve hostages, what is the first that you do, you bring in a negotiator. that doesn't mean you will give them anything or you will reward them, but you will talk. by the mid-1980's, by 1985 when i was taken, the government was -- the reagan administration was insisting that they would not negotiate with terrorists. as we all know, those of us who can remember the affair, they were negotiating with terrorists as a political matter until they became public and then they stopped. up until that point, they were talking to families of hostages. my sister, whom many of you may remember, she was a front person for a group of families and it -- she was very outspoken in her advocacy and pressure on the government to get something done. the man in the white house, the marine lieutenant colonel, and she went to him frequently.

and then all of a sudden, it stopped. it got cut off. now, president reagan said we do not negotiate with terrorists and we mean it, it will not happen. but the terrorists did not believe it for quite a wild. -- a while. but, more importantly, the people in the government that we -- that our families had been going to for information and help took refusal to negotiate as don't talk to anybody, including families. they cut everybody off. that has pretty much continued since then and i think mr. and mrs. foley can testify that that is the way that it goes.

they would tell the families keep quiet, we are doing everything we can, but in fact it was an excuse to do nothing. which was a real problem. dr. rosenblum: thank you, terry. that is sounding familiar. what has been your experience, you and john? mrs. foley: this was his second capture, for jim. he had been in captivity for 44 days in libya, which in retrospect was so brief, but at least there his capture had been witnessed by a new york times reporter, and we knew that he was held by the government, and thus the state department took the lead rather clearly in that

case and we were in touch with the state department. actually, it was another person that got him out, nevertheless the state department was in touch with us. the second time was very different because we had no idea who had taken jim. he did not report back to his colleagues on thanksgiving day and we received a call from another freelancer who had been awaiting his return, that jim did not show up. that they had been stopped at gunpoint and captured. so, we did not know what to do. it was surreal that this would happen again. jim was freelance, so we had no organization behind him to come and take care of things, take charge. so we were frantic, really. and fbi eventually contacted us

and told us that they would take the lead, because this is a kidnap of an american citizen outside of the country. we thought that was good, we needed help. that is how it started. mr. foley: almost immediately, the fbi convinced us to go into media silence. and certainly the captors felt similarly. in hindsight, that is one of my biggest regrets, media silence helped two entities, the fbi and the other is the captors. the fbi had no pressure to go forward with his situation and the captors wanted silence for obvious reasons. so, this went on and after about

six weeks we were hearing nothing, absolutely nothing. we were frantic. we fortunately, were able to secure services of a security team through the global post and we began our search, but for one year we really didn't know where he was, whether he was alive. mrs. foley: what was most difficult, we really had no person in the government to go to. we had no one who was accountable for jim, if you will, or any others who were kidnapped. i started a series of trips to washington, going to the state department and the fbi, just to remind them that jim was still missing. we didn't know if he was alive or not, and such. we were very disappointed.

we had no access to anyone with any power or any information. and we were not allowed to be part of the effort to get our son out. i know that we can do better, as families. we were, at many points, i was a -- just appalled by the way that we were treated in some incidences. mr. foley: i think it is important, that for a year and a half, we were told that jim's situation was the highest priority, that everything possible was being done, but they could tell us nothing because it was classified.

dr. rosenblum: what did they tell you about thinking about ransom on it your own? mr. foley: there was a person -- mrs. foley: from the security council. mr. foley: we got the families together, he was very blunt. he said the same thing, we are not going after him, we are not going to negotiate, and number three, we will not pay ransom, and number four, if you try to collect money you will be prosecuted or could -- there would be highly likely you would be prosecuted. at that point, we realized we were on our own. but unfortunately, that was two years later. we said, what the heck. i would rather be in jail here then jimmy over there. we began to raise money in terms of pledges, we do not want to handle the money. it is very difficult to collect money from somebody, or ask for

donations, who might wind up in jail. we struggled with that, but we had some fine individuals who were going to go to battle with us. dr. rosenblum: thanks. as it turns out, there is a new public information person at the department of the state who is one of us. he was a tremendous investigator at the new york times, it in a -- at the los angeles times, as it happens i worked with him just after 9/11, we were both in pakistan. we were trying to get across the border and doug is a really good reporter. going over, he was working on -- senate foreign relations committee and now he is at the state department, so my question is, david, this came up the other day at the museum in washington and his answer was, look, these are american citizens. we will do the best we can. this is being studied.

do something come from that, david? mr. crawford: -- mr. mccraw: i think so. first of all, i want to thank everyone who set this up, this is an honor for me to be with these brave people. my connection to this topic came about because in 2008, 1 of our reporters was a kidnapped and i became the person who was designated to run the response to that and work with his family and the government. and a that was followed by another kidnapping and then the detention of four reporters and -- in libya. as a result of all that, i was -- it was such an unpleasant experience, i committed a lot of time to how can we avoid -- avoid being in that position in the first place. i spent time with working with people on security. and the government question, it is clear from those expenses

that the government should do better. diane and john and i talked earlier, their experience as a family actually is not that different from what we experience, even though we had access. the new york times, a powerful institution, we know people and we can get people to come to the phone, and still, the failure of the government was extraordinary. they have been extremely helpful and we appreciate that. but structurally, the idea that the fbi as lead agency makes no sense. the fbi does not have the capacity to solve crimes committed in syria, afghanistan, and they should not be the lead agency. i will give you an example.

which is that on thanksgiving day 2008, the taliban called our bureau in cabo to negotiate -- kabul to negotiate for david, who was being held. the fbi was assisting us, very helpfully, by coaching our reporters on how to handle those calls. the call came, the fbi could not get marine clearance to leave the embassy to go to the borough -- bureau to help our people. believe it or not, the taliban does not stay on the line waiting. this was a lost opportunity. it made us realize what the fbi could do, and when it comes to getting intelligence, i am not sure that they are getting that level of cooperation. when something happens like what happened to jim, it is important that that information is front and center and acted upon.

dr. rosenblum: david, well, this has changed and they were much more flexible. they would actually look the other way if someone wanted to pay ransom, because it was not the government's business. i am sorry if i'm answering your question. mr. mccraw: no well, i have to , say that my experience was a little different. the fbi official called me after david was kidnapped, and he said look, we are not having this conversation, but the -- the way people get out of the kidnapping is that somebody pays a ransom. don't be an idiot. and the conversation never happened. that was, that style, i was shocked to hear what you went because there was some practicality.

that was in 2008, 2009. dr. rosenblum: in france, when you spent a lot of time with reporters who had been taken and gotten away, for one reason or another spanish and french reporters, what has been your experience in the difference between europe and here? mrs. foley: well, i found that it was a huge difference and that was rather shocking. once the spanish and french started coming out, i was anxious to go there because it took fbi months to get clearance. they could not even get the government to allow the french or the spanish get access to those hostages. so the fbi concurs with the ghost -- encouraged me to go speak to them. of course i tried.

so i went, as a mother. but what i was impressed with in paris was that i had the privilege of going to talk to people in the foreign ministry but i also had an opportunity to go to a meeting of the local media advocacy group that had representatives from schools of journalism, print, tv, radio and hostage families. and twice a month they would sit together. these were leading media people. and they would vet a lot of the rumors families were hearing. we came to find that the journalists often knew more than the fbi. that they really knew, but they didn't know who to share it with or how to share it. they kind of didn't know what to do. but in france, they were sharing

it with the family, vetting rumors, advising families that maybe this one wasn't to true, but that one is good. at the same time they didn't let the public forget that people -- these people were kidnapped. the tv would have bylines every night about how many days it had been since they were missing. that sort of thing. they had pictures of the journalists on every town hall. they really caused a huge reaction in the public. and the third thing they did was they had high-level access to the government so they were able to share rumors that they felt had some validity. so, i was jealous. i came home and i said, we needed some help. we were all alone, jim being a freelancer didn't have anyone

behind him. we had a couple of good people who stepped up. mr. anderson: yeah, i think this raises a number of issues. number one, in france and spain journalists are valued. they are almost heroes is not -- almost heroes, if not heroes. why is that? they bring truth back home so that french and spanish citizens know what is going on in the world. the gimmick of proper assessment about how they feel about this event. it also made us think what could be done if this were happening in the united states? our assessment is the concrete issue. there are many, many journalists , freelance or otherwise. what we saw on a regular basis

is that we are a hot item when we are a fresh story but after the story dissipates you couldn't catch a cold. we think that in order for journalism to go to the next level in this country, journalists have to respect to -- respect themselves. and have to organize in a way that they are willing to help one another. i think that is part of the way that freelance and other journalists can protect one another. sharing information, assessing risks, and really pushing the powers that be to make changes and get these people home. one of the things i regret most is the media silence. because we didn't have the ability -- we gave up the ability to force. obviously, we are a democracy and votes count, pressure counts. we didn't apply enough pressure. the only pressure that would have been meaningful is that

pressure associated with an organized media who wanted to accomplish something good for one of their own. dr. rosenblum: thanks, john. let me ask a question for everyone who has taken the trouble to come here. let's take a great leap. -- greatly here -- great leap here and assume this is a representative democracy with people who spend as much time looking at the constitution as the super bowl lineup and the oscar list, and the people who we elect represent what we want, and the people in washington respond to citizens. let's go down the line, starting with terry. what is it that citizens can and should do to make all this better? mr. anderson: understand what it

is we do. what the process is, what reporters are out there for. what their purpose is, and respect what we do. most of you who are not involved in journalism do not understand how it works. you do not understand how we get information, how we vet that information, how we get our stories. how we write them, edit them. it is a pretty rigorous process. the stuff you see in the media and certainly in mainline news organizations, is pretty damn reliable. most of the reporters i know are doing it not for the money, or the fame, or the thrill.

even those who go out into danger repeatedly are not there for the adrenaline rush. they are there because they truly believe it is important. that it is important for them to find and tell the truth as best they can about what is happening in the world. and that you need to know those things. and that is why they go into places like syria or other dangerous places. journalism has been changing. we all know that. more and more, the people that do that are independent journalists. fewer and fewer are mainline , regular correspondents with an organization behind them. thankfully, the new york times retains a large stable of foreign correspondents. the ap does.

that's about it. that makes it more dangerous for them. they can only earn what they get paid and the pay levels are pretty miserable. they don't have the money to buy a $600 flak jacket or take a personal safety course. and they don't have anybody when they get in trouble, like i did, to spend seven years trying to get you out. they are out there by themselves. i am encouraged by our industry's move to accept the moral responsibility for the embedded journalists that they buy stories from. dr. rosenblum: thank you for

that, terry. there are two things before i moved to david. one of that is a group of organizations kind of spearheaded by david has put together a list of things that journalists ought to know before they get out there and things we ought to know back home. one of the main ones was that news organizations that use the services of journalists should be responsible for them. the second thing i wanted to say was there will be questions. if you don't mind, we would like you to write them down. we have some really kind volunteers running around helping. if you have a question and write it down, we will have plenty of time for that. mr. across: -- mr. across -- mr. mccraw: let me say two things. a journalist recently wrote a book about all these issues

called "the new censorship." this is censorship. this is a civil rights and human rights issue. this is not only about journalists being killed kidnapped, harmed. it is about you and all of us not getting information we are entitled to. because censorship is not really about the speaker's rights but about the listener's rights. i think we have to think about it that way. we need to raise awareness. we need to bring lawsuits and stop impunity in places where those lawsuits won't work. those suits them become a begin that shows people that it is wrong for governments to turn their back on their own journalists and -- punish those that harm journalist. i think awareness is the first

piece that is very important. think about it as your right to receive information, your right to know what is going on, not merely our right to publish it. the second thing, which goes to the great work that the foley's are doing, is that there needs to be better resources for independent journalists. if you think about the whole process, to go in, get a story come back, face harm, and all that, it is throughout the process, they need resources. in the training they receive in the kit they carry, and the response if they run into a problem, that is an obligation we all should share in. it starts at organizations like my own which feel very strongly that freelance journalists working for us should be treated the same way as our employees. but it is also broader than that because more and more, as terry was saying, all of us will be depending on independent

journalists who are willing to take risks, not supported by formal structures and established organizations. and those people he resources to make sure they are trained and to make sure they have resources in place to support them well they are out getting stories -- support them while they are out getting stories. dr. rosenblum: thank you. which leads us to diane and john's message. i don't mean to speak for them but i happen to know the main thrust of it. which is that, you know, correspondents at one point, we were really our own family out there. as david has said, as terry has said, it is really not the case anymore even if we have real jobs. our families are the structures we have back home. and so, tell us also, diane and john, about not only -- and you

can answer the question -- but talk about the foundation because one of the first things that struck me towards grief thinking about everybody else, and putting together a foundation in jim's name and honor to help other families and to help people who don't have that kind of strength or even those who do. mrs. foley: well, i certainly agree very much with everything you have said. certainly the raising of awareness. as american citizens, we have to be aware of what is being taken from us when these journalists are killed and thus others don't want to go to those areas. and the other thing is the whole issue of more and more freelancers in dangerous parts of the world. because of how journalism has

changed. and there are many freelance journalists now. thankfully, there are good companies left. "the times" really takes seriously their relationship seriously with freelancers, but there are far more that do not at all and could care less. one thing that the foundation is trying to do is certainly to work with groups that exist like the committee to protect journalists, reporters without borders, and other organizations, to help freelancers commit to safety practices that they can do, but also to call on new s organizations to protect them if they will take stories from them. along that area, jim believed in a free press. he was passionate about it.

therefore, we were also trying to call on the american media to find ways that they can collaborate, such as what was done recently at columbia university when several groups come together in a tiny stepbut still a beginning step that i believe was handed out. it was a just a small step but the historic part of it was we had people are normally competitors, various news organizations signed on together. it was wonderful, it was very exciting. we hope to promote -- to promote more of that. also working with advocating for american -- for americans and their families. there are many issues with freelancers.

at columbia we were talking with folks -- that is something that is not as expensive as some of the survival courses that run in the range of $3000, but more of the ability for these independent journalists to learn how to assess risk, which many organizations can do for them. but when you are out on your own, it is hard. john: we became very much involved with an organization called hostage u.k. it is a nongovernmental organization built and designed to support hostage families and returned hostages. they are able to link to the government and share information, but more important, they walk families through this whole process. when jim was captured, our first response was, where do we go next?

if you have a group of people who have been through all this you don't have to go through everything. we can pair people with -- we call the responders. rachel briggs, the director is planning to come here and help set things up. we think that, when that in fact happens, we will have such a better support mechanism. it is a great stress and we looking forward to moving down that direction. mort: let me go back for just a second to this ransom business.

the u.s. government's position is that this funds the bad guys, sets a bad precedent. but when you are talking about the money, leaving behind all the stuff we paid for in iraq and everywhere else, ransoms are just a drop in the bucket. every so often, there will be some exchange for a guy in afghanistan. what about ransoms? david: i am in the fortunate position of never having to decide. our journalists who were kidnapped in 2009 where the subject of a british raid in afghanistan. steve is a u.k. citizen and steve was rescued and sultan was killed in the raid.

military raids are very lethal many times to the person being rescued. i don't think there is an easy answer on ransom and the new york times never had a policy about that. we have been fortunate to never have to face that. but when i think of it as an individual, and talking to many families over the past six or seven years who have been involved in these kind of situations, it seems to me that the idea that somehow paying ransom encourages journalists to take more risks is flawed. i don't think anybody wants to be kidnapped, and i don't think french journalists go out and think they can do what they want because the government will pay a ransom.

i am also skeptical of the idea that not paying ransom deters kidnappers, that it creates a disincentive. the theory is that kidnappers will not take americans or brits because those countries technically don't allow ransom. i just don't think they think of it that way. i think they take westerners and they sort out the citizenship later. i think the harder issue is the one that mort mentioned, which is the funding. you would always avoid paying if you could, but if it was my son, you would find a way. it is very hard to make that into a public policy statement that this is bad for the future of my country in some hypothetical or theoretical way. the point that i will come back to is that i am not sure we are sending a consistent message to the terrorists and to the

kidnappers. there was an exchange of prisoners for private bergdahl. there was an american-german citizen in somalia for whom a ransom was paid and the united states looked the other way. i think that was last year. there was ransom paid in the philippines which didn't work out so well in 2002. unfortunately, those people didn't make it out. the lack of consistency, i think, undercuts this notion that we are drawing this hard-line. this is the last thing i will say on this and then others can jump in because they know it better than i do. i think the idea of telling families that they shouldn't even talk to the hostage takers is really, really bad advice. it is advice that runs counter to every interest. getting intelligence, humanizing

the victim, developing a relationship in hopes that something is going to happen. if you don't talk to them, those things don't happen. diane: that's what we wanted. just our intelligence and fbi to negotiate, to talk to them, find out what they wanted. we were left as families to negotiate. we didn't know what we were doing, we had no idea. and we were on our own. we can do better than that. we have incredible resources. they didn't want to talk to them. we really feel that angered the captors and just made everything worse, because they did reach out to us twice trying to negotiate with us. but they wanted to negotiate with our government. john: i think that is truly the case. so the legal aspect of this

whole thing is as follows. diane and i got the opinion of several excellent lawyers in washington and our questions to them were, what happens if we try to rescue our son to the ransom process? the answers were interesting. number one, the justice department has never prosecuted a family that, under duress, has tried to bring loved ones home. number two, the fbi said they would help us negotiate. they said to write these letters to describe how much we miss them. but as diane pointed out, this just angered the captors. in france and other countries,

those ransom notes went through the government. i think they assumed the same would happen here which it didn't. diane: it would have been helpful to know if the government wasn't going to help us, tell us. in the beginning, that we cannot do this. be honest about what they were able to do and what they were willing to do. unfortunately, that was just not the case. mort: at the very least, designate someone from the government to be a liaison.

does the brits do that? diane: yes, and the french have a unit for that. mort: let's take questions from the floor. david: john and diane put their finger on two things here. one is the government's willingness to negotiate. but if you are not going to do that, why there is a need for support so that at least the families have appropriate support, training, and assistance. when our people were taken in

libya, and this again shows the difference between having a major organization behind you. i had a coach sit in the office with me while i talked to libyans, the state department, and the families. when i hang up, he said, here is what you did that was really good, here's what you did that wasn't so hot, tomorrow we will do better. it makes a huge difference to have somebody with expertise in doing that. if you are going to be left to do it by yourself, you need that kind of support.

terry: i think there should be a difference between, we are not going to pay ransom as a government, and we are not going to talk to anybody including the families, and certainly, we are not going to talk to the kidnappers. i think the government interpretation that we are not going to negotiate with kidnappers so we're not going to talk to anybody is a copout so they won't have to pay a penalty. that is why the advice to families not to go public, not to make a fuss, is designed. that may be cynical, but that is what i believe. i am hoping that the current review of the government's hostage policy is going to find some space there that will allow them to do some of the things that mr. and mrs. foley has suggested that will allow them to help families and will allow some kind of contact to go on.

as i said before, if it is a hostage situation, the first thing you do is bring in a negotiator. it doesn't mean you're going to pay anything, it doesn't mean you are going to give the guys an airplane, it means you're going to talk. we have never seen if there's some way to resolve the problem with the islamic state because we haven't tried. we don't know if there is any room on their part because we haven't tried. i think that is a serious mistake and a moral failure on the part of the government. david: one point here that i think highlights the problem. our people, new york times people, in turkey and syria were kidnappings. as a policy, we were collecting

that and passing it on to the families. whichever family was relevant to. it is a very strange thing because i didn't feel that i can go to the fbi, and didn't want to go to the fbi, because i didn't think it would go to the families. but when i went directly to the families, they were often very happy to have it, but what were they going to do with the information? that lack of support, once you get it, how do you operate on it? whether it is information about where people are being held or anything like that. so we passed it on to the families, but there was always this empty feeling that it was not going to be effectively worked on because of the failure of the government to assist. john: i think that is the success of the british philosophy, having diplomats

that are there to negotiate. they don't pay ransom and their system is similar, but at least families such as ours would have confidence in their effort. they would have confidence in the fact that they are working to get information. and that there was a plan. so i agree with david. mort: i have the envelopes. here is a question. what happens when you guys talk to your congressional representatives, who are really your voice? john: you want the honest answer? nothing. diane: we never talked to our

congressman, they didn't reach out at all. but our two senators did. senator shaheen really helped us get into the u.n., the state department, and helped us know who to talk to. in the beginning she was very helpful in that regard. but that is about it. john: everybody we talked to patronized us. i don't think there was a real commitment to get jim home. shaheen was successful but i think they are impotent. they can't drive the state department or the executive branch to get things done.

diane: we had one point went to talk to senator mccain, and he was good to give us an audience, but nothing came of it. mort: two questions that are similar. one, what was jim's biggest goal is a journalist? how do you want to keep his legacy alive? and what would you say to parents who have children who are journalists and do this? diane: jim was very interested in the human rights side. he was very concerned about people that had no voice, as are most journalists, the ones who really are passionate to giving

a voice to the people they talk to. one of the biggest deals is to continue that. part of it is, you know, american hostages don't have a voice. a lot of freelancers don't. and a lot of poor kids in inner cities. those are three areas that jim was concerned about that we are trying to give more of a voice to. mort: here is a question i will try to resist answering myself and having a stroke. why is it worth the risk in cost for journalists to go into dangerous places? is the quality of information so much better than that obtained from other methods? terry: the question about what you say to children who want to do this.

what i said to my daughter when she said she wanted to be a journalist, i worry about her. she does things that are risky. she doesn't cover active war but she goes into places that are dangerous. what do i tell her? i tell her pretty much the same thing i tell my students. if this is really what you want to do, if you think this is important enough, then make sure that you are ready for it. make sure you are prepared for it. make sure you know how to assess and how to deal with danger. it is very hard to play the professor with your daughter, by the way. but she does listen and we talk about the things she is doing.

she recognizes that i have a lot of experience in this and she accepts some things and other things she doesn't. >> could you have covered beirut from cairo or new york? terry: absolutely not. the question is do you want this information? do you think you need this? i think that it is important and you need to know it. i think it is important enough that i have, in fact, risked my life to cover stories that i thought were important enough. as i said before, there are always considered risks. i am not a fool. i know that if i die, i will not

be able to file the story anyway. and the process is, every step of the way, not just when i sit in my office. but when i get in the car and get out of the car, every step of the way i am weighing, is this worth it? if i am going to go there and someone will shoot at me, i better believe there is something important over there. that is how journalists operate. they are not stupid. it is a risky profession. so as being a policeman, so as being a fireman. there are risky professions and there are people that do them because they think it is important enough to take the

risks. i am passionate about the importance of journalists and journalism and the principles and role that we play in any democratic system. we are central. you can't have a free society without a free press. they go together. mort: here is one that follows right into this. the question is, why is there such resistance to the common sense practice of getting training and going armed? this came up during iraq. some of the "new york times" people and some others said that was a different situation. but i can tell you, i have never -- i can sort of handle a gun but not very well -- but i have never come across a situation that i can shoot my way out of as a correspondent. and i will tell you another thing. i have come across a lot of situations that had i been packing, i would not be here tonight. terry: i spent six years in the marine corps, i am a combat vet.

i have never believed that i ever could have used a gun to get me out of any trouble at all. and i know perfectly well that if i had a gun and try to use it when i was kidnapped i would be dead. even seven years in prison is a little better than that. the only real protection we have in the field is the belief by the people that we are talking to that we are not part of the conflict. when you pack a gun, you are part of the conflict. and it will get you killed dead. mort: this is another problem and perhaps we should talk about this. a lot of people think that reporters are out there for the fun of it. there are thrill seekers out there.

we've come across some real crazies that make it real dangerous for people. the kind of mixed the idea of soldier of fortune, adventurer journalists. people going out there are young people with a lot of courage, a little bit of backing, and a lot of drive and some training. but they need more. we really need to -- this is not a pitch, this is a reality. kids need to be prepared when

they go out for so many reasons. it used to be, the way it would work was some old guy had been out for a long time and then you would be adding fresh energy and new tools, and the tools always changed. but the old guy or woman learn things the hard way. there are a lot of things in this profession that you can only learn by making mistakes. anybody want to comment on that? terry: remember, by the way, that many people out there don't have any experience in this situation. how many combat vets do you know that are now journalists? there are a couple, but not many. mort: if you are a person of color from the u.s., using the survival in captivity is greater? terry: i don't think that has any relevance at all.

particularly when you are talking about the islamic world, which has a much more -- a much better approach to people of color then we often do. i don't begin makes any difference whether you are a christian or a muslim. it is not a religious question. these people don't think in those terms. john: i would like to go back to the previous question and certainly terry i would welcome your comment. but if there wasn't such a competitive nature to get the story, to get it first, etc., i think young freelance journalists would be more willing to spend some time figuring out how safe this is. should we be doing this? should we be in groups? and can we use some of the older people as mentors? i think mentoring can certainly be very effective.

terry: i have to say, is a once very aggressive and competitive young journalist for the ap, there is a surprising amount of cooperation among foreign correspondents. the competition is generally restricted to certain situations when you have a story to yourself and you don't want anyone else to get it or you are first on the scene. most of the time, international journalists know that they are better off helping each other and they do that quite frequently. i advise my young students, when they go to a country, the first thing they need to do is check in with press corps, go to the ap office. they will cooperate. of course, if you are directly

competing on a story, they will take your contacts. but it is surprising that foreign journalists are cooperative. mort: a press corps, and that used to actually be a word works like a pack of coyotes. everyone knows how coyotes works. one of them gets out ahead in spots the prey and takes the first bite, and all the rest kind of swarm around. but the time it is done, everything is picked clean. today, because of the way the system works, we are out there working like hyenas.

it is just the way things work. one grabs what one can because one has to make a living by selling stuff. the rest of all of us, we don't really get the effect of reporters being out there. and this is something that we -- in answer to that one question about why we can't do it long distance, this is something about foreign correspondents that we all have to understand. if they are not there, we are not there. how are you going to run a world? picture yourself at the top of a mountain trying to come down in a snowstorm with your eyes closed. you will fall off the road. at some point, you don't know what is going to happen.

we need foreign correspondents out there and the ones we have are some brave young people like jim foley, we have some people working for news organizations like the "new york times", for all we criticize it, it still has people out there. we can't really expect people to -- i'm giving a speech. terry, there was a report that you read 300 to 400 books a year. terry: all my life. i read very quickly. i can remember a lot of the books. the use to bring us books in used paperbacks. they would bring a box of books and dump it. it could be anything. i polished my french on french

crime novels. one of the few i didn't read was "how to breast-feed your baby." i thought that would be a little cooperation. the only books we ever turned back to them were barbara cartland novels. mort: diane and john, could you tell us more about the foundation and what you hope to accomplish and need? diane: i guess the reason we started was because we don't want jim to have died in vain. he would have wanted something good to come out of this

horrific experience. i feel that so strongly, and we do as parents. we are just trying to look at some of the areas where there are gaps. one of them seems to be, there is no one advocating for american hostages in our country that we encountered. and we did meet some good people. but no organizations, if you will. that is one of our priorities. we are trying to partner with hostage u.k. if we can't learn from them and adapted somehow to our country which isn't easy. our country is a lot bigger and

different, and we know that. that is why we need support for that, because it is a daunting experience. we need other powerful entities within our own country to think this is an important issue. certainly, that is one of the areas we feel there is a huge gap. the other one is, we are really hoping the american media can collaborate. jim felt that media did as a whole, work together. we really would love to see if we couldn't do more as american media. i realize it's complex and it's very competitive here in our country. it is not a simple thing. but it is something i think jim would have wanted to see.

some of the hostages mentioned to us once, this certainly was a big hostage issue. there were 18 western hostages all held together, and nobody knew about it. a lot of the journalists who about it, but the public didn't know. in their hopeful moments, some of the european free hostages would say, wouldn't this be cool if all of our countries were really working together to get us out? this would be just awesome. a chance for all of us to come together with our allies. it couldn't have been further from the truth. every country was doing it in its own way. i'm sorry, i am getting off track. we are hoping we can do some of

the things jim would have wanted to do. mort: there is a question here along those lines. it seems like the kidnappers and terrorists assume one government would do the same thing as another. it seems the u.s. government needs to get on the same page as the european once? what does everybody think? terry: i think the u.s. government seriously needs to revise its policies or lack of policies on how they handle hostage incidents. i hope that in this review they are doing, that they are talking to hostage families and former hostages and getting some real input from them. i fear there is a bunch of people sitting around the table at the nsc or state department feeding each other their opinions. i don't know. i hope you guys, with your

movement, managed to persuade them to listen to people like u.k. hostage and other people. i'm not very confident in my -- diane: we the media to help and we need the american public to wants that. we get nasty letters saying, what was your fullest son doing out there? a lot of americans don't agree. and that is ok. i think the american public needs to weigh in and become aware about how you feel about it. david: all these issues become difficult in terms of the media blackout. when david rohde was kidnapped

the new york times decided to ask other news organizations not to cover it in the time he was taken to the time he escaped. it was not covered. that was a very hard decision for us. we are in the business of communicating and disclosing things, and here we were calling al jazeera and the washington post and everyone else, saying please don't cover it even though you know about it. it is a very tough calculation. in the first couple days, going public is probably always a bad idea, because you don't know what your person has told the captors.

you don't know if they have said they are a canadian aid worker. the last thing you want is the "new york times" say their person was taken and undercut that. the second thing you hear from professionals in this area is that you lose control of it. if you go public, you can't stop, especially in today's world, you can't stop what gets said. you may make it worse for your son or your colleague. with all that said, it does really concern me that the silence takes the government off the hook.

that there is not political push. the other thing about the silence, and i saw this first hand because when people were taken in libya we were very public about it, is that when you go public people pop up who can help you that you maybe haven't thought about. people who have connections. people start calling me and saying, my wife is a lobbyist for the government of libya. i would like to talk to her. terry: i would like to add one thing to that, something that hasn't been mentioned. that is the point of view of the guy who is sitting in the basement chained to the wall. you fear being forgotten. over the seven years, at the beginning we didn't get much news. a little bit here and there. and later, they would allow us access to a radio every once in a while. to hear that this organization was having a prayer vigil or

this organization was coming to beirut to talk, or that your family was sending a message to you, was important. to not here for months on end was devastating. so there was a purpose for publicly talking about your hostage. it does have positive effects. believe me, i know. mort: let's take that a little bit further. you were there for seven years. we didn't know. you are chained to a wall for

seven years, you didn't know what was happening next. you had the strength to go through and get out. you are a good reporter in your time, you are a good teacher now. would you do it again? terry: oh, mort. i can't tell you how many times people have after that -- asked me that. i certainly would not go out on saturday morning to be kidnapped. but when you are in that situation, you have a lot of time to do nothing but poke around in your head and figure out some things, and think about your life. you think about all the bad things, by the way.

but of course, i thought about -- i didn't know i was going to be alive. if i didn't survive, was it worth it? and i had spent my life in a productive way as a journalist. that is a hard thing for a journalist to weigh. for all those years, i can't point to anybody, or any problem, and say i help solve that. it doesn't work that way most of the time. mort: take it from the approach that you said to my students today. terry: i am just as passionate today as i ever was. i believe it is important. i believe those years that i spent covering mostly violence,, by the way because that was the kind of journalist that i was,

was an important way to spend my life. i think it was important to tell the stories and tell you what was happening in those places. despite the fact that you can't see any result most of the time, you still have to believe that telling the truth is a good in itself. and i believe that. not only do i think it was a worthwhile career, but it was also extremely exciting, very demanding, and i can't think of a better job i could have had been being chief middle east correspondent for the ap. sure, i would do that all over again if i could. [applause] mort: thank you, everybody. [applause] thank you very much for coming.

[applause] >> president obama was in utah to announce a new green jobs initiative for military veterans. the departments up the game place a pilot program to teach service members how to install solar panels. president obama made the announcement at one of 10 bases that will have the program created the president is making inroads with iranians after yesterday's announcement of a deal in progress with the country's nuclear program. iranians have been tweeting out selfies with president obama. a journalist live on iranian tv. you can find video at c-span.org. bill clinton moderating a discussion with a panel of young

entrepreneurs, including a young venture capitalist who started his own company. it is part of the annual clinton foundation health summit tonight at 8:00 eastern. here the future programs on the c-span network. saturday at 8 p.m. eastern former texas state senator and gubernatorial candidate wendy davis. and easter sunday at 6:30 p.m., jack nicholas receives the congressional gold medal for his contributions to the game and community service. on book tv, saturday night at 10 p.m. eastern, at the vest -- activist cornell west on the political thinking of martin luther king jr.. our live three-hour conversation with former investigative reporter of washington post and

new york times best-selling author. he has written 20 books, including escape from the cia the sins of the father, and the first-ever family the tale. saturday at 8 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, east carolina university charles calhoun on the obstacles faced and a compass schmitz made by you leases s grant. patrick showed her takes us on a tour of a courthouse. the confederates surrendered on april 9, and -- april 9, 1865. a conversation on immigration policy and the impact on potential 2016 candidates and their views. the discussion was hosted in miami and ran for about an hour and a half.

>> thank you for inviting us to participate in this event as cosponsors. i am pleased to introduce our guest speakers you do hopefully we will have the forth in a few minutes. i will moderate the question and answer period. i think will -- we will change the order of presentations. our first speaker is helen aguirre ferre. she moderates a weekly series of issues paid i will that issues. i will be brief. -- series of issues. i will be brief. thomesas wenski is an archbishop of mammy.

he has worked with cubans and haitians here in miami. our third speaker will be dahlia walker-huntington. she is a counsel to hamilton miller, and -- she is a native of jamaica. our fourth speaker, who is just here. she will be gepsie metellus. a strong advocate of the haitian community in south florida especially women and refugees. helen: i like that this is framed as a conversation because i think we have to few conversations in our country. we shout a lot but we don't talk a lot. i think this is one of those

that deserves meaningful conversation. i loved that this is occurring the day after st. patrick's day where we celebrate something so fascinating, the irish tradition that seems so foreign to us here in south florida, yet it's such a central core too many hispanics and african-americans and blacks in recognition of st. patrick's day. obviously that is part of the immigrant phenomenologist part of the fiber of our country. we always had a struggle with immigration and anyone who is irish could tell you that being irish was not always an easy experience. hispanics will tell you that we are the ones who have replaced the irish. we are the ones who are experiencing it. the haitian-american community can speak to that.

i will leave it to others to address that issue. it seems odd that we are talking about immigration and reform at this time. we considered the number one leader in the world in number one country that is one of the greatest democracies in the world. this is part of the foreign conversation when it is not. it is something so basic and elemental and part of the fiber of our country. we see installed regardless of who is in power and where the majority lies in washington dc. when the democrats were in absolute power from 2008 and 2010, one would have thought they would have taken the happy

opportunity to pass immigration reform at that point in time. they passed other legislation, including health care reform. the one promise made to the hispanic community was squandered. time and time again. the republicans complain about illegal immigration. they stopped all discussion at all conversation as if doing nothing is an answer or a solution to the problem. border security is an important part of the conversation and republicans will tell you it is the first thing that needs to be addressed. many agree to go ahead and address it.

when you do have order legislation it is scuttled because there is this desire to have the majority of republicans in this voice are thought of proving this piece of legislation when really it is not necessary. one would wish that leadership on both sides of the aisle would reach out to each other and ask what can we do to make this happen to bring the country together. what to do with the undocumented immigrants that are here, here is the newsflash. the undocumented ultimately end up become citizens. they have american-born children who when they become of age ultimately claim their parents to not the case for all, as streamers will attest. but certainly it is a reality for mick -- for very many.

in a very short period of time 40% of the workforce will be hispanic. non-hispanic working age men and women, their growth in the job market is going to be almost zero. minority communities are having more children than white non-hispanics. from an economic perspective it makes all the sense in the world. from a religious perspective i'm going to leave that for the man who saves souls to discuss but out of humanity, out of history, out of a sense of community and history immigration reform should be resolved. in 2016 if this is not a

resolved issue it will further divide the country in ways that will be more than unfortunate. thank you. thomas: i am archbishop wenski and i worked into the 90's, where i became an ancillary bishop of miami. and now archbishop of miami. immigration has been part of my life all those years. the last major immigration reform was accomplished in 1986 under president reagan. that included amnesty that benefited this community to the good in many ways. towards the end of the 90's we realize that legislation did not

address all the issues that needed to be addressed. it is clear we faced a broken immigration system. since that time we have been trying to advocate for a immigration system. the united states bishops signed on to the bishops of mexico -- it was titled strangers no longer. of we sent out our priorities on immigration reform and what shape it should take. we are lucky that the staff of senator ted kennedy and senator mccain use that document the fourth immigration reform proposal that was on the table in the early part of the 2,000's.

ireland or i went up to washington, d.c. in september, i think it was september 9 or 10th in 2001. i think on the knife they address a joint session of congress at which he also underlined the need for immigration reform. the next day i a and and another bishop went to see the head of the ins at a time and he said the bishops, we are going to get it fixed. it's going to be fixed soon. i got on my plane, flew back to miami, went to bed, got up the next morning and i was going to work on the radio 9/11 happened. and 9/11 basically changed the equation. america went into a bad mood and we have yet to emerge from that bad mood and it has been stymied

in our efforts to initiate immigration reform. so, we we had that senator mccain bill that should basically be the gold standard the kennedy mccain bill came out in 2001. it was going to provide a very good, very reasonable and humane immigration reform and make it because of the bad mood resulting from the 9/11 attacks and later on the senator from florida attempted another iteration of the reform bill that was from 2005, 20 of six. she and senator hagel. it wasn't as good as the bill in my eyes but it was acceptable and they were not able to get

through part because by that time president bush had lost his political capital because he supported the mccain bill and the martinez and hagel bill that he lost the political capital to twist all those and to get the necessary votes in the house and senate. at the senate. at the same time it was interesting to note that the democrats who generally have been at least publicly in favor of immigration reform decided to let president bush out alone on this issue. in fact rahm emanuel, the mayor of chicago was a big influential guy in the house at that time and he went around to democrats in the house and said don't you dare go for immigration reform

now. if you do, the party will not give you any money for your campaign. and why do you do that? basically because he wanted to make sure that immigration reform wasn't as if there was a republican in the white house, so they were going to wait so they could immigration reform and also use that to their political advantage. and as you've already heard when the democrats had both the white house and the majority in the senate and the house we still are advocating for the reform and we were happy for the relief of the dreamers, we were happy because it wasn't what we wanted, we wanted the dream act, so we applauded the administrative resolution, not a solution, but a band-aid that provided relief for thousands.

we supported the latest administrative action of president obama to provide to the parents of those who have children and are u.s. citizens or residents. that was going to perhaps help out maybe 5 million of the 11 or so million undocumented in the country today. the president announced it and doing so, he angered the republicans, and of course, they initiated some action in the