ahead on c-span in about one hour or so. vilsack will speak at the center for american progress to talk about child nutrition programs. you will be able to watch his remarks until then, it is a discussion on immigration policy. the american bar association hosted this panel. it featured dozens of legal and national security analysts. this portion is about one hour. >> get situated. we have picked the topic after lunch that is totally noncontroversial, which is the united states immigration policy and laws. next move towards this

topic, we felt it had to probably be on this agenda this year and will probably always be on the agenda, which is the conundrum that we have as a country that so many people want to come to and how do we process those people that want to come in the country, and how did we give them the opportunity that enjoy asf us americans. and highly complex issue. highly demagogue. and panel thati will address this and layout the challenges that we have in u.s. immigration law and policy. i have lived with immigration all of my career. the first case i prosecuted as a federal prosecutor was in the an illegalen -- was alien transporting case. i learned a lot about immigration, i felt that i do enough to be the general counsel

of homeland security in this area, but i needed somebody working for and with me, at my right hand, who is as .nowledgeable as lynden melmed fortunately, he was part of our team early on. he is currently a partner with the law firm of barry appleman with the practice in dcn virginia. with a practice in d.c. and virginia. he also served and special counsel with john cornyn of texas. we are very honored to have lynden moderate the next panel. lynden? lynden: thanks, joe. and othersgnize joe for their tireless work putting on this event. mentioned, if you

lunchtime food fight over a birthright citizenship and billy wallace on the border, i think he will be a little disappointed. what we have are four of the leading experts on immigration law that represent the government, come from the hill, advocacy organizations, and academia. we will hear from them today about the issues really going on here during the last year and half of the administration. let me do some quick introductions. starting on the far end is mary giovagnoli. she currently serves as the deputy assistant secretary of immigration policy at the department of homeland security. directorthat, she was of the immigration policy center. for a number of years, she served as a senior lawyer at inf

and department of homeland security. she also did a fellowship to the late senator kennedy's office during the robust 2007 immigration debate. to her right is professor jill expert onternational immigration law. she focuses on procedures used to adjudicate immigration procedures. she direct government program at widener university. i recommend for any attorney that will tackle immigration law article.read her to her right is greg chen, director of advocacy for the american immigration lawyers association. 13,000at least members at this point.

he has a long history of advocacy. he is one of the most respected voices on ferry controversial issues, and has testified before both the house and senate. finally, but not least, gary merson, who recently assumed the position of democratic chief on immigration and the house of representatives. his full-time position is chief ombudsman ofthe husban immigration services. esteemed group appear. the topics we will cover today are the ones that are most likely to drive immigration policy in the final year and a half. as expected, we will cover the president's signature action on doca and dapa.

the challenges that the administration is facing on the southern border with unaccompanied minors, and finally, the announcement to modernize the visa immigration system. with that, i will sit down and we were turned to doca and dapa. joe will take the substance, and i will chime in with some questions. thank you so much to the aba and minister of law section institute. this i'm always happy when i could do anything with the administrative law section. it is a great group and wonderful to be here this afternoon. my task is to send you and very quickly on one of the most controversial immigration aspects of the last year or so. 'sat is the president

starting of these two things .alled doca and dapa if you don't think about and berisha all the time, that must sound funny -- doca and dapa. stance for deferred action for childhood arrival. both terms have deferred action in them, i would say to what deferred action is in immigration law. we will turn to how this has ended up in the headlines. deferred action is a temporary reprieve from her will. inis a process immigration law. it is a signal that an individual is a low priority for removal. that ismportant to revocable.

it is a remarkable statement from the government to a foreign national that they are not priority for removal for a .ertain time the fed action has been around for a long time, it is not new. it is not something the president obama came up with himself. in fact, john lennon perceived deferred action in the 1970's. that is how cool, hip, beatles -- mary singing is singing over here. what is new is the obama administration is using deferred action and a slightly innovative way, trying to harness the equitable relief available through diff deferred action ay. a more transparent w

deferred action was sort of a mystery, and not always clear to private immigration attorneys who you ask for deferred action. we knew it existed, but who the government decided who was eligible as a mystery. it is a little less of industry .hrough doca and dapa what the obama administration date is that released a policy memo with some criteria to consider when deciding whether or not to grant deferred action .ithin doca and dapa this method allows individuals to have a better sense of where to apply and what the government will think about when deciding whether or not to grant doca and dapa. doca has been in place since 2012. that is a at individuals who arrived in the united states as children. i will not go through all of the criteria. they are in the powerpoint, i

think. who as children do not have level status. gives them is a signal that they are not high priority for removal. is three years old. some data tells us that approximately half of those who are eligible have applied -- the number i saw was about 750,000. 83% of those had been granted originally had applied for renewal. is a proposed initiative that is similar that would apply citizents of u.s. children, or children with

lawful permanent residency. the same thing. it would grant law for deferred action to those parents. are 3.6estimated there million individuals who would be eligible. we do not know yet how many might apply because dapa has not been implemented yet because of u.s. district court judge and adjoined dapa.ry the judge concluded that it procedure act because a policy memorandum of honestlys about a invoked.ously you can use a guidance document, but you have to use it correctly . lyndend say, as

said, the nexus between and other law is something has been a great job my time thinking about. on the one hand, i was excited that this was on something that i sense a list i think about, but on the other hand, i was disappointed because i disagree with a lot of the district court e's conclusions. one thing i disagree with is the judge concluded that there was judicial review under the aba. he concluded that dapa is not orally agency prosecute juncture. something to think about going forward, and i'm happy to take any questions about daca or dapa

. or if you want to know why i disagree with the judge's conclusions. to me, the litigation of dapa solidifies, in my mind, that immigration, lawyers, and administrative law lawyers no longer operate as though they occupied two separate islands. the district court judge's opinions, to me, reflect misunderstanding on administrative law and immigration law. i think it will be very important for immigration lawyers to be fluent in general principles so that we can help bridge this gap, and bring immigration law back into the mainstream of administrative law. thank you. lynden: we would do a few questions are. and then, time permitting at the end, we will build up to the floor. the first question, and this is

theyou, jill, but also other speakers. tell us a little bit about the timing. right now, there is a decision pending in the fifth circuit. when you see it going with the fifth and the supreme court after that? circuite fifth .efused grant a stay the appeal is before the fifth circuit, but i believe it is before the exact same panel. lynden: two of the three. refused towo who grant the state. i'm expecting the same result. my guess is that this is something that will end up before the supreme court. theden: a major part -- lawsuit, as you mentioned, was brought by taxes and coalition

of states opposed to the policy. the district court found that they have standing. the basis for the court to find standing is the grant of deferred action and the nonstatus resulted in the individual's ability to apply for a texas drivers license. each time you apply for a texas drivers license, there is a small cost that the state absorbs to issue the drivers license. the narrative that texas brought is thatitigation through the grant of deferred action, texas is incurring costs license.ng drivers is a relatively narrow focus of hard. filede seen how briefs have sought to broaden the economic discussion saying, there might be cost for granting drivers license, but there are economic benefits for them being in the work, pay taxes, and texas benefits in other ways. where you see the factual

discussion going as this case moves through the courts and the policy realm? jill: i should start out by saying, i'm not an expert. i can tell you -- i still tell you something about it. i can tell you that what the said is thatrcuit being pressured to change state law is of addressable -- a addressable injury. they said it is not speculative willse beneficiaries almost definitely a private vices is, i've did not seem impressed by the offsetting benefits argument. they did consider that in the stay. we will see what the fifth

circuit says next. i would imagine that if and when this case goes to the supreme court, the standing argument will be huge. this has been discussions way beyond immigration law. greg: one other point in terms of the timeframe. if the case is going to be ,rought to the supreme court the supreme court term for the fine spring will start filling quite quickly. as we all know, they only handle and one, maybe 80 cases term. that decision would have to be made fairly soon. there is a window of opportunity where the decision from the fifth circuit has to come down, and whether or not the supreme court will grant it. if they miss the window for the term, let alone just been denied

, then there would not be heard until the next term coming around setting in the fall of next year. that is a thing to think about for the timing of this. cases thatnificant do not get heard until later on in the term, decisions will not, until the summertime. if it goes up to supreme court, something not until early or mid way through next year. lynden: midway through an election year. it has been on hold, the government has been working scenarios on how to limit the program. all of you have experience, either within the government, or working on the adjudication side . if the government does get a green light, but i this fall or next year, will they be better positioned today to be able to implement quickly, or is there timein time and ramp up for when you push the fighting gun? [laughter]

mary: everybody is looking at me. is ank that that probably better answer for you to speculate on, in terms of readiness, and such. we really have taken the court's order extremely seriously, in terms of not freezing everything in its tracks. i think the good thinking that is going on, and the conversation that goes on needs to be one that is in the realm.m -- public in 2012, they did larger program. have done 700 applications. to have worked out some of the kinks. there will always be some p surprises. unlike prior debates, this is not an unknown administrative challenge anymore. why don't you stick with you,

mary, but you are in the hot seat. the president and secretary announced major changes to the enforcement priority system. those have been ongoing for a number of months. then, we had this issue about sanctuary cities exploding on the scene with a high-profile killing in california. besides the emotional part of the murder that happen in california, the enforcement policy changes, i don't think have gotten mainstream attention of how significant the art. if i can have you walk us through what those changes are. mary: the important place to begin is for any number of years, and certainly in the last five years, dhs has very carefully used explicit priority and force the guidelines to help to shape the nature of the enforcement actions that we undertake.

many of the things that the secretary did in november 2014 , i think, refine and identify those places in which the guidelines good not only -- could not only be improved, but sharpen some of the broader policy points that the administration wanted to emphasize. made those who threaten our national security and public safety, or threaten our borders, chief of other priorities. none of that has changed. i think what you saw in november 2014 was an attempt to go in and, with greater precision and , slightly tighter gauge, say here is how this plays itself out in the context of day-to-day decision-making. i cannot emphasize enough that when i look at all of the november 2014 announcements, and

members from the president and secretary, this notion of decision-making is really critical to what dhs is about. ,he idea of discussion enforcement priorities, the programs that are enjoined, other programs that they were attempting to do in innovation and modernization. all of these things often turn on using the best decision-making and judgment possible in the context of good government. i estimate to say that the rv was a priority, as well as everything else, is exactly that. how do we enshrine the best standards of making good judgments about individual cases in the context of a massive undertaking? this is particularly important in the enforcement context.

like, get to the facts. some of the basics are variable in the outline. i think the critical things to know and understand our that we moved from a broad set of priority categories to a slightly more targeted one, in which greater emphasis was criminals.hemica we focus more on the future. targeting recent quarter crosses -- border crosses. numbers and tha in that contextl change as we move further from that date. there is more of a future focus. the people who are most likely

to want to do us harm, or who have committed serious crimes are priority for removal. it is really many of the people of thel in the category 12 million undocumented immigrants. most of whom, 60% or more of whom, have been in the country for 10 years or more, and mail may not have fallen into other more discreet categories of discretionary actions. it is really those folks who the administration was trying to say, they will not be the priority. the overall recognition is that we get more benefit and more value to our communities by recognizing that these people, in many cases, are deeply embedded in it.

that is the overall philosophy. part is ad critical memo that the secretary issue that for all intensive purposes and in the secure community program. secure communities have been, and remain, a very contrary shall part of enforcement priorities, in part because, it irrespective of what it was supposed t be, when it became was sort of emblematic of everything that is wrong with immigration system today. that somehow or other, people get caught in the system that is designed -- that has no grace, frankly. once you are in the immigration system, there are really few options for getting out of it. so many of the complaint in cityition, so many of the and state ordinances being passed, about it to the fact that people felt that communities were getting trapped

in an enforcement system that two people and spit them out -- chewed people and spread them out. i've not tried to in any way relied by brothers and sisters. we're talking about institutional systematic issues that the secretary was trying to address. even in the course of all of this, there were good individualized decisions made. critical thing is we had to find a way to turn off this enforcement,rm of and come up with something new. the new program is the priorities enforcement program. pep. e always have good acronyms d you secur communities must be criticized as something that people in the communities had no control over the decisions made, pep is

actually designed to be engaged with the communities from the beginning. and a number of ways, this is really an exciting development in law enforcement because it is a way to marry at the important immigration enforcement needs that we have with the recognition that community engagement, community policing, and community involvement are an equally important part of creating a successful and working enforcement strategy good with that in mind, the primary thing to know and riff offer and you have in the materials, it maintains the basic idea that was the founding of secure communities. there is an event information -- a need for information sharing. that part does not change. nonetheless, it is governed by this philosophy of enforcement

privatizing. prioritizing. only when they identify someone as a priority, they will reach out to the committees and so we want to put the person in the system and the removal process. it is not triggered by the mere fact that someone is arrested, but by the fact that someone is convicted. that is a huge difference from the past with secure communities. juncture intical decision-making. we are looking at people who have actually been convicted. the general pattern will be, and ask we asterisk stations -- jurisdictions to notify

us when they have identified someone as a priority to be removed. today, the default is to seek the engagement and involvement of communities by notifying us. in particular, that means that out ands are going working with individual communities to figure out what willctual dynamic of that be. we recognize that not all communities are going to have exactly the same priorities that the department does. it is a radically different process. if done well,ll -- and i think we can do it well, and show that we have a better handle on creating the mechanism of grace and discussio discretion so that tho

ar priorities are not left in the system. greg -- rn to you, lynden: let me turn to you, greg. withins the reception the immigrant community and looking beyond your permission to obviously groups broadly to the changes? are you still absorbing it, waiting and see? greg: the american immigration lawyers association ultimately opposed the secure communities program that mary described, and it was so much contrary she about the program. the opposed to largely based on the impacts in the community, and the constitutionality of the detainer holding requests that

were being used on a widespread basis. asked local love for us but to hold people in front of the amount of time, even though the as it was done with them for their own purposes. . thatre certainly pleased the secretary signaled a need the program.of the memo that the secretary issued, specifically referenced concerns that several federal courts have issued decisions concerning the constitutionality of the secure communities program and use of detainers. we are glad that was recognition of concer constitutionality. ty.

as mary mentioned, the use of the dif detainers will .ot be the defalt mechanism at least it will not be the default practice. it is not clear under what circumstances it will be done. it uses language like, "in special circumstance detainers will be used gecko what are special circumstances? we don't know yet. from our perspective, the way that dictators had been issued without a requirement for probable cause or a judge reviewing the decision, which is the typical way it is done in that has justice --

never been in practice for ice. that should be the practice. we are waiting to see how it is done. one of the challenges that we know ice and dhs are now proactively, aggressively going and meeting with law enforcement tried to, and a sense, sell this program, we think those conversations are important. it has not been any transparency yet from the federal agency as to what is the baseline for what will be acceptable from a constitutional perspective. our certain cities -- there are certain cities, like new york or chicago, that will think thoughtfully about how to protect all of its citizens. but, there are others where there is no concern for the constitution, and the possibilities that they allow .or detainers for ice

i would say that would be are concerned. the last thing i will mention, since lynden, you mentioned the issue of six way cities -- cities, and a tragic murder and san francisco, .hich happens to be my hometown that this issue in the media, and also forced congress to look at this very carefully to the month of july. i think we will face similar conversations through the , and i thinkhs when congress returns, they will look at it again. the big picture perspective, as it applies to the specific program, some kind of .oordination will be helpful the question is how you do that without missing the broader issue -- without scaring immigrant communities to think ork with,hey w

report crime, and go to the police for protection, they themselves will be deported. there was a woman from washington state who came and testified before the senate in july. there were several of them was that she was aware of, but one that sticks in my mind was a five-year-old girl in colorado andwas sexually assaulted the parents were undocumented. the parents decided, we're not going to report this to the police. not only is that tragic in itself, a year later, that same perpetrator sexy assaulted another young child. it was only about point that the families came forward and reported it. that is the other side of this question of how do you keep communities safe. if there's too much

collaboration, from the view of the community, between immigration enforcement and local law enforcement -- local is enforcement's main focus civil. if there's too much collaboration, the community gets afraid. lynden: married you want to chime in? important to understand that people are taking these issues very seriously within dhs. the effort to find the right balance. the notification component of pep is so important and offers that sweet spot for so many communities. i think that we also have to step back and recall that one of the reasons why the ongoing issue of trust is so great is again part of the systemic problem that we don't have competence of immigration reform. we all know that even as we

got comprehensive immigration reform, there would be a series of other things that need to be fixed. what it would do, i think, is recalibrate the balance between enforcement and benefits related issues that exist within the law. as long as we have a system where, either with our best efforts, there are very few alternatives for people, once they are in the removal process is -- those fears that greg is identifying will be very real. and a perfect world, we will not be able to fix all of those problems. we can make, i think, a great advancement towards it once we start looking at the pep program and other dishes as a way to reach some level of consensus. what thee have heard administration has done. gary, you are new on the hill,

but in the prioritization of seeing what you will do in the fall. on thismotional energy issue translating into legislative activity? to start, i'm supposed to say that i'm here not speaking on the behalf of the house judiciary committee or its members. lynden: let me rephrase my question. [laughter] the rankingg for democrat in the subcommittee -- he was a vocal opponent of secure communities. we believe he was heading in the right direction. to greg's point, we continue to have concerns over constitutionality of detainers. we will monitor as it is an limited. in terms of legislative action, , the host ofrrival .ction on a bill

the house democrats were nearly unanimous in opposition to the bill. taken money away from local law-enforcement for those jurisdictions that did not cooperate, either because of the clusters issues or because of the community trust. law-enforcement issues that greg talked about. the senate has a market schedule -- a markup scheduled for september to look at his own legislation. be will see how that comes down. we will maintain our opposition to legislative proposals that undermine community law enforcement, and don't deal with the constitutional issues out there. think we will see what

happens as we get through the august recess, and whether anything else trumps this issue -- pun intended. [laughter] lynden: just a follow-up on the legislative -- at the end of the ph fiscal year, they are expiring provisions. our folks looking at those issues in terms of if they sunset? gary: we have four program set to sunset on september 30. we have a conrad state 30 four medical doctor program for .octors who serve there are discussions going on right now, robust discussions,

to extend the program. i think eb five has been a real focus around new needed integrity measures, making sure that the projects are subject to security laws. also, addressing the targeted employment areas, that we don't have gerrymandering and crazily 's.wn tea we're looking at that now and art cautiously optimistic that the program will be extended. another possible option is that we have a continued resolution and get a short-term extension, if we don't have a deal to extend them otherwise. now to the's turn

challenges, particularly during the summer, with unaccompanied minors. i know this chart is a little tough to read up on the screen. you will see, there was nothing significant increase in the number of on a copy -- unaccompanied children who were apprehended on the southern border, beginning in the end of 2013 and 2014. to clarify, we are focused on children from el salvador, guatemala, and honduras. you will knows that the numbers from mexico did not have a similar spike. we will turn to greg now to give us a little insight about what is going on, what have been the administration on this issue. greg: if there is an issue that has really placed the administration in a difficult spot, both in terms of its policies and what is happening with border and immigration policy, and humanitarian

responsibilities for those who are fleeing from persecution, seeking asylum in united states, what happened in central america is probably what most captures a difficult moment now. what we saw happening to us and 40 was not just an increase in the numbers of unaccompanied children coming to the united states from primarily those three countries, but adults as well. also, family units coming in higher numbers. i think the approximate number is 70,000 children who came last year. about the same number of units. tens of thousands of people, over 100,000. that spike was already anticipated by those in the state department, or who work in international crisis areas,

largely due to the crisis that is happening in central america from instability of the -- and of the state to respond to gang violence. the murder rates and el salvador and guatemala are higher than they have ever been. domestic violence, there is very little capacity for those governments to be able to respond to incidents of domestic violence, and typically those reports either go completely uninvestigated our sanction to some extent by law enforcement. that is the crisis that fueled what was a large migration out of those countries. that is the real true cause -- r oot cause that needs to be looked at here. what happened with the spike last year, a put the obama administration at a difficult place. we saw increased border restrictions and tightening of

apprehensions, placing families -- in detention. for anjust say that association of about 14,000 immigration lawyers, we tend to be lawyers th that are rather issues, and i've rouse seen an issue the organizations. these are mothers and children. being detained on the level of thousands of people in facilities that have been set up very quickly since last july. there was one set up in new mexico that was shut down in november that had about 500-600

people, mainly because the conditions were not adequate. now, there are two operating in texas with a total of about 5000 families, detained there. to give you context, in 2009, a facility used for family dissension in texas was shut down because of the conditions and inhumane way of dictating families in a gel like -- ja il-like circumstance. organizations have been trying to provide legal counsel to the families there. i will tell you, it is heartbreaking. i am on the phone regularly with volunteers and staff working there in texas, near san antonio, and these are lawyers, many of whom do not do immigration full-time, and have decided, i will take a week of vacation i go down there to work with the families.

they are hearing of murderers whose mental health is deteriorating, children are 12 or 15 pound-- babies that have lost one third of their weight. sees tearing apart what i -- the government really needs to do this, to demonstrate that they have the borders and control and has a tough border policy, and will not let hundreds of thousands of people come across. in conjunctiony with art need to -- our need to recognize those seeking asylum. 70-80 percent, even of people to demonstrate .hey have a credible fear

these people are fleeing for their lives. where we stand now, just to sum administration has continued with its policy. i don't they get change anytime soon in terms of the detention of families. there have been to lawsuits filed that have reached decisions, one in february here and the d.c. district court, and more recently, just a few days ago, a federal court in los angeles issued a decision. i will go into details now because of the time, but the summary is that there are real concerns about the practice of what the government is doing. the government needs to change how it is treating these families. they cannot hold them long term. they need to release them on the next the databases. they cannot be holding these families on the justification moreit wants to deter

people from coming to detention must be done on an individuali zed basis. i will stop there. that is kind of where the situation stands now. end.the law i will i will leave it there. jill: i think it is important -- throughout the entire issue, there has been an evolution of the governments approach to these issues. the vast majority of the people have not been detained, but released on their own recognizance, audubon, or otherwise.

even the categories of the folks at issue in the lawsuit, as the lawsuits and others were progressing, the secretary was moving more and more to using those facilities as processing centers to address the issues that greg was raising about the high level and credible fear . these things are difficult issues, but there is a great deal, i think, to the way the government has attempted to continually reassess what the needs are. say, realst want to quick, i want to commend the attorneys who have gone and volunteered at these centers. i have been sort of following the process, as anderson prison, and academic -- forget about immigration law for a second, they have created a whole new model of providing pro bono service.

instead of taking one case, they're taking a week and going down and actually being on-site. one of the reasons they need to do that is because these facilities are often in the middle of nowhere, literally. there are no lawyers around, let alone immigration attorneys. thinking broader, this issue really highlights the need for government counsel and immigration proceedings. because immigration law is civil, there is no right to a government-funded lawyer. that is losing a little bit, in terms of mentally incapacitated individuals, by think this crisis shows us that we need to work towards a broader government-funded counsel in immigration removal cases. lynden: and closely on this topic, i want to point out like greg's comment was. this is a policy issue that the bush and administration andggled with with hutto

the obama administration struggled with. criticism has been striking in the courts. ,he last question for you, greg sometimes you see congress up. p a congress has stepped up a couple of times and tried to move with possibilities of route between agencies. i have been disputes of what -- there have been disputes of what a proper level would be an right to counsel for children. is this just a multifaceted issue or is there a civil bullet for congress to deal with -- silver bullet for congress to deal with? greg: there is no silver bullet. this is a very serious topic, but i thought i would buy a net -- i would lighten it a little bit. one, as gary mentioned, during the past summer, there was a

letter signed by about 100 sick 160-170 members of the house calling attention to detention. there is a set of rules and laws regarding how children, who arrived here on the company, without -- arrive here on a unaccompanied, how they should be screened. children should not be held in jail. it has been discussion on whether or not those laws need to be improved. the most recent law was enacted in 2008, which lynden has on the screen. there was some discussion as to what the standards should look like. there is a double standard that

treats mexican children different from children from americnntral countries. our recommendation is that they be made on par. on funding, this debate has brought up concern around not only heavily on the borders, but the tension facilities. detention facilities. it is often more attention paid foreign aid and assistance for those countries to build the state capacities to improve capacities. up on thet's wrap reforms of the legalization. we will cover this quickly. you heard, on the earlier panel, aom the regulatory team about

few of the priorities. i want to highlight that the visa modernization report included 50 of the recommendations for enhancing legal immigration, focusing on efficiency and accessibility, streamlining the legal immigration system, and in particular, helping people who are stuck in the green card that glut, make it easier for employees to change and players, and strengthening the humanitarian system through the use of parole. final question for the panelists here. when you look at the revelatory agenda, these are all significant, major, controversial, complex rulemaking. there are at least a dozen here alone. let me start with you, gary. you see given the air traffic

control situation, congress weighing in on that process? gary: legislatively? lynden: just regular pressure on the agency to say sus that.e this verse is th gary: we certainly are. ,e will continue to weigh in for example, certain immigration waivers, which is nearing completion and the department as we seek. and unemployment side as well, certainly. lynden: any final thoughts from the other speakers? do you see that list of our ling go into the last year and a half in terms of litigation or political campaigns? or this is a robot, and now it is an limitation -- this is a roadmap, and now it is time for

implementatio. mary: never say never. these were serious efforts to identify what we can get done with the time remaining, and in the context of various imposed bythat are resources and time. we have spent a lot of time looking at the implementation framework for this very document that the white house issued. our goal right now is to get them done. the faster we can move on these, the better. that is the plan right now, focusing ahead. aila applauded so many of the different recommendations that came out on november 20. was the one dapa

that got most of the attention from the media. a program that would provide parole for entre nous is -- entrepreneurs, who want to start a business or are you have businesses operating here, the prolonged program -- parole program is one that we wanted to see for a long time. we're very pleased to see it come out. we're still waiting to see it happen. we are hopeful that will come soon. we see that as one real improvement. another program is a provision that would allow for waivers to be given to people who are already in the united states and you can leave the country to obtain their be sent to lear return to the united states because they had something called unlawful presence. a few years ago, the government create a system to allow for

someone to get a waiver to come back here. now, the government will extend that to a larger group of individuals. we are very much looking forward to see that coming forward because it will hun tens ofp thousands of families. there is a lot of work be done. dhs and other agencies have been very proactive and having stakeholder conversations. lynden: i hope all of you will join me in thanking our panelists today. [applause] we did not have time for questions, but we will linger outside in the hallway for a couple of minutes. thank you.

[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] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, "q&a,s sunday night on "the trouble with lawyers," it at the critical look legal profession in the united states, the high cost of law school, and the lack of diversity in the profession. >> we need a different model of education that includes one-year programs for people doing routine work, two-year programs as an option for people who want to do something specialized in the third year, and three full years for people who want the full, general practice, legal education that we now have, but it's crazy to train in the same way somebody who is doing routine divorces in a small town

in the midwest and somebody who andoing mergers acquisitions on wall street. we have this one-size-fits-all model of legal education that is extremely expensive. the average debt level for a law student is $100,000. that assumes that you can train everybody to do everything in the same way. twolicensed to practice in states, and i would not trust myself to do a routine divorce. >> sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> where life this afternoon at the center for american progress as we await remarks from agriculture secretary tom built that -- tom vilsack. when congress returns, it will debate reauthorization of support programs. this is live c-span coverage.

we expect it to start momentarily.

>> good afternoon, everybody. president and ceo of the center for american progress. we are very honored to have secretary tom vilsack join us today. we have what should be one of congress' most important priorities as a returns from recess, reauthorization of child nutrition programs. too many children struggle with hunger in the classroom because their families are having trouble making and need. child nutrition programs such as school breakfast, lunch, meals, special supplemental nutrition programs for women, infants, and children, are vital to our children's success and to families'y's -- their economic security. responsibilitye to preserve these programs, which is why we are joined by the secretary today.

before joining the obama administration, secretary vilsack served two terms as governor of iowa and more than six years as secretary of agriculture, he has made tremendous strides in promoting rural economies and strengthening nutrition assistance programs. undersecretary vilsack's --dership, under secretary he also helped pass and implement the original healthy which heee kids act, will discuss today. i also look forward to sitting down with him after his remarks for a discussion about nutrition programs where we will take your questions. he has brought renewed focus and attention to these critical issues, and it is my complete, great pleasure to welcome him to the stage today. [applause] thank you very, very much. it is an honor to be back here to talk about something that i

think it is extraordinarily important. in fact, on the way over here, i told my staff i was going to say something provocative at the beginning of this, so here goes -- i think i can make the case that would we are discussing today is significant in relationship to national therity, and it's not iranian nuclear deal. i think i can make the case that it is central to the economic competitiveness of the united states in the future, particularly against and involving our asian competitors, and it's not the transpacific partnership. discussions that will take place in congress this month. i think i can make the case that this is a way in which we can significantly reduce expenditures on health care, and the not protecting importance efforts of the affordable care act from any budget gimmicks that may take

place. this is important work. would i say it is as important and health security care expense simply for this reason -- 76% of america's teachers report that children come to school hungry. i don't know about the folks here in this audience or those watching this, but i know i don't perform as well when i'm hungry, and the reality is neither do children. if we are going to expect them to be at their best in terms of educational achievement, we want to make sure that they are well fed at schools. i think i can make the case that this is about national security because retired admirals and generals for mission readiness have suggested the concern about if we will have sufficient numbers of young people physically fit to do military service to support an all volunteer military. today, one out of four young people ages 19 to 24 are fit for military service. when you're dealing with a

situation where 15.8 million of our children are living in food-insecure homes and nearly 30% are obese or at risk of being obese, you can also make the case that health care costs may go up or down depending on how well we deal with child nutrition. why? we currently spend tens of aliens of dollars on conditions linked to obesity and health-care costs today. so this is an important subject. five years ago, we treated the subject with the importance it deserved through the passage of the healthy hunger-free kids act . we reached out to experts and said tell us what we need to do, particularly as it relates to those meals where some youngsters in america received a third or half the calories they taken during the school year. experts came back and said that cool lunches and school snacks have too much sugar, too much sodium, too much fat. fruits andmote more

vegetables, low-fat dairy, whole grains. we need to have a consistent message in the school snack program with what we're doing in school meals. we need to expand access to school breakfast, and we need to make it a little bit easier in those school districts where there is a significantly high number of free and reduced lunch kids for everyone to have access to a good meal. congress passed with bipartisan support the healthy hunger-free kids act. we have seen i think significant acceptance of these standards. 95% of schools certified under the new standards, and it's not certified. districts it's also an acceptance in the general public waste on recent surveys of 290% of american public believes it is ,ppropriate to have standards federal standards, national standards for our schools and school meals. parents ofced by

school-age children. it is resulting in more fruits and vegetables being consumed according to cdc and according to a harvard public health and its resulting in less plate waste according to a connecticut study. bottom line is that standards are being embraced. they are making a difference, and if given an opportunity to willer a long time, it result in healthier youngsters, better achievement at school, a stronger economy, and more young ofple to draw from in terms public service, military, and other opportunities that national service can provide. that is why it is important for congress to get back to work as youngsters are getting back to

school and reauthorize our nutrition programs. it is important for congress not to take a step back. it's important for congress to continue the forward movement. we understand and appreciate there may be from time to time a school district that has a challenge meeting the standards. it may be related to the standards. it may be related to the circumstances of an individual school. despite the fact that over 450 additional million dollars has been put into the system as a reimbursement increases, we understand and appreciate at usta that there are still some schools that are struggling. that's why we established a grant program, to assist those schools in making the transition to being able to produce food on site. it's why we encourage states to continue to utilize the implementation money that came with the passage of the healthy hunger-free kids act. it's incredible to know today that $22 million is unspent by states from the resources that

were provided when the law was initially passed. that's 28.2 million opportunities to provide assistance and help to struggling schools. it's why we have focused our efforts in creating flexibility give the food to processing industry time to adjust and adapt, and it's why most recently, we've established a program is an opportunity for us to take struggling schools and link them with succeeding schools so they can learn the procurement strategies, the menu strategies, the farm to school opportunities that exist that can create easier compliance with the new standards. as congress returns to work, it is important that we not only reinforced the standards but that we continue to provide opportunities to strengthen them with additional resources for withtudent grant program, acknowledgment for the success programs, and institutionalizing

that effort, we can continue to whittle down and reduce the number of schools that struggle .ith the new standards and it is not just school lunches. it's also about expanding breakfast opportunities. one of the highlights of this effort has been the fact that we've seen, as a result of a lot of outside help, a real promotion of school breakfast, reducing the stigma associated with school breakfast. 380,000 more school breakfasts being served on daily basis as a result of this new focus. folks, this is particularly important in the rural concept and the rural areas of this country. one out of four youngsters who live in rural america are living in a food-and secure home erie the percentages of persistent poverty in rural areas is actually much higher than you would anticipate. over 90% of the county's in this country would -- with

persistently high poverty rates in excess of 25 percent to 30% urban.al in nature, not so these programs are significantly important, particularly for the rural areas of this country, which is why usda is putting a lot of time and effort on child poverty and incorporating our new assistance programs in that effort. it is also about making sure that we eliminate the hassles associated with compliance with any federal program. that's why an important component of the healthy theer-free kids act was concept of community eligibility. we know there are school districts across the united states were 75%, 80%, 90% of the students are free or reduced lunch kids. there's no reason why we are requiring them, their parents, and their school district to go through the process of making applications and making sure the paperwork gets back from the

third-grader to mom and dad and back to the third grade teacher and incorporated into the school system's records. that's why community eligibility provides for the opportunity to eliminate that expense and allow for all of the students in that particular school to have access to a meal. if it's improving the standards, or even alsoier, focusing on making sure that the programs are done in a way that reinforces the integrity of the programs, it is important for congress to focus on that portion of the law. it is also important for congress to understand the significance of what occurs between the months of june and september when youngsters are not in school, when they do not have access to a school breakfast and school lunch and maybe even an afterschool snack or dinner. we focused on efforts in which we can expand in those time periods when youngsters may not

have access to school meals. we've asked the university of kentucky to take a look at rural child poverty and nutrition issues to figure out if there are pilot that could potentially be funded that will expand access to food across the school day and across the school year and across the calendar year. we have looked for creative ways indevelop potentially here the d.c. area and the state of virginia and the state of virginia an opportunity to look at what would happen if all available forre young people. just recognizing the reality of what we face today. one of the components that we need help and assistance on and more additional resources from congress is in our summer feeding program. despite the extraordinary efforts of usda and partners across the united states where we've seen increased sponsorships, an increase insights, and 23 million more meals being served in summer , we stilln in 2009

face a significant delta between the number of students who are free and reduced lunch and the number of kids who benefit from a summer feeding program. around 20 million young people participate in free and reduced lunch. about 3.5 million kids get benefited from summer feeding programs, and there are many reasons, not the least of which is that sometimes it difficult to get kids to a fixed location in order to take an vantage a meal that might be available. it may be that people are not simply aware of the summer feeding site. it may be that we need additional resources to encourage more partners and sponsorships on more sites. it may need -- it may be that we need mobile and flexibility in terms of how meals get to kids, but the bottom line is as a country, if we want to be successful economically, if we want to reduce health care costs, if we want to ensure national security, we have to see child nutrition in the same way we see so many other issues involving economic security and

health care security. it is a critically important part. let me finish with this -- this is personal to the people who work at usda. we go to schools. we sit down with kids. we talked to them, and it's personal to me, and i think everyone who works with me understands that. as some of you may know, i started out life in a rather modest way in a catholic orphanage. i was adopted into a family where my mom and dad struggled, and because of those struggles, i think i probably looked to food as a way of dealing with the challenges of substance abuse and addiction in my home. when i did, i was obviously a bit overweight. i remember as i stand here today very graphically and very specifically in fourth grade being at the black not being and to do a math problem being accused of not being able

to do that math problem because i was fat. i know what it feels like to have your self-image questions. i know how it takes you off your game at the democratic -- your game academically. i don't want that for any child. and i don't think most americans do, either. that's why this is a personal issue for me, and i suspect the people who work at usda have similar stories in their homes lights -- their home lives or friends'ilies' or lives. , solidify,expand institutionalize, and strengthen the work that was done in 2010. i'm here today to encourage congress to get to work, to get back to work as our youngsters are getting back to school. don't take a step back. let's take steps forward. that's what we did in 2010, and that's what we should do in

2015. thank you. [applause] mr. vilsack: past the first test. i got up here without stumbling. that's good. >> thank you so much for your remarks on child nutrition assistance programs. i really appreciate your personal remarks. we really try to demonstrate the impact of these programs on people. one thing we are racing -- facing as we go forward is , soes around sequestration i would love for you to talk a little bit about what sequestration itself has meant in real people's lives and what do we think we can do about andthing like sequestration can we get a message to congress on that. first of all,

sequestration is a budget policy is ill advised because it basically treats in many cases everything alike, and that is simply not the case. there are things that are more important and less important. the ability of usda and its staff to be able to meet the needs and demands of programs. if you have a reduction in half ,s we have suffered at usda you're not in a position to do all the work that you need to do or in a position to provide the information you need to provide to a sponsor that might be interested in setting up a summer feeding program. you are limited in the capacity that you have to provide service, so one drawback of sequestration and one drawback of this whole focus on budget is that you have fewer people.

we have tried to do with this in the right way by not impacting policies and people. we try to figure out ways in which we can be more effective with the dollars we have, by leveraging our resources and getting more partnerships focused. many folks in the field may not have seen a significant drop-off in our productivity, but we are asking a lot of the folks who work in federal government. and if we continue to expect them to do more and more with less and less -- that's number one. two, i think it is important as we look at the cost of food, as we look at inflation rates, the reimbursement rate was effective and helpful, no question. the fact that we had $28.2 million left on the table is a little troublesome to me, so we've been asking governors to focus on this, and for whatever reason, they refuse to do so or are unable to do so, but there is a need for us to have additional resources. when you talk about

sequestration and turn around and say you need to support summer feeding programs effectively and put together for our project that gives folks a card that allows them to access more food during the summer, it makes it harder to make that case. >> i also wanted to touch upon your personal story. we recently launched a campaign asking people across the country who have benefited from these campaigns to share their stories. mary likened the wic program to a life raft in a stormy sea. for so many people like her, these programs have become an oasis in stormy times. as you know, they play an important role in economic security and in really stabilizing families. how did you see these programs work together in addressing the ? eds of families

our story is focusing on this. people think of these programs as serving other people. i grew up in tough circumstances, too. my family relied on food stamps. got us through a very difficult time. millions of people experience it , and yet, people think it is something helping other people. how do we break through that? mr. vilsack: let's talk about the wic program. over 50% of america's children ages zero to five are impacted at some point in time by the program. let's talk about the impact it has on getting youngsters to appreciate from an early age the opportunities that nutritious snacks create. i was talking to a mother of a young child earlier today, as she was talking about how her toddler was embracing roots and vegetables because she had access to fruits and vegetables. the wic program creates that beess to things that may not

traditionally purchased by a family because it was too expensive, or they did not know how to prepare it, but now, they fruits and to those vegetables they might not otherwise buy. their youngsters acquire a taste for it, and that creates a much .ore positive beginning to life the school lunch and school breakfast programs -- it's fairly obvious. with as many food insecure kids as we have, as many kids coming from families struggling financially, they may get a third to half of their calories at school, so, obviously, parents are benefiting from this, and the fact that we are seeing increased numbers of free and reduced lunch kids is a result of greater outreach. back to your sequester question, you cannot do that outreach unless you get people to do it. but the ability for us to deal with that afterschool effort, the ability for us to do with

weekend and summer is directly related to creating a continuum of support, and that summer feeding program is extraordinarily important, particularly in rural areas where it is sometimes hard to know precisely where that meal site eight b. -- where that meal site might be. 20 ority, you might have 30 different options, and in a rural area, you might have one option with transportation being a problem. the ability for us to have a continuum of support, enough flexibility to deal with the changing circumstances of a emily is helpful -- the changing circumstances of a family is helpful. the reality is that the characteristics of snap have changed. people might not think of senior citizens as beneficiaries of snap, but they are. living on a very small social

security check and are reluctant because they see it as something other than what it is, which is nutrition assistance, and they do not understand that it is in our collective best interest for that senior to be fed because they will not have the health issues associated with non-nutrition. it is also important to note that 42% of recipients are children or working moms and dads. the senior citizens, the children, the working moms and dads and folks with disabilities who would love to be able to work but cannot, you have almost 80% of the snap population. i say to folks, which of those groups do you not want to help, and which of those groups does not represent your friends and neighbors down the street? for the 20% that are able-bodied and potentially capable of working, we are trying to create opportunities for states to do a better job of using the .esources we provide to link up

those folks may have challenges with transportation or child care or a whole series of things that make it difficult for them to access the work face. let's figure out what those barriers are and use the resources we have to reduce those barriers. >> thank you. you touched briefly on rural issues and talked about them in your speech. children in rural areas has been something you have focused on throughout your career. i wanted to ask you about the statistics you laid out about kids in rural areas needing nutrition assistance. what forces are driving that? it seems like you are taking particular steps to address it. i think there are a number of reasons. you have to look at the economy of rural america. solelyght it was linked on the basis of agriculture. that is a critical component, but because we've seen larger

and larger farming operations, we have fewer and fewer farmers. int we see in rural areas is many cases in aging and declining population, which makes it hard to attract economic opportunity, so the folks who are still there have limited economic opportunity. often this administration are trying to create a rural economy, trying to support a foundation that takes advantage in ae national resources more sensible way to create more opportunity. part of it is lack of understanding and appreciation for what programs there are. it is important for us to focus on ways in which we can educate people about what programs exist and where they might be able to access those programs. the rural council, which the president established, which i chair, has been tasked with the focus on trying to figure out how we get all the programs out there -- how we make sure everyone knows about them and can access them. what we know through our

strikeforce initiative is if we educate the community leaders of the existence of the programs, they can take advantage of them, and we've seen over $16 billion counties.n very poor these programs can all be accessed in these communities with a greater awareness and ofucing the difficulty understanding how to apply for all of this. they need help. finally, it's really about figuring out the best ways to use those programs. if we do something for mom and dad over here but do something for children over here and they are not connected, we might have some benefit, but what if we decided to do everything we could do for the family? what if we took a two-generation

approach? could we move the dial. could we make a greater impact on those families? i suspect we can, and were going to try to test market that coordinating various programs and see if we can really, really make a difference. howe can, that will tell us to more effectively and efficiently use resources that we have. >> that the thing other agencies can learn from. i'm going to ask a few more questions, and we want to open it up to the audience. mentioned the hunger free kids act, you played a crucial role in that. is important,ture absent of nutrition standards have been some controversy around those issues. truthfully, more schools are adapting them. i a mom with kids in school, like the nutrition, correctly

count on that. count them will make it directly eating in the school. -- count on what my kids are eating in the school. how can we strengthen that program? the -- what are your views going forward? mr. vilsack: we have to trust the experts that tell us we are on the right track. we have to trust the track. a step back, we can relax the standards. we can't remove the standards. we are able and willing to provide flexibility where it is warranted. taking a step back would be a mistake. secondly, it's important to look for ways in which we can streamline the processes by which young people can apply and participate in the programs. atare doing this internally usda, in the application process, to the extent we can continue to press community eligibility, and not take a step back in terms of that

opportunity for school districts that have high poverty rates, high free and reduced lunch rates, allow them to save it ministry expense and treat all kids in the same way. -- the administrative expense. it is important for us to focus time and resources on the time when kids aren't in school. there's an opportunity for us to strengthen our breakfast efforts as well. i think, frankly, we also have to look at the integrity side. what we don't want is an easy opportunity for critics to say, because there's error rate of acts, or a mistaken rate of why, we shouldn't promote the program. snapped, people say there's a lot of fraud, waste, abuse. ats at near historic lows 1.3%. most other programs are not at the level. the combined rates are less than they have ever been. and we are going to work on those issues. we don't want to necessarily use

that as an excuse for not supporting the program. there's an opportunity for us, i supporto create more and assistance, technical assistance for school districts. to team up for success, which started as a regional effort in the southern part of the country. mississippi state has a wonderful nutrition center, they were willing to do a day and a half conference. we found mentoring schools willing to spend time with struggling schools. what we're finding is people are really interested in learning about procurement and farm to school opportunities. they are learning about the farm to school grant program. they are learning about resources available for schools. there are ways in which we can strengthen all of those efforts. in ancorporate that commitment to tell the nutrition across the board. >> one last question. and then i will tee it up for the audience. you mentioned this before.

seeing across the country ,he urge to demonize snap people trying to restrict access. putting limits on snap that are really unrelated to the program. suggest as to how we can make clear to folks whatsapp is really about? is really about, and how can people fight back against these efforts? sureilsack: is make you people understand who is receiving the benefits from snap, it's the supplemental nutrition assistance program. no one is surviving on snap benefits alone. there thatiction out we need to basically attack, if you will. , think it's important to note as i said before, 80% or more of the snap benefits --

beneficiaries or children, people with dennis -- disabilities, working men and women. the folks who are able-bodied and able to work, we're working on getting to states to do a hundred -- better jobs with the hundreds of millions of dollars we provide the states to find work and link those people who are on snap. we have 10 pilots that were part of the farm bill that will glean best practices and perhaps encourage that. also -- the snap expansion that occurred in the recession was a result of the recession. when i beginning to see what the economy improving, fewer people need this. we are seeing numbers come down. is a very effective tool. the other thing i would suggest is that it also helps to mitigate the impact of poverty. millionsor a fact that

are taken out of the status of poverty by the are to -- by virtue of the support programs, it allows people the dignity of knowing that. hundreds of thousands, millions of kids are taken out of poverty as a result. i think, if people fully understood who is getting it, the important work that's being and abuseaud, waste to reduce that, the work we're doing the states to give economic opportunity to folks who are looking for a, wanted, i would love to work if they could find work, sometimes at the person in a rural area would love to work, but they can't get to the jobless 45 miles away because they don't have a decent car or mass transportation. they would love to work but they have a three-year-old child care access. what do you do with that? there are ways in which we can provide help and assistance -- help and assistance. >> you talked about integrity.

there was a study by the school nutrition association and 2013 -- 2014 that 81.2% of schools reported more food waste in the school programs. i wondered what you are addressing in this issue. i was a relatively small sampling of schools. there are number of other competing studies that suggest that food waste is not as prevalent as that study would suggest. having said that, food waste is an issue not just in schools, but throughout the united states. 30% of all food in this country is wasted. it is a clarion call for us to focus on food waste across the board. that's why we established with the epa a food waste challenge at usda. we now have over 4000 partners, food companies, restaurants, associations representing companies, all designed to figure out ways in which we can reduce the amount of plate waste to begin with. that we can reuse food that is capable of being reused, series

of opportunities with food apps that tell you where charitable organizations are that will be willing to receive tomatoes that may not make the grave for the restaurant, but are fine for the central kitchen. and also the ability to recycle. usda's headquarters in washington, d.c., we recycle over one ton of food a week. significantly increased as a result of this effort. if you take a look at usda.gov, food waste challenge, you can find a lot of information a lot of steps we're taking to try and reduce food waste. >> thanks for being here, mr. secretary. by lydia wheeler, a reporter with the hill. you mentioned there 28.2 million available for schools. can you talk little bit about how schools can access that money and take it manage of it? how is it available? mr. vilsack: i will pick one state. i know several months ago, the state of louisiana, for example,

had not used to dime for the money that was available. not a diamond. several million dollars. if i were superintendent of a school that was struggling and looking for ways in which i might be able to provide and get some help with all of this, i would pick up the phone and call the governor's office, i would call the department of education , call human services and say hey, is there any money left over, for helping kids that we could use in our school in a creative way? there have to be many states where there is money left over. , there was a sense $90 million that was originally appropriated. yearsears dollar -- five later, $28.2 million is still in use. yourself,hat and ask before people start criticizing this are saying they don't have the resources, we ought to at least have the resources that are available, and be fully utilizing those resources.

>> someone over there. >> i'm kate hagman, i believe my question segues into what you just said. my question was specifically about governors. you made a reference earlier to how governors work or do not work with this. i was wondering if it was resistance, or any other factors involved in deploying the dollars for hunger program. >> i served as governor for iowa for eight years. i'm not sure why my former colleagues in the governor's offices aren't taking full advantage of this. one of the reasons may be that they just aren't aware. governors deal with a lot of issues. this may not bubble up to the governor's office and awareness of the governor. it's one of the reasons why we took the liberty of communicating with states to let them know that you have this money on the table and to encourage them. we began this effort we had million, $47 million

spent, now we are down to $28 million. part of it may be this is not awareness. part it may be some kind of reluctance on the part of some governors, because they don't believe in the program, or they are part of the 10% of america that doesn't believe we should have standards for nutrition for kids. it's hard for me to understand why folks don't understand the significance and importance of this when youngsters receive one third to one half the calories at school. 36%g african-americans, tile food insecurity rate, 28ngst hispanic kids, percent or 29%. with families with a single parent single -- female-headed household, 35%. why we wouldn't be concerned about that, where would be trying to help those families across the board do a better job of doing what they want to do, which is to take care of their children and make sure their

kids have a healthy, strong, good start to life. >> other questions? >> research institute for independent living. this is a question about bringing programs together. there's a provision in one of the nutrition programs where each community that participates in the program has to have a health plan for the community. where they do indeed bring the resources of the community together. my question is, what is the status of the results that come from that program? mr. vilsack: that's a question i will have to get back to you on, don't know the specific answer. i do know there are a series of efforts at state and local levels trying to develop health plans, because there's a keen desire to reduce the overall with chroniced

diseases. it's one of the reasons why am so interested in both the obesity among children, and making sure that snap programs are available to senior citizens. it's basically to wages of the same sword, if you will. the obesity rate, we know the kids will take into adult life chronic diseases. we know they are very expensive, diabetes, heart disease. totally preventable, potentially , with the right beginning to life. on the other hand, we have senior citizens were living on very, very small fixed incomes. they have to choose, unfortunately, between rent and prescription drugs and food. they skimp on the food, they don't get the nutrition they need, and the end up having problems and convocations that could potentially be avoided. if we are interested in reducing health care costs and transitioning to a wellness system is that of a sick care system, we should be all about nutrition standards, all about making sure the kids get access to good, healthy food and snacks

in school. and all about making sure that senior citizens the need the help get the help. >> up here? come up here. >> if the child nutrition act passes with the 2010 nutrition standards in a, it would be a fantastic development. there are groups in the room like the national women's law center that are trying to make important improvements in the adult food care program, also feeding america, and try to do some improvement in summer food. do you see any prospect for the new entitlement money? i think there is a possibility for this, if we can make the case that in the long run, is cost-effective to do precisely what you have outlined. i'm trying to make the case today. if you spend one dollar today in nutrition standards for children, and you prevent

obesity among youngsters, you reduce the obesity rate in risk of obesity from 30% to 25% to 20% to 15%, there is no question that at the end of the day, we're going to save money. we, the collectively. if we make sure that senior citizens get appropriate nutrition, there's no question at the end of the day we are going to save a few bucks in terms of health care costs. senior citizens those health care costs are directly related to government spending. i think we have to take the long view here. that's what's really important, one of the underlying message issues on this particular issue nutrition is a transition on the policymakers from short-term thinking to long-term thinking. long-term strength, long-term stability, long-term educational achievements, long-term health care cost reduction. at the end of the day, that's the best utilization of limited resources. i think you can make the case.

there will always be the issue of offset, and how do you pay for it. ifre are ways to pay for it it's a priority. we never seem in this congress to have a problem figuring out ways to pay for say more military weapons. because it's a priority for them. fair enough. you fund your priorities. you find the resources for your priorities. i'm here to make the case that it's equally important to the security of this country long-term to invest in our kids. invest in their health and their nutrition. i think it's equally important. i think in the long run, we will be better off as a nation if we do. if everyone sees it the way i see it, we will find the resources. because you always fun to your priorities. >> we will take both of these. >> thank you. the interfaith

co-op. we work with the farmers come organic farmers. and we work with the churches in the mosques and synagogues together to bring organic food available to the general public. foods,t of organic especially fruits and vegetables are really high. is not accessible by those people who are really on the qualifyand they don't for wic programs are snap. how can we produce -- reduce the cost, farmers receive a lot of grants. they receive a lot of help and support. how can we change that? mr. vilsack: we got 10 minutes left, we're not going to get your question that will dig me 10 minutes to answer this one. seriously. all, there is a lot of support now going into in this administration, and all forms of agriculture.

hundreds of millions of dollars of help and assistance is going into organic research coming to organic support, into crop insurance products, into loans, storage loans, technical resistance to organic producers. the reality with organic as it represents about 1% of the landmass of the u.s. dedicated, roughly 4% to 5% of sales. it's a relatively small amount of agriculture. it's going to take a while to get up to scale, to get the kind of efficiencies perhaps in terms of costs you see in other forms of agriculture. the challenge is not to pit forms of agriculture against each other. the challenge is to figure out ways in which folks can have access and make a choice. one thing we have done is we've taken the ebt card, the electronic benefit transfer card for snap, the food stamp card, and we said it shouldn't just be redeemable in grocery stores. or convenience stores. it ought to be redeemable at farmers markets. i'm proud of the fact that this

administration, over 6000 of the 8500 farmers markets now take ebt cards. that provides access to fruits and vegetables. we also have teamed up with a number of foundations to create incentives to stretch that snap dollar, the double block programs, where you get five dollars or $10 of additional support if you buy fruits and vegetables a farmers market. it's one of the fair food network initiatives. other enterprises are being encouraged to bridges of a. two participate. we are looking for ways we can use farm brill -- farm bill programs to incentivize that. i was announcing a multimillion dollar award for the fort organic alliance to allow them to make organic fruits and vegetables more accessible to floridians who are receiving snap benefits as part of the

food insecurity initiative. the last thing i would say is i don't want to buy into the notion that fruits and vegetables are always more expensive. they are necessarily, depends on how you measure the expense. if you measure it based on portion size, or the number of calories. for example, today come historically we've said what is 100 calories of potato chips, the cost of that versus 100 calories of broccoli? 100 calories of potatoes would fill my hand, 100 calories of broccoli would fill half this room. when it are calories going to be more transit broccoli side. if you ask about portion size, i.e. more than one handful of potato chips or a potato chips. side, look at portion fruits and vegetables are necessarily more expensive. we need to educate people, particularly snap beneficiaries and families, doesn't necessarily have to be more expensive to do fruits and vegetables. it may be a candy fruit or frozen fruit, it may be fresh

fruit. but he doesn't necessarily have to be more expensive. i think there's a lot of space in that question for education and awareness that things are getting better. i think over time they will continue to get better. -- >> less: question. >> i have a naïve question, don't have children in school. ,s there any evidence circumstantial or otherwise, that these programs are having a spillover effect for children who are not participating? when i was going to school, we used to ridicule the children who were eating school lunches because the food was terrible. compared to whatever but he also had. i wonder if things might be pushing in the other direction, where children eating more fruits and vegetables, more whole grains, are having a positive influence, or is it still being stigmatized? mr. vilsack: we try to reduce the stigmatization of all of these programs.

the way they are calculate it, the way kids go to the line, a are no longer segregated they do school breakfast or breakfast in the classroom. betry to figure out ways to creative about reducing the ability to say you are free and reduced lunch kid, i'm not. secondly, the standards apply to the meals that are being sold and the olive cart items and snacks. any student who is eating in the cafeteria is going to have the choices and access to relatively the same foods. there is a spillover effect. there are several studies, and mention the university of connecticut, that suggest there are more fruits and vegetables being eaten. more entrées are being consumed. that reflects greater acceptance on the part of students. the harvard public health study that suggests that indeed, there is less, or certainly not more food waste. there's a cdc study that came out that indicates that young people are consuming more fruits and vegetables.

i think it's going to take a while for that to show itself in terms of reduced rates of obesity, reduced rates of food insecurity. we have seen a reduction in food insecurity among kids, that may be a result of what we are doing. it also may be a result of an improved economy. we are also seeing plateauing obesity rates with young children, which may be the effort of wick beginning to pay off. i think there are positive signs. i would caution anybody that we are not going to see an overnight transformation of this. this is slow and steady change. remember, the school lunch program started in 1946 because harry truman thought we didn't have enough people physically fit and strong enough and consuming enough calories to defend the country. now we have retired admirals and generals saying we have the opposite, kids are not physically fit enough to defend the country. it's going to take time. that's why it's important for congress to stay the course. it's important for congress to look for ways to improve the

program, not to take a step back. >> is a great ending for that. thank you for being here. [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]

>> if you missed anything the secretary had to say, we encourage you to go to the c-span video library at c-span.org, where you can watch it in its entirety. congress continues on their summer break until next week. members gavel and on september 8, with bodies will consider the nuclear deal of -- with iran as part of their agenda. they have 60 days to review the deal, over the break, several members have stated their

position for or in opposition. senator released a statement getting behind the deal. in the past hours, we learned ranking number adam smith also approved the deal. he says after careful and thoughtful consideration, i have decided to support this agreement. i believe it ends the otherwise unmonitored and unrestricted continuation of the iranian nuclear program. and it holds the surely destructive effects of the middle east. earlier this hour, maryland democrat congressman elijah cummings supports the deal, along with as being a senator bob casey. he released a statement approving the agreement. the senator would be the 32nd senate democrat in support of the agreement. just too shy for the number to sustain a possible residential veto. the number would be 34. sometime next hour we will hear from delaware democrat senator

chris coons, expected to reveal where he stands on the deal. the house and senator back next week for their august recess on the first items -- one of the first items of business will be a resolution of disapproval of the resident -- the nuclear agreement with iran. tonight we will bring your key statements and hearings that took place after the deal was announced in mid july that include a speech in early august by president obama at american university, and house and senate hearings with negotiators and statements for an against the agreement by senate leaders. congress has until sometime 17 to pass a resolution. and now, former state department international consultant talks about women in afghanistan. botticelli, the current program director for the american committees on foreign relations spoke about priorities, challenges, and the problems of afghan women after the fall of the taliban. after her remarks, she to question -- took questions from the audience.

this is about an hour. [applause] had don't think i've ever such a warm and wonderful introduction. i want to thank my very good friend judy hill, who has been such a support, and an inspiration to me over so many years now, for the great work that i know that she does out here in this beautiful part of our country. i can't tell you how honored i am to be here, and i have another dream come true, to be is almostnta barbara like dark of my life, having almost cut my political policy teeth duringthe --

the reagan administration. i never dreamed i would see the reagan ranch. which is such a moving experience for me on saturday. the spirit of the man, i had seen the man is the head of state. is theelt ronald reagan man, the genuine person that he was. and remains for all of us who worked for him, who knew him, who loved him. here i am today, speaking in the reagan room. place, named, of course, for another great american. someone who i loved as a kid, growing up. earp in theyatt white house once. [laughter] it's good.lli: this is a great mother chapter of my life.

this is a great chapter of my life. i'm pleased to be here to talk about one ongoing chapter of my way, like one of those american express marshals -- commercials. most people know me as the committee director. i am also a professor at catholic university but really a huge part of my life i call my pro bono work. it is the volunteer work, the ongoing work i do with and for the wonderful women of afghanistan, a cause i first became involved in in september of 2002. on september 9, 2002, i began a