tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN January 29, 2013 1:00am-6:00am EST
impression. >> in the vice- >> in the vice-presidential debate, did you see or hear anything that we, as television viewers of the debate may have missed? >> it is one thing from jim's book, you may miss the moment, on television. i don't think -- i think the one impression, for the same reason, i had no idea that all ryan was 753 glasses of water. this was like a saturday night live skit. i thought, i am so thirsty. these guys are talking and they have had no water. i do not think that i missed this.
one thing that happens in the debates is the candidates come in, and they are ready for what ever debate that they are ready for. i think that joe biden thought that this would be a little bit more contentious. it took him awhile to get adjusted to that. i thought that this was a very interesting thing, to realize that. that this was happening with the candidates. what would you get to see those rehearsals? >> now that i have thought about this at this very moment, i don't think obama was prepared for what romney was doing.
i was not -- >> having done this three times, you cover all the people that you interview in these presidential debates, what do you pick up, and what are the ingredients of political success? your interviews with people who have risen to the very top, what is it about them? >> every debate is different. you talk about the things that were missed in the 2008 debate, which i moderated between president obama and john mccain, these are two very different people and personalities and when obama would speak, john mccain would furiously taking notes.
he is always over caffeinated anyway. i love the guy and i like him, but he would take all of these notes and when you look over at obama, when mccain was speaking, obama never took a note. he tried to maintain absolute, direct eye contact, with john mccain almost as if, you will not rattle my chain. and he just keep looking at him and the only time -- during the debate, i still, do not know why he did this, he picked up his pen and he would draw a straight line across the notebook. if this was some sort of as an exercise or maybe he was putting 400 pounds of weight on this or whenever he was doing -- he always did that and i've never had the opportunity to ask why he did that.
during the primary debates with romney, and i talk to him about this, he always wrote something down at the top of this note but and i asked him, what do you write down there? he said, i write down, dad, and it reminds me of my father, and he is my hero. he says i just think of him and this helps me. i have. myth that during this presidential debates i looked down, he wrote something down but i was never able to look over far enough to see if he was writing down his dad's name. >> i want to remind our audience, that this is "the kalb report" and my guests are jim leher, martha raddatz and bob schiefer.
a question, you believe that these debates make our democracy better. do these debates -- make our democracy, as we would like to think of it, does it make it better? >> 100 percent, yes, without reservation. because they are the only times in the course of a presidential campaign when the candidates on the same stage at the same time talking about the same things in a comparative way for everyone who will vote in that election, can see them in action and whenever they are doing, what ever they are talking about, that is the only time they can do that and anytime that you can do that is a good step in the democratic process.
>> you will not agree with that? >> i think it is better for democracy and a terrific experience for the american public. and it is kind of a coming together. i now believe in the guy you, either. i would never come in there with a gotcha question. you have this sense that you are doing something very important. like you've never done before, that this matters and you are a voice in helping the public understand, that your help in the democratic process, those debates help the democratic process. it is an enormous responsibility.
>> what is your proof? i will ask you got to question. >> 65 million americans watched, and 65 million americans learn something and they are debating the debates the next day. they are not tune in to reporters to hear, they're not listening to what they want to hear, they're not hearing people wanting to get on the news that night, and people asking these questions. >> let me give you the proof, the debates on the last political event that we have for you can get people from both sides to listen to you, at the same time and watch at the same time, and all that you have to do is look at the television ratings, and the breakdown of the democrats and republicans -- republicans watched the republican convention, democrats watched the democratic
convention, and the washington of today is not the same as in 1969, the democrats and republicans don't like to be in the same rooms and they don't like the folks back home to think that they are consorting with the enemy but they will sit through listening to barack obama so they can hear what mitt romney has to say and democrats will do the same. and this is the last event where you can say this. this is a good thing. the evidence is that political polarization is worse at this time that has been forever and a day.
>> political polarization is because of a lot of different things, but one of the reasons that we have this is because we don't all get the same stuff anymore. you can get the news delivered to you from any point of view you want. if you want a conservative point of view, democratic, a liberal point of view, vegetarian view, you can find it, and the result is that people at one end of the spectrum simply are not always getting the full story. >> i have to point out, there are many scholars in this country who have done studies of the impact of the presidential debate on their luck -- the election itself and many of them have said that these debates are grand and wonderful things, but at the end of the day they don't mean all that much to the voters. by the time of these debates, -- people have more or less made up their minds and it is much more like in 1992, it is issues that affect individuals who are going in to both that this wonderful and informative television debate.
>> there is no question that the economy is what the elections are about. but i would point out to the scholars that there were two chefs in public opinion during this campaign. the first one came after the first debate. when suddenly, here came romney and people said, that look like obama was going to run away with it, and the second change came at the end of the democratic convention, after the speech by bill clinton. these chefs do change minds and i think fat they are one of the
best parts of the campaign process and i think that we need to have more debates. >> but let me say to the scholars, they overlook the obvious and maybe that is why they are scholars. [laughter] no, that is applied -- that is not a put down. scholars need to go beyond the obvious. that is what makes them scholars. what is obvious is that 64 million people watched the first debate. four years ago was about the same number and there was no two-one change like there was in 2012 of what the debates too, they are confirming exercises. and the scholars tend to say, they did not change any votes and as a consequence the debates did not matter.
people watch those debates, all the democrats and republicans watch, and if you are a republican you are watching your candidate in your already leaning that way. i liked this guy, and i am taking the measure, and there is a small percentage of people who are legitimately undecided. but the debate is for everyone. and what this does is rally the supporters as much as it does, as much as it causes people to change their minds or make a decision, and to me, that is hugely important. >> in these debates, as a participant -- who has the advantage, the incumbent or the challenger?
the incumbent because he can excel -- he can speak with greater authority, or the challenger, because he does not have a greater authority? >> it depends on who the incumbent is, and the non- incumbent. i know that -- going into my debate there was being written, about how paul ryan must be -- he must be studying up on foreign policy. but on the other end, people wrote that joe biden was more nervous because he did not know a fair bit about. -- foreign policy. with the incumbent maybe you have to go over a higher bar,
and as the non-incumbent you just have to prove yourself. >> was there any question you could come up with, was the one that you could have passed either one of the candidates that may have put them off stride for a moment? >> all three of us think -- i wish i had asked this, or that way, but it, i did not try to do that, i just wanted to know what they knew. and there is this line that you don't want to look like a complete jerk. you don't want to ask that question in a way that makes you look like it is just too cute, or were you trying to throw them off, let's go back to bernie shaw. i was out there as a somewhat young reporter, a local tv reporter and i remember hearing that in los angeles, and it was stunning.
in the end, talk about a debate that changes things. >> the s, if this wife was raped would he believe in the death penalty. and i love that -- michael dukakis said, he was over brief that he had his answer is there and he did not think about it. there is just the moment where the moderator my ask, there is the over-briefing. one of the debates with the cheney and joseph lieberman, lieberman has staring directly in the camera the whole time, he seemed to weigh more brief.
>> bernie shaw has the view that if he has the opportunity to talk to someone who may be president of the united states, or who is, it is not special that this is a presidential debate. if you have the opportunity to ask a question about a major issue, take the opportunity because most of the time, in his view, the politician will use you and your network to sell his point of view and himself. if you have the opportunity to do your thing and ask the tough questions, that is the bernie shaw line. we learned in 1960 that kennedy arrived tan, rested, ready, and nixon was pale, 5 o'clock shadow, restless. at that time, studies suggested that kennedy won the debate on television but nixon won on radio. he came across as authoritative. you guys have been at this.
the line or the more structured presentation. >> people vote for president. this is a different vote from anything you have to cast. if you vote for councilman, you vote for issues. will he keep 7-11 up on sundays? will he zone your neighborhood to keep out mini-warehouses. but the vote for president is different and most studies suggest people vote for the person they have the most confidence in in a time of national crisis. i happen to think this is a good reason. in that case, communication skills do matter. the american people are not stupid. they are generally pretty smart. they pick the right candidates. you get a fuller picture of the person running for president, not just the talking points but you get to see him react and how he reacts when the pressure is on. >> or she. >> or she, next time around.
>> the ability to communicate is critical. you can have the greatest ideas in the world but if you can't communicate them, forget it. >> that is about leadership. it is not just a performance in a debate, it is leadership. >> i want to test you on a different narrative. there were 10 million tweets in the first debate. the most ever in american politics. if this was important to you as a moderator. if it was important, or if this fact alone has any importance at all, please explain it to me. i want to stop with martha.
>> twitter -- it is out there. there are voices out there with influence. we as journalists -- it is a great journalistic tool. >> how did it effect you as a moderator? >> i had some strange press the day before, for 15 minutes, rattled me. i will tell you. it effected me as a mom. my son is on twitter all the time. if he is in the bedroom, "are you coming to dinner." but there was such nasty stuff. >> directed at you? >> but my son said, "mom, there are crazy people who write mean things." he's a football player.
he said, "they have three followers." they all live in basements with 75 cats. what i want to do is a reality where i find those people and say, "what do you mean, you don't like my hair? yours isn't great either." >> do these bother you? >> i got millions of critical tweets, i understand. i didn't read them. >> you're a better person than i am. >> it -- quick story. when that debate was over, we went to dinner, kate and our kids and i came away from the denver hall to the hotel where we're having dinner, we talked about the debate and that stuff.
we were just talking about the debate. it wasn't that obama had done poorly or that i was a fool. then one of the people at the table had one of these gadgets. >> like a twitter gadget. >> one of our friends -- they are tweeting this. >> they are saying all kinds of things. some of the stuff, you don't want to know. that was the end of it. then i heard about these millions of tweets and knew some were critical. the bottom line, i felt good about that debate. no tweet and twitter, ten million twitters and tweets -- >> hashtag bobs purple socks.
let's see how many we can get. >> relating to the new technology. we are caught right now in twin revolutions with politics and jouranlism and one -- journalism and one effects the other. your sense as a long-time political observer, with the impact of the new technology on the politics. >> it turned everything upside down. when i was a young reporter for the "fort worth star telegram." about 10 days out, there would be a whispering campaign that one of the candidates had a girlfriend on the east side.
all the girlfriends live on the east side. as a reporter, we'd go check it out. if it amounted to anything we may do something. i can't remember if it ever amounted to anything. now, there are no whispering campaigns. if someone has a rumor, someone write sit on a blog and it is out there. we as journalists, we treat them as news tips. we'd never broadcast it unless it was true. not everyone follows the standards of mainstream journalism. the politicians have to decide to i ignore this and hope it goes away.
there is an old financial recourse. if i make a mistake and libel somebody, cbs has deep pockets. you will sue this guy in the basement with the cat? there is nothing you can do about it. we are trying to come to grips and handle it. it has changed everything with how politics operate. >> let's look ahead to 2016, and look to the future for a moment. both of you said earlier you'd prefer there be more debates rather than fewer. do you think in this age of social media, where the patience of the american people is measured by the length of a tweet is limited.
do you think they'd be able to tolerate more 90-minute discussions of serious issues? >> we get 60 million to watch them. maybe they would. what i want to see is six debates with the first coming immediately after the last political convention. if the democrats are last, next week, have the debate, if the republicans are last, next week, have the debate. i think they can set the tone. if you can have that first debate as quickly as possible it could change the tone of the debate itself. at least it would get it off to a serious start.
i would also say -- since you asked me, i think the right format is to have the two candidates seated at a table with the moderator. that seems to work. the last two, that is the format. i think you can exercise better control instead of standing behind a podium. if the debate commission asked me. they don't have to ask me, i'll tell them. i would suggest to do away with the town hall forum. it does not work in my view, with too much show business into it. you get the candidates performing and walking over and getting in the other guy's face. >> it shows something about the
candidates. i would say -- i like the four debates. i was done with those debates. you talked it up perfectly. >> the idea, jim, of doing a debate -- if we do more debates, if that idea is seriously considered, what about doing that 90 minutes on one subject? >> that is why i'd want to do six. you can -- have one subject for the whole 90 minutes, and do it by subject rather than format. and what people think about the town halls, my experience, the moderator chooses the question. you'll get 22 questions, there is no give and take. it's not a real town hall. but it does have some appeal.
in terms of the subject, it is not the place -- the town hall meeting is a different kind of thing. but if you did one subject at a time, i think the evidence is out there and the public would watch this. 67 million people sat at the television and watched those debates. another 16 or 20 people,there were 100 million people watching some or all of the first debate, and the same numbers continued through them all. >> we have a little more than a minute to go. i want to ask -- martha, why do you think they asked you to do a debate? >> i don't know. maybe because i wasn't covering the campaign?
i was covering the whitehouse and i -- that wasn't my favorite assignment. >> if they asked you in 2016? >> it is an honor. i hope i was chosen for my body of work and am a reporter that people trust. >> why, aside from the color of your socks, do you think the commission came to you a third time? >> i work cheap. [laughter] i have no idea. maybe because i'm older. >> would you do it again? >> no, i think i've served my time here. i'll quit while i'm ahead. >> jim, i asked you this question. you said, no on 2012, and you did it. in 10 seconds, can you say while you'll say yes again in 2016?
>> the answer is no. i won't do it in 2016. >> friends and colleagues, our time is up. the tyranny of the clock again. you are familiar with the tyranny of the clock. but i want to close with an editorial point. i think these debates are essential to the democratic process. as far as i'm concerned, a pat on the back to the committee on presidential debates. i want to extend my thanks to a wonderful audience. a great panel of moderators and all of you who treasure a free and vibrant press as the greatest guarantuer of a free
society. as edwar r. murrow would say, "good night and good luck." [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, what we do now, there are microphones back there and over here, and if you have a question, go to the microphone and i will recognize you, and it will be for a question. and if you start making a speech, i will cut you off. so don't make me be a mean guy. you can address it to the person you'd like an answer from. let's start on the right. >> give us your name --
>> my name is joseph burry, i am an alumnus of the graduate school of business. you had a great remark and a great question. do these debates promote democracy? the people up there are major party candidates. >> not a two-part question. >> please ask it. >> my question is, other than mr. leher, who i commend, the other three did not follow the rules, which were simple. they were to be given one minute a piece, one minute for the question, two for response, two
for the re-response. and -- >> i hear you. thank you very much. would someone on the platform answer? >> i think we did follow the rules. these were 15-minute segments. you had a response and a discussion. >> those were not the rules. >> that is another debate. >> i don't want to get into a debate here. >> i'd like to ask a question about an issue that played a
role but was never discussed, climate change. they expect reporters to ask about the future -- >> let me say one quick thing. i arrange my things by subject and what is most important. i was cut from the bottom to see how the discussions ran. climate change was on the list and i didn't get to it. one of my huge frustrations, small potatoes frustration. i thought the debate itself was fine but it was limiting in the subjects that could be covered. i made the decision, sitting there. we had to cut, and i cut that.
it was limiting in the terms of the number of subjects that could have been covered. i made the decision sitting there that we had to cut that. immigration and other things did not get in there, either. >> the fiscal cliff, was it part of the issue you did not get to, also? >> it came up. i decided we said enough about it. >> ok. out there, please. >> investigative journalist. i wanted to ask specifically to ms. raddatz. the fact that the president attended your wedding. do you think that was handled right and given a second chance, would you have done it differently? >> i did nothing. i did not have to handle that. i will not comment about that. that was something that had happened two days before the debate. it had been in "the new york times" before that. i had to put that out of my head.
that had nothing to do with what i did at the debate. nothing. >> thank you. yes, please? >> my name is steve. i work in the news business. to the extent you are familiar, so some anecdotes about planned stage management about some of these debates and keeping people on time with their cues and not veering too far off the questions. thanks. >> keeping on cue. i will tell you a quick anecdote. my first debate in 1988, george h. w. bush vs. michael dukakis. george h. w. bush was the vice president and he gave an answer.
high-tech, green light, yellow light, red light, and green light said you could talk, yellow lights that you could line up, red light said shut up. george h. w. bush in the middle of an answer, i stopped him and said, mr. vice president, your time is up. he pointed to the lights and said, i have still got some time. in my ear, i heard the voice of the executive producer saying, jim, he is right. [laughter] in front of everybody i have ever known in my whole life -- [laughter] i said, i am sorry, you are right, go ahead. he looked at me and said, i forgot what i was going to say. [laughter] i wanted the biggest hole in the world to drop in and never be seen again. [laughter]
i still do not know what happened. i do not know how i got it wrong. >> beautiful. yes, please. >> would gingrich have won in south carolina if he repeated his performance in florida instead of falling asleep? would he have one to go to the primary debates? likewise, would obama have lost the election after the polls slip and showed romney was ahead. would he have repeated that performance in the next two debates? does that make the case that style is more important, sound bites are more important than substance? what is your reaction to that? >> these are questions we will never know the answer to. i think where governor romney
made a mistake, i think, this is my sense of it and the way he reacted to the questions i asked, i think governor romney thought he was a hit going into the third debate. the nominees polls had suggested that. but based on some reporting, i believe he thought he was a hit when he went into that debate. he went into what a football team does when they are a hit in a game. he went into a prevent defense. that probably hurt him. i do not think at that time he was ahead. one of the things i base this on, i started out that debate asking him a pretty pointed question about benghazi. republicans were really
criticizing the president for this. this was a place where if governor romney really wanted to take on the president, he could have done it. he just sort of skipped by that question and went on to something else. i think he was afraid he did not want to appear overly aggressive and i think that was probably a mistake on his part. >> the reverse was true. obama for the first debate. he thought he was a hit and thought he could coast and he paid a price for it. >> yes, please. >> i am a washington d.c. resident. my question is for mr. schieffer. considering what you discussed about how most americans are
watching news that is tailored to their political views and candidates are going on those news shows, this is one of the only opportunities for those 60 million americans to see a candidate willing to challenge them. do you think that changes the role the moderator plays in the debates? >> i was not one who said i did not approach this as a journalist. i do. i do think this is a place where you are there to give these candidates a chance pass and an opportunity to show who they are. like jim, i do believe when one can do it says something, it is the responsibility of the other candidate that if there is an inaccurate see there, if there is a different point of view there, i think the other candidates should have the first opportunity to make that correction.
>> what about the second opportunity? >> i tried at times when i thought it was not being addressed to address that. i think you are trying to find out who these people are. and what they are about. and what they would do if they are confronted with these situations that are going to come up in the presidency. like jim, you are not electing a moderator. you are electing a president. everybody who moderates one of these debates has to keep that in mind. to your point, you are absolutely right. we are not all getting the same stuff anymore. the only way you can be truly informed is to consult a variety of sources before you make up your own mind. >> let me add a little bit what i said. you are obviously functioning as a journalist. not in a way i would be if i were doing something on the news hour or bob was doing on cbs, or martha on abc.
it is a different form with a different purpose. yes, the skills involved that i use and we used, whoever does, are basic journalism skills, you have to know what the hell is going on. you have to know how to question and listen, those are journalism skills. i did not say that very well so thank you for the opportunity to correct myself. [laughter] >> yes, please. >> i am an engineering student. one of the things i love about the debates is they serve to detach the candidates from these big campaign machines and let you see them for who they are as people. where is the line between gotcha questions and questions that do not hit the point in terms of getting the candidates to be real humans?
>> you are trying to get people to say things they mean, not what they did not mean. that is why i do not think some gotcha thing works. there are a lot of things. if somebody asked me who the president of some country, there are a whole lot of countries, i would not know the answer. i do not think that would have anything to do with whether i am an informed person. it is just not my specialty or something. i think that is where the line is carried you are trying to get people to say who they are and what they mean and why they have taken the positions they have taken, not to mix them up. you will find out soon enough if they know what they are talking
about and more than two paragraphs. >> one of the things you are trying to do is be fair. and let them talk about what they want to talk about. i think the difference between intervening is if i ask a question and i want an answer to that question, yes i agree if they do not answer my question i might try to press it, but if someone else is challenging them on accuracy from the way they see it, that is very different. there is a point of view sometimes when people, if people intervene and say, but wait a minute, that is not the way it happened, there is not always an absolute truth to those things. i think if there is a question there is a clear answer to, you do have to say, it was 4:00 and not 3:00, if it is anything beyond the ones, i think you let the candidates challenge each other.
>> the american people for two years prior to the time you have the presidential debates, were listening but not learning anything. it was up to you. you ask the question and 60 million people watched and suddenly we really understand what it is they are saying? why should we believe the candidate trying for two years and probably 20 before that to be the president of united states, say something different to you more meaningful and honest than he has been trying to say for two years? why? >> it will not happen. if you are looking for candidates to say something different, forget it. it is the opposite. you want to know what these
people believe. >> do you think you know that after two years? >> i am not sure you do. maybe those of us who it is our business to follow the campaigns minute by minute and read the paper. most people are not doing that. there is nothing wrong with that. they do not have time. >> that is the form where you do have to change -- >> people are focused on this. he may have said it 100 times but it may be the first time you heard it. >> and heard it in a comparative wage. >> that is different from what he thinks. >> yes, please. >> i am a young professional in d.c. i question is for mr. schieffer.
you said all elections come down to the economy. you can make the argument president obama centered his candidacy on social issues. what about today with the fiscal environment the united states is facing? what we have better discussions during these debates that centered more on the economy? >> i think in the end, this one did come down to the economy. the president may be basing his second term on social issues. if you take his inauguration speech as a guidepost to where he wants to go from here. but i did not hear him to talk a lot during the campaign. the economy began to get better. i did not see him spending a lot of time talking about gay rights during the election. i did not hear him talk very much about gun control. i think it was mentioned once in one of the debates. i think they thought they had to get -- what they concentrated on, in some ways, this was not so much an election about issues as it was about identifying
their voters and getting their voters to the polls and recognizing the demographics in this country were changing dramatically. they figured that out and how to get people to the polls and republicans did not do as well. i think the core of the president's message was the economy. >> the last question because we are running out of time. >> this is for martha raddatz. you seem to have gotten a lot of criticism during the vice- presidential debate, allowing joe biden to run all over you.
the cost of laughing and the interrupting of paul ryan, particularly when he was talking about an armed iran. how can you say you had any control over that whatsoever? [laughter] >> i want to answer you fairly, i do. i think when we came out of the debate, joe biden had 45 seconds more than congressman ryan. i think congressman ryan felt it was fair. that is what i can say. i think congressman ryan afterwards could not have been nicer. both of them work. both of them thought it was fair. [applause]
>> in the distinction that has been made tonight between moderator and reporter and everybody being a reporter but serving a function as moderator in these presidential debates, we have a rich pool of journalists in this country because it is a free country. you have got awfully good reporters. i want to make the point that this weekend, we lost one of the really great reporters. the kind of reporting stanley did in vietnam, the 13-part series he did on cbs, his book on vietnam, the history, are going to leave students and all of us as citizens enriched by the spirit and energy and diligence stanley put into that work. we are all diminished by his departure.
in a way, enriched by the knowledge that good journalism is the essence at the heart of a free and open society. so long as we have good journalists, we will continue to have a free and open society. thank you all very much for joining us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
needs of others, we align ourselves with those forces which are bringing about this suffering. >> the white house is a bully pulpit, you ought to take advantage of it. >> of obesity in this country is nothing short a public health crisis. >> i have little antennas that went up and told me when somebody had their own agenda. >> there is so much influence, it would be a shame to waste it. >> i think they serve as a window on the past to what was going on with american women. >> she becomes the chief confidant. >> many of the women who were first ladies were writers. journalists. they wrote books. >> they are more interesting as human beings spam their husbands. if only because they are not first and foremost defined and
limited by political ambition. >> dolly was both socially adept and politically savvy. >> dolly madison loved every minute of it. this is monroe hated it. >> you cannot roll without including what women want and have to contribute. >> during the statement, you are a little breathless and it was too much looking down, and i think it was a little too fast. not enough change of pace. >> probably the most tragic of all of our first ladies. >> she later wrote in her memoir that she said, i never made any decisions myself. i only decided what was important and when to present it to my husband. you stop and think about how much power that is. it is a lot of power. >> part of the battle against
cancer is to fight the fear that accompanies the disease. >> she transformed the way we look at these bugaboos and made it possible for countless people to survive and flourish as a result. i do not know how many presidents have that kind of impact on the way we live our lives. >> just walking around the white house grounds, i am constantly reminded about all of the people who have lived there before and particularly, all of the women. >> the first ladies, their private and public lives. c-span is teaming up with we white house a sort of association for a first of its kind original series for television. first ladies, influence and image, airing over two seasons. season one begins presidents' day at 9:00 p.m. eastern and
pacific. >> in a few moments, a bipartisan group of senators propose changes to immigration law, including a path to citizenship for most immigrants. in about an hour, general stanley crystal on the iraq and it gets missed and morris -- afghanistan wars. >> then a discussion on the use of executive power. later, a heritage foundation discussion of state id standards. >> several live events tomorrow morning. a senate health subcommittee will hear from healthcare professionals about the primary dr. shortage. that is here on c-span at 10 o'clock a.m. eastern. also at 10:00 a.m., on c-span3, the american enterprise institute examines how the film "zero dark thirty" petraeus
enhanced interrogation by the cia. >> one cannot count the times that americans say that we're the best country in the world. what a marvelously stupid thing to say. of all the countries in the world? everybody thinks their country is pretty good. why do we have to believe that we are the best? what does that mean? why do we have to assert it? what does it mean to other people who consume it? american products go around the world, information products, go
around the world, so you are observed by people in every corner of the world. we teach them not to like us. gratuitously. >> author, activist, and trans africa founder randall robinson. three hours live on booktv on c- span2. >> a bipartisan group of senators
is proposing changes to immigration laws, which would include a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million estimated illegal immigrants in the u.s. this is about 45 minutes. >> we want to thank everybody for joining us. and we're here to announce today that the five of us here today and eight of us in total,
including senators mccain, rubio and bennett have come together on bipartisan principles for immigration reform legislation that we hope can pass the snot in overwhelming fashion. we still have a long way to go. but this bipartisan -- sorry, we still have a long way to go but this bipartisan blueprint is a major break through. it's our hope these principles can be turned into legislation by march and have a mark up by the committee with a goal of passage out of the senate by late spring or summer. senator durbin and i spoke to the president yesterday to update him on the group's progress. and he couldn't be more pleased. he strongly support this is effort. the key to our compromise so to
recognize that americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration and support legal immigration. to this end our framework contains four basic pillars. first, we create a tough but fair path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently living in the united states that is contingent upon securing our borders. second, we reform our legal immigration that will build the american economy and strengthen american families. third, we create an effective employment verification system that will present identity theft and tend hiring of future unauthorized workers and lastly, we establish an improved process for e admitting future workers to serve our work force needs while protecting all workers. other bipartisan senators have
stood in the same spot before trumpeting similar proposals. but we believe this will be the year congress finally gets it done. the politics on this issue have been turned upside down. for the first time ever, there is more political risk in opposing immigration reform than in supporting it. we believe we have a window of opportunity to act. but we will only succeed if the effort is bipartisan. by their presence today, my republican colleagues are making a significant statement about the need to fix our broken immigration system. we democrats are equally serious. we do not want immigration as a wedge issue. much rather we want a bipartisan bill that solves the problem and becomes law. we recognize that in order to
pass bipartisan legislation none of us can get everything we want. that's why our framework says we can address the status of people living here illegally while securing our borders and creating an immigration enforcement system that ensures we will not again confront another 11 million people coming here illegally. on day one of our bill, the people here without status who are not criminals or security risks will be able to live and work here legally. that will make it easier for them to learn english without fear of deportation. but to prove to the american people that we are serious about permanently ending illegal immigration to the u.s., we say we will never put these individuals on a path to citizenship until we have secured our borders and combated the people overstaying their legal viz sass. we are asking our colleagues in the house and senate to join us
in this difficult work ft it's time to work together to pass legislation that improves our security, grows our economy and ensures that we will continue to be a nation that lives up to the values of our founders. i'm going to turn it over to senator mccain in a minute. i want to say he has been the grew in our group. his wisdom and strength and courage, his steadfastness and many other adjectives that i'll skip at the 340e789 have really been inspiring to me and all of us. and i want to just say -- you want me to go on? and i want to say that every member of your group, including senator gram who couldn't be here, senator mccain has a statement from him, have really been terrific in terms of understanding that we have to come to an agreement, we have to meet in the middle. that the mission of getting a bill done to strengthen america is more important than any of us clinging to a specific
belief. and so i'm optimistic. i'm truly optimistic, more than i was when we had our first meeting in december that we can get this done. and i want to thank every one of the members here. it's been so far -- we're only a part of the way done but it's been a great experience so far and one that
gives all six of us a great deal of optimism. >> i'd like to thank you the senator for his leadership. i'd like to thank the democratic leader. there has not been anyone in america who has fought harder for the so-called dreamers than dick durbin has and he will continue to have the gratitude of many americans. my friend senator rubio who is a new important voice in this
immigration reform. senator menendez and senator gram who is uncharacteristically absent from this gathering. as the senator mentioned it has a first step in what will be continue to be difficult but achievable. i don't have to remind anyone the last major attempt was six years ago. we will again attempt to get the resources to secure the border, streamline our immigration system and create a tough but fair path to citizenship for those here illegally. and i would like to testify again t security situation along the southwest border is not perfect. there remains several areas, particularly in arizona where people's homes are being invade and drug smug letters are crossing every night and they
deserve the same level of security all of us have. there is no question, there has been a significant reduction in illegal crossings over the past five years. apprehension by the border control have dropped 70% from 2005 to 2012. but their work is not yet complete. greater focus need to be paid to drug traffickers and criminals that cross the border. arizona continues to be a major smuggling corridor and hub for drug trafficking organizations. to combat this, we need to invest in high-technology, proven surveillance systems that will give the border patrol ability to detect and apprehend illegal entries into the united states. it's achievable and can be completed within the next few years if we commit to it. the next important step is to ensure we don't repeat the mistakes of 1986 where we gave amnesty to 3 million people,
promised the border would be secure and we're dealing with 11 million people here illegally. so that has to have increase in fines on employers that knowingly hire illegal workers. we have to have employment verification system that will end the hiring of future unauthorized immigrants. we need to shut off the magnet that attracts illegal workers. we will put in place a legal worker program to provide a humane and effective system that allows immigrant workers to enter the country without seeking the aid of human traffickers or drug cartels. any legislation that pass congress must establish legal channels for workers to enter the united states whether they are high skill, low skill or agriculture workers so we can free up officials to focus on
those individuals intending to do our nation harm through drug smuggling, people trafficking and possibly terrorism. providing citizenship for dreamers, developing a measurement to determine when the board certificate truly secure. reforming our future immigration system to better meet the needs of our employers ensuring an exit system to combat visa overstays and creating a program that makes certain u.s. agriculture has the necessary workers to maintain america's food supply are some of the issues we've committed to addressing and solving in a bipartisan manner. and finally, we come to the most controversial piece of immigration reform and that's how to deal with the approximately 11 million people living in the united states outside of legal status. what is going on now is
unacceptable. in reality what has been created is a de facto amnesty. we have been too content for too long to allow individuals to mow our lawn, serve our food and even watch our children while not affording them any of the benefits that make our country so great. i think everyone agrees that it is not beneficial for our country to have these people here hidden in the shad dose. let's create a system to bring them forward. allow them to settle their debt to society and fulfill the in necessary requirements to become law abiding citizens of this country. this is consistent with our country's tradition of being a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. i'd like to read senator gram's brief statement. he says i hope the third time is a charm. i've enjoyed working with my colleagues in drafting these principles and believe we are
off to a good start. the bipartisan principles represent a break through on instance and i hope they will be seen as a break through in forming a coalition to solve our immigration problems. the coalition must also include the president and the house of representatives. my hope is this bill will start in the senate and receive an overwhelming bipartisan vote. we are a long way from having legislative language but i believe 2013 represents us the best chance to pass immigration reform in many years. with a reasonable amount of political give and take we will be successful. however, if we fail in our efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform, i do believe it will be many years before anyone is willing to try and solve this problem. we should have full understanding of how difficult it is. in the last couple of days we have been able to invent a
nuclear option in the senate. a lot of people don't appreciate how important it was for us to get that done. we were involved in a bipartisan efforts to pass that. thanks for the cooperation of our two leaders we were able to do that. there is a desire for bipartisan ship here in this body. i think we can show the country and the world that we are capable of tackling this issue, a looming and terrible issue that has to be resolved in a bipartisan basis. and i believe the majority of the american people support such an effort and i want to thank my colleagues again and the ever congenial senator. >> now senator durbin. >> i want to thank my colleagues, john mccain, thanks. we've been down this road
before but i feel good about our chances this time. chuck thank you for your leadership on this and bob and lindsay and i understand that you've been the force blind this. he's the glue, you're the force and it's worked. we've come to this moment. and here we are facing the issue of immigration. nothing new in america. this inflammation has been debating the issue of immigration since the first group got off the boot and wanted to know why the second boat was coming. but it is critical to remember that those immigrants whose d.n.a. we carry had something special in their make up to get up and move to come to this nation for a great opportunity they couldn't find in another place. that's part of what we are today. and secondly it says something about our nation about how many people want to come here in this opportunity for an expanding economy.
they want to be here in america. the third point is important, our immigration system is broken and has been broken for a long time. 16 years ago when i was elected to the senate, one of the first phone calls i received from ted kennedy. he said i want to let you know i'm chairman of the subcommittee. i need you on . there we haven't looked at a serious immigration law for ten years, we're going to get it done. i signed up. but it didn't happen. and time passed, another 16 years and we still have a broken immigration system. with 11 million people living in limbo. well this statement of value that is we give you today is a good solid starting point to make certain we fix the system. it has the basics. basics we insist on. strengthen border security with the best technology using enforcement resources are for
the most serious threats. second, require employers to verify that all their employees are legal and have a means of verification that is quick and accurate. third, illegal immigrants already in the united states will be given their chance to earn their way to citizenship. it won't be easy. it will take them time and determination but if it weren't for that determination they wouldn't be here in the first place. among that a criminal background check. make certain they pay any fines we establish. pay their taxes which is a critical part of this whole comprehensive approach. give them a chance to earn their way into citizenship learning english and the basics about america's history. and making sure that the amount of illegal immigrants -- amount of legal immigration that is allowed in the united states is based on the state of our economy. we are going to enshrine in
here the principle when it comes to job openings americans get the first grab at it and the first opportunity and that's the way it should be. we're going to make certain beyond that there are opportunities for others and there are a variety of different ways we approach it. let me close by addressing one issue that is near and deer. it's been 12 years, 12 years since i introduced the dream act. i never gave up because when you meet these young people you can't give up. but there were some disappointing times and sad times. the last time around i met with these young people and i told them i'm never giving up on you, don't give up on us. that's what this is about. the dream act is going to be an integral part of comprehensive reform. that will give these people the chance they have been begging for. these young people have shown an extraordinary amount of
courage. they have identified to the world who they are. and when we met them and came to know who they were, this issue starting moving to a place where in the last presidential campaign both candidates were asked their position on the dream act. that says a lot about where this issue has brought us and i think it's been an integral part of bringing us to this moment in time. i look forward to happy news for these dreamers and so many families who are looking forward to a better day in america. >> thank you. let me join my colleagues in saying i appreciate the incredible spirit that has been displayed in these negotiations leading to these statements of principles and for what i clearly sense after someone who has worked on this for years in the house when i was there and in the senate, i app am the most optimistic i have been in some time.
i recognize there are difficult challenges ahead but i just get the sense of a spirit and a commitment that is far beyond what i've seen in some time. and the american people support this. in poll after poll when you take the elements of our principles, they have said this is what we want to see in reform of our broken system. there is a reason for that. if i want to secure the nation, i cannot secure the nation unless i know who is here to pursue the dream versus who is here to do it harm. fy have people in the shad dose, i don't know what their ultimate purpose is here. so when we talk about the nation's security, reform is necessary for security as it is for our elements of principles to enhancing what we've done in further border security. when i talk about the nation's economy, reform is critical to the nation's economy.
the reality is that even in a tight economy, there are all types of industries in our country which have used the work of immigrants every day to achieve the economic goals of those industries. if you got up this morning and had fruits for breakfast, it was probably picked by an immigrant worker. if you had vegetables for or chicken for lunch, you probably had it plucked by the cut up hands of an immigrant worker. if you slept in a hotel of the nation, you probably had your room done by an immigrant worker. if you are looking at some of the cutting edge technologies in our country, you saw the ability of making america what it is by an immigrant worker. so in so many dimensions this is about the economy of our
nation as well. and finally two elements of this that i think are important within the principles that i support is the fact we have seen in other countries in the world where there is no path way to citizenship there is instability. the reality is this will be a fair path way. it will be one in which those who have come to this country to achieve the american dream will come forth, must register with the government or they will lose their opportunities. will have to go through a criminal background check, will have to pay any previous taxes they did not pay although many do pay through taxpayer i.d. numbers or a social security number. but they will have to pay anything they didn't pay before. they will have to for the first time in u.s. history learn english to be able to become a permanent resident. we require that for u.s.
citizenship which we have never required that for a permanent resident. it is a higher standard. that is a real opportunity at the end of the day. and lastly, someone who is a big advocate of making sure our economy is strong as a result of immigration reform but we preserve a core value of our society which is family reunification. and how do we do that in a way that is smart and promotes legal immigration versus what has families divide so long and how do they become reunified. i believe we can take care of those issues. finally let me say a word or two in spanish. [speaking spanish]
do not agree with anything you just said in spanish. [laughter] i am new to this issue in terms of the senate, not in terms of my life. i have lived surrounded by immigrants, my neighbors are immigrants, i'm mara into a family of immigrants. i see the good of immigration every day, how important it is for our future. as most americans, i know how critical the immigration system has been for our heritage and our future. by the same token, i see the negative is that illegal immigration is causing our country. these are issues that the vast majority of americans agree with. they believe we do have a legal immigration system that works and they recognize that we have now is not the 21st century legal immigration system and that is why i am so pleased the first principle in this effort is one to modernize our immigration system so it
reflects the reality and the needs of the 21st century. by the same token, we recognize the market has a right to reform immigration laws. that is why i am pleased to look at these out lines. this will insure that we are never here again with a situation that we face today. none of this is possible if we did not address the real and yet there are 11 million human beings in this country today that are undocumented. that is not something that anyone is happy about, not something that anyone wanted to see happen, but that is what happened. we have the obligation and need to address the reality of the situation we face in a way that is fair to the people who are doing it the right way, in essence, the hundreds of thousands of people who come to our offices every year whose relatives are waiting in line to legally come here. we have to be fair to them. we also have to ensure we did not do anything to encourage people to come here illegally in the future. by the same token, we are
dealing with 11 million human beings who are here undocumented, the majority of whom have come here in pursuit of what all of us would recognize as the american dream. that is what we endeavour to move forward here on. on both sides of this issue there are legitimate points to be raised. there are people who are concerned about how much this will cost the american economy. we have to be frank about dealing with those issues. this country owes $16 trillion. by the same token, we need to be honest with ourselves with just how important immigration is to our economy. for those who are here and are making contributions towards our future -- today is an important step. the issue of immigration is not a simple one. but we have the opportunity to do it right. if we do, we will do a tremendous service to our country and our future. and briefly, in spanish. [speaking spanish]
>> ok, we are ready for your questions. >> there are some republicans in the house that have already pushed for opposition. are you willing to change anything you have proposed? >> of course we want to work in a bipartisan basis. we are encouraged speaker boehner has specifically stated that he believes what comprehensive immigration reform is an issue that should be taken up by the house of representatives and legislation passed by the president. we are standing ready. we have finished our work. we have made significant progress. while we're doing that, sitting
down with our colleagues in the house, republicans and democrats, sitting down with the president of the united states, to expedite this entire process. there is opposition in the senate two comprehensive immigration reform. there is some competition in the house. but i am confident the majority of both houses, led by the president of the united states, who made this a major campaign issue, that we will succeed. we are not going to get everybody on board. >> you mentioned the fact that you have been here before. since 2007, senator kennedy stood with you -- 2007 was the year that you must [inaudible] you have expressed optimism. why is it different? >> as i have stated before elections, the republican party
is losing support of our hispanic citizens. we realize there are many issues where everything we are in agreement with our hispanic citizens, but this is a preeminent issue with those citizens. also, over the years, republicans in particular, but also democrats, and all of our citizens, have realized the reality of what all my colleagues just stated. we cannot continue as a nation with the 11 million people residing in the shadows, and we have to address the issue, and it has to be done in a bipartisan fashion. and if we do succeed, and i think we will, it will be a testimonial to ted kennedy's effort years ago that laid the groundwork for this agreement. you will find this agreement has very little different from that of the legislation that was led by senator kennedy some years ago.
>> one other thing, the public's attitude has changed. four years ago they said fix the border. now they much prefer a comprehensive solution, including a path to citizenship, as well as fixing the border and doing the things we have talked about. what is interesting, when you look the polling data, it is democrats, independents, and republicans who agree with that, people in the north and east, south agree with that. the public is your new for real change now. that will help as well, and of course, what senator mccain said. >> center, the president is set to speak tomorrow on this issue. why do this today, why one day early? >> we do not have much time and became to an agreement this weekend and we want to move quickly. as i mentioned, senator durban and i spoke to the president. he was delighted that we came
to an agreement. we will be working together to try to get something done. obviously, the senate has a chance to create a bipartisan coalition because we need both parties to succeed, and that gives us a unique opportunity. we intend, as senator mccain said, the white house, senate, and the house to be working together on this. it seems to me at least that the senate is the most fortuitous place to move forward first. let me just add one thing. >> i was engaged in active negotiations on immigration. center barack obama was in the room. as a senator, he was committed to it, is still committed to it today. in fairness, president bush was outspoken for his attitude on immigration control. we have clear presidential support here. we have here, in our
conversation with the president, he cheered us on. he said, let's do this, let's not let this fall behind. >> i want to echo this point. i was with the president with the hispanic congressional caucus friday night and he made it clear, a major priority for me, to move toward and time is of the essence. >> what are the main differences between this plan and the one that you deduced on your own? >> this is an outline of principles. the details will involve input from this group as well as all the members in the senate, and if it is to become law, the house. the principles, i think, are similar, if not the same. it is the reason i signed onto it. it says we have to modernize our legal immigration system, we have to have a real in force the mechanism, and we have to deal with people who are here
now in a way that is responsible but humane. this allows people to make their status at this moment legal if they meet certain benchmarks. ultimately, to have access to the regular opportunities than anyone else would have to get a green card. once you have that, you are three to five years away from becoming a citizen. not an easy process, but certainly a fair one, one that speaks to our legacy as a nation of laws, as well as the place of immigrants. >> [inaudible] certify that the border is secure? >> we clearly want to make sure that the enforcement mechanisms have been. one of the things we all here is, you are going to do the legalization part, but not the enforcement part. the best way to guarantee that people will feel comfortable with that is to put in the
following. understand that the visa entry and exit system, which everyone recognizes need to be done, real progress in terms of improvement at the border, two critical things that people need is to certify before we move to the final stage in the process. not the legalization stage, but the green card. if we're going to be realistic about that, we need to be meaningful. [speaking spanish]
>> let me just say, this is important. we have to work with the governors and the organizations and citizens on the border states that are of the major victims of the broken borders. we need to work with the department of homeland security, and we will, in order to assure the american people that never again will we face a problem with a large number of people in this country illegally. en espagnol, vamanos. [laughter] >> i think what we envision, of course, subject to are working out the legislation, when this becomes law, individuals who are undocumented in the country
would come forward. they would register with the government and have a pending status. that is not permanent residency, they have to earn that over a long period of time. that pending status would allow us to go through their criminal background checks and allow them, at that period of time, to come forth out of the shadows and be able to get least be able to be here in a status that will allow them to do certain things. after that, we are going to have to have security elements of the border. then we will have a process where we will have to wait at the end of the line, where people who are presently waiting under the existing system to get their status here in the united states, which is part of what we envision having to deal with, will then, after that -- if they have maintained good citizenship during that pending period of time -- will be able to move toward permanent residency. but at the beginning of the process, individuals would be able to come force. there would have to go to the government, go to the criminal
right to stay here and work. they would no longer be deported, provided they do not have a criminal record. they would no longer be harassed. they would be working. and then once the parameters that we still have not set up, but are in the bill about securing the border, then there would be eligible for green cards. but the ability to stay here and work, stay in america and not be deported or harassed, comes virtually immediately. >> [inaudible] >> future flow has been one of the shoals upon which the good ship of immigration has floundered. we know that.
we have had discussions with both labor, the afl-cio, seiu, business, other business groups, and while we have been negotiating these principles, they have been sitting down talking to one another. it would be best from all points of view this business and labor could agree on a future flow proposal. obviously, we would have to agree with it, too. that would be helpful. according to both donahue and trumka, they are making a lot of progress, much more in 2009, and in 2007, when john and senator kennedy worked on it. >> [inaudible] you are talking about importing tens of millions of those skilled laborers.
what would you say to working- class americans who worry that their wages and jobs will be lost -- >> it is in our principle that we will tie future float to employment. if there are jobs available floor -- four americans to take, that will be one of the major components of future flow. if there are jobs that there are not americans for, then, obviously, it will be much easier for people to come in. an example, farm work. americans, by and large, wherever it is, americans do not do the farm work. so we need workers like that. but we're all united in the view that immigration is good for america and good for employment and good for a growing economy.
to have people who will pay taxes, who will contribute to the economic well-being is a very
good thing, and we aim to get it done. >> there are thousands of graduates with ph.d.'s, master's degrees in technology that we want, we want to remain and work in the united states of america. >> president obama traveled to las vegas on tuesday to present his emigration policy changes. his spokesman discuss the issue at the white house on monday. -- discussed the issue at the white house on monday. >> -- a blueprint on the white
house what side. the path to citizenship be conditioned on types of border control measures -- does the president accept that kind of linkage? >> first of all, i think you glided over a very important aspect of this, which is that these seven principles put forward by this bipartisan group embraces the path to citizenship. this is a big deal. this is an important development. this is in keeping with the principles of the president has espoused for a while. this must end in a law that he can sign. when it comes to border security, anybody who looks as honestly will not the tremendous strides we have made in the past quarter years in protecting our borders. in fact, they have never been better enforced than they are now.
over the past four years, this administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to securing the border, taken an important steps to make enforcement of our lost more effective, and we have made historic investment in manpower and infrastructure to secure our borders. they are more secured now than they have ever been in history. that will continue. it is important before we let the moment passed to acknowledge that the progress we are seeing embodied in the principles put forward by this bipartisan group is happening for reason. i think is happening because a consensus is developing in the country, a bipartisan consensus, and it has happened because the president demonstrated significant leadership on this issue when the effort to achieve a comprehensive immigration reform cannot succeed in 2010. he continued to press for it. he has given speeches on it
repeatedly. he put out his tell blueprint online. he made clear in the campaign that this would be a top priority of his in a second term. he is keeping that commitment by pressing forward today. this is an important first up that we have seen. we need to continue movement. going to julie is a question about timetables -- a goal is not for everybody to get together and say, we share common principles, but to achieve legislation that gets the job done and does it in a way that can earn the support of congress and are in the signature of this president. >> yes, we're seeing a bipartisan consensus that there should be a path to citizenship, and we have not seen that in years. a question about the linkage between -- this proposal says, we do not go forward and giving up at the citizenship to anyone until court security codes and actually increase to local that they will establish.
>> we are not at a stage, especially from the briefing room, where we will negotiate details of legislation that does not yet exist. what is positive about this discussion is that a bipartisan group in the senate has embraced the principles that the president has long put forward and espoused. when we talk about issues like border security, instead of waiting until now to address border security, as president in his first term as aggressively addressed those challenges and taken historic steps to creating the situation where we had tighter border security than we have ever had. that work will continue. we look forward to working with congress on legislation on the issue border security and other -- and on the other important elements of immigration reform that have to be part of a comprehensive package. >> roberto sanchez, what are
some highlights of the bipartisan emigration a proposal that senators unveiled? >> four main parts -- it will provide path to citizenship, it will overhaul the existing immigration system, it will provide a guest worker program, and it will deal with the hiring of illegal, undocumented workers. >> was the impetus for coming up with a free market and trying to act on it early? >> apparently, republicans are chastened from the last election and see this as an opportunity to get the issue off the table. leaders of the republican party think that if they can get this issue square away and salt, they cannot win back republican voters, which played roles in the election. >> why are senators coming out with their proposal today before the president is expected to talk about his own plan? >> apparently, they have been in contact with the white house
about this. the white house gave them the go ahead. the senators believe that time is of the essence. the wanted to do this as quickly as possible. senator schumer and senator tumor spoke with the president last night. he was encouraged by their progress. he was very pleased that there were going to do this. >> what is the time table like? >> center schumer said that he hopes to have this through the senate by the side -- senator schumer said he hopes to have this through by the spring or summer. senator leahy has mentioned to me that he sees. starting very soon. some of the groups believe as soon as next month. >> what are the bill's prospects for passage in the senate and later the house? >> it is hard to say right now, because we do not have a bill. we have principles. there are a lot of details to be worked out which could turn off or entice people to support it. it is hard to say.
the spirits are high in the senate. we will have to see what the house does. some of the members have already said that this bill amounts to amnesty. it will be a tougher left in the house. >> members of congress have been talking about different immigration proposals for decades. what might make this year's effort different? >> senator mccain believes it is the election. hispanics helped push the president over the top in terms of winning the reelection. in part, some analysts believe that his embracing of a dream act and his effort to try to go after illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds, rather than deport people who i've broken the law by coming here illegally, they believed that helped win olver and decided of latino voters, and republicans
believe that is true. they want their share of latino voters. they believe this is the way to do it. >> humberto sanchez is a staff writer for "roll call." >> president obama will be in las vegas tomorrow to outline his immigration policy. our live coverage is here on c- span just before 3:00 eastern. ♪ >> if we turn away from the needs of others, we align ourselves with those forces which are bringing about this suffering. >> the white house is a bully pulpit, and you ought to take advantage of it. >> obesity in this country is
nothing short of a public health crisis. >> i had little antennas that pointed up and told me when somebody had their own agenda. >> there is a much influence in the office. it would be a shame to waste it. >> i think they serve as a window on the past to what was going on with american women. >> she becomes the chief confidante. she is in a way the only person in the world he can trust. >> many of the first ladies, they were writers. journalists, they wrote books. >> they are in many cases more interesting as human being than their husbands. if because they are not first and foremost defined and limited by political ambition. >> dolly was both socially adept and politically savvy. >> dolly madison loved every minute of it. mrs. monroe hit. absolutely hated it. >> she warned her husband -- you
cannot rule without including what women want and what women have to contribute. >> during his statement, he was a little breathy. there was too much looking down. i think it was a little too fast. not enough change of pace. >> he is probably the most -- she is probably the most tragic of first ladies. they never should have married. >> she wrote in her memoir, she said, i myself never made any decision. i only decided what was important and went to present it to my husband. you stop and think about how much power that is, and it is a lot of power. >> part of the battle against cancer is to fight the fear that accompanies the disease. >> she transformed the way we look at these bugaboos and made
it possible for countless people to survive and to flourish as a result. but i cannot know how many peres -- how many presidents realistically have that kind of impact on the way we live our lives. >> just walking around the grounds, i'm constantly reminded about all the people who have lived at the white house before and particularly all of the women. but the first ladies, their private and public lives. c-span is teaming up with the white house historical association for the first of its kind and original series for television. "first ladies: influence and image." there'll be two seasons. we begin on president's day on c-span. >> in a few minutes, standing crystal on the iraq and afghanistan war. in an hour-and-a-half, george washington university law
professor jonathan turley discusses president obama's use of executive power. after that, a heritage foundation discussion on a state id standards. later, a bipartisan group of senators proposes changes to immigration laws, including a catholic to citizenship for most illegal immigrants. -- up half way to citizenship for most legal immigrants. -- a pathway to citizenship for most legal immigrants. two new house members will join us on "washington journal." luke messer and john delaney will join us. our guests also included jay peter fan of the atlantic council. will discuss the influence of terrorist groups in north africa. "washington journal" is live on
c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> one cannot count the times that americans that we're the best country in the world. what a marvelously stupid thing to say! of all the countries in the world? everyone thinks their country is pretty good. why do we have to believe that we are the best? what does that mean? why do we have to assert it all the time? what does it mean to other people who consume it? american products go around the world, information products go around the world, so you are observed by people in every corner of the world, and we
teach them not to like us. gratuitously. >> author, activist, and transafrica founder randall robinson taking your calls, e- mails, facebook comments, and tweets. "in depth" live on sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. >> of georgia o'keeffe was really the first well-known woman artist. even well-known in her life into the 1970's. there is nobody who could match her fame. she became a feminist icon, and i grew up under her influence. but first recognition of her work was not as a historian, but as a budding feminist goes attention was drawn to these fabulous paintings. i lived in colorado. people talked about this woman. it was the way she lived. the fact that from 1929 forward
she came to new mexico four months out of the year, living apart from her husband, and in the 1930's and 1940's, she continued to do this for 20 years until her husband's death. and she moved to new mexico full-time. she lights up our imagination as an artist, because she was famous so young and so famous so young. secondly, she lived the life that she wanted to live. she was a very disciplined. -- disciplined woman. she made choices that accommodate family and other parts of their life. tarja o'keeffe had one a driving passion, and it was hard. >> the georgia o'keeffe museum in santa fe, new mexico. one of the places you'll see as booktv and c-span2's local content of vehicles but behind the scenes of the history of
literary life of santa fe. saturday at noon eastern on c- span's booktv and sunday at 5:00 on american history tv on c- span 3. >> general cinema crystal commanded operations in afghanistan until 2010. on monday, a retired four-star general was at the brookings institution discuss the iraq and afghanistan wars. this is an hour-and-a-half. >> good morning everyone. welcome to brookings. , very much for coming out on this particular day. it is an unusual trait to have a general standard crystal here. i am a michael allen, one of the members of the 21st century center for security and
intelligence. we are hosting this event with chris rell, who runs the intelligence project within our center. today's topic is a general crystal's experience, particularly at the joint special operations command where for five years he essentially lived in iraq must the time and an organization that was already an impressive organization into a state of the art capability that led to not only our topic today, the tracking and ultimately killing of the al qaeda terrace, but to many procedures that led to the fighting and killing of osama bin laden a couple of years later. the success of the joint special operations command is one of the most important stories in the broader war and terror.
julia engwin in "the wall street --there was a recent change in rules. if there was reasonable evidence suspecting somebody of terrorist activity, it could begin to records and to surveillance. who rules have changed. basically, they can pick up the records on any american, for any reason, they're looking for suspicious activity. among the things they're looking at, where people have posted international students, which i have, whether they have done their flight records, which i have done, we have done some traveling, virginia medical
records, which i have. these things i find very troubling. a lovely country, but when i see stuff like this going on, i find troubling particularly when the protection we have had from the legislative branch, but right now, there were about as oakland and guns, and this is like a stealth program that is getting right by us. i am troubled by this. i do not think the government has any business looking at my callosities or any of those things are the fact that i posted international students. if they suspect me of something, then ok. "i'm not doing anything wrong. the need to leave me alone. stated the most important
right on the u.s. constitution, he said the right to be left alone. this is the man who articulated the rights of united states perhaps more poetically than anyone else but he did not say freedom of speech are due process, he said the right to be left alone and that right is being he eviscerated. founded. this president has given a windfall of powers to the national security establishment in another hearing i testified at a couple of years ago, it was about this security state and how we are spending billions of dollars every year to support thousands and thousands of jobs in this -- and this apparatus does nothing but look for terrorists in the united states, counterterrorism outside the united states, but it is a perpetual motion machine. the committee has had a hard time finding cases in the united states of they end up recycling cases and hitting the same people over and over again to justify these budgets. around the anniversary of dwight eisenhower's farewell speech where he warned of the military-industrial complex and warned the american people that this is a complex, a set of interests that can push us into war because it has this need for
it. what you have seen is the growth not of the military- industrial complex but the security state and has many attributes that polite as never talked about. it is this massive system that nobody wants to reduce so continues to expand. president obama has given them more and more power. when people have challenged it, the obama administration comes in and argues that they will keep the evidence from the court so that you cannot try the case because they will just declare everything a state secret with they have done. it is the worst possible situation. when you look back at eisenhower, the description he left us with was a lot like our security state. host: a few questions from twitter --
guest: it is both of theirs. we have a wonderful system that was developed by a genius, james madison. he created a system of tripartheid branches that notably do not have enough power to govern alone. that was the key of the madisonian austin. we have one branch now this government alone. you cannot be too surprised about congress which has a terrible record on civil liberties and protecting the constitution but the last three or four congresses have been the worst in the history of united states of the total abandonment of the check and balance. the democrats are rolling over to president obama despite the fact he is by letting court liberal and democratic values. the republicans took that same position under bush says they are silent. the result is, we have now check
on that authority. to make matters worse, the court system has largely been taken offline. when president obama said that he can define whether something is a war and therefore circumvent congress and intervene in the libyan civil war and now they're talking about intervening in syria -- i went to the core with members of congress and the challenge a democrat and republican and these are the good members. we said you are circumventing a clear requirement of the constitution. we could not get a hearing because the courts of limited standing, as it is called. there are now many constitutional violations that cannot be subject to judicial review because no one has standing. we have a latent violations of the constitution and we literally cannot get a court to look at because they have narrow standing requirements. the framers would have viewed
this as absurd. this cannot be enforced but they seem to think it makes sense. guest: we work with prisoners who are 70 and 80 years old who are low risk and high cost and we work with states to develop ways of dealing with what is an expanding number of geriatric inmates. these inmates put a huge burden on the state so we work with them, not necessarily for release but in some cases we do or four alternative forms of incarceration that reduce the cost to the state while improving care. host: anthony is next from miller place, new york. caller: just prior to obama in office, there was a lawsuit
pending and cspan have a guest on from the telecommunications industry. there has a pending lawsuit but when barack obama came to power, he was claimed to have been a constitutional law scholar which i found very revealing that he had done something that eliminated the possibility of that lawsuit. it was against the telecommunications industry for spying on americans. i believe it was prior to 2005. the nsa was spying on e-mails in any form of communication between americans'. all whole lawsuit i think would have revealed a lot of criminality on the part of the bush administration as well as spying on americans. i wondered if you would comment on that -- interoffice e-mails that were
supposed to be released from the presidency of the bush administration -- there was a bunch of communications between chiefs of staff and stop -- i believe that was subpoenaed but it was never revealed. what happened in that particular case? guest: your memory is quite good. when president obama was a saboteur, he talked about citizens -- was a senator, he talked and ran under protection of privacy and many libertarians will grab -- rallied to his side. as soon as he got into office, he violated many of those values. most notably, he worked aggressively to snuff out dozens of citizen lawsuits. these are lawsuits brought by a respected organizations to expose the violation of privacy laws and possible criminal
conduct. the obama administration, like the bush administration, stomped down these lawsuits and day won. they got most of these lawsuits dismissed. it was a massacre. some of these losses were getting to a point where we could have had a fantastic ruling. the courts would finally acknowledge standing and say you cannot violate the privacy of citizens and president obama and his administration blocked it. we have seen that throughout the four years of the obama administration. there's a disconnect between what obama says publicly and what he actually does in court. gay-rights is a good example. the president's at the inauguration is not the present we see in court. for the early part of his term, he was in court fighting to protect oma and don't ask, don't tell.
he still has not been willing to support that view so there is a disconnect. public-interest litigator is like myself, this is an extremely hostile administration. there is no change between this administration and bush. this administration has been more successful in that sense. host: let's go to louisville, kentucky, independent line. caller: i am confused because i am getting background noise or something. i want to ask about the benghazi situation. in the hearings the other day, even through the secretary of state, the democrats in congress will not criticize the president and because the republicans were playing politics. i would say 50% of their questions were valid but the
democrats, it was just a victory lap for hillary clinton and i saw no question at all about her conduct during the incidents and the subsequent investigation. i'll let you answer that off the air. guest: unfortunately, this is a reflection of where we are now. there used to be members of congress that put party aside and they fulfilled their checked and balanced role. some of our greatest senators were people that challenged even their own president, even program people in their own party. that does not happen anymore. we have a congress that has become an extended kaiuki dance where the democrats ignore flagrant violations and the republicans often exaggerate violations and it becomes this
absurd kabuki. there is no serious legislative work regions madison truly believe the that he gave that -- ambitions that or pre- existing and he gave away of expressing themselves. that does not happen. part of it is because we have a monopoly on power. we have two parties that are largely for more -- formulaic. host: from twitter -- guest: first of all, people have to be more active and they have to vote and stop acting like chumps. we have become a nation of chumps. we let them convince us every election that is all about red states/blue state. it is a game that is run on the american people every two and
four years and we fall for it. the same people are recycled for the leadership does not change. you need to get more active and you need to oppose some of these people's -- these people currently in office. you need to break the monopoly of power of these two parties. we need a third party. that is worth working for. nothing will change as long as these two parties control power in the united states. host: last question -- caller: good morning, i appreciate you letting me get through. i sure appreciate cspan. mr. turle., you're a bright and wonderful person because you are telling the truth.
many people come in here and it does not matter. you are looking for the american people, you are looking out for us and i appreciate it. you give us a clear view of what is going on in all three branches of our government. there was a guy in the 1960's by the name of ralph nader who was a great guy and i wish he would run again. do you believe in things like disclosure, information? do you believe in blowing the whistle on people or outright cruel? guest: ralph nader is a wonderful person and yes, i believe in transparency and disclosure. we've got to remember that we are powerful but we are not using our power.
as citizens of this country, we have become passive. it is like we have been worn down and don't believe we have the ability to change. we do. these people in congress want you to be passive. they want the system to continue. we can change that. i think the only question is how angry and active we need to be to break this monopoly on power and change the way our politics is going instead of complaining. host: jonathan turley is a law professor with george washington university. clacks georgia o'keeffe was really the first well-known artist. well known for her life in the 1970's. there was nobody who could match her fame. she became a feminist icon, and i grew up under her influence. my first recognition of her work was not as an art historian but as a budding feminist whose attention was drawn to these
fabulous paintings. i lived in colorado. people talked about this woman. it was the way she lived. the 1929 forward, she came to new mexico four months out of the year, living apart from her husband. in the 1930's and 1940's, she continued to do this until her husband's death. then she moved to new mexico full-time. she lights up our imagination as an artist because she was famous so young and a sofa -- so famous so young. secondly, she lived the life she wanted to live. she was a very disciplined woman, and i think that stands out as lemon made choices even right through to the 1970's, they made choices that accommodate family and other pursuits in their life. georgia o'keeffe had one a driving passion, car art. >> georgia o'keeffe museum in santa fe, new mexico, one of the
places you'll see this weekend as booktv and american history tv look behind the scenes at the history and literary life of santa fe. saturday at noon eastern on c- span2 costs booktv, and sunday at 5:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. >> in a few moments, the heritage foundation discussion on a state id standards. in a little less than an hour, a bipartisan group of senators proposes changes to immigration law, including a pact to citizenship for most illegal immigrants. new members of congress will join us on "washington journal" today. look nestor is president of the republican freshman class. he will discuss the role of members in determining the gop agenda. we will also be joined by democratic representative john delaney of maryland, a member of the financial-services committee.
our guests also included jay peter pham of the atlantic council will discuss the influence of terrorist groups in north africa. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> several live events to tell you about. a senate health subcommittee, we will hear from health professionals about a doctor shortage. that is here on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also at 10:00 on c-span 3, the american enterprise institute examines how the film "zero dark thirty" displays enhanced interrogation by the cia. panelists include former intelligence officials who participated in the hunt for osama bin laden, including retired general michael keaton. -- hayden. ♪ >> if we turn away from the
needs of others, we align ourselves with those forces which are bringing about this suffering. >> the white house is a bully pulpit, and you ought to take advantage of it. >> obesity in this country is nothing short of a public health crisis. >> i had little antennas that pointed up and told me when somebody had their own agenda. >> there is a much influence in the office. it would be a shame to waste it. >> i think they serve as a window on the past to what was going on with american women. >> she becomes the chief confidante. she is in a way the only person in the world he can trust. >> many of the first ladies, they were writers. journalists, they wrote books. >> they are in many cases more interesting as human being than their husbands. if because they are not first and foremost defined and limited by political ambition.
>> dolly was both socially adept and politically savvy. >> dolly madison loved every minute of it. mrs. monroe hit. absolutely hated it. >> she warned her husband -- you cannot rule without including what women want and what women have to contribute. >> during his statement, he was a little breathy. there was too much looking down. i think it was a little too fast. not enough change of pace. >> he is probably the most -- she is probably the most tragic of first ladies. they never should have married. >> she wrote in her memoir, she said, i myself never made any decision. i only decided what was important and went to present it to my husband. you stop and think about how much power that is, and it is a lot of power. >> part of the battle against
cancer is to fight the fear that accompanies the disease. >> she transformed the way we look at these bugaboos and made it possible for countless people to survive and to flourish as a result. but i cannot know how many peres -- how many presidents realistically have that kind of impact on the way we live our lives. >> just walking around the grounds, i'm constantly reminded about all the people who have lived at the white house before and particularly all of the women. >> but the first ladies, their private and public lives. c-span is teaming up with the white house historical association for the first of its kind and original series for television. "first ladies: influence and image." there'll be two seasons. we begin on president's day on c-span.
clacks now a heritage foundation discussion on the status of state id standards. in 2005, the real id act established standards for drivers licenses and other documents based on recommendations from the 9/11 commission. 13 states are fully compliant. this is a little less than an hour. >> good morning. welcome to the heritage foundation and our auditorium. we welcome you for joining us on our web site and those of -- and those adjoining us on c-span. we would ask everybody in house to check to make sure that sell funds are turned off as you prepare to begin. that is helpful. we're pleased to co-host this event with the coalition for driver's license. jessica zuckerman, a research
associate, studies and research as and writes on or security, immigration reform, democratic institutions, and the rule of law. prior to joining us, she was an assistant to heritage's assistant matt myers -- mayer. she received her master's in public administration with an emphasis in federal policy from george washington university. she holds a bachelor of arts degree in spanish and international relations from ohio state university. please join me in welcoming jessica zuckerman. [applause] >> thank you for joining us today. the real id act came from the 9/11 commission. the commission found that 18 of the 9/11 hijackers had faulty
ideas, including six that were used on the morning of the attack. the commission called on the federal government to set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and secure identification. the recognized that sources of identification of the last opportunity to make sure that people are who they say they are. the real id act is not just an important tool for halting terrorist activities. it is also an important tool to help stop fraud and identity theft. passed in 2005, the real id act sets standards for the states to meet regarding id security. these include a recognition captor, improved document authenticity, data verification between states, increased security, and lawful status tax on non-citizen applicants. by meeting these standards, they will be accepted for official purposes. citizens of states that have not yet met these identifications
standards will not have ids accepted for federal purposes. the administration sought cuddled and has impaired the enactment. in 2005, janet as dupont up much of her forced between -- behind the idea act -- secretary of common security janet napolitano put her force behind blocking its implementation. three deadlines have been missed. dhs offered a further extension recently. 13 states have been deemed real id compliant, but many more have indicated they are willing to comply with the laura -- with the law. but we turn it over to our fellow panelists and introduce them. andrew meehan conducts government relations. he has testified on a number of panels and a fourth of several state legislators.
then we had jennifer l. cullen. in 2007, she was appointed director of vermont motor vehicles. she has held a number of positions, culminating in her appointment as director. working in such capacities as a support specialist at the inception of her career, she moved on to become an administrative officer. in 1997, jennifer worked in the capacity of financial program analyst at the apartment of national resources and environmental control. the 1998-2002, she was program manager for the clean water program at that department. a 2002, -- by 2002, she was provided the opportunity to work as senior legislative analyst for that department of comptroller general in vermont. she graduated from wilmington university with the d.a. in -- a
ba in management. last is gloria rectanus, an assistant director of government accountability office. having received a b.a. in political science from west virginia university and a master's in russian studies from bridgetown, lori has been with the plo since 1984, leading to a wide range of efforts to improve the effectiveness of federal programs. she has also read internal efforts to enhance attorney opportunities and career opportunities. let me turn it over to enter. >> as just a sad, the real id act represents a significant investment against an identity
theft and fraud. since 2005, states made tremendous progress in meeting the requirements. to give you a brief smattering of what that looks like -- in 2007, you had only 23 states that were confirming immigration status before issuing driver's licenses. that number is as high as 48 out of the restrictions. 96% of states provide fraudulent document recognition train for their employees. 89% of state before background checks to have access to sensitive information. these represent the tip of the iceberg when it comes to progress made by states. where we are today -- the real id act has an extended four *. it has been technically a extended, then stayed, and then deferred.
many states have moved forward with compliance, while others have lagged behind. last december, dhs made the announcement that britain states have met the standards and dhs would grant a temporary deferment to all others. dhs has testified that it is important to note that dhs -- the regulation provides dhs the ability to recognize programs that issue driver's licenses and ideas consistent with the minimum requirements of the legislation. this interpretation of what are comparable programs has allowed dhs to announce a mission accomplished on those 13 states. this has been alluded to in testimony before the house judiciary committee, however, there are positive signs that dhs is moving forward. the department is conducting reviews on a state-by-state basis. a new birth certificate pilot has announced that will be
completed on the next couple of years, to test the viability of closing or certificate fraud at the dmv. -- birth certificate fraud at the dmv. dhs has a credibility issue with motor vehicle agency heads. as always, motor vehicle agencies do need funding. money spent for real id i an excellent investment in homeland security. our request should be included in this year's budget that includes the states that have not implemented the real id. 14 states have prohibited the real id act. yet they have received funding.
congress should continue to monitor how the department is carrying out its responsibility. or the past few years, congress has been diligent in its oversight of dhs conducting hearings. given that dhs has not responded with actions, congress may want to look at additional avenues for conducting oversight of the department. this may include but is not limited to looking at how dhs uses extension of 40 and how it is verifying information submitted by the states. lastly, the real id act represents or seeks to raise the motor vehicle agencies to a minimum standard. many states have moved beyond that standard, while others have remained status of rigid satisfied with the status quo. -- have remained satisfied with the status quo. >> thank you, anger. >> i am happy to be here today.
delaware is the state with the most experience with the federal real id act. we have been -- we are one of the 13 states that are considered compliant by dhs. we have a been issuing real id documents since 2010. i just wanted to go over briefly how we got where we were and what we found as we were implementing the program. we have done it successfully in delaware. we are a small state. we got federal funding to be able to do it. we started right away because we did not want to a big bang approach to implementing the act. in 2007, we started our find the documentation by using electronic verification process these, as well as fraudulent document recognition training for all of our staff. we also started verify with the social security administration in 2008. we also started doing immigration status certification in 2009. we put these things in place one
at a time. being a slow and steady was very crucial to our success. in delaware, a federal compliance -- i want to make it clear -- we tried to day- politicize it in delaware. we called it a secure driver's license for delaware. we recognize that is not just the right thing to do because we were abiding by telex, but it was the right and for our citizens for identity protection and things along those lines. it was a win-win for us. we had a huge public-relations campaign. we wanted our citizens know what was going on. we did that throughout the state, and we are still doing that today. we are three years and with the new system. there are two more years to go before we have to have everybody completely enrolled. i want to back up and talk about what we did before we started
implementing the law. we had a database. when i say all dvds have the same issue -- you have a legacy data. some of that data is fraudulent. we had to clean our social security number and information from the social security -- an example, we had 18,000 social security discrepancies that we had in the system. as a population of about 900,000. we had 18,000 discrepancies. we reached out to the people with discrepancies and give them time to fix them. if they could not, we deemed it a fraud and we suspended the licenses. the same thing with official recognition scrubbed -- we had 1.5 million president in our database. we ran those with official recognition structure, which means they were comparing all of our photos in the database to see if anybody had multiple identities, and there were about 10,000 of those in our database. as we went through the
cleansing, we realized this was an issue we narrowed at ten thousand down to 1300 fraudulent cases of people with multiple identities. as a lot. -- that is a lot. that was a huge issue for us. we adjudicated all those issues and turn those cases over to our state police crime scene. some of those people were actually in the major crime syndicate. we were glad we went through the process. we also had a security improvements with our issuance process. the political nature was that you can to the dmv and left with your drivers license or identification card. we knew we had to do these security functions and have people walk out with their i.t. or driver's license prepper most said that that would not be accomplished. we did it. we did successfully. we increased our customer service. it is faster now than ever before. before the system was put in,
somebody would come in, but for their information, a further transaction, and stand in line for their photo. there was a huge security process change we had to make. when you come into the dmv in delaware, get your foot in first. it runs official recognition check while you get the rest of your information provided. we do real time social security checks. we do real time immigration checks. week after that, though, and that is crucial. every frontline and the employee has had a full criminal background and annual fraudulent document recognition training. we have state-of-the-art equipment, train employees, and it has been working out very well for us. the federal real id act has been very specific about the security of the actual card stock and the equipment used to make a license. in each one of our facilities, we have a secure room, which is over kohl and my opinion, but there is bulletproof walls and
glass, there are security requirements to get into the room. all the equipment, everything you can use to make a driver's license in delaware is located in that room. that is also being complied with the federal real id act. i want to give you all but of what my concerns are right now with the information we have been getting back. we implemented a law as it stood on the books, which includes a statement in the actual title, that you have to mark the card. it has to read, not for federal purposes. that is in the law. dhs is backpedaling little bit on that. even though we are three years and as marking cards positively and negatively -- but concerned -- my concern is that we have a 60 percent compliance rate. roby 40% getuiza to use their passports or do not provide
information for a complaint card, walking around with this not for federal identification marking. we got far out in front of this implementation. almost penalized for doing so. that is something we're working out. i'm hopeful. just to give you an idea on how it is working in delaware, when we first implemented program, we were having probably about three or four fraudulent times each week. now we have had only six attempts in the past year. we know that our system is working. people know not to attempt it.
we are very happy about where we are at, as far as protecting the citizens of delaware. we're looking for more support and backing from dhs. we are hopeful we will get that in the coming months. >> thank you. greetings, everyone. before it to my presentation, in case there are some of you who do not know who g l our, we are part of the legislative branch, and we respond -- who the gao are, we are part of the legislative branch, and we respond. we wanted congress to take a look at, what progress has been made over the last 10 years since september 11? what have states and key federal agencies been doing to address some of the threats that came to be known at that time ad? what we do it is that we go out,
we gather information, and with an eye towards identifying things that congress to do -- can do to improve efficiencies. when we were at a visiting and chatting and looking at data, real id had not gone into place. states do not have to comply if they do not want to. this is not a compliance review. this was in the context of our work because you had some states that were looking to comply and were trying to do what they could. there were some states but not have any intention of complying, but they realized that these sorts of identity verification procedures were very critical to citrine a driver's license issuance. again, it was a context for everything we did. we went in, looking to see, what is good? what is working? the delaware experience as a little bit of a microcosm of what we found. in general, there is good news to report. states have made a lot progress
in confirming the identity presented is at least is a real one. some of the issues with the terrorists on september 11, there were a lot of fake identities that are not associated with real folks. states are now checking assistant to confirm it is a real person. they are using the dhs system. you heard about bayshore recognition technology. a lot of scanning software -- facial recognition technology. a lot of scanning software. they have all been a train. they have good internal controls. we also found about 24 states or so were doing occult -- a photo sharing arrangement. if somebody came in and surrendered a license, you could check to see it all that was a real license. about 24-25 states were participating in that.
dhs deserves some credit, to be fair. some -- the social security administration has done a lot to ramp up their system. they have done a lot to pull that in. the respond very quickly to verification rates. states have been pretty happy with the system. at dhs, the system as a little bit more problematic. there's a lot of data that goes into it about legal status, but dhs has been doing a lot to help the verification could. the other big fan, dhs has given out a lot to hundred $70 million in grants to a variety of states, almost all them, regardless of whether or not they want to comply. these grants were used for a variety of things, whether it be to pilot and systems or enhance
their systems. a lot support theire to try to help. this was his a good chunk of change that dhs gave out. gao, we have to have the not so good news. the big message that came out of our report is that despite the progress made, there are some key balmer abilities and that's still remain. -- vulnerabilities that still remain. the tiger retry to make certain procedures -- by the time we make certain procedures, they try to get around certain procedure is repeated -- procedures. instead the creating ethic identity, criminals are stealing others identities.
you can do that a couple of ways, yet unnamed, get other information, -- get a name, get other information, or you can buy a package. for several hundreds of dollars, you can get an identity package. this is a license holder somewhere in the system -- you may still be able to get a license in that person's name, and there is not a full crew systematic way for a state now that. there are a couple of reasons why. one is, birth certificates. it is a piece of paper that everybody seems to think is a good form of identification they are easy to get. they are easy to forge. you can go to any records agency, give them information, and get a birth said it. the other thing is that they are easy to forge. there are thousands and
thousands of lawful formats out there for birth certificates. the first link is that this document is a piece of paper that could be easily obtained and easily forged. the second thing is that all the systems we had talked about, and states should be given kudos for putting these systems in place, there were either not designed or capable of addressing this type fraud, which is where a girl i am a criminal, i might still get into the of somebody in one state and go to different state and a license of a -- in that state. even the dhs system -- designed to say, this is a real identity, or this identity is eligible for a license. there were not designed to tell you whether that person standing in our debut at the dmv is associated with that identity.
for a recognition, -- facial recognition, only 24-25 states are participating. unless you're depending on a d&b and lipetsk -- dmv employee to called a state whenever they get information, or whenever somebody brings in documents that and not look quite right, the your depending on the initiative of local organization, this and vulnerability exists. there are two systems that people have been working on for quite some time. the first one has to do with birth certificates, the electronic verification of the event. this did -- this is a digitalization of birth certificates. dhs give out money to pilot this you should be able to take a birth certificate you're given
and people to verify the data base that this is a real purpose of the ticket. there are a lot of questions about that. even though other organizations are not&b -- dmv's necessarily using that. the other system is what is called the state to state. this is an area or dhs provided seed money for a consortium of states to work on that. the idea would be that somebody came in for a driver's license presenting an identity, a state would be able to confirm that that identity is not associated with a license in another state. is a great idea in principle, but when you get into the details, privacy, technology, access, cost, a lot of those
issues have come up. at the time of our report, we reported that this group is seeing that they were looking to pies -- pilot the system in 2015. toll implementation by 2013. . 2023. -- 2023. we exploited this vulnerability. we wanted to see how easy it would be. while a lot of states have done a lot of things to try to fill up the locals, if you look at the whole country as a system, we are only as strong as the weakest link. we are only as strong as which are local is there for criminals to exploit. we created -- we have an identity as far as the social security is concerned is a real identity. we gave out all the documents that he needed. we selected three states, we went there, we presented our
information, and we had our temporary drivers license. in two of the states, we turned around and got a second driver's license the same day. with this in person, but using a different set of identity documents. in a couple of weeks, we had a five licenses, the same person, a five licenses in a variety of different names. one could argue that we selected states that did not necessarily at assuring or did not have been scanning software, but we felt like what we were doing was act like a criminal would do, exploit vulnerabilities. the other thing we thought about, dhs. under the law, dhs is responsible for certifying and compliance and telling states what they need to do for compliance. there's nothing in the law that's as provide guidance, but in fact, dhs has provided guidance.
we said it has not been timely our comprehensive or collective. we did a couple of examples. talk about four years for dhs to provide guidance on the identity verification goals of the law. when we were doing our work, they said they would put out a comprehensive documents to help people figure out how to comply if they wanted to. when we met with them, they said, we think we will lead to the states to come in and tell us what they think they can do. we want to encourage state innovation. we do not feel like that is appropriate. we reported that in our report. we said, you are in this interim period we addressed a lot of issues, but there are critical balmer abilities out there. all states are doing the best they can, whether or not they're looking to comply, every state realizes they can do something, there is really a need for federal strategic leadership declared it talked about how dhs
should be more proactive, fischer provide guidance to states. -- they should provide guidance to states. we also know some states are trying to do birth certificate validation him for folks born within their states. we realize it is not perfect. it has some opportunities there. dhs disagreed with our recommendations. they said there were comfortable with their current approach. it cannot deal an interim strategy was needed. this was before the law was put into effect. we maintained our position that without a collective leadership from the feds in this situation, compliance certainly could be affected, but is -- for us it is not necessarily an issue of compliance, but more of an issue of addressing this underlined the vulnerability --
underlying vulnerability. >> a quick update on the state to state -- i am also the vice president -- we ran into a few roadblocks in mississippi, but all of that has been cleared up, which took almost a year. we're looking at implementing it in 2014. we're on a good road for the state to state implementation. 8 per year is what we estimated. we're on track with state to state verification. >> there are two other systems that have become available. the u.s. pass and and wls. -- vls. one case in which the required -- they were required to hire
more people -- it saved the state money because they were able to process information much quicker. >> we will open it up to questions. sarah will be bringing a microphone around. state your name and who you are with. nobody? >> i'm from the coalition for a secure driver's licenses. jennifer, regarding the branding discussion of the law, notwithstanding your courage and being the first out there, and i want people to realize how difficult that is to be the first to take on a difficult task, regarding the law, i think you pointed out before in
meetings i have been present at bat seems inconsistent at the agency charged with enforcing the law would potentially be telling people mixed messages about something as specific as the real id requirements. licenses that are positively marked and those marked not for federal identification purposes. could you expand on that in terms of the problem when you go to tsa, and they are supposed to know the difference -- all these agencies work with dhs. a specific example -- the fbi investigates tens of thousands of people every year in the united states. the majority of which are witnesses, not necessarily perpetrators of crimes are guilty of anything, but simply people that are peripheral to an investigation. the fbi relies -- the first and
ask for is a driver's license. what kind of complications can you envision in delaware where 40% of the people are caring not for federal id purposes -- the fbi director has testified before congress about how important the real id act's completion is important to federal law enforcement. >> it has been very troublesome for us because we specify i asked a question about it marking the cards. you have to mark the negative cards. ours is not for federal identification. one year ago, we were two years and, and i specifically asked that, and dhs corp. said it -- dhs representative said, "marking your card negatively than. that was a little bit stressful. -- quit marking your card
negatively then. that was a little bit stressful. my response is, it is law. again, it is very confusing. we had a meeting scheduled with psa a couple weeks ago, which we ended up canceling, because we got some guidance, dhs. if anybody has spent to airport, basic, please have your federal identification ready for viewing. it is very confusing. we're looking for guidance to tell our citizens what they need to abide by. if they have a non compliant card, well, you have to have another form of identification. what could that consist of? will this happen? we are still struggling. based on a lot, we will not back off-luck -- negatively marking the courts. it has been difficult -- it has been the cult to navigate. we have been -- difficult to
navigate. we have been told that dhs will give us more guidance in the fall. again, i am trying to be optimistic. >> the whole purpose behind the branding, it is important to realize that granting was included to suggest that ok, if you do not want to issue a card by this standard, you can still issue a card to whoever you want, but it has to include a signal or alert to law enforcement or tsa that this card may have been issued under a lower standard and as such it should ask for a different idea. it was a very important homeland security measure that was put in place for this lourdes. purpose. -- lower tiered purpose. >> this is a question for the lady from that -- the gao.
you mentioned that millions have been given out to states. can you mention, has been spent and if congress has taken back any unspent funding? >> i do not know that offhand. it cannot believe they have pulled back any. i do not know that. do you? >> i do not think so. the last grant money issued was in 2011. that was part of within the state of local programs -- to have another $50 million of which, minus management and expenses, was around $48 million that there were giving out on a tiered basis. if your state like california, you got a larger share. if you were a state like delaware with a smaller population or a stock -- a smaller number of id numbers, it being the ad -- allocated money on that basis.
most of the money has been applied for. when you apply for money within the state and local programs, they do not just cut your check for $1 million. your given money on a timetable or if you have to repurchase the money or you applied to something else, it is given out over a schedule. in certain states, as late as 2010, there were still spending much of the 2008 money. that is an important way of the grant process worried not about block grants of money -- where you do not >> somebody mentioned that the birth certificate and the immigration reform discussion that is going on, i see the framework for i have not seen the whole site. in the document of