tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN June 7, 2013 8:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> today the senate began work on immigration preform, considering a proposal by the gang of eight. it provides a path to citizenship for foreigners. here's part of the debate on the bill with senators patrick leahy and jeff sessions. >> mr. president, i just wanted to thank the majority leader for his kind comments but i should
also note that throughout the markup and debate on the immigration bill, his advice and counsel was always there. we discussed it many, many times, and i appreciate the fact that he is very clear -- he said, we would not have it here without his strong support. so i appreciate senator reid's very nice comment this morning. i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from alabama. >> mr. president, this is important legislation. the immigration bill. and i was able to have a discussion with senator reid yesterday, and he was moving forward to the motion to -- on the motion to proceed to the bill, which requires considerable debate, and i asked for and insisted on an
opportunity to have some time today to talk about it, and he agreed to that. so, i think that was a good step, and i thank him for that agreement, and we just got a lot to talk about. the matters are complex and important and i urge my colleagues to begin to pay real attention to the legislation. this is the bill as printed, front and back page of each page. it was reportedly going to be a thousand pages and my colleagues were proud. they said it was 800, but more has been added to it so now it's back over a thousand pages again. it's very complex and certain key points making multiple references to other code sections that are in existing law. very difficult to read. in fact it takes a considerable amount of team and i don't even suspect that the gang of eight
has had the time to read and digest and understand fully what is in the legislation. we are a nation of immigrants. the first people i know that are concerned about this legislation in congress are not against immigration. i certainly am not. we admit about a million people a year legally into our country. that's a substantial number by any standard. indeed it's the highest of any country in the world. it's important that we execute that policy in an effective way. it impacts our whole nation. immigration has enriched our culture. it's boosted our economy. we have had tremendously wonderful people who have come here, people who have contributed to our art to our business and our economy, to science and sports. we just had a good time, a good
run, with immigration in a lot of ways, but we need to ask yourselves at this point in time, is it working within the limits? are the american people happy with what we're doing? are we moving in the right direction? we know that our general policies have resulted in a substantial flow of people into the country, and i -- our challenge today is to create a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest and admits those people into our country who are most likely to be successful. most likely to prosper. more e most likely to flourish, more likely to be beneficial to america. surely we can agree that it's a good policy. and it's not been our policy,
really, prior to this. we have both the enormous illegal flow of people into the country, as well as a legal flow that is not evaluated in a way that other advanced nations do when they execute their policies of immigration. for example, like, canada. so, we should establish smart rules for admittance, rules that benefit america, and rules that must be enforced. must be lawful. we can't reject a dutiful good person to america and then turn around and allow someone else who came in illegally to benefit from breaking our laws. so the disadvantage of the good person who, when told, no, had to accept that answer. it's just the way we are. so, establishing these smart
rules for admittance, rules that benefit america and these rules have to be rules that are enforced. it just has to be. and that is not happening today. so, the current policies that we have are not serving our country well. therefore, an immigration system, a reformed immigration system, should spend some time in depth, public analysis of how and what we should consider as we decide who should be admitted. because we can't admit everybody. and then when that's done, we need to create a system that we can expect to actually work to enforce the standards that we have. so, i really believe we can make tremendous progress, and we can stick this -- fix this.
it needs to be fixed. the legislation that has been offered by the gang of eight says they fixed it. don't worry. we have taken care of all that is needed. you've got plan that will be compassion nat to people who have been here and we have a plan that will work in the future and end the illegality. well, it won't do that. that's the problem. it will definitely give amnesty today. definitely give middle legal status to some 11 million people today, but the promises of enforcement in the future, the promises that the legislation will focus on a way that enhances the success rate of people who come to america, is not fulfilled in the legislation. you just have to read the bill. and see what is in it. i wish it were different.
and we'll talk about in the days and weeks to come what is in the bill and why it fails. and i can share with you how it is that we came to have such a flawed bill before us. we need to understand that as we go forward. i'm amazed that the gang of eight has sent suggestion legislation forward, how aggressively they defended it in the judiciary committee. we had had a markup and were allowed to off amendments and had some debate there, but it was an odd thing in repeatedly members not even in the gang of eight would say, i like this amendment but i can't vote for it because i understand it upsets the deal. so we need to ask ourself, who made the deal? whose deal is this? and how is it that the deal is such that members of the united
states senate, who agree with an amendment, say they must vote against the amendment because it upsets some deal. who was in this tsunami who was in the deal-making process. so i think that was a revealing time in the committee. they had agreed, stated openly there would be no law -- no substantial changes in the agreements that the gang of eight had made, and they would stick together and vote against any changes, and that they did, except minor changes. there were a number of amended accepted, a number of republican amendments accepted. many of those were altered by the majority in the committee, but none of those fundamentally altered the framework and the substance of this legislation. i don't think that's disputable. and we'll talk about that.
so this is the problem that we are working with. so, how did the legislation become as defective as it is? i contend, think at it quite plain, it was because it was not written by independent members of the senate in a more open process, but was written by special interests and we'd like to share some thoughts on that subject right now. i think it goes to the heart of the difficulties that we have. the continual meetings over a period of quite a number of months that got this bill off to the wrong track in the beginning. powerful groups met, excluding the interests of the american
people, excluding the law enforcement community, throughout the bill you can see the influence these groups had on the drafting of it. some of the groups actually did the drafting. a lot of the lange clearly came from the special good groups that were engaged in these secret negotiations. and they, of course, what is a special interest group? it's a group of people that have a commitment, an interest, that they want to advance but they don't pretend to share the national interest. so maybe it's a legitimate special interest, maybe it's not. but they have a special interest, a particular interest they want to advance. so this is what happened. big labor and big business were active in drafting this legislation, with the entire deal obviously hanging on, it
was reported, their negotiations. for example, "wall street journal," march 10th. the headlines: competing interests abound. quote: the chamber of commerce and businesses it represents are locked in negotiations with the afl-c oui about workers in industries like hospitality and landscaping. meanwhile, former farm worker unions have been quietly negotiating with growers' associations about lou to revamp short-term visas for agricultural workers, and senators on both sides of the aisle are weighing in to ensure they're state industries are protected. the "washington post," march 10th. hush, hush meetings for gang of eight senators as they work on sweeping immigration legislation. publish the article reads:
they're struggling on the cove legal exemption future workers are and trading with the leaders of the afl-cio, the chamber of commerce to try to get a deal. close quote. try to get a deal. they're working on a dealful how about this. roll call, march 21st. talks led by the champion ore of commerce and afl-cio over a new guest worker program, are stalled. prompting members of the bipartisan group of eight senators to get personally involved. to try to nudge the negotiations on to resolution. the senators were not in there discussing. the senators, when it got to be tough and things weren't moving along, they come in to try to egg it on to get the agreement. and is the agreement? between the unions and big business, who i representing the
american worker, "new york times" march 30 until. the nation's top business and labor groups have reached an agreement on a guest worker program for low-skilled immigrants, and a person with knowledge of the negotiations said, senator schumer convened a conference call on friday night with thomas j. donahue, the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce, and richard trump, the president of the afl-cio, the nation's main federation of labor unions, in which they agreed in principle on a guest worker program for low-skilled, year-round, temporary workers. and we know that there was one group not included in these talks, and that is the group that is given the duty to enforce the laws involved in immigration, the national i.c.e. units. they plead with thegang gang of
eight, pleaded, wrote hers to the gang of eight. asking them to consult with the officers who have the duty to enforce this law and -- but to noe veil. they were shut out of every meeting, and never really been consulted. so, it's interesting to note, however, that others weren't shut out of the meeting. they weren't left out of the room. the "washington post," april 15th. while obama has allowed senate negotiators to work on a compromise that can win approval, a white house staff member attends each staff level meeting to monitor progress and assist with the technical aspects of writing the bill. so there's been an attempt to suggest this is purely a congressional action; that the white house is just sort of hands off. but we know the white house is
deeply involved in this, and in approving every aspect or disapproving aspects they don't approve of. the question is, who is influencing this? who is influencing the white house? president obama? the daily caller on february 6th notes: quote, on february 5th, obama held a white house meeting with a series of industry leaders, aggressive advocates, ethnic lobbies, including laraza, to boost support for his plan that would provide a conditional am necessary city to 11 million illegal immigrants and establish rules for a future flow of skilled and unskilled workers, the inviteees included the ceo of goldman sachs, motorola,
mariott. close quote. so, they're in the meeting, apparently. also we know that participating in a lot of these discussions was the american immigration lawyers association. this group obviously was involved in writing it, and i have to tell you they will be the biggest winners of this legislation. time and again, rules that were fairly clear today, and probably should have been made clearer, are muddled, provisions are placed in that will create litigation, and encourage lawsuits, delays, and costs. for example, hardship is being given as an exemption in many cases. exemptions for family problems and other kind of things of that nature. well, when i -- you should be deported, then the deportee has a ability to say i have a
hardship. my mother is here. my -- i have a brother that is sick. i need this or that. and what does hardship mean? it means a trial is what it means. so the american immigration lawyers association was substantially involved in the meetings. politico on march 19th said. in a bid to capitalize on the shared interest in immigration reform, budget deal and new trade pacts, the white house has launched a charm offensive for corporate america since the november election, hosting more than a dozen conference calls with top industry officials which have not previously before disclosed, along with a flurry of meetings at the white house. continuing the quote:'re tase pants on the recent calls include the heads heads of goldn sachs, business roundtable, silver way, central bridge partners can the u.s. chamber of commerce, as well as the heads
of washington trade groups representing the banking industry, such as financial services and roundtable. and they've been involved in these discussions. even foreign countries have had a say in drafting our law. the hill on february 7th february 7th reported, quote, mexico's new ambassador to the united states morrah, has had a number of meetings with the administration where the issue of immigration has come up since he took office last month, said a mexican official familiar with the process. he is expected to meet with lawmakers shortly as legislation begins to take form. probably like no other country, we are a player at this -- on this particular issue, the source said, close quote. well, the law offices weren't in
the room, we know that. people who questioned economically the size and scope and nature of our immigration system, weren't in the room. so in case anyone doubts the role of special interests in drafting the legislation, pay attention to this quote by frank sherry, executive director of the liberal pro-am necessary -- pro-amnesty group. quote it the triggers are based on developing plans and spending money, not on reaching that effectiveness. which is really quite clever, close quote. in other words, the sponsors of the bill were telling everyone that they had triggers in the bill that would guarantee enforcement of laws in the future about immigration flow
into america and that if enforcement didn't occur, the triggers would stop people from being legalized and end the process. that's not so. we started the language and we know the triggers are ineffectual and are not significant, and won't work, and that will be explained in the days to come. and mr. sherry acknowledges it. he said that was really clever to have these triggers that won't work, because we can tell everybody, don't worry, the legality won't occur if the enforcement doesn't occur. but in clever ways they drafted a bill that won't work. they'll say it works but it won't work. again, with all the slush funds in this bill -- and there are number of them, that go to private activist groups, community action groups -- it is
easy to see who had special interests at the table. the national review on may 29th reported, quote: a number of immigration activist groups, such as the national council of laraza, would be eligible to receive millions in taxpayer funding to advise illegal immigrants applying for legal status under the bill, closed quote. so money will go to these activist groups, like laraza, which is advocating not enforcing our laws. so they're in the meeting and an advocate for not enforcing laws involving illegal immigration. they're participating. they're going to get money out of the deal with the grant programs. while the law officers who have the ability to tell the committee, the gang of eight, how to make the system work, are shut out of the process. prosecutors, were they involved in the process?
. no they've not been. financial immigration forum, proimmigrant groups have been involved in these discussions. so some people have said that the bill had to be drafted in secret. but that the markup process would be open and transparent. but that is only partially so. we did have a markup. we were allowed, those who had oxes to the bill, to offer amendments, as did those who support the bill, halved the opportunity to talk and offer amendments, but at every turn in the committee, the members of the gang of eight expressed support on occasions for certain amendments but only to vote against the amendment. they said to the agreement they had to vote together and against significant amendment regardless of personal phoenix. the gang influenced other members on the committee to do the same. huffington post, april 16th,
headline, quote: senate immigration group turns to keeping fragile agreement intact. close quote. goes on to quote senator mccain assaying, quote: we'll major to oppose, all agent of us, provisions that would destroy the fragile agreement we have. so they've got an agreement with the unions and big business and the agribusinesses and fuse processor and laraza and immigration lawyers. they got agreement with that. and they have to defend it even though they acknowledge amended that were offered would improve the bill. this is no way to serve the national interest, in my view in discussing an amendment that would require workers to make a good-faith effort to hire american workers first, senator whitehouse said this. this is what happened in the
committee: quote: i'm in a position which i'm being informed that this would be a deal-breaker to the deal. i frankly don't see how that could be the case, but i'm not privy to that understanding, and so i'm going to vote in support of the agreement that has been reached, close quote. in other words, senator whitehouse says i'd like to vote the other way but i'm told you have a deal and this would damage the deal, and so i can't vote for it. he wasn't even in the gang of eight. but went along with that. in the same amendment, senator franken said, quote, our really just want to associate myself with senator whitehouse's remarks. goes on to say: i don't want to be a deal breaker in discussing an amendment that would increase
family immigration. senator feinstein noted, quote, i think it's been a unique process because those people who are members of a group that put this together have stood together and have voted against amendments they felt would be a violation of a bipartisan agreement that brought both sighs together. and i'm not sure that is always good. i'm not sure that is the right thing to do. set public policy in america to have some secret agreement reached with a group of people we hardly know who they are, trust the able to do the right thing for the american people. so, i just want to say that that is what has happened here, and the point to make is, i think our colleagues need to understand and the american people need to understand, in reality, the special interests, laraza, the unions, the
corporate world, the big agriculture businesses, the food processors, they are the ones that made the agreement in this process, and the senators just sort of ratified it and they can't agree to a change because they promised these special interests groups things. so, if laraza would accept point a that somebody wanted accepted, and the unions, say, would accept point b, they would both agree that i'll do a if you do b. and then the bill gets to the floor and somebody says, a is wrong. and we should not put that in the bill. let's change that. oh, no, we can't agree. we have an agreement. agreement with who? laraza? aggie businesses? the chamber of commerce? microsoft? suck -- zuckerberg?
chat that is what happened here. the people who drafted this peel and advocated these special interests, we shouldn't be surprised. businesses, groups, organizations, have special interests. there's nothing inherently wrong with that. what is wrong is that members of congress, members of the ute senate, need to be representing the national interests. the people's interests. the workers are interest in america. that is what we need to be doing. not the special interests, and i got to tell you can the openness of this is sort of breath taking to me. who is protecting the national interests? did they have any of the top ranked economists in this country asking -- being asked white would be the right number of low-skilled workers to bring into america? did they have either the top experts say how much advance --
i think about college graduates are unemployed. what the right number? none of this was apparently discussed by our colleagues who allowed this process to go through. i would say, finally, with regard to the special interests, they have no interest, virtue through up in of them, -- virtually none of them, that were involved in the process, of guaranteeing in the future we don't have illegality. that the failure here. that don't have any interest in that. and, therefore there was no intensity of interest in that aspect of the legislation. there was a lot of interest in how many computer people could be admitted, or how manying a kill -- agriculture workers or low-skilled factory workers or construction workers, they all worried about that. they fought over that.
that's what these negotiations were about. and they're internal discussions and disagreements. but nobody was investingfully time or interest in the second phase of this. of you have amnesty, if you have a lot of millions of people that came here illegally, what are we going to do to ensure it doesn't happen in the future? i was a federal prosecutor. i personally tried an immigration case myself. i bet nobody else here can say that but -- i'm aware that you have to have certain legal processes and certain investments and investigative and enforcement mechanisms to make the system work in the future. and so as we go forward with this debate, we're going to show, and it's going to be clear, that this has not been
fixed, and in fact the standards of current law with regard to what ought to be done, requirements and current federal law, are being weakened, some eadvice rated -- eadvice rated by this bill. this is far weaker. there's no doubt about it. it was rejected by the american people in 2007, and it's -- it weakens current law and we're being told this is the toughest bill ever. so if i'm mistaken, i'm sure we're going to hear about that. this is a great democracy, we are part of, and i'm expressing my view. but i spent some time on these issues. i was involved with it in 2006
and 2007. i'm a federal prosecutor. i've done this over the years. i know how i.c.e. agents work, border patrol agents, customs and immigration service people work. i've worked with them. i've tried cases for them. i know them personally. they have been left out of this process. the i.c.e. union has voted, no confidence in john morton, their supervisor, what a dramatic event. i'm not aware of that ever happening. in my 14 years plus as a federal prosecutor. actual employment union declaring their supervisor is -- they have no confidence in him? and what did they say? they said he spends all his time advocating for amnesty, and not enforcing the law. he is directing us to not follow legal requirements that we took an oath to follow. and get this. the i.c.e. officers have filed a
lawsuit in federal court, attacking secretary napolitano, her conduct of her office, and they have asserted that she is not above the law, she is not authorized to direct them not to follow plain requirements of federal law, and the federal judge initially seemed to accept the validity of the lawsuit. i've never heard of that before. this is really an incredible event. nobody is even talking about it. so, it's been the position of this administration, everybody has to know to see that the law is not be effectively enforced, particularly in the interior of america. and that is basically been based on knowledge of de facto amnesty
because you're directing your awe officers not to do their duty, you're basically eliminated the law. and in the administration shouldn't be doing that. congress has refused to change these laws. time and again. if anything they've sometimes increased them. strengthened them, and now we have agents blocked from doing it, and the u.s. customs and immigration service, who deals with the visas, who deals with the applications for citizenship, cis -- citizenship and immigration processes proced paperwork. they have written in opposition to this legislation. so, first, the i.c.e. officers, chris crain, the head of the group, has written a powerful letter in detail, condemning this legislation, saying it will not work. it will make matters worse, and
it will endanger national security. and the customs and immigration, citizen and immigration group that deals with the paperwork and the citizenship processing and visa work and a lot of that, they have likewise written saying, this bill will not work, and they oppose it. well, i just not to say, somebody needs to be thinking about what is going on here. amnesty, done. the promise of enforcement of the toughest bill ever in the future, no, sir. not there. not close. that's why we have a problem. i can't understand it, really. why people wouldn't want the legal system to be complete to be effective, to be followed so we as americans could be proud of it.
well, you know, there's a lot of power behind this legislation. i can feel it. raised questions, pushed back -- you're not politically correct. you're unkind. you don't like immigrants. that offensive to me. i believe in immigration. we have a million people come in here eave year legally. i don't oppose that. i don't oppose doing something responsible and compassionat for the people who have been here a long time illegal limit we have to be careful but we can do that. but the american people -- their basic instinct about this
matter. i would have to say how i believe the american people's heart and souls are good about immigration. a lot of people thing, we have to meet in secret and run this bill through as fast as possible because we don't want the american people to find out about it because they don't like immigrants. not so. a recent poll reveals something very important, and our members of this body and the house need to note, it said, if you're angry about the way things are going with regard to immigration, are you angry at the people who came into the country illegally or angry at the government officials for allowing it to happen? 12% said they were angry at the people that entered illegally. and 88% said they were angry at the public officials for not creating a legal system that
will work. now, isn't that a good -- doesn't that speak well of the american people? you can be angry about somebody coming into our country in violation of the law. the american people understand that people want to come here and it's our duty to stop it, and they've been pleading with congress for over 30 years to do something about it. to create a lawful system. to end the lawlessness, to do the right thing. to create immigration processes that we can be proud of. like canada has. and other countries around the world have. so we believe in immigration. we want to do the right thing. but it needs to be lawful. we have more applicants for admission into america than we can possibly accept. i was in a -- peru with senator specter a number of years ago, and a poll was called to our
attention from nicaragua that said, 60% of the people in nicaragua said that they would come to america if they could. 60%. and then the ambassador of peru says they had a pole -- poll around here and they said 70%. well, everybody can't come to america. we're not able to assimilate -- and we all agree on that, and so therefore you set rules and processes that we can be proud of, that are fair and objective, and that people who want to come meet those standards and wait their turn and come lawfully. but we have had, from this administration and prior administrations -- president bush also, too little interest in seeing they law is enforce. and we have loopholed and processes need to be fixed and we can do that with a good immigration bill, but this one
doesn't get us there. so we have, my friend, i know did an op-ed, karl rove, president bush's political advisor, and man of great talent and i knew him back to the day when we were in college together. he quotes a lot of polls that say the american people are willing to accept legal processes and status of people in this country. and i acknowledge that. they are. but he does not quote the polls that say overwhelmingly they want the illegality end first. they want border security first. they're smart enough to know, they're smart enough to know, if you don't get the border security now, you may never get it. in fact won't get it because history tells us so.
he didn't quote a recent poll, rasmussen, the so-called -- this is what is in the rasmussen polling report. the so-called gang of eight propose signal the senate legalizes the status of immigrants first and promises to secure the border later. by four to one margins, people want that process reversed. my good friend karl rove didn't quote that. additionally, while voters think highly of immigrants, which speaks well of us as american people, they don't trust the government and that skepticism is growing. in january, 45% thought it was at least somewhat likely that the federal government would work to secure the border and prevent future illegal
immigration. today only 35 -- 30% have that confidence. why? because they learned this bill isn't going to do what they were told it was questioning to do. the growing awareness of the border control issue has led to other shifts in public opinion as well. early in the year, democrats were trusted more than run are yous on the issue of immigration. that's switched. we're not interested in politics. we're interested in the right thing you do the right thing, the people with affirm it. mr. rove goes on to say, don't say amnesty. that's a bad thing for you to say. well, let me just say, under the
legislation, we would have a circumstance immediately when people are given legal status, they'll be able to get any job, and they're here safe and sound unless they get arrested for a felony or something very serious like that, and they put on a path that guarantees them the ability to go all the way to citizenship. and mr. rove said they have to pay $1,000 fine. over six years. what is that? $170 a year? 15, $12 a month? this is the punishment. you pay $12 a month worth of fines that allows you to not have to go home, even though you're in the country illegally. didn't wait your turn. and you're guaranteed a path to citizenship. and at the end you have to pay another $1,000. some 10-13 years later. so that -- this is the
punishment in the legislation. but the people who came illegally did exactly what they wanted immediately, which is to stay here, thability to work here, social security card, and they'll get a ability to go to any job in the country. they have an i.d. that will allow them to too that. so they'll be able to compete with any job in america, be able to compete for the jobs of our husbands and sons and daughters and grandchildren might be competing for out there. 11 million would be in that position. so i don't think -- unless my friend karl its making a strong point there -- this dismiss sort of punishment. he says you must -- they must pay taxes. well, hallelujah. shouldn't you pay taxes?
and, quote: they are, quote, barred from receiving any federal benefits, including welfare and obamacare, close quote. that's a flat statement. and it's flat wrong. the first group -- the dream act group will be some two and a half million, maybe three million. they will be citizens in five years, and will get any of the federal welfare programs in five years. many of the ag workers will be in that position in ten years. and immediately any workers who qualify for the earned income tax credit can get that immediately. now, other provisions are put off for 10, 13 years, and that makes the cost score look better. but over the long term, once the
group is given legal status and citizenship, they will then qualify for every program, and since overwhelming number of the workers here today are lower skilled than illegal, they're lower skilled and you can expect their incomes to be low. they'll qualify for earned income tax credit, for medicaid and program after program. food stamps and others. and the score goes up tremendously in the out years. the harris foundation is the only group that has done an in-depth analysis and shay say over the lifetime of the people that are here illegally, if they are legalized under this bill, it would add 6-point' p -- $6.3 trillion to the deficit of the united states. that almost as much as the unfunded liability of social security, which is 7 trillion. so this would be 6 trillion.
so i haven't seen anybody say that number isn't in the ballpark, and nobody else has done a study to refute it, and it's going to be trillions of dollars in the out years, and is not true. there will be no government benefits to people who are in the country who get legalized under this. just not so. well, this is another point. this is a fundamental point, and it sounds so good when you have a political guru like my friend karl. he says: to renew their temporary status after six years, those awaiting to become citizens must approve they have been steadily employed, paid all tacks tacks and aren't on welfare. so let's take what has happened.
we have an individual these been in the country three years, they get the provisional legal status immediately when this bill passes. and in six years, they have to have, we're told, to show that steadily employed, paid taxes, and aren't on welfare. well, who is going to investigate that first? number one. >> so they've already been here three years, as long as they came before december 31, 2011, they're given legal status whether they have a job or not, no matter what. they're given this legal status, without a family, have no roots in america other than having been here. they claim, before december 31, 2011. but we're not willing to deport them. we're not willing to deport them, so now six years later,
they work intermittently and they're employed, we have a recession ask don't have enough jobs for people, we're going to send out the feds and uproot them, and their children now in junior and high school, and send them back home? give me a break. that is one of the most bogus claims ever. that won't be enforced. and it already -- there are labor authorities in the bill so waivers will be issued. nobody is going tone force this, so i'm tired of them saying that. they shouldn't say it to get the american people to believe we're going to actually go out and deport what could be millions of people who are out of work in five or six year period when they have to re-establish themselves. that just bothers me. and karl rove said these individual must stand the back of the line behind everybody who is waiting patiently and legally to immigrant here.
close quote. that not so. give me a break. these people are here illegally now. they do not want to be deported, which is understandable. they're going to be given status, permanent status, social security number and a right to work anywhere in america, and they are not ahead of somebody? in honduras, waiting in like to come here? not ahead of somebody in china or indonesia or italy or spain? of course they're ahead of them. they're not waiting -- and then so i'm without words to express my concern about this. we need to be accurate about what the legislation says here. and so what about this amnesty.
people say you shouldn't call it amnesty. i think that's a legitimate word. the legislation right here before us would immediately give legal status, allow people to move to legal permanent residence, and citizenship later, and they have to pay a few thousand dollars in fines. well, i think that's am necessary estimate in my opinion. somebody say, pay a thousand dollar fine. they paid a penalty, therefore you can't call it am necessary system i don't think so. this legislation basically says everybody here is given legal status, and put on a guaranteed path to citizenship, just don't get convicted of a felony. so, i really don't think that is a good argument. so that was continued a bit. i think the sponsors kind of
gave up objecting back in 2007 when the legislation was before us. at that time. but i would just note that in 2007, the initial fine that people paid had to be paid initially $3,000. this bill you pay $1,000 over six years. then to get a green card, a legal permit resident, you had to pay an additional $4,000, and an interim review period calls for a fine, payment of $1,500. totally $8,500. so in 2007, the payments required for snob move forward to citizenship was at least 8500. this bill is 2,000. and really, 1,000 to get -- to be able to stay here and work here.
and that is payments that stretch over time. so this would have to say it's difficult for me to accept that this is a -- people are earning their citizenship. and they're paying a price for it. then mr. rove mentioned they have to pay their taxes. one of our washington publications, politico, did an article about that june 3rd, and said, with regard to tax payment, quote: after all, it was one of the gang of eight's main talk points when it unveiled the immigration loop to rent in january. sponsors vowed their proposal would include a back tax requirement to ward off critics' claims that the bill would be
amnesty. citizenship would come at a price, they said. but the gang has all but dropped that talking point. the immigration legislation currently moving through the senate includes a scaled back provision that relies almost entirely on the immigrants coming forward to the internal revenue service voluntarily. critics call it toothless, close quote. it is toothless, my friend cal rove out here spinning, claiming we about the some advantage, we're going to collect back taxes. nobody is going to investigate these cases. the law is clear. we don't have the money. and the able to do -- the ability to do so and it's just not going to happen. that's just the facts. and let's talk about in general. some of the other issues that will come before us. i know, senator, my colleague
senator leahy will be joining us in a minute and i'll yield to him when he comes. but i wanted to talk about these promises were we were given by the people who wrote the bill. promises that the path to citizenship would be, quote, continued -- contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether illegal immigrants have left the country when required. now, that is needed. that is fundamentally correct. that was a promise. that's one of the gang of eight principles they published. our bill, they say, does that. i wish that were so. quote: a path of to citizenship would be, quote, contingent on securing the borders and
tracking whether immigrants have left the country when required. but in truth, the bill is amnesty first, and a promise of enforcement later, and with regard to tracking immigrants who have left the country when they're required to, it devastates and weakens current law. so that can never happen effectively. it's unbelievable to me. they would pass a bill that correctly contradicts current law. on "meet the press" not too long ago, senator schumer, said flat out, acknowledged that the promise of enforcement first is not going to happen. he said, quote, first people will be legalized. then we'll make sure the border is secure, closed quote. so, instead of enforcement
first, it's legalization first. that's plain as day, not even disputed any longer. the illegal immigrants will be legalized immediately, and not a single border or interior enforcement measure has to be in place then or ever. and all the secretary napolitano needs to do is submit two reports to congress, illegal immigrants will self legal status, work permits, social security accounts, driver's license, travel documents and state financial benefits that come from the states. nothing requires that any border security be in place, or built before the amnesty is ever accomplished. we were told we were going to have a trigger, and until the fences were built, until all of enforcement mechanism are
undertaken, until that happens you ain't going to have amnesty. but it's not. so all the secretary needs to do is submit a property and she has already said we have better enforcement than in history and does not believe we need more fencing so the contention from the gang of eight we would have a major building of fencing at the border is not proven out. and...
what's been promised is not happening. so you could say to the american people, don't be taken in en masse. we can see it now. make your voices heard. file this debate and if the promises for this though are not followed, let your voice be heard in congress. tell your congressman you're not happy. tell your senator you've got to do better because the whole gist of this, the whole crux of this
is if we had an amnesty, if we have a very generous, compassionate treatment of people who violated our laws to come here, shouldn't we have a policy that ends the illegality of the future. that's what the american people have demanded for 30 years. they are good and decent. this is an absolute proper thing for them to demand that congress and we're not doing that. it's heartbreaking to me that we are here in this process and as time goes by will talk more about it. senator from utah, senator leahy and the fabulous new addition to the senate judiciary committee with the legislation that he contributed in many, many able ways for the discussion offering excellent amendments. a man who is deeply committed to
the principles of the and made our country great. i yield the floor, mr. president. >> i was here earlier and this had to have been the distinguished presiding officer and now we have another distinguished residing officer. not an president, it's good to see you here as a member of the senate judiciary committee. as the presiding officer knows, the senate judiciary committee have lengthy and extensive markup session and economic opportunity and immigration modernization act as 744. we worked late into the evenings. we debated the bill. we considered hundreds of amendment, but the public saw
our consideration firsthand. we streamed everything we did on the internet and was bypassed on television. to call the proposed amendment, republican, democrat, we put them on our website. we updated the committee's website to include adopted amendments in real-time. i heard from people all over the country they thought they actually had involvement in what we were doing, which is what i wanted. i appreciate the fact that both republicans and democrats, members of both sides of the aisle process and also praised as an improvement made by the judiciary committee. the marker process followed three additional hearings with
26 witnesses in the bill that was amended was supported by bipartisan two thirds majority of the committee. on behalf of judiciary committee, and barring extensive committee report as well. i hope the report is a valuable resource for senators, explains not only to underline provisions of the legislation in its history, but also summarizes all the amendments to and those that were rejected. so in order for all senators to file amendments and work on this bill, the senate needs to proceed to the bill. i hope when it becomes these proceedings, senators from both sides of the aisle worked together to develop this
legislation. senators from both sides of the have amendments adopted by a judiciary committee. almost none of the more than 135 amendments adopted by the judiciary committee were adopted on partyline votes on like this week's vote in the house, which nearly every member of the republican conference set together to prevent dreamers from being able to stay in our country. i think that ought to unite all of us are the aspects to the dream act. these young people are here through no fault of their own. they've enriched our nation. they've enriched this debate. i'm proud in the senate are considering inclusive legislation that supports them and i hope a fair process in the senate prompts action in the other chamber. i don't know how anybody, professors who care about family
values, who care about other people can sit down with these young people, the dreamers and not be moved and not want them to have the same advantages that our children and grandchildren how. the dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us. it's long past time for reform. as members of the senate judiciary committee from both parties at the conclusion of our proceedings, this is a matter of great significance to the american people in the senate should debate it, but the senate is delayed from doing so by a small minority of appointments. this is not a time to have a tiny hand full text the debate. bottom president, we senators --
there's only 100 of us, 99 now with the loss of our dear friend, frank lautenberg. we represent over 300 million americans. they are counting our sign pact to ask, but to stand up and vote for or against the stand up. when you saw to refuse those coming, it's an easy way to say i am voting may be. you can go back home and be on everybody's side. people for it are it, i am on your side because no one can point your vote away the affair. looking to stand up, take a position, yes or no. not maybe. legislation we seek to bring before the senate was resolved with senators from both sides of the aisle who came together and made an agreement was initially
a proposal for the so-called gang of a came to the committee process for product of a group of 18. now let's have a product of a group of 100 representing all states in this country. amendments offered by 17 of those 18 members were adopted into the bill. 17 of the 18 members of the senate judiciary committee had amendment to stop dudleyville. a bipartisan majority of more than two thirds voted for the bill. the senate is called upon to consider. i'm honored to serve as chairman of the senate judiciary committee and the president pro tem of the united states senate as an office assumption article i section three of the constitution of the united states.
i've been privileged to serve the people of vermont for more than 45 years, the last 38 as their senator. but one thing i've learned many years ago was taught to me by the distinguished majority leader at that time when i came here, senator mike mansfield, how important is to keep commitments to stay true to agreement. centers come together to develop these bills and do those things. have no doubt will this filibuster and stop voting may be, but vote up or down and pass this tough but fair legislation on comprehensive immigration reform. advisor decency to take action that often paralyzes this chamber. related immigration system that
lives up to american values. this is the time were called upon to come together. few topics are more fundamental to who we hire and a nation that immigration. the law proclaimed america give us your tired, your poor, yearning to be free. sunday's homeless to me. that's what america stood for. so we should continue to represent. that's the america that attracted my maternal grandparents from italy to vermont. my paternal great grandparents from ireland to vermont. immigration history has been an ongoing thirst of renewal of our spirit, creativity, economic strength. our bipartisan legislation establishes a pastor and
citizenship at 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. it addresses the lengthy backlogs that our current immigration system, backlogs that kept families apart sometime for decades it grants a faster track the trimmers chosen through no fault of their own into agriculture workers and provider nations critical food supply makes important changes to diseases used by dairy farmers anti-immigrant investors who create jobs in our community addresses needs of law enforcement required in the hope of immigrants who witnessed time for victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. and improves the treatment of refugees at our silence seekers that they are the beacon of hope in the world don't make us all safer.
the senate should come together to consider and pass. we should do what is right, what is fair, what is just. immigration reform is an important economic issue and a civil rights issue in a fairness issue. if the majority of the stand together, we stay true to our values and present. i believe we can pass legislation, write the next great chapter in american has reared immigration. those of us serving in the senate who are immigrant understand not. those of us who are children or grandchildren of immigrants understand, just as my wife's family came to this country and created a better state of vermont. they understood that.
i've given a speech at the distinguished presiding officer knows better than anybody in here. she knows what it is to come to the country and become part of this great country. a few comments and immigrant and then become a united states senator and this president pro tem, i'm delighted to see the acting president pro tem initiator and i will suggest the absence of a quorum and not at the time be divided equally. >> we talked to a reporter with cq "roll call." >> humberto sanchez is with cq "roll call" joining us from capitol hill.
what are key issues senators plan to bring up in the upcoming debate on immigration bill? >> we see senator start to frame the debate. we had two camps here, pro and con and today they learn to laugh and senator sessions who's leading the opposition come in making case he believes they should be done in a piecemeal way et cetera comprehensive way as his supporters want to do and this could hurt low-wage workers. this could threaten a fragile economy, a fragile recovery and he believes again -- he says he believes something should be done, something less comprehensive, something more piecemeal is the way to governor should take this on. in the pro side is your gang of eight democrats who have drafted this compromise and are putting up for it and make the case the
current system is broken and needs to be revamped. they've gotten a sign-on from labor, signoff from the chamber of commerce and they believe they have the best chance in this compromise to move forward on reforming our immigration system. >> when the bill came out of the senate judiciary committee, it had bipartisan support. where does that stand now? who are the key players in that gang of eight? >> interesting enough, yesterday senator john mccain who is one of the members told me in casual conversations he's had with colleagues in the senate, particularly republicans that there's 3060 votes for the bill, but then hear from senator marco rubio is making a case is also in that gang, making the case for republican brian needs to be done and is asking for people to
strengthen border security can what he thinks will not only help pass the senate will pass the house. he believes is the border security portion of the bill is enhanced that it stands a greater chance of passing. >> over the next couple weeks of the amendment, come and take a look at the key proposed changes we're likely to see debated or to pass? >> guest: again, the key one is whatever comes up with senator rubio's implement to her. right now he's talking to republican colleagues who solicit ideas and input on the bill and this is a way for him to get buy-in from other republicans who are more likely to support the bill if this amendment is passed. he's actually hinted that if his amendment or whatever comes out of this negotiation that he may walk away from the bill.
that is the key issue right now. other possible things that occur monkeywrench are an issue for treating same-sex mac couples in benefits under this bill. also senator blumenthal mentioned he might want to revisit the gun-control debate which could also be explosive. >> how does the president weighed in on the legislation? >> guest: is taking a hands-off approach. he's very much in favor of the passing and part that's why he's given senator's room to negotiate and discuss this. one of his top priorities going forward and it's hard to say one the right time will be for him to step in. he's been very careful to stay back because he's concerned you may alienate conservatives if he campaigns too much so to speak.
>> will they see a house immigration bill anytime soon? >> that $64 question. there's four democrats and for republicans, but one has stepped away from the group over concerns about whether the bill they develop would allow newly legalized immigrants, so while he says there's no reason to the visit couple competing bills that the remainder of the senate will go forward and made a bill. representative labrador is going to write his own bill and also it's unclear what house leaders will do, whether they'll go on a piece by piece approach or do you comprehend the bill. there's a lot of open questions they are and a lot of momentum and pressure announced at the senate hopes to pass a bill was 70 those in the hope of such an
overwhelming vote of pressure the house into doing with this issue. >> joining us humberto sanchez with humberto. read more at procol.com. >> guest: thank you very much. >> on wednesday, pakistan's parliament elect a nawaz sharif prime minister. this is the first democratic change of power in history. sharif sparta received an overwhelming victory in the may 11 election, winning 244 out of 342 seats in the national assembly. the new prime minister's inaugural speeches half-an-hour.
with the responsibilities that have been imparted to me. i think the people of pakistan that they have shown the confidence and the pakistan muslim lake. i build this confidence. i believe that people have shown i love towards me and they will also stand shorter and shorter to me and my mission. i pay tribute to the entire
nation that despite the conspiracies and desperate uncertainty that came out to vote and wrote the bright chapter of democracy. people deserve congratulations who voted for their parties in the national role. mr. speaker, i also thank the honorable members of the house who have given me the honor today and also voted for me and those who express a different opinion.
god willing, i will try my best to come to the house. the decision of the peep hole has moved favor the hypocrisy is a nighttime hunts proved that democracy will move together. there is no other way than democracy. we have witnessed the ruins of despotic rules than ever for democracy, then constitutions another value is not disturb. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: whenever there
was a dictatorship, it was a great damage to pakistan. the unity was disturbed, was shaken. lawlessness was there and the respect of the nation got damaged in the community of nations and as a result of the dictatorship, the country was dismembered. pakistan's existing sovereignty and prosperity and displays in the of nation is in democracy and superiority of constitution
and should be stopped forever. it is a matter pleasure that it will not tolerate any. pakistan has already paid a heavy price for this. there is no room for any such circus in the country. the house has to play a very important and strong role. people are the real masters of power to come and go their bows. [speaking in native tongue] our cooperation, our differences, whatever they are, they should be for pakistan.
whatever party we belong to, our duties should be pakistani, so that after five years we leave, then we leave a prosperous and self-respect impact and at my pakistan be seen as a shining star in the arise in of the world. mr. speaker, i have been telling that the time has come for the politics not of tyler. we have related on a foundation. our journey began from kp k., where despite our maturity for the movement for justice, and
we cooperated for politics or positive amendments in the constitution and we want the government to complete its five-year term, despite allegations of a friendly opposition, replayed and served as an ideal opposition. god willing, we will still lay on the foundations for new traditions. we are continuously face with problems, poverty, despair among
i assured the nation that i will not spare a single moment to change the fate of the country for the fate of the peep of m.i.t. and will also do the same. as this responsibility is on my shoulder, every moment is precious to me and i will not spare any time to solve the issues facing the country. the focal point of my policy will be in the field of
agriculture, industries, commerce. by creating a strong infrastructure will be the priority of my government. initial steps have started. my government will not tolerate corruption. those who enter corruption will have two face tough accountability. we have nepotism and favoritism. we have devised a transparent
system for the peep of who would be appointed in high positions and only be made on merit. it will be floated the international and whoever oversees packet than will also be invited to serve the country. the purpose of this change is to ensure that only meritorious people should have the reins of the country and nyhan.
every step of the inhabitants of our desperate insincerity. we have made a comprehensive plan for the problems facing the country, including word sharing. at this time i would like to only say that the job has started, the process has started for a shining pakistan. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: my eyes are witnessing a pakistan, a pakistan are farmers, women,
used and everyone will have an opportunity to prosper. rice said the minorities will be guaranteed. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: we will try to build a country, which will be known as a country with good governance, clean democracy and not as a country facing poverty and despair. we need the support of parliament, supported the media and people. we all have to say our role.
abreu on how to play his role. mr. speaker, i have been telling quite often that the problems pakistan is facing today for that we have to be on the same page. all of us in on the stakeholders in pakistan we have to unite. we have to assemble together and face the problems facing the country. the country assessing problems than they are so great that a single body cannot solve them.
if you are together sitting in this house, we can although the problem facing pakistan that you have mentioned and in no time we can raise our hat and march forward. i will again reiterate today to let us get together, let us assemble together in the interest of the country, we will also get in touch with other
parties so that we sit down across the table and shared the ideas and vision and their common agenda. let us make a comment to ensure that how can we get the country out of these problems where it is a urban area, whether it's karachi or sindh, every place has similar poverty. some have gone forward. some are very depressed and
backward. we have displayed a unity. when i have prevented the governor tuesday ability of baluchistan, this is not a theater. from the election day, i have said that whenever any party has a mandate, we will respect that. in keeping that in mind, i have offered to let them form their own government.
lucas stand, kp k., punjab will cooperate fully with these governments. whatever cooperation they expect, we will provide that peer karachi is as dear to me as to the people of karachi. and violence, we are also excited about it. we will get together i work for the restoration of peace in karachi. similarly, in the tribal areas there is no peace, then nobody
seeks comfortable and we will distort peace everywhere. similarly in baluchistan, the first tape that has been taken in a new chap to have been in the history of pakistan. this is for the first time that the true leadership has been given the opportunity. i am very happy. this is a great step. let us give opportunity to down to play their role in setting right the situation in baluchistan.
when there is in peace, every pakistani will be happy. whether it's from sindh or any other place. now i want to share one more project. details i will provide later. i met the chinese prime minister and discussed a project in myself and the chinese prime minister both agreed that we will build a railroad on the road from kashmir to punjab.
[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: that my desire is given the location, the center point should be a free boat and they should have a specialist at us and it will not only benefit of baluchistan, but entire pakistan. we are on the foundation that we are in power. i want all these projects completed during the five-year, 10 year and god will take all
the steps, which will benefit everyone in the country. this is not the party alone. this is the desire of everyone sitting in this house that pakistan should progress with speed. the burden of debt should go. there should be prosperity, there should be peace to that go to school. mothers should not worry about their children going out and their husbands going out to work and on the other hand, they
should have used a pakistan has become a passion of peace and tranquility. come and let us build a pakistan like this. karachi, kp k., punjab. we have to eliminate extremism and lawlessness. that is consult together with step should be taken, how to address these issues. the attacks of drones should stop. this chapter should be closed now.
we respect the sovereignty of other countries, so it is the responsibility of other countries also to respect our sovereignty. this has been going on for a few years now. it should stop. let us sit down together and make a common strategy. mr. speaker, once again, i thank you and all the members of the house. let god provide me guidance. i also want to say to the deputy
during the last 12 years through in the last 10 bellemont allow any comment to go through undemocratic means. we will follow the democratic means. i am very happy that parliament has completed five years. we have also a role in all this, along with the comment and these are the steps that will take pakistan to its real shining destiny. i am very happy to watch and witness all those scenes as they strained to take things forward
and even in parliament should be to reconstruct the discussion. mr. speaker i. will not take much time and again thank everyone. long live pakistan. >> in order to raise money, i thought an application at the iris in june or 2011 seeking to obtain 501 c-3 status as as an educational organization. as of today, i've been waiting for 29 unsurpassed as. >> many agents and agencies do not understand that they are servants of the people. they think they are our masters and they are mistaken. i'm not interested in scoring
political points. i want to protect and preserve the america that i grew up in, the america people cross oceans and risk their lives to become a part of an entire fight is slipping away. thank you. [applause] >> the purpose of the seat re-orsi for tax exemption is to enable easier promotion of public good, not political work. it is the responsibility of the irs to determine which groups determine the correct exempt status and manipulate the system to avoid taxes and high political organizations and campaign donors.
>> on friday/integer that the sum of the chinese counterparts in u.s. relations with china. our guess where dean chang and cheng li who talked about the chinese economy. this is an hour and a half. >> it is in california today that president obama and the chinese president, substitutable me for two days in a short sleeve summit. it will take place at the annenberg center located at sun aliens in california. a picture today in the "financial times" to the shirtsleeves vindicating is going to be more casual nature. a combination between the two leaders about a variety of topics were focusing on these topics over next two segments on
this morning's program. cheng li for brookings institution joins us. >> guest: thank you for having me. >> host: what are both leaders and countries looking for the summit? >> guest: there's three levels of object is. versus concrete issues and especially north korea and cybersecurity and also economic relationships between the united states and china. for china they also offer that can turn about the regional security and the south china sea and east china sea in these areas. also come the second level is the personal relationship weather can be viewed in initial respect and understanding and maybe the trust and friendship. the third level is strategy thinking. what the chinese call a new type or new kind, which mean they should be cooperative while
conceptual. these are the three levels of just gets in their mind. >> aside from those specifics, how does the economies of the two countries factor the major discussions? >> guest: the most important concern for both leaders because both countries face economic challenges and china particularly slow down on both countries understand the importance of trade and also many other issue areas. both countries are the engine of economy and the should be the spotlight in the entire world. posts are used at china's economy is slowing down. why is that? >> guest: purdah because of the years of problem, partly because the painful structure change from the economy and
heavily armed sheep labor is the novel is coming to an end. now they want to transfer your and also the economy, which has been very painful and still the domestic consumption is not a. the uninformed rate is going up because particularly college graduates cannot find jobs. as a series of possible property bubble and also very serious power of the state on enterprises, the monopoly of the government. host committee between the president, chinese president today. china's president today will talk about those issues at the economy. xi jinping, two days of meetings at california to start today and continue into tomorrow. were going to talk about the issue and if you have questions, especially relation with the united states and discussions that take face today in
california, join us at (202)585-3881 for republicans. (202)585-3800 for democrats. (202)585-3882 for independence. if you you want to send us a tweet, do so i c-span wj. arsenic e-mail@email@example.com. talk about the relationship the united states has today with china. >> guest: the u.s. history much concerned about the intellectual property rights and the chinese protectionism. the property rights as part of the cybersecurity issue because the relations. but at the same time, china is also the tpp, transpacific partnership, which china believes the united states wants to have kind of a trade talk, so
china wanted to know what the real in tension is that the united states and the united states makes a clear point that institution welcomes china and the standard free trade agreement. host of the status of the tpp as you describe it. >> guest: they would be some discussion and the doors open. at the same time, chen also let some of the international organizations, both leaders have a lot of things to discuss and also a step to the particular chinese investment believed by the interest group or u.s. congress and the united states also, american companies except for china's market, particularly by the policy posted on enterprises. at the same time it's a very important reform program in the
discussion by xi jinping's regime. it's a plan including liberalization also deregulation and a number of issues, which will have a strong implication for foreign companies. host a one of the things that come up in these discussions is about trade deficits the united states has the china, 315 billion highlighted in 2002 offered 20,095,000,000,000 in 2011 and if you go back as far as this year, april this year, 93 billion. so is an imbalance of whose sons sent it to him. >> guest: is getting a little bit better. cannot argue with you that the ban for technology transfer, there's a chinese position. host gophers on the topic, from stanley north carolina, which on the republican line.
>> caller: creating issues with not only the consumers, not wanting to buy chinese goods, but it's not good for both countries. >> guest: well, i certainly agree with your general assessment. i think that the intellectual property rights issues is one of the major issues in the u.s.-chinese economic relationship. the u.s. leaders, business community-constantly raise the issue, and for chinese government especially, the central government, they understand the importance of that issue. sometimes they blame local government with some validity because a lot of companies and local government tend to rally for their own interests. but we also should know that china improve over the years in this area, because 90% of disputes about intellectual property, and patent violations,
actually occur among the chinese companies. so, their interest to emphasize rule of law, but at the same time i agree with you, still a long way to good for china. also, china state increase of labor costs and also china's manufacturing industry faces serious challenges, and so in a way that the united states still has good chance. first, we need to bring some of the manufacturing back to america, and the secondly we should also emphasize technology innovation, but meanwhile, the intellectual property, we should make sure. so this is the opportunity, the summit, for obama to raise the issue seriously withed the chinese leaders. i. >> host: our republican line next. >> caller: good morning, i would like to speak to dr.ily. >> you're on. >> caller: mr. li, i'm just questioning the reason that -- i'm actually born in germany.
i've been here 67 years. i've a war bride. but we were always taught that the chinese people are so far in advance, have been forever. why on earth would you stoop down and steal our secrets that our people here in america have worked so hard to get and why do you do that? i don't think that is very nice. and very professional. i mean, you have enough people that you can find out your own industrial things. >> guest: well, first, i have to -- i'm chinese put actually i'm now a chinese-american, and i become american citizen over ten years ago. so, i don't want to defend china. i do not want to speak china, but you raise this issue to show chinese perspective. private security, intellectual security rights is the interest
not just the west but also for emerging markets such as china, and now the western media, the american media, dominated by the sense of fear about the chinese security violations. but it has validity because it touch an important part of american live. private financial security and the physical safety. these are all very important. we also should put in perspective that china is not the only country has been doing this kind of thing. to a certain extent certainly china may be left behind in intellectual property rights. at the same time, some of the issues of cyber security is a global issue. and to a certain extend chinese government argues china could be a victim. so, it has some -- i think this
is opportunity for world leaders, especially in the summit between china and the united states to discuss the issue. this could be the act of war. the is it very serious. so we need to form a code of the -- establish a code of behavior. to deal with this kind of a new challenge, like nuclear proliferation, it's a new challenge, new issue. only through discussion and between leaders and also in the public domain that issue will be better addressed. if we only point fingers and blame everything to china to a certain extent, the chinese argue, it's unfair and out of context. >> host: is there any indication that cheng chui ping might be open to deal with cybersecurity issues. >> guest: it's ail highly unlikely. china is a large country and to
a certain extent some of the government, but some may not be government behavior, individuals. i think the government chinese leadership make a strong statement, and cheng chui ping will be very important. this meeting we do not expect agreement or announcement but on the top of the agenda for discussion, and -- it willied to an -- >> the meeting take place tomorrow in california, at a resort, the military, cybersecurity, and the driving force for talking about these segments, today, bill, chicago, illinois, democrats like. >> caller: yes, look, we have a media that think they're
entitledded to know everything so they can tell everybody. that's the way it is. if you don't want anybody to know about it, don't let it happen. there are no secrets. >> host: okay. michael. womenning -- wilmington, vermont, independent line. >> caller: i'd like to comment there are certain obvious differences between china and the united states. united states has been involved in war for 60 years, china has been at peace. corporations in america control the government in china, the corporations are controlled by the government. chinese oriented towards the people, whereas there's no real orientation in america that i see except corporate profit. chinese's economic development to expand their influence. america uses development at the point of a gun.
and is -- every nation that can do it, does do it. that's my comment and i appreciate you giving me the opportunity. thank you. >> host: what about china0s development. >> guest: chinese people like that comment. the believe in the last 30 years china was not in a war, and the united states has been in war for many decade, and the china certainly benefits from the economic integration with economic globalization, and the cyber security is global issue. not the chinese issue. so to a certain extent it's not the only thing china create a sense of fear, and how to find a new way, how to establish international code of conduct, and how to prevent this --
whether it be nation state or some other group or some individuals, to take advantage of this new area of -- new demand which is so powerful so important for the life and safety and many other respects. so i think that the caller really raised some good questions about, we also should be humble -- we, meaning americans -- to look at these issues. >> oo if the nature of the economy is changing in china, with what does that mean for the worker in china? >> guest: it means the previous opportunities now will become more difficult and because of labor costs increase. because of the now china fiber economic miracle become obvious, including economic disparity, corruption, environment pollution, and so the need to address these issues.
so economics growth is important but quality of growth also become a major concern in china. when you have pollution in beijing, what's the point for pushing that when people are dying because of pollution, or related disease. so how can you say today it's better than yesterday? so chinese are also searching a better model of development, and this is the perspective of the chinese people. in many ways, many people joined the middle class lifestyle, what people call the chinese dream. at the same time the issues about the environment, social justice, so a certain extent, political democracy becomes increasingly in the public discourse. >> host: to the quality of life, d.d. fredericks says what's the wage differential win the u.s. and china. >> guest: still huge. we do not have a reliable statistic but differences --
again, this is the data not reliable but look at china's purchasing power, the living standard, but still a huge gap, but al though the china's middle class, you look in shanghai and beijing, i think the lifestyle reduced significantly in country with 1.4 billion people, huge gap. >> the cost of living. >> relatively low but the property price increase dramatically. >> host: meridian, mississippi, debra, republican line. hi. >> caller: hi. i was just thinking, god help us our country will only suffer after this meeting. i wish it was donald trump or romney negotiating with this man, not this weak, like-minded american hating socialist president obama and i love my
hand-hammered wok i bought from chinese. >> host: let's hear next from lakeland, florida, republican line. >> caller: praise c-span2. i as a citizen want to offer two items on our international discussion between china and the united states that should be put on the agenda. one is making a good life and interesting life for young people in the country so we have some people who want to work in agriculture instead of the lure of electronic gadgets so we want france to work on that, too, so they can be the leader for europe, but china can be the leader in asia and the united states for north and south america. the eitem is to help our citizens understand how much governments are putting into making guns and how much they're producing butter. the economic question of gun and butters. ralph nader has a new book
called the 17 solutions, and we want citizens to ask questions about, how much is our money going into making butter for us and how much is making guns? and we want the citizens in china to understand, like ralph nader, that citizens can inquire and ask questions and ask for putting things on the record. >> host: thanks, caller. >> guest: this is an interesting concern about the budget, china's military budget increase over the past 27 years. still comparing to united states it's very small. the u.s. and the president obama, particularly second term, serious plan to cut the military budget, but china perceive was the u.s. pivotal or rebalancing after the iraq war and the afghanistan war, in low location near the south china sea and
north china sea, and china support allies like japan and also a country like the philippineses. they think this is u.s.-led effort to contain china. now, so this is also opportunity for obama to explain this rebalancing to asia policy and hopefully military to military discussion. >> questions about currency from twitter saying, what's the effect of the currency war having on china? >> guest: well, certainly china -- some of the people in the united states and west believe that china is a currency manipulator, but of course the u.s. government does not define that way. at least in the past couple years. china appreciate the r&b
significantly and continues to do that. chinas export slow down, tremendous burden for chinese government to continue to do that because, as i mentioned, a high percentage of unemployed, particularly college studentses. when the economic slow down you hurt jobs, et cetera so chinese government concerned about social stability, for the long run, china's interest to make the currency convertible to international kind of currency, but may still take a few more years years to complete the process. >> host: we had a guest, tim ryan of ohio. co-chair of the manufacturing caucus, talked about what china does with its currency and affects the united states. he gave this explanation. i want you to respond. >> you can go into the market and buy and sell currency to keep your price at a certain
level. and the chinese have done that to keep their price -- the price of their currency artificially low, so when they export products to the united states, the products are a lot cheaper than they normally should be. so, for example, we have a company in our area, western pa and eastern ohio called wheatland tube. the chinese make a similar product. the final product lands on the shores of the united states, it's the same cost as just the raw material costs of the american company. that's how significant of an advantage you can gain by manipulating your currency, so to make the chinese reflect the actual market level of the currency would help level the playing field and support u.s. manufacturing. >> host: the likelihood of action on that front from china is? >> guest: it well be very slow, gradual, incremental, rather than major jump, like 20%.
this will be hard for china, and the u.s. if the chinese economy will collapse, if it would be hurt everyone, including the united states economy, because chinese purchase so many bones in the united states. so, i also think there's a gradual -- the currency is the right way to go. >> host: sam e, independent line. >> caller: hi. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: everybody seems to forget china is a communist country. the chinese corporations are owned by the government. and that's my comment. >> host: what does nash -- how does that play into the economic? >> caller: we need to start buying made in america only. made in america. >> host: and thing cheng li, the story broke about smithfield's foods here in virginia, company
that bought out but there is any connection there? >> guest: a huge demand in china, and american companies are very happy to see that development. first of all i don't think it's right to call china a communist. yes, there's one party, the party is still called chinese commune party but the economy is diversified, more than 50% are not state-owned enterprises. only small portion of the chinese economy. and to certain extent american companies were presented in china and emerge because china's own concern, own companies, lack of safety, the food safety, so the push is -- the growing companies, in this case the meat, the pork, and so i think that you will see more development in that area.
>> host: if you look at the amount of purchases from the chinese, energy being a big factor, 3 billion investments, entertainment and real estate, 3 billion as well, and then the automotive industry, 375 million, and then other categories as well. >> guest: this is good news for many companies but we should make sure china meet all the international standard, follow the intern national norm, trade agreements. development in china could be part of a solution. china is not a problem, and sometimes we also need to look at the some of other problem for causes of the slowdown, like the eurozone, the american relative decline over the years. again, it's unfair to blame china and to a certain extent the community by and large welcome to do business with washington. >> host: democrat line, al good,
ahead. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. and mr. cheng li, before -- been listening about an hour mitchell call is about the trade agreement we have with china. it's lopsided and i don't think we even had to do that. i think that is the cause of the rise of china. as far as you being a communist country and all of that, get into this name-calling thing like the lady called before about the president was this and that, this stuff has to stop. this is a bad reflection on our country. i was born and raised here in america. proud of being an american citizen, and i do know that there are -- we're immigrant country. i think we should be fair with the currency, and our trade policies. so, china has to come forward, i believe, with honesty, and put
these things on the table here. that's all i have to say. what do you have to say about that, sir? >> guest: i agree with the caller's general assessment. i think that china contribute to the consumption of the united states because they lower their price, particularly early on, is relatively expensive products like in wal-mart and k-mart but now they also contribute to other high end prices, including technology intensive products, and that's major development and without china's contribution that -- the price in the united states will be very high, but now china has capital they can invest in different parts of the united states that can also provide the jobs and et cetera. so, of course, if we take a very nationalistic approach, we
probably see this as a threat but if we really believe global economics, this is good thing for a win-win. >> host: do you see from this meeting openness of more products from the u.s. into china? >> guest: certainly he wanted to lift some of the bans. the reform agenda for nationalization, banks could access china and this would be another great opportunity. now, so, therefore, now when you talk about the investment companies, hedge funds, they all look at china. whether it be trade, energy, environment, fiscal, all we have strong implication to global economy, particularly for the countries like in europe and the united states. >> host: bob is from silver spring, maryland, and is on the republican line. >> caller: hello. good morning. i had a couple questions. first, why does the president of china brutalize the people of tie tibet, and he could stop it
and is there a social unrest between the ruling class and other people of china? because it seems -- i heard that the recalling encloses -- class are pretty corrupt and get all the cars, all the nice clothes, and -- thank you. >> guest: important issues and china will never become a respectful power if it cannot handle its own ethnic tensions, whether it be tibet or any minority group. i think this is a human rights issue. the new president's position on that is unclear because he just become the top leader a few months ago, and social unrest, this is not secret. it happen all the time across the country in china.
chinese government each year 180,000 social protests, which mean 50 people or more. now, that means that almost 500 per day. so this kind of problem. so there's serious tension and also the corruption become very serious issue in china in the wake of the case what happened last year, one of the top leaders was caught in a murder case, also released his corruption and his wife's corruption, and also the minister in jail now will be tried. this revealed a series of problems of corruption in china and also tension between elites and the masses. now there's good opportunity for president obama to argue that you need to deal with this issue not as just crackdown or media
censorship. only through rule of law, open up the chinese political system and you can have long-term stability of the country, which means democracy, rule of law. >> host: our guest is from the brookings instance constitution. the cheng li, joining us to talk about the u.s.-china relationship in terms of its economy. again, two-day summit taking place in california. talk about the way the summits die seen -- designed. very casual, not a lot of formal activity, shirt-sleeve summit. >> guest: that's correct. provide a conducive environment to establish the kind of mutual respect, and understanding and maybe even friendship. both of them will have seven hours to get together, including dinner tonight, break fast tomorrow, walking along the resort, and so it's really kind
of extraordinary for chinese leader to spend so much time with a u.s. president. >> host: why did that's do it this way? >> guest: this is on purpose. previously the leaders want to have a state banquet, state visit, don't want to take responsibility, and particularly the past president, and one had dinner with president obama he brought him to other senior leaders, does not want to have one-on-one, and to do that. so, both of them love sports, and swimming, mountain climbing, volleyball, and soccer, and obama, basketball and the golf. both of them are very competent, both of them face serious domestic challenges. so, their outgoing personality provide this environment, very nice, the weather will be beautiful, and going to be
forecast, and is so a good opportunity. it's conducive environment to have a candid discussion. so we do not -- we hope that result is important because this type of relationship, despite disagreements, she emphasize the common ground, emphasize that if there's a crisis, not to point finger or use military, but more peaceful mean and deal with our disputes. but at the same time, you know, in certain areas we have common interests, whether it be climate change, cyber security, not to mention global economy and terrorism. >> host: if is the vent goes well, what's the logical next step? >> guest: in the coming months there will be more dialogue at the relative low level, ministry level, and they can produce real result, and also that china will lift some of the protectionism,
i hope, and also currency issue will be more -- but at the same time maybe u.s. also would like china to accept the u.s. market. this would also be win-win, would help create jobs and improve consumption, and et cetera. think that countries have compliment, particularly u.s. can help china in term of environmental protection, this creates a tremendous opportunity and help china establish a real banking system that will have some implication for american industry, especially banking industry. >> host: joe, democrats line, massachusetts. >> caller: can you hear me okay? >> host: fine, sir go ahead. >> caller: i will try to be brief and focus my thoughts. i'm a 76-year-old long-time democrat and i was in the army during the korean conflict. basically i want to say that china is our neck partner, and should be.
my son-in-law and i went to china a couple years ago, spent two weeks there. the people were very friendly. they don't like to say they're communist but they're all friendly and acted like entrepreneurs. i'm impressed by shanghai, and beijing, and chung king. i can't say anything bad about it. i think we should stop looking for enemies and look for friends, and china should be and is our trading partner should be friendly. there's no good reason not to be. and as far as the south china sea is concerned, we wouldn't like to have chinese warships off of cuba. why should we be having our fifth fleet in the south china sea if it's provocative. >> host: thanks. >> guest: i love the line, we want to seek friends, rather than enemies. and let's face out, are we going to have a war with china? now, if china threat us, we certainly will be very
vigorously to defend u.s. interests for the peace and security of the region,le and also the world. but at the same time that we should not let opportunity that first -- we cannot afford a war. too expensive, and fighting for what? we can through peaceful mean to make china to change. china to take right course and previously the economic -- benefits chinese people, benefits the entire world. but now it's about the political reform, winning china. good chance china will make the development in the next decade or so we hope china become a responsible stakeholder. we should avoid a military confrontation or major war. ...
and i am amazed at how many are very much saying there is a non-nondemocratic to brand. i just wonder if you get to comment on not because it does seem to make sense from my point of view in my work and i would like to hear you comment. thank you very much. >> a teacher with them because china's state-owned enterprises
is the state capitalism, crony capitalism is the term not only in china, but other countries. because of this, government has sponsored the industry, not the extent of these markedly telecommunications and this kind of development. but not only hurt the foreign companies, but also the private companies, the private sector, which is where it's a very important, very dynamic in any 90s. in the past five years shrink because of the state monopoly, the telecommunication, oil, railroad, et cetera. so it is tried to change that to make the market for us, particularly middle-class for
the property which is very, very dangerous and have a real opportunity for investment. at the same time, china needs to change its banking system to negative real banking system. so that will also open the doors for foreign competition. now this is the stage reenter. we don't know whether china could be successful, but highly likely until you push for that otherwise. >> not the first time they've met president obama. at a formal meeting at the white house that took place earlier. the two gentlemen will be starting today in california for a two-day summit today and tomorrow to talk about issues they been addressing and will address in this program. there's a picture in february of
this year -- last year. as you look at it, since tampa, florida. eugene joining us, independent line. >> caller: good morning, mr. li. i have a question in regard to the dri see that contains brazil, russia, india, china. trying to figure out how we can make the economy more stable than not one. but that the nasdaq, is there a way we can go about becoming the most powerful financial country in the world? can we do that? >> guest: the job support has just come out. it's reported 175 jobs are added in night, but the unemployment rate has risen to 7.6%. >> guest: the u.s. is still the largest economy in the world. our financial institution are
very, very powerful. utc the life of the emerging market, not only china, but india, brazil and russia. the global economy increased dramatically over the past two or three decades. now that is a train you cannot change. i will tell us the fundamental change of a global economic landscape, particularly east asia and the entire age of relative decline of europe. the five largest middle-class market in asia. india is number one, china number two. indonesia number five. four of them are located in east and southeast china. that is the dramatic change of economic landscape.
at the same time should take advantage through our financial institutions, through our soft power and also human resources, it better because in one area there's a tremendous move to make the manufacturing back to the united states and competition in the technology and also the science, technology innovation in the areas of many technology and human intelligence are all potentially very important. it will not change so much for a job. therefore the manufacturing industry returns and provides more jobs. if this strategy in the military i think we will see some powerful things coming back. >> from the brookings
institution for that organization, thanks for your time. we continue our conversation between president obama in china's president with the heritage foundation, asian studies research fellow. return our topic to national security interests when it comes to the summit. you expect these issues to come up between the two gentlemen amuck expected to be discussed? >> guest: i'll think there's any question that it's going to be a hot topic. some of the things that will almost certainly be on the agenda to begin with a cyberespionage. basically at this point we've had lots of stories about china breaking into american defense programs, engagement cyberespionage. the chinese everybody some of these by claiming we are the ones being hacked. we are the ones being cyberassaulted and many of those come from the united states. in addition, almost on the agenda north korea. some of the territorial disputes
china hostetter pan and finally brought transnational issues and along the rooms will be mutual perspired for each other's core interests. >> one of the issues that came up for a spin described in the media is there is a shift happening when it comes to the asia-pacific. can you explain what the plan is? >> the administration and later to rebalance and back to asia payday, the idea is in the wake of the iraq and afghanistan conflicts winding down, where should america be prioritizing resources? given the economic importance of asia, given the security implications with multiple nuclear powers, north korea, basically the united states should sift its focus to the
regions. the administration is not simply talking about the military although that's a big piece, the diplomatic trade. there's multiple pieces in place as the u.s. tries to reemphasizes asia connections as all of its middle eastern and european. >> china perceives the pivot has? >> china perceives it as an effort to contain china, an effort to limit china's capabilities and counter china's rise. >> host: was that a fair assessment? >> guest: i would suggest china is peritonitis a-2 stromberg, china sometimes fails to recognize its own actions have consequences in a china is engaged in border disputes with all its maritime neighbors, many who are american allies will be a reaction. i don't think there is a scheming american president looking to contain china so much
is a push poll reaction to china's increasing assert us. >> host: will talk about these issues with dean cheng until 9:15 or if you want us questions its 2-025-853-8814 republicans. (202)585-3880 for democrats. 202-58-5382 for independence and if you want to reach us on e-mail it is c-span.org. you can also reach us by one of those, too. when it comes to china's president, but his philosophy when it comes to military security issues for some country? >> guest: xi jinping is going to shut the polys they are predecessors began coming saturday modernization with the military. this is not your father's pla. not a military to police and
quantity over quality. they are good students of foreign wars, so they understand that today and in large part by technology and high-quality troops. and so, xi jinping will invest in our defense budget every year for the past 20 years. at the same time, it's important to note china is not out looking. they need a stable international environment in order to facilitate their primary priority, which is building a national economy. as china's military is modernized with, what we see as more and more willingness to take risks in the belief that doing so furthers national security and creates national economic. >> modernizing with the military, with the focus? >> guest: one of the stunning things is how broad-based china's military modernization has been. we've seen a new aircraft
carrier, two new stealth fighters and ballistic missiles, cyberwarfare, rangers space capabilities including satellite capacities. at this point there's no part of the military citizen enjoying boom times and equipment resource is >> the justification but he? >> guest: first off the number two economy in the world's global economic interest in a right to defend them in second while china's military for a long time is relatively economically start, so this is playing catch-up. third of all, the american pitted japanese capabilities all require china to expand its military capacity. >> host: as china's president has military background? >> guest: xi jinping spent time as assistant attorney general, that he himself has never served in the military.
a pattern received for the lesser leaders. you have to go back to deng xiaoping is the son a certain uniform. >> host: aside from the military aspects, discussions are about cybersecurity. is there a sense the two gentlemen will come to some type of understanding how to best approach the issue from both countries? >> guest: they've denied any responsibility for cyberespionage and that's part. i think it would be on the same sheet of paper, never mind moving forward is going to be very difficult. both sites are concerned about cyber, but in terms of specific actions and whether or not you can control your own resources and efforts on the cheney's part is going to be a hard road. post of the topics for these today for meetings, was expected to to be discussed?
>> guest: we are going to see in the cyberaspect in particular an attempt by both sides to play out an agenda for some kind of cyberworking group already talked about by secretary of defense hagel and secretary of state kerry. north korea in particular will proceed forward and whether or not there's anything china can do versus the united states can do about it and hopefully more discussion about broader transparency issues. >> host: denise is up first on our call this morning for dean cheng of the heritage foundation. if you ask about issues the numbers on your screen. 2-025-853-8814 republicans. (202)585-3882 or independence. she served ergo, pennsylvania. denise, go ahead. >> caller: hi, i am wondering about the security with a
heritage and cato and the 501(c)(4) at the heritage foundation. i'm curious as to how they have their information on our national security. >> guest: at a small correction. we are a 501(c)(3). there's a significant difference there. you ask other chinese obtain information about security. a lot is reading media, watching c-span, reading pentagon report of the light. the chinese do a good job of trans reading field manuals or press releases. they are very, very close observers of military exercises and wars. chinese correspondents embedded with u.s. forces and while they were reporting, you can be sure they were met at the top leadership as well.
>> host: has china engaged one directly? >> guest: now, the u.s. has invited and the chinese have accepted and not the first time we have a major military exercise involving -- post a brief explanation of what that? >> guest: bottom of the pacific is one of the largest multinational exercises in the world. it involves u.s. and allies. australia, japan, philippines. china has in the past never been invited to participate. the u.s. has invited china to send one or more forces to claim the other folks in this large exercise. previously the u.s. and china have what are called passing exercises, search and rescue. if you're a dummy the side and then you basically try to find a man overboard.
this is going to be a much higher level exercise. >> host: chuck next room dayton, ohio, republican line. >> caller: the chinese that their military growth and businesses in the united states are supporting our government by loaning us money. are the chinese trying to approach it were sneak into the united states and take over quietly? >> guest: thank you for the question. we are not seeing china takeover buying out from underneath us. china invests in u.s. t-bills in part because they have a massive balance of payments surplus and frankly only two places they can put it. they can build the world's largest mattress and ticket underneath or go on to the only
place in the world that has the liquidity i can handle billions and billions of dollars and that is the u.s. bond market. china does this not in order to buy american -- by the united states because you keep in mind somebody would have to buy that. so whether people buy it in which awash or they have to discount that, in which case the buyer debt back at discount. either way we wind up winning. >> host: or previous god says china is changing. is there so investment in the military? to disk to new even though it slows down in china's case? >> guest: support to remember what talk about china's economy slowing down from a growth from eight to 4%. it's not quite a full blown recession. second of all, were not seen any indication the chinese will slow
down defense spending. it is trend continues for the next five years, then you'll start seeing a real debate about guns versus butter. >> host: .from santa maria, california, republican line. go right ahead. >> caller: hi, my name is john. i'm concerned about the chinese to buy a port processing plant in the united states. but sensibly it is to provide cheaper airport products are the chinese nationals in china. i do not see the cost benefit their reprocessing food in the united states in shipping it to china and instead, an opportunity for the chinese to obtain a footprint in the united states and further their political agenda.
i'm also concerned about the safety of the workers and the food distributed within the united states. considering the fire that destroyed a chicken processing plant and killed 20 workers there. how is this going to benefit china and the united states and it is definitely a security issue. >> guest: with regards to worker safety brute product safety china doesn't get the export its regulations or safety standards. they factor in the united states still has to abide by american laws, state laws and the like. in terms of china's interest in buying the company, the thing to keep in mind is china's leadership is concerned about to security. food security in two ways.
one is access to food and some of the most efficient food producers in the world. also product safety. in that regard, the hope is that purchasing an american country they improve chinese levels of food safety. certainly the potential for political influence by effect of workers is something that hopefully the federal election commission and others keep a close eye on our chinese contributions, cheney's obvious influence how the workers abroad in the united states. >> host: does the u.s. with her security lines at all? >> guest: we do. the committee on foreign investment in the united states. they review major says to be looked at, but typically is more on high-tech concerns, oil companies, commuter companies. >> host: chuck from twitter says you heard a lot about ella terry cyber.
will north korea be on the agenda? >> guest: north korea will be on the agenda and two counts. one is the nuclear programs, which threatens south korea, japan, american interests. but also north koreans are a cyberprogram even though north korea never gets a chance to go on the internet. there are dedicated, we think, government and military units whose job is to do cyberhacking. >> host: how does the recent revelation about the nsa, intelligence gathering, is very current there as far as discussion released the two gentlemen will have in california but cyberissues? >> guest: insofar as this is a scandal, it is something the chinese will pay attention to because this is going to affect how much influence, how strong a president they didn't rock of offense. a president seen as being god by
a whole bunch of scandals as some of the chinese will try to export and take advantage of because this attention will be focused at home rather than abroad. >> host: milton, democrat line. >> guest: >> caller: good morning. i agree with president obama stood. he recently announced a couple to go. also china is a military threat to the united states and particularly when it comes to taiwan. eventually, china will want to reach out and take taiwan back in that some of the things i fear in how we react to that as well. >> guest: the taiwan issue involves taiwan currently considered the republic of china. they are the losing side of the civil war that ended in 1949 when john kai-shek evacuated.
after we recognize china in 1979 can we pass something called the relation not to make a commitment by the united states to provide time warner and that is still on the books and as a basis for things like maintaining an american institute de facto embassy as well as arms sales. china is not very happy about this. it is an unresolved issue they consider a territorial issue. taiwan is part of china from beijing's dave, something we don't agree with. the american military commitment ends up showing our relations with allies but also key friends like taiwan. the question the caller posed is one the pacific command, pentagon and others are worried about all the time, which is taiwan is the single biggest flashpoint, the place where we and the chinese rub up against each other in for a long time it's been considered the most
likely place that if there were a war between the two countries to be over taiwan. our military modernization and capabilities are oriented towards making sure we never wind up in a situation where we are going to war with china over taiwan. >> host: secured an original sense, who are china's friends? >> guest: china doesn't have that many friends. north korea, and economic basket case even by chinese standards in a responsible player. pakistan, his oldest friends used to be aligned with burma. it has a lot of influence over cambodia and laos, but both are very poor countries. and you compare america's allies, thailand, australia, philippines, we have economies more sophisticated militaries and frankly happier countries on our side.
>> host: how does china fall? >> guest: russia and china often agree with each other on things such as syria. they're both a line they want to keep the u.s. out of central asia, kazakhstan, to pakistan and sundry. part of this goes back to history a sign of the soviets really that bad taste in china small towards russia and conversely russia's population is dropping another to china with its huge population as basically a potential spillover into russian territory. >> host: dean, heritage foundation looks at security issues. our guest is the continue conversations in light of today's summit, st. petersburg florida. good morning. caller, go ahead. >> caller: all right. thank you.
i was asking why china and surrounding countries are pulling out of the u.s. dollar as if it's about to collapse. >> guest: i think that's a lot more hype than reality. at this time, china has led to allow its currency to float freely. instead, they continue to set it. it's about 6.6 to the dollar. essentially that means china's currency is a surrogate in some ways for the dollar because that's what dan. if you take a look at japan and south korea, these countries are hardly pulling out of the dollar as a reserve currency. what you're seen as china and australia, china and russia are agreeing their mutual trade doesn't have to be conducted through the dollar, but so long
as it's fixed, all you do is remove in an intermediate step. at the end of the date still tied to the dollar. eventually the chinese will want their currency to standalone and at that point but that we should worry about someone is deficits are out of control, that something that will be more likely with each passing day. >> host: china's first aircraft carrier. why is it significant they have an aircraft carrier? >> guest: china was the only member that had no aircraft carriers. so for china's navy to achieve this is a significant step forward in its military modernization evolution. another piece is china is conformed by maritime powers, japan, taiwan, so the carrier provides them additional capabilities. third of all, as china's global interests expand, a carrier provides china with the ability to project power from its own
shores. 36,000 people from libya and the libyan situation deteriorated a while back. they had to do it with no air cover. any future situation, in the middle east, it would be an important part of providing defensive capabilities, maybe even offenses. >> host: jim is teaching the chinese had a land an aircraft carrier. he's teaching them how to to drive it? >> guest: the carrier has been undergoing sea trials for the past year, said they've been learning how to drive it. russian and ukrainian leave it or not. it's gone through a number of different hands. it was basically just a whole when it was towed to china. a lot of the stuff on there, the electronics and catapults are all installed by the chinese. who's been teaching them? at the breaker question.
some reports suggest brazil which has an aircraft carrier in close cooperation including space. this probably tried to hire people from other countries and i suspect there's a certain amount of trial and error they do on their own. >> host: on hers, new york up next. hello. >> caller: thank you very much. given the fact china's economic and military develop so much right now, i'm one during how realistic it is that china gave the possibility to take over the superpower in the world. >> guest: by 20 to five look at a situation where china's economy in terms of gross domestic product may be the largest in the world possibly. it depends on a couple things including whether or not china gauges and