[inaudible] go figure. Level of the attacks only get worse to will only get worse. I fear that they will be able to pull off a significant attack that has real financial consequences. If you just take the Public Information by private security companies, we know that nationstates have been on our Critical Infrastructure truth they are waiting to costeffective capabilities in case of a conflict. We have a penetrative it. We know they were successful. We know they were successful on getting into our financial networks, large financial institutions, not once, but twice. Is somebody at some point is going to decide to flip the switch. When they do, we will have a significant economic, catastrophic event. Actuallys we are just fat guys. That is a losing equation from always. I fear it would take Something Like that to get most members of congress to understand the real threat. That i will say stop the nsa spying on you. Because they dont silently. Because they dont spy on you. We are finally seeing how sophisticated these gosar. It was an International State capability. It went to others. Now its medical records, financial records. Sony, maybe because its the entertainment business, but the psycheis on the public is i want to be a movie producer. Those guys like a lot of money. My fear is that if we dont fit here,ill, i think you are im not sure what it was a good idea. Again, i fear if we dont start getting on the defend ourselves side of the trouble. Parts were out of time. Thank you for doing this. We are out of time. I want to thank you for doing this. In a form commentary january. Daunting. Thank you. Thank you everybody. We will have more on the Senate Intelligence committee cia report this sunday on newsmakers with our guest john yoo. Memos,e several providing legal justification for the cia called enhanced interrogation techniques. On can watch the interview sunday at seneca a. M. And 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Here are some of the programs will hunt us we can on the network is taking it in a cspan q a, political reporters share stories about being on the campaign trail with mitch mcconnell. Canspan2, saturday night come on the teeth afterwards, political fundraiser and hate who is on the money in politics and how it has grown and changed. Eastern,hic are p. M. Shane harris on the militarys cyberspace to wage war. And on American History tv on the family, saturday at 2 00 on how Ronald Reagans career as an actor and his folks person for General Electric helped cohens communication skills. Sunday at it a clock on the presidency, former president harrison shows lift of his 1983 interview with former president vietnam, watergate, and his resignation. Complete Television Schedule at cspan. Org and let us know if you are wanting to call us the following number. Email us at the following address. Treat fleet universities in conversation, like us on twitter. X former attorney general, Alberto Ellis discusses new book on immigration policy and recorded in this week cia interrogations. This is one hour. A conservative and compassionate approach to Immigration Reform is the title of his new book, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales and David Strange. Judge gonzales, well get to the book in just a second, but i want to ask a couple of questions very quickly about the cia and the interrogation and what has been going on here in washington. Sir, what was your role in when it came to approving or knowing about the interrogation techniques used. Guest sure. Im not sure these are the kind of questions that can be discussed very quickly, as you said in your introduction. I could talk about them. Happy to talk him without them. I was on the council in 2002 when discussions about enhanced techniques began. George tenet, who is the cia director, felt strongly that he had information about pending attacks. They needed to find a way to gather information consistent with the law. So he asked members of the National Security council, with this predicament that he was in, and presented the option of enhanced techniques. Of course, that began a dialogue between the department of justice and the cia, in terms of what those techniques would look like, and based upon the needs of the cia in determining whether or not it could be done in a way consistent with the law. Of course, as the white House Counsel sat in on these meetings and sat in on the discussions. At the end of the day, it is up to the department of justice to make a decision whether or not it is something that can be done consistent with our loss. Obviously, i provide input. But at the end of the day, the attorney general has the say and what can be done consistent with the law. I have been asked questions about what was the president s involvement. Well, i can say that at the beginning of these discussions president bushs chief of staff what to the president know about these discussions. Obviously, the president of United States is filled with information every day, every minute. We felt that the president needed to know that we were in discussions about enhanced interrogation techniques. I recall a conversation with president bush fairly early, informing him that the discussions were ongoing and assuring him that we would be focused on ensuring that the techniques for effective. Obviously, that would come from the cia. And also that the techniques were lawful, and that comes from the department of justice. And that was very, very important for president bush. They had to be effective and lawful. I can say that subsequent to that conversation, aand the ensuing months and years, i was privy to conversations with the president where, it was clear to me, that the present had been advised may have been briefed on the specific of the techniques. I do not know for certain, but clearly there were conversations about the techniques that the president was aware of. As you read his book decision points there a particular conversations in that it was clear that president bush knew there was enhanced interrogation techniques. Again i do not know the level of , specificity the information was provided to him, but he understood what was going on. Again, the program moved forward with a clear directive that they be lawful. That they be effective. Of course, it was very important for the agency and the white house that key congressional leaders be informed have knowledge of what the agency was doing. And those briefings occurred, as well. So we moved forward. Again, with a clear understanding that they were effective and would be useful in protecting america and be consistent with the rule of law. The lawyers worked very hard to ensure they provided a framework with safeguards to ensure that the techniques were consistent with both our domestic and international obligations. Host what you think of John Brennans press conference and the release of the interrogation report . Guest well, i do not see all of John Brennans press conference. Perhaps i can respond to specific questions about it. It is a tough situation to be in, to be head of an agency and and defend or explain the actions of agency for an four events that occurred before your watch that comes with the territory. I felt some degree of empathy for john brennan in that respect. My sense is is that what he did is that he said the agency was charged with a mission to gather information and protect america, and that is what they did. I think he supports his work at his agency, as do i, quite frankly. He admitted that in certain instances, the Agency Agents went beyond the guidance provided by the department of justice. And that was unfortunate and should not have happened. And there should be accountability. I think that, in some of these cases, if not most of the cases, there was some accountability put in place. It is a tough chapter and i think that one of the lessons that one might gather from this is that, you know, in a time of war, there is extreme pressure. People sometimes do things that they wouldnt otherwise do. And it is very, very important to understand that even though you may give strong guidance about what is lawful and can be done, sometimes people go beyond that guidance. When that happens, i think it is appropriate to understand what happened. That there be accountability, and that we do things that we can to ensure that it doesnt happen again. But, again, i have heard people say never again. It is easy to say that now, but when you are in the heat of battle when there are threats tremendous against our interests as a country it is tough. I think we never need to lose sight of that fact. Host judge gonzales, your book opens with a forward that says there is something for everyone in this book to hate. How how does a conservative compassionate approach Immigration Reform . Guest well, i think that we understand that this is a very complicated issue. It impacts families. It impacts on our security it impacts our foreign . Policy. It impacts our economy. It is the very essence of who we are as a country, as a nation of immigrants. We have so many diverse implications at stake here that are implicated by any kind of policy passed by congress and signed into law by the president. It is inescapable that you have to compromise. People will gain, but they will also have to give on certain issues and certain points. That is the basis of the comment that there are things that, you know, everyone has a stake in this discussion. And everyone will have to compromise, from my perspective. Quiet frankly, sometimes it is hard to compromise. We have to compromise on something you think is important you are going to hit that. But sometimes you will have to make compromises for the common good. In order to be successful, it is absolutely necessary, in my judgment. I think everybody at the table has a stake in immigration policy Going Forward coming to that table with an understanding i cant get everything i want. That is just the nature of this exercise. Host besides being a numbers game, youre right there are substantial consequences related to millions of undocumented immigrants living within the u. S. And the possible negative consequences of having a basic, pervasive undocumented , community are many. Some of the more tangible issues include fostering disrespect for the rule of law, an economy that is floundering or stagnant. And the potential for Security Breaches by terrorists. Given that, judge gonzales, wwhat are two changes you would make if you could to the Immigration Laws of the United States . Guest well, i do think that we have some serious issues, with respect to security in a post9 11 world. I think if you want to get conservative support for any kind of immigration policy, there has to be greater efforts with respect to securing our border. Clearly, we are much more secure today than we were, say, a decade ago because we have put in place additional resources. We are using new technology. We have Additional Border agents along our southern border. So we have made progress, but it is very important that we have a secure southern border. The world, i am afraid to say we are not i think in some ways, it is a much more dangerous world than it was pre9 11. I remember my first trip to mexico when i was attorney general i visited my counterparts in mexico and we had some very candid discussions about the challenge that exist with respect to mexico and immigration coming into america. They were very, very candid and saying that the nightmare scenario was someone like al qaeda coming across our southern border and committing another 9 11 scale attack. They knew what the repercussions would be that the United States would shut the border off. And that would devastate the economy. So, they were really worried about border security. They were really worried about threats to the United States coming from the southern border. My reaction was if they are that worried about it, maybe we should be worried about it as well. I think focusing on the border is very important. With the economy, i do think that we need to have an immigration policy that understands it complements that actually promotes commerce within the United States. And we need to understand that immigrants are very important part of our workforce. I think that Legal Immigration can improve our economy, can result in increased jobs which will make jobs more available for citizens here in this country. So i think there needs to be more of a focus. Our immigration policy should be more focused on our economy. Driven by our economic needs. For example, we should have additional visas for skilled workers, additional visas for unskilled workers where those , needs arise. In todays economy and today situations, i think that is what it should be Going Forward. Host what about a pathway to citizenship . Guest it is becoming extremely politicized, and one of the main issues that has made it difficult to achieve any kind of legislation to make any kind of progress on this issue. The truth of the matter is many of the people who come into this country do not come tto this country to obtain citizenship. They come to this country to to pursue a better life for themselves and their families and their children. So becoming a citizen is not a primary objective. And, obviously, if the United States were to say we are going to make everyone a citizen, i think these immigrants would say, yes, great. We would like that. But that is not why they come here. For me, that would be a secondary objective, in terms of if people have been here a while, if they do not have a criminal record, if they pay their taxes then i would have no objection to citizenship in the long run. Provided, however, that they were not be able to obtain citizenship in front of those people have been waiting patiently outside our borders and have followed the law. I think it would be unfair to them and send a terribly wrong signal if we provided citizenship to these folks who came to this country unlawfully. If we provided citizenship in advance of those who follow the rules, i think that would be a tremendous mistake. Host in one chapter, you and your coauthor write the American People may resist the changes necessary, but leaders must ccommit to longterm thinking and explain why our efforts with mexico are good for america. Additionally, our Political Leadership will have to be tactful when dealing with mexico. Our southern neighbor is a sovereign nation and rightfully proud of its heritage and nationality. A matter institutional reform by outsiders will most certainly fall on deaf ears. Anything you want to add to that . Explain . Guest i am not sure i have anything else to add. As i said earlier people come , into this country migrate into this country because they are in pursuit of a better life better Economic Conditions and better opportunities. If, in fact, that was the situation in mexico, we would have a lot of unlawful immigration. And so but we try to be realistic in our assessment of what can be done. Politically, we have to be careful for example, spending resources dollars in , mexico. Many american citizens would rightly say why are we doing that, we have our own problems here in the United States. We need to focus on those problems. So we have to deal with that. And, of course, as you just read mexico is a proud country and has a long history of not resentment, but a great deal of pride in their own country. They would only there would only be so much we could do. But we have a great deal of cooperation today. I think we need to build on that and see what we can do to help our economy, tto share resources, to share intelligence which is already ongoing today. There are things we can do, but i think more, white frankly, perhaps needs to be done. I think mexican authorities if you ask them they have an understanding that there are some institutional improvements that should be made in terms of their legal system, criminal justice system. There are things that, i think, would help improve conditions in mexico. And i think we have some progressive leaders forward , thinking in mexico that are working on these kind of issues, and certainly when i was in government, these are things we worked on. I am assuming and i hope that those efforts are continuing today. Host who is your coauthor . Guest David Strange is a good friend of mine. He is from texas. He is an immigration expert. I am not an immigration experts, in terms of knowing the technical aspects of the immigration act. I felt it important to have someone join me on this project who had that level of expertise. So david has that expertise. He is an immigration expert. He is, coincidentally, taking a leave of absence from his practice in texas and is now a student at georgetown pursuing a National Security law degree so i have enjoyed working with david and he has provided the appropriate level of expertise on this issue. Which when you talk about immigration, youre talking to a lot of immigration experts around the country who no the immigration act well better than , i do. I felt it important to have someone like david on board on this effort. I think we have a fair product. I think it is balanced. And hopefully it will stimulate some discussion and make some progress encumbrance of comprehensive legislation Going Forward. Host 202 is the area code. 2027488001 for republicans. 2027488000 for democrats. 2027488002 for independents. Former attorney general Alberto Gonzales is our guest. He served as attorney general from 20052007. Prior to that, white House Counsel. Prior to that, secretary of stat