Various infection agents. This is a process. Revolution has increased productivity in enormous weight. It has leveled off. There will be problems. We will have to increase in significant ways. I have seen commentary from people that suggested it would be substantial increases. I am not sure. In the interest of time, i would like to take three more questions. This gentleman. I am bob. I have adhd. This has been very challenging. I do not understand a lot of scientific staff. I have a short question. Tobacco ise fda said healthy for you. It is good for you. Thank you fda. We believe you. That is not a question. That is a preface to my statement. [laughter] wrong. To me what is andave weeds, we have tests are yields not five, i appreciate the drought resistant crops. We want to increase our yield. Toxins,ed poison roundup, on our crops and their cotton to kill the weeds and the pesticides. Is this correct . The court, we or the cows and the animals digest the products that have these super with pesticides. Is that going into us or is it not . Residues ofting the the roundup. We are consuming roundup. Your kids are consuming it. Is that not true . All sorts of pesticides, including roundup will stop one of the problems with them increasing is the fact that large amounts of the same crops are being planted without a scattering of other crops. When you get past, there is a huge feeding ground. There are lots of ways in which modern art or culture has become agriculture has become very reliant on pesticides and fusion mounts of fertilizers. On water usage that is unsustainable. There are a lot of problems with this operation. The use of gmos is part of the solution to the. You can deal with a number of the past issues. I do not think that jeff would that if you were to roll back from our agriculture, mechanized production, you would have food issues. Is not just an accident that we have gone from 60 of the population being engaged in far more to a larger percent of the population. That is why we do not have global hunger. This,t to respond to because of the crops, the weeds become resistant to what farmers use. Because of the herbicideresistant crops, the u. S. Uses 570 Million Pounds more herbicide just because of the gmos. Cropssecticideproducing reduces the amount of right by about 150 Million Pounds. The amount of pesticides produced in the cops that crops itself is double per acre that which is displaced. We eat that pesticide when we eat the corn. We consume the herbicide and pesticide produced by the corn kernel. The amount produced it has not gone down. I want to take one question over here and now we will go way back in the corner. The demographic here is fairly akin to mine. We have on 11yearold back here. I will encourage everyone to patronize local restaurants. I would like to have a little bit of detail. I am hearing and will a lot of differences. There is so much going on with regard to getting gmos and those products labeled. You have people organic community. There has to be huge difference between me going and buying something that is labeled nongmo and buying something that is organic. You mentioned something about. He popcorn not being nongmo but you see the verified nongmo label. Clarificationome of the differences between oabeling of nongm. The question is the difference between organic and nonlabeled gmos. If something is labeled 100 organic, it potentially does not use gmos. , it iss 95 organic nongmo. If it says it is made with organic soybeans or something similar, it has to be 70 organic. There is no required testing in organics. There can be contamination in the sea or the field. It is possible to buy it without even knowing it that it is contaminated. Nongmo project has testing requirements. They have a 0. 9 threshold. Sometimes you will see organic and nongmo projects on the whole package. That is the gold standard. Organic has other attributes. There are many benefits. The other thing is this. Roundup is being sprayed on weeds and barley and rye and tomatoes and 100 different types of fruit and vegetables. It is being absorbed into the crops. If you want to avoid roundup, then i organic is best. If you see organic and nongmo products, that is the gold standard. It is tested. Organic has been around a lot gmo. R than gm oh as far as understanding this, it is virtually impossible. And youon the site, think it sounds interesting, and then you read the other information. That makes sense. It is very difficult. There is a whole pattern here of confusion. To thinks very simple that gmos are awful. Thee was a book called product is confusion or Something Like that. It is about how you create uncertainty about these things that people do not know what to believe. It is difficult. That is the way it is. Not as of gmos, but any number of these things. You get into the technical arguments and it is impossible. One of the aspects of that is looking at peoples credentials and using common sense about what their motivations might be. I apologize to those of you who saw hands up. Questions, perhaps the gentleman will tell you after the program. I want to go to this young lady. Cracked it is hard for me to because i also have adhd. I have one question. Are gmos good or bad . [laughter] the question gets to the essence of the question. Are gmos good or bad . You might think that is a planted question. That is my daughter. She is a 10yearold. I think there is not a problem of gmos. They are neither good nor bad. It is a process. As i was saying before, you can use genetic modification of things that create are really horrendous and you can use it to create things are beneficial. We need to think about that. As an issue with the labeling. Frankly, before i was thinking about it, and this is a few months ago, i thought it made a lot of sense. But when you start thinking about it as a project, and jeff has said a lot about food i would like to know. I would like to know what food uses pesticides. I would like to know whether that food has been growing where people are paid a living wage. What country does it come from . What youre asking for is an inventory of the entire food system. It would keep track of all the processes involved in producing something that we eat. You can say, lets label that. It is hard when you start getting into processes to deny someone who want Something Else incorporated on a label. Notreason the fda does support that is because Food Labeling is supposed to be about health and safety. Feel thateel, they there is not a health or safety issue associated with the process. There is, in terms of what is created. That is why testing is involved. Is an excellent question. I think that gmos she is good. We may beat someday able to manipulate genes individually i know what is going to happen. One gene could produce one protean and that is exactly how works. It is very easy. They realize that genes are networks and it is extremely complicated and it is getting more complex the more they look at it. Genetically engineered to mess up the dna pretty substantially right now. They do not even know how to test to see at they had done something wrong to human health because they do not know all the different laws of nature. I would say that. It is certainly possible that this process will become reliably save. Right now, i am confident that the process of health is too fraught with side effects, two new, and it was rushed to the market before the science was ready. It may be a Significant Health problem that we are facing. Im not even talking about the environmental impact. Everything that was sent to you tonight is mentioned in a book online. It is very easy to read and it looks at all of the talking wind that points. Points. It shows what the truth is. Recommend going online it is open source. You can read it and you will recognize many of the statements that were made tonight. You will see the scientific clarification. That there is a lot of Wishful Thinking about gmos. A lot of promises have been made that it will feed the world. They have not actually turned out to be true. Very quick, this idea of talking point. One of the reason that some of these things may occur as arguments again and again is that they are actually right. Many people are saying these things. They are not using them is talking points. The same arguments are made generally because they are well thought out. I think it is a little disingenuous to say that you have nothing against genetically modified organisms if they were tested enough. I have heard the same thing with environmentalism and other stuff. Not you personally, but everything is being done to prevent the kinds of testing that you would require in order to certify that something is safe. It is absolutely impossible to prove that something is safe. You cannot see any damage from it, given the kinds of tests that are done. You cannot make that proof. When field trials are ripped out by activists and when it is made very clear and difficult to do testing with these things, it sounds good to say, we love it, but it is not ready to stop when we accept it, but it is not quite ready. That is an endless path and we will never get there. It is a very high ground to take. The reality is that the world is racing forward and we cannot stop. All sorts of things are being introduced that have enormous implications. We do the best we can. Wisdom and knowledge have their own cost. Thank you everyone for being here and being so involved stop i did not see anybody nodding off. You were a great audience. I want to think or for their expertise and passion. It has been a privilege to be here. Next on cspan, a forum on immigration policy. Then a look at the state of the u. S. Gambling industry. And the iraqi ambassador previews elections. For over 35 years, cspan brings Public Events directly to you. Putting you in a roman at white house events, briefings, and conferences. And offering gaveltogavel coverage of the u. S. House. We are cspan. Created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago. Brought to you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hd. Like us on facebook. Follow us on twitter. At a forum on immigration policy, political analysts examined the Obama Administrations record on immigration. Minutes. N hour and 20 welcome everybody if i can ask everybody to make sure your tune off your ringers turn off your ringers. I hope this will be eyeopening to many people here. It is on a hot topic in washington. The obama immigration and. Nforcement the president has not followed the law. Given them pause that he is a trustworthy partner. This is central to the way republicans are approaching the next few months and whether we will have an immigration bill not. Or this is a hot topic. There are dreamers demanding it did return to the country. The issue of what has really with border and Immigration Enforcement is really the single most important , and we are really pleased to have with us three experts from across the political spectrum, people who are well sides,d by people on all independent thinkers who have done a lot of work. There are no newbies here. We have a lot of new data. Been the mostways transparent institution. They have put out new data that has helped give a brandnew window into many of the issues we have been talking about to give us a fresh perspective and a new look at old topics. Any of you who worked on this issue no mark well. He has been a longtime thinker and leader in this arena. Next week they are publishing what will probably become the definitive take on this. Mark is going to preview a little bit of that but not all. He has to save some for next week. To mark is going to lead us off. On thisbeen working issue and has been a great collaborator. Whenever we have questions we call ted to make sure we are getting things right. Lastublished this pamphlet year on illegal migration to the border. He will offer some thoughts complementing what mark had covered. Finally, jamar jacoby and a great friend of ours who comes from a different perspective, a leader from the centerright for Immigration Reform. I want to applaud her for her courage and steadfastness and trying to bring along a part of our politics that is not always anxious to move in some of the directions we want to go in. Immigration works as a network of Small Businesses we have been advocating for a solution to our broken immigration system. We are glad she is here today. Then we will open it up for q a to all of you. Mark, want to take it away . Thanks. Thanks for having me and everyone for being here. I will give a preview of the todings and encourage you check out the full version later. Im going to focus on the three key trends in the deportation system. The first is that u. S. Deportations, the system has moved from one that focuses mostly on informal returns to one that mostly employs formal removal. Let me explain what that means. When an unauthorized immigrant is apprehended they can be deported in two main ways. One basically means the person is put on a plane and sent home. The alternative is a formal removal. It has more significant longterm consequences. It means they become ineligible for a visa. It also means if they get apprehended for the u. S. In the future they can be subject to criminal charges as a result of that removal. 90 five percent of everybody apprehended in the u. S. Was supported through informal return, put on a bus and sent home. Last year that was earning three ercent. Thats a big change. There is a lot of confusion about whether this administration is setting new records for enforcement. We are talking about deportations on one hand and formal removal from the other hand. In terms of deportations the overall numbers are down. There are a lot fewer unauthorized immigrants coming to the United States. There are fewer people apprehended at the border and fewer deportations, but because such a higher share are getting removed they are setting alltime records. More than ever but not more deportations. The difference matters a lot. It is significant. Focusing on those removals, previously, almost all formal ,emovers involve a judge involves going before an immigration judge in having a chance to seek relief. Now most are handled exclusively by dhs. In 199597 of the people removed went to a judge and had a chance to seek relief. Last year 25 went before a judge. It went from three percent nonjudicial to 75 nonjudicial. Unauthorized immigrants are being charged with criminal offenses. Been a law on the that crossing52 the border without permission is a crime and being in the united istes following the order also a crime, but those were rarely prosecuted in the past. I think very rarely in 1997 about one percent of people apprehended at the border faced charges. Last year the number is 25 . Those criminal charges matter because when you are convicted of a crime you go to jail. You have a criminal record. You become for the rest of your life a convicted criminal, so thats a big change also. Recap quickly. We have gone from informal returns to mostly formal removal. We have gone from mostly judicial removal to mostly nonjudicial. We have gone from mostly not facing criminal charges to increasingly facing criminal charges. Longterm trends that go back to the mid90s. The Obama Administration inherited programs and funding that supported those, and he kept all those in place. All of those trends have continued. All three of them have accelerated under the Obama Administration. Thats a broad sense in which the administration has been very tough on Immigration Enforcement. The other thing the Obama Administration has done is create new, explicitly articulated enforcement forrities and guidelines prosecutorial discretion. What that has done is while keeping in place enforcement tools, this administration has focused on priority cases. Cutting to the bottom line, that enforcement. In in the interior, they are not getting these guidelines. Focus on Border Control. Administration tend to want to have it both ways. They want to gather and record measures of progress, but they want to claim constantly to be making progress. What do you do if the measures dont seem to show progress . That has been a real problem. Broad story is of progress. Fewer people trying to cross the border than any time except the early 1970s. Our Research Suggests the odds of being apprehended are much higher than in the recent past. If you go back to the 1980s and the 1990s, you have only had about a one in three chance of getting caught. You would get put on a bus and taken back to mexico. Today at least 50 , probably higher. Much of that is an economic story. A weaker u. S. Economy, fewer people trying to cross in the somewhat stronger mexican economy. There is little question that robust border enforcement is making a difference. It actually does better does matter that we have 21,000 compared to 10,000 a decade ago or that we have 700 miles of fencing, that we have aerial drones monitoring 24 hours a day. All that stuff does have a real mpact. Why do they claim the border is hopelessly porous . Some of it is there are places along the border were there are still high levels of crossings. If you go to the crossing at texas, and if you are a landowner you dont feel secure. Successive administrations have done a poor job of gathering administration. Obama came to office established effectiveness was operation and control. This was largely based on the patrol. Of border it measured capacity to respond effectively and to encourage them at different places along the border. It was a problematic measure for many reasons, partly because it relied on those subjective judgments. There are still very remote parts of the border where you see agents. They came out with a report that 44 , and that became a ightmare statistic. They decided to stop using operational control methods. I supported that decision. I thought it was a good idea. Their effort to find a replacement was badly missing. It was designed to throw together real estate values along with traditional come upent metrics and with an index. It never saw the light of day. The result was the administration didnt have measures to tell a story. What it fell back on was the apprehensions data. There is the number of arrests by the Border Patrol in any given year. There are individuals arrested multiple times. 1925. Ta goes back to Border Patrol has been taking fingerprints. We know there is recidivism. Is very goodion but hard to interpret. If they are making more arrests, is that a measure of enforcement . Is moreeople side it logical to read it the other enforcements that is better because fewer people are trying. They may not be coming for economic reasons. They may also be deterred by enforcement. They are down dramatically. If you go back to 2000 over 1. 6 million apprehension at the border. That fell after 9 11, rose again and fell in 2011. That was the lowest number since 1971. That has been a good news story that suggests the border is under more control than in decades. T small novel of entries number of entries allowed them to get a lot tougher. The problem for the administration is that it darted to pick back up. The economy has gotten stronger. Most of that is Central Americans coming through the texas corridor, but it makes it harder to tell the story of progress they want to tell. What we arguede, for is that this administration and future administrations should be gathering a larger range of data. Whats the apprehension rate at the ports of entry . People tried to get to the legal ports as well. What is the number of visa overstays . Thethis should be part of report. There are challenges. It definitely could be done. Theres a pretty good model for how to do this. The Border Security result was passed last year. Bill sets out achievable goals for Border Security and lays out how the administration should assess and evaluate progress to those goals. Just in case anyone thinks its impossible to find a consensus, that bill passed the Homeland Security committee in the house unanimously. Every democrat. Every republican on the committee voted in favor of that bill. Cane is an approach we agree on. Thanks very much. [applause] hello, everyone. Thank you for being here. These guys have done such a good job of talking about the numbers. Im going to talk a little bit about the political ramifications of the debate. The first thing to understand about this debate is you have one side saying we are not doing enough to enforce. The other side saying we are doing too much. Its the reason the debate can get resolved cant get resolved. I think of it as a riptide. In some ways the administration has gotten tougher. In some ways the Obama Administration has decided to use discretion. To tell which of the crosscurrents is what they are reading. On the one hand there is a big spending buildup. Hand there has been a culling off of workplace raids and calling off of the porting workers caught in raids and an important move for indiscriminate harassment to a much more targeted approach we have been hearing about. Me the most important theres this tightening, this loosening. What am i seeing . Whats the result of that data . Most important change is a change my predecessors have talked about, the change on the from informal sending people back on the bus to apprehending people, fingerprinting them, putting them in the system, making it a formal offense so the next time they come this is the important thing. If you get caught the first time you get the same consequence but because you were sent back in a different way when you try the it looks much more and you are committing a real crime and the consequences play out the way they are playing out. The ultimate point is there is more deterrent and the border is secure. We want a system where there are ample legal ways to come and go but its difficult to come in illegally. All these changes thats one of the consequences we are seeing. Andnt to take a minute speak in defense of enforcement. Is a longtimeo immigration advocate and spend more than a decade working to advance Immigration Reform, im also somebody who really and effectiveg enforcement is necessary. I think its maybe worth explaining my reason. We live in a globalized world where workers and families are coming and going. Mexicans work in the u. S. Silicon valley would never have happened without immigrant. People talk about a day without a mexican without a mexican. The economy would come to a screeching halt, but the point is the American People are not going to support that kind of coming and going, no matter how good it is for us in other ways unless there are rules. Control,ople feel in and unless they feel the people are people we decided to let come in. We are not going to support immigration unless there is a system with integrity, and that means rules. Good rules are the foundation of a good system. Today we are living with dad rules. We are living with the consequences of a decade of bad rules. Today we are living in an era where the rules are unrealistic and enforcement seems almost evil because we have these bad rules. To be aiming for a day when we have good rules and meaningful enforcement. Even in a climate like today you cant ask people to say a total is ok. G of the rules reasonable people can disagree about where the lines are, where the discretion should the. Should he decide to target criminals or should he try to arrest everyone . There are republicans who say there should be no discretion. We should be doing everything. I think thats an unreasonable position. Of course the government is going to allocate resources. I think more effective Border Control is a much more effective use of resources. I also think there are murky situations where one side can thats uncomfortable and the other can say that its acceptable. I think there are some circumstances it seems to me most of the American Public the violenthe porting felons there are not many people who think thats a mistake. The situation on the border is important because once you have done something once, you have been sent back, and you do it again, most people think thats unacceptable. Its one thing to cross once but to make it a way of life to flout the law, a lot of people say no. Looking the other way doesnt really pass. Bottom line, if you think immigration is good for america and you want america to remain a nation of immigrants you have to believe in enforcement. I want to step back and talk about political ramifications in congress of these ideas i am talking about. Giving obama a enough credit for what i am saying in some ways is good improvement on the border . Simon says no, they are not getting enough credit. They are doing better on the border. Why cant they recognize that . I would like to put it in context. There is a difference between having priorities and making allocations of resources. That is one thing, having an allocation of resources. Its another to say the law doesnt matter, im going to do what i want to do. Just taking the law in his own hand and doing what he wants. We are seeing this not in ofigration but in lots areas. Republicans call it executive overreach. They see a pattern of it, and its not just about immigration. Its obamacare and labor and the epa and drug sentencing. They have a whole laundry list. Issues mr. Cantor has 33. The point is, and its something where senator rubio was proposing something much like what the president did and instead of going to resident rubio senator rubio the unilaterally. It this is infuriating for Congressional Republicans and i think in some ways justifiably so. To be here, but this is where i disagree. I dont buy that obamas record is really good and the problem is republicans dont appreciate it. I think there is some complexity to that. Even if i liked the outcome of the memo focusing on interior enforcement and criminals, that doesnt make obama trustworthy. Make him a trustworthy, appealing partner. Case anyonelear in has any doubt, the road to a permanent fix on immigration runs through congress. No fix that doesnt include legislation. Obama cant do it alone. He cant do a real reform fix alone. Action,her unilateral its going to be a kiss of death for getting bipartisan action. Passing legislation in a republicancontrolled house will be the kiss of death for the next two years as well. If obama acts alone on immigration its over. You have to try to see this from the Republican Point of view for a few seconds. They see this as a trade. They see they are going to accept legalization of some kind and get enforcement, but if they feel they arent really going to get enforcement, then they arent going to want to give up what they dont want to do and i suppose you can say, and maybe simon will say you could say republicans dont look like they are going to act anyway. The president just act . I believe they are getting closer. I think Republican Leadership wants to act. I think more republicans understand we need to act. Ishink the question really when and not if, not pressuring the government to do things that are going to get in the way of an eventual legislative fix. Term we ought to keep our eyes on the prize. [applause] are going to take a quick 92nd intermission and move the 92nd 90 second intermission and move the chairs around a little bit. I want to remind people you are not only on cspan but on our internet feed forever. Make sure you do it really well and pithy. Give us about 90 seconds. We will be back with you. [captioning performed by nati ccopyright National Cable satellite corp. 2014] im using my mic. Do you want to use yours . Before we go, i want to thank, for putting this event together and andrea today. She been an amazing intern for a year and has done a lot of graphs and charts. He helped put it together. We are not going to sing happy birthday. Res, happy i want to start with one question, and then were going to open it to the audience. In our research one of the things we concluded from looking at the graph showing the increase in border removals and the crease in interior removals, and the latest data there were only 10,000 people supported who the United States neither had a criminal record in the interior or were a recent border crosser and meaning of the 300 70,000 people reported in 2013, only 10,000 fell outside of modern priorities, meaning the question im going to ask is do we believe it is an undocumented immigrant in the United States you dont have a criminal record and you dont leave the country, is the test of your deportation aluminate it . Chance of deportation is a lot lower than if you are a border crosser or you do fall in one of the priority categories. I wouldnt quite use the word a limited, but reduced. The word you live in a to the word eliminated, but reduced. Casual crossing has gone way down. Are people affected by border enforcement who are definitely tied to communities. The programing is where people are arrested in every jurisdiction of the country, when the fingerprints are sent to the fbi for background checks they are used to identify people for removal. Even though the program doesnt support a lot of people who dont follow into those categories, i think because it is so seamlessly integrated with law enforcement, it has a broader ripple effect, and im not sure people understand how narrow the focus is. I think it has had a much bigger impact than the numbers suggest. I would agree with the general conclusion that if you dont run afoul of the law the chances are fairly small. The border region is a big region. Its 100 miles to the border. There are people who may be living there a long time who could get apprehended. I think marks point about the border anecdotally, a lot more of these are people who live here before and may have and andrted and have families are trying to get back to these people. We would look at these differently. Wouldnt necessarily see this as priorities. At the senate bill a lot of them would potentially be eligible for legalization. There are challenges. You have got a fundamental dilemma. You have got to show serious credible enforcement to address republican concerns, but on the number are a fair people the democrats they got to be eligible for legalization. Is it appropriate to be targeting this . Are still real issues out there. I dont work with the data. I would agree with your assessment. Is withould expect these people crossing the border, its true people in the past went back and forth repeatedly. It was a way of life to cross repeatedly when the borders didnt mean much, when we treated the border as maybe a string of barb wire and everyone knew it was a joke. Crossing reputedly had one moral significance. Once you start to say, we are going to apprehend you and put you in the records and call it a crime and prosecute you criminally and you keep doing it over and over it has a different moral significance. Its one thing to cross to be with your family. Its another thing to make it a way of life to break the law. Im not saying these people are evil, but it has to have a different weight in the way we regard it if we believe in the rule of law. I am as sympathetic to these people as anyone, but i think it has a moral way. If you had better legal channels to allow people to immigrate and work in the United States and you have a legalization, you deal with a lot of these people trying to navigate through a dysfunctional system. Ofhave got this problem trying to establish credibility of enforcement without having made some of the changes to the legal system i think are necessary. I think you and i would agree on hat front. That onek we have seen of the messages to the undocumented community is you shouldnt leave the country anymore because the consequences the chance of you getting caught reentering is much higher. Significanten a change. The Enforcement Mechanisms are working much better. The second point is when you get caught the consequences are much greater, to the point where you might not even be eligible for legalization in some cases when there is legalization, so that could remove your ability to become legalized when the legalization process begins, so i think one of the things we have learned in the process is for those advocates talking to the immigrant community, we have to be more honest about the fact that leaving the country now is far more dangerous than it used to be and it can end up breaking up your family because if you have been here 20 years, you went back and forth and saw your cousins in chihuahua twice a year, and now if you got caught he would be returned on the bus and you could try again a few gone. Ater, those days are we have to be more honest about the consequence of leaving the undocumentedll the immigrants we care about so much. Im not saying good that people can go home for their grandmothers funeral, but its a reality. Lets open it up to this wonderful room of people. We have a mic. If you can identify yourself and speak into the mic that would be great. My question is for ted, but anyone can answer. If there is a lack of good data on things like apprehensions and who is crossing the border, how can we get those numbers, and morecan we do to make dhs accountable . I think it is improving a lot. I want to give it some credit. The data released a year and a half ago was the record that the Border Patrol collects on the sector by sector station by station basis on apprehension, what they call turn backs, which seen tryingho are to enter the United States and change their mind or whatever and go back to mexico. Think theyople they missed. These are people they actually cited. We knew there were 10 people. Ory only caught five of them more commonly, footprints and other things. They are very good at saying this was probably a group of 12 people. All of this data was released for an important report in 2012. It gave us pretty good data on apprehension rates. I think Border Patrol is too we used what they call the recidivism method. I looking at people caught multiple times and making an assumption of who will try again , and most recently we have aerial drones. You can do observations in the desert. Months,fly over four and if you are not communicating with the agents on the ground, you can say, this is the percentage we have caught. There are press reports that suggest an apprehension rate of about 50 . I have never been able to verify that with the government, but the data is not perfect, but its a lot better than it used to be. Its not clear to me this has penetrated leadership. I see a real commitment to improving data gathering into reporting this in a more systematic way. I think that will be a big step forward. I am going to come to you next. My name is lucas with united we dream. Im an undocumented immigrant. My parents rob me here when i was theyearold in 1989. Im originally from brazil, overstayed a tourist visa. My dad was my parents brought me here when i was one year old in 1989. Your numbers you have been talking about reflect the actual reality of the pain that families are suffering on the ground . The separation of families . How do these numbers reflect that i couldnt bury my father . I will Say Something about that. Starting with im sorry for that. Give is thatwould the administration has been pretty successful at focusing enforcement on people they say they are going to focus on. Supportivelso been about removing about 400,000 a year, so thats a lot of people. Even though those exclude a lot of people, they include a lot of people, and most of those people have deep roots in the community. You cant have it both ways. You cant do robust enforcement and not have a major impact on deeply rooted, longstanding immigrant communities. Your story goes to that point. I dont know the conditions under which your father was deported, but most people who are deported have lived in this country for a while, and many have families here. They may also have been previously removed or convicted of a minor crime or another apprehended at the border, in which case they are defined as a priority. There are a lot of people who have these connections in the u. S. , so both storylines are true. True the administration is focusing on those categories and that is having an impact on communities. I didnt think i would necessarily end up doing this kind of work. The situation is one where aat a lot of us want is program that would have allowed you to bury your father. The only way that is going to happen is if congress acts. There are a lot of people in congress who have insisted they will only act if they believe we are not going to end up in the situation we ended up in 1986 where we legalized 3 Million People with the promise this was going to be a oneoff and a decade later we have 12 Million People. You have to be able to say we do have a credible enforcement system in place. Been in some way the republicans will be persuadable. Im not sure. Then the logic changes. A lot of the reason i do this is the way to do this right is through the Immigration Program and the only way you do that is through enforcement. I think these need to go handinhand. They havent. I will say a version of what both of them have said. Its a terrible story, and its awful, and everyone can understand your pain very well. We do live in a time like prohibition where we have rules that are really unrealistic and we have rules that are wrong and people are breaking them, and that the situation you are in. He did something that wasnt that bad and got punished for it. The way to fix it is not to say that no rules matter and we dont believe in rules. An order to get the better rules we have to say we do believe in rules. Thats the state we are in now. In some ways your family and many others are suffering, but we arent going to get to a fixed width better rules if people think we are in a system where no rules apply. One of the questions i get asked about is we have to recognize if the graph is is a lag going on between the reality of what people are experiencing and what the system is doing today because in many cases if you read the New York Times piece about the backlog in immigration , there are people coming for deportation who were apprehended six or seven years ago under a completely different system than what we have, and what you saw in that data is far fewer of those people were being deported than they used to be. The courts themselves are implementing discretionary standards and letting far more people go because they werent apprehended under the same set of standards we are applying today. A really thoughtful piece in the New York Times using data that came out of the is thet the key thing anecdotal stories, many of them are things that happened two years ago, three years ago, four years ago, five years ago under a completely different system. I think both of these things can be true. Your story can be true while also this can be true. Thatmy basic contention the president deserves far more credit from the Immigration Community for having been responsive to their concerns and actually change the system where virtually its almost impossible if you live in the interior of the united dates and dont have a criminal record, its virtually impossible for you to be deported today. Thats a completely different 2009 whenn we had in all 11 million were under imminent threat of deportation at any time of day and its a completely different system than what the republicans passed in the house. House republicans have wanted rollback priorities. And reestablish a day when ice would create a reasonable threat of deportation. Republicans are on record voting for that in 2013. The contrast between somebody who has all who has only beinged 10,000 people responsive to your concerns and the Republican Leadership who wants to undo all those reforms and put the threat of imminent deportation back in the system immediately, theres an enormous contrast there. I think this is something we have got to unearth. This is very different from where we were a few years ago which is why i think we are having events like this. There is new data we have to help create a clearer picture. Im not going to rise to the debate. I could, but im in your house. Maybe later in the conversation. Thanks for coming and spending time with us. I want to get a couple of reporters, and we will come back to some other folks. I am jim. This is a very important issue for readers. Is if thisn i have is purely a republican versus or isatic disagreement, it really a geographic disagreement, and if its how is the experience of people in the border states with Illegal Immigrants different from People Like Us who live in the d. C. Metro area, where immigration seems be nine . Tbenign . A seems what we are saying is in some ways, despite the there is lessds, of the divide then you might argue. And the administration is going to say the border is important. Honestlyns look at it and they say adding a deterrent to the border is a good thing. Simon and i are standing here we are adding a new deterrent to the border and thats good. Think people in the government i think both of them realize both sides realize we are not going to get to affix a must we have a sense of rules that work, and maybe there are more agreements. Other point. I think years ago the answer was more yes than it is now. One of the major things that has unauthorized immigration has become a 50 state phenomenon. Even though the numbers arent as big and rural pennsylvania as in arizona, the rate of change is very noticeable. Phenomenon, so its not the case that only border district are concerned about immigration the way it was for many years. If you look at geographical impact, originally this effort to build effective enforcement started in california and texas. Operation gatekeeper really shut down the corridors. The result was all traffic went into arizona. You want to know why arizona became ground zero . It was because you guys started first in california and texas and all the traffic came through arizona. That has been shut down. The numbers are very small compared to a decade ago. Publicplaces where opinion is most affected is the southeast. There were great rates of increase of 300 in recent decades. Its interesting that despite arizonas historic role in this debate you have senator mccain two republicans being the most outspoken advocate for comprehensive Immigration Reform and the last senate round and the congressional delegation in arizona is 54 democrat. We are coming out the other side in a place like arizona in part because the flow is significantly diminished over where it was a decade ago. I am going to go to you. If we can get a mic over here. We have an actual expert instead of those of us pretending onstage. I want to congratulate you on verypanel for portraying a complex situation this nation is facing. All of these things are critically important we are taking into consideration. What i got out of all three speakers is you captured stuff we have been struggling with when ahe late 70s immigration started climbing up the dramatic pace. The strategic approach you described, how we move forward, how we got to where we are today. A measurement of what is happening out there. How can we get to the level of detail that is going to be meaningful not just to specific pockets in our nation but the nation as a whole . Legislativeneed for reform means there are policies that need to be set. One of the things i think is critical is that the strategic approach we took has worked. Togethers, who put these depictions, an outstanding job. Puts together what has happened. 1. 6 million apprehensions at the peak of a legal border activity. Were 8000 agents at the border at that time. Rorop in a 72 to 78 crossbo iimagine new york cityp of crime at half of that. We would be giving the commissioner, the chief of police, the governor a parade down main street. Look at what has happened. There has been that evolution. 1981, the border was climbing at a dramatic rate. You dont. It peaked out. Strategically. T were talking about data. Were talking about statistics. Critically important. What this admin describes emma what about all the other considerations, measuring the environment. Some things are deafening in their silence. The border. Trade is up to medically. Nafta passing 500 billion worth of trade. A 444 increase. German this growth. Tremendous growth. Growingon growth, dramatically along the border. Crime has dropped dramatically. It goes on and on. This is tremendous for the border. All these things going forward. Frome we get away [inaudible] leading to, where is it taking us as north america,. Just america, canada, mexico, and the u. S. Easurements i can go on for hours but i will not. Looking at the border through the appropriate lenses. We hear the Horror Stories i have heard some money times. Stories about 20 years old. It is the same one. Stories thatlized make the national news. How can we capture the National Environment of the border . What is the true National Environment . I will close out with we are country of laws and we need to that. Ue to be that. The only thing i would add is comprehensive Immigration Reform. I wish we could go back and titledcurity. That is what it is. Thank you. We will be able to get in two or three more. I will do a lightning round. Thank you for coming. [inaudible] [inaudible] i wanted to talk to you [inaudible] we cannot deny that reality. We appreciate being here and adding that to the discussion. I stick to my argument. We are not going to get it fixed if we go to the situation of anarchy and the American People looks at that. They will not accept the level of immigration. Anarchy to live with for a few years. We are not going to get there. We are not denying the reality of those Horror Stories. Youre bringing them here very perfect very painfully. We know the pain you are describing. It does not mean if we were to listen to that pain and say ok, lets everything go until the past law. I do sympathize although i have not experienced it personally. I do not wreck we know your pain. It is the case that a lot of people who fall into one of those priority categories do not necessarily look like real bad actors. Maybe they got convicted of a minor crime. Maybe they were previously deported and they came back in. Somebody who was deported 20 or to go and comes back in and has here with their family does not seem like a bad actor. The one thing the Obama Administration is looking at is adjusting those priorities. Ultimatelyd add is it is not a problem the administration can fix by itself. Even if we decide congress is never going to do anything. The administration does not have. He authority i advise you to years. Theyre still vulnerable and it is not something the president can fix without congress. Finding a formulation that allows the build to go through congress has to be part of the conversation if youre getting durable solutions. The political process operates on multiple levels. The dream act movement has transformed the discussion of this issue in this country. It was a transformative moment. Equivalent to the history of the civil rights movement. The senate now at bill or you look at the house republic on republican principles that came out. We have got the republican sayinghip on the record they favor legalization. Extraordinary progress. The reason i have worked on the border enforcement stuff, it is the last thing we had to persuade the republicans to get them over the finish line. I am disheartened with what is going on with House Republicans and i am trying to tease out optimism. On all the issues that you care about we have a pretty substantive agreement which is not where we were five or six years ago. Can we get it over the finish line. That is what changes the situation. Is the elephant in the room. I am disappointed. The eighth thought we had a good chance and i thought going into the house principles we were close and it has not happened. I do think that if you compare where we are to where we are in 2006 or at the time when romney was running, he used to have the hell no people were the majority and there were a few outliers who hardly dared talk about it and the hell no people ran the conference and were the conference. Hold off ande will hold onto the house. As recently as one romney was running he could say self deport and that represented where a lot of House Republicans were. He could save be due with the dream act and that is where House Republicans were. And i use a leadership saying legal status, you have the majority leader writing his own dream act. I dont think there is a republican in the conference to do not realize that something will have to happen and the Republican Party will have to be hard of the solution. It is about when, not if now. They are in denial and delusion. There like people who know they have to go to the dentist. They do not want to do it. The certified know they have to do it. I can put it off. They are in denial about how it doable it will be. I am not saying there they are in a place that is good. Last 10ally are at the yards. To throw that away by having the president do a unilateral act that gives an excuse to say we are not going to do it, i do not think that is smart. Lets do three and then we will take those questions and make our final comments. We will go to these. [inaudible] at what point does this become [inaudible] thanks to everybody for the discussion. Im also with adc coalition on immigrant rights. A twopart question. Is washington a border city . What is the 100 border mile around the u. S. It is misleading if we do not have an idea. The second is in terms of is whenity the question we say the president is deporting all may the dangers for males and terrorists. How do we explain the momentum and against compliance. Atcalifornia were looking massachusetts. [inaudible] i will address the first two questions. Question there is a piece i want to talk about. The difference between prosecutorial discretion prioritizing who is going to be focused on versus what you are describing which is the executive ranch exercising , certain laws not to enforce because there not in the national interest. There is a different understanding and none of us are lawyers. Constitutional scholars have written on both sides. Have far the executive could go if they decided it would not happen and congress. Terms of the politics of making a decision like that it is a very it would be a confrontational position to take. The types ofthan discussion we have seen. It would be may be motivated by recognizing congress but it will be the stuff of prophecy. On your question i think there is no question that there are convicted criminals who are defined as priorities who identifies your secure communities that are not serious criminals and terrorists. You have seen a broad reaction to security across different jurisdictions. You have jurisdictions that are going the other way. It is at the heart of the different views and people have about we should be using enforcement. There is no question the administration has focused in on cheeseor ties higher priorities. Is operated at the land border. Our coastal borders do not fall under that definition. I want to talk about the executive action question. Closely with people who are active on both sides of this issue. All for the president a becomes a calculation of can anything happen with congress and i look at the time frame through the summer. If the republicans had not made some movement, i do nothing it will happen this year. I do not think it happens for the next two years. I do not see congress during this in 2015. What can the president do and he can do quite a lot. I am not sure that the politics are necessarily bad. The message that sends it as if youre not willing to legislate i would do everything within my executive power to fix this problem. Dare the congress to challenge them in the courts. You could claim that might force side. On the republican you can go to political strategists and see what they say. Has tried hard to go down issues. On addressing i do not think were there yet but we can get there pretty soon. I am not sure why anyone asks many more. For what its worth. It is not a cold corpse up there now. It is on life support. I would not bet you a cop of coffee a couple of coffee but not a cold it is where talking about people in leadership positions. They want this in the worst way and they are having meetings trying to make it happen. There is a lot going on up there. I still would not give it high odds. Not dead. Next year will be hard. Assuming republicans take the senate. It is not impossible. Everyone understands this it has to get done eventually. If you are a local guy face election there is not much advantage in doing it for almost everybody. The hope would be that some of those bigger concerns would have an immediacy. There are people today say we will do it next year. This is a better opportunity. There are a lot of people you would not expect to see we have to do it and do it next year. It will be 2016 seems likely. Imagine whether it is jeb bush talking about this and making it safe. Contested here so i do not rule it out this year or next year. Why would you kill it by acting this year . I hope someone will make that argument. My fear is he will act. If he is making a longerterm calculation it will be my legacy. Acting unilaterally advocating for unilateral hesitation on enforcement, never. It is one thing. When president bush acted administratively [inaudible] besides getting to a better position. I do not see anyone i can think of saying we will never get it ite so lets start making easier for people to go back and forth illegally. I do think the folks who talk about the 100 miles and so on. My conversations is that there are not a lot of actual agents positioned far outside the border itself. Talked to the person who wrote the i. C. E. Report. E were people who were caught not physically crossing tehe border. The logs of where these folks were caught, this is a material beng that needs to answered. Offve been vocally to get this ass and get resolved as quickly as possible. The second thing is getting to the politics. My concern and one of the meetings happened in this office. I have been a stalwart advocate for Immigration Reform for nine years. Nonlatinos in washington who spend as much time fighting for this as i have over the last decade and i am concerned about the way the community is attacking the president. Everyday john boehner gets up has lessthis, he incentive to move this year. The attacks have been making it harder to pass comprehensible Immigration Reform. Youas done exactly what wanted and he needs more credit for it. Every day that you are in front of the white house theres a lesson for john boehner to do a deal. He wants there be to be in equivalency, he wants to reinstate the regime. I think this false equivalency that is being created has been damaging to the cause. We cannot let the republicans off the hook. How many times, what else can we do here. 68 votes, we have all sorts of stuff on the enforcement side. Everyone who cares about the border, the border will be far more fortified. Theill get much more tools the customs and border will have for apprehension will get much more sophisticated after we passed the senate bill. I do not think were going to get this done in 2015, 2016. Is a leader and champion against Immigration Reform. Rand paul this by his efforts to portray himself as a more ecumenical leader voted against comprehension comprehensive reform. The republican primary will look 2007like what we saw in 2008. The republicans could win the presidency and we could have a Republican Senate or house and a president. What does Immigration Reform look like . I do not think any of us would want to see that. I do think that it is about right now. We have to put all the pressure we possibly can on the republicans, taking it off the president to my and force them to do the deal now. That weot be until 2024 get a bill that anyone is happy with. The political and comparative is to get this done now and keep the pressure on where deserves to be witches on john boehner and the republicans. Thanks for being here. Lets thank our three guests. [applause] to thank tomar for sharing her views. Thanks, student cam is cspans annual competition that en currents mid and will High School Students to critically about issues. Students were asked to that it area documentary based on the question, whats the most the u. S. Issue congress should consider in 2014. Winners are 8th gridders at Eastern Middle School in silver spring, maryland. To improveongress the n. S. A. s data collecting and programs. Ce you,ward snowden, thank thank you. For bringing to the attention of fact that the u. S. Government, the n. S. A. , is engaged in massive information gathering. 125 billion cell phone conversations. Lot in the media about this situation. Some right, a lot wrong. The examplesd you i gave you how important they core aln, the first qaeda plot to attack the United States post 9 11, we used one of these perhaps. To bomb the new york stock exchange, we used these programs. Are talking we about this in front of the world. Repeat something important, the n. S. A. Is prohibited from reading phone calls of americans without a court order, period, end of story. Do . It was hard to answer these snowden, for ed yar n. S. A. Contractor leaked thousands of details of classified documents to the public. These documents show the full extent of the n. S. A. s americans. E on the n. S. A. Is doing both data email,on of americans tois not limited in scope size, to people they have areable cause to believe collection of data email. Cans thats just one side of the story. Many people believe the n. S. A. Thing under aight fisa. Lled what the n. S. A. Is doing is foreigno implement the Intelligence Surveillance act, fisa, which is designed to try communications and information from foreigners who do believed to be trying to harm to americans or the United States. Has a lot that fisa of problems. I have repeatedly during my voted to raipress fisad redefine the responsibilities. And i think we have more work to do. Think if anything all the news that weve all endured over these last months about the National Security agency really way thatin a deep there are things that we have to do to reign in and provide oversight as members of congress in what the responsibilities of n. S. A. Are. The n. S. A. s message has with thever time technology. Of thehe change in technology, when gy back inaudible they have a lot of gullies eves dropping on hard wired telephones in peoples houses, technology was in favor days. Vacy back in those its easy to Access Internet and satellites community cases. Snowden released thousands of documents that revealed the true the n. S. A. To everybody, not just the American Public. I dont think with a hes done is ethical and right. I dont consider him to be a trait or because i dont think his purpose was to harm this country, i dont think that was his intent. But he cheerly violated the law. My viewe clearly in better ways for him to have proceeded. A lot of people have very feelings on what Edward Snowden did. Some people consider him a hero, some people consider him a traitor. I think the most important thing aat snowden did is start conversation. He started a conversation about what our government is doing and they are spying on us. And its a conversation that America Needs to have, because people need to talk about what that balance is and where that be. Nce should and before Edward Snowden, all we had to go on was the saying no, were not collecting your data. Well, we know thats not true. A very important conversation. The n. S. A. Is very the only way and to resolve that conflict is if Congress Puts this as their in 2014. E issue considered itt since 1975, and its causing enormous damage around the world. Governmentthe german you, and the brazilian canceling a trip to the u. S. Really needs to be i think afterd all these years its time to do that. It should thats why of the topics for congress. Are to learn more about our go to cspan. Org and click on student cam and tell us what you think about the issues these stands Want Congress to consider. Post your comment on student tweet usebook page or using hash tag student cam. Cspan the National Council for Behavioral Health provide a program to Mental Health aid to veterans, at 11 act eastern time. The American Enterprise institute looks at the fight against al qaeda. This coincide with the release an a. E. I. Report stating that u. S. National Security Policy is of alg to stop the spread qaeda and its affiliates. You can watch our live coverage noon easternn at time. I remember on saturday the first conversation i had, it from, about where are you whats your school, but it was about you crane, about politics, our belief in education and religion and after that thist i was like, wow, week is going to be intense. But its been really cool to see the evolution of all of our friendships, all of our bonds from just talking about politics, weve been talking what our experiences, weve learned, who weve met, and this is an experience ill forget. Er ive always been really cynical about it, i always thought i can never really go that far in politics, and caustic is such a cost environment, but different speakers ive met have chipped opinion thats been so ingrained in my head and thought, maybe i do want to make forfference and run something local and stay in my community. Because like president obama us, youterday, he told know, dont get cynical, because need anyon doesnt more cynical people, thats not going to help us relee the problems that we have. The things that gets brought up a lot about our generation is our social media. To express our opinions very easily, we can just send a tweet about what we think. I think that starts conversations and we like to talk a lot. Theres conversation, social media, and we just like to get our opinions out there. Whole week has been about learning. Small town where homogenicpolitically and theres not much chance for people who dont think the same to get their opinions out without being ridiculed. And being here with the other delegates has given me an otherunity to learn viewpoints and to also get my ideas out without the fear of thinkingnned for differently. High School Students from across the country discuss their senatepation in the u. S. Youth program, a weeklong government and Leadership Program held annually in washington. Sunday night at 8 00 on cspans a. Nd a recent Bloomberg Business week article highlighted the state of the u. S. Gaming industry in declining casino revenues. On washington journal we discussed the article with bloombergs gaming analyst. This is 40 minutes. Last hour here on wednesdays, of washington journal, you take a look at a recent magazine article. Today we are looking at a Bloomberg Businessweek piece with the headline casinos know when to fold them. Brian miller is the bloomberg. Ndustries gaming analyst your colleague wrote this piece for the magazine. You have studied this industry every day. How large is the gaming industry in the United States . Wethe gaming industry that look at at Bloomberg Industries is 38. 5 billion, the full year number,ear 2015 including commercial casinos throughout United States, but not native american casinos, which are very large in their own right. And then lottery sales, the lottery itself is a very large industry that somewhat specializes to certain states. Has been the history of casinos in this country . What has been the trend . What is the present day status . To the 1930s,ck 1940s, you really have one market in the u. S. , las vegas, nevada. 1970s, in the late gambling was also legalized in new jersey, Atlantic City. Late 1980s,e 1990s, and to thousands, there was a corporation of casinos around the country referred to as regional gambling markets. You had one major Destination Market in the United States las vegas and the las vegas strip, then Atlantic City with other little markets around the country. Even though the industry continues to grow, it is saturated and declining in some specific areas, certainly the more mature markets. One that we can discuss is Atlantic City. Casino revenue there has declined 40 since 2006. Your headline, casinos know when to fold them. What is going on . Is twofold. Roblem one, too much supply. Regardless of where you are, it really deals with how close you are to the casino. The problem you have in many , as other states legalized gaming, that sucked business away from casinos. Casinos have a high fixed cost structure. You have to have a lot of employees in a casino, with other amenities attached. You have to have a certain amount of business coming in on a regular basis. What happens is when you lose customers, those customers get a supplyble. That is problem. The second problem is a demand issue. What we have seen there following the Great Recession was that theynamics of the labor force in the United States had changed. There was a dual recovery for the upperclass wage earners had done much better, proportionally, than lower income people. We have seen people move from bluecollar Jobs Construction is a great example to retail jobs that have lower hourly wage basis. It sucks Discretionary Income out of budgets and they are able to gamble less. Host why did we see states start to build and approve more casinos in their regions and areas . Guest there are two reasons for that. One is jobs. Theis the employment at casino itself. Second is tax revenue. Casinos are taxed at the federal level, but then somewhat separately state and local follows the recession, or even from before, states look for ways to plug holes in their budgets and they look for casinos as an opportunity. They can be taxed at high percentage, anywhere from 20 to 30 . The incremental money going into fundseneral obligation of or school funds, they kind of use it as a stopgap measure to balance the budgets. The from the article, irony is that it was the economic downturn that prompted several states to expand their gambling offerings as a way to increase revenue. Maryland voters improve their first casinos in the 2008 referendum. Massachusetts legislators joined them in 2011. Illinois began to roll out those in 2012. They approved a maximum of seven resorts last year. Financial projections have been made with a gamblers sense of optimism. Ohio voters were told to expect more than one. 2 billion dollars annually in gambling revenue hyundai approve the first for casinos in 2009. The take was 821 million last year. What does this mean . You can apply the general rule of budgeteers being overly optimistic to anything within the federal, local, or state budget. But it really means is that you are going to have an issue because of these overly aggressive assumptions. Another example, online jamming Online Gaming is a relatively new phenomenon. New jersey is the largest state. The Chris Christie administration, when they put out their fiscal year 2014 they assumed that Online Gaming was going to generate 1. 2 billion in revenue that would be taxed at 15 . In reality, over that same. Of time Online Gaming is currently scaling to look like it will be a 100 million business. That is one example where government is really optimistic in what they assumed. Thats going to actual gaming. What is profitable . What games are profitable . Who is profiting . Att at the bottom guest the bottom line, everything is profitable. The way they gaming industry works is that whether you are playing slot machines, the most popular form of gambling in the United States, table games, blackjack, or roulette, statistically the casino will take a certain amount of money. Between eight percent and 12 . Over time the casino will keep about 10. For table games it is 15 dollars to 20. They make money on an ongoing basis regardless of what is happening. The issue comes in going back to that fixed cost structure and having too much supply. Are you doing enough business to cover your costs and be profitable . As far as who is in the mix, it is an interesting consortium of Large Public Companies that would be well known to the audience like caesars entertainment, who has 53 resorts around the United States and a large presence on the strip with many casinos in Atlantic City and other regional markets, with another one that is wellknown, mgm resorts in the las vegas strip, they have casinos down in the southeastern u. S. , in mississippi, but then you get into smaller, regional companies. And then you have one offs where it is private companies or it is loaned by a very local group in a specific area with one casino. That does not even touch upon the native american tribes. Four hundred 30 native american casinos interspersed around the United States as well. The public and native american casinos regulated . Casinos, itublic really is a states rights issue. It is legalized and regulated on a statebystate basis. If you are in las vegas, the casino there is regulated by the nevada gaming control board. They are not suspect to laws in other states other than nevada telling them that if they do not abide by laws, like in new jersey, their license can be revoked in nevada as well. As far as tribal gaming, each tribal casino is regulated by the tribe. Those are all different sovereign lands. You run into issues there if you are an investor if, for example, you give money to the tribe to they falter,o and financially, you may not have recourse there. Once you get into tribal casinos and tribal gaming, it becomes an interesting mix. You are just dealing with the tribe. Our viewers here, the question here is from twitter what is gaming and how is it different from gambling . Guest a good question. Theng is a term used by industry itself. Certainly, if you go to a casino and our gaming, you are gambling. It is most specifically answered by saying that those terms are more or less synonymous. Alex, good morning. Aller it just seems to be bunch of nomenclature to mask what seems to me to be drug addiction, marketing something that is as addictive i mean, i am not a drug user or addict, but my experience when i played roulette in las vegas 10 years ago, i won 100, i lost 100, my heart pounding, it seems to me that it is like a drug. They are marketing very clearly to the same thing that is alluring to drug addicts. This brief burst of pleasure. Host any thoughts . Guest you could say that gaming is really industry verbiage of taking the edge off a term that might have negative connotations. As far as problem gambling, that is certainly an issue