that's reasonably candid and releasing it. islamic let me take another question. >> it is formerly of the democratic national institute. a question along the state lines looking at the report on the issue of civil military relations and was very encouraged by that being the focus. there was a question i have

looking for for what should -- how should this affect u.s. policy and there is a reference here in the report to the united states allies better prioritizing its relationship. is that all or is there more? this is particularly u.s. assistance, military assistance, what does that mean [inaudible] and also what does that mean for u.s. priorities in terms of military coming after the taliban and al qaeda? >> brief answers, please. >> fi said this was a very important and unprecedented moment and in the event this doesn't feel anything and i indicated that we were opposed to it. i don't expect it to review everything but will remain an issue in the media and with the

opposition and i can that's very good -- that's a great start considering we haven't had a start ever. i don't think the media and pakistan wants to know why the military field and doesn't want to explain why it failed but the issue is we have the right to ask these questions and to put the pressure on them and this is the first time it is happening. that's a good enough for me. it's a great step forward. second, you talked about u.s. aid, and i think that the gentleman on this side said something about the policy. well, i tell you something else that's happening there in connection with u.s. and pakistan. that is worth looking at seriously. again, the same media and the opposition that is demanding the accountability of the military is also saying we don't really need this relationship with the united states. they are saying we don't need

this u.s. aid coming and i tell you what is their argument? today there was an article by the former government of the state bank, former senior vice president of an american institution who today has written an article in the media saying that we don't need u.s. aid and we shouldn't call for u.s. aid. why is it this issue has come up? for two reasons partly because congress is making a big noise, and the american media is also raising this issue of we are giving you so much money and what are you doing about it? well, here's the answer. in ten years, maybe 20 million has come into pakistan. as said, may 14, 15 million has gone to the military. after five that has come, maybe a billion has been skimmed off

by politicians. of the other for most of it is gone from budgetary support in terms of the balance of payments. it hasn't really gone into expenditures. now thing is the people in pakistan are singing where is this u.s. aid? we don't see it anywhere. we don't see it in the form of rising affluence. you know, poverty is increasing in pakistan so where is the u.s. aid going? why are we hooked on to this u.s. aid? of the beginning of the day and the end of the day most of the military, and this is what the military offered itself, this is the embrace of the united states. civilians, the people of pakistan getting nothing and then they say what is the big deal about 1.5 billion that everybody in america is talking

about? this year 200 million has been disbursed even in the coalition support funds for the first time the united states is challenging the pakistani army. three years ago the challenge was maybe 2% or 3% rejections. it's come up to 40, 45% now. where is this u.s. aid and that is why and they say we don't want the u.s. aid. perhaps this we get for time to time is certain in the military which is doing nothing and the politicians are not taking the hard decisions that need to be taken to protect themselves through both land reform and to do all the other things the rich need to do to bail their country out. perhaps this is what we need. and if we don't get the u.s. aid the military in politicians will take the hard decisions they are

not taking today, and that is what we really need, to stand up on our own feet so we can then negotiate to the united states not on any dependency but on the basis of matching interests. so, you know, people in the united states were talking about this great character. we see part of the stick from 1989 to 2001, the most sanctioned in the world. so what 2% we make things go from bad to worse and our military went off to get second-hand technology from china and elsewhere. okay maybe if that had continued a bit longer we might have come to our senses and put our house in order. because the u.s. aid when it comes it gives the ruling choices a high and they don't have to take responsibility for

doing the things they need to do. so it's better than debating this country about what's happening to our money in hard tax payers' money and we don't need it, we don't want it. let's say to the united states we don't want it. the media is openly calling across the board for the end to to our dependence on the united states regardless of the fact the military is hurting and the opposition has come out openly and said we don't want u.s. aid. >> let me take to other questions and come back to the panel. where did you ask and i will come back to it. >> najam, you lead to two -- you mentioned to indicators that gave you here in recent

developments have unfolded. but isn't there a third indicator which i think what really suggest maybe some people are coming to their senses? and i am thinking here about reference to something which i know was in the report hasn't been brought up this morning and that is the existence of the fact pakistan has an insurgency on its hands. it's got extremist groups whose agenda is a radically different kind of pakistani state. so, if it is, and to require progress in those other two areas that pakistan, the public, but elite and the public take a far more realistic view of the threat that is facing them and instead of recognizing or experiencing the result of that

insurgency without being willing to place the blame for it where it ought to be, because as we know, they have constantly redirected that towards the united states. so i'm asking who really is that not a third indicator which is i think going to be critical particularly of the other two to fall into place. >> [inaudible] i wanted to ask the question in relation to what was said about a couple of reasons for anti-americanism and pakistan. i ask you this because you're one of the few well-informed journalists in the media today is how much of a role does the media play in shaping the public perception as far as the

fostering concern towards the united states in relation to light does the possibly that much of a rule or is it the media? >> okay. thank you. i could start by addressing the question and thank you for the clarification. the history of sanctions as you know better than i is more complicated than you or i have time for just now. i mentioned the lifting in 1995 and the lifting again in 2001. i didn't mention the nuclear test in 1998 and the sanctions that followed that. and i would recommend for everybody is interested in thinking more about this in an bassett schaffer's book which is on how pakistanis negotiate and i greatly look forward to using that book in my course of the

international relations of south asia next year. it's good to you love a good textbook for your course once in advance. the deeper issue i think is about the conditionality of the relations between the united states and pakistan. i don't think that the relationship based on conditionality is the basis for the solid relationship. i don't think it's surprising that as mentioned the political opposition in pakistan and much as the population of pakistan is now publicly in favor of declining all u.s. aid and i would like to note here that even though kerry berman, the kerry lugar berman act has conditionality is that united states has to provide access to a.q., for example stevan the initiative meant to build good will -- when i read the act it

was in there. there was conditionality said pakistan maintaining the government and so forth and access to a.q. khan. my sense is it is the conditionality itself which gives the impression it's not a question whether pakistan has returned what the united states has paid for its about how the united states pays for it and if there are sanctions mechanisms when obviously feels that isn't a solid relationship. spiritless into the microphone, please. >> i talked about my sources of optimism, i didn't talk about my source of pessimism. [laughter] let me tell you more to make you unhappy. [laughter]

the thing is there is no consensus in the state government opposition or media on the issue that you talked about needs to be dissolved and this is the incredible thing. the debate in pakistan is about the violation of sovereignty by the united states it is not the violation of sovereignty by the taliban and al qaeda and everybody else. and there is no change in that. and the interesting thing is this is partly because of the way the military as leveraged at anti-americanism and pakistan in order to negotiate with the united states and now the chickens are coming home to roost area where is this goal? i don't know. the security president talks about to deal with in terms of

security just don't exist. today in washington you have a friend of mine i don't know how many of you have met him. he's in washington today. he was the head of nafta, an organization that is created to deal with the issue of terrorism. the office of the pitch minister secretariat and for counterterrorism. by the europeans and americans for this organization and sat with 26 employees waiting for the budget to come through. the budget wouldn't come through because there was no money to give in to million dollars to start this budget. and this was supposed to be of the one that you set up after 9/11 and he is a fine officer. then when he finally got the

money, he couldn't pass an ordinance in legalizing the set up. why because the isi said that the press minister should have this organization and they said no, the interior ministry should head the task force and so the ordinance was never passed because of this conflict, and he resigned from the office three months ago. as a come to talk about any internal security or internal action against terrorism, i don't see that happening in the short term. a number one. number two. something else is happening. again in relation to the war on terror. and this is the bad news, too, that the media and opposition are now saying to the government

you must order the pakistan to shoot the drones out of the sky, but if you are feeling an american response to a joint control over the drones, pakistan should stop them from moving. this was part of the resolution of the parliament that was pushed through by the support of the media. so you know, the thing is on the one hand the media are talking about civilian institutions and peace with india and control in the media. on the other hand, they are pandering to the public opinion by fanning anti-americanism, you don't need u.s. aid, we need to stop the drones and this despite the fact the pakistani military has gone albeit in a very

low-key manner to say that they are useful this despite the fact the pakistani government now on the drone of policy and that they are useful. so we have this as i said the good news and the bad news, which is why it is a very difficult and complex time. >> if you want to listen to the analysis i would encourage you to watch the program, those of you who know, which means in between us, and i hope [inaudible] four or anyone else, the perspective what he's mentioning is one of the most popular tv programs and also the recommend other than the books in the

negotiating strategy have south asia's hand and i just have one point to make about this side what it means when u.s. aid, and one of the recommendations here is at least 50% of the money should go to police. i slightly disagree with najam the huge police infrastructure exists in pakistan. give them 35% of the money and they will ensure. it's a matter of resources. it's the intelligence bureau, the war on terror and a lot of money went to military when the frontier corps it gets money from the civilian budget but it always went to military. even that money i think at least

part of it can be focused towards police and law enforcement. the thing is technically of course if you were to eat with the police and give them lots of money they would do it, but the army won't allow that because the army has access some of which when the police even touch on the army so the reasons the army wants to run the policy even in spite of counterterrorism and internally because the army has a complex network he wishes to protect. >> get up close. >> can you hear me? >> i will just speak loud, okay? thomas cook from the woodrow wilson center. i would like to congratulate you all who participate in this

report. i think it's very, very timely, and i look forward to reading it. it sounds like it's a real contribution. the second point -- i have to points in the question -- the second point i would like to associate myself with in this discussion of u.s.-pakistan relations. it seems to me that the problem today is what it has always been, sometimes several interests coincide and sometimes they don't. and that doesn't make for a very steady relationship to get of course to the it is much more important. the risks are greater etc., etc., but the underlying problem hasn't changed. but my question is they are seeking advice from the panel. the wilson center is in the process of doing a study on u.s. aid to pakistan. pauley is the director and i am one of the participants. and we have come up with some givens that are pretty obvious and you have diluted to some of

them, namely that we've got to do a better job of explaining the mechanics of what is the difference between the appropriated money and obligated money and all that, so you don't have the spectacle that you've had of the finance minister saying we have got $345 million worth of aid only and then the american side says that's wrong with giving you 900 million. we ought to be on the same sheet of music and that's something on our side that certainly ought to be done to clarify and make an effort to explain what it is and what it is and and when it's going to come out and when it isn't going to come out. also, it seems to me and this is my personal view that we need a sharper focus, even though there are five priority areas, energy, education, health, i forget the others.

it seems to me when i've looked at this thing it's all for the line. and it would be a hell of a lot better if we only did one or two things where we could make a difference. it could be just education, just health, something like that. but that's not my question. it turns out that while there are a lot of faults on our side, one of the changes that holbrooke instituted was that 50% of the aid is going through the government of pakistan with ministries of the government of pakistan. and quite apart from the administrative problems that devolution causes -- and that's just one of those things -- our people are -- there's all sorts of complaints that there's a lack of capacity, which surprises me, frankly, after all these years. there's corruption, and mostly perhaps when we put money in phyllis the education we allocate $5 million. what pakistan does is cut $5 million from the education

budget. well, how do you deal with that? one idea we have had that has been discussed and this is what i would like your reaction to is instead of just granting money, we ought to do we sort of cash on delivery of arrangement where the building to be a school building, pakistan builds it and then we pay, or you do a partnership where there is 5054 whatever it is. but pakistan puts up the 51st and then we follow through and that's what my -- i would like your comment on the reaction to that idea. [inaudible] >> i think there's a narrative in this town pakistan, democracy, the government's will

come because if you get this and the way you get that is [inaudible] i think frankly that it is historical. no country default on the basis and [inaudible] people well as the same question. the point i am trying to make, and i wish the court had examined this before, i think in the 1970's pakistan regenerates 8% [inaudible] there's no country. secondly [inaudible] all kind of bills and whistles, conditionality, you must do this

i just put that in the face of foreign aid -- >> thank you. >> thank you very much. we cannot making the case for new aid so for u.s. pakistan engaged relationship your respective to look at the changes of the agents of change within pakistan already striking >> [inaudible] he was judged and there are people in pakistan standing up. there is a reform effort within

standing at to the extremists if the outside world has to help and i also just in one sentence, the book by one of the members of the study group, this was published a few years ago by harvard university press. how much money pakistan needs from north america and europe party and the growth report card last 2010. he says, and i'm sure it was published recently but talking amount of pakistan needs from north america and europe is $8 billion. four times more than the u.s. aid and so media providing them with more direction at times pakistan just need some skills and not money so that kind of

support is the work. >> this whole issue of u.s. aid, i'm glad we are going to do the study. and i would add some of the frustration that u.s. aid express' are probably justified. i have a different way of looking at this. i want to ask this question what is the objective of u.s. aid? is it trying to turn anti-americanism back with hearts and minds or nation-building? >> i think even the legislation is not clear about this over here. there are many different objectives, seven or eight different objectives even in the legislation and they will vary from short-term to medium-term to long-term which is why you have $5 million in the project and $2 million in a school project and so many millions and

40 different projects on the pipeline. not one has taken off in any significant way partly because of the things we are talking about. now, there was a paper that the general chianti gave president obama when he was here and i sure many people here have seen at. he says to me that one of his recommendations was that in all these projects to honor the big projects and ten or 50 or 20 american aid officials and a small secretariat project that might have been better. and i think on reflection i tend to agree with that. the hospital for the poor in every city if pakistan so that

helps determine and the health factor. we need them, we need money for big dams, but build something that is substantial. the bill business of spreading across the length of the country is leading to the raymond davis of the world and leading to the question of how much money we are getting and why the money is not coming and so on and so forth and people on both sides wringing their hands in despair. they're doing the same thing and the military and pakistani government don't tell whether they are coming or going. so we need to think about the short term goals and longer-term goals and about which has more priority for

projects are more attractive to corrupt people, and that it would be better to identify those who are proven effective

philanthropists and so they have a helicopter thanks to the u.s. government, and so that would be my suggestion is to have a mechanism where one identifies those that have already been working without largesse from the united states or other sources. >> let me take the last three questions together with. >> my question follows upon previous comments. im and international health consultant, and i guess my first comment would be that it's interesting to note that almost all of the suggestions and comments in the report appeared to be pretty much the same as the ones that we identified and asked for solutions to in the

1990's. so where have we gone? and secondly that this discussion seems to be entirely oriented around the u.s.-pakistan relations, whereas i think the most critical factor in the development program is the gradual eskridge of the international community and the increasing cynicism of the community about, speaking of the development bank, the imf, a whole range of them on the results pakistan has been able to achieve and in many ways the blockage has been done by a good deal of the pakistan bureaucracy civil service on the implementation of many of the

programs. >> in the interest of time that's enough. >> my question is about [inaudible] very different from pakistan. from musharraf to tackle and so many other attacks on. is it still we can say the military doesn't want to clean the house from this argument -- >> if it is in fact true that

they are not to take action and the military wanted the finding and cleaned the soft [inaudible] any action against all these and then according to the military -- [inaudible] how you think about ending the mother to the relation. >> i'm in the private-sector and i agree that it is important to improving relations with india. what value is there to improving trade? i know that an official trade is part of the official trade but i'm not quite clear that as to

why that is not happening in increased. >> you have two chapters in their report and neither of those mentioned. could the panelist please address the issue? thank you. >> sorry i'm hurrying everybody because two of the panelists have to be on the field in new york. i will try to be brief. i think if he had the time to ask the questions it might have been something about whether we should take the emphasis off of the government to government relations. i don't know, i'm guessing. i'm doing more than guessing. i'm hoping, because that is what i would also recommend with regard to the comment earlier how the decision that u.s. aid and some other agencies in the united states is to work with

the government. the fact is to increase the credibility of the pakistani government and that the other side of that is that it also increases the perception in pakistan that the united states is supporting of the corruption, and i would recommend, again, more attention to supporting the non-governmental organizations directly. >> there are no barriers. it's positive all the way from both sides. the value to the trade with india is the pakistan army and national security doctrine of pakistan. the position is that the trade would lead to linkages and the creation of the vested interest from both sides for peace, and that is not acceptable or was not acceptable until recently and told the necessity forces you to open up something or the other. the national security doctrine of pakistan does not allow for

peace with india and linkages between india and pakistan. the indians -- my problem with that has been i've been saying you don't have to do it as appropriate policy. if pakistan doesn't want to give you the businessmen to go to india you shouldn't allow so the businessman can go to india. unfortunately the bureaucracy and the indian security services are now a problem on the other side as well. after mumbai and it is not easy to shut them away. the second thing is that on the question of the military intention and keep up with your capacity to tackle terrorism the military is all set now to give a briefing to parliament sooner or later about its budget, and the gist of that would be that we are -- we need a 100% increase in the budget because we are completely lacking the capacity to do anything. and the briefing is ready and

seated, and of their view is we need more money, we need more this and what to do this and we have a handful with india's mildew capacity building on one side and taliban on the other creating difficulty for us. we don't have capacity to turn in words and we open up another front so that is not going to happen. >> just to conclude, thank you very much for reminding us about the sanctions which was very critical because damaged the infrastructure in significant ways but if we are surviving to see its normal in the media. it's normal in the discourse what happened because not much affected and we are making the case for strengthening some of the institutions which are there. i'm afraid there is not much

time to talk about the treaty but not as much as it should have been but i would like to take the question that harvard who mentioned about whether there is the debate in the military. my assessment is there is in the pakistan army to tackle this. yes, she incompetence and one-half level and the two micromanaging at the level but it didn't -- one model which worked which think will work for the regions in the military as well but that has been the case. the military to lead and we fail to see the strength. was partly because some junior ranking officer responsible for looking the other way when the whole world could see that he

had this previous edition radicalizing people and responsible it's not helping. the change happened when someone asked this question would do you think about the human rights and democracy in his answer change the lead to a shocked everyone. change opinion and being led to -- the change in public would be enforced the military to act and give more courage to political leadership. i think that [inaudible] s second of concluding comment

when we were thinking about the bup alert we could have said danger. in fact the publisher manager of the project did a great job and showed me three. read it in danger, this event, green, had a twist which was a religious connotation and then blew and i did a search and blue is the color of peace and we said yes, blue is the color. >> let me once again, and hassan. i think the point here was actually bringing a positive aspect of what could be done and still can be done and with someone like me and hassan for that matter always a moment of optimism is welcome. so thanks for that. i sink a few other things

cannot, the civil relationship issue is a moment where we agree how it plays out we have to see but certainly i think should have happened before and that is to be acknowledged. we haven't talked enough about this but i think this is because we are talking of the u.s. and sitting in a u.s. audience this question which keeps on coming back as to what the u.s. can and cannot and should or should not do. i remember the discussion of what happens if u.s. aid goes and i remember in 2007 we were involved in a debate. this jury question on what the u.s. can and cannot do it and i think that it had reflected here the u.s. can help bring the civil military to bring in other

issues where pakistan needs correction and the other which i have been saying for a weigel is it has to be pakistan. the best the u.s. can do is not hinder but perhaps the changes have to come within pakistan so that is an open question. again, that remains. can the u.s. or any other actor change relations i seriously doubt it. needless to say i'm on that debate. [laughter] but let me also add here that i think there is a lot of discussion about the u.s. and pakistan, and perhaps there is need for more discussion about pakistan in pakistan and then we may see some positive change. let me just remind you this report is available online and copies of sight if any of you want to pick it up. finally, i can't leave you thought an infomercial. our next event is on the 26, which is next week, on india

pakistan relations and as much as has been talked about here is a critical issue and one of the speakers the former chairman of the national counterterrorism of 40. thank you once again and please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

and the cato institute recently released a study looking at u.s. immigration policy. the coast of the panel discussed how increased legal immigration would affect taxpayers, the welfare system and employment. this is just over an hour. >> thanks so much for coming. we are going to get started in a minute. well, thank you all so much for coming. i am laura renz with the cato institute and today talking about the new paper and answering the critics of comprehensive immigration reform. there are copies of front it looks like and we can always give people extra copies if you need them. recently stewart released a service to back up the discussion he will be the first speaker and we are glad to have frank sharry from america's

voice with us as well paid i will give you a little background on both and then had the podium over to them. stewart is an adjunct fellow for american policy. she previously served as executive associate commissioner for the policy planning council for the commissioner of the immigration naturalization service. he also works on capitol hill on the senate immigration subcommittee. and a prayer room at cato serve as the director of the immigration studies where he vote on military contributions of immigrants as well as the role of immigrants and high technology. frank sharry is the director of america's voice which he began in early 2008, and in an effort to focus on communications and media is part of a renewed effort to end comprehensive immigration reform. prior to heading america's this, frank served as executive director of the national immigration forum, one of the nation's leading immigration policy organizations for 17 years. his work on immigration reform legislation with a fleet senator kennedy featured in the hbo documentary. he also appeared on a host of tv networks and regular contributor

on the huffingtonpost.com. with that will turn the podium over to stuart. >> great. thank you, very much, and thank youtube cato institute for publishing the paper. i'm going to briefly go through the highlights of the paper, and then talk about some of the implications as we move forward in this congress. essentially the point -- >> [inaudible] >> sure. essentially the point of the paper was to see where it might be possible to bridge the division on immigration and the country by looking at five of the main arguments used against having some type of comprehensive immigration reform legislation so i'm going to get right into what the arguments are and what some of the

responses are. first that immigration reform will harm taxpayers. the argument is essentially that by letting in people or allowing tuesday people who have less skilled that there will be a big drain on the tax payers. but again, what we need to look at here is to compare the status quo to what a change in policy would be not from the tide of ideal world as if we were starting from scratch. and what we have now is roughly ten to 11 million people in the country illegally. what past research has shown particularly when we looked at the 1986 amnesty is when people were legalized, they had a pretty sharp increases in their incomes and their salaries. by being legal, they gave them made it easier for them to go seek out another opportunity

which made them less likely to be exploited. it also gives them more incentive to invest in their own skills so that would also increase their ability to earn more money and also to the extent people are getting paid off the books or under the table. it's more likely that they would get paid in a way that the contributions would get in the tax system simply put if you put it all together, people who are now in the legal status if they start having higher wages, more mobility and more likely to be paid in the formal economy more likely to see increases in tax revenue than we would to see decreases in tax revenue. the other part of that is to

accompany a legalizing people in the country, you also need to look at what are we going to do to the different this just from happening again where you would have more people coming in illegally and then one of the main proposals has always been and the cato institute argued this strong we is having a week for people to come legally particularly in the lower end jobs. if there is one thing you remember from this talk it is hopefully this. when people say people should just wait in line to come in and work, there is no line and. there is no wind to come and work at the lower skilled jobs. the only possibility for someone who then in another country burke were skilled jobs in the united states in the legal fashion is for short-term seasonal work, even agriculture for resort and come for the summer and work a few months and then go back.

there is employers who want to higher than in the united states, they're essentially is no legal way for them to do that under the current system. the best they can do is to sponsor them be in five or six or ten years depending on the category might be able to come into the country illegally. but for all practical purposes there is not really a line for people to get into. so there's been passed research on this question and i won't go into all the economic analysis of it but essentially the previous research had shown if he were able to have a system people were able to come legally through the legal visa versus their regime we have today or even a tighter regime of the tighter border enforcement, the net wealth benefit for the u.s.

households would be about a 260 billion-dollar difference, 260 million-dollar difference. so when you combine that it's going to be easier and more likely people to earn higher wages to have more tax payments combined with the idea that he would have people who come in legally versus the regime of the enforcement of a greater benefit for the united states and families you see that the argument that it is not a realistic argument in this case. related to this, and this touches on both taxes and cases in the moral argument is the newly legalized immigrants will burden the welfare argument, the welfare roll as essentially the argument that is addressed in the paper. again we don't see that this is the problem people to get this.

it is very, very difficult when you come into the country legally accept we make some exceptions for refugees. generally you are a least five years in the country before you are eligible to have access to federal means tested what we would call welfare programs. the rate is actually to the extent it even was an issue before 1996 we saw the statistics show there was quite a bit of a decrease in the welfare use after 96, very large drop, and even today when you are looking at fergus' citizens for the main cash program for the u.s. citizens it is about 1% per individual that use the afdc or tanf which is the cash welfare program and it's basically the same for them on the citizens as well. it's less than 1%.

food stamps you're looking at very similar about 7.7% for natives and about 6.2% for the non-citizens, and 3.9% for naturalized citizens and this comes from the house ways and means committee. now, it is possible that some states have more generous policies, although the data on migration doesn't show the people that immigrants are more likely to be flowing to some of those states. and it's also possible for a family with an immigrant to have a native born child who would be eligible for benefits so there are -- so that would complete the picture that it is possible for other people to get benefits. you know, through the u.s. born child. on the other hand also other things they native born child it's hard to have a calculation that's fair if you're only going to come the cost of the child u.s. native born child when the

child is young but not count the tax contributions when they grow up and start taking the net contributors. i don't know about you but i think most of us were when our parents were young and it's the case in general but when you do the calculation the only puts the kids of the cost and not count them as contributors to the society as when they are adults that's coming to be somewhat misleading as well. and that doesn't even get into the issue the way our social security system is structured that new workers are hugely important to helping fund our social security system. the third argument is also made is that amnesty will get more amnesty in other words by having, by allowing people to gain legal status that will just encourage an endless flow of

illegal immigration and mostly it is looked at as the 96 act where we did provide amnesty and then what happened? eventually ease legal immigration came back very relatively quickly so there are two issues. first there has been some research that has looked at this issue, an economist looked at this and basically did not see that you could see the difference and illegal entry before and after the 1986 act, but the main issue was the failure of the 1986 act was in that offered amnesty. the reason the illegal immigration increased is because there was no legal way you put in place for people to come and work particularly of the lower skilled jobs. so really what you ended up doing is put in harsh enforcement penalties and start some of the increases in the

enforcement personnel but you didn't allow the market oriented intelligent way of dealing with illegal entry which was to have ways for people to come and work legally. related to this argument is the question of what would constitute amnesty. generally speaking, amnesty would be that you don't have any obligations, but there are ways to structure any legislation in which it would put obligations on people be add jobs, legislation example relates to a agricultural workers, requires a certain amount of work, continued work in a calls y temporary status for a number of years. in addition, other legislation has required fines that would have to be paid. again, those go beyond the typical when there are such things as tax amnesty and other things generally speaking you do not necessarily have fines.

people may want to say that no matter what, they are not going to accept the fact someone was once the legal status should be allowed to be once in the legal status should be allowed into the legal status. but again, that's not -- if you -- that's not necessarily the way we work in the united states that there's been no way for people to have some type of correction of their situation if there is a way to do it particularly in the legal framework the would benefit the country where you allow more people as to come in and work legally which would have a lot of benefits in terms of decrease in the illegal immigration and also held in with security because you would be able to focus more on actual threats of the border. another argument made that legalizing workers would undermine the culture and in the english language but the basic response of that is that we

really don't see that when you look at the children of immigrants that they are not learning english. by the third generation, you are looking at 97% of hispanic immigrants report ability to speak well or pretty well. when there has been surveys done hispanic immigrants asking whether they think it's important to learn english in order to get along in the united states. it's overwhelming. it's well over 90% say that it's much more important to learn english than to be retaining your spanish language. ..

>> we basically just haven't seen that. there's been studies at the state level showing there's no correlation between increased immigration at the state level and unemployment rates overall. same thing at the federal level. we just don't see it. i mean, the reason is there's not a fixed number of jobs. if there's a high school or college graduate or imgrant, they're going to become

employed, they're going to spend money from their salary that will help percolate through the economy and create other jobs, and there's also entrepreneurships are immigrants are very, very likely to create new businesses, and that creates other jobs as well, and you create niches in the economy that's very likely to increase our productivity which is something that economists have found in increases in productivity from immigration, so, again, we don't see that, that by letting more people in legally or by having some political compromise for people who are already here, that that would be an increase, an increase in unemployment, so i'm going to wrap up here with a short civics quiz because we

have the leading experts in government sitting in the audience here. i'll ask a quick multiple choice question here together for people. if a government program is ineffective and unsuccessful, what normally happens to that program? is the answer a, funding is decreased for that program. is the answer b, the program is eliminated. is the answer c, funding for that program is increased dramatically. what do we think? c? do you think c is the answer? [laughter] well, you are right because that is essentially what is happening with our immigration program as i would call it or enforcement program. we have starting in 1980, there were 1200 border patrol agents,

by 2000, there were 9,000 border patrol agents. does anyone know the figure today? 20,000 border patrol agents. funding on immigration enforcement is across programs has essentially doubled since 2004. what we see is that the current policy is not effective, has not been effective, and what we see, although -- what we see again as the answer c shows is that the answer has not been to try something different which is to have a legal valve for people to come in and work legally, but the answer has been to keep spending more and more money essentially on the same thing. i hope some of the facts presented in the paper help this continue on a path where we can think about no longer having a policy of where we simply just keep spending more money on the

same policies that really have not worked. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you, stuart. i'm frank sharry, a group with america's voice. stuart has done a very capable and admirable job of laying autothe facts of the debate. he's been one the top thinkers and researchers and policymakers on this controversial and complex area for many years, and i have to say it's really nice to be back working with the cato institute, and it's great to see dan griswald who's done research on this. back in the day, immigration reform was more of a bipartisan effort. there was a time in 2006 when

the so-called mccain-kennedy bill got 23 republican senators to vote for it. just to give you a slight contrast in december of last year, when a much smaller measure called the dream act was presented, only three republican senators voted for it. there's been a real shift. i sometimes wonder, i now am much more firmly planted on the left. for those of you who don't know and are placing me. i'll come clean. i sometimes think that i didn't leave bipartisanship, it left me. i'd like to get back to a place where we're trying to figure out because ultimately i think the populous on the right and the left are not a majority, and that there is a sensible central approach that could actually solve the problem and end illegal immigration. now, one of the reasons why the facts don't always pep trait the

debate is because there's such a different fundamental diagnosis of the problem. if of us -- many of us who support comprehensive immigration reform see immigrant as decent people adding value and growth to america and others see immigrants who enter the united states or enter illegally as bad people so right from the start is it basically good people subjected to a bad system? is it bad people subjected to sacred law? i'm big on the rule of law, don't get me wrong. i'm glad the founding fathers created legislatures to change laws when they are no longer working, and that's what those of us who support comprehensive immigration reform want to see happen, that congress will fulfill its constitutional responsibility to modernize our immigration system so that it

works better in our national self-interest, so we have a very different diagnosis. the bad people, good law, i would say sacred law crowd says what we need to do is build more fences, put more government resources into enforcement, and the idea is for the 11 million unauthorized imgrants in the united states, the only solution can be that they go home. they either get picked up and deported and pick up and self-deport. the name they've given to the strategy is intrigs through enforce. . we will see a big debate in in congress called mandatory e-verify, barring as many unauthorized workers as possible in hopes they go home. we're going to see more of the enforcement only strategy being debated in this congress. there's others of us who view is

differently. okay? i may be of the left, but i'm a free market democrat. i believe in free market. i've seen a labor migration from south of the border to the united states for the last 100 years, and it's picked up with intensity. i'm a realist about these things. you see, 100 years ago or more in the united states, there was a migration if from the rural south to the industrializing north; right? one the great labor migrations of the last 100 years. the same phenomena is happening in the last 5 -- 25 years. it will pick up again when growth picks up is that there's people rural south of the border coming to the new immigrant states in the south and in the mountain west in particular as well as the traditional gateway cities looking for opportunity. where charlotte, north carolina is during the boom times when the unemployment rate was 3%, nine of the ten new workers in

north carolina were mexican. you know how many came legally? very few. do you mean of them could have come legally if they wanted to? very few. as stuart points out, there's no line to get into, but there were jobs of plenty in charlotte in the construction boom, and while the charlotte boom adopt include this secret, everyone in town knew what was happening. that's called supply and demand. the only sucking sunday that we heard in the last 25 years has been bringing workers to jobs in the united states because they were available and they were going begging. now, obviously, that's changed with the great recession, but this is a temporary bump in what is a 100 year story of people moving to opportunity. the question is for us is not how do we stop a process which leads as stuart points out to more workers, consumers, higher

tax base and wages, how do we regulate that? this is where my democratic instinct the kick in. how do you regulate it so it's controlled, orderly, and yes, you take off the rough edges. i'm for controlled immigration that serves the national interest. here's the choice of policy makes given the facts, given the reality, given the fact there's 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the united states, begin the fact that 70% of them live in families, and 66% of them have been here for more than a decade. this is not a bunch of folks who showed up last week hanging out on street corners, although there are those folks. this is mostly a rooted family-based hard working community. now way what? now what? well, if the goal that we can all agree on is to end illegal immigration, then what's the best solution? the attrition through een forcement -- enforcement folks say if we just

ramp up enforcement as we have it's last 20 years, another 10 #-20 years, we'll rid ourselves of most of these people. they will pick up own go home. others of us say, well, we have a different approach. why don't we use enforcement at the border, use enforcement against illegal hiring, and open up wider legal channels for workers who want to come here on a temporary or a permanent basis, and deal realistically and humanely with unauthorized immigrants who are rooted in american society. that's what comprehensive immigration reform is. it's not an either/or. it's both/and. it's enforcement and legal channels so that we create a legal system. we end the black market in migration that serves on the the smugglers and the folks who break the law, and bring it under a regulatory regime that, in fact, makes sure there's a

line to get into that people come with the same labor rights as any other worker, that decent employers are not undercut by subcontractors, and we add to the tax base. a legal system that grows the economy that's fairer and creates greater growth. when they say we're open borders and don't want crock, -- control, wait a min, people who drive 11 million people who have been living here for more than a decade driving them out, you think that's realistic? won't that just drive people further underground. you hear about the controversial arizona law? the proponents say a lot of people left arizona. you know where they went? utah. they went to new england. they've gone to colorado which is why, by the way, utah had a different take on what to do. they said, we have 110,000

unauthorized immigrants working hard. let's figure out a way to have them come into the system, pay a find, it's not a free pass, they have to pay taxes, but they work here legally because they are valuable contributors. that's what we up against. it's a highly charged issue as you know, but i think that inevitably, comprehensive immigration reform will become the law of the land at some time. i wanted it to happen in 2006 and 2007 when george w. bush spent whatever political capital he had left on his last great fight. i still think he's a hero for doing it even though he's not my kind of president, but he had the guts to do it, so, you know, it's going to take what it takes, but i'm pretty convinced that the forces of that are driving this phenomena are going to lead to reform. demographic, economic, and political forces will lead to

reform. we have an aging society, and unlike in europe because immigrants want to come here, we have a population that is sustained, and in china, in italy, in germany, there's debates. we don't want immigrants, young couples are not having babies, what do we do? well, in china they want babies, but told not to. [laughter] so demographically, immigration is a life plod to america and one of our competitive assets going forward. economically, i know that people love to think about the static pie, but as stuart points out so brilliantly, the fact is we live in a dynamic economy. there's a reason why to put it in blunt terms we attract indian high-tech workers and mexican low skilled workers. it's because they complement and add to the dinism and creativity

and growth of american society. i mean, think of all the people in my generation to a married couple both post graduate degrees who have an army of immigrants making their two income lifestyle possible. that is the -- it's a human example of the complements we see in so many ways, so, and then finally politically, i mean, boy, you know, i used to get criticized on the lift a lot for being supportive of a policy that might make john mccain the next president and make george bush a hero for generations. right now, it's the other way. the republican party, i think, is committing slow motioned political suicide by alienuating the fastest growing group of

voters. it's asians, africans, and folks from the middle east. the republican party under gorks w. bush was competitive with those ethnic communities and immigrant communities, and now it's not. now it's not. not that democrats earned the vote by any stretch. don't get me started on them, but republicans keep pushing them away making the democrat's job very easy, so i just think that eventually the republican party will come back to its free market principles and realize that immigration properly regulated receivers our interest -- serves our interests economically, and it's smarter to reach out and compete for votes rather than make the people know you don't want them and you want to send their loved ones home. that's my hope, and if you are with me on this, let's make it happen in a matter of years, not decades. thank you. [applause]

>> well, great, thank you so much. we have time for questions from the audience in anybody has questions. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, absolutely. go ahead. >> you mentioned indian high-tech workers. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> working in the field and on the streets with many illegal immigrants, but not only la -- latinos, and we keep hearing we can't find the people in this country to do the low-level jobs, and yet we want bill gates

people out there -- [inaudible] [inaudible] this country and for the black community to do the work that you say the low-level work won't do because it's slavery, and i've learned that -- [inaudible] my question is, and i have mixed feelings about this because i know in my department a lot of this they do get welfare, a lot of them. they have their kids. they work hard. they are not legal. their kids are getting, and they are, food stamps, handouts, medicaid, you name it. that is part of the equation, but what do you think -- i think

that the law of regulation, whatever you want to call it needs to be shortened so that if bill gates says i can't find people to work for me, he gets them here with a green card, but the lower level folks come here, and we send them back to the border, but they are hard working. what would you do to make, like you mentioned utah or other states or get such a divided congress to jump on board and start thinking outside the box to make some of this happen. >> well, i think the things we didn't get into before, and we've seen the numbers increase dramatically from maybe around 4 million more than a decade ago to over 10-11 million, and even

though we saw somewhat of a drop in the recent recession, i think that those numbers, i think recent numbers showed they stabilized, and really what's happened is when we've increased the border patrol, it hasn't been totally ineffective. that's misleading. there has been an effect, but by raising the cost to entry, what happens is once people make it across the border, they make a calculation about whether do i want to go back and forth like they used to years before or people used to do years before, work for awhile, and then earn money and go back home, or once i'm here, will i stay here and try to bsh -- because i'm more likely going to get caught or there's 300 deaths every year by the border. we created what used to be much more of a temporary or circular

flow and make it a much more permanent group of people, and that's why the numbers went to 4 million up to 10 million, so some of the things you're talking about, i think a number of these people or these future people would be much more interested in a legal way to come in, work for a period of time, and then go back and there's not any benefits attached to the work, but you want some portion of them, some way for some portion to get a permanent status. that keeps illegal immigration down as well. you know, people who work out very well for an employer having a chance to sponsor them in some way, but i think a lot of the issues that people see would go away if you're allowed this sort of circular flow to take effect. now, getting congress to do that, i think generally speaking, it's been felt you

needed some sort of right-left compromise where the democrats are much more interested in dealing with the people who already here, and at least some republicans in the past particularly have been more interested in what do we do about preventing future illegal immigration by having some sort of temporary, you know, visa regime. that's where things kind of, the debate really hasn't progressed past that. >> [inaudible] >> well, i mean, that's an interesting question. i mean, utah has passed -- there would be a way potentially for the obama administration to allow some of what utah is doing. it could do kind of a wide scaled deferred action where they say we're not going to prosecute people or pursue people who have gone through a certain process in utah, but it certainly would be controversial. >> frank, what do you think?

>> [inaudible] people study here and practice medicine in other countries, but low skilled workers, you know? >> well, there's no question, stuart has done the ground breaking search on what's now largely discredited program, but, in fact, he lifted up the program worked to have a legal and orderly flow of workers to this country, and what happened when it ended, there was no line to get into, and the workers kept coming because there was a demand for their labor, and the origins of modern, you know, in our generation, illegal immigration came to the end of a functioning program that allowed what are the academics called so jowrners. i'm sure you found this in your work, they become settlers. they are the same people at different stages. some take their nest egg, make a business back home, perfect.

others get married and have kids and settle. it seems we can accommodate both and do so in a way that would be regulated, but at the same time, would save the agriculture industry in the country. i mean, look, we're going to have way debate about the mandatory e-verify in the congress. it's pushed by republicans and it will throaten the crop in the country. it's a threat. they rehire all the time, and everybody knows some estimates say 60%, and the best estimates are 90% of the work force in the perishable crop industry are unauthorized workers. you are talking about, you've seen it in washington, california, but all over and the fact is mandatory e-verify for new hires is going to, as craig of the agriculture industry says, it ends up with exporting food and importing jobs, and not just the jobs that are filled

currently by unauthorized workers, but by the three to four jobs that are related in the agriculture industry usually filled by native-born workers or legal immigrant workers so we're talking about a whole region of the country being threatened by a house republican initiative based on the ideology we can somehow force the people out of the country because anything less than that is going to be called branded the "a" word. i think that's unfortunate, and i hope the debate coming uplifts up the agriculture industry. my friends in the united farm worker union, they started a project, sorry i'm filibustering here, but i'm worked up about this. they started a program with their members and tired of hearing, oh, gosh, the immigrants are taking our jobs. a couple of form worker union members said in spanish, let's invite any american who wants to take our job come take it, and

we'll train them. they started a campaign called take our jobs. and they had thousands of inquiries. there was a website, it was promoted. it got wide play of all the people who contacted them seven native born workers are doing those jobs; right? i mean, this is, this is tough work, and it's skilled work, and i'm not saying americans can't, but they don't want to. it's as much of a status thing as a pay thing. the living conditions are tough and the pay is $12-$15 an hour. we have to get realistic about that reality. we can say, fine, we'll drive agriculture out of business and out of the country, but i don't know that that's really such a economic interest or in our security interest.

>> thank you. >> i know there used to be a member of the congress that used to go and work a different job in his district on a regular basis. maybe that program could be expanded to agriculture for members of congress to pitch in and help out. >> they wouldn't last a day. >> perfect. yes, sir? >> thanks for the presentation. sounds like there's a solid base of research in economics showing that immigration is a benefit to the united states or a break even or a marginal benefit. i think there's been a long series of studies showing the economic benefits of immigration, but it seems like, you know, my own view it's a major block which is cultural. you know, people's concerns regardly of whether it's economically beneficial or not, there's a concern among the american public reflected in the republican party and among some democrats there's a major concern of people from another place crossing in, uncontrolled,

and changing communities in ways people don't feel comfortable with. what do you think about that, and that's, you know, how you would address that if you are pushing for immigration reform. >> you know, i think that's true that there is obviously for very long period of time there's always been these cultural issues, but i do think there's actually, i think more recently, i think one the big dividing lines has been legal versus illegal, and i think the fact -- i don't -- i don't think people have the same, and i don't think they do have the same hostility to sort of having a system where people who come in legally and work and fill jobs versus now what they see is people coming in illegally and breaking the law, and that's where i think a lot of the hostility is created. i don't think it's purely that they don't like the look of people. i really think that there's a much greater, and i'm seen polling data asking, for example, what do you think about illegal immigration, and it's a

two to one negative, and if they ask what about the impact of legal immigrants on the state, and this was done in california, and it was two or three to one, you know, positive, so i think, the illegal-legal line happened more recently maybe as much as, and maybe there's a cultural element tied into that. >> yeah, i used to think that, but i think -- i'm starting to worry about how much culture is influencing and driving this debate, and i think, and i'm not talking about the people who write awful comments at the end of the newspaper articles, you know, the racist comments you sometimes read. i think it's more of a discomfort and fear. i've been working in this area for a long time. when i think about, you know, california had an eruption of immigration in the early 1990s

at a demographic turning point, right before the tipping point, and now that it's past that tipping point, when you ask in polls if you're in favor of giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, it's 90%. it's like it's over. in arizona where they are getting close to that demographic tipping point, and they had an eruption over the last few years, and it's not surprising in the new immigrant states of the south they are having their eruption. i don't want to be that critical of it. i more want to try to understand it, that there's kind of an unconscious perhaps but real fear that something's being lost when, you know, the evidence -- and this is where stuart is right -- the evidence is overwhelming. you don't have kids growing up in america in immigrant households even if their parents don't speak a word of english or

never passed the 6th grade saying i'm embarrassed by my parents. they want to lose their spanish, for example, and if they keep it, they are lucky because they can talk to their mom and dad, but outside of that, they speak epg lish. that are americanized quickly. how could you not be in this country? the reality is not one of cultural separatism, you know, demandses for bilingualism, this sort of ethnic separatist movements of any kind, quite the contrary. assimilation is alive and well, but the fear is something that's reel, and i'm not sure how we address that. the good news is that polling shows that when imgrants first move into an area, the negativity goes up, and over time, it goes way down which suggests that familiarity breeds community rather than contempt,

so i actually think that the fact that immigration is now a 50-state phenomena rather than a 10-city phenomena as it was a generation ago suggests that we may go through some very tough times, but that this cultural up ease like so many times in our history, will give way to kind of a sense of community that is not always easy, but is often dynamic. >> yes, sir? >> along the same lines of the cultural thing. what i looked into, it seems to me that the problems with the descendants of illegal immigrants have the exact opposite problem that the immigrants themselves face that namely that even though their language is, you know, they have great english and these things, there's a lot of problems with high dropout rates and high crime rates among the descendants of the illegal imgrants, but not the immigrants themselves. i feel this is an area that

needs to be investigated more. it's somewhat difficult to investigate, but what exactly are their descendants doing and how would immigration reform impact the way that their descendants grow up and live. i don't know if you have any comments specifically on how you think immigration reform would change or adjust that situation. >> well, i mean, i guess i just say briefly to the extent that parents are able to fully participate in society and earn higher wages, that's going to benefit the kids. >> i think, you know, there's been a significant number of crime studies that show that the crime rates are not higher among the imgrants or their kids. there is a socioeconomic lag factor with some groups of imgrants, latino imgrants in particular, and the question is whether that will like italians at the turn of the last century

gets resolved in three generations rather than one generation like it is for some other groups or not, and the evidence, you know, gregory rodriguez looked at this carefully shows that through intermarriage, home ownership, citizenship, language interaction, ect., that the embassies of assimilation over two to three generations are very promising and very good, but there is that socioeconomic lag that i think raises questions, you know, are people going to make it or not? we're optimistic based on the evidence, but there's a fair number of folks still in that first and 1.5 generation, and we have to see how they turn out. >> yes. >> hi, my question is for mr. sharr why. you talked about utah and the model used, and was that implemented on a broad scale? what do you recommend on taking

advantage of the documented workers like for example, fines and taxes because it's well-documented that a lot of time our views goes along with some people are not even paying. >> yeah. , well, kind of two questions. answer the second one first which is most poirs are decent in america, but there are bottom feeders who undercut them and take advantage of workers and deliberately seek out immigrants without papers to take advantage of them, pay off the books, don't pay the taxes, and they undercut their decent competitors. think of a two contractors bidding for a piece of work and one pays taxes and decent wedges and benefits, and the other doesn't. they can underbid the other contractor in a way that's terribly unfair, so we're all for going after bad actor employers. in the context of reform, we think not only do you want to go after bad actor employers, but

you want to reduce illegal hiring through employment verification, but if you do that, which is what quite frankly, the debate will be about in this congress, if you do this mandatory e-verify without mandatory work force, these people don't go home, but underground. it makes all the situations worse. less taxes, more unfair competition, more people standing on street corners, more unscrupulous subcontractors, lower wages, and i just think it makes a bad situation worse, so yes, go after bad employers, mandate employment verification in the context of comprehensive reform and make sure the work force here is legal and legal channels for people coming in the future. that's the fix to put immigration on a legal footing. utah, you know, we've been very positive about it. you know, honestly, if congress is going to continue to be paralyzed, i just might say, you

know, i agree with president obama on this. we don't want a 50-state patchwork of different policies. on the other hand, if we have the status quo or worse for the next 20 years, i might change my mind on that. you need authorizing legislation, like the welfare reform model of states do have the authority. i don't see that happening frankly and any attempt by the states is gummed up in the courts whether it's the more legal oriented channeled work. i love utah had the guts, a ruby red state to say we're going to do something different and help with enforcement, legal channels in the future, keep families together, and value our workers here without papers. it's a state version of what we want on the federal version, and i think it was a real, at the very least, a very strong message to both parties that you're up action in washington is going to lead more of this unless you get off your, you

know. [laughter] >> one thing that i would address what you're talking about in terms of exploitation is it's not in the pawrp, but i have a -- paper, but i have a book on immigration where i talk about one solution is to have a possible u.s.-mexico bilateral agreement where essentially in exchange for mexico giving help on een forcement at the border, the u.s. sets up a system of work permits, setting an annual total, and the work permits are portable. if someone has a work permit to allow them to work in any type of job, they would have, you know, pretty similar labor rights that the rest of us have, and that's really one of the best guardians of not being exploited and if you don't like where you are working, you can work somewhere else. >> yes. >> i'm from the state of arizona, but i go to school in

utah. i have respect for both places. you talked a lot about going forward, especially with national immigration reforms, but from a lot of people i spoke to in arizona, they regret even those who supported immigration reform what they have done. what do you think arizona should do now as a state rather than wait for the gnarl status quo? >> i'll let you take that first. >> happy to tell arizona what to do. since i've been telling it where to go for the last two years. [laughter] no. you know, i thought it was very interesting this year that the hard liners in the state led by the head of the state by a man named russell piers came up with a new package of really tough immigration laws, and what happened is the business community stood up and said, are you crazy? sixty ceos in the state wrote to every republican state legislature saying haven't we done enough to hurt our state?

please cease and desist, and they did. it was a remarkable turn about because the economic impact to arizona has been severe, the loss of tourism and convention dollars is estimated as much as $140 million in the past yearment i think arizona was helped, i know it was controversial and unpopular, but helped by the decision stopping it from going into effect. had it gone into effect, the impact on arizona's reputation and economy would have been worsement i think at some point it would be wonderful if arizona would repeal its law, but i don't expect that to happen. i think the courts will continue to stop most of the arizona law from coming into effect. i think it stops other states who are looking at copy cats if they do it like georgia has. i sure wish that this ferment at the state level though would somehow urge members of congress

to get in the game. in utah, for example, where you go to school, there's two senators, mike lee and orrin hatch. he was the co-author of the dream agent and voted against it last year. why? because he's scared of the fact he has a tough primary season coming up and saw what happened to bob bennett. the mormon church is advocating quite strongly for senator lee, a new senator to get in the game, and he's saying no. at some point i'm just hoping that some republicans will read cato institute's research and say that's who we are as a party. we should do this, but there's a popular tail leading the free market dog in a way that's really unfortunate. >> yes. >> one of the arguments that i hear frequently and that you

mentioned is about how one of the reasons why we need to have this reform is because a lot of the low skilled folks are doing the work that americans are not just willing to do. are there any economic studies out there that actually show, for example, just how much prices were to go up if we kicked out all the undocumented immigrants and attract american workers. how much would food prices go up and how much would restaurants charge because you don't have the busboys and waiters taking low wage. how much do all of these sectors rely on these workers? how much would prices go up in them? will that show what kind of contribution they are making? >> well, i don't know that there's a study done exactly that i mean, because it's so many factors to take intoing the. i think one thing that people need to keep in mind and often

hear someone say well, why don't they just pay higher wages and attract more workers. well, if you're an employer, you just can't raise wages, you know, through the roof because you can only pay people when it's still profitable to work it. if you had to raise your prices at a restaurant, people not only, you're not only competing for customers with other restaurants, but competing with the idea of just staying home and not going to the restaurant at all, and in grot, one of the -- agriculture, what we've seen is some growers lease land in mexico so there's actually unbelievably a way to outsource even agriculture production, so we shouldn't be surprised that when in this case it's really getting around government policies or government regulations that people who feel

it's in their life live hood -- livelihood in a legal way to find a way to still operate their business, and it won't necessarily be the way that's most economically beneficial to the united states, but it's a way for people to, you know, continue their businesses. >> what about the folks who are very anti-- they just don't get it. you exploit workers because you're paying low wages, but if you hire legal american workers instead, they don't realize how much the wages have to go up and how much it would drive the agriculture out of the country. >> yeah, and we don't know the wages. a lot of times there's been these raids, i think people are surprised to see that people who are considered illegal imgrants make good wages in some cases, but we still see that it's actually not even economically beneficial to the united states

to have people who have a certain amount of education or training take jobs just so a foreign national doesn't work in those jobs. that's not a way to live a life. i mean, people should work in the job that's best suited to them based on their skills, and it's really not official for the economy to have people with a masters degree, you know, working on, you know, for a lawn service just because we don't want to have other people working lawn service. i mean, obviously that's a silly way to try it run the economy, and so, i mean, the best way is obviously for people to work at the skill level, you know, that's most beneficial for them to have a fulfilling career, and if other people can fill in niches in other jobs, you know, that's beneficial to them too. >> all right. >> [inaudible] >> all right. we have time for one last

question, and then we'll wrap it up. yeah. >> i have a question for stuart anderson. >> i'm sorry, what was the name? >> i'll just get right to the question. you wrote about the program that frank mentioned earlier, talk about the finding about what happened to illegal immigration and illegal crossings when we expanded opportunities for illegal immigration, and we just had the case earlier this week of the truck entering mexico from guatemala with the 500 people. that's some of the cost of an illegal immigration system. what was the experience with the program when we expanded opportunities for legal immigration? >> all right. thanks, dan, that's a great question because frank eluded to it, but what the research really showed is that what happened is early in the 1950s, there was illegal entry going on in the united states, and the, the

immigration service decided to have a crack down, but at the same time, the ins commissioner at the time, general swing, went to the growers and said we're going to expand the opportunities for people to come in legally through what's a program for a way to work in agriculture. essentially, what happened is we saw a social science experiment that you've almost had results you never see in terms of cause and effect, and what happened was that the illegal entry as measured by apresencive at the border decreased from 1953 to 1959 by 95%. in other words, you just saw the number on the chart going like this. as the admissions go up, the illegal entry is going down. it was getting to a level of apprehensions that if we had that today, i believe it was under 100,000, cato would

probably not be having a forum on the topic because it's considered almost a nonissue. what that really showed, even though there's problems with the program, but that doesn't mean we would necessarily operate it the same way as then, but the basic concept is that if there's a legal way for people to work, they avail themselves of that opportunity rather than enter illegally, and there were concerns about the program, union complaints, the regulations got tightened around 1960s, and eventually the program was eliminated all together by 1964, and you saw illegal entry as measured by apprehensions increase by about 1,000% over the next decade, and so we got up to the point, you know, closer to the levels we

had, you know, say five or six years ago. now they've gone down a little bit in terms of the illegal entry levels, but essentially the bottom line is that illegal, the people who are trying to come in illegally for the most part are trying to come into work, and they are rational. if there's a legal way to do it, they will avail themselves of that opportunity. if we don't have a legal way for them to do it, what we've seen for many, many years of experience is that they'll try to come in illegally, and then the u.s. spends an awful a lot of money and researches and manpower in trying to get in the middle of that really what our labor market transactions. >> great, well, you can find copies of stuart's paper as well as other research immigration at cato.org, and i thank both speakers for coming today, and thank you so much for coming.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

?oation [inaudible conversations] . coming up next on c-span2, aviation discusses the safety of u.s. airport, and the conference on bullying in schools, and later a commissioner on the future trading commission talking about financial regulations in the dad-frank law.

>> at its annual conference, the u.s. discussed this about airports and they discuss what they view as needed improvements to airport infrastructure. this is an hour. [applause] >> and as randy and ed are getting micked, we will start with the next panel coming forward, and i want to again

just -- thank you, randy. thank you, ed. i want to introduce our moderator again. these are brief introductions, but i think that it is particularly interesting. my friendship with people in the aviation industry goes way back, but i think the longest sitting friendship is actually with craig fuller because we met as 172 pilots back in, oh, let me see, the last century, and -- it was actually longer ago than what seems the last century, but it was in the 1980s, was it 1985, craig? no, it was 1975. 1975 in los angeles where we were both pilots and both involved in a way in politics and so it's great fun to see

craig here today, and particularly because he is certainly gone much further ahead than flying, and he's actually just as comfortable flying and being in the air as he is being in washington and walking the halls of congress and the white house, and i think that he has spoken at more of our summits than anyone else. this is at least your fifth summit, and we thank you for that. we particularly thank you aopa for all that they do, and i know he's got a great bio as do all the panelists, and i will now turn it over to the president and ceo of the aircraft owners and pilot's association, craig fuller. >> carol, thank you very much. it's great to be back. congratulations to you and your whole team for assembling a wonderful audience here and in the room next door.

you've even very attentive. you've been very patient, and all that stands between you and a break and a lunch and all that good stuff. i thought i'd start with a little audience participation. don't get nervous or scared. we are hear to talk about airports, and so far this morning, we've had a great discussion on things that fly which is where my passion kind of lies. i flew for over 40 years as carol suggested. there's no better in relationship in aviation tween the pilot and airport. very few people successfully fly around and avoid runways. most of the time anyway, so it's very important relationship. what i found is that lots of people don't understand that much about this infrastructure that tom and others have talked about as a relates to airports. we're going to do a little pop quiz. going to give you some clues. there's about 29-30 major hubs.

probably all of you fly, used to flying in the hubs, the commercial carriers serve more than those hubs. actually, they serve 450-500 different operates around the country. 50 states, 450-500 commercial airports. it's daylight now across the country, and there's 5,000 aircrafts in the system that randy babbit talked about that the faa is controlling, and there's considerably more flying and over the course 50,000 airplanes are handled by the today by the faa and traffic controllers. i do have an official federal source, but when you think about airports across america, all airports across america, how many do you think there are? i said there's about 5,000 served by commercial airlines. if you think there's more than

8,000 airports, put your hands in the air. hands in the air. this is the participation part. come on, folks, this is quiz. keep them up. more than 10,000 airports? if you think there's more than 10,000 keep them up. more than 12,000 airports? aopa staff cannot participate. [laughter] more than 15,000 airports? people still are believing this. 16,000? 18,000? more than 19,000? you work for the faa? [laughter] a few have their hands up. according to the faa in 2008, 19734 airports in the united states. 19734. now, it's sort of a trick question because 14455 of those are private airports not available for public use.

private airports not available for public use. i was at an air park two weeks ago, a fantastic airfield with a 4,000-foot runwayment some people live on the private airports, but there's 5100 public used airports, some publicly owned by public eventties and others privately owned, but 5100 meaning that we have this amazing infrastructure that allows us to have this mobility that was talked about. commercial airlines serve about 10% of those. they do it very well. they move us around the country, but those of us who fly general aviation aircraft are able to go lots of places. i thank carol for the beautiful photograph above us. it's the mustang that gets people all over the country. if you're interested in that or like something larger, jack

felton is here today and will be happy to talk to you. i'm encouraged as i get around the country, and i now fly 350 hours a year or more, and as i fly around the country, there's opportunities growing, slowly, but it's growing. some places are not as much as others, but business travel is up. some of the air show activities that have already occurred this year larger numbers of crowds, people buying aircraft again, # so we're encouraged by all of that. ..

of the real-estate business of prominence in that region, but today, for today more importantly he is the chairman of the page county airport authority and represents a wonderful airport with a great success story that serves the general aviation community and we are going to hear from him about how it will have been. greg principato is going to help fill me in all the other representing the career parts because he represents the counter or international and works with all different airport operators are of the country and then locally here in our own when hampton who is the chief executive of the metropolitan airport authority is going to talk to us and share what i have to do to get into the dca.

but, anyway, it's a great group but i would like to start with and this really may be turning first to dan. we've gone through a business cycle that's been the toughest in 70 years the economists tell us. so it describes what happened at the page county and some ways be the odds a little bit with some encouraging growth certainly in the last year or so. >> i will try to keep this brief. my role has been to oversee the operation of the airport. the page county airport is a general aviation airport and we are in the middle between the landing strip and a big passenger hub. our main businesses dealing with corporate jets, charter flights, cargo and recreation so those are the users of the airport, and we are fortunate and we have

several runways, and by and large our recreational planes land in one section of the airport and takeoff on the big run way which is 7,200 feet that is where we deal with corporate jets and the charter's. so about eight years ago i was asked by the page county board to become involved in the airport because the airport was losing money. there were several scandals and the airport that the press was attacking from the county board and the political leaders over the inefficiency it was a big drain on property taxes for the area and they asked me to come in and run a leg of business. with that mandate, i assumed control of the airport and began a series of changes that dramatically altered the landscape of the airport. we went from losing $2 million a year to now where we make net

profits of $2 million a year. we lowered the property tax levy from $18 million a year down to $6 million a year. we have eliminated all debt the airport had 20 million in debt when i assumed the chairmanship is now debt free and we completed the recent economic study and economic impact now has grown to the hundreds of millions of dollars in page county. and the story of that would take about five minutes. you want me to tell more? >> let me ask a quick question and we are going to come back because we want to hear more of the story in pieces. i don't want to bring those in but you were at an airport in dupage county. >> we are owned by dupage county, and we are often placed under a state statute. so, our rules and regulations

were established by state statute, and we are on the tax roll, the property tax rolls and the was the big rub in the past that was draining the county property tax levies without producing much meaningful benefits. >> we are going to talk about the economic growth and what airports will deutsch and we will pick up with your story. lynn, i want to go with you and you are the airport authority. what kind of entity is the washington airport? >> of the washington airport is a municipal corporation. we have a board of directors appointed by virginia, maryland, district of columbia and the president but we are independent of all of those entities. we are organized very much like the portability of new york and new jersey with a multistate jurisdiction. we were privatized basically by the federal government back in 1987 now we are getting ready to go on our 25th year. over that 25 years we've done about $7 billion in

construction. >> over this economic slowdown, are you seeing things pick up? >> we are seeing some pickup but i will see something about the march defeat the washington market. when things are good people come to washington, when things are bad, people come to washington twice. [laughter] >> so gregg, tell us a little bit about the association and the range of the kind of membership you represent and work with. >> i want to think the chamber for doing this. this is the second or third time i participated in this, and i think one of the reasons we don't make more progress on the aviation issues is because it is sort of an internal discussion in the aviation industry, and the chamber of broadening discussions i think really serves it terrific service and carroll and tom and the rest have to make great job so i want to commend them for that.

our organization represents commercial service airports, so if you organize to exit commercial service you can be a member of our organization. we have general aviation airports and as part of our membership i see the representative from the authority here, teterboro, so teterboro is part of our membership. so we do have -- we do focus mostly on the commercial service reports that you talked about before. >> and are most of those -- most of the commercial service airports are public entities of one sort or another. we heard a couple different variations. but there are also private airports that have commercial the activity of knott. >> you have the one albin brann samford sample, but airports are organized in a variety for different ways. the anwar situation beckham the 80's i remember when that was done. there are some better city departments and some of our

regional authorities and there is a number of different i think i saw paul in the back who runs dwi. they are a part of the state government. but they are all one way or another except a couple exceptions you talked about, brands and flexible, one way or another public entities serving the community. i want to get in a little bit later to some of the mabey on favorable ways the federal government and the local entities being able to promote growth and take from that vantage of that airport economic engines. >> maybe we will get to that but let's bridge from the discussions we've been having about next-gen because obviously a big part of the next-gen discussions that are going on have to do with what is in the aircraft, how we make handling the air traffic more efficient and effective and reduce the distances between aircraft put

these aircraft are landing and taking off so what is in it for the airports when it comes to next-gen and how are you all thinking about that and then maybe we will start with you lynn. >> we are working on the aerospace issue coming to the airport that lead into next-gen. i think the scheduling issues are the key winner for the airports to be able to know that when and your plan is a riveting and can take off and having those safe arrival and departure is the win for the airport. >> greg, are we going to have, if we are managing aircraft more efficiently are we going to have congestion on the ground and how are you going to manage that? >> we like to see that next-gen begins and it's the airport. you need to take off and land. if you don't ever get up there and don't have a place to land, then you've got a problem. and right now this sort of leads into the point i want to talk abela little bit. right now you have a situation

where, as i said, airports are local entities run by the communities and you literally have a situation where the federal government with the cooperation really of the airline's is getting in the way of local entities being able to invest in those local facilities i know that you're in the real-estate business, sold at local development that could occur in a letter dhaka airport is being stifled. the airports are a real economic engine but it's actually people in the audience in the business community may not know this, but with a small exception it's actually illegal for selling hamburgers and so forth for the airport to generate its own resources through the user fees the way it is the most of the rest of the world. sort of the world you have airlines, governments and airports working together to invest. it talks about 2 miles of runway will take you anywhere in the world. around the world to understand that, they're investing in the runways. we have a system in the country

frankly i appreciate the fact mr. donahue earlier talked about the need for the airport improvement program and for that kind of investment, but the real thing for the buck, and what's user not the rest of the world, is getting away from the airlines and the government, getting away from the reliance on rates and charges from the airline which come directly out of the bottom line. the user fee situation, the international air transport association pushes this all over the world and use the investment results in the middle east and asia pacific even in latin america. you don't see it here because of bill law that was passed in the regulation that prohibits airports with the exception of what is called the passenger facility charge come exception of the $4.50, all of which by the way lands $4.50 -- i flew out of dulles the other day, that $4.50 i paid their rent for projects either completed or under way, and that is pledged out for another ten years or something.

1938. 2038. i don't think i'm still going to be working. maybe a young guy like gregg will become and that's just ridiculous. and so, they can't generate their own resources to invest in anything new between now and 2013, and unless it comes out of the airline's rates and charges that makes no sense and we haven't been able to get out of or political way in washington in the past the legislation that would increase the cap or get rid of the cap like we have in most of the rest of the world and the airline unlike the rest of the world they are pushing to move towards the fi system and government grants and having it all come out of the bottom line come here fighting us on this side because they want more control over the airport and it helps keep competition out. and i'm sorry to spend so much time on this, this is a critical

issue in the critical point. there's actually a couple airports, i think that midway is one, where they're pledged past 2015. a long time. so that mechanism is used all over the world to do these wonderful exciting things you're hearing about in the middle the stand to by the end of the dhabi and these purposes, australia, canada and the rest. we don't have that here. and the government and the airlines are passively in the working together to keep a boot on the neck of the economic growth in the airport. >> greg or either one, then we will get lynndie the command back into this. it was the will of the conference, what what the passengers experience, where what these charges go and what would they look like? >> one of the things important to note is that these do not pass through the government. they are collected by the airline for the airport, so they are a local revenue in that

sense. you know, it would be an airport authority would have to decide what you're going to do with this money. right now it is limited to capital. that's not the discussion we are having today. if we can get money for capital that would make me very happy. if we were able to get this, there's some things we could do. you know, we have a temporary facility that was built in the early 80's. if you stomp your feet in that particular facility will understand that it's a temporary facility. we have spent an enormous amount of money continuing to maintain the building. sending another 30 million to add conditioning in the area to improve the air conditioning. we need that. that facility needs to be improved not only because it's a temporary facility, but the airport is basically it can't grow until we are able to replace that facility. so, these are the kind of things we would look at.

this is important. the national airport we also have an old facility that was built by the airlines in the early 60's, and that facility itself has the same maintenance problems and baggage facilities that were built when it was new in the early 60's and again that facility needs to be replaced for the airport to run efficiently. >> let me pull you into this in two ways. first, let's go back to next-gen for just a minute in terms of how page county figures into this. you have the approaches and using the satellite based technology to fly a very precise approaches into that airport. so in some ways, those of us that fly into dupage are taking advantage of the elements of the next generation system that allows satellite based technologies. is that then growing at page county, is that something to increase in the future?

>> we are fortunate in that we don't have the issues with claims on the ground and we don't have issues of plans landing. we have several one ways -- runways and it isn't an issue. one of the things they did is try to determine where the airport got its revenue. what was the end come and the best source of income was fuel sales, mainly jet fuel. other fuel we have so of that but we get virtually no user fees. one of the reasons is we try to make the airport as inviting as possible and we are very competitive on fuel because that being one of the main sources of income we want to attract as many planes to the airport especially transient flights because the fuel of and when we got a lot of corporate jets who landed there and you love, so we have a 24 our customs so some of

our corporate jets and companies base their claims there. to develop the periphery of the airport with hangers and fpo is and businesses that serve the airline industry. as we are collecting a tremendous amount of rent where we build over the last eight years and collecting the revenue from the jet sales and fuel sales and to be able to pay down all this debt. >> there are parts that may not be on the ground but it obviously helps the tax base. >> that's another thing i was able to facilitate building other businesses on the land surrounding the airports especially the runway path because we want to avoid having

any residential structures for future problems. as we have a business park and a golf course and the mitigation storm water mitigation as well as providing a neighbor whenever object to the planes taking off and landing. so these facilities also bring in come to the airport and so our goal is to completely remove ourselves from the tax roll. we've reduced employment costs dramatically and i look at the employee benefits the employees were getting not only 401k plans but the purchase of peaden municipal retirement funds and wheat a matching, the airport was paying matching contributions for all three. the employees' overtime was triple pay.

it was used by the local political leaders on the spending contracts. reforming all that reduces the turnaround where we went from the losing operations and in fact since we've eliminated the debt we've been able to build up the big capital fund and we are paying for the widening length today. that's indeed million dollar project and that is being funded by ourselves. so, in many ways we've done an exceptional job, and certainly over siena exceptional airport but there are many others i see around the country where you see this kind of economic growth and activity stimulated by the airports with commercial, airports have commercial service as well as private service. are there some lessons here in terms of how you find the financing to be the expansion?

friends who work in the commercial airports to take a vintage of it. >> well, our financing in the past financing was handled by issuing bonds and tax-free bonds and of course the interest rate on the tax-free bonds is much lower than the taxable bond a and we use that initially because we pay all that off so we are not really a good example because we are funding everything ourselves. we are more fortunate now because of the growth in the income. for other people that is a problem. i heard the earlier panel talking about raising money when public-private partnerships and certainly that is a great idea. we've done that in illinois in many areas and that is a good vantage, and for the other airports to fund the runways and in fact traditionally we got most of our money for airport expansion from the faa as you well know, but we haven't gotten

much. we are hopeful we will be reimbursed for the money we're spending on the runway program and we will see. >> put in a good word for us. >> there was money that came to airports because there's a lot of shows already projects and that money hasn't been spent as rapidly as possible does that benefit the airports and have a lasting impact or is the short term? >> let me say a couple things about that. for those in the audience, what he's talking about is the million-dollar is in the stimulus package. there's actually two elements in the package. i will talk about this and mention the second is the expert on that second element and let her talk about it but the billion dollars of the show already spending that went to airports you could have taken their toll billion dollars and spent in a plant the, you could have taken ten times that and

spent in los angeles, a lot of other places. the decision was made to spread it around the country as much as possible and i think there are about 300 projects. the money was actually obligated very quickly all but a couple thousand dollars were obligated and about half of the time the was given to the agencies and the people in the faa did a really marvelous job of getting that money out the door and creating a lot of jobs to note and document how many jobs were created with that. one of the problems you could have put a lot of money into the atlantic or less angeles or new york or a lot of other places, maybe washington, but if it was a 15th of a similar limit on how much could go to any particular airport so a smaller part money goes pretty far in the runway extensions and so forth for the areas really important things that were done. in terms of -- there is no game

changer, people to work, got some projects and it needed to be done that would have taken a couple more years to do. it is good from that point of view. the fda deserves a lot of credit. the other part of the stimulus and i want a man to talk about this more if you don't mind because she is really the expert on these the airport bonds, two-thirds of all airports bonds are not tax-free, the subject to the minimum tax penalty on them and there was a two year holiday given in the on this that defies any explanation the bonds should be seen as private purpose bonds with the two-thirds are the market frozen in time and because of that provision that got past 16 billion total in airports were sold in the bridge would subject to a emt. you may want to add something to that. >> let me suggest it is our money. gregg is right. the billion dollars when the spread among a lot of airports was real money at the airport

but also kept between the airport systems so our systems we were kept 20 billion able to spend it right away because we had a lot of projects on the shelf. conversely we had $100 million, so that kind of shows you how this was skewed towards other types of business rather than the aviation that we appreciated both of them and it made a difference in both of them. gregg is talking about the at&t holiday. before we all knew the recession was going on is it or isn't in the august september 2008 many airports ran into a wall and could not sell bonds. there was no market for selling bonds and that was because as this provision that any of the revenue from the airport on this subject to the alternate minimum tax and the levels of the alternative minimum tax has not changed since it was created we did in the 60's, so that meant

that probably half of this room or more than half of the room is subject to the alternate minimum tax. that limits the demand for the bond. so, while we are explaining this to congress this was a problem to get to the market's the recession haven't and of liberty noticed the recession and people started listening and understanding if it was xl bonds we could build. so immediately when it was passed we sold bonds and did a lot of work in this to your period and as greg said it is now expired so now you're seeing again airports starting to get back into the market, but paying a penalty and the market hasn't taken off a lot yet so we are expecting the same kind of problem that we experienced because again the market for amt bonds is very limited. >> if we are going to have the

kind of expansion that i think carroll has spoken of in terms of passengers, what are the airports going to have to do? are we going to get new airports, are we going to expand the present airports, a combination of both? yes. >> i go back to the point i made earlier. airports, some of the best business people life ever met are the people who run airports and share their boards. there are some tremendous business, a lot of tremendous business talent running the airport's one was business person of the year in alexandria by the chamber but two or three years ago i guess while the predecessor - one or plus one has also got the same award. some really terrific business people out there but again as was said before, a report leaders are hamstrung and not everybody has the advantages you

have been los angeles and you look a lot of other places they are hamstrung being able to generate the resources to do the project's everybody knows are needed. when tom friedman writes the symbol of america's de que as compared to what is going on in the rest of the world, that's an airport the needs investment and great plans, she has a great mind for this but they are hamstrung in what they can do because they are limited in the resources. i want to go back to something lynn said before for the charge and user fees. lynn mentioned if it's not federal money it doesn't come to washington. for those of you conservative business people and the audience, there is a few i guess, if you were designing on a blank sheet of paper a way to finance infrastructure, you would come up with something paid by the user of the point of service, project related, project based, we have a couple former faa administrators.

it has to be approved, you have to consult with the airlines, not a single penny goes to pay the bureaucrats salaries or benefits, all the benefits you talked about before, not a single penny goes to any of that. it sounds like a really good strong conservative way to finance infrastructure, and by the world standards what we are allowed to do is so minimal that that is completely taken away. the government to grant program is not going to expand. not only do we need to expand it, we can even cut the government grant program. a lot of other of airports would gladly say no more government money. a lot of smaller airports would say no more government money let us generate our own resources and co and do these things but if we don't get there, if we can't do those things, the additional passengers that are being forecast out the next ten or 20 years it's going to be like thanksgiving day travel every day for them.

>> we are getting anxious to get into this debate. we will do questions in just a minute from the audience. i want to come back to dan. i have a good fortune of going out to austin texas six or eight weeks the are opening a new legal thicket of airport. one of the things i think those of us in general aviation are aware of is to the extent you can have a success story like the new airport's they're looking at in austin for a private aircraft you free up some of the demand on the airports that are used by the air carriers where there can be congestion. are you seeing people come to you saying what we want to do in our city and community what you've done in japan cut is this something that is replicable i guess. >> welcome the having unique set of circumstances and i wouldn't say that every airport is the same abuses they had when i took over, so in some sense it was

not as difficult to do as it may sound. the other airports in illinois, and we keep in touch with them and compare ourselves to all of the smaller sites around the country with our fuel sales and the number of takeoffs and landings that we have. and we've seen in the recession ending a nice increase in traffic and fuel sales, and we just one of the award so recognizing things they talked about. we did more instead of focusing on aviation was focused on the business operation of the airport. that's a little different. obviously we are all about aviation but we even thought about our offering regular passenger service to met with the cost to do that would be

huge. we would have to reconfigure the airport to have security sections and allow so that's something we think about but that's well-off. we are happy being a generation airport and i think some of things we've done in regarding the business operation compensation benefits and competitive bidding making sure we are keeping politics out of this some of those could be replicated but i think that the circumstances were almost unique and provided a wonderful opportunity and i don't know as much as other people on the panel you know more than i do but i do know about business and maybe that is an angle having some people who are good business people come and look up the business operations of the

airport. dfa a part of the airport is pretty well taken care of for. we take the snow removal and buildings in good conditions and maintain, security systems pfaa does more of the flight issues. >> you mentioned security. one more question and then we will get the microphones because we have time remaining. you mentioned security. when you've been around airports a long time as i have these to be able to hang out at airports, commercial airports one of the people i travel around as airports become in many ways an unfriendly place, the access isn't easy.

i guess i think i know the answer to this. what are you finding with regard to security and has it changed the way people interact with the airport's. >> the past ten years there's been a great change in the way the airports operate integrating and airports we've always operated safely that's the first thing all of us do. no one will ever sacrifice safety. it's the certification process. the process over the years has been a learning process. i will say in the last two to three years tsa focused on customer service. they've looked at it, let's tell people what's going on and keep things moving, let's work together with the airport to be about to move people safely through the security procedures. you know, we've spent enough

time looking at it to say how do we make people comfortable. if you go to the airports we see student investors in gold shirts that are out in the forces to be able to look at people and say is this person uncomfortable, can i help this person and reach out and make people comfortable. it is -- one of the things you see when you go to an airport or surveys show what are you expecting when you get there and they say i come prepared for anything. it's our goal to make sure that anything while they are there has an element of customer service. we provide restaurants and entertainment and anything to make people feel comfortable so when they get on the flight or they arrive is a good experience. tsa has been working with us especially the last three years or so to make the experience

better. >> we've even had a little bit more aviation activity if we understand correct 48 airports and just what were you gary miller in the back to help you get into -- >> i appreciate that. [laughter] unfortunately i gave the ball of the security clearances. i will start over again. >> we obviously don't have that much passenger business, we have charter flights and some issues but not many. estimate there's not a commercial service? >> we have concentrated on security of increased the size of the senses and invested in more areas and we have remote tv cameras placed all over the perimeter and we put electronic

gates and have blocks of certain roads and received the letter of accommodation for the improvements that we need. so because the securities and just the passengers it has to be obviously and the faa monster but increased security on the field and we did it. not having the passengers at the other airports certainly makes everything easier now that we wouldn't like to do it, but at this point there something we should do it in chicago of course could use another major airport but it is very political >> we've got one they tore up. o'hare and midway are on the political and the contractors

get a lot of business and that's as much as i going to say about that. so there's all kind of other issues but we really don't go into their turf. we are a reliever airport. degette flights from major airports are backed up and weather conditions are bad and i will say something else with keeping their runways clean, last winter we had the only draw emblem do you cope -- dry run way. we purchased our own firetrucks and we work with the local flavor department for her emergency issues. so i think from a business management point of view of the airport is a good example with the caveat we are not dealing with passengers and that's a big

caveat. >> i know you've got questions from the audience and it's a good panel and by the way i will say the trucks that run the airports to be really good job, but overarching point is tsa has gotten better the last couple of years and the airports stepped up to the plate on providing food and other options and so forth as people spend more time passed secured the overarching plan is we've had ten years since september 11th coming up on the anniversary. we put the metal detectors and because of the cubin hijacking and you have to take your laptop out because of pan am 103 richard reid had his shoes and the liquid plots, this was where two years ago i would have put my exploding under virgil can't people would laugh but now we've had that. so, you know, what are we going to do we just keep adding these.

one on the other. at some polling it's not sustainable and i will say the airports and airlines and other people working together a lot of them are in this room talking about what should the system look like fifer to use of the road let's develop a set of principles more risk-based and intelligence sharing come more of those kind of things so we can have a better passenger experience rather than reacting to everything and throwing it in and adding it to that sort of stress level for the passenger. the reason the changes and so much to reduce the stress on the passenger as a security reason to do that but it's a way to make a more efficient system because a more efficient system is more secure collis efficiency less secure system. >> i certainly applaud those comments. in the general aviation community we too are absolutely supportive of the necessary security requirement to read the last thing any of us wants to see whether it is commercial private aircraft is another

incident involving an aircraft then the restrictions will go but we are i think all searching for what's the right balance and we are in that with you. >> how about some questions from the audience. there's a microphone coming in since the program is being broadcast and thousands of people throughout the country why don't you use a microphone. >> your question i believe started out as what are you doing to promote young people getting into aviation that your particular airport? i would like to hear from the panel because as you know, and the industry knows, if we don't have our feet, you know, folks coming up, younger folks coming of interest in aviation we have to worry about the airports we are going to be scrambling.

so what do your airports, or members, the less international are a little more of a challenge, but what can we do to promote the other people than those against the fence types of opportunities? >> maybe we will start with you, are their flights running in? >> there's a business that does flight training but as an airport, we invite the girl scouts, boy scouts, high school students to come and have a tour by our executive director and it's pretty exciting and motivational when they can get out there on the runway and look at the jets and watched and takeoff on the field i think we are doing something -- [inaudible] >> no, just make available dates. we pretty much have to schedule. we try to do on saturdays when the students are not in school then they come out and take the tour. we did have airshows in the past

and we do have some shows for military, but there are problematic. the insurance costs are very high, and they are not necessarily profit makers, they are designed to generate new business for their part and usually end up costing a little bit but that is our public outreach and the other thing i want to say about the stimulus money, when those programs cannot be decided to focus on the roads around the airport leading into the airport because that's a different stimulus package given the states to the shuttle ready road construction and we lobbied very hard and were able to get some significant improvements in the access roads. so from that point of view we were able to benefit from the stimulus money. >> i'm sure you have active programs bringing other people to their part. >> we do and it's highlighted buy almost as it passed with

schools in the district where we won regular bring the students over to the airports and half working with the students including most recently we started working with a trade school and that has been amusing because in this area there's not a lot of industry and being able to work with a trade school and he will try to planned who wouldn't bringing in people and to younger ages and carpenters and painters and the south type of jobs here we also have programs and internships and many of our internships have worked during the summer and during a different school breaks and the european aviation as a carrier and arnall full-time employees. bringing people into the industry is important. one of the of the things we have the love people are not aware of, they have the aircraft and maintenance schools of the national airport.

it's one of the hangars, it is a part of a university of the district of columbia but i'm told every graduate of the program gets a job so it's something we like and something the young people coming enough to make a date. >> what lynn talked about at the national is represented. my somoza and and and turn and the aviation works on capitol hill so maybe he can tell aviation people what happens even if they don't go into aviation the still understand the business better but internship programs and getting out into the school will come even if the elementary level before we want them working at the airport, with getting out there and still have a dream of someday will maybe to get a real good authorization they will pass on down there road we will get this one pass and a good one

past leader is to work with national geographic and groups like that because you can use aviation to teach so many things and then get people interested in aviation that way. >> we have time for one or two more. okay that i'm going to take the final question. there's one over here. okay. >> services or quote based. what could be done to change their eligibility service based approaches or cloud based

solutions? >> anybody want to take that on? >> i'm not sure of the question but i will try to see if i can fit into the cloud technology. i think all of us are looking at using flout technology to sort of improved the efficiency of the systems whether the hour security systems or whether they are just the business systems so the cloud solution is something that we all look at to become more efficient. the fact that we have 100,000 people a day coming to in our airports and those are people but you have to provide one-on-one services. we do have free wi-fi now at the airport because of the services we want to be able to provide people, and people intensive businesses really take other people intensive businesses to serve them. i hope that answers your question. >> you mentioned the pfc what i

would dhaka doing in some, and i'm not as technically savvy, we are people of the 20th century and not 21st century. to understand the cloud commercial and on tv, but my kid had to explain it to me, but right now it is the pletka grand prix and even the biggest airport money there are these restrictions placed on it and all the rest and i would argue airports improve good stewards of that money come a lot of airports really are run buy very technically savvy people who want to accuse technology not only to run their work better but improve the customer experience and the healthier airlines as well. and so the restriction should be taken off of that money so that it seems green airport capital. it's their own money and they can use it for a variety of purposes. >> we are going to wrap up. i'm going to start with lynn asking you to think about come each of you think about the same

question. sitting here across the street from the white house happened to bump into the president of the united states and he says i heard you were not this u.s. chamber function talking about aviation and airports and in 30 seconds what should i be doing to improve airports in america? >> tough question. one thing i was going to ask it would be not to have an unfunded mandates requirements that the federal government puts on us that we have to find ourselves. >> i would say very quickly what investment infrastructure and you don't want to increase the deficit so they will be allowed to invest in infrastructure which is not adding to the federal deficit, not a single dollar comes to washington and helps you meet both of those because you create jobs and no impact on the federal deficit if you can show a way to create

tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs by giving all that, then go that direction but unless you can mr. president if you want to go in that direction. >> the same element. airports are economic engines for the region, and we have aging facilities and facilities that the replacement, facilities we need to grow and it is what the airport operator be able to do this, let us finance it with passenger fees, let us be able to access that market and we can build it and be the economic engine. >> on behalf of ron ricks i went to expressed regrets for not being here. he's an execs of southwest airlines. he didn't miss his flight, just happened they bought an airline yesterday and he got a little tied up at the headquarters. please, though join me in thinking this distinguished

panel. it's been great to have the chance. [applause] >> you did not ask me, but i would tell the president that if there are any more stimulus packages, please, put the airlines and the aviation industry at the top of the list rather than the bottom. i think we were deeply offended by the way of which we were treated in the stimulus package by the parent any more. thank you. you were a great panel. craig, always great to have you here and certainly dan and lynn first time i hope not the last. thank you all very much. >> no one succeed in life by themselves. you must be willing to lean on others, to listen to others and yes, love others

the commission on civil rights recently hosted a daylong conference on bullying and schools. this portion begins a discussion about race based bullying and harassment. we will also hear about what role the federal and state government should play in combating the problem. this part of the conference is three hours and 15 minutes. >> i want to welcome everyone for the recent national origin or religion and the disability panel. this afternoon's panelists are paul goldberger executive director, helen, vice president of asian americans united, stuart dhaka, fella with the university of arkansas, kenneth smartness, executive vice president of the institute for jewish and community research, hillary shelton, senior vice president of advocacy for the

naacp, and rajeep. he will have ten minutes to mature steegmans and as i said earlier if he were not here there is a series of traffic lights that red, yellow, green so we know what means when yellow comes you've got to minutes left and to we ask you to wrap up when ret hits. i'm going to be rude and interrupt folks in the middle of the statement but i hope that won't happen. i now ask all the panelists to please, raise your right hand and swear or affirm the and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief. is that so? let the record reflect the fall said yes. so we will begin our questioning statements this morning with ms. goldberg. please begin. >> my name is paul goldberger and i'm the executive director and founder of the national parent center in minnesota that provides information and resources to parents of children with all disabilities.

we began the national bullying prevention center six years ago after receiving numerous calls from parents about their children with disabilities being bullied. pacer's national prevention center has since expanded to serve all children and to pacer is the founder of the prevention month which is an october. i would like to thank members of the commission for inviting me today, and i would also like to recognize the commissioner for her being an advocate for her entire career for people with disabilities. and the nevada pennant information center has also partnered with pacer on bullying issues. i want to begin by sharing just several stories about children with disabilities. a month ago i personally received a call from a mother who has two sons with us berger's syndrome. she shared her horrific stories on three years of bullying and harassment against the sons and

daughters by 15 to 20 teenagers. the teenagers jim damage the family, including one incident where five dozen eggs were thrown against the house the night before the funeral of the grandson -- their grandmother. the team also left on the steps of the house with a threatening note. the teens, the bloody tampons all over the car. the sun has not abated since. the bleeding also occurred at school where one was urinated on in the locker room and the teenagers also cyber will lead the suns. the bullying was so pervasive that the sun went into a long-term depression. they said the family's life has been changed forever because of the teenagers who made it a project to terrorize her two sons. she said they took something from our family that we can never get back.

the parent talked to a school but a minister who said of the family didn't like the bullying occurred the sun should leave the school which they did. the second story involved a 12-year-old girl with epilepsy who attended a small rural school where everyone had grown up together. she had a seizure of school and the girl was ostracized them by the entire school including the school staff. she was ordered to sit alone during class and lunch when she would walk into the bathroom the gruels would fall down and imitate her seizures. the classmates would steal her books and home work, locker in closets and draw pictures of her having a seizure and post them throughout the school. after months of begging her grandmother finally agreed to home-schooled her. since the incident the girl has had no friends and is ashamed of her disability.

a third very short story involved a 15-year-old boy with learning disabilities. he was bullied every friday. why? because a group of students called friday beat up the retard day. these are several examples of the hundreds of stories pacer has heard from all over the country regarding bullying of children on the basis of disability. research demonstrates children with disabilities are bullied more frequently than peers without disabilities. one study 60% of students with disabilities reported being bullied compared to only 25% of difficult students. another report from the children with disabilities were ten times more likely to be bullied than a typical student. in response to these alarming statistics and stories pacer has developed innovative resources to educate all students with information on how to effectively respond to bullying.

pacer's, website was designed first and was so successful that in 2009 pacer created a second web site called teams against bullying.org. the website focused on engaging bystanders to make a difference in the vault to include a classroom which educators and other professionals can download for free to use and educating a student. pacer's national prevention web site, pacer door slash shrek bullying includes links to all the resources for parents, students, teachers and the community. pacer views believe children with a disability and all bullying as a civil rights issue. pacer recommends the following. an act of federal bullying law that in the rates the protected class of disability, race, ethnicity, national origin, sex and sexual orientation and gender expression.

pacer recognizes bullying and knows no boundaries. that that specific group of students especially students with disabilities are more often targeted than their peers and their needs to be prevention strategies to address the protected civil rights. the law should be incorporated into the real authorized elementary secondary education act and should include the following provisions. require training on the prevention for schools administrators, educators, parents and students. the stories i share clearly demonstrate the need for increased training for professionals so they are able to respond appropriately when bullying incidents occurred. estival a nonprofit center in every state that can provide technical assistance and resources to parents, professional and student to prevent and respond to bullying. number two, and also, i'm sorry, and collect data on bullying incidents. to incorporate