next, a senate hearing on the constitutionality of arizona's immigration law. then cspan's interview with dick cheney. then afghanistan's security and reconstruction. and later, ken salazar on energy policy and gas prices at the national press club. welcome aboard, everybody. beautiful downtown oklahoma city. my name's captain rick.

i live in -- >> the weekend of may 5th and 6th, our local content vehicles explore oklahoma city. including the works of gallieo. >> when this book was published in 1632, the pope was angry that he broke his promise to treat it hy hypothetically. his enemies joined together and the result was his trial. and this also is a copy that contains his own handwriting, so this is like being able to look over his shoulder in the months leading up to his trial. former arizona state senator russell pearce, testified before a senate judiciary subcommittee

tuesday. the day before the supreme court heard arguments on the law. senator pearce and others discussed the constitutionality of the law and how it impacts the state's latino community. governor jan brewer was invited to appear, but declined as did all reason senators on the republican subcommittee. good morning, everyone. the hear willing come to order. today's hearing, we will be discussing the constitutionality and prudence of the many state and local immigration laws enacted during the past few years. in 2011 alone, state legislators from across the country introduced 1,607 bills and resolutions relating to immigration. by the end of the year 42 states enacted 197 new laws. tomorrow the supreme court is going to be considering whether the arizona law, known as sb-1070, is constitutional. specifically, the court will be

deciding if stated can enact comprehensive immigration enforcement laws designed to promote the self-deportation of illegal immigrants. five states, alabama, georgia, indiana, south carolina, and utah, have crafted laws following arizona's example. court challenges have been filed against all five of those laws and the outcome of those cases will likely be dictated by the supreme court's decision in the arizona case. discussing both the constitutionality and prudence of these laws is necessary because the supreme court will base its decision upon what the senate had previously said about the role of state and local government in enforcing federal immigration law. the wisdom of the arizona laws also currently being debated around the country. for instance, sb-70, recently endorsed as a model for the country by mitt romney, republican nominee for president, others such as marco rubio said they do not believe the arizona law should be expanded nationwide.

in my view, these state laws are both counterproductive and unconstitutional. in terms of being counterproductive the statistics couldn't be any clearer in terms of the economic damage these laws cause. in arizona, studies have shown that, after sb-1070 was passed the convention and tourism industries lost as much as $140 million. moreover, the agriculture industry has seen much of their crops destroyed, due to a lack of labor. alabama, a study by the university of alabama, found that the alabama laws projected to shrink alabama's economy by at least $2.3 billion annually and cost the state $70,000 per year. sorry. 70,000 jobs per year. in terms of being unconstitutional, our founding fathers gave congress plane area power over immigration law. the supreme court has

consistently interpreted the naturalization language in article i to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and the manner of their execution are committed solely to the federal government. even though some on the other side want to limit the federal government's power and increase the power of the states, immigration is not, and never has been, an area where states are able to exercise independent authority. this makes sense, both legally as a matter of constitutional interpretation, and practically as a matter of sound, public policy. immigration involves international commerce and sensitive foreign relations, just as we would never allow 50 states to have their own inconsistent and independent trade laws, we shouldn't have 50 states establishing and enforcing their own inconsistent immigration laws. and even if states like arizona say they are only helping the federal government to enforce the law, this issue is much like federal tax law where the

federal internal revenue service interprets and enforces the law as opposed to 50 state agencies going to people's houses to ensure that they properly filed their federal tax returns. only federal comprehensive immigration reform can accomplish the three objectives most americans want to see achieved with regard to immigration. first, ending illegal immigration. second, fixing our dysfunctional legal immigration system and, third, addressing the status of people here without legal status. in 2010, many of my democratic colleagues on this committee released the white paper with me outlining our proposal for immigration reform. then, as a good-faith down payment to encourage negotiations with those who said fix the border first, we passed a $600 million supplemental border security act that added 1,500 troops on the border, deployed more unmanned aerial drones, and increased border fencing and technology.

the border bill was hailed by my arizona colleagues as a significant border security accomplishment that they were proud to co-sponsor. as a result of this bill, arizona's 373-mile border with mexico is patrolled by over 5,200 border patrol agents and 300 national guardsmen, a 31% increase from 2008, which resulted in a 61% reduction in unlawful border crossings over the same period. and yesterday, study reported that immigration from mexico has dropped to net zero when comparing the number of people entering the u.s. from mexico to the number of people returning from mexico. some in arizona might wish to take credit for this but the study shows this is a national trend, based on increased federal enforcement at southern border and decreased availability of jobs for foreign

workers. and this deals -- this chart reveals immigration to the u.s. from mexico. it's national. and because of what we've done on the border, as you can see, the number has gone significantly down from a high of 770,000 people in 2000 to a now 140,000 people in 2010. that's a dramatic drop. we've repeatedly invited our republican colleagues to sit done with us and discuss how best to reform our broken immigration system in a manner both parties can support. it will only pass if it's bipartisan. to this date, our colleagues will not even sit down with us and discuss comprehensive immigration reform legislation. finally, when small noncontroversial immigration matters are proposed na can help create jobs, they are blocked in the senate. consequently, states are taking matters into their own hands and passing a multitude of

immigration laws that touch upon a variety of subjects, such as employment authorization and verification, border security, work visas and higher education, areas that have always been the exclusive province of the federal government. i believe it's simply too damaging to our economy and too dangerous to our democracy to have 50 states doing 50 different things with regard to immigration policy. i also believe that congress has clearly and repeatedly indicated its intent to preempt states from creating their own immigration enforcement regimes which is why i believe sb-70 and laws like it are unconstitutional. for instance, in 1997, congress passed section 287-g of the immigration and nationality act, which allows state and local law enforcement to enter into partnerships with i.c.e. to conduct immigration enforcement with their jurisdiction in enacting 287-g, congress made it

clear it did not want the states, like arizona, taking immigration enforcement matters into their own hands and, instead, wanted state officials to act with guidance, training and supervision of the federal government. in addition, congress explicitly wrote employment verification laws designed to punish employers rather than employees for violation of immigration law. arizona, by contract, has decided to criminalize the individuals who seek work to feed their families. this conflict of law plainly contravenes our stated intent in passing numeral federal immigration statutes. i'm therefore announcing that, should the supreme court choose to ignore these plain and unambiguous statements of congressional intent and uphold sb-1070 i'll introduce legislation that congress does not intend for states to enact their own immigration enforcement schemes. my legislation will reemphasize

the state officials can only engage in the apprehension and detention of present individuals if they're doing so pursuant to an explicit agreement with the federal government and are being supervised and trained by federal officials. states like arizona and alabama will no longer be able to get away with saying they are simply helping the federal government, quote/unquote, to enforce the lay when they are really writing their own laws and knowingly deploying untrained officers with the mission of arresting everyone and anyone who might fit the preconceived profile of an illegal immigrant. reacted from enacting their penalties. i hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort in the event it becomes necessary, which i hope and believe it won't because i do believe the supreme court will decide that sb-1070 is not constitutional based on the

evidence that is all on one side here. i now look forward to hearing from our -- i now would like to turn it over to senator durbin for an opening statement. >> mr. chairman, thank you very more for calling this hearing of the immigration subcommittee on the question of sb-1070, the arizona immigration law, which i join you in hoping the supreme court finds unconstitutional. under our constitution, states do no have the right to pass their own laws preempting federal laws of immigration. it is wrong can counterproductive to criminalize people because of their status, their immigration status. law enforcement, incidentally, does not have the time or resources to prosecutor incarcerate every undocumented

immigrant. the arizona immigration law will simply deter undocumented immigrants from being part of the community and cooperating with law enforcement where necessary. don't take my word for it. ask the arizona association of chiefs of police who oppose s-1070. there's another troubling aspect of the arizona immigration law. according to experts, this law encourages racial profiling. last week i held a hearing on racial profile, the first one in ten years, on capitol hill. we heard testimony about the provision in this law, arizona's immigration law, requiring police officers to check the immigration status of any individual, if they have, quote, reasonable suspicion that the person is an undocumented immigrant. the ex-plan nation of the law went further to say how you can gather this notion of reasonable suspicion and it went tonight

say, by the way a person dresses or by their command of the english language. now one of the witnesses at there's racial profiling hearing was ron davis, he's the chief of police of east palo alto, california. chief davis, an african-american, along with 16 other chief law enforcement officers, and major cities' chiefs of police association, filed a brief in the arizona case before the supreme court, this is what they said. quote, the statutory standard of reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the united states will, as a practical matter, produce a focus on minorities and specifically latinos, end of quote. instead of measures that hurt law enforcement, and promote racial profiling like sb-1070 we need practical solutions to fix our broken immigration system. i could not agree with my colleague, senator schumer, more. congress needs to face its responsibility to pass immigration reform.

11 years ago i introduced the dream act. this legislation would allow a select group of immigrant students who grew up in this country, came here as infants and children, but would give them a chance to earn their way to citizenship by attending college or serving in the military. 11 years we've been struggling to pass this. we've had majority votes in the senate floor but never the magic 60 number that we need to pass it. the best way i've said to my colleagues to understand what the dream act is about is to get to meet the young people who would qualify for this legislation. as senator rubio of florida has said, let's let these young people get right what their parents got wrong. these people call themselves dreamers. under the arizona law, these young people, sb-1070, under the arizona law, these young people would be targets for prosecution

and incarceration. why? it's beyond reasonable suspicion. they have stood up and said, we are undocumented, we are dream students, we want a chance to become american citizens. under the dream act, they would be future citizens, who would make our country a better place. i want you to meet six targets of this bill, the arizona immigration law. each and every one of them is a resident of arizona. they have stepped up publicly to tell their stories about being brought to the united states by their parents as infants and children, now begging for a chance to earn they're way to legal status and citizenship. the first, dolce, she graduated from arizona state university with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. she cofounded the arizona dream act coalition, an organization of more than 200 dream act students. last week, dolce was named one

of the 100 most influential people in the world by "time" magazine. dolce is a target of the arizona immigration law. the world by ". dulce is a target of the arizona immigration law. now, meet mara garcia. she's president of the cottonwood youth advisory commission in her hometown of cottonwood, arizona. she graduated from high school in 2010 with a 3.98 gpa. she's now a sophomore at a prestigious university in california. she would be a target of the arizona immigration law. now meet juan rios. in high school, juan was a leader in the air force junior roc. in 2010 he graduated from arizona state university with the degree in aeronautical engineering. since graduation, juan has put his life on hold. because of american law, he cannot enlist in our military or work in the aerospace industry. juan is a target of the arizona

immigration law. now meet jose magana. jose graduated as valedictorian at his high school. at arizona state university, he joined the speech and debate team where he ranked fifth in the nation. in 2008, jose graduated summa cum laude with a major in business management from arizona state university. later this year, jose will graduate from baylor university law school in waco, texas. he cannot be licensed to practice law in the united states because he has no country. jose is a target of the arizona immigration law. finally, meet angelica hernandez. in high school, she served in the junior rotc and was president of the national honor society. last year she graduated from arizona state university as the outstanding senior in the mechanical engineering department.

angelica is a target of the arizona immigration law. unlike the arizona immigration law, the dream act is a practical solution to a serious problem which treats these young people and thousands of others in a human and just way. sb-1070 would harm law enforcement and encourage racial profiling going after the very people that you have just met. that is not consistent with our values as a nation. it is not consistent with our constitutional values. mr. chairman, thank you for this hearing. >> thank you, senator durbin, for an excellent and heartfelt statement. we will, having no other people here, will turn to our panelists. i'm going to introduce each of them. their entire statements will be read into the record, and we will let each of them make a statement. russell pearce is currently the president of banamnestynow.com. an organization advocating for increased immigration enforcement in border security. he was the former president of

the arizona state senate, a position he held until november 2011. he's most widely known as the author of sb-1070, the arizona law, whose constitutionality is being decided by the supreme court and is the subject of this hearing today. he was originally elected to the arizona house of representatives in 2000 in the arizona senate in 2008, he also served as the director of arizona's motor vehicle division, the director of the governor's office of highway safety, and is a deputy for 23 years with the maricopa county sheriff's officer. dennis deconcini served as u.s. senator for 19 years from 1977 to 1995. prior to that he served as pima county attorney, the chief prosecutor and civil attorney for the county and school districts within the tucson border area. he currently serves as a partner in the law firm of deconcini,

mcdonald, yetwin and lacy with offices in tucson, phoenix, and washington, d.c. state senator steve gallardo a member of the arizona state senate, representing district 13. he previously served in the arizona house of representatives from 2003 through 2009. he has served on numerous state and local boards and committees and is the leading sponsor of the state senate bill, arizona state senate bill that would repeal sb-1070. todd landfried is the executive director of arizona employers for immigration reform, a grassroots organization comprised of 400 small, medium, and large businesses committed to federal immigration -- sensible federal immigration policy. mr. landfried's organization filed an amicas brief with the supreme court in opposition to sb 1070. gentlemen, your entire statements without objection will be read into the record. we will first call on mr. pearce. you may proceed as you wish,

sir. >> good morning. i am russell pearce, the author and driving force behind sb-1070, which is overwhelmingly supported by citizens across this nation. thank you, chairman schumer for inviting me and before this honorable committee. it is an honor for me to appear. as you know, illegal alien problem is a critical issue, not just in arizona but across the nation and the effects of it ripple throughout society. in addressing this problem we must begin by remembering we are a nation of laws. we must encourage, have the courage the fortitude to enforce with compassion without apology those laws to protect the integrity of our borders and rights of our citizens from those who break our laws. sb-1070 removes the political handcuffs of law enforcement. all law enforcement agencies have the legal authority and moral obligation to uphold our laws, just like sheriff joe who keeps his oath did does the job he was hired to do.

the invasion of illegal aliens we face today, convicted felons, drug cartels, gang members, human traffickers, even terrorists pose one of the greatest threats to our nation in terms of political, economic, and national security. during the debate of sb-1070 a rancher, friend of mine, rob krantz was murdered on the border by an illegal alien. i've attended funerals of citizens and law enforcement officers murdered by illegal aliens. i have a son, a deputy sheriff, was critically wounded in the line of duty in a gun battle with illegal aliens while serving a warrant. i, too was critically wounded shot in chest and hand in the line of duty. i've seen the real cost and damage caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this country. in arizona the annual costs of illegal immigration problem is $2.6 billion. that is just to educate, medicate and incarcerate. and those numbers don't reflect the cost of crimes committed by those here illegally or jobs lost by residents.

the terrorist attacks of september 11th 2001 underscore for all americans the length between immigration law enforcement and terrorism. four of the five leaders of the 9/11 attack were in violation of the immigration laws and had contact with law enforcement and were not arrested. the failure to enforce the immigration laws was instrumental in deaths of nearly 3,000 people on that tragic day in america. under federal law, sanctuary policies are illegal, but the obama administration does not sue those cities that adopt such illegal policies. instead it chooses to sue arizona for enforcing the law, protecting its citizens, protecting jobs for lawful residents, and protecting the taxpayers and the citizens of this republic in attempting to secure our borders. during my 11 years in arizona, i authored numerous legislative initiatives designed to protect the state of arizona from

adverse effects of illegal immigration, and most importantly, to uphold the rule of law. they include, 2004, voter i.d. at polls passed by 57% of voters. in 2006 a constitutional amendment denying bond to illegal aliens who commit serious crime. passed by 78% of the voters, 60% of hispanics. also in 2006, illegal aliens who sue american citizens cannot receive punitive damages, passed by 75% of voters. 2007, protect american jobs and honest employers by mandating the use of e-verify for every business in the state of arizona. i'm also proud to say that each of these initiatives have become law and survived the various legal challenges. in fact, the last time was in washington, the supreme court upheld the e-verify law against the unpatriotic challenge of the chamber and the obama administration. because most provisions of sb-1070 are in effect it

the citizens of arizona are safer. according to phoenix law enforcement association which represents rank and file police officers and i quote, since sb-1070 phoenix experienced a 30-year low crime rate, 600 police vacancies, budget and cuts, and old policing strategies did not bring about these falling crime rates. sb-1070 did. the deterrence factor this legislation brought about is clearly unprecedented in our drop in crime. all of this without a single civil rights racial profiling or biased police complaint. simply put, sb-1070 has clearly worked. arizona has acted within its authority. the supreme court has held the states can utilize their inherent police powers to enforce immigration laws. sb-1070 directs arizona law enforcement officers to cooperate and communicate with federal authorities regarding enforcement of federal immigration laws imposed as penalties and arizona law for

noncompliance. it is only these simple and clear law enforcement measures that are before the supreme court. this common sense law is fully within the authority of arizona as it protects citizens for effects of illegal immigration and upholds the rule of law and protecting our citizens is the highest duty of any public official. thank you. god bless. may god continue to bless this republic. >> thank you mr. pearce. next, we'll go to senator deconcini. >> mr. chairman, senator durbin. i want to thank you very much for an opportunity to address this very important issue. not only to my home state of arizona but to our nation. the constitutionality and prudence of federal immigration and enforcement laws by state and local governments is indeed a complex issue. mr. chairman, i'm a native arizona resident, i grew up in that state, i came from neighborhoods and business and law practice with multitude of

hispanic and mexican friends, investors, what have you. we worked together, we shared each otherness heritage and experience. the culture of our state reflects the rich history of the latino influence. but during the last two years, mr. chairman, we have unduly harmed our legal latino residents in this process. the solution of the problems coming into this country illegally. we have let rhetoric and political advantage cloud this sound judgment. mr. chairman, this hearing is partly about 1070 and mostly seeing that the supreme court will address it tomorrow. i believe it's ill-founded, mean-spirited, divisive. in addition it requires state and local law enforcement to carry out immigration responsibilities that lie with the federal government clearly. prior to being elected in the

united states senate in 1976 as the chairman pointed out, i was a pima county attorney. i was appointed by governor raul castro to head up the arizona drug control district because of the tremendous problem we had along our border. this creation of this drug controlled district did not create laws that contradicted federal responsibility. it was a cooperative effort, put together by the legislature, republican legislature to address the problem, in accordance with the cooperation of the federal agencies and we did just that. i mentioned this because there is some similarity, but laws need to be in cooperation and not hostile to each other. when i came to the senate, i was appointed to this august committee, the judiciary committee, and the committee on appropriations. both had jurisdiction over border patrol, custom, general services. i used all the jurisdictions to focus law and resources on the