thing, do an internet poll and put somebody on the ballot. that somebody accepts to go on. that's a hidden factor in this election. >> i was once a conservative. in '64 i campaigned for barry goldwater as a 17-year-old high school senior. i was a member of young republicans, the american conservative union, and then i went to vietnam. that changed my mind. the campaign for howard baker i used to be on the d.c. republican committee. and i was a member of the ripon society. i voted for my last republican. jon huntsman was on the ballot in maryland, i saw him the next day and told him i voted for him. i can say that proudly. i consider myself a ryano. you have to consider one thing. you have an elephant, you can ride a elephant.

you can ride a jack ass but a rhino has a point to make and a solid point to make and does it. so i mean, no labels is around. that's almost the in between now. that's why mark mckinnon, public relation person. where is the moderate wing and how does it come back because a lot of the things the democrats are too -- hate to say this word -- liberal, and that now the republicans are tooing? -- i can't figure out what they are. >> so are our moderate republicans homeless? fair way of putting it? >> yes. >> yesterday's moderate republicans homeless. >> sure. why not. i mean, the polls say that there

are millions of moderate republicans out there. by some accounts about a third of the memberment of the republican party. moderates are also the plurality of the american electorate depending which poll you choose yet they don't feel that their preferences are adequately taken account of. and this is largely because of again the political system that we have. with only two parties which are tending toward ideological ideals, feel left out. i was pretty conscious writing the book feeling like a jenn generation xor. people don't fit, people are eclectic, whose views and beliefs come from a lot of sources and don't fit. i was the kind of politician i like looking back at the 1960s. charles wayland one of the most liberal and most anti-abortion

activist for much of the time. people like that don't fit in either party now. any one who feels eclectic is going to have a harder time. >> i add a thought to this about that -- wild proposition. it may be that a certain aspect of the old moderate wing of the republican party is being reborn in front of our eyes, has been there all along in the presidential nomination process. look at the last nominees after reagan. bush, dole, another bush, john mccain who talks to known democrats. and now mitt romney. right. i mean these are not the -- how come we can't get another ronald reagan. i had this for a long time that i needed to develop which among the differences of the parties that the republican party has been more exclusively maybe all the way back to lincoln. the democratic party for a variety of reasons has been more a legislatively oriented party. why they tend to dominate congress, one of the reasons they govern better when they run

congress. there are institutional differences too. one reason you are especially accentuate, right now they control the house. newt gingrich and his dynamic is unthinkable if he had been senator gingrich, i think. back to california, bueller after term limits, the assembly was a food fight. the assembly, the state budget would pass by one vote. and the senate would pass nearly unanimously. what's this about. so after your six years are up in the assembly, get along, go back to the assembly and start having food fights again. that's kind of the nature of our institutions that we sign on purpose. but i do think that you're seeing historical pattern that republicans for a variety of reasons tend to gravitate to people who are more moderate of temperament at least. bob dole certainly. romney. while their legislative wing is more chaotic and reflecttive of

the grass roots. >> the question of where moderate republicans go or people that are moderate or independents generally, much toop the disappointment of the farther left, obama has certainly played to the center i think, andsupported by a lot. the election may depend on that last centrists and woo we go. i think obama is clear about wanting to preempt the senator. >> i wanted to ask a question. is it possible that we're actually seeing a slight return to prime atism in this coming election as opposed to the last wave that now rather than seeing christine o'donnell we're seeing heather wilson, even chris shea up in connecticut. could there be a counterwave

going on after the 2010 election when we failed to take the senate? >> i would say minimally. we may look back and say 2010 was the peak for the taet party, its influence good and bad on the republican party. but there is not a lot to suggest that the party is in any way ebbing back from things conservative as it has been. we may see some individual cases where that is the case. but i don't think as a general proposition. but these things do have -- as i said in my opening remarks, parties are dynamic, they do adjust to success and failure. and if the republicans lose a bunch of seats in the house, if romney loses, there will be a

period of reflection and recrimination no doubt but also be as individual candidates look at how they want to position themselves in 2014, perhaps others saying the way we did it in 2010 and tried to do it in 2012 is not way, we've got to move back more to the center, you may see individuals on that. these elections will have an influence on the direction of the party. >> the last question right here. >> i don't think any of you have addressed what i have read is a growing tendency for rejecting party identification on either side. the growth of the independents. is that -- if we look hard at the figures don't we see that increasing? and isn't that going -- what impact do you all think is that

going to have? >> we see that statistically. you see it in the polls and in registration that the fastest growing coop has declined to no party or independent. and yet people aren't behaving that way. which i think is the more important factor. people may say i'm independent because they just have pulled away from the institutional party at least in their personal identification. but i think this is a much more polarized electorate and continues to be than we've seen. i don't think the growth in the percentage of people who identify themselves that way has any material effect in recent elections in the way they dehaved in the ballot box. >> number of independents, yes has grown. most are strongly aligned with one party or the other. and in fact on the republican side when you ask independent who leans republican, they are

more likely to vote republican than some of the republican registered people who describe themselves as weak republicans. often tea party people. >> a little more conservative position. >> yes. just because you're independent doesn't mean you are the most moderate in the middle. there is a slice, 10% or so, who might be perfectly persuadable. >> to modify the question slightly, why are more people wanting to be declined to state. it's kind of a private matter. you can look it up i guess in the public records. seems ejay needs to write an up date why americans hate politics. more americans do. people maybe have political opinions but not strongly ideological or politicized look up and say why would i want to be affiliated with either of these parties. ick. right. and this is a problem. i think it has lots of consequences. i think some of that what's going on.

i'll stop there. >> on that optimistic note we'll end the panel and thank our panelists. [ applause ] >> president obama is back in washington at the white house after a quick visit to afghanistan yesterday. the president flew in secret to sign a long-awaited security compact with that nation. was after midnight in kabul when the signing took place and 4:00 a.m. there when the president addressed americans in a specially arranged speech. at the time most ofgs woke up the president was gone. this afternoon he will take part in an ambassador credentialing ceremony he will receive the credentials from foreign ambassadors. the presentation of credentials is a traditional ceremony that

marks the beginning of an ambassador's service in washington. >> bin laden was a strategically relevant communicator with various and disparate outfits and to a certain extent i have to confess i had insider knowledge. i worked in afghanistan and i worked on the problem of iraq. we knew bin laden personally was involved in communications to try to corral and bring under control zawahiri. we knew he was making outreach. we knew he was involved in these

types of things working through individuals but we knew he was there doing that. as a consequence and no surprise when you're talking about a global ideology he was relevant. >> how has security changed since the death of osama bin laden. members continue to weigh in. see what they have to say on line at the c-span video library. all archived and searchable. >> here is what's coming up today. newt gingrich is planning to officially end his campaign for the republican presidential nomination and will make an announcement today in arlington, virginia. c-span will have live coverage starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern. c-span2 live at 3:00 with the discussion on the impact of broadband on job creation. a new report says increasing number of african-americans have internet access and that could translate into more jobs. that discussion live on c-span2, starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern.

here on c-span3 it's american history tv prime time, all this week while congress is on break. tonight historians on the battles of shiloh and fort donaldson as we look at the anniversary of the civil war this year. c-span's washington journal goes on the road this weekend, live from north carolina, leading up to the state's republican presidential primary. saturday the journal will be in greensboro for a visit with international civil rights center co-founder. and sunday in charlotte will talk with the city's mayor. and monday, washington journal in raleigh for a chat with the pope foundation chair. sunday, on q and a. >> i want each book to examine a political power in america. this is a kind of political power, seeing what a president

can do in a moment, in a time of great crisis. how he gathers and what does he do to get legislation moving to take command in washington. that's a way of examining power in a time of crisis. i said i want to do this in full. i suppose it takes 300 pages so that's why i said let's examine this. >> robert caro on the passage of power, volume 4 in the years of lyndon johnson, his biography of the 36th president this sunday at 8:00 on c-span's q and a, and our second hour with robert caro, sunday, may 20th. >> the competitive enterprise institute in washington yesterday host add panel discussion looking at solutions to the nation's immigration problems. panelists discussed immigration laws and how they impact the u.s. economy. as the supreme court reviews the

constitutionality of the arizona immigration law. >> good morning. appreciate everyone being here. officially presented by arizona employers for immigration reform, competitive enterprise institute, national immigration forum and texans for sensible immigration policy, we are going to have an immigration summit right here in washington, d.c. where we hope the benefit of will be to offer some solutions and move some of our members of congress to get on with immigration reform. i'm norman adams, texans a co-founder of texans for sensible immigration policy. and just as a setting or -- i'd

like to point out the fact, i don't need to tell any of you that the immigration debate is an emotion al no irishmen or dogs allowed in

here. i remember a polish/czech wedding. just a quick rundown of i hear so often look, what is it you don't understand about the rule of law? well, folks, that's the problem is our immigration laws are broken. 1986, we've got i-9 law that says if the identification looks to be legitimate, other wise qualified you must hire them. we have the eeoc saying if you don't hire them that is discrimination. we have social security administration saying with a no match letter this name doesn't match this number but do not fire this worker, your responsibility, mr. employer, is to notify the work tear contact us, do not fire them. if you fire them, again you have the eeoc.

that's discrimination. now, our great organized government in its wisdom has come along, homeland security has come along in 2010 and decided if you have a no match letter that is going to be constructive knowledge. yet the eeoc is still standing there to come after you for discrimination. so, we have god only knows legally hired illegal immigrants since 1986. under the current system. and the current system is basically, it's bad law. and in my opinion, again i am a right wing republican, in my opinion roe v. wade is bad law. obama care is bad law. at one time in this country it was legal to buy, sell, and own black people as slaves. germany it was legal to

incarcerate the jews. those were bad laws. our immigration laws are bad. and hopefully we're going to hear a lot of good reasons for reforming them today. todd, are you ready to. go i want to introduce todd landry, and i have a personal interest in introducing this man. i am from texas as i said. todd is the head of the arizona employers for immigration reform. but todd was a lone ranger on a white horse in texas. todd came down and testified to the tex legislature in this last session. let me tell you, we had 108 arizona style bills proposed in the texas legislature that is two thirds republican dominated, two thirds republican, republican governor, 108 arizona

style bills or you could call them russell pierce bills, proposed in texas, with todd lanford's help we motivated our legislature to listen and think and enter meaningful dialogue. we brought in business men and todd of course displayed arizona as a test tube and showed us why the laws don't work. and so in texas we have a great deal of -- we give the credit, i'm going to tell you this, to todd lanford in the state of arizona, god bless you for coming. i feel like you helped texas dodge the bullet. todd lanford. >> thanks, mark. i guess i got to give you another $5 now. right. good morning on behalf of arizona employers for immigration reform i want to welcome you to today's congressional immigration solutions conference. this is the sixth in a series of

conferences that are intended to educate the public about the impact, state level immigration laws have in and are having on those places that passed them and to suggest alternative solutions that can better address the real problems without the damaging consequences. today you're going to hear from people who have dealt with this issue not just from a daily basis, not just a think tank from organizations with axes to grind but organizations that want to solve the problem 18 responsible effective and cost effective manner. yes, those solutions actually exist, you just haven't had an opportunity to hear about them and you're going to hear about them today. i want to thank the other sponsors of the program, texans for sensible immigration, the competitive enterprise institute t national immigration forum for their support of the event. last but not least we extend thanks to arizona congressman ed passtor for assisting us and

reserving this room. we appreciate his willingness to sponsor this event where the broad spectrum of political views, norm adams, are going to be presented here today. this isn't a partisan thing, this isn't a conservative, this isn't a liberal, this is a conference where people from different views are going to come and explain how we can help solve this problem. and finally, as you can see today's spram aired nationally on c-span3, and we want to thank c-span for their interest in sharing the ideas of this conference with the american people. here's how today is going to work. we have two panels, the first address what is we have learned from the past several years of local attempts at immigration laws, it will examine the impacts on business t economy, social and faith group communities, but we're not going to talk about the law of constitutionality.

the second panel provided alternative solutions to the immigration problem from the perspective of people who have lived on the border, served in law enforcement capacities or studied the border for many years. each speexer will have eight to 10 minutes followed by q and a and we encourage to you ask questions. hi. at 11:15 we'll break for 15 minutes to grab lunch and come back and launch into the second panel. so, we understand that immigration is a controversial issue. and we know some people in this room may have strong views one way or the other. some of the information you're going to hear will challenge the conventional view, and that's part of our purpose. but just as the information we provide today is going to be presented in an informative and respectful manner we hope that everyone here will be respective of those views as well. so with that let me turn it back

over to norm adams who will introduce our first panel. >> come on up. she is a director of policy and legal affairs for the national immigration forum. the forum's mission is to advocate for the value of immigrants and immigration to the nation. her advocacy focuses on immigration reform and civil rights and human rights for all. i'm not going to read all of this. we're going to hear from you. come ahead, brittany. >> thank you. i want to start by saying talking about solutions is a great theme for any immigration conference. we all know that our current immigration system is full of problems and we spend a lot of time talking about those problems. i'm guilty of that myself.

but not enough time really doing the hard work to get towards solutions so i want to thank the organizers of today's event for bringing us all together where we can do the real dirty work of figuring out how to move forward. so what are these problems that we have in our current immigration system? i'm going to give a brief overview of some of the stickiest issues we're dealing with. we have families who are separated who are seeking to reunite but are thwarted in doing so by our immigration system. we have businesses who are seeking a stable and a skilled work force, we have workers who are seeking protections and the opportunity to thrive and we have taxpayers who are seeking an efficient and smart use of their taxpayer dollar. these problems are threatening both our heritage as a nation of immigrants, and our status as the land of opportunity for people from all nations. we probably all heard stories

about the family separation problem, families waiting years to reunite while they try to navigate through our thorny immigration bureaucracy or, if they get tired of waiting risking their lives to cross the desert to rejoin family here in the united states. we likely heard stories of farmers unable to harvest crops without the help of immigrant workers or high tech businesses unable to harness the talent of immigrant employees who are either lost in our maze of immigration visas or driven to our competitors overseas. what you may not have heard about is the financial cost of a broken immigration system. and in a time of shrinking budgets it's a perfect opportunity to find a solution that meets our fiscal needs as well. we spend billions of dollars each year enforcing a set of immigration laws that probably most people can agree are not working for america.

for fiscal year 2012, the year we're currently in, fiscally, congress spent $11.8 billion for customs and border protection to enforce the immigration laws. in addition, $5.5 billion was give tune the immigration customs and enforcement agency. the government spends an estimated $23,000 to deport a single individual. and the obama administration is deporting people in record numbers. so what are we getting as a return for this investment? that's a question that all taxpayers should really be putting towards their elected officials. along our borders in specific we're seeing a diminishing return on this investment. as border security spending climbs up, up, up, we actually see the number of immigrants attempting to enter illegally at record lows so there is an imbalance there as exemplified

by our border. so what does the solution look like? looking for it, hearing all of the panelists' views. we know the laws on the books must be enforced but enforcement should be carried out in a smart efficient way that prioritizes keeping us safe from threats to public safety and threats for our national security. enforcing broken immigration laws does not serve our interests as a nation. in fact, if immigrants have a system that they can go through to become americans, fewer people will try to go around the immigration system. finally, instead of spending billions of dollars year after year to track down, detain, deport immigrants, we should implement a program that requires all unauthorized immigrants to register with the government, pay a fine, pay any back taxes they owe and learn english. a legalization program would abtrue and lasting revenue

generator, according to some estimates, a legalization program would boost the u.s. economy by an estimated $1.5 trillion. that would be an added u.s. gross domestic product over a 10-year period. so thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my opening remarks and i look forward to engaging in the solution conversation that we so desperately need. >> thank you, brittany. todd, in the interest of time i'm going to bring these panelists up. you want them to move on up. where will the moderator be? right here. okay. we're going to have eddy aldrete on the closed circuits. eddy aldretet senior vice president, ibc bank in san antonio, texas,