we have to realize that there is a risk any time you send views known actors back to a home country. that is the first point. there may be a risk attached, but i think that with respect to the detention model, i think we need to have an open debate about this. . .

people are going to start getting confused about what we are doing, so i think we have got to fashion a paradigm that fits with the rule ofç law. there is salon that is legitimate the supreme court is upheld t. we have our legal paradigm, but we have to make it so we are not fighting individuals with uniforms and where we have multiple battles where we have urban environments. you have got to find a way of ensuring not only that we can protect ourselves but but we can

ensure civil liberties and human rights. that is a tough balance to draw, something does administratón has had to deal with, but i think this administration has the opportunity to set the tone as to how that works, but it requires congressional attention, which goes right to the heart of your course this week. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you zoll. thank you, dr. baker. -- thank you, all. thank you, dr. baker. >>çç i want to take special ce in introducing our next speaker and preface my introduction by sayingçñr there

many people who served in congress and retired and were never heard from again. çthey perhaps descended into te world of lobbyingç. +no carrierringconnect 2400 c1 the third is someone i have known for a long time, representative mickey edwards, who served as a member of the house ofç representatives, the republican from oklahoma, who served on the appropriations committee. he served inç the budget

committee at the time it was in its infancy. he is now vice president of the aspen institute, and he is someone who has been a regular guest at the washington center and someone whose views are always sought on -- spot on. he is incredibly well informed. he expresses himself well, and he is a great guy. representative mickey edwards. [applause] >> i am afraid to say anything after that. why am delighted to have a chance to be back. >> do you need the mic? >> you can probably hear me anyway. take this one? does that work?

ok, i feel like i am going to be on "o'brieprah"or something. this is an organization i have been delighted to work with for years, and i have to say i got here in time to hear most of the admiral stock -- admiral talk, and what a great feeling to know we have people likeç the playig such an important role in our national security. i told jean albert i was really impressed by the questions better ask, so now i am terrified of the questions you're going to ask me. let me start by making a couple of observations. we had an earlier session long ago. i guess it was right after the president was elected, and the

topic i do not remember exactly what the title was, but it had something to do with the obama presidency, and i said, why are we talking just about the president, and wire we not talking about congress, and you all -- why are we not talking about congress, and you all have an opportunity -- i know you care -- read every word of the chapter assigned to you, but one point guard tried to makeç -- point i tried to make is the obligation you have when you take an oath of office as a member of congress is completely equal to the obligation, the responsibility that falls on you when you take the oath of office to be president of the united states, and when something happens like what happened on christmas day with the attempted bombing of an

airliner, keeping the country save, stopping that from happening is not something that members of congress can even look at an admiral for general or president of the united states and say why did you let çthis happen? okbecause when you take the oath as a member of congress, you are also assuming the obligation and responsibility for the security of the united states. the privacy concerns, all the kinds of issues bergen -- issues -- i used an example when i was testifying before the senate, and one senator whose name i will not mention, but it was sheldon whitef3çyçoççç dgsa point, and he talked about the fact that when people from the

executive branch came toç prest intelligence information to members of the u.s. senate, they would first of all limit to they would share this information with to a small number of members of the senate to were precluded from sharing that information with other members and who were precluded from sharing with their staff members, and this was his complaint kerrigan -- his complaint -- that sometimes members of the executive branch -- it was not this current administration -- would release that information when it suited their purpose is politically to do so, but he said we as senators cannot do that because it is classified, and for us to release the information would be against the law, to which my response was, who writes the laws?

the senate have the obligation, and the congress has the obligation to insist the information necessary to keep the country's security provided to the legislative branch as well so it can perform its function keeping us save. one other example i used to -- jim turner -- thurber would probably like it if i helped sell this book. i was referring to the column that talked about the president of the united statesçç -- this george bush -- going overseas, and the columnist suggested that for the coming time the president was getting ready to step out of his role as head of government to function in his other role as head of state, so i was teaching at princeton, and

i asked my students, what does that say to you, what do you think about when you hear this? people would answer, it means he is going to talk about not domestic issues but international issues as he meets with kings and other heads of state. that is not the point of that article, because it talk about the president's stepping out of his role as head of government to argon his other role as head of state. -- to act on his other role as head of state. the president is not the headçf government. that is not our system. we have independent, equal branches, and i make the point again even though you have probably underlined it, and they probably give you a test of buffie assigned readings, but -- a test about the assigned readings, but i make that point because over and over i have seen too many members of

congressç the executive on important issues of security and other issues, when a better way to look at it is not to suggest they are deferring but that they are passing the buck. çthey are not meeting the obligations constitution faces on done -- places on them to assure the security and prosperity and well-being of people of this country. it is not the president's job. it is the government's job. includes the legislatie branch as well. it was a very interesting -- i know you all followç the healt- care debate. it was hard not to follow it, since it was everywhere all- time -- all the time, and one criticism made of president

obama -- maybe some of you made the same criticism -- was that he was too hands-off, that he was stepping back and letting the congress writes the lawsç, which i always thought was kind of interesting since it was congress that is supposed to write the laws aldi] not the president. what was interesting -- one thing the senator wanted me to comment on to reflect on the obama presidency and the relationship with a congress rigid one thing i will tell youq -- one thing i will tell you is there may be a limited number of people who understand how our system works and is supposed to work. one of thoseççç people is bak obama, who does understand the constitution. he taught it. he understands the constitutional system. he knows what is his role and the congress's role, and that is

one thing that has really impressed me. another part that has impressed me in terms of his dealing with the congress and his opponents w3generally is his understanding of thexd magnitude of the issues he confronts and the country confronts. he was attacked by a number of people very harshlyç and sometimes unfairly but certainly harshly, and one of the comments that was made in regard to that was by jimmy carter, who looked up the level of antagonism and criticism being directed at the president and said it was because of his race, and barack obama said it is not because of my raceç. it is because we're talking about major important issues

that affect every citizen in this country and better extremely important. i looked, and i said, this is a guy who gets it. it is a guy who has an understanding of the nature of politicsç. there's a lot of stuff i do not agree with him on, but i was pleased with that, so then i lifted the performance of the congress. nancy pelosi is a good friend of mine. i]over the 16 years we have serd together, she is a friend, and wezç have worked together on a couple of things. çwe do not agree on many of th, but i met with her shortly after she became speaker, and iwhvas very critical of the bush

a9%mqipáion in a lot of different ways, even though i was a member of the republican leadership, and i was a foreign policy adviser to george w. bush and his campaign for the presidency içç, but i had beey critical ofççxd him in years , and then met with nancyççmçç and her party began to control the congress -- began to oppose the president in waysç by sougt the congress should have stood up to him. up to him. no carrierringconnect 2400s

i said, the real testç of your speakership is going to be -- this was even before the democratic primaries were completed. i said, if the democrats feel like a president and you are still speaker, will you stand up to the president then if you need to go -- if you need to? there is something here that really bothers me, not only about the nature of the presidency but about the nature of congress and how it is the vault. -- evolved. my hero is james madison, probably the greatest hero who ever lived, who really understood the kind of system

required to keep of people free, and madison warned about a lot of things. he warned most about political parties and what has happened is we have devolved into a political system that has become not a battle of ideas, not a battle of principles, but a bottle of clothes. my club against your club -- a battle of clubs. my club against your club, and members of those parties have lost the ability to speak in terms of values, principals, goals, policies to pursue without mentioning the other guys and attempting to use whatever issue arises to try to

defeat them. we run into interesting situations like this. when sonya so the mayor -- sonia sotomayor was nominated to the supreme court, i said you could make a thoughtful arguments about why she would be a superb supreme court justice, and you could make a very good, valid argument about why she should not be on the supreme court. there were arguments to be made both ways, and when the vote came, here were the republicans on one side and the democrats on the other side. how is it possible that in and diverse nation with members of

the legislative branch coming from many different states with different outlooks, that not one single democrat was bothered either by the firefighters decision or by the latina comment and that all republicans, despite the fact that she had ruled consistently in keeping with the constitution, which is republicans -- what republicans have always said they want a judge to do. the republicans were against her. what is happening here as happens with one issue after another, is each party gets a position. each party takes a stand, and it becomes what is going to help us prevail in the next election,

and in case we're going to write a book soon, my suggestion is when you are elected to congress or when you are elected to a state legislature or city council, you should be making your decisions based on three things. number one -- what your constituents want you to do? i believe a lot in what edmund burke said. you are obligated to listen to your constituents, to take their views very seriously. how do you know that is the case? because one thing our femme --

founding fathers did was to reject the british parliamentary system and say in the constitution very specifically that a member of the house horseman or senate -- house or senate had to beat from the state he/she represented -- to be from the state he or she represented. the idea was that they send someone to be their voice at the table in making the laws and decisions, so number one, you have got to listen to the people. you do not start with this. you start with giving important, heavy weight to their views. the second consideration -- i know this is really strange -- is that you actually read the proposed legislation. you evaluate the proposed legislation. you talk to people. you try to figure out the impact.

you give the arguments pro and con and make an independent valuation, regardless of what party proposed it, and decide whether this is a good thing or bad, and the third and final step, which is quite often ignored, is to get the constitution and see whether or not what you propose to do is permissible under the constitution. that is the part that gets ignored, and that is how the system is supposed to work. for a republican to take a position on in issue because obama is on one side and you're there for obligated to be on the other, or because the position you take will increase the chances you can take back a majority in the house or senate,

is not "politics." it is not "said government." -- "said government -- bad government." it is a violation of your duties when you were sworn in, and the democrats say this is our party position because we can prevail. we can lock ourselves into a solid majority for years if we do x, and we have to hang together. we have to have unanimity. we have to hang together as a party. they are doing the same thing, because they are asking each individual, the elected member of the congress to make their decisions based on none other than partisan advantage, so that has bothered me a lot, and given

the nature of congress or the political party system, i have tried to look and say, how is this unfolding? how is the obama presidency in relation to this congress on folding? it is interesting that it is unfolding in a way that, prior to the election a year ago, most people did not anticipate. barack obama was elected. guantanamo was going to be closed. barack obama is still president. guantanamo is still open. the president was elected with an overwhelming majority in the house and senate. we were going to have national health care with public auctions or more -- options for more.

there aren't going to be any public options. we are seeing things settled back into the system of equilibrium where president step out of their role as candidates. one thin that happens to rarely is when you get elected to office, there is an invisible line, and right now, i am speaking for a party of philosophy, a set of principles, and i get elected by some miracle, and a step behind that line, and i am not a candidate. i am not a party advocate. i am a sworn member of the american government with an obligation to make decisions in that light, and the president has understood that, and the give-and-take between the two branches has kept things from changing a lot, except even the

stimulus and bailout, which started with the previous administration, so i actually -- i will stop and get to questions. i am feeling relatively sanguine about the way the system is working. i am not feeling sanguine about some of the decisions that are made. i feel pretty sanguine about the kind of relationship that has developed between the branches. i will say one thinkg that has bothered me a little bit. there is reaching ross baker could explain this a lot better than i -- there is -- ross baker could explain this a lot better than none. there is nothing in the constitution that requires conference meetings between the house and senate. conference committees are not mentioned in the constitution,

but for the sake of making the system worked for the benefit of the american people, over the years there has developed -- because there is a requirement that the house and senate fire in agree on one single piece of -- the house and senate finally agree on one single piece of legislation. both parties must get together and work up the difference between the house and senate, and what is happening is we have already seen ways to get around the filibuster, ways to get around various rules, and now we have a way being promoted in the senate and the house to get around conference committees, not have conference committees, not bring all the players together, but have the leadership and the two houses -- now that they call this new

system pingpong, as they get together, work it through one house, send it over with the changes, and you eliminate the conference committee's but always took place with the president in the room, give-and- take. that is gone. how can we get a predetermined result we want? i do not know whether ross is bothered by that. i am bothered by the setting aside of a system designed to bring more openness and more participation. on the one hand, i am sanguine. in other ways i am bothered. let me take whatever questions you have got and filled them in any way we did feel them in any way that occurs to me at the moment. -- why don't i take whatever questions you have got and sealed them in any way that occurs to me.

>> in volume from university of california long beach. but do you feel the rights of -- i am from the university of california long beach. do you feel the rights of the people are taken away by judges who feel they can legislate from the bench? >> i think one interesting battle in the early days was about whether or not the courts have the authority to declare something unconstitutional. that battle has ended because when the congress should have said, i am sorry, but we did not give you the authority to tell us whether something is constitutional or not -- that argument has ended. i think many judges. i do not think it is a maturity at all, but i think there are judges over the years who have believed it was the obligation

of the courts to picture what would make the ideal society and to bring it into being, and sometimes they have really stretch their interpretations of the law to get the job comes -- get the outcomes they preferred. sometimes i have agreed with that, but if you really want to affect the laws we live under, you should run for public office, and i have been bothered in the past by what i thought were overly activist judges who were more intent on following their own personal philosophies than on the law, but now i do not bounce down in great reverence to the courts. i think they are great, but of

which started with the idea that whatever the courts say -- if we started with the idea that whatever the courts say comes from heaven, we would be living with plessy versus ferguson. we would be living with racial segregation and worse. i think it is perfectly appropriate to say courts are wrong, and sometimes i think congress ought to steffan and reverse things -- step in and reverse things the courts have done pretty >> thank you. >> what does that feel like to come from california and go to this? >> i am from idaho originally. >> so you have a coat? >> yes. >> arkansas state university, and i want to know, how are you able to balance between being a delegate and a trusty in your career? >> i have done so much with the washington senator that i know there are political scientists in the room.

i served with congress for 16 years, and i never heard delegate trusty until after i left congress. as i said earlier, using the delegate part, but you have to do, and what weighs on you all the time -- and what you have to do, and weighs on you all the time, is you are the representative of a certain community. you represent a particular constituency, and i think you have to take that as important. one problem with the reform advocates who say what we need to do is create competitive elections -- we need to redraw all districts so they are all competitive, and there is merit to that, but it overlooks the

other part of it, which is the representational function, so if you have a community that has a collective interests that is mostly wheat farmers, you do not need somebody to represent that anti-wheat farmer position. representation is important, but i found often that my constituents, who are busy living their own lives, doing the best they can for their families and their careers, did not have the information available to me or other members of congress or the president, and some of what they got they were getting from deep intellectual sources like wikipedia or rush limbaugh, so you have to on important matters

-- sometimes you have to say i listened to my constituents, i took them seriously. they are just ron -- wrong, and one great book was about members of the senate who did what they thought was right for the country, even though it was something their constituents did not agree with, so i've balance it on issues where i did not really feel my constituency was wrong. çi followed their lead. i did what they wanted. i represented them, but if there was something important to me and i thought they were wrong, i did what i thought was right. w3ç>> it is wonderful to have u here today. >> guide to be fat. >> yesterday, patrick griffin -- glad to be back. >> yesterday, patrick griffin

was talking about policy making. the you believe there is a point when the president's party is in the majority were the legislature should refer to the president's agenda of the expense of their own, and what is that point? >> there is no such point. you never defer to the president. you took an oath of office. you do not defer to the president because he is president. there is one issue in which i refer sometimes, and that was national security. it is not because the president is in charge of national security. it is not. it is not because the president is in charge of foreign policy. he is not. in the constitution, all legislation -- the congress has a role in all those things. in the war powers act, we gave away too much power, but i was always aware -- like the previous question about how do

you balance things, i was aware of security issues, of the authority i had as a member of congress. i was also aware i had a staff of 21 people, and the president had the defense department, the cia, consulates, and he had probably better advice than i have, so on issues of war and peace, i was reluctant to say i know what i think. there was a time when iron deferred -- i deferred to the executives. glad to have you here. >> i am mike from the university of iowa. i have a question. >> congratulations.

>> do you think -- the members of house and senate are becoming complacent simply to save their seat, or is it may be because their actions have become acceptable by the american public to continue to vote for them as incumbents, or is it possible more powerful members from each party or restricting outside thought and stepping over party lines? >> it is an interesting question. i do not know the answer, because i have not talked to them. i know there is room of a political scientist here. how many of you have read david mahew from yale? the guy has no clue what he is talking about. [laughter] the principal promise --

premise is that members of congress, and i would assume it would be members of any legislative office, decide on what is going to get them reelected. what you have seen all the time in the health care devotes is done -- health care debate is people's votes that may get them defeated. when you decide what to vote is not your reelection chances. you may sometimes willingly cast a vote that is going to get you defeated, but you start with ideology. you start with your beliefs. everyone in this room has certain set of beliefs about what is good for the country and about the role of government versus the citizens and where you balance security against going for a complete body scan at the airport. you all have a view you're going to follow even if it means

you're going to get in trouble back home, so my view has not been that the reelection calculus affect how people are voting. it is also my view that who your campaign contributors are is not affect how you vote. it is your ideology but increasingly also your party. in one of my books i talked about this going back to the gingrich days in the house, when nonstop partisan warfare became the order of the day. it is not that the senior leader is doing it. it is that the party is saying, this is our party position as if we were a parliamentary system. i think that has become way too strong. >> thank you, sir.

>> i am laura anderson. i am from the university of massachusetts, and you mentioned it is important to read the proposed bills. i was wondering how much time you have on average to consider a bill and if that is enough time to completely understand it. >> as government gets bigger and the government takes up things that cover more and more territory, like baseball and concussion for football -- all this stuff, it becomes harder and harder. i do not know to what extent you on here have had the chance to consider the work of staffers in congress. one of the most important things you do as a member of congress is higher super staff, most of

them your age or just ask your age -- just past your age, but who will provide good in-depth research. every member of congress does it his or her own way. i insisted on a couple of things. one was -- i do not know if any of you are going to go to law school, but i am a lawyer, and one thing i told my staff is every briefing had to be one page, because if it is -- if you cannot say it in a page, you do not understand it. you are caught up in the verbiage. you can have a lot of other background information, but i want both sides presented, so what i got was a summary. who is for it, who is against it, what it would do, what is the argument for it or against it.

we had a staff meeting every monday morning. we talked about every building was going to come up. we had conversations and discussions. i did not read every word of every bill, but i got a briefing from people who didn', good summaries, and then we talked it out. i do not think i went to the floor on most things on informed. the think i went to the floor on most things pretty well under standing what was at stake. there were some examples where i did not have a clue. i know some of your from agricultural areas. i never understood a thing about agriculture, but i had to vote on it, so i have my own way. it is a secret way. i would go to a friend who

thought somewhat like i did who was on the committee, and i would say, how did you vote, and they tell me, and then i would vote that way, and then i would go to my office. i would call my legislative assistant, and i would say, i just voted for this. write something up telling me why. that was part of the balance, but on most issues were pretty well-informed. we could not read every bill, but we got very good briefings. >> thank you very much. >> do not tell anybody what i did. >> thank you for coming. i m rickey from suffolk university, boston. >> a lot of snow there. i just got back. >> i know. you mentioned we have seen a congress with more independent members to the reason health care debate, but republicans

remain unified. do you feel this is a place for moderate republicans in the near future in congress and democrats -- in congress? >> i would like to see more independence. i think it requires more independence, but i do not think i am seeing it. i am seeing more people locked into partisanship. what was the last part? >> do you think there is the near future for moderate republicans? >> you think that is good or are you asking whether that is going to happen? >> whether it is going to happen. >> there is an interesting book by a reporter in austin in which he made the argument that it is not just the the the -- the elite or elected officials who are polarized, but you have

communities in which you can to have people hanging out with, spending all their time with people who share their views, reading articles that share their views and so forth, and i think there's a lot of fat. i would like to believe it is not true, but i taught at harvard for 11 years. i am from oklahoma. you cannot find a liberal in oklahoma. you cannot find a conservative at harvard. i think there's a lot of truth about the way we tend to congregate, and that means you have communities like massachusetts and that it would be really hard to see a republican -- moderate or non- moderate, elected to federal office. we elect republican governors, and they tend to be more moderate. mitt romney was a moderate until he decided to run for president

and he became different common -- different, but i think probably not, not in the short term. i think it would be good if you have more diversity, but as you have now become more partisan, the partisan -- parties are taking on their own identities were you basically do not have a republican democrat as much as liberal and conservative, and it is getting harder and harder for any moderate republican to win a primary. it does not mean the electorate as a whole can vote and a moderate cannot win in ion -- in new hampshire or vermont, but you ought to get through the primary system first. that is a different topic about partisanship. you go to the polls inçç nove, and there may be a lot of people you would like to vote for but you cannot because those private clubs have gotten together and

weeded out everybody they did not want, so that was so different part of the problem, but i think it would be really high return really hard to have moderate republican or conservative democrats -- i think it would be really hard to have moderate republicans or conservative democrats. >> as we talkç about the partisanship andç polarization that happened in congress, you just mentioned you do not see in çthe near future moderates beig a viable candidate in the election, but you think anything can be done, or what the thing could happen to change the political scene? >> i do not think moderates are necessarily going to come to the forum. i think independencts might -- n any state there are more

registered independents who are not affiliated with any party, and i am not only person fed up with a high level of partisanship, and i think there have already been independents elected governors in some states. some local communities are giving rid of party designations for races for mayor, so i think we may see slowly a rise of the independent political. >> thank you. >> i am from washington jefferson college. you already answered two of my questions, but i was wondering, since barack obama already tried to enhance the role of congress by letting them do what they are supposed to do, the thing he

will continue this encouragement and have them keep doing what they're supposed to do, or the you think the criticism of what he tried to do will maybe stop him in the future from the following that role in congress tuesday? >> it is not -- allowing that role in congress to stay? >> it is not up to him. he does not allow congress to do anything. it is up to congress -- ronald reagan, who was very close june -- i was very close to admire a lot, he sent a budget to the congress and the house, and it was not looked at. it ended up and the trash. they said, thank you. you spend a lot of work on it, and we will decide. the problem is not the president's trying to assert or ççnot assert authority. every human being tries to have

more authority because you think you know what is the right thing to do. it is up to the congress to not surrender authority, and i prefer not using words like " authority" but obligation. it is up to congress to say we took an oath of office. we have to make that decision. the president may try to be more controlling, but i do not think he will get away with it. it is interesting. i hate to be critical of my own party, although i've often and -- when republicans plan to congress with a republican president, republicans backed like they were presidential staff -- act like they were presidential staff. a lot of the democrats, especially olderç democrats, do not think that. i guarantee charlie rangel and henry waxman are not going to act like they are part of the

president's staff. they are going to say we were here before. we will be here after. i think obama may try to push more, but i do not think congress will listen. >> hamilton said in this book the congress has these, -- has been timid with the constitutional duties. do you think they have been too timid? >> i think it is a couple of reasons. i do not know it said the what he was talking about. one was the rise of partisanship. when george bush was president and republicans were running for congress, they really saw the president not as the head of a different branch of government. they saw him as their team captain. what did you do emma -- what do

you do? that was a mess -- a serious mistake on their part. sometimes when partisanship arises, and you say we want to go along with the president, but there are other reasons. one of the worst examples of congress for rendering its authority is the war powers act. under the constitution, the congress decides whether you go to war, and there is a reason for that. having seen kings and emperors sending people off in pursuit of whatever was the favorite cause of the president or keene, our founders said, we're going to go to war only of the people themselves through their

representatives say we think it is worth going to war over. that is where the people's representatives decide. -- that is why the people's representatives decide. the war powers act says we are going to allow the president of the united states to take this country to war, and then we will çlook at it and decide whetherr not it should continue. what are you going to do? you may not think you should be at war, but i was not going to vote to cut off the support, the ammunitions for our troops and combat. basically the art surrendered that authority to the executives, and the reason for that was not partisanship. it was that you are reluctant in this age to put your view ahead of the guy who has got all the agencies in the defense department and all that, so that is a feeling that i do not want

to be the one who screwed up and causes the next bombing or whatever, so that is part of it. >> thank you. >> did morning. my name is katie. my question is the same voting along party line is a violation of the oath of office. what is being done in congress to address this issue? if it is not being addressed, what measures to use it just congress takes to redress their accountability to the u.s. government revenue then their party lines? >> there is only one ultimate power in our system. the ultimate final word, and that is you. that is the people. one of the things -- i was pretty partisan myself. i was national chairman of the

american conservative union. i was founder of the heritage foundation. i was a leader in the republican party. i went back to my congressional district one time many years ago, and i had many town meetings, and gave the usual response. i do not remember what the question was. somebody asked why was not doing anything, and i gave what i believe to be the truthful answer. i said, i am trying. the democrats controlled congress. they will not let us get this done. one of my constituents the up and said richard i do not know his name, -- stood up and said -- i do not know his name, but he said i am tired ofçw3ç÷d hg the democrats do this and the republicans to they>(rykyçk. they allçmçtm burst intoçç, and i have never done it since. çáartjr=çi] isçweztçççr

representative talking in terms of the other party, you haveç t to call them on it. you have got to say, we send you there to be a member of congress, to take the oath of office, to obey the constitution, and that is your obligation. we are going to watch to see if you do that, and when you do not do that if you follow your party -- i wrote an article for "the l.a. times" that pointed out barbara boxer and dianne feinstein each voted with their party over 95% of the time. i said anybody who votes for their party 95% of the time ought to be tossed out of office, so the american people ought to be the ones to stand up and insists that any elected official does his or her duty. it will not happen otherwise. when they know you're going to

kick them out of office if you do not, that will do it. >> thank you. >> i am from suffolk university in boston. >> there is nobody left in boston. they are all here. >> do you feel health care bills like the one working through congress that mandate citizens to buy health care from a private company our constitutional -- our constitutional? >> i got some criticism from people who wanted health care reform for saying that. ?ndi do think -- i am not a constitutional scholar, but i think there's a constitutional question. somebody said to me, you are required to buy car insurance. no, you are not.

you are required to buy car insurance if you have a car and you drive. that is part of it, but to require to mandate that people go out and purchase a product -- i do not know whether it is constitutional or not. i am not saying it is not. çi am saying constitutionalityf it will be questioned. >> thank you. >> myç name is chelsea. yesterday, we spent a lot of time discussing minister be elections coming up this year, and -- discussing midterm elections coming up this year, and i want your opinion on how that could change congress and its relationship with the obama presidency, specifically in regard with the senators retiring. i am from connecticut. >> chris dodd's retirement would help the democrats, because he would probably lose the seat,

and theç democrat who will probably runç will probably win that seat,ç so he could help te party. i think republicans have a good chance of winning. it is really rare for a president's party to gain seats are not lose seats -- or not lose seats in the first election after president is elected. there's almost always a time when the president's party loses seats, and when you add to that the fact that this president has been very ambitious in terms of the number of major kinds of controversial issues -- he has pushed in his first years, a lot of which generates a lot of

opposition common -- opposition, whether it is buying part ownership in companies for the huge bailout of the financial industry, or health care, all of which are very controversial, i think democrats are going to be really hurt in the elections. .

.

ol policy, the new congress and the new year. thank you very much. raul? >> thank you, andrea, very much. it's a pleasure to be here at the center for american progress. and with left-right, because i think what is startling about this is that, we have to have a major report to point out the economic benefits of immigration. i think that this is one thing

that is should have been learned by now for this, especially the is one of the strongest elements of the united states, consistent economic growth habits ability to attract the most talented workers from around the world. and the real issue now is that we need to reboot the system. we need to reboot so that we create an economic powerhouse from, from immigration to its maximum capacity. and that means basically moving towards a legal is moving away from a current system where we bring in workers, where we know they will not have a full economic participation in the society. moving towards one where they can become maximumal contributors. i think that's the fundamental message of the, of the report. and i think that there can be broad agreements on, on that. i'm simply going to make a couple of points about this. i really think that the issue, especially as we're in an

economic challenging moment, as we're trying to come out of one of the deepest recessions that the united states has experienced, is that we've seen that economic impacts of legalization and of a legal future flows, is an economic necessity for building a strong economic recovery. and essentially why we say this is that we're building on historical experiences. we essentially will present results in this study, that looked at the historical record of what our, what have previous legalizations done for the u.s. economy. and then project out into the future, not only those immediate benefits of legalization, but moving towards a legal regime for future flows of immigration. and the bottom line is, as we, and this is in a sense, startling the number 1.5 trillion, is a relatively

obviously in washington terms now, almost unnecessary discussion to have on these types of numbers. but this is really economic analysis that is not only supported about i my research here, with a team i've worked with in california. but i'm very glad to know that the cato institute is supporting research from australia, top economists in australia, we came in completely independent methodologists, have come to the same conclusions. and especially when it's such a significant number and such an important impact potentially for the entire economy going forward. number one, legalization therefore produces produces immediate economic impact. based on what we've known in previous legalizations. the reason is that legalization empowers workers immediately to become much more committed and integrated into the economy.

immigrants are in a sense, a, a hidden or an undocumented immigrants in particular are a hidden economic engine that we keep, we have kept repressed in this country to the extent, like we saw 20 years ago with legalization, that we allowed them to join the economic mainstream. we see an immediate impact in terms of wages and productivity that they are able to contribute to the economy. i'll show you some graphs in a minute. in addition to that, the, what we've seen is that future flows and the legalized population into the future creates a potential for much more sustained levels of higher wage employment and higher productivity over time. in addition to that, we do do the scenario where we look at the alternative that's been discussed here in washington,

which is more enforcement as the strategy, moving forwards, greatser degrees of deportation, we're moving to high numbers of deportation. what we're seeing is that this actually reproduce as vicious cycle in the economy. it creates a greater wage repression in particularly the low-wage labor market as it pushes more workers into fear and into what we've seen, the actual results of which is actually decreasing real wages and repressed economic activity in those sectors where these deportations have focused on. if we take this to a, its full conclusion, it's a catastrophe. the movement towards full deportations in this country produces close to $2.6 trillion in economic decline. literally, not, in a sense, really accelerate the movement

towards, towards recession and depression. like we saw by the way in the 1930s, during the mass deportations that were part of the contribution of leading us further down into depression from '29 to '32. i'm going to make the point that our current dynamic of policy focusing only on basically an enforcement-first strategy, is consistently resulting in less and less efficient results for both reducing immigration as well as efficiently using tax dollars. this is just the full information is in the report. over time, we've been seeing a really skyrocketing expenditures in particularly i.c.e. and

border patrol apprehensions even before the economic downturn. the result is that costs for apprehensions are really skyrocketing. any agency that delivers these type of numbers in terms of what its effectiveness is, we've gone from almost 15 times growth in terms of the costs per arrest. we're not becoming more efficient, we're, this is a, this actually is the only thing that what we've been able to see in recent studies confirmed this. the federal reserve board of atlanta for example, makes the case that, that this type of, of policies over the last 20 years, what it's actually done is repressed the wage growth in many sectors, that increasingly turn towards undocumented workers, and it actually encourages much other sectors to

have to compete with, with lower wages by moving towards undocumented populations. so we call this the vicious cycle of the current strategy. it's broken, we have to change, we have to move forward. and what, what we then look back and historically look, asking the question, well what are our options? what happens during the last immigration reform of 1986? and what we see, we basically start with research ha was done by the u.s. department of labor, initiated by george bush i, and what we see from these results are quite twrinteresting. not really a central part of the discussion, which they should be. irca legalization took place from 1988 to 1991. interestingly enough, during a very large last major growth in unemployment during the current

recession. but during that period, what we saw is that actually wages increased. wages, particularly for workers who had been here since at least before '82, that was the condition for legalization, whose wages had been flat within those three years, even during an economic downturn, saw their wage increases by typically 15 to 20%. and women saw a greater wage increase after legalization. and what's interesting is that this occurred throughout the united states. the regions throughout the united states, even a place like southwestern texas, that had seen wages, real wages dropping before legalization. saw a really dramatic increase in legalizations. again, during the period of economic downturn. and what we then looked for is that over time, the earnings not

only helped native workers, but they, as well as, but as well as helping the undocumented. this is very significant again, this is survey results that would, have been well documented and well studied over the last 20 years. the other interesting feature that happens right after legalization, is actually a major dropoff in undocumented migration. and apprehensions across the border. we've spent billions of dollars trying to achieve these types of numbers. these numbers were achieved with the republican president, and a bipartisan support in congress, bypassing legalization. we saw dramatic downturns right after legalization of obviously the flow of the undocumented that sustained themselves up until about '94, when there was the beginning of an economic recovery. the problem with irca is we did not have provisions for adequate future legal flows into the economy. so this is what we started as a

baseline, and this is more data over the long-term that we see really important impacts of, of legalization over the 20 years. i don't have real-time to go over it now. but if you are interested, the information is available from on this report, and from the nate center. what we did do is take three scenarios. one is of course this acceleration towards further deportationings and to its maximum implications of mass deportations. the second is we look at creating a program whereby future flows are brought in. but they're necessarily capped on a temporary basis. and we contrast both of these scenarios to essentially a flow, both of legalization today, as well as future flow of immigration based on needs of the economy going forward.

and essentially creating the ability for some workers to come in temporarily, so they chose. and other workers to come in on a more permanent basis, if they choose. as my economists, professors at the university of chicago used to say, freedom to choose is an extremely powerful incentive for the way in which market economy should be organized. and in this particular instance, i think that this research really supports that type of thinking with respect to immigration. with respect to immigration. we need to have an ability to bring in future workers in a condition that they can make commitments that make strategic sense for their families and can therefore make the best contributions possible for the economy of of the united states. what is the results of these scenarios? this is the numbers that angie was talking about. these $1.5 trillion over ten years of what we call comprehensive immigration reform, in comparison

particularly to a major drop-off of over $2.6 trillion that would result from a major restrictive deportation scenario. it's interesting, again -- i don't really want to stress that much this difference with the temporary program, but if we don't have -- temporary immigration is good for the economy, absolutely, but we think and our study indicates that it would be much -- we would be much better served by having a more flexible system whereby if some workers can't come in and incorporate themselves fully and legally into the economy, that is absolutely the best scenario in terms of their ability to have wage growth and contribute productivity to the economy. over time, this is essentially what we've done here is taken the results of what's called a computered generated equilibrium

model, people have come to similar types of numbers, and we use the congressional budget office projections of the economy over the next ten years as a baseline by which then we look at the particular results generated by our analysis. and we see that this is over various sectors of the economy. in all sectors of the economy, moving towards further restrictive immigration and deportations would be catastrophic in all cases we see a dramatic benefit towards moving towards a comprehensive immigration reform that essentially allows workers to commit to the economy, to their own education, to their own ability to contribute max i m i

mali, this has much higher wage growth through the process of legalization. the movement from an undocumented status to a legal stat you us not only increases their ability to earn but what's very interesting is that what we've seen from the surveys immediately after erca and 20 years on is a really commitment to invest in their own future in this country, both in terms of education, in terms of job skills, as well as generates very strong productivity growth in the jobs and sectors that they aparticipate in, but over time also generating savings, investment in the banking sector of the economy and in the real estate sectors of the economy and small business growth which then has multiplier effects. all of these future multiplier effects from legalization are not even covered in these results. these are results basically based on simply a former of

legalization and inability to bring in future flows on a legal basis. so i think i'm going to leave it at that and be very eager to talk to my colleagues on the podium and members of the press as soon as possible. thank you. >> can you give us some comments and reactions, please? >> thank you, angie. and i want to thank the center for american progress and immigration policy center for holding this event. i want to thank the doctor for authoring a very useful study. i think all of my liberal and democratic friends should read this study and take on board its conclusions. the conclusions are very stark, that restrictions on immigration impose real costs on american households and the u.s. economy

beyond the tax dollars that are spent to crack down on immigration and deport illegal workers and that it deportation raises the incomes in households. this is about jobs and income and opportunity. i think the first half of the paper is very useful as well. it's a survey of the literature reviewing what's been spent on immigration enforcement over the last 20 years and it's a tremendous amount. as the study shows, we've gotten very little results from it. a policy of enforcement only is a policy of failure. it has proven to be that. we need legalization, comprehensive immigration reform. i also think it is remarkable that the bottom-line conclusion, while this was a different computerable general model than the cato institute used for a study we published last year, the bottom-line headline number was remarkably similar, according to the center for

american progress study, the u.s. economy is $189 billion better off after ten years. our conclusion at cato was that u.s. households would be $180 billion better off. in some ways the i'm also heartened to see there was a section in the study with the headline effective immigration reform, must address future flows. i wish i could have every member of congress chant that over 10 times each morning before they tackle immigration reform. you know, if we just legalize the 11 million who are here illegally and crack down on enforcement, get tough on enforcement, we're just doing 1986 all over again. that's what it was about. the missing leg of the school. as secretary napolitano put it right here last month. to make

a provision for future flow. some kind of temporary worker program, guest worker program, that is absolutely essential. if that's not part of comprehensive immigration reform, it's not worth doing. we're just setting ourselves up for failure. i just want to point out that cato did come out with a stud yes. i have a few copies here if anybody wants it. again, the results were remarkably similar. the cato study is based on the model that is actually used by the u.s. international trade commission and the homeland security department to analyze trade and immigration issues. and we found that u.s. households, not the immigrants who are legalized but u.s. households would see their incomes rise by 1.19%, which comes to over $180 billion. we also found that the cost of reducing illegal immigration through increased enforcement

was about $80 billion a year. you you put those two together, and the difference between getting it wrong and getting it right is about $250 trillion a year. that's real money even today in washington. so the stakes are high. we found the biggest benefit is something called the occupation mix effect. i think this should get the attention of every politician in washington. when you allow more low-skilled work hers to come into the united states legally it allows american workers to shift up the skill ladder. creates relatively more opportunities higher up the skill ladder as managers, accountants, salespeople. and over time this leads to higher productivity and higher income for americans. it increases investment, which is good for the economy but also creates more revenue for the government. it allows us you to take money that is now wasted on smugglers' fees for illegal immigrants to come into the united states to lead to real consumption here in the united states.

and again higher tax revenues for the government. i wouldn't be doing my job if i didn't nitpick a little bit. they don't detract over the all study. the term full labor rights is used without really will defining it. i wonder if that isn't a code word for more unionization, which i don't think really this is what about. the great benefit of legalization is that immigrants can enjoy the full labor rights that are available to all american workers right now. it also uses the term flexible legal limits which i think needs to be defined. but none of that should take away from i think the bottom-line headline finding of this study, that is, you have two very different organizations coming to very similar conclusions, and that is enforcement only is a policy that has not only failed but has imposed significant costs on americans as taxpayers and in

our economy. if congress and the president want to create better jobs and stimulate the economy, then comprehensive immigration reform, including a temporary worker program, should be very high on their agenda. thank you very much. >> thank you, dan. heather, your thoughts? >> yeah. thank you. well, this is a great panel to be on. both of these papers actually were with really quite interesting. so as we've already gone over here a couple of times today, the basic finding of the doctor's paper is that grapting legal status to the millions unauthorized immigrants in this united states would have a positive effect on the wages of immigrant workers and the wageses of u.s. workers overall as well as having a positive effect on u.s. economic growth and the u.s. economy. so there's a couple of things i want to underscore. one is that this is not just a hypothetical model made up by some economist in his basement

with his data. this is a model that is based on prior experience. it's baesed on what happened when we did something similar to this in the late 1980s. so this is fact based. and you don't even need to -- if you you have questions or concerns about these numbers, you you can look to the fantastic literature review in this paper that talks about what happened in the late 1980s after the immigration reform and control act granted legal status to unauthorized immigrant workers and that we did see that wages rose and this was good for the economy. so i think that, if nothing else, is one of the most important messages from this paper, along with the new research that's based on that prior experience. now, i want to just break down the economic logic here for you. because it may i think one of of the things if you just sort of read this and said, wow, how is it that giving people legal rights in the work place is not just good for the workers but everybody else and the economy? that seems to be a bitd of a jm

p for folks. let me break that down. first of all, i think everybody could sort of understand, right, if you don't have legal rights at work, those workers who do not have legal rights are easily coerced into taking jobs that offer lower wages because employers have all of the power. that is of course what we see, immigrant works tend to be especially -- pardon me. illegal workers tend to have much lower wages and worse working conditions and basic labor standards that are enforced for other workers are simply not enforced in those jobs. that is exactly what we see today. so if you were to give those workers legal rights, this would increase the wages especially at those jobs at the very bottom, the kind of service sector, janitorial, house cleaning, day laborers work would see an immediate increase in wages. so how does it that feed through to a positive effect for other workers in the economy?

well, in our economy right now today, about 70% of the economy is driven by consumption will. that means it's driven by the money that you and i and everybody else spends. so if you take a small but not insignificant chunk of workers and you give them a raise and you give them better working conditions, then those folks will have more money to spend, as the prior research says, they invest more in their communities but they also are going to increase their spending on basic goods like food, housing, education. that's going to have a positive effect for the economy overall. it' going to boost economic demand especially in low-income communities, and a positive reverberating effect throughout our economy. that's exactly what the papers measure, the positive reverberating effect from paying these workers the wages that other workers receive. but, second, there's also a productivity gain. you have a lot of workers here in this country who, because they do not have the right to

work, are in yob jobs far below their skill level. you have nurses coming from other countries who can't get jobs in hospitals because they don't have the right papers so they're working in house cleaning or you have engineers who are workers with highly developed construction skills working as day laborers because they don't have the right authorization. that is a net loss because those worker skills are not being fully utilized and that pulls down productivity. so, as my colleagues up here have already sort of spoken to, i think the way forward is fraenkly very simple. as this research shows, comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes currently unauthorized immigrants and creates flexible legal limits on future immigration in the context of ensuring that every worker has basic labor rights would help both american workers and the u.s. economy overall. this policy will boost the wagesor for those that are made the least among us and would have a net positive effect on

our economy. >> thank you very much, heather. final thoughts? >> sure. so let me step back a little bit and talk about this report in the context of the immigration debate at large. i think there are two important things about this report. one with certainly that it shines a spotlight on the potential for a very large input in our economy at a time when we need it. even in washington, d.c., $1.5 trillion is a lot of money. but the report also i think has a very important reminder of where the focus of an immigration reform effort ought to be, and that is about how do we provide benefits to the american economy and to the american workers? this immigration reform effort needs to be about creating an american system of immigration, that we collectively decide and hopefully legislators will get to the business of examining, what is in the best interest of american workers and the american economy? so, you you know, i think that

is where with the debate needs to be. it is about improving rights and opportunities for all workers. it is about achieving economic growth for the economy as a whole. immigration has always been a powerful tool for our economy. i mean, we have created i think as the doctor alluded to, one of the most flexible, dynamic labor forces the world has ever seen. look how we moved from an agrayerian, industrial to sort of information age economy. we've done that faster and more efficiently than any other country in the world. in large part because of this flexible labor force. and immigration has played a significant role in. i think we need to be purposeful and intelligent about how we continue the benefits that historically we have reaped from immigration here in the united states. so, again, immigration reform has to be about creating an american immigration system. the stakes are high, but the reword wards i think are significant. but to reap the rewards we've

got to move beyond this simplistic short-handed nal success that we have dominated the public debate about immigration thus far. we have over the last really ten years seen a proliferation of reports and rhetoric that purport to assess the costs of immigration in the united states. most of those reports by their own admission take a very shortsided snapshot view of what immigration means in the united states. they ignore these larger issues of productivity. they don't think of immigrants as producers and consumers in our economy. they ignore issues of entrepreneurship, issues of job creation, sort of play fast and loose with this issue of how to treat their children, which all of our children are initially very costly, but the investments that we make in our children are investments that pay off in huge ways moving forward. so, again, you have to take i think the longer view on these

issues rather than the simplistic snapshots. you also can't simplify this issue of unemployment that we're facing today. you know, workers in our economy are not simply cogs in some sort of giant machine. you know, they are not interchangeable in that kind of way. they have very different skillsets. they live in different regions. they are different ages and have different levels of experience and different places in their careers. you y so the problems that an unemployed worker in detroit, whether it's a welder or autoworker, the problem that unemployed worker faces can't be resolved by removing an immigrant laborer in central california who's engaejed in agricultural work or is a landscaper. just those kinds of things don't mix. we have a complicated series

problem when it comes to unemployment but we need to be serious about addressing those things. confusing the issue of p immigration in a simplistic way is not only a distortion of reality but i think a distraction from the real challenges that we face in terms of those issues. you know, and a final point on this issue because it came up in the context of some responses to this it report in particular, you you you know, this notion that, you know, we're just talking about people who are -- who have low levels of education, we're talking about the undocumenteded population and their arrival here has somehow dragged our economy down. the fact of the matter is, over the last 30 years, the share of our work force that has less than a high school diploma has gone down every year. we should be proud of the fact that we have a domestic labor force that is better educated. but we can't ignore the economic implications of that. we can't ignore the fact that we are an economy that is driven a lot by consumerism. that means a lot of service jobs

that don't require a lot of education and training. so, i mean, i think it's important to go into this reform effort with our eyes open and a willingness hopefully on the part of our legislators to get past the process of how to jockey for a better position in their particular elections and get to the business of confronting difficult issues that are complex but deserve real leadership and a broader view. >> thank you very much. we'll now move to the question and answer period of the program. >> the mexican news agency. i would like to ask professor hinojosa, given the unemployment in the u.s., i'm wondering if your analysis -- how will the legalizeation of millions of undocumented workers pay in the u.s. and also the political problems that democrats seem to be facing in november, to what

extent do you think this circumstances will play a role in the decision whether or not to spend political capital on immigration reform in 2010? >> well, i completely agree with ben. i think the real danger at this point is that we basically get it wrong in terms of the relationship between immigration reform and unemployment. two things that are really significant from the way we did this study is because we did go back and look at what happens turned context of economic stress and again, make the point. look at what happened. unemployment was growing in this country. it grew over 50% during that period of time. not because of illegalizeation but because of another real estate crisis that we had during the 1980's and savings and loans

crisis, primarily driving the macroeconomy. reverberating effect notion, that that has, which is exactly by the way what the doctor will will order at this moment of slack, economy is the ability for people to be more confident and want to spend and really commit themselves more to the economy. that's exactly the type of shot in the arm that legalization would have. second is this very important impact in terms of a long-term productivity that begins now. this effect that we had in the 1980s of immigrants turning towards their own education, their own ged, english language, paying for their own skill, it

grew by 200% of their own resourc resources, not the government resources, paid off immediately and much omore over the long term. so i think that we have to confront the know-nothings that are going to try to stick their head in the sand and make a simplistic relationship between imand unemployment. this is exactly what we have to 0 be doing at this moment where we're beginning to see some types of signs of life in an economy which i think we may see even a more positive recovery in terms of the impact of legalization that it could have at this stage as it probably would happen about a year from now, when unemployment is going to start going down at a faster pace. so the political issue i'll let other people address. >> first i want to offer a comment on immigration and unblowment. it does make it politically more difficult when you have a 10% unemployment rate. there is no correlation over

time in increased immigration and increased unemployment. immigration is a sa safety valve for the labor market. if there aren't jobs, the immigrants don't come or they go home. that's why you've seen the number of imgranlts decline over the last couple of years. i think now is a perfectly fine time to institute comprehensive immigration reform. one of the findings of our study at cato is that as you move up the skill ladder, the structural unemployment rate tends to decline. so if you get this occupation mix effect with more low-skilled imgranlts coming into the country, the actual structural unemployment rate of native-born american workers will decline. a word about the politics, i think this is an opportunity for the democrats on their watch to fix this problem that has been vexing americans for decades. that is what to do about illegal immigration. through comprehensive immigration reform, through the three-legged stool of more

effective enforcement, legalization of those who are here, and a temporary worker program to provide for future flows, i think the democratic party, president obama working with republicans, and there are republicans who will work positively on this issue, can fix this problem. they just have to do it right. the challenge to democrats i think is to hold off, let's be frank. labor unions tend to be hostile to government worker programs. republicans have their problem where they're nativist conservative wing i. think this is a call for leadership and bipartisanship. it can be done. whether it will be remains to be seen. >> heather? >> couple of comments on the data on unemployment. first, you are seeing folks simply going back to home countries at this point because there are no jobs here. so there's that issue. but then second, the unemployment rate does include nonlegal workers. it's a household survey. there's an undercounting, but

those workers are already included in the data. there's no reason to think that legalization would somehow effect the unemployment rate from one day to the next. if anything, it would likely lower it because you have hundreds of thousands of -- i don't know exactly how many people, but somewhere in the tens thousands of work hes who because they are unemployed and unauthorized to work are looking at a much smaller job market than other workers. so they may be out of work and searching for work for a much longer time than workers who could apply for any job. so you've really closed off opportunities for them and they've been in some of the jobs that have been hitteardest by t recession, in particular the construction. >> i think the final thought on the political question is, it's really the con fluns of a political argument and policy stream. the policy argument is clear, that this is an economic winner. we gain $1.5 trillion over ten years if we legalize the undocumented population.

the political argument is also clear. this herb is like the big pothole that when congress is driving its legislative bus it smacks into each and every time. it's come up in health care. it will come up you in every economic effort that this congress and administration naik makes. it's completely shortsighted to not lean into the issue because we've got expanding hispanic legal voters who will look at this issue very carefully. what happens with it or doesn't happen with it going to the 2010 elections. we've got an issue where we know that we can do a checkmark in terms of helping the economy and frankly these folks were with elected to solve problems. and if they go back to voters, particularly latino voters but al voters who want to see it taken off the table add and it's not resolved, i think a lot of people will stay home in november 2010, not an outcome any politician wants. i'll take another question.

>> charlie ericson with hispanic link news service here in washington. welcome to washington. hope you're enjoying the weather. two questions. one directed at raul which generally, what do you you see the role of unions playing in your assessment that would work? once with you say the words guest workers, you're also talking about some of the programs in the past. what should be the role of unions in your mind? and, secondly, for anybody, what about what you you just mentioned, angela, the definite divide between democrats and republicans and all the other issues that have come up you so far, do you you you see any change in that immigration

issue? thank you. >> okay. short answers. i know a lot of people have questions. >> good to see you you, charlie. actually, i don't see this dichotomy between unions and guest workers as the fundamental thing of what i'm talking about in this paper. actually, in fact, i -- one with of the boast experiences we've ever had from legalization is spanish immigration to europe when they opened -- created much more flexible legal system. many workers decided to do it temporarily. i think that's part of the reality of what we should try to encourage, that type of condition. i'm just -- i just think it's not a good idea as a matter of policy to recreate a separate class of workers that can only be brought in under a definite period of time and will not be able to be potentially fully contributing to the u.s. economy. i don't think that's necessarily

an issue of being prounion in any particular way. i mean, i think the issue is more, we want to create a condition i think in this type of flexibility in the labor market where we want to encourage people to have their own strategic decisions and their families to make good for themselves. in that sense, that should be the basis by which we allow for immigration to be really maintained and structured over time rather than imposing a very select i think set of time lines and rights to those workers. that's just because i've seen it work a lot better in alternative ways. and i've seen some temporary programs not work as well. >> if i could just follow up on that one. have you seen any possibility or hope for unionization of guest worker programs in some way where unions could play a role in dealing with those who come here temporarily?

>> not really the subject. >> it's not really -- i mean, that was tried in the '40s, one of the things that didn't work. so i don't think that's probably what's going to drive the debate at this point. >> any comments on bipartisanship? ben johnson. >> again, i think to your with point, angie, this is about electing leaders, you know. hopefully neither party has a monopoly on that issue. i think there are republicans who understand the importance of. this you know, there are divides. i think everybody recognizes that in washington here today. but i think there is room, plenty of room, quite frankly, for bipartisanship on this issue. if you get past the sound bites, to issues of i think as raul says, the point of the temporary potential conflict on the temporary issue is whether we let folks provide them an opportunity to set down roots, which i think is important. and i think if we again get beyond sound bites there's

plenty of room for bipartis bipartisanship on this issue. >> all right. >> lewis here at the center. heather, you did a really nice job of explaining how comprehensive immigration reform helps increase the wages well-being of those who gain status and are able to il prove themselves, invest in themselves. but the report also says one of the impact is it would raise the wages of native workers and indeed raise wages for high-skilled workers. could you illuminate why that is so? >> yes, although i would want to give the awe you thor a chanuthk about that as well. raul, do you want to take that first? i would feel more comfortable. >> yeah. well, there's a couple of way s

in which that occurs, which i think is in interesting point exactly what dan spoke about. a lot of the immigration that is brought into this country is actually very complementary to the higher skilled structure of the u.s. economy in a variety of ways, knowledge in terms of the ability to create an expansion of thosectors that allow complementary skill -- higher skilled workers to interact with them in the productive process as well as in the consumption process. bottom line is, you know, l.a. has some of the best restaurants and great cities in the united states have them, in part because of the ability to bring in a particular type of worker that provide those types of services. and in that sense, most high-skilled workers are also strong consumers of products and services produced by immigrants that actually have a very positive effect in terms of their real incomes in societies.

and it's actually quite interesting that in many districts we've actually looked into this where there's opposition to immigration are some of those types of work hes that actually benefits very strongly from the presence of immigration and that, in effect, would be hurting themselves. i think that we've really created a disconnect between the ways in which immigration really helps a wide variety of workers and i really again want to say i'm very pleased that this work that cato and peter dixon from australia did actually come at very different approaches but really with the same type of structural conditions and results that we're pointing to in our study. >> thank you. >> the gentleman in the back? >> playing a bit of devil's

advocate here, in the study, you do you measure possible negative impacts of legalization? i was thinking of the fact that documented workers will have access to unemployment insurance, which they don't now, and maybe health care, you know. the health care reform doesn't cover undocumented workers, but they will cover them if they are documented. then the other issue is, you know, a lot of the anti-immigrant groups say, as you know, that legalization will encourage more entry. i mean, that people will see, okay, just go to the united states and eventually you're going to get your papers so let's go in. and the experience as you mentioned in the '80s was not that. i wonder if you could elaborate on that. i mean, what's the outcome there? y in that kind of scenario. >> first, sorry, couldn't read

my own handwriting there. the first question on benefits and health care. communities pay for that, regardless. so we're only looking at one tiny slice of the puzzle when you think just because somebody doesn't have health care or can't get medicaid communities are not paying for that. it is coming through either more people becoming sicker and sick and using more emergency room and other services and because they don't have labor standards showing up to work sick. many work in the food industry. they show up to work sick lowering product itself making others sick. we're paying for this regardless. it is just who pays for it. how are we restructuring it? are we aggregating this across a wider range of people through

making folks legal? second, on the question of increases entry, my understanding of the literature of this is that people migrate where there are job opportunities available. igration into the united states during the '90s and some parts of the early -- mostly through the 1990s was because of the increase in job opportunities especially at the low end of the labor market and because of the rising wages. people come when there are job opportunities available. if this research is valid and turns out to be true, if we were to do comprehensive immigration reform and that led to broader economic growth, i think you would see people say, wow, we can come. but they're coming because there are jobs primarily and people are coming regardless of whether or not they can become legal or not. that's a very good devil's advocate question, but it doesn't necessarily vijive with

the facts. >> the cato study looked at six different channels through which low-skilled immigration effects the u.s. economy. one of them is public expended turs. we found if more low-skilled imgrapts come into the united states there is an increase in public expenditures. it's just the nature of our system. low-skilled workers tend to more into government benefits and pay less in taxes. the key finding is that is overwhelmed by the positive impact of the economy through the other channels i talked about, americans being able to move up to more productive, better paying jobs, more investment in the u.s. economy, lower structural unemployment. the other point you made about just encouraging more illegal immigration, i think that is a danger of following the 1986 path of just legalizing those who are here but making no provision, no accommodation, for future workers to enter. that is going to send the signal

that if you come here and stay long enough illegally eventually you'll be legalized. the beauty of a temporary worker program, accommodating future labor needs, is that you create a legal channel, a legal alternative, for these workers to come into the united states. somebody mentioned the brasaro program earlier. i think there's a positive and le negative lesson there. the negative lesson is, we shouldn't tylo-skilled workers to a specific employer. that's where the abuse comes in. i think the best worker right you can give is mobility. if you don't like the conditions and the wages, you have the freedom to move to another job across the street or across the country. that's what we need to do right at this time. we don't need a whole raft of new labor laws. just give them legal papers and mobility. the positive lesson from the brasaro program is that in the 1950s we were apprehending 1 million people a year at the

border. congress did two things. they increased enforcement but they also dramatically increased the number of visas. and what happened to apprehensions at the border? they dropped 95%. the lesson is, if you give a legal alternative, illegal immigration will drop significantly. so if you're concerned about illegal immigration, the best thing we can do is create a legal alternative through a temporary worker program. >> do you have any more comments, doctor? >> i just want to make -- i completely agree with him on this issue of the cost. the overwhelming -- that's what most studies don't do, look at the secondary positive economic effects and look at the fiscal impact of those positive secondary effects compared to the short-term costs that would be associated with that. second, what's interesting about the right -- right after legalization is that it actually does decrease the demand for undocumented crossings.

the legal options, i completely agree, create a reduction in terms of undocumented flows in the short run. what we know about immigration is it's basically a demand-driven phenomena. this is not -- if not, we'd be full of billions of people who would want to be here right now. it's obviously not that the borders are broken they're so porous that's keeping people out. it's really a matter of the demand and the social dimensions of how that labor market works in the united states. if we basically raise that floor, right, and that's the concept here, that if we raise the floor that's going to do very positive things for the u.s. you economy. i will say this. it's not necessarily good news for immigrants -- it will not solve the problem in immigrant sending countries. and we need to think about that. i think that it would be very good for the foreign press to underscore that, that we need a complementary set of economic

policy discussions in the immigrant sending countries that have to complement this immigration reform because the bottom line is, if we do it right, there's going to be less demand for easily exploitable low-wage labor coming into the united states. >> we have time for one more quick question. the gentleman in the back. >> bob samuel son, "newsweek." this is for the study's author. i'm a little bit perplexed as how you can describe the period of the late 1980s when with icra was implemented as a period of weak labor demand. unemployment peaked in december and november of 1982 at 10.8%. the average in 1984 was 7.5%. it continued to go down until the recession of 1990/91. so the period of immediate implementation was a part of very strong economic and labor market growth.

>> well, i could put up the graph, but actually from '88 to '91, at the end of the period, is when we do see unemployment rate going up from about 5.8% to about 7.8%. so it was exactly during that period of time with growing unemployment that occurred, that's basically what doomed the second term for george bush, exactly during this period of time when the legalization took place. so i think that it's -- we had a weakening labor market. we had a growing unemployment rate exactly during the moment when we saw not only legalization take place but these wage increases taking place and this movement -- this initial movement towards actually drying up some of the

worst exploitable cases of sweatshops in this country. that's where what we saw during this period of time actually was movement of some workers out of the worst cases of sweatshops that did close down during this period of rising unemployment. but for the entire economy, what's interesting is that you had legalization producing wage increases for those workers that did get legalized even on condition of growing g2nnngggnnnnggngnnnnnnnsssssccss [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] >> today on "washington journal" a discussion on international and home-grown terrorism with brian michael jenkins. also a look at same-sex marriage with david masci and following that, william taylor of the institute of peace will join us talking about the role of afghan civilians in taking leadership. today, remarks by the newly elects head of the a.f.l.-c.i.o. that's live at 1:00 p.m. here on c-span. there is just two weeks left to enter c-span's 2010 student cam

contest. $50,000 in prizes for middle and high school students. top prize, $5,000. just create a five to eight minute video on our country's greatest strength or challenge. enter before midnight january 20. winning entries will be shown on c-span. don't wait another minute. as negotiations continue on a compromised health care bill, drew armstrong of c.q., have lawmakers made much progress? >> i think they are at the stage where they are teeing up a lot of these issues. the white house has been meeting pretty extensively over the phone. max baucus and chris dodd. we're at the stage now where they are trying to figure out exactly what the biggest issues are and how the they are going to begin to try to resolve them.

this is kind of a step one of a negotiating stage process but i think they are trying to get this done quickly and tee up a lot of these things and what they are going to have to sell to the caucuses of each house at this proirnlt have they determined which version they are going to work with? >> the house is going to take up the senate bill and insert in that whatever compromise they work out behind closed doors. technically it is going to be the senate bill that gets passed. there are going to be biases where they differ but i don't think a lot of decisions have been made on exactly how some of these issues are getting worked up but there are a few issues where they kind know where they are headed like how they are going treat cadillac tax in senate bill. >> speaker pelosi and a number

of democrat leaders say openly that the house bill is better than the senate. how does that affect negotiator's efforts to get this passed? >> the guys in the senate are saying the senate is the best bill. thenologist the house is staying house bill is the best bill. we are at a stage where everyone is sticking to their guns and say we have to do it our way or no way at all. we're going to see more compromise to the weeks ahead. there is the possibility that some of the decisions have been made but they are not saying yet. >> do we know yet how this bill will be paid for? >> you know, i think we have a -- that's a very open question at this point. obviously both bills have different revenue provisions. the house bill relies heavily on a tax of the wealthiest americans. the senate bill has a wider menu

of operating options. someone the cadillac tax, the tax on insurance plans that cost more than $23,000 a year for a family plan. the house hates that. labor hates that but the president is in support of that and the senate is as well. it got a lot of support from health care economists so some form of that probably modified is going to end up in the house bill. i think it is going to be a blend of the two bills. >> if they work with the senate bill is it too early to know if it gets passed? >> absolutely. because there is no margin for error in the senate. one little thing could upset the am cart. how this is -- the apple cart. they are going to be constantly going back and forth to their members that voted for the bill and saying is this ok? is this ok? and making sure that when they change something in the negotiations with the other

chamber they are not losing the votes in their own chamber. >> the democrats are holding a retreat later this week and we're told that president obama and former president clinton will be there. any idea what this meeting is about and what troll former president might have -- role the former president might have? >> he is going to be giving an address. he is the one who most recently tried to pass a giant health care overhaul. i have a sense that clinton is probably going to say something along the lines of reminding democrats to take a little perspective what this bill means. say, hey, we know you guys have some policy differences but the reality is you have to work this out and get a health care bill passed. getting a health care bill passed is way more important than who wins on the cadillac tax and the public plan. clinton has had a decade and a half of perspective on this. >>