issue of detention. the department of homeland security and i.c.e. have 380,000 people in 2009 who were detained. at taxpayer expense. so one of the things we fear with the arizona law is these could be arizona citizens, out working one day, oh, don't have your papers, in detention, could take a week, could take a month. there are many americans who could have difficulty furnishing those records, including those born of a midwife, are elderly or whose birth hospitals have been subject to fires and disasters and records have been mislocated or lost or simple human error. each of these 380,000 people detained last year were detained at taxpayer expense. i would argue that's not good for them and it's not good for us, the taxpayers. first of all as my colleague from minnesota mentioned, 107 died, in many cases of medical

treatment being withheld, abuses in the incarceration system, in many cases, they are put in with actual criminals who have been cricketted of crimes. these are people who are being detained awaiting a decision on their immigration proceedings. they might either then be released into our country or expelled through a different -- to a different country. despite that they're held in prisons and jails and often mixed with the general prison population, putting them at risk for their life and limb. all at taxpayer expense. this arizona law, to the extent it allows for the apprehension of more people, will simply result in a greater taxpayer expense of putting people up to the tune of $120 a day. you know, that's the way it costs. when i looked at it i said, gorks, we could put them up at

motel 6 for a quarter of that cost and yet we continue, taxpayers across our country, because of our complete failure to protect our border and have real immigration policy that works for our nation. over 300,000 people were incarcerated at taxpayer expense last year. comprehensive immigration reform is an american solution. it's commonsense, it's fair, it's balanced. overwhelming support from the american people, 81% agree the comprehensive reform is a balanced approach, it's fair to taxpayers. voters across the board from liberal to conservative believe it's unrealistic to simply try to deport our way out of this problem. seven in 10 voters agree that in addition to increased enforcement in securing the border, illegal immigrants should be required to register and meet conditions for permanent status. a comprehensive approach to immigration reform secures our borders, cracks down on employers that hire illegally, make sure that we have real

verification of who's able to work, require that illegal immigrants pay taxes, learn english to be eligible for permanent status. voters should know the comprehensive immigration reform is an orderly process and will turn what has been completely uncontrolled and chaotic into a controlled flow of immigrants to continue to build our nation and to re-establish the rule of law across our great nation. americans are tired of posturing of the left and the right. they're tired of the lack of solutions coming from washington. they don't want to hear us complain about this, complain about that, hyperbole on this, hyperbole on that. what the people of arizona have very clearly said they want and

what the people of our country have very clearly said they want is for us, here in congress, the only place this problem can be fixed, to fix this problem. voter security is a joke. enforcement of our laws at the workplace is a joke. we have over 10 million people violating the law every day in our country. the rule of law, our sovereignty has been undermined. taxpayers are putting up hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals a year at the cost of over $100 a day. why not put them up at cheap hotels and save 3/4 of that? i don't know. but this is what we're doing. does this make sense to anybody, madam speaker? the answer is no. i have brought this up at almost all of my town hall meetings in colorado and i have yet to find a single constituent, and i have a lot of diversity among my constituents, from the tea party patriots on the right to socialists on the left and everything in between, and not

one of them is happy with the immigration system in this country. not one of them is happy that we are putting up 300,000 people a year at the cost of $120 a day. not one of them is happy that we have an up undocumented population of -- have an undocumented population of 10 million in this country. to this point congress has failed to hear and act upon that. i believe we would continue to fail at our own peril and it's incumbent upon this congress with the fiercest urgency that the american people have placed this issue before us to solve this issue. we are a nation of laws and we are also a nation of immigrants. and that's why we need to make sure that our laws, our immigration laws, reflect our interest as americans to create jobs for americans, to provide safety and security for americans, to help american businesses grow and succeed,

which is why immigration reform is supported by chambers of commerce and business interests as well as unions. by faith-based communities, by law enforcement. we here in congress should not be afraid of talking about solving the immigration issue. we should be afraid of not talking about solving the immigration issue. every day that goes by without bills being moved forward and bills being dropped and a solution being discussed is a day that the american people will hold their members of congress accountable for not doing anything to solve this pressing national issue. i yield to my friend from minnesota. mr. ellison: you know, madam speaker, i was just in my district about a week ago at a little church, right there in south minneapolis, where a lot of folks gathered from the faith community, they were catholic,

they were protestant, they were jewish, they were christian, they were muslim, they were hindu, they were of the hmong spiritual tradition and they were of no faith at all but they came together to make an appeal to the american people for comprehensive immigration reform. i think it's important to understand the faith community has done a tremendous job in making sure this issue is at the forefront and the faith community has placed such a great job because the faith community understands -- has done such a great job because the faith community understands one thing, all human beings are endowed with dignity which we as fellow human beings must respect if we're going to be in accordance with that faith tradition. i want to thank them for their advocacy and i want to let them know that i respect and appreciate their work. let me also just mention in the waning minutes of our presentation, i'd like to see our anchor tonight be able to take the last five minutes to wrap it all up, i just want to

be able to -- i just want to say that as i've been sitting here i've been checking my dwitter account and i know that some -- twitter account and i know that some people are happy we're talking about comprehensive graeme -- comprehensive immigration. some people are not. i want to say to folks who are happy about it, keep working hard, we can do this thing. but i also want to say that for folks who, madam speaker, who feel that they're not happy about this discussion topic tonight, i just want to say, madam speaker, that i know people are not happy with the current system, the status quo isn't working. madam speaker, people can say that we don't like this part of a bill or that part of a bill, but can we get together as americans and discuss what we are going to do? because the fact is that simply saying no, not is no option. and i also submit to you, we're not going to get 12 million to

20 million people on a bus and send them back home. that's not realistic. many people who immigrate here without proper documentation don't even cross a border. what they come in on is an airplane. these are folks whose visas have run out and things like that. so just thinking this is an on the other side of the border issue is mixing much of the complexity that's going on here. you're also not going to incarcerate 12 million to 20 million people. you know, i had, madam speaker, i had something said that, you know, the crime that the undocumented immigrants are committing is one being here and the other one is taking jobs from americans. if you think what they're doing is a crime, madam speaker, i just think that, you know, what you're say something that people -- we're going to have to have 20 million to 12 million more jail sells to put people in. that's not practical. we need a solution that makes sense, that the pathway toward citizenship, that does involve

border security, but also involves employer verification so that people will not think that they can immigrate to the united states without proper documentation and just find a job. that's one of the things that attracts folks. but i will say one more thing that i think -- that are not in the progressive principles but we do need to talk about. we need to talk about how poverty in other parts of the world, particularly in our own hemisphere, attracts people to the united states and therefore we should take a real look at our policies, our trade policies, our ag policies and see if we are actually incentivizing people coming to the united states. if we jump cheap corn into latin america -- dump cheap corn into latin america, what happens to the corn farmer in latin america? i think we need to ask that question. it needs to be part of the conversation. because i can't imagine most people who are undocumented

really wanting to have to leave their home, their families, their friends to come to a country that they don't know or they don't necessarily speak the language, where they don't necessarily really know anyone, to try to make a life. they probably would rather stay home. but there's something that is drawing them here and it probably has something to do with our, you know, the great economy of the united states, but it probably also has something to do with the trade and agriculture policy which put a lot of pressure on economies in this hemisphere. so, with that, madam speaker, i'm just going to say, i'm going to yield back for the close to congressman polis, madam speaker, who has really been a champion on this issue, who has really kept the fire burning on it and i think, madam speaker, that we all owe him a debt of gratitude along with other champions like luis gutierrez and so many, many others. i he yield back to the gentleman and thank -- i yield back to the

gentleman. mr. polis: it's really the american people who have kept the fire under this issue. the american people do not want congress to continue to ignore a broken immigration system. what would ignoring immigration -- we're ignoring immigration, too much to work on, we've got health care, we got energy, why bother doing immigration? you know what? failure to act immigration reform will mean we'll have twice as many illegal immigrants in 10 years than we have now. twice as many. instead of 10 million, 12 million, we could be talking about 20 million, 25 million. the longer we wait the bigger the problem gets. the goal of immigration reform needs to be to eliminate, bring to zero, illegal immigration. if immigrants who have been living in our country illegally want to become tax paying american citizens they need to pass a background check, pay extra taxes, work toward citizenship, learn english, register. we need immigration reform that's both principled and

pragmatic. we, in this country, have the right to decide who lives in our country. and who doesn't. but we haven't been exercising that right. we've been allowing millions of people to live here without knowing who they are, what they're doing. and yet we continue to refuse to take action and we do so at our own peril. yes, we should hear very clearly from arizona and from other states that they are demanding action of the federal government. there is no good solution for a county or a state, i sympathize with our cities, our counties and our states dealing with the failure of a federal policy to protect our border and federal policies that undermine the rule of law and our national sovereignty. but if -- it's up to the united states congress to fix our broken immigration laws. people shouldn't be able to cross the border or overstay their visas without permission

and businesses shouldn't be able to exploit cheap labor off the books, undermining jobs for american citizens. we in congress have a unique opportunity now to take action. the american people are tired of excuses, tired of demagoguery, they want a solution that works and ensures that we have zero illegal immigrants in a year and in 10 years and in 20 years rather than seeing an increase from 10 million or 12 million to 20 million or 25 million or 30 million. what is national sovereignty mean if you don't even know who is within your borders or what they're doing? or whether they're criminals? and why are we putting over 300,000 of them up at expensive hotels at over $100 a day at taxpayer expense? is that part of the solution? doesn't sound like part of the solution that the people of arizona want. doesn't sound like part of the solution that the american

people want. obey our laws, learn english, pay taxes and welcome to america. we need to replace a broken system with one that works. and i call upon my colleagues in this chamber, in the united states senate, on both sides of the aisle to stop playing political games with an issue that the american people are crying out for a solution on. and to act and bring forward a real solution along the lines of the proposal that was introduced in the senate today, along the lines of the house combre hencive immigration reform bill -- comprehensive immigration reform bill to demand that congress move towards fixing this problem, restoring security to our borders, sovereignty to our nation, preventing the undermining of the rule of law that this nation was built upon

and strengthening our economy and providing jobs for american families. madam speaker, i hope that my colleagues join me in moving forward immediately on comprehensive immigration reform to fix our broken laws and replace it with a system that works and is enforced. and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ., is recognized as the designee of the minority leader. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. my privilege and honor to

address the floor tonight. i'm standing here to support or rebut the statements from the guy from colorado. i may try to rebut some of the other statements he has made. the statement replaces a broken system with one that works. it's interesting comment. and i think it's clear that our immigration system is not working. i'm not certain -- let me say that the system doesn't work, but i'm not certain that the laws are incorrect and that's the point i would make is that i roll back to 1986 when ronald reagan was straight up and honest and failed me when he signed the amnesty bill of 1986. a million people would be granted citizenship and that would be the end and there would never be another immigration bill ever and we would preserve the rule of law and we would

learn to respect the rule of law and allow for the one million or so that were here illegally to have their path to citizenship, package it up and move on. it wasn't one million, but closer to three million people, there was fraud and counterfeit documents. we might not have counted it right. might have been 1.5 million. but turned out to be three million, because people were gaming the system. and in my particular office, i took applications to the end and i made sure they filled out their forms and took copies of their documents and made sure my files were complete because i was sure that i.n.s. would be in my office to go through my books and made sure i followed the law because it was going to be enforced by this nully robust

government. never amnesty again. that was 1986. here wer 24 years later and we have had by each succeeding legislation -- i'm not happy with the enforcement in the reagan administration and i was less happy with what i saw in bush 41 and bill clinton and george w. bush and less happy with what i have seen under president obama. less and less effective enforcement. and they do find a way to put together the data to point to their enforcement and in this administration, the enforcement against employers appears to be marginally stronger but the enforcement under illegal workers is less. so as the system broken? the enforcement of the system is

broken. i think that we have had a few presidents who didn't demonstrate the will and because of that there has been a growing disrespect for our immigration law. and people who respect the law have seen that their competition who hire illegals have an advantage against them if they are going to add hear to the intebt of the law. so the competition pushes others to violate the rule of law and hire illegals to give them that competitive advantage and slowly the respect for the rule of law and the adherence and compliance of the rule of law has been diminished to the point where i have people in my neighborhood that will say well, if you don't think i should hire an illegal, then who is going to fix my leaky roof, papet my house, do these other things? that's not my job. my job is to stand up for the

rule of law. and yes, if i think there are laws that are unjust, we should change them. i believe the laws are unenforced. and i think they are founded on good and just rule of law foundation. and not having the documents in front of me, but i'll reach into it a little bit. i have seen documents that have illustrated the laws that mexico has with regard to their immigration laws, if ours are considered draconian, theirs are draconian and the president of mexico has been arguing against arizona law while enforcing draconian laws crossing the border into mexico. it is punishable by a felony. that's one of the examples that we have. and so i would, madam speaker,

just remind the american people that we have grounded these laws in just and rational cause and now arizona has seen that the federal government has been unwilling to enforce the laws and they're watching a crime rate that if you look at the data over the last 10 years has increased in every category over the last 10 years. not probably, in order to be objective. not probably to the extent that has been articulated by many of the pundits, but has been a growl and significant increase in the crime rates in arizona in the areas of murder and rape, violent crime and certainly about the only thing except illegal border crossings, which have diminished margin neal. and a year ago, there was a report there was a million and a half that have been in the united states illegally that reversed their travels and

voluntarily deported themselves to mexico. that has been to the decline in the economy rather than the increase in enforcement. but doesn't mean there has been diminishment of illegal drugs coming across the border or illegal activity along the border. those numbers are up. the violent numbers are up. the illegal drugs are up. the contraband crossing the borders are up and the number of individual, illegal people by interdiction data that is delivered to us by the secretary of homeland security are marginally down. it may or may not be there are illegal border crossings, it may be they are interdicting fewer. although i believe there are fewer illegal border crossings, but more illegal drugs, more

violence, more kidnappings in the state of ard. it has the highest kidnap rate in the nation. some of the cities has the second highest kidnap rate in the world. that's because of the cartels doing business in that area. so arizona passed a law and it does a number of things. it sets up a situation where law enforcement -- it requires all of the political subdivision in arizona, counties, cities, and the state, to enforce federal immigration law. it sets it up so that an individual has standing to sue the political subdivision, local government. if they fail to enforce immigration law and it provides for reasonable suspicion for law enforcement officer to pick up an individual that is out in the public if they suspect that

individual is unlawfully present in the united states. those are good things. and they are all that i have described are within the parameters of existing federal law today. the argument that's been made and the demonstrations that are cued up for the first of may and that will be this coming saturday, they are trying to establish demonstrations to demonstrate against arizona's demon -- immigration law. i say that our immigration laws are true and just and right all together. and our problem is not because our laws are wrong. our problem is not because we need to replace broken laws is that we need to take this system that -- broken is not the right word i would say to the gentleman from cole, it's a system that is not being utilized, because we lack the will to enforce immigration law

in the united states. and the greater numbers of illegals, the more people get to know their neighbors that may be in the united states illegally. they don't see that when you contribute to or allow or tolerate people who are lawfully present in the united states in your neighborhood, when you hire them, you are contributing to the problem. they see that we are god's children and like the people that came in and see that they work hard and therefore they become their advocates. it's a natural thing to happen. but at the same time, while our laws are being broken and our laws are being disrespected, there is an undermining of the american system. there isn't a country in the world where there aren't significant numbers of people that want to become americans. and the reason for that fall into a lot of categories, and that's because we honor the rule of law.

lady justice is blind. when you think of the image of lady justice blind folded with the scales of justice balanced without consideration of race, creed, ethnicity, national origin, age or disability, that's the american creed. we have equal justice for all and justice is blind with regard to those characteristics. people want to come here from countries, countries that do not have that tradition of honoring the rule of law. come to the united states that have a corrupt tradition where you have to pay to play, who you know or you curl up and try to avoid the scrutiny of government. here in this country, we are straight up, open and honest and moral and ethical and we respect

the law. but if we grant amnesty to 20 million people because it's described as a problem that the argument that's often made that we can't deport 12 million or 20 million people, in fact, we could. it is not impossible to do so. i went over to london a little over a year ago to deal with our immigration issue over there and i listened to them talking about the problems they have and it was in that 12 million to 20 million category. and they are down in the 1.5 million illegals. and what is their argument? you can't deport 1.5 million people. it is too many. interestingly, we are here with 12 million to 20 million and making the same argument. how many could we deport? if it's not 12 million and 20

mill and the british says we can't deport 1.5 million. or is it one million, half a million or 100,000, 10,000 or one? what is our capability although gist particularically to deport people in the united states illegally? and i will suggest it is in direct proportion to our resources and our will to enforce the law. and our problem is not that we can't do so although gist particularically. our problem is that we lack the will to do so from a moral standard. we are listening to both sides of the argument, the argument that people are here and they want to work and earn for their families and for the most part, that's true. we disregard the argument that i need to make and that is 90 percent of the illegal drugs consumed in the united states of america come from or through

mexico. 90%. it's a consistent number that comes from drug enforcement agencies and been consistent throughout several years. and the illegal distribution chains throughout america and this is a drug enforcement response, if every one of those people in the united states here illegal tomorrow morning woke up in their country where they were legal to live and reside if that happens by magic wand overnight, there is a link in every illegal distribution chain in america that would be severed because at least one linching has an illegal alien that is part of that illegal distribution chain. if it was our endeavor to shut off in america, we would make sure we enforce our immigration laws and would be a temporary fix and might last hours or days

and not weeks or months but it would severe the distribution of all illegal drugs in america however temporary it might be. . what are the affects on our society? first, they're delivering 90% of the drug from or through mexico. and some of them are delivering -- at least touch the delivery of every dreg, illegal drug, that's delivered in the united states of america. while that's going on, what is accompanied by the illegal drug trade? violence, murder, theft, rape, all of those things that go along with crime are wrapped and associated with the illegal drug distribution and the people that are illegally distributing drugs that are in the united states illegally are also, however inadvertently, the channel of their work is enabled by and not always willfully and sometimes even unknowingly it's enabled by

the illegal community in the united states. it becomes an underground railroad for illegal people and drugs that are pouring through from and into mexico from the united states. it is something that brings about a high amount of death and destruction and diminishment of human capital, human resources and human potential. that's why we outlaw those illegal drugs in the first place. it doesn't mean that all the people that are involved in that are willfully evil or willfully trying to undermine our society. it might be inadvertent. but they are part of the problem. and if we're to add the rule of law, we have to enforce the rule of law and to imagine that, when law enforcement incumbentings in contact with people who -- in contact with people who are here illegally that would be unwilling to put them back into the condition that they were in at the time they broke the law

is unconscionable for a rule of law nation to think such a thing. think in terms of this, as someone walks into the bank and robs the bank and would walk out of that bank with all of the loot and wie would interdict them and law enforcement would decide, we only -- well, you only wanted to provide for your family, so we're going to let you go on here because we don't have the will to stop you at this point, or our immigration laws simply deporting people is the equivalent of putting them back in the condition they were in before they broke the law. it's the equivalent of taking a bank ro robber and saying, you don't get to keep the money but we're going to take you out of the bank and set you outside the door and let you go. that's the equivalent of deportation. it is to put people back in the condition they were in before the they broke the law, it's like taking a bank robber out of the bank, you set them outside the door and say, ok, go, you're

free to go. it's as if you never really broke our law. that's what deportation is. it is not draconian, it's not harsh. it's not cruel and unusual punishment, it is the minute muss that we can do if we're going to enforce the law. and if we're not willing to put people back in the condition they were in before they broke our immigration law, then we cannot have enforcement of our immigration law whatsoever. it doesn't work to set a standard of amnesty that's been advocated by president bush, president obama, by many of the leaders over here on the left side of the aisle, that we should give people a path to citizenship, make them pay a fine, force them to learn english, that seems a lot to me, how you force someone to learn a language, and require them to pay their back taxes. those are the minimum standards for somebody who would come into the united states legally anyway. if you want to become an

american citizen, get in line, get in line in the foreign country, don't jump the line, don't jump the border, and when you do that, and you go take your citizenship test, first you have to pass the test that asks the question, what's the economic system of the united states of america and the answer is free enterprise capitalism, that's a little heads up there, madam speaker, on that one. but when people come into the united states legally they are required to learn english. they're required, if they want to become a citizen, if they want to go through the naturalization process, they're required to learn english, they're supposed to -- they're required to demonstrate proficiency in english in both the written and the spoken word, they have to understand our history and understand those principles that made america great and we're not going to naturalize somebody that didn't pay their back taxes. and the idea of a fine for being in the united states illegally and that's the only other condition we would add, whether that would be pay a fee of

$1,500 -- i remember it when it started out to be $500 and then $500 seemed like a pittance and so they raised it to $1,000 and then to $1,500 and under the bush administration we had the discussion and the argument that their position was, well, the not an nesty if they have to pay a fine -- amnesty if they have to pay a fine. if the fine is cheaper than what you have to pay a coyote to sneak in the united states is it really a fine? i say no. if you grant people the objective of their crime it's amnesty. to grant amnesty is to pardon people for the violation of the law and grant them the objective of their crime. that's what amnesty is. and so if we're going to have amnesty let's be honest about it, madam speaker. let's ask the people in tch this congress, the president of the united states, the executive branch of government and the people of the united states senate that are now crafting up

legislation, are you for or against amnesty? if they want to support amnesty, it's fine with me if they will just admit that and then we can have a debate on to what degree of amnesty they're going to advocate -- advocate. but it's offensive to the american people to hear united states senators or members of the house of representatives, congressmen and women, or the president of the united states, or his spokesmen or spokeswomen argue that amnesty isn't amnesty when we know what amnesty is. pardon immigration law breakers and reward them with the objective of their crimes. that's amnesty. president reagan understood it. he admitted that amnesty was amnesty. he signed the amnesty bill in 1986. he let me down but he was honest about it. we haven't been honest during the bush administration, the second half of the bush administration, and we certainly aren't honest during the obama administration, this third 1/3 or so of the obama

administration. so here are my concerns. that 90% of the illegal drugs that are consumed in the united states come from or through mexico. of all the violence that pours frorte from that, it costs american lives dozens and dozens, in fact, by the hundreds of year, americans that die at the hands of illegals that are here in the united states of america illegally. that's the definition. and if we would be effective in enforcing immigration law, those people who died at the hands who are here illegally would still be alive. when the school bus wrecked in southwest minnesota and we lost four or five young girls there because it was caused by an accident by an individual who had two or three times been interdicted by law enforcement in the united states but was turned loose again, those girls were the young women today --

would be young women today, they would be live today, and their patients know that. it happens over and over. hundreds of times. in fact, it's happened thousands of times since we failed to enforce our immigration laws. so what do we do? we put together the will to enforce our immigration laws, the american people rise up and make the argument that we're going to have the rule of law, that we are going to shut off all illegal traffic at the border, we're going to force all that traffic through the ports of entry, it's been a little while since we talked about the necessity of building a wall and fence on the southern border. someone said to me, i can't -- we can't build 2,000 miles of fence. well, yes we could. we could build 2,000 miles of triple fencing. we could put censors on them, we could put lights on them, we could build roads in between. we can fix this so nobody gets through all of that yes, we can. and for the people that will argue that if you build a 20-foot fence i'll show you a 21-foot ladder, that's got to be the silliest and the weakest and the most specious argument i've

heard here on the floor of the united states congress. i have heard the secretary of homeland security say, build a 50-foot fence and i'll show you a 51-foot ladder. madam speaker, what in the world could that mean? if you build a rocket that will fly to the moon, i'll show you a rocket that will fly a mile past the moon. so what? what does that mean? they're not going to be build a 51-foot ladder and if they do we're going to be sitting there with our sensery devices, our roads, our monitoring and we're going to make sure if they can get over that fence they don't get to the next one and if they get over that one we'll make sure they don't get to the next one. i have designed a concrete wall and it's not the only barrier or tool. when those of us talk about the necessity for extending the fence and the wall on the southern border and building double fences and walls, the argument against it becomes a silly argument of, well, that's not going to solve the problem. none of us believe it's the total solution.

none of us believe that building an effective wall and fence is the only thing we would do. it's among the effective things that we could do. so, madam speaker, here's some things the american people don't know, the president doesn't know, his actuaries don't know, the speaker of the house doesn't know, harry reid, the majority leader in the senate doesn't know, and the committee chairs doesn't know and might be the only one in the united states congress who knows this and now the whole world's going to 2340e. here are the numbers about. 2006 we were spending $8 billion on our southern border. now we're spending about $12 billion on our southern border, altogether. these aren't numbers that come out of the administration, except one piece at a time and you have to add them up and calculate it out and calculate it back to the numbers of miles of border that we have. $12 million when you add up all of the -- $12 billion when you add up all of the expenses, you have to pay the i.c.e., the personnel, their health care

package, their benefits package, their retirement funds, their equipment, their vehicles they drive, guns, uniform, all the things they do. you add to that custom border protection, our c.b.p. people, our customs personnel, our border patrol personnel and all of the forces that are there lined up that are part of that coordinated effort to defend the border are right in the area of $12 billion. $12 billion for 2,000 miles of border. that's $6 million a mile, madam speaker. now, think of this. most of us can think what a mile is. for me i live on a corner of a gravel road in iowa and a lot of those corners you can stand out and see a mile in each of four directions. it's not the case in mine but i know how far a mile is most of us do. now when i stand on my corner and i look to the west, that full mile, a mile west, which is the clearest vision i have, and i think, what the federal government pay me, if that was the border, would the federal government pay me $6 million to

guard that border? for that mile? could i do that for $6 million? would i be willing to take on that contract and control that border for $6 million for that mile? and that's the average for 2,000 miles. some of it barren and desolate. what i be willing to do that for $6 million? you bet ya. you bet ya to pick up on a phrase. i would do that for $6 million a mile. and furthermore i'd be willing to guarantee nobody would get across that mile. i would guard it, i would protect it, i would hire the personnel necessary and in fact, rather than paying a lot of people that were boots on the ground, i'd have some and they would be in mobile vehicles and we'd have censors and we'd have some lights and we'd have radios and we would have warning devices and ground-based radar. we do all that stuff. but we would also build a fence and a wall as a barrier to slow that traffic down and make it

hard enough that they wouldn't come through my mile at all. and in fact, i would shut down all the traffic in that mile for $6 million and if you awarded me that contract i'd let you dock me in -- from that contract. i'd let you dock me if they got across my mile, sub transact from my contract every illegal contractor that's there. then you'd put incentives in place to succeed in what we're doing as opposed to just simply doing catch -- it's not catch and release back into america anymore. it's catch and release at the port of entry and turn them back into mexico and they come back around with a smirk on their face and i've watched them do that, madam speaker. another tool we need to have is the new idea -- i.d. act. new idea is legislation that i've introduced in the last three congresses, the new idea stands for the new illegal deduction elimination act. that's the acronym. elittle deduction elimination act.

if you look around across the agencies of the federal government and think about those agencies and how aggressively and how effectively they do their jobs, we have the department of homeland security which is really pledged they're not going to deport illegal workers in america, in fact, they picked up some illegal workers by accident in boston some months ago, back in december or january, and they found out that they were illegal, they processed them, these workers were on their way up to gillett stadium in boston and so i.c.e., after they processed them, hauled them up to work. they gave them chauffeured transportation up to their job to be ground keepers of gillett stadium in boston. . a complete lack of focus on their job. talk about open borders. sneak in here and get a job and get your documents,

falsification, whatever it might be, misrepresent your status and if we run across you by accident because i.c.e. people are out there doing what they do, we will take your fingerprints and your name and they will give you a ride up to work up at gillett stadium. that is bizarre. that is so far from an awning what it takes to enforce the law. i take us back to the time in the 1950's when my father was the mayor of a small community and the local town cop came across an illegal who happened to be traveling through the community, i don't know how they got him, whether it was his license plate. he was arrested, incrarted and had to process him and my father was the justice of peace as well. there wasn't any consideration about turning him loose because

it was too hard to enforce the law. the only thing that could come from that was the person who was illegally the united states was going to go back to their home country. and to my recollection, that's what happened. the illegal elimination deduction act recognizes that the department of homeland security hasn't shown a will to enforce immigration law. they want to do so. they want to deliver on a mission and accomplish a mission statement. they want to accomplish their mission statement. but the lack of will from the white house down through the secretary of homeland security prevents them from being as effective as they can be. there's your agency. department of homeland security, not as effective they can be. enforcing against employers because that is easier rather than enforcing against illegal workers, because they realize

they could be democrats. i stand on that statement. they could be democrats so they pander to them. we have the social security administration that has a data base that should be feeding information to the department of homeland security. when you have duplication, you can bet that when the second one shows up that you had one illegal there that is working off of that social security number and maybe both of them are illegal. social security administration is willing to take the checks that come from the payroll taxes of those millions who are working illegally in america paying their payroll taxes because it's withheld from their paychecks but declaring the maximum number of depend events so they pay social security, medicare and medicaid but not federal and state income tax. they take those from the illegal

workers and not check into the duplication because the money is going boo the account which is being spent by this congress but being kept in an account, in a filing cabinet and bonds that are worth no more than this piece of paper. i happen to have one in my filing cabinet, $3.45 million in bonds and social security account. it's an i.o.u. to the government. they put them in a filing cabinet in parkersburg, west virginia. illegals aren't going to file a tax return. the dollars that are contributed go into that filing cabinet along with the bonds and we have the department of homeland security who is not willing to enforce the law to the extent that it must be against illegal workers. they may be willing to enforce

the law even in an increasing degree. so the social security administration is cashing the checks of people who have fraudulently misrepresented their identity. and so, the agency has demonstrated the will to enforce the law. i brought the legislation called the new idea act, which clarifies that wages and benefits paid to illegals are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. and establishes that there will be a cooperative working effort between social security, homeland security and the i.r.s. the i.r.s. has demonstrated they do have a desire to enforce the law. they have been vigorous in enforcing the law. and they would be useful in stepping into the enforcement of

illegal immigration law. and they are in the right position to do so. and so, under my bill, should it become law, in fact, my bill has been advocated by the democrats in the senate who are proposing immigration legislation, senator schumer and others. they didn't define the title of the bill but defined the bill within their talking points. i commend them for recognizing the need. new idea, the new illegal deduction elimination act qualifies that wages are not deductible for income taxes purposes and directs the i.r.s. to go in in their audits, social security numbers, which will show up on the tax forms, run them through the e-verify program. it oice the program that can verify that the identity of the

employees, if that identifies a person who can lawfully work in the united states and has a high degree of success and accuracy. the i.r.s. would audit corporation a and say corporation a has 25 employees. their social security numbers will be listed. they punch those in to e-verify and comes back they can work in the united states, fine. if they can't, then the i.r.s. can give the employer an opportunity to cure those records, straighten them out and correct them. but failure to correct those records is concluded by the i.r.s. by the new idea, the i.r.s. can then deny the tax deductibility of the wages and benefits paid to the illegals. when the i.r.s. denies that,

then those wages, let's say it is $1 million paid, deducted as a business expense like you would deduct fuel or any of your overhead you that you might have, input from produced products, whatever it might be, that business expense would be denied. and when it's denied, presumably it goes into the income column. $1 million worth of wages denied as an expense. go over here to the other column on the profit side. and difficult that calculation at 34% and i think it's more accurate to say so, your $10 illegal, by the time you add interest and penalty and 34% tax because he a $16 an hour illegal. 9 i.r.s. has stepped in by

denying the deductibility of wages and benefits paid to illegals, adding the interest and penalty and $10 illegal becomes $16 illegal. the employer will understand that and they will clean up their workforce by using e verify. and we give them safe harbor. and an employer that can't function with the illegal staff that he has may make the decision to incrementally transition into illegal employees over a period of time. whatever it takes. it's not draconian or shuts businesses down, but it is something that sets up an incentive for businesses to comply with immigration law. if they choose not to do that, they can pay the difference of $10 up to $16 an hour. we need to fix everify so that

an employer can verify the status of the applicant upon a job offer rather than having to hire the individual. under current everify law, you can't use everify to determine if a job applicant can lawfully work in the united states. you can only do that after you hire them. if you hire an individual and you run their data through everify and comes back that they can't conch firm or work in the united states, then you have to turn around and fire them. i'll take this position that american employers should not be compelled to hire illegals in order to find out if they're illegal. they should be able to say to the individual, sam, john, larry, sali, hover your i'm offering you this job and the

job i'm offering you is contingent upon your data. i will do that now if you are willing to accept this job. if they say yes, you run the date aveha through. if they -- data through. i think it's immoral to hire people that are illegal. we have a flaw in our e-verify law. and i appreciate the statement that mr. polis from colorado made he is for zero illegal immigration. i don't know how you get to that unless you are willing to enforce the law. i think we need to enforce all traffic, legal and illegal and other products through the ports of entry in our southern border and build a fence in the wall and that expense of $6 million a mile, that's the maintenance of our border. what would it cost us to build

the fence and how much will it cost to maintain the enforcement of that if we can, for a couple of million dollars a mile, build some very effective barriers? that means we could cut down on the boots on the ground and focus our boots on the ground in the areas where we have trouble with enforcement. that's the logical thing to do. look around the world. look at the barrier that they have in israel, for example, where they had suicide bombers coming through over and over again. and it's set up to protect the israelis from the people that would come and do them harm. is it immoral to protect themselves to their limbs and treasures? i say it is not. those that would argue that a wall on our border is comparable to the berlin wall is missing the most important point and

that is that a wall to keep people out is morally and fundamentally entirely different than to keep people in. the berlin wall was about keeping people in. you don't hear people arguing against the great wall of china. it was designed to keep people out, not in. the barrier in israel has worked. the barriers on our southern border has worked. we have fencing down there in arizona that as near as i can determine, that section of fence, however short it is, it's three layers of fencing and has not been defeated by anyone. easier to go around the end than to go over and under. i don't suggest we build 2,000 miles of wall with sensors, monitoring and patroling. i suggest that we simply build a fence and build a wall until

they quick going around the end. it may take 2,000 miles, may not. we build the 784 miles that was required by the secure fence act and need to have a smart immigration policy. here we are down into the downward spiral of our economy, this economy that has been referred to as the great recession and we are talking about granting amnesty to people, moving pieces of legislation that would legalize 12 million to 20 million people in an economic environment where we have 15.4 million unemployed americans that fit the definition. another five million to six million americans that no longer fit the definition of unemployment because they quit trying. 20 million americans are looking

for work or have given up or eight million illegals taking up jobs that americans could and should be doing. and the argument that there's work that americans won't do, you haven't heard much of that argument in the last year or so since the economy went into a downward spiral. you won't hear that as nearly as often. and i will always argue there aren't work that americans won't do. you can't name a job that has haven't been done by americans no matter how many illegal americans doing that work, there will be americans doing that work as well. if we travel around the world and look at the work that is getting done characterized as work not being done by americans, i see that work being done. there is no work that americans won't do.

and when john mccain said he would pay people to pick lettuce, i was concerned about my construction crew. it isn't a matter of work that americans won't do, but there has been a flood of underskilled labor that are more mobile and beat americans to a job because they aren't tied to real estate. they don't have the possessions. they have a cell phone network and need 25 people to pick the lettuce in arizona, they bring the illegals. doesn't mean that americans won't do the work. there is no work that americans won't do. and john mccain critical of the positions he has taken in the past, my hats off to the people in this country. he is a hero and has gone through a tremendous amount of

pain, suffering and torture and not lo his resolve to defend this country. i would just suggest that here are sole real facts. i have asked this question over and over again and comes down to a bottom-line consensus and that is, what is the toughest, dirtiest, most difficult, most dangerous job that we'll ever ask americans to do. and i will suggest it isn't in the united states. . it's rooting terrorists out of places like fallujah or places in afghanistan where we ask our soldiers and marines to put their lives on the line to do that, sometimes in 130-degree heat with 70, 80, 90 pounds on them that they're carrying. they go in and root the terrorists out of fallujah and out of places in afghanistan, out of kandahar, out of mar ja.

they do that if you calculate them at 40 hours a week for about $8.09 an hour. if americans will do that, if they'll take on the toughest, dirsiest, hottest, or the coldest, and the most dangerous and difficult jobs in the world for that kind of money, there's no argument to be made that there are jobs americans will not do, madam speaker. americans work, we have a good work ethic we work hard and are willing to take risks. we stand up for liberty we stand for freedom, we stand for the rule of law. and for people in uniform to put their lives on the line are very much about defending the pillars of american exceptionalism the pillars that made america great, they are not about someone having a path to citizenship granted through amnesty. we owe the honor to people who defended our liberty and freedom to defend and stand up for the rule of law. the rule of law has been

re-established by the statute in arizona, the immigration legislation they have passed and has been signed into law by the governor. these immigration laws in arizona are laws that reflect the federal immigration law, they fit within the umbrella of the federal immigration law, yes there is a standard called federal pre-emption, that means if the federal government passes a law that supersedes that of the state, it's federal pre-emption. we don't have any statutes that preempt immigration law in arizona because they drafted the immigration legislation to fit within the umbrella of the federal immigration law. and they've set up clear standards, clear standards that there shall not be racial profiling used as the only criterion when it comes to interdicting and stopping an individual. that happens to fit consistently with federal case

law. we have a responsibility and a duty and an obligation and a legal standard that allows our law enforcement officers to use a profile, provided their race isn't the only criteria. reasonable suspicion includes a whole lot of other criteria, in addition to race. so we don't want to be foolish or stupid about this. i recall an incident that took place in urbandale, iowa, 15 or more years ago. it's a community that at that time was not populated with minorities in any significant event -- in any significant percentage. there was a cadillac being driven down the street and a higher income residential area by an african-american. the law enforcement officer saw that and wondered, maybe it was actually windsor heights, but one of the suburbs of des

moines. the officer saw that and thought that doesn't quite fit what goes on in this community. it could have been the same police officer in an african-american community that would have made the call if it were perhaps a white person in that community but it turned out to be the other way around he ran the plates on the car and the car was registered to a caucasian female that lived in the neighborhood. so the officer suspected something was out of order, pulled the car over and found out that the african-american driving the car was the husband of the caucasian lady whom the car was registered to who lived in the neighborhood. hoke. it wasn't what you would -- ok. it wasn't what you would normally see as typical. one could argue it was racial profiling. i would argue it was police work picking up things that were inconsistent and trying to protect the populace. in any case, the settlement was

$60,000 paid to the driver of the car, the husband of the lady who owned the car and as far as i know, a well-respected citizen. sometimes you're caught in the anomaly. you have to give the pliferts their due. they're picking out things that are out of order. that don't fit the normal practice of things in the neighborhood. and i know the difference. i live in a rural neighborhood, when someone drives down the road, we know who they are and where they're going. it's part of our own built-in security system. i understand what the flow of traffic is and you see the things that are outside the normal flow. that's what police officers do. he doesn't and should not be accused of racism, race can be a factor in legitimate police

activity, as long as it's not the only factor. i want to presume the police officers are operating to enforce the rule of law to protect society and to use the tools that they have to protect the people. that's what they are. they provide security and all across this country, i grew up in a law enforcement family, i respect the job they do and the judgment required and the education necessary for them to enforce the law. in arizona, the executive order by the governor ensures they are going to teach and train their officers so that they stay within compliance of federal law, arizona law, arizona constitution, the united states constitution, and if there are deviations from that, i'm very confident that the people who are driving wedges between us as americans will find a way to litigate.

and i regret and it's -- and it saddens me, it infuriates me, madam speaker that we would see the people who are race baiters, who are seeking to drive wedges between american people, trying to capitalize on this and scare the american people and make it out to be something it is not, what it is is it's a law that sets up and honors the federal immigration law. it uses the arizona law enforcement people to enforce an immigration law that's now a state law that is the mirror of the federal law. we need to understand that in the case of u.s. vs. santana garcia and several others that are there are federal precedents and local law enforcement implicitly has the authority to enforce immigration law. regardless of whether it's a 287-g agreement, local law enforcement has the authority to enforce immigration law and there's a federal law that

prohibits sanctuary cities and it's been exploited by many cities in the country, including san francisco, houston, a number of the cities that want to boycott arizona, the violation of the federal law that prohibits cities from becoming sanctuary cities has been a circumstance um vention and it says the series of requirements that are in there that prohibit the local law enforcement -- local cities from, let me say, protecting illegals in their communities and they have found a way to pass memorandums of understanding or city ordinances that direct their police officers to not gather information. because the statute that's written wasn't tight enough. it requires that once they have the information they have to transfer it on to federal law enforcement officials and so they prohibit local law enforcement officers from gathering information on

illegals. they become sang chir cities and the streets of the cities -- fill up with people here illegally. among the eight million illegals taking jobs from americans and as the streets fill up they're turning a blind eye to the illegal drugs and think violence and abuse that comes out of the community in its entirety. madam speaker, i go back to this. 12 million to 20 million illegals living and working in america. at least eight million that are working in america, 15.4 million unemployed, another five million to six million that quit looking for work that fit that category except they're not trying any longer. over 20 million americans that need a job, eight million that are occupying jobs that would go to americans or lawfully present in the united states of america. in an economy that's shrinking and has not been recovering jobs, in an economy that has,

by the way, we have 1.5 million green cards that are issued on an annual basis and if you look at the work force in america. 10 years ago the work force in america was 142 million, it's now 153 million. it's increased a little more than a million a year. if you look at the numbers of green cards of people, up to about 1.5 million a year now. almost the sum total of the expansion of our work force has been attributable to the legal immigration, green cards that are part of this so they increase jobs just to accommodate the legal immigration, not the illegal immigration. madam speaker, i'm going to make the statement that we have

-- we have to put a stop to the illegal immigration in america, we have to direct all traffic through the ports of entry, where we can stop the traffic of illegal drugs, contraband and people coming into the united states, we need to enforce the immigration law, we need to adopt the new idea act so i.r.s. can help us enforce the immigration law. while all this is going on, we have to look at the illegal immigration in america and make a determination how many jobs we want this economy to create and how many are coming in here legally. we have to have an economy that's robust. furthermore, the director of the heritage foundation a household headed by a high school dropout cost taxpayers in america costs americans an average of $429,000 a year. -- an average of $22,449.

that adds up to a $1 million cost per household because we have become a welfare state. when my grandmother came here before the turn of the previous century, she didn't come here to a welfare state. she came to a hering to be rahcy. they wanted to make sure -- to a merit ockcy. people were screened before they got on the ship in europe, 2% were sent back because they didn't meet the standards. here we are today, 1.5 million legal immigrants who are granted work permits in the united states consuming all new jobs in america and expanding the work force when we have many more americans we can tap into to do this work that we haven't tried. 15.4 million unemployed, five million to six million who no longer meet that category, 20

million altogether and if we put this in the category, those americans of working age are in the area of 80 million americans of working age who are not in the work force. if we hire one out of 10 of those, we could replace all the illegal workers by hiring 10% of those who are not in the work force but of working age and about 20 million of those are looking for work. madam speaker, we have an economy we need to heal up. we have a rule of law to re-establish, we have demonstrations that are designed to pit americans against americans, race baiting for political purposes when what we're looking for here is the enforcement of the rule of law and a robust economy that's going to employ american workers. we are the most generous country in the world when it comes to allowing legal immigration, roughly 1.5 million a year, no other country comes close to matching that. we need to look at the economy, the rule of law, the culture in

america, enforce the rule of law, stand with arizona, who has not done anything except define their arizona immigration law to reflect that of the federal law and the president of the united states has directed the justice department to examine arizona law, i think it's finding out that it's constitutional, statutorily constituent and should not be preempted by federal law and should be honored, respected and supported not investigated or litigated. i encourage and thank the people of arizona for having the courage to step up and pass their legislation and madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the speaker pro tempore: recognize the gentleman for a motion. mr. king: i move that we adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the the speaker pro tempore: the motion is agreed to.

>> good afternoon. this is not my attempt to put more people on stage than are in the audience, but we might well succeed by the time this is over. i am going to -- i've got a few remarks on what the president has been working on on the bp oil spill, but i wanted to -- we've got several people here at the briefing to give you an update on where we are. our homeland security secretary will give us an update on the overall situation.

rear admiral sally brice-o'hara will give us some details on the response on the ground and the water to the spill. deputy secretary of the interior david hayes will give us an update on the joint investigation and on the pressure on industry to clean up the spill. secretary salazar is at the bp command center currently in houston. epa administrator lisa jackson will give us an update on air monitoring and preparations for the spill reaching the shore. we also have assistant to the president for energy and climate carol browner here also to answer some questions if need be. so let me start with a few words of the president's involvement. the president has been actively following the bp oil spill in the gulf of mexico, receiving multiple updates, and consulting on the response since the incident occurred. the president started his daily intelligence briefing in the oval office this morning with an update, and last night on board

air force one, on the way back to washington, the president was briefed on the new information regarding the additional breach. the president urged, out of an abundance of caution and mindful of the new information, that we must position resources to continue to aggressively confront this incident. following that, rear admiral landry announced that while bp is ultimately responsible, the administration will continue to be aggressive in our response, and we will use all available resources, possibly including those at the department of defense, to see if there are technologies that might be used that surpass the capabilities of the commercial and private sector. again, in accordance with the 1990 oil pollution act, passed after the exxon valdez, bp, as the responsible party, is required to fund the cost of the response and cleanup operations, and they are doing so. the president has also asked that homeland security secretary napolitano, interior secretary salazar, and epa

administrator jackson go to the gulf coast to ensure that bp and the entire government is doing everything possible to respond to this incident. in addition, the president has directed responding agencies to devote every resource to not only respond to this incident but to determine its cause. earlier this week, secretary napolitano and secretary salazar laid out the next steps for that investigation. we have a lot of folks up here. we've got a couple of slides that we will put up. this is the satellite picture as of 6:00 a.m. this morning. you see where the bp deepwater horizon was and the area that we're monitoring. so, with that, let me turn this over to secretary napolitano. >> well, thank you. i'd like today to update you

with the latest information about the bp oil spill, the steps bp is taking to minimize the environmental and other risks of this incident. last night bp alerted us to additional oil leaking from their deep underwater well. they are working, with our support, to estimate the size of this breach. as has just been mentioned, the president has urged, out of an abundance of caution and mindful of new and evolving information, that we must position resources to continue to confront this spill. that being said, we have been anticipating and planning, and today i will be designating that this is a spill of national significance. what that means is that we can now draw down assets from across the country, other coastal areas, by way of example, that we will have a

centralized communications because the spill is now crossing different regions. in addition to the command center that we have operational in robert, louisiana, we are opening a second command center in mobile, alabama, for the bp spill. as was mentioned, as well as part of our oversight of the response, i will be going to the gulf coast tomorrow along with secretary salazar and epa administrator jackson to inspect ongoing operations. we remain focused on continued oversight. we'll be taking a very close look at efforts underway, particularly to minimize the environmental risks in the area affected by the leaking oil. we'll be meeting with other federal, state and local officials deployed to the area and helping in the response effort, and we will be meeting

again with bp officials to discuss cleanup planning and operations. as the president and the law have made clear, bp is the responsible party and is required to fund the costs of the response and cleanup operations. but our visit to louisiana and the affected areas tomorrow will also help inform our investigation into the causes of this explosion which lefthcñ1 workers missing, three critically injured in addition to the ongoing oil spill. meanwhile, a coordinated group of federal partners, including the departments of homeland security, defense, interior and the epa, continues to work and oversee bp's deployment of a combination of tactics above water, below water, dozens of miles offshore, as well as closer to coastal areas. as you know, yesterday bp began

a controlled burn designed to remove large quantities of oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and marine and other wildlife. the trapped oil was consumed in about 28 minutes. bp continues to use chemical dispersants, which, along with natural dispersions of oil, will address a large portion of the slick. nearly 100,000 gallons of dispersant have been used today. among other response activities are on-water skimming, subsurface wellhead operations, continued efforts to see if they can get that shut-off valve to close, and significant booming efforts underway to protect vital shoreline. right now at least 174,000 feet of boom have been deployed, and other boom will be deployed at

six staging areas. and they are ready to be deployed right now. in addition, approximately 1,100 total personnel are currently working the spill. and 685,000 gallons of oily water have been collected so far, using nearly 50 vessels and multiple aircraft who are engaged in the response. we will continue to push bp to engage in the strongest response possible. we will continue to oversee their efforts, to add to those efforts where we deem necessary, and to ensure, again, that under the law, that the taxpayers of the united states ultimately are reimbursed for those efforts. but that is not the key focus, i must say, right now.

our key focus is making sure that people know what is going on, they understand what relief efforts are underway, what the extent of the response is, what we know, what we don't know about this incident, and how we intend to move forward. and with that, let me introduce rear admiral o'hara. >> thank you, secretary. good afternoon. i was asked to give you an update on the activities today, but i think the secretary has covered that very well. let me help put into perspective some of the interactions that occur. the coast guard is the federal on-scene coordinator. so we have the leadership role for spills that occur in the coastal zone for this spill, in particular. we have been very aggressive and proactive in our response, but we have not been alone. we work with federal partners -- there are 16 federal agencies who form the national response team. we also work very closely with

state and local authorities and with nongovernmental organizations -- as we move forward with the response, there are roles that volunteers can take and the ngos are critical in helping us properly channel that drive and energy. and finally, the responsible party, british petroleum. bp has taken a number of steps, as has been mentioned -- the controlled burns, the skimming, the booming, the activities to try and secure at the sub-floor surface -- we are working very closely with them, but as responsible parties, the role of the coast guard and the unified command partners to ensure that they move forward with activities that are safe, that are appropriate, and that will do the job to secure and remove this oil. our focus in particular today is looking very carefully at

the preventive booming that's occurring, using the best science that's available to us, working in conjunction with noaa's scientific support experts, as well as epa, to ensure that the responsible party is taking advantage of all the pre-planning that has been done to protect fragile areas -- because at this point the trajectory has the spill, the leading edge of the oil, reaching landfall in the mississippi delta region sometime later tomorrow. we are working very carefully at sea as well so that we continue the skimming operations. the controlled burn yesterday was very successful. the sea and wind conditions today do not allow us to continue to have a controlled burn today. as soon as there is an appropriate window we will continue the controlled burn activity because it was very effective yesterday. and with that, i'll take a break and answer questions when time. >> thank you.

i am david hayes, the deputy secretary of the department of the interior. i'm here today for secretary ken salazar, who is in houston at the bp command center, reviewing the operations, asking the tough questions. he's getting an update on the company's progress in closing the leaks from their well and to ensure that they clean up the spill as quickly as possible. as has been mentioned, bp, as the responsible party, is still at work dealing with this issue. and in particular, they're still trying to activate the blowout preventer stack to shut the well. they have yet to be successful. we are moving with them on relief efforts. we have approved the drilling of a second -- of a relief well that could begin drilling within a matter of days, and we're reviewing application for a second relief well, should that be needed. as the president has directed,

we are using every resource available to work on this response effort. we're also taking immediate steps to get to the bottom of how this happened, to ensure that industry is following safety and drilling regulations that are in place. yesterday, of course, the joint investigation was announced by secretary napolitano and secretary salazar. that is underway. that joint investigation will have every tool it needs, including subpoena power, to get to the bottom of what went wrong. also, secretary salazar has ordered immediate inspections of all of our deep -- all of the deepwater drilling rigs and platforms in the gulf of mexico. our inspectors will verify that companies are following the law and all regulations as they conduct their operations. that inspection operation is underway as we speak. finally, secretary salazar is convening a meeting of industry

leaders and experts later today to talk about additional immediate steps to be taken to reduce the potential for a catastrophic blowout like the one that occurred on the deepwater horizon. we also want to ensure that they are providing every resource and every idea available to help. obviously, although this type of incident is rare, it's extraordinarily serious, and we expect industry to be fully complying with the law and to be taking aggressive measures to ensure that this type of incident does not happen again. i believe that -- administrator jackson. >> hi, good afternoon. i'm lisa jackson, administrator of the environmental protection agency. over the past days, epa has mobilized to respond to this crisis. we're working closely with dhs, with the coast guard, and, of course, with the white house to monitor the situation and address environmental impacts. first, epa is providing full support to the united states coast guard. as you heard the rear admiral explain, the coast guard is in the lead, and epa on the

national response team provides support. we've moved our initial resources to the command center in louisiana, and we'll be moving additional resources there today and tomorrow, as well as to alabama and mississippi. we have stood up an air- monitoring program. that program has begun already. we'll soon be getting information on the results of the first samples out and on our web site. and we'll continue to beef up that program as we've now learned that we're dealing with additional breaches, which probably means additional controlled burns in the future. epa has air-monitoring aircraft that are -- one, that is gathering information on the impact of the controlled burn on air quality, both in the area of the burn, and, of course, further away. we're collecting air data from fixed and portable air- monitoring stations in the area. we'll analyze that data and, as i said, make it public in the coming days, certainly as soon

as possible, along with the air- monitoring plan, which is in draft and which will benb revid as we go along, and as the situation changes. third, as has been discussed already, we expect the oil to hit the shoreline in the near term. in that event, the coast guard will remain in the lead. the coast guard is the lead on that water and in the coastal zone. as that happens, though, we expect epa's role will expand. epa is generally the lead for land-based cleanups. so we are preparing for that scenario by increasing our support to the coast guard and our other federal -- and very importantly our state partners -- in ramping up the monitoring of air quality. surface water impacts will be next, and that will include sampling the water. finally, as the oil does hit the shoreline, epa will provide support to assess the impacts on the coastal shoreline and play a key role in implementing the cleanup. as a daughter of the gulf coast, i know that it is our job to ensure people that we will be eyes and ears working with the states who have valuable and vital resources to monitor air,

water and land quality. thank you. >> all right, let me just one quick thing, just announcement, the regular onsite media briefing that has happened each afternoon in the gulf will take place as scheduled in addition to this. >> yes, could someone explain under what circumstances dod will come in? does bp have to request that for some reason? and then when or if dod does become involved, what exactly can they provide in terms of equipment or technology that bp and the coast guard cannot do? >> yes, it's not really a bp request. what we have done is reached out to the department of defense to see in light of, you know the depth of the water, the complexity of the spill and like whether they have any either expertise or actual assets in addition to all the other things that are being employed that would be useable either, a, to plug the leak, stop the leak, speed up the repair of the

leak, or assist in making sure that a minimal amount of water -- or oil, excuse me, reaches the shoreline. so that's being done at the operational level today working with the coast guard, the department of the interior, the epa, noaa, and the other federal agencies that have been involved since the day of this spill. and if and when they have something to add, we'll certainly make that known. >> you don't know whether -- at this point whether they do have assets that would be useful -- >> not right now. >> that was something the president authorized looking into last night during the briefing. chip. >> i think the frame of reference most people have on this is the exxon -- on oil spills is the exxon valdez, that was 11 million gallons. i've seen an estimate that this could be well over 4 million gallons, under a worst-case scenario. could this turn into a

catastrophe approaching that level? >> well, i think by designating it a spill of national significance, we are already illustrating that this is one that every available asset will be useable should it be necessary. now, the difference with the valdez -- the valdez was a knowable quantity of oil because it was a ship. this is leakage from a well. now, over the course of time, we've seen the amount of oil that has come out. noaa has been able to revise estimates based on the length of time of the incident. those estimates will become better and better over time. but we are deploying as if this would be a major incident. would i use that kind of language? would i throw out those kind of numbers? i think that itself would be premature. >> but some local officials are already complaining. it's been nine days and they're frustrated with the pace of the

federal response. how do you respond to them? >> well, bp is the responding party. we are overseeing them. we're working very closely with all of the state and local partners. and, again, i think the key thing is that there has been the inability of bp to -- through whatever methodologies they're using to get this shut. >> but you can't just lay this on bp. i mean, the federal government certainly has a response to respond to a catastrophe like this -- >> we understand that, but -- >> but let's understand, chip, i think one of the things the secretary is talking about, as per your example earlier on the exxon valdez, in 1990 the law was passed that didn't allow an oil company to do what had been done and hand the bill to you and me. it was -- it's now the responsibility of the oil company, in this case bp, british petroleum. understanding that -- let's understand over the course of the past many days the situation has changed several times. the well was initially recapped.

then it wasn't capped. we found, as of yesterday, additional breaches. our response has been commensurate with that each time. >> but shouldn't the federal response be to respond to the possible worst-case scenario right from the start? >> that's exactly what we're doing. >> let the admiral talk to this. >> i would assure you that we are being very aggressive and we are prepared for the worst case. that's why we have mobilized in the numbers that we have, and worked out a plan that is as large and as broad-sweeping as the one that's in place, looking at the four states with likely impacts. we have a very important distinction to make between this case and exxon valdez. the oil pollution act of 1990, which was precipitated by the tragedy in alaska, has put forward a response plan with levels of certification and qualification for those who respond to oil spills. and we have professionals who are on call.

the companies that deal in cargoes that would be pollutants have to have plans in place. they have to have commitments with recovery operators. that's exactly what has happened. we have those professionals that are at the scene, hired through the plan that bp was required to maintain. they are at much higher levels of preparedness. we have great advances in technologies. the controlled burn, for instance, came much earlier in this bill than it was ever enabled in the exxon valdez case, and so we are putting tools to target much earlier and have assurance that this is not an exxon valdez type of case. >> jake. >> madam secretary, what do the people who live in the affected region -- especially the louisiana delta, which is about to hit the coast in the next day -- what do they need to know? >> first of all, that the parish presidents and others have been working with us and

we've been working with them very closely. we understand the concern -- the concern about fisheries area, the concern about other commercial activities that happen near sensitive environmental areas are involved. they need to know that there has already been a significant amount of booming to protect those areas from oil sheen that may not have evaporated or been skimmed. they need to know those efforts will be ongoing and continuing. they also need to know that we will be open and transparent with them. they need to know that there is already a bp system set up for them to file claims for their own individual damages. we will oversee that as well. and they need to know that we will be staying on top of this as long as this incident is ongoing. >> admiral, if i could just do a quick follow-up, and that is,

apparently bp was estimating spillage was 1,000 barrels a day, and you guys think it's five times that. why do you think bp was so off in their estimate? >> i'm going to turn to my partner from noaa and let her -- dr. lubchenco -- speak to some of the science. but i would tell you that we are at very deep depths, it's very hard to assess accurately given where this is located. there are signs -- we can see the fluid that's emanating from the places in the riser pipe that have been perforated. we know what that is in terms of temperature and what the volume may be that's coming out. blso it's an estimate, a best estimate, that was worked in consultation with british petroleum, but also with the scientific support coordinator. but then, as we move through time and we see the product on

the surface, there's additional information that can be determined from the appearance. and i'll turn it to you to pick up there, dr. lubchenco. >> i'm dr. lubchenco -- jane lubchenco -- administrator of noaa, national oceanic and atmospheric administration. what the admiral says is absolutely correct. it's very difficult under these circumstances to have any precise estimate. there is no one magic number. the initial calculations, there was agreement among bp and noaa scientists that the likely, approximate rate of flow was around 1,000 barrels a day. it quickly became obvious, however, that there was more oil accumulating at the surface than would be possible at that flow rate. we have since redone those calculations, taking into account aerial observations, using satellite and aircraft -- so how much total area at the surface is being covered, what

is the type of oil, what is the distribution of it -- it doesn't cover 100 percent of the surface, it's often in cornrows and streams -- so what is the percent area coverage. and then you subtract from that the burning that has been done with the platform and the oil on the surface with the controlled burn, for example -- the application of dispersants, skimming operations and in situ. and you can come up with a number that is then averaged over the total number of days. and so the revised upward estimate of 5,000 barrels per day that was announced last night is a reflection of those calculations. it's quite likely we will continue to pay close attention to what is on the surface and to do these numbers, and there may be estimates -- revised estimates down the road. but this is -- simply observing where the oil is coming out is insufficient to really calculate any flow rate with any degree of accuracy.

>> it was mentioned that a relief well permit was granted that could happen within the next coming days, but a company representative himself said it could take up to 90 days for that relief well to be -- >> that's how long the original was -- >> -- to be effective. so how long are we talking about before this can get under control? >> well, there are several potential ways to get this under control. first of all, the relief valve is the final and most assured final step -- that would be to essentially drill down the 19,000 feet to where the formation is and to block off the well that is now open. so that -- this particular well took 90 days to drill -- the one that is -- that the accident occurred on. so we're just estimating that it could take up to another 90 days to put the relief well in. in the meantime, we're working

with the bp on two other major approaches. one is to deal with this blowout preventer stack and to take -- to use every capability to try to get it -- the rams to close. that work continues. the other thing -- the other approach that's being used is a cofferdam is being constructed that would be lowered down to just above the leak. it would essentially collect the oil and then pump it up to the top so that you wouldn't have it dispersed and a much more efficient collection system. >> so the best-case scenario is how long until this -- you get this oil under control? >> well, best-case scenario is that the blowout preventer efforts -- interventions which are still underway -- work. >> and worst-case scenario is we could see 5,000 barrels a day for the next 90 days? >> it could be 90 days before the relief valve is put in. >> robert, can you tell us what impact this incident is having on the president's view of

offshore oil drilling, the proposal he put out some weeks ago to expand some offshore oil drilling? >> let me get carol and david, who both have -- >> i think our focus, frankly, is on this particular matter -- that we are dead set at looking at what happened here, and dealing with it, and trying to learn the lessons of it. i'll leave it for carol. >> the announcement that was made of secretary salazar about a new five-year drilling plan is the beginning of a process, and i think it's really important for everyone to understand -- and we said it at the time and we want to say it again here today -- that there will be ample opportunity for public input, there will be ample opportunity for congressional and governor input. that is the beginning of a process, not the end of a process. obviously, what's occurring now will also be taken into consideration as the administration looks to how to advance that plan and what makes sense and what might need to be adjusted.

>> might it be expected to have an adverse impact on expanding offshore oil drilling? >> well, as david said right now, we need to stay focused on the incident. we need to learn from the incident. we need to take that information. and as the process for the five- year ocs plan -- public hearings, et cetera -- unfolds, that all needs to be folded in. that plan doesn't automatically open up an area to drilling. it starts a process, and an area may or may not become open to drilling. >> i think that last point -- and i would just emphasize that -- emphasize carol's last point, but also say that the president renewed his concern about the incident this morning, in ensuring that -- how that impacts any future decision that's made, again, based on a plan that designates the possible areas to be opened. suzanne. >> but, robert, if i could just follow up, does it give anyone pause, in light of what has happened here, about the wisdom or the efficacy of opening up offshore drilling? >> well, suzanne, i think it's important to understand we are -- the area that you're looking at broadly right there is where

we get about a third of our domestic oil right now. so there are hundreds of oil and gas wells in this area. i would -- again, i think it's important to understand both what david and carol said about the president designated -- and you heard the president say it that day. we have looked at -- based on the fact that the ban on drilling in the outer continental shelf had expired, we looked at additional areas that could be open possibly to further drilling. but as carol said, that starts a process. that is not a -- the president's announcement was not the end, rather the beginning of a longer process that will eventually evaluate from the department of the interior, the minerals management service, the efficacy of each of those -- each petition to do so.

>> so the president is still confident that it's safe to expand offshore drilling? >> well, i would say this -- we don't know what caused what's happening today. so i don't want to say that short of knowing -- today we don't know what caused this. if we're saying that david and ken and others came to the president and said, here's what caused it, would that -- could that possibly change his viewpoint? well, of course. i think our focus right now is, one, the area, the spill, and two, also to ultimately determine the cause of it and see the impact that that ultimately may or may not have. >> and how much time do the people of louisiana have before this oil hits the shore? is this imminent? >> i think rear admiral brice- o'hara said that we think it's likely that -- later tomorrow afternoon. >> do you have any sense of how much damage, what kind of impact that could have? and can you also -- somebody talk about the impact on the wildlife? >> let me just say -- i'm sorry, hitting shore presumes

no dispersant, no skimming, no burning, and no boom. but the booming is going on, in particular in places where according to the trajectories we think it would head for land first. and that is this outer area right here in louisiana -- it's deployed right up there. so you can see that's where the boom has been deployed. admiral. >> well, i would just add that there is a -- what's called an area contingency plan. it's what all of the involved stakeholders have pre-planned. we know where the sensitive areas are -- nesting areas, fishing areas. all of the habitat is well understood. it's part of a plan as to how you then would lay out the boom to protect threatened areas from the product that's coming in. there is imprecision of just what the winds and the sea state will do with this slick as it moves closer to land.

but our best estimate is tomorrow, late tomorrow early into saturday. there is a little bit of a piece that seems to be floating somewhat separate from that. we're watching that carefully. but the boom will be there ready to respond. and then it's a layered approach. that's not the only thing. behind booms you have absorbent pads. you have cleanup that's ongoing. again, this is a cleanup team hired by the responsible party, the polluter is paying. but the coast guard, the federal government family, will be there in our roles to oversee that response and make sure that it's safe, that it's efficient and effective in the right places that have already been delineated with the longstanding plan for the region. >> so what's been the impact to wildlife so far? do we know? >> we have no indication -- i'll ask dr. lubchenco to speak to that as well -- we have no indication that there has been any recovered wildlife. sometimes you might see

seabirds. none of that has appeared yet. >> but there will be? >> we can't say. it depends upon how the oil travels, how effective the booming is. we'll wait and see. but we'll be prepared. we are assuming worst case, so we will be prepared for that. >> and let's also understand, this is -- as was said, this is also dependent upon weather conditions. so understanding that, i also want to let you all know that while we have been in here, the president has reached out and talked with governors jindal, crist, perry, and riley -- riley and barbour -- the five gulf state governors. we'll have a more detailed readout on that a little bit later. jeff, did you have something? >> yes, robert. as the administration looks at the causes of this, would you support having a pause in new deepwater oil drilling, so that oil companies can prove they have the technology and the ability to control and prevent

these types of spills? >> david, do you want to -- david and carol. >> everything is on the table. we are looking at -- that's why collecting the best minds this afternoon to look and see what the issue was. as robert alluded to, this is an extraordinarily unusual event. the last time there was a blowout like this with loss of life was 1984. and in the meantime, we have a thousand offshore platforms or mobile rigs in operation producing 30 percent of our domestic energy supply. but we are determined to get to the bottom of it, and to enhance the safety issues. that's why secretary salazar today is announcing the additional inspections, and we are looking at additional short-term steps that we can take. and i expect you'll hear more about that in the coming days. >> might those short-term steps include a pause in -- >> i do not know. we're in the process of evaluating. this is a highly regulated area.

we think the fundamental practice is safe. but obviously, we're looking very hard at everything. >> and one follow-up for carol. carol, does this -- how does this affect your efforts to get a climate bill advanced? >> well, as the president said yesterday, we remain committed to comprehensive energy reform. we continue our efforts with members in the senate, and we'll be continuing these. obviously this will become, i think, part of the debate, that goes without saying. but i don't think it means that we can't get the kind of important energy legislation that we need for the people of this country if we're going to create the clean energy jobs that will allow us not only to build our renewables here, to build clean batteries here, but also to compete in the global demand for clean energy technologies. >> but does this not hurt the process a little bit, a process that's already kind of hurting? >> i think it becomes part of the debate. and that's the way these things happen. something happens and it has to then be incorporated into the debate.

but we're looking at all energy production when we talk about comprehensive energy reform for this country. >> jeff, i'd also mention -- i would take into account what the department of interior announced yesterday as also weighing in on the debate by approving the first offshore wind farm in the united states. and secretary salazar said during that announcement this is the beginning of a host of these along the eastern coast. mike. >> so two things, robert. one, is there a reason why this kind of assembly, with all of these folks and you briefing us, didn't happen earlier? and this goes sort of to chip's question about response. i mean, obviously you guys are completely geared up today, but why haven't we seen this kind of geared up earlier? >> mike, i've read many of the stories in your paper. i think you've got reporters that have covered, as i mentioned, the daily media briefings that have generally happened at 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon. an additional one happened last evening to announce the new

information about an additional breach. all of the members that are standing behind me represent departments that have been keeping the president up to date for as long as this has been an incident that we've been watching. the president spent quite a bit of time a week ago getting fully updated on what's going on. i would say this. there's no doubt that -- and i don't want to presume that this won't continue to happen -- but as we go farther, we learn more, and circumstances change. i think you've heard each and every person here say we have planned for and dispersed resources for whatever the worst-case scenario might be: 80,000 feet of boom, with more in the area, to potentially be deployed, a whole host of activities that are being carried out to ensure that what we envision as the worst-case

scenario doesn't come to pass. >> can i just follow up one other -- >> you want to add something? >> i just wanted to add something to that, which is to say that as the spill occurred, the initial first on-scene responder, coast guard, the initial focus, of course, was removing -- helping remove workers and also the search for the 11 missing workers. .

>> can i just ask one other thing? morning the president's speech that he gave at the end of march on the offshore oil drilling, and to be fair, he didn't talk about -- it wasn't a speech about the beginning of a process, he talked about that there will be critics on the left and critics on the right, but that he was convinced that opening these areas to more oil drilling, more oil exploration was the right thing to do. >> but understand -- can i just -- understand, mike, that there is a legal process in what he announced that has to be done. i mean, the president might not have enumerated the length of the legal process, but that's why the department of interior

and the minerals management service has a permitting process for each well and for each petition for that well. so understand that -- mike, as i've said, as the president has said, as i think probably everybody in the states -- there is no one thing that can be done to reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- from an environmental, from a national security, or from an economic standpoint. if there was one thing, rest assured somebody would have done administration. that's why we've taken steps to increase clean energy jobs, wind and solar investment, wind farms. and the president does believe we have to increase domestic production. but again, understanding, mike, that the process that the president announced was the beginning of that process because there are a host of legal things that have to happen -- i made mention of the wind farm off the coast of massachusetts -- i think the paper said today that was -- this is basically a nine-year

decision. so understand that all of these do take some time. christi. >> secretary napolitano, could you take some immigration questions before you go? >> i'll ask -- >> well, let's do these, and then we'll see what we have left. >> you mentioned that there's going to be a much greater federal response to this. can you give us an estimate of how much you think this is going to cost in a worst-case scenario, and who is going to bear the cost of that response? will it be american taxpayers? >> under the oil pollution act, bp pays for all this. >> they pay for everything? >> yes. >> robert, would you agree with henry waxman -- >> hold on, let me just go here. yes. >> is there a point, though, where the federal government shifts from oversight of bp to saying, we're taking control and we'll send you the bill, and are we at that point? >> we are certainly not at that point now. and i don't imagine, given the professionalism of our partner, bp, and -- maybe partner was --

let me back up. (laughter. ) >> they are not our partner -- they are not our partner. >> in terms of -- bad choice of words. our responsible party has shown willingness, they've shown resolve, they've shown accommodation for what the government has asked of them. they, too, have been forward leaning. i can't emphasize enough in terms of what's happening underwater -- the state of the art of that technology. there are not easy answers. but relative to the spill response, we find that they are doing what they should be doing. we will not let up on our vigilance and observation to ensure that they continue to bring everything possible to bear to manage this spill response and to prevent damage to fragile ecosystems. >> can i? i actually just want to add one slight amendment to that. when it comes to monitoring, to

actually taking data to determine contamination -- whether it's air, water, whether it's noaa's work on estimation of the amount released, whether it's deciding how to protect beaches or fisheries or fragile resources --- the government is doing that work. epa has tasked its contractors. we will be sending a bill to bp at some point. but it's our belief that not only the federal government, but, for example, those fixed- state monitors that are now being asked to step up and do more air monitoring or potentially water monitoring, that work is best done -- it's inherently governmental, but bp should pay for it. >> you said that bp is responsible for ultimately footing the bill, but have there been any initial cost estimates that have been -- >> for -- the initial cost estimate for bp? >> yes -- >> just total. >> i would direct that to bp. >> robert, i have an additional question for deputy secretary hayes. could you elaborate at all on the meeting later today and who

from industry will be here -- whether secretary salazar will be back in time? will bp be having a representative at that meeting? >> secretary salazar will be back. he'll be hosting the meeting. there will be others from this stage at that meeting as well. we have invited all of the major players in industry that do deepwater drilling and production to send their ceo and top technical folks to have a discussion about what we might consider doing in the short term to ensure safety, getting to the point that was made before. so we expect it to be a technical and substantive discussion. >> do you have any names of ceos who will be there? what companies? >> we'll get you -- not just who was invited, but ultimately who shows up. margaret. >> thank you. robert, some americans remember the santa barbara spill. many remember exxon valdez. once we know more, do you expect that because this is such a galvanizing event, the president will speak in detail to americans about what

happened, what it means environmentally, what it means for policies going forward? should we expect -- >> look, i think as carol said, this -- and as secretary napolitano, this is an incident of national significance and of national importance, and i anticipate that that could be possible in the coming days. april. >> robert, if someone here could speak on this -- this has a ripple effect, as far as the economy is concerned, on the fisheries, as well as gas prices. is there anyone in this administration who has already taken the lead or moved into the area trying to make sure that prices will not skyrocket as much as -- with this leakage and with possible problems with fish and -- >> let me just say, i will -- let me ask nec on what they might be working on in terms of gas prices. obviously, one of the things

that we discussed with the president this morning, you have shipping channels that could soon -- the area of the spill could soon be in a very large shipping channel, and the ramifications that may or may not have as well. >> can i just make one factual point? this well was not a production well yet. it was an exploration well. so it wasn't as if oil that was being shipped out to refineries has been lost. this was an exploratory well. >> but, again, it has a ripple effect -- and what should the american public brace for? i mean people were screaming at $4 a couple of years ago. is that a possibility now with this because -- >> i don't want to get into the conjecture of that. i think as carol said, it's not as if a known quantity of oil has been taken out of the market because this was exploration not production. so, april, i think first and foremost, the people that are behind me are focused on

managing this incident and ensuring that it has a minimal effect on our environment and our economy. >> robert, are you seeing -- but are you seeing anything right now, as far as environmentally concerned, seeing fish washing up on the shores and things of that nature? >> well, i think that was addressed earlier that that was not the case. sam. >> you mentioned the calls to the governors -- has the president also reached out for any discussion with members of congress from the area? and, also, is -- >> i believe members of congress were briefed last -- >> they've been briefed daily and sometimes multiple daily -- >> and also, is there any talk of the president going down to one of the command centers? >> i don't know if -- i can check scheduling on that. i know that we've got these guys going down there tomorrow, but i don't know about the president's trip down there. bill. >> robert, does the administration agree -- >> hold on, hold on, let me just -- bill. >> robert, i think -- >> don't worry, i haven't missed you. bill. >> i think the admiral mentioned the mississippi delta as maybe tomorrow being impacted.

what other -- my question to her is what other land areas might be at risk, and -- for example, the florida beaches? and when would you expect other areas to be impacted by onshore -- >> certainly we are prepared for this spill to move throughout the gulf dependent upon the wind and sea conditions. and we monitor that through our partners at noaa. and their scientific support coordinators help us anticipate, and we generally have enough of a projection so that we can take the necessary steps. all of that said, florida, under the federal on-scene coordinator who will be designated today in miami to oversee the coordination of all operations on the florida coasts, has been provided discussion, information and guidance to prepare themselves. they also have contingency

plans that will be brought to bear when the time is right. >> so the worst case would be florida, mississippi, louisiana, texas? >> well, look, i think given where the oil is and the calls that the president made, we're taking the precaution that based on sea and wind conditions, this could go -- you know, again, it could -- what these guys are prepared to do is act on the worst-case scenario. the action on the ground is to ensure that that doesn't come to pass. and that's what we're working on right now. >> robert, can i answer -- >> oh, i'm sorry -- >> one of the responsibilities that noaa has in this regard is to stay on top of the weather forecasts and to do the oil spill trajectories. we are able to do only a number of days out at a time because the winds are so variable this time of year. when the oil first was released from the well, it stayed in that area. it went -- the winds have shifted around a number of times since then, and what we

are doing in addition as a federal family to preparing for the worst possible case, we are also providing relatively accurate forecasts for a number of days out with respect to not only the weather but the likely trajectory of the oil spill. we're providing that to the federal coordinators in the region and to the states so that there is ample warning to prepare and understand where to place buoys and booms. >> at this point, your trajectory shows the oil heading where? >> it is currently headed -- yes. >> and only there? >> the current forecast is for it to head here and then to move up around this area. but as the winds shift, which they likely do, that could change. >> you mentioned the briefing with members of congress last night. henry waxman made an assessment that he felt bp's response to

this wasn't adequate. i wondered if the administration agrees with him and if everything that's being said here and the intensifying government oversight represents an assessment that their plan, as required by law, is inadequate. >> let's understand this. "intensifying oversight" -- oversight is -- that's not accurate. we have -- based on the law, the u.s.government has oversight over this at the moment that it became an incident, okay? the president has asked us and asked us last evening, when we briefed him on the plane, and asked us again this morning, to ensure that we are being as aggressive as possible in doing all that we can, and that any and all resources that might help be deployed as quickly as possible in order to ensure that what we have doesn't become worse. so we are -- that's our focus, is ensuring that each and every step can be taken. and that's why the president

asked that we -- the department of defense to begin to also look at what possible assets they have that could ultimately be helpful. >> so is bp's plan adequate, then, in the administration's view? >> well, at the moment, i think you heard rear admiral say right now they are responding, we are overseeing that, and evaluating, as conditions change, whether that needs to change as well. yes, sir. >> as this investigation continues over what caused this, are other rigs or other wells in the region being looked at or impacted in a way to prevent the problem from compounding? >> yes, is the answer. per my earlier statement, we are increasing our inspection frequency. we have a swat team of inspectors. we have 55 -- the department of the interior minerals management service has 55 inspectors on the ground, in the gulf, dedicated to this task. so, yes, inspections are proceeding.

>> this particular rig was inspected how many times, and did it pass? >> yes, yes, it was. it was -- this particular rig started drilling in this location in january of this year. under the regulations, it's subject to monthly inspections. it had monthly inspections, in fact, with the last inspection being less than two weeks before the incident. >> i'm sorry, does that suggest that inspections are inadequate if they didn't find something two weeks ago? >> no, we don't think so. >> again, i think it's hard to determine until you determine the cause of what the incident was. >> i have a question about the slick itself, though. first, what's the correct terminology in the white house or the administration's view at this point, because on monday you guys had referred to it as surface oil sheen? is that still, with the 5,000- barrel-a-day estimate, the way to look at this? and if i went out there into the middle of it -- >> would not be advisable. (laughter. ) >> right, but are we talking about something -- "sheen" sounds somewhat trivial,

compared to what we remember from the exxon valdez, which is gads and gobs of thick crude oil coming up onshore. is that what we see as a potential here, or are we talking about a thin slick of oil that might come onto the shore? >> it is all of that. in parts it is thick enough to be able to skim and to move into a boom for burning. in parts, as the oil -- as time has gone on, some of it has formed into balls and a large part of it is sheen. and then there are different types of sheen depending on thickness. if you want the technical definitions, i think we can arrange to get that information to you. but it's all of those different types. >> i think it's useful to note that the oil that's being released is a light to medium crude, so it's a different type of oil than that released in the exxon valdez spill. when it first emerges it's in a much more liquid form.

as it is exposed to weathering for a number of days it takes on a different texture. much of the oil is volatilized. and so the oil that we anticipate coming ashore, for example, is more likely to be in the form of mats or strings or tar-balls. so it does change through time. and the oil that is -- has dispersants applied to it becomes emulsified and is pulled away from the surface and down in subsurface. so you would see different things in different places. it's not a uniform slick. >> last one here. yes. >> secretary napolitano, you come, of course, from arizona, a landlocked state. i'm curious -- i'm sure you've never dealt with anything like this before in your tenure as governor of arizona -- has this been a steep learning curve for you as homeland security secretary? >> in terms of the terminology and the technology, yes.

in terms of managing an incident that involves multiple federal agencies and the intersect with state and locals, we've already been through several of those in my tenure as homeland security secretary. >> thanks, guys. >> can we do immigration? >> are you finished? >> yes, we're finished, because the president is going to speak shortly and we want to make sure you're ready for that. >> any chance he'll speak on this? >> what's that? >> do you think he'll speak on this subject? >> i think he might speak on this. i want to go check on that. that's why i want to let you guys go a little early. if you guys have immigration questions, i'm happy to come up there and answer them. again, i would point you also to what the president said last night. >> robert, one thing. what does the investigation the investigation, could it be natural causes, could it be operator error, could it be sabotage? i mean, are you looking at all those -- >> well, again, we don't know what the cause is, so we're looking at -- determining what

that cause is and obviously looking at anything. i don't want to get into the specifics of some of the things you just mentioned, but, again, we've got to figure out what happened, and that's currently ongoing. >> so, let me understand this. when you say we're looking at anything, is sabotage a possibility? >> april, let's not -- >> no, no, no, i asked you that -- you said all three. i want to be clear on this. >> well, let me -- i do not want to get into the delineation of what might have caused something we don't know what happened. let's determine, before we get off on to conspiracy theories, let's determine what happened. and we'll have a chance to talk about it. >> do you think that the president is going to be speaking -- making some remarks at the top of the teacher of the year? >> that's what i'm going to go check on. thank you, guys.

>> coming up next, senate leaders discussed their plans for an immigration bill. van in interview with faye arizona immigration law. former governor charlie crist announces he is leaving the republican party to become an independent. then, the funeral for several rights leader dorothy height. >> on washington journal, we talk with the former commerce secretary about arizona's new immigration law. then, a look at the national job market. edward luce from the financial times will talk about financial market regulation. live, starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

a c-span video fact, there are more than 6000 references to abraham lincoln in our library. if you are one of the enthusiasts that enjoyed the 16th president, you will find several resources online. there is also the c-span book, "abraham lincoln" now on sale at your favorite bookseller. >> senate democrats announced their proposal for an overhaul of emigration policy. this is about 30 minutes. >> democrats and republicans agree on one thing, our

immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. what i say to my republican colleagues, work with us to fix this broken system and secure our borders and do the other things we have to do. do not just say no. we agree the system is broken so let's work together to fix it and a bipartisan way. i am joined with my democratic colleagues who have worked on this issue for many years. this framework is based on a bipartisan negotiations that we have been engaged in four months. those negotiations have been built on bipartisan worked of senate colleagues to i previousn years. of course, the work of senator kennedy. he was chair of the subcommittee that senator schumer now chairs. we recognize his employment and everything we do on this issue.

we offer this framework is an indication and invitation to republican colleagues to work with us to solve this problem that has plagued our country for too long. this proposal will do in number of things. it will take care of our northern and southern borders, require those who are here illegally to register with the government, learn english, stay out of trouble, and even then, they go way to the back of the line and did not move up. it performs america's legal immigration system to maximize american economic prosperity and will impose tough sanctions on employers who break the law. in arizona they passed a very draconian law on immigration because they are upset the federal government is not acting. in nevada, the republican

governor sent a letter to president obama calling for action, federal action, on immigration. and i find the position of the republicans in arizona and in nevada who say the problem is one of the federal government now say we will not buy you work on it. that is why we are here this afternoon, inviting them to help was work on this issue. take a look at our proposals. i do not direct this to learn to grant only. there are 40 other republicans. take a look at this proposal. it is a good faith effort to move forward. we say, come and talk with us. work with us.

>> thank you. we come to discuss this issue of immigration facing the reality of the broken immigration system in america facing the reality of a controversy law and arizona which is going to be challenged as it meets the most basic and fundamental test under our constitution and tests the fairness. we come here with the reality to act and move forward. all eyes are focused on arizona at this moment. there are focused on the law enforcement officials who are charged with implementing and enforcing their new law.

it is worth quoting with the arizona association of the chiefs of police have said. we strongly urge the u.s. congress to immediately initiate the necessary steps to begin the process of comprehensively addressing the issue to provide solutions are logical, fair, and equitable. not just an invitation to converse but a challenge to congress to rise to the occasion and pass comprehensive immigration reform. i could not agree more. we need a comprehensive approach that is tough, fair, and practical. we need to secure our borders, crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and require those who came here illegally to come here, learn english, paid back their taxes and any fines before they can go to the back of the line to work towards becoming taxpaying citizens.

failure to take up immigration reform would mean that our broken system and ineffective laws will continue to weaken our national security, heard our workers and fall short of the most basic standards of justice. i want to say a word about the position -- a provision that means a lot to me. i feel a special obligation to the children who were brought to this country and grew up as americans but are prevented from pursuing their dreams under our current immigration law. these young people are the reason that i introduced the dream act nine years ago. a republican from indiana is my co-sponsor and i want to thank him. yesterday, i met with four young people who would qualify for the dream act. they walked all the way from

miami, fla., to washington d.c., 1,500 miles, in order to bring the attention to the attention of undocumented students and the dream act. we owe it to these children and the people of arizona and illinois. we owe it to all americans to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation. we are in forming our republican colleagues from states like arizona were law enforcement officials have invited to -- invited them to join us in this effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform this year. >> thank you. i want to thank all of my colleagues for joining us and submitting this bill for comprehensive reform pulled pundits, columnists, and reporters have almost all been saying that the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform

looked bleak. i completely disagree. if i did not believe we could accomplish immigration reform, i never would have chosen to except the chairmanship. committees of inaction and legislative backwaters are not lanes in which i drive. people ask me all the time, why are you doing this? why did you take on this assignment? i tell them because the urgency for immigration reform cannot be overstated because it is so long overdue. our immigration system is badly broken. the broken system has produced dysfunctional outcomes for millions of people and for this entire country. it has created an unsustainable situation where thousands of people cross our thousand board -- our southern border each day

while at the same time, we continue to see shortages in much-needed occupations like doctors and engineers and agricultural work. on the flip side, the fact that we do not have a good, strong federal immigration law has now engendered a disproportional and counterproductive response in arizona which just passed a new law which is both effective and wrong parted. americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration and support legal immigration and that is what our proposal does. americans know that throughout our history, emigrants have contributed to making this country more vibrant and economically dynamic. in 20 years, we need to make sure our country will not face

the specter of another 11 million people coming here illegally. americans will embrace a welcoming immigration policy. proponents reflectively say that secure the border first and then we can talk about what to do about the people already here. that is a talking point, not a serious policy proposal. that will not improve the situation in arizona or anywhere else. our framework is fixed the border first but do not just fix the border. our framework is to fix the border, but not just fix the border all like. we clearly say to the american people our proposal will require the government to secure the border first before we adjust

the status of a single person that is here illegally. just what many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said. our bill is tougher on security than the bill offered by arizona senators. on like the border old approach, our proposal recognizes that no matter what we do on the border will only succeed in dramatically reducing future illegal immigration by -- by creating an employee verification system that holds employees accountable for hiring illegal workers. our framework to create a version of the social security card. new hires must show this card to their employers who pulls like those cards through a machine to confirm there status. the system will ensure that employers will no longer be able to hire illegal immigrants without facing stiff fines and jail time for repeat offenders.

each person's information will be stored only on the card they carry. no government database will exist. nor will the card contain any tracking devices, medical records, or other private information that we do not want the government to have. what we also reform is maximizing america's prosperity. our failure to act is to perpetuate a broken system that is stymieing the best and brightest from coming here to pincher did to our economy. we will attract the best and brightest to america because the french are willing predict will award a green card to immigrants that have a ph.d. from an american university and the math or science. the american people deserve more than empty rhetoric and impractical calls. our framework says if you have been working hard, kept your nose clean and have been

productive, you will be able to get right with the lot if you come forward, register with the government, to admit you are here illegally, pay a fine and the taxes you owe and passed back on tests. in conclusion, immigration reform is a morally complex and politically explosive challenge. there is no more important and difficult task in defining the american community in determining how we treat those who wish to join. we are asking our republican colleagues to come join with us in this difficult work. the time for talking points is over. we know we cannot pass reform, comprehensive reform, unless it is bipartisan. we welcome our republican colleagues to look at our proposal, see where the one to make changes and joined with them. that is the way to pass this

bill. we can and we must. it is time now to work together because immigration reform is not just a political problem to be solved. that is a critical component to achieving a vibrant economy and a nation that continues to live up to the values that were so eloquently in tried on the statue of liberty, the values we much -- we must never forget. >> i remember three years ago when we voted on an immigration bill. there is no question it is contentious. there is also no question that it is necessary. i remember when senator kennedy, senator mccain and about eight others of us sat in a hot room over many hours trying to negotiate what might be a good bill that could get a bipartisan support. it came out on the floor and it did not to get the necessary 50

votes. there was a lot of talk at that time about what we had to do first was strengthen the border. in fact, a lot of that work has been done. the border is actually better staffed than at any pad bridging any time in its 85 year history. the number of border agents has been doubled since that time from 10,000 to 20,000. the number of federal agents has increased 26%. almost all of the dancing mandated by the congress has been completed. 645 miles out of 655 miles that was mandated. the result has been a 23% decrease in the legal immigration in one year alone all of this amount to

substantial progress. the question is, what should next be done? did this fix the system itself? no. the system is still broken. there are many part. but a substantial progress has been made. this is just a framework that can be flushed -- fleshed or changed if people work in good faith. what we have in mind is not amnesty. it is a tough and fair path forward for those who have contributed to american society. not for those that have not. but for those who have contributed, who work hard, who pay taxes, who learned english, who do not commit crime, and who are willing to go to the back of a very long line to earned the right to be illegal in this

country. to the back of what is a very long line. the bipartisan agricultural bill is included in this proposal, just as dick durbin spoke about the dream act. there is a reason. the wilson immigration system has been devastating to a major industry, agriculture. in my state, it is the largest of ag stay in the nation. farmers cannot farm, growers cannot harvest, packers cannot pack but 90,000 acres have gone to mexico. 20,000 mexicans have been hired and nothing is better than american produce but if you cannot farm, you have to import from others and that is exactly what is happening. i have story after story of farmers whose crops lay on the ground because there is nobody to work in the hot sun with the

skill to harvest a row crops or picked citrus or pears or any other thing or canned tomatoes. that is where we are today. the system is broken. farmer after farmer comes to us and says please help us secure a legal work force. this bill would do that. i think that is important. we note today that we have to do this. the question is, do the people of america want us to do with? one of the ways we have to look at this is threefold. every poll i have seen is people want a comprehensive immigration bill. they want the system fixed and the borders strong. as they want our laws kept but they also understand that the economy prospers based on having people who are not in the

shadows, who are not hiding, who are not desperate, but who are contributing legitimate parts of our society. i think enough work has been done on the border to satisfy what was said three years ago as missing from the immigration bill. with the chairman of the immigration subcommittee's leadership, myself as a loyal vassal on that committee, we need to reach up and say to everybody here and those people who care in america, the time has come to be constructive, not destructive. the time has come to build a system that will be workable. of the time has come not to walk into houses and deport families at 2:00 a.m. in the morning and leave their american children behind. the time has come to make sense out of this system. >> thank you.

i join my colleagues here in rolling out of this framework with the view that this is an invitation to our republican colleagues to join us and something that is critical to the national security of the united states and critical to the economy of the united states and critical so that american citizens and legal permanent resident to not become second-class citizens of this country. on national security, this framework, which incorporates many of the views of those republicans that were working or give input to senator schumer, deals with national security by going beyond what senator feinstein said and makes for an even more robust border enforcement process combined with other informational uses that would ensure that the

nation is controlled at its borders in a weight that deals with national security. at the same time, i can never have a national security if i do not know who is here to pursue the american dream vs who is here to maybe do harm to it. by having people come forward as the law becomes a reality and begin able to register with temporary status, i bring people out of the darkness and into the light and create the opportunity to do criminal background checks to make sure they have been law- abiding and they are here to pursue the dream that millions of other immigrants that have come to this country and contributed to the vitality enormously. i will never know who is here to pursue that dream vs who is here to do harm to with if they stay in the shadows. this is the national security of

the united states. this is also about the national economy of our country. poll after poll says the americans want on documented aliens to come forth and pay their fair share of taxes. we want them to come forth and pay taxes. many of them use taxpayer id numbers to do that. many of them do not. by giving them the opportunity to contribute to our economy, by being able to come forth and participate in a temporary status as they wait a long time to become a permanent resident, we not only pursue the national security of the u.s., we contribute to the economy of the country. speaking of that economy, i hope that all americans will be honest with ourselves. this morning, if you had breakfast and you had fruit for breakfast, it was probably picked by the bat back of an

immigrant worker. if you had chicken for dinner, it was probably blocked by the cut up hands of an immigrant worker. if you have somebody who is in firmed o, their daily needs maye attended to by an immigrant worker. in wave after wave, the agricultural industry even in this economy where people will not go and pick crops, it is being done by immigrant workers. when we have a lance corporal who is not even a citizen of the u.s. but who was the first soldier with a u.s. uniform to die in iraq, that we can say that individuals are worthy of fighting and dying for america but not ultimately having the

opportunity to have a chance to become a permanent resident of the u.s. finally, arizona is the ultimate coordination of the challenge we have before us, the at the center now of a great concern in immigrant communities. there are over 200 cases at the u.s. citizens, u.s. citizens, and legal permanent residents, who have been caught up in immigration raids and had been detained unlawfully in violation of the constitution and their rights, many detained for months, who among us would be happy come out who among us would be happy if we were detained simply because of the way we look, the manner in which we speak or the color of our skin?

who among us would be waiting for the council with patients? latinos and others did not believe they are second-class citizens of this country. i have nothing in my possession that proves i am a united states citizen. i cannot carry my birth should give the kid or my passport and i certainly cannot intend to be stopped in arizona or anywhere else and have it suggested that i may suspect. we understand the history of not only this country but the history of the world. when one group of people become a suspect class, when one group of people are blamed for all the ills of the country, history has taught us it is a problem. it is not who we are as a people or as a nation. our friends of the other side of the aisle b.c. shoe -- i beseech you to join us.

this framework has a lot of your ideas. this has things that i might not have written but i understand what will be necessary to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. we cannot have two different classes of citizens in this country. we cannot have those that are detained unlawfully because they are caught up in this class war. if that is what is at stake here. this is not a partisan question. this is about the national security of the united states. this is about the economy of this country. it is ultimately the preservation of the constitution. when i can become a second-class citizens, there is a road where you can become a second-class citizen. [inaudible] >> i do not think it would be wise for us to set an arbitrary

deadline. we are patient. and the hispanics in nevada have been very patient. we do not want to set an arbitrary deadline. we think it is time that we stop the nonsense. how can you reasonably answer people around the country who are saying fix the system and then they will not let us fix the system? we are saying to our republican colleagues, i think you have noted the tone here today, we are inviting them to work with us. an invitation that we think is very timely. ." [inaudible]

>> i have not spoken to the president about this recently but i do know that he has given us a heavy load. one of the assignments he has given us is to work on wall street reform. we finished health care. we have done the national service legislation. there is a whole list. we have had a lot to do. i say to the president and all the people around, this is an issue that he thinks is three important. i do not know in what context the statement was last night but we can do a lot of things here. [inaudible] >> they are saying he is committed to a bipartisan

solution. if your proposal incorporates this, why not move forward and put it into the calendar? >> my conversation with the president has been similar to what you just said. every time i have ever talked to him or people closely associated with him, he recognizes the issue. i know that he will work with us on this issue. as i said, we are reaching out to our republican friends. this is an issue they need to help us with. we are willing to compromise but you cannot compromise with yourself. >> to use support the san francisco boycott of arizona? >> i do not know about their boycott. i did not know anything about it.

>> san francisco is an island unto itself. [laughter] the question is do i support its boycott. there is a resolution for the city to boycott any business with which the city carries out with any firm in arizona. i do not think that is a smart thing to do. with the way we handle this is the way it has to be handled which is a comprehensive bill passed by the federal government. i do not think boycotts or things of that nature really help. they just polarize people. >> thank you, mayor. >> thisenator gramm said this mt

kill a bill [inaudible] >> there is nobody in this congress, in the house or senate, who believes in doing something about the environment more than i do. we need to do comprehensive energy legislation as soon as we can. i do not know help my friend, lynn to gramm, i can say this kills energy. it is up to him. i specifically said the questions we are directing are not directed toward lindsey graham. there are 40 other republicans. he cannot logically use immigration as saying -- as an excuse to not help with energy.

[inaudible] >> we are looking for republican support. all of you know the rules around here. they have been pushed into my mind. you have to be able to get 60 around here. talk about getting a bill on the floor, without help, we will not have a bill on the floor. >> senator schumer, thank goodness you got a question. >> you have been talking to republicans. what is their reaction? >> for instance, today, i was with judd gregg who is very interested in the parts of the bill about the labor force. the republicans i have talked to this week when i laid out what happened, they said send me some details.

now we have details and a framework. what we tried to do is be true to our democratic principles, not everybody would agree with the specific provisions, but at the same time, show that we are willing to negotiate because a lot that is in this bill came from republican ideas. this is a proposal that i think says on its face that we welcome you to negotiate and talk with us to get a comprehensive bill. the conversations i had today, people were listening. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> tomorrow on c-span, we will bring to a discussion on what u.s. policy should be in dealing with iran and its policy. that is live starting at 10:30 a.m. eastern. >> what i think is vital to his americans agree to talk to the taliban. >> in 2000, he wrote about the taliban and the rise of osama bin laden. with the 10th anniversary edition of his book, we look at what is it is next -- at what is next. >> the people who are coming to us for risk in the housing market wanted to have a security that gave them exposure to the housing market and that is what they got in the courts the senate hearing with goldman sachs executives went almost --

went several hours. you can watch all the video free and online. on thursday, we talk to a state legislator who helped write arizona plus new immigration law. he spoke to was via satellite from phoenix. this is about 45 minutes. representative john kavanagh, republican of arizona, a major proponent of the new immigration law. are you surprised by the reactions after your assigned in by the governor? guest: not at all. anything that has to do with illegal immigration get to a lot of attention, raises a lot of passion. this was totally expected. what was not expected was the great amount of misinformation that is being thrown around. that is causing a lot of unnecessary alarm. host: we are giving you the opportunity to talk about that

misinformation. i am just going to let you describe it. there are many points that people have heard, whether or not it will cause racial profiling, whether or not it will upset relations between the citizens and police department. make your case, please. guest: there are a lot of moving parts to the law, but let us focus on the ones that are getting attention. no city can tell it's police officers that they cannot inquiry into the immigration status of somebody that they lawfully contact. we make a few exceptions, but that was the problem. we also require police officers now, when they reasonably suspect that someone they are lawfully contacting is an illegal alien, that they question that person. this is simply extending a

policed tool called stop and question, created by the supreme court in 1968. the court says any time a police officer reasonably suspects that a person may be, it is about to become or had just committed a crime, they may detain them and question them about the activity. we are now doing this with immigration. as this went through the committee hearing process, we had a lot of input. civil-rights advocates were concerned about racial profiling. we thought that their case was reasonable, so we wrote into the law that a police officer may not use race or ethnicity as the sole person is -- purpose for the reasonable suspicion. and to the extent that they do use it, only one is allowed by federal law. we had a police chiefs saying that we do not want our men

doing these things when there are other things occurring. so we wrote into the law, this reasonable suspicion only has to be done when it is practical to do so. so if an officer is doing one of the stop and question, and over the radio a robbery in progress alarm comes up, the officer would let that person go and respond to the more urgent crime. it is a matter of practicality. i am a retired detective sgt. we are concerned that this may scare away crime witnesses. we wrote into law, these questions do not need to be asked if they hinder an investigation. so we took care of those concerns. would you like to go into depth on that section? host: i