of five times that. why is the estimates so far off? >> i will turn to my partner at noaa and let her speak to some of the science that i would tell you we are at very deep depths. it is very hard to assess accurately, given where this is located. there are signs that we can see a plume emanating from the places in the height that have been incorporated. we know what that is. in terms of temperature and what the volume may be that is coming out. it is an estimate, a best estimate that was worked in consultation with british petroleum, but also with the scientific support coordinators. but then, as we moved through time and we see the products on the surface, there is additional information that can be determined from the appearance.

.

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. by friday we had convened the national response team and we had convened that at the cabinet level to begin making sure that on the scene, on the ground in louisiana, in the gulf coast, everything was being done and coordinated properly. the press has been focused on the ground there simply because that's where the information was. the reason for this today is because now, as information is becoming more and more available, we have declared this an incident of national

significance and we wanted to make sure that you and, in particular, the residents of the gulf coast knew the extent not only of our involvement, but of the president's involvement. >> can i just ask one other thing? i went back and read this 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. so i guess the question is -- >> 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 it -- likely in a previous 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. >> 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. >> 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. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] bill >> and tamaras morning washington journal we will took to carlo gutierrez.

it then it appeared the national job market. and would luce will talk about regulation. it is like starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> what they think is vital that the americans agree to talk. >> into the season, he wrote about the taliban and the rise of osama bin laden. now with the 10th anniversary edition of this book, he looks the what is next sunday night on c-span for them -- c-span. quite the people who are coming to us for risk in the housing market want to have the security gates and exposure to the housing market. that is what they have got him. >> the hearing with executive, and nearly 11 hours. see the key moments. it is washington your way.

every program since 1987, free online. >> today senate democrats announced their proposal for an overhaul of immigration laws. we would hear from senators along with harry reid. this is about half an hour. >> 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, their daily needs may be 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.

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 would like to move on. our callers will ask more. guest: another part deals with day laborers. we have a big problem where day

laborers stand on the street corners and potential employers drive up to hire them. it causes traffic problems, disruptions in communities, demonstrations, littering -- it is a very negative thing. in addition, this streetcorner labor pickup is bad for the state. most of these people work off the books, so they work off the books, you do not get fair labor laws. many of the people that do they labor are illegal immigrants. so we put into the law, if you stand by the roadside to get work, it is illegal if it impede traffic. we had to include that to make it constitutional. we also have sections that say if you knowingly transport an

illegal alien or harbor them, or concealed them, you are also guilty of the state offense. with respect to that law, you also have to be doing another offense. religious people, clergy, social service agencies, were concerned that perhaps somebody driving an illegal alien to work through they did not know could be arrested. of course, it is only nominally when you know when the transport and illegal where you are guilty. but to go the extra month to take care of the concerns, we added that not only must you know that they are illegal, but you must be committing another crime. we are really trying to focus humans smugglers here. also, if you are picking up people for work. your vehicle can be impounded. we also made a state crime to be in the u.s. illegally.

so those are the major parts. again, democracy worked. as we went through the committee process, as different groups raised their concerns, we addressed them and changed law. we think it is a good whillaw. host: there is one challenge coming from the government, the justice department'. in the "washington post" -- could you talk about the fact that you think it will survive that challenge? guest: it is scary when washington talks not only about the legal issues in our law. when you are talking about

litigation, it should be pure law, and when you start to add politics, that is scary. the obama administration is clearly not enthusiastic about this enforcement. the bush administration dropped the ball on illegal immigration enforcement. the obama administration cannot even find the ball. we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a virtual that's because the people who are sympathetic to the illegals did not like the idea of a real offense that keeps people out. we did not think the virtual fence would work. now two weeks ago they scrapped the whole idea. the obama administration is cutting back on border patrol agents. it became obvious to arizona that the federal government was not going to protect us. in fact, they are going backwards. that is why we are going to

uphold law ourselves. now they want to invalidate our law. the justice department and white house showed really read their own prosecutors manual. in fact, i have a couple pages from the manual. section 19-18 from the criminal manual. this is the manual that u.s. attorney's work from. let me read you a bit of it. this section deals with an arrested illegal aliens by state and local officers. specifically authorize the state and local offices to "enforce criminal laws and make arrests for violations." there was also a general federal statute which authorizes certain authorities to make arrests for violations of federal statutes. the fifth circuit of appeals has held that this authorizes local

officials to issue processes of the arrests to be executed by law enforcement. rule four provides an arrest warrant shall be executed by a martial or some other authorized by law, which includes state and local offices. section 439. also mentions local offices being able to pick up illegal aliens. here is the best one of all. the u.s. versus holiness calderon, a 10th circuit case. it persons appeared to be illegal aliens, the u.s. court of appeals held as follows. a state trooper had general investigative authority to inquire into illegal immigration status. it goes on to the ninth circuit court. their own prosecuting manual mentioned multiple federal statutes, multiple court

rulings, all that say the same thing. local law enforcement can make arrests. we have been doing it for decades. this whole new thing that we cannot is wishful thinking on the part of opponents of the bill that fly in the face of case law and rulings from the attorney general's office. host: we have said from the beginning that this has got a lot of attention. doug on the independent line. california. caller: i am kind of nervous, if you could bear with me. there is a simple way to take care of this. that is punishing the employers. if they were fined $10,000 for any illegal found on their work place, first time, every time, from this point forward, across the country, there would not be

an illegal alien working anywhere. i am not against people coming here, but it has to be legally. they should use e-verify, and that way the employers would not have any excuse about their status. the reason we have the problem that we have is because of lobbyists. you have 10 million different laws, but if you put the employee responsible first, because they are the ones hiring, and you put a mandatory jail term on them, just like you would for anybody -- host: i am going to jump in because we understand your point. john kavanagh, your response? guest: the government does have

some internal border enforcement. i do not think it is strong enough, not done often enough. there was just a case in arizona where instead of making an arrest, they said a letter to the company saying that these employees may be illegal. we addressed this issue in arizona two years ago by passing an employer's sanction law. an employer who knowingly employers and the illegal alien, on the second offense, the company loses their business license. i agree, this is an important tool. anti-illegal immigration activity has to be multifaceted. you have to secure the border, go after the illegal aliens, go after those who employ them, take away their benefits, and you take other measures to make it as uncomfortable as possible to live in this country.

then rather than having immigration sweeps, disturbed people, and rightfully so, these people will leave on their own as the jobs are no longer there. host: from an economic standpoint, you say to make it as uncomfortable as possible, but many believe that they are doing the jobs that americans do not want to do. what is your response to that? guest: we have 9.7% unemployment in arizona. i do not think these people are sitting by idly. i think that is a bogus argument. granted, there could be some backbreaking, cheap jobs that americans do not want to do. i was in the yuma observing the vegetable packing. but we have a guest worker program. we bring in workers across the border to do this work. they do it the right way. they do not let these people

stay here for ever. they do not let them bring their families so we are burdened with education and other social costs. they only come in a few months at a time, and then they go back home. so they reestablished that connection with their families. immigration is this going mexico and other countries that send large numbers of their young, healthy man up here. i read in the "new york times" that there are villages in mexico that are devoid of young men because they are all here working. they do not come back to visit, they are lonely, they abandon their families. there are a lot of victims of illegal immigration, and many of them are in mexico, but they will not admit it because they want the money. host: next phone call. caller: i want to commend you

for what you are doing down there in arizona. what you have to understand is, here again, the politicians are behind this. if you check out every working person in america, the vast majority are opposed to making 30 million -- and it is not 11 million, those are lies. 30 million illegal citizens. just like here in washington yesterday, somebody said that he wants to pass a resolution in a council where our city will not do business with arizona. who the hell is he to speak for washingtonians? this is the kind of thing that we have to be mindful of i am glad that you are taking a stance down there. mr. obama needs to be working on jobs instead of immigration. that is what he needs to be working on. before this is over with, we

might all have to be working in strawberry fields and chicken factories because it is going to be a long time before jobs come back to america. even before the great depression, gas did not come back until the war. these jobs that people say americans do not want, and i do not believe that. i never see anyone jumping up and down in the streets for legalizing. host: he talked about washington, d.c. council actions. i have heard about other areas discussing economic reprisals. it is arizona concerned about that? guest: not at all. first of all, there is a full- court pressure on public relations-wise to kill this bill. it was started by the governor -- it was started to intimidate the governor. she held her ground and has

signed it. now you have people claiming both accounts. the bottom line is, these politicians do not represent american opinion. they may represent it in a few areas, like san francisco. we had the mayor of phoenix oppose this bill and said that the knicks would sue. you went back to the city council and then said that we are not going to do anything. in arizona, rasmussen poll, three-one of supporters support the bill. hispanic supporters -- voters support this bill. maybe a couple of councilmen in washington will boycott, but the people of america support this bill. after we get rid of a large number of these illegals and our streets become safer, because

they cause a lot of crime, more people will come to arizona. host: critics say that you envision a country where we all carry papers to prove our citizenship. what do you think of that? guest: i appreciate your bringing that myth up. as if we were going back to nazi germany. there is no law that requires anyone to carry documents. this mistaken belief, mistakenly put forward, is based on a section of the law that actually does the reverse. if you are being stopped and questioned because of reasonable suspicion, and you have certain government-issued documents, you are presumed to be here illegally. if you voluntary show the police officer those documents, you are on your way, like an arizona

driver's license, tribal identification card, birth certificate. so if you do it, if it is the right document, you have proven legal residence, you can walk away free. host: new york city. beverly, democrat's line. caller: sir, you started off by reading the federal laws against illegal immigration. since you read them, it is quite similar to what you enacted. why do you have to make new laws? why not just follow federal law? also, you just mentioned documents. if a person is picked up and he voluntarily gives documents, he is off the hook. what happens if he does not have

the documents? how does he prove that he is legal? does he go to jail first? i am not saying i am against it, but there are a lot of questions, a lot of things in the federal government that can take care of this, so why enact this law? why not just follow the federal government? guest: you had two questions. the first is why we are enacting our own laws, we are not. we are incorporating federal law into arizona law. we want to do the enforcement on local level. it is funny, all the objection to these laws, they were already in place. it is already a federal law for anyone not a citizen in the u.s.

to carry documents. that is something that already exists. by the way, we did not even about that one completely. if you voluntarily give them, you prove that you are here legally. another point that i would like to clarify, police officers cannot stop anybody can say, are you here legally and question them about their status? . under this law, police must have a reasonable suspicion that this person is here illegally. this will almost only occur if someone is stopped for another offense, like a traffic offense. so if the police pulled over someone who rolls through a stop sign, approaches the individual, they do not have their driver's license. the officer says, why not? it is suspended. what is your name and date of birth?

the officer can check the records. he discovered there is no such issued license. he goes back and says there is no driver's license issued under your name. what do you mean to spend it? well, i have a mexican license. i came from over there. when did you come, how did you get here illegally? did they give you paperwork? do you have document? you have a green card. what color is it? you know green cards are not green. that is how you build reasonable suspicion. when there are independent, observable facts and that creates suspicion. all that does is allow a brief questioning about immigration status. during the questioning, police will be looking for lies, conflicting answers, or evasive answers.

as the person gives those and as he observes, each response is another grain of sand. it all goes on a scale. the stock occurred because there was reasonable suspicion. if it does not go beyond that, they will not be detained for immigration status. but as the law is, as evasive answers continue, that will probably tip the scales over. but if questioning does not yield the additional information to go to probable cause, this person will be released. it is a half century-year-old tool that police are used to working with, and every police officer in arizona is being updated with this training which

will give him good and bad reasons to suspect the legal status in this country. .

caller: i want to preface this to say that when the gramm's the energy bill to be bombed by immigration is outrageous. -- lyndsey kurram's energy bill to be bumped by immigration is outrageous. i have a friend whose family has been here since before there was a united states of america. he speaks spanish. the was walking down the street -- if he is walking down the street with his wife or his kid saw and he just wants to speak spanish to the officer, on face value it looks like the south african apartheid.

guest: under those circumstances there is no grounds to do any kind of even questioning about the person's immigration status. this law requires reasonable subsume division based on how observable facts -- reasonable suspicion based on observable facts. speaking spanish, being spanish, that is not browns for someone to report -- for some to suspect -- that is not browns for someone to suspect that you are here illegally. host: what would be grounds? guest: there is one situation that i can think of, you are near a federal detention center and you see someone running away from it in an orange jumpsuit. other than that, nobody is going to be pulled over or question it

simply because they speak spanish, they look spanish. that is racial profiling and we specifically put in a bill that you cannot use race and ethnicity alone. and you can only use it to the extent prohibited by federal law -- allowed by federal law. if an officer stops and question someone because they are spanish, the officer is in violation of civil rights and this new law. that is the case of about officer, not a bad law. nobody is coming out and saying because a few rogue cops racially profiled in traffic stops -- a few cops racially

profiled in traffic stops, nobody should make traffic stops a draw. you get rid of the few bad cops, not a good law. host: on the federal law versus state law, let me have you respond to a headline in the "washington post." the arizona law does not merely mirror federal law has its defenders insists, it broadens and usurps it. we do guest: not broaden the federal law guest:. we do not broadened -- guest: we do not broadened federal law. we did not create our own immigration law.

the we did not even change immigration law. in a couple of areas we made it more difficult -- in the case of transporting and concealing. in federal law, merely transporting and concealing makes you guilty. we added that there should be another crime because we did not want its passers to be concerned. now they say that we are doing the wrong thing. it makes no sense. we are not requiring documentation to be carried. federal law does. why is the "washington post" not complaining about federal what? we have more safety is to prevent people from being inadvertently arrested. i have the prosecutors manual. it clearly states multiple court decisions that law-enforcement locally has and can enforce these laws. host: republican line from

arizona. thank caller: you. you have been very -- caller: thank you. you have been very direct, sir. i appreciate your knowledge and you have answered most of my questions. this is a sovereign country and we exist without chaos with laws. my husband was stopped coming on because his right front headlight had garnered and the first thing an american citizen or anyone is s is for your -- is asked is for your driver's license and registration. if he did not produce those he would be in trouble because it is the law. people are worried are hurting people's feelings. illegal immigration is hurting our feelings and causing us a

lot of problems. a police officer has the right to say, what is your name and what are you doing. if you are here, you should have your documents just like we have to provide our driver's license and proving shirt -- proof of insurance. if they are here illegally, first of all, they do not have a driver's license and insurance information, that is suspect. every illegal, from canada, mexico, the middle east, wherever -- we cannot afford it economically and this is a political situation. they want a blanket amnesty again so they can get 14 million votes to stay in office to usurp our laws. if we citizens have to observe

them, everybody else house to and it is not -- past two and it is not a civil-rights issue. and -- if we have to observe them, everybody else has to and it is not is a rights issue. guest: thank you for the compliment. prior to my years in june -- in new jersey, i spent years in new york. that is where my directness comes from. i will stop going westward because the next area would be california and they pretty much messed up their stayed with immigration. but the caller does raise an excellent point about the cost of illegal immigration. in arizona, the cost of -- the costs are backbreaking. millions of dollars. the when you talk about the cost of educating their, children, medical care and other government services, it runs into probably $2 billion a year.

add to that the more expansive benefits that the legal children of illegals because they were born here and you are pushing pro with $3 million or $4 million a year. -- probably $3 billion or $4 billion a year. the 5 cents you save on a hamburger is not all wilthe who. those that work on the books under false i.d., their salaries are usually so low that they pay virtually no income taxes. they draw more benefits and dollars than they contribute. this should be replaced with a guest worker program to the extent that we need additional labor. and those immigrants that we allow in -- and we will need a

lot of immigrants coming into the future as us baby boomers retire -- i would rather draw the law-abiding foreigners who are in their countries on waiting lists doing it the right way to be screened coming into this country. i do not want launderers who pushed ahead of these good people. -- ahman jumperlawn jumpers whod of these people. host: there is a piece with the headline "y arizona?" he writes the immigration statute is legal. it gives police officers on another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens when they're in their normal enforcement duties.

phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of america with more than two under 40 incidents in 2008. -- 240 incidents in 2008. next telephone call for john kavanaugh, who is with us for about five more minutes is from new york city, paul arm the democrats line. -- bahaulah on the democrats line. caller: my name is paulick. if i agree with this bill of 100%. wish we had this in new york city. across the street were there during construction, there are mexican guys. there are no black americans over there. we need jobs and they are giving them to them. it is really hurting us.

guest: not only are illegal immigrants taking the jobs that americans can have, they are also suppressing the wages that americans could do in the same industry. when you pay people off the books, that suppresses the wages of everyone else in construction, food service, what ever it is. i am hearing rumors and hearing talk that other states want to adopt arizonas law. that is why the obama administration is getting very uneasy. this is kind of the equivalent of an immigration tea party movement. it is long overdue. host: next call from washington, curtis on the independent line. caller: thank god for legislators such as yourself. what you're doing is long overdue. i am an african-american male and i cannot believe that the african-american community has not supported in this.

i sought out sharp in the of the day and all he spoke about was -- i saw al sharpton the other day and all he spoke about was racial profiling. there is a high murder rate of young black males in chicago where they are considering bringing in the national guard. this illegal immigration is heard in black america more than any other thing. thank god for you. you are doing a wonderful job and i hope the rest of the nation mirrors what you are doing in arizona. guest: i thank you. and that is the voice of america. in arizona, 3-321 for the law. in the rest of -- 3-1 for the law. and the rest of america, 2-1 for the law.

host: next telephone call, buffalo, this is phillip, good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: this country is in dire straits. thank you for much of the work you are doing, but until november rolls around and then 2012, we have got to get different people in office. we cannot have people who are holding power -- not just obama, but everybody that is in theire. i cannot understand where the democrats are because they are driving our country into socialism just like they are in europe and we will go down the same tubes. they believe that and that is

exactly what they are doing. immigration, they want this course. and i believe this immigration deal throughout the country now is going to be the trigger for mr. obama to declare martial law. guest: i will tell you one thing, all of this talk from the obama administration about dealing with immigration now and certain incentives, they are not. right now, they're on the losing end of this issue. republicans have the chance of making significant gains in the u.s. senate and the u.s. house. if they try to push through this amnesty bill, we will make gains and takeover boathouses as a prelude to 2012. -- take over both houses anas it relates to 2012. the only thing i do hope they do is secure the border.

because all of the enforcement in the world is not going to help as long as the border states are as porous as they are. and that is not to speak of the danger like the drug runners and drugs and maybe even terrorists. host: one-third of arizona as citizens are hispanic and the arizona central, which is the phoenix news home page, says -- you are quoted as saying you are worried about u.s. citizens and legal immigrants leaving. would you talk about that? guest: yes, because of the lie is being spread about this law. there was a phoenix city councilman who was quoted in this same newspaper, which is very sympathetic to illegal immigration. they're not illegal aliens or

illegal immigrants, the undocumented -- they call them undocumented migrants. in this the same paper they said -- this city councilman said that we should require all hispanics to carry documentation of legality when they are in phoenix. and phoenix police should check everybody they stop's and citizenship papers to we are not accused of profiling. that is ridiculous and that is what is driving the fear and peter the stupidity of what is driving this law or the purpose of this law. there are safety checks and measures to stop racial profiling. we took all -- to care of all of

those problems. -- we took care of all of those problems. it is misinformation that is scaring everyone. host: next call for john kavanaugh. caller: first, thank you for your service. it sounds like you have a had a very long and involved career in terms of law enforcement. i wanted to say thank you for that. i do not think a lot of self sounds like it is going to much further beyond anything that is already on the books, like you said. what did give me pause -- and i wonder if you could give us a bit of insight into the making of a lot -- was when you were talking about the details of halcro with the law works. one of the issues you mentioned -- of how although lathe law wo.

at one of the issues you mentioned was that you said in order to make its constitutional and you had to throw in a piece about impeding traffic. that made me wonder about the constitutionality of the law. it seems like you are pushing back on a different problem at a different route and in order to you that you're walking a very thin line to solve a systematic problem. you are walking a thin line between upholding a constitutional principle and trying to do as much as you can without going beyond what the principles are. host: is a different route economics? caller: i am sure the route is many things. -- the root is many things. i'm sure it comes down to things like the economy and human nature and society. guest: you have to know the

tremendous problem -- live in arizona to know the tremendous problems that day laborers have caused. it has caused massive eruptions -- interruptions in communities. but as i said also, it also facilitates worker abuse because they do not have all the protections and -- if facilitates worker abuse because they got have all the protections. it pops up everywhere. the labor solicitation is in many areas. but standing on a corner looking for work is a constitutionally protected right. in order to stop that behavior, we can only enforce it if they are doing something else wrong and it is impeding traffic. and we copy that from a phoenix law. phoenix had a problem with a corn -- acorn doing what they do enand what they eventually

wound up doing is saying, ok, only when it disrupts the traffic. again, prevent trafford problems and prevent the disorder -- traffic problems and prevent the disorder on the street that occurs. everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of people who run these ?/?/?/?/?/?/?/?/?/?/?/?/?/?/?/?/

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> given where the oil is and the calls that the president made, we're taking the precaution based on sea and wind conditions, this could go -- it could -- what these guys are prepared to do is act on the worst case scenario. the action on the ground is to make sure that doesn't come to pass. that's what we're working on right now >> what are the responsibilities that we have in response to this vard to stay on top of the

weather forecast. we are only able to do a number of days out because the winds are so variable this time of year. when the oil was first released from the well, it stayed in that area. the winds have shifted around a number of times since then. what we are doing in addition as a federal family is 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 state so that there is ample warning to prepare and understand where to place bouies. it is courntly headed -- yeah. the cournt 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 of the members of congress last night. henry waxman felt the response wasn't adequate. does the administration agree with him? does the assessment represent the assess identical that the plan was inadequate? >> intensifying oversight -- oversight is not accurate. based on the law the u.s. government has oversight over this at the moment that it became an incident. ok? 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 bedeployed as quickly as possible in order to ensure what we have doesn't become worse. that is our focus. ensuring that each and every step can be taken and that's why the president asked the department of defense to begin to look at what possible assets they have that could ultimately be helpful. >> is b.p.'s plan adequate then? >> at the moment i think you heard rear admiral say now they are responding and we are overseing that and evaluating as conditions change, whether that needs change as well. yes, sir? >> the investigation continues over what product -- other rigs or wells being looked at this a way to prevent the problem from come pounding? >> yes is the answer per my

earlier statement. we are increasing our inspection frequency. we have a swat team of inspectors. we have 55. on the ground, in the gulf, dedicated to this task. so, yes, inspections are proceeding. yes. yes, it was. this particular rig started drilling in this location in january of this year under the regulations it is subject to monthly inspections. it had monthly numberses, in fact with the last inspection being less than two weeks before the incident. >> does that suggest the inspections are inadequate? >> i think that is hard to determine until you determine the cause of what the incident. >> the question about the slick itself. what is the correct terminology in the white house or the administration's view at this

point? on monday you referred to it as surface oil sheen. is that still with a 5,000 barrel a day estimate a way to look at this. if i went out there to the middle of it -- are we talking about something -- sheen sounds somewhat trivial from what we remember about the exxon valdez. crude oil coming up on shore. is that what we see as a potential here? are we talking about a thin slick of oil that might come up? >> it is all of that. in parts it is thick enough to be able to skim to move into a boom for burning. in parts as the oil -- as time has gone on, some of it has formed into balls. a large part of it is sheen. 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 is all of those different types. >> i think these folks will note that the oil that is being release second-degree a light to medium crude. not the same type of oil released in the exxon valtease spill. it is first in a much more liquid form. as it is exposed to weather it takes on a much different texture. much of the oil is volatilized. we anticipate the oil coming ashore, for example, is more likely to be in the form of mats or strings or tar balls. it does change through time. the oil becomes emulsified and is pulled away from the surface and down in the subsurface. so you would see different things in different places. it is not a uniform slick. >> last one here. >> secretary napolitano.

i'm curious, i'm sure you have never dealt with anything like this before in your tenure as governor of arizona. has this been a 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 agency with state and locals, we've already been through several of those in my tenure as homeland security secretary. >> thanks. >> thank you, everyone. >> i think he might speak on this. i want to go check on that as well. if you guys have immigration questions i'm happy to come up there and answer you. again, i would point you also to

what the president said last night. [inaudible] >> 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. >> you say we're looking at anything -- >> no, no, i asked that. you said all three. >> i do not want to get into the delination of what might have caused something we don't know what happened. let's determine before we get

off on the conspiracy theories. let's determine what happened. thank you, guys. vice president biden talked about the environment during this cabinet meeting on the stimulus spending. he and steven chu discussed programs on alternative energy research. this is about 15 minutes. >> please, sit down. sit down. hey, folks. thanks an awful lot. i know you're all busy as can be. and the secretary told me and the president told me -- out in iowa.

as i said at the end of the day, containing this recovery act is the most expensive program for rural america that the government has ever done. i would argue the same thing exists in the terms of urban america. when we get finished with -- i hope not only is it going to become a template for how we deal with distribution and federal funding from this point on and every program we do with the government but also that we're able to lay out and show the benefits for rural america and urban america. anyway, thanks for you all being here. i'm kind of excited about today. the reason i am. we've got a lot of hard work to

get out of the ditch we found ourselves in and get through today. i think the important part is being able to lay a platform to build tomorrow. you know there is a program and you know me, like most of you, i'm not crazy about all the acronyms. there is a program called r.p.e. it is run through the energy department and we're going to hear from the secretary on this but it is modeled after dart which a lot of people know an awful lot about going through program, through the defense department has undertaken high-risk, very high-risk projects that quite frankly wouldn't have been taken on had they not had the incentive and the motivation of the government saying we're going to provide

seed money and get into this. all of you know some of the things that the program has help out the precursor to the internet or g.p.s. technology or stealth technology. they all came through the program. these are technologies that have literally revolutionized american life. technologies that i would argue might not have been -- have been developed at least not as quickly or as well had it not been for them. we're trying to do the same thing here with regard to energy. today, we are announcing that 37 -- 37 high-risk, high-reward energy research projects are going to receive $106 million recovery act funds to really develop and explore, at least for non-scientists like me, a

lawyer like me, what i find to be brett taking breakthrough technology possibilities that could very well be some of the keys to a vital future to american technology and american competitors. we're looking for example, at biofuel technologies. trying to produce biofuels and not just from corn but from renewable energy. making biofuels more efficient and cheaper to produce and the secretary is going to speak a little about this i think. as i said, it has been -- you know one of the great parts of this job is getting a daily tutorial. it has been -- i'm serious. it has been really great. i've enjoyed working with all of you. i particularly like working with the secretary. how many guys get -- having essentially a staff briefing from a nobel laureate who knows

more about these things than most people know. steve, i appreciate what you do for us. steve will speak more about that. we're also looking at carbon technology and saving our environment and in the process saving money and capturing more efficiently harmful emissions from coal power plants and we're also looking at new types of battery technology for electric vehicles and less dependence on foreign oil and lowering gas prices for american drivers. we're going revolutionize our approach to energy consumption. this program with the awards announced today is funding some of the nation's most innovative research projects. national labs and large corporations. 17 different states. and these projects are so cutting edge that most of the groups might never have gone

through with it but the seed money being provideded for by the recovery act. it is not just government by the way. because we're planting these seeds, the roster of labs and private industry and investment community and universities along with $106 million are putting up in the front end $46 million themselves to make this research go in further, jumping in where i suspect they otherwise would not have done. it is all part of the recovery act's historic $100 billion innovative funding for health information technology, smart grid, high-speed raillines, fuel-efficient vehicles, renewable energy production, all of it designed to set up america to be able to better compete in the 21st century and make sure we in the 21st century the way we did in the 209 century.

-- 20th century. i would like now to turn it over to secretary chu who is going to give us a little bit more detail on these investments and maybe educate you all like he did me. mr. secretary, it is all yours. >> thank you, mr. vice president. let me just start by saying how thrilled i am -- i'm all choked up. [laughter] >> i have that effect on people. >> that we can fund these programs. what we see in the last couple of years is some of the absolute best scientific minds in the country beginning to focus their attention so people who have never before gotten into the

energy sector all starting to say i'm excited. i have no idea -- excuse me. so, out of those 37 proposals that we are funding, i have to start there. we received about 550 concept papers and had to narrow it down. so we're very happy to have $150 million to fund these projects. these are projects that we feel are swings -- go for the home runs instead of a single. if you go for a home run you might strike out more often but if you do maybe a couple of them will be grand slammers and will be totally game-changing. let me give you a few examples of some of those. we think we have a path forward where rural america can grow

biofuels and replace a substantial part of our oil. this will be great for rural america. we're looking beyond that for example taking electricity or any frm of energy, let's take electricity. pass electric currents into microbes that grab carbon dioxide and produce not ethanol but a direct substitute for gasoline diesel fuel. instead of capturing 1% of the sun's energy, we can perhaps capture 10% of the sun's energy. so this is one of those things where little bacteria, for example, or other microbes can have their genomes totally rewritten so they are turning into little machines and they are just generating electricity from renewables or that we can

use for nuclear reactors. so that is very exciting. another area you mentioned is the area of batteries. right now the batteries that are being installed in today's chevy -- it is a good thing but they are pretty spe. there is a new type of battery that they feel could be a lot smaller and keep thatter. how much cheaper -- and cheaper. how much cheap r remains to be seen. if i double their cost it still could be 75% less expensive. and this really comes out and has twice the energy's density. let's say four times less expensive and twice the energy. i'm taking a little at a time. maybe six or eight times cheaper. let's give them some of that. that could be game h changing.

that's very exciting. and a totally new idea. finally, there is another area in cor been a capture. it takes a lot of energy. you grab the carbon dioxide and you need a lot of energy to release it. now there is the idea where you put it in a fluid and it combines at a molecular level and turns into a solid. that solid then -- you take the little particles of the solid out and just a teeny tiny small traction to get the carbon dikesite to where you can -- the estimate of this cost is perhaps less cost than what we have today. again, these things may not work but the most exciting thing is

that they are ideas that are very, very different. radically different and we are hoping for a few home runs. >> mr. secretary, if i'm correct, there are 37 of these projects. you just named three of them. but in the areas that we're talking about and i assume are there different approaches being suggested by different entity or individuals or scientists in each of these areas? >> absolutely. these are radical new approaches. we evaluate these proposals and you know, we're giving them a couple of years. a very short leash. you know, it is up or down and there are radical approaches all over the board and the most exciting thing is that some of the best scientists in our country who have never actually thought about the energy problem are now applying and using their considerable intellect. once you get these truly outstanding people engaged in solving the problem, i'm

expecting -- >> can i ask you one more thing? a number of us have traveled around the country in these recovery act projects. many of you have come with me to do that prment we were down at a l.e.d. lighting place down in north carolina. they were hiring on 750 new people. they have a total of 5 noo people here and in china. they -- 5,000 people here and in china. it didn't surprise the secretary at all but it blew me away. they showed me something a little -- it looked like a little -- i don't know. it looked like the back of a beetlele. a -- a reel beetle. they showed they could illuminate a room. you put that on and you could light this room up. you could be reading what you're reading in front of you from

that light in noifled the room. i asked the fellow who was the c.e.o., was it our project, this 46 c, this 30% tax credit we give. he said well, that meant i could keep the jobs here. and it was very important but he said you know, that wasn't the reason. when you and president obama said you're committed to -- you're committed to renewable energy and you want to move on fundamentally changing way in which we light america, he said that set off -- just a wave. we have suppliers. they called and said i guess we have to change the way we do business. he said we became convinced that you were convinced that this was part of the future. i think the number, he said it was $650 million and he went out and was able to borrow from the

venture capitalists because we're committed. that's a long prelude to a short question. my question talking to your former colleagues whether at the laboratories or at the university is that when it is clear the government is engaged in an investment, small investment with a commitment to renewable energy, energy generally that attracts the best minds that would not otherwise be engaged. is that what's happening? >> that is absolutely true. i think you, the president this administration has shown that we are -- to the energy future. this is not only for environmental reasons. primarily there is an economic reason to do this. countries around the world see this as the future. it is -- it is an innovation race. to develop these new

technologies. if we show that the united states is going to enter this race seriously, i think we have the greatest r & d ability in ovation ability of any country in the world. if we sat there and said well, we're not really sure. we're not really sure. in five or 10 years we'll be -- rather than creed. so i think that is one of the really important messages. >> free ourselves from the dependence on foreign oil is to lock ourselves -- other forms of energy including this new technology. i really am excited about this. you know, the only thing i know, sometimes i'm viewed as being too optimistic. that's why i like christy so much from the economic team. she's optimistic too. all kidding aside. my optimism and her optimism is

based upon the history of the journey of this country. when have you ever unleashed the potential to maritime people where they haven't exceeded expectations. i think this is really cool. i'm glad it is moving. thank you, mr. secretary. i would like to move on to some other things if i can. we're going to talk secrets. [laughter] >> on this morning's "washington journal" we'll talk with former commerce secretary carlos gutierrez and also a look at the national job market with john challenger and edward lewis from the financial times will join us to talk about the financial market regulations. "washington journal" live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> 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's what they got. >> the is that the hearing with goldman sachs executives went nearly 11 hours. see the key moments. see every moment. it is washington your way at the c-span video library. every program since 1987 free online.

[applause] >> tonight, the large part of the debate will be on the state of the country's economy. the recession, the national debt, unemployment, the issues that many people believe will decide this election. our audience here is representative of this area. we have also selected some questioners from nowses of emails we received at the bbc news website. the leaders of course haven't been told the questions. in any case we start with brief opening remarks from each of them. first, david cameron. >> good evening. our economy is stuck in a rut and we need change to get it moving. let me tell you what i would do. first, we've got to reward work

and tackle welfare dependency. second, we've got to fix our banks, tax them to get our money back, regulate them properly and get them lending again. third, we've got to start making things again in this country. it is no follows borrow from the chinese and buy good made in china. fourth, we've actually got to get value for money in our public services. i want good public services for everyone and we can only do that if we save and stop the waste. let me tell you one thing i wouldn't do. with greece so much in the news i would guarantee i would never join the euro and i would keep the pound as our currency. that's the change we need. if you vote conservative on thursday, we can start to get to work on friday. >> mr. clegg? >> tonight's debate is about you. about your job and the taxes you pay and your family and the pros parity of our economy. we need to do things different

to build a new, stronger and fairer economy. the way we got into this mess is not the way out. we need to be franks about the cuts that will be needed to protect things like schools an hospitals. breaking up our banking system so that irresponsible bankers can never again put your savings and businesses at risk. we have to rediscover our passion for innovation, for building things. not just placing bets on the money markets and we need fair taxes so you don't pay any income tax on your first 10,000 pounds. of course they will tell you tonight that these things can't be done. i think we've got to do things differently to deliver the fairness, the pros parity and the jobs that you and your families deserve. >> thank you, mr. clegg. gordon brown. >> there is a lot to this job. as you saw yesterday, i don't get it all right.

i do know how to run the economy in good times and bad. when the banks collapsed i took immediate action to stop crisis from becoming a calamity and to stop recession from becoming a depression. as a result of that britain is on the road to recovery. as we meet tonight necessary europe are this peril and there is a risk of dragging us into recession. so i'm determined that nothing will happen in britain that will put us back in the that position and i want to say that my plan and why this year is so important. support the economy now and you will ensure that there are jobs and a recovery and ensure that we can have the resources for deficit reduction. shrink the economy now and it is not my future that matters. it is your future that is on the ballot paper next thursday and i'm the one to fight for your future. >> mr. brown, thank you. well, now we take our first question of the night.

it comes from may dean. >> we know there are going to be spending cuts. why captain you be honest and tell us? 15 billion pouns worth of savings up from down payments to deal with this huge black hole we have in our public funds. we were talking about things like scrapping, the new generation of public passports. saying the top 20% of tax credits shouldn't receive those. the multibillion pound euro typhoon project. a defense project. those are the kinds of a big

degrees. you can't -- force you into thinking the savings are enough. you can't fill the black hole by a few savings on paper clips. >> gordon brown? >> we set out a four-year reduction deficit plan. it is designed to have tax rise s that arefair and spending cuts that are equitable and at the same time growth in the economy that is essential for recovery a our four-year plan includes a rise in the top rate of tax above 100,000. and a national insurance rise but it also includes spending cuts in key areas. but we have one principle that we're adopting and it is clear. we're not going to allow the frontline national health service or schools to be -- we will find the cuts in other areas as we set out including in public sector pay and pensions and including the restructuring

of government. but i do say one thing that is absolutely crucial. don't believe that we can fail to support the which he in year. if we do we risk a double dip recession and that is really the problem with the conservative policy. >> david cameron? >> you're quite right. there are going to have to be cuts. we were the first to say that cuts will have to be made but i really want to explain to people if i'm your prime minister i will do everything i can to protect the frontline services. i want to see the police officers on the beat and the money go into our children's state schools and in the ward in the hospital. that's absolutely essential. we have to say some of the difficult things we are going to do. we have done that. we are not just relying on waste. we said for instance there will be to be a public sector pay freeze for 2011. that's not popular but it is the right thing to do. we've said people are going to

have to retire a year later, starting in 2016. these are difficult decisions but i believe also we've got to get our economy growing. we've got to get it moving. that's why we say start now with efficiency savings to stop the jobs tax next year. let's get the people employed and the economy moving to help us with the deficit. >> thank you very much. let me just repeat the question. we all know there are going to be spending cuts after the general election no matter who wins. why can't you be be honest and tell us. i assume it means tell us about automatic cuts you might make. nick clegg, you have a chance to respond to what the others have said. >> you're quite right none of the parties have spelled out all of the details. clearly more work will need to be done. something which i think would make a huge difference to us all as we deal with these very difficult decisions about how to balance the books is for once to get the politicians actually

working together on this. so i suggest that whether david or gordon will take up the legislation is regardless of the outcome of the general election next week wouldn't it be a good thing to get all the parties together with the governor to have bank of england and the head of the financial services authorities simply to be straight with you about how big this black hole is and roughly how long it is going to take to deal with it so that we are all at least speaking from the same scripts about how big this problem is. i think politicians for once putting the country before themselves would be a very good thing on this issue. >> gordon brown, let's be clear from 2011 there will be cuts in spending in things other than schools and policing. we will make the commitment to maintain these frontline services and build on the improvements that we have made. once you build a school and a hospital you don't need to build it again. cuts in capital investment.

public sector pay will not rise as it has in previous years. i have to say one thing that is absolutely crucial to the time that we are in at the moment in this uncertain and dangerous world. david is proposing that there be cuts in public spending now. 6 billion and that will shrink the economy at a time where we need to support the economy. we cannot afford to lose jobs and businesses and lose growth now. we must maintain the recovery and support it and please let us not make the mistake of the 1930's and the 1980's and the 1990's. let us support the economy until the recovery is assured. >> your response, david cameron? >> let me respond no this point as directly as i can. 6 billion pounds saving this year. that means saving one out of every hundred pounds that the government spends.

we have the leaders of britain's biggest and most successful businesses. the steelmakers. all saying that the risk to the recovery is not cutting waste. the risk to the recovery is putting up national insurance on every job in the country, which is what labor propowsed so we say roll up your sleeves now save the waste now. the it is the right showing do and it will help get our economy moving. >> gordon brown? >> david has got it wrong. we're making 15 billion of efficiency savings now. he wants these savings on top of that without putting the money back to the economy. look, you go to america and france and germany. they are saying as all the other international institutions are saying don't withdraw the support for the recovery until

the recovery is assured. what david would do is in a few weeks time take 6 billion pounds out of the economy and put our public at risk. the time to do the deficit reduction is when the recovery is assured. dade you just have it wrong economically. it is the same mistake the conservatives made in the 1930's, 1980's and 1990's. >> every business leader is saying that we have it right and the government wasting money is wrong. let me tell you where i think we should start. we should start with welfare. in this government there are five million people. there are people who could work and we would train and offer work but we should say in our country if you don't accept work you cannot go on claiming benefits. the labor has left with us this terrible miss. let's start with people who can

work, who are offered work but who do not take it. >> look, we're not as a nation going to be able to balance the books. we're not going to be able to fill the black hole unless we also do it with fairness. people are going to accept these difficult decisions unless we also do it fairly. that's what i think. accompanying the difficult job of filling the structural deficit we also need to introduce a big tax switch so that people of low incomes get a tax break, 700 pounds back in their pocket and they don't pay an income tax on the first 10,000 pounds they earn and by closing the loopholes and so people feel while difficult decisions with being made at least it is on their side. i think if you don't have fairness the heart of everything we do it is going to be very, very difficult to see you see through the years we to come. >> if you shrink the economy

now, if you contract it, if you make the mistake of the 1930's then you lose jobs, growths, businesses. we have to support the recovery until it is fully established and then my deficit reduction plan comes into place. but to take money out u out of the economy you put the economy at risk. i meal an emergency budget in a few weeks time putting the very work we have done in jeopardy and no other country in the world is prepared to do that now. >> confusing the economy with the government. what we're saying is save government waste to put money back into people's pockets. saving one out of every 100 pounds. that is something every small business, every large business, many families have had to do in this country and the government should do the same. gordon's argument in a way is let me go on wasting your money so i can put up your taxes next

year. people urning 20,000 pounds, 21,000 pounds. these are not rich people. they should not be paying for the mistakes of the bankers. >> gordon brown talks about the plan of the future but has no details on it. david cameron talks about it now and has no details now. surely what we can do is get the chancellors and the vice chance horse and parties altogether. -- chancellors and parties altogether. talk about how long it is going to take us as a country together to deal with it. >> we have a number of questions. let's move on to the second question. it is from adeana wright. >> the tax that we are taking more and more from the average workers. if you were elected what would you do about taxes? >> over the past few years the

taxman has taken more and more from the average workers pay slip. if you were elected what would you do about taxes? gordon brown? >> well, i expect it has been tough in these last two years with the recession but what we have tried do when people are in difficulty is provide tax credits. half a million people have got tax credits when they have been on short time and trying to get through this recession. at the same time we have raised the top rate of tax above 150,000 pounds to 50 pounds so that is fair to ordinary hard-working families. i believe in fairness but one thing that i don't believe in is the conservative policy which would cut child tax credits but at the same time give an inheritance tax cut to the 3,000 richest people in the country of 200,000 pounds. now that's not fairness. that is the same old conservative party. tax cuts for the very rich and cutting the child tax credits of the very poor is simply not

fair. >> david cameron? >> you're absolutely right. the taxpayer has been having to pay more and more and more as the government has spent more and more and has been so careless at trying to stop wasting money. the government has done so little about it. obviously with the terrible situation we have in our public finances with the mess left by gordon and labor where every four pounds the government spends one is borrowed, it is not possible to make great big tax give away policies. even if it were a lovely thing to do, you can't do it. we said let's try and stop the one tax that is going to hit the lowest paid people, the national insurance tax. we can't stop all of the other taxes, the top rate of tax, the extra tax on the pension. labor has put up tax something like 178 times. we are going to stop the one tax that will hit the lowest paid the hardest.

gordon brown has to stop misleading families in this country like he has been misleading all the people and cancer patients as well. >> you'll have a chance to answer that in a moment. nick clegg? >> i think you're absolutely right. our tax system is goatesquely unfair. after 13 -- grotesquely unfair. who would believe that you have someone who pays a lower rate on their capital gains than their wages. we have the bottom 20% of people in this country who pay more in taxes or a portion of their income than the top 20%. i think we need to change that. david cameron said you can't afford tax giveaways. no you can't. what you can do is switch the tax system and make it fair and make sure those huge loopholes this very wealthy people who can afford a football team of lawyers and account and get out

of paying taxes give the money back to people so they pay no tax on the first 10,000 pouns you earn. that's 7,000 pounds back in the pocket of most of you in the country. >> the tax man has taken more and more from the average worker's pay slip. if you were elected what would you do about taxes? gordon brown, what do you have to say about dade's response? >> the reason is to ensure our health services and our police and legislation. david cannot guarantee funding for police. that's the reason for the national insurance rise. nobody nobody below 20,000 will pafmente the conservatives and the liberals have a plan to reduce tax credits for middle class families. if david wants fairness why does he support the inheritance tax

cut where only 3,000 families with 200,000 pounds each, the richest estates in the country and not the ordinary hard-working people of this country? and if the liberals want to cut child tax credits with the conservatives then i can say one thing. i will never form an alliance with a conservative government that cuts child tax credits. >> david cameron? >> what you're hearing is very desperate stuff from someone who is in a desperate state. you have heard from labor and gordon brown if you earn 20,000 pounds or over you're considered rich and a target for the labor government to get hit with taxes next year. let me ask a question delectly. i believe if you work hard and save money and put aside money and try and pay down your mortgage on a family home you shouldn't have to sell that and give it to the tax man when you die.

you should be able to pass it on to your children. i'm afraid these other two parties simply don't understand that. iran hertance tax should only be paid by the richest, the millionaires. it is not our top priority. helping those 20,000 pounds that are going to be hit by gordon'so tax. should we encounselor people to work hard and save? i say, yes, we should. >> nick clegg? >> the most creative justification to giving tax breaks to millionaires. there you go. i think the point is that taxes are unfair to millions of people on ordinary incomes. not the millionaires. millions of ordinary people are simply struggling to pay the fuel bills and the weekly shopping bills. i've totally with you on this adeana. i think it is just wrong. let's sigh you're a teaching assistant on 10,000 pounds a

year. you will pay about 1,000 pounds of that in tax. under our plan by listing the income tax threshold at 10,000 pounds you won't pay any income tax on that first 10,000 pounds. i believe if people work hard, if they work, even if it is just part time we should help them keep more of their money. it is as simple as that. that is the fair thing to deposm >> we have tax credits and 6 million people benefit from that. as far as the teaching assistant, there is the working tax credit available to them. i come back to the simple question about fairness being raised by our questioner. how can david possibly justify an inheritance tax cut for millionaires at a time when he wants to cut child tax credits. if your house is worth less than

650,000 pounds you pay no inheritance tax. he is giving the 3,000 richest people in the country 200,000 pounds a year. that is simply unfair but he also wants like nick to cut the child tax credit interest ordinary families in this country. i have to speak out about this. it is simply unfair for them to put this. >> the prime minister once again ought to get his facts right. so often he gets his facts wrong. the defense budget went up every year, he told us but it didn't. on this issue of tax credits we are saying we like tax credits. we will keep tax credits but for families earning over 50,000 pounds we can't afford the child tax credit. that is one of the savings that we're being upfront and frank about. but for gordon brown to say that actually the changes we're making would hit low income

families is not true. he tried to frighten people saying conservatives would take away benefits where we would keep the winter fuel allowance. he is trying again to frighten people. >> actually he should be ashamed of what he is doing. >> nick clegg? >> tax credits, gordon brown -- tax credits are really, really important. i think it is something that makes sense really at a time when money is tight that someone -- someone on my salary which is a really good salary could be entitled to the family component of tax credits. i don't think it is right to have tax credits going so far up the income scale? why do we say not for the top 20% of recipients. i have had enough people in tears because they have been given money one moment they spent that money on their children and heating bills and

suddenly they get a letter out of the blue from the government saying you have got to pay that money back. that is so unfair, particularly for single parents and single mothers for whom the tax credits are an absolute lifeline. >> can i ask you to clarify something? you said a little bit aback that the democrats and the conservatives wanted to abolish certain tax credits. you couldn't support a conservative party that wanted to do that. what about the liberal democrats? >> we're talking about tax credit aid to children. we have fought hard for a long time to make sure that we can give children and families decent incomes. the liberals are cut the tax credits and so will the conservatives. the conservatives want to save 400 million and the liberals 1.2 billion. the proposals were misleading and incomplete and aggressive. i come back to this question. why cut children's tax credits

for middle class families when you want to give a big tax cut to the rich nest the country. >> people can remember the record of 13 years. they remember who it was who abolished the tax that hit some of the poorest people the hardest. they remember the increase on pensioners that gordon brown was responsible for. then they said the whole reason we're having this debate about how difficult it is to get tax down and cut spending is because this prime minister and this government have left our economy in such a complete mess with a budget deficit this year is forecast to be bigger than that of greece. that's why we're having to have this debates. let's not forget. the fact is, adeana, you are right. taxes are unfair. we have a plan. we think it is a great plan to switch taxes so you get more

money back in your pocket. that's what i think we need to do to make taxes fair. >> thank you, mr. clegg. this is from ian gray. >> it is clearly grossly unfair for taxpayers to have funded the banks yet for banksers to award themselves huge bonuses yet ordinary people are worse off and many have lost their jobs. how will each party bring his version of fairness to this very unfair situation? >> david cameron? >> he is absolutely right. it is completely unacceptable what has happened and we need to grip it very, very hard to sort this out for the future. the pictures thing we need to do is regulate these banks properly. we will put back to the bank of england the part of regulating the banks and having a big say on the appalling bonuses that have been paid. the next thing we need is a bank levy. put that levy on now to start getting back the money from the banks in so many people have had

to put in. we also want to say the banks are lending again. particularly to small businesses. we need to make that happen. retail banks that you and i put our deposits into should not be behaving like casinos taking wild bets. so we agree with president obama's plan which is actually to say those banks shouldn't be able to take part in the most risky activities. that i think would start to get this under control and make sure the banks serve the economy and the people rather than the people and the economy serving the banks. >> ian, specifically on bonuses i would say we need to do the following. i think we should say no bonuses whatsoever to the directors of banks at board level. why do i say that? i don't want people who are running those businesses that they should be running for the long-term interest of the business and indeed for their client to be kind of susceptible to the temptations of the bonus

incentive. pay them lots of money and give them a fancy membership of a golf club but don't give them these bonuses then i would say absolutely no cash bonuses at all above 2.5 thousand pounds. so no bank and no bonuses and banks who make a loss, no bonus for people at director level and no bonuses above 2.5 thousand pounds. >> mr. brown? >> david, i had to nationalize northern rock and take over the royal bank of scotland and lloyd's. the reason we did so was to save the savings and deppedses of families throughout the country -- and deposits of families throughout the country. if we hasn't dovene that the banks would have collapsed. now we have to restructure the banks in a way of public interest. i have never been to sang angry

when i talked to a chairman of a and he said all he had was a cash flow failing. what we have got to do is recap thridse the banks so they are safe for people to and then we have to make sure as we are doing that it is fair. we do need a worldwide agreement to get a global financial levy that is charged in every country so we're not undercut by other countries and there is a race to the bottom. i would say to those bankers we would never allow them to act in an irresponsible and unfairway again. >> david cameron? what i would say to what the prime minister has just said if you look at the labor record over the past five years they hitched the whole fortunes of the economy to the city of london. we got into a situation where we ended up with the whole economy having to serve the banks rather than the other way around. i assume the banker that we're

being told about is probably fred goodwin. the so-called fred the shred. it was this government that gave him a knighthood for services to banking. he very nearly brought down the whole economy. there are very big lessons to learn. i think the most important is to put the bank of england back in charge of regulating the banks and give them the specific duty of calling time on the debt of the economy. things got completely out of control. they were regulated badly. the one party that wants to scrap the current system is the conservatives. >> david cameron has been talking about parties being too close to the city. the blunt truth is both conservative and labor governments have been far too close to the city, preferring the one square mile of london versus the rest of the united

kingdom. i think we need to look at the way banks were working. we my view is this as long as you have banks that mix up high-risk free-wheeling casino investment banking on one hand and then you're asking for trouble. that's why the governor of the bank of england said many people say we should split up the banks between investment banking on the one hand and high street banking on the other. in order the ensure that we never ever again have the banks hold a gun to the head of the rest of the british economy and still we haven't done enough to protect ourselves of that risk in the future. >> mr. brown, do you want to respond? >> we have a 2 billion tax that came through before. we are ensuring that every penny given to the banks comes back. that's why we are taking the action that is necessary to recoup the money from the