around the world. our tourism is down near 3%. this is billions of dollars worth of revenue. a lot of the companies are growing in manhattan.

we are trying to make the reasons -- we want the press and the brightest to live there and then companies want to come. . . .

respect to the federal regulatory reform bill as it is making its way to the senate? that is the first question. would it have avoided the economic recession that the case? >> -- we face? >> i think that the measures -- it would have reduced the factors that came together.

are we ever going to pass a law that is going to make it impossible? the answer is no. -- t[unintelligible] can we substantially and important to reduce financial risk? the answer is yes canada i believe the bill does that. >> how does it do it? >> the perception of too big to fail and cause the government guarantees -- guaranteesquai -- quasi government guarantees is overseen by a government that is not a bank. it is in the contemplated possibility. this bill provides procedures for addressing the situation. >> the ability to seduce people

into a misguided financial products that promote risks for them and risk for the system is surely attenuated by having the regulator used criterion of success is how consumers do rather than the profitability of capital and financial institutions. that is the financial regulator. no one can look at what happens in the credit defaults swaps market during the last decade. the volumes of verse that you are being taken in none transparent way is believes that is prudent. faugh the presence in the use of exchanges and clearing houses likely to for stocks for a very long time, like we do for a large fraction of trade, is a

proven technique for reducing financial risks by pooling liability and risk. this bill provides for that possibility as well. >> you cannot have been irresponsible in society to have enormous financial institutions would no one taking any responsibility for their comprehensive regulation. yet that too is true under therules we had previously. that is fixed. those mandates coupled with what is clearly imperative to share these enhanced authorities are used to provide for much more capital and less leverage by believe upper the prospect of

very substantial reduction in the risk of financial accidents. by the way, this is not something that is ineluctable to human society. it didn't get the experience of canada and the united states between 1950 and 1980, there are places and periods in which the risk of financial accident was substantially lower. that is what we need to drive toward in creating a system. thatis what this bill tries to do. >> you have no problem with this bill? >> i do think we need a bill. i think the consumer protection part is right on. consumer protection probably has

to be an education rather than a restriction. every time you tried to restrict what people appointed to come again ran into problems. you are trying to explain why am airmen of departure their interests. -- why it may or may not be part of their interest. the bondholders would have stopped that the what government can do best is force disclosure and let the marketplace do what people want to do. you cannot have regulation inconsistent with what exist overseas. people will move it are their competitors to take other business away. we are nighty and how you would separate derivatives from the rest. none of these markets could exist without derivatives. this is just another way of

letting everybody swap risk back and forth. was it taken to extremes? yes. we have regulation in this country for different industries. when those industries are in the same business, we do not have a business regulator. we have an industry regulator burda and insurance company and an investment bank, they could not be doing the same things but they have different regulations. some have different regulations and parts of congress overseas. you cannot let companies s h op for regulators. it is the way we have structured this as opposed to what they do.

the regulators have been unwilling to give up their regulatory authority to a different regulatory authority. from a political point did you, that is where they get their ability to influence the dial- up. >> i'm going to say something unfair. mike and i basically agree. we agree more than we disagree. it is more interesting to emphasize what we disagree on. in the study the history of regulation, it is always a some level the same. when that stuff happens, plan a is to form a committee. if that is insufficient, plan b is to encourage industry to

pursue better practices voluntarily. if that is insufficient, plan see is an old -- plan c is an old standby, have transparency. plan d is to do something -- [laughter] take the consumer area. with respect to baby seats, we do not have a policy for transparency. you are allowed to sell a baby seat for cars better safe for babies. you are not allowed as a baby seats that are not say. you are not allowed to sell was of a good but are not safe. i do not understand what the argument is for allowing people to sell credit-card its four

industries that jump of 236%. they have no notification to the purchaser is because there is 20 pages of small print we could testing that was going to happen. i think some regulation goes to the concept of a product is a good idea >> we agree on more things than we do not. i defend his right to be wrong. i always have. we have been friends for an awful long time. in york, we prohibit smoking in public places but not your ability to smoke. you smoke in a public place and you are hurting somebody else, because they breed your smoke what did they like it or not. if you go outside in the field

and smoke and you want to kill yourself, i do nothing that the government's responsibility is to prohibit you from smoking. we tried different things. there is a great article in the atlantic monthly this month of the prohibition. one guy convince the whole country -- they cut a small group that change the country. we have made mistakes. i am not opposed to prohibiting people from doing somethings that ar-- we decide what is rigt for them. eight is a slippery slope. if you could to payday limbers, my girlfriend is on the chamber of board on nonprofits that makes microloan.

that industry does of the charge. i do not think anyone to charge 37%. what about 27%? where do you draw the line? on education, if you want to act stupid they, some people can act stupid the. >> now we are agreeing that there should be some regulation that goes beyond transparency. we can agree that it should be rational regulation. there are whole areas we can have unintended consequences. >> i am out of time predicted the deficit commission fit your own comments on what we are trying to do? [laughter]

>> that was good. that is a brilliant question. i am not often at a loss for words. >> who is in charge of time? two minutes. i do want to pose this question. we are talking not job creation. but there and turned the demographics of where we are and in terms of the long term. in terms of american competitiveness around the world, where are we thinking in a way that is out of the box? i now refer to some the things they have been discussing here with the author. where are we -- where can we get

our hands on things that would change what otherwise would be disastrous in polarizing? >> there is a simple way of thinking about it. there is no god-given right that says in a world where past number of things are vocal that some places should be 10 times as rich as others. if you want to be much richer than other places, there has to be a reason. that reason has to be that there is something about you that is not present everywhere else what does that go to? most americans are not going to immigrate. it goes to the quality of the education they received, which is why putting such emphasis on that is important.

it goes to the power of -- there is probably nobody so talented functioning individually that someone somewhere else functioning that talented will never be found it is a huge cluster represented by new york city. these are much more difficult to replicate. keeping it started but the reason everyone comes because everyone else is there. figuring out how to invest in these non applicable -- non-

replicable clusters is a necessity. it goes around innovation. it goes to supporting our cities. that is the strategy. those are the elements we have to consider. >> let me add something there are a couple of things to have to think about the less developed areas could be another country or part of america. they have an opportunity to leapfrog what has taken everyone else a long time. the ultimate example of this is cell phones. the small cell phone probably has more computer capacity than the early ibm from 1976. in africa, every second person

has a cell phone. think about that. we do not think of africa like that. they have the ability to communicate, get educated, get entertained, to do commerce. we are just starting to get there. you could get the ipad and the technology. this is inconceivable 10 years ago. we can remember back that far. all of a sudden, countries are places are going to be able to leapfrog everything else. the defense that the overall places have is what he taught by concentration. everybody goes there because people are already there. new york city -- it is not that it is too crowded. if you go there because it is granted. that is with the competition is. you can feed off of other people. there are these changes that are

dramatic. in the younger group, it is not. the percentage of the people living in the dark city that are college educated keeps going up. it is because of immigrants. people think that immigrants come here without education. a lot of them have the best education. we are developing drugs in india. we are developing technology in vancouver because people came here. this is the national suicide, our immigration policy. we give them the greatest system in the world by quarter.

yet to be very careful. we have something to me have a chance of losing it. >> here doing alright on public education. on that note, thank you very much for coming. michael lambert and larry summers. -- bloomberg and larry summers. >> charlie, that is great. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> tomorrow, 3000 journalists, politicians and celebrities gathered at the washington hilton for the white house correspondents' association annual dinner. there will be remarks by president obama and nbc host jay leno. now a discussion on the arizona immigration bill signed into law last week. this is 45 minutes. witnesses. we wrote into the law that these questions do not have to be asked if it will hinder an investigation. host: on your screen now is carlos gutierrez, former commerce secretary. you were listening during the first segment we were taking from illegal immigrants.

and what are your thoughts? guest: it is all anecdotal, but if you have all of the anecdotes of, what you get is a very complex situation and there is always a tendency to believe it is actually very simple. it is not. it is very complex. it gets down to individual families, children who were born here, children who are on the high school little league team or high school football team and do not even know that they are here without papers, that their -- that they are here illegally. it sort of demand a solution that recognizes the human dynamic, in addition to the fact that it should recognize our economic necessities. we need immigrants. what we do not have is an immigration system and policy and law. we are forcing employers to

either close their businesses, move their family farms to mexico, or hire illegal workers. it is kind of a lose/lose situation. host: let's go ahead and put the numbers up and we will divide this by political affiliation. and if you happen to be watching this from outside the country, if you are outside the u.s. today and you want to call into you can call in and 202-628- 0184. again, that is for people outside the country. mr. secretary, you served in the commerce department. was immigration something you had to deal with? guest: absolutely, this probably was my biggest issue i dealt with in 2006, 2007. host: why?

guest: president bush wanted immigration reform passed. he asked the senate to come up with a bipartisan bill and i was in those meetings, literally every single day. with a group of senators, bipartisan, who were interested in getting this through. i can tell you, it was jon kyl on one hand and ted kennedy on the other. it was a bipartisan group and we have a 700-page bill, as comprehensive as you can imagine. any question you want known about immigration was in that bill, but it was dismissed by opponents by one word, amnesty. it was not amnesty because you needed, i believe it was 12 years, 12 to 18 years to get in line and eventually get a green card. there was nothing automatic about it, or nothing that

smacked of amnesty, but again, in a world of sound bites, people dismiss it in a word and is gone. but we still have this problem. host: arizona's new law, what are your thoughts? guest: as a managerial analysis, i think it is a poor use of resources. i think is bad law. but to put the police department' of arizona looking for people who are doing nothing more than working 12 to 16 hours a day and taking your eye off the ball from people who really do want to do us harm, i think it is very inefficient. i do not think it is representative of the kind of nation we are. host: do you think that eric holder should pursue a lawsuit against arizona? guest: it is a legal question.

i do not know. i do not know if that is the way it works. i do not know if that is the way it can work. i can imagine that there will be lawsuits coming from everywhere. and perhaps the only thing that this will change is that arizona will become a haven for lawyers. because lawsuits will be coming from everywhere. but eric holder, that is much -- is as much as a legal question as a policy question. host: you served as commerce secretary, ceo for a long time of kelloggs, and you are currently chairman of global strategies, which is what? guest: we have a group of 22 former officials from around the world. we're a part of a pr firm called apco, very much affiliated with

apco. we provide consulting services to companies going overseas, in some instances companies coming to the u.s. and the whole idea is that they have access to this group of people who work all over the world and have great experience and insight and judgment. and we also have the best of both worlds in the sense that we have the resources of a pr firm, in public affairs firm, to be able to use with customers. host: let's take some calls. the first call comes from tom in michigan. caller: everybody is up in arms about immigrants coming over to the u.s. and you really cannot blame them. basically, they're coming from a purple country and they want to better themselves, which is anybody's idea of -- coming from a third world country and they want to better themselves, which

is anybody's idea. instead of making their lives harder, has anyone thought about a kind of buyout to get into the united states? the united states is in trouble at times, but they want to get into it. have them by into getting here, or pay extra taxes. guest: that is a great point. in the bill that we had in 2007, the whole idea was that people would go forward and register and undergo a background check and it would have to pay a fine. and we talked about what the fine should be, but eventthat fe will eventually be agreed to and there will be a fine. and as you said, they will have to pay for the fact that they breached law. it should be a fine

commensurate with the crime. and that is the kind of thing that i hope we can get into a bill and it should be able to agree with. but i think you're absolutely right, these folks came here for very good and noble reason. they came here for the same reason that so many millions of people came here over the last to under 30 or 300 years. host: next call from newcastle, pa., lorraine, republican. caller: hello, my name is lorraine. i thank you for permitting me to be on c-span this morning. my grandparents did it come from italy and i understand the upheaval. but my question -- host: turned on the volume on your television. just listen to your telephone. go ahead with your question. caller: my name is lorraine. thank you for having me on.

host: we got all of that. and what is your question? caller: you were saying that these children are on baseball teams and what not, but don't you think that as a bold we -- as adults we should be responsible for the burdens we put on our children and the things they have to deal with by pulling them off their teams and having to be deported? this is more wrenching for me to hear what we are doing to these young children. guest: i agree with what you're saying. mass deportation is not an option. we have said that all along. in fact, the way we had approached the 2007 bill under president bush was to say, look, mass deportation, to round up 12 million people who have worked hard, contributed, the great majority have stayed out of trouble, simply wanted to provide for their family, we are

not going to round up and put them on buses and kick them out of the country. but we are also not going to hand them a passport. there is a compromise in between and that is exactly what we are looking for. i am so pleased that your report -- you are a republican. i am a republican, too, he proud republican, but very pro- immigration reform. host: and jeb bush has also come out against this bill. but it was an arizona legislature and republican governor who signed it. guest: that is right, and they have the right, constitutionally, to do that. i think it comes down to a very poor resources from a management standpoint. turning their police department toward people who come to be gardners and working hospitality instead of going after people who are here to do as harm.

host: california, jerome, independent. and we are talking u.s. immigration policy. caller: mr. gutierrez, i have a question for you. during your stay with the government working for the bush administration, did you ever consider placing immigration point across the border? in other words, where people leaving this country would possibly be searched and the things they are taking into mexico would be questioned? this is particularly relative to the arms being moved into mexico supplying the gains. these arms are not available in mexico. i have travelled extensively into mexico over the past 10 years and when i do travel i always keep in my possession a photocopy of my passport and my driver's license and i've been stopped numerous times by mexican police both state and federal and never had any trouble.

obviously, knock on wood. most of my mexican friends in southern mexican -- southern mexico are wonderful people and very hard working in family oriented. host: what is your question? caller: during your stay with president bush, have you ever considered whether people moving out of this country should be possibly searched or question? guest: i'm not sure if, and security would have done that. i can tell you in the concept of sharing responsibility for the mexican drug cartels and the drugs that are flowing into our country from mexico, and the violence, that we do see it as a shared responsibility. what they have asked us to do is to help with the inflow of weaponry that is going into forming this illegal army at our own borders. for our own national security. i think you make a good point. but i do not know if that is being done.

as people go into mexico, it becomes the accountability, the responsibility of the mexican customs officials to search who is coming in and make sure they are not bring in weapons. . . there has to be an effective people whose family has been for generations in generation. my family is for laredo, texas. they were in the radio when it was loretta, and mexico. it became part of the u.s.. uygur up in the 1950 pose a. lacrosse to mexico and eat. by deborah be interrogated on the way back. he hated it.

on occasion, he would give the guys some grief or enter back in spanish to do -- or answer back in spanish. >> where you going? >> my point is that there is a big effect on all kinds of people who have never been into mexico the lara of hispanic backgrounds and have to start carrying identification. there will be subject to harassment. of subject -- host: we appreciate the story. i don't know if you want to respond to anything he said but what is the cooperation level when it comes to immigration between the u.s. and mexico? guest: i think it is quite good. i think it is probably the best it has been. on one hand, that is due to a very strong, determined president in president calderon in mexico. then i would say the continuity

of having worked with president bush and now president obama there is continuity of policy on our end. we want to fix this problem. i think if we have the best shot today that we have ever had to work together and tackle and confront this problem. host: virginia beach. dan, republican. caller: hi, sir. i'm not certain that we really know the number of people that we are calling illegal. did they start out that way? did they come here with work permits and overstay a visa. so i would ask your guest to provide us with some clarity on that. guest: the best estimate -- and these are all estimate -- we typically use the number 12 million. now, i have to tell you 12 million was a number that we

used three years ago. but this moves every year because of the work situation, the availability of jobs. it probably has stayed about 12 million. of those 12 million, three million are children who were born here. so they will never understand that somehow their parents have to be deported or they are not u.s. citizens or they are any less americans than any others. they probably don't speak spanish. so, it is tremendously complex. once you get into family by family you find that the disruption is quite remarkable. some people use 20 million. i don't think it is that high so i would stick with 12. host: we had several callers talk about their spouse being illegal. what changed after 9/11? i thaought getting married was n

automatic to citizenship. no? guest: i don't believe that that has changed. i don't know what their specific circumstances are. it could be different if he is a naturalized citizen as opposed to born in the u.s. there are different laws and regulations. i couldn't containing -- i couldn't tell if you that changed. host: are children born of illegals automatic citizens? guest: yes. host: pittsburgh, democrat, mark. you are on. mark is gone so we will move on to jan in mesa, arizona. republican. caller: yes. mr. guttierrez, i live here in arizona and it is so funny to hear these people tell us what to do because we are in a war zone here.

everybody can just make light of it, but it is horrible. when reagan promised us in 1986 or whatever that this would never happen again and that was three million, not 20 million. and nobody else covers our borders. we don't know what to do. and what nobody is telling everybody that wants to do all of this, you know, pathway to citizenship, these illegals will automatically get the same healthcare we get so we will put another 20 million on our healthcare. they will get all of our social services that we can't keep up with now. and you are talking about jobs people don't want. you know, it used to be that carpenters and roofers and pa t painters, we did do tease jobs but we can't do them any more. they are given to the low-ball workers. so, please -- but i don't think they should talk about anything until they have prove our borders can be closed because

not even my politicians have been able to close our borders. host: so, jan, you are supportive of the arizona law? caller: you bet. host: called it a war zone. what do you mean? caller: you don't know what our neighborhoods are like. like 20 years ago our mayor at the time tried to get where you couldn't have -- willis our law -- all these families in a room apartment. 20 people in a wuone-bedroom apartment. it is destroying neighborhoods and it is something we can't fight because the aclu, you say one thing and the aclu is there and the government, we are paying, our federal dollars are going for it and all the prot t protesters that they are showing in the capital in phoenix, they have pussed them in from texas and california. those aren't our citizens. it is getting -- you don't know

what it is like. we don't know who is in our state. some of the stories are touching but isn't it scary when who is in our country? how do we know? guest: it is a great point. and, listen, i don't live in arizo arizona, but i will say that from the sound of it here in d.c., it feels like we are putting a lot of resources, as you say, behind the problem that wae are not really sure if everyone we are after are the people who come to this country to hurt us. it is interesting, but as you say, we don't know who is living in the country, we don't know who is here. one of the benefits of comprehensive immigration reform is that we will know who is in the country and we will know of

those people who shouldn't be here. because they have to come forward and register and come forward and admit i am here illegally. that is when they go through a background check and go tkpwget fine and eventually get a legalization card, not a passport, a legalization card. and if they want to one day have a green card and passport they have to get in line. that will take them a long time to do. but with that legalization card that has biometrics on it and we can get to a stage where if someone doesn't have that card they should not even show up for a job because they are not going to get it. but in that whole process we will find out who is in our country. so, from a national security standpoint, immigration reform can help us understand how big a problem we have and who is here who shouldn't be here, which is another frustration that

national security is often used as an argument against imtkpwreugs reform whereas actually having a good workable immigration system would do wonders for our national security. host: she also talked about the drain which she called the drain on social services. guest: it is interesting that as a country, as we all know we are getting older and there are fewer people paying for more people to get their social security, to get their medicare. so we need to grow ourselves out of it. but one solution as we grow ourselves out and as we grow ourselves into an economy that can pay for these unbelievable liabilities or debts that we have for future generations, immigrants can do that.

they can help us because typically they are young, they work very hard. and as soon as they arrive, some of them are already contributing to medicare, social security and that stays here and is part of the price they pay. but that is one very viable strategy to help us deal with this tremendous tsunami we have coming at us, which is our entitlement programs and who will pay and how are we going to pay for that. host: john kavanaugh on yesterday the arizona legislator who helped craft the arizona bill, said that mexican towns are suffering greatly because young men and middle aged men are coming here so they are bereft of that labor force. guest: that is true. there was an article recently about how mexico's population growth has declined over the hrlast 20 or 30 years.

what is true is that what we get here is what we've always gotten, the most adventurous, the most ambitious, the most industrious, the people who are willing to risk it all for a better life. those are a country's finest in many ways. they may not have schooling but they have all the determination in the world to get a job, to work hard and make sure that their children go to school. so, yes, these are very industrious, adventurous, ambitious people. now the reality is we need them important mexico does because the jobs are here. again, family farms are going to move to mexico and r&d centers will open in india because we can't find the people here.

i wish people would understand that immigration is first and foremost pretty much an economic issue. if we want to grow and if we want to prosper we need immigrants. and we have never prospered without immigrants. and i just want to remind everyone that the last time we put a ban on immigration and declared war on immigration was in the 1920's, right before the great depression. i'm not linking one to the other, but it had -- it was one of those variables that led to this economic downturn. host: prior to becoming c.e.o. of kellogg how long did you live in mexico and when did you come to the u.s. from cuba? guest: we came out of cuba in 1960 and went to miami for a little while, two years, where we stayed in a hotel. my father thought it was going

to be a vacation because this man cannot stay. then we moved to new york and became u.s. citizens. then he got a job in mexico with heinz company, food company. that is how we ended up in mexico. i went to junior high school and high school in mexico. but the interesting thing is, because i was naturalized, when my son was born -- it just highlights the plight of an immigrant and refugee. when my son was born i needed to be in in the u.s. 10 years after the date of my 16th birthday. so i took his application to the desk at the embassy and said i want my son to be a u.s. citizen. i only had eight years. so i walked out without a pass support. it took me 14 years to eventually make my son a u.s. citizen. because of the little quirk in the law. my other daughter was born in the u.s., then my other daughter, we went back to

mexico, she was born in mexico but by that time i had the 10 years because i spent some time in the u.s. so it is very complicated and everybody has their story. but the great thing is that this country attracts the best people in the world, not including myself but people come here to do things. host: just on a practical level, do you think as, if you had been c.e.o. of kellogg's at the time and you went through it it would have been easier for you when your son was born? guest: well, no, i don't think so. what i noticed is when my son became a u.s. citizen, i was i guess by that time must have been in the u.s. company, i was a corporate vice president, the c.e.o. had an interest in me.

no, i had to stand in line with the rest of them and wait my turn and we had to do the exams and when i walked out of that courthouse in grand rafpdz, michigan, with my son -- my son and my wife -- i can't tell you how relieved i was that after 14 years they became u.s. citizens. so i understand this idea of free citizenship. citizenship cost and takes time and something you really want to have. the other myth here is that every person who is here who is not appropriately documented and is working wants to be a citizen. and in many cases they just want to be legal so they can work and one day go back to their hometown, be a hero, take back some dollars, and build a nice house and retire. that is their vision of the future. it is not to become a u.s.

citizen. some do want to be u.s. citizens but it is a multidimensional problem. host: next call for carlos guttierrez is from rochester, new york, shonda, independent line. caller: hi. i called independently but i'm a democrat and i'm an african-american and live in upstate new york. host: what is your question? caller: i was listening to your guest and he saeid men came illegally. that is all we want. i agree with the arizonans. i attend new york state and if i get stopped by the police i have to have i.d. that is the law. everyone in this country should have i.d. they should not have a problem showing the i.d. whether they are illegal or legally here. i don't understand what the problem is. you keep saying these people ar coming over here because they

are such hard workers. it is kind of senseless to me as a citizen because we have citizens that can do the same thing they are doing. they are prisoners. we can make our prisoners do the same thing if they are going to say they are hard workers. they can wait in line the same way you and your son waited. my problem is the word "illegal." we need to enforce our laws. guest: and we need to have a penalty or punishment that is consistent with the crime, with the action. i get the impression that no one will be satisfied until there is massive deportation. and i don't think that is the kind of stain that we want on our history. the interesting thing is that

the jobs that are supposed to be available for americans to do are not being filled by america americans. the only reason these folks can stay here is because they are making money. it is because they are doing work. and they are doing any type of wo work. i -- look, i look around places and i see a lot of people working very, very hard. i don't know what their status is. but there are jobs that will not go filled. someone mentioned to me the other day jobs, construction jobs are very manual jobs. we need to recognize 50 years ago about only 10% of our population had a high school degree. now we are talking about 30%, close to 40%. host: you mean college.

guest: no, high school. but think about that. 40 or 50 years ago it was 10%. so, a lot of people were looking -- would get into manual work saying this is not what i want to do but this is good for my family. we have a new generation of people who don't necessarily want to do that, who don't necessarily want to pick lettuce even though it is a job. so, i think that we can make a big mistake by assuming that this tag line that americans will do the job is real and if it turns out not to be real we are in deep trouble. two numbers for you. the number of h-2-a visas, for farm workers, the quota is 10,000.

i have seen estimates, depending on how fast the economy will grow and how fast the exports will grow, that we need hundreds of thousands of workers every year to be coming in to work. we can talk about whether they come in and leave and are temporary, but we need an influx to keep our farms alive. so, since there are only 10,000 allowed legally, we are forcing farmers to either hire illegals or go out of business. and i think that we should give our businesses a pwbetter alternative than that. and that is the federal government's role. on the high school side, this is not just about low skilled. on the high school guide our quota of 75,000 h-1-b visas which is for students to work here, graduates to work here, are not -- they are filled by the month of january.

so, every high tech company and every company is in need of foreign scientists, kids who come here to get a p.h.d. in the best university in the world and then have to go home with the . p.l.d. and join a company that can compete with a u.s. company. we have this wrong. and every country in europe has this problem. russia has this problem, china, japan, all getting older, don't have enough people. their workforce isn't growing fast enough to grow their economy at 3% or 4% or 5%. and they are having a real tough time with immigration. we have all heard the european stories. it is not working, they don't understand it, they don't have a history with it. russia, china, we understand it. we know000 deal with -- we know how to deal with it. if we get a good comprehensive

immigration reform system right that gives us all of the maybe we need, we could have a competitive advantage for the next centuriment host: on our republican line estelle from memphis, tennessee. you are on the air. caller: good morning. with all due respect, mr. guttierrez, i must disagree with you. i think it is people like you that don't understand the system. i work directly with the illegal problem. [inaudible] i'm a banker and i have people to come in. what they were doing is getting social security numbers from people who were deceased. [inaudible] they sat in there, couldn't speak english. they always had somebody to bring them in. i also -- -- [inaudible].

now [inaudible] works for the social security office. she is upset and other people. this is the system. you give illegals a social security number. they apply for a green card. when the green card gets approved, do you know that these people, who are illegal, breaking the law, go into the social security administration, then they tell them i was working under this number, now i have my green card. i want all of my credits transferred over to my legal number. believe it or not, they change it. and they are doing it today. they have been doing it for years. host: so, when it comes to u.s. immigration policy, what changes would you like to see? caller: i would like to see them deport

deported. i would like to see the system we have in place be respected and followed. host: secretary guttierrez? guest: well, if we deport all of the people who are here, without appropriate documents, who are here illegally, we will suffer for it. we will suffer economically and we will pay a heavy price. now, the point you are making is good. social security numbers and being falsified. that will have to come out and we are going to have to figure out a way of dealing with that and dealing with that in a legal fashion. but until we address it, until we confront it, we still don't know who is in the country. we still don't have a way of keeping track. and we still don't know who we

should be looking into in terminals of their background -- in terms of their background. but for me as a republican, i think our party has always been about growth, prosperity, entrepreneurship, small business, free enterprise. and without immigration we will have none of that. we need immigration to grow, we need immigration to prosper, we need immigration to continue our free enterprise system. we should do it in a legal way. we should set up a system that allows us to do it legally. host: time for two more calls with our guest former commerce secretary carlos guttierrez. manhattan, new york, craig, democrat. caller: good morning, c-span, good morning mr. guttierrez. any time you pass a law you might get 70 people to agree with it, you might get 30 people who don't agree with it.

since some of these people have some problems following the law, what do do you remember with the people who decide i have been doing ok, why should i turn myself in? i will stay under the wire like i have been doing and things are going all right for me now. guest: that is a good question. we can get to the point where, if you don't have one of those biometric cards with a thumb print or something like that, that belongs to each person, that essentially is this legalization card, we can get to the point where, if you don't have one of those you shouldn't even try to get a job because those are the people who we should be looking for, the people who didn't come forward, the people who didn't register, who did say fine, i came in here legally but i want to work, i

haven't committed crimes, i just need to do it legally. the people who don't come forward, that is who we should be trying to stop and not the people who are here to work, which is essentially why i call the arizona law a very inefficient law. host: our last call for our guest is from linda in lorena, texas. caller: i am glad to talk to you with your background and view of the subject. i have a practical solution that could be employed with a system as you are speaking that would be fair and take the police out of the idea of illegals in this country to american citizens. and that is addressing the drain

on our social services system, our hospital systems, school syste systems, and driving without licenses and insurance. my mother was hit by somebody with an unlicensed person and no insurance and he was deported. she had a broken back as a result. no insurance to cover that. they can't afford to pay into the insurance pool even if they could get insurance. guest: that is a great point because once these workers who are here who have a job, who we ne need, have a form of legal station -- legalization, a card that allows them to work in the u.s., then they have to be part of the system. that system means taxes, it means medicare, social security. it means being part of our

system and being part of the legal system. so, instead of being deported before the trial they would stay here for the trial because they would be subject to u.s. laws. so, it is a way of integrating these folks. a and, look, i'm convinced this discrimination a lot of people criticize that they haven't integrated into society. very hard to integrate into society when you are paranoid. but i can tell you this, they don't speak english but their children will speak english and their children will go on to school and will become scientists and engineers and lawyers and business people and they will help our society grow the way immigrants have always done. so, for me this is a matter of economic prosperity and viability of our country. if we stop immigration, we are going to stop growing. and that should be a concern for every american because i don't

think anyone wants to give up our standards of living. host: politically both president obama and the republicans on capitol hill seem to have taken immigration off the table. guest: the president said last night he feels that congress doesn't have an appetite for this. and i have heard other members say that. what people are worried about, republicans an democrats in -- and democrats in the congress, is that some members of congress want to use this to pick a political fight. not to get reform but to pick a political fight in an election year. so, for example, we all heard and it was all over the papers that senator reid went to nevada for a campaign, he got an earful from business people, from groups about the need for immigration reform. he game back saying we are going to have immigration reform this year. so a lot of people see that as tactical.

and i believe we have one shot at this, one more shot. we didn't get it in 2007, we failed. if we don't get it the next time we could be waiting another five years. so, we have to do it right. and if anyone is talking about immigration and just, you know, throwing out the rhetoric on immigration but isn't really serious about passing a bill, then they are doing a tremendous disservice to the country and to the people who are hoping that they will help themm eventually

>> it clouded it for me, the

whole opening ceremony. later on, when we had to speak about it, we had what we call now something that is where countries support us. we are champions of human rights. it affects our efforts to protect civilians and the unspeakable behavior using people as human shields. they will appoint a panel. there are reports of the israeli and palestinian government in

team will come again to the general assembly to be discussed. the palestinian report is a joke without the immigration side. it is a mockery. >> how they respond with those not cooperating with the goldstone report? what there are a couple of answers. one is the short one, it is mistaken. maybe it was a mistake. it was a decision taken by our governments and a ministry. i think there was one minister.

if they would have cooperated, it would have prevented us from later on saying -- whatever we say, and we say many things. they will say, you took part in this committee. they were escorted. we investigate like every operation. we provided them long and different report. not because of goldstone, but this is our practice. this is what we do. we report to our friends and to the secretary-general.

we ignored the goldstone report. >> if people live questions for the audience, it is a little hard to see you. we are more than happy to take questions. am i missing someone? we want to come back to the subject that we briefly mentioned in the meantime. by my calculations, correct me if i am wrong, it has been 25 months since the sanctions resolution in march 2008. the last of the three sanctions resolutions was adopted in march 2008. that is more than a couple of years since then. all they were able to do was reaffirmed the previous rebel --

resolutions. will we see a new sanctions resolution any time soon? is it going to have teeth? will it have the support of key countries? turkey and brazil seem to be in the process now. >> i still did not that time to read the speech of the secretary of state hillary clinton. she spoke about crippling sanctions. [unintelligible] i do not think she mention fighting sanctions.

>> she used the word tough. >> tough sanctions. it means a one thing to get the consensus of the 55 plus one in which is germany. trying to get to the consensus as soon as possible, but at the same time, getting very diluted or watered down sanctions. we want quick sanctions, but not to moderate sanctions. this is what is concerning me. next week, on monday, a non- proliferation treaty will be discussed.

octodad a shot is coming -- a leader is going to arrive in new york. he will be one of only three leaders to participate in this conference on the nonproliferation treaty, which is something that we stayed far away from in the discussions. it shows where it stands. now discussions regarding sanctions are still going on. i am not very hopeful. president obama said it will take weeks a few weeks ago. this is under the security council of france.

>> doesn't let up on takeover tomorrow? >> exactly. some people say it will be moved to june. it was not as instrumental and effective regarding sanctions. if it is going to be quick, which we hope, it will not be as effective crippling and biting. it will be watered down. that is what we feel. we have made it clear that we see the clock of nuclear iran ticking much quicker. the americans are very much

engaged in trying to get this consensus. you are right. they are discussing this with iran and the leaders. for us, iran is a terrible threat. we make it be clear. it is not a threat on israel but a global threat. some country will be targeted. we will be the first. i do not want to go back to the whole coast -- holocaust. we have heard their threat than words. a nation that is a member of the united nations iran is threatening to wipe israel off the map.

this and the fact that they support terrorist groups all over the world, but the hamas and hezbollah. they are getting weapons. i do not want to get into it. >> please do. >> we know that iran is supporting financing and training them. put this altogether. they want to develop nuclear capabilities. this is something that we see as our first priority to alarm the world, the united states, the security council, where we are not members. iran must be stopped. >> some suggested that by calling for the elimination of

israel, iran is in violation of the un charter. iran is calling for incitement to genocide. what do you say to those that suggest there should be an international campaign to indict this leader said that if he comes to new york or elsewhere, he become the focal point of the international campaign. to take it a step further, that iran itself should be punished or an intent should be made to punish it within the un for its call for the elimination of the united states? >> the last stage of the bush a administration -- one person

said, we are not going to allow one state to threaten another state -- threaten to wipe it off the map. it was very clear. we are going to act on it. nothing happened since then. i did not see any resolution to punish iran to do something to stop the act and the and words -- deeds and words. i do not know if we should use a law firm to act against him. the jewish people all over the world are looking into these possibilities.

we do not take part in this. [unintelligible] >> we have spent a lot of time in this intimate discussion. a question has to do with the security council. as you know, everybody knows, it requires certain votes for a resolution to pass. since 2006 -- prior to that

time, the u.s. had to exercise a veto 41 times. since then, it has not led to exercise it even once. there are a couple of resolutions which were introduced by libya concerning gossip. g aza. -- gaza. the resolutions were pulled because the votes were not there. it meant that some of the more non-permanent countries were choosing to abstain or vote know. have you noticed any change on your part from the attitudes of some of these small countries that are non-permanent members of the security council, such as

panama, and others who have been supportive? one and a half years ago, i said sometimes i wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, thinking where with israel have been without the united states. >> it is not affecting the veto, but the fact that it is there. our friends and allies and enemies know that when it comes to the existence, the survival of israel, the united states will always be there at the security council. i must demint that the feeling of the knowledge s changed.

it started with "the new york times" saying there are rumors that the united states is going to effect or not a fight their veto power when it comes to involving israel. one said, -- there is some kind of a feeling that we do need -- the nine countries members of the security council so that the united states will not think

about using the veto. it has been denied by the white house. we have to work very hard in order to get a consensus. . this brings us to something you want to conclude with for the peace, which is something that is put on the same scale. the movement towards the peace process together with the support that we get from the united states. but we will come to the peace process. i think i see someone who has a unique history.

in knows so much more than i do about the united nations. [applause] >> could you tell us about your relationship and whether it is possible to make a distinction between the parliamentary of the united nations and the bureaucracy of the united nations? it is unlikely that israel will establish certain agreements with united nations. is it possible to maintain a relationship of dialogue with the united nations? >> that is a good one. thank you. you are absolutely right. you are knowledgeable people.

the united nations is not homogeneous. it is not comprised of many governments and institutions and bodies all over the world. in new york, the united nations is composed of three bodies. the security council and the general assembly. it is like the government. the security council we discussed. this is very important. when i sit there, only when i am asked to speak. we are listening nearby.

it comes every month to be dealt with. they are only once in three months asked to respond. then we can leave. they go on and discuss other things. the security council is very important. some kind of power to implement. >> a legally enforceable power. >> white. -- writright. then there is the general assembly. we can never win. there are other countries with its wonderful capacity cannot support israel. >> but we are on the case. [laughter] >> now almost two-thirds of the

country's will vote against israel. a resolution will come to the general assembly. tomorrow morning, there will be more than 100 countries that will vote for that. sometimes they feel that it is a game that we can never win. we go and speak and tried to engage -- not to speak of other committees where we still have some power that we can contribute. then there is the secretariat. that is really important. that are led by a secretary general. they are really important, because they are the government of the united nations.

[unintelligible] we are trying to bring in israelis, because it is so important. some of them, i think three dozen people that work there, many are from africa. some are more competent and less competent. but as an important role. some people -- he is very much involved in the peace process. he is part of this which is part of the eu, united states, russia, and united nations.

i must say that personally so that there was this celebration , independence day -- he is a good friend. he keeps singing to me that he admires israel and our leadership. he comes from a country that is also threatened by its neighbors, but south korea. he is on very good terms with our leaders and former leaders i saw the way he was received in israel and with us. he is not part of the security council. he is effective in many ways.

regarding the damage that was done in one area, he is the one who got together with others and led an investigation. he still explains that he must show himself very equal and opel -- open-minded. i am waiting to see in him on monday when he comes to the united nations. >> we have about 10 minutes left of this conversation. let us close the microphone right there and take the two questions. let's start with the ambassador. we have to close the microphone.

peter? >> thank you, david. i would like to ask you about a slightly different situation of israel's predicament with the united nations. i recall a statement that also came. he said privately and sometimes publicly how shocked she was when she arrived in new york to find the extent of the hatred against israel and further anti it semitism in the united nations -- anti-semitism in the united nations. i am wondering how this particular dimension affects you personally and your work. >> and the lady behind you.

>> i am from south africa. can you adjust the microphone? >> that is better. [unintelligible] i am wondering if you had a message for judge gallstone and for the south african community. what kind of outcome will you see? can there be some communication that would undo some of the damage that was done? >> it has to be a very brief question. this will really be it. >> thanks. my name is herbert. my question relates to the rift

between the united states and israel right now. why would not it be inappropriate resolution of the rift if prime minister netanyahu could reverse his position and agreed with president obama with respect to a temporary freeze including the building in east jerusalem that would be a non- substantive gesture. it will not change a position of israel. it would be eight dramatic change which would be in my opinion comparable to sadat going to jerusalem. >> thanks. the first question from peter was on the comments of one person. >> right.

some people compare the situation of israel and now to 75 when one thing eagled racism. some people speak openly and in the house of the united nations. it is difficult. it is not a chance or coincidence, because she is also a woman. when i have to listen to it, and it is painful, because i know the truth. i have to remind myself of my

personal history and the history of the young, a jewish nation. i know that i have presented a good cause which is the existence of israel. we are the only country in the world whose existence is threatened. once again, the only one. we must uphold our rights. people tell me not to take it personally. >> it is hard not to. you lost a husband in the war. he lost grandparents in auschwitz. the second was about judge gallstone and the south african dimension.

>> i am not going to refer personally to the judge. we have mutual friends. the chief justice of israel is that a great friend of mine and mentor. it was my teacher. he is a good friend of mine. he keeps telling me a certain things. i never want to say anything personally about him. i do not think this is the right way. the report itself is conceived in hate. this is what they said at the general assembly. i do not want to say anything personally about the judge. [applause] >> the third question was about what would be the disadvantage

if any of a complete temporary freeze by israel? >> one of the things that is very clear to me, i do not want to be little my role in the human, i did that -- to not want to be littlittle my role. i want them to understand the pressure that is put on anyone. prime minister netanyahu is torn

between his will to promote per se to the peace process. on the other hand, the government is impossible to govern because it is comprised of so many things such as the right-wing party. the defense minister and the moderates and those that are not moderate. thank you so much for everything you do. i think of the financial times yesterday or the day before yesterday. i always tell you that we are great friends. expressing those views so eloquently.

very sensible. i mentioned that i do not like this blame game. you must remember that the palestinians for the last year and they have did not do anything to come towards us. we said we are willing to work with them without any preconditions, anywhere at any time. it took about a year before the americans understood they should also put some kind of obligation or ask the palestinians. they cannot just sit there and wait for the americans and us to do all of the work. i kept saying, we want to sit and talk.

we cannot any progress without sitting and talking with them. we do not want these proximity talks. this is something that we know will lead to bilateral talks. without it, we cannot move. why does not netanyahu called for a freeze? there is a freeze to factor in building in jerusalem. this is what happens in the area. the government declared, do not belittle this comment from a man. who are the people that make decisions. i think he has come a long way.

the freeze, the two state solution. you mention the roadblock and the check points. these are things you can see how they affect the economy and the lives therein. i can say as a woman and a human being, the situation is tragic. this is not only our fault. there is smuggling going on. the hamas declares they want to kidnap soldiers. we know that ammunition is being smuggled in. i want to assure you that

humanitarian aid, food, medical aid, there is no shortage, none whatsoever. we need to allow certain things that are coming in slowly. i was escorting our defense minister. we know there'll be more movements towards the needs of the people in gaza. maybe there'll be more movement regarding the settlements. we need to start talking. if it is with proximity talks, fine. we hope this will bring the bilateral talks. without them, no peace can be achieved.

>> here is my final question. >> maybe in some ways, it may be the most important question. >> you have people in the rome, and people across the country is -- countries. we just signed an association agreement is today with the worldview of jewish students. [applause] people are going to go back to everywhere from argentina to the czech republic to panel to france to wherever. how can we help you, specifically at the un, and more broadly as a proud israeli? what would you like to see from a.j.c. and our partner

organizations? give us a charge as you go home. do not let us go back home watching television and doing things that we would otherwise do. what is it that you would like us to do? >> may be three things. one is continue the great work that you are doing, because i know that you are engaging as many countries, small and important countries all over the world. in the general assembly, it is china that is one vote and so does israel, but also allow and all of these -- apalandpalau ane

small countries. this is a great help. the second thing is a quite yourself -- acquaint yourself. >> all we do is read these magazines. i am joking. guide us. >> find out what is really is about. many people, especially young people, they are not educated enough about the history of the state of israel and the history of the jewish people. once you understand this history, you will not say is really is the outcome as a said by the presidency in cairo. this is not what is really is about.

2000 years of yearning, the jewish people want to come back to their home. educate your children, your neighbors, your friends. the third thing, and i am not sure it is possible for all of you,, to israel. come to visit. once you are there and you meet the people and you visit the land -- i can see some of you are nodding their heads. once you are there, you will fall in love with the place. he will meet the people and see how wonderful and how small the country is. -you can see there is open passage. you can go anywhere. there is movement of trucks coming from the west bank to israel. all of this, you have to see with your eyes. it is not enough to see in the

movies or the videos. everyone of you is more than welcome to come to israel. >> how many of you have been to israel in the last 12 months? the last five years? >>, again. -- come again. [laughter] [applause] >> i want to bridge what you said with next year. at the last general assembly vote on goldstone, there were exactly seven countries that voted against -- >> except israel. >> one of them was panel, which has dramatically shifted its voting behavior. our delegation was recently in panama. some of these people were there to meet with president martinelli for a couple of hours to reinforce our appreciation

for his vote and also to invite him to come next year to our annual gala on thursday, april 28, 2011 to be honored by our organization for his courage. he is the only -- it is the only latin american country that has voted that way despite enormous pressure he has been getting from the arab world and iran. pressure in terms of blackmail and bribery, in an effort to change the voting behavior of panama. he has promised to stand firm, and we need to stand firm with him. please be here next year with us. stop at the registration desk and register early. you saw what we are doing this year. you saw the type of people we are leading. i think you saw that together, we are making a difference. thank you for being here.

thank you for all that you do. a safe travels. [applause] this is for you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this week, roger gregory talks about diversity in the federal judiciary. he speaks about his experience as the first african-american to serve on the fourth circuit court of appeals. that is today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. tonight, many will gather at the washington hilton for an annual dinner. we are covering this event which will include remarks by president obama. and jay leno will also speak. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> sunday on book tv, pat

buchanan on conservative ideology and today's political climate. he will take your calls, emails, and tweets. that is sunday, live at noon eastern on c-span2. >> now a discussion on job creation with mayor bloomberg. this is hosted by the center for american progress.

>> today there is director of the economic council for president obama. he served as treasury secretary for former president clinton. he has served with several other accomplishments. he did all those things before he turned 30. [laughter] im reminded about a line used, which was that he was the youngest american ever to turn 40. [laughter] i have had the pleasure of knowing him and being his friend for quite a long time. i consider him not only brilliant as everyone else does,

but fascinating and very wise. i have learned something and something meaningful in my conversations with him. history is going to look upon america's response to the financial and economic crisis of 2008 and 2009. it will be very favorably. larry will be credited as a key architect of that historically very important response. thank you for being here. then our other panelists, kaelin the generouellen degeneres once introduced paul mccartney at the

oscars. she said this man needs no introduction. she turned around and walked off. i am quite tempted to do that here. i will not do that with this panelists. mike bloomberg, mayor of new york, is a person of singular achievement and singular talent. i use that word singular carefully. i have lived in new york most of my life. he is simply the best mayor in new york has had in my lifetime and even in the much longer lifetime of bob rubin. [laughter] much of today's conference as you know has highlighted the relationship between education and employment and wages.

i would like to point to his achievements relative to the new york city public school system. this is one of the most difficult challenges on earth. a has made remarkable progress. a healthy will talk a little bit about that today. he is one of the credits on japan to worst and chief executive officers in the firelight. there are very few symbols of american enterprise that is stronger than his company. thank you for being here today. the most skillful moderator charlie rose, i am sure many of the watch his show every night. if you do not, please leave now. [laughter] it is far and away the deepest and most serious show in the country.

if you want to see a subject explored in rated debt, watched his show. he is very young, but he as interviewed everyone from alexander the great to george washington. he is moderated every important discussion since the constitution. it is a pleasure to have him, and i will turn it over to him. [applause] >> thanks. it is good to see all of you here. this is an important subject. i know that all of you in the panel have thought about this long and hard. and how you see the job picture today in terms of unemployment and job creation.

>> i cannot help but be a prisoner of my past as an economist and try to be a little bit analytical. i will try to beat for just a couple of minutes. that in not blind us to the fact that this is a terrible defining problem for our society. it was brought to me in a way that is different from what i usually think of. somebody expose me to the statistic that calls to the national domestic violence hotline. running at a 50% greater rate this year than they were a year ago. that indicator and many like it tracks what is happening to the unemployment rate.

another way of making the same point is that they have steadies' of -- studies of different rates. in many cases, losing a job for a long time is second and not very far behind losing a spouse. that is more traumatic for many people then being divorced. this is a profoundly important problem for our society. it is the task of the economist to analyze it so we can think hard about what the right solutions are.

to think about joblessness in america right now, we need to think about three separate the dimensions of the problem. the first is the reciprocal intervention. we are in the midst of the worst recession in a sense of continuing impact that sense the second world war. it is a financial crisis that reflects things that went wrong in the financial system and spread to the rest of the economy. that depressed demand and destroyed jobs. if you ask why is the jobless this picture today difference then add the picture three years ago, the dominant reason is we

have this profound recession and the solution to the recession lies in an increase in demand than by making the financial war -- financial markets work. it is done by the temporary role for government in providing demand. it is done by creating an environment of greater confidence that spurs business investment and the spending which goes to the picture that is being painted of the long run of the country. that is what the president's recovery act and the financial recovery program are about. there is no solution to any of this that does not run through having a strong recovery. the second dimension of the problem i would guess, history has been written, the least fundamental of the three is a

temporary break down of the relationship between the economy as measured by the gdp and the unemployment rate. if you had taken the standard relationships that economists used to project the relationship between the gdp and unemployment, and projected a disaster in gdp, you would not have projected unemployment as high as it is right now. you would have projected a point or a point and a half an. or to put it in a different way, we would not have projected that productivity growth would of been very rapid in the second half in the second half of 12 -- 2009. that means we got a certain amount of demand and it takes

people to produce the stuff that is demanded. nobody can know for sure what the future hold. maybe things will restore to normal in which case, we will see more job growth than would be justified by gdp over the next year or two. that would be my next guest. alternatively, things may have happened that led to permit higher productivity growth. that can be a good thing. it would complicate the challenge of generating adequate demand to meet and even greater potential with more productivity. the second jobless phenomenon is this relationship and the breakdown between gdp and employment. the third is the most profound and the one that ultimately is

most important. that is a breakdown in the ability of the economy to provide viable jobs for those who would in an earlier era work with their strength. the best way to put its is this. 40 years ago, one in 20 men, many were not working at a given point in time. today, it is one in five not one in 20. a good guess based on extrapolating the trends in this area is that when the economy recovers five years from now, we

have returned from normal, cyclical conditions, one in six men who are 25-54 will not be working at any point in time. as you would expect, the rates are twice as high or more among those who are less educated. they are even close to one in 10 among those who have been to college. that is a reflection of the facts that large categories of jobs that once existed have simply fallen away dominant lead due to technology wherever it is produced. it just does not take very many people to assemble a car compare to the number it said several years ago, wherever that car is.

deuced. -- car is produced. for the long run, long after this recession, finding ways to as a country the galloping the skills and potential of all americans not just the majority of our working becomes a critical priority. and thinking about why and how public policy while being irresponsible can promote the demands