harder, but that is what i got out of it. on the question of the agenda, we had little bit of a disconnect. i asked him about the bush tax cuts, which are about keeping the top 35% and capital gains and other taxes on investments low. he then started talking about the new shot involved in this unemployment bill and -- the details involved in this unemployment bill. there have been an enormously hard time with it. it is occupying -- of a are are having any enormously hard time with it. it is occupying a lot of time. >> there are just six months to the election. how are politics playing into what we heard today?

>> i think both parties see this as a jump ball. the shrewd politicians know you cannot read the midterm electorate until around labor day. i think what democrats are trying to anticipate is where the economy will be. i asked him about what kind of questions democrats will have to answer for voters. that is a big challenge for democrats right now. are they going to be interested in job creation? are they going to be more interested in longer-term problems like the debt? is there going to be a new national security problem on the horizon? the midterms reflect the immediate past, as much as they are a referendum on the past few years of a presidency. you have all of these forces at play. there are candidates on the left challenging moderate democrats are a whole

bunch of republican candidates. you have the illinois race. it is hard to say what voters want and what democrats will need to deliver in order to preserve their majorities in either house. >> andrew taylor, he said appropriations and budget are on the list of things to do. why is that important? but i do not necessarily stipulate -- >> i do not necessarily stipulate to the question. it looks like it will not to the budget. it is an arcane ritual that has more to do with procedure than it does to affecting the budget. he says there are 13 work weeks until the election. it is awful hard to see them doing much on their regular

appropriations work in this atmosphere. they have to do all wartime supplemental bill -- a wartime supplemental bill. they have to do the unemployment extension bill. they have to do a supreme court nomination, which is going to take two weeks. i cannot imagine them spending a lot times hashing -- a lot of time hasing through -- hashing through the treasury department budget. everybody always criticizes. people always vote for it in the end. >> andrew taylor with the associated press and shailagh murray from the "washington post." thank you to you both. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> defense secretary robert gates warned that the united states cannot maintain its current military force without

increasing spending. he spoke in kansas at an event marking the 65th anniversary of the end of world war ii in europe. he is introduced by congressman jerry moran. this is about half an hour. >> welcome to one of our most famous sites, the eisenhower presidential museum and library, and to our out of state and country guests, welcome to abilene, kansas. i am here as a member of congress and a ckansan, and son of a veteran of the war in europe, one of the benefactors of europe -- victory today. it is an honor to be with you to celebrate that anniversary. i do not have to tell moot of those here today, but often enlighten my colleagues in washington, d.c., that there is

something very special about communities in kansas. events serve as a good reminder to all of us at our way of life in kansas is worth preserving. it was here in the homes and churches and schools that white -- dwight eisenhower develop a character that served as commander of our allied forces in europe and led to that victory in world war ii. our country is facing a different enemy -- al-qaeda -- with a similar goal of destroying our way of life. in these challenging times, our country has once again turned to a native of our state to lead the fight. it is my privilege to introduce the secretary of defense, dr. robert gates. he began his distinguished career in public service as an eagle scout in wichita, kansas, where he was going and raised. i listened -- where he was born

and raised. i listen to him when he was honored as kansan of the year. he closed with a memorable statement that says a lot about his values and the values we find in the communiques -- communities in our state. "my youth in kansas was rich with good and modest people. surrounded by such people, character and integrity, kansas values, and kansas, sens begin the bedrock of my life -- kansas commonsense became the bedrock of my life, no matter how far i travel but braque -- traveled." he has traveled very far. he has had a 27 year career and begin the director of central intelligence in 1991 until 1993.

he has been commissioned as an officer in the air force, has served on the boards of nonprofits and businesses, receive medals and awards, and served as president of texas a&m. in 2006, dr. gates was selected by president bush as the 22nd secretary of defense. president obama asked him to remain in 2008, making him the only secretary of defense in u.s. history who was asked to stay in that office by a newly- elected president. ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to introduce and welcome our speaker this afternoon, who was raised with kansas' commonsen commonsense. ladies and gentleman, secretary of defense robert gates. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you, congressman, for that kind introduction. thank you to the eisenhower library for the honor of being your speaker on this occasion, the 65th anniversary of the allied victory. i know there are a number of veterans from world war ii who are with us. we're grateful to you for what you achieved an sacrificed to make it -- achieved and sacrificed to make it possible for us to gather today. [applause] i am pleased to be here for several reasons. it is always a treat to be someplace other than washington, d.c. -- the only place in the world you can see a prominent person walking down lover's lane holding his own hand. [laughter] it is even better to return to

my home state of kansas, a place of little pretense and ample common-sense. i am honored and humbled to be at this wonderful institution on this occasion and to be ofociated, and with the legacy dwight d. eisenhower. this is my second visit to the library and museum. my first was with my sixth grade class from wichita, 54 years ago. with just under five decades in the corporate sector, i consider myself a person of few illusions and not that many of unalloyed heroes. general eisenhower has been a source of wisdom and inspiration. he is one of my heroes. another is general george marshall, his partner in command, whose portrait hangs behind my desk, too.

eisenhower was a low-maintenance leader of simple tastes, modest man, and small entourages, in contrast to what happens in the upper levels of washington and other elite settings now. one article describes a visit by eisenhower to the front lines of the european theatre of operations. they noted there was no fanfare, no motorcycle escort, no flowering banners, only a convoy of three cars. there was one for the president, one for the press, and one spare. he set up his modest trailer. despite the presence of an elegant and abandon chateau nearby, he maintained the symbol surrounding. he was flummoxed by the pentagon.

it is now referred to as the puzzle palace. soon after the war, he made a mistake of trying to find his office by himself and got very lost. "one had to give the building is grudging admiration. it had been defined to confuse any any that might infiltrates it -- any enemy that might infiltrate it." he was not alone in this. one woman rushed up to a pentagon guards as saying she was in labor and needed help to get to a hospital. the guard said, madam, you should not have come in here in that condition. she answered, i was not in this condition when i came in here. [laughter] the occasion that brings us together this afternoon is the 65th anniversary of the allied victory in europe. it was an achievement that would not have been possible without ike's strategic vision and a

remarkable skill at managing the personalities of his top generals. one top historian said, eisenhower had to deal with as fractious and dysfunctional a group egomaniacs as anyone had .ver seen -- he was focused on to win the nazis and not each other -- on killing the nazis and not each other. i would like to discuss the approach he took and the choices he made to secure what was called "the long peace" that followed." -- followed. his dresses kept us prosperous and free for nearly six decades -- his choices that as prosperous and free for nearly six decades. they also helped provide and pay

for our national defense. president obama addressed the nation from west point, where he laid out the case for a new strategy to achieve our objectives in afghanistan and pakistan. [train whistling] i am accustomed to this. the union pacific runs right through the middle of the a&m campus. eisenhower spoke of the need to consider options. in light of the broader consideration, the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- this excerpt was panned for being insufficiently and browsing in a churchillian sense. i believe he would never approved -- he would have

approved. [train whistling] faced with the pre-eminence security threat of his time -- the soviet union -- he was a strong warrior. he had no illusions about the nature of the soviet adversary, which he once called "global in scope, rose in purpose, and city is in method. -- insidious in method." no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. during his presidency, he resisted pressure to intervene militarily in vietnam and the middle east. this restraint was not just his hatred of war and all of its attendant costs and horace. -- horrors.

it came from an understanding that even the united states, near its zenith in strength and prosperity, did not have unlimited political, economic, and military resources. expanding them in one area -- a protected war in the developing world -- would sap the strength available to do anything else. furthermore, he strongly believed that the united states and any nation could only be as militarily strong as it was economically dynamic and physically sound. he lamented the cost of large defense establishment, maintain at a high level of readiness. as he put it at the end of his presidency, "this condition of an immense military establishment is new in the american experience. we recognize the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its

grave implications." he was wary of seeing his beloved republic turn into a muscle bound, paris and state -- garrisoned state, strategically insolvent. he warned that we must not destroy from within what we are trying to defend from without. this had fueled his passionate belief that the u.s. should spend as much as necessary on national defense, but not one penny more. with his peerless credentials and standing, he was uniquely positioned to ask hard questions, make top was come and set firm limits -- make tough choices, and set firm limits. we could see how ruthless he could be when it came to forcing them until it -- forcing the military establishment to justify its programs and priorities. consider one account from march,

1956. eisenhower sat down with his top defense advisers to discuss the pentagon budget. it shows he became exasperated that, "no one ever comes up and says let's get rid of something ." the observed that it took the army 60 years to get rid of horses -- he then observed that it took the army's 60 years to get rid of forces. i questioned why the army should have a 1500-mile ballistic missile program since, the army does not have the equipment to see where they are hitting. he told his senior defense team that he wanted the pentagon cut down to "a spartan basis," lamenting that people he had known all of his life were asking for more and more. "i say the patriot today is the fellow who can do the job with less money." whenever he was asked to fund something, his response usually

took the form of a question -- where is the money going to come from and what will you cut in its place? the other question was about priorities. he said it was troubled by the tendency to pilot program on top of a program to meet every possible contingency. looking back from today, what a fine so compelling and instructive -- what i find so compelling and instructive is that really choices were made, parties were set, and limits were enforced -- really tough choices were made, priorities were set, and limits were enforced. the attacks the september, 2001, opened a gusher of this defense spending -- of defense spending which has nearly doubled, not accounting for the wars in iraq

and afghanistan. this brings us to the choices we have today as a country. given our difficult economic circumstances and powerless this will condition, military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer and harsher scrutiny. the gusher will stay off for a good period of time. on one level, it is a simple matter of math. the fact that we're in a war and facing an uncertain world, we must sustain the current military force structure. this typically requires regular growth in the defense budget, ranging from 2% to 3% above inflation. in this year's budget request, the defense department asked for and hopes to receive just under 2%. it is highly unlikely that we will achieve the real growth rates necessary to sustain our

current force structure. some argue that the answer is simply to press harder for a bigger overall budget. they point out that defense spending to date is a function of gross domestic product, roughly 4.5%, relatively small in historical terms during a time of war. they would be right. i do not hesitate to make thatpoint during my trips -- make that point during my trips to capitol hill. we face certain economic and fiscal realities. we need to overcome steep, institutional, political institutions and challenges. anyone outside of the five walls of the pentagon -- many of those are outside of the five walls of the pentagon.

they had asked to cease funding for certain equipment. there are heavy up-front costs -- about $3 billion. multiple studies show the military has ample airlift capacity to meet all current and feasible future needs. the leadership of the air force is clear -- they do not need and cannot afford more c-17's. correspondingly, the air force, marines, and 80 do not want the second f- -- and navy do not want the second f-35 engines. yet a battle is underway to prevent them from putting these back in in the next few years. i strongly recommend a veto if either of these items is included in the budget legislation next year. leave aside the sacred obligation we have to america's

wounded warriors, but health care costs are eating the department alive. it increased from $19 billion when decade ago to roughly $50 billion, about the same but it of the foreign affairs budget for the department of state -- about the same budget of the of foreign affairs but it -- of the foreign affairs budget for the department of state. many working-age military retirees, who are earning a full-time salaries on top of their full military pensions, are opting for tricare, even though they could get health coverage through their employer, with the taxpayer picking up the tab. the department has attempted modest increases in premiums and copays, to help bring costs under control. it has been that with a furious response from the congress and from veterans. the proposals routinely die an

ignominious death. the resistance to dealing with it stems from an admirable sentiment -- to take good care of our troops, their families, and veterans, especially those who sacrificed and suffered on the battlefield. they must routinely add 0.5% pay raises. the all-volunteer force, which has been a brilliant success in terms of performance, is a group that is older, more likely to have spouses and children, and costlier to retain, recruit, house, and care for than the draft of young single men. those are the political and demographic realities that we face. the limit what can be saved and where -- they limit what can be saved and where. the department of defense can approach to america's elected representatives and ask for

increases every year, until we have done everything possible to make every dollar count. unless there is real reform in the way the art and the defense does its business and spends taxpayer dollars -- in the way the department of defense does its business and spends taxpayer dollars. we're focused on permit programs to make sure we're buying things in the right quantities. -- on procurement programs to make sure we are buying things in the right quantities. we need to meet our real world needs. about $330 billion were terminated. we also begin to overhaul the processes for acquisition and contracting. earlier this week, i observed the physical realities will preclude the navy from reaching its goal of 330 ships, if each is over budget and cost billions

of dollars. without exercising real diligence, if nature takes its course, major weapons programs will devolve into pursuing the limits of what technology will bear, without regards to what our real world enemy can do and regards to cost. it has led to $20 million howitzers, $2 billion bombers, and $3 billion to $6 billion destroyers. for example, the navy wanted 32 of the next-generation destroyer. because of increasing costs, we will three. -- will build three. the air force wanted more than 200, we built 20. the changes we have made in the procurement are renamed --

arena represent a start. more is needed. the defense of art must take a hard look at every aspect of how would is organized -- the defense department must take a hard look at every aspect of how it does business. is this respectful of the american taxpayer at time of economic and fiscal distress? is this activity or arrangement the best use of limited dollars, given the pressing needs we have to take care of our people, win the wars we are in, and invest in our abilities to deal with future threats? no real progress towards savings is possible without reforming our budgeting practices and assumptions. too often, but it's are divvied up each year as a straight-line -- budgets are divvied up each year as a straight-line projection of the year before

unlikely -- they are very rarely -- of the year before. they are very rarely reexamined. consider the broad category that encompasses about $200 billion worth of the daily activities of the military -- from flight training to mowing the grass. over the last decade, expenses have about doubled, with large increases in the administrative and infrastructure support. the department's spending on contract services has grown by some $23 billion. the one area of real decline in overhead is the area where we actually need it -- full-time contract and professionals, whose numbers plunged from 26,000 to about 9000. we ended up with contractors supervising other contractors, with predictable results. another category ripe for

scrutiny should be our overhead. all the activity and bureaucracy that supports the military mission. according to one estimate, overhead, broadly defined, makes up about 40% of the department's budget. militarye 1990's, the saw deep cuts in overall force structure. the army was cut by nearly 40%. the reduction in flag offices, generals, admirals, what abouthalf that. the department's -- was about half that. the department's number of senior executives grew during that's period. almost -- that same period. almost a decade ago, the defense reason -- the defense board estimated that there is a gap between the an action officer that is as high as 30 layers. they have stratton's -- that of latin and streamlined the upper

echelon -- they have flattened and streamline the upper echelon -- streamlined the upper echelon. there were steep cuts in our forces in europe. we have 40 generals, admirals, or civilian equivalents, yet we sold our allies over the bloat in nato -- we scold our allies over the globe in nato. -- the bloat in nato. a request has to go through five headquarters to be validated and dealt with. more and more responsibility, including decisions with strategic consequences, is being exercised by young captain's and colonels on the battlefield -- captains and colonels on the battlefield.

the department commissioned a study to assess the flag officer requirement. the study identified 37 positions, a more than 1300 active and reserves, that could be reasonably converted. no one was downgraded. we should consider some of these questions. how many of our headquarters and secretariat are in the business of reporting to or supervising others, as opposed to overseen activity related to draw world -- real-world needs? how many officers could be downgraded? assistant secretaries become deputy assistant secretaries. it would create a more effective and less costly organization. how many commands or organizations are conducting repetitive or overlapping functions? how many of them could be

combined or eliminated altogether? we have to be mindful of the iron law of bureaucracies. the definition of is and to work expands proportionately with the security of the person in charge and the quantity of time and staff available. we have 50-page powerpoint briefings as a result. before making claims of requirements not being met or alleged gaps, we need to evaluate the criteria upon which requirements are based and the wider, real-world context. should we be up in arms over a temporary, projected shortfall of fighters and disorders when we possess more than 3200 tactical aircraft? does the number of warships we have put america at risk?

. . >> therefore, as the defense department begins the process of preparing next year's fiscal 2012 budget requests, i am

informing everyone at -- i am informing everyone to take a hard look at her as they operate. -- and how they operate. we want to convert sufficient tail to two to provide 2% growth, have the resources needed in a time of war, and make investments into an uncertain future. simply taking a few percentage point off the top of everything on a one time basis will not do. these savings must stem from the areas that can be sustained and added to from -- over time. what is required going forward is not more study. nor do we need more legislation. it is not a great mystery what needs to change. what it takes is a great political will and willingness, as eisenhower possess, to make hard choices, traces the well

fiscally empower people -- choices that will fiscally empower people both inside the pentagon and out. i am not the first person to make this case or in this effort. a person employed in a redundant task is one who could be fighting terrorism or nuclear proliferation. secretary crumbs fell said that on september 10th, two dozen 1 -- secretary rumsfeld said that on september 10th, 2001. what might have been considered a noble or worthy endeavor in the past is now a path that can no longer be denied or postponed. it is a path, in the final analysis, to defend the security, prosperity and freedom of the american people in a complex and dangerous new century. it is a calling to uphold the

spirit of sacrifice of the men whose service and triumphs we honor today, and it is a mission or the of the son of kansas to lead our forces to victory 65 years ago, and his legacy continues to sustain and protect us today. mouches thank you. -- thank you very much. [applause] >> a look now at u.s. immigration policies and the new immigration law in arizona. this is about 30 minutes. " continues. host: we're talking about u.s. immigration policy with clarissa martinez before we get deeper into the policy, tellus your views on the law recently passed in arizona, and how it works into your

organization's stance? guest: we legitimately believe that people are frustrated over the broken immigration stem. we are terribly frustrated by it. and we agree with the governor that the federal government has not done its job. but we also think it is not an excuse to add even more chaos. we believe that this law, unfortunately, has the function of sanctioning the racial profiling of the latino community in the state. it is 30% of the population. so we are completely opposed to it. host: one of the stories last week, the headlin is most citizens of arizona back the new immigration laws. it says that a poll conducted by it says that a poll conducted by the behavior research center and released last wednesday found

52% of citizens arizona support the measure with only 39% opposed, and the rest undecided. guest: it is not surprising. even in colorado in 2006 there was a ballot initiative. pulling at the time showed the majority supported the initiative, but not because they thought it would fix the problem, but because they were so frustrated that they wanted to send a message. we completely understand the frustration in arizona. but in this case and many others, we're adding more chaos to the broken system. here we will be beyo immigration and getting into racial profiling. host: in "the new rk times" they have about 51% saying is about right, 36% senate goes too

far, 9% that it does not go far enough, and 4% have no opinion. moving forward in the discussion, there have been calls from various groups, talking about boycotting arizona. the headline in "the hill" from earlier this month calls to boycott arizona over immigration law and that it divides democrats. guest: our organization joined hands of with liberal leaders and national civic organizations last week to join the boycott. if you look at our history, it is not something we do. we really grappled with the decision. we consulted with our community- based organizations in arizona, corporate partners, and other allies. people pretty much said this goes so far and, that something

so extreme requires an extraordinary action. we do not take the decision lightly. we know a boycott will affect not only people who oppose the law, but also those who will be the intended victims of the law. again, we're not only talking about undocumented immigrants here, but u.s. citizens and legal residents. the majority of the latino population there are legal. it is one of the reasons we decided to go forward. host: clarissa martinez is our guest for the next 40 minutes, talking about u.s. immigratio policy and the law recently passed an arizona. if you want to get involved, here are the phone numbers.

our first call comes from las vegas, brian, on the line for democrats. caller: i think people have this immigration bll all wrong. we are for reform, without a doubt, but people seem reluctant to admit -- and i will guarantee -- will take a few officers who were going to raciallprofile, and i was profiled by the los angeles county sheriff's departme in 1999, and it is not a good feeling. unfortunately, some officer will do wrong, and will be blown out of proportion, and everyone will say, see, i told you so. we know that racial profiling is not legal, but i can guarantee you, mark my words, it will happen. it is not a good feeling at all. no one -- even the governor

herself said, i don't know what an immigrant looks at. my question is, how will we as citizens guaranteed without a doubt that every law-enforcement official in arizona will not be performed? if you can answer that, no problem. but my wife and i now we're going to buy property in arizona -- until the fix the problem, we're not buying property or visiting the state of arizona. host: before i let you go, when you were pulled over by the officer, what -- what was the reason he gave for pulling you over? caller: no, in 1999 and was driving my girlfriend's sports car at the time.

i was coming from boxing practice. he pulled me over, got me out of the car, handcuffed me, put me in the back of his cruiser. i was asking what i was doing -- was a speeding? he said no. then i asked what he pulled me over -- he said that he ran the place and it came back as a warrant in my name. he said that we think it is your wives after i said that it is not my car. trust me when i tell you, the racial profiling will happen. host: we will leave it there. guest: to this point, law enforcement in arizona is split

on this issue. there are several sheriff's to have already spoken up, saying that ranging from boll is racist to say that it will lead to racial profiling, there is already a police officer in arizona who has filed a lawsuit saying there is no way we can ask law-enforcement to implement this law without using racial profiling. so, i think it is not just our opinion. to the caller's point about what is happening in ariza, we appreciate the governor's words their racial profiling will not tolera my question is, why has it been tolerated up until now? people who live in phoenix and a certain county have been dealing with a certain sheriff who was notorious. he is facing lawsuits from u. citizens and legal immigrants who have been caught up in his outfit. host: next, a call from

minneapolis. caller: yes, i would like to make a few points and speak as long as the lasguy. americans are objecting to the fact that approxitely 30% of the felons and federal prison are illegal immigrants. we object to the fact that they are draining our social programs, to the fact that mexico would never allow us americans to come into their country illegally, get on their welfare program, take jobs illegally, steel identities, and up in federal prison to the tune of 30%. also, la raza means "the race." she accuses us of racism when we all know where all -- where [unintelligible] . . .

we need a system that put smart enforcement in place, not only on the border, but that makes sure that people who are authorized to work are. we cannot avoid the 10 to 12 people -- the 10 million to 12 million people in our communities who are

contributing. otherwise, you're not restoring the rule of law. i agree, we need to focus on criminals, but when you are saying that 30% of the population is federalese suspect, how do we expect law enforcement to actually distinguish and the criminals if everyone has been thrown into a category of suspicion. host: talk to us about the economics of this, not only from the standpoint of legal or illegal, but also for the ramifications of this boycott if this situation is not remedied.

>guest: we have ignored this system for the last 20 years. the system is not working for people coming through legal channels. what we need is a system that fixes the legal immigration system so that we can do away with illegal immigration. right now, even in the current economic environment where a lot of us are feeling excited, the majority of americans support the notion of allowing people to come up work, and pay their taxes, as a way of leveling the playing field for all taxpayers and all workers. in terms of the issue of the boycott, as i mentioned, we do

not take this lightly. this is going to affect innocent people. again, in collaboration with national civil rights organizations, unions and corporate partners, action needs to be taken. there is precedent for this reform. there was a boycott in the state of arizona when the state refused to recognize martin luther king jr.'s birthday as a holiday. there was a similar discussion. essentially, people coming together and taking an action allowed that to come forward. we hope that this a lot can be remedied through those actions. host: our next call comes from dave in austin texas. caller: i have a question on immigration. with everybody getting together

and representing that illegal immigrants that are coming to the country, why isn't any of this going on in mexico itself? also, what would be wrong with us having the same immigration rules that mexico has? guest: i do not know what immigration rules mexico has because i am an american and trying to fix our system. i agree that if there were better economic conditions in many other countries, probably most folks would choose to stay home. but we have of very powerful magnet here, jobs. if you look at what has happened with the flow of immigration, you will see that as jobs disappeared over time, that flow started to diminish. right now, the pressure is off

because employers are not saying they need workers, and those workers are not rushing to come. but that actually creates an opportunity for us to figure out how to fix the system. that is why i really hope the folks who are legitimately frustrated with this issue, as we have been for 20 years, that we can join together and demand that the white house and congress work together to fix this problem. next up, democrats arlington, texas. welcome. caller:hank you very much, and thank you for taking my call. i am so grateful for c-span. however, with ms. martinez this morning, let me say first of all, civil rights has no issue here. because the illegal comgrants have no rights. in texas, we have discovered lately that the illegal immigration problem here is so

intense that the number of people who receive benefits in the state of texas is larger than the population of 22 oth states. the drain on the economy is so intense and so overwhelming that if you went to the homeland security website, you will find the billions of dollars that the united stes is sustaining because of illegal immigrants. host: let me ask you, how would you go about remedying this situation? caller: listen, as far as i'm concerd, people walked over the border. they need to walk back over the border. al sharpton has got up there and said he is -- this is a civil rights issue. this is not a civil rights issue. host: we'll leave it there.

guest: well, i think d.h.s. a couple of years ago tried a program where they said anybody who wants to geteported come to our office and we will do it. ani think you can probably count on your hand the number of people who did that. so to carol's point, if we so to carol's point, if we simply expect that people are going to walk back 20 years neglecting this problem, we han't seen any evidence of that happening. so the reality here is that we do need to figure out how to x the system so that people do not continue to come in illegally, so that we take away so of the incentives that bad employers have to hire vulnerable workers and pit them against u.s. workers. and so the only way to really do that is to restore the rule of law by putting smarter measures in place to secure the border and make sure that we have a way that verifies the authorization of workers to work.

but, at the same time, to carol's point, people a not leaving. and i think that whewe discuss whether it is feasible, viable, practical, or even moral to round up 10 million people who many of them have u.s. spouses and children, u.s. citizens spouses and children, whether we as a country either from a cost perspective would like to do that, whether we think that's feasible, or whether we think that's moral. and i think americans, we are very pragmatic people. that's where we come to the conclusion that we need to fix this system, figure out how to require people to come forward and get good with the law and then concentrate on those who continue to skirt. host: you posted an item on the huffington post two months ago in march with the headline mr. in march with the headline mr. president, congress, the time for immigration reform is n. in your opinion, what specifically can the white

house and congress do to try and remedy this situation and walk back the law that's already been signed into effect in arizona? guest: well, actually, as the governor said, one of the reasons her statected is because the federal government hasn't acted. and that's where is a lot of the problem. on the one hand, the arizona law is going beyond comgration. it's sanctioning racial profiling. but in the issue of immigration, we kn that the fedel government is the one that has the jurisdiction to apply and enforce those laws. so here, what we're saying is this issue has been debated to death in congress over several years we have many members of years we have many members of congress who are there now who have voted to reform the system. we cannotontinue to let politics stand in the way of every major problem that our nation is facing because the reality is that the problem doesn't get any easier. host: who are you talking to on capitol hill and what exactly are they telling y about what

they want to see done? guest: well, who weeks ago, a band of senators came together with a proposal that follows the bipartisan archecture senator shumer and senator ndsey grahamrom south carolina have been discussing for months in a way to try to unstick the process and create the platform for an open biparsan solutions driven conversation. whatt includes is some of the measures that i think many folks have been talking about for years, smart voter enforcement, employer verification, a system that requires those here illegally to come forward, pay fines, pay taxes, learn english, and fixing our legal immigration system so that we don't end up where we are today in a couple of years. so that kind of proposal came forward. it actually includes a lot of elements that republics have been supporting. so we think it's a viable way to now start moving in the

solution direction. host: back to the phones as we continue our discussion regarding u.s. immigration policy. caller: i've been listening to what she's saying but they're not taking into conversation that they're draining thetate of california. we are an illegal city. it's so full of illegals until other people can't get into housing. they can't get -- if you go wn for commodities, there's illegals all the way down the line. some of these women have babies one right after another. and they can stay here. they also, they're into housing authorities. they're into section 8. their husbands work. their husbands work. they're not supposed to be living with their husbands. but they continue to get pregnant one right after another. you see them their husbands

drop them to welfare, you see the husbands drop them off to buy groceries. but hey're not living with them. zphroo so we are where we are. how do you fix the problem, in your opinion? guest: my problem is, if people want to work, let them come over here legally. or start a work program. that's fine. but we've got to do sething about this problem. california should be standing beside arizona, not putting stuff against or whatever they're doing over there. i just get so frustrated because i watch this. i've lived in california all my life. and let me tell you, i worked in the fields. families worked in the fields. the government has taken the families out of the fields and brought the i will legals in. and that's wrong. that's wrong. let the families go back to work. there was no problem in getting the field work done before.

i don't know what's wrong with our government. host: before we let you go, there was an item on the christian science monitor website last week, and it talked about california leading the ca for bcotts of arizona. on tuesday, seven members of the los angeles city council signed also on tuesday, san francisco gaven newsen proposed an immediate moratorium on city employees traveling to arizona. caller: i think they've got blinders on. i don't know what's wrong with california. every one of these people that live in california that they're in office, this is all they think about. money. host: we'll leave it there. guest: well, again, it's very clear that there's a great deal of frustration with the issue of immigration and the fact that this system is broken.

i kind of get a little pzled when i hear members of congress who actually have jurisdiction to fix this problem rail against federal inaction on this issue. and the only thing i feel at that point is like, wait a minute, aren't you a senator? aren't you a member of the hoe? well, it's your job to fix this. and frankly i think the american voter is getting frustrated with what they feel with congress is this is too hard. we can't do it. it's a huge problem and we can't fix it. or, this is a huge problem. the federal government needs to act and i'm going to need to do everything imy power to stop them from doing it. i think that if any of us had a job where that was our daily response, we would have gotten fired a long time ago. so i think it's time for leadershipn congress. i think the white house needs to step in a little stronger or much stronger. and i think the republicans need to really put their money where their mouth is about

really intending to fix this once and for a. host: phyllis from countryside, illinois. caller: good morning. and happy mother's day to all those out there. and i'm going to be 72 years old next month and you've heard me talk before on citizenship. most definitely it can be earned. and i'll tell you how. as a professional planner all our president has to do is call all the troops home, save trillions of dollars. now, to the illegals that are here, hey, you want to be a legal citizenwe're going to give it to you by letting you earn it. get down to galveston, louisiana, tnessee, help repair build, clean up. ok? give them housing, some kind of shelter and food. ok? and give them $100 a month. in the meantime, they clean up that mess and all the areas.

now, if they sign up and they do this work, they will then become legal citizens. become legal citizens. in the meantime, to stop the i will legals from coming here and to be able to pay for this type of program, all our president has to do is call the troops home. we would save trillions of dollars. we have 700 military bases. bring them all home, put them on the borders, put them at the ports. and another thing. stop it with the free trade. do something about equalizing the pay structure. host: we're going to leave it there. thanks for your call. guest: well, i think that people who sell the disaster -- saw the disaster that happened after katrina saw that a lot of immigrants came in and were part of the rebuilding process. but the reality is that many wererought in by unscrupulous employers and end up either not

paying them and definitely not able to provide a path to legal ization. because an employer can't do that. because that's why again we need the federal government to need the federal government to act and create a system that is not going to allow those batted actor employers to game those playing by the rules, and also in a way that undermines the wages and labor protections for our u.s. worningers. that's one of the things that we can do through immigration reform. in addition, right now we have a legal system that doesn't work. so if you're a legal system either for families to get reunited doesn't work, or for employers when they need them to bring workers legally, obviously we don't have those kinds o pressures right now. but if that system doesn't work then it feeds the illegalty. and that's what 've been seeing. host: how do you change the legal system the way it stands

so that people who are lig and so that people who are lig and working in the shadows lose their skepticism of what the process is and step forward and become part of the system? guest: well, right now the issue is that there is no line for them. i think a lot of us think that coming here, you can either choose to do it legally or illegally. the reality is that f a lot of the workers here in an illegal status, those channels, those legal channels are not there. there's about in any normal year there's about 5,000 visas for those kinds of workers. for those kinds of workers. and when our economy has been booming there's more employers trying to get workers. and like i said, i've been able to find each other. what we need is a system that is regulated as opposed to just people finding each other. and that way, people can do so legally. for those who are here, if we create a way for them to come forward and register with the government and go through background checks and pay

taxes, actually the majority of them would do so bause it is not a good thing to leave, to be livering in undocumented stasstuss. host: buddy sent us this e-mail from high point, north carolina. talk to us about this enforcement and going up against the businesses that actually hire illegal aliens. guest: well, right now we have a system where employers are supposed to verify the eligibility ofhe workers but i think there's a lot of ways to get around it.

and the proposal that democrats put on the table a couple of weeks ago actually calls for the use of technoly to be able to implement a system that is tamper proof and that is tamper proof and that employers are going to be able to follow. host: a biometric system. guest: they're talking about a biometric system. i think there needs to be debate on what form it takes. but some have discussed that look we have a social security card that hasn't been updated in forever. it's very easy to make copies of or to commit fraud. what if we make that something that is tamper proof, that then employers can verify. so i think there's ways in which we can reduce the job magnet and also make sure that magnet and also make sure that good employers are not gamed by bad employers. and again, that goes to the point. if we do those things, then w can prevent bad actor employers from gaming the system and also pitting u.s. worke

>> tomorrow in washington journal, a discussion of offshore drilling and the environment. a law professor talks about the history of banking regulations, and their impact on the current economic situation, and a look at economic parallels between california and countries. -- and greece. president barack obama gave his second commencement speech of the season to the graduating class of hampton university in virginia. this is about 20 minutes. >> thank you, hampton.

thank you class of 2010. please have a seat. i love you back. that is why i am here. i love you guys. good morning, everybody. to all of the mothers in the house, as somebody who is surrounded by women in the white house, grew up surrounded by women, let me take a moment just to sit thank you. -- to say thank you for all that you put up with each and every day. we are so grateful to you, and

we are glad to have such a beautiful day when we celebrate our mothers. thank you for allowing us to share this special occasion. for all of the dignitaries that are here, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins. before we get started, i just want to say that the battle of the real hu will be taking place in washington this year. we know that i am not going to take sides. my understanding is depth -- my understanding is that it has been 30 years since the pirates lost. [applause] as one hampton alumni on my

staff put it, at the last time it happened, the fujis were still together. [laughter] let me also say a word about presidents harding, the man who leads hampton blue. in a single generation, this has transformed from a small black college to a world-class research institution. that transformation has come through the efforts of many people, but it has come through president harvey's efforts in particular. i want to commend him for his outstanding leadership. [applause] most of all, i want to

congratulate all of you, the class of 2010. i gather that none of you walked across the circle. you did? ok. you know, we meet here today, as graduating plazas have met for generations, not far from where it all began, by that old oak tree on emancipation and drive -- emancipation drive. there, beneath its branches, about 20 students gathered on

september 28th 1854, taught by free citizens in defiance of a virginia law. the students were freed slaves from nearby plantations who had fled and were seeking asylum. the union and general sought to enshrine a legacy of a word -- of learning. hampton normal and the agricultural institute was founded here. the story is no doubt familiar to many of you, but it is worth reflecting on why it happened, why so many people went to such trouble to found hampton and all of our historical black colleges and universities. the founders of these

institutions new, of course, that inequality was persistent. they were not naive. they recognized that barriers in our laws would not vanish overnight. but they also recognized a larger truth, a distinctly american truth. they've recognized that the right education might allow those barriers to be overcome, might allow or our god-given potential to be fulfilled. they recognize that education means emancipation. it recognized that education is how america and its people might fulfill its promise. that recognition, that truth,

that education can fortified us, allow us to bring down barriers and to meet any test, is reflected again and again throughout our history. in the midst of civil war, we set aside grants for colleges like hampton to train up farmers and industrialists the skills for a new generation. rebuilt and broadened our great middle class. we set study centers to help graduate understand and address the threat of a nuclear age. education is what has always allowed us to meet the challenges of a changing world. that has never been more true than it is today.

this class is graduating at the time of great difficulty for america and for the world. you are entering a job market in an era of heightened international competition with an economy that is still rebounding from the worst crisis since the great depression. you are accepting your degree as america still wages two wars, wars that many of your generation have been fighting. meanwhile, you are coming of age in a 24/7 media environment, bombarded with content and exposed to all kinds of thoughts, some of which do not always rank that high on the truth meter. ipods, ipads, x boxes and play stations, none of which i know how to work. information becomes a

distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of an apartment, rather than a means of intent -- of emancipation. all of this is putting pressure on you, our country, on our democracy. this is a time of change like few others in our history. we cannot stop these changes. but we can channel them. we can ship them. we can come at them. and education is what will allow us to do so. it will fortify you, as it did earlier generations, to meet the test of your own time. first and foremost, your education can afford to buy you against the uncertainties of the 21st century economy.

in the 19th century, people could get by with a few basic skills. they could get them at the school like hampton or pick them up along the way. as long as you were willing to work, for much of the 20th century a high-school diploma was a way to a solid middle- class existence. that is no longer the case. new jobs today often require at least a bachelor's degree. that degree is even more important in times like these. the unemployment rate for folks who have never gone to college is over twice as high as for folks with a college degree or more. the good news is, you are already ahead of the curve. the check you or your parent wrote to hampton will pay off. you are in a strong position to out compete workers around the world, but i do not have to tell

you that too many folks at home are not as well prepared. too many people just like you are not as well prepared by any number of different yardsticks. african-americans are being outperform by their white classmates, as are hispanic americans. students in well off areas are outperforming students in the poor or rural communities, no matter what their skin color. globally, american students are ranked 10th compared to global schools. all of us have a responsibility as americans to change. we must offer every single child in this country and education that will make them competitive

in our new economy. that is our obligation as a nation. [applause] but i have to say, class of 2010, all of you have a separate responsibility. be role models for your brothers and sisters. the mentors in your community. when that time comes to pass the education valued down at to your children, a sense of personal responsibility and self-respect, a work ethic, and an ambition that made it possible for you to be here today. allowing you to compete in the global economy is the first with your education can prepare you, but it can also allow you to

compete as citizens. so many voices are clamoring for attention on blogs and talk radio that it can be difficult to sift through it and know what to believe, know who is telling the truth and to is not. people say some of the craziest things in a completely same fashion. i have had some experience with that. fortunately, you will be well- positioned to aggregate the truth. education has honed your research abilities, sharpen your analytical powers, and giving you a better understanding of the world. those skills will come in hand. the goal is always to teach us something more. over the past four years you have argued both sides of the debate. you have to read novels and studied history. you have discovered interest you

did not know you had. you make friends who did not grow up the same way you did. you try things you have never done before, including some things we will not talk about in front of your parents. [laughter] all of this, i hope, has had the effect of opening your mind, of helping you to understand what it is like to walk in somebody else's shoes. now that your mind has been opened, you need to keep it that way. it will be up to you to open mind that remain closed as you go along the way. that is the elemental test of any democracy, whether people with differing points of view can learn from each other, work with each other, and find a way forward together. i have one further observation. just as your education can forth by you, it can also fortify our nation. -- fortify you, it can also

fortify our nation. we must be able to compete not just in our boardrooms, but in our classrooms, in our schools, and in universities like cotton. -- like hampton. what is at stake is more than our ability to out compete other nations, it is our ability to make democracy work in our own nation. years after he left office, decades after he signed the declaration of independence, thomas jefferson sat down about 2 hour drive from here and wrote a letter to a long time legislature urging him to do more for education. give one principal reason -- he gave one principle reason.

"if the nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." jefferson recognize, like the rest of that gifted generation, that in the long run, america's improbable experiment would not work if its citizens or uninformed, apathetic, if they stepped back and left democracy to those that did not have the best interests of all the people at heart. it could only work if each of us stayed informed and engaged, if we held our government accountable, if we fulfill the obligations of citizenship. the success of their experiment depended upon the participation of its people, participation of americans like all of you.

participations of all those who had ever thought arafat. i had the great honor -- or fought for america. i had the privilege last week of honoring a civil rights leader. she passed away at the age of 98. one of the speakers at her memorial was a nephew who was 88. i said, that is a sign of a full life, when your nephew is 88. she had been on the firing line for every fight, from lynching to desegregation, from the

battle for health care reform. she was with eleanor roosevelt, and she was with michelle obama. she lived a singular life, one of the giant upon his shoulders i stand. but she started out just like you. she understood that to make something of herself, she needed a college degree. so she applied to barnard in.lege, and she got a but when she showed up, they discovered she was not quite as they had believed -- white, as they had believed. they had already given their two spots for african americans

to other individuals. and dorothy was not discouraged. she was not deterred. with the acceptance letter in hand, she marched down to new york university and said, "let me in." she was admitted right away. i want all of you to think about this. there have probably been hard exams.nd hard you have felt put upon. undoubtedly, you will face other challenges. but i want you to think about a black woman in 1929 refusing to be denied the dream of a college education, refusing to be denied her rights, refusing to be

denied her dignity, refusing to be denied her place in america, a piece of the american promise, refusing to let any barriers of injustice or ignorance or inequality or unfairness stand in her way. that refusal to except a lesser fate, that insistence on a better life, that ultimately is the secret not only upon of -- not only of african american survival and success, it is the secret of american survival and success. so yes, an education can fortified as to beat the test of our economy, but what ultimately makes us americans, quintessentially american, is

something that cannot be taught , stubborn insistence on pursuing our dreams. it is the same insistence that led a man to overthrow an empire, that freed the slaves, the founded schools like hampton, that led people to breathe fire hoses and billy clubs -- brave fire hoses and billy clubs, that led a generation to toil away quietly without complaint in the hopes of a better life for their children and grandchildren. that is what makes us who we are. a dream of brighter days ahead, faith in things not seen, a belief that here in this

country, we are the authors of our own destiny. that is what hampton is all about. it now falls to you, class of 2010, to write the next great chapter in america's story, to meet the test of your own time, and to take up the ongoing work of the killing the promise. i am looking forward to watching it. -- to take up the ongoing work of fulfilling that promise. i am looking forward to watching it. thank you, and god bless america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> our public affairs content is available on television,