immigration law with a former ims officer. this is "washington journal." . . for another stop of his white house-to-mean street tour, to talk about jobs and the economy. good morning on this thursday, may 13, 2010, and we'll begin with "the washington post" editorial. it's time to debate the increasing polarization of the nation's politics is fueling a

blood sport in this election year. the ideological purification of both parties. we want to know from you do you want your party representative to toe the line? we'll get to your comments in a moment but says here in "the washington post" robert benett -- liberals have targeted blanch lincoln in a may 18, primary. others hope to punish politicians they view as insufficiently devoted to party creed. scientists might say there's nothing wrong with this but some ought to stand for something. those who used to be called rockefeller republicans, believes in activist government, may feel more at

home as democrats. there's value to clarity in such things, but there are dangers, too. the world is complicated. and the electorate so diverse cannot be shoehorned into two, fixed templates. there's no reason why gun ownership should be favored. the great ter number of voters who will find themselves politically homeless. so do you want your representative to to you the party line? caller: good morning c-span. thank you for the opportunity speak. i wanted to andersen, yes. i think it's -- i wanted to answer, yes. i think it's important for our represent if6s to do what we want them to do and the battle

in washington, d.c. is a natural thing. if it gets heated, it's just the way it has to be. host: so you want, as a republican, all the republicans to be very consecutive? -- very conservative? and what do you think all republicans should agree on? caller: well, i think republicans stand for the status quo to the extent that basically we want the rule of law enforced with the constitution and it seems the democrats are always on the opposite side of that. so there's this constant tug and pull, but as long as conservatives become more conservative and show our nation the history of conservativism and how it was founded in that light. and we need progressive change, but slow change, not on bankrupt change.

-- not abrupt change. host: should republicans compromise on how to tackle the deficit? some republicans or -- it says here in "the washington post" that some republicans offered tax cuts as a solution to all problems no matter the level of taxation and democrats defend every form no matter how unaffordable. should republicans try another fomple other than tax cuts? caller: when republicans are for tax cuts, there's a lot of demagogue that says it's only for big business but it's proven out that democrats are for big business. so i'm saying when they talk about tax cuts, it's because they understand fundamentally. there's just a lot of lobbying

from the left, because their constituency is really the government people. that's coming to light around the world. we have this layer that's been growing in a sub lime way for quite a while. and the pensions have grown out of control, so yes, i think they need to you the line to let the american people know that big government doesn't work. host: go ahead. caller: yes. um i think -- i think that the people are moving in the right direction with the president. they are getting rid of all of that -- both democrats and republicans. that are holding up the president's plans. they will not give his plan a chance. that's both democrats and republicans.

and i think the black leadership, the black caucus, i think they should bow their made the shame, the way that they are putting [inaudible] on the best president we have ever had. host: all right rose lynn on the democratic line, should all democrats to you the party line in your opinion? caller: no. nor do i think republicans should. i think we have seen the result of that. this past year, in trying to get health reform passed. we should do what is best for the american people. we should put aside our personal beliefs and go with the american people, because they were the ones who put us where we are.

so i think in some instances, we have to go against party lines. i think some of the republicans who wanted to go for health reform were pressured not to do it. and just to be contrary to the president. and that is polarization, where you have two parties who are going against each other strictly on ideology and not on principal. host: "the washington post" points to two senators, robert benett who most of you know lost his bid for re-election in a primary in utah last saturday, as well as lincoln a democrat from arkansas who is facing a primary on tuesday. and "the washington post" says both of them have come under attack for their vote to rescue the nation's economy for the

tarp bill. folks might have a legitimate right to complain but this is not one of them. this is "the washington post" editorial this morning. for many party cleanseers working across party lines is treason. we think they ought to be guided by principals they are willing to fight for. but we see fidelity to parole and dogmatism. nothing will get done, no energy policy, for example,. mr. benett worked to develop a bipartisan health bill. in the service -- but that bipartisan effort became a leading charge in activists indictment of benett.

westwood, new jersey, harold, what do you think on the republican line? caller: i certainly want one of the terrific people in this country, i want him to to you the platform of the republican party. the platform is well thought out. they argue for months and years to get the platform what it is. our platform is primarily against the supreme court pushing our government into more and more medical procedures. in 1973, they got into medicine. babies are tortured only for the convenience of the abortionists. arms and legs are painfully removed. this is torture. host: harold, we'll leave it there. as we mentioned president obama heads to buffalo, new york, today, to continue his white house-to-main street tour.

joining us is the washington bureau cleef for the washington news. your piece this morning is hoping for a glimpse of the president. people will be gathering in buffalo. why is the president coming to buffalo? caller: i think the president is coming to buffalo, because he traveling around to place that is have suffered economically. and he is carrying the message that he hears what people are saying about the economy, and about the troubles that have happened here and there. buffalo has had economic problems for decades, not just months or years. and so the problems here are deeper in a lot of ways than they are in other parts of the country, and yet i think the president came here as well, because in the last week or two, he's gotten better news to tell in a jobs report that shows 290,000 jobs created in the last month. and it's the fourth month in a

row in which there was a gain, so i think he's coming here to spread that news to say it's working. to say that his plan is working. host: and what will he be telling new york residents? caller: he will be going to industrial support to meet with workers. from what i hear he'll be carrying the message i just spoke about. and he'll also be challenging republicans and democrats to work with him on capitol hill on further measures to keep jobs growing. host: and where will he go after this event? does he have other events in buffalo? public? private? caller: he has one meeting with a group ofal families who lost loved ones in the plane crash here in clarence, new york in february of 2009.

it's unclear exactly when or where that meeting will be. it's totally private and likely to be brief. there's also a possibility he will make one unscheduled stop. on previous tours he's done that. gone to restaurants, a farmer's market, different places that kind of would surprise people. and so there is the possibility of that, although it's not certain, and then when the day is done here in buffalo, he's flying to new york city for a democratic fundraiser. host: and "the new york times" has a piece about a u.s. judge blocking if you are lows of new york state workers across the state. the judge blocked about 100,000 state workers from missing a day of pay. the governor wants to do this in order to save about $250 million in a $9 billion budget gap. giveren that, what do you think

that does to the environment of -- for president obama today? caller: well, i really think that that issue is a little too pa tickler -- peculiar. -- a little too pa tickler. although his crisis is deeper and more severe and more long-lasting. he may very well make the argument that the stim louse bill that was passed a year ago really delayed a lot of this. there is no doubt that a lot of the stim louse money did go to government to keep teachers on the payroll and to keep state governments fiscally stable, so he may make that argument. but the problem for new york is that money is running out and

there is not that fallback they had last year. host: thank you for joining us. caller: thank you. host: back to your phone calls about whether or not you want your representative to to you the party line. on the independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. back when georgal wallace said there was not a difference in the parties, that's probably still right. i think the representatives that to you the party line ought to start try that to you the party line -- that tow the party line ought to start trying to do what's best for the country and stop towing the party line, because i think it's destroying the country. in the 21st century, the people

running it, and plus, the people running what's happening in these primaries, they ought to wake up and realize it's a new day. a lot of them are going to be looking for another job. thank you c-span. host:en on the democratic line, good morning, karen? caller: hi. my opinion is that republicans have always towed the party line. that was the problem with bush for eight years. they always did what he said. and now we have a democrat in there and we've got all this bipartisanship and bipartisanship and that's why nothing is getting done. they can't agree on anything. i think if the democrats would stand behind the president and vote the way he asked them to vote, we would have had a better health care plan. when it comes to cuts and everybody wants to make cuts and the deficit and budget is too big, why are we always cutting social programs and the

lower end of the scale? how about all these -- how about all the endowments and the money that goes to big corporations and you know, how about even their salaries? how their salaries keep going up, and i know this year they did something about not giving themselves races but they give they musts raises regularly. billions are being spent in big money out there. not talking about cutting someone's medicare or cutting school programs. that's a lot of money, too, but that's for the people. the people are the ones that pay the taxes. the government is supposed to be working for the people, not for corporations, and the amount of money that goes to corporations, as far as handouts and stuff like that, that all comes right out of all our money that we've been

spending. and i don't think we agree with that. we don't even know what money they are goifing who? and why? that's the kind of money we ought to cut. but if the democrats would stick together and trust the president, because i trust him very much. host: is there a way to push back against the 3406789 toward partisanship and paralysis? -- the movement toward partisanship and paralysis? in the months before the election we intend to provide a forum on our letters and op-ed pages to continue the discussion. is it a new phenom arising from new factors such as cable, internet or computer-assisted redistricting? the postpartum goes on to say -- the "post" goes on to say

that undoubtedly many americans are put off by the party pure tans. after the bipartisan crime was defeated mr. widen told us that he would keep trying. this is when you've got to measure what elected officials are all about, he said. we want to know from you, do you want your respective to tow the party line? to be republican line, go ahead. caller: i guess i like them to tow the party line when they vote in a way that i agree with. my biggest issue is, i think that the unborn children is innocent life, and they should not be terminated. so i will never vote for somebody that is in favor of abortion, but i think whenever

people vote their conscience, whether they are democrats or republicans, i believe it makes us a better country. i know some of our founding fathers were against the party system. but i'm just wondering who is in control of the party system? so i like to see representist who have a mind of their own and are voting their conscience. host: front page of the "wall street journal," voters shifting to g.o.p. a new poll finds republicans have solid phase to voters who have drifted puting the g.o.p. in position for a strong comeback in november's mid campaign. they have reconstructed their coalition. their voters who had moved away from the party in the election in which the republicans lost control of the house in 2006.

according to this new nbc "wall street journal" poll. jim on the independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. i think that the main reason we're stuck in the place we're in, is because people claim to be holding on to these party lines. the best course of anything is in the middle. there has to be some type of collaboration in order to get anything done. if there's no team effort, then it's a constant struggle. and there's no better evidence when we watch the debates with the health care and just talking about immigration right now, where people are really -- there's, like, this hatred that's not american. it's not even a good thing. and if we don't find a way to

do just like the -- did when nobody had power. i know they met in the back room, but the point is they came together to come to some type of conclusion that would best serve the british people, and that's what our politicians need to do. they need to stop serving their own self-ish noods, because they tow the party line -- needs, because they tow the party line just to get elected. host: "the new york times" this morning on financial regulation has a story about prosecuters in new york asked if eight banks duped the rating agencies. the attorney general started an investigation to determine whether they provided misleading information to rating agencies in order to inflate the rating of mortgage agencies. inquiries into the business practices spot companies years

before the collapse of the housing market. the bill making its way through the senate, here is the financial senate. a ban on liar loans. there was an approval to ban liar loans. those who allow borrowers to overstate their income determined to be one of the causes of the crisis. the income documentation proposed by democrats had rare bipartisan agreement on housing policy. doris on the democratic line, what do you think about your representative towing the party line? caller: there's only a few things i would like for them to tow the party line on and the rest are negotiable. but they should tow the line on supporting american workers and not outsourcing jobs and

women's rights for choice. women have the same right as men. it's not negotiable. two basic things definitely should tow party lines. the republicans not only want a pure party, they want a pure society. people need to be really, really clear on what a pure society is. thank you. host: granger, indiana, bob, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. yes, i want them to tow the line and stand up against man that has vowed to change our country, and i don't want to live in a socialist country. things were going along just fine, until the democrats took over the congress, that's when everything started to go down the drain. if people would just think who controls the money? congress does, not the president. that's when everything started going in the toilet is when the

democrats took over. host: later in the program we'll be talking about a new energy bill unveiled by senator john cary and senator lieberman on capitol hill. we'll talk with darren samuelson about that legislation. what's in it. we'll get a premiere on that later in the program. also the financial times front page has a story about the british petroleum executives testifying on capitol hill. multiple failures led to the bp oil spill. it's in the times as well as other papers. and a story about president obama's pick, nominee for the court. made her way to the hill. charleston, west virginia harry on the independent line, what do you think? caller: good morning. thank you for taking the call. i'll be brief. i know there's a lot of callers

on this. first point, the founding fathers on this country never envisioned political parties the way they have evolved, in fact, they have tested the parties that have contributed to the mess we're in right now. the partisanship is the result of these parties that were never -- they are not functioning, because americans have turned themselves over to the political parties. bottom line is in west virginia we had an election yesterday, one of the two states that did. the editorial in our paper this morning for the incumbent that had been there 20-plus years, towing the party line was considered a lieibility. we will clean-sweep in west virginia all our congressional delegation within the next 4-6

years, and the reason is, is that in a representative democracy called a republic, these voters are going to exercise their rights based on independent judgment. not what a party says. because in this state, as we saw yesterday, the incumbents lost to a very conservative parole. so you vote -- principal. so you vote on that. on principal. so organizations like c-span have to educate, giving basic civic lessons that partys are not really vent. it's the principals that are really vent. host: writing in the "wall street journal" how badly will democrats do? he writes though this will likely turn on national concerns lit come down to

contests, no question good republican candidates will make this a perhaps epic election for the g.o.p. obama followers should beaware. caller: good morning. in general, i would like them to tow the party line. but let me mention something as far as voting. there's a financial bill coming up. a bill senator harkin is bringing an amendment to that is horrible and will instantly cost thousands of jobs. seems like the credit card companies or the banks wrote this bill. it just shows you what happens when you've got 14,000 pages and you've got these pages stick these amendments in at the last minute.

harkin's people or staff, wherever they got this idea of this amendment, it's horrible. it's going to instantly cost 5,000 jobs and the credit card companies and banks will benefit. either harkin's staff is naive or they know what they are doing or the credit card companies snuck this thing in there. host: and here's the national section of "the new york times." tampa, florida, for the 2012 presidential convention. marion, ohio, rich to be republican line, you're our last phone call. go ahead. caller: thank you. certain things that make it impossible to compromise is when the national debt is being driven up until we are going to go into slavery over it because of how high they are driving it that weaver going to owe so much money that we will be enslaved to china. and the abortions, it's getting

to a point where you can't compromise on these issues as much as you try to be a nice guy. host: another headline from this morning, obama reassures karzai but both steer clear of worrisome topics. the president's peting and one of the newspapers reports president karzai and secretary of state hillary clinton will be taking what is noted in the paper as a long walk, and also the paper says that he is -- that she is one of his most trusted allies in the obama administration. also "usa today" this morning has this headline "affing began now outpaces iraq costs, the first time since 2003." we're going to talk about afghanistan and president karzai's visit with a republican from colorado.

we'll be right back.

>> he is in if you buy -- but on the entire schedule at book tv.org. >> joyce describes what capitalism is an economic system. this is on c-span. >> defending the united states against cyber attacks. under secretary philip reitinger, to roll of private networks in social security. on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: mike coffman represents

the six districts, here to talk about president karzai's visit. they clear the air at white house. two leaders look ahead to critical period of the war. what is your take? guest: there has been a lot of friction. eikenberry, iken ve particularly over the issue of corruption in afghanistan, the afghan ty of the ever me government to have a strategy to take hold for a policy there to

be successful. there has been friction. hopefully -- i think the carping back-and-forth has not been productive. this at least settles back and allows us to move forward. host: what to be the strategy from the obama administration? should it be carrots and sticks? guest: carrots and sticks. do it publicly does not quite take into account the political call for afghanistan and the notion of faced in that culture politically. this brings it to an understanding of that and allows us to move forward. host: what about the effort from the administration on the ground to work around karzai and to build up these local governments? how is that ever going? guest: -- how is that effort

going? guest: we are working to utilize our paid as a primary mechanism to do that. president karzai has not been happy about that but i think it's a positive direction in the american policy towards afghanistan. host: should that be a bigger priority in legislation? guest: in terms of this policy, i think it is. i think is a positive direction. host: what about the defense authorization bill? guest: i do not think we will get into the weeds that far at that level. we are looking -- it will involve the overall funding of the policy itself. host: this is -- a story

acknowledges president obama and president karzai that the war is likely to worsen in the months ahead. what should americans be looking ?or, bracing for tax guest guest: the taliban stronghold is kandahar. it is fair to say we do in fact have nominal control over the city of kandahar. is the spiritual center of the taliban. but we do not control the agriculture areas outside of kandahar. the upcoming operation will be -- there will be a major push to control the agriculture areas outside of kandahar. the joint operation of -- the u.s., our allies, and security forces to do that.

there will be a heavy push that will involve a lot activities and it will involve a spike in casualties. host: president obama reaffirmed his commitment to withdraw troops by july, 2011, saying we will have a presence in afghanistan after that. do you think this situation bodes well for meeting those goals? guest: i think it was a political statement. he never said what that meant. we know we have a troop cap of about 9000. thenever said what do reduction means. general mcchrystal understands if the needs more trips beyond the 98,000, he will get those. i think it is relatively

meaningless in terms of substance. host: what do you think the goals should be in afghanistan? guest: hopefully it will be successful in kandahar. it will be a turning point then that it will ultimately be up to the afghans to win this war and i hope we will be able to have success in kandahar and we will begin to phase down our forces in kandahar. host: what will you be watching for in afghanistan? guest: how we're doing militarily in kandahar and how the afghans are filling that once we are successful in terms of promoting security. is the afghan government successful in terms of providing governments in the wake of that

security? that is going to be key. host: what about the corruption issue in afghanistan. it was not talked about over the yesterday in the press conference. what should the administration be doing on that issue? guest: i think the administration through general mcchrystal is working through that issue fairly aggressively. it is a major sticking point and i think they're working like circumventing the central government and working directly through local officials. they are doing that primarily by holding local officials more accountable in working directly for them as opposed to giving it to the central government and

allow it to filter through layers of government to get to the local officials. you would normally want to do that. your than exercising the mechanism of governments at every level. it is unfortunate that we have experience doing that that we have experienced corruption of this government. and so through that, we have found it is better simply to say, we're going to instead of doing that, we're going to go directly and work with our counterparts at local level instead of working at the central government and allowing them to work with their counterparts. host: our guest is mike coffman. mike from new york, you are on the air. are you with us? caller: can you hear me?

i have a comment that has to do with the attacks on the insurgency. i keep hearing people talk about this. it is the reason they want to attack us because we're killing them with drones. no matter what we do, they will find the reason to want to say -- is just like guantanamo. there will still have a reason to attack us. guest: i agree on that. this administration has been more aggressive in terms of hunting down terrorists on the pakistan side of the border and targeting them with precision. in doing everything they can to mitigate the collateral damage

to civilians and that is part of the ability to utilize this technology in terms of the ordnance and utilizing these platforms in these drones. host: you think the united states should continue with this strategy. guest: absolutely. host: and the from knoxville. dy from not so. caller: it seems to me that we have our own corruption here in the united states in the form of -- public health care at the health and human service admits to one of his 7 $5 billion a year in losses -- $175 billion

in losses. there was testimony within the last three weeks where but be individual use the word "fraud" his testimony. i think maybe for the first time. that was a study that said the waste could be as much as 50 cents. guest: there is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse in the medicare system. let me just back up. in the afghan policy. let me just say as a veteran, i do not believe in nation building as a principle to for achieving america's foreign policy objectives, as noble as they are. i think george bush's first step

was brilliant. we were attacked on 9/11 by al qaeda, who was given safe harbor by the taliban and they refused to turn over osama bin laden. we gave logistical support to the anti-taliban forces and more than a light and spirit they pushed the taliban out. we made a wrong turn. we should have used our leverage to form some type of governance to prevent the anti- taliban forces into some type of governance that fit the political cost of the country. instead, we pushed them aside. they got the government that wanted and now we are defending that. it is what it is. i think we have to see it through to some reasonable level.

i think this is not the direction the country should go and i think we should support factions in their region that share our strategic interest in respect of the government's of that given country. host: does that mean not supporting karzai in certain regions? guest: now that we are there, we have to see it through. i think we have to support the political process. i think we are there and i think we have to support this process through. going forward, we have to rethink this out and this whole notion of nation building and i think we need a more sophisticated view of this. going forward, i think we have

to say, do we think nation building should be used as a principle to in achieving our foreign policy objectives? my answer is no. i helped iraq with their elections and the establishment of local governments in 2005 and 2006. i walked away with an understanding that i did not feel it was the right way to go. host: do you think mr. karzai is a legitimate head of government? guest: i think that he is. hindsight is always 20/20. the question and i believe in that great historical hindsight of 20/20, what should the united states have done? after the northern alliance chased the taliban out, we

should have used our leverage to say, you're in charge of the country. let's bring -- you need -- the pashtuns, cannot ignore them. let's bring them into some kind of governance with the number orthern alliance. it was not a western-style represents a form of government. we will support you so long as you share our strategic interest in the region. that means keeping al qaeda out and keeping the taliban out. we will support issue as long as you do that instead of this heavy footprint of using u.s. forces in the region and u.s. taxpayer dollars to build this country. i think it is a drain on us.

but now i think we're midway through this process and now that we are through this process, we have to recently finished it. host: colorado springs. nancy. caller: i was watching television, i do not know what show. the people were convinced that it was the cia that set up the planes flying into the towers. nobody could convince them differently, even fellow former terrorists. i did see that on television. no matter how -- he tried to explain. they insisted upon it.

the second thing, the region -- the like to have power over them in some way. they have turned to a leader, so the look to whoever is winning. and so if the united states is losing, they will turn to the taliban or the al qaeda or whoever and so we have to show strength, we have to show force. we have to prove our dominance. guest: i believe that. once you make that commitment, you see it through. i had tremendous questions about iraq, but i volunteered to go there. we are finishing the job there.

i believe we have to finish the job in afghanistan. that does not mean we have to give the afghans the capacity to finish the job. i believe it is doable, that alternately they will do it. it gives them the time and space to be able to develop their security forces to be able to essentially is the the taliban. it doesn't mean to do it ourselves. we are in fact -- we will have our combat forces out of iraq by august. we will be down to assist the brigades and we will be complete of iraq on schedule by the end

of 2011. i hope after this mission in kandahar is complete that we will in fact be drawing down our forces in afghanistan. host: was barack a success -- was iraq a success? guest: again, my feeling about nation-building. i feel we have the northern third and the southern third of iraq under sanctions no-fly zones. the kurds and the shiites were sitting on top of the country which was a life blood aregime. believe it would have collapsed if we did not put u.s. boots on

the ground. it might have been a different regime. i believe it should have been air ball. i think the cost at the end of the day is too high, and so i think we need to be more realistic about our foreign policy. host: linda it in arizona on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i have a couple of suggestions and a question. is there a reason why we cannot buy up the entire crop, whoever we have to pay, and taking and we can use it for morphine? transplant them if we have to to eradicate them. even burn them and replant the soybeans or whenever.

not the land, just the crop. host: we will leave it there and get a response. guest: we're working on crop substitution. early in this war, we were in fact when we were under the new administration, first looking at destroying the crops and decided we would make more enemies with farmers. i think the target right now is to get the middle layer and the upper layer of the distribution system of the opium, the taliban are heavily involved in and to target that and try to knock that off and to not only as a way of mitigating their drug export but also denying revenue

to the taliban. host: there is a story about the poppy harvest and set a mysterious once last rate of the entire harvest this spring. stevensville, maryland. caller: i just wanted to refer to the elephants in the room. one was afghanistan and the q.her was a ira if we invaded because 3000 people died in new york, what is it we have gone from almost zero production of opium to about 300,000 tons of opium production this year? guest: you know, -- certainly that is a concern.

the bigger concern is the stability of that region, the fact that -- to deny afghanistan as a safe-haven for the launching of terrorist attacks and to keep nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists in pakistan. i think that is the simple focus. drugs are important but it is not the central focus of american foreign policy. host: manassas, virginia. , are you with us that you are on the air. caller: you were talking about possibly drawing out of iraq on the current timeline of 2011. the government does not want to withdraw power.

the soon to be elected prime minister is in power. how do you foresee us ever getting out if they cannot shift power in the most simplest of fashions? guest: that is true. if in fact -- so far it seems to be going through the political process. i have learned that they have abandoned -- they have abandoned some of their efforts and they have reinstated them, which i think is a positive move. we're going to be watching how the new government forms. so far, they have in fact been going through all the political processes in terms of following through on the complaints and contesting the election results. and so that has been

encouraging. but there has always been a concern about whether the government is going to relinquish power. it is a close election. we are in fact watching that. if there was a political instability, it could adversely affect of the withdrawal of u.s. forces. according to the agreement, it would require the acquiescence of both parties, the united states and the government of iraq, to change the schedule of withdrawal of u.s. forces. it is not simply a unilateral decision by the united states to extend our forces. we're dealing with a sovereign government.

host: there is an editorial ways than. confronting the leader had on was not working. we felt they have a real plan to do what is needed and for building up a minimally effective afghan government. host:or wayne, indiana. chris. caller: i am sure i am not going to get everything i want to say in here. i would like to compliment the representative for his budget for putting his country first before his party. that is a very important thing. enbolden theek in golde

terrorist. they just hate the president. i cannot believe back in 2001, 2003, the whole country caught the eye president bush. we put our support behind him and we knew how important it was. in afghanistan, i think we're doing all the right things. i don't want to see us stay there for a long time. one more thing. i have to say this. president obama is a father, a family man, and any other time, republicans would elevate this type of person. he could be a good role model. for people who are looking for him as a role model and to hear people putting him down so badly, how do we ever get

people to aspire to things if we put down everybody who makes it some more and does good in life? host: do you agree with the comments both internationally and domestically? guest: i am concerned about deficits and debt. i did not think the president is showing the proper leadership when it comes to controlling spending. i am concerned about that. defense is the largest part discretionary spending. spending and debt, if it is not controlled, i believe it will collapse on the largest part of discretionary spending and that his defense. i worry about the future of this country, critically in terms of national security. host: would you cut defense spending to address the deficit? guest: i think the biggest

issue that i will be showing leadership on -- i have formed the first bipartisan caucus, the balanced budget amendment with congressman jim marshall of georgia. i think it is the most important thing we have to push. the problem is we do not have the debate between health care or defense. everybody gets their own way. we just drive the deficit and put off making the hard decisions. i think someday we will be a greece i think it will come crashing down. i want to fend that off. i believe -- i have taken the same proposal that has passed in 1995 and 1997. it died in the house and senate by one vote.

i believe the american people want this. i think after the 2010 election, i will do a major push to make it happen. a balanced budget amendment. . .

taxpayers' dollars, in terms of purchasing weapons, the services that are needed for our war fighters, in a more comfortable active manner than we do today. i am working on the issue as we work with other members of congress, there are things that we can do to improve the congress -- a process. host: here is a story about the congress. air and land forces subcommittee will be looking at a bill that could cut $1 billion in army programs.

the early infantry combat team. do you agree with this cut? guest: we had a discussion in the subcommittee yesterday. we did not believe that testing proved to be affected for those systems, and we ought to cut the strings for those programs. host: jeff on the independent line. caller: i would like to thank you for your service to the country, but i have a question for you. the afghan people have said when the american soldiers are there, the town then goes away. when they go away, the town then comes back and -- taliban comes

back in. the administration does not go by what the general says will wither in afghanistan. being prior service, i was always tired of conagra's, senators, the president -- congress, senators, the president sticking their noses into what weaver doing. -- we were doing. guest: i think that is the nature of a counterinsurgency operations, and that is when the government is important in this. can you develop that local governments peace? -- governance piece? things like the local police, which will be there after we

leave, but total of afghan security forces, the army, national police as well -- and that is the challenge, what general mcchrystal and his folks are working on. i think they are making progress, but it is a slow move. that is why i go back to say prospectively, this is not a wise direction for the country to go in. the fact that we are here now in afghanistan, we are there now, we need to do our best to support this administration and make it work. host: and vernon on the democratic line. dayton, ohio. caller: this is my first time calling in. i appreciate you taking my call.

my first question is concerning the hostages from desert storm, back in 1990, which i was one of. there were negotiations going on with the iraqis, not for 20 years, to reimburse us for losses that we had a. -- that we had. guest: certainly, i am not aware of that. one interesting tthing to note is that there were many more files cleaned for pow's then were actually taken by the iraqis.

if you are referring to the hostages who were civilian workers taken by the saddam hussein regime in 1990, in kuwait by the time -- at the time. i do not have any information on that at this time. host: attack on the independent line. fort lauderdale. >caller: i have never heard anybody articulate this problem in afghanistan the way you have. i have to compliment you for that. the second thing i would like to discuss with you it is, i have been through the region, around pakistan, and i am shocked at the lifestyle of the pakistani men over there. they are allowed to marry four

women and so forth, and they walk around like the king of the hill. they do not want us over there because they feel we are going to change their lifestyle and they have the best lifestyle of any men in the world. nobody is articulating the fact that they are frightened because of this. i would like to have some of the articulate this, the problems we're facing over there, because of the differences between our lifestyles. i think that is an important point. guest: it is a very uneasy alliance that the pakistani people have with the u.s. it is very troubling, certainly to me, the fact that the pakistanis do not see coming to this day, the insurgency posed

by radical islam, such as the pakistani taliban as the dominant threat. they see india as the dominant threat. yet, we are providing u.s. taxpayer support for their military to launch counterinsurgency operations against the pakistani taliban, where they should be using their own military resources to do that. they still have the bulk of their military aligned against india, which makes no sense to me. i think it is problematic, and their view of the u.s. is still not a positive one. host: allen is next.

go ahead. caller: first, an editorial, and then a question. i do not think we will ever win the war in afghanistan for one reason, which has not been brought up by anybody. the taliban has nowhere to go. they are indigenous to the area, we are not. eventually, we will leave, and they will still be there, and they will take over again. another reason the war continues is because it is good for business. i am sure defense contractors are very happy. they are spending money developing new weapons, providing more of the same to

the military. now my question. i came into the conversation at the point where the congressman said that we cannot get rid of all the puppy because it would make the farmers unhappy. why not just by all of the poppy at the going rates, and even if the farmers can sell to the insurgents, they cannot make as much of their profits. guest: you are right, part of the largest ethnic bloc of people who live there are pastunes. some people in the taliban are

in it for the money. they are not ideologically committed, compared to the leadership, the ideologically- committed taliban, whom we will never convert. however, those who do this for economic reasons, that have no other livelihood, i believe that they can be brought into the fold. as to the economic reasons that you cite, in terms of contractors, let me tell you, this is a very expensive war. it is stunning, the cost to the american taxpayer, because of the fact is a landlocked country with no mature infrastructure to speak of. unlike iraq, where we had ports where we could bring more

equipment into kuwait, and developed road system, we do not have any of that to speak up in afghanistan, so it is very difficult. phasing down this war will certainly be a relief to the american taxpayer. we are engaged in a program of crop substitution, working with the afghan farmers, and we also engaged in an aggressive campaign to hit not a farmer, and but more or less, the middlemen and when it comes to drug trafficking of opium, the supply chain at that level. host: last phone call. no. 0, virginia. -- norfolk, virginia.

caller: we were attacked because of our support of israel. can you tell us about our affiliation with aipac? host: we are going to leave it there. do you care to enter? guest: -- to answer? guest: i believe it is important to support israel. i do not believe our relationship with israel has much to do with the radical islam. if you look at the usama bin laden and his attack on the united states, that really originated with our involvement in saudi arabia. when you look at the issue with afghanistan, that was really usama bin laden and his ability

to use it as a staging ground for an attack on the u.s. this is more about a political ideology than a religion, and does not have much to do about the arab-israeli question. certainly, resolving the arab- israeli dispute would be of help, but is not the most critical element in resolving the problems with radical islam. host: robert gates recently called for a sweeping review of defense spending across what is called the military industrial complex. in terms of cuts that you would consider, one is the acquisition process. is there one area of military spending that you do not think should be cut at all? guest: i think we can look at

efficiencies in every area. we need to continue, in terms of research and development. i think the notion that we should quit that because we do not have your competitors -- i do not think we want. competitors. one area that we do not look at enough, i think there is a lot of fraud in the v.a. system with people leaving the military. i have tried to challenge them on that. there is not enough communication with the department of defense, veterans administration. i have challenged the secretary of the veterans administration on some of these things, and he has not responded to me.

these are big cost drivers. i know that it is not politically correct to challenge these things -- we believe the veterans and to get all the benefits they deserve. i am of veteran, too, but at the same time, we want to be fair to the taxpayers of the united states. i do not believe veterans feel like there are people receiving benefits to should not be receiving benefits. i think the administration should be looking at all programs. cbo came out yesterday saying that there was about $100 billion more in the healthcare bill that was not in their preliminary estimates. we will be voting on a science and technology build a day,

doubling those programs. that is a $20 billion increase over five years. i think this administration should be looking at every program, not just defense. host: thank you for joining us. mike coffman. we are going to continue this conversation about defense spending and where you would like to see some cuts, if at all. defense secretary robert gates spoke about this issue on saturday. >> looking back from today's vantage point, what i find compelling is the simple fact that when it came to defense matters, under eisenhower, real choices were made, priorities set, and limits enforced. this became increasingly rare in the decades that followed, despite the best efforts to reform.

the attacks of september 11, 2001 opened up a gusher of defense spending that nearly doubled the budget over the past decade, not counting the supplementals for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. which brings us to the situation that we are in today. given america's difficult economic circumstances and powerless as though condition, military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer scrutiny. the gusher has been turned off and will stay on for a good period of time. host: secretary gates talking about a review across the board of defense spending. we want to know what you think about where defense spending could be cut. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. a special line for active

military, 202-628-0205. first phone call, raleigh, north carolina. melvin, what would you cut? caller: i would cut about 600 military bases. all of the covert and overt wars we have right now. the 600 admirals' and generals. i would cut military aid to israel. i would also cutoutthe zionist congressmen who just come on your program and talk about israel. host: speculation in this story

that defense secretary gates made good on these different programs -- we want to hear from you. what would you cut from the defense budget? wyoming. gene, are you there? are you from rock springs? sorry about that. we will come back to that phone call. we are asking you this morning, after yesterday's news that the

u.s. deficit broke the record for april -- that is the story in the "washington post" -- also, we noted in our interview with congressman coughlin -- coffman, the house armed services committee today is poised to cut $1 million in army programs. that is the early infantry combat team. they are emerging as one of the biggest targets for cuts.

college park, maryland. jenny. caller: i would make it a requirement for any defense contractors in the u.s., as well as overseas, to be headquartered wherein we can take advantage of their taxes. a great and example of that is halliburton. they are headquartered in the cayman islands. no taxes. i think if we are going to be spending all this money, we should be able to collect corporate taxes from these companies. host: another item that could be on the chopping block, again from secretary gates, could be

-- andy on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would cut probably 80% of our defense budget. every base that is overseas.

we do not need people deployed in europe anymore. there are no wars going on in europe. the antiquated equipment we have over there that we are guarding and protecting is pretty much crazy. a complete waste of taxpayer money to keep funding the cold war infrastructure. and then, ala of the brass -- a lot of the brass needs to take a hike. also, the retirement pay that soldiers get. they have retirement, but they are still young enough to be a civilian police officer or something like that.

host: omaha, nebraska. glen. are you active service? caller: yes, i am in the air force. i would cut the f-35 projects. i think the air force is looking at fighting a war 20 years away with me need to be worried about what is going on now. host: do you have experience with those systems? caller: no, i fly other intelligence gathering platforms, but i think that we should cut that down. host: why do you have that opinion? what have you learned about them? caller: i know that they cost a lot. in the current fight, i do not think that they are valued

added. host: when you say that they are created to fight future wars, what do you mean by that? caller: without going into the program, they are made to fight the battle to battle, not necessarily the insurgency. host: you work in intelligence? for your mission top-secret? caller: i am here to comment on the dod budget. i think what secretary gates is cutting back is the right thing to do. host: indiana. steve on the democratic line. caller: i would cut in half. if they could get rid of halliburton, blackwater, they could probably cut the budget in half. host: "usa today" has the front- page story that the afghanistan war now outpaces the iraq war --

we are talking about what you would cut from the defense budget. wisconsin. bill on the democratic line. go ahead. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. i was trying to call in when the congressman was on the air. we have a huge amount of money going to afghanistan but there is something that nobody is talking about. the defense department is spending money promoting what ever they want to promote, while the drug enforcement agency is trying to put the taliban and

their 3000-year-old businessoutof business. it is never going to be done. they have a complete system set up, marketing, delivering, everything is set up. they should be growing wheat. host: and joshua on the independent line. caller: this sort of speaks for itself. president obama is signing the same check to the same people as george bush. halliburton, kbr, black water. why are we doing for made in defense? we are being axeasked to cut ba. if you are a democrat, ask yourself this question honestly. why is he's signing checks over

to the same groups, why is there no change? why is robert gates still the secretary of defense? what are we involved in foreign aid around the world at a time when we have to borrow money? if we did not have foreign aid, we would have high-speed rail, everything else that we need. thank you for your time. host: now we are going to turn our attention to a fund-raiser tonight that president obama will be taking part of in new york for the democratic congressional campaign committee. we will have that speech tonight at c-span.org. alex from "politico" is with us to talk about the fund-raiser. how is the dccc and nrcc doing

on the money from? guest: we are seeing a continuation from recent years, as far as the campaign contributions. the dccc is outraising the nrcc. that is pretty expected given president obama being in office. he is going to be raising a lot of money tonight at the fund- raiser. it will bring them quite a bit of funds. basically, this is happening in the midst of two special elections, so the dccc will be able to take appendage of this tonight. host: "wall street journal" --

you talked about the special elections, how have the the dccc and nrcc spend money on the pennsylvania race to replace the late john murtha, as well as hawaii's race who will be replacing neil abercrombie? guest: you look at the pennsylvania race, both committees are really pouring money into the pennsylvania race. the nrcc is on track to spend about $1 million. dccc has spent about $190,000 in

the race. that does not include some of the upside groups that you are starting to see weigh-in, groups like the national republican trust, chamber of commerce, right change. all of these groups are now going into pennsylvania and puttingouthundreds of thousands of advertising dollars on the air. i know there is another group called americans for prosperity calling in on behalf of the senate -- the conservative side. so you have a lot of money in the race over all. then you look at the hawaii race, in different pattern of spending. the dccc has spent $291,000 there. earlier this week, they announced that they would not

spend any more money in hawaii, that they would pulloutof the race. -- out of the race. the nrcc has not spend a dime in the only other action. host: both have weighed in that campaign with ads. we want to show them to you. >> worried about jobs? thousands of pennsylvania and work in the energy industry, but the cap and trade plan from washington will destroy good jobs. mark chris goes to washington and raises big money from the same liberals pushing cap and trade. mark kris, still putting the liberal agenda before pennsylvania.

>> the true facts about republican charles dejue. he would have fired 2000 local schools that instead of protecting our future. on jobs, djou stood with lobbyists and friend to ship jobs overseas. in tough times like these, why you cannot afford a risk like charles djou. host: alex, let us talk about the leadership with dcc with representative van hollen, and on the other son, pete sexton. what are their strategies? guest: you played an ad in the pennsylvania race that targets energy, cap and trade.

coal and energy is a big issue in some of these races, particularly in that region of the country. earlier this week, it was to virginia representative lost a primary. he had been heavily criticized for how he took on the cap and trade issue in that very coal- dependent state. host: did the dccc weigh-in on that race? guest: not particularly on the democrat's behalf. host: on the republican side, a headline in "the washington post" --

that is part of their overall strategy. guest: that is right. we had david obey announce that he was retiring. we had allen mollihan lose our race. he was looking to receive a pretty serious republican challenge. you also have some other chairman in competitive races. definitely, these long-term members are facing tough times and we elections. host: the president goes to manhattan tonight for the fund- raiser. look for coverage tonight, here

on c-span. alex, we appreciate your time. when we come back, we will turn our attention to the climate change energy bill unveiled yesterday by senator john kerry and joseph lieberman. >> the venezuelan government says an offshore natural gas platform has sunk into the sea and that 95 workers have been rescued. president hugo chavez announced the accident on twitter. he says the accident poses no threat to the environment. the first firm evidence of what will likely cause -- will likely cost the gulf of mexico oil blowout is bringing up questioned about whether or not keep teachers and other oil

rigs are properly regulated. meanwhile, a new associated press poll suggests the public relations hit for the oil spill is falling on bp read that in washington. the poll also says 50% still support offshore drilling. while millions of americans are still likely to those their homes in the coming years, the foreclosure crisis is finally showing signs of subsiding. the number of homes falling into foreclosure fell from last year. those are some of the latest headlines.

>> during the last year, as i have served as solicitor general, my longstanding appreciation for the supreme court to roll and constitutional democracy has become ever deeper and richard. >> the next step for supreme court nominee paul indicated -- elena kagan. findingoutmore on the c-span video library. every program since 1987. -- find out more at the c-span video library. host: darren samuelsohn is here to talk about energy and climate legislation. here is what john kerry had to say about it yesterday. >> we are caught in an economic downturn that is forcing millions to search for the next new engine of growth and jobs. we are weighed down by an energy

policy built on a dangerous addiction to foreign oil. we are threatened by the impact of a changing climate. right now, as one of the worst oil spills in the nation's history watch is on the shores, no one can doubt how urgently we need a new policy in this country. now it is the time to take action. the path to progress has been long, but despite washington conventional wisdom, we are closer than we have ever been to a breakthrough. host: darren samuelsohn, john kerry mentioned that oil spill. this is in the "miami herald" -- front-page this morning. how did the oil spill impact the crafting of this legislation? guest: right now we have pp executive to find the same week

that they rolledout this bill. certain individuals backedoutof the negotiations because of immigration politics. because of the oil spill, it is too uncertain. the investigation need to continue, and senators are not ready to weigh-in on an overhaul of the energy policy. host: so what does this do to the thoughts about offshore drilling? guest: they wanted to expand before. that was the point of lindsey graham's participation. one of the reasons he would agree on a county greenhouse gas emissions would be for new offshore drilling, new nuclear power. what they were able to do here is put some place holders in

place but have a moratorium on drilling as the investigation continues. at the same time, they have set up veto ranks four states who do not want any drilling to happen next to them. based on an interior department study, showing wind and current patterns, whether or not this sort of disaster could have been in virginia, that state could have veto power. if they did allow drilling off of their short, or in a neighboring state, they could receive quite a bit of revenue. host: how much money are we talking about? if states go forward with offshore drilling in retain 35% of federal revenue, how much is

that? guest: i think it is probably in the billions. we still have to see how much is on the east coast. host: has anybody done the calculation of how much this moratorium that we're having right now will put a dent in revenues coming into federal coffers? guest: i do not think we have come that far yet. host: on average, how much does the federal government get in revenues from leases, royalties from offshore drilling? i think i saw $13 billion yesterday. is that average? guest: yes. host: is there a cap and trade? what do they do about carbon emissions? guest: that was sort of the trade of the kerry-lieberman

partnership. they put limits on power plants and set some goals six years later. it is slightly different in the house bill. they try to curb emissions from power plants, refiners, and other locations together. they are familiar with cap and trade from the 1990 clean air act. think our companies stood up with them yesterday, as they introduced the bill. john kerry said after that now what he thinks will happen is utilities will now be coming to capitol hill to lobby the senators. we think that this provides regulatory certainty in terms of the regulatory changes that are coming down the pike, with respect to a supreme court decision in 2005. there are a host of reasons why

energy companies wanted this. host: but on utilities, critics have argued that there will be more cost to consumers. their monthly bill will spike under this type of legislation. guest: what this bill does come of the house bill, is they create a refund system. you get your energy bill, and it will funnel money back to you that will compensate how much energy prices are supposed to spike. they will go through a local distribution companies first. they are a rate-regulated state utilities that will be -- there are rate-regulated state utilities that will be watching over this process. basically, hundreds of billions of dollars in allocation that these companies will have to purchase in order to comply with the system. host: manufacturers?

guest: they are the next big source of the missions, aside from transportation. petroleum mills, paper pulp mills, these types of facilities. when you look at what is happening in developing countries, concerned about plans that could move overseas, what they are trying to do about those it is phase in the air emission standards over six years. in the course of that time, they will also get free allowance, transition of lunch, free money to help them transition, make them more carbon-free. that the transportation sector is completely separate from the trading that is going on with the power companies, however, as refiners purchase allowances,

these will be determined by what utility prices are paying. this is what is called as the linked fee. chevron and conoco felt were working on this, pitched it to the senators over the past month, trying to refine the language. host: we are speaking to darren samuelsohn about the energy and climate bill released. they have a breakdown of everything in the bill. questions and comments. don on the independent line. texas. caller: first of all, c-span rocls. -- rocks. is there any hope of doing anything to the environment with this type of legislation? we are not the only ones feeling things into the atmosphere.

as a second, somewhat related question. this oil spill in the gulf of mexico, it seems like they did not have any plan for a disaster. don't you think that people would have planned for these types of potential of these -- eventualities? guest: the house passed their bill in june by a pretty narrow margin. nancy pelosi pushed a bill through. it is sitting in the senate now. it has been pushed back behind the healthcare bill, behind the financial regulatory reform bill now. majority leader reid said that he would not bring this within sight of the floor unless he could get 60. i think the next few weeks will be about shaving blocks of

senators on the fence to bring them on board. host: you are counting 41 in support? guest: yes, that is correct. host: who do you think are the closest to coming on board and supporting the legislation? guest: probably your coal, oil- manufacturing representatives frostate representatives. sharon brown. mark begich of alaska. . sherrod brown. -- sherrod brown. host: mary landrieu? guest: yes, this was a big deal

for her. she wanted language in the bill. she is somebody that you could count on more than someone like byron dorgan or kent conrad. you could probably count them as no votes. host: any republicans close to supporting this? guest: lindsey graham has said that he would be the 60th vote, but he has some concerns about immigration. you have to believe he has an ownership about the bill the next republicans would have to be olympia snow, susan collins. susan collins, perhaps less. she has her own bill. this one is simpler, only about

40 pages, compared to the one that we have now which is about 1000. other republicans to watchoutfor, scott brown of massachusetts. he is definitely hearing it from john kerry. up for reelection again, so presumably, that is another big issue up there. george lemieux of florida. we will see how the senate race influences things there. judd gregg, we should mention him as well. a retiring senator from new hampshire who had shown interest in the issue. richard lugar, people who have worked with democrats on other issues, sitting across senator kerrey. we will see whether or not they really want to negotiate on the bill. host: ky.

mary jo on the republican line. -- kentucky. caller: we have a farm that has oil wells on them, but they are not capped. they have been in production for years. we do not have the environmental protection agency person coming to look at these things. these are open wells. another thing, on cap and trade, do you ever think about the amount of heat that concrete puts off? guest: i think the cap and trade

legislation that senators are trying to push is trying to be choreographed with the climate on time a change, which is what i think she is getting at. certainly, there are questions about whether this bill would have been in effect on global temperatures. the bill seeks a reduction by 2020. most environmentalists believe that is not enough, but it is getting started. that would private investment in cleaner energy come away from fossil fuels, like coal and oil. host: next phone call. democratic line. caller: i have not fallen this legislation particularly carefully, but -- i have not been following this legislation particularly carefully, but i

appreciate the effort from john kerry, mary landrieu of indiana. my concern for the general public is, we want our cake and eat it, too. people were up in arms about the mining disaster. all of this pollution concerns me. i also know that we all want our homes to be cool in the summer, we want our lights to be turned on. we want to drive big cars and protest will companies. it seems to me -- oil companies. it seems to me, we are a country that wants our problems fixed by somebody else. do you think that this bill adequately protect the environment while ensuring the jobs of the people that work in those industries?

guest: i think most people would agree that this bill does not get us into the projections that scientists would tell us -- this is a global issue, china, india. they are and will be taking on a larger share in the coming decade. the point of this legislation is to try to demonstrate leadership, which, in turn, is meant to spur the chinese and india into investments. there was talk about how the chinese were happy about the fact the climate change bill seem to be dead. in terms of whether or not this bill meets the test, environmentally, you are certainly hearing it from the far left that this bill falls

short, does not do enough by the long term. by 2015, this is supposed to reduce emissions by 80%. i am sure that there will be future things that we cannot even envisioned now. so what is being debated here is certainly a first chapter in the climate change saga. the clean air act has been amended about three times since it has been written. host: next phone call. eric in michigan. caller: i have a solar power on my chicken coop, and i have had to unplug it because it is raining. we are getting a lot of cloud cover. we are talking about utilities, big oil. it seemed to me, it is going to get more expensive to me. i am just a small guy. guest: the way that the

legislation is being written, revenue is supposed to be returned primarily to the lowest income earners. the lowest will be receiving more money. or the other three quintiles, there is supposed to be an increase. house democrats said that the cost would be a postage stamp of date. that is the question for the american public. how much will they be willing to pay for gasoline, electricity bills? polls showed that americans do not want to spend much more than a nickel or dime. so it will be difficult to get people to change the way that they live, the way that they travel. the overall bill of the goal --

you are hearing many other message is chaired by the sponsors. host: next phone call. you are on with darren samuelsohn. caller: i have been listening to everybody calling in. we are getting closer and closer to socialism. this cap and trade program that they are trying to push, it does not make sense. why are you going to pass collector companies to increase their prices and then this is a redistribution? people are sick and tired of everything going higher and higher, as far as prices are concerned. incomes are not increasing. jobs are not there. we are getting further and further away from where we should be. host: we have your point.

let us move on to natural gas. what does this bill say about that? guest: a couple of things. t. boone pickens came up with a couple of proposals, perhaps you have seen them advertised on television. the bill would seek to produce natural gas vehicles around the country, an overhaul of diesel trucks. long-haul trucks. that is the main point. also, with the price on carbon, it is supposed to drive the price down. .

guest: the goal here is to try to get into 15% or 20% over the

next several years, by 2020. these are of federal mandates that you will see in certain parts of the country where it renewals are more likely to happen then in others. it is trying to develop -- to drive the new development on the electricity grid to get renewals in the centers of the country. host: it after-tax incentives that they're pushing wind and solar? -- is it tax incentives that they are pushing wind and solar? guest: if you put a 15% and a 20% renewable mandate on the country, that is where you have to meet. that is what is in the house bill. harry reid now has to decide whether or not just to take up on the floor the bingaman bill that he passed last year or to take this picture quantico and put it together.

a -- that he passed last year or to take this bigger bill and put it together. host: albany, new york, david, independent line. caller: i agree with the caller just before. let's face it -- let's face it, climate change alarmists of is a scam. schools are teaching it -- all are ms. ahman -- alarmedisinm ia scam. schools are teaching it. and they put it in our trade policies. host: what about that last point? guest: there is a border adjustments the tanagers are putting into their bill to try to make sure that any bills that come in from -- and the goods

that come in from foreign countries, if they do not have equal protection in the united states, they will have to pay a mortar attacks. there is going -- are going to be challenges that since you as country spoke of with the u.s. is doing. and your are actually seeing it come back toward the u.s. ran out, countries upset by the fact that the u.s. does not have reporter change block. we're seeing the beginnings of a potential trade 4. that is what the senators are trying to get around -- a potential trade war. that is what the senators are trying to get around. host: next call on the republican line. caller: i agree with the last caller. this is one of the biggest scams ever pulled off on as. i live in illinois and last night we just had 6 inches of rain.

the other thing is, these senators and congressman, they are trying to steal our money. and when you stand up here on the plane, there are just the just go over constantly. when you think about that -- like last night, we got close to 6 inches of rain. anything that is produced on the ground ever grows up over 25,000 feet. and anything that is polluted into the air at that level comes back down in rain. anything over that stays in the atmosphere. a judge will burn close to 2,000 gallons of fuel. -- a jett will burn close to 2,000 gallons of fuel. none of that was ever put into the equation. that is why it is all a scam to steal our money. guest: bill is aimed at the 7500

biggest industrial facilities in the country. those are the primary sources of greenhouse gases in the country. it is not aimed at farmers. it actually exempt small farmers. -- actually exempts farmers. skepticism has been growing in the u.s. in the last six months, last year, in light of the nails that came out from the research -- in light of the e-mails that came out from the research center. investigations have shown that the scientists were clearly not trying to hide anything. but the level of skepticism as up and you are hearing that more and more accurate -- is up and your screen out more and more. host: robert riesch has a piece this morning in the "new york times" and he says that the energy bill includes incentives

of $2 billion per year for carbon capturing sequestering. what is going on with this technology? guest: carbon capturing sequestration is pretty much with the coal companies are banking on. the technology is pretty much a bank -- a decade or more away. they have been trying to study the country's geological under ground to get a sense where they could be putting co2 underground. there are places it is more likely to happen that others. there's a lot of money in this bill to push the forward -- to

push it forward. the same thing happened in the house when congressman rick doctor helped push that bill through. -- richard bowsher helped push the bill through. all of the technologies exist in separate forms, whether it be capturing of the smokestack or at the commercialization, trying to get it from the powerplant to the place where they will put its underground. i fully putting all three pieces altogether -- actually putting all three pieces together to scale is the problem. that part of the technology exists and it really is a matter of spending money to try to get this up to a commercial scale. host: david in cincinnati, democratic line. caller: good morning mr. samuelsohn.

the fellow who just called about 6 inches of rain in illinois needs to go back and take a ninth grade course because he could not pass one right now. to say this is a scam is ridiculous. but i want to oust mr. samuelsohn, has america for ron that our entire policy has been -- has america forgotten that our entire policy has been steeped in secrecy by mr. cheney and others? host: do you care to respond? guest: the cheney energy task force that he is referring to from 2001 and ultimately led to two energy laws pose -- pushed by the bush administration and they both had clean coal technology and changed the fuel

economy standards. there was allotted of discussion in the spring -- there was a lot of discussion in the supreme court about who can afford the ideas -- came up with the ideas. ultimately, president bush agreed done and what -- agreed that the set -- a climate change was happening. at the very end of his term, democrats had taken over congress and were pushing a bill throughout that time. it did not come close to the 60 votes needed in the senate. since president obama came in 2008, this has been one of the top three or four domestic policy items that has been up there. host: north carolina, markets, independent line. -- marcus, independent line. caller: i want to say that i think most of america agrees

with me that this is just a scam to create one world tax and global government. and thousands of scientists signed a petition in 1998 created by an american physicist to say that all of the plan is in the stores as a marketing harder at an equal break. host: -- and getting -- all of the planets in the solar system are getting hotter at an equal rate. host: next call from arkansas. caller: i use about 20% to 25% of my gross income on energy. what you said before about

farmers being exempt, how would affect is that? -- how exactly is that? and farms are shrinking in america. they are growing in south america, obviously. and they're cutting down a rain forest to create more capacity. every time they pass that to america is creating more pressure on america and south american farmers are cutting down reinforced. what will they do to ensure the survival of the american farmer? guest: it is a 900 and something page bill, so i admit i have not read the entire thing yet. it exempts farmers at the source, i understand. there is not going to be a "cow tax" or any limit to how many

cows can be on your form. -- on your farm. you will see economic projections are for the next couple of weeks and months trying to determine how much this is going to cost on a state-by-state basis. that is what to be difficult to prove out, in terms of whose study is right. and there will be a lot of them in the coming months. in terms of what else it does for farmers, like they said, kerry and lieberman, they did not want to pick a fight with the agricultural committee. -- community. collin peterson, the chair of the house agriculture committee did in a tangle with the democratic sponsors of the bill over who would be in charge of some of the programs created in

this bill, whether it would be the usda or the epa. they are trying to appeal to america in creating carbon offsets, ways to pay farmers for leaving trees standing. and ways that they can produce combinations and power companies can purchase that of these subsidies. and payment can be made to people who work the land and actually make out in the black as opposed to the red. host: next call is from run on the democratic line. -- run on the democratic line. -- ron on the democratic line. caller: what this really has allowed us to do is to put aside -- a sign near the sites

go on to clean coal. the republicans continue to shoot talking points that i heard on a.m. radio months ago on cap and trade. cap and trade work for us of rain. it will work for this bill. guest: on the capt. trade and the onpoints, they have been coming out -- on the cap and trade and talking points, they have been coming out. when you look at the bill, there is not necessarily a gas tax or a federal trust fund. the federal highway fund is the primary recipient of the gas tax. that is not what is touched by this bill. there is a fee on transportation

fuel and the process. aware consumers will see the price is the question. -- and where consumers will see the price is the question. they almost want to put a sticker on the pump. that will be debated here in terms of where people will see the price increase in their gas prices. host: next call comes from arizona. before we go to that, do you know where senator mccain is on moving forward with climate change legislation? guest: mccain had been a sponsor of the lieberman bill for a longtime producer pretty much since -- for a long time. pretty much since the provincial campaign he has not done much. that is why you see others taking the lead on the issue.

senator kerry is focusing on recycling. it is kind of a poking a finger at senator reid. john mccain is facing a big conservative challenge from his right from j.d. hayworth and has shown no interest in working on this issue. it is hard to believe he could actually vote no on the climate go, given where he has been over the years. and there will be the question, if this bill does come to the floor -- euna, does it come up before or after -- you know, does it come before or after the august recess, that could put him in a tough spot. host: go ahead, caller. caller: john mccain better not

pass up on cap and trade. i have been calling my senators and holding their feet to the fire. i think it is just the biggest scam ever committed on the american public. co2 is a natural gas. it is natural to be in the air. to cap it and trade it and sell it is the biggest scam committed on the american people. i cannot believe you are or to cap it, sell it, and traded. -- trade it. have you ever heard of the chicago and london -- exchange of obama in the 1990's? --guest: it was a market for companies taking early action, anticipating in the 1990's.

it was started by a gentleman that has since stepped down. it has been seen by a lot of companies try to get a head start in the process. also, it has created an agricultural offset market. there are pharmacists in iowa who are practicing novato practices -- no-till practices. host: i think the caller said that president obama started this. is that true? guest: not exactly true. i think you could connect three or four people who obama worked with in chicago to being on the board of the chicago climate exchange. host: bonnie on the republican line, you are a lot -- our last

phone call. caller: is john kerry going to give up his private jet? is he going to give up his big suv? all of these politicians have private jets, suv's. we pay for it. and they want to tell us we have to drive a small car, where is richard entering your heat down. -- wear a sweatshirt and turn in your seat down. host: do you know if john kerry has a projects guest: i do not believe -- has a private jet? guest: i do not believe he does. host: and do senators typically have suv's? guest: it is not a part of the culture typically. host: we will be talking to doris meissner from intelsat.

but first, a a a news update. >> unemployment benefits dipped for the fourth straight week as employers are starting to hire again. but so far, the pace has not been fast enough to reduce the jobless rate. initial claims a job -- dropped last week by 4000 to a seasonally adjusted for a moderate 40,000, and that is a little bit above analysts' estimates. -- to wav440,000, and that is a little bit above analysts' estimates. a panel says it is not clear that any of the programs now in place have had a noticeable impact on small business lending. the chairman of a subcommittee probing bp's blown out oil well says he wants to talk with the federal service that is supposed to be overseeing drilling in the gulf of mexico. michigan democratic congressman

art cpac told abc's good morning america that he wants to know why -- an artist tupac told abc's good morning america that he wants to know -- he wants to be sure that companies are not drilling properly and protecting the environment. but investigators found equipment failures and aspects of the wells safety of were not monitored. and the government recovered $2.5 billion in overpayments to the medicaid trust fund last year as the mdot administration focused on fraud enforcement efforts -- as the administration focused on fraud enforcement efforts. and the department of health and human services says that the cooperative efforts are showing results. south florida, los angeles, houston, detroit, brooklyn, new york, and tampa, fla. are showing results. those are some headlines on c-

span radio. >> every weekend, c-span2's pulte the features authors. find the entire weekend schedule and booktv.org. >> attorney general eric holder testifies before the house should share committee today. you can watch it live beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c- span3 and at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: doris meissner does the immigration and naturalization service from 1993 to 2000. the we are here to talk about immigration policy and the debate in washington about whether or not to go forward

with immigration reform. doris meissner you wrote a piece in the washington post -- "washington post" as a a a series about the midst -- as a series about the myth about immigration. why is this a myth? guest: it is a myth because immigrants to fill the high skilled and low-skilled gaps that we have here. there are people who come with skills in science and engineering and out where we do not have enough graduates among americans to fill those jobs. they're very important to keep our technology edge. that has been a candidate -- a continuing area where immigrants have made important contributions. on the low skill and, of all until two years ago -- on the low-skilled and, until two years ago we have had very substantial job growth where just at the

same time our own aging began to kick in as a factor. there were not enough young people coming into the workforce to do the work that we were producing. immigrants have come in to fill that gap. by and large, it complements the american workforce, and doesn't compete with it. host: what about the argument that immigrants drive down our wages in this country? guest: it is true that when you have a large supply of an emigrant workers it tends to drive down wages. what the evidence shows is that about 90% -- for about 90% of american workers, additional imrick workers actually improve the economy, improved working visions -- additional immigrant workers actually improve the economy, improve working conditions and lower with the work force costs. competition occurs where people

have less than a high school competition. it is very small. it basically affects wages by about 1.1%, but still, it does hurt people who have less than a high-school education. host: some economists argue that immigrants are a boon to our economy. how so? guest: there are a boon to our economy because they contribute to our growth. since we have had this recession, immigration has basically stopped. but while we were going through that extraordinary time of growth, they have helped to stoke the economy, helped to provide the growth does kept as competitive as an economy. host: how so? guest: taping -- take the construction industry. immigrants are heavily concentrated in the construction of history and in services. if you have the kind of housing boom that we had in the 1990's,

if businesses do not have the labor to build those houses, then there is a whole industry and all of the ripple effects from it that are not contributing to the economy. and the service sector, tourism is a terribly important industry. immigrants are heavily concentrated in the services sector. the ability of hotels, restaurants to actually offer and provide chances for people to travel and come here for -- from abroad as well as other parts of the country, those are examples of the kind of growth immigration has facilitated. host: the "financial times" reports the immigrants are sending more money home as the economy revives. if the money that immigrants are making, some of it is then shipped back home, how does that help the economy?

guest: it helps because those people also buy things here. they rent and live in homes, they pay sales taxes. most immigrants -- now we are talking about illegal immigrants. it is always difficult because of mixing the legal and illegal, but generally, these conversations are about illegal immigrants. but sometimes it even applies to illegal immigrants. they are consumers as well as workers. and most employers to actually deduct payroll taxes. payroll taxes are paid to the government for their workforces, legal and illegal immigrants. and the remittances are very important to the families at home and communities at home, but they are actually very small amounts of money. it is not inexpensive to live in the united states. people who are here as immigrants, legal and illegal, and you spend most of their

paychecks in the united states -- and you spend most of their paychecks in the united states. -- do spend most of their paychecks in the united states. host: and you say it is a small man? guest: in increments of $50, $100 per month. that will go a long way in a village in mexico, but does not reduce much of the spending in the u.s. host: total number of remittances, calculated by the world bank, says that the 2010 projection is about 6.2% from 1%. remittances fell 6% last year to $350 billion. that was at its low. another myth that you read about in your piece in the "washington post" is that immigration is at an all-time high. guest: immigration is high, but not an all-time high. we are in a major immigration

wave historic ally, but we have a large amount of immigration in the 1890's. 1890 was the highest year in immigration as a percentage of the population. immigration nell is about 12%. when we ran -- immigration now is about 12%. when we were at our high it was about 14%, 15%. we are at an historically important. -- his fourth important time, but it is not our people -- historic lee important time, but it is not our peak. host: and let's go to our first caller. caller: i have been in the post

office and seeing immigrants getting money orders for hundreds and hundreds of dollars. they make quite a bit of money for the money transfer fees they charge. and a lot of these spanish people live in very small residencies and they pool their money. each month, one sense their money -- someone sends their money home. and we have to pay taxes on that. guest: these are the remittances that people send back home. it is pretty unusual people send hundreds and hundreds of dollars, but i'm sure that it does happen. there is quite a bit of money made from the fees on those transfers and there has been more competition in that business about the fees are reduced in a way that almost

does not create a use three situation for people sending money. -- a us threeersury situation fe people sending money. by and large, employers to pay payroll taxes for the workers who are employed, and workers who are here and buying food and paying rent and buying clothing, gasoline, etc. they will be paying sales taxes. these are people that do live very frugally, as you point out, because they feel a strong obligation to help and support family members of in other countries, but often over time those family members to come to the united states.

host: the comment about hispanic families living in many families in one unit, that is a phone call that we get on this program quite a bit. can you speak to the history of immigration in this country, not just hispanic, but other groups that migrated to this country before and used that strategy, if you will, to get a head -- to get ahead for the generation and the next generation after that? guest: yes, it definitely is a pattern. and it is more difficult now because there are more strict housing codes and regulations on those kinds of issues. but it is a very familiar pattern. if someone just imagine is the lower east side of new york and the waves of immigration that came prior to the first world war, you just have to conjure the pictures of what it was like and the -- under those circumstances.

people do pool their money. they do help each other out. they do live in extended family groups in order to get a foothold in this country. it is problematic today with our housing regulations, but that is something that local officials generally should be enforcing the laws to prevent when it gets out of hand. host: next phone call, jacksonville, fla., bruce on the independent line. caller: my thing that bothers me as if they are here illegally. i live in florida and to get my driver's license renewed, which i got my driver's license when i was 16 years old in florida and i presented my birth certificate at the time. i have to go and present my birth certificate again even though i have been in the florida department of motor vehicles for 50 years. i have preferred residents, so

on -- i have proof of residency and so on and so forth. and as far as not costing us anything, they do not have cars licenses, they do not have insurance, so they are putting in jeopardy if they had me and cause me to have an accident. democrats want to give them amnesty so they will of voters. republicans want to keep them here because of the underground economy. we have a thing here in jacksonville where we are building a new courthouse and one of the contractors had something like 33 illegal working for them, which we all know they get paid off the books at a lower rate. in other words, we have to take care of them in our emergency rooms. and we have incurred babies, which they go on medicaid.

-- and we have anchor babies, which they go on medicaid. and according to the lady that is sitting there they pay sales tax and other things, but it is costing us more money to support them and they are here illegally. guest: your pointing to a very important issue, this issue of where it is with the cost -- where the costs are actually born. and i think i would agree with you that there are crossed out the local level. one of the problems with this system as it currently exists, the broken as of this system, is exactly this point. the benefits of immigration and the money that gets paid goes to the federal government. the positive aspects of immigration, legal and illegal, are macro, therefore, for the country as a whole and the

economy as a whole. but on the local level, where people live, particularly those that do not have legal status, there certainly are cross. one of the reasons that we need to have -- there certainly are costs. one of the reasons the we need to have a system to deal with immigration issues is exactly that point. there needs to be a revenue share -- sharing mechanism into the federal coffers into which costs are paid and into local constituencies where there are costs. that is as good an example as any of why we need legislation. host: a quick update on qarizadah, what is happening there. this is the "philadelphia inquirer". -- a quick update on qarizadah, what is happening there. -- on arizona.

gambert is already under fire for proving the nation's -- jan habré work is already under fire -- jan brewer is already under fire. you can read more of that in the "washington times." palm beach, keith, republican line, go ahead. caller: it is actually palm bay. i would like to say, thank you for people like you. without people like you there would be open borders. c-span has a 30-day limit and people get upset when they

cannot call in early. i keep a mark on my calendar and i usually calling once a month after the time i called and less time. c-span would be chaos if you could call in every day the way you want. that is the way this country is getting. i am just as much against the 50,000 irish illegal aliens in new york as i am the hispanic, but the hispanic member is the largest number. there are estimates of 10 million to 20 million i have heard. how can you make a comprehensive immigration package when you do not know how many people? the border is still open. don't you have to close the border first, find out who is here? and you cannot put them ahead of the people who are waiting legally in line to get here. guest: first, thank you for your kind words. i really appreciate that. i think on the numbers, the numbers are important. and i think we do have a pretty good idea of the numbers.

it is inferential, but there are -- there is very good analysis that has been done. it sets the number of illegal -- of people who are here illegally to about 10 million to 12 million. -- 10 million to 11 million. of that, say, 11 million, about a million are going to be from mexico. about 6 million to 8 million. it is at first blush appealing to say, let's close the border first before we decide to reward this kind of behavior. but i have spent many years trying to work on the border and work on these issues, and i am absolutely convinced that if you wait to try to close the border you will never resolve this problem because this problem is basically an issue of the market and the economy.

fundamentally, the difficulty is that our immigration laws do not allow for sufficient numbers of visas for the jobs available in the country where real longer have enough native-born americans because of aging to fill the jobs. in order to get effective border control, and if you talk to people who work on the border -- and i have talked with many and work with many seasoned senior law of enforcement officials. they will say, put in of legal visas in the system for people to come here and work and then we can control the border. because the people who will be coming across the border will no longer be forced to come illegally and will be able to focus on -- we will be able to focus on the true criminals and the truth of smuggling and trafficking that takes place there. -- the true smuggling and

trafficking that takes place there. we need a system that is tailored to our current economy and that also includes strengthened border enforcement, and strengthened enforcement against employers for hiring. that is where our and forth in this week at the present. host: border security is one of the myths about you write about in your piece. another one is that immigrants are not integrated into our society as fast as previous decades of immigrants did. there is a piece in the "new york times" this morning reporting on a lot in jackson, new york. it says that -- that is how it is beginning to feel two months after jackson. guest: this english language

issue is something that bothers people a great deal. somehow, americans do not like to hear other acolanguages. the we are not like other countries around the world. the important thing of robert -- a about language -- the important thing about language and immigration is that it has generally been and continues to be a two-generation process or across generational process. the people who first come as immigrants, legal or illegal, work hard, they are trying to make a better life for their children and their families and where immigration has always succeeded in the past is with the children of immigrants. the children of immigrants doing better with -- better than their parents. and the children have done better than their parents because we have had a strong public school system and other institutions that help people

learn english and help people integrate into the job market. we do not have as strong a public school system today as we need to have. that is a real challenge that we have to strengthen because our future is tied up with the children of immigrants. we are a country, as i have said, is -- that is an aging country. our future work force is going to be heavily composed of the children of immigrants. one in five children today and has at least one foreign-born parents. -- parent. we have got to be sure that they learn english. the fascinating thing is that they want to learn english, and their parents want to learn english, in much greater numbers than we have the capacity to teach them. the idea that immigrants do not want to learn english is a fallacy. they try very hard to learn the language, but every class in the

country, particularly immigrant intents states are way over all subscribe to. -- immigrant intense states are way over subscribed. host: canyon lake, texas, richard on the democratic line, go ahead. caller: i appreciate the topic you have raised today. i was raised on the border in south texas. i taught history, and was a square administrator. i am quite familiar with the politics. i look at it, we have an hispanic population that has brought a lot of good to us, but i do get very upset when i hear

that the immigrants are taking the jobs no one else wants. i have a son who has an engineering degree. he does not want to work, i guess, because they keep paying chinese and indians for those jobs. host: doris meissner? guest: the chinese, indians, the science and engineering types of jobs that you're talking about, there is a big shortage in the united states because most american kids are not like your son. most american kids do not going to math, science, and engineering courses. that being said, i hear frequently what it is you are talking about and what it is to your son is saying. and one of the reasons for that is that american workers tend not to be as mobile and flexible as foreign-born workers. foreign-born workers will tend to go anywhere in the country where there is a job, and

particularly the ones that are brought under the h1b be set, which is probably a category that -- visa, which is probably a category that you and your son are familiar with. those are the workers that are brought into the country with a high skill. those are the people that tend to make changes in the labor markets. i think you will find -- i do not know. i do not know what your personal situation is. science and engineering graduates, if they are willing to go where the jobs are, they are very much in demand in the united states. the fact apparent foreign-born -- the fact that there are foreign born engineer secure notwithstanding. host: next caller from illinois, go ahead. caller: i want to comment that

these illegal immigrants are comparing their struggle to the struggle that black americans have gone through, which is no comparison when you consider slavery and then jim crow. having said the, that is one of the reasons why black americans have the highest unemployment rate in the country, not because we do not want to work. it is because we are still the last hired and first fired. guest: i would agree with you that the struggle for immigration reform is a different struggle than the civil rights struggle that african-americans had to wage, and it still must be waiting. -- and still must be waging. nonetheless, activists on behalf of the immigration reform, the struggle they are waging is very important today because it is

not in our interest as a nation to have this large illegal population. if we are a nation of immigrants, but also a nation of laws. and about one-third of the people who work in this country who are foreign-born people do not have legal status. about one-third are thought -- are naturalized citizens. about one-third are getting green cards, but almost one- third of the foreign-born in this country are here illegally. and they are here largely in mixed families, mixed households where there are a combination of people who either have green cards or are naturalized citizens or native-born. they're very deeply imbedded in our competed -- communities and workplaces. many of them have children who are also illegally here, but were brought as infants or young children who are now growing up and going through our school

systems and face all kinds of barriers in being able to succeed as the next generation in the future. none of that is in our interest as a country overall. we do need to have solutions here and those solutions need to be comprehensive and they need to include things that all of us would probably have some trouble accepting, but put together we need to move forward. host: cincinnati on the republican line, you are the next phone call. caller: i just have a couple of questions i hope you can enlighten me on. i'm thinking about the self edification factor with a lot of the illegal immigrants coming into the country. you know, what retirement looks like for them and how they are going to go about educating themselves in that respect. to me, that seems like a problem.

i do know if they're thinking about drawing on social security or if they are even eligible for social security. as far as the situation in arizona, are we going to be deporting families and mothers and fathers that are here illegally? our record to separate them from their children? -- are we going to separate them from their children? guest: i do not know that anyone knows how the law will work exactly at this point. the law may be forced off from going into effect in some situations -- forestalled from going into effect in some situations. there are questions that the federal government struggles with every day in implementing the immigration law because, as i said, people who are here illegally tend to be indexed households -- in mixed households. parents, when they are deported,

sometimes have to leave children behind. the children then stay with grandparents, other family members. it is very socially disruptive and destructive. and i think the arizona officials were talking about this law, implementing it, have begun to grapple with those issues. that said, there'y are assuming that they will arrest people and turn them over to the federal government. the federal government, of course, would then have to deal with the issues that we have just been talking about, but would have no control over the people who are arrested and the circumstances under which they are arrested. that is complicated and untroubled territory as well. could i comment on social security because i think is very important. on the social security issue, people who are reallillegally hn the country are not able to

collect social security, and more often paying into social security accounts with numbers that are not their numbers so that when they do become eligible to retire if they would still be here illegally would have no right to draw on the monies that they contributed to the system. that is another aspect of the broken as the needs to be addressed. host: how often does that happen? guest: it is beginning to happen as this situation of longstanding illegal immigration is beginning to rage over time. this buildup of the current population has been going on for probably 20 to 30 years now, a good 20 years. some people could be reaching retirement age. host: on the arizona law, who pays the costs of detaining these people once they are restive before they are deported? is that a state cost?

is it getting to the local budget problems that you talked about earlier with this lot? guest: it is certainly adding to the budget in terms of policing and law-enforcement, but as to the attention to my anders standing is that they will be turning -- as to detention, my understanding is that they will be turning those people over to the federal government. host: chicago, democratic line, go ahead. caller: i have been here -- i moved here about 13 years ago. i am an illegal, what everyone to call it. i'm married within two years and i was denied after i was married. i do not know what i can do, not just for me. a lot of people when i talk to

them, it is the same thing. i do not know what their point to do with this stuff. host: doris meissner? guest: i do not know either and it is hard to address individual circumstances without knowing the whole background. but i think that you are describing -- what you are describing is a situation that we see a great deal of within the population with people who do not have legal status within the country. those are all circumstances that would need to be clarified with new legislation. but the fundamental weakness in our current system and one of the reasons it is so broken is that there simply are not sufficient visas to cover the circumstances of many people who are here who for one reason or

another overstayed their visas, came across the border, have been contributing for a long time, but there is not a visa number available. host: one person tweets, why not just offer dual citizenship to people in the united states? guest: that is a farley. citizenship is quite down the road from what we are -- that is a far leap. citizenship is quite on the road from what we are talking about now. a visa is the first step in people working here in an authorized status. citizenship is far down the road, after getting a green card, and after getting -- after earning their legalization. paying taxes, paying a fine, showing an attachment to the

united states, and legal status only at the end of the line, only after those people that are currently in the queue of backlogs eligible for visas would be eligible to get theirs. it is fed -- it is a very long stage process. host: from indiana, brad on the independent line. caller: i just want to say that until we actually get the thought process here, you know, talking about doing this and doing that -- all of this is costing a tremendous amount of money. like you said in arizona, is still going to be paid for by the federal government. ok, it is still our money. and all of this, if you are coming out of the shows we will get you on paper. you have worked here for three

years, you will pay x amount. your employer will pay in as well. the amount of money that would be generated by that would be huge. not to mention those that are not working and are maybe on the roles of social services and draining those budgets, they need to be booted. and we have tons of undocumented and illegals in our jails and prisons, which are costing the taxpayers huge amounts of money. guest: the proposal you're making about people coming forward and register ring and paying a fine and being above ground -- and registering and paying a fine ending above ground, that is what this legislation is about. -- and being a brow of ground, that is what this legislation is about. it does have some strong things,

just as you have articulated. but i do have to tell you that most people who are here in this country illegally to work, even in this depressed economy -- do work, even in this depressed economy, and do not get help. if they are getting help, it is from their families and broader networks because they are not eligible for formal programs. host: susan on the independent line. go ahead. caller: it is interesting listening to doorstop. using like a nice lady, but you're not living in arizona -- listening to doris tock. you seem like a nicely, but you're not living in arizona. you say they do not get social services. what about those anchor babies, they get