h.i.v.-infected young girls, also drugs, i had one woman having her tenth crack cocaine baby. and when i saw her when the baby is born i said well, it's a cute baby. what does daddy think? she looked at me and says i don't know who the daddy was. i was high on crack cocaine when i got pregnant. so we have a real big elephant in the room everybody is ignoring. as a therapist for many years in the field, it's frightening what our poor children being hauled off to jails and reform schools, illiterate. .

i heard the gentleman pointed at the president about the disease that was discussed. we need more information, because we work in three states and not all of them are cities. people do not get the news about what is going on and whether or

not there is a place i can call and get that information about where we can get that information to pass on to their members. they are americans. also, they are missing something if they do not think about involving the churches. you find many people in churches with the same problem. host: thank you for calling in. in just a few minutes the president will be coming out to speak in the rose garden. speaking on the issue of the oil well being capped. "book tv" start tomorrow, 48 hours long, all weekend on c- span 2. you will be able to see live

coverage of the harlem book fair beginning -- beginning at 11:00 a.m. alan brinkley wrote a book called "the publisher," interviewed by sam tannenhosue, they will be in discussion. talking about henry lee. if your interested, to an in. go to booktv.org. thank you for being with us, enjoy your weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> as we wait here in the rose garden of the white house for president obama's remarks, we want to let you know that later today at 2:00 on c-span, west virginia governor joe mansion

will make the appointment into the sensitive robert byrd. we will have live remarks coming to you live it 2:00 p.m. eastern.

>> we are waiting for the president to make an appearance here at the rose garden outside of the white house. expected next week in the senate, passage of unemployment as early as tuesday after a new democratic senator from west virginia is seated. first the senate will resume work on a small business lending bill. leaders are working on agreements over the amendments. the house will then take up the bill.

at 2:00 this afternoon, joe mansion will officially make an employment to the vacant senate seat left by the passing of robert byrd. senator byrd's successor is expected to be there this afternoon and we will give remarks. we will bring that to you live it 2:00 eastern. >> good morning, everybody. i wanted to give everyone a quick update on the situation in

the gulf. a new cap was fitted over the bp oil well earlier this week. the larger, more sophisticated cap was designed to give us greater control over the oil flo. scientists and outside experts have met through the night to analyze the data from the well integrity test. what we are working to determine is whether we can safely shut in the well using the new cap without creating new problems, including possibly cal was new oil leaks in the seafloor. even if a shot and is not possible, this new cap and the additional equipment being placed in the gulf will be able to maintain up to 80,000 barrels per day. it should allow us to capture

all of the oil until the well is killed. prior to the installation of that cap, we were collecting an average about 25,000 barrels per day. all of us have taken hold in the image of clean water in the gulf, but it is important to take a prudent course of action rather than taking less prudent decisions. either we will be able to use it to stop the flow or we will be able to use it to capture all the oil until the relief well as done. we will not know for certain which approach makes sense.

all of the american people should rest assured that these decisions will be based on the science and what is best for the people of the gulf. >> did you feel the earthquake, mr. president? >> i did not. >> do you think that this means that we are turning the corner in the gulf? what do you anticipate in the weeks ahead? they are still very anxious about this. >> it is important not to get ahead of ourselves here. one of the problems with having this camera down there is that when the oil stopped gushing, everyone feels like we are done and we are not. the new cap is containing the oil right now, but scientists are doing a number of tests and i want to make sure that by putting his cap on, the oil is not seeping out elsewhere in

ways that could be even more catastrophic, involving measuring pressure. the data is not in and it must be interpreted by the science. here is the good news that everyone needs to understand. even if it turns out we cannot maintain this capture and completely shut off the flow of oil, what it allows us to do is essentially attached many more containment mechanisms so that we are able to take more oil up to the surface, put it on ships, it will not be spilling into the gulf. the final solution to this problem is going to be the relief well and put getting it completed. as a consequence of this cap sitting on, even if it turns out we cannot keep a cap on to stop the oil, it will allow us to see

less oil flowing into the gulf. in the meantime we still have a job to do. there is still a lot of oil out there. that is why we have more skimmers out there. there is better coordination on the ground and along the shorelines. there will be an enormous clean- up job to do. the set of issues around people acting responsibly and expeditiously, and particularly businesses are still suffering as a consequence of this disaster. we are making steady progress and the american people should take part in the fact that we are making progress on this front. so far things are slightly ahead of target, but the problem on the relief well is not simply

drilling all the way down, it is also connecting all of the way up. a delicate operation that could take some time. >> mr. president, when does bp begin paying fines according to the amount of oil spilled? >> we are obviously going to be taking measures about how much oil was spilled and those are calculations that will be continually refined. bp is going to be paying for the damage that it caused, paying not only for the environmental disaster and cleanup, but also compensating people that have been affected. it will be a component of the calculations made. >> when do you expect to go down next? >> i expect i will be back down in the next couple of weeks. we are trying to make sure that

the technical folks on the ground are making the best possible decisions to shut down as well as quickly as possible. i am staying in touch each and every day, monitoring the progress in getting briefed by the scientists. the key is for us to make decisions based on science, based on what is best for people in the ball, not based on pr or politics -- in the gulf, not based on pr or politics. i know that there were a lot of reports in the media indicating that maybe this thing was done. we will not be done until we actually know that we have killed the well and we have a permanent solution in place. we are moving in that direction but i do not want us to get too far ahead of ourselves. thank you, everyone.

>> that was president obama speaking from the rose garden this morning. talking about the bp leak and the cap that has been placed. the first time in 85 days that oil has stopped leaking there in the gulf of mexico. >> ok, you are clear. thank you. >> west virginia governor, joe mansion, will appoint a senator to the vacant senate seat after the passing of robert byrd. senator byrd's successor is expected to be there this afternoon. potential choices include nick casey and former governor gaston caperton. we will bring that you live at

2:00 eastern time. next, the president's national drug control policy director announcing survey results on prescription drug misuse. the survey indicates a 400% increase in a number of people taken into treatment for abusing prescription drugs over 10 years. this is about half of an hour. >> is great to be here as we look at a way to deal with, clearly in the report, substance abuse and mental health services administration is releasing this morning what quite clearly is a significant problem in the united states. a problem to our young people. a problem in our hospitals. a problem to our families.

when you look at what is out there, i think you will be as concerned as we all are. getting up individually, we will face time by me not having to introduce each one. the governor is here not only to help us on these national issues, but he has been gracious enough to invite us to go to delaware, where he will sign in a prescription drug monitoring plan legislation for that state to protect the people he is responsible for. our office of national drug control policy national director, tom mcclellan, will be speaking. he is a researcher par

excellence in the world of drug treatment. he brings a very unique perspective. we think we are a great team, by the way, here at ondcp. a police officer that talks about the importance of teaming up with the criminal justice system. the active administrator, michele lenhart, the members of the dea have been terrific partners in dealing with this issue in a host of ways. you will be surprised that it is not just from an ins portents standpoint -- and enforcement standpoint. they do so much more in this area. some special thanks to chris kennedy, who was the author, also here, speaking to you about

this issue from a personal standpoint. also the author and primary director of this piece of research, once again highlighting the problem we have talked about so often about prescription drugs. dr. delaney, i know that you might have questions for him about the data and information being given. the treatment episode that our partner is releasing today highlights the truly serious threat to public health that we face from the abuse of prescription drugs. prescription drug abuse captured in this study is dramatic and pervasive, very disturbing. there is a 400% increase between 1998 and 2008 of substance abuse treatment admissions between people 12 and over, reporting the abuse of pain relievers.

increasing the percentage of admissions in of using pain relievers spanning every age, every demographic area. as i mentioned this morning, prescription drug abuse is an equal opportunity and terrible issue. this should serve as an exclamation point, punctuating what we already know and have been talking about regarding the abuse of prescription drugs, the country's fastest-growing and one of its deadliest drug problems. as i was working my way through confirmation last year as a police chief, i was told -- certainly, chief, you know that more people are dying from drug overdoses than gunshot wounds. i did not know that. when i checked with my colleagues, they were not that familiar with it either.

this opportunity to get this message out is particularly important. but when i learned that and i realized that the spike in these fatalities was being driven by prescription drugs in the important areas where we could do something about it, we know that 12th graders, nationally, reports that seven of the top- 10 miss use drugs are pharmaceuticals. we know that one out of four active duty military personnel reports misusing prescription drugs. you see the people here today, what it a test to is that we are going to engage the full spectrum in dealing with this. it is families, the medical community, the pharmaceutical industry, law enforcement. in addressing prescription drugs, it is a top priority at

ondcp. in the national drug control strategy that was released a little while ago from the oval office, we have a five. plan to curb this issue. the first is education and training for the prescribe burst, understanding and recognizing dependents. another that the governor can tell you about is the prescription drug monitoring plane. -- plan. another take back program, how can we get rid of some of the drugs that exist in the medicine cabinet? the place that most young people obtain the drug from. the active administrator of the dna can talk to about the pill mills. parents and families, we will talk about what they can do not

only to educate children, but also to safely secured the drugs in the medicine cabinet. the president has clearly recognized this issue, asking for $1.7 billion for education and outreach programs in the 2011 budget request. over a 13% increase from the 2010 enacted budget in that area. $3.9 billion dedicated to early intervention and treatment services for individuals with drug problems, slightly less than a 4% increase over the 2010 budget. there are $19 million to expand the drug abuse warning network and the national survey on drug abuse and health, we cannot make informed decisions about what we are doing and how we will address this problem without accurate and timely data, which is why we are so pleased to partner with samsa on

this issue. but we have are the keys. intervention, when it occurs, early intervention. we know that people can be put back in as good, productive citizens with their families. that stigma of recovery is something to be would very much like to remove. so, these are important issues and i would -- i could not be more pleased to be here today dealing with this complex issue, one that is very serious. i think i will turn it over to the governor next. >> thank you, director. i want to thank you for your leadership on this issue and focus on the office of national drug control policy as well. i would also like to thank the

obama administration for its leadership on this. every state in every city, for a much in every household, we can find prescription drugs. washington or wilmington, wherever there are prescription drugs there are, there can be, and there is more often than we realize, abuse of those prescription drugs. second only to marijuana in terms of drug abuse in my state. after all, for cassatt, all examples of useful drugs when taken appropriately, but when of use these controlled substances that -- tear apart families, preventing all kinds of people from achieving their potential. drug users and drug abusers often commit crimes that ultimately hurt themselves, loved ones, and communities. delaware, we have seen prescription drug related

arrests raised 600% since 2003. robberies in delaware pharmacies are at all-time high. the numbers are frightening. the problem is alarming. we have decided to come together to do something about it. the delaware department of state and the state and safety homeland security department have recognized the problem, developing tools to help to limit the spread of prescription drug abuse in our state. we got together and found a solution, continuing to find new and better ways to keep the state moving forward. as the director mentioned, after signing it into law in delaware, is now the prescription monitoring program, recognizing the office of controlled substances to collect information on prescriptions for controlled substances and keeping it in a central database, which will be available to physicians and

other health professionals. doctors can see if a patient has similar prescriptions from other providers, identifying potentially negative drug interactions, validating patient prescription drug history, also preventing patients from doctors shopping. giving health care professionals the tools to recognize a vacation as an addiction or might be seeking drugs to sell. it will cut down on the amount of prescription drugs on our streets, giving law enforcement the capacity to investigate someone who might be creating a supply of these drugs. at the same time, these health care professionals help to provide care. the program also for tax patient confidentiality, which isn't -- also affects patient confidentiality, which is an

important matter to all of us. we see it just not as a statistic, which is the key point. this is not just about overwhelming statistics and numbers. this is about real people in our communities who have been affected, they and their loved ones, for many years by this problem. we know that monitoring programs like the one i will be signing into law today worked well in other states. we expect it to work well in delaware. i am grateful that the director is joining me this afternoon in delaware when i signed a program into law. it gives me great pleasure to introduce the deputy director. >> thank you. we have all seen the problem.

i am here to tell you that there are solutions. but these solutions will take responsibility and change. they will take at least the three f's. physicians, pharmacists -- physicians, pharmacies, and families. physicians will have to become much more responsible to recognize public health problems associated with opiates for pain. pharmacies must become much more responsible in a way that they distribute, beginning to use the script -- prescription drug monitoring. families have to become much more responsible about the way that they store and share these medications. this is the cheapest possible way, the most effective way to deal with this alarming problem. preventing it by taking these kinds of actions.

if it is not possible and when it is not possible, we can treat. they have effective treatments. but they will of the drug control strategy gets implemented. we have a strategy to treat the abuse, recovery is not something that happens by itself. it is an expectable result of treatment. it is possible that 20 million people in this country today are in stable, the recovery, but that is not what we want. we want to prevent this before it happens. so, with that i guess i turn it over the key. now, michelle. excuse me. -- no, michele. excuse me. >> good morning.

as the director said, prescription drug abuse is a rapidly growing challenge. data released today, other studies we have looked at, such as a dangerous pattern in the perception and behavior of young people towards prescription drugs. this is not a problem that will go away anytime soon. not a problem that will go away on its own. the solution requires a determined, unified approach that will prevent the use of prescription drugs and the dangers associated with them. the drug enforcement association plays an important role and we are committed to protecting the american people, and forcing laws that provide for the oversight and regulation -- >> we are leaving the national drug control director policy announcement and we take you

live now to an event with the assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs on the security relationship between the u.s. and israel. andrew shapiro is expected to highlight recent efforts with the fence consultations and training partnerships, hosted by the brookings institution in washington. this event is scheduled to be 90 minutes. this is live coverage on c-span. [applause] >> thank you so much for that introduction and for your friendship and for all of the work you are doing here at the center. i would also like to thank martin, director for foreign policy. he gave me my first paying job in washington, d.c., 20 years ago. he was at another think tank in town. i had just graduated college and was unemployed. i read an op-ed by him, i thought it was very good.

i got an interview and i was hired part-time in the fall of 1989. i must say, i was just out of school. i probably did not set the world on fire, but i begged and pleaded and got hired full-time. i was there in august of 1990, in the days right before iraq invaded kuwait, when there were some rumblings. i remember being at a barbecue at martin's house and he predicted that iraq would take some kind of aggressive action against kuwait. in the spirit that i had working for him in the first gulf war, it taught me a lot about washington policy-making and the importance of clear headed, well written, well thought out analysis. martin has brought those same qualities to the brookings institution and it is a pleasure to be here. i am part really pleased to be

here at the center to address the obama administration's enduring commitment to israeli security. as a result of this commitment, our security relationship with israel is deeper than ever before. last week president obama met with prime minister netanyahu, stating israel has unique security requirements. president obama had been sure that the administration fully recognize those requirements and we have doubled our commitment to meeting them. as the assistant secretary for military affairs, one of our primary responsibilities is to preserve israel's quality edge. today i would like to tell you how we are preserving it through an unprecedented increase in u.s. security systems, consultations, support for israel's new defensive system, and other initiatives.

we recognize that today israel is facing some of the toughest challenges in its history. this administration is particularly focused on israeli security precisely because of the increasingly complex and severe threats that faces in the region. israel is a vital ally and a cornerstone of our regional security commitments. when talking about the threat assessment in the region, one must start with the iranian nuclear program. as the secretary said in march, for israel there is no greater threat than the prospect of a nuclear-armed iran. while the most grave nuclear program is one of many security threats in the region, iran and syria posed conventional security challenges as well. these challenges intersect with the asymmetrical threats posed by hezbollah and hamas, was

rocket indiscriminately target israeli population centers. many of the arms smuggling operations weakened regional security and disrupt efforts to establish lasting peace between israel and its neighbors. we must recognize that the ever evolving technology of war is making it harder to guarantee israeli security. for six decades the israelis have guarded their borders vigilantly. advances in rocket technology require new levels of cooperation. despite efforts of containment, rockets with a greater guidance systems, range, and destructive power are spreading across the region. hezbollah has and that tens of thousands of short and medium- range rocket on the border. even if some of these are still crude, they all pose a serious danger.

these and other threats to israeli security are real, growing, and must be at rest. we are standing shoulder to shoulder with our israeli partners to do so. coming to my new job after eight years in the senate as the defense advisor for senator clinton, i can attest to her deep sense of pride in being a strong voice for israel. i travelled to israel with her in 2005 to attend a conference, joining her on her first visit as secretary of state in 2009. when it comes to the u.s.- israeli relationship, the policy guidance that secretary clinton has given me is no different from the guidance she gave what i worked in the senate for her. as you mentioned in a recent speech, she asked me, coming from this experience of working with her in the senate, to make

the management of our security relationship in israel and preserving the quality edge among my prop tie ortiz. -- top priorities. interwoven cultures and mutual interests are the root of the relationship. the idea of a jewish homeland can be traced through the letters of abraham lincoln and john quincy adams. when israel was founded in 1948, the united states was ready to embrace its new partner. president truman famously extended additional recognition to the state of israel. america's commitment to israeli prosperity has extended over many decades and across democratic and republican administrations alike. our leaders have long understood that a robust security relationship with israel is good for us, good for israel, good for israeli

security. president nixon took the first official trip to israel, beginning a long, bipartisan effort to work for peace and further bolster israel's security as a sovereign state. his effort was continued by president carter with the camp david accords, president h. w. bush at the madrid conference, president clinton's white river conference, and the previous administration's engagement at the annapolis conference. president obama has also made achieving peace in recognizing secure borders for israel a top administration priority. secretary clinton in her speech earlier this year explain to the imperative of pushing the peace process forward because the status quo is unacceptable. in addition to a nuclear-armed iran, israel's future as a

secure jewish democratic state is under the threat of demography, ideology, and technology. the obama administration is working with parties to restore direct negotiations for a comprehensive peace as soon as possible. we believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can usual agree on an outcome that ends the album -- mutually agree on an outcome that meets the goal of the jewish state with secure and recognized borders that meets israeli security requirements. hand in hand with its commitment to peace has been the administration's unwavering dedication to being sure that israel is prepared to defend itself against a multitude of threats. as the president said just last week, the united states is committed to israeli security.

committed to that special bond, doing what is required to back it up. not just with words, with actions. since day one president obama and secretary clinton have not only honored and energized america's enduring commitment to israeli security, but have taken action to expand it to an unprecedented level. our work is rooted in knowledge shared across the decades by presidents and policy makers on both sides of the aisle. a strong and secure israel, and israel at peace with its neighbors, crucial not only to the interests of israelis and palestinians, but also to american strategic interests. as secretary clinton has often said, the status quo is unsustainable. the middle east will never lock its potential and israel will never truly be secure without peace.

the dynamics of ideology in the region poses a serious challenge. regional peace must begin with the recognition by every party that the united states will always stand by israeli security. as president obama put it, and the wedge will be driven between us. the israeli right to exist and defend itself is not negotiable. no lasting peace will be possible unless that fact is accepted. it is our hope that the administration bosc commitment to israeli security? advance the process by helping the is really people seize the opportunity and make the tough decisions necessary. for decades the cornerstone to our security in israel has been assuring the quality military edge, a commitment written into law in 2008. their ability to counter in

defeat credible military threats from any and it -- individual state, a coalition of states or non-state actor while maintaining averages or casualties, we have rededicated our commitment by building upon the processes from prior administrations and taking new initiatives to make our security relationship more intimate than ever before. each and every security request from the israeli government's is evaluated in light of our policy to uphold their military edge. at the same time, to any considerations extend to our matter of policy where we will not release military equipment or services that might cause a risk to allies or contribute to regional and security. the primary tool that the united states uses to ensure the

quality military edge is security systems. for some three decades, israel has been the milk -- leading beneficiary of military security systems. currently, israel receives almost $3 billion each year for training and equipment. a total account is $5 billion annually, distributed amongst 770 countries. as a testament to our relationship, each year israel accounts for just over 50% of funding distributed. the obama administration is proud to carry on the legacy of robust security systems for israel. indeed, we are carrying this legacy to new heights at a time when israel needs our support to address the threats it faces. for fiscal year 2010, the

administration requested 2.77 $5 billion in security systems funding specifically for israel. the largest such request in u.s. history. congress fully funded our request for fiscal year 2010, and we requested even more for fiscal year 2011. these requests reflect the ability of the administration to implement the 2007 memorandum of understanding with israel to provide $30 billion in security systems over 10 years. this commitment directly supports israeli security dobli. detering aggressors myriad pablo by an injury that, this administration will continue to

honor this commitment in future fiscal years. our unique relationship with israel extends beyond numbers. unlike other beneficiaries of foreign military financing that are legally required to send funds to the united states, israel is the only country that sets aside one-quarter of its funding for offshore procurements. this exception provides a significant boost to the domestic defense industry, helping them develop indigenous defense capacity. one of the many ways in which we demonstrate unique requirements. the missile defense exercises, more than 1000 u.s. troops participated, the largest u.s.-

israeli exercise in history. u.s. and israeli port -- forces take part in numerous exercises each year to improve interoperable liddy and focus on early to rein in counter- terrorism operations. these collaborative efforts to enhance israel's military capabilities, improving our own military is understanding of and relationship with israeli defense forces. in addition, many israeli officers attend u.s. military schools, like the national war college, where they can acquire essential military skills, building lifelong relationships. third, the united states supports israel's defense needs to support our government to government foreign military sales program and directing commercial sales, including the release of events products restricted only to the closest

of allies and partners. in the past years we have notified congress of a number of significant sales in preserving the edge, most notably the f-35 strike fighter. its events capabilities will provoke -- prove a key contribution for many years to come. israel further benefits from a reserve stockpile, maintained by u.s. european command, used to boost defenses in the case of a significant military emergency. like many partners overseas, israel is also able to access millions of dollars in free or discounted military equipment each year through the defense article programs. fourth, the united states and israel have long cooperated in research development. given the threat that israel faces from short and medium-

range missiles, air and missile defense systems are an area of particular focus, including counter of long-range ballistic missile threats to defend against short-range ballistic missiles. for our part, we are working with israel to upgrade its system, first deployed during the gulf war, having installed advanced radar systems to provide israel early morning of incoming missiles. israeli origin equipment deployed on iraqi and afghan battlefields are protecting troops every day. this includes armor plating technology for u.s. military vehicles in unique medical solutions like the israeli bandage, widely used by our men and women in uniform. it also includes sensors, unmanned vehicle technology, and

the defenses for seeking out ied's. many of these investments have yielded important groundbreaking innovations that ultimately make us all safer. what i have laid out here represents the court pillars of the u.s. israeli security cooperation. given the breadth of our relationship, i have only really begun to scratch the surface. the united states and israel are also working closely to enhance shared security, from efforts to shut down the vast network of tunnels farming hamas to tracking and combating terrorist financing to countering weapons of mass destruction delivery systems and related military material. a prime example can be found in our joint effort to prevent and interdict the illicit tracking of bevans components into gaza.

in 2009, the united states and israel began consultations to address this threat. a top agenda item whenever we meet for bilateral security talks. these efforts have expanded into a wider international effort under the gaza counter arms smuggling initiative. under this multinational partnership, the united states joins canada, denmark, france, germany, netherlands, and the u.k., along with israel and egypt, to employ a broad range of diplomatic military intelligence and law-enforcement tools to block the shipment of arms, including rockets, missiles, and related components. safeguarding neighboring communities. what i really want to emphasize is that this administration cost commitment to israeli security is more than just a continuation and strengthening of existing

policies. rather, we have been cultivating new ways to ensure israeli security and enhanced bilateral relationships. over the past year there has been an unprecedented reinvigoration of complications in high-level discussions and visits. we have reenergize structured allies, such as the u.s. israeli joint political group and the defense policy advisory group. i leave the u.s. discussion within the joint group, including representatives from the military and defense and ministers on the israeli side. these discussions cover a wide range of political military topics, including first and foremost abatement of israel's quality military action. providing a high level forum dedicated to advancing defense

policy coordination only reflects what we have been doing publicly with our israeli partners. just as important as this public cooperation is what you do not see. for instance, our regular and well-established meetings have recently been supplemented by an unprecedented number of intimate complications at senior levels of the government. these small, private sessions allow us to frankly discuss a wide range of security concerns ranging from defense procurement to regional security. these consultations provide an opportunity for our government to share perspective on policy, address mutual concern, threat perceptions and identifying new areas of consultation. constant communication with the government of israel over the past year has helped us to fully understand and appreciate the many unique security challenges that israel must live with each and every day. turning to another area where we

are deepening our security relationship, the rocket threats from hezbollah and hamas represent the most immediate challenge. this is a very real, daily concern for ordinary israelis living in border towns. i rocket fire from gaza could come crashing down every morning -- any moment. as a senator the president traveled to israel and met with families whose homes had been destroyed by rockets. secretary clinton understands, as to why. that is why earlier this spring the president asked congress to authorize two under and $5 million to support the production of short range rocket defense system in israel called iron dome. this money that has been authorized in the house and is above and beyond the $3 billion in military financing requested for israel in 2011, one of my

colleagues in the bureau of political military affairs recently had a chance to see the training battery during israeli consultations and was able to witness a simulation of the systems promising capabilities. the iron dome will be part of a comprehensive lyre of defense against the threat of short- range rockets fired at the israeli population. this funding will allow israel to expand and accelerate iron dome production and deployment to provide deployments to their multi tier defense. it is one in a series of steps that demonstrates the strength of our mutual defense relationship, showing how serious we are in insuring that our enhance security dialogues translate into action. iron dome filled the gap in the defense system. israel has conducted thorough tests of the components and an evaluation of our own. we are confident that the iron

dome will provide improved offense for the people of israel. helping to make their population more secure from the short range rocket and missile threats that border towns face is not only the right thing to do, but but the bill -- but the type of strategic step that is important for u.s. interests in the region. bolstering security will not by itself foster a two-stage solution. it will not by itself bring an end to these threats. but our support for iron dome and similar efforts provide israel with confidence that it needs it to make the tough decisions ahead for comprehensive peace. u.s. support for israeli security is much more than a simple act of friendship. we are fully committed to security as it enhances our own, helping israel to take the steps

necessary for peace. as the secretary clinton has suggested, we cannot trust the future of israel to the status quo and the best way to ensure their future as a democratic state is to raise sustainable, regional peace. we will continue to support our words with concrete actions. u.s. israeli security relationship is too important to be anything less than a top priority. surely the bond is unbreakable. our commitment to their qualitative military edge has never been greater. . .

it sounds to me like the basic presumptions of your approach is that you make israel a strong in order to take risks for peace in a dangerous neighborhood. there are others, particularly recently, who have made the argument that israel is not a

strategic asset of the united states. they call israel at a liability on the strategic level, that notwithstanding all the support we give israel to take those tough decisions, and instead, engages in activities which creates problems for us on a strategic level. i wonder how you respond to that kind of counter argument we hear from people like that? >> i think the administration of fundamentally rejects that view. we think our relationship with israel is important. not just because they share our values, but there are real strategic benefits to that relationship. i also think that type of argument is a zero-sum argument.

i do not think it is like that for us in the middle east. we have partnerships and relationships with allies in the gulf. i have dialogues with them as well. they are concerned about the date -- the same threats israel is concerned about, particularly iran. the notion that there is a zero- sum nature to our relationship with israel mrs. the dynamics of the region -- misses the dynamics of the region. it is not necessarily have to be either/or. >> you all so talked quite a lot about commitment to may need -- to maintain its role's qualitative military edge. that is very clear in the conventional area in terms of all the things you laid out. the u.s. is doing for and with israel to ensure that this has a military edge over its potential

adversaries. but of course, there is a potential for a nuclear challenge. that comes from iran's continued efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. and i wonder how you address or what the commitment means in this nonconventional context? >> well, a couple things. first of all, i think that iran -- the potential for iran to develop nuclear weapons is not just a threat to israel. it is a threat to our partners in the region and to the united states as well. there are important reasons for us to address iran's nuclear program outside the context of just preserving israel's qualitative military edge.

second, our policy thus far with iran has been designed to put pressure on them through sanctions and diplomatic efforts to choose their security calculus so that they understand that their security does not benefit by developing nuclear weapons. we have had great success in building an international consensus their u.n. security council resolutions, the u.s. sanctions joined in by the eu and others. there's international consensus that it would not be desirable for iran to develop nuclear weapons, and we need to take tough action to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. i think the issue is broader. it is a u.s. national security interests that iran not develop nuclear weapons. our effort has been geared toward making sure they do not. >> another aspect of the challenge of maintaining the

qme relates to arms sales. in my own experience, this was all so a delicate balancing act. we had commitments to the security, not just of israel, but up arab allies in the region. they also require arms sales and security cooperation. how do you balance those competing demands in the current security environment in the middle east? we have not seen the kind of arms sales battles on the hill that we saw let's say in the 1980's when israel and its american supporters on the hill battled the reagan administration is against a sale

to saudi arabia. is that because we're not seeing major arms sales to the arab states or is it because israel understands not only that it is a real commitment to maintaining the military edge but that there is a more common interest between israel and these arab states that are our allies then used to be the case? >> i think you hit an important point, which as we do not -- we want to make sure our partners in the gulf and elsewhere in the region have the resources that they need and the ability to defend themselves. so they're not susceptible to iranian pressure and have the confidence to continue to be our partner. and it is an airport element to what i do to the gulf security dialogues, trying to listen to our golf partners about what

their needs might be. and it was said earlier that there is a commonality, and when i had these discussions with the gulf nations and israel, they are concerned about the threat in the region. and the desire to have the ability to deter aggressive action by iran or counter threats if they may emerge. i think there is development of some commonality of interest. i would also say that by law, we have to take the qualitative military edge into account is in every cell in the region, and we do. that is part of our interns of complications with our partners, to try and fully understand what the threats are that they think they face and where the best means are to deal with to address them. >> it do you see that israel is more sensitive to our needs in

that regard? >> i do not want to get too much into depth about our discussions, but i would say that the proof is in the pudding in terms of, you know, we have been able to provide our partners with what they need. and we are, you know, continuing to engage in discussions to ensure that we understand what future needs might be. >> one last question before we go to the audience. that relates to the reference in your formal remarks about the tens of thousands of rockets but that are being built up by hezbollah in lebanon. there are recent reports of specter cells. it comes across as some kind of red or pink line, if you like, that in terms of israel's

security concerns. how do you do that build up? do you see it as playinanother conflict in lebanon? is it stoking up tensions? >> we are very worried about it. the secretary and others have made clear they were very concerned about the transfer of weapons from syria to lebanon. we made this point to the syrian and the lebanese government that the transfer of weapons can only to stabilize the security situation, and that we very much they it is not in either nation's interest to add fuel to the fire. and transfer weapons that may lead to greater instability and security in the region. this is something that concerns us. and we raised it in our diplomatic discussions with both

the syrian and lebanese governments. >> ok, let's go to the audience. three requests. first, wait for the microphone. identify yourself. and actually ask a question, which means you have to have a question mark at the end of year sentence. >> thank you very much. you said something that was very compelling. [unintelligible] for the strategic interest of the united states in having a very strong relationship with israel and security, your also twice referred to the comprehensive peace between the two-state solution. i would like for you to emphasize the strategic thinking of the united states in the two- state solution and the governments of peace. and the same thing, do you view

the complete reassurance that is given to israel as an inducement for making a serious and painful conduct -- concessions and knees to make, or is it easier for israel not to make this painful concessions? >> welcome back couple things. on the two-state solution, this administration, from the very beginning, the very first day that the secretary was at the state department announced george mitchell as the special envoy for middle east peace, and this administration has made it a priority and a commitment to reenergize the middle east peace process and a drive towards a two-state solution as well as regional peace. we believe it is good for parties, for israel, and for a regional partners. this will continue to be a focused effort. senator mitchell is in the

region right now. he is having talks, and we're open to move towards direct talks and make further progress. in terms of the way you have characterized our assistance to israel, it is not an inducement one way or the other in my view. in our view, is real's security is important for u.s. interests, but it is also important for -- we believe if they are to engage in a peace process and they feel confident in their security, it will enable them to make the tough decisions that will be required in any type of peace agreement. so what is not either/or in our view. it serves a number of interests for us to provide this level of assistance to israel. very much.u

andrew, congratulations. i wonder if i could build on martin's first question, the asset liability question, and asking more specifically if you can clarify your review and the administration's view on whether the u.s./israel relationship has any negative impact or complications for what the united states tries to do in iraq, afghanistan, or other security interests in the middle east? >> i mean, i think that in a certain sense the question does not matter because it is a fact, as the secretary has said. there are commitments to israel, and that is rock-solid. it will not change. as part of our effort in the region to try to get the parties to understand that peace in the region is in everyone's interest, and it will enable us

to make progress towards building a better future for all people and nations in the region. so from our perspective, do other countries talk to us about it? do they raise it in the bilateral discussions? yes. we also make clear in those discussions that our commitment to israel is unshakable. and that is a fact that we, you know, that is a reality of our engagement in the region. so i think that, you know, it does come up in discussions. there are a number of nations in the region who are eager to make progress in the peace process, and they raised that with us directly. but we point out, you know, that we're here to make progress with the peace process, and his administration has made it a top priority to do so. >> george. >> i have a request and the

question. can we get a report from your department on the security relationship with arab countries? the details like you provided on israel. my question, since our relationship with israel is so generalist and affective, what is presumed to be so unpopular in israel? do you have an explanation for that? >> well -- [laughs] on the first one, i have talked in other contexts about what we have done in the gulf security dialogue. it is part of our security relationships with our golf partners. it is a good idea for our speech, might decide to give another one at some point about overdoing it in the region on regional security. but one thing i did not mention is we are providing, for example, a lot of assistance to

palestinian security forces, which is an important building block for an eventual palestinian state. we do a lot with our gulf partners in providing systems, weapons systems, and close consultations, and so i will take that under advisement for a potential future speech. you know, i am not going to -- i am not a student of israeli politics, and martin is probably better able to answer the current ups and downs of israeli politics. the president was asked about it himself, and i thought no one could speak better during the interview with channel two two i would just leave it to the president for himself to describe his own views and not to second-guess what was said during that interview. i do not know if you want to say anything else on that. >> i would just say that it is more about love than it is about

substance of the strategic relationship. >> and i would add -- >> they feel they have been abandoned after 16 years of unrequited love by american presidents. >> i will say that we had this very good visit a friend the president and prime minister net not shoot last week. the were very positive comments from the president to the prime minister and the prime minister back to the president. and we, and the secretary, whenever she has gone to israel, has been warmly received. so i think that those who look closely at the relationship understand that those types of feelings may be emotionally- based, but the underlying strength of the relationship is quite strong. >> ok. let's take one in the back if we can. the woman that down there. >> thank you. my name -- just with radio free

europe. i saw a report yesterday saying that if israel did a preemptive strike against iran, then it would be to a long war. i was wondering, with the united states supports such action if israel were to strike against >> i will tell you, i will not get into hypothetical like that. what i will say is that the goal of our strategy towards iran is to avoid going down any path that requires military action. our hope is that our pressure and sanctions will enable the iranians to understand it is not in their own interests to pursue nuclear weapons. we have had success in the un security council. we have worked on europeans on proposing additional sanctions. we have pressure on the iranians. the hope is that will work, and

we will see the results of that strategy bear fruit. have thevery glad to syrian ambassador in the audience. >> thank you, martin. i am the ambassador to syria. two questions. first, i am always puzzled, why is it that whenever an american discusses the military progress in the cutting edge of warfare technology that aerial put -- that israel possesses, they never distress the nuclear arsenal than actually exists. they never mentioned this, and we do not know why. everybody in the world know that israel possesses the world's largest per-capita arsenal in the whole world. second question, when israel uses the very same weapons that you have described to kill civilians, and with the u.s. using military warfare against

civilians? thank you. >> a quick answer. i am not going to be the first u.s. official to discuss, you know, is really -- israeli nuclear capacity. >> nuclear capacity. [laughter] >> that is your words. but on the second point, i would say that we have -- when we sell weapons to any country, we require assurances that they will be used properly, and we take very seriously any suggestion that they have not been used properly. and if evidence presents to us, we investigate and take appropriate action. i will just leave it at that. we, with all our partners, require commitments not to miss use the weapons. >> yes, yes with a group called

code. that has been trying to push for a real peace process in the liver -- a group called code pink. it pains me to hear you some more like an agent of the israeli government and the u.s. rep. as you travel, you see that this special relationship really endangers us, makes us more hated around the world. i wonder if you would be willing to step in the other shoes and go to gaza, see the results of the israeli invasion there, see the destruction, to people in gaza, talk to the elected government, which is hamas. you did not delight in to talk to them. i also wonder if you have spent any time with people in the west bank and east jerusalem to see what it feels like for palestinians, the daily humiliations they suffer. i also wonder, given the financial crisis here at home and the great needs of impoverished nations around the world, couldn't you think a

better use of $3 billion and giving it to a wealthy country like israel that is abusing the human rights of palestinians on a daily basis? thank you. they are clapping. anybody? [applause] >> uruzgan number of issues. babel said just a quick response. -- there are a number of issues. i will say just a quick response. the u.s. has been committed to a peace process between israelis and palestinians, which will lead to a two-state solution. in terms of our support for palestinians, we have provided a great deal of economic and security support in the west bank and also for palestinians in gaza. it is very much on our minds. the human fight of those who are currently in the gaza and the

u.s. has made commitments and pledges to provide resources to ease the plight. so the administration has taken very seriously the desire to invest in the building blocks that would be necessary for the creation of a palestinian state and a two-state solution. senator mitchell is in the region, and will continue to do so. >> please go to gaza -- >> you had your question. >> he did not answer it. >> thank you, mr. secretary. yasser from the mitchell report. there is probably no element of american foreign policy and national security policy that is more like a groundhog day than the israeli/palestinian situation, the dialogue. you come to these meetings, take notes, and you listen, and you have a hard time sort of

remembering when you have been there before. and in looking at the history of the relationship, it seems to me there is one thing that is abundantly clear. and that is that the only times when there have been genuine breakthroughs in israeli/jerrick relationships is when a great and strong -- israeli/eric relationships is when a great and strong leader sort of broke the mold. i am thinking of saddam hussein. i think it is an understatement to say we do not enjoy that situation today in the middle east and the israeli and palestinian situation, and the particular. so i am interested to note to the extent it is of the new to talk about whether there are other -- whether there is much

thought given to deal breakers, if you will, or factors or elements of that could change that part of this relationship? and i know from an answer to your previous question, this is not something you'll comment on, but i feel like and want to say anyway. which is that if israel considers iran and existential threat and the united states and its many allies agree that for iran to have a nuclear weapon is about the last thing we would like to see happen in the middle east, what do you think would happen if the israelis or to dig the unusual step of saying -- to take the unusual step of saying that in exchange for iran and agreeing to halt all of its

efforts on the nuclear weapon range, and we will do two things. one, finally admit that we have got them. and second, that we're willing to disarm if we have the same agreement from the arab states in the region. >> the second one, again, is a hypothetical that i am not in it the position to really respond to. on the first one, i think the way i think you asked it is what is the potential game changer perhaps. from our perspective, and i have heard secretary clinton talk about this many times, you never know when the opportunity is going to arise. that is why you need to keep on engaging people you need to keep working at it. while senator mitchell told how

long it took in northern ireland, through perseverance. people tell him it was unlikely amid the beginning. but through perseverance he was able to make progress. so the secretary, when she was in her confirmation hearings, she talked about how the effort is tremendously important. the effort can enable you to take advantage of opportunities that may arise. and right now, as i mentioned, senator mitchell is out there talking to the parties, trying to take this step from and direct talks to direct talks. then who knows where that will lead, and we hope it will lead to good things in the peace process. so we will continue to work at it. >> i want to come back for a minute to something in talked about in your speech, which is in a sense a strategic dialogue that has taken place between the u.s. and israel. you talk about the committee did you had come to the bilateral committee, and the committee

that has been defense dialogue. there used to be, i think, beginning in the clinton administration and then in the bush administration what was referred to as a strategic ally work. what happened to that? >> there is still that. i joined our deputy who went with the undersecretary defense policy earlier this year. we went to israel for the strategic dialogue talks. those focused -- we talked about security. those talks were even more broadly. it is talking about energy, talking about water. talking about other issues that encompass the full range of issues in the region that the u.s. and israel want to exchange views on. so the dialogues i refer to or more security, military assistance focused.

obviously, these other -- there is some overlap, but that one that still exists in the conversations that i attended in israel were quite robust aand useful. >> what is the point of all of these dialogues? you also have the bilateral ones that go on between the chairman and the joint chiefs and the head of the israeli army and the national security advisers, and they're talking every month. the defense secretary, defense minister, and so on. scenes like an awful lot of talking. >> i like a couple points. first, the u.s. government is big. we a lot of people involved in this. there's no substitute for talking to your counterparts on the other side, understanding their concerns and understanding the challenges that are faced. by the same token, there's a lot of decision makers in our government that the israelis find value in being able to

interact with that number of decision makers. and as i describe my speech, there a lot of challenges in the region right now. we have air iran. we have hezbollah/hamas. we have other issues. so all these challenges require an intense level of discussion with a number of people throughout our government to insure that we're in full center. >> other questions? >> thank you. i am with the bulls and center. as you plan for, think about the comprehensive it -- as with the wilson center. as the plan for peace in the region, what is your thinking about the american security role? would-be be prepared to play a role on the ground in the guaranteeing the implementation? should the agreement come about. >> well, first of all, we are

already involved in -- with the general involved with the training of the palestinian security forces. we are already engaged in deep bilateral consultations. i think we just, you know, need to see how the process develops. ultimately this will have to be a decision between the parties themselves, which the u.s. is trying to help facilitate. and how we try to get to a place where each side feels comfortable that their security needs are being met will be a discussion that takes place in this process. so it is out something that has in the thus far, discussion. so i think we just have to see how the process plays out. >> hello.

i am with congressional quarterly. my question is related to what martin brought up about the transfers in hezbollah. does the administration, given that news, still supports sending an ambassador back to syria? and are you prepared to make what i believe would be a significant amount of political capital investment to get that to move forward on the hill? right now, it is pretty much stalled. >> the short answer is yes, we do support sending an ambassador back to syria. as the secretary has mentioned, an ambassador is not a reward. it is a vehicle for facilitating dialogue and engagement. so for us, it would be useful to have an ambassador to discuss some of the issues that i mentioned before, our concern over the transfer of weapons. we have made some progress with syria on the transfer of foreign fighters into iraq. we have to build on the progress. we're interested in regional

peace. and ambassador would help along those lines. those should not be viewed as, you know, we are ok with the actions the syrian government has taken that concern us. rather, it is a tool for us to use to raise these concerns at a higher level with syrian officials. so we very much supported, and we are encouraging the senate to act on the nomination of an ambassador nominated to syria. >> [unintelligible] i agree with the general proposition. this will have to be our last question. >> of low. i will be a graduate student at george washington university in the middle east studies. we just heard you speak about

how the relationship with the u.s., but when the u.s. and israel which reverts to security is rock-solid. in regards to the palestinian authority. it would not make sense to stop that example in the u.s. cannot withhold a new missile system for israel, for example. what are the tangible carrots and sticks that you can use in the event that there is a peace process and they do come up with tangible deadlines for exchanging things? whether it means israel is pulling out of this or that area. how deepest the two sides? -- how do you push the two sides? >> i think that is the essence of diplomacy. that is what senator mitchell right now is engaged in, discussions with both parties to try to bring them closer together. alternately, it is in both parties interest to make peace. and so i made that point in my speech, and it is something that

the administration has stated time and time again. this is something that -- a peace process and a peace agreement would benefit both sides. there are issues the need to be resolved, and the goal of diplomacy and negotiation is to try and resve those issues. it requires a give-and-take in dialogue and discussion. the goal right now is to move from the proximity talks to the direct talks so we can clearly moved further down the road in engaging that type of dialogue between parties. >> andrew, first of all, i want to say that -- i think i can speak on ken's a half and said that if you want to come back and talk about the security relationship with arab states and the middle east, we will be more than happy to host you. but secondly, it thank you for your prepared remarks and your answers to some very tough questions. you have done very well, and we're very grateful that you have taken the time to share your thoughts with us. thank you very much.

>> thank you. [applause] >> from louisiana, a c-span video journalists covering the oil spill recently talked to some local boat operators taking part in a bp spill response program.

>> we are support a 22-foot bay boat. what we're doing down here is the boat is designed for a standby in which we use for the media or anybody that needs a boat immediately. and we have you up, and i am going with you. i have been a relief captain for the last 20-something days. today will be my first day having my own a boat in here with the program. during my time with the operation for prevention, we have been putting out booms to try to protect nesting birds and such. i spent time in an area where there during cleanup. bigeyes commander by the dozens and get on little boats and scatter out and do their things.

then they come back in. we a detective division leader wherever he wanted to go to check on booms and check on the crew and make daily inspections. >> what did you do before you came down here? >> fishing guide. >> have you seen a lot of oil? >> i have seen a little bit. one day when i was down in the division 10, that is the area around -- we have seen a few double small tar balls floating in. then we had one at slick that came through that was the red, glovvy stuff. it was five to 10 ft. wide and about 100 and 50 yards long. yes, there is oil. that is old oil there.

>> is there a way to collect the tar balls and identify them? >> they can put some absorbent boom out a possibly collect some of the tar balls. they will stick to the boom. but as far as getting the major operation out here to clean up this small area, in my opinion, i think it is a wasted effort. i believe there is more other that can be done with the resources we have right now.

>> what are you guys working on? >> [inaudible] >> what does this do? >> it feels like being in a sauna. double that * two. >> to work 20 minutes on and 20 minutes off. taking a break. >> [inaudible] >> basically all we're picking up right here is going to be tar balls, all the oil that has been whether. it is coming up.

it is formed in a big clump. the is a way to pick that up is a section hose we have right here. we run it by this compressor. it is sucking up that oil and putting it in tanks so we can get rid of it. >> what do you do with it after you pick it up? >> we will fill up the tanks as much as we can. then we will have to wait and a barge will come by. a gets all the oil at of the tank. right now, we have not had any big pockets of oil. basically, we have been fooling around with these little clumps.

we're waiting on them to find a lot of oil coming in. whenever we do, we have skimmers. we have a skimmer on the front of the boat that the sex of the oil. right now, we're just trying to get -- that sucks up the oil. right now, we're just trying to get what we can. >> are you worried about the prospects in the future? >> very much. very much that is one thing that sits there and worries and worries me. of course they're going to clean the oil up. we do not have any doubt about that, but the damages to the hatchery, the damage to the fishing itself, this year it is

considered a total loss. the damages will be continued into the future, and the loss of habitat is a major concern. so yes, i am quite concerned. >> now, c-span visits a bp center in the gulf coast town in louisiana. our video journalists talks with a commercial fisherman who filed a claim there, as well as a bp employee. >> well, i am commercial fishermen in this area. basically cut out all incomer. i have come in now to make a claim. i have been crab fishing for the last 12 years, and actually cannot fish anymore.

my area is closed. i came into claims a month ago to make a claim for the first time. i fished all the way up until then. now i have come in, and the second check was delayed. they have been readjusting my check, which was very good. the had actually given me more. if they tell me in the next few days i should receive my second payment. >> what is the process like? >> it is not bad. they're being very good in there. as long as you have your paperwork right and you have all your records, it is very easy to do. >> what kind of paperwork and records? >> they're asking for former taxes, prove that you are and fishermen, commercial licenses, just trying to make sure you are legitimate. >> in do you think of the money that you have been receiving is enough? >> yes, it is a very fair. as long as it does not get cut back because we all have bills. when they get laid on it, it

seems a little tough. as a fisherman, you get used to stretching what you have. fishing is feast and famine. so what they're doing here, hopefully they will keep doing it. >> are you dennis wholey on this or the other sources of income? >> i am solely on this. i am just a commercial fisherman. my whole life is based on this. i have to have income from fishing. now i am trying to go on vessels of opportunity. looks like they're paying pretty good money for that. i got mine contract in. yes it is waiting for them to call me and see what happens from there. i am turned go to work for them to clean up the oil. get my equipment to work. >> a lot of folks coming to the claims center are actually looking for information,

looking for help as far as individual situation is concerned. in the my role at the community outreach, i actually go out into the community and talk with individuals, business owners, some community leaders and find out the mood of the people. from what i have seen, folks coming in are looking for information, and they definitely want to be made whole. that is what we tried to do here. we tried to make sure we let people know that we are definitely paying all legitimate claims. we're working hard with the folks to ensure that they are paid in a timely fashion. and more importantly, that they are trained. our folks are very compassionate, and they're willing to talk and listen. i did is really important to understand what people are going through and understand their

stories. you take that into account with some of the information that we need, so like i said, all legitimate claims are definitely paid, and we try to make sure that the folks that come in are paid as quickly as possible. >> at the people who are having problems getting paid, what should they do? >> they can do a couple of things. one of the things we've done here is we try to put on what recalled community expos, where we have them in all the different parishes. here, we had one of these expos just last thursday. we saw approximately 100 to 150 people. we talked about what kind of information they need to come in with. if you are a fisherman, your tickets. from 2007 and 2008. there is additional information. we tried to pass out pamphlets

and bulletin so that the entire claims process is kind of spelled out. and the information is needed when they come into the claims center, they have that ready. >> how long is a bp planning on keeping these claims centers open? >> at this time, there is no cut off. honor ourtment is to obligations, which is to make terriblet weare in this situation whole. so we're going to be here as long as it takes to accomplish that goal. >> president obama today warned americans not to make too much of the fact that oil has stopped flowing from bp's broken well in the gulf.

he spoke briefly with white house reporters before leaving for vacation with the first family. this is just under 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. i wanted to give everyone a quick update on the situation in the gulf. we all know a new cap was fitted over the bp oil well earlier this week. this larger, more sophisticated cap was designed to give us a way to control the oil flow as we complete the relief wells that are necessary to stop the leak. our scientists and outside experts have met through the night and continue this morning to analyze the data from the well integrity tests. what they're working to determine is whether we can

safely shut in the well using the new cap without creating new problems, including possibly countless new oil leaks in the sea floor. now even if they shut-in is not possible, this new cap and the additional equipment being placed in the gulf will be able to contain up to 80,000 barrels a day, which should allow us to capture nearly all the oil until the well is killed. it is important to remember that prior to the installation of this new cap, were collecting on average about 25,000 barrels a day. for almost 90 days of this environmental disaster, all of us have taken hold in the image -- hope in the image of clean water instead of oil spewing in the gulf. but it is our responsibility to make sure that we are taking a prudent course of action and not

simply looking for a short-term solution that could lead to even greater problems down the road. so to summarize, the new cap is good news. either we will be able to use it to stop the flow, or we will be able to use it to capture almost all of the oil until the relief well is done. we are not going to know for certain which approach makes sense until additional data is in. and all the american people should rest assured that all of these decisions will be based on the science and what is best for the people of the gulf. all right? i will take just one or two questions. >> did you feel the earthquake? >> i did not. >> sir, do you think this means that basically we are turning the corner at least in the gulf? tell the american people what you anticipate in the next few weeks ahead, because they're still very anxious. >> i think it is important is

that we do not get ahead of ourselves here. one of the problems with having this camera down there is that when the oil stocks gushing, everybody feels like we are done, and we are not. the new cap is containing the oil right now, but scientists are doing a number of tests. what they want to make sure of is that by putting this cap on, the oil is not seeking out elsewhere in ways that could be even more catastrophic, and that involves measuring pressures while this cap is on. the data is not all filled in, and it has to be interpreted by the science. but here's the good news that i think everybody needs to understand, even if it turns out that we cannot maintain this cap and completely shut off the flow of oil, with a new pact allows us to do is to essentially many more containment

mechanisms so that we are able to take more oil up to the surface, put it on its ships. it will not be spilling into the gulf. the final solution to this whole problem is going to be the relief wells and getting that completed. but there is no doubt that we have made progress as a consequence of this new cap sitting on and that even if it turns out that we cannot keep the containment cap on to completely stop the oil, it will allow us to capture much more oil, and we will see less oil flowing into the gulf. in the meantime, obviously, we still have a big job to do. there is still a lot of oil out there. that is why we have got more skimmer's out there. there is better coordination on the ground and along the shorelines. if there will still be an enormous clean-up job to do, and there is still going to be the whole set of issues surrounding making sure people are compensated properly to the $20 billion fund that is set up. and that it is acting expeditiously.

so we have an enormous amount of work to do, and people down in the gulf, a prickly businesses, are still suffering as a consequence of this disaster. but we're making steady progress, and i think the american people should take some heart in the the fact that we're making progress on this front. >> is the relief wells still on target? >> so far, is actually slightly ahead of target. but the problem on the relief well is not simply in drilling all the way down. it is also connecting it up, and that is a delicate operation that could take some time. >> what does that a target mean? >> when this bp began paying fines according to the amount of oil spilled? >> well, we are obviously going to be taking measures about how much oil has spilled, and those are calculations that will be continually refined. bp is going to be paying for the damage that it has caused.

and that is going to involve not only paying for the environmental disaster and clean-up but also compensating people who have been affected. >> [inaudible] >> that will be a component of the calculations. >> what do want to say to the people about when you expect to go down next? >> i would expect a sometime in the next several weeks i will be back down. right now, we're trying to make sure that the technical people on the ground are making the best possible decisions to shut this well down as quickly as possible, that we're standing up the funds so people are compensated quickly. i am staying in touch each and every day, monitoring the progress, and getting briefed by the scientists. the key right now is for us to make decisions based on science, based on what is best for the people in the gulf. not based on public relations are politics. and that is part of the reason why i wanted to speak this morning. because i know that there were a lot of reports coming out in the

media that seemed to indicate that maybe this thing is done. we will not be done until actually know we have killed the well and we have a permanent solution in place. we're moving in that direction, but i do not want us to get too far ahead of ourselves. all right? thank you very much, everybody.

>> the associated press is reporting that the west virginia governor is tapping former chief counsel to succeed the late u.s. senator robert byrd. according to democratic officials. three people familiar with the governors picks spoke on condition of anonymity, because they're not all stories to, that of the official announcement scheduled later today. the 36-year-old goodwin is a charleston lawyer and would hold the seat until november. that is when the governor not want to voters to decide who will serve the final two years of senator byrd's term. the west virginia legislature has begun a special session to consider that request. we will bring you live coverage when the governor presents his appointee at the state capital in charleston at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. later, we will be bringing you live coverage of the eagle forum on conservative political activism in college. that is live at 3:00 p.m. on c-

span. the house judiciary subcommittee on immigration held a hearing wednesday on overhauling u.s. immigration policy. witnesses from faith based organizations get their perspectives on immigration reform and providing a way for immigrants to become legal residents. this is a little over two hours. >> [inaudible] i like to welcome the immigration subcommittee and others who have joined us to date to the subcommittee's hearing on the imperative for reform of our immigration system. today, we welcome very important leaders from the faith community, who are here to share with us their perspectives on the current immigration policy

and the need for overhaul of our nation's system. faith based organizations often lead our nation in the ongoing discussion over immigration reform. over the past decade, faith leaders have often shepherded the often contentious national debate over our immigration system by framing it as a moral and ethical question. the more recently, organizations and denominations such as the national association of evangelicals and other ministries have assumed significant leadership on this issue, creating unprecedented coalition across the nation. each of these groups supports comprehensive reform that provides for secured borders, immigration laws that meet the reeducation needs of our country, and an earned citizen

status for hard-working immigrants who pass a background check and pay a fine. a recent bipartisan survey found that the vast majority of americans, over 74%, to support comprehensive immigration reform that follows the principles of the border security, immigration laws that meet our needs and the needs of our families, and a path to legal status for hard- working immigrants. in fact, 84% of people who support the arizona law also support comprehensive immigration reform. today we will hear from those who provide moral and ethical guidance about their support for a firm, rational and just immigration policy. i commend our witnesses everett and leadership. i would now recognize our minority -- our witnesses

efforts and leadership. i would now recognize our minority representative. >> a recent survey confirms what many of us already know. americans, including the religious faithful, want america's immigration laws enforced. 54% of catholics, 61% of protestants, and 55% of born- again christians support legally enforcing immigration laws. i suspect we will hear today that it is sometimes unethical to enforce our nation's laws. for those who want to take that approach, there is one problem. the bible contains numerous passages the support the rule of law. the scriptures clearly indicate that it civil authorities should be charged with serving order and punishing wrongdoers. in romans 13, led every person

-- toarate to governor governing authority. clearly this is advice to christians to follow the laws of their nation's and to respect the laws of other nations. although we respect acts of charity, we cannot both be charitable and lawbreakers. when a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. some claim that this passage mandate we welcome any and all foreigners, even those in our country illegally. but this and other passages do not imply the foreigners should disregard civil laws to enter or that we should overlook it when they do. for instance, the law for israel allows legal distinctions to be drawn between native jews and resident aliens. the legal term for sojourn ended the dictionary definition

means "temporary stay." this passage offers no scriptural sanction for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to remain permanently in the united states. furthermore, in the new testament, the word stranger denotes one who is simply a noun, not necessarily a foreigner. there is a passage about the treatment of the least of these my brethren. matthew clearly vacuu indicates individual treatment, not a corpocomprehensive policy. this is not biblical support for anyone claim to have a right to

live illegally. the christian church clearly favors an immigration policy that favors those who violate our laws according to one father. positionhes' disappoint those who play by the rules, legal immigrants and businesses who respect our laws. this father contends that the christian leadership of our country, not really comprehending the wide-ranging problems connected with illegal immigration, is violating the sovereignty of our nation, encouraging the growth of the violent gangs of america, driving up unemployment. a prime example comes from "the wall street journal." on labor day weekend, a local

chicken processing company lost 75% of its 900 member work force. the dramatic appearance of federal agents presented an unexpected opportunity. for the first time in years, the chicken company aggressively sought workers from the local unemployment office. of the four hundred candidate cent, most of them black, the plant hired about two hundred. those to build empires on the foundation of cheap labor are immoral and their sins cry out to heaven for vengeance. church leaders, we plead with you to take note of this. the fact is that americans need not repented for wanting to uphold the rule of law and provide jobs for legal workers. illegal immigration is not a

victimless crime. there are an abundance of real victims, and christians have a moral obligation to aid and protect them. a truly moral approach would be not to acquiesce to illegal immigration but to work to end it. our nation has a wonderful tradition of welcoming newcomers. we admit more than 1 million legal immigrants per year, as many as all other nations combined. there is a clear difference between those who play by the rules and come in the right way, and those who do not. before i yield back, let me say that i have another committee markup at which i am offering an amendment, so i will need to be gone for some time. >> another member is on his way to offer an opening statement. while we await his arrival, i

recognize the ranking member. >> thank you. this is very interesting to me. this is a bit of the turn of what we normally see. folks on my side of the aisle are normally talking about scripture and face to motivate us -- face to motivate us, while others say this is not -- faith to motivate us, while others say this is not a christian nation. i believe it is. my reading of the bible may be different than others here today. king david was an illegal immigrant. marion joseph for illegal immigrants. i did not -- mary and joseph were illegal immigrants. i did not realize that the bible for bid the nation from caring

most about the well-being of its own citizens. not only must i have been reading a faulty copy of the bible, but in the land of the bible, the leaders of today's israel must have been reading the same copy, because they build border fences to protect their citizens from terrorist and illegal job seekers alike. they deported over 146,000 illegal immigrants over the course of a year. if we had done the same thing, the equivalent would have been 6.5 million illegals removed in the united states. this law applied in israel only to jews. anything less would certainly result in the annihilation of the whole of the jewish people who live today in israel. for those reasons, they have their policy which do not seem

to be objected to by clergy in america, and certainly not by me. i think they have a right to their determination. it appears to be that the only biblically acceptable immigration policy is an open borders policy, despite the fact that one out of every 10 mexican adults say they would migrate to the united states if given the opportunity to do so, and that there are 5 billion people on the planet who have a lower capital-letter income and standard of living -- lower per capita income and standard of living than the average citizen of mexico, and never mind the devastating effect illegal immigration and low incomes are having on this country and on our most laura all citizens. one guest today has done much to write about their real clarity in the bible and how it addresses the immigration issues

of today and how they apply today. i would reiterate them here. one is to look back through primarily the old testament, but not exclusively. deuteronomy, when the most high gates of the nation are inherited, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the people according to the numbers of the sons of god. in ezekiel, another passage. deuteronomy, commands against moving a neighbor tribes boundaries. mr. edwards also writes about the same issue in acts, addressed by st. paul. for every one man, god made a nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth, and he set for the time in places where they should be.

mr. edwards point of some other issues in the old and new testament. one is in matthew where jesus says render unto caesar the things better caesars and to render unto god the things that are -- the things that are cesar's and render unto god the god's. that are b we each have a special obligation to those who are closest to us by family and blood. their needs and welfare must be our top priority. what he says here about a local civic community can also be said about the community on a larger scale. we as americans have a moral obligation to be concerned with the welfare and quality of life in the united states and in other countries, just as the residents of those countries should be more concerned with what goes on in their countries. each of us has ties to various particular communities and we must all the knowledge the legitimacy of those ties and the

special obligation we have to direct our immediate attention to the welfare of those communities that we call our own. political leaders have a special obligation to account for the well-being of the political communities that are interested to our care. just to point out a couple of other things. my church sponsors and hispanic congregation in minnesota. we take up the collection on a regular basis. that is something that we deal above -- that we feel good about doing. the conflict that we have sitting here as the people who have been entrusted to make the laws, and the people who have the profession and the spiritual obligation to mission to all of the people in the earth, is that our laws are made and enforced by the executive branch. i hope the respect that. i hope there will be inappropriate time for this hearing today. i yield back. >> the gentleman was a time has

expired. we will recognize mr. conyers for his statement when he arrives. at this point, we will ask other members to submit their statements for the record. without objection, all of bunning statements will be placed in the record. without -- all opening statements will be placed in the record. now i would like to introduce our witnesses. each one is esteemed. it is my pleasure to introduce dr. richard bland. he has served as president of the southern baptist convention efiks and religious liberty commission, the policy -- ethics and religious liberty commission, the policy arm of our nation's baptist community. he is one of the most influential evangelicals and america. he has several successful radio and television programs.

he leads conservatives for comprehensive immigration reform and is the co-author of principles board just immigration reform. -- for just immigration reform. next i would like to introduce the seventh bishop of the catholic archdiocese of tucson, arizona. he is from the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. he previously served as auxiliary bishop to the archdiocese of chicago and was director of a seminary where his extraordinary leadership earned him the cardinal joseph award in 2008. next come i would like to introduce reverend matthew staver, the head of the nonprofit industry with a focus

on education and policy. he is a former seventh day at dentist pastor -- adventist pastor. he is a leader of conservatives for comprehensive immigration reform as well as several faith based groups pushing for an overhaul of our nation's immigration system. finally, and would like to introduce the minority witness, dr. james edwards jr.. he is a fellow and legislative director for a former colleague of ours. he was an adjunct fellow with the hudson institute and was elected as been -- was selected as the 1998 lincoln fellow by

the claremont institute. he earned his doctorate at the university of tennessee and his bachelor's and master's degrees at the university of georgia. you have written statement and those statements will be made part of our official record. we are inviting you to address us in about five minutes time. that little machine you probably noticed before, when it is green, it means there is a lot of time left. when it turns yellow, there is only one minute left. when it turns red, it means that it has been five minutes. we will not cut you off in the middle of the sentence, but we will ask that you try to summarize a vigo's read so that we can have time for members to pose questions -- to summarize so that we cand

have time for members to pose questions. >> the southern baptist convention is the nation's largest protestant denomination with more than 16 million members and more than 44,000 local congregations. the ethics liberty commission is the public policy arm of the southern baptist convention. with an estimated 12 million men women and children living and working in undocumented status in the united states, we have a crisis. despite the impasse of previous congresses on immigration reform, i do not believe that crisis is insurmountable. i believe congress should devise a plan to bring these people out of the shadows. the more delay, the more severe the problem will become. i look at the arizona law and other laws to be a symptom. they are a cry for help from states that are suffering

because the government has not done its duty. religious bodies like the southern baptist convention have been vocal in their support of immigration reform. in 2006, we gathered in north carolina and passed a resolution by a nearly unanimous vote which called for enforcement of immigration laws balance with compassion for those who are here illegally and urged a pathway of legal status for them after having secured the border. we call on the government to control and secure our borders. clearly, our federal government has not done not for several decades. fundamentally, i believe southern baptists and other evangelicals view immigration through the lens of their faith. the citizens of the united states, we have an obligation to support the government and the government's loss for conscience sake. we also hub -- laws for

conscience sake. we also have a mandate to care for those who are the least among us, care for the strangers who reside in our land, and to act justly and mercifully. bearing that in mind, we pledged in our resolution, among other things, to call upon southern baptists to accidentally and to reach out to meet the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of all people, starting with glasses on a massive scale, and to encourage them toward the path -- classes on a massive scale, and to encourage them toward the path of legal citizenship. while southern baptist and other evangelicals will do their part individually and collectively as churches to reach out to those who are here illegally, only a proper government response can

resolve our immigration crisis. your responsibility and obligation is different than ours. i believe that everything must start with border security. we have to secure the border. i think most americans do not accept the argument that our government cannot secure the border. the federal government has the resources to do what it chooses to do. the internal revenue service comes to mind. the american citizenry understands that if we do not pay our taxes, you'll come and get us. we believe that we have to commit whatever resources are necessary to secure the border. that does not mean to close the border, but it does need to have control over the border, to have control over who comes in and who goes out. a statement was made earlier that it is immoral -- some people argue that it is immoral to enforce our nation's laws. i do not think that is fair or right. what is immoral is to not have forced the nation's laws for over two decades.

then to say, now we're going to enforce the law and we are going to enforce it retroactively. it would be like if the government sent a letter to every driver in america and said, but the way, for the last 24 years we have been conducting surveillance by satellite on the interstate and up until now we have not had the ability to ticket you for all of the times you have exceeded the speed limit, but we do now. so now, we're going to send you a ticket for every time you exceeded the speed limit, retroactively, alas 24 years. i do not the most americans would think that was there and i do not in most americans would accept it. i believe we have to, once we have secure the border -- and i believe that has to be done with agreed upon metrics that the government put together and certifies having met, then i believe we have to have a six-

nine month grace period for people who are here with an undocumented status to come forward, to register, to agree to pay fines, back taxes, to undergo a background test, the to read right end -- to learn to read, write and speak english, and to pass a test. over time, they have the opportunity to then obtain legal status. isdo not believe that amnesty. amnesty is what president carter gave to those who avoided service in the anon. i would have let them come back too, but i would have -- who avoided service in vietnam. i wouldn't let them come back too, but i would ask them to respect -- i would have let them come back too, but i would have

asked them to spend two years caring for those in hospitals who took their place. >> i am the vice-president of conference of catholic bishops. i testified the day on behalf of the catholic bishops in the united states. i would like to thank you for holding this hearing today on so critical an issue, and inviting me to testify, i appreciate it. madam chairman, in my written testimony in outline at length what i and the catholic bishops are convinced is a just and effective public policy needed for repairing our broken immigration system. i would like to emphasize this morning what i and my fellow bishops think are some of the ethical and moral issues in this debate confronting our elected officials and our nation. the immigration issue is often dissected in terms of the economic, social, or legal

impact on our nation. what is not often acknowledge, and frankly is sometimes dismissed, is that immigration is ultimately a humanitarian issue, since it impacts the basic rights and dignity of millions of persons and their families. as such, it has moral implications, especially how it impacts the basic survival and decency of life experienced by human beings like us. our current immigration system fails to meet the moral test of protecting the basic rights and dignity of a human person. as a bishop who oversees the diocese along in the whole of the mexican/arizona border, the epicenter of migration movement, i witnessed the human consequences of our broken immigration system in my

diocese, hospitals, schools and churches. regularly, anxious and troubled immigrants come to ask our priests for assistance for a loved one, a parent who has been detained, a child who has lost a parent, or tragically, a family member who has lost a loved one in the harsh, arizona desert. we strive as best we can, realizing that unless we change the laws which apply to immigration, we are only providing a band-aid to this situation. because of a broken system, immigrant families are being separated. migrant workers are subject to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. those attempting to find work by coming north are being abused and taken advantage of by human smugglers. it is shocking to realize that about 5000 men, women and

children have died in the desert since 1998. one such the dump was 14-years old, from el salvador. she and her nine year-old brother were attempting to reunite with their mother in california when they became lost in the desert. she became dehydrated and survived for four days until she died. she was found on the 12th day. her story, sadly, is being repeated far too often along our arizona border. madam chairman, the overwhelming majority of migrants coming to the united states come not for nefarious purposes, but to either find work, to support their families, or to join their loved ones. once here, they do contribute their work and skills to our country. while in our country, they are often subject to the dangers and abuses that i have mentioned. this is a situation from a

humanitarian and ethical standpoint that needs to be addressed. from a moral perspective, as a nation, we cannot accept the toil of immigrants without providing them the protection of law. let me address the issue of the rule of law which is a flashpoint in the debate, and to which many immigration reform opponents point in arguing against legal status for the undocumented. the rule of law is paramount. those who break the law should be held accountable. comprehensive immigration reform would honor the rule of law and help restore it by requiring the 11 million undocumented to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn english and get in the back of the line. we believe that this is a proportionate penalty. let me also address the issue of border security, the topic of much discussion recently, especially in our own state of arizona.

with knowledge and uphold the right of the nation to control -- we acknowledge and uphold the right of the nation to control its borders. we believe the best way to control the border is through immigration reform. we have spent $100 billion on immigration, border and interior enforcement. the border patrol and the tucson inspectors, whose work i deeply respect, are trying their best to address this difficult situation. oppose their pit -- i will close their. >> thank you for inviting me to address this important issue of immigration. i served as dean and professor of law at liberty university school of law, the largest

christian university in that nation, with over 62,000 students coming from 74 countries. we have a freedom federation des represents over 40 million -- we have a freedom federation that represent over 40 million people in america. the arizona law is a symptom and a cry for help. our constitution places the responsibility for immigration on the federal government, not on the states. it is important that congress act sooner than later to reform our system. we must devise a system that is compassionate and just. the immigration debate does not belong to a political party or any socioeconomic or ethnic group. it is, in my opinion, a moral issue. we should not allow partisan politics or the difficulty of crafting a solution to deter us from the goal of fixing a broken

system. we must secure our borders, enforce our laws, and to deal with the undocumented immigrants currently living within our borders. this is a national security and domestic tranquility issue. secure borders are not closed borders. violent criminals and drug traffickers take advantage of open borders. such criminals affect everyone in every communities. we must enforce our law to include those to entice people to come here illegally and those who take advantage of them once they cross the border. there are essentially three solutions, amnesty, deportation, or aren't legal status. amnestied flaunts -- or burnear legal status. i am opposed to amnesty.

amnesty flaunt a lot. mass deportation is impractical. some children come here with their parents remained undocumented. deportation would rip families apart. no fair minded american wants to do that. well undocumented immigrants who commit violent crimes should be deported, we must invite those living in the middle to come out of the shadows and provide them with an opportunity to gain legal status. the opportunity should involve a program of legalization subject to appropriate penalties, waiting periods, background checks, application of moral character, an understanding of the english language, and understanding of the rights and duties of citizens and the structure of the government, and of american values. we must create a rational and just immigration policy that knowledge is that we are both a

nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. this would allow all law-abiding persons to be on a path to legal citizenship or legal residency, or legal guest worker status. felons and violent offenders would be on a path to deportation. we recognize the importance of a shared language, history and cultural values. those who seek legal citizenship should have the opportunity to fully participate in the american dream by removing any barriers to achieving those dreams. and earned a pathway to legal status is not an amnesty. i reject amnesty. i call on those who label that pathway amnesty to stop politicizing this debate and to

honestly acknowledge the difference. the time for national consensus is now. america is a country of immigrants, a melting pot of individuals from various ethnicities and cultures. we deserve a just immigration policy, one that begins with securing, not closing the borders, one that enforces our laws, and one that offers an opportunity to earn a legal status. the attraction of america is her freedom. her flag shines as a hope for those around the world. we must never quench the tourist torch of liberty. >> now we would like to hear from dr. edwards. >> thank you. per se i will discuss key biblical principles that have replaced today's immigration debate, and second i will discuss comprehensive

immigration reform. first, each christian is bound by a high moral imperative, love the lord with your heart, strength and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. you're called upon to love your enemy, to bless those to persecute you and to care for the least among us. it is unreasonable to try to require civil authority to display the same kind of mercy or compassion individual christians are called to show. the god-given role of civil government is as got agents to constrain evil within their jurisdiction. civil authority will justice to protect the innocent and punished lawbreakers. the things that are caesar's are concentrated on justice. public actions differ fundamentally from individual acts. an individual showing mercy decides willingly to bear an injustice. it is merciful when a private person turns the extra cheese,

goes the extra mile -- turns the other cheek or goes the extra mile. trying to codify mercy in that way, government can end up imposing injustice upon the innocent. what might constitute an act of mercy when an individual does it becomes an injustice when the government uses the sort of justice to compel such mercy. even if well intended, such action is unjust. second, we must consider the impact of comprehensive immigration reform on our fellow americans. more than the welfare of illegal immigrants is at stake. the foremost obligation, legally and morally, of the u.s. government is the welfare of the american citizens. the american people would end of the forgotten victims of comprehensive immigration reform. it would put the most vulnerable americans at risk,

including native-born minorities, high school dropouts and teenagers. we had 21 million unemployed or underemployed native-born americans just one year ago. comprehensive immigration reforms would put them up against many more jobs competitors, forcing down the wages they could otherwise demand. yearly average wages of native born men have fallen 4% from 1980 to 2000. i am citing an unemployment figure for high-school dropouts. for native-born americans, 34%.

for native-born blacks to drop out of school, 34.2%. for native-born latinos, 35.6%. for native-born latinos with the high school diploma, 33.9%. this has an effect on america's fiscal crisis. many immigrants, if given amnesty, would qualify for government programs for which there currently disqualified. about 1 million qualified illegal aliens would qualify for medicaid. that is an extra $8.1 billion annually. $48.6 billion from 2014-2019, the first budget window. in short, with comprehensive immigration reform, what we

would do to the least of these americans hardly ranks as ethical treatment. scripture does not detail immigration policy. we have to exercise judgment. in 1986 we tried immigration reform the work much like today's proposals. within a decade, the illegal population has grown to three times the size of 1986 levels. the enforcement measures failed to secure the border or shut down the jobs magnate. pursuing the same failed solution would force compassion on our fellow americans that they cannot afford. perhaps the best thing to do would be to suspend immigration until unemployment rate dropped to pre recession levels. >> first i would like to submit to the record the testimony of the united methodist church.

we did not have room for everyone who wanted to testify, so that will be added to the record. the chairman of this committee, mr. conyers has arrived. he has an opening remark that he would like to make. >> if i could just briefly, madam chairman, and ranking member king, at this hearing, i think, is sort of a landmark in this discussion, this national discussion that we're entering into, and i am so pleased depth the bishop is here, that the president of the southern baptist convention is here, that the dean of liberty university law school is present with us, and of course, dr. james

edwards. we welcome you all, and i would just mentioned to the chair person here, and i have not talked to steve king about it yet, but i just want to put on the record that we might like to meet with you after the hearing itself to talk about how we can expand our discussion be on the formalities of a committee hearing -- beyond the formalities of a committee hearing. i am so pleased and honored that you would be here with the senate judiciary committee. if i could, i would like to yield the balance of any time to our distinguished colleague from illinois, who has been deeply

immersed in the subject. >> without objection. also, the chair of the immigration task force to the hispanic caucus will take the remainder of the time. >> the me just say that i think mr. conyers suggestion is well needed. i would suggest that we meet with the speaker of the house to say to the men and women of faith that i think you can save us from ourselves and from our own political figures. this is a moral issue, and i would suggest that you call us to order and that you convene the meeting. men and women from this side of the aisle can meet with men and women from that side of the aisle, and you can then discern who is working of good faith in order to achieve the goals that

we should as a government. i want to begin by saying to dr. james edwards, i listened very closely to your comments. you want to make a distinction between the structure -- the scripture and civil government. but our government should be a reflection of who we are. what is government, but a reflection of the millions of people that constitute the government? when you say that the seoul government should be different and have a different test -- that the civil government should be different and have a different test, i disagree. i want my government to be the best of our moral and ethical standards. i want the government to be a reflection of my values, not distant from my values. i disagree. as i listen to the panel -- what are we talking about?

we talk about god in these terms. one member said, we give money to the hispanic congregations. that means i am not a bad person. ladies and gentleman, why do we always focus the immigration of -- the issue of immigration and the latino community when we know that 40% of the undocumented workers in this country came here legally. there are students that are going to graduate, hopefully not from liberty university, but there are students who are going to graduate and never return to their country of origin. there are millions of undocumented workers to cross illegally. when we talk about securing the borders, let's be careful about the message we're sending.

this is not a fight between the united states and mexico. hundreds of mexicans died this year fighting the drug cartels, fighting the drug cartels the provide the insatiable -- this thirst that america has for the drugs that come across those borders. we have a responsibility for the effect is having on the civil society in mexico, and their inability to continue to create a process. i want to say to all of you, thank you for coming, but let's focus on the human beings. what is important is that we focus on families. who are these undocumented workers? i am like most americans. only two out of 10 americans

live with children. but if you look of the undocumented, five out of 10 of them live with children. of course, if you came to my house a dinner time or on a sunday morning, you would think we would still have children because they are always showing up. my point is, these are families. 4 million american citizen children of the undocumented. a 17 year-old -- a 7-year-old girl asked the first lady, can you help my mom gets some papers? we should have told her, yes, we will get her papers and so that she can raise the best american citizen job ever in the united states of america. >> your time has expired. i would like to recognize mr. king for any questions.

thank you for recognizing me first. we have to give people on our side and i see a lot of democrats who are eager. i would like to defer. >> i would go first son. -- i will go first and then. let me first thank you for your thoughtful and informative testimony. let me begin with you, dean. i am interested in your comment that you referenced in your oral testimony that there is a difference between providing amnesty and providing a path to status, and that we need to stop the debate from being unnecessarily politicized. we all believed that the laws need to be obeyed, but we make the laws.

i remember, in 1996 we changed immigration laws retroactively. we made it the case that someone who was here -- and i've run into these situations where, as broad as a child into the united states and raised as a country -- someone was brought as a child into the united states and raised in the country, and now they have married there boyfriend, but that woman has to leave the country for 10 years because of our retroactive law. i was wondering if you could talk about the rule of law and how we could make a more rational set of laws, as well as the amnesty question, how we might get a grip on that question that is constantly thrown about. >> certainly as dean and professor of law at liberty

university and the founder of the liberty illegal organization, i support the rule of law. -- liberty legal organization, and support the rule of law. amnesty has often been used as a hot button flashboard. i believe it is used to simply politicize the debate and shut down any rational discussion of this debate. it should ultimately be defined. amnesty is what president jimmy carter did with those who avoided the draft in vietnam. amnesty is what ronald reagan did in 1986 with the immigration issue. amnesty is complete forgivenes'' without any consequences whatsoever. that is amnesty. what i propose is something different. the reason i proposed that is for several factors. a proposed power there is a

pathway to legal -- i propose that there is a pathway to legal status, something that will be earned, not simply given. something that is not guaranteed, but would be an opportunity for those who are here. we often talk about securing our borders -- i think people agree we need to do that. we talk about enforcing our laws -- people agree we need to do that. but then we talk about the people who are here. we have to deal with them. we cannot simply starve them out, hope they will go away. we have to bring them out of the shadows. these are individuals like you hyundai you want to pursue the american dream. sometimes -- like you and i do not want to pursue the american dream. i propose a pathway to legal status, that includes the various items that i mentioned, penalties, learning the language, and so on.

if you look at any law, there is not a cookie cutter penalty for any law that we have. if the government contract someone to break the law -- entraps someone to break the law, the penalty for the government is complete freedom for the person who was entrapped. four other penalties, retailer is based upon the individual. -- for other penalties, we tailor it based upon the individual. i propose a law the compassionately and justly deals with those who are here within the borders. >> dr. edwards, you have spoken out today and before today on the issue of immigration reform. i gave you a flyer that my office got yesterday.

some are suggesting that they supported you before you spoke out, but that now you do not speak for the pews in your congregation. can you speak for the southern baptist? >> no one speaks for all southern baptists. >> that would be true of catholics as well. >> wherever there are two baptists there are at least three opinions. i think i speak for the majority of southern baptists. in 2006, the last time congress was debating this issue, we passed a resolution overwhelmingly, 95% +. you understand that when we pass a resolution, those are elected members from the 44,000 churches. there elected to vote their conscience. i think any fair reading of that resolution is a policy that

secures the borders, and then finds a way toward legal status, and earned pathway toward legal status. some in the press say, how do you know the southern baptist agree with you? i decided to test that theory. i presented what i have argued is a fair and just policy to our southern baptist convention in orlando in june. i have a reporting time during the time of the convention, and i gave represented today in more detail, and it was very enthusiastically supported. these are the most involved, the most faithful southern baptists. you have to understand, we have hundreds of thousands of hispanic southern baptists, many

of them undocumented, who have come here to the united states. i do not think it is a secret the we are evangelistic. we will witness to anyone who will stop and listen to us. as a consequence, many of those undocumented workers have become southern baptists and members of southern baptist churches, and leaders of southern baptist churches during the last two decades. in fact, in the privilege of speaking today in southern baptist -- of speaking to the southern baptist hispanic caucus in orlando. there were very supportive of what i laid out, and earned pathway, going to the back of a line, etc. and hasten to add, i am elected, as you are, by southern baptists. our convention has fired two agency heads in the last few

years. they know how to do it. they would not be hesitant to do it if they did not think i was speaking about what most southern baptists believe. >> i turned to mr. king for his question. >> this would be an interesting conversation to carry on in a setting where we could point and counterpoint. i appreciate all of your testimony. reverend, i will start with the statement that you made about the politicization of the word amnesty. you would prefer not use that word at all. but it is in our dictionary. one definition is what reagan signed in 1986. they promised that there would never be more amnesty. i responded tepidly -- responded to that as an employer. i would define amnesty this way,

and i have for years, that to grant amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime. i submit that to you. how they react to that definition? -- how do you react to that definition? >> my definition would not be consistent with the rule of law. it would not be with the consistent -- it would not be consistent with the dictionary definition. amnesty would be a forgiveness with no penalty. that is what ronald reagan did. i do not support what ronald reagan did. that is not what i am proposing here. i am not saying do not use the word amnesty, but use it when you're really talking about it.

>> the path that you have described here, pay a fine, pay the back taxes, learn english, those things are designed to provide the objective of the person who has already broken the law. i do not see that as a penalty or recompense for breaking the law. at least 50% commit the crime of crossing the border illegally. >> with all due respect, we really have three options. the board everybody, give them all complete forgiveness with no consequence, or deal with them somehow. i think it is impractical and impossible to deport 12 million people. if you do that, you'll tear apart families. you will tear apart families where children are legal and the parents are not. you will tear apart people who have no idea what their home country is in cannot even speak the language of their home country.

>> what i am suggesting we do is come up with people who break our laws, we put them back -- what i am suggesting we do is, with people who break our laws, we put them back in the position they were in before they broke the law. i would argue that there is another viewpoint on that. what i am hearing advocated here by some of the members of this that, no, let's grant them forgiveness for all the times they were speeding even when they did not have a driver's license. not only are we going to give them a driver's license, we're

never going to cite them for speeding again. >> one thing you did not mention which i did mention is going to the back of the line. they go behind those people who have been and are trying to come here legally. they pay a penalty of going back as if they were just coming into the country. >> where does that line form? physically, where are the people who are at the back of the line. >> i am very impressed with the u.s. government's ability to keep records. >> me too. >> i think we have got a broken immigration system that needs to be fixed and it is your job to fix it. you need to decide where that line forms. it forms a government record