that senator mary gave them. they do not like card check, which is taking away secret balloting and union organizations. there is a lot>> it is time nowr closing statements. mr. rossi, you will start. >> i would like to say thank you for watching, and thank you for putting this on today. and thank you, senator murray. i truly appreciate the debate. we have some serious issues ahead of us in this country. we are going to have to make a decision. which direction do you want to go? you have an 18-year incumbent that has voted for bailing out banks. also, the stimulus, which is added $1 trillion to the deficit. and a 18-year incumbent that has been killing jobs in the state of washington from a vote after

vote after vote. on health care, financial reform, and others. you can go in a different direction if you want. you can go with senator murray or come with me. i want to allow of entrepreneurs to be successful. i want washington state to get back to work to again -- back to work again. come with me because we can do this. as americans, we do not sit when we see something wrong. we want to fix it. that is what i plan on doing as your next u.s. senator. >> senator murray. >> we have a clear choice in this election. and i want to thank mr. rossi for participating as well again tonight. but what mr. rossi did not tell you tonight is that he wants to repeal all street reform. i believe we have to keep those protections in place so that your mortgage in your finances are never in the hands of a wall street banker again. mr. rossi has told you that he will not fight for you for a locally targeted investment. he will leave those to a washington, d.c., a bureaucrat.

i will fight for you every time. mr. rossi did not tell you he wants to go back to the bush economic policies that got us into this mess, and directed two wars without paying for it, passing tax cuts that are not paid for, and leaving us with tough decisions today that hurt all of us. i want to make sure that we pay for what we responsibly do as leaders. when i grew up in my father got sick in my family had to be frugal, i knew that we made tough choices but invested in the future. those are the types of decisions that will make is your senator. >> thank you to the candidates, to you, to our panel. do not forget, vote on november 2. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> today, republican christine

o'donnell plans to air two 30- minute television schedules on delaware's cable channel 28 for an unfiltered look at the gop nominee for the u.s. senate in delaware. with financial up from to party supporters, her campaign has on the time to correct distortions about her that were starting to to the mainstream media. christine o'donnell continues to trail her democratic opponent by about 10 points. in a recent poll taken between october 25 through october 27. we continue our campaign to doesn't encourage this afternoon with a preview of tomorrow's midterm elections. democratic and republican pollsters will analyze a final poll numbers and offer insights into some of the most contested races. a disco hosted by politico and george washington university. that is today starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and we now head to new hampshire to show you another campaign

2010 debate from earlier this fall. democratic congressman and a former manchester mayor faced off on several issues including the state of the u.s. economy and small businesses in their states. this race has been rated a toss up. the debate was courtesy of several entities, including new hampshire public radio and tv. it runs about an hour. >> on new hampshire public radio, this is the candidate forum on business and the economy, sponsored by lincoln financial group, and produced in partnership with the new hampshire business group, new hampshire union leader, new hampshire public radio, and hampshire public television. >> hello, and welcome to the candidate for my business and the economy. i am most of the exchange in new hampshire public radio. we're coming from our conference studios. we will hear candidates from the first congressional district discuss some of the most challenging economic issues of our time. we will press them to say what

they would do as members of congress rather than spend valuable time attacking each other. the candidates are now a democratic congresswoman carol shea-porter. and guinta. our panelists are here. during this first part of our form, our panelists will ask questions. then we will move on to a lightning round where the candidates will provide brief responses to a series of topics. after that, i will take over and moderate a two-week discussion between the cat is. some questions came from our listeners, viewers, and readers. we tossed a coin to see who would go first. that does to carol shea-porter. >> welcome, congresswoman shea- porter. last week, the first round of regulations of the new federal health-care law went into effect. how do see these changes affecting new hampshire businesses and the way they provide and afford health care

for their employees. >> this health care plan is going to be good, not only for individuals because we know it will allow them to get insurance, and insurance companies will not be able to throw them off of policies. this is good for businesses also, especially for new hampshire businesses. 80% of new hampshire's small businesses will be eligible to qualify for business tax credits to help employees get insurance. >> thank you. >> the federal government's own actuary say the health care insurance reforms will add $32 million short but at an additional cost of $88 billion over 10 years. the congress fell in efforts to control cost? >> not at all. congress moved forward because health-care costs were strangled in the economy, strangling businesses and keeping in vigils of policies. something had to be done. this system was collapsing under the weight of the cost.

we saw premiums to be a 37% before we enacted it. >> thank you. i would like to ask you the same question. how do you see the changes of the new federal health care law affecting the way new hampshire businesses provide? and more portly, afford health care for their employees? rights when we first started this debate, the unemployment rate in our country was about to%. we're now almost two years later, six months into the passage of this health care legislation, and we're still roughly at 10% unemployment. so the fact that the congresswoman suggests that it has helped the economy, we have not seen the evidence of that yet. second, small business owners do not feel, in new hampshire, that this is going to do anything to help their businesses grow. they feel that it is much more onerous. they're frustrated with the 3% additional fee that insurance carriers are now implementing for the implementation costs of

the the bill. in the most onerous, that i just talked about last week as the 1099 provision or any business owner that expends more than 600 daughters -- more than $600 to evander has to now to 99 that gender and report the information to the federal government. that does not do anything to create jobs or help a small business get out of the recession we have been in. what it does do is stifle their ability to try to expand their business. and it forces them to make decisions about where also in the business plan are they going to cut to pay for costs and regulations. >> thank you. these tax credits that congresswomen shea-porter mentioned, i and understand that workers at small businesses are nearly twice as likely to be uninsured as workers at large business. the health-care reforms are supposed to build 16,000 small businesses in new hampshire afford insurance for their workers.

isn't that were trying? >> it is worth trying to reform health care and reduce the costs for both employers and employees. that is what i think many americans wanted when we first began this debate. what we received was something very different. many people see it as unconstitutional to force someone to purchase something. second, it is the $1 trillion spending spree that we have not identify how it is even going to be paid for. it does increase the current debt and does it. small businesses in new hampshire said they need more access to capital. they need greater of their own personal resources to go back into their businesses. and they have claimed to me that this is not helping them either provide more insurance to their employees or to reduce their own costs. there was just a press conference with 15 business owners last week, all of which here in the first congressional district who were saying this needs to be repealed because it is not doing anything to the

small businesses in new hampshire. >> i can ask you about that 1099 provision, this has come up a lot this week. the provisions that under the health care law, businesses have to report any expense over -- what was it -- >> $600. >> we have heard a lot of complaints about this. >> i think people should complain about it. i think it is perfectly unreasonable. we have to try to fix it. but the republicans blocked it. because in that bill was another or to pay for it. because you have to pay for this. mr. is wrong. this -- mr. guinta is wrong. they said that they would take away tax advantages, tax subsidies, for companies overseas that were sending jobs overseas. republicans would not have it. so we did i get this bill through. but people are right. when he talks about the $600, i am upset about that also. but the reality is that we did

try to fix it. it still is paid for. i think that is the biggest problem we have here. that was one of the ways that they intended to make sure that companies were complied with paying taxes. that was the way that they could check. but i think it is onerous, too heavy for the small business. >> and mr. guinta, a follow-up. i know republicans have submitted their own plans for health insurance. we're appealing things in this set of policies. but some said this will only cover couple million. democratic plans will cover $32 million. how do you respond republican measures so far have not met the mark? >> let's go back to the beginning of this conversation. congresswoman carol shea-porter has supported this from day one, and she is principal about this. she feels this is a constitutional bill that is good for the country. i completely disagree. one of two things that happened when she voted for this bill. either she did not know the 1099

provision was included in the bill and voted for it anyway. where she knew it was in the bill, needed a way to pay for it, and is attaching small- business owners. either way, it is bad public policy for the country. when you want to talk about republican plans, let's remember, the republicans are in the minority and washington, have been shut out largely from this conversation and discussion. what i have offered over the course of the last year and a half to my town hall meetings and through their policy addresses is let's start with three specific things that will help new hampshire. allows small businesses to pool. allows small businesses to purchase anywhere in the country. and list of meaningful tort reforms so doctors stopped practicing defensively. if we started with those three specific things, which will look at and you as non-partisan, get those things on the books and then see how that affects this

industry. i think that would be a good start. but that is not worth the democratic congress decided to start. they looked toward sweeping overhaul, which is not supported by the majority people in new hampshire. a >> this question comes from phil. >> mr. guinta, in early 2009, congress passed the president's $800 billion stimulus package. do you think it has worked? >> i do not. i think it is a failed program. in new hampshire, we have lost 4,722 jobs since its passage. so for anyone to suggest that we have gained in new hampshire is a red herring. secondly, you do not stimulate the economy by spending through borrowing. the way you stimulate the economy is cut taxes for the people who do create jobs, which is the small business community here in new hampshire. and then you allow them to invest those dollars back into their own business.

hopefully employ more people who will then help the local economies as well as the national economy. so we need to acknowledge that this has not worked. i understand the congresswomen shea-porter was at an event about a week and a half ago that -- and share knowledge that she -- that the bill she voted for is not working. but i wish that acknowledgment came the beginning of the process, not at the end. >> explain how stimulus resulted in 4,000 job losses. >> since it began, we have lost 4,722 jobs. it is actually on their website. >> their many businesses, communities, and individuals in the granite state that have benefited from the stimulus. you have seen people up paving roads and building bridges. manchester was advocate of $54 billion of stimulus money. hasn't this economic injection into the city of manchester and new hampshire been a good thing? >> 101 has been paved several

times over the last 10 to 12 years. it is one of the nicest rose in the country. but it was not needed. and second, did not create or preserve jobs and as mayor, i said that we're going to get through this recession, not through looking for one-time money from the federal government but by tightening our belts, cutting spending and recognizing that that is what businesses have to do as laws private people in their own homes. that is what local communities and state communities should be doing. what is happening is stimulus money is coming to the state of new hampshire. they are filling their budget holes. and there downshifting costs to local communities. the upcoming fiscal year budgets for cities and towns in new hampshire are going to be devastating because of this one- time money that was used. it is not the right public policy position to have. you need to have a better position of cutting spending, in your belt. in new hampshire, we're used to that. i think if we did that, we would

be in better ship today. >> did the stimulus money create jobs in manchester? >> i new venture, we lost 4,722 jobs since the stimulus has been voted on. -- in new hampshire. so i would say we have not created a net job increase in new hampshire. >> congresswoman shea-porter, you're one of the members of congress who voted for the stimulus package, yet unemployment nationally remains at 9.5%. was the stimulus for that? was. let me correct something. and never said the stimulus did not work. i said it did not create as many jobs as i hoped for, and that is true. but it certainly did work. i would like to remind mr. guinta that we were actually losing jobs at the rate of 765,000 in december of 2008 after the republican policy of borrow and spend was put into place. so we did not suddenly lose jobs. we had been losing jobs steadily. that was the reason for the

stimulus. mr. guinta knows how important the stimulus is because he complained on the front page of the newspaper about not getting the stimulus money fast enough. the attorney-general at the time send an e-mail saying that mr. guinta was grandstanding by the stimulus. i think he knows that it helped. it helped manchester. it helps health care centers. we know it put money to small businesses. so it certainly did help. but the reality is that we were losing so many jobs, so we cannot totally turn things around. but the chief economist for the mccain presidential bid said that if we had not done the stimulus, and we would have lost twice as many jobs as we did. we lost 8 million jobs because the republicans broadcast and spend. if you look back at the republican administration, they had two wars going on. no matter how people feel about it, they should have paid for. they have medicare part b,

prescription drugs. that in the paper. and give tax cuts to the top 1%, and they did not pay for that idea. so we found ourselves in terrible shape. and then there was no regulation on wall street. so i think it is clever to actually that this is the fault of the stimulus package. in reality, the stimulus is a reaction to the problems that the republican administration policies brought upon middle- class america and small businesses in this country. >> the stimulus is scheduled to expire at the end of the year. then what happens? >> we have seen growth in private jobs. this is the good news but it is not as robust as we all want, obviously. we have seen a lot of good signs. manufacturing has been up steadily. the stock market is doing better. people's 401k's are coming back. but it can be devastating for families who cannot fight but jobs. -- who cannot find jobs. i say that the economic stimulus

was pumping air into a pretty flat mattress. this stimulus and all the work that was done get the country from falling into depression. we will see, but we're passing policies that will help small businesses and big businesses to be able to take off and continue the progress we are seeing it is slow and difficult. >> if i can jump in, at what point do programs like the stimulus, like the first-time home buyer tax credit, like the auto ballot, at what point to the stability of policies and hurting economic growth because the deficit is so big sisters to gobble up economic activity? >> you have to address the deficit. i voted against the tarp, the bush bailout, because i knew that the money would be misused. sure enough, it went to the big banks, and that was a big problem. the bush plan for the auto industry, i actually did support because i knew we have had manufacturing in this country. and the auto companies have turned around. financial security reasons, we have to make things in this

country, as well as for economic reasons. what we are seeing right now is recovery but difficult. still difficult. so you know, i think where we are right now, we need to get this tax cuts to the middle class. we have to get a but we cannot give those tax cuts to the top 20's and right now because of those great deficits you're talking about. we have to address them. >> quickly, mr. guinta, i think you're also opposed to the tarp bailout passed at the end of the bush administration. what about the general motors portion of that? would you have favored that as carol shea-porter did? >> in new hampshire, they would say it is an abject failure. the fact that it was administrative extremely poorly. the dollars that were supposed to be utilized for the cash for clunkers program was not coming to the honor dealers in a timely fashion. that had to put money out of front. what ended up happening is not american auto dealers helping

but foreign auto dealers were helping. when you talk to autodialers broadly throughout the state, they think it was a terrible idea. it did not work in new hampshire. and it just put out the inevitable. >> phil has the next question for congresswomen carol shea- porter. >> according to a recent federal reserve report, u.s. corporations held historically high amounts of cash for the first half of this year, yet hiring has been weak. with government policies can encourage businesses to loosen the purse strings and began hiring again? >> well, i think it has been a problem. these corporations are holding onto the money instead of hiring. a lot of that money that banks received was to lend to businesses to help, and they have been holding on to the money as well, which is a great concern. what we have been doing now, and we just passed into law to put money in the hands of small banks so that there will be able to lend to small

businesses. the whole idea is to put the money on mainstream -- on main street. small businesses are the backbone of our economy. they create most of the jobs in the country. if we can lift up the small businesses with the policies of the small business administration and through banks and lending in making it possible for them taxes kassebaum -- capital. we also need tax cuts. part of the advantage here is that we recognize that if we put the money in at the hands on main street instead of on wall street, we will be creating jobs. >> is there a psychological component to this? >> a lot of these larger corporations are not just u.s.- based anymore. their multinational corporations. the response to stockholders instead of two particular policies. i think that they reported to

have more of a growth until we saw the problem overseas when there was some trouble in the greek markets. we saw some holding back. the planned to invest more. so maybe some of it is psychological. the electronic concerned that there might be troubles in other areas of the world. but the u.s. economy and all major economists are saying that it has actually entered a recovery phase. >> same question. wire businesses nervous to hire and what can congress do about it -- why are businesses nervous to hire? >> she feels that sba japanese other federal entities are the solution, and she just outlined it. what she does not understand is that the stimulus, which has failed, also included $23 billion for tax credits for foreign companies in foreign nations. american countries in foreign

nations. you're talking about taking borrowed money and trying to pump it into the u.s. economy, and she is moving in overseas. i am not sure she realized that provision was in there. companies need consistency. they need predictability. the way you interact money back into a business is to take less from them than you are taking in the first place. she wants to pick winners and losers as someone who is wealthy or business owner who is producing well for other employees should not get a tax cut. and that the middle-class should. when any business owner who does not get the extension of the cuts that could be voted on this week before they go out of session, every single one of those business owner is going to have to pay higher taxes beginning next year, which means they are going to have to cut expenses. they will cut those middle-class employees that congresswoman shea-porter would like to save. the way to do it does not pick winners and losers. give everyone, give everyone the

benefit of a tax cut. john f. kennedy did it in 1967 our economy. it worked. it absolutely worked. and why congressmen shea-porter would be against the same policy that president kennedy implemented, the republicans are now trying to implement is beyond me. it suggests she does understand how business locally is working. >> what would you do specifically to help businesses get beyond that? >> we need to get the corporate tax rate. we need to cut the payroll tax. we need to cut individual taxes. we need to let the government stimulating the economy, which is business and small business here in new hampshire. rep 75% 80% of our economy. we need consistency by not adding broker added requirements in the 1099 provision. we're going to allow you to keep more of your money for the long term, so you can invest it in their businesses. but they are going to do it that is then hire local jobs. i have visited company dupont

company, and they're all saying the same thing. they are all asking for consistency. they're asking for predictability. they're asking to keep more of their own money. as the representative, which should be listening to them. right now, the policies that have been put in place by carol shea-porter have not been listening to those local requests and local demands. >> our next question. >> mr. guinta, i would like to turn our attention to energy costs. high energy costs is a major concern for businesses. what action would take as a member of congress to lower costs? >> we need to know what people have been asking for for years, some sort of long-term sustainable energy policy. we do not have it. i do not think we should to one- tenth of energy is a bad or good energy. i think we do need to continue fossil fuel engagement. when the nuclear research. we also need to look at alternative fuels. we're not there yet, and that is

part of the problem. in the last two years, with the federal government and what congresswoman carol shea-porter as focused on is a health-care bill and the stimulus bill that have done nothing to support the economy. these other areas where we need to be injecting money back into the economy, they have not even addressed. and they're going on breaking the end of next week not addressing energy, not addressing the tax breaks. the one thing they do want to do is perhaps get a cap and trade which is a national energy tax. from the minute you wake up on the morning internalize which on to getting into your car, going to the gas station in putting fuel in your vehicle, that is going to impose a tax increase on every single american. those are not the policies that are supported by people in new hampshire. these are the policies we need to be replacing in november. >> do what it should the government subsidized businesses that create a so-called green

jobs? >> what the government should be doing -- first of all, the government needs to understand that it is of the entity that creates jobs. in the last two years, the federal government has hired 150,000 employees. the federal government. first of all, we should be putting a hiring freeze and a spending freeze in place to try to get the deficit back in tow. and we should not be picking winners and losers. if you want to support one industry, the way to do is to provide tax cuts to that and every single industry. and let the market determine and dictate which companies are going to be successful. i suspect the companies or green-based will succeed of the have the same benefits that every other company in new hampshire's house. >> thank you. congresswoman shea-porter, i would like to ask you, what actions would you take a lower energy costs? >> first, let me say the stimulus act that he has been at knocking so hard actually gave tax breaks to small businesses

and gave the largest tax break to the middle-class in history. and we have given eight tax breaks and help to small businesses. so i need to correct the record there. and then what would we do for energy? we will do with the chinese have been doing. the chinese have been investing big time in renewable energies. we're sitting by the side of the road arguing with ourselves about whether we can do this or not. china knows every have to have energy to run our economy. they know they needed come to bid up their prowling around the surfaces of the earth to find natural resources to protect their economic future and their national security feature. we need to do that as well. i sit on the arms services committee and listen to the department of defense come in and express concerns about what would happen, and they're trying to do renewable energy as well. the big higgins said the u.s. can do this by doing a number of things. -- t. boone pickens said the

u.s. can do this by doing a number of things. many countries do not like us and did not plan on doing well by us. as for the costs of this, it is simply untrue to say that we will be paying taxes all day long. reality is that for the cost of a postage stamp every day, a postage stamp, we can get economic and national security. it is time to do this for this country. and people know this. but the best thing for all of us to do is start arguing on partisan politics like this and start dealing with the issues. the issues are about economic security and national security and we simply must develop more energy. >> thank you kentucky to address the question whether the federal government should subsidize the creation of green jobs? >> the federal government has always held businesses to launch. certainly it is in our national security and economic interest to help these companies start up.

such as like as support these tax incentives and breaks for every other industry, they should as well received them. >> let's say an entrepreneur in new hampshire starts a grain company. and that unser premier in one to two to three years starts making $208,000. good for that business, because that alternate or is creating jobs but what congresswoman shea-porter once a do is then tax the same person who created the green job, who created the green company, who's trying to help the local environment, by depressing the amount of money that he or she can make on the return on investment. my point is this is not the way to stimulate an economy. let's treat everyone the same. president kennedy did it in 1962 when this country needed an economic stimulant for

recession. what he said was we need to provide tax cuts for everyone. that policy is not a policy that is being considered by congress woman shea-porter. she is looking to pick and choose winners and losers. and how you can say she supports a green job employer but wants to taxes a person the very next day does not make economic sense, and it is not in good public policy. these are not arguments about partisanship. these are arguments about public policy. >> to clarify, are you saying she would support the creation of a great job but the next a tax that person through -- what? the repeal the bush tax cuts for the wealthy? >> right now, the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 need to be extended. otherwise, everyone paying taxes will have a tax increase. they are on a ragged the end of next week. they could take up this issue. i would like to see my member of congress to represent me take a leadership role and say, like other conservative democrats have in the country, and say we

need to extend all of these tax cuts. because businesses are stifled. and they do need that infusion of cash. >> i will let you jump in. then we will move on. go ahead. i lot of things together. >> thank you. i have to say that he is definitely following the republican leader in washington. he has said they're talking points exactly. but he is overlooking the fact is we get the largest tax cut to the middle-class, and we have given small businesses a series of tax cuts. but mr. guinta does not want to tax anybody. he was to abolish social security, abolish the department of education, and he wants to abolish the department of energy. if you are abolishing everything, then you do not need money. but if you plan to provide social security, medicare, if you plan to take care of the roads, bridges, and the infrastructure, if you plan to educate the children, then you have to have some money. the thing about the republicans and mr. guinta in washington, they are saying that it is

magical. you can find medical bank accounts. you do not have to worry. you can have it all. this is how we got into trouble. the new hampshire people are too smart to believe this. we got into trouble because all the spending, the borough and spend that they did without paying for it all. and mr. guinta was working for a former congressman at the time, and i do not recall him ever saying anything. he does not even acknowledge that he was a federal employee and has worked for a congressman. so through that era of borrow and spend, borrow and spend, why did not say something? he was to continue borrow and spend. if we take in from china -- we will have to take money from china. we will borrow the money from china. we will put us into $700 million in debt. and 80% of the money will go to people earning $1 million and more. that is not standing up for the middle class. >> we will move on. we're gong to pick up the tempo with a portion recall the

lightning round. in this part of the forum, where lies the candidates a series of questions that can be answered simply and decisively, such as yes or no. we know it is challenging for candidates, and that is ok. we ask you to do your very best bid up kicking it off is phil. >> mr. guinta, congress has been president obama a $40 billion bill designed to no small businesses gain easier credit. do you support the bill, yes or no? >> not as it is currently written, in no. >> yes, absolutely, i support that. small businesses need access to capital so they can grow their businesses and hire people. >> congresswoman shea-porter, house republicans have unveiled a new pledge to america promising with the would do if they win back congress. a key promises to free government spending. is that a good idea? >> i certainly could support putting a freeze on. but we need some flexibility in

case something happens in a war or some other problem. look, i ran in 2006 complaining that these tax deficits were going to absolutely destroy us. our deficit is way too high. our debt is way too high. that is was supported the bipartisan commission to take a look at the debt. >> mr. guinta, question. >> are you asking me if i support a spending freeze? >> yes. >> yes, i do. i supported several while i was mayor. i think it is exactly what we need right now. when congresswoman shea-porter entered congress, our deficit was about $500 billion. now it is $1.40 trillion. our debt was about $8 trillion. now is $13 trillion. i would have liked to see this kind of the leadership four years ago. our elected to congress to introduce something this week before vacation to stop -- i would love to see congress introduce something this week before vacation. >> talk about what you would do

as members of congress. our next round is from dennis. >> congresswoman shea-porter, yes or no, should the bush tax cuts be extended? >> you cannot say yes or no. because it has to be there for the middle-class. but it should not be there for the top 1%. because we have to borrow the money from china. so we have to take care of the middle-class. >> mr. guinta. >> easy answer. yes, everybody should be able to see more of their hard-earned money. >> thank you. president obama has proposed making the federal research and development tax credit permanent. you agree? >> yes. >> congress moment shea-porter? >> the federal research and development tax credit that president obama has asked to make permanent, would you support that? >> yes. >> thank you. >> mr. guinta, do you support or oppose the employee free choice act, which has to do with the

unions are formed? >> i 100% oppose it. it is going to create more of the tax burden in this country, and it is going to take away voters' rights to have a private personal vote. obviously, my opponent supports it. she is a co-sponsor of its. >> i certainly do supported. it is not voters' rights. it is workers to work for a company. they will then get to choose whether the want to hold an election, whether they want to do it on a private ballot or the other way. so it just says that the businesses can no longer decide. the workers get to decide. they are unions. they get to decide if they're going to be in in union and how they're going to do it. >> congresswoman, should future social security reform include means testing? in other words, taking into consideration someone's income? >> no. we know that we have means- tested programs that they fail

or people do not want to be in them because they see is edges welfare. in order to never robust program that keeps people from falling into poverty -- we know that more than half the people rely on social security, you have to have everyone paying in had ever been receiving. it is a universal program. that is why it succeeds. it also takes care of disabled and takes care of children and widows and widowers. so everybody needs to be in because everybody will benefit. >> we have to start the premise that the country has made a promise to you, and they need to honor that promise, whether it is financial or otherwise. so anyone receiving benefits who have paid in should receive the benefit. but moving forward, there needs to be a dialogue about how to solve the problem that social security has been rated. it is going to be insolvent by 2015 if we do nothing. taxpayers will be paying $12,000 per family into this system.

so it clearly does need reform. but let's make sure we honor the obligation and a promise to the people receiving it now. >> just to clarify common excuse me for jumping in, no means- testing? >> new mexico means-testing. he is incorrect. it is fine until 200037. >> and mr. guinta, yes or no to means-testing? >> we should be looking for a long-term solution. that one component needs to be part of a wider discussion. you cannot just say yes or no to that one component. >> ok. >> congresswoman shea-porter, is there such a thing as too big to fail? or should other private business, no matter how business or -- no matter how big or how small, the eldest and other on? >> i didn't need to be able to take care of themselves. unfortunately, wall street created this fiasco. nobody was paying attention. but i was against those bank bailouts because i do not believe in too big to fail.

i think they had to be responsible for themselves. i voted against it. >> too big to fail or and? >> there should not be any entity that is too big to fail. if we believe in a free market enterprise, and i do, we need to allow businesses to excel and succeed on iran. if they do not, i love that all entrepreneur work or that ingenuity to be picked up -- to allow that counternarrative be picked up by somebody else. at the federal level, you have seen a too big to fail mentality by this congress. and they're picking winners and losers. they have done it in the past. and they are looking at it for future public policy. >> so some agreement there, there shall not be too big to fail? >> i do not think we agree. >> i think this issue here is that he forgot that it was the bush bailout. i did not support the bush balop and i do think that these companies should not have received that help. -- i did not support the bush

bailout. >> what about general motors? >> that is different because we have to manufacture in this country. i said on the armed services committee. we have to make something. if a country attacks us, we have to be allowed to create vehicles and weapons. we have to protect our manufacturing base. there were so many jobs tied in with the auto industry and all the different companies that depend on the auto industry, and the auto industry has come back. >> i can interject. gm is too big to fail then, in your opinion. ford motor is not, but gm is. that is picking winners and losers. >> next. >> should nuclear power be a larger part of our national energy supply in the future? >> yes, i think it should. it we're looking for different ways to deliver energy are in the class in our country and try to reduce energy costs -- energy costs in new hampshire are among the highest in the nation.

we should be looking at everything including nuclear power. france does it and have done it safely. their energy costs are amongst the lowest. we need to start looking at these alternatives to try to deliver a lower cost product in our country. >> thank you. >> nuclear power is the most expensive source of energy. what mr. did not tell you is that the french very heavily subsidized that. actually, the u.s. subsidize the building of the nuclear industry. you cannot have it both ways. you can also get the government out of business and then call for all the subsidies. >> those are not calling for subsidies. >> there is subsidy money in the energy bill to help build its nuclear power plants. what we need to do is to take a larger vision. we recognize that we have nuclear power with us. we recognize it has a crucial role right now. but we also know it is expensive. >> in the spirit of the lightning round, let's go back

to the last two questions do phil. >> expanding passenger rail in new hampshire would cost about $250 million. is it worth the price tag? >> rain now this point in our economic crisis, we need to prioritize and look at cutting deficits. you have about 38 rail lines in the country that are not profitable. until we see metrics that will provide profitability, i think we have to look at other ways to engage our economy. >> so not now? >> and is it of these railroads are not profitable in making money is like saying our highways do not make money. of course they do not. you have to invest in this. it is basic infrastructure. we know we have a problem with pollution, congestion, and we know this would be good for businesses. it would be easier for them to bring their products back and forth. so yes, absolutely, we should be investing in any kind of real. people love to do about the european train system but do not

want to invest in a year. >> should congressional pay be frozen until the budget is balanced? >> yes. as a matter of fact, we have not had a pay raise. i voted against my pay raise every time. and we have not had one. i think it is reasonable. everybody else is tightening their belts, and we should, too. >> i think this pay raises are voice votes. so if you have a voice vote opposing and it passes, it is not do taxpayers must -- much good. we should cut it. we should actually cut the congressional offices budget itself. we stopped the franc and privileges to save money. we should eliminate the pension system from members of congress. so it is not an enticement to become a representative. these are all things that could be done anytime. they could be done as we could dry weather to see a proposal before you go on vacation >> ok, thank you both very much. we're going to switch gears again with a more open dialogue. i will moderate a two-week discussion between the

candidates on a broad question. the question for these first candidates is about housing. you know many analysts think the recent recession started with the housing crisis sparked by risky mortgage practices and borrowers getting in over their heads. we know how it turned out. the housing sector crashed. the financial sector followed. the question is, and we will have broad discretion, to you first, carol shea-porter, what lessons have we learned from this, and what lessons have not learned? >> we did wall street reform because we learned critical lessons that as a former head of the federal reserve once said, when the party it's too wild, it is time to take away the punch bowl. what was on wall street was total lack of regulation. we know the government has a role and responsibility, and i think they felt that. the fbi spoke to the bush administration, saying there was evidence of fraud in the needed more help of the did i receive it. i will start reforms, we learned we need to pay attention we had

to pass too big to fail regulation people that have -- we had to pass too big to fail regulation. and we all realize we need somebody sitting at the table saying what about the consumer, who is going to represent and protect them? >> what have we not learned? >> i think we're still seeing some activity that makes people concerned. concerned about where the money is a hint how we unfortunately did give quite a bit of money to banks -- with the money is and how unfortunately we did get quite a bit of money to banks. it was to help out homeowners. but i am not sure we learned about that yet. >> what i think we have learned is the unemployment rate has not significantly changed in new hampshire or in the country. we have learned that the stimulus spending in the bailout mentality has done nothing to improve our debt and deficit on the contrary, they have made

them worse. and now we have government that has created a problem trying to fix the problem. my position has been let's try and get government out of the way, put our faith in entrepreneurs and people who create jobs in new hampshire and in the country, and listen to what they need in order to create a better environment. that is something that has not been tried by our member of congress here or her leadership in washington over the last two years. i think it is about crime -- about time to try an alternative. >> i wonder, for a long time, republican and democratic administrations have promoted in different ways that american dream of homeownership. is that something that the government should no longer do? should the purely a private- sector thing? >> when my wife and i got married, our dream was to buy a home. the government did not tell me that was my dream. that was our dream.

and we have succeeded in creating the dream. i think it is innate in all of us that want to succeed for ourselves and for our chayote -- our family. we do not need the federal government telling us that. >> i think it is interesting that, you know, people like mr. guinta think they did everything by themselves. went to school on their own, bought a house on the run. not even an acknowledgment that it said the federal government to succeed. to succeed, you have to have investment in schools and investment in the housing industry. and then to say to get the government out of the way, well, that is what happened on wall street. there was no government watching at all. so what mr. guinta is proposing is a return to what happened before and what got us into this trouble. we, the people, are the government. he treats it as some kind of separate entity. we, as people, are the government, and we need to have the government watch out on wall street to make sure we do not

have a fiasco like this again. i do not know why he does not listen to any of the chief economist. the chief economist for mccain said that we would have doubled the numbers of jobs lost. and he has also said that the stimulus is worked. he has talked about the role of the government there. i am astounded at this total anti-government role we're hearing from mr. guinta today. >> that sounds like you believe in what john mccain has been saying since is economist seems to be the person who knows everything about our country and our economy. right now, john mccain as saying the stimulus did not work. the ballots have not worked. and we need to return to a lesser limited government kind of approach. yes the the first one in my family to go college. the federal government did not do that. my folks, who worked in small business for 40 years, who never went to college themselves, are the ones who gave me the

ability to excel in an educational environment. and i took that inmates and the of it. the federal government did not do it. i did it. my folks did it. other people in our country recognize that principle as a sound, phase full tradition in our country -- unfaithful tradition in our country. this notion that government has to provide everything, this notion that you fill government is the answer, it's just not the solution. >> did you use school loans to go to college? >> no, i did not. >> none? >> no, i did not use any school loans. >> no bank loans, no nothing? nothing backed by the federal government, nothing? in your university did not receive a single penny of federal funding. >> you would have to ask the college. >> but the point i am making is your so extreme about totally

billowy -- bewildering the better government. i know you said you would join the tea party caucus in washington, d.c., if you get elected. that is their stance of no government anywhere. if you look around, the government has a role. it should not have to have the hand. i agree with that. we all have that libertarian in us in new hampshire. but the reality is when you do not have any government at all, and saw that with katrina when i volunteered for a month, it is not pretty when you do not have any organization or funding for anything. you pick up the phone and nobody can answer, not that there was a phone there. the reality is the federal government and state governments and local government -- you have been a government employee all of your life except for one stand with the company. >> all of my life? i just turned 40 yesterday. i was mayor for four years. >> your did the city and state level and you were a federal employee at a congressional office. it would have been a great time for you to say something about

what was going wrong, and you did not. it tells me, having been on the government payroll all of those years, that you felt the government did some good things and you wanted to be a part of it. >> i am not sure about what government payroll you're talking about. i served a congressman for two years. >> he was a federal employee, right? >> yes, i served in his office for two years. >> let's go back to the housing issue. we will get to the resume part of the discussion later. this is interesting. i am is seeing some big philosophical differences between the two of you. mr. guinta, congresswoman carol shea-porter said there was no government oversight at all on wall street, and that is why all these risky lending practices happened. that is what the mortgage crisis happened, which led to the financial crisis, and so on. do you agree with that at all, that there was not enough government oversight of wall street? >> there was regulation. there was some specific things

that got out of control and out of hand. and the idea here of carol shea- porter is to now create more regulatory authority and a new regulatory agency. i just do not believe that that is the right approach. there's certain things like derivatives that we can get to see if it is good for the marketplace and if it is legal. but to have a new city agency now -- >> is a bureau, not an agency. >> what is the difference? >> it is going to be a lot smaller and will come under an umbrella. >> here is the problem. you believe in creating a larger federal government. i do not. >> i do not believe in creating a larger federal government. i believe i and selective government versus the believing in no government. when you do not have an active government paying attention, you

have consumers that are hurt. >> we have a activists right now. >> there were claims that they were not paying attention to the airlines, making sure that follow certain federal regulations. we'd eat food that had not been inspected? i want to know how far you would go. -- would you eat food that had not been inspected. >> all right, we're going to wrap this up. i am thrilled that we were traded today to the first round of carol shea-porter and frank guinta. we're going to move to the final portion of our forum. this is where we return to our panelists for one last question. the candidates will have one minute, one minute -- [laughter] the first question comes from phil to mr. guinta. >> being that this is a forum on business and the economy, what

in your professional experience qualifies you as to address the economic stagnation the country is facing? >> after a graduate college, i was in business. i was also in my own personal business or i created insurance groups for small business owners, helping them cut their costs in workers' compensation and general liability. i see firsthand how small business owners have been hurt by the bureaucratic mess of that has been created in washington, the government oversight and the extension of taxes and to their personal lives. i have also run the state's largest city, where we had to balance budgets, had to make tough decisions about whether or were going to have spending and hiring freezes. i've done those things. i think that is the kind of leadership that people from new hampshire are looking for, especially considering the last two years have not produced a better economy, a reduction in the debt or the deficit, or an expansion of jobs in new hampshire are in our country.

>> same question. what personal experiences and you bring the best qualifies you to help the country move out of economic stagnation? >> first of all, i come from the middle-class. i had to work the way through college. so i understand the struggle there, and i recognize it is happening in the economy. i grew up with my mother and father having two small businesses. so there were ups and downs. >> just a couple minutes left in this debate. you can see it at the c-span video library. we will leave it here and go live to san francisco now were the ninth circuit court of appeals is hearing oral argument -- the two parts of arizona's immigration law that would require police to check person's immigration status and make an arrest of there is a -- if there is a reasonable belief that there in the u.s. illegally. this is live coverage from san francisco on c-span. >> good morning, everyone. we're going to take up the first

case that is on the calendar, and that is the united states of america versus the state of arizona. we have allotted 30 minutes per side. the appellant, if the appellant wishes to save time for rebuttal, that is perfectly fine. just keep an eye on the clock. it is counting down. with that, a reminder, we're ready to begin. so proceed. state of arizona. >> good morning. my name is john. i represent the state of arizona and the governor who is with us in court today. i would like to try to reserve five minutes for rare bottle. >> that is fine.

>> your honor, arizona is trying to deal with the problems that arise from a federal immigration system that even president obama acknowledges is broken. arizona is a border state, and it is on the very front lines. there are serious crimes that are involved in the drug trafficking, the human trafficking, human smuggling, and the other activities, the coyotes to fly because once an immigrant, an illegal alien is in the united states, the chances of removal are solo the they say basically crossing the border is the same as crossing the finish line. with the federal government that has been unable or unwilling to solve the problem, arizona passed the public policy whereby

bay wished there arizona law enforcement officers to assist in the implementation and enforcement of federal immigration law to the maximum extent permitted by federal law. the district judge apparently deciding that arizona law enforcement officers would forget their training, experience, or the constitution and act in an unconstitutional manner has entered an injunction that basically preserved the status quo. the status quo is simply unacceptable. >> the district court focused on four provisions. we're dealing with four of the provisions in the law. >> mr. bouma, forget about what arguments to my address to a jury or legislature. tell us how judge bolton was

wrong on each of those four, if you would, please. >> ok. with respect to -- i mean we would first start with the proposition that this is a facie challenge. she mentioned that challenge. the standard for that challenge is principally that there is no set of circumstances that exist under which the statute would be valid. but another way, with respect to each of these sections' challenge, it is unconstitutional in every conceivable application. that is not true. >> you mentioned salerno. is that principle somewhat intention with the government's argument here that these provisions are pre-empted completely? >> these provisions are not

preempted completely. in every instance, they comply with the congressional objectives. there is not one of them that does not comply with congressional objectives. they do not conflict in any way. you can comply with both state and federal law in each particular instance. none of them stand as an obstacle to the full purposes or objectives of congress. there is no express pre-emption. the only pre-emption would be field pre-emption. that would be the regulation of immigration which, basically, is just to decide who should and should not be admitted to the country and the circumstances under which a legal entrant should remain. it tells us that the rest of this is under police power and that every regulation of aliens is not a regulation of immigration.

are back to the proposition there is no express pre-emption, no implied pre-emption, and no conflict. >> would you tailor that argument with section 3 -- to section 3? >> yes, sir. arizona passed a set of standards that are essentially the same as a federal law -- 13 04 and 13 06. if you're in violation of that, you are in violation of state law. that is consistent with congressional objectives. certainly the fact that the in ministers and does not choose to enforce them should not mean that -- that the administration does not choose to enforce them does not mean that congress does not want them enforced. congress has encouraged state and local officials to assist congress. if you look at section 1644, 13th 57 -- >> mr. bouma, on that point, the

supreme court said that adding as a misdemeanor the failure to register was treading on federal ground. we have, under sections 1304 and 1306, we have a well- detailed and regulated policy about what documents immigrants or aliens must carry under the federal statute. arizona is saying that is fine, but if you do not carry those, we're going to put you in jail for up to a year or four new -- or fine you. >> the arizona statute has less penalties than the federal. it goes to 30 or 60 days. the people who

can. congress has the penalties. they have stiffer penalties than arizona does. arizona is just saying, comply with the rules. reductor argument is that the state can take a look at whether -- >> your argument is that the state can take a look at whether the federal government is enforcing a lot and if they are not enforcing the law, the state can come along and impose. would the state of california be able to sue me for not paying my federal income tax? >> i do not think that it is the same. arizona is bearing the brunt of the federal government's failure to enforce. hines is a conflict case. it did not say that there was no room for the states to work in this particular area. as a matter of fact, there is a particular paragraph, the

concept of whether this is in the realm of both is specifically reserved. the statute in that case was totally the government's aim -- totally at odds with the government's aim. this is not. fact that the administration will not enforce what congress says does not mean that arizona should have to bear the brunt of it. because they come in and claim pre-emption because we are occupying the field, but they chose not to enforce it. they're not doing much about it. >> how about section 2? >> it is a codification of what people are already doing. in almost every jurisdiction, they are doing it on a discretionary basis, investigating suspected illegal aliens. all 2b does is codify what even

the united states and the district court essentially set as constitutionally permissible. >> let me ask you this question. it seems to me reasonable for them to ask -- ascertain the status of a person and ascertain if from a federal source, but the result of the provision, in the case of an arrest, the person will not be released until that status is determined. now, i do not know any provision of federal law that goes that far. is that not getting into federal territory? >> the provision that you're talking about, the second sentence, we think asked to be construed to be consistent with

the first, third, and fourth sentences of the paragraph, at which point, the only people who are investigated are those who there is a reasonable suspicion are an indian. >> that is fine. my point -- are an alien. >> that is fine. my point is that they should not be released until that is determined to defect that is in the context of the fourth amendment. >> -- until that is determined. >> that is in the context of the fourth amendment. >> i understand that. how does that not exceed what is possible in the federal law? >> it specifically contains the provision -- basically, i can tell you, it says that it will be construed in accordance with federal immigration law to preserve the constitutional

right of all persons and the privileges and immunities of the united states citizen. that is part of 2b. it incorporates the fourth amendment standards. >> all right. let's suppose that a person could reasonably believe committed a felony, then they posted bail and are able to get out, but the statute says, you do not get out into your immigration status is determined. how do you reconcile -- until your immigration status is determined. how do you reconcile that? >> ordinarily, if they go to jail, something will determine their immigration status. >> i can see that that would be done. this is an absolute statement.

"fish are not be released until the -- they shall not be released until this is determined." >> i do not think -- if you take the other provisions, you have to go as far as the fourth amendment allows you, then you have to turn them loose. if you cannot determine within a reasonable time what their immigration status is, that statute specifically provides that you often turn them loose. it passed to be consistent with the constitutional rights of all persons -- it has to be consistent with the constitutional rights of all persons. >> we're in the process of determining whether he was legal or not. the statute requires him to be presented to an officer within the shortest time possible to be admitted into bail. is that what would happen here? >> the idea is to follow the usual procedures. we have reasonable suspicion.

the next thing you need is probable cause. the next thing you have to do is let them go if you cannot identify them. >> that is on bail. >> on bail or otherwise. if you are out on the highway and you cannot identify them. >> could you identify for me -- there is some debate about how sentence 1 and sentenced to two are to be interprete. i'm curious -- and sentence two are to be interpreted. i am curious about how this should work for officers in the field. >> i will start with the position that officers understand the concept of reasonable position and probable cause and how long you could keep somebody. the statute's second sentence has to be construed to deal with respect to those whom there

is a reasonable suspicion. that task to go to the next census as well. the accord failed to apply three constitutional -- three principles. one is in purpose to the statute and its constitutional manner. two is interpret it in a manner that does not end up with absurd results. 3, interpret it in accord with legislative intent. the legislative intent is to deal with illegal aliens. arizona has a long, proud tradition of hispanic population. >> let me follow up on your response to the statute goes on to provide -- to your response. the statute goes on to provide that the presumption that they are here legally. in the case of the arrest that

-- as judge noonan was pointing out, what happens if they are pulled over? if they have a driver's license, that is it? they do not have to comply with the other parts of the statute. >> it is all over. that is a lot better than the current status. >> that does not seem to be what the statute says. >> sir? >> well, it does. i think the statute is clear on that. if they have a driver's license, it is presumed that it is taken care of and they are gone. the statute is intending to deal with illegal aliens. it is illegal aliens that we're talking about. if you try to interpret it the way the government or the district court -- > can you answer judge paez's question?

it does not say a person is conclusively presumed to not be an indian by the presentation of an arizona driver's license -- an alien by the presentation of an arizona driver's license. the prevention can be provided by a conversation between the officer -- presumption can be provided by a conversation between the officer and a person that he is not an admitted alien or an american citizen. >> you are absolutely right. as a matter of fact, very often, in practice, the first thing and alien tells him is that they are not a citizen. that takes care of reasonable suspicion. >> if we were to interpret a statute in a way that is constitutional -- [no audio]

>> yes, sir. >> would you like to talk about five? >> 5 is the issue of whether you can make a criminal penalty for being employed. to attach a penalty for people who are an authorized to work, to penalize them as a way to discourage them from working. that is clearly consistent with congressional intent. they are unauthorized workers because congress has made it clear they are not supposed to be working. congress has chosen to first try to deal with it from the

employer at standpoint -- employer's standpoint. in that instance, they did put in an express pre-emption provision, but it was a partial express pre-emption provision, even with respect to employers. they certainly did not put in any express prevention -- express pre-emption provision in it with respect to employees. nor is it clear if you look at the statute or anything congress has done is there any clear and manifest intent to preempted the area of employees. congress has put some employees for using false statements. >> i will tell you the problem. your argument is foreclosed to us. in the case for 1990, judge ferguson found and wrote that the congressional intention was not to punish employees.

now, right or wrong, this three- judge panel must follow that rule. we aremnot an -- are not an en banc panel. tell me why judge ferguson's opinion does not bind this court. , inudge ferguson's opinion that instance, went through the legislative intent. to determine the legislative intent, he added hearing the consisted of a five-person committee -- had a hearing that consisted of a five-person committee. it is a long way from being clear and manifest. >> let us propose -- i stipulate to the fact that judge ferguson was absolutely wrong. do you have that in mind? i agree with you, let's say.

i don't, but -- [laughter] but i am saying i agree with you. how does a three-judge panel of the ninth circuit overrule another three-judge panel of the ninth circuit on what the legislative intent was? judge berger send down the legislative intent -- judge ferguson's down to the legislativ intent which said that the illegal alien -- judge ferguson found the legislative intent which said that illegal alien could not work found that to be at odds with the ruling that they should not punish those who were waiting for proceedings on immigration. they should be allowed to work and feed themselves. that was his idea. judge ferguson, rest in peace, may have been wrong.

how can we turn that around and agree with you? position, you're in a should you decide that it was simply wrong. >> our case law does not allow us to do that. we are bound by what the prior three-judge panel said. unless there is a change in law by the supreme court or an ongoing panel or by statute. immigrant rights center poses some problems with respect to section 5. how about the final section before your time runs out? >> with respect to section 6, that is a provision that is really consistent with the federal statute, 1252c. arizona lawn

enforcement officer to make a warrantless arrest on somebody who is removal from the country. the idea is to permit arizona law enforcement officers to work with i.c.e. and to hold suspects when i.c.e. says they want them held, for instance people who have been removed, convicted of a violent crime or public offense, and to have been removed and returned -- >> does this statute not pose the same problem that judge noonan was talking about with respect to arrest and detention? >> i do not believe it does, sir. >> why not? >> this is somebody that i. c.e. once held brutuses somebody has been removed and returned to the country. there is someone who to arrest.

>> it is not restricted to returnees, is it? >> no. but that is an example. somebody who has absconded or somebody who has left and returned. either one would apply. they are both clearly were mobile. -- removable. >> it also goes to someone who if they find out he was sentenced, convicted, serve his term for second degree murder and is free commodore arizona policemen can arrest him because he is -- free, your ears and a policeman can arrest him because he is -- your arizona policeman can arrest him because he is removable. it may be clear in some cases like murder, bank robbery,

sexual abuse of a minor, which are all causes for removal, even though the sentence has been served. maybe unclear in other services. this is a facial challenge, it isn't that? -- challenge, isn't it? >> i.c.e. maintains a database of those who have been removed and convicted of those kinds of things. >> there is a very elaborate scheme and a lengthy process for delivering -- for deciding whether somebody is removable or not. there is a lengthy process, not an easy call whether somebody -- there are some obvious crimes that judge bea alluded to, but there are many that are not. we debate between ourselves

about what is a crime of moral turpitude or what is a serious felony. >> it is clear there are many areas that are clear. the main point is this is a facial challenge. that is the main point with respect to each of these. it is a facial challenge. there are certainly circumstances in which these could be applied in a constitutional manner. it is not unconstitutional in every conceivable aspect. >> i am still trying to understand how this statute works. if an officer determines by running a data check that somebody has been convicted of second-degree murder or whatever crime you might want to pinpoint, they take them into custody -- arrest them without a warrant. what did they hold them for? >> before the arrest them, they

have to have a reasonable suspicion. it has to be unlawful stop, detention, or arrest. they have to have reasonable suspicion. they check with i.c.e. and find out who the individual is. that is important. until they do it, neither they nor i.c.e. know who they have. you do not know who you have -- you cannot catch them unless you know about them. their report that. now they know who they have. now they say, we want you to hold him. >> we do not know what this is a removable offense. >> if you're going to talk about people acting in a constitutional manner, go back to the fact that you assume they will. secondly, that this is only official challenge and there are constitutional applications. this law can be complied -- applied in a constitutional

manner. >> how long do they have -- does i.c.e. have to get back? 24 hours, 48 hours? >> less than 24 hours. you can look at all of the statements that have been submitted. they usually get an answer back in less than 11 minutes. i am past my -- >> do you want us to construe the statute so that it can only operate as to arizona asking i.c.e. for our ruling? >> i do not think it is the only time that would happen. there are some relatively clear things. the concept would basically be to provide the authority that is required if you're going to implement the federal statute,

1256c, it needs to have state authority. we just do not know. we need to clarify that. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> good morning. before discussing the particular provisions at issue here, i would like to first lay out the constitutional structure and pre-emption provisions that we think the governed the validity of those provisions. the constitution of the united states -- that is the subject matter of immigration in the national government. >> national government, no. in congress. in effect congress and the enactment and the executive branch in the execution -- in effect, congress in the

enactment, and the executive branch in execution. >> the execution of a lot is done fairly and well. -- of bill law is done fairly and well. >> the court -- this is a core aspect of foreign relations and one of the purposes of the adoption of the constitution, the concern that individual states might embroil the entire nation with disputes with other countries. it is therefore important not to allow a patchwork of state laws, but for the nation to speak with one voice. in this context, it is particularly important to support the rights of u.s. citizens abroad in their reciprocal treatment. >> as there been any adverse foreign relations since the year to that -- have there been any for relations since the year when new jersey enacted

a similar law that anyone who was stopped for an indictable crime or drunk driving should have his immigration status checked? >> i am not aware of of a level of -- of a level of this fact. >> how about in rhode island? has that led to our foreign relations been deteriorated as a result of checking immigration status? >> there have been concerns expressed -- >> as to rhode island or new jersey or only arizona? >> the declarations submitted by deputy secretary lew -- but it secretary --eputed >> has any other state, nevada or any other, ever issued a

declaration that the legislature declared that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in arizona? >> no, and i think it is important. it enacts a combination of additional criminal penalties on top of those adopted by congress and the mandatory enforcement scheme for mandatory checks with dhs anytime there is a stop and reasonable suspicion. section one of the act describes what these provisions are designed to work together to adopt attrition by enforcement and to adopt a public policy of the state of arizona that is independent and outside the control of congress and the national government. >> that is not in the statute today said they would operate outside of the control -- that is not in the statute. did they say they would operate outside the control -- do not

put words in there. >> it is a description of the consequences of what happens. i could explain -- >> we are well aware. why do you not concentrate on the provisions? >> i would like to switch to section 3 in particular, which establishes a state crime for failure to register or carry a registration card as required by the federal criminal statutes, but it only applies to people who are on lawfully present in the united states. in effect, it criminalizes unlawful presents. those prosecutions are brought by the state and not subject to the control of the united states government. we think that is pre-emptive clearly for three reasons. it is a direct regulation of immigration. a federal provision cross referenced is part of congress's and direct regulation of immigration. it is this date in position of criminal sanctions over and above -- a state imposition of

criminal sanctions over and above. >> i do not want to speak for my colleagues, but i do not think you have to spend a great deal of time on section three. >> i do want to make the point that the other provisions to the act, particularly section 2, was designed to work in tandem with section 3. >> it does nothing more than complement what the federal scheme. >> the supreme court said that the registration scheme at issue was built on top of that. the court specifically said that a state may not complement or add auxiliary regulations and additional criminal penalties on top of that. their conflict preemptions here. the effect of the provision is to criminalize illegal presence in the united states because it only applies to people who are

on lawfully present. as we explain in our brief, that is contrary to the policy of the united states in statutes and consistent with international practice not to criminalize mere presence in the united states. for all those reasons, we think that section 3 is pre-emptive because it is a direct regulation of immigration. if i might, unless the court has further questions on section 3, i could switch to section 5 of the statute. >> that is fine. >> the employment provision. with respect to section 5, as the court pointed out, the court's decision in the national immigrants right case did analyze the backdrop and the enactment of the federal prohibition -- employer sanction provision.

congress deliberately rejected the possibility of imposing sanctions -- >> you heard judge bea. this is common ground. we have bound by that decision. do i need to say a word more? go on. [laughter] >> if i could add one point on that on section five -- >> do you have to do it? [laughter] >> i would like to _ 1 points that i think reinforces what the court was correct -- to underscore one point that think reinforces what the court was correct in. it is that the 1324a of the federal act has a specific prohibition requiring individual employees to test that they are present and authorized to work.

there are criminal sanctions for violating a provision in the federal act. there are a number of provisions that say the statement that the employee makes may not be used for any purpose except to enforce the federal statute. to us, that clearly shows that congress contemplated that the employees involvement and statement he has to make could only lead to federal consequences and that there would be no state consequences. that point was not made in the ncir. >> you mean to say there is a precarious -- perjurious declaration, then the state in which that declaration is made cannot prosecute? >> i believe that is true.

i believe it cannot make the employment itself unlawful. >> why do you believe the state could not prosecute perjury committed on a federal pocket -- docket? >> if it is regulating perjury against the united states, in the same way that section 3 is pre-emptive, so would that be. it is not up to the state to prosecute felt -- false statements made to that the federal government. there is a case involving fraud on the fda. the supreme court said the relationship, specifically in the context of raw between the federal agency and those whom it regulates, that the matter -- of fraud between the federal agency and those whom it regulates, that the matter could not be a source of civil action. it is no need for the courts to decide that. regret i am not talking about a symbol -- >> i am not talking

about a civil action. regret the question is whether the state would have authority over -- >> the question is whether the state would have authority. >> keep in mind where the state is found not have the ability to perjure himself -- to prosecute somebody who perjured himself in front of the federal government. >> we think that would ordinarily be governed by federal law. i addressed the substantive criminal positions -- provisions. if i may, i would like to turn to section 2b of the act -- >> i am interested in how salerno fits into this scheme. >> we believe that this statute is pre-emptive on its face. let me explain why. i think it is consistent with

the salerno formulation. >> do you stipulate that this is a facial challenge? >> yes, it is a facial challenge. this provision is unconstitutional in every application. here's why. what we object to and what is pre-emptive is the mandatory nature of the requirement. we do not question the authority of the state a state law enforcement officer for example in the course of an ordinary stop, either traffic or stopping someone on the sidewalk, to question someone about his identity, his status, and to check with dhs -- indeed, federal officials rely often upon information gleaned from state and local law enforcement. what is problematic about this is the mandatory nature of it. what the state has done is to harness the federal enforcement

apparatus and enacted this state enforcement approach to the immigration law. >> i see that is the theme of your brief. is not congress capable of saying no? if this is a burden? >> congress could, but we think congress already has said no. >> is there anything in the statute -- that is interesting. >> we think we're is manifested most clearly is in the provision of the act -- section 287-g or 1357-g of title 8. the first nine sections of that provision -- and this was enacted in 1996 -- establish a

mechanism under which dhs threw a vice 10 enter into a cooperative law enforcement -- through i.c.e. can enter into a cooperative law enforcement agreement. under that provision, state officers may exercise authorities of i.c.e. including doing checks under appropriate circumstances. the act makes clear that, whether it is an agreement like that, the state and local officers have to act under the supervision of i.c.e. and have to follow their priorities in terms of law enforcement. >> under g-10 it says notwithstanding -- no provision of this act will stop -- nothing in this objection to chow be construed to require an agreement under this subsection nothing in this subsection

shall be construed to require an agreement under this subsection to require anyone to communicate knowledge that a particular avian is not legally present in the united states -- alien is not legally present in the united states or to cooperate in the apprehension, detention, or removal of indians not lawfully present in the united states -- aliens not lawfully present in the united states. these officers are under the 18 -- the a.g. but this does not stop regular officers, does it? >> our position is not that there not often -- that they are not authorized, but that the state mandates it. if one looks at 10-be -- it is true, an agreement is not required for state officers to cooperate.

the pertinent an important language is "cooperate with the attorney general." 11 sovereign utilizes its law enforcement officers to assist -- when one sovereign utilizes its law enforcement officers to assist the second sovereign, there is an understanding that whose laws are being enforced will take the lead. the officers of the arizona are assisting the second sovereign, the united states. that that is all very well as to subsection b. -- >> that is all very well as to subsection b. it does not say to communicate when the attorney general wants you to communicate or cooperate. this is a right under the fed rule statute for the local people to communicate with the attorney general. >> not should be part of a broader cooperative relationship -- that should be part of the broader, cooperative relationship.

it's as to communicate with the attorney general and then it says otherwise to cooperate. >> besides communicating. >> otherwise to cooperate refers back to a. communications is part of the cooperative relationship between the state and the federal government. >> is not the obligation of the federal government made very clear by sections 1373-c entitled "obligation to respond to inquiries"? the ins shall respond -- i.n.s asked topond towhen ascertain that immigration status of an individual. it does not say when we want to,

in our discretion, when we have funds available. it says shall. >> our point does not turn on the response that dhs makes, but on the amnesty and conduct of the police and local officers who would be, by hypophysis, making inquiries of the alien -- thesis, making inquiries of the laalien. they might not otherwise do this in the absence of 1070. >> they might or might not. this is a facial challenge. you have to prove that every time they would stop one -- someone that would be unconstitutional. >> we would have to show the mandatory application is impermissible because it takes away the discretion of the local law enforcement officer to decide whether to pursue a particular line of inquiry,

rather than mandated. >> what about section to do? if you have reasonable suspicion, if it is practicable, it will not interfere with the investigation, then you can request his immigration status. >> in those circumstances, it is mandatory. the first sentence does not provide for the state or local officer to take into account federal priorities. the only thing that can be taken into account are the state or local law enforcement officer's own priorities. >> what federal priorities? >> as we explained in our brief, the secretary of homeland security through i.c.e. has established priorities -- >> there can be no priority established under i.c.e. or by i.c.e. as to responding to the obligation to respond to inquiries.

>> what i am describing here does not go to their response to the inquiries, but to the conduct of the police officers when they encounter someone on the beat in the neighborhood or shopping -- stopping a car -- >> what will the fed's do in this case? >> we want him to say, what would i do if left to my own law enforcement judgment, knowing what the fed's approach is with respect to particular problems? >> he is told by the editors -- by the legislature and the government what to do. if you have reasonable suspicion, if it is practicable to do so, it will not interfere with the investigation, run and immigration check. it takes 11 minutes according to the last speaker. >> our problem is the state has mandated it. >> you keep saying mandate. before arizona passed this statute, this provision, let's

assume no agreement, no cooperative agreement, could the sheriff of some local county say to his officers, whenever you make a stop and you think there is reasonable suspicion that the person you stop is here illegally, you run a check i.n.s.? >> i think that presents the same problem. >> it is not mandatory. >> the sheriff has. if the share of adopts a policy for these purposes and other -- the sheriff adopts a policy for these purposes and others, it should be seen as having the force of law. >> the sheriff has decided in his destruction -- discretion how to keep direct his officers. >> it is not solely the sheriff's concern when it comes

to the enforcement of federal immigration law. >> the officers say, i made a stop, it looks like the guy is illegal. goingnt to call i.n.s. -- to call i.n.s. what is wrong with that? >> add some point, what one individual officer does not rise to the point of a legal problem. it could be worked out in the quarter of relationship between the federal government and the state -- cooperative relationship between the federal government and the state. >> in light of the laws we have been talking about, could the officer not decide to call i.c.e. about a particular person he has detained? it seems it is partly permissible. >> it is. there is another aspect -- the

private right of action. >> let's not get away from this point. i read your brief and have listened to your interchange with my colleagues. i do not understand your argument. we are dependent, as a court, and counsel being responsive, focusing, trying to help us, not just fall like soldiers in front of a position that does not hold./ -- hold. it is not a matter of pre- emption of a state officer is told to do something. if the program -- if the federal government wants to preempt something, congress can say so. we do not want to have this information. it has not done so. judge bea made very clear to you

that it has not done so. i would think the proper position would be to can see --- this is ahat point where you do not have an argument. >> with respect, we do have an argument. the mandatory nature of the section as coupled with the private right of action which provides that any citizen of the state, not just a share of running the department, but any citizen of the state -- sheriff running the department, but any citizen of the state can run a private action. this builds in a powerful incentive for state or local officer to pursue questioning in circumstances which ordinary law enforcement would not call for. the state has singled out this one subject matter of immigration for this extraordinary, mandatory

requirement and is subject matter that is exclusively federal in its prosecution and enforcement. the other thing that is extraordinary about this is that it is geared to the reasonable suspicion standard. that is familiar in terms of authorizing or permitting law enforcement. it is purposefully a low standard of far lower than preponderance -- probable cause. it is a standard whose daily application depends on the individual judgment of law enforcement officers in the field, often not exercising that power to the guilt because of the recognition that they should be apply -- the hilt because of the recognition that they should be applying a standard somewhere above it. this is a permissive station -- application. every time a state or local officer encounter someone on the beat and the circumstances might lead to a certain judgment that

there is reasonable suspicion that person is unlawfully here, that officer must pursue the matter and ask questions when the officer would not otherwise. >> would it be similarly permissible if arizona were to say every time you stop or detain or arrest a person, you have to check in with the national crime center to see if there are any outstanding warrants? >> that is regular police -- >> every time you stop a person, if you have to take his fingerprints. anything wrong with that? >> in that circumstance, the state is regulating its own state law enforcement. >> not necessarily. if the national center has outstanding warrants in the state of california, that is not in arizona crime. >> that is information that the officer might fine ncic, but in

terms of pursuing a -- what is different is the state has singled out immigration and said, you will pursue immigration in a way that you will not pursue any other state or federal responsibility. >> seeing that illegal aliens are removed from the state of arizona, even though many of them are also criminals." -- criminals. >> the state certainly has an interest. the encounter between the local law enforcement officer may be on the street or in school with the student who has been in a fight -- the officer might have a suspicion that the student is a lawfully present. suddenly, this law requires that incident be pursued. all of that is geared not toward something that the state can do -- the state cannot remove the person, cannot prosecute the person. it is all intake for ultimate federal enforcement.

>> the state can deliver an illegal alien over to the federal officials. that may result in that person being removed. >> in the field, the cooperative relationship against which all federal and state corporation law enforcement works, there is communication about that. before the person is brought to i.c.e., there be communication between the local law enforcement officer in andi.c.e., -- officer in and i.c.e. it stands as an obstacle to every encounter between the state and a federal government because it creates a state enforcement priority -- a mandatory enforcement approach backed by his private right of action and geared in an -- this private right of action and geared in an unprecedented way to the reasonable suspicion standard, which is not been used

in this way to compel law enforcement officers. >> your time is rapidly decreasing. i would like to respond to the arguments advanced with respect to section 6. >> with respect to section 6, it presents the problems that the district court identified. as the district court pointed out, section 6, the parties agreed in a lower court, was geared to the situation where the crime might be committed outside of arizona because there was a party within the state of arizona to arrest someone -- already authority within the state of arizona to arrest someone -- >> not that person had already served a sentence. the s.e.c. said 0-- this section does allow that. >> that is true, but that the

petition was not put forward -- that justification was not put forward. it could be considered. this is just a preliminary injunction stage. >> and that consideration were considered, you would be likely to lose. >> i think it continues to present the problems that the court identified. there is no requirement in section 6 that the state or local office to contact isaf -- .c.e. they would have to interment -- determine whether it would lead to removal. >> second-degree murder was the crime. >> in that situation, it would probably be possible to make the

determination. >> don't you have the salerno problem with respect to section 6? >> i do not think so, because there is no requirement to check with i.c.e. the ina vests that responsibility for making removable lucky -- remove a bill -- removability determinations. we believe there might be some circumstance in which it could, but that should be sorted out on remand. >> is that a concedssion -- concession? >> is not -- it is not written in a way that takes into account those circumstances. if it was written in a way that insisted that i.c.e. -- this

statute focuses only on aliens. if it was written to require that trigger, it would be different, but it is not. >> could be construed that way? >> i do not believe it is a question of construing. >> you heard that arizona seems quite willing to accept that. >> they have discussed that on 2b. in 6, there is no language that could be construed to require checking i.c.e. >> they look at the statute as a whole. the whole thrust is to communicate with the federal government. >> but there is no requirement that be done before the local officer make judgment. we think that is contrary to the general cooperative law enforcement. i see my time --

>> make your point and that is it. >> the arizona statute with its extraordinary mandatory investigation has to be considered in light of what would happen if every state in the union did this. the united states as a whole is responsible to other nations for the ways in which their citizens are treated within the united states. if every state did this, a patchwork of laws -- we would have a patchwork of laws. the supreme court has recognized that a statute like this could affect lawful permanent residents and citizens. another important factor underlying immigration law is the respect of civil liberties and not subjected people to interrogations. because of a mandatory requirement based on minimal reasonable suspicion raises that

concern profoundly. >> thank you. >> just a few apoints. -- a few quick points. >> sure. >> the first is about the test of minimal reasonable suspicion. i.n.s. lopez took care of that. the court -- supreme court specifically said that a reasonable suspicion was a sufficient standard to protect those lawfully within the country. it has been a time-chartered standard. -- time-honored standard. i do not know how it suddenly becomes so amenable -- so minimal. minimal.