>> next, republican herbert cain announces his -- herman cain announces his candidacy for president. next, 2012 republican presidential candidate herman cain of his campaign in atlanta. he made many trips to the caucus case -- caucus states of new hampshire and iowa. he is also a businessman and former radio talk show host. this is just over 30 minutes. >> love you.

love you. [cheering] love y'all. love y'all. my, my, my. love ya! aw, shucky ducky as the man will say. i gotta tell you. let me -- thank you. i hear a few people back there yelling. oh, there she is. now, do you know why it is so momentous that my aunt is here? she has not decided if she can

vote for me yet. but i am going to change her mind. [cheering] like we're going to change the mind of a lot of folk in america. but i want to thank all of you from the absolute bottom of my heart, for you being here. because, there were some skeptics, as you know, who did not think anybody would show up for an announcement for me. and the last time i heard, there are 15,000 of you all right here. [cheering] thank you. thank you. you know, it has been this kind of encouragement that has gotten me to this point.

and it is this kind of encouragement that i believe i know is going to take us to where we are trying to get to. [applause] you know, many of you know i grew up right here in atlanta, georgia. right here in atlanta, georgia. i stand in the shadows of my upbringing. i stand here today as the son of a chauffeur and a domestic worker, who taught me and my brother and three of the most important of years we could have ever learned. belief in god. [cheering] belief in what we can do for ourselves. [cheering] and belief in this exceptional

nation called the united states of america. believe in it. [cheering] you know, the people who are struggling the most are the ones to do not believe in this nation. they do not believe in the values of this nation. they have never uttered the world's -- my parents never uttered the words of " victim," because they never felt like a bit them, having the opportunity to be in this nation, despite its challenges. i say today, as luther and my home oldest son in town, i stand here today in this hour, in the shadow of the olympic flame which represents not only the determination of

those who go to the olympics every four years with their own determination, but it also signifies the great spirit of this great country, the spirit of america. that is what it signifies. [applause] and it is the spirit of america and the determination of america and the determination of its people that we are going to take our country back. [cheering] we are going to take it back. this day, this hour, the spirit of america and the spirit of the olympics here in this park.

people go to the olympics every four years. they do not go to the olympics to come in second. they go to the olympics to win. and you see, just like the spirit of the olympics, number two is not in america's dna. we do not do number two. right here, this day, this hour, this moment reminds me of the words to the closing song of the 2000 olympics. "life can be a challenge life can seem impossible it is never easy when there is so much on the line

but you and i can make a difference there is a mission to just four years there's a commission just for me just look inside and he will find just what you can do." [cheering] right here, this day, this hour, and this moment, i have looked inside of me, and as of this moment, this day, and amongst thousands and thousands of my friends and with my family here with me and associates i have known throughout the years, this day, this hour, this moment, i

came here to declare my candidacy for the republican nomination for president of the united states of america. this moment. [cheering] this moment. and just to be clear, just to be clear, in case you accidently listen to a skeptic or i doubting thomas out there, just to be clear, let me say again -- i am running for president of

the united states. and i am not running for second. i am not running for second! one. >> herman, herman, herman, herman. >> this day. [cheering] >> let me tell you, because i have had reporters asked me some time, well, are you running just to get attention and maybe, in second or get a better position -- or get a cabinet position? and i said, you do not know much about me. i do not run for second. i am running for number one.

let me tell you some of the reasons i am running for president of united states. one of the biggest reasons is because we have become a nation of crises. we have a moral crisis. we have an economic crisis. we have got an entitlement spending crisis. we have got an immigration crisis. we have got of foreign affairs crisis. and we have a deficiency of leadership crisis in the white house. [cheering] there is a big difference between leadership and position ship. at a big difference. of allook at the facts

these crises. we have anemic economic growth. in the first quarter of this year, our gdp grew by only 1.8%. that is anemic, especially when china is growing at 10% compound, and if we do not increase our growth rate, they are going to be as big as we are in five years, if you take out the differences in exchange rates. like i said earlier, if we allow china to become as economically powerful as us, you know that they are going to try to develop their military might as big as ours. i do not know about you, but i am not going to allow america to be number two in the economy, not militarily, not on our watch. not on our watch.

we are a nation of crises. look at the tax -- facts. don't listen to the rhetoric. a 9% unemployment rate with nearly 15 million people out of work. 47 million people on food stamps. that is 14 million more than when the current occupant of the white house took over. $4 a gallon for gas, and it is not over yet. $1 trillion in spending to stimulate the economy, it did not stimulate diddly. [cheering] all of that, and now to have of $14 trillion national debt, and

washington, d.c. is going on about -- do we raise the debt ceiling again? let me tell you what the cain doctrine would be. we are not going to raise the debt ceiling. we are going to cut spending. it is going to reduce. look at the facts. don't just listen to the rhetoric. look at the facts. the stuff is not working. it is not working. the only thing i can conclude is, it is time to get real, folks. it is time to get real. hope and change eight work 10 -- ain't working. hope and change is not a solution. hope and change is not a job. hope and change is not a new business.

hope and change is not of vision. we need a new vision in this country, and that means we need a new president leading this nation in the white house. it ain't working. now i want to ask you a few questions. is america ready for real results? >> yes. >> it is america ready for common sense solutions? >> yes. >> is america ready to rekindle the spirit of america? >> yes. >> and it is america ready for a real leader, not oua reader? do you want a leader?

or do you want our reader? -- a reader? now since -- >> herman, herman, herman. [cheering] >> i know it. i know the some people had to connect the dots in that last statement. they are a little slow. they can connect the dots. since you answered yes to those questions, let me describe our new vision. i do not call it my vision. my job as a leader is to define at, share it with you. it becomes our vision. because you know what? i can do this by myself -- i

cannot do this by myself. this has to be our vision, not a political vision, not the vision of one person, but it has to be the agenda of the country. i call it our vision. [applause] and in order for us to be able to achieve and make reality of our vision, we are going to need some new plans that set some new priorities, and certainly get some new people are around the president'. ones that are much better than the ones we got, and in terms of the vision. our new vision -- real economic growth, not anemic growth. in order to do it, we have to lower the tax rate for

corporations and individuals. we have to take the capital gains tax. we have to give the workers of america are real payroll tax break. [cheering] that would be economic growth. our vision. a real energy-independent plan. all real one. -- a real one. not one that somebody just read off a teleprompter. no. a real one. we have the resources to become energy independent. we simply need to pull the resources together in order to make it happen. that is our vision. you know, i will never go to a

foreign country or brazil, loan the money, and then tell them we're going to be their best customer. [jeering] let me share with you another one of the cain doctrines . america is going to be its own best customer. right here, right now in the usa. we will be our own best customer. and as president of united states, i am going to make sure we are our own best customer when it comes to our energy needs and resources. it is not that we do not have the resources. we just have got too much bureaucracy getting in the way. our new vision means immigration

through the front door and not through the back door, not through the side door. [cheering] this nation was built upon immigrants, legal immigrants, and if we attack the right problem which is -- we have four problems and not one. we have to secure the border, enforce the laws that are there, deal with the citizenship that is already there, clean up the bureaucracy. we do not need a new test for citizenship. we already have one. why don't you ask the millions of people who came here legally? and then the fourth thing that we have to do in order to deal with the illegals who are already here -- the federal

government is not going to solve the problem. in our new vision, we will empower the state to solve the problem of those who are here. that is how we take care of our problems. and the last thing that you will get from the herman cain presidency is suing the estate because they are trying to protect themselves. we should not be suing arizona. we should be sending them uprise. a peace prize. -- we should be sending them a prize. suing a state of the united states of america. there is a major disconnect. our new vision, real energy independence. immigration through the front door, not the back door or the side door, and then -- real, clear foriegn policy.

real clear. i love it. when the skeptics want to criticize me because of lack of foreign-policy experience. let me tell you what i know about foreign policy experience. i know that you don't throw your friend under the bus -- [cheering] that's what i know about foriegn policy. you don't need to have years in the state department to figure that out. know who your friends are. know who your enemies are. and don't throw your friends under the boss. i was shocked last week. i think it was thursday. when president obama threw israel under the bus.

[jeering] let me tell you what the cain doctor would be relative to our friend -- doctrine would be relative to our friend, and i will share with you later my doctrine related to our enemies. i have some stuff for them, too. the relative to israel, that most of us have appreciated the relationship for decades, the cain doctrine to the world would simply be a comic if you mess with israel, you are missing with the united states of america. don't mess with us. don't mess with us. is that real clear? is that real clear? >> yes! >> that is what i mean by real

clear foreign policy. know who your friends are. know who your enemies are. and it is our new vision. it is not the establishment, not the politicians. it is our new vision. lastly, this nation has gradually over the years slipped into an entitlement society. well, i got to tell you, folks, not only do i believe it is possible, but i also know it is time with restructuring programs instead of reshuffling programs, we can take this entitlement society to an empowerment society. empower people.

empower the state. empower businesses. we can become an empowerment society with our new vision. with our new vision. you know, the founding fathers did their job, and they did a great job at it. they kept it simple. they wrote the declaration of independence. they designed and wrote the constitution of the united states of america. and one of the other things that is part of our vision is that we do not need to rewrite the declaration. we do not need to rewrite the constitution of the united states. rewrite it. we need to read read the constitution -- reread the

constitution and enforce the constitution. we do not need to rewrite. let's reread. and i know there are some people who are not going to do that, so for their benefit, there is a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. you know, those ideals we live by, you believe in coming your parents believed in. don't stop right there. keep reading. that is when it says when any government becomes destructive of the -- those ideals, it is the right of the people to muster and abolish it. we have some mustering and abolishing to do. [applause] in 2012, we are not only going to keep control of the house of

representatives, we are also going to control the united states senate and take it back. and in 2012, we are also going to run the trifecta and oust the occupant of the white house with a new president. [cheering] and lastly -- thank you. [crowd chanting] and for sure, we are all going to have to work harder and smarter. we are not going to convert everybody over to our conservative way of thinking. we are not going to sell

everybody on our new vision with new leadership, new people, new ways to think about it. as a good friend told me once, all you can do is save the saveable. you know what? between now and november 2012, i think i am going to save my aunt bessie. [applause] i think she has got heart. [laughter] we got a lot of work to do, folks, but i believe we can do this. if i did not believe we could do this, i would not be doing it. we all have to do a little bit more, work a little bit harder to take back this country. it will be tough. i am up for the fight. i am up for the challenge. and i know you are, too. the founding fathers did their job. we have to do our job and be the

defending father's. and i have been blessed with two adult kids. they are grown and gone. we have three grandkids, and it is not about us. it is not about us. and i know that everybody here feels that way, and for me traveling all over the country and talking to groups day in and day out, a town hall meetings, large rallies, small rallies, the message as inconsistent. it is not about us. people are ready to do what it takes in order to take this nation back. and i firmly believe in my heart that god is in this journey. that god is in this journey. [cheering]

and in november 2012, the day after election day, when we wake up that morning and all the votes are counted, and they declared not only all of the local election results, the statewide election results, the congressional election results, the senatorial results, but when we wake up, and we compare the presidential results and herman cain is in the white house, we will all be able to say "free at last, free at last. thank god almighty, this nation is free at last, again." god bless you.

god bless the usa. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you very much. this is my family, along with you, and i wanted you to see them, because this thing is going to moved so fast you may not see them much. you better look quick. thank you again, ladies and gentleman. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. tim! back there!

thank you very much. god bless you. god bless you. god bless you. every one of you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [crowd chanting]

>> thank you, thank you. god bless you. nice to me you. thank you. ♪

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

♪ >> c-span's road to the white house coverage continues sunday when jon huntsman makes remarks at a meet and greet and franklin, new hampshire. live coverage begins at 4:30 here on c-span. it is also available on our website, c-span.org, seized and radio, and later available on our video library.

next, rahm emanuel is sworn in as chicago mayor. after that, how states are dealing with undocumented students. then a discussion on this economic impact of immigrants. >> history, as you know, it is much more than just politics and social issues. it is also medicine and science and art and music and theater and poetry, ideas. and we should not lump things into categories. it is all part of the same thing. >> james been more cooper, harriet beecher stowe -- sunday night, are one of two weeks with david mccullough americans to may be greater journey to 19th century paris.

>> on monday, former white house chief of staff rahm emanuel was sworn in as mayor of chicago. he talked about his plans for improving the chicago school system and job creation. this is just under 30 minutes. [applause] >> the hon. timothy c. evans will now administer the oath of office to rahm emanuel as mayor of the city of chicago. >> raise your hand and repeat after me. i, rahm emanuel, solemnly swear to support the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of illinois and that i will faithfully discharge the duties

of the office of mayor of the city of chicago according to the best of my ability. congratulations. [cheers and applause] [unintelligible]

>> honored guests, mr. vice- president, dr. biden, mayor daley, members of the city council, other elected officials, citizens of chicago -- today in more than any other time in our history, the city of chicago is ready for change. [applause]

for all the parents to deserve the school system that expects every student to earn a diploma, for all the neighbors who deserve to wall, on -- deserve to walk, on paved streets, and for all the people in the hardest working city in america who deserve a strong economy so they can find jobs or create jobs -- this is your day. [applause] as your new mayor, it is an honor to fight for the change we need and the privilege to lead the city we love. we have much to do. but we should first acknowledge how far we have come. a generation ago, people were writing chicago off as a dying

city. they said our downtown was failing. our neighborhoods were unlivable. our schools were the worst in the nation. and our policy could become so divisive we were referred to as -- when richard daley took office, he challenged all of us to lower our voices and raise our sights. chicago is a different city today than the one he inherited thanks to all he did. [applause] this is a magnificent place where we gather today as a

living symbol of that transformation. back then, this was an abandoned rail yard. a generation later, what was once a nagging urban eyesore is a world-class urban park. through mayor daley of's vision, his determination, his leadership, this place, like our city, was reborn. we are a much greater city because of a lifetime of service that mayor daley and the first lady have given us. nobody ever loved chicago more or serve it better than richard daley. now, mr. mayor, and forevermore -- chicago loves you back.

[applause] i have big shoes to fill. i could not have taken on this challenge without any, my first love and our new first lady -- without amy, my first love and our new first lady. in our children. -- and our children. and i want to thank my parents for giving me the opportunity to get a good education and whose values that guided me through life. i also want to thank president obama, who turned our nation are rounds -- turned our nation around and new but why i wanted to come home. to get our city move again. -- moving again. the man knew answers. old problems cry out for better

results. this morning, we lived behind the old divisions and began a new day for chicago. i am proud to lead the city united in common purpose and driven by a common thirst for change. to do that, we must face the truth. it is time to take on the challenges that threaten the future of our city. the quality of our schools. the safety of our streets. the cost and effectiveness of city government, and the urgent need to create jobs, the jobs of the future right here in the city of chicago. the decisions we make in the next two or three years will determine what chicago will look like in the next 20 or 30. in shaping the future, our children and their schools must come first. [applause]

there are some great success stories in our schools. wonderful, imaginative teachers and administrators who pour their hearts and to our mission and inspired students to learn and succeed. i honor those educators. i want to lift them up, support them, make than the standard for the chicago public school system. but let us also recognize the magnitude of the challenge and the distance we must go before we can declare that the chicago public schools are what they should be. today, our school system only graduates half of our kids. with the shortest school days and years in the country, we even shortchange those who earn a diploma. by high school graduation, a student in houston has been in the classroom and equivalent of three years longer than a student in chicago, even when they both started kindergarten

on the very same day. our legislature in springfield has taken an historic first step, and i personally want to thank the senate leader, speaker madigan, the house speaker, and all those in the illinois general assembly, members of both parties to the courageous and critical vote. finally, chicago will have the tools we need to give our schoolchildren the schools they deserve. [applause] a longer school day and you're on par with other major cities. -- and year on par with other major cities. each child has one chance to get a good education. every one of them deserved the best we can provide.

i am encouraged that the governor will act soon to make these reforms are reality for our children. [applause] to meet our efforts in chicago, we have a courageous new ceo and a strong and highly qualified school board with zero tolerance for the status quo and a track record to back it up. as someone noted, including amy, i am not a patient man. [laughter] when it comes to improving our schools, i will not be a patient mayor. [applause] my responsibility is to provide our children with highly qualified and motivated teachers, and i will work day and night to meet that obligation. but let us be honest. for teachers to succeed, they mustaf -- they must have parents

as partners. to give children the education they deserve, parents must get off the sidelines and involve their -- and get involved in their child's education. nothing i do at the schools can ever replace them. working together, we can create a seamless partnership in the classroom and the family room to help our children learn and succeed. we will do our part. and parents, we need you to do yours. [applause] second, we must make our streets safer. chicago has always had the build of a big city with the heart of the small town. but that part is being broken as our children continue to be victims of violence. some in their homes. some, on their porches.

some, on the road to and from school. during the campaign, i visited a memorial in roseland, one that listed the names of children killed by gun violence. this memorial is only a few years old. but with 220 names, it has already run out of space. there are 150 more names yet to be added. i want you to think about that. think about what that means. memorials are society's most powerful to be it to its highest values and ideals -- tribute to its highest values and ideals. courage, patriotism, sacrifice. what kind of society have we become and we find ourselves paying tribute, not only to soldiers and police officers, but two children who are just playing on the block? what kind of society have we become when the memorial's we

built honor the loss of innocence and childhood? that memorial does more than mourn the dead. it shames the living. all of us, every adult, should step up and speak out. [applause] we cannot look away. we cannot become numb to it. kids belong in our schools. on our playgrounds. in our parks. not frozen in time on the side of a grim memorial. our new police chief understands this. as a beat officer who worked his way up through the ranks, as the leader of the department who has dramatically reduced my crime, he is the right man at the right time for the right job.

but here, too, like our schools, a partnership is key. police cannot do it alone. those who have knowledge and information that can help solve and prevent crimes have to come forward and help. together, we can make all our streets in every neighborhood safer. third, we must put the financial house in order because we cannot do any of these things if we squander the resources they require. from the moment i began my campaign, i unclear about the hard truth and the tough choices we face -- i have been clear about the hard truth and the temptresses we face. taxpayers deserve a more efficient government than the one we have today. our city's financial situation is difficult and profound. we cannot ignore these problems a day longer. it is not just a matter of doing

more with less. we must look did every aspect of city government and ask basic questions. can we afford it? is it worth it? do we need it? is there a better deal? we're not the first city government to face these tough questions, but it is my fervent hope we are the first to solve them. the old ways no longer work. [applause] it is time for a new era of responsibility and reform. i reject house leaders of wisconsin and ohio are exploiting the financial crisis to achieve a political goal. [applause] that is not the right course for chicago's future. however, doing everything the same way we always have is not the right course for chicago's future either. we would do no favors for our city employees and taxpayers if we let outdated rules and

practices make government sources -- services too costly to deliver. in the san those who oppose my efforts to reform -- in a stand those who oppose my efforts to reform schools. some will say, these of the ways we do things. those of the rules. we cannot change them. that is the prescription for failure chicago will not accept. [applause] given the challenges we face, and we need to look for better and smarter way as to meet our responsibilities. my i ask for new policies, i guarantee the one answer i will not tolerate is "we have never done it that way before." chicago is a city of "yes, we can." we will not take no for an

answer. [applause] finally, we need chicago to be the best place in america to start a business, create jobs, and build the jobs of tomorrow. in the last decade, chicago lost 200,000 residents. no great city and drive by shrinking -- can drive by shrinking. the best week -- the best reason to keep people from leaving is to give them the jobs that give them a reason to stay. the best jobs will go to the city that produces the work force of tomorrow. we must make sure that every student graduates from our high school has a foundation for career or the opportunity to go to college. we must have the illinois dream act so the children of undocumented immigrants can go to college. [applause] we must make sure that our city colleges are graduating students that businesses want to hire.

in chicago bills as a skilled -- builds a skilled work force, the jobs will be a path to our city. safer streets, and affordable and effective government, good paying jobs. these are the fundamental challenges confronting our city. if we can get these things right, nothing will stop chicago and people will come to see a city on the move. we can only get them right by working together. my pledge to you today -- that is exactly what we're going to do. city council members new and old -- i reach out a hand of mutual respect and cooperation and welcome your ideas for change. that goes for businesses large and small and our labor unions. it goes for organizations from every neighborhood and our charitable and academic institutions. all of us have our role to play in writing to god as next

chapter. anyone open to change will have a seat at the table. together, we can renew our city. community by community. business by business. neighborhood by neighborhood. block by block. none of what we must overcome will be easy. but i know this. i know this in my heart. the challenges to the city of chicago are no match for the character of the people of chicago. i believe in our city. i believe in our city because i know who we are and what we are made of. the pride of every ethnic, religious, and economic background and nearly 3 million strong. almost 140 years ago, a great fire devastated chicago. some thought we would never recover. an entire city had to be rebuilt from the ground up, and it was.

that is that we earned the title of "the second city." less than 100 years later, portions of our city burned again. they were ignited by the murder of dr. martin luther king and the injustices he fought to overcome. chicago still bears some of the scars from that time. while there is still work to do, we have made substantial progress. look at the three of us being sworn in today. treasurer at stephanie neely and clerk susanne a mendoza. both are public servants to represent the best of our city. they are among the new generation of smart and capable civic leaders. i think it is fair to say, we are not our parents chicago. an african-american whose family came from mississippi in the great migration north. a daughter of immigrants who came from mexico.

a son of an israeli immigrant who came from to leave -- from tel aviv and the grandson of immigrants from eastern europe. our parents came not just to any city. they came to america city. they came to chicago. [applause] the three of us have achieved something our parents never imagined in their lifetime. while our three families travel different paths, the came to this city for a simple reason. this is a city where dreams are made. over the next four years, we of schools the picks -- we have schools to fix. we have streets to make safe. we have a government to

transform and businesses and jobs to attract. but above all, let's never forget the dream. the dream that has made generation after generation come here and stay here. i am confident in chicagos future because i have seen it in the eyes of our school children and herded in their voices. i have seen it in the way -- our kids to third place in the national championship. i've seen that in the eyes of high-school students who won the prestigious scholarships, the highest for any school in chicago. as and the basketball team that just won the in the graduates from the you are been prep academy which, for

the second yore in a row is sending 100% of its students so a four-year college. in the foff mrs. from englewood high school who reached the finals in the spoken word contest. in martell ruffin, a young man i met who after a full day of school at the economic arts academy sent several hours a day at the joffrey ballet school, and in the young man who led us today in the pledge, dwayne brown. a child i met in the campaign who was struggling at school, became interested in public service, got more serious about his studies and is now getting a's and b's in scoop. [applause] and i saw it in brian reed, the

10th grader who gave me a four tour of ralph ellison high school. shortly after i met brian i learned that he'd been attacked at his bus stop by four young men who had beaten and robbed him. he was injured so badly he was hospitalized. when i heard the news, i reached out to his principal. days later his teacher gave me a note. this is a letter brian wrote, i'm doing fine now and i'm back in school. my attendance is good and i try very hard here. i just wanted to tell you thanks for checking on me. despite the obstacles, our children, children like brian, keep on working and never stop dreaming. there is no doubt the children of chicago have what it takes. the question is do we?

will we do our part? for the next generation of chicagoans, let us roll up our sleeves and take on the hard work of solving our problems. only for all those who profess a love of this big city of shoulders are willing to bear the responsibility for keeping it strong. so today i ask each of you, those who live here and those who work here, business and labor, let us share the necessary sacrifices fairly and justly. if everyone will give a little, no one will have to give too much and together we will keep faith with future and the generations of our past

visionaries of our past, who -- built on the shores of lake michigan a city where dreams are made. thank you. god bless you. and god bless the city of chicago. [applause] [choir singing] >> next, a look at how states are dealing with undocumented

students. then a discussion on the economic impact of immigrants. after that, the weekly addresses by president obama and texas senator kay baily hutchison. on newsmakers, dr. donald berwick will talk about the future of medicare, the administration, and democratic plans for the program. he also reacts to house budget committee chairman paul ryan's plan to gradually transition medicare to a defined benefit program to one based on premiums. sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> next weekend, the cities tour with book tv events on c-span 2. plus, a look at the book

industry with local book sellers. also, benoist aircraft and angola settlement. the ltv cities tour -- lcv cities tour kicks off next weekend. >> next, a discussion on state education programs and undocumented students. from washington journal, this is 40 minutes. >> our guest now, josh bernstein, immigration director for the seiu. we are here to tao state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. back up to something called the dream act that did not succeed in congress in the recent months. what would that legislation have done? guest: the dream act is for a

generation of young people who are the victims of our broken immigration system. they are young people who were brght here who have grown up re and come to our schools. the dream that said is that if you stayed in school and stayed out of trouble if you came five years before the dramatic pas sed, once you graduate from high school, you get put on a pathway for being able to legalize yourself completely if you coinue into college, at least two years of college or graduate from a community college or else serve in the u.s. military and eventually, if you continue to have a clean record, you will be able to have u.s. status.

host: the federal action has not moved forward and perhaps it will be brought up again at some point. move on to the states. what are states doing in this particular area? what are you advocating? guest: over the last 10 years or so, states where there are large number of immigrants have gradually tried to figure out what they can do. these kids to grow up in the u.s. and were brought by their parents and eventually it will become legal and become u.s. citizens and will live here the rest of their lives. most people believe that, it is just thinking conversive long time. the states have said that we want our kids to be educated so that when they get legalize, they will be able to get value from what we are providing. the states said we will allow these kids to have the same tuition rate as their classmates.

that is the in-state tuition rates and we won't force them to pay the out of state rate which two or three times higher. host: the concept of tuition equity proposals, you mentioned 12 states and this means of said access to in-state tuition for students who meet criteria regardless of theistatus. beyond maryland, it is currently proposed in 12 states. proposed in 12 states. we want to invite the viewers to phone in with their questions and comments. guest: in those states where they have this institution, it is not for all undocumented immigrant kids. it is only for those who have

attended high school in that state and graduated from high school in that state. if you are from out of state, you will not qualify for that tuition. host: other other criteria attached to this? guest: it depends on t state. sometimes you have to sign an affidavit. sometimes not every college qualifies. in maryland, it is only the community colleges that qualify initially. they can only go to the university of maryland after they graduate from community college. host: our guest mentioned maryla. if you are in state in maryland, the tuition is $8,416 in one year. out of state, it is $24,831. that is quite a difference. guest: that is for the university of maryland. most o these kids don't go to

the top tier schools. they will go to community colleges. there are differences of the amounts are lower for in-state tuition host: gainesville, texa the republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. th does not regard to extending state tuition for illegal immigrants but i don't fully understand why there is a different rate between out of state residents and residents of the state regardinghe tuition rates. guest: i can explain basically the concept of in-state tuition is that these are state- supported institutions. the idea is that the states want

to spend their tax money on those who are residents of their state who will remain in the state. one of the reasons why we subsidize education in this country is not just for the students themselves but also for the benefit of the state and our future. we're all better o as more people are educated. they don't want to educate someone and spend their resources on someone from another state or that will go back to that other state. the one to focus on the ones that will stay in their state. that is the concept. host: tell us more about the arguments for and against immigrants paying in-state tuition. guest: those who are opposed to it are opposed because they see as a slippery slope. they don't want any kind benefit to go to thehildren of undocumented immigrants no matter how those young people

have lived their lives. they see it and they see it as an average. why should somebody who was a child of an undocumented and art and get the benefit text then make a comparison between those kids and kids' from out of state. state. an undocumented immigrant as one that grew up in that state and went to school in that state. they want to get the same rate as their classmates. host: let's hear from pennsylvania, a democrat, good morning. caller: there are no guarantees that they will stay in that state, to begin with. guest: right, there iso guarantee. the track record is pretty good. these kids can i go back to the

country they might have been when they were infants. there would not be able to come back here. most of these kids to stay in the state. they are a little bit less mobile. caller: i don't agree with you. guest: we can disagree and that is why we are in this great country. host: this is from north carolina, the independent line, good morning. caller: i don't feel that illegal immigrants should get any benefits. if they are here illegally, they should be sent back whe they came from. guest: that is a very common thought. one thing that has happened is that our immigration debate has gotten a little bit emotional and we are not focus on really what is practical and doable. it is not realistic to deport

all the 11 million undocumented immigrants and it is not beneficial for us to do that. we're talking to kids who have grown up here. they were brought here by their parents at a youngge. you have to be -- it is important to be a little bit nuanced and think about what is better for america and what is right and good for these kids and not try to make blanket statements. regardless of whether they will cure a disease or win the nobel prize, we still don't want them to be here because they are illegal immigrants. host: we mentioned in 12 states active in this area. speak to us more about the growth of this idea. and different states acting and this trend. guest: they are red states and blue states and have republican

governors and democratic governors and republican legislators and democratic legislors. california and new york and texas have e most numbers of undocumented immigrants and they are voting and saying it is bett for us in the long run. if these kids are educated than if they are not able to access than education. there is a huge difference in terms of what the outcome is for an education. you had an earlier segment where you talked about is it worth it for a young person to go to college. whether it is worth it for them or not, it is definitely worth it for us. the more people we educate in order to compete in the global economy, we need to educate as many of ourids as possible and we can aord those who have worked in high school to graduate and who are ambitious

and want to go to college, we can't afford not to encourage them andive them the tls they need to do that. host: here is more information on the immigration law center. guest: it is a controversial issue for some. most americans understand and agree that there are areas of disagreement and controversy in immigration but most americans understand we are better off to educate more of our young people. we should not make an arbitrary distinction of who we are educating and not. it is encouraging to me because we have heard a lot about entire dutch immigrants sentiment growing our current congress is opposed to immigration reform

than the previous one was. and the other hand, if you see in the states ere has been a rebirth of this. almost every year, the bill would be passed like this to allow young people to have tuition equity. the last few years, it has not happened and this year, maryland d it, conn looks like it will probably do it, maybe oregon might do it. there are several states that are expecting. the ones that are trying to go the other way, it is much more symbolic. and the other states that are not those 12 states, young people are forced to pay the out of state right. to pass a law that says they have to continue doing that, that is symbolic and the status quo. host: we showed you the statistics for tuition in maryland. at university of connecticut,

here's a look at tuition costs for it if you are in state resident, is about $10,400 per year. out of state, just under $27,000. guest: 1 misconception is that the out of state rate [unintelligible] the in-state rate covers the cost of that individual student's. s. these bills don't cost states additional money because students are coming in and ey are paying tuition at the lower rate but that rate is enough to cover their instruction. host: citrus heights, calif., republican caller, good morning. caller: good morning. caller: good morning. you might be surprised to find that ictually support this idea. i think it is unfair for us to hold it against these kids that

were brought here. they did not carry themselves across the border necessarily. i think they should have the same opportunity based upon merit to get these positions in school. the other side as perfectly legitimate problems with that. what do the unions have to do with illegal immigras? what i see in california is they are trying to unionize farm workers. what is the end game? what is the end game? host: where is the interest in the issue come from from the seiu. guest: there are several but the overriding one is that we represent to put 1 million people and maybe 1/4 of them are immigrants.

we are trying to support our immigrant workers but also, the changes we support what we support overall, we are talking about the dream act and young people, we support comprehensive people, we support comprehensive immigration reform which includes border security and some kind of way for those who are here illegally to legalize their status. it includes fixing our imgration system. we believe the conference system is a drain on our economy. it is something holding us back and creating an uneven playing field for worke. we believe we want all workers to be legal workers so there is not unfair competition. as a labor movement, we strongly our support of a comprehensive immigration reform. the dream act and these type of things are a part of that. some of these kids are the kids of our members. the other side, in every

state, we want the tax base to be larger. these kids will earn more money over their lifetime. college graduates earned about twice as much as a high-school dropout does. these bills to encourage a much bigger percentage of these kids to go to college and they reduced the dropout rate which reduces crime which reduces the costs associated with and increases the amount of taxes that these kids eventually will pay. it is a good deal for the taxpayers. in the end, our members are like everybody else and immigration is important for our future. it is important to have our immigration right and right now, it is holding us back. lookg at the future, they will

be much worse off if we don't sell our immigration problem. host:seiu.org is the website and our guest is josh bernstein. he has a law degree from cal he has a law degree from cal berkeley and was a clerk to the ninth circuit court of appeals and spent 14 years at the national immigration law center and is currently with the seiu and our next call -- we have about 20 minutes left - fairborn, new jersey, a democrat, thank you for waiting. caller: i oppose your point of view not so much because i don't support immigration. ina legal and a grim myself -- i am a legal immigrant myself.

to the moral concept of the violation of american law. not being able to pay in-state tuition is punishment, essentially. the children's problem is they have to speak to their parents. it is a punishment for them and their parents, morally. most of the time they're parents are part of a cash economy that don't pay taxes. you also said th in-state tuition covers tuition and does not cover more than the cost of educating the student. yet every year, in state colleges come to the legislature and ask for more money because otherwise they will have to raise tuition essentially, you are asking for more money for taxpayers prepare accept the

punishment. the u.s. people to pay $10,000 fine to become an american citizen or green card holder, there'll be hundreds of millions of people who would want to do that. obviously, we cannot do that. the punishment has to be real. not necessarily monetary but if you are here illegally, those people never become american citizens. they say they came here to work variant they came here in violation of american law. they should not be deported which is in hun that they should be punished. the proper punishment is that they will not be able to influence the american political system. host: thanks for calling. guest: we talk about comprehensive immigration reform. one of the things we want to get away from is the idea of who is

at fault and focus more on how to solve the problem. there is a lot of blame to go around of our current situation you could buy as immigrants or their employers or american lawmakers -- there's a lot of punishment to go around. if we think about what ll be beer for us, we have a comprehensive solution. according to one study out of ucla, our economy would benefit in the numbers of $1.50 trillion. on the other hand, if we try to spend money to put in the resources to deport these immigrants which i don't think is realistic in the first place, that would cost us trillions of dollars. we have to solve this problem. when you look at this particular kids who have grown up here, it

is a bit of a different dynamic. many of you might have seen the sign at the border that says -- you see the parents running across the road and you have the kid being dragged along with them. those kids of the ones we're talking about. there were dragged here. pecially if there were older, they had already set down roots. they did not necessarily want to come herbut now they listen to hip-hop and you would not know that your high school kids best friend might be an undocumented immigrants. manyaledictorians and really promising young people who have done nothing wrong and do't deserve to be punished, all they've done is live the life there were given and done the best they could with it.

the ones that are benefiting from this are the ones who stayed in school and did not drop out of school. they graduated and are ready and ambitious enough to go to college. host: here is the message from twittered -- guest: that is not accurate. it was surprising to me but it turns out that the in-state tuition, in most states, there is no fiscal costs. you look it with the state budgetary offices have said about what the cost of this is and basically it is negligible. in-state tuition covers the cost of additional instruction. it does not cover all the educational costs but what we're talking about which is 2% of the

incoming class, if all the undocumented immigrants were to go in, just a couple of more people coming into school, i does not really have an impact on anybody else. host: assuming they get the lower rate, how they pay for college? if they are undocumented, how does the financing work? can they get a loan? guest: you see about 1/3 of these kids are attending college. it is a struggle. in dormitories. they live with their parents and that my commute 1 hour. many of them cannot qualify for drivers licenses so they will get on the bus at 5:00 in the morning to get to school. is a struggle sometimes and

it will have to drop out for a semester. they don't qualify for student loans are in the kind of financial aid. this kind of remarkable and a testimony to the human spirit that they persevere and some money of them do want to go to school and figure out a way. sometimes they have benefactors who will help them because they are promising. i wish i could introduce america to some of these kids. they are wonderful kids. it is a typical american story. when history is written years from now, i think we will look back on this and we will see that some of these kids went on and doreat things for our country and others were teachers or nurses or they were doctors. we will be really happy we help to these kids. host: providence, rhode island, independent line, good morning.

caller: of like to give my comment. i read the paper from the pew hispanic center. they don't use 12 million illegal immigrants in united states. they refer to upwards of 30 million. i have actually read the various dream and its online. it is not quite so simple as you stated. the language is extremely vague. all people have to state is that there were brought here to this country before the age of 16. it covers people over 36 years old and they don't have to graduate college and they don't have to graduate high school. they just have to get a g.e.d. the only have to attend one year of college for one year of the

military. in many cases, they'd have to go to college at all. they can claim card chip. the dream act is written [unintelligible] [unintelligible] what irks me the most -- we have vast numbers of american citizens, untold millions, who have been displaced from their jobs. from nafta to china, our immigration system is not broken. our government is refusing to enforce laws. that is harmful. we see our visa programs being exploited and we have ung people, american citizens, graduating from college or high school and they cannot get jobs. engineers, nurses, i know a young woman who graduated from a nursing program at a stat college and she cannot get a job at a public hospital. they are hiring visa nurses from

the philippines. guest: the pew estimate is about 11 million. the number has gone down since our economy has gone down. the numbers fluctuate with the economy historically. ito really think that anybody says 30 million. it doesn't really matter the total number. the point is that the more there are, the more urgent to this is for us to solve the problem. as far as what the dream access, it is honestly not vague. the original author was orrin hatch of utah. every law has its flaws and this one definitely does.

there are things i would change about it. you don't have to state that you're under 16, you have to demonstrate it with evidence. most of these kids will have their high-school records. that is hard to fake. they don't have a high school record, that will invite suspicion. that have to have graduated from a u.s. school or have a g.e.d. of the have to have been here five years at least. we're not talking about people will come in the future. if you are young, you should have a school or medical records that will allow you to permit. host: on the federal level, is that anything like the dramatic comeback this year or next year? >> the dream act wilbe reintroduced. it is tough in this congress.

we see that the republican majority does not seem to be that interested in comprehenve solutions. they are big on the enforcement only approach. they are trying to deport them all. that is not a realistic solution. that is more symbolic. if we did that it would be extremely disruptive and bad for our economy. i agree that our economy is in tough times and there are many americans who are out of jobs. i just don't see that going after undocumented immigrants -- they are not to blame for that. undocumented immigrants contribute to our economy. that is a controversial statement but it is absolutely

true. if we deported all the undocumented immigrants, it would be harmful and fewer americans would have jobs. comprehensive solution to our immigration problem will give a boost to our economy and americans will be employed. if you care about american unemployment, you should support immigration reform. host: bloomington, illinois, reblican line, good morning. caller: good morning. i recently watched a documentary on the news about the undocumented students in indiana with his graduate college. -- who just gradted college. they were up at the capitol storming the doors. governor michel had just passed

a new law on illegals. an undocumented workers. i saw news and arizona where some high-school students took over a meeting, a school board meeting, turned over chairs, yelled, sprint, were totally obnoxious. there is no humility and these people. they come in demanding some much. host: let's go onto victor on the line from democrats from new york city. caller: i want to address mainly the dream act. there is a lot block -- wrong with the immration system in this country. we encouragellegal aliens and emigrants over many years. we need to fix it. the politicians are dancing around it and won't fix it. we need to have it fixed.

i think all these people who should beas mineors given proper legal status. it is not their fault there were brought here by their parents or relatives. some are grown and summer children and did you send them back to the country where they were born, they would be strangers in that country. host: looking ahead to 2012, immigration overall, as an issue, how much will it be talked about? guest: i think it is an issue that will not go away and still we start to go after it. every four years it will be talked about more. i am hopeful that it is starting on american

politicians that this is not the only way to be successful. i think there has been pandering to the anti-democrat side over the years. it seems like it is changing both because the growing latino- asian immigrant population is growing every year, about 40- 50,000 -- actually every month. in addition to that, i see there there was a few years ago we could have a more emotional discussion. there was le understanding. the american people are starting to understand that immigration reform is good for us and not just for immigrants.

i am hopefulhe may be 2012 will be the turning point and by 2013 or so, we will be able to resolve this. host: this is from twitter -- guest: there is an exception to my -- that is a blanket stement and i don't think this is a blanket issue. we are a complex organization and some of our members are like that twitter person but mo of that twitter person but mo of them understand that it is better to solve the problem. host: california, you are of first amendment scholar. turn the sound down on your said that we will hear you much better. hello? can you turn the sound down and you're set to caller: i did,

good morning. i'm sorry i can't hear you. host: go ahead and speak. caller: one of my questions is -- when the kids come here, the public schools are forced to hire english language lerner's to teach these kids english. when they get here, they are not fluent in their native language. they don't know how to read and write in what ever language there were brought here from. i think thais the first problem of a lot of american parents is when the extracurricular activities in our schools are getting cut because we do't have the money but then we have to hire three full-time english-language teachers to teach these kids. then we have children that we want to send to college and i'm i want to send my kids out of state. i'm not sure why an illegal

immigrant would be able to h been chosen over a child that has lived here. i understand the cost that these people cost our country on a yearly basis in so many different areas. you think that to getting them will solve our problem. just because you're educated person, does not mean that they will go on to do great things. guest: that's true, but statistically, the more people we are able to educate, the better off we will be economically, socially, in every way. pele that are educated, zero 0.1% of people have a bachelor's degree are incarcerated. that was in 1997. the rate for high-school dropouts is 19 times higher. education is not really zero sum

game. if we educate one set of people, we have to hold back and not at to get another set? our goal should be to educate everybody who is qualified and ambitious and want to go to college. college. host: next to last call, fla., go ahead. caller: i was a union member for 45 years. people like you put these illegals in the unions and took our american jobs and these people come over here illegal and bring kids with them. it is not our fault and they are not legal in this country. the should not have education and we should not pay for their high school and now you want them to pay for college. there is over 1 million of them on disability and they should not be entitled to that. host: let's squeeze in one last

call. democrat, york, pa., welce to the program. caller: good morning. i am from southern california and had to move because i did not speak spanish. 11 million is way underestimated. i would state that that is what is in california alone. we like to look at it as our borders being invaded. we don't feel that these people should be rewarded. our systems are going broke. the schools are going down because we have to pay for all the illegals that come over here. we have to pay for dental, food, they get taken care of better than we the workers do. my daughter graduate from the best school and never missed a day of high sool. she got the best rates and graduated from temple university. she cannot find a job.

i am supporting her. this is what the caller before discussed. that is what our system is broken. i thank you for listening hope that something can be done for the american people that work hard. host: final thoughts? guest: our last two callers want to blame immigrants for a lot of other problems that we have and i agree that we have many problems that need to be solved in this country. you can just that say that immigration is the cause of all of that. if we solve our immigration system, if we make it better and make it work for americans and level the playing field, we have a legal work force and a re sane imgration system, then we will have a better economy and some of those problems will be better. it will not solve allur problems but it will improve the

situation for american. we care first and foremost about the american worker and we believe and most of our members are american workers and we believe strongly that solving our immigration problem, comprehensive immigration reform, the dramatic is one way, that is the way to make a better country host: >> tomorrow on "washington journal," "reporters roundtable on the 20 co-president to campaign with mark murray and jonathan allen. daniel green from the washington institute for near east policy discusses al qaeda leadership after osama bin laden.

retired lt. general russell honore talks about the mississippi floods and response from army corps of engineers. "washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> policies spence "washington journal" on twitter and getting advance notice on tomorrow's guests, the question of the day, and link to political highlights. you can add your comments to the conversation. don't miss any updates from "washington journal." start your account today. >> next, a discussion on the economic impact of immigrants. after that, the weekly addresses by president obama and texas senator kay bailey hutchison. then, republican herman cain announces his candidacy for president. >> the cato institute released a

study on issues concerning the current immigration policy. the panel discusses aspects of the report including the welfare system, unemployment, and u.s. culture. this is just over an hour. >> thanks so much for coming. we are going to go ahead and get started in a minute. thank you also much for coming. today we will be talking about a new paper answering the critics of comprehensive immigration reform. we can always get extra copies if you need them. we are very pleased to have frank sharry with us.

stewart is an adjunct scholar at the cato institute'. he served as executive associate commissioner in council at the immigration and naturalization service. prior to heading america's voice, frank served as executive director of the national immigration forum, a national organization, for 17 years. he worked with the late senator kennedy and has appeared on a host of tv networks and is a regular contributor at the

huffington post. >> thank you very much and thank you to the cato institute for publishing the paper. i am just going to briefly go over some of the highlights of the paper and talk about some of the implications as we move forward in this congress. essentially the point -- is essentially the point of the paper was to see were not be possible to bridge some of the division on immigration in the country by looking at five of the main arguments used against having some type of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. i am going to get right into what some of those arguments are and what some of the responses are. first, that immigration reform

will harm taxpayers. the argument is essentially that by letting in people or allowing them to stay here, people who may have less skills, that would be a big drain on taxpayers. what we need to look at is to compare the status quo to what a change in policy would be, not some type of ideal world as if we were starting from scratch. what we have now is roughly 11 million people in the country illegally. past research has shown, particularly when we looked at the 1986 amnesty, is that when people were legalized, they had pretty sharp increases in their income and their salaries. by being legal, it gave them -- made it easier for them to go seek out another opportunity, which made them less likely to be exploited.

it also gives them more incentive to invest in their own skills, so that they would also increase their ability to earn more money, and also to the extent that people are getting paid off the books or under the table, it is more likely that they would get paid in a way that their contributions would get into the tax system. you put it altogether, people who are now in illegal status, if they start having higher wages, were mobility and are more likely to be fake indic repaid in the formal economy, were much more likely to see increases in tax revenue than decreases in tax revenue. the other part of that is that by having -- to accompanied legalizing people in the country, we also need to look at

what we are going to do to prevent this from just happening again, were you have more people coming in illegally. one of the main proposals has always been having a way for people to come in legally, particularly in lower end jobs. if there is one thing you remember from the stock, it is hopefully this. when people say that people should just wait in line to come in and work, there is no line. there is no line to come in and work at lower to middle jobs. the only possibility for someone in another country to come in and work at lower skilled jobs in the united states in a legal fashion is for short-term, seasonal work either in agriculture or in resorts. they come for the summer and work for a few months and then go back. for people who have dire

economic situations and there are implores that want to hire them in the united states, there is essentially no legal way for them to do that under the current system. the best they could hope for is that if they have a relative here to sponsor them, maybe in five or six or 10 years, they might be able to come into the country legally. for all practical purposes, there is not really a line for people to get into. there has been some past research on this question. essentially, the previous research showed that if you were able to have a system where people could come in legally, through legal visas, versus the regime we have today or even a tighter regime of tighter border enforcement, the net wealth benefit for u.s. households would be about a $260 billion

difference each year. when you combine it with the fact that it will be easier and more likely people have higher wages, combined with the idea that you would have people who come in legally versus a regime of tighter enforcement, having a greater net wealth benefit for the united states and families, you see that the argument that are in taxpayers is not a realistic argument in this case. related to this, and it touches on both taxes and in some cases the moral argument, is that new legalized immigrants will burden the welfare rolls. that is essentially the second argument addressed in the paper. again, we don't really see that this is the problem people think it is. it is very difficult when you come into the country legally,

and we make some exception for refugees -- generally you are in the country released five years before you are eligible to have access to federal welfare programs. to the extent that it was an issue, before 1996, we saw this statistic showed there was quite a bit of a decrease in welfare use after 1996. even today, when you look at u.s. citizens, the main cash program for u.s. citizens is essentially about 1% for individuals that use afdc or tanff. it is basically the same for non-citizens as well, less than 1%. food stamps, about 7.7% for

natives and about 6.2% for non- citizens, and 3.9% for naturalized citizens. this comes from the house ways and means committee. it is possible that some states have more generous policies, although the migration data does not show that immigrants are more likely to be flowing to some of those states. it is also possible for a family with an immigrant head of household to have a native born child who would be eligible for benefits, so that would complete the picture that is possible for other people to get benefits. on the other hand, we need to remember a couple of other things. it is hard to have a calculation that is fair if you are only going to count the cost of a u.s. native born child when the child is young, but not count

their tax contributions when they grow up and start being contributors. i think most of us were drains on our parents when we were young and i think it is the case in general that we knew do a calculation that only looks at kids as cost and does not count them as contributors to society when they are adults, that will be somewhat misleading as well. the way our social security system is structured, new workers are hugely important to helping to fund our social security system. the third argument that is made is that another amnesty will beget more amnesties, by having -- by allowing people to gain legal status, it would just encourage and in list below of illegal immigration. mostly what is looked at is the

1986 act for we did provide amnesty and then what happened, we eventually relent -- came back very quickly. there has been some research that has looked into this issue. an economist has looked at this and did not see a discernible difference in illegal entry before and after the 1986 act. the main issue is that the failure of the 1986 act was not that it offered amnesty. the reason illegal immigration increased is because there was no legal way put in place for people to come in at work at the lower skilled jobs. what it ended up doing was put in harsher enforcement penalties and started some of the increases, but you did not allow the more market oriented

intelligent way of dealing with illegal entry, which was to have ways for people to come in and work legally. related to this argument is the question of what would constituteconstitute amnesty. generally, that would mean you have no obligations, at any structure coming any legislation in which you would put obligations on people. the adjunct agricultural workers require a certain amount of continued work in a cause i temporary status for a number of years. in addition, there are required fines that could be paid. again, that is typical when there are such things as tax amnesty and other things. generally speaking, he did not have fines.

-- you do not have fines. people may say no matter what they may not accept that someone of illegal status should be allowed to have legal status, but that is not necessarily the way we have worked in the united states, that there has been no way for people to have a correction of their situation if they were to do it a legal framework. it will allow more people to come in and work legally, which will have a lot of benefits for decreasing illegal immigration and also help for security so you can focus on actual threats at the border. another argument is that legalizing more workers will undermine u.s. culture and the english language. we really do not see when you look at the children of

immigrants that they are not learning english. by the third generation, you're looking at 97% of hispanic immigrants report the ability to speak well or pretty well. there are surveys done of hispanic immigrants, asking whether they think it is important to learn english in order to get along in the united states. it is overwhelming. it is well over 90% that say it is much more important to learn english then to be maintaining your spanish language. in fact, other research has showed that one of the potential problems happening was how strong and americanizing influence our culture has come up by the third-generation kids who would benefit from being able to retain their native language actually end up losing it and not able to speak it.

it would actually be beneficial given that they would be able to retain that language given the global nature of our economy. is theal argument typical argument that if you let more people in, that will mean more unemployment for native people. we basically have not seen that. their weapons studies at the state level that show there is no correlation between increased emigration -- there have been studies of the state level the show there is no correlation between increased immigration and unemployment. same thing at the federal level. we just don't see it. there is not a fixed number of jobs. if someone is in new entry to the labour force or a high school or college graduate, they are going to become employed. they are going to spend money.

that is going to help percolate through the economy. that is going to create other jobs. there are also entrepreneurship s where immigrants are likely to create new businesses. that creates jobs. you are also filling in niches in the economy which is likely to increase our productivity, which economists found -- so, again, we do not see that by letting more people in legally or by it looked having some compromise for people who are here but that would be an increase in unemployment. so, i am going to wrap up here

for the civics quiz for those sitting in the audience here. i will ask a quick multiple choice question together here for people. in the government program, if it is ineffective, what normally happens to that program? is the answer -- funding is decreased for the program, the program is eliminated, or funding for the program is increased dramatically? what do we think? do we think c is the answer? well, you are right. that is what has happened with our immigration program. we have, starting in 1980, at 2900 border patrol agents. by 1994, there were 4000. by 2000, there were 9000 border

patrol agents. anybody know the figure today? 20,000 border patrol agents. funding and immigration enforcement is across programs -- it has doubled since 2004. what we see is that the current policy is not effective. has not been affected. and what we see again, as answer c shows, the answer has not been to try something different, which is to have a legal file for people to work legally, but the answer is to spend more money on essentially the same thing. i hope some of the facts in the paper to help us continue on a path where we can think about a policy where we keep spending money on the same policies that

really have not worked. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, staurt. -- stuart. stuart has done an admirable job laying out the facts of this debate. he has been as the leading policymakers for the controversial area for many years. i have to say, it is really good to be back working with cato institute. it is good to see my colleagues to a done some brilliant writing and research on this. comprehensive immigration reform was much more of a bipartisan effort. there was a time in 2006 when

the so-called mccain-kennedy bill got 21 senators to vote for it. just to give you a contrast, in december when a much smaller measure called the dream act was presented, only three republican senators voted for it. there has been a real shift. i wonder -- i am much more firmly planted on the left, as those of you who do not know and are trying to place me. let me come clean. but i sometimes think i did not leave by partisanship -- bipartisanship. it left me. ultimately, the populace on the right and the left are not a majority and there is a sensible, centrist compromise that could solve the problem and end illegal immigration. now one of the questions why the facts do not penetrate the

debate is there such a fundamentally different diagnosis of the problem. many of us who support comprehensive immigration reform see immigrants as decent people who were trying to make better lives and have -- and add value to america. and others the immigrants, particularly those who enter the united states illegally, as bad people. from the start, is it basically good people subjected to a bad system, or is it basically bad people subjected to a sacred law? i am big on the rule of law. don't get me wrong. i am so big on the rule of law that i am glad our founding fathers created legislatures to change laws when they are no longer working. and that is what those of us to support comprehensive immigration reform want to see happen, for congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to modernize our system so that it works better

in our national self-interest. so, we have a very different diagnoses. the bad people/say gridlock crowd say what we need to do is build fences, put more resources into enforcement. in the idea is for the 11 million authorized immigrants in united states, the only solution can be they go home. they either get picked up and deported. the name they have given to this strategy is attrition and throughout enforcement. it is what lamar smith says he is for. we will see a big debate in this congress for firing as many unauthorized workers as possible. we see more of the strategy being debated in this congress. there are others of us who feel differently. ok?

i may be of the left, but i am a free-market democrat. i believe in the pre-market. i have seen the labor migration to the united states for 100 years and it has picked up in intensity. i am a realist. there was a migration in the united states from the rural south to the industrialized north. right? that is one of the great labor migrations of the last 100 years. the same phenomenon has been happening the last 25 years. it will pick up when growth picked up. people from the rural south of the border are coming to the new immigrant states in the south and in the west in particular, as well as the traditional gateway cities, looking for better opportunity. let me give you an example, mecklenburg county, were charlotte, north carolina is. during the boom times, nine out of 10 new workers coming into

n.c. or mexican. do you know how many came legally? very few. do you know how many could have come legally if they wanted to? very few. there was to get into, but there were jobs aplenty in charlotte during the construction boom. while the chamber of commerce materials on the boom did not contain this dirty secret, but everyone in town knew what was happening. that is called supply and demand. the only sucking sounds during the last 25 years has been bringing workers to jobs because they were available. that has changed with the recession. it is a temporary bump in a 100- year story of people moving to opportunity period the question for us is not how we stop a process that brings us more consumers, a bigger tax base, more wages -- how we regulate

that? this is where my democratic instincts kick in? how do you regulated in a way we can control? i am not for open borders. i am for controlled orderly immigration service to national interest. here's the choice given the facts given the reality, given the fact we have 11 million and authorized immigrants, given the 70% of them lived in families and 66% have been here more than a decade. this is not a bunch of folks hanging out on street corners -- although there are those folks. this is are rooted, family- based hard-working community. now what? now what? if the goal is to end illegal immigration, then what is the best solution? the attrition through enforcement folks say, if we just ran up enforcement as we

have the last 20 years another 20 years, we will rid ourselves of these people. others say we have a different approach. why don't we use enforcement at the border, use it enforcement against illegal hiring, and open up legal channels for workers who want to come here on a temporary or permanent basis, and be realistically dealing with non-criminal unauthorized emigrants rooted in american society? that is what comprehensive immigration reform is. it is not either/or. it is both/and. it is enforcement and legal channel so that we create a legal system and end the black market in migration that serves only the smugglers and the bad employers and the folks who break the law and bring it under a regulatory regime that makes sure there is a line to get

into, that people come with the same labor rights as any other worker, that decent workers are not being undercut by unscrupulous contractors, and we add to the tax base. a legal system that grows the economy and creates growth. wait a minute. do you think the other guys think we will drive 11 million hard-working people who get in here, most of them for longer than a decade, do you think that is realistic? do you think that is going to end illegal immigration? or is it going to drive people further underground? did you hear about the arizona law? very controversial. do you know where it went? utah. it went to new england. they have gone to colorado. which is why by the way, utah had a very different take on what to do. they said, we have 110 on authorized immigrants working

hard. maybe we should figure out a way for them to come into the system, pay a fine. not a free pass. they have to pass a background check. they have to pay taxes. but they can work here because they are valuable contributors. it is a different approach. i think that inevitably, comprehensive immigration reform will become the law of the land at some time. i wanted it to happen in 2006 and 2007 when george w. bush, with what ever political capital he had left, made his last great play. and he had the guts to do it. it is going to take what it takes, but i am pretty convinced the forces that are driving this phenomenon are going to lead reform. we have an aging society, but

unlike in europe, because immigrants want to come here, we have up population that is sustained. in china, italy, germany, they are having debates. "young couples are not having babies. what do we do?" in china, they want babies, but they are told not to. [laughter] immigration land's life blood to america and is a competitive asset. economically, i know people like to think about the static pie, but as stewart pointed out brilliantly, we live in a dynamic economy. there is a reason why we attract indian high tech workers and mexican low-skilled workers. it is because they complement rather than sought stewed -- rather than substitute for american workers. add to the dynamism of the

american society. think of all the people in my generation, married couples, both with post-graduate degrees to have an army of immigrants making their two-in, lives out possible. -- making their two-income lives possible. and finally, politically, i mean, boy. i used to get criticized on the left a lot for being supportive of a policy that might make john mccain the next president and would make george bush i hero for latinos for generations. i wish i was so getting criticized for that, because right now it is the other way. the republican party is committing slow-motion political suicide by alienating a fast- growing group of new voters. i love to talk about this. latinos, asians, south asians,

caribbean and africans and folks in the middle east. republican party was fabulously competitive with those ethnic communities, and now it is not. not that democrats have turned the vote by any stretch. don't get me started on them. the republicans keep pushing them away. in makes the democrats' job very easy. eventually, the republican party will come back to its free- market principles, will realize that immigration properly regulated serves our interests economically, and politically it is smarter to reach out and compete for votes then try to make those people know that you do not want them and want to send their love one's home. at least that is my hope. if you are with me on this, let's make it happen in a matter of years, not decades. thank you. [applause] >> great.

thank you. we have time for questions from the audience. yes, absolutely. go ahead. >> [unintelligible] you mentioned indian high-tech workers. [unintelligible] >> yes. >> i do, too. [laughter] >> first, a comment -- [unintelligible] as a clinician on the streets, i work with illegal immigrants. not only latinos. we keep hearing that we cannot find people in this country to

do the low level jobs. you have to look at the cultural issues involved. the work on the forms and they go back -- the work on the farms and they go back. there is a cultural issue in this country for the black community do the low level work that you say they won't do. so, my question is -- and i have mixed feelings about this, because i and my neighborhood where i live, they do live on welfare. they have kids. they are not legal. they are getting food stamps, medicaid, you name it. what would you think -- i think

that the law of regulation, what ever you want to call it, so that if bill gates says he cannot find people to work for him, he gets them a green card. they are hardworking. [unintelligible] you mentioned you talk or other states. -- utha or other states. what would you do to get congress to think outside of the box and make some of these things happen? >> i think one of the things we did not get into before -- we talked about how illegal immigration policy is not effective and we've seen the numbers increase dramatically from 4 million more than a decade ago to over 10 million. even though we saw a somewhat of a drop during the recent

recession, i think those numbers have shown that they stabilized. really, what has happened is, when we increase the border control, it has not been totally ineffective. i think there has been an effect. really, what it has done is raise the cost to enter. once people make it across the border, then make a calculation about to i want to go back and forth like they used to years before, or people used to do, work for a while, earn some money, and go back home. for once in here, am i going to stay here because i am more likely to get caught or there are 300 deaths a year trying to cross. what we really did with our policy -- inadvertently of course -- was create a temporary

or circular flow into a permanent group of people. that is what you saw the numbers go from 4 million up to 10 million. some of the things you are talking about would be -- these young people would be much more interested in a legal way to come in, work, and go back. i think he would want to have some portion of them, he would want to have some portion have a way to get permanent status that would keep illegal immigration down as well. an employer having a chance to sponsor them in some white. but i think a lot of issues people see would go away if you allow the circular flow to take effect. getting congress to do that, i think generally speaking, you

need some kind of left-right compromise where the democrats are much more interested in dealing with the people already here. and at least some republicans in the past particularly have been more interested in what do we do about preventing future illegal immigration by having a temporary visa regime. that is where things -- the debate has not progressed past that. >> [unintelligible] >> well, that is an interesting question. utah has passed this. there would be away potentially for the obama administration to allow some of what you taught is doing. it could be -- of what utah is doing. it could be a wide scale deferred reaction. but you know, it would certainly be controversial. >> [unintelligible] for many years, people were

talking about [unintelligible] >> there is no question. stuart has done groundbreaking research on what has largely discredited the passero program, and what happened was when it ended, there was to get into an workers kept coming. there -- there was no line to get into, and the workers kept coming. the academics call them " sojourners." what is interesting -- i am sure you found this in your clinical work -- sometimes they become sellers. they are the same people at different stages. some people make their money, start the nest egg, perfect.

others may be married and they start to settle. it seems to me we could fashion a policy that could accommodate both of those eventualities. it would save the agricultural industry in this country. look, we are going to have a debate about this in congress. it will be pushed by republicans. it is literally going to threaten the perishable crop industry in this country. some people say -- 60%. the best estimates i say are 90% of the perishable crops industry work force are illegal. the fact is that mandatory everify for new hires is going to end up with us importing food and exporting jobs. and not just the jobs that are filled currently by authorized

workers, but by the three to four related jobs in the agricultural industry, usually filled by native-born workers. we're talking about whole regions of the country being threatened by a house republican initiative based on the ideology that you can somehow force these people out of the country because anything less than that is going to be called -- going to be branded the a-word. i think that is unfortunate. my friends in united farm workers union, they started a project -- i am so worked up about this. they started a program. there's a tired of hearing, oh gosh, these immigrants are taking our jobs, so a few union workers said in spanish, why don't we invite any american who wants to take our job and we

will train them. the had thousands of inquiries of people. stephen colbert promoted it. it got a lot of play. of all the people who contacted them -- seven native-born workers are doing those jobs. this is tough work. it is skilled work. i am not saying americans cannot do it. but they mostly don't want to do that. it is a status thing as much as i pay thing. the pay is $12 to $16 an hour. the living conditions are tough. my point is, we have to get realistic about that reality. we can say, fine, we will drive agriculture out of business and out of the country. i do not know if that is in our economic self-interest or security interests. >> thank you. surry. >> i know there used to be a

member of congress where i used to go and work a different job in the district on a regular basis. maybe that program can be expanded to congress. >> it would not last the day. >> thank you for the presentation. it sounds like there has been solid research and economics showing that immigration is of marginal benefit to the united states. there's been a lot of studies showing the economic benefits of immigration. it seems like the major block is cultural. they may be concerned, regardless of whether it is economically beneficial or not, they may be concerned about the american public, which is reflected in the republican party. they may be worried about someone crossing in uncontrolled

and changing communities in ways that people do not feel comfortable with. i just wondered how we could address that. >> i think that is true. obviously, there have always been these cultural issues. i do think there is actually -- and more recently one of the bigger dividing lines have been legal verses illegal -- legal versus illegal. i do not think they have the same hostility to having a system where people can legally come in and work compared to what they see now as people breaking the law. i think that is where a lot of the hostility is created. i do not think it is that they do not like the look of people. i really think there is a system -- i have seen some polling data were the ask people, what do you think about illegal immigration? is -- it is 2-1 negative.

so, i think the illegal/legal line is what has happened more recently. maybe there's a cultural element tied into that. >> i used to think that. but i am starting to worry about how much culture is influencing and driving this debate. and i am not talking about people who write those awful comments at the end of newspaper articles, the racist screeds that you sometimes read. i think is more a discomfort, fear. i've been working in this area a long time. when i think about california having an eruption of immigration in the early 1990's, and it was a demographic to

pinpoint. now that it is passed that demographic tipping point, when you a field polls and you ask if you are in favor of giving illegal immigrants a pass to citizenship, it is 90% over. it does not surprise me that in arizona they had interruption in the last few years. and it is not surprising that new at it -- new immigrants in the south are having their irruption. i am not trying to be critical of it. i am more trying to understand it. there is a conscious, but real fear that something is being lost, when the evidence is overwhelming. you do not have kids growing up in america in immigrant households, even if their parents never got past sixth grade, saying anything but "oh,

god, i am so embarrassed by my parents. they want to lose their spanish ." outside with their friends and siblings, they speak english and they are so americanized so quickly. how could you not be in this country? the reality is not one of cultural separatism, demands for bilingualism, ethnic separatist movements of any kind. quite the contrary. but i think the fear is something that is real. i am not sure how we address that. the good news is that polling shows that when immigrants first move into an area, negativity goes up, and over time, it goes way down. which suggests familiarity breeds community rather than content. i actually think the fact that

immigration is a 50-state phenomena and rather than a 10- state phenomena suggests we may go through tough times, but the cultural aeneas, like some many times in our history, will give way. it is not easy, but it is often dynamic. >> kind of along the same lines -- it seems to me the children of illegal immigrants have the exact opposite problem. even now they have great english and all these kinds of things, there are problems with high dropout rates, high crime rates among the dependents of illegal immigrants, although not among the immigrants themselves. i feel like this is an area we

investigated more. it is somewhat difficult to investigate. but what exactly are their descendants doing, and how does immigration reform impact the way their dependence grow up and live? i do not know if you have comments on how immigration reform has changed. any -- >> anyway they can earn higher wages is going to benefit the kids. >> there are a significant number of crimes studies that show that crime rates are not higher among immigrants or their kids. there is a socioeconomic ladder factor -- lag factor. the question is if that gets

resolved in three generations rather than one generation, as it often is for some groups, or not. gregory rodriguez as a look at this very carefully, shows that homeownership, citizenship, english acquisition, etc., the indices' of assimilation over two to three generations are very promising. there is that socioeconomic lag the raises questions, are people going to make it or not? by see a fair number of people in that 1.5 generation and we will have to see a big turnout. >> thank you. >> [unintelligible] you talked about utah. if that was implemented on a broad scale, what would you do

to curb unscrupulous businesses, because it has been well documented -- [unintelligible] >> that is to questions. let me answer the second one first. most employers are decent and america. there are bottom feeders who undercut them and take advantage of workers. they deliberately seek out immigrants without papers they can take advantage to. they pay off the books. they cannot pay their taxes. and the undercut their competitors. think of 2 contractors. one pays taxes and decent wages and benefits, and the other does not. they can underbid in a way that is terribly unfair. we are all foregoing that after bad actor employers. not only do we want to go after bad actor employers, we want to

reduce illegal hiring through employment verification. if you do that, which is what the debate is going to be about in this congress,, these people do not go home, they go underground. it means less taxes, fewer people standing on stream reporters -- on street corners. yes, go after bad employers. mandate employment verification in the context of a comprehensive reform. that is the fix that will put immigration on illegal funding. utah -- you know, we have been very positive about it. honestly, i agree with president

obama on this. we do not want a patchwork of policies. on the other hand, if we of the status quo in 20 years, i might change my mind on that. we need authorizing legislation. the well for reform law. states do have the a three. -- the welfare reform law. states do have the authority. i love that utah had the guts, r ruby red state, to say we are going to do something different. it is estate merchant of the federal -- it is a state version of the federal action.

>> one thing i would address with what you're talking about in terms of exploitation -- it is not in this paper, but i have a book where they are talking about when us solution is to have a u.s.-mexico bilateral agreement, with mexico giving help for enforcement at the border, and the u.s. would set up a system of work permits, setting an annual total and this permits would be fully portable. and if someone had a work permit that allowed them to work in any type of job, they would have pretty similar labor rights the rest of us have, and that is really one of the best guardians of not being exploited, that you can go work somewhere else. >> [unintelligible]

i go to school in arizona, but i am from utah. so i have the perspective from both places. a lot of people in arizona, they regret what they have done. what you think arizona should do now? >> i will let you take that. >> happy to tell arizona what to do. they have been telling me where to go for the last few years. you know, i thought it was very interesting this year that the hard-liners in the state led by a man named russell pearce came up with a new package of really tough anti-immigration laws. and what happened is the business community stood up and said, are you crazy? road to the legislature and said please cease and

desist. and they did. it was a remarkable turnabout. because the economic impact to arizona has been severe. the loss has been estimated at as much as $140 million in the past year. i think arizona has been helped by the judicial decision stopping most of it from going into effect. had it have gone into effect, the effect would have been worse. i do think at some point it would be wonderful if arizona would repeal its law, but i don't expect that to happen. i think the courts will continue to stop most of the law from going into effect. i think it will stop states looking at copycat laws like georgia has. i sure wish the leadership at

the state level would urge members of congress to get into the game. they have two senators -- mike lee and orrin hatch -- foreign hatch used to be one of our heroes. he was one of the co-authors of the dream act. and you voted against it last year. why? because he has a tough primary season coming up. the mormon church, lds, is advocating quite strongly for senator be to get in the game and he is saying no -- for senator lee to get in the game, and he is saying no. i hope they say, you know what? that is who we are as up party. right now it is wagging the free market dog in a way that is unfortunate. >> [unintelligible] about how -- one of the reasons

we need reform, immigrants will do the work americans are just not willing to do. are there any studies that showed just how much food prices would go up if we take out all the undocumented immigrants? how much good prices go up? [unintelligible] you do not have busboys and waiters, etc., etc. how much do all the sectors rely on these workers? can you show what kind of contribution they are making? >> i do not know if there is a study that has said exactly that. there are so many factors to take into account. i think one thing people need to keep in mind, you'll often hear

someone say, why don't they just pay higher wages. you will attract more workers. if you are an employer, you can just raise wages through the roof. because you can only pay people what it is still profitable to work out. if you had to raise your prices at a restaurant, people -- you are not only competing for customers with other restaurants. you are competing with the idea of staying home and not going to a restaurant at all. in agriculture, one of the things we have seen in is some growers have been leasing land in mexico. there is actually, unbelievably, there is a way to outsource even agriculture production. so, we should not be surprised that in this case it is getting around government regulations, the people who feel it is in

their livelihood in a legal way to try to find a way to still operate their business. it will not necessarily be the way that is most economically beneficial to the united states. >> [unintelligible] they don't get. [unintelligible] because you are paying -- we do not know how much the wages are going to pay. i think people have been surprised to see people were making a pretty good wages in some cases. but we also see it is not economically beneficial to the united states to have people who

have a certain amount of education or training take jobs just so of foreign national does not work those jobs. that is not a way to live a life. people should work jobs based on their skills. it is really not efficient for the economy to have people with a master's degree working on -- working for a lawn service just because we do not want to have other people working on service. that would be a silly way to run an economy. the best way is for people to work at the skill lovell that is most beneficial for them in their career. >> right. we probably have time for one last question, and then we will

wrap up. yes? >> the question -- [unintelligible] >> what was the name? >> [unintelligible] you have written about the program that frank mentioned earlier. could you talk about what happened to illegal immigration when expanded opportunities for legal immigration? we just had the case this week of the truck entering mexico from guatemala with 500 people. what was the experience of the program where we expanded opportunities for legal immigration. >> thank you. that is a great question. what happened is early in the 1950's, there was all legal -- there was illegal entry going on in the united states.

the immigration service decided to have a crackdown. at the same time, the commissioner at the time, general swain, went to the course and said, i am going to expand opportunities for people to come in legally. away for mexican workers to come in for agriculture. essentially, we saw a social science experiment. what happened was that the illegal entry, as measured by apprehensions at the border decrease from 1953 to 1959 by 95%. in other words, you saw the numbers on the chart go like this -- admissions going up. illegal entry going down. it was getting to the level of apprehensions -- if we had today

-- it would just be considered almost a non-issue. what that really showed, even though there were problems with the program, but that does not mean we could not solve them. the basic concept is there is a legal way for people to come in and work to avail themselves of the opportunity rather than enter illegally. there were concerns. their union complaints. regulation started to get titans. and eventually -- regulations started to get tightened. and eventually it was eliminated around 1964. and you saw illegal entry as measured by apprehensions increased about 1000% of the next decade. so, we got to a point closer to the levels we had five or six

years ago. they have gone on all -- they're gone down a little bit. but essentially, the bottom line is the people trying to come in illegally are trying to come in to work. they are rational. if there is a legal way to do it, they will avail themselves of the opportunity. if they do not have a legal way to do it, what we have seen is they will try to come in illegally, and the u.s. spends an awful lot of money and resources and manpower in trying to get in the middle of that, of really what our labor market transactions. >> great. you can find copies of stuart's most recent paper and our research that's cato.org. i want to thank our speakers.

thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> this past week, president obama gave a commencement address in memphis that won his race to the top education competition. in his address, he talks about how the schools innovations increase the graduation rate and college enrollment. he also urged congress to

change the node child left behind law. then, senator hutchison with the republican address. she talks about her proposal to assist leaseholders impacted by last year's oil drilling moratorium. >> this week, i went to memphis, tenn., where i spoke to the graduating class of booker t. washington high school. this commencement was especially the kids at booker t. washington high school had overcome. this is a school and in the middle of a tough neighborhood. there's a lot of crime. there's a lot of poverty. and just a few years ago, only about half the students graduated from the school. just a handful went to college each year. folks came together to change all that. under the leadership of dynamic principal and devoted teachers, they started an academy for ninth graders, because they found that was when a lot of

kids were lost. they made it possible for a lot of students to take vocational courses or advanced placement classes. more importantly, they did not just change the curriculum. they provided a culture that creates hard work and discipline and they showed it every student can matter. today four out of five students at the school earn a diploma. 70% continue their education, many the first time in their family to go to college. so booker t. washington high school is no longer a story about what has gone wrong in education. it is a story about how we can get it right. need to encourage the story. we need to encourage reforms driven not by washington, but by principals, teachers, and parents. that is how we can make a difference from the top down and the bottom up. that is the guiding principle in the race to the top competition might administration started by years ago. the idea is simple. if states show they are serious

about reform, we will show them the money. and in tennessee, they launched an innovative program where new teachers can be mentored by veteran educators. there are grants that support teachers that offered more specialized glasses and make the changes necessary to improve predictor improve struggling schools. our challenge is to allow all states to benefit. we need to promote results while encouraging communities to figure out what is best for their kids. that is why it is so important for congress to replace it no child left behind this year. reform just cannot wait. if anyone doubts this, they should head to booker t. washington high school. they should meet the children who worked so hard to earn their diplomas.

we need to give every child in america that chance. that is why education reform matters. a great weekend. i am united states senator kay bailey hutchison from texas. with energy prices soaring nationwide, american families are struggling to put gas in their cars and trucks. we have seen the price of food and other goods rise. an overwhelming majority of americans say gas prices are causing financial hardship for their families, and more than half say they of had to make major changes to their budgets and to compensate. unfortunately, rather than work to increase domestic energy production and bring down gas prices, the obama administration is seeking to

impose more regulation and taxes on oil and gas companies. this is keeping our own resources out of reach and harding at job creation. their proposals will increase pain at the pump. earlier this week, republicans put a modest bill to increase production on the floor and democrats could not even support that. with gas hovering at around $4 a gallon. republicans have consistently called for greater access to our domestic sources of energy to spur american jobs and to prepare for circumstances we cannot control like natural disasters or unrest in the middle east that creates instability and drives up the cost of a barrel of oil. we have vast resources under our land, and we need to safely explore and develop them to explore and develop them to have