of back door amnesty, but they do not want to do any of that. what i am trying to do is look for surgical strikes into the problem so we can figure out where the problem areas are. we need to fix legal immigration, make it more possible. i will be introducing legislation soon. i think we will call it the dairy and sheepherd act. it was the best acronym we could think of over the circumstances. it would make it easier for migrant labor to come in to do certain jobs, recognizing this is cyclical, seasonal labor. i will have a few other bills that try to fix legal immigration. i also co-sponsoring the legislation that would endhe automatic birthright citizenship practice we have adopted in this country.

[applause] in the red. yes, sir. >> it goes along with what he said and you are saying. you said you want surgical strikes on immigration and things like this, focuon how you can do it. if you feed a cougar out your back door, he is going to keep coming. if you keep feeding him, he is going to bring his friends. that is one of the problems we have. right now, according to the congressional budget office, we are spending their $500 billion to feed, clothe, take care of housing, take care of all this for non-documented residents in this country. isn't that a place where we can say if you are not legal you do not get social assistance? i know they say they do not get

it out of social security. if you look to the back door, the refugee account is paid out of the social security administration. one non-documented resident can get $2,400 of social security. i see a lot of seniors here. most of them are tapped out a $1,100. is that a place we can look at? the second part to what was said here -- with the flat tax resolve most of our issues in this country? [applause] >> your second question is easy. the answer is yes. flat taxes would make a lot of things better. the first part of your question. back to immigration. you are absolutely right. if we incentivize illegal immigration -- we have been this

incentivizing legal immigration, which is what we want. i hope will always be a country of immigrants. most of us in thisoom, including myself, are descendants of immigrants or immigrants ourselves. one of my ancestors came across from europe's, one of the original settlers of the county. we want always to be a nation of immigrants. we want them to come to the front door, not the back door. we incentivize them to come to the back door when we make it difficult to come to the front door, and then we reward them for coming through the back door, which we do not want. we need to be vigilant about not giving entitlement benefits that are intended for american citizens to people who are not legally in this count. if you listed some of the reons why that can be circumvented. it is also true that because we

grt automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are going here in the united states, that is another way illegal immigrants can end up receiving a entitlement benefits intended for citizens. i cannot emphasize enough the need for us to close this loophole with automatic birthright citizenship. i am not aware of any other developed nation that has the same policy we do. it is not a constitutional imperative. it can be fixed by statute. i failed to mention another issue we need to focus on, which is border enforcement. one of the reasons we have a border that is as porous as it is -- if you look at the southern border of the united states with mexico, and you look at where most of the illegal immigration crossings are taking

place, people walking across the border, most of them happen to coincide in those areas where most of the borderland is federally owned. within federally owned border areas, a majority of that land, or nearly a majority, is environmentally protected in one way or another, such that border patrol agents have restrictions on their ability to enforce the law there. they can do anything they want on private property. if you on land adjacent to the border, they can come onto your land, no matter how much you value your petunias and daisies you have carefully planted. they can stop all over them to enforce the border. but if it is federally owned and there is an endangered or threatened species, the cannot do anything. they are restricted to a tiny corridor where there is a little path. that is one the main reasons

our border is soorous. we have to fix the problem. i am working to try to close that loophole. [applause] >> senator, good to see you here. we have met. a couple of years ago. is good to see you standing here as the first u.s. senator to ever visit fairview, i think. i will just turn inn this. the border -- i doubt it could be enforced as long as there is a demand within the country. you would have to set up machine-gun nests and things like that to stop it. it cannot be stopped. i notice you are" sponsoring one of the -- are co-s ponsoring one of the e-verifys.

i hope you will explain that. are you proposing that legal immigration -- that we increase the numbers? what i am asking is would we be using legal and illegal immigration to continue to depress wages? that is what is being done. wages are depressed because of immigration. what do you think is going to happen concerning the national e-verify? are you going to get that move along? >> first, is the idea to enhance legal and menace -- legal immigration to depress wages, to intentionally bring in more people. the objective is not to increase the total mber of immigrants, as much as it is to identify those we are going to admit, to have a transparent policy that

can be evenhandedly applied in a way that we are not making it so fficult and time-consuming and impossible for people to get a visa. when we do that, we incentivize illegal immigration. that does not necessarily mean we are bringing in more people. has nothing to do with a desire to depress wages. it is a desire to enforce the rule of law and bring people in through the front door. as to the part of your question that relates to e-verify, i am sponsoring legislation that would make compliance with that program mandatory. what that means in essence is th most employers -- i think there probably should be, at the end of the d, a safe harbor for release small employers. employers, as they do now, continue to gather information, and can find out whether the

person they are hiring is entitled to work in the united states. that would need toe cross- checked on this database. employers would be held harmless ones ty had taken the step to do that. that is another step we need to take to make sure we are complying with the law, enforcing existing laws. igree there is a lot we can do by enforcing the border. as long as there is tremendous demand for illegal paper, -- illegal liquor, and people feel it can be overlooked because it always has been in the past, in the case of some employers who have had that experience, we will continue to have this problem. yes, sir. >> i want to apologize. one of this up a minute ago, i did not commend you on the work you are doing. you're making us proud.

>> thank you. [applause] >> i have two things that are related. the small arms trade treaty -- what is going on there? >> am against it. >> good deal. and what can you do to get these people to confess about fast and furious and how high it went? thank you. >> let us pretend that one of us does not know what fast and furious is. [laughter] would that be you? >> y, sir. [laughter] >> vatfe was instrumental in allowing firearms dealers on the

border states to sell guns, knowing that they were illegal, and these guns walked across the border. a border patrol agent was killed with one of those guns. >> thank you for pointing that out. i did not know it by that name. i know that set of circumstances. it is awful. it is being investigated. i fully believe those who violated the law will be brought to justice. it is inexcusable. >> he got transferred. >> he got reassigned. >> that was awful. it just goes to show that government, when it runs amok, can be the source of an untold

amount of grief and pain. this is awful and inexcusable. i will do everything i can to follow up on that and bring those people to justice. i oppose and will vote against the small arms treaty. this young lady has been waiting patiently. i have to make sure i get to her. >> my name is suzanne bean. i own a small business, a newspaper. >> i had better be nice to you, then. >> lots of people here have already vilified me. it's fine. would you absolutely foreclose the option of increasing revenue by making the tax system a little more progressive, more like he used to be 20, 30 years ago, and using that as part o

the strategy to balance the buet? i have heard, and they do not have the verification of this, that if social security, the social security tax, was applied against all income, and not just the first $75,000, that the ditional revenue would be enough to make the system solvent. i am 62. i am planning to work another five to seven years. the time is going to come when i will need to collect that. i am worried about whether it is going to be there for me. if it is not, i do no know any more about how i and when to manage than the illegal immigrant who is here and cannot work and hasn't got the money to go back and has nowhere else to go. that is my first question. my second is about the american dream act. we have some extraordinarily

talented young people in our country. some of them are at our local college. they did not come here of their own accor manyf them were brought here as children. they have gone through our school system. they have skills to contribute. yet they cannot, even with a bachelor's, master's, ph.d. -- the cannot legalize. as a journalist, i am appalled of the situation of the pulitzer prize winner who did not know until he was an adult that he was an illegal immigrant. now he cannot really function legally in the united states. what is your response on that? >> you have three questions. no additional charge for efficiency.

on the first point, it the question is, am i oppos to anything that would enhance revenue, the answer is i am not opposed to anything just bause it would enhance revenue, in the sense that it would stabilize our revenue base and thereby bring in a more steady, consistent flow of revenue, bring in more than we have got now. we are in a valley. our tax system has peaks and valleys. some years, we will bring in 14.5% of all the money that flows through the economy. the most we ever get is about 19.5% of gdp. it averages 18 to 18.5%. we tend to not be able to get any more than that. we could, if we flatten the rate, making it more stable. we could if we simplified it.

if we kept marginal rates constant but close loopholes, we could bring in more revenue without having to raise anyone's rate. that would make itore stable. it would make it so this 18.5% would be more reliable. it would not be so likely to fluctuate. if the question is what i make it more progressive, meaning raise top marginal rates, and accentuate t disparity between what different people on different ends of the spectrum pay in terms of the interest rate, the answer is unconditionally know. [applause] evan mentioned a few minutes ago, i has evething to do with protecting middle and low income wage earners. those are the people i believe areost affected by raising

income tax raises -- tax rates. they are concealed taxes. they end up getting passed downstream economically. all of us and up paying for those income tax hikes in terms of increased prices for goods and services, and in terms of fewer and fewer job opportunities. on social security, i share your concern the we have to do something about social security, in part because congress has rated the social security trust fund over a pronged time. what was supposed to be a lock box, a trust fund, has been used irresponsibly over the last three decades as a ssh fund. it was supposed to be set aside for the time we knew was approaching, which has now reached us. the social security program would be drawn out more than it was taking in, because the demographics have changed. in the 30's, we have roughly 60

wage earners for every retiree. now it is more like 3 too 1. 60 to one vs three to one. americans lived on average back then to about 60. now live more like to 80. that is wonderful. and that poses additional challenges. in light of those challenges, i have done my best to find ways that make it solvent that do not involve tax increases that would fuher chill job creation at a time when we can least afford it. i have introduced legislation that would make social security solvent perpetually. it has proven its solvency over a 25 year time frame. we have made modest adjustments made on the testing said the ealthy would that rea -- not receive the same benefits if

they were a low income level and making adjustments to the retirement age. it would not affect anyone who was retired. anyone who is now retired would be on touch. if you want to find out more, i have staff members here who can help me. they can help me make reference. i had my state director dan. he is here to answer any questions. coy is here. to about 2/3 of the state because of the bill. it as about the dream act. i do not support it. i cannot support it. [applause] let's see. we need to go to the back of the

room. we will come back in the front later. yes, sir. then i have to get representativeainter after that. we have a couple of members. >> i apologize for back stepping. back on this border -- >> did i already colony a? -- call on you? >> no. >> good. >> would it be possible to have the national guard work on the border? everyone puts in a two tour and they go down and work on the border. they're going to be paid anyway. all the federal government would have to do would be to buy the

materials. >> its certainly could work. i'm not opposed to using it. i want to talk more to my friend who is here with me tonight. he is a very good friend of mine. he is the former sergeant major of the national guard. he retired. in as everything there is to know. -- he knows everything there is to know. i want to touch base with you after. my initial reaction to if is that it would be fine. i do not know if we need to do that on a long-term basis. the national guard has jobs to do. whenever you have an unusually high volume of illegal immigrants, the national guard certainly could be deployed.

we have to lead the border control -- let them do their job here i. >> thank you. >> thank you. we are pleased to have you here in the senate. t's f this is all the foolish things he did. it is getting close to a trillion dollars. i know bush was on board with

all of this. we have so many energy assets. wewe'd just go get them would have all kinds of folks with lot less trade deficit. i want to say everyone that can get their parents. is there anything you can think of to get things going? we have the answer to a whole lot of our state problems. about picasso's $100 million a year. anything you have their frigid we can get close to $100 million a -- anything close to $100 million a year.

anything you can we get close to appear quite thank you. >> there is the single issue that is more important for our prosperity than the one you have just raised. we he a problem. we are spending between a trillionn and $1 trillion every year just to buy oil. every singleyear. that money does not come back in the form we would like it to come back. a lot of those people who are getting very wealthy do not like this very much. some of them are using some of that money to fund act of terrorism against us. those who do not want this to produce in this country,any cite environmental reasons as reasons we havshould not be exporting our own reasons. many is here in utah. we have the legal structure that

allows us to produce energy more efficiently and in a manner that is more environmentally responsible and what you can find anywhere in the world. does produce it here. produce it here. most of the energy resources are found on federal land. i consider it an absolute shame and gross negligence that we allow those resources to go undeveloped. that is why i am holding secretary salazar and everything i can so we can reclaim that which is rightfully ours. >> [inaudible]

>> what happened to the mandate that was just put out this week? >> from what i can tell, there is an effort on the part of many in washington to try to shut down the backbone of our nation's energy production grid. the bk of our energy nationall and here in utah comes from coal. i can walk into a room, turn of a swih, and the light comes on. i do not know that we fully appreciate how wonderfulhat is. my father did not always have that going up. he was on sawmill camps. he did not have that growing up.

it is affordable. we derive the lot of it from coal. we figured out how to make it generate electricity cheaply and in a manner that is really environmentally friendly. we have to keep that going. if we do not,e're all going to be poorer as a result. this will impact middle and lower income earners more than anyone else. they're doing it through regulatory measures. we have to get the ball is back in the hands of congress. the legislative power is generally applicable and it belongs to congress. we have to take it back. [applause] what the american flag shirt.

>> i agree with all of this. i had four questions. when they talk about the debt, to do we borrow money from? why can we stop all foreign aid humanitarian and drastic -- natural disasters? i have received several femalesbout in moscow being repaed with our money. i do not know if that is true. i have not verified it. maybe someone else has documentation. how in the world did that ever

get to congress? that blows my mind completely away. i am in a small minority. i especially agree with what you say about environmentalists and how much karmharm they have caud the west. ivories quarter horses for 50 years. since then taken the meat market away, i am devastated. i no longer have a horse business. many people cannot give horses away. i am sure you are aware of the courses to have be turned loose all over the nation because people cannot afford them. they have died from starvation. they have mingled with the beloved the mustangs.

that is another whole issue. our president, i'm sure you are aware of the amount of courses they have down there. there are given thousands of tons per year. what can we do to were those animal activists to give back this and give jobs to people openly enough? thank yovery much. >> thank you. >> i'm going to try to answer these questions quickly. i want to make sure we get to as many people as possible. we borrow from lot and lot of people. some of them are individuals and some are operations.

what they are called depend on their maturity rate. some mature in 30 years. there are a lot in between. it is a little over $1 trillion that belongs to the government of china. who owns our debt that any moment is a question that refers back to many thousands of corporate investors to buy these based on the expectation that they will get more money back. there are a lot of people that own it. most of them are americans. some are not. they're making a lot of money.

there are a lot of people that feel strongly about this. the it is to the extent it is doing something to the humanitarian aid are helping people who need it. that is where most foreign aid goes. that is why some people oppose it. there are humanitarian needs here in the united states. i agree that we ought to focus our own government money on american people. there are some exceptions to that. there are some parts of the world that we have to invest money. in some senses, it is a

replacement. as far as federal money go into i will be on the lookout. there may be some federal grant money. i will. there will be held to pay. thiss an important part of our state industry. my father-in-law used town a ranch where he raised shorthorns. it is a great plays. no, year sang about horses.

i do not know whether -- had never been completely familiar with how it met its demise. he would give themhe information appeari. >> my sincere thank you today. it is one of the most important

priorities of our county. i hope you saw and realize that it could slow down into small projects. 50's are of our county is this. there are a two pending authorizations. there is the real opposition a secure schools. >> you should be especially proud of the commissioner. they do not waste time getting to t heart of t issue. she was able to answer every question quickly.

this has been difficult. you are lucky to have her appear . you're able to collect less tax revenue. we have a problem in the state's where a lot of federal land can be told. we will not. they fell far short of what action the the real access to buy a pair.

it is the lowest value. i'm a strong supporter. i will not let them make the funding go away. did that to be unjust. help itself is on sufficient. i tend to push until the allow states and counties to tax federal land are they fully funded. she is from alaska. she feels a lot of these same

issues. they have a lot of federal land as well. this is basically in the same position. do you remember what it was? >> i am on the flip side. most of my questions have been answered.

there are a few that i would like for you to answer. >> i was at the call myself a member of it. i understand that the do vouchers for medicare d medicaid. i understand that those programs need to be taken out of corruption. how are we as seniors to get by when it is dam near to give by now. tax subsidies to the oil company.

how come it justify giving them a subsidy? i understand that they are considered as job creators. that has not happened in the last six to eight years. but let your stance on some of stuff. >> t question relates to medicare. i do support the transition about what to make it sustainable. there is insolvency. the only dispute as to when it

occurs is in the mid-20's. moving forward, those are not yet retired. is is how we make a sustainable. with bankruptcy, we cannot handle that. we can do it effectively reduce we cannot do it effectively with this antiquated system -- we cannot do it effectively with this antiquated system.

i am get subsidies any time. we have a step that helps me with that. crack>> [inaudible] >> i was answering this man's question. i'm happy to discuss this with the. we cannot look at this. it refers to a what you referred to as tax breaks.

we paid -- we have the top 10% earners in this country. we are putting this burden on them. >> wen jiabao de e->> de e is a different question. -- what about ge? >>ge is a different question. we have tax rates. i am unwilling to raise tax rates. we also have loopholes and make a more complex.

we need to simplify air system. -- our system. >> i just got back from chicago. i appreciate being re. one of the issues that affects all of us is the amount of regulation that is placed on businesses including agriculture. we're almosto the point where we cannot compete on a world scale because of the tremendous amount of regulations that are imposed on us.

there are basic rules and regulations. >> a few minutes ago, i alluded to the fact that things happen when we allow loss to be made by people other than congress. it does not work for anyone who is elected. once it affects enough of the economy, it is requiring a hundred dollars or more in compliance costs.

unless congress adopted it, our laws need to be made by those who accountable. the reason why we got rid of king grge the third is does it cannot let him out of office. >> my status telling me have time for two more questions. but try to enter some on my way out. >> there's a lot of elderly people here.

maybe i am not in the right room here, but maybe you can explain to me your viewpoint on entitlement programs. should the government be taking money from me to give to my grandmother or dad to pay for their medicare? and the redistribution of wealth ta? should we even have entitlement programs

howdy decide that is a good piece of legislation? >> then answered the second part of your question first. -- there is a book that will help you answer those questions. that is a good book.

the government shouldn't just because i know that is wrong for me to take my neighbor's money for myself, i should not unless the government as an agent to do that for me. -- we know taxes that if we do not pay them, eventually some guys with guns will come to our house and then we will have to pay them. the second layer of the question is what is the purpose of each government? for the federal government, when we look at what it should do, it

will look to our founding document that i took an oath to and outlines a few powers and makes clear those powers not given to the federal government are supposed to be reserved to the states. you will not find a power that tells you that congress can tell you that you have to buy health insurance but the kind of health insurance that congress deems that you should buy. national defense, regulating patents, the federal court

system, declaring war, and the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal. that allows you to be a parent. -- pirate. there are a few other powers. let's get back to your entitlements question. i believe that decision has proven to be dangerous in the sense that congress has taken that money and they are saving them money for you when they

retire. we need to limit the power of congress. the founding fathers did limits the power of congress. national governments sometimes do not manage things that well. it is difficult to dispute that congress has done a bad job of managing these things. the constitution has been ignored for too long and has been replaced by mindset facilitated by the u.s. supreme court that says congress can do anything they want and the courts will not interfere. tens of millions of americans who are now retired have relied on these promises for many years. it would be inhumane and cruel to pretend these programs did

not exist. we have to figure out how to deal with them in a way that is compassionate. i think we have to have an honest discussion about what the proper role of government is and the proper role of the federal government. that will not happen until we adopt a balanced budget amendment and will restrict power.s' borrowing i do understand your frustration. we have to sell them -- we have to solve them. if you're talking about veterans

benefits, we will not fazed that out. i would not support that. if you talk about other programs, we could do that. medicaid is partially funded by the states. there is no reason why we cannot continue that trend to matter is that responsibility over to the states. ok. yes, sir. >> i'm craig. i have two questions. first, going back to the legislation that you are in support of come out does that include organizations that regulate mining industry? >> yes. >> 62% --

>> probably one of your favorite institutions. >> ok. cght now 62.5% of utah's oal is locked up under federal regulations. what are you doing to release those for our benefit? >> anytime i am made aware of any -- if i can get it through, i'm happy to run the legislation. not all of it is coal that we can unlock in one fell swoop. it is trillions of dollars worth of coal, low-sulfer, high-

grade coal. it has been locked up. that is going to require rest to get another president. i would like to see another president in office in 2012. [applause] let's get one in their that is willing to do that. come and talk to me and my state director on my whale. i want to find that we want to know about coal so we can unlock that. that is all the time i have four

questions. i'll have to come back soon so i can do this again. you have asked good questions and i like to answer each and every one. i am honored to represent you and am grateful that you stop- voters chose to have me represent you. i will support the constitution and my representation of you. i want to know what is of concern to you. heartland.u toputah's pioneers came in not knowing whether they would survive more than two winters and they survived and thrived. we will unlock our energy potential in the united states and in utah and in this county.

may god bless the sovereign state of utah. [applause] >> if you will come down and take the time to answer these questions, i think it is an outstanding opportunity we have had to be able to have a united states senator with us and i appreciate his efforts for being here and for the efforts going to the narrows site and getting a hands on view of what is taking place of there. thank you for coming.

>> over on c-span2, the national consortium for the study of terrorism will host a daylong conference. will identify threats and the future of homeland security. online coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern. "washington journal" is next. two members